Talent High in NBA Draft But Lacks Maturity

The NBA draft might be the most exciting sporting event this time of year outside of the yearly Red Sox struggle to keep from collapsing like they have every year since 1918. However, I digress.

The draft combines some occasional intrigue while the regular NBA season ends the same as it does every year.

L.A. Lakers, BLAH!

For me the NBA draft raises the question of why there were dozens of names that I couldn't even pronounce.

One of the analysts for TNT made a comment about the state of American basketball to the effect that the sport is changing. More profoundly, he looked into the influx of Europeans and high schoolers.

Last year's draft involved the phrase "ton of potential" a few million times as high schoolers with no experience on any comparable level were picked.

As far as basketball landscape goes, Carolina has always been in the mainstream of developing basketball players and providing them with not only an education but also the coaching to allow them to develop their games.

The NBA has always looked to places like the University of North Carolina for players who can be superstars, significant contributors, role players and even a few practice personnel.

The departure of top players from the college ranks has depleted a lot of talent, yet the college game still produces one of the best products that sports can offer.

I wondered whether the game of basketball has changed so that European talent is more developed than anything colleges and (now) high schools can produce? On average the statement is being made that America wastes talent on fancy dribbles while Europe seems to be optimizing.

European basketball is getting a whole lot better, but should it rank as high against the nation that invented the sport?

Why don't four-year starters at one of the top storied basketball programs get drafted?

"Four years" is a stigma.

Why does a proven kid who has developed his game over a four-year period not get a glimpse from NBA scouts?

Luke Recker and Udonis Haslem didn't even get picked. Lonny Baxter, with a stat line during his senior year of 15 points, eight rebounds and two blocks per game, dropped to No. 44. There has to be something there.

The comment was made in the same telecast that colleges don't develop players any more. There are a few exceptions, but it seems like the winningest programs are more of a revolving door than a four-year development plan.

The stigma rides with a kid if sticks around. "He's not good enough if he doesn't go." Coaches want wins more than they want to develop individuals. Dean did it the right way. Why don't more follow suit?

Let the pool of underdeveloped talent in the NBA get a little bit bigger with every Lenny Cooke and DeAngelo Collins who declares. "Oops," David Stern says. "Don't need any more of them! Go directly to NBDL."

This year the NBA said no to a top-three high school senior ranked small forward, and maybe it was making a bigger statement that teams don't want projects.

Who wants to spend three years to develop an 18-year-old when a veteran European player four years older could be valuable for 2 1/2 years of his rookie contract?

Jermaine O'Neal or Kevin Garnett might be the most talented, but I would rather have Dirk Nowitzki taking the shot at the end of a game.

What really got me thinking was the arrival of the "Super Six" on campus. My challenge to them is that if this University's basketball program still stands for what it has in the past, they should really develop themselves here. Ignore the friends, groupies and family members who say go for the big money after one or two years. The test for Matt Doherty and his staff is to develop raw talent and not just pass it off for wins.

Winning will follow accordingly.

If you agree that Carolina is still Carolina, e-mail me at tompkins@email.unc.edu.