07-11-2012, 05:24 PM
Parker is, I believe, considered one of those epic-level basketball prospects--and generally that's easier to ascertain in basketball than other sports--so our presence in Parker's top ten is a very big deal indeed.
In Jabari Parker's top ten
Parker is, I believe, considered one of those epic-level basketball prospects--and generally that's easier to ascertain in basketball than other sports--so our presence in Parker's top ten is a very big deal indeed.
07-11-2012, 05:31 PM
some articles I've seen say he's the best prospect since LeBron James. I've been too lazy to look up his YouTube highlights though.
07-11-2012, 08:17 PM
I think we've had this conversation before on an earlier thread, but I wonder about the match between Parker and Stanford. I assume that someone with his level of talent is probably thinking about college basketball as a one year and done deal. (And really, who could blame him if he has Lebron-like talent and is a sure-fire lottery pick.) Will he really think of Stanford as a good fit? Would Stanford really want to go down that road? The benefits in terms of publicity, etc., would be significant I'm sure. And I suppose I would rather him choose here than not. And who knows, maybe he would stay for a few years. But it will be interesting to see how long we remain in serious consideration.
I think we've had this conversation before on an earlier thread, but I wonder about the match between Parker and Stanford. I assume that someone with his level of talent is probably thinking about college basketball as a one year and done deal. (And really, who could blame him if he has Lebron-like talent and is a sure-fire lottery pick.) Will he really think of Stanford as a good fit? Would Stanford really want to go down that road? The benefits in terms of publicity, etc., would be significant I'm sure. And I suppose I would rather him choose here than not. And who knows, maybe he would stay for a few years. But it will be interesting to see how long we remain in serious consideration.
07-12-2012, 09:20 AM
We were on his list before; it's just that writers dismissed us. Someone posted an article earlier mentioning that Parker described his relationship with Dawkins as good, along with two other coaches.
We were on his list before; it's just that writers dismissed us. Someone posted an article earlier mentioning that Parker described his relationship with Dawkins as good, along with two other coaches.
07-12-2012, 11:15 AM
Weren't we supposedly in the final 3 for Harrison Barnes? There's a long way to go from being on a list to getting the guy. Depaul is on the list, for god's sakes. If you're a one and done player, I don't see Stanford being a great draw for you. I would think you're looking to (a) strengthen your position in the 2014 draft (b) maximize your probability of winning the NCAA title and © avoid having to do any real school work that distracts from (a) and (b).
Not that I wouldn't love to see Jabari Parker in a Stanford uniform. If he can help us win 5 more games a year and make it to the Sweet Sixteen, then that could have lasting impact on Stanford basketball. But would you give up a scholarship spot on a one and done player if it meant forgoing another player who won't be a difference maker right away, but you know you'll get for 4 years and is likely to improve each year? I don't know how tight our scholarship situation is in BBall, but if we can get the #5 SG in the country by forgoing the #1, that's a trade I would seriously consider. In the long run, Stanford sports should be about student athletes. I would hate to become a school that had a significant number of mercenary athletes who are just using the school to get to the draft.
Not that I wouldn't love to see Jabari Parker in a Stanford uniform. If he can help us win 5 more games a year and make it to the Sweet Sixteen, then that could have lasting impact on Stanford basketball. But would you give up a scholarship spot on a one and done player if it meant forgoing another player who won't be a difference maker right away, but you know you'll get for 4 years and is likely to improve each year? I don't know how tight our scholarship situation is in BBall, but if we can get the #5 SG in the country by forgoing the #1, that's a trade I would seriously consider. In the long run, Stanford sports should be about student athletes. I would hate to become a school that had a significant number of mercenary athletes who are just using the school to get to the draft.
Weren't we supposedly in the final 3 for Harrison Barnes? There's a long way to go from being on a list to getting the guy. Depaul is on the list, for god's sakes. If you're a one and done player, I don't see Stanford being a great draw for you. I would think you're looking to (a) strengthen your position in the 2014 draft (b) maximize your probability of winning the NCAA title and © avoid having to do any real school work that distracts from (a) and (b).
Not that I wouldn't love to see Jabari Parker in a Stanford uniform. If he can help us win 5 more games a year and make it to the Sweet Sixteen, then that could have lasting impact on Stanford basketball. But would you give up a scholarship spot on a one and done player if it meant forgoing another player who won't be a difference maker right away, but you know you'll get for 4 years and is likely to improve each year? I don't know how tight our scholarship situation is in BBall, but if we can get the #5 SG in the country by forgoing the #1, that's a trade I would seriously consider. In the long run, Stanford sports should be about student athletes. I would hate to become a school that had a significant number of mercenary athletes who are just using the school to get to the draft.
Not that I wouldn't love to see Jabari Parker in a Stanford uniform. If he can help us win 5 more games a year and make it to the Sweet Sixteen, then that could have lasting impact on Stanford basketball. But would you give up a scholarship spot on a one and done player if it meant forgoing another player who won't be a difference maker right away, but you know you'll get for 4 years and is likely to improve each year? I don't know how tight our scholarship situation is in BBall, but if we can get the #5 SG in the country by forgoing the #1, that's a trade I would seriously consider. In the long run, Stanford sports should be about student athletes. I would hate to become a school that had a significant number of mercenary athletes who are just using the school to get to the draft.
07-12-2012, 11:26 AM
Of course there's a long way to go, but being on the list and having a long shot is better than having no shot at all.
Speaking strictly from a basketball perspective--not the ethics of the one-and-done stuff--of course you take Parker for a year. Superstar players are much more valuable than in any other sport; Parker could singlehandedly be the difference between a Pac-12 title and no Pac-12 title. Once Parker leaves, you just recruit a new guy. I'm not worried about Dawkins's recruiting ability. So, strictly from a basketball perspective, I think it'd be silly to turn down Parker for the #5 SG.Â
Anyway, from an ethical perspective I also have less than zero problem recruiting one-and-done athletes. We recruited McEnroe, who spent a year, IIRC. Tiger Woods, similarly. Brook Lopez strongly considered leaving. I know of a few kids my year who dropped out of college to do the startup thing. I don't think we should get wrapped up in the mechanics of schooling when the important thing is an education.
Speaking strictly from a basketball perspective--not the ethics of the one-and-done stuff--of course you take Parker for a year. Superstar players are much more valuable than in any other sport; Parker could singlehandedly be the difference between a Pac-12 title and no Pac-12 title. Once Parker leaves, you just recruit a new guy. I'm not worried about Dawkins's recruiting ability. So, strictly from a basketball perspective, I think it'd be silly to turn down Parker for the #5 SG.Â
Anyway, from an ethical perspective I also have less than zero problem recruiting one-and-done athletes. We recruited McEnroe, who spent a year, IIRC. Tiger Woods, similarly. Brook Lopez strongly considered leaving. I know of a few kids my year who dropped out of college to do the startup thing. I don't think we should get wrapped up in the mechanics of schooling when the important thing is an education.
Of course there's a long way to go, but being on the list and having a long shot is better than having no shot at all.
Speaking strictly from a basketball perspective--not the ethics of the one-and-done stuff--of course you take Parker for a year. Superstar players are much more valuable than in any other sport; Parker could singlehandedly be the difference between a Pac-12 title and no Pac-12 title. Once Parker leaves, you just recruit a new guy. I'm not worried about Dawkins's recruiting ability. So, strictly from a basketball perspective, I think it'd be silly to turn down Parker for the #5 SG.Â
Anyway, from an ethical perspective I also have less than zero problem recruiting one-and-done athletes. We recruited McEnroe, who spent a year, IIRC. Tiger Woods, similarly. Brook Lopez strongly considered leaving. I know of a few kids my year who dropped out of college to do the startup thing. I don't think we should get wrapped up in the mechanics of schooling when the important thing is an education.
Speaking strictly from a basketball perspective--not the ethics of the one-and-done stuff--of course you take Parker for a year. Superstar players are much more valuable than in any other sport; Parker could singlehandedly be the difference between a Pac-12 title and no Pac-12 title. Once Parker leaves, you just recruit a new guy. I'm not worried about Dawkins's recruiting ability. So, strictly from a basketball perspective, I think it'd be silly to turn down Parker for the #5 SG.Â
Anyway, from an ethical perspective I also have less than zero problem recruiting one-and-done athletes. We recruited McEnroe, who spent a year, IIRC. Tiger Woods, similarly. Brook Lopez strongly considered leaving. I know of a few kids my year who dropped out of college to do the startup thing. I don't think we should get wrapped up in the mechanics of schooling when the important thing is an education.
07-12-2012, 12:22 PM
IMO, the university doesn't exist solely to further students' careers. It exists to further their educations. Players who are one and done are typically not looking to further their education, especially those who are planning to leave after one year. A seat in Stanford lecture halls is too valuable to give to someone who views class as a necessary evil to meet the NBA/NFL time requirement for entering the draft. Tiger Woods wasn't forced to go to school. Neither was John McEnroe. They could have both gone pro out of high school. They came to Stanford for more than just an opportunity to improve their game. Stanford shouldn't be a replacement for the minor leagues in sports that don't have them.
IMO, the university doesn't exist solely to further students' careers. It exists to further their educations. Players who are one and done are typically not looking to further their education, especially those who are planning to leave after one year. A seat in Stanford lecture halls is too valuable to give to someone who views class as a necessary evil to meet the NBA/NFL time requirement for entering the draft. Tiger Woods wasn't forced to go to school. Neither was John McEnroe. They could have both gone pro out of high school. They came to Stanford for more than just an opportunity to improve their game. Stanford shouldn't be a replacement for the minor leagues in sports that don't have them.
07-12-2012, 01:16 PM
Garvin - exactly what do you know about UCSC? Obviously, little. Otherwise you would not have slammed them. It is actually a pretty good school with a strengths in specific programs (like many mid-sized schools). And yes, they do give grades, administer tests and require papers, etc. etc. The quaint notion of a hippy dippy college where no grades are dispensed is long gone...
Please consider joining us in the 21st C., you will find it rather interesting...
Please consider joining us in the 21st C., you will find it rather interesting...
Garvin - exactly what do you know about UCSC? Obviously, little. Otherwise you would not have slammed them. It is actually a pretty good school with a strengths in specific programs (like many mid-sized schools). And yes, they do give grades, administer tests and require papers, etc. etc. The quaint notion of a hippy dippy college where no grades are dispensed is long gone...
Please consider joining us in the 21st C., you will find it rather interesting...
Please consider joining us in the 21st C., you will find it rather interesting...
07-12-2012, 03:12 PM
This seems like a somewhat silly discussion. Yes, the typical one-and-done player brings with him a host of problems and would be a terrible fit for Stanford. No way we should touch those kids, despite the potential competitive benefits they provide. But that's a moot point, because there's no way the typical one-and-done player would want to go to Stanford -- those kids will screen themselves out. If you don't care at all about getting a good education, why not go to a school where the academics are less demanding?
If a kid with one-and-done talent is interested in Stanford, maybe that means he's not planning to leave after one year. Or maybe he is planning to leave after one, but then to take classes in the offseason until he finishes his degree. Or maybe he'll only take one year of classes, but he loves learning. I don't know. But if it's any of those things -- or anything similar --- then he belongs at Stanford. And if he not, then he's not going to be interested in Stanford in the first place.
If a kid with one-and-done talent is interested in Stanford, maybe that means he's not planning to leave after one year. Or maybe he is planning to leave after one, but then to take classes in the offseason until he finishes his degree. Or maybe he'll only take one year of classes, but he loves learning. I don't know. But if it's any of those things -- or anything similar --- then he belongs at Stanford. And if he not, then he's not going to be interested in Stanford in the first place.
This seems like a somewhat silly discussion. Yes, the typical one-and-done player brings with him a host of problems and would be a terrible fit for Stanford. No way we should touch those kids, despite the potential competitive benefits they provide. But that's a moot point, because there's no way the typical one-and-done player would want to go to Stanford -- those kids will screen themselves out. If you don't care at all about getting a good education, why not go to a school where the academics are less demanding?
If a kid with one-and-done talent is interested in Stanford, maybe that means he's not planning to leave after one year. Or maybe he is planning to leave after one, but then to take classes in the offseason until he finishes his degree. Or maybe he'll only take one year of classes, but he loves learning. I don't know. But if it's any of those things -- or anything similar --- then he belongs at Stanford. And if he not, then he's not going to be interested in Stanford in the first place.
If a kid with one-and-done talent is interested in Stanford, maybe that means he's not planning to leave after one year. Or maybe he is planning to leave after one, but then to take classes in the offseason until he finishes his degree. Or maybe he'll only take one year of classes, but he loves learning. I don't know. But if it's any of those things -- or anything similar --- then he belongs at Stanford. And if he not, then he's not going to be interested in Stanford in the first place.
07-12-2012, 04:51 PM
(07-12-2012, 03:12 PM)Roberton3 link Wrote:there's no way the typical one-and-done player would want to go to Stanford -- those kids will screen themselves out. If you don't care at all about getting a good education, why not go to a school where the academics are less demanding?
This was my point when I mused aloud whether we would seriously be there at the end for Parker. Everything I have heard about the kid is he has great character. Given that character, and the opportunity to make guaranteed millions one year after graduating HS, will he really keep us in consideration? If he does, I'd be surprised if he is purely a one-year player. But I could hardly slam a kid for making the decision to go to another university as he preps for his big day.
But don't get me wrong: I'd love Parker to choose Stanford, and love it if he stayed a couple of years, worked his butt off before and during his time at Stanford, and even came very close to getting his degree before jumping to the NBA. That situation has happened before without any damage to either the player or the integrity of Stanford University.Â
(07-12-2012, 03:12 PM)Roberton3 link Wrote:there's no way the typical one-and-done player would want to go to Stanford -- those kids will screen themselves out. If you don't care at all about getting a good education, why not go to a school where the academics are less demanding?
This was my point when I mused aloud whether we would seriously be there at the end for Parker. Everything I have heard about the kid is he has great character. Given that character, and the opportunity to make guaranteed millions one year after graduating HS, will he really keep us in consideration? If he does, I'd be surprised if he is purely a one-year player. But I could hardly slam a kid for making the decision to go to another university as he preps for his big day.
But don't get me wrong: I'd love Parker to choose Stanford, and love it if he stayed a couple of years, worked his butt off before and during his time at Stanford, and even came very close to getting his degree before jumping to the NBA. That situation has happened before without any damage to either the player or the integrity of Stanford University.Â
07-12-2012, 04:52 PM
You managed to link two of the two of the greatest villians in world history to a discussion about a mid-sized college in Santa Cruz!Â
Gratuitous swipes at my Alma Mater are standard fare here - no big deal... Gratuitous swipes at my older daughter's Alma Mater are an entirely different matter... :-)
By the way, did I mention that I am going to be visiting the Evil Empire next spring? It is time to finally see the waxy guy in the Kremlin, the Hermitage, etc....
Gratuitous swipes at my Alma Mater are standard fare here - no big deal... Gratuitous swipes at my older daughter's Alma Mater are an entirely different matter... :-)
By the way, did I mention that I am going to be visiting the Evil Empire next spring? It is time to finally see the waxy guy in the Kremlin, the Hermitage, etc....
You managed to link two of the two of the greatest villians in world history to a discussion about a mid-sized college in Santa Cruz!Â
Gratuitous swipes at my Alma Mater are standard fare here - no big deal... Gratuitous swipes at my older daughter's Alma Mater are an entirely different matter... :-)
By the way, did I mention that I am going to be visiting the Evil Empire next spring? It is time to finally see the waxy guy in the Kremlin, the Hermitage, etc....
Gratuitous swipes at my Alma Mater are standard fare here - no big deal... Gratuitous swipes at my older daughter's Alma Mater are an entirely different matter... :-)
By the way, did I mention that I am going to be visiting the Evil Empire next spring? It is time to finally see the waxy guy in the Kremlin, the Hermitage, etc....
07-12-2012, 04:56 PM
(07-12-2012, 04:52 PM)71Bear link Wrote:By the way, did I mention that I am going to be visiting the Evil Empire next spring? It is time to finally see the waxy guy in the Kremlin, the Hermitage, etc....
Oh...at first I thought you were going to State College, PA.
(07-12-2012, 04:52 PM)71Bear link Wrote:By the way, did I mention that I am going to be visiting the Evil Empire next spring? It is time to finally see the waxy guy in the Kremlin, the Hermitage, etc....
Oh...at first I thought you were going to State College, PA.
07-12-2012, 04:59 PM
None and Done's. That would be those who sign Baseball LOIs. They sign months before the draft yet could and many are, drafted. They could sign and never attend Stanford. Interestingly only one has signed since about 1999 and he started Stanford with his class about 5 years ago and despite playing pro baseball, (injured and sat out one full season) he graduated recently from Stanford.Â
None and Done's. That would be those who sign Baseball LOIs. They sign months before the draft yet could and many are, drafted. They could sign and never attend Stanford. Interestingly only one has signed since about 1999 and he started Stanford with his class about 5 years ago and despite playing pro baseball, (injured and sat out one full season) he graduated recently from Stanford.Â
Redrum
Unregistered
Unregistered
07-12-2012, 07:53 PM
Congrats, Roberton3, you get it. You actually get it. Welcome to the mid summer ( well, actually mid-way to the start of Fall camp) doldroms.  Sillyness R Us.
Congrats, Roberton3, you get it. You actually get it. Welcome to the mid summer ( well, actually mid-way to the start of Fall camp) doldroms.  Sillyness R Us.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »