Why do people say, 'he needs another year'?

[indeedproceed]

I'm not really talking about fringe 'might not get drafted in the first round' prospects like Lance Stephenson or Ricky Ledo, I'm talking about guys like Marcus Smart, Joel Embid, Aaron Gordon, Andrew Wiggins.

Why do people say, 'he really should stay another year'?

It's not so much a question about individual players. Just an honest questiion about the system.

If you're going to get paid a million dollars, and a team is going to draft you in the first round, why would a year in college be better than a year professionally? Can professional coaches not develop talent? It never made any sense to me.

[jojowhite10]

He needs another year before he could potentially become a real impact player in the NBA. That is, according to the draft pundits who bat at a worse average than Stephen Drew, so who knows.

No right minded individual is going to stay in college when they can play in the NBA and rake in millions while doing so. The people are living in idealistic rather than pragmatic worlds.

[Lucky17]

1. Fundamentals. If you didn't learn basic sentence structure and syntax in grade school, you'll have a hard time keeping up in AP English in high school. [Poor analogy, but you get the idea.] Spending a an extra semester or two in a crash course learning as much as you can in a comparatively safe and controlled environment will make the transition much easier.

2. These are kids we're talking about. The difference in mindset between a 19- and a 20-year old can be significant: confidence, adaptability, mentality, perspective. On the other hand, sometimes the light bulb never goes off, no matter how long you wait for it.

[indeedproceed]

He needs another year before he could potentially become a real impact player in the NBA. That is, according to the draft pundits who bat at a worse average than Stephen Drew, so who knows.

No right minded individual is going to stay in college when they can play in the NBA and rake in millions while doing so. The people are living in idealistic rather than pragmatic worlds.

Well even in a idealistic world, wouldn't the teams in the billion dollar league have access to better coaches and facilities than most college teams?

There are probably a handful of college that can give you pro level facilities, with pro level coaches, and as much time as you want at both.

Maybe Duke, Syracuse, Kentucky, Louisville, maybe 6-10 more? Even then, you're probably starting to really get liberal with the phrase 'pro level'

[Lucky17]

Oh, one other thing, perhaps re: Gordon: sometimes it's hard to get a feel for what a college player's position in the pros will be. Especially if he's not done growing, or playing out of position. Staying an extra year and demonstrating that you are definitively a SF or a PF can also lead to a smoother transition.

But yeah, it's easy for a broadcaster to say a college player should delay a multi-million-dollar payday to stay in school another year.

[Who]

I think they generally mean that a player is not ready to step into the NBA and be a difference maker. That he will need a few years to develop before being able to lead the team forward.

[indeedproceed]

Oh, one other thing, perhaps re: Gordon: sometimes it's hard to get a feel for what a college player's position in the pros will be. Especially if he's not done growing, or playing out of position. Staying an extra year and demonstrating that you are definitively a SF or a PF can also lead to a smoother transition.

But yeah, it's easy for a broadcaster to say a college player should delay a multi-million-dollar payday to stay in school another year.

I think for kids who may not get drafted, it makes total sense.

But if you're going to be able to play in the league and/or you're getting guaranteed money, doesn't this whole 'he should stay another year' speak more to the NBA's lack of effective development programs? If A-A-Ron Gordon's gonna take 2-3 years to sort out whether or not he's a good small forward or a good power forward, a team with patience and foresight would have a great opportunity in him. They could grab him at 20ish and let him develop, pour resources into him and get him where they want him to be before his 3rd year.

But you rarely hear about the guy who spends his first season in the d-league and then comes out stronger for it as a sophomore.

[Mr October]

In college, a player gets a lot more practice time. The practice to game ratio is higher. In the nba, a team can go a week or so without practice.

NBA success comes from talent, hard work, size and confidence. In college, a player can feel more encouraged about learning post moves, off hand stuff, other fundamentals, when playing against lesser competition. In the pro's you rarley see much significant low post development.

But i agree that if you are projected to be picked in the lottery, you should probably declare for the draft. The lure of financial security is too high. At that point you just hope the raw player is playing with good teammates and a good coach in a well run organization.

[Donoghus]

I think they generally mean that a player is not ready to step into the NBA and be a difference maker. That he will need a few years to develop before being able to lead the team forward.

I think this seems to sum it up best. 

It's such a case by case notion with these kids.  I don't think a wholesale generalization can be presented but I think what Who says here comes closest.

[danglertx]

Another reason that is often given in telling a kid to stay in school is that they can improve their draft position and get more money. 

That one always irks me.  If a guy is going to be drafted at say 10, and is able to stay in school and move up to say 3 the next year, pundits say, "see, he stayed in school and got an extra five million."  What they never equate in the formula is one year wasted on the kid's earning potential.  Essentially he made $0 on the first year of his new contract and that rarely works out to more money overall. 

You also want to get to your free agent year as soon as possible to maximize your real earning potential.  In the NBA you want as many free agent years as possible and staying in school steals one of those. 

So my advice to any kid looking to go pro is that if you are assured of being drafted in the first round and getting a guaranteed contract, you do it.  If you are border line first/second round you should probably go pro.  If you are definitely not going in the first round and maybe not even drafted, go back to school and stop blowing off class.

[D.o.s.]

I'm not really talking about fringe 'might not get drafted in the first round' prospects like Lance Stephenson or Ricky Ledo, I'm talking about guys like Marcus Smart, Joel Embid, Aaron Gordon, Andrew Wiggins.

Why do people say, 'he really should stay another year'?

It's not so much a question about individual players. Just an honest questiion about the system.

If you're going to get paid a million dollars, and a team is going to draft you in the first round, why would a year in college be better than a year professionally? Can professional coaches not develop talent? It never made any sense to me.

It seems to come, generally speaking, from fans who consider players as potential commodities and assets, rather than people. The same sort of people who generally seem to be opposed to free agency and player movement.

You will possibly be a better NBA player if you play more than one year of college basketball, or go overseas. However, if you factor in what dangler just pointed out, as well as the inherent risk for injury, it really doesn't make much sense to play more years outside of the NBA than you're mandated to.

[Cman]

Another reason that is often given in telling a kid to stay in school is that they can improve their draft position and get more money. 

That one always irks me.  If a guy is going to be drafted at say 10, and is able to stay in school and move up to say 3 the next year, pundits say, "see, he stayed in school and got an extra five million."  What they never equate in the formula is one year wasted on the kid's earning potential.  Essentially he made $0 on the first year of his new contract and that rarely works out to more money overall. 

You also want to get to your free agent year as soon as possible to maximize your real earning potential.  In the NBA you want as many free agent years as possible and staying in school steals one of those. 

Yes, agreed. Plus there's the possibility of injury.

I personally don't like the statement. It doesn't mean a whole lot, or, put differently, doesn't convey a whole lot of information.

[fairweatherfan]

Another reason that is often given in telling a kid to stay in school is that they can improve their draft position and get more money. 

That one always irks me.  If a guy is going to be drafted at say 10, and is able to stay in school and move up to say 3 the next year, pundits say, "see, he stayed in school and got an extra five million."  What they never equate in the formula is one year wasted on the kid's earning potential.  Essentially he made $0 on the first year of his new contract and that rarely works out to more money overall. 

You also want to get to your free agent year as soon as possible to maximize your real earning potential.  In the NBA you want as many free agent years as possible and staying in school steals one of those. 

Yeah, the rookie scale contracts were sold as a way to disincentivize leaving school early, but they've really done exactly the opposite, since you've gotta get through that rookie deal to get the big contract. 

The only way it makes sense for a likely draftee to stay another year is if it causes teams to actually overrate him and draft him much too high, but in reality the opposite is much more likely.

[kozlodoev]

Fundamentals, body, general maturity, you name it.

[indeedproceed]

Another reason that is often given in telling a kid to stay in school is that they can improve their draft position and get more money. 

That one always irks me.  If a guy is going to be drafted at say 10, and is able to stay in school and move up to say 3 the next year, pundits say, "see, he stayed in school and got an extra five million."  What they never equate in the formula is one year wasted on the kid's earning potential.  Essentially he made $0 on the first year of his new contract and that rarely works out to more money overall. 

You also want to get to your free agent year as soon as possible to maximize your real earning potential.  In the NBA you want as many free agent years as possible and staying in school steals one of those. 

Yeah, the rookie scale contracts were sold as a way to disincentivize leaving school early, but they've really done exactly the opposite, since you've gotta get through that rookie deal to get the big contract. 

The only way it makes sense for a likely draftee to stay another year is if it causes teams to actually overrate him and draft him much too high, but in reality the opposite is much more likely.

Right. For me, after reading all this I've come to the conclusions that really the only people who have a interest in widely acknowledged NBA caliber talents (guys who are assumed to be 1st rounders) staying another year in school are NBA GMs and NBA Owners.