Brackins Returns to ISU

Here's a good article about Blake Griffin's effect on Craig Brackins's decision to return to Iowa State.

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=543169

It turns out, someone had to actually do what fans have been advocating for years. Will Blalock left for the NBA draft after his junior year in 2006. ISU fans' position was that he could stay for one more year, run the team without Curtis Stinson, and improve his draft status. As it was, Blalock was selected with the last pick and never caught on with an NBA team.

It has always been my position that a basketball player should never leave early unless they are being talked about as being a lottery pick. The reason behind this is that most likely, 30 players are being thrown around as lottery picks, and 3o players get selected in the first round. The first round, of course, corresponds to guaranteed contracts.

Last year, Blake Griffin would have been a lottery pick. Instead, he came back for one more year of college and became the consensus number one pick in the 2009 NBA draft. Obviously, this can only happen for one player a year, but his decision has had an impact on many players eligible for this year's draft. At least ten potential first round draft picks have chose to return for another year of college basketball.

Players have finally realized that getting drafted does not guarantee NBA riches. The real money comes with finding a spot and staying on NBA rosters. This is much more likely as a lottery pick. Big money up front means more chances to make it, more time in the league leads to longevity.

This applies to Brackins. In all likelihood, he would have been a first round pick. Probably a fringe lottery pick. Nearly 20 and 10 in the Big 12 deserves that type of consideration. The NBA is littered with great college players who left early (Sean May, Adam Morrison, etc) that were never truly dominant. Brackins now understands the importance of dominating at one level before advancing to the next. He is the leading returning scorer, and the last three drafts have featured the best player in the Big 12 getting picked second overall.

Brackins choice to return is good for ISU fans, teammates and coaches, but it's also good for Craig. If he can improve his game next year and move into the lottery, he stands a much better chance at making an impact in the NBA and having a long career, increasing his chances at making big money.

I'm full of myself - more from Bleacher Report

Turns out I've already made the front page if you wait long enough.

On the NBA tab on the front page

And on the College Basketball tab.

NBA front page on Bleacher Report!

It didn't take long. I'm on the NBA front page for Bleacher Report. We'll really see how people receive my article. Next step will be the overall front page!

Athletes Don't Need to be Paid

Note: I've started posting on bleacherreport.com. Any sports stuff I write will appear on houstonramblins and bleacher report. The following article can also be found here.

Playing collegiate sports is mutually beneficial for both the players and the NCAA. The NCAA gets the better end of it, but its still a good deal for players of all skill levels.

OJ Mayo was the example used in Mr. Watkins' article. OJ Mayo went to one year of school at USC. He was not able to go directly to the NBA. That wasn't the NCAA or USC's fault, that is a NBA law. Formerly, kids with top-level talent would go directly to the NBA, but that's no longer an option. However, no one forced OJ Mayo to attend a university. If he didn't feel right about USC and Tim Floyd banking off his star talent, he could have chosen to wait out the required year by practicing his crossover and jump shot in a gym. But why would he want to do that? There are more than 3 dozen professional basketball leagues worldwide. He could get paid to play! Right out of high school! Sounds like we've got a solution.

That sucks, though, that he might have to go overseas to get his "fair market value." Nobody would be able to see him play. Nike wouldn't know whether to give him a contract. He wouldn't be playing against the best that he could be. Maybe he looks great, maybe he stinks it up. How would the NBA have graded him? Would he still go #5 in the draft after playing overseas for a year? Would anyone even know who OJ Mayo was? Therein lies the rub - OJ Mayo's payment at USC was the exposure afforded by major college basketball, ESPN, Los Angelos, the NCAA tournament, etc. OJ Mayo's future earnings will likely be higher because he attended college. Isn't that why most people go to school?

OJ Mayo and other lottery-type talent are one case. The "guys who are superstars in college but don't have the body type or athleticism to compete in the NBA" could play overseas after college. Paul Shirley carved out a decent career playing basketball professionally and no one would confuse him with a superstar.

The other 95% of college basketball players? Make sure to get your free diploma!

With all due respect to Mr. Watkins, there is a difference between playing collegiate basketball and working in a sweatshop. These kids aren't forced labor. If they need to help support their family, they can take a day job at McDonald's and work the night shift at Burger King. Nowhere is it written that one who has sports talent must be compensated for it.

Stadiums and Public Support

A response to Joe's post.

The study that Joe referenced is pretty good. That publicly financed stadiums don't really add to a city's economy isn't all that surprising. I doubt that most tax breaks for private endeavors ever realize any gain for the public as a whole. As the article points out,

A demonstration of a significant, positive economic effect on a host area
should not be seen as a prerequisite for allowing private sports
investment. Most investment in private businesses - even very
successful ones - would fail to demonstrate this kind of impact.

Another good point brought up by the study, but not really addressed,

Large conventions utilize stadiums and arenas, and super-stations and cable
television broadcast games nationally, increasing the likelihood that stadiums
and teams are successfully marketed to the rest of the country.

Joe's point about the Iowa Events Center is right on. The study was written in 1988, and in the 20 years since then, probably all of the stadiums and arenas are specific to the sport and team they host. Very few pro sports arenas are central to an metropolitan or state's major activities. Indy's RCA dome had an impact because they use it for all major sporting events in the state. They get NCAA tournament games every year, they use it for all divisions of state football championships, the Colts play there and it isn't a monstrosity, meaning it is a versatile venue. The new stadium will not have the impact that the RCA dome had. The Alamodome in San Antonio is the same type of deal. Although no pro team calls it home, it holds a similar importance.

The most prominent example I can think of is the Houston Astrodome - the "eighth wonder of the world." The first and only revolutionary stadium design, the Astrodome was central to the biggest events in the Houston area for over 30 years. The original multipurpose venue, the Astrodome was home at one time or another, four professional football teams, an MLB team, the University of Houston sports teams, nearly 20 years of bowl games, along with a final four. The Houston rodeo was held there for 37 years. Perhaps most importantly, the Astrodome was a Houston landmark. The idea of an air conditioned, indoor stadium was parallel with the over-the-top, booming persona of Houston during the 60's and 70's. The construction of the Astrodome made a lasting impact on the city that few, if any, stadiums have been able to replicate since. The builder and owner of the Astrodome - Harris County, TX.

Seattle shouldn't have to put up money for a new stadium, especially if they build it in the suburbs. It is their right to say no, and for everyone to paint them as the bad guys is ridiculous. The Sonics attendance is poor and there is no reason to think that a new stadium will help that. Besides, the current ownership wants to move the team to OKC, where there seems to be demand. The NBA should be okay with this. The city of Seattle supports the Seahawks fanatically, perhaps there just isn't enough support there for the Sonics, too. One would think that OKC will be supportive of the team for no other reason than there is no competition in the city or in the state. Any pro franchise should do better in a region without any other pro franchises. The OKC Sonics should be a "state team" much like the Indianapolis Colts are. Durant, the good young talent they have and the multitude of draft picks they have in the next few years should provide some additional excitement. If the demand isn't there in Seattle, why would the NBA force them to stay?

Lebron to the Nets? pt2

Note: this started as a comment, but quickly evolved into a dissertation; hence, the separate post.

One thing is undeniably clear, LeBron James is the most business savvy basketball player that has ever played in the NBA. I think Jordan took what was given to him (to use a terrible cliche). Nike came calling, and he obliged. So did Fruit of the Loom, and so on and so forth. But he really didn't do much other than play basketball and take his money. He was pretty quiet, and let the marketers define him. This was a wise move on his part - to let professionals build him into a global icon. However, the other ventures he's led weren't maximized in a business or marketing sense (baseball, team ownership, team management, etc). LeBron came out of the gate and took a shorter contract in order that he might make more money in the long term. Unheard of, but pure brilliance, none the less. Most in the NBA business were surprised by it. Something so simple yet so obvious is a mark of business genius. Everyone else in the class (Wade, Bosh, Carmelo) obviously thought so. The Cleveland Cavaliers know LeBron has a different mindset. They know he's about more than basketball. I'd bet they've talked with him about it. The Cavs haven't won anything relevant in a really long time. Getting to the finals proved to LeBron and the team that they can get close. I would not argue that LeBron wants to win a championship for his "hometown" team. Immediately elevates the legacy. However, I don't think he needs to win multiple championships there. The Cavs and LeBron have decided to pull all the stops for him to win a championship in Cleveland and then see what happens from there (see: Brooklyn Nets). Cleveland is happy (kinda), the front office can say it tried, and LeBron won one for the home team. He'll might be vilified by Cleveland for jumping ship, but the national media will love the move.

All these articles give great reasons for him to go, now a couple, small, reasons it might not work.

1. Cleveland can give him more money.

One of the best parts about the NBA. Allow the team that has a player give him a larger max contract than anyone else. Every other pro sport allows a player to get poached from the team that drafted him, but the NBA gives a player's current team the upper hand. It's why Kobe stayed in LA, it's why Carmelo will stay in Denver. Some smaller markets can't afford the max contract, but Cleveland would for LeBron. He wouldn't make more money in NY unless he had a stake in the operation ...

2. Players can't own part of the team.

This is one way that the NBA is similar to other pro sports. A stake in a franchise would make a lot of sense to someone like LeBron who already makes more money off other sources than basketball. It would also allow LeBron to capitalize on the marketing money that his name would draw in NY. Unless, of course, Jay-Z would go 50-50 with LeBron on his new marketing company and get in on some of the advertising revenue the new stadium would bring in with the game's biggest star. Let's not forget ...

3. Jay-Z is not the Nets majority owner

Bruce Ratner is the principal owner. And as such, would probably want as large a chunk of the LeBron pie as he could get. He's a developer, the one who initially floated the idea of bringing the Nets to Brooklyn. Landing LeBron makes his investment increase ten-fold. The 'new' New York team, with LeBron? Shoot. Good luck prying any of the marketing money out of his hands. LeBron and Jay-Z could try some auxillary marketing opportunities, but without NY, they'd have the same opportunities in Cleveland as they would in Brooklyn.

4. What would he do with that house?!?