You say potato, Mark Bradley says poe-ta-toe.

I was prepared to write one of those “stopped clock right twice-a-day” posts about Mark Bradley’s column on doing away with the NBA’s one-and-done rule, when his logic got in the way.

Stern said this week he’d prefer a two-and-done rule. Mark Cuban, who owns the Dallas Mavericks, is plumping for three-and-done. Some prefer the baseball way: A player can sign with a pro team if drafted out of high school, but if he chooses to play in college he can’t be drafted again until after his junior season. Me, I don’t like any of those suggestions.

… The best course would be to repeal the NBA’s rule and replace it with no rule, to return to the days where high schoolers could be drafted.

Got that?  Bradley doesn’t like a rule that allows high school players to be drafted, but no rule, so that high school players can be drafted?  That works.

As long as we’re in agreement, I guess.

About these ads

6 Comments

Filed under Media Punditry/Foibles

6 responses to “You say potato, Mark Bradley says poe-ta-toe.

  1. Lrgk9

    Sign the verdict as Foreman and sent it to the Judge then…

  2. Monday Night Frotteur

    He doesn’t like the second half of the first rule, which says that players who play one year in college must stay for 3 years.

    And he’s right to dislike it; that’s an awful rule that will turn college basketball into Ivy League white kid garbage.

    All of these complex schemes are silly; KISS. Colleges should man up and let schools pay players more than $25,000/year. Give kids a reason to freely choose college ball instead of taking a shot at the NBA.

  3. Cojones

    Yeah. That would be bright. Just pay the amateurs.

    Please tell me again how three years is going to hurt college BBall?

    I think we have gotten so used to the bad rules already invoked for college BBall that we think we have to change our entire approach to the sport because of the bad rules, not change the bad rules. What’s wrong with returning to at least 3 years in college? Afraid they won’t make it and we have screwed over their lives by making them get a higher education? We might as well drop HS and Middle school as well since these kids are in a miniplantation system.

    Why can’t we discuss the pros and cons, listed, for changing the system instead of trying to figure out if Mark Bradley’s faux pas is a mistake or he is just double speaking to himself?

    • Monday Night Frotteur

      Revenue athletes haven’t been amateurs for 60+ years (since the beginning of the Grant in Aid).

      The 3 year rule will destroy college basketball because many/most of the elite talent won’t sign on for that (they all want to be one and done), so you’ll have an even lower talent level then you have now. The low talent level is really hurting the sport; if it weren’t for the best postseason in sports, CBB would be a shadow of what it was in the 80s/early 90s.

      The huge problem right now is the value of the collegiate option. $25,000/year for 50+ hour work weeks getting yelled at by some coach? No thanks. It’s no wonder why kids flee even when they aren’t guaranteed first round picks. We need to work on that end of the equation; college has to be more lucrative for revenue athletes (CFB is saved by the pathetically weak NFLPA).

  4. wingdawg

    Yeah, hooray for the MLB approach. College baseball is really thriving.