Canis Hoopus: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Around SBN: Interview With UMD Athletic Director, Dr. Debbie Yow

Point Guard Battle Royale Continued, pt. i

Jennings-flynn_medium

Remember all of those point guard Battle Royales that happened across the country right before the draft?  The first regular season version happens tonight when Brandon Jennings and the Milwaukee Bucks come to the Target Center to take on Jonny Flynn and Our Beloved Puppies.  

Star-divide

Mr. Jennings is off to something of a hot start and he heads up quite a few rookie rankings on the major sports sites.  Jennings is shooting .481 from 2 and .500 from beyond the arc.  He weighs 165 lbs and has 10 FTAs in 3 games.  I hope he has a fantastic season but a hot start is a hot start is a hot start and it is highly unlikely that it will continue going this way for much longer.

That being said, I had him pegged ahead of Jonny Flynn before the draft and I even wrote this:

If the Wolves want to swing for the fences with a young EL point guard, they should just sit at 6 and take Brandon Jennings.  This one came up in the comments and I thought it would be a nice above-the-fold topic.  Both Jennings and Rubio have big-time boom/bust potential but for different reasons.  Jennings is blessed with what would probably be the best athleticism and quickness at his position the moment he steps on an NBA court.  He has tremendous court vision and he can also score.  On the other hand, he doesn't shoot well, he isn't all that strong, and there have been questions about his maturity.  Rubio was on the Spanish Olympic team and he has the best assist numbers in the EL.  He is also an oft-injured 18 year old point with a poor jumper, no strength, average (at best) athleticism and no experience playing an NBA-style game.  Both players will likely take 2-3 years to become acclimated to the league.  Both players have significant flaws.  Both players have amazing ceilings.  Both are YouTube heroes. One will likely go at the #2 spot in the draft while the other will be available at 6.  My personal opinion is that Jennings has the physical tools to become a better NBA player and that he will cost significantly less than Rubio.  His bust-level is Bassy but he would bust without selling the farm to get him while Rubio's bust level is Jason Williams or Rafer Alston and...well, he's going to come at a cost.

We all know the cost of Rubio: Mike Miller and Randy Foye.  Will he be worth it?  I have no idea. Will Brandon Jennings be to Rubio/Flynn what Brook Lopez was to Kevin Love and Brandon Roy was to Randy Foye?  We'll just have to wait and see.  What we do know is that Jennings is off to a start that will make that question an uncomfortable one if he continues to perform at this high of a level.  Lucky for us fans, chances are that we're looking at a 3-5 game hot streak rather than the player we'll see after 30 games, but it certainly is a good talker at the moment. 

I will always have a special place in my NBA heart for Jennings because of what he did to the NCAA .  I hope he succeeds because I would like to see more gifted players earn money for their skills instead of lining the bank accounts of university presidents and CBS.  That being said, something has to give with the shooting.  Take a look at what we wrote about Jennings' EL stats using a John Hollinger conversion formula:

Plugging Jennings' EL numbers into this formula, we get a line of 11.6 points/40 minutes, an assist rate of 27.5, a shooting percentage of 34.1, and a 9.1 PER.  Again, keep in mind that we're talking about a 19 year old player in the 2nd toughest professional league on the planet. 

This site has never made an attempt to rate EL prospects because we have neither the time nor resources to do so, but there are a few things we can determine about Jennings' game.  First, he doesn't shoot the three well at all.  He has a 26.8% fg% from beyond the arc in the EL while taking 5.2 attempts per 40 minutes.  37% of his shots are from beyond the arc.  Scoring wise, he posts 0.99 points/possession while turning the ball over 0.16/possession.  He has a 1.37 a/to rate with a -0.59 PPR.  The problem here is that while I have a pretty good idea of what these numbers would mean in the NCAA, I have zero clue what they mean in the EL.  My gut tells me the shooting numbers are worrisome.  He does shoot 45.7% from 2, but the outside shooting is problematic.  The Wolves already have an undersized guard with amazing quickness who can't shoot from outside. 

Where Jennings may have a hand up on Bassy is that he appears to have something of a mid-range game and/or an ability to score close to the hoop.  My guess is that his assist/play making numbers are pretty solid considering where he plays and the amount of time he receives on the court.  That being said, I don't know and I wish I had a better way of letting you know more about his game via the stat sheet.

The interesting stat here is Jennings' large reliance on the three ball, even in limited action.  In 3 NBA games 26% of his shots have come from beyond the arc.  That's fine and dandy when you're Steve Nash and can shoot well above 40% from 3.  It's a really good thing when you are making .500 of your attempts and not getting a ton of trips to the line. 

Jennings is not going to maintain his current shooting levels.  The big test for Jennings will be how he adjusts when the shot isn't going down.  Will he have a decent A/TO ratio?  Will he continue to be disruptive on defense?  Will he be able to get open looks for his teammates?  Can he take the beating that comes with getting to the line in the NBA as a small PG?

It will be interesting to watch how this season plays out for the guy.  It will also be interesting to see how well Flynn and Jennnigs can stay in front of one another during tonight's game. 

For a Milwaukee perspective on tonight's tilt, head on over to Brew Hoop.

0 recs  |  Comment 47 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Couldn't Agree with you more on the NCAA / CBS

As much as I want Flynn to work out, I’m actually pulling as much / more for Jennings. If he can prove that he can hang with the Lawsons / Flynns / Currys of the world, it says a lot about going to Europe to prove your game, even if you don’t get the minutes / stats you’d get if you got a promise from a Calipari or Calhoun for playing time.

That being said, I don’t see his jumpshot holding up. Bucks fans can accuse us of being pots to their kettles sicne our rookie PG is making 2/3 of his 3ptrs, though he’s barely taking 1 per game.

Also, ESPN has a good bit on a player made the jump from high school to the D-League:

http://espn.go.com/blog/TrueHoop/post/_/id/10386/making-history-today-latavious-williams

by Sterno on Nov 6, 2009 8:28 AM CST reply actions   0 recs

College Scholarships

There is something to be said about all of these players receiving full college scholarships for playing a sport. A scholarship to a large institution can be valued at anywhere between 20 and 50,000 dollars a year. Obviously the universities are still making a killing off of the players, but as someone that is still paying off student loans, I really don’t feel too bad for these players not earning money while in college.

by Blakeley on Nov 6, 2009 8:58 AM CST reply actions   0 recs

A scholarship is a nice thing for an individual...

….but this is a problem of scale:

NEW YORK (CNNfn) – The NCAA announced Thursday a $6-billion, 11-year contract with CBS Sports that will expand the network’s exclusive right to televise the NCAA Men’s basketball tournament.

     The new deal, one of the largest in U.S. sports history, builds on CBS’s existing $1.725 billion, 7-year deal that runs until 2002. CBS has had the TV rights to the Division I tournament since 1982, and the new pact will hold through 2014.

     The far-reaching pact also offers CBS rights to games content on the Internet, and merchandising rights for tournament-related products.

     “This is the first sports deal in history to extend beyond our traditional platforms into the world of new media,” said Leslie Moonves, CBS Television president and chief executive officer. “The future of our core business demands that we continue to bring blockbuster events to major audiences our advertisers want to reach, promoting those events across the broadest possible media platforms.”

     At about $545 million per year, the contract is considerably higher than expectations for about $400 million per year.
     CBS (CBS), which was left out of last week’s NASCAR auto racing deal, topped rival bids from Disney (DIS)’s ABC and ESPN, and Fox – a unit of Fox Entertainment Group (FOX).

Never mind the money that each team makes for its school. It’s obscene the amount of money they’re making off of these kids and they worked with the only professional league that matters to ensure that even the very best have to put in a year’s worth of free work to keep those billions coming.

Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Nov 6, 2009 9:04 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

The problem is that everyone focuses on the Jennings

and the small amount of college athletes that will go on to make lots of money in the pros. I don’t know if you read the football articles from TMQ on ESPN.com, but he did a nice little write up about this.

TMQ looked at 06-07, where there were a total of 7,159 men’s basketball scholarships given out in Divisions 1 and 2. 55 players that season were drafted into the NBA, which means that 7,104 were not. The total value of those 7,159 scholarships is approximately $236 million. Divide 7,159 by 55, and you get 130, which is the number of players who are supported by a future NBA player. TMQ used Durant as an example:

In Durant’s college year, he essentially donated 130 scholarships to other basketball players, worth $4.3 million. So actually his “compensation” was more than the $3.5 million he received the following season in the NBA. It’s just that the compensation was not money in his pocket, it was the admirable act of financing other people’s educations.

Sure, $236 mil in scholarships per year is not as much as the $545 mil per year they get from the TV contract, as well as additional money from other sources of revenue, but much of that money is put back into the universities and schools and benefits student athletes and non-student athletes alike. The future NBA player might be getting screwed a little bit, but its at a greater benefit to the university and its students.

by TimAllen on Nov 6, 2009 9:29 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

I don't disagree..

…with the notion that it is a good thing that basketball and football programs subsidize smaller sports teams and women’s sports at most universities. The vast majority of programs are not profitable and have to be subsidized with other internal university funds (I think only 20% of all colleges have profitable programs…which brings up the question of the validity of studies that bunch together, say, Florida and Macalester). The problem here is the other side of the coin: forcing players who have no reason or purpose to be there to have to sit through one year of ball to keep a TV contract in place. When Derrick Rose cheats on his SAT because he is forced to go to school instead of enter a draft where he would be in the top 10 and make millions, the NCAA can’t pretend that Derrick Rose was a normal student athlete. It wants to have it both ways. Guys like Durant and Rose aren’t like the other 7,159 players just like Memphis and Texas aren’t like Winona State and SDSU. There is nothing stopping the NCAA from creating a system that allows for athletes on a professional track from earning money while they’re at school. We’re talking about a small handful of teams and players who are making the money here. They have a cash cow and it’s built on the backs of a very small group of players (not the 7,000+ listed in the survey) who make the tourney a billion-dollar enterprise. CBS and the NCAA didn’t inflate the bubble on the backs of a backup power forward at Iowa State.

Also, if guys like Rose and Durant really are propping up entire athletic departments, isn’t that an argument that they should be compensated even more?

Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Nov 6, 2009 9:51 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

It just seems awfully hard to some up with a fair system that could do that.

I mean, yeah, you can look at a Kevin Durant and say that he’ll likely make millions in the pros, so lets give him a lot of money. But does a guy like Derrick Rose get more than, say, Joey Dorsey? Who evaluates such a thing? Is it based on performance in high school, performance in college or on potential future earnings?

by TimAllen on Nov 6, 2009 10:23 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm sure the free market econ departments..

….at these institutions could come up with a workable plan ;)

BTW: My suggestion is to have NBA teams sponsor 1 or 2 programs and funnel their developing talent through the NBA rather than the D-League. The Wolves could have a U of M/Iowa pipeline and any picks they make would be placed in one or the other of these programs

Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Nov 6, 2009 10:26 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm not so sure the University of Chicago

even has a BB team. But I’m sure they could come up with a plan.

by uncle rico on Nov 6, 2009 12:01 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

I was trying really hard..

…to come up with a Milton Friedman joke. It has to involve the words “invisible hand”.

Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Nov 6, 2009 12:29 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Perhaps you

unwittingly did come up with a joke. Milton Friedman himself. Sorry, not much of a laffer.

by uncle rico on Nov 7, 2009 2:19 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Well done

You threw a nice curve with that pun.

Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Nov 7, 2009 7:19 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

It’s sort of like forcing a future Nobel prize winner to take 16 credits of Physical Education classes every semester before allowing him to work in a research lab or making a young Itzhak Perlman earn a non musical BA before allowing him to play in a professional ensemble. Granted, society would probably be better off with tons of kids who have a pipe dream to do scientific research and no real backup plan. There are more jobs in that type of thing. So, it’s not a perfect metaphor.

Modern society is so compartmentalized and specialized, that if you want to be the best, you have to work at it for most of the time you’re awake. It’s a little unrealistic to expect a person to be the best athlete and also make a true effort to learn in another area. There are examples of players who did just that(David Robinson, Shane Battier), but that doesn’t make it a reasonable expectation. And, in the presence of unrealistic expectations and high pressure to conform, there will be a lot more cheating, which sort of undermines everything universities are meant to stand for.

by oblivionspocket on Nov 6, 2009 10:30 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

“I’m sorry James D Watson, but I have to suspend you from studying the structure of DNA because you falsified your college entrance fitness test scores. I hope you understand.”

by oblivionspocket on Nov 6, 2009 10:37 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Ha!

I think James Watson probably wouldn’t be a tremendously popular person in the average college athletic department.

by aarendsvark on Nov 6, 2009 11:47 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

I would love to see

future Nobel laureates in a Physical Education class. The physicists would be determining the force of throws in dodge ball, the math geniuses angles on bank shots, the economists using game theory to place bets on winning teams. Sounds like a good pilot for a sitcom. Of course, the Peace Prize winner could stop the fights in the hockey matches.

by uncle rico on Nov 6, 2009 12:05 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

The Nobel prize winner

still had to take at least two years of classes that were outside his field. If he didn’t, he would never be in a position to win the prize. Why is this OK, but athletes are treated differently?

by Rumblebee on Nov 6, 2009 7:11 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

The problem here is the other side of the coin: forcing players who have no reason or purpose to be there to have to sit through one year of ball to keep a TV contract in place. When Derrick Rose cheats on his SAT because he is forced to go to school instead of enter a draft where he would be in the top 10 and make millions, the NCAA can’t pretend that Derrick Rose was a normal student athlete.

Statements like these just make me cringe. Abosolutely no one forced Derrick Rose to go to the NCAA to play basketball. He could have played pro ball in Europe or any number of places, could have played for the NBDL, he could have played AAU ball and sat out for a year waiting for his shot. Instead he wanted all the benefit of the NCAA, Exposure and Experience, without any of its drawbacks, studying and no pay.

Yes the NCAA is a biollion dollar enterprise, but Derrick Rose isn’t responsible for the fans passion for College Basketball. You are just plain wrong with your viewpoint that the NCAA gains so much from these 1 and dones. The tournament is exciting every year because of its format, heck, I’d argue that teams with less superstars who play in other leagues would cause more upsets and more excitement for the sport.

The fact of the matter is Derrick Rose cheated because he wanted to be on TV every week and he wanted a year of Marketing himself via that $6 Billion TV contract you were so quick to bring up and did so without undertaking a single responsibility from his side of the bargain. No one “forced” Derrick Rose to play NCAA basketball, it was probably his best option, but he is not entitled to it. He cheated, he is a scumbag.

Yes I agree that the NCAA could relax a few of its draconian rules in regards to the responsibilities of student athletes, and yes they could allow for a stipend during these season making them financially subsistent without having to turn to agents and AAU coaches for money. Yes I agree that schools and coaches from make too much off the backs of these young kids, but your analysis conveniently forgets what both types of players get from this arrangment.

Star players who are going to play in the NBA represent less than 1% of college b-ball players and even though they don’t get paid, they get exposure and start marketing themselves before they get to the NBA. Hell, Hansbrough is in a commercial already when he has done nothing in the league. Derrick Rose can have an absolute average rookie season but due to his national exposure in college against inferior competition, his market value is that much higher due to his one season toiling in the plantation life of College Basketball. For the remaining 99+% of players they get a free college education that if they take serious can provide value.

I understand your arguments, I just think they are flawed and nonsensical.

by Ebomb on Nov 6, 2009 10:37 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

A similarly...

…cringe worthy reaction on my part to what you are saying. The idea that a young player like Rose could (or should) play AAU ball or go to the D-League is insulting. It’s like telling a gifted young computer analyst that Microsoft can’t hire him for another year so he should suck it up and work at WalMart for the time being. This sort of attitude towards labor just doesn’t exist in other places. Derrick Rose cheated. That sucks. He shouldn’t have done that but to ignore the NBA’s/NCAA’s one-and-done rule as a motivating factor in his decision isn’t reasonable, especially in light of his terrible domestic options. While it’s not written in the letter of the law, Derrick Rose effectively is entitled to play NCAA basketball because of the level of his talent and the eligibility demands made by the league he currently plays in. Also, I think your argument doesn’t do justice to the fact that our major sports leagues all have CBAs that hold off wave upon wave of antitrust lawsuits (baseball actually has an exemption). It’s pretty hard to think that a federal judge would look favorably upon the NBA (or NFL) prohibiting the entry of a young player without the players unions first agreeing to restrain the interstate commerce going on in each professional league.

Finally, arguing about what is best for young players (no matter how small the sample size) in terms of the benefits that we find attractive (education, degree, money for other sports) for them is a paternalistic argument that is unthinkable in every other career field I can think of (even in other sports; where is the outrage in tennis, hockey, or baseball?). Is college probably in their best interest in terms of character development and growing up? Of course. Do they get exposure and marketing training? Yes. But that is for them to decide.

Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Nov 6, 2009 11:08 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

BTW:

Just to be very clear because this is the internets, starting something off with “a similarly cringe worthy reaction on my part” probably isn’t the best way to let you know that I think this is a good debate and I’m not trying to pick a fight or anything like that. There should be some sort of emotocon to use to let people know this.

Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Nov 6, 2009 11:14 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Definitely didn’t see those as fighting words. I just love college basketball, just picked up my season tickets to the Washingtong Huskies the other day, and have major issues with the argument that these 1 and done players bring popularity to college basketball for any people other than the casual fan. The $6 Billion TV contract stems from a tournament that provides the greatest gambling event in America to those who watch. That tournament, that excitement, along with connections many of us have to an alma matter will continue College Basketball’s popularity with or without players like Derrick Rose and Kevin Durant.

by Ebomb on Nov 6, 2009 11:25 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Please

no emoticons. Please.

by uncle rico on Nov 6, 2009 12:06 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

SNP, that situation at Microsoft already is present. I graduated a Computer Engineer and their were plenty of brilliant programmers in my classes in college that could have gone to work immediately for Microsoft or any number of software companies and been standout performers, but those companies required that their employees sit through formal education learning programming languages that will never apply to their job at Microsoft. This situation exists for nearly all “Professions” such as Doctors, Nurses, Lawyers, Engineers, Union Tradesman, and Sports stars. I can be a brilliant carpenter at age 18, but unless I follow the draconian apprenticeship programs of the union paying me a lot less to do the same work as a master.

Yes the antitrust exemption exists and is surely a benefit to the sports leagues, but let’s not pretend that the players union wasn’t involved in enacting this 19 year old rule. They saw the end of benches filled will failed high school prospects and realized an age limit may help protect veteran jobs.

Finally, I never argued what was “best” for young players. I said that Derrick Rose wanted to enjoy all the benefits of an NCAA player without its drawbacks. You show disdain for AAU and D-League ball like this is somehow beneath an 18 year old still learning how to play the game and I find that insulting. It’s insulting to all the other players who managed school respnsibilities in High School in order to set them up to earn the right to play College Basketball. As stated above nearly every other profession has paternalistic rules as far as barriers to entries for young professionals. School Requirements, Exams, Apprenticeships, Unpaid Internships, etc. Picking out Basketball’s minor requirement of playing for 1 year after high school outside of the NBA and calling that a travesty is definitely not an opinion I agree with.

by Ebomb on Nov 6, 2009 11:21 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

I agree..

….that the Microsoft analogy doesn’t hold through all the way. Looking at it from the other way, it doesn’t hold up from your end in the sense that Derrick Rose didn’t major in Basketball and the professional world’s interview/resume process necessitates a different approach to education. My point here is that if Derrick Rose were to “interview” with the NBA straight out of high school, he would be hired on the spot and his need for a liberal arts education is one that is detached from the real world and, admittedly, the analogies don’t hold up all the way through…from both ends. That being said, I think you understate the reasons why every other profession has paternalistic rules. I invite everyone reading this to go out and interview for a new job and see how far talent alone gets you. Sports is an arena where people can (and should) be allowed to do this. Imagine if there were a musicians league or a writers association. It’s unthinkable that there would be these sorts of restrictions and or expectations…almost as unthinkable as they are in MLB, major league tennis, golf, or hockey.

Also, the players union didn’t negotiate away the 1-and-done rule in a vacuum. I have no idea how they used it as a chip. And yes, I do view the AAU and D-League as being below someone who can play in the NBA. The NBA should just embrace the NCAA as its feeder league and stop acting like it’s not a business arrangement with billions of dollars on the line.

Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Nov 6, 2009 11:40 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Point in fact

My roommate freshman year of college was a friggin computer genius, who got a software consulting job while still in college that paid him some serious coin. Hell, he only finished his degree a couple of years later to make his parents happy. The fact of the matter is that talent trumps credentials in any super specialized field.

by TheEvilProfessor on Nov 6, 2009 12:54 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

No one is saying that a talented 18 year old can’t make money playing basketball, all they are saying is that they can’t enter the draft of a league that has a biollion dollar revenue system set up in place due to that league’s own rules.

Rose could have played in Europe, Australia, Greece, Israel, China, he could have played a lot of places for more pay than the NCAA and less pay than the NBA, but he felt the best value for him, increasing his exposure and future earning was playing a year for essentially free in the NCAA.

Yes talent trumps credentials in any super speciliazed field, but let’s not pretend that Rose’s only option was to cheat and play in the NCAA and that was because of the NBA’s age limit.

by Ebomb on Nov 6, 2009 1:04 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

You can't get a job as an accountant at a Fortune 500 company

today without a four year college degree. A competent accountant could easily be trained in two years, but is forced to spend time and money on irrelevant course work, not to mention having to work at Wal-Mart until the age of 22. Let’s not forget the unpaid summer internship to prove your capability as well.
The college system is a scam for most, not just athletes. Ever wonder why it takes four years to get a certificate to teach Kindergarten, while a year earlier someone is doing the same job with a certificate that takes less than two years to achieve?

by Rumblebee on Nov 6, 2009 7:19 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Well said

I didn’t think of this earlier, but Rose may actually end up costing Memphis more money than he made for them.

by Rumblebee on Nov 6, 2009 7:14 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

How much extra money did Rose actually bring in that one year?

Tickets were sold before anyone saw him play, and he was gone before the next season was sold.

by Rumblebee on Nov 6, 2009 7:07 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

It isn't FREE work.

It is very under compensated work. Those kids do receive a monetary value trade for their services. It’s just not fair to force kids to go to college if they have no desire to be there, especially since the payoff can’t go into the bank. I have never agreed to the new age restriction.

by Krotz the Wall on Nov 6, 2009 9:30 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Here is the kicker for me

the NCAA is a non-profit organization. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. How in the hell did they pull that one off?

by TheEvilProfessor on Nov 6, 2009 12:40 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

As a non-profit employee

I’ve always hoped that I could rake in those non-profit salaries that many college coaches enjoy.

by aarendsvark on Nov 6, 2009 1:40 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

ditto

it’s hard to find that kind of money with a social work and polisci degree ;)

Forever splitting the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs
www.canishoopus.com

by Stop-n-Pop on Nov 6, 2009 1:42 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

It's not just the basketball scholarships

This money also funds Title 9 and scholarships for non-revenue sports like golf and wrestling. The biggest winners in this are probably the big money coaches, although CBS of course also makes huge money. The best paid athlete in the world benefited from this system (Tiger Woods at Stanford).
You are welcome to disagree with me on my following opinion: If the top-20 recruits who enter college started going straight to the pros (US or Europe), it would have very little impact on the amount of money the NCAA and individual programs receive. The fact is, most people cheer for laundry (in other words the name on the uniform, not the individual players). If every program lost their best player, the talent level would be diminished, but would it be noticed if the competitiveness stayed the same? I believe the other players will just look better. It may also become a better team sport when individuals looking to improve draft position (Kris Humphries ring a bell) are not around.
If you don’t buy my argument, look at the Gopher basketball and football programs. Even during the awful Monson era, there were 10,000 season tickets sold. At the end of the Wacker era, the football program still sold 25,000 season tickets (count me in that group). Does a better team increase sales, sure. But it is all relative and based on being competitive. If Royce White went to Europe with the other top recruits, Gopher basketball would be just as popular today. Like I say, just my opinion.
For what it’s worth, I am a strong advocate for changing the current system to benefit scholarship athletes. A few ideas:
1. Let the players share in endorsement money, rather than just coaches (see Jordan’s son). Why is the coach getting the shoe money when the player is the person we are watching?
2. Let players earn a small amount of money through personal endorsements. In other words, why can’t Ralph Sampson earn a couple grand signing autographs at a car dealership? If the NCAA is worried about fairness, make the sessions a group thing. Dealership pays $1,000 for a couple hours of autographs. The group includes one big name (the draw) and three others (a couple female athletes and a male from a non-revenue sport). At the end of the day, they each walk away with $250. Limit it to a couple grand a year. If it is limited and above board, boosters are not going to be able to pay off players (at least not legitimately). This would actually benefit the programs that don’t cheat at the expense of those that are cheating.
3. If a player is not college material (Scholastically), be honest about it and let him attend classes outside the university. Instead of these guys blowing off a Philosophy class they have no interest in, let them take courses at a nearby trade school. Be honest, too many of these guys play for four years then end up working for $20,000. Why not give them a chance to be a plumber or electrician and make a great living. By the way, if you exclude the top 1% of earners with only a Bachelor degree or those with advanced degrees (in other words exclude doctors and CEO’s who skew the salary mean), most college grads don’t make any more than an electrician or plumber. Keep that quiet though, colleges don’t want 18 year olds to know there might be a faster and less expensive way to have a good career.

by Rumblebee on Nov 6, 2009 7:05 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

It's amazing to me

That Flynn has 20 pounds on Jennings.

"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."

by biggity2bit on Nov 6, 2009 9:01 AM CST reply actions   0 recs

Other observations

In comparing the two (btw, anyone know of an easy way to do charts on here? If so, please send me a link or write a quick tutorial-I’d greatly appreciate it), a couple of things jump out.

Per 36 minutes,
 -Jennings is outscoring Flynn by 3.7 pts (22.8 to 19.1).
-However, Jennings is taking 6 more FGAs than Flynn (18.7 to 12.7), making 2.6 more FGs than Flynn (9 FGs to 6.4).
-Flynn gets to the line and makes a lot more than Jennings (5.3/5.8 to 2.4/3.5 FT/FTAs), but shoots half as many threes (1.1/1.7 3pt/3pta for Flynn to 2.4/4.8 for Jennings).
-Flynn is a slightly better rebounder, whereas Jennings has the edge on assists (although how much of this is system?).
-Each player is neck and neck in steals and efg%.

To recap, the biggest difference thus far is that Jennings is playing more like a volume scorer and is setting up his teammates a bit better than Flynn. Flynn picks his spots more and gets to the line better. For the most part their offensive games are washes (.546 efg% for Jennings to .543 for Flynn; 106 Ortg for each of them.) The most glaring difference between them is defensively. Jennings’ Drtg is 96 (pts allowed per 100 possessions) whereas Flynn is 108. To be fair, though, the composite level of competition that each has faced is a little skewed. Flynn’s level of competition thus far is a 109/103.75 Ortg/Drtg, whereas Jenning’s is 104.5/106.

"Come on Eddie, let's get serious."

by biggity2bit on Nov 6, 2009 10:13 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

In some ways this is similar to the Mayo/Love argument from last year

With Jennings filling the hot-shooting, volume-scorer role that Mayo did. The main difference, of course, is that Love’s game is based more on intangibles than Flynn’s.

by pagingstanleyroberts on Nov 6, 2009 11:45 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

With the additional difference being...

… that Flynn doesn’t make us cringe in his first regular-season weeks as a Timberwolf. I’m not going to lie, that was a rough stretch and I’m happy not to have to do it twice!

by TheH on Nov 6, 2009 11:58 AM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Those two are related.

Flynn’s ability to score inside helps mask aspects where he’s currently flawed and Love wasn’t.

by pagingstanleyroberts on Nov 6, 2009 12:00 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

Love's got tangibles

He’s like a baseball player with great secondary stats but a so-so batting average. It’s measurable, it may actually help you more than the high-average guy, but people see .300 and think that means a star.

by feral on Nov 6, 2009 1:22 PM CST up reply actions   0 recs

It's still early

but both teams should be encouraged by what they see so far. I agree with SnP that Jennings is bound to cool off. In the game I watched him in, I did not like his form at all on his jumpshot, even though it was going in. I’m not sure his jumper is built for consistency, whereas Flynn may eventually be more reliable in this area. But make no mistake about it – Jennings is a really dynamic player. It must be refreshing for Milwaukee fans to have a talent like him on their roster.

by Rascal Flatts on Nov 6, 2009 12:24 PM CST reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Canis Hoopus is straight T-Wolves straight from Minnesota.
Start posting about the Timberwolves »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Small
An Attempt to Clarify the Argument
Small
Are argument to get Rubio here next season! the new CBA could reduce salaries and guaranteed money for rookies.
3358_small
Vote Corey over MJ NOW!!!!
Wolfen_small
The Point Guard Conundrum
Dsc00186_small
Kahn: Kevin Martin NOT coming to Wolves, in so many words!
Wolveslogo_small
Prowling the NBA: Feb 7 - BOOM SHAKALAKA
Small
Rookie Comparison
Small
I've got to know
Small
A Confession...
Img_0075_small
CBA Shenanigans Begin

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Canis Hoopus Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Hoopus Features

    Salary Cap Info

    Draft Info

    EuroWatch

    Stats

    Draft Boards

    Former Tag Lines:

    • In desperate need of an epic dose of basketball Viagra
    • Your source of radical left wing politics cleverly disguised as basketball fandom
    • Palin-Free since before statehood
    • The world's leading exporter of small area quickness
    • Sorry…I have no idea who is Joe Mauer
    • Home of the Peja deep douche
    • Vote McGrady!

    Misc:

     

    Self-Promotion

    BallHype Sports Blog Rankings

    SPONSORS


    Managers

    Dr wyn

    Img_2487_small Stop-n-Pop