Kobe: European player development is better than US

[Brankles]

http://www.ballineurope.com/us-basketball/nba/kobe-bryant-on-european-basketball-player-development-4203/

On what other countries need to learn from NBA and American basketball system, Kobe gave a surprising answer, and he said: “I believe that the system works best right now is not the US system, I believe it is the European system. Because they develop basketball players, and they teach them the skills. I think the European system has jumped over US system.”

I agree with him

The US develops players under the facade of the student-athlete HS/College system. European basketball embraces developing youth athletes and provides them high-quality training, payment and a well-organized system of youth and adult leagues as the players develop their talent. These youths get paid, instead of the NCAA/Recruiting Websites/Under-the-table agent dealings, and they get to focus entirely on their sport.

I always thought taking the top 150-200 HS players in the nation and allowing them to leave HS early or skip the first year or two of college and have them all compete against each other would be a good idea. Along the way they would get world-class coaching and training, get schooling that is built around their development as basketball players (career management, business management, public speaking, volunteering/community development, etc) and become more prepared for the world they will be entering as a professional athlete. Still leave the college option available for the players who aren't cream of the crop, but focus on developing the best youths in the nation and preparing them for their future.

Right now the college system is a charade for the nation's best HS athletes and I do not think it is the best route for them or for their universities. The best players leave early, do not focus on education, and do not necessarily get the best coaching or guidance while in college. I thought that removing HS-to-NBA players was a mistake for this reason.

I also think that the AAU system is flawed because coaches of good teams are just glorified pimps who amass the best talent and don't really teach their players. It takes the super-athletes who dominate in HS years before they learn the proper fundamentals, sometimes even taking their raw, unpolished abilities to the NBA where it gets smoothed out by world class coaches. In Europe, the kids are assigned to teams and are taught the proper way to play while their bodies are still developing. That's why so many of them are versatile and have good fundamentals. They also aren't jumping around from team-to-team and practicing once a week under a coach they decided to play for because he gave them good sneakers, they're playing for clubs with professionals as coaches.


What do you guys think?

[SPTO]

Re: Kobe: European player development is better than US

I agree Kobe has it right. One thing that has changed in the US system is the glorification of individual play. The kids coming up today want to be the next big name star with the highlight reel dunks and flashy passes etc etc and that robs them of learning the intricacies of the game.

I'm not gonna get into the politics of the NCAA but I will say this, the big money that is given to these kids under the table and having agents with the goal of getting to the NBA ASAP has completely ruined what college basketball used to be about and that is actually TEACHING the players the skills they need to hone their individual skillsets yet at the same time being able to play within a system and become a more well rounded basketball player.

Now that's not to say the Euros have it completely right because their system is a bit TOO regimented and it makes it harder for them to get acclimated to the North American game when they come here. They're often too set in their ways and come across as "soft" because they don't play as aggressively in some areas and exaggerate ticky tacky fouls in order to get to the free throw line.

In a perfect world there'd be something in between both systems.

[Jano]

Re: Kobe: European player development is better than US

I also agree with Kobe too..

I think all your ideas sound great definitely would be a step in the right direction in terms of player development for the US.

[pietasterp]

Re: Kobe: European player development is better than US

Interesting topic...I have mixed feelings about it. The European systems do have merit in terms of coordinating player development, but what you're basically talking about is a centrally-run agency with the goal of breeding athletes. The European countries have federal funding for this; in other words, it's a government-run sports academy, like the US Olympic Program except for hoops. I'm not sure I'd be that pumped about having a ministry of athletics here in the states where taxpayer money is used to train basketball players...

I do think the college system can be a great way to develop kids, but the problem is the allure of the NBA is too great, and it's right here on our own soil (as opposed to across the ocean, like it is for the Euros). Not to mention, the players aren't interested in learning the game, they just wanna get on Sportscenter (something else we have ESPN to thank for...the me-first highlight reel pursuit) and make cash in the association. You can't tell me a kid couldn't get a great basketball education (not to mention real education) playing 4 years for Tom Izzo at Michigan State, or Coach K at Duke (hate to admit it...), or any number of solid college hoops programs in the country. Those avenues to accomplish what you're talking about exist, the kids just aren't taking them. Should we force them to?

I guess it boils down to how important you think sports are; I don't wanna make this an argument about society in general, but it's sort of unavoidable if you're going to discuss the European system of nationalized sports training. Maybe their system is better, but at what cost? I don't have the answers to these questions, just throwing out my initial reactions to the question. My ultimate answer, though, is that I don't think there's necessarily a problem with the way players develop here, mostly because I don't think it's that important to have a coordinated effort to develop athletes. If that leaves us lagging behind Europe, I'm okay with that.

[LingeringRegime]

Re: Kobe: European player development is better than US

It is better.

Players here for the most part are just interested in being high flyers, but it when it comes to being fundamentally sound that isn't sexy. Meanwhile, Euros are far surpassing us when it comes to all around skill level. This is amplified when our best talent is "one and done" now. I doubt that most are getting the tools that they need in High School, and a year in college just isn't enough to learn the basics of the game.

[Stumbleweed]

Re: Kobe: European player development is better than US

I agree completely. The NCAA is a sham and just works as an unpaid farm league for the pros while masquerading as something academic-focused. Kobe is 100% on-point with this one. If they're professional athlete caliber, treat them like athletes, not like students who are also premier athletes, which is only the case a small minority of the time. Stern and his bull**** 1 year rule should be ashamed and I hope that more people take the Jennings route and have success. I'll ride for Jennings forever because he had the guts to do that... plus, he kinda rules and is ridiculously fun to watch.

[ehh]

Re: Kobe: European player development is better than US

The US' development is a joke and has been even before AAU got out of control in the last decade or so. In theory it sounds good for us to move to a European-style system but I don't know if it's feasible, it would involve a pretty large paradigm shift. I feel that the arrogance and bizarre sense of entitlement that the top young American basketball players have will make this type of system quite interesting. Although that's two great things that this type of system would hopefully instill - work ethic and maturity. A big thing is how the rest of society would react to the leftovers/has-beens from this system.

What happens if a kid fails on the educational side of things?
Will anyone in the business world here respect the "degree" a player would earn in this program if/when a kid's basketball career ends? Does he go through this system and then flip burgers at McDonalds if he has a career ending injury at age 23?
Where will the funding come from for this minor league/development cycle come from? I can't see the NBA forking over $ to fund this since most of the players will never step foot in the NBA.

I don't know enough about the European culture in this regard. Obviously the people who go through their development process have to stop playing basketball eventually - are they in a good position to start a new, post-basketball life?

Since there are so damn many professional leagues and at so many levels (there are pro leagues overseas that are akin to DIII ball stateside) I feel that the system works better over there. Kids go through this system and then play professionally somewhere in Europe. If you have all these young kids here in this new system a vast majority will still not make the NBA, just like with college players now. So do most kids go through the US developmental process and then go play overseas?

[ehh]

Re: Kobe: European player development is better than US

I'll ride for Jennings forever because he had the guts to do that... plus, he kinda rules and is ridiculously fun to watch.

It didn't have much to do with guts in Jennings' case, it was his only option left outside of playing in the D-League for pennies.

[phenom1990]

Re: Kobe: European player development is better than US

I don't want to hi-jack this thread to make this point. But I think the NBA would be better off if they raised the age limit to 20 and forced these kids to either play professionally overseas for two years, the D-League or college( even though I think the whole idea of amateur athletes in the NCAA is a sham). I think it could emphasize a better team concept because they would be required to play at a higher level than high school for a longer period of time. Which would require them to learn how to play in a team concept more because individual talent can't dominate as easily in levels above high school. Instead of most coming in as 18 or 19 year olds, that are generally not mature enough to realize how to go about things and don't have as much experience playing within a team concept. They could come in at 20 with 2 more years of experience.

[Jano]

Re: Kobe: European player development is better than US

I guess it boils down to how important you think sports are; I don't wanna make this an argument about society in general, but it's sort of unavoidable if you're going to discuss the European system of nationalized sports training. Maybe their system is better, but at what cost? I don't have the answers to these questions, just throwing out my initial reactions to the question. My ultimate answer, though, is that I don't think there's necessarily a problem with the way players develop here, mostly because I don't think it's that important to have a coordinated effort to develop athletes. If that leaves us lagging behind Europe, I'm okay with that.

Well I think sports are very important especially in the US because its what a lot of young kids and teens love to do. A lot of people grow up wanting to be the next new sports star so I think its very important player development in the US improve.

Because as of right now most kids feel that the only developing you need to do is jump high and run fast. That is a very shallow and poor way of thinking and that hurts other aspects of their lives too.

The fact that sports stars aren't expected to develop fundamentals leads kids to believe they don't need fundamentals in other aspects of life too. How many kids do you see trying to hit on chicks when they don't even know how to talk to one. How many times have you seen some kid talking about how he'll be the next Kobe when all he can do is dunk?

I honestly believe that if fundamentals and respect are taught in highly valued areas like professional sports our society as a whole can improve at a much faster rate. Because then we'll be teaching kids and teens at a level they can relate to because the education system isn't something everyone cares about.

When you can teach a kid respect in an area he can relate to it causes him to think about other aspects of his life in the same way. I know it did for me and that has to be the biggest difference between me and a lot of other kids my age (18-20 yrs old). Most kids do a lot of brainless and stupid things because growing up they just weren't taught how to act.

So thats why I feel that this is a very important issue because if kids are being taught how play bball or football the right way most will understand how difficult it is. And then they will be able to decide if they want to pursue it or move on to something else instead of chasing some impossible dream..

[Stumbleweed]

Re: Kobe: European player development is better than US

It didn't have much to do with guts in Jennings' case, it was his only option left outside of playing in the D-League for pennies.

Because of Stern's stupid age rule. Almost all of the best players in the league were straight outta high school. It's a garbage rule, I don't care what anyone says. When you're 18 you should be able to make a career decision for yourself. If college is the route you think is best, then do that -- but it seems that getting professional-level development under your belt as early as possible is what produces the best players. There's a reason scouts were following players around from the time they're in middle school, they're generally the ones that are successful at the higher level.

Of course some of them aren't as good as they appear (Kwame), or as mature as they should be (plenty of others), get injured early, etc. -- but again, at least they had that chance. So many athletes are going and getting hurt and ruining their pro prospects for FREE in the damn NCAA and then don't end up getting a quality education anyway. I just don't see that argument, it's such nanny state bull**** to me... and if you look at the evidence, the vast majority of players who even declared for the draft right out of high school were successful in their pro careers. Compare that to the number of "elite" D1 athletes that are now selling cars because they were really never pro material. Just give them the chance as soon as they want it... that's what Europe does and it seems to work.

Dirk and those cats don't seem uneducated in the least -- that's what tutoring and whatnot is for. You don't automatically become a ******* with no education just because you're focusing almost totally on athletics during your adolescence or because you didn't attend college.

[phenom1990]

Re: Kobe: European player development is better than US

I think the age rule is better for the NBA. I understand how it could hurt a couple players. But I think for the NBA it is better because scouts get to see these guys go against better competition than high school for a year. It can help weed out the very good from the good better and generally an extra year helps people 's maturity. Are there exceptions to the rule? Of course, but a lot of these dudes don't come in mature enough to be professionals, they don't understand fundamentals and team concepts as much as they should. Therefore NBA people have to teach them these things and they could spend all their time trying to teach them these things to only find out two things: 1. the kid doesn't want to work at it because he made his money or 2. the kid isn't good enough.

If these dudes really want to make money, they can go overseas or play in the D-League for a year ( even though I don't think you make much in the D-League). If they decide to go to college, if their not good enough maybe they get a degree in something and set up a future. But that's not really my point because they could always go back if they want to after their pro career. But for the NBA, a lot of times there are NCAA fans who don't watch the NBA because they feel like they don't: 1. know the players or 2. like the game. So if a player decides to go to college, the NBA essentially can use the NCAA as a marketing tool for the NBA in the future and possibly draw more college fans into watching the NBA.

So I just think the age rule is good for the NBA for at least two main reasons: 1. it can market their future players better and 2. it can help evaluate their future players better.

[ehh]

Re: Kobe: European player development is better than US

Because of Stern's stupid age rule. Almost all of the best players in the league were straight outta high school. It's a garbage rule, I don't care what anyone says.

I agree completely, I think most NBA and college fans do. I'm just saying in Jennings' case it's not like he said 'screw you' to the American system and turned down Arizona to go play pro overseas. He screwed himself out of the opportunity to play at Zona which only gave him two choices - go to the D-League and get paid or go overseas and get paid a whole hell of a lot more. Given his situation and choices, he did what was best for him. If he would have qualified he would have been at Zona for one year though.

[ex carrabba fan]

Re: Kobe: European player development is better than US

Kobe isn't breaking any news.

Common knowledge/sense.

[driddy]

Re: Kobe: European player development is better than US

High school players should be brave enough to go abroad and play in Europe. Coaches in college, and even AAU would not cater to these kids with business classes, and fundamentals. They only care to win, I'd argue that Duke hindered development of several 6'8 guys during their run by playing at center and PF, instead of developing them for what their NBA position would be which is SF. That being said, I understand Coach K is paid to win, not make NBA players better so the onus is on these talented young players to "take their talents" to Europe, get paid, and become better all around players.