If the new market inefficiency is being the "toughest", most prideful organization even at the cost of putting opposing hitters on base - or worse, injuring other players and possibly getting your own players hurt - then the Arizona Diamondbacks and GM Kevin Towers may be onto something.
In a radio interview on Arizona's KTAR 620 on Tuesday, Oct 8, Towers took the stand that if his pitchers - who were already 7th in the Majors in HBP - don't start retaliating when his hitters - who were hit the 10th FEWEST times - get plunked, they will quickly find themselves in a new uniform. For some with "options", this means back to the minors where you can apparently be taught the Diamondbacks version of "an eye for an eye". For others, one can only assume they will be traded for .60 on the dollar like many of the players traded away from the Diamondbacks in the past few seasons.
It apparently doesn't stop just when a Diamondback gets hit. From his comments, Towers believes if you're having too much fun or being silly in your dugout, you should have a ball thrown at you at 90MPH+. Referring to a game vs. the Dodgers late in the season when Towers saw the NL West Champions enjoying themselves too much for his liking he stated, "Literally, if I would have had a carton of
baseballs I would have fired them into the dugout from where I was
sitting behind home plate." Now, I'm going to hope that is just a case of "literal" abuse, but even in hyperbole, WHO CARES? There are two much more reasonable solutions. 1. Beat them. Play better from the start and beat them. Then you won't care what they are doing in their dugout, I feel pretty confident about that. 2. Ignore them. If you feel they are acting undisciplined, unfocused or... *gasp* having too much fun playing a game, ignore them, focus on the task at hand and instead of suggesting you put MORE runners on base by hitting them, quietly come back and maybe win the game.
If another team adopts this same juvenile... technically, this should be categorized as infantile... way of thinking, will we just have a batter being hit every inning? When does it stop, when there's a brawl on the mound or in foul territory? That didn't work out well for the Diamondbacks this season when they tried to go that route. They were mocked across the country and generally lost a bit of respect among most baseball fans. Will it stop when a player loses playing time because of an injury suffered? When a season or career ends?
What do these 2012 D-backs have in common: Justin Upton, Chris Young, Stephen Drew, Ryan Roberts? All are players whose new 2013 teams made the playoffs. They contributed in varying degrees to their teams, obviously, but they were players who reportedly didn't fit with the gritty, gutty Diamondbacks being molded in the image of their manager Kirk Gibson and apparently the image Towers is now taking to the next level. They supposedly weren't gritty enough to be a part of a winning team, yet there they all were.
One of the oddest parts to me in this is that the Diamondbacks are one of the most forward-thinking and progressive organizations when it comes to the fan experience. They also have some of the most intelligent and rational players on twitter (Brandon McCarthy and Daniel Hudson immediately come to mind). Maybe it is time for Towers to join this millennium in his mindset and worry about acquiring players who will get on base and not put players on base instead of trying to find players who are willing to carelessly do the opposite under the guise of "protect(ing) one another".
Wednesday, October 09, 2013
Tuesday, August 06, 2013
Trying to fix a terrible top 10... the Greatest Singers list.
In 2008.... wait - let me start from the beginning - which, ironically, comes way past that point. Earlier this evening (see?), whilst drinking a good amount of wine (keep that in mind while you drink this and spot any grammatical errors or jumps in logic), I played a game where I tried to guess the top 10 on Rolling Stones' 100 Greatest Singers. What I didn't realize is the list had nothing to do with the quality of singer. It was more a "Most Iconic and Influential Artist" list. Not any less important, but - spoiler alert - if Freddie Mercury isn't on your top 10 greatest singers (#18 on the RS list), your list is... well, worthless.
I'm not an expert on the subject, but I did some time as a professional musician... ok, I guess technically that makes me an expert, but not in the critical sense. Although I was a pretty choppy guitarist, I feel pretty strongly that my vocal strengths are what allowed me to be paid on a regular basis. My (drunken) point is, I feel I can make a reasonable top 10 on the best singers in popular music. I'd love to hear your list or if you REALLY feel Bob Dylan is a top 10 singer of all-time, let me know. Maybe I can have my mind changed. This is not based on influence or frontman status or songwriting ability - just the best singers in my opinion. Thanks for reading - and enjoy.
#10: Christina Aguilera - The youngest in my list is also a victim of the era in which she was popular. Though the vocal gymnastics were sometimes a bit much - and what kept Mariah off this list - make no mistake, Aguilera has a sultry, smooth voice (Genie in a Bottle, Beautiful, multiple tracks from Back to Basics) that would stand out in any decade of popular music. Also, she is able to change gears and sing with some fire and growl (Dirrrty, Lady Marmalade) unlike many artists with that angelic a voice.
#9: Steven Page - I am placing Mr. Page this LOW because of my affinity for Barenaked Ladies. I'm worried that their being my favorite group may cloud my judgment. I will tell you that for most of my adulthood, I would place Page at Number Two on my personal list of favorite vocalists. His vocal range is broad, theatrical and more powerful live when in top form than any studio recording could show. With BNL, songs like Break Your Heart, Call & Answer, and What A Good Boy featured the depth and power that he brought. After departing the band in 2009, Indecision, Entourage and A Different Sort of Solitude are a few highlights, though I'm waiting for a solo effort that showcases the amazing vocal ability and passion I've seen since I fell in love with the old band 20 years ago. It's still there, as I saw Steven this spring and - even in a small venue with mediocre acoustics - he blew the audience away. I just hope he writes a song or two that does justice to one of the best pop voices of all time.
#8: Al Green - The Rev. He doesn't have the cache or the grand number of hits that some of his contemporaries had, but his voice could carry a tune, an album, a world if it needed to. We all know about Let's Stay Together, but take a few minutes and listen to it again. The rise from soulful storytelling throughout the first verse to sensual pleading toward the end of the track is some of the most passionate singing you can find and the basis for many an R&B song later in time.
#7: Art Garfunkel - It's odd to put a "second banana" in as one of the best singers of all time. After splitting for the 2nd (and most permanent) time in 1970, Garfunkel was unable to duplicate the success experienced with Paul Simon, while his erstwhile partner found both critical and commercial approval as a solo artist. This does not diminish the pure, haunting sound of Garfunkel's tenor voice. Whether in The Sound of Silence or The Boxer or one of their many other hits, Garfunkel's harmony stays with you in a way many voices fail to.
#6: Whitney Houston - A tragic ending and a less-than-graceful fall from public adoration does not diminish what Houston was during her prime. While I considered Mariah Carey for the top 10, the vocal gymnastics that almost got Aguilera booted were what did her in. I always consider Houston, Carey and Aguilera as a lineage of sorts, but Aguilera and Houston were able to shift into a higher gear that Carey never found in my opinion (this duet helping my argument). Houston's rendition of the National Anthem remains the most powerful and memorable. "The Voice" was also able to find a more sultry tone with songs like My Name is Not Susan, among others. Of everyone on my list, Houston is the one artist who I feel could vary as high as #1, but her massive talent did not produce a "Live" album or tour of epic magnitude and longevity that would have propelled her further up.
#5: Stevie Wonder - Very few artists have the catalog or the credentials of Little Stevie Wonder. A career that spans five decades with very few valleys and many peaks along the way. Another artist who was able to change gears and demonstrate vocal range not just in tone, but in emotion, Wonder crafted hits over many years with one of the most silky smooth voices in popular music. He tells a story with each lyric and can paint a tapestry with his bee-bopping and interludes. There is a nasal quality that has gotten more noticeable over the years, but for me it is not distracting (until recently) as much as it is a unique layer to his voice.
#4: Prince - One of the most under appreciated artists in modern music, Prince partially has only himself to blame by being a recluse and a mystery. He is, however, one of the most talented musicians we've ever been graced with. He manages to be underrated as both a guitarist and a vocalist, which is extremely hard to pull off. Maybe I place too much stock in songs like Darling Nikki and Sexy MF, but Prince could... well, fuck you with his voice and there was nothing you could - or want to - do about it.
#3: Marvin Gaye - Another tragic death, and much like Houston years later, a career that deserved a much better final act. Gaye sang one of the most influential songs ever released , "What's Going On", and due to the high political impact, it was only able to be released because of the vocal quality on that record (Gaye refused to record further material until it was released, but had it not been amazing, the record label would have just sued him for the next album). Gaye had one of the most soulful voices to ever be recorded and from "Heard it Through The Grapevine" up through "Let's Get it On", influenced millions of singers to come.
#2 Elvis Presley - Much of the mystery and eccentricity that clouded his life and his death masks the fact that this man was "The King" and deserved the crown. No singer before or since has been able to cross so many genres so successfully. Whether it was gospel, soul, country or Rock 'n' Roll, Presley was a master of them all. When Garth Brooks tried to crossover and be a rock star under a different name, failing miserably, it was a reminder that Presley could effortlessly pull off that feat multiple times, sometimes on the same album.
#1 Freddie Mercury - Proof of Mercury's vocal abilities is not best found in his amazing range (bass low F to soprano high F) nor his tonal qualities on such Queen staples as Somebody to Love or Don't Stop Me Now. It is best proven by the fact that Mercury recorded an Opera album in 1988 (with operatic soprano Montserrat Caballé) that spawned a top-10 (UK & others) single. This was no vanity project - it was the official anthem of the 1992 Barcelona (the album and song name) Olympic games. Mercury's voice lived on long after his death in movies, TV and radio airplay. The songs remain fresh (well, maybe not Radio Gaga...) and his voice is still one of the most haunting, mesmerizing in history.
Other singers I debated include: Frank Sinatra, Maxwell, Michael Jackson, James Taylor, Paul McCartney, Annie Lennox, Leann Rimes, Smokey Robinson, Lionel Richie, George Michael
Who do you think I missed? Who do you think I nailed? Let me know in the comments!
I'm not an expert on the subject, but I did some time as a professional musician... ok, I guess technically that makes me an expert, but not in the critical sense. Although I was a pretty choppy guitarist, I feel pretty strongly that my vocal strengths are what allowed me to be paid on a regular basis. My (drunken) point is, I feel I can make a reasonable top 10 on the best singers in popular music. I'd love to hear your list or if you REALLY feel Bob Dylan is a top 10 singer of all-time, let me know. Maybe I can have my mind changed. This is not based on influence or frontman status or songwriting ability - just the best singers in my opinion. Thanks for reading - and enjoy.
#10: Christina Aguilera - The youngest in my list is also a victim of the era in which she was popular. Though the vocal gymnastics were sometimes a bit much - and what kept Mariah off this list - make no mistake, Aguilera has a sultry, smooth voice (Genie in a Bottle, Beautiful, multiple tracks from Back to Basics) that would stand out in any decade of popular music. Also, she is able to change gears and sing with some fire and growl (Dirrrty, Lady Marmalade) unlike many artists with that angelic a voice.
#9: Steven Page - I am placing Mr. Page this LOW because of my affinity for Barenaked Ladies. I'm worried that their being my favorite group may cloud my judgment. I will tell you that for most of my adulthood, I would place Page at Number Two on my personal list of favorite vocalists. His vocal range is broad, theatrical and more powerful live when in top form than any studio recording could show. With BNL, songs like Break Your Heart, Call & Answer, and What A Good Boy featured the depth and power that he brought. After departing the band in 2009, Indecision, Entourage and A Different Sort of Solitude are a few highlights, though I'm waiting for a solo effort that showcases the amazing vocal ability and passion I've seen since I fell in love with the old band 20 years ago. It's still there, as I saw Steven this spring and - even in a small venue with mediocre acoustics - he blew the audience away. I just hope he writes a song or two that does justice to one of the best pop voices of all time.
#8: Al Green - The Rev. He doesn't have the cache or the grand number of hits that some of his contemporaries had, but his voice could carry a tune, an album, a world if it needed to. We all know about Let's Stay Together, but take a few minutes and listen to it again. The rise from soulful storytelling throughout the first verse to sensual pleading toward the end of the track is some of the most passionate singing you can find and the basis for many an R&B song later in time.
#7: Art Garfunkel - It's odd to put a "second banana" in as one of the best singers of all time. After splitting for the 2nd (and most permanent) time in 1970, Garfunkel was unable to duplicate the success experienced with Paul Simon, while his erstwhile partner found both critical and commercial approval as a solo artist. This does not diminish the pure, haunting sound of Garfunkel's tenor voice. Whether in The Sound of Silence or The Boxer or one of their many other hits, Garfunkel's harmony stays with you in a way many voices fail to.
#6: Whitney Houston - A tragic ending and a less-than-graceful fall from public adoration does not diminish what Houston was during her prime. While I considered Mariah Carey for the top 10, the vocal gymnastics that almost got Aguilera booted were what did her in. I always consider Houston, Carey and Aguilera as a lineage of sorts, but Aguilera and Houston were able to shift into a higher gear that Carey never found in my opinion (this duet helping my argument). Houston's rendition of the National Anthem remains the most powerful and memorable. "The Voice" was also able to find a more sultry tone with songs like My Name is Not Susan, among others. Of everyone on my list, Houston is the one artist who I feel could vary as high as #1, but her massive talent did not produce a "Live" album or tour of epic magnitude and longevity that would have propelled her further up.
#5: Stevie Wonder - Very few artists have the catalog or the credentials of Little Stevie Wonder. A career that spans five decades with very few valleys and many peaks along the way. Another artist who was able to change gears and demonstrate vocal range not just in tone, but in emotion, Wonder crafted hits over many years with one of the most silky smooth voices in popular music. He tells a story with each lyric and can paint a tapestry with his bee-bopping and interludes. There is a nasal quality that has gotten more noticeable over the years, but for me it is not distracting (until recently) as much as it is a unique layer to his voice.
#4: Prince - One of the most under appreciated artists in modern music, Prince partially has only himself to blame by being a recluse and a mystery. He is, however, one of the most talented musicians we've ever been graced with. He manages to be underrated as both a guitarist and a vocalist, which is extremely hard to pull off. Maybe I place too much stock in songs like Darling Nikki and Sexy MF, but Prince could... well, fuck you with his voice and there was nothing you could - or want to - do about it.
#3: Marvin Gaye - Another tragic death, and much like Houston years later, a career that deserved a much better final act. Gaye sang one of the most influential songs ever released , "What's Going On", and due to the high political impact, it was only able to be released because of the vocal quality on that record (Gaye refused to record further material until it was released, but had it not been amazing, the record label would have just sued him for the next album). Gaye had one of the most soulful voices to ever be recorded and from "Heard it Through The Grapevine" up through "Let's Get it On", influenced millions of singers to come.
#2 Elvis Presley - Much of the mystery and eccentricity that clouded his life and his death masks the fact that this man was "The King" and deserved the crown. No singer before or since has been able to cross so many genres so successfully. Whether it was gospel, soul, country or Rock 'n' Roll, Presley was a master of them all. When Garth Brooks tried to crossover and be a rock star under a different name, failing miserably, it was a reminder that Presley could effortlessly pull off that feat multiple times, sometimes on the same album.
#1 Freddie Mercury - Proof of Mercury's vocal abilities is not best found in his amazing range (bass low F to soprano high F) nor his tonal qualities on such Queen staples as Somebody to Love or Don't Stop Me Now. It is best proven by the fact that Mercury recorded an Opera album in 1988 (with operatic soprano Montserrat Caballé) that spawned a top-10 (UK & others) single. This was no vanity project - it was the official anthem of the 1992 Barcelona (the album and song name) Olympic games. Mercury's voice lived on long after his death in movies, TV and radio airplay. The songs remain fresh (well, maybe not Radio Gaga...) and his voice is still one of the most haunting, mesmerizing in history.
Other singers I debated include: Frank Sinatra, Maxwell, Michael Jackson, James Taylor, Paul McCartney, Annie Lennox, Leann Rimes, Smokey Robinson, Lionel Richie, George Michael
Who do you think I missed? Who do you think I nailed? Let me know in the comments!
Thursday, May 23, 2013
The Latter-day Rush to Judgment
On The Triangle blog of Grantland today, Jonah Keri examines the resurgence OR depending on your viewpoint, the continued excellence of David Ortiz. About 25% of the blog post discusses the accusations (most recently by the Boston Globe) and circumstantial evidence linking Ortiz to PEDs. Though Keri (one of my favorite baseball writers) correctly takes the Globe story to task for focusing on the gun that does not have any smoke emanating whatsoever (the 14-game small sample size vs. the previous two seasons that seemed... different), we must be reminded... that we asked for this.
In the wake of the PED scandal in Major League Baseball, one of the most frequently cried arguments and criticisms was the sport media's complicity during this time. We derided the writers and analysts who fawned over Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa and Nook Logan - ok, maybe not him so much - without question. We, the baseball-loving public that turned our own eyes, made The Fourth Estate the co-conspirator in the alleged smearing of our National Pastime. We demanded this not happen again and many people expressed betrayal and naivete mostly due to feeling duped after spending $120 on a shiny new Eric Gagne jersey.
Fast-forward a few years and Ortiz is putting up numbers that belong in the heart of the "steroids era". At his age and build, he should not be experiencing a statistical renaissance eerily similar to his original eye-opening rise to prominence in his age 26-29 seasons. Ortiz claims it is unfair for us to question the reasons for this and his defenders want to once again do their best impression of an ostrich, but they must be reminded that - right or wrong - this is what they wanted. For Ortiz, he only has his peers, and possibly himself, to thank.
In the wake of the PED scandal in Major League Baseball, one of the most frequently cried arguments and criticisms was the sport media's complicity during this time. We derided the writers and analysts who fawned over Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa and Nook Logan - ok, maybe not him so much - without question. We, the baseball-loving public that turned our own eyes, made The Fourth Estate the co-conspirator in the alleged smearing of our National Pastime. We demanded this not happen again and many people expressed betrayal and naivete mostly due to feeling duped after spending $120 on a shiny new Eric Gagne jersey.
Fast-forward a few years and Ortiz is putting up numbers that belong in the heart of the "steroids era". At his age and build, he should not be experiencing a statistical renaissance eerily similar to his original eye-opening rise to prominence in his age 26-29 seasons. Ortiz claims it is unfair for us to question the reasons for this and his defenders want to once again do their best impression of an ostrich, but they must be reminded that - right or wrong - this is what they wanted. For Ortiz, he only has his peers, and possibly himself, to thank.
Saturday, April 06, 2013
Welcome to... WrestleMANIA!
Despite the lackluster build-ups for most of the matches, the one benefit has been a wider range of possibilities as we head to the biggest night in pro wrestling. Without giving a match-by-match prediction - I'm only really hitting on the co-main events - there are some things I feel are possible that would be reasonable conclusions to some programs while also taking some major players in fresh directions.
Two things to keep in mind - nobody ever correctly predicts these things, but it's fun trying. Oh sure, you can often predict the match winner correctly using Matt Fowler's almost-scientific 85% accurate "Rule of Opposite Momentum" that states the guy with the big advantage over his opponent in the week(s) leading up to the show will... lose on the big stage. It's the story they tell in the match or the direction they take the wrestlers that people consistently try to decipher... and usually miss on. Also, if any of the "dirt sheets" or writers with a lot of eyeballs (I enjoy the above-mentioned Fowler & David skedman) correctly predicted anything leading up to the show, it's been said Vince McMahon will completely take it in a different direction - even if that new direction makes zero sense or isn't as entertaining. At least he can say nobody saw it coming.
Fortunately (?) for me, the sets of eyeballs that read this blog rarely reach triple digits so if by some miracle I channel one of the WWE writers and "call my shot", it won't matter enough to change anything. Without further ado, here are some things I feel can happen tomorrow night in MetLife Stadium.
CM Punk vs. The Undertaker
The rumors that CM Punk is taking some much-deserved time off after Wrestlemania probably doesn't change much for this match. It came together quickly and if not for the unfortunate passing of Percy Pringle, they'd have been hard-pressed to find a real reason for this match. The ideal way to keep "The Streak" alive while giving CM Punk something worthwhile would be a no-decision style finish. This would allow WWE to use the streak down the road for The Undertaker's legacy (keeping it a perfect 20-0 in their annals) while CM Punk can do what he does best - twist the ending into him beating The Phenom and using that to keep his heat while he takes some time off.
John Cena vs. The Rock
I don't see any benefit if Rocky wins this match. They made the best of having a part-time champ and The Great One already seems to be a bit bored with his return engagement. Cena teased a heel turn in the weeks leading up to this "Once in a Lifetime..." rematch and if CM Punk is taking time off, well that does leave a spot open for top heel. What I see happening is Cena winning the match mostly as a face (a couple heel-style moves but gray area things that doesn't scream HEEL TURN) but getting badly "hurt" in the process. While meekly celebrating his victory, Dolph Ziggler (who I think loses in the tag team championship with Big E Langston) brings his MITB briefcase to the ring with AJ and cashes in clean. This could set off Cena, causing him to flip out and decimate Ziggler - or even better, giving an AA to AJ - thus completing the heel turn and giving him and Ziggler a program to carry the company for the next couple of months.
Two things to keep in mind - nobody ever correctly predicts these things, but it's fun trying. Oh sure, you can often predict the match winner correctly using Matt Fowler's almost-scientific 85% accurate "Rule of Opposite Momentum" that states the guy with the big advantage over his opponent in the week(s) leading up to the show will... lose on the big stage. It's the story they tell in the match or the direction they take the wrestlers that people consistently try to decipher... and usually miss on. Also, if any of the "dirt sheets" or writers with a lot of eyeballs (I enjoy the above-mentioned Fowler & David skedman) correctly predicted anything leading up to the show, it's been said Vince McMahon will completely take it in a different direction - even if that new direction makes zero sense or isn't as entertaining. At least he can say nobody saw it coming.
Fortunately (?) for me, the sets of eyeballs that read this blog rarely reach triple digits so if by some miracle I channel one of the WWE writers and "call my shot", it won't matter enough to change anything. Without further ado, here are some things I feel can happen tomorrow night in MetLife Stadium.
CM Punk vs. The Undertaker
The rumors that CM Punk is taking some much-deserved time off after Wrestlemania probably doesn't change much for this match. It came together quickly and if not for the unfortunate passing of Percy Pringle, they'd have been hard-pressed to find a real reason for this match. The ideal way to keep "The Streak" alive while giving CM Punk something worthwhile would be a no-decision style finish. This would allow WWE to use the streak down the road for The Undertaker's legacy (keeping it a perfect 20-0 in their annals) while CM Punk can do what he does best - twist the ending into him beating The Phenom and using that to keep his heat while he takes some time off.
John Cena vs. The Rock
I don't see any benefit if Rocky wins this match. They made the best of having a part-time champ and The Great One already seems to be a bit bored with his return engagement. Cena teased a heel turn in the weeks leading up to this "Once in a Lifetime..." rematch and if CM Punk is taking time off, well that does leave a spot open for top heel. What I see happening is Cena winning the match mostly as a face (a couple heel-style moves but gray area things that doesn't scream HEEL TURN) but getting badly "hurt" in the process. While meekly celebrating his victory, Dolph Ziggler (who I think loses in the tag team championship with Big E Langston) brings his MITB briefcase to the ring with AJ and cashes in clean. This could set off Cena, causing him to flip out and decimate Ziggler - or even better, giving an AA to AJ - thus completing the heel turn and giving him and Ziggler a program to carry the company for the next couple of months.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Possible solution to NBA age-limit rules
After reading the always-excellent Howard Bryant's take on the current state of the NCAA tournament, one thing in particular stood out to me.
Bryant wrote, "Only the NBA's unethical (if not illegal) age limit keeps the top tier of college player in school for a year."
Eventually, some aspiring and talented young man with the inability to pass the required college entrance exams - or the lack of resources to have them passed for him - will challenge this rule. There are ways the NBA and NCAA can defend it since they allow a player to go overseas or the developmental league, however that is not always in the best interests of the player involved. Brandon Jennings' draft stock took a hit when he went overseas for a year, costing him money and possibly slowing his development due to the different style of play and the major cultural and language differences. Recently, Aquille Carr has made the decision to play abroad due to the money. If he were able to be drafted into the NBA, that would make it possible - even as a likely 2nd-round draft pick - to provide for his family (he has a child) and still get the coaching and structure needed to help him reach his potential. Now, if his draft stock falls while overseas like Jennings' did, he may not be drafted next year.
Maurice Clarett unsuccessfully attempted to use litigation to forgo the final years of his college eligibilty when he was drafted after his freshman year at OSU. That doesn't mean the NBA will be able to thwart a challenge especially when the argument involves being able to provide for a baby. There is a possible way, however, to make sure every high school senior that wants to enter the NBA can't do so before they are mentally and emotionally ready (if they're not physically ready, the NBA scouts and GMs will take care of that part by not drafting them).
By allowing students who want to bypass the one-year waiting period an opportunity to take a Wonderlic-style test (including on-court questions as well as off-court), with a minimum score required to enter the NBA draft, you are minimizing litigation risk and also avoid diluting the NBA product as was happening with so many "not quite ready for primetime players" that were entering the draft in the years before the 2005 CBA was ratified. If a student does not reach the required score - and you should make it so only 10-15% qualify - they are required to attend a college program for either one or (preferably) two years before qualifying for the draft.
While many students would not be able to skip college, they can't say it's because of an unfair NBA rule - they will be forced to recognize it's because they are not ready to pursue their career of choice and get the training and coaching needed to realize their dream.
Bryant wrote, "Only the NBA's unethical (if not illegal) age limit keeps the top tier of college player in school for a year."
Eventually, some aspiring and talented young man with the inability to pass the required college entrance exams - or the lack of resources to have them passed for him - will challenge this rule. There are ways the NBA and NCAA can defend it since they allow a player to go overseas or the developmental league, however that is not always in the best interests of the player involved. Brandon Jennings' draft stock took a hit when he went overseas for a year, costing him money and possibly slowing his development due to the different style of play and the major cultural and language differences. Recently, Aquille Carr has made the decision to play abroad due to the money. If he were able to be drafted into the NBA, that would make it possible - even as a likely 2nd-round draft pick - to provide for his family (he has a child) and still get the coaching and structure needed to help him reach his potential. Now, if his draft stock falls while overseas like Jennings' did, he may not be drafted next year.
Maurice Clarett unsuccessfully attempted to use litigation to forgo the final years of his college eligibilty when he was drafted after his freshman year at OSU. That doesn't mean the NBA will be able to thwart a challenge especially when the argument involves being able to provide for a baby. There is a possible way, however, to make sure every high school senior that wants to enter the NBA can't do so before they are mentally and emotionally ready (if they're not physically ready, the NBA scouts and GMs will take care of that part by not drafting them).
By allowing students who want to bypass the one-year waiting period an opportunity to take a Wonderlic-style test (including on-court questions as well as off-court), with a minimum score required to enter the NBA draft, you are minimizing litigation risk and also avoid diluting the NBA product as was happening with so many "not quite ready for primetime players" that were entering the draft in the years before the 2005 CBA was ratified. If a student does not reach the required score - and you should make it so only 10-15% qualify - they are required to attend a college program for either one or (preferably) two years before qualifying for the draft.
While many students would not be able to skip college, they can't say it's because of an unfair NBA rule - they will be forced to recognize it's because they are not ready to pursue their career of choice and get the training and coaching needed to realize their dream.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)