[Cracked Sidewalks] Recruits: Big East 2nd best path to NBA, and MU 2nd best NBA path in BE

[hoyasincebirth]

So you want to expand the window, but also exclude those that "will be out of the league in a couple of years".  Sounds to me like you need a GPS to figure out where you're going.

Sorry if i was unclear. My point is that looking at players currently in the league is only a snap shot. 5 years from now the players currently in the league will be different. That shouldn't take away from the fact that that school has put those players into the league.

With regards to Avennue, yes there's a chance all those guys could be playing in 5 years, it was just an example, but they very well could be out of the league in that time frame.

Rawdog i don't know why you're so defensive, this thread is talking about this article which is why i'm discussing it.

And the article absolutely is implying what i'm suggesting. By stating Marquette is the 2nd best path to the NBA it implies going to marquette will get you into the NBA while going to a different school you are less likely to get into the NBA. I'm just saying stating the raw numbers does not prove that. I'm not complaining and I don't know why you attack so many of my statements and misinterpret them. It may be purely a semantic argument. Most players who make it in the NBA will get there no matter where they go to school and no matter where you go to school you will not make it in the NBA if you don't have the natural ability. I think most people would agree with that.

I think coaching staffs and programs can help develop certain prospects and help them achieve their goal of making it in the NBA, but i'd argue it's more on the player themselves and the work they put in than anything the coach does. The player has to put in the work the coach can't control everything. Coaches provide opportunities, but the players have to have the determination to put in the work in the off season and to put into practice a coaches instruction.  I think more credit should go to the players for their development than the coaches. We all like to think our coaching staffs know something that other staffs don't or are better at teaching certain things than others. I really don't think there's that big of a difference between the top 50 coaches in terms of what they can offer a kid as far as instruction. I think if you put Dwayne wade or Lazard Hayward on any of these other teams they would've gotten to the league just as well.

[RawdogDX]

Sorry if i was unclear. My point is that looking at players currently in the league is only a snap shot. 5 years from now the players currently in the league will be different. That shouldn't take away from the fact that that school has put those players into the league.
Yes, looking at current players it is a snap shot.  It's the snap shot we are using.  And we'll be proud of if you don't mind.  And yes if they are no longer in the league than it will effect the rankings of the teams.  Because This is a list of teams with players currently in the NBA.  There are other lists out there with most players drafted in the last 10, 20, or 50 years.

Rawdog i don't know why you're so defensive, this thread is talking about this article which is why I'm discussing it.
I'm not 'so defensive,' you must have one of those new Tone of Voice Readers.  Really a pointless way to respond, this thread is talking about this article which is why I'm discussing your criticisms of it.  Which are largely pointless, self serving, and wildly inconsistent.

And the article absolutely is implying what I'm suggesting. By stating Marquette is the 2ND best path to the NBA it implies going to Marquette will get you into the NBA while going to a different school you are less likely to get into the NBA. Yes, I 100% believe that there are plenty of schools that Travis, Novak, Wes and Lazar could have gone to and not been in the NBA today.
I'm just saying stating the raw numbers does not prove that. Prove, like in a court of law?  You are going way off the deep end.  No one is saying that, it's a freaking puff piece about our school's recent NBA success
I'm not complaining yes you areand I don't know why you attack so many of my statements because they were lame/self serving/obvious.and misinterpret themexample?.
It may be purely a semantic argument. Most players who make it in the NBA will get there no matter where they go to school horse bollocks, where is the proof of that?and no matter where you go to school you will not make it in the NBA if you don't have the natural ability. I think most people would agree with that. no $h!t, that's why i didn't think it needs to be stated in every article about what schools have a lot of draft picks.  I guess the author could have pointed out that all the players discussed are men.

I think coaching staffs and programs can help develop certain prospects and help them achieve their goal of making it in the NBA, but I'd argue it's more on the player themselves and the work they put in than anything the coach does.
Yes, BUT that player is going to be himself no matter where he goes, the only thing that changes when he picks a school is coaches and teammates.  I don't think this point is contradicted in the article
The player has to put in the work the coach can't control everything. Coaches provide opportunities, but the players have to have the determination to put in the work in the off season and to put into practice a coaches instruction.  I think more credit should go to the players for their development than the coaches.
You are officially not talking about the article now.  Please point to the exact spot where someone said that coaches control everything and that players don't work themselves into a draft spot.  In the case of MU we have 4 players who probably wouldn't be there if they didn't bust their ass in college.  You can just say that they would all have made it at 100% of the D1 schools out there, but you won't convince me. 
We all like to think our coaching staffs know something that other staffs don't or are better at teaching certain things than others. Every Game MU plays announcers talk about how hard they play, I suppose that is just because they all have that work ethic when they get here.
I really don't think there's that big of a difference between the top 50 coaches in terms of what they can offer a kid as far as instruction. I think if you put Dwayne wade or Lazard Hayward on any of these other teams they would've gotten to the league just as well. Really? Dwayne wade a potential top 20 all time player would have made it into the NBA?  Duh.  Lazar though?  There are plenty of places where he probably would not have been a first round pick.  I'd go so far as to guess the majority, playing out of position, and the tools he developed doing so, will continue to help him.

If you want to rewrite the list without coaches and without players who have been in the league more than 8 years and perhaps only counting players who don't have guaranteed $ as half a player and you can add a half point for players that were drafted in the last 3 years but are no longer on a team.  Then do it, perhaps GT will be 1st!

[hoyasincebirth]

Sheesh calm down man Marquette has plenty of reasons to be proud. I certainly wasn't trying to take away from marquette's accomplishments and I'm very proud of the success has had as a fellow jesuit institution. I'm not attacking anyone. I'm just debating some points of the article. THe main of which the presence of coaches many people seem to agree with me about. Just trying to have a friendly discussion on a message board.

I stand by my point that some players no matter how hard they work do not have the physical talents to make it in the NBA and some players have the physical gifts that they can make it from almost anywhere. An example of the former is scottie reynolds. Very good college player, but does not have the athleticism or size to play at the NBA level. No matter how hard he tries he's not going to grow any taller of become athletic enough. On the other hand take a player like Hamdye N'diaye of Rutgers. Only been playing the game for 6 years and had fred hill as a coach. Do you really think fred Hill did something special to turn him into an NBA player? No his natural ability and athleticism is what led to him getting drafted. I'm not saying this is a 100% stead fast rule. There certainly are cases where a player may not have reached their potential with out a coaching staff. But even so they need to have had certain innate abilities in the first place and they need to have the work effort to do what the coaching staff is asking of them. I just think most coaching staffs have the ability to turn those players into NBA players. You don't think Hayward could've made it to the NBA from michigan st, duke, butler, ucla, or any other decently coached team?

I have no desire to fight about this, you're clearly very angry and rude. I didn't insult anyone or trash marquette. I'm sorry you feel the need to relate to fellow posters in this way. Good luck next season.

[RawdogDX]

Dude, Really?  The only things that makes me mad on message boards is when people:
1)  Tell me to calm down
2)  Use me being 'angry' as an excuse not to defend their points.
3)  Passive aggressive BS (ie: i'm sorry you feel a need to relate to posters that way, admittedly I do this all the time so I'm not one to talk)
4)  When someone tells someone else I'm talking to not to bother responding to me because I won't listen to rational arguments.

I'm not mad now, despite you hitting on 3 of those in your last two posts (if you tell me to calm down again I will be).  I just think that your complaints are invalid.  

I agree with your 2nd paragraph BUT, as I stated.  1: this is not contradicted in the article and is known to anyone who follows basketball(so it shouldn't need to be stated).  2:  Where a player goes to school doesn't change his, height or athletic ability.  So without some advanced matrix which breaks down players based on athleticism, size & highschool ranking, what you are asking for can not be done.  

Aside: if you did do that, I'm pretty sure MU's rating to about the same place if not higher nationally.  

Tip:  When reading responses have a cheerful, friendly voice in your head.  That is how I'd talk if you met me.  

Edit: I forgot #5) People from wisconsin who bad mouth IL for no reason other than their inferiority complex.

[RawdogDX]

 So without some advanced matrix which breaks down players based on athleticism, size & highschool ranking, what you are asking for can not be done.  

Aside: if you did do that, I'm pretty sure MU's rating to about the same place if not higher nationally.  

That's right, I'm quoting myself.

Actually I'm excited to think how we might stack up and it doesn't sound to hard.  Schools get bonuses for players who score lower on Class Ranking X Size relative to position X Some sort of athleticism rating.  Pull all the players that have entered the NBA for the last 10 years and see how MU stacks up.  Come on math geeks make it happen.