[Goose]

Sure they take some possessions (and even games off)  defensively.  But I inferred from your comment (perhaps wrongfully) that you were saying that they played “better” defense in college.  They don’t. In fact they don’t do anything better in college.  It is much  easier to defend in college, cause the courts compressed and you don’t have near as many scorers.  The game is considerably slower to boot.

When the NBA teams choose to play defense, they do it much better than the college teams. They have the athletes to do things the college teams can't. However, defense isn't as "important" on a night in night out basis in the NBA because the offenses are so much better proportionally and the rules are set up to favor offense (as you point out even the court size does that). It is like the run game in the NFL. Yes, when they do it they do it better than college, but most of the time they throw the ball. It is what the league thinks the fans want to see, so they make sure that happens by tweaking the rules until it does. Absolutely it is much easier to defend in college for the reasons you cite. That is why they place a greater premium on doing so. It has a higher reward than other alternatives anf failure to do so a larger downside. It is a different game in the NBA. I think we basically agree about this.

The real question here is what contribution a one and done can make to a college team. If said player already has great basketball skills he can make a lot of difference. The trick is to find such guys and keep them motivated in college. I hope that the "mandatory" year of college is negotiated out of the next CBA. It makes no sense that a guy who the NBA thinks is ready has to "waste" a year playing a game that is only marginally preparing him for his professional future. If the players know it is a waste of their time, they aren't going to give full effort to it. This is especially true if it doesn't affect their draft position.

[Goose]

Sure they take some possessions (and even games off)  defensively.  But I inferred from your comment (perhaps wrongfully) that you were saying that they played “better” defense in college.  They don’t. In fact they don’t do anything better in college.  It is much  easier to defend in college, cause the courts compressed and you don’t have near as many scorers.  The game is considerably slower to boot.

When the NBA teams choose to play defense, they do it much better than the college teams. They have the athletes to do things the college teams can't. However, defense isn't as "important" on a night in night out basis in the NBA because the offenses are so much better proportionally and the rules are set up to favor offense (as you point out even the court size does that). It is like the run game in the NFL. Yes, when they do it they do it better than college, but most of the time they throw the ball. It is what the league thinks the fans want to see, so they make sure that happens by tweaking the rules until it does. Absolutely it is much easier to defend in college for the reasons you cite. That is why they place a greater premium on doing so. It has a higher reward than other alternatives anf failure to do so a larger downside. It is a different game in the NBA. I think we basically agree about this.

The real question here is what contribution a one and done can make to a college team. If said player already has great basketball skills he can make a lot of difference. The trick is to find such guys and keep them motivated in college. I hope that the "mandatory" year of college is negotiated out of the next CBA. It makes no sense that a guy who the NBA thinks is ready has to "waste" a year playing a game that is only marginally preparing him for his professional future. If the players know it is a waste of their time, they aren't going to give full effort to it. This is especially true if it doesn't affect their draft position.