NCAA, NBA and College Education

Rumors persist that the NBA would like to make potential players go to college for two years before entering the NBA Draft. NCAA coaches would prefer this as well, as many coaches, like Coach K, have criticized the "one-and-done" rule because it makes it harder to plan and recruit for their programs.

The basketball (and financial) reasons are obvious. When players go to college, NBA teams have a better opportunity to scout and evaluate, and players enter the NBA with more name recognition. At the college level, more stars mean more awareness and television viewers for games and potentially more merchandise sales.

For the athlete, however, the benefits are less obvious. In today's L.A. Times, "General Electric Co. Chief Executive Jeff Immelt lamented the state of education in the U.S., complaining that his company has to go outside the country for the best people."

Sure, the educational requirements for a future NBA player differ from those of a future engineer or manager. However, if the education system fails to do its prime job - educate the future work force - why burden it with educating future NBA millionaires? If the curriculum fails those who it is intended to reach, how is it supposed to improve the life of or educate those with only marginal interest?

A recent Washington Post article is even more damning:

"Only 31 percent of college graduates can read a complex book and extrapolate from it. That's not saying much for the remainder."While more Americans are graduating from college, and more than ever are applying for admission, far fewer are leaving higher education with the skills needed to comprehend routine data, such as reading a table about the relationship between blood pressure and physical activity, according to the federal study conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics.

If only 31% of graduates develop this skill, what are the chances that a player develops these skills in a 1 or 2-year stay?

I am not anti-education. However, I prefer that universities use their resources to educate students, not provide a minor league sports franchise for billionaire owners. I think it is disgraceful that many men's basketball and football coaches make more money than their university's president. I think is is shameful that a coach like Steve Sarkisian, an assistant coach, was the fourth highest paid employee of his university before departing for a head coaching job.

Parents, coaches and the media worry about young children and their misplaced values. However, if you see these things, are their values misplaced? If you want to make money, you're better off becoming a football coach than a university president! And, somehow we criticize children? What does this say about our values?

I understand that college sports help colleges market themselves and there is the "Doug Flutie Effect" and some (very few) college programs even make money. But, are any of these three the most important part of a university? Should marketing, increasing applicants and making money drive the university's decisions?

Evolution of the WNBA

One criticism of the WNBA since its inception is that team's favor athletic players who can defend, so few players possess the offensive skills to create their own shots.

As the W has evolved, more players have developed this skill or entered the league with the ability to create their own shot. Typically, these are the superstars or near superstars like Deanna Nolan, Diana Taurasi, Cappie Pondexter, Candace Parker, Seimone Augustus, Candice Wiggins and others.

Beyond these multi-dimensional players, several teams rely heavily on point guards (Sue Bird, Lyndsey Whalen) or post players (Lisa Leslie, Lauren Jackson, DeMya Walker) on the offensive end, as well as the team's structure and offensive sets.

The role players, it seems, are most frequently athletic defenders or fairly non-descript players. While nearly every NBA team has a "designated shooter" on its roster (Kyle Korver, Jason Kapono, JJ Reddick), it seems like few of these designated shooters stick in the NBA (although Kara Lawson turned herself into an Olympian in this role).

Also, it seems like fewer of the "designated defenders" develop into great spot-up shooters, as with the NBA (Bruce Bowen, Shane Battier, Raja Bell).

My first question, since I have caught only one game this season is: Is this an accurate assessment?

If so, would the next step in the evolution of the W be the development of the two-way role player, players like Battier or Bowen who lock down the opponent's top player while also spreading the floor on offense to give the team's superstar more room to operate?

In the NBA, players like Trevor Ariza, Battier and others command good salaries because of their ability to complement the superstars. Are there such players in the WNBA that go unnoticed because there are not thousands of stat geeks breaking down and publicizing their efforts?

Are there players who realize that they will not be the star of their team, so they create a role to earn playing time and a higher salary? Has someone like Marie Ferdinand-Harris or Noelle Quinn embraced that role with the Sparks? Has Chelsea Newton developed her three-point shot enough to qualify in Sacramento? Does Katie Geralds play defense well enough to qualify? Has Alexis Hornbuckle adopted the role in Detroit? Could she be the prototype for the next generation of complimentary players?

These are honest questions. Is the WNBA more of a team game so specified roles, like in the NBA, are not as pronounced? Are there college players thinking that they might not be stars, but they can earn a rotation spot if they prove their defensive abilities and make open jump shots?

2009 NBA Mock Draft

Finally, I decided to do my own mock draft. As always, I do my mock draft based on who I would pick in each position. I do not try to guess what each NBA General Manager will do. So, here are my picks:

1. L.A. Clippers: Blake Griffin, Oklahoma. Earlier in the year, I wrote that I would take Tyreke Evans. However, after hearing about Blake Griffin's work ethic, you would be crazy not to pick him.

2. Memphis: Tyreke Evans, Memphis. He's not a point guard, and he's not a shooter, but neither is O.J. Mayo. For some reason, an Evans/Mayo back court intrigues me. Also, I believe in drafting for talent, not position, and I like Evans' talent.

3. Oklahoma City: Hasheem Thabeet, UConn. To be a great defensive team, you have to have an inside presence. Thabeet is an inside presence. He won't be the best player in the draft and won't put up huge numbers, but he will make OKC better defensively.

4. Sacramento: James Harden, Arizona State. A productive shooting guard who can spread the court and get to the foul line.

5. Washington: Ty Lawson, UNC. He was the best point guard in college basketball last season.Not sure how six or seven guys are suddenly better than him. He improved between last season and this season. He is not Raymond Felton.

6. Minnesota: Ricky Rubio, DKV Joventut. He has been a star in Europe for years. Minnesota needs a star and a point guard.

7. Golden State: Brandon Jennings, Lottomattica Roma. He has as much talent as anyone in the draft if he puts it all together. GSW needs a PG to move Ellis to SG. An athletic big like Jordan Hill makes sense, but Nelson plays four guards anyway.

8. New York: Stephon Curry, Davidson. Many saw Steve Nash as a non-defense playing shooting guard as well. D'Antoni needs a PG who can shoot to run the pick-and-roll effectively.

9. Toronto: Jordan Hill, Arizona. He is athletic and improved tremendously at Arizona. Toronto has many needs, but another big to complement Bosh and Bargnani adds depth in an area where it is hard to find.

10. Milwaukee: Jrue Holiday, UCLA. At one time, I thought he had the talent to be the #1 pick, but he never seemed to break through at UCLA. He's younger than some incoming freshman and has great instincts with the ball. When he puts it together, he'll fit well with Scott Skiles' defensive mentality.

11. New Jersey: Demar Derozan, USC: Another athletic freshman with plenty of potential. Some believe that he could be the best player in the draft. Time will tell.

12. Charlotte: Terrence Williams, Louisville: He reminds me of Brandon Roy in that he can play two or three positions, handle the ball, set up the offense and score.

13. Indiana: Gerald Henderson, Duke. An athletic, aggressive wing to pair with Danny Granger in Jim O'Brien's up-tempo offense.

14. Phoenix: Earl Clark, Louisville. If they stay with an up-tempo style, they miss Shawn Marion's ability to play power forward. Clark can fill that role.

15. Detroit: B.J. Mullens, Ohio State. He's a young, skilled center, which is hard to find.

16. Chicago: Tyler Hansborough, Carolina. They need a post player who can score inside to complement their athletic, more defensive posts like Noah and Thomas.

17. Philadelphia: Johnny Flynn, Syracuse. They need shooters and they need a point guard if they allow Andre Miller to leave.

18. Minnesota: Austin Daye, Gonzaga. Last year, he was expected a top five pick because of his talent. His finesse and shooting can open the court for Al Jefferson.

19. Atlanta: Jeff Teague, Wake Forest. If they lose Bibby, Teague could be Bibby, Junior. He can definitely score; it remains to be seen if he can really be a PG.

20. Utah: Dejuan Blair, Pittsburgh. A perfect replacement for Boozer if he leaves, Blair is an aggressive, physical player in the Sloan mold.

21. New Orleans: Jodie Meeks, Kentucky. The Hornets need more scoring and Meeks can add scoring and defense at shooting guard.

22. Dallas: Nick Calathes, Florida. A good value pick here and a point guard to eventually replace Jason Kidd.

23. Sacramento: Eric Maynor, VCU. With Harden already selected, grabbing a point guard is essential and they have a choice between Maynor and Darren Collison.

24. Portland: James Johnson, Wake Forest. The Blazers have few needs, but Johnson could add athleticism at forward and add a different dimension.

25. Oklahoma City: Jonas Jerekbo, Angelica Biella. From the Greg Popovich book, taking a player and letting him develop overseas. OKC already has lots of youth. Jerkbo could be another combo to throw into the mix with Jeff Green and Kevin Durant.

26. Chicago: Marcus Thornton, LSU. Assuming Ben Gordon leaves, they need another guard who can shoot and complement Rose, Hinrich and Salmons.

27. Memphis: Sam Young, Pittsburgh. A combo forward with toughness.

28. Minnesota: Wayne Ellington, Carolina. Another shooter to add to the mix.

29. Los Angeles: Tony Douglas, Florida State. If they re-sign Lamar Odom, they have few needs and few roster spots. However, they could use some better point guard defense, and a combo guard like Douglas fits in the triangle.

30. Boston: Taj Gibson, USC. They suffered in the play-offs with a lack of post-depth. Last season, they grabbed two wings. Darren Collison as a back-up to Rondo would work too.

Saving the Indiana Fever

Last night, I wrote about the success of the MLS Seattle Sounders. Today, I read about the likely demise of the Indiana Fever. Will there ever be a better fit than to use a struggling WNBA franchise to try out fan decision-making?

What if a group of local Indianapolis businessmen and women purchased the Indiana Fever. Indianapolis is a great basketball town in a great basketball state. If the WNBA cannot survive there, I fear for the rest of the league.

The ownership group sells season ticket licenses just like NFL teams sell ticket licenses. The ticket licenses, however, would offer more than just a ticket to games. Instead, every season ticket holder would receive:

• A special edition t-shirt or jersey only for season ticket holders identifying the person as a member of the club, so to speak.
• The right to vote for an eight-person board who would make all personnel decisions.
• A season ticket package

The ownership group would appoint a CEO to run the franchise and sit on the board as a non-voting member of the board.

The ownership group would solicit applications and nominations from people in the local basketball community to sit on the board.

The ownership group would hold an election for the board (the board would be unpaid). If they were smart, they could make it into a giant party where voters could meet the players, and local sponsors could set up booths, advertise, etc.

Once elected, the Board would review the current Fever personnel. The Board would have the right to eliminate he position of General Manager and make all basketball personnel decisions or retain or hire the General Manager and empower him or her with as much or as little power as it desires.

If the Board decides to run the team, they should appoint one person to be the go-to person for players, agents and coaches. We'll call this person the president of the board. Like with many European teams, the president would not be a full-time employee.

When the time came to draft players, sign free agents or make a trade, the Board would make the decisions in concert with the coaching staff. With the Internet and satellite television, it is not that hard to scout college players anymore for a 3-round draft where basically only 1st and some 2nd Round picks make the team. The coaching staff should be able to scout college players and make their recommendations to the board.

All board members could be elected for two-year terms. Ideally, four members would be elected each year to retain some consistency from year to year, while also allowing for some change if the season tickets holders are unhappy with the franchise's progress.

Imagine the interest generated in the team if a 5th grade teacher sat on the board and talked to her class about the team and the players or a local businessman with connections in the community encouraged his friends to attend a game to see about the team that he helps manage.

Would a fan board run the team perfectly? Probably not. However, how many professionals run their teams perfectly? Every GM makes mistakes, even the best. Would the fan board and the new management style - perhaps creating transparency through a Board blog that informed all season ticket holders of the Board's decisions and meetings - generate new interest in the organization? Probably. Would a local group of businessmen and women create a better ownership structure? Probably.

No offense to NBA owners, but they do not have to work that hard to market their product. The NBA generally sells itself. The WNBA is different. Using the NBA model is not going to work with the WNBA. The WNBA requires a far more grassroots approach and the billionaire owners of NBA franchises likely are not the best candidates to run effective grassroots programs. Local businessmen and women who manage and market their small, medium or large businesses on a daily basis probably know more about marketing the Fever to the local community than the owner of the Pacers. It's a different animal. It requires an approach more similar to Triple A baseball than to the NBA. The WNBA is still a rather young professional organization and therefore has different demands and opportunities than the NBA.

If the other option is folding another franchise, what does the W have to lose?

Winning with the Crowd - The Seattle Sounders

Last August, I wrote about the possibility of using fans to run a professional sports franchise.

With the Internet, blogs, cable television, NBA TV and more, die-hard NBA fans are more educated than ever. They watch games and discuss every angle on blogs and message forums. Sites exist to track prospects for the next NBA Draft and to suggest potential trades. A quick google search provides contract information for any player in the league.

Now, Major League Soccer's Seattle Sounders, with minority owner Drew Carey, are using their fans' input to build their franchise. Consequently, Seattle has sold out all 25,000+ seats for all 15 home games this season.

"I like the idea of this being a movement," Carey says. "There's no reason a team like the Clippers can't do this, or a team like the Detroit Lions. What do teams like that have to lose?"

Control, someone suggests.

"That was the argument against democracy in the United States," Carey replies, launching into a soliloquy in which he dismisses monarchies and applauds the masses.

"Let the fans vote for the GM? Don't you vote for judges you've never heard of? I believe fans know way more about sports teams than they know about judges, and judge is a pretty important job. Look, the only way fans can ever have a say in the way a team is run right now, with most teams, is to stop coming. And that's no way to run a business. We're going to have lean years. When that happens, I want them to keep coming, and we do that by having them really involved."

He's right. Can the fans in Detroit do any worse than the Lions' management over the last decade? Could Clippers' fans do any worse than Clipper management?

As I wrote in another article on mistakes of certainty(about analysts vs bloggers, but the same lie of thinking works for fans vs traditional management):

The problem, I believe, is the curse of knowledge, or more specifically, partisan thinking. When a former NBA player or coach analyzes a game on television, he believes that he is an expert because he played the game. As an expert, he starts to believe that his opinions and beliefs are facts. When he analyzes games, he colors his commentary to reinforce his beliefs.

The "amateurs," however, start blogs because of their passion for the game. They approach the game not from a belief in their own expertise, but as a desire to learn more. Rather than preach about their own beliefs, they ask questions. They offer theories and then do the research to see if they are right. They do not offer opinions as an expert; they conduct research. While an NBA analyst attempts to prove himself right with his commentary, the "amateur" attempts to find answers.

Of course, an owner would be nuts to try this in basketball, right?

Team owners aren't known for welcoming change. To think a trend will develop, says David Carter, executive director of the USC Sports Business Institute, "is simply wishful thinking."

But, why not? Real Madrid and FC Barcelona, two of the richest franchises in the world, use elections to decide the president of the board (the general manager). Last week Barcelona completed the treble, winning the domestic league, domestic cup and European cup championships in the same year.

The criticism, of course, is that fans are notoriously fickle. However, with over 10,000 people, the vote evens out.

Imagine the sense of ownership that fans would feel if they really had a say in the management of the franchise.

In Sacramento, would the local citizens have voted for a new arena if they had some say in the management of the team? How many residents would pay to join a Kings' Booster Club for the rights to vote on management? How many fans would have a favorable impression of the Kings and the Maloofs, as opposed to the current ill-will toward the billionaire owners who famously appeared in a Carl's Jr. commercial saying that they drink thousand dollar wine with their $6 hamburger while asking local citizens to raise taxes to pay for their new arena?

In a community like Sacramento - where there is nothing but the Kings and Triple A baseball - giving control to the fans would be genius. Kings fans live and die with the Kings - why shouldn't they have some control over the board and the management?

I've been on the negative side of a board. I was fired by a board that had no contact with me the day after the board member who I met with on a weekly basis talked to me about a 2-3 year plan. But, that's life, right? Don't win enough games or curry favor with the right people and you lose a job. Why protect millionaires because they don't want to lose their million-dollar jobs?

If the NBA wants to be an entertainment league - and by all accounts the league is based on entertainment first - why not engage the fans? As franchises look for ways to cut costs and raise revenue, the idea of using the crowds seems to help the bottom line, too, while also engaging fans in a way that amkes them more likely to renew season tickets and buy more gear.

Eveentually, an owner will look to use the fans in some capacity in the decision-making process. And, when it happens, I will become a fan and buy some gear. I'll have a new favorite team.

Randomness and Personnel Changes

On twitter (follow me @brianmccormick), I saw a link to True Hoops' Daily Bullets which linked an article by Dave Berri about randomness. I agree with Berri's rationalization of the Cleveland vs. Orlando series.

I am one who believes that we should recognize the regular season champion more formally as a Champion, not as the team that choked in the play-offs.

I devised a plan to fix the NBA.

1) Get rid of the play-offs.
2) Crown a regular season champion.
3) Shorten the season so each team plays every other team home and away (58 games)

To make the league more exciting and to elevate the intensity each and every game, a shortened season makes sense. One early season loss ultimately could determine the champion, because there is no play-off for a team to make up for a sub-par record.

I believe that the team who makes it through the regular season with the best record is probably the best team. As Berri writes, a league deals with randomness in a play-off series of any length:

“…if one team is good enough to warrant beating another in 55% of its games, the weaker team will nevertheless win a 7-game series about 4 times out of 10. And if the superior team could beat its opponent, on average, 2 out of 3 times they meet, the inferior team will still win a 7-game series about once every 5 match-ups. There is really no way for a sports league to change this.

Unfortunately, the public enjoys the randomness, as it provides good theater, and the NBA is more about entertainment than crowning a true champion.

The problem occurs when organizations allow the post-season to determine their personnel decisions as opposed to the regular season.

Several years ago, the Bulls lost a close series to the eventual champion Miami Heat, and the Bulls felt they were on the cusp on greatness. They traded Tyson Chandler (and J.R. Smith) in order to sign Ben Wallace.

The problem, as I wrote at the time, was that the Bulls peaked in that series. They played as well as the collective group of players could play. Adding Ben Wallace, an older, shorter version of Chandler was not going to help them make the leap.

The experts sound as if the Bulls were one shot blocker away from a championship. Defense was not their problem. And, Tyson Chandler was an effective defensive player, rebounder and shot blocker. Chandler's problem was his inability to score. Now, the Bulls have a shorter, yet stronger Chandler who is 10 years older and even more expensive, and still have nobody to play PF who is a legit interior presence on the offensive end.

And, during the season, I wrote:

The Bulls are struggling and people seem not to know why. First, they struggled last season at this point. Second, they continue not to address their biggest weakness (a consistent scoring presence beyond mid-range jump shooters). Third, their big acquisitions over the past two years have been an aging rebounding machine known for his energy and defense (Wallace) and two first round picks who do almost the same thing (Thomas and Noah). Finally, the Bulls have peaked with their personnel. In the past two seasons, the Bulls maximized their potential.

While others look at their youth and see the potential, is it realistic to expect a team of jump shooters and role players to elevate into a championship contender?...They are what they are: a jump shooting team that plays hard and defends well, but who is now a bottom-level Eastern Conference play-off team.

I wonder if the Bulls will make the same mistakes this year after surprising people with their close play-off series against the undermanned Celtics.

Will they give in to Ben Gordon's contract demands to keep the team together and make another run? Or, will they finally a make a move to put the Bulls over the top rather than maintaining?

Two years ago, their reluctance to part with Luol Deng cost them Pau Gasol. Are they willing to part with Deng or another young player not named Rose to acquire the type of offensive inside presence that they have lacked since they traded Elton Brand? Will they spend their money to keep an undersized jump shooting SG or make a splash for a difference maker?

Ben Gordon has some phenomenal battles with Ray Allen in the play-offs. However, I don't see him as the lead dog on a championship contender and he apparently wants lead dog-type cash. If the Bulls give him that type of money, they tie their hands and likely lose the ability to sign or acquire another big-time player, meaning any improvement depends on the development of Rose, Thomas, Noah and this year's 1st Round pick. So, how much better will Rose, Noah and Thomas get? Will their improvement alone be enough to overtake Cleveland, Boston and Orlando, while also holding off Philadelphia, Toronto, Washington, Miami, Atlanta and others?

Or, does Chicago need to make a change to take the next step? What would it take to acquire Chris Bosh or Amare Stoudemire to pair with Derrick Rose for the next 10 years? Or, how much value does Kirk Hinrich have? Would a trade of Hinrich allow the Bulls the financial flexibility to re-sign Gordon and acquire another player? Does John Salmons presence make Gordon redundant? Since Thomas and Noah play the same role, could the Bulls use one of them to acquire a different piece?

The Bulls are just one team that cannot allow the randomness of one play-off series to affect its off-season moves too greatly. While Cleveland likely will make a move to show its desire to winning to LeBron James, do they need to? Can they afford to make a move? Can they afford not to make a move?

How will Denver's near finals appearance affect its decision-making? With their salaries, how can they afford to improve their roster? On the other hand, how long is their window open? Are they one minor addition away or do they need another significant move, like acquiring Chauncey Billups, that may cost it one of its core players?

Basketball Training-oriented Articles

For those of you looking for more information on basketball training:

• Individual defense and the crossover step (featuring a female player looking to play in Spain)
• Training and Skill Progressions
• Shooting Footwork with Austin Nichols
• Dealing with Soreness
• Why Basketball Skill Trainers Fail