Great piece by Simmons on the refs on ESPN.com today. I agree with most of it. One exception was last night's game against the Nuggs. I thought it was the best officiated game of the series. Maybe that's because Game 4 was the worst, but with a few exceptions, I thought it was pretty fair. Were there a couple of bad calls on Nene? Yeah. Although his sixth could have been judged a block (and was) depending on the ref's angle. As it turned out, it was a bad call. Did Luke Walton foul out on a bunch of bad calls the game before? Sure. But you can chalk that up to home court to a certain sense. In a way, Game 5 was the first home game I thought the Lakers received more calls, got some home cooking. That happens. That's part of one's home court advantage.
But of all people, George Karl complained about last night's game while weasily saying he didn't want to complain. Specifically, he and Simmons mentioned all the times Melo got hacked. As if the Nuggets haven't been grabbing and clawing at the Lakers in the paint. Several times last night Kobe went to the rim and was unrewarded by the officials. That's ok by me. He gets too many calls to begin with. But the refs have treated Melo with kid gloves in every single game prior to last night. And he still took 13 foul shots. I know that's part of his MO. Be aggressive, drive to the hole, draw fouls but Game 5 was the fourth straight game where he shot double-digit free throws and two of those have been on the Lakers home court. And in Game 1, the only game he didn't shoot at least ten FTs (he had 8 in a game where he was 14-20 from the field), the Nuggets went to the line 35 times to the Lakers 24. Add in the terrible no call on JR Smith's jump ball violation in Game 2 and I'd say Denver has had it pretty good in this series. If anybody has been given calls it's them. If Chauncey Billups runs into you and falls down it's always a call. His four-point play against Kobe in Game 3 was an awful call.
As LO pointed out this was probably the Lakers best game of the playoffs. And it wasn't because Kobe and Pau dominated and the offense flowed. It was beacuse they scrapped and played D at the rim. They put in the effort and it paid off. One more effort like that and they'll be playing for the title.
Still, one thing scares me about the officiating and that's this 7 techs equals a suspension rule. It's a horrible rule and it just might cost either Kobe or Dwight Howard a game down the line. I can't speak to how dumb the league would look if one of their marquee guys couldn't suit up for an NBA Finals game because he had too many techs in the playoffs. About as dumb as they looked in the Phoenix-SA series two years ago. People want to see the stars and teams at full strength. I don't know why Denver doesn't have Jason Hart enter the game and try and mug Kobe and get him mad. Thankfully, the L rescinded Howard's sixth T after Varejao tackled him on the way to the basket and I think the league will do everything it can not to let one of these two superstars miss a game. But you never know. Just ask Amare.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Bullish on Bryant, not on Billups
After Sunday's escape I like the Lakers against the Nuggs. As I've said before, the playoffs are about matchups and against Denver the Lakers win almost every one. I'll take the Lakers in six and the Cavs in seven. I think Cleveland finally gets a test.
What I like about the Lakes boils down to their bigs (assuming they come to play) and Kobe. Bryant had a very mediocre series against Houston. He settled for jumpshots which is what he did in the regular season against the Rockets. The results were some poor shooting nights. I was encouraged to see though that in both Game 5 and 7 he took the ball to the basket a little more. In Game 5, it was a quick and read and go. In Game 7, he ran into a ton of congestion and didn't get a whole lot of calls. Believe me, Dahntay Jones is a welcomed sight for the Bean. And what happens when/if Jones goes the the bench? The Nuggets can't rotate someone like Artest or Battier over to try and stop the Kobester.
I can't stress how important a free Kobe is. At times, PJ puts a bunch of guys on the floor that are all mostly facilitators. Some of those early second Q lineups had me screaming at the TV. You need guys on the floor that can create and make shots. And as good as the Lakers are offensively, Kobe carries a lion share. If he's not lighting it up for 40 points, he can create opportunities for others just by being out on the floor.
Secondly, even though KB has a more than a tendency to go tit for tat when playing another superstar, he should recognize that against Denver he can get his more easily when the bigs are scoring. He always pulls playground stuff against both Wade and LeBron. I'm hoping he doesn't do this with Carmelo or even Billups. I really like Chauncey's game but I don't think he can win a series for you anymore. I know he had a big game against the Hornets in Round 1, but I don't think he's ever played as well as he did against the Lakers in the 2004 NBA finals.
Third, as everyone is jumping on the Nuggets bandwagon I'd say look at their competition so far. The NOH did not have a healthy center and the Mavs' best big rarely ventured below fifteen feet. Yes, the Nuggets are 8-2 but they could be 8-0. And now they don't have home court. I also think it's an advantage for the Lakers to play a quick turnaround in Game 1. LA should be pumped tonight and I think they'll win. Maybe not Vegas big but by around ten I'd say.
What I like about the Lakes boils down to their bigs (assuming they come to play) and Kobe. Bryant had a very mediocre series against Houston. He settled for jumpshots which is what he did in the regular season against the Rockets. The results were some poor shooting nights. I was encouraged to see though that in both Game 5 and 7 he took the ball to the basket a little more. In Game 5, it was a quick and read and go. In Game 7, he ran into a ton of congestion and didn't get a whole lot of calls. Believe me, Dahntay Jones is a welcomed sight for the Bean. And what happens when/if Jones goes the the bench? The Nuggets can't rotate someone like Artest or Battier over to try and stop the Kobester.
I can't stress how important a free Kobe is. At times, PJ puts a bunch of guys on the floor that are all mostly facilitators. Some of those early second Q lineups had me screaming at the TV. You need guys on the floor that can create and make shots. And as good as the Lakers are offensively, Kobe carries a lion share. If he's not lighting it up for 40 points, he can create opportunities for others just by being out on the floor.
Secondly, even though KB has a more than a tendency to go tit for tat when playing another superstar, he should recognize that against Denver he can get his more easily when the bigs are scoring. He always pulls playground stuff against both Wade and LeBron. I'm hoping he doesn't do this with Carmelo or even Billups. I really like Chauncey's game but I don't think he can win a series for you anymore. I know he had a big game against the Hornets in Round 1, but I don't think he's ever played as well as he did against the Lakers in the 2004 NBA finals.
Third, as everyone is jumping on the Nuggets bandwagon I'd say look at their competition so far. The NOH did not have a healthy center and the Mavs' best big rarely ventured below fifteen feet. Yes, the Nuggets are 8-2 but they could be 8-0. And now they don't have home court. I also think it's an advantage for the Lakers to play a quick turnaround in Game 1. LA should be pumped tonight and I think they'll win. Maybe not Vegas big but by around ten I'd say.
Friday, May 15, 2009
I give up
As someone who watches nearly every Laker game I'm really at a loss to explain their play last night or against the Rockets in general. At one point, after I had resigned myself to a Game 7, I thought the Lakers would come back and win Game 6. It was there. After the first half, or even first Q, Houston didn't play all that great. Unfortunately, the Rockets hit enough clutch shots late in the third and into the fourth to win it. After LA gave them that comfortable cushion.
I've written before on how the Lakers seem to add a degree of difficulty to their play this year. This has been highlighted even more in the Houston series. Take for instance Pau Gasol. I thought he was terrible in Game 6. Why he can't catch the ball deeper or back in Chuck Hayes (who is half a foot shorter) on every play is beyond me. Add in his awful defense against Scola and this was one of his worst playoff games as a Laker.
If you look at the stats, excluding their palty 80 total points, you might think LA didn't play that poorly. They took 13 more shots than Houston. They outrebounded the Rockets. They had fewer turnovers. And yet they never led. Take a gander at the Lakes' plus/minus numbers. Everyone gets an F on that one. For all intents and purposes, they were in the game for a few minutes in the third. Then Houston hit some big shots and it was over.
The biggest stat is that this was only the second time the Lakers have lost a game wire to wire. The first was Game 4. That's a telling stat. Even when they endured embarassing losses during the regular season, nearly all of them were close games that the Lakers had a chance to win (nearly every game against the Rockets this season was close). This was also a quality, if you can call it that, of last year's team. Sometimes they played down to their competition but they always were competitive. They never got blown out, with the exception of Game 6 in Boston.
So why are the Rockets such a difficult puzzle to solve? Are the Lakers really playing as poorly as it seems? And who is to blame? The best I can do is this: Despite their February trip through the east coast where they really played decent defense (see the second half at Cleveland), the Lakers have relied way too much on their offense. PJ basically threw the towel in on LA improving defensively early in the season. The caveat to this is they can defend, they're capable of defending against certain teams. The playoffs are about matchups and the Lakers match up well against slower methodical teams (Utah, Houston, Cleveland). That's why they were psyched to play the Rockets, who with Yao are a grind away team. Without him or TMac they are, as Charles says, a bunch of scrappy pit bulls.
The Lakers players are to blame in much of this but Phil Jackson's refusal to adjust to the Rockets new lineup I believe has cost them a chance of closing this out earlier. As was evident in Game 3, late in Game 4 and in Game 5, using Farmar and Brown to combat Houston's quickness on the perimeter is a good thing. So why is PJ so married to playing Fish, to starting Fish until he shows he doesn't have it. The Lakes bigs are bad enough rotating to a driving guard. But they have no chance with the way Fish has escorted Brooks to the basket.
Also perplexing is why PJ has stuck with Sasha throughout this series. Even in their forty-point win he sucked. Cut the cord. Play the players who are doing reasonably well like Brown and Jordan. I'm not even going to get into how Vlad might have helped this roster. Brown has played well enough. Give him more minutes and earlier. And pressure the Rockets ballhandlers. It works.
All this said, I and I'm sure most Laker fans, expect a win on Sunday. And should that happen I wouldn't be surprised to see the Lakers beat the Nuggets and the Cavs. The way LA played Games 2, 3 and 5 certainly means something, right? But for all the time I've spent watching them this year, I'm really struggling to explain what exactly that is. I'm not sure even Sunday will tell us but right now Sunday is all we have.
I've written before on how the Lakers seem to add a degree of difficulty to their play this year. This has been highlighted even more in the Houston series. Take for instance Pau Gasol. I thought he was terrible in Game 6. Why he can't catch the ball deeper or back in Chuck Hayes (who is half a foot shorter) on every play is beyond me. Add in his awful defense against Scola and this was one of his worst playoff games as a Laker.
If you look at the stats, excluding their palty 80 total points, you might think LA didn't play that poorly. They took 13 more shots than Houston. They outrebounded the Rockets. They had fewer turnovers. And yet they never led. Take a gander at the Lakes' plus/minus numbers. Everyone gets an F on that one. For all intents and purposes, they were in the game for a few minutes in the third. Then Houston hit some big shots and it was over.
The biggest stat is that this was only the second time the Lakers have lost a game wire to wire. The first was Game 4. That's a telling stat. Even when they endured embarassing losses during the regular season, nearly all of them were close games that the Lakers had a chance to win (nearly every game against the Rockets this season was close). This was also a quality, if you can call it that, of last year's team. Sometimes they played down to their competition but they always were competitive. They never got blown out, with the exception of Game 6 in Boston.
So why are the Rockets such a difficult puzzle to solve? Are the Lakers really playing as poorly as it seems? And who is to blame? The best I can do is this: Despite their February trip through the east coast where they really played decent defense (see the second half at Cleveland), the Lakers have relied way too much on their offense. PJ basically threw the towel in on LA improving defensively early in the season. The caveat to this is they can defend, they're capable of defending against certain teams. The playoffs are about matchups and the Lakers match up well against slower methodical teams (Utah, Houston, Cleveland). That's why they were psyched to play the Rockets, who with Yao are a grind away team. Without him or TMac they are, as Charles says, a bunch of scrappy pit bulls.
The Lakers players are to blame in much of this but Phil Jackson's refusal to adjust to the Rockets new lineup I believe has cost them a chance of closing this out earlier. As was evident in Game 3, late in Game 4 and in Game 5, using Farmar and Brown to combat Houston's quickness on the perimeter is a good thing. So why is PJ so married to playing Fish, to starting Fish until he shows he doesn't have it. The Lakes bigs are bad enough rotating to a driving guard. But they have no chance with the way Fish has escorted Brooks to the basket.
Also perplexing is why PJ has stuck with Sasha throughout this series. Even in their forty-point win he sucked. Cut the cord. Play the players who are doing reasonably well like Brown and Jordan. I'm not even going to get into how Vlad might have helped this roster. Brown has played well enough. Give him more minutes and earlier. And pressure the Rockets ballhandlers. It works.
All this said, I and I'm sure most Laker fans, expect a win on Sunday. And should that happen I wouldn't be surprised to see the Lakers beat the Nuggets and the Cavs. The way LA played Games 2, 3 and 5 certainly means something, right? But for all the time I've spent watching them this year, I'm really struggling to explain what exactly that is. I'm not sure even Sunday will tell us but right now Sunday is all we have.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Celts-Bulls
After sleeping on it, I think the refs made the right call on Rondo in assessing him a flagrant 1 (although I still think he could have been tossed). He wasn't and finished with a pretty incredible game. He can't shoot (4-17) but 19 assists and nine boards and zero turnovers is impressive. Throw in Ray Allen's amazing output (his ball has so little backspin and I can't think of a great shooter with a similar shot) and it was a great game.
As for the greatness of the series, I am tempering my praise. There have been some great finishes, particularly, as Sir Charles pointed out last night, on the part of the Cs. It seems like Allen and Paul Pierce have made about 20 game-tying shots. But the one problem I really have is the Bulls blowing leads and their inability to finish. They should have won Game 2. They blew a 13-point lead in Game 5 and a ten-point lead last night.
Part of this is attributed to their youth. Derrick Rose had five turnovers last night and looked shakey down the stretch aside from his block on Rondo, one of the best game-saving blocks of all time. To recover like that takes a special player. The Bulls real problem is their coach. In Game 1, Vinny Del Negro ran out of timeouts. Ok, rookie coach. In Game 2, the same thing happened and it cost Chicago a chance to advance the ball and get a better game-ending shot.
I'm not sure that mattered so much considering the plays the Bulls run out of timeouts. There's no movement and too many times they end up going one on one with Gordon, Rose or Salmons taking contested shots. At the end of the second OT last night, they didn't even get a shot up with Brad Miller handling and losing the ball around half court. When Perkins fouled out, only once did they take the ball to the hole.
You notice these things when you're rooting for a team (I'm actually rooting against the Cs because I hate them). I'm certainly not the first to say it but Del Negro looks so over his head. If it wasn't for the clutch shots Gordon and Rose and last night Miller and Salmons have made, this series would have been over in five in favor of the Cs. It's no compliment to VDN that Bulls could have won this series in the same amount of games.
As for the greatness of the series, I am tempering my praise. There have been some great finishes, particularly, as Sir Charles pointed out last night, on the part of the Cs. It seems like Allen and Paul Pierce have made about 20 game-tying shots. But the one problem I really have is the Bulls blowing leads and their inability to finish. They should have won Game 2. They blew a 13-point lead in Game 5 and a ten-point lead last night.
Part of this is attributed to their youth. Derrick Rose had five turnovers last night and looked shakey down the stretch aside from his block on Rondo, one of the best game-saving blocks of all time. To recover like that takes a special player. The Bulls real problem is their coach. In Game 1, Vinny Del Negro ran out of timeouts. Ok, rookie coach. In Game 2, the same thing happened and it cost Chicago a chance to advance the ball and get a better game-ending shot.
I'm not sure that mattered so much considering the plays the Bulls run out of timeouts. There's no movement and too many times they end up going one on one with Gordon, Rose or Salmons taking contested shots. At the end of the second OT last night, they didn't even get a shot up with Brad Miller handling and losing the ball around half court. When Perkins fouled out, only once did they take the ball to the hole.
You notice these things when you're rooting for a team (I'm actually rooting against the Cs because I hate them). I'm certainly not the first to say it but Del Negro looks so over his head. If it wasn't for the clutch shots Gordon and Rose and last night Miller and Salmons have made, this series would have been over in five in favor of the Cs. It's no compliment to VDN that Bulls could have won this series in the same amount of games.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
The fix is in
My god, the Celts are getting away with murder in their series with the Bulls. Not only is Rondo not suspended for this game, he should have been tossed for throwing Kirk Hinrich into the scorer's table. WTF? The officiating has been and will continue to be a problem for the L as the playoffs go on. My bet is Boston wins Game 6 and then Rondo is suspended for Game 1 of round 2. A lot of good that will do the Bulls. Is there any doubt Rondo is a dirty player? It's like let's see what I can get away with next. And yet the League's reaction to the face slap on Brad Miller was that he didn't wind up. HE HIT HIM IN THE HEAD. I seem to remember Trevor Ariza getting suspended for hitting Rudy Fernandez in the head during the regular season. What a joke.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Heels
I was glad to see the Heels run Michigan State out of the State on Monday night. Not that I'm a Carolina fan. Not that I dislike Izzo and the Spartans. But MSU (does anyone really call them MSU) played way above their heads in the three games leading up to the final. I picked SC to beat them and the Trojans came closer than either Louisville or UConn. They couldn't compensate for Travis Walton having a career game, an 18-point career game I might add. Sparty was also lucky to get by KU which with the exception of Sherron Collins was not a great Jayhawk squad.
But that's the thing. For all the hype the 'Ville got coming into the tourney or UConn received all season long, no one was that great. Because no one in college ball is anymore. At least, not on a team level. Both these Big East teams have some future NBA players on their squads. But no one that intimidates you with their game. Not yet at least.
Which brings me back to the champs. Clearly, they were the best team. In fact, I think future NCAA championships are going to decided just on which big time program (UNC, Florida, Kansas UNC again), can hold on to their recruiting classes the longest. This was always the case. It's just that now holding on to your recruits means keeping guys who could sneak into the mid-first round if they declared. The exceptions you'll note are guys like Marvin Williams or Ed Davis, projected lottery picks who play fewer minutes on loaded squads. Roy Williams has had the luxury of hiding Davis all season, bringing him along slowly. In the end it means he'll be back for another year even though he's a top ten pick as of this moment. Who knows, if he pans out, he could be top five in 2010.
As for the other guys, many people have spent the last few days comparing them to the 2005 team that beat Illinois for the title. That team was led by Sean May, an absolute bust as a pro and Raymond Felton, a streaky, mediocre point who should be a career backup. Then there was Rashad McCants. I, like many other people, thought he was a stud in college. He's done nothing in NBA and is now in purgatory with the Kings.
The best player has turned out to be Williams. I was wondering about him earlier in the year since I hadn't seen the Hawks much. But he's a nice player. He averages 14 points a game, has turned into a decent three point shooter and he's only 22. He hasn't played since early March when he hurt his back, but he still has a big upside.
Now look at this year's Heels. Is there anybody outside of Davis that can make some noise in the L? I'm not sure. Wayne Ellington is a good shooter with size, but can he do anything else? I think it was Jalen Rose who compared him to Vince Carter in size. He has nowhere near the game Vince had or has.
Ty Lawson is an awesome college point and answered a lot of questions about his game this year. I think he's better than Felton, although that's not saying much when you consider Ray hits less than 30 percent from three. But Lawson is not big. He may be strong but he's not a little tank like Kyle Lowry or Will "Diesel" Bynum. Again, I think he's a career backup.
Which brings us to Tyler Hansbrough. Sure, I admire his motor and the numbers he put up, but there are some serious deficiencies in his game. HE HAS NO LEFT HAND. Does anyone notice this? When he reverse pivots back to the center of the lane from the right side, he shoots with his right hand and with two hands. This is not going to wash in the NBA. Factor in his small size, his so-so jumper, his inability to handle and I just don't see him playing much on the next level. I certainly wouldn't waste a first round pick on him even in this crap draft.
UNC was the best team this year but that means less and less these days because there's less talent in the college game. Which is just another reason I've soured on it. I would rather watch say, Warriors-Clippers, than watch a regular season college game or a lot of tournament games for that matter. The play is slow (don't even get me started on the 35-second clock) and the shooting is bad (see UConn-Syracuse in the Big East Tourney). It's supposed to be about the drama but in reality the thrills are far and few between.
But that's the thing. For all the hype the 'Ville got coming into the tourney or UConn received all season long, no one was that great. Because no one in college ball is anymore. At least, not on a team level. Both these Big East teams have some future NBA players on their squads. But no one that intimidates you with their game. Not yet at least.
Which brings me back to the champs. Clearly, they were the best team. In fact, I think future NCAA championships are going to decided just on which big time program (UNC, Florida, Kansas UNC again), can hold on to their recruiting classes the longest. This was always the case. It's just that now holding on to your recruits means keeping guys who could sneak into the mid-first round if they declared. The exceptions you'll note are guys like Marvin Williams or Ed Davis, projected lottery picks who play fewer minutes on loaded squads. Roy Williams has had the luxury of hiding Davis all season, bringing him along slowly. In the end it means he'll be back for another year even though he's a top ten pick as of this moment. Who knows, if he pans out, he could be top five in 2010.
As for the other guys, many people have spent the last few days comparing them to the 2005 team that beat Illinois for the title. That team was led by Sean May, an absolute bust as a pro and Raymond Felton, a streaky, mediocre point who should be a career backup. Then there was Rashad McCants. I, like many other people, thought he was a stud in college. He's done nothing in NBA and is now in purgatory with the Kings.
The best player has turned out to be Williams. I was wondering about him earlier in the year since I hadn't seen the Hawks much. But he's a nice player. He averages 14 points a game, has turned into a decent three point shooter and he's only 22. He hasn't played since early March when he hurt his back, but he still has a big upside.
Now look at this year's Heels. Is there anybody outside of Davis that can make some noise in the L? I'm not sure. Wayne Ellington is a good shooter with size, but can he do anything else? I think it was Jalen Rose who compared him to Vince Carter in size. He has nowhere near the game Vince had or has.
Ty Lawson is an awesome college point and answered a lot of questions about his game this year. I think he's better than Felton, although that's not saying much when you consider Ray hits less than 30 percent from three. But Lawson is not big. He may be strong but he's not a little tank like Kyle Lowry or Will "Diesel" Bynum. Again, I think he's a career backup.
Which brings us to Tyler Hansbrough. Sure, I admire his motor and the numbers he put up, but there are some serious deficiencies in his game. HE HAS NO LEFT HAND. Does anyone notice this? When he reverse pivots back to the center of the lane from the right side, he shoots with his right hand and with two hands. This is not going to wash in the NBA. Factor in his small size, his so-so jumper, his inability to handle and I just don't see him playing much on the next level. I certainly wouldn't waste a first round pick on him even in this crap draft.
UNC was the best team this year but that means less and less these days because there's less talent in the college game. Which is just another reason I've soured on it. I would rather watch say, Warriors-Clippers, than watch a regular season college game or a lot of tournament games for that matter. The play is slow (don't even get me started on the 35-second clock) and the shooting is bad (see UConn-Syracuse in the Big East Tourney). It's supposed to be about the drama but in reality the thrills are far and few between.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
UConn
My blog is where I give my two cents, even if the clink of change is heard by few. So here's what I think about the Yahoo! story on potential violations by the University of Connecticut. First, it's a fine job of reporting and the two guys who did it are to be commended for their diligence. I know one of the reporters and I respect both of the guys. Second, you can't blame Yahoo! for pumping up the story to rival that of a mafia indictment. But, three, does anyone really care?
It's no secret among college basketball people that UConn is a dirty program. Give them credit for the fact they haven't faced something worse than this. Unless, you count stealing computers as worse, which you might. But there are just so many ways to get kids to go to school in Storrs. Or Syracuse for that matter, but that's a different story.
My point is the entire NCAA system is a crock. The NCAA and their member schools make billions of dollars off the backs of basketball players that receive very little in recompense. An education? Maybe for those who take advantage of it. But how much money does the school make off those players? There's just no comparison. Can you imagine any other system where you're met with a delay when it comes to bartering your wares? How about Miley Cyrus, for instance, having to sing or perform for basically free until she is 19. That's not America. That's not even Mexico.
That's why I believe the path of people like Brandon Jennings is the future. The kid is getting paid and realistically has made enough money for his lifetime in one year. He's struggled in Europe and yet he's still going to be a first-round pick. And to think that if he had passed his SAT (or whatever test he took), he might be playing this weekend for Arizona for free.
The biggest joke is that for all of Yahoo's great reporting, the end result is that it is defending a system that takes advantage of kids. But no one will say what the biggest problem here is. It's the NCAA.
It's no secret among college basketball people that UConn is a dirty program. Give them credit for the fact they haven't faced something worse than this. Unless, you count stealing computers as worse, which you might. But there are just so many ways to get kids to go to school in Storrs. Or Syracuse for that matter, but that's a different story.
My point is the entire NCAA system is a crock. The NCAA and their member schools make billions of dollars off the backs of basketball players that receive very little in recompense. An education? Maybe for those who take advantage of it. But how much money does the school make off those players? There's just no comparison. Can you imagine any other system where you're met with a delay when it comes to bartering your wares? How about Miley Cyrus, for instance, having to sing or perform for basically free until she is 19. That's not America. That's not even Mexico.
That's why I believe the path of people like Brandon Jennings is the future. The kid is getting paid and realistically has made enough money for his lifetime in one year. He's struggled in Europe and yet he's still going to be a first-round pick. And to think that if he had passed his SAT (or whatever test he took), he might be playing this weekend for Arizona for free.
The biggest joke is that for all of Yahoo's great reporting, the end result is that it is defending a system that takes advantage of kids. But no one will say what the biggest problem here is. It's the NCAA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
