Originally posted by GameOver:Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:Originally posted by GameOver:Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:Originally posted by crzy:
In the NFL there are "franchise tags" which keep star players from trying to join up and form superteams.
There are "compensatory" picks given to teams that lose free agents.
There is a hard salary cap that is enforced.
There are non-guaranteed contracts which keep players in line.
There is an age limit, so that young, entitled athletes aren't given the reigns to a franchise before they're allowed to drink.
All of these things foster parity in the NFL, which is what make it a superior product to the NBA.
I agree with some of those principles. I think the hard cap is good, and comp picks. I'm not a fan of the franchise tags though. Would the Nuggets just franchise tag Melo until he retires? I dislike the idea of teams holding players hostage just as much as I dislike players holding teams hostage.
I doubt the age limit is a big deal though. Players have to be 19 for the NBA and 21 for the NFL. There's not a big difference in the maturity level there or between the two leagues.
I sort of like the non-guaranteed contracts in the way the NFL has them. It's laughable that Tracy McGrady was THE highest paid player last year while Jermaine O'Neal was 3rd on the list.
You're s**ttin me right? Having to play 3 years in a legitimate collegiate program and being free (out of your parents house) for 3 full years is a huge process for these kids...I would love for the NBA to adopt that rule...
I'm not a fan of the franchise tag either, compensatory picks are nice though...
And Im not quite sure where I stand with the hard cap...but its a negative in regards to revenue sharing, just cannot see why most owners would want that...it would promote teams to not try as hard to improve, promote, and push their team because they know their revenue will get tossed into a pot along with LA's revenue, NY's revenue, etc and they'll get a larger piece than they deserve
It's not that big of a difference in the level of maturity for a player after one year of college and a player after 3 years of college. It just amounts to 2 more years of getting an easy ride on campus while being king. But I don't see NBA rookies as more problematic than NFL rookies.
I'm not sure about revenue sharing either, but it does serve its purpose in the NFL.
Like I said, I like the comp picks, I'm just not sure how it would work in a league with only two rounds for the entire draft. I probably can work, but our only example is from a sport with 7 rounds to place those comp picks.
You are looking at this 1 vs. 3 years thing from a very narrow perspective...these are KIDS who have had their parents/friends around them growing up in their respective towns and this is their first opportunity in a brand new place with brand new expectations (usually high if we are talkin about the kind of kids who have the ability to be "one and done" kids that go to the NBA) in a high level (not professional but still a high level) of the sport...the transition takes a while and is huge, hell, look at some of the kids in the league now like Derozan in Toronto, dude went to USC, I would say struggled his first year (yes he had flashes but dude was really inconsistent) and several of his teammates attributed that to his inability to adjust to living in that kind of environment, being independent and in college and all that other s**t...
Then a few years later, he still is inconsistent in Toronto...imagine if he just stayed at SC for a couple years, grew up, made a full transformation at the college level, and then when he had to do the same thing AGAIN by going professional, he would have already had a blueprint for how to go about it...sure some guys can do it (both the "1 and done" guys and the guys who came straight out of high school back when they could) but it would have been a huge benefit to them and their respective team had they been able to mature and grow both physically and mostly mentally/emotionally in college before getting to the league...
These kids cannot even f**king legally drink when they go to play with grown men who can go to the bar at night to just have some drinks or go for a night on the town or some s**t...yet you want to put hundreds of thousands of dollars (millions in some of their cases pending where they get drafted) and freedom with grown men in huge cities where they can and will get ravaged by groupies/whores/b*****ds/pieces of s**ts?
Plus, this would make the collegiate game better too, which is a double whammy for all basketball fans
I'm looking at the big picture for the 1 year vs 3 years in college. I'm saying as far as maturity and ability to perform, NFL and NBA early entry rookies aren't any different. NBA rookies don't seem to struggle any more than NFL rookies and they also don't seem to make a higher proportion of immature mistakes. Of course we can go back and forth with players that excelled after being 1 and done in college vs players who haven't cut it. But the NFL rookies don't seem any more ahead of the curve than NBA rookies. DeRozan just isn't that good.
Also, in my opinion only, the 3 year wait is more necessary with football. In my opinion there's a bigger learning curve for football than basketball.
I do agree that it would be MUCH better for college basketball to make them stay longer though. I guess no one can disagree with that.
[ Edited by LAFortyNinerfan on Feb 25, 2011 at 10:04 PM ]