Those who follow college basketball are split on the implications of star basketball player Brandon Jennings' decision to go off overseas, rather than follow the traditional, established path to the NBA. I have a tough time criticizing someone who decides that college basketball and college are not for him. I think it is premature to judge Brandon, mostly because the public and the media does not know all the factors that went into his decision. Clearly, he is not academically motivated, which for 99.999% of the population is not a good thing, but in Brandon's situation this may turn out to be fine. Hopefully, he is motivated to learn about those things that most directly impact his responsibilities and opportunities as a professional basketball player. The college basketball community and media will be watching to see how the Brandon Jennings Experiment turns out. If he succeeds in Europe, basketball's most likely "one and done" prospects will have a viable option. If Brandon fails he might end up becoming a cautionary tale, although the population of one does is still not a sufficient sample to reach any meaningful conclusion.
Let's look at a sampling of opinions:
ESPN's Doug Gottlieb (subscription required) thinks Brandon is getting in over his head, writing "Jennings is not ready for the culture shock of playing overseas, for the challenge of playing grown men as opposed to over-matched high schoolers, for the huge drop in the NBA draft stock. Yet that might not be enough to deter him from skipping school. And in the long run, he might end up a lower-rated NBA prospect but a better player and more well-rounded, grounded person."
Jason Whitlock "Why risk being the next O.J. Mayo, the USC one-and-done-er done in by sloppy ESPN reporting, a former, opportunistic friend/ex-drug-dealer and antiquated NCAA rules?" Comment: The problem going forward is every top basketball must be prepared to the get the full O.J. Mayo Treatment. If they have any skeletons in their closet or even just some questionable associations, the media and rival fan sites will bury the kid.
Sports agent David Bauman (and an Emory classmate of mine) on how the college basketball might change if Brandon succeeds: "College would be a bunch of nobodies. TV interest would drop and the overall product would suffer."
Comment: College basketball will be fine, even if the top 5 to 7 players bypass college. In fact, I think it might be even better. The focus can turn to those who want to be in college and have the ability, the interest and the motivation to do the academic work.
Several interesting comments from a Washington Post article on the topic:
Syracuse basketball coach Jim Boeheim
"[Jennings is] only doing it because he's desperate. He wants to be a one-and-done player. So he doesn't sit out [a year] some place, he wants to go play. I'm not even sure he'll be that wanted in Europe. He's a thin, little guard, and European basketball is pretty good these days. It's not like he's going to go over there and be a star."
Comment: Sour grapes. Was Syracuse's most famous one-and-done any more academically prepared and motivated than Brandon? From my perspective it is inappropriate for a college coach to comment on a player's academic background, especially since he has no direct connection to him. Also, while I respect Boeheim's coaching ability and also his international experience, since when did he become an expert on European professional basketball?
NCAA president Myles Brand
"Before the rule took effect and we had some young men jump from high school to the pros, we had a successful game and March Madness pulled in millions of dollars. After the rule, we've had some success and March Madness has pulled in millions of dollars. Either way for us is fine. It's up to the young man."
Comment: Agreed! For those who accuse the NCAA of being a monopoly, the argument weakens if players have viable options.
--Marc Isenberg
UPDATE: Sporting News college basketball writer Mike DeCourcy emailed: "Any idea if this David Bauman fellow was living in Singapore or something from 1995-2005, a period during which college basketball missed out on Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant and LeBron James -- and still landed a $6 billion TV contract for its postseason tournament alone?"
Comment: College basketball is a marketing juggernaut. The D-League unquestionably has more talented basketball players, but how many people follow the league? The college basketball consumer is not savvy enough to figure this out, nor do they even care. DeCourcy also writes one of the more well-reasoned articles on the topic. David may not understand the popularity of college basketball, but he certainly understands NBA free agency.
Thanks for the roundup! Jennings might end up having the impact on the 19+1 rule that Kevin Garnett had on preps to pros in 1995. The funny thing is that both were driven by an inability to compete academically. I don't think the NCAA/NBA took into account what would happen to players that couldn't make themselves academically eligible.
Posted by: Nate Jones | July 10, 2008 at 08:01 AM
Why shouldn't one and doners get paid to play? They bring in billions to the schools and get what? A scholarship? I hope more head to Europe to prove the NBA's 19 yr rule is terrible.
Posted by: Bo | July 11, 2008 at 05:24 AM
I give the young guy credit for reaching out and trying something new. Jennings may not be a superstar in Europe, but he's not going to be one his 1st year in the NBA either. At least this way, he gets to go play w/ solid competition and he'll make money in the progress. Better the player makes it than the NCAA.
More alarming that Jennings leaving for Europe, I feel, is the departure of Josh Childress to Europe. Sure, he's no Josh Smith or Joe Johnson, but he got the money where it was available - Atlanta sure wasn't going to pay him anything more than a minimum.
Great analysis of the whole issue btw... I usually don't agree w/ Jason Whitlock, but he's had a few good articles recently, including this one on Jennings.
Posted by: J.Jerseys | July 28, 2008 at 08:31 PM