Michael Jordan gently discusses an issue with the ref

By Marcus Shockley

If you haven’t heard about Mike Rice, the head coach of Rutgers men’s basketball team and his abuse of his players during practice, you can catch up with the video below. Needless to say, Mike Rice should be fired – under no circumstances is this acceptable behavior for anyone, child or adult. I would go so far as to say that the fact that the Athletic Director didn’t fire Rice immediately should be concern about the AD as well.

But one issue that this raises is that many sports pundits have taken to the idea that in order to be great in sports, either as a player or a coach, you have to be a megalomaniac, completely absorbed in your own desires and focused only on yourself, to the point of complete disregard for anyone else in any capacity.

The popular icon of this is Michael Jordan, the greatest basketball player of all time, who also became one of the biggest egos of all time; it has become commonplace to refer to any dysfunctional or abusive behavior as ‘what is required’ in order to be legendary. Several players are said to have this ‘winning’ attitude: Kobe Bryant, Tiger Woods and Serena Williams have all been described in such terms.

But it’s not true.

There is a common phrase used in the field of statistics whenever a theory is introduced based on only a few variables: “Correlation does not imply causation”. To put this in plain English, just because you have a couple of examples of something occurring does not make it true for all cases, or even true in general.

There are some things that hold true; fierce competitiveness, focus and a strong discipline are all factors of every legendary player. Many pro players are stunted emotionally because as they’ve worked like mad at their sport, outside of sports they are handed many things for most of their life.

But there are plenty of examples of players who won – a lot – and weren’t crushing people with their ego along the way.

Jackie Robinson, the focus of a new movie about how he broke the color barrier in baseball, was such an example. Think Robinson wasn’t as great as Kobe? Consider that Jackie Robinson was so good that he forced racist business owners to completely change their beliefs; forced their hand because they would rather go against hundreds of years of cultural and societal taboos rather than pass on his talent.

But even today there are tons of examples of superstar athletes who aren’t preening egomaniacs – Tim Duncan, David Robinson, Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Roger Federer and Kelly Slater all have lengthy careers – all would be HOF or the equivalent in their sport – and none have the supposed burning self-love that is claimed to be a prerequisite to greatness.

Let us not forget how many jerks we run into, in all walks of life, every single day. People cut each other off in traffic; push ahead of each other in line at grocery stores; steal office supplies; start rumors about each other; cheat on their spouses. The vast majority of those people behave like jackasses a lot, some of them to the point of ruining their marriages and careers. Their behavior certainly doesn’t make them legendary.

The simple truth is this: if someone is a legendary player and behaves like a jackass, they are just a jerk who is also good at their sport. They are not great because they are a jerk. If being a jackass made people great, our world would be teeming with amazingly talented people on every street corner.

Go ahead an nod along, you know I’m right. There are plenty of untalented knuckleheads in the world.

So, let’s call it what it is when people have dysfunctional, anti-social behavior instead of dressing it up and dismissing it as a quality. Kobe Bryant is a great player, but he’s also a jackass. Michael Jordan was the greatest player, and he is also a jackass. Let’s not confuse the two.

And Mike Rice? Yeah, well, there’s really no question what he is.

–

Marcus Shockley is the founder of BasketballElite.com and a member of the US Basketball Writers Association. You can follow Marcus on Twitter right this second.

Photo Source: CBS

By Marcus Shockley

A recent article in the Charlotte Observer tells of some NBA scouts who think the Bobcats should trade whichever pick they have this year, as it’s expected to once again be in the lottery.

It’s an interesting phenomenon that has emerged ever since players starting entering the NBA draft right out of high school, which has now become the parade of ‘one-and-done’ players into the pros, that players who are projected as NBA superstars start playing games at the college level, their draft status often drops. Last season in AAU it was quite common to hear that Shabazz Muhammad was one of the best players on the planet even though he was still in high school, but now halfway through his freshman season, he’s considered to be ‘flawed and inexperienced’.

James Michael McAdoo of UNC has seen similar changes to his draft status, after a season where he’s struggled to establish himself as a consistent first option for his team. Nerlens Noel was incredibly hyped during the recruiting process before he committed to Kentucky, now still considered a lottery pick but not the lock that many had claimed.

As I open this month’s ESPN ‘Next’ magazine, in which they attempt to project who the next big stars will be in several sports, they have decided against selecting another high school phenom and went with Cleveland Cavaliers point guard Kyrie Irving, who was a one-and-done college player for Duke, but is now in his second season in the pros. However, in the comments of the article, people pile in to tell ESPN that they have it wrong, and that the ‘next’ phenom is Andrew Wiggins, the star player for Huntington Prep in the class of 2013. One reader says ‘just watch a mixtape of Andrew Wiggins and he’ll blow your mind’.

I’m not saying Wiggins won’t be a pro and he’s a very talented high school player. But let’s wait on the accolades until he’s proven he can at least compete against collegiate talent.

This is part of the problem. I’m not sure if it’s the SportsCenter Top 10 influence, but people get fooled by highlights. They see a sixth grader scoring like crazy in a video and they immediately project the kid into the next Michael Jordan.

Is the 2013 NBA draft weak on talent? Not really, but what scouts are really saying is that it’s weak on potential superstars. Players like Cody Zeller and Otto Porter are considered NBA talent, but not “franchise” players. One issue I have with that is that those players hardly ever come along, no matter how much talent is supposedly in the draft. Another issue is that it seems like projecting superstardom is something scouts and fans love to do, but rarely get correct. As I write this, the 2014 mock NBA draft from NBADraft.net has the top 6 projected picks currently in high school. That’s become commonplace, but it’s also become commonplace that by the time those players are eligible for the draft, most of them will not be ranked that high.

—

Want to know more? You can follow Marcus Shockley on Twitter right this second.

By Marcus Shockley

Fabled UNC head coach Dean Smith had a philosophy about his approach to winning games. Many people know about Smith’s “Points Per Possession” idea, a concept that his student and current Tar Heel coach Roy Williams has taken and tweaked (if your PPP is higher than the other team’s, why not get as many possessions as possible?) but the basic idea is that you want to average more points per possession than your opponents. Pretty simple, but many teams and players have missed the execution of this idea.

Smith’s execution of his philosophy is as follows:

The best, most efficient way of increasing Points Per Possession is to shoot at a higher percentage.

The highest percentage shot for any team is an open layup or free throw.

Therefore, you work the ball into the post and attempt to score open layups or point blank shots. Do this methodically and recruit well, and you end up winning about 75% of your games and end up in the Hall of Fame.

This isn’t a discussion about Smith or Adolph Rupp or Bobby Knight or any of the legendary coaches who used similar consistency to win over many, many years. The discussion I’m bringing up is about long term thinking, and how in our current culture of immediacy, we may sabotage our long term success with short-sighted decisions.

One of Smith’s more famous methods of lowering the other team’s PPP was to leave their worst shooter open most of the game. His idea was that while that shooter would score more than they normally would, the law of averages would, over the course of the game, work in UNC’s favor. The seminal moment where this philosophy worked was in 1995, during the NCAA tournament Elite 8, where Number 2 seeded UNC knocked off Rick Pitino’s No.1 seeded Kentucky Wildcats. Pitino had his own law of averages working that year, where he figured out that a team that shoots high enough percentage from the three-point-line could easily outscore a team shooting mostly two-pointers, even if Pitino’s team’s shooting percentage was lower. So his law of averages fell when Smith left Kentucky’s worst three point shooter open outside the perimeter all game long.

Smith’s philosophy was not intended to garner short-term success; there were several games over the course of Smith’s career where the averages worked against him and he lost. However, over time, the averages worked in his favor far more often.

The issue with much of our culture (and media in general) today is that in many ways we’ve lost our ability to think long-term. When the Miami Heat first brought in heavyweights Lebron James and Chris Bosh, they lost several of their first games together, and immediately were declared a failure, which was just silly. I’m not exactly sure why, but it seems that people have a hard time seeing more than what they just watched or saw in the last game, and this isn’t just fans, but sports media as well. Probably the most glaring example of this is the NBA; rookies who score high numbers in their first game or two are thought of as successes even if their production tapers off, and rookies who don’t score big numbers or make highlight reels right away are considered busts.

This idea is even pervasive in some offices of General Managers.

The issue is that people are supposed to change, improve and grow over time. Malcolm Gladwell has posited that it takes 10,000 hours of steady practice to become an expert at something. That makes sense – that’s exactly why teams have practices, to improve. Now, sure there are plenty of examples of teams that never improve, but the reality in sports is just as it is in life. What turns people into experts at any skill is the amount of effort they personally put into it, combined with their base natural talents.

My overall point is this: we have to step back and look at things from a much broader, long term process. Right now, I’m reading a lot about how bad Kentucky and UNC basketball teams are – but I can look at their rosters and their recruits coming in and know that next season it’s very likely that both of those teams will be dominant one year from now (especially UNC). I thought the same thing about Indiana last year, and before the season started I mentioned how Duke was loaded with upperclassmen and Coach K does well with them. Nothing much as changed about Duke from last year to this year other than they lost a star player to the NBA, and yet, there they are, waxing the rest of the NCAA and they really do have a legitimate shot at winning it all this year.

Coach K didn’t run out and change his approach and long term plan after his team was thumped late in the season by UNC last year. He’s thinking long-term. Sure he, like Dean Smith, Roy Williams, John Calipari and Rick Pitino, all want to win now, but they also don’t want to just win a good number of games, they want to win a title every now and then too, and that takes long-term thinking.

This is the last day of 2012. One year from today, we’ll be reflecting on 2013. There’s a lot of time and events that will happen between now and one year from now. What do you want to accomplish by that time? Or, to view it a better way, if you sit down today and write out a list of things that you want to be true one year from today, what’s on that list?

What decisions are you making today and tomorrow to make those items on the list become accomplishments?

What about five years from now?

“It’s not so important who starts the game but who finishes it.” – John Wooden

–

Want to know more? You can follow Marcus Shockley on Twitter.

By Marcus Shockley

As the Northeastern United States digs out from under the massive devastation of Hurricane Sandy, people look for ways to prevent the pain and mayhem caused by storms like this. While it may be possible to one day control the weather, in times of desperation people will start grasping at wild ideas, such as the concept of trying to stop a Hurricane by nuking it that comes up whenever there is a massive storm that lashes our coasts.

While the idea of trying to stop a massive force of nature with a “massive force of man” is an idea that is laughable from a nuclear perspective, it has become reality for the NBA under David Stern’s tenure.

David Stern recently announced his retirement as NBA commissioner, effective in 2014. Stern has ruled over the NBA for almost 30 years and has done serious damage to the league and its overall on-court product, and it’s not clear if his successor will be able to rectify it.

Is David Stern the worst commissioner in the history of sports? No.

Has he done some good things? Yes.

Is he a good commissioner? No.

Under David Stern, the NBA diverted its entire marketing force to promote individuals over teams, a direct departure from every other team sport in existence, and diametrically opposed to the model created by the NFL under Paul Tagliabue, who many, including myself, consider to be greatest commissioner who has presided over any sport thus far. Tagliabue turned football into the financial and popular juggernaut that it is today, and one key element of the NFL is that fans root for teams, not individual players. Sure, they love their players as long as they are wearing the team uniform, but Indianapolis Colts fans did not flock to root for Denver when their beloved Peyton Manning was traded to the Mile High City. Fans of NFL teams root for their favorite team, and while some fans might change teams, it’s rare and it’s not because of where the players are going. An added business caveat to this: injuries, while unfortunate, do not normally diminish the immediate value of an NFL franchise.

This concept, which is used effectively in college sports, worldwide soccer and even the poorly managed Major League Baseball, creates more valuable teams, a more loyal fanbase and vast financial power for the league as a whole. It’s exactly the opposite of what David Stern has done.

Over the past 30 years, David Stern has effectively made moves that have created an NBA that is entirely focused on the marketability of individual players and that has grown revenue by some amount, but also created a fragile economy for the sport, limited parity and created an environment where it’s more important to have one ‘star’ player than it is to make the playoffs consistently.

The biggest issue today is that the only way for small-market or mid-market teams to succeed in today’s NBA is to get your hands on one of the few superstars in the league – such as Oklahoma City or San Antonio did with Kevin Durant and Tim Duncan respectively – and hope they don’t leave as soon as they really hit their professional peak (as Dwight Howard and Lebron James have done). Once a team like the Boston Celtics or Miami Heat manage to lure three superstars to their team, the only way for another team to compete with them is to send an equal or greater force against them, much like attempting to nuke a hurricane.

There are several reasons for this, but the most egregious is how stars get more beneficial calls than other players, and the lack of true zone defenses is designed to allow the stars more points. As an example, Shaquille O’Neal, one of the most gifted centers to play in the NBA, was allowed to charge his way to the basket, knocking his opponent to the floor, and it was rarely called. Considering Shaq’s impressive physical skills, this gave him an incredible, nearly insurmountable advantage in the post that other teams could not contend with. The result? Four NBA championships for O’Neal and his teams. Now, this is not to say O’Neal could not have won titles even if the games were called fairly, but giving a player of his ability that kind of advantage is exactly what David Stern had in mind. He’s repeated this pattern for years, and it’s created players who are far too powerful. The fans follow the players – if Lebron leaves Miami for Charlotte (won’t happen), suddenly there will be a rash of new Charlotte Bobcats fans and an exodus of Miami Heat fans. This creates a fragile economy for the sport – if Lebron is injured, the Miami Heat suddenly have significantly less fans, as the Chicago Bulls found out last season when Derrick Rose went down with an ACL injury.

This focus on the individual players has stymied economic parity and growth in the NBA. It’s not currently possible for a team to be competitive in the NBA without loading up on ‘name’ players who will get the benefits of being stars. Are you a fan of the Wizards, Cavaliers, Hawks, Orlando or any of a dozen other teams without a group of stars? You’re out of luck. You’re team’s not contending this year or any year in the near future. The NBA still suffers from the image that there are ‘favored’ teams, something very few people believe about the NFL.

I don’t know if Adam Silver will correct these problems, but it’s definitely fixable. It’s a problem built over 30 years of misguided marketing, where individual player shoe releases make more noise than some of the teams in the league.

By Marcus Shockley

The NBA has instituted fines for ‘flopping’, which is when a player fakes taking an offensive foul. This is an excellent move by the NBA, and the best move the NBA has made since it instituted the age limit. It’s one of the top issues that needed be addressed in order to not only return consistency to the game but to start eliminating the overriding attitude that NBA games are ‘fixed’ for some teams.

The concept of flopping as it exists today in the NBA actually started at the college level. Coaches with less athletic defenders would teach their players to take the charge instead of going for the block and fouling. This, by itself, is not a bad strategy. By definition, a ‘charge’ is an offensive foul, meaning, the player on offense has taken an unfair physical advantage in the game. Technically, a player banging in the post shoving his defender to the floor is also guilty of an offensive foul. However, what we’ve become used to is when a player has the ball and is pushing to the basket, and the defender stands his ground, gets knocked to the floor, and an offensive foul is called.

Pretty simple, right?

Well, there’s that little bit about whether the offensive player actually got an advantage or whether the defensive player stepped in and cut off his path to the basket with a trip. That’s when the replays start trying to show whether the defender ‘moved his feet’ or whether he ‘got there in time’. The reality was that it was extremely difficult to take a charge unless a defender had clearly established position well in advance.

And that’s when things got ugly.

Some coaches at the college level took advantage of this; even if it seemed obvious that their player was late to take a charge, they would berate the officials until some calls started going the other way. Eventually, the concept of a ‘block or a charge’ became almost entirely a judgement call – no longer a clear cut choice where the offensive player had the benefit of the doubt. Some players would be called for offensive fouls simply because they were not national names, while others had much more free reign because of the name on the front of their jersey. The players who grew up in this system learned to make this an art form – flailing their arms emphatically or yelling out to attract attention as they threw themselves to the floor.

It shouldn’t be part of the game. It’s something that basketball fans have always hated, and when someone like Lebron James obviously flops, sports fans can only shake their heads in disgust. It’s seen as cheating because the actual rules define the play much differently than it is called.

So the NBA has implemented two solid changes which will continue to improve their product on the floor. Now if they would just raise that age limit at least one more year and shorten the season, they could actually see ratings that would allow more of their teams to turn a profit.

Comparing the Success of College Seniors to International Players drafted in 2nd round since 2000

Juan Carlos Navarro sits atop the list of good international NBA draft picks.

By James Blackburn

Notes About How This List Was Created

• Good pro means they played for 5 years or more in NBA and/or played/contributed significantly
• For draft years 2010-2011, I left off some Int’l and some seniors because there has not been enough time to evaluate them.
• A bad international player means he hasn’t played in NBA yet at all or hasn’t contributed, same with college senior. Or they played for a year or two, then they were out.
• 4-year guy means senior- no matter if they were a 4 or 5 year guy
• Some of my personal opinion is factored in as well about weather they are a good or bad pick- but my opinion is based mostly on the players stats, upside (if they are current pick- last 2 years), and how long played in NBA, if at all.

Results
Total Good Senior Picks: 51
Total Good International Picks: 17 (4 years of 1 good player picked and 3 years of 0 picks)
Total Bad Senior Picks: 82
Total Bad International Picks: 66

Out of all the picks that were graded (all were not, some players were considered a wash/even/not really good or bad), there were 133 college seniors drafted since 2000 in 2nd round that were graded by myself. 61% of these seniors picked were considered bad picks (may of not stayed long in league, if at all, or didn’t really contribute), leaving 39% of seniors drafted graded as a good pick. 83 international players were evaluated that were drafted in 2nd round of NBA draft since 2000. 79% of these players were considered bad picks, 21% were considered good.

There doesn’t seem to be much of a change with any group after 2005, which was the last year HS players could be drafted. Overall, the results give a slight edge to drafting college seniors over international players, with 39% having success over just 21% of players coming from Europe and overseas. But there are also more college seniors drafted 133 to just 83, so there is less room for error for international players. I will say this though, international players seem to be either star or bust (never even reaching the NBA/or America in that case), and very few in betweens, though there are a few. As with college seniors there seems to be more that fall into that middle category (neither star nor complete bust).

Last observation is that the best 2nd round senior picked in my opinion in last 10 years is probably a tie between Matt Barnes and Steve Blake, based on their years played in the NBA and their contributions on teams, including playoff teams. The best international player picked in my opinion was Luis Scola and Marc Gasol, who are both better players then the college seniors picked. Scola and Gasol are on the verge of being All-Star guys and are both major contributors for their respective teams. Its no accident or coincidence that Scola was a Spurs draft pick.

2000

Good Senior Picks (5)
1. Jake Voskuhl
2. Eddie House
3. Eduardo Najera
4. Brian Cardinal
5. Jason Hart

Good International Picks (1)
1. Marko Jaric

Bad Senior Picks (10)
2. Dan Langhi
3. AJ Guyton
4. Lavor Postell
5. Hanno Mottola
6. Chris Carrawell
7. Dan McClintock
8. Chris Porter
9. Sconnie Penn
10. Pete Micheal
11. Jaquay Walls

Bad International Picks (4)
1. Soumaila Samake
2. Olumide Oyedeji
3. Josip Sesar
4. Igor Rakocevic

2001

Good Senior Picks (4)
1. Brian Scalabrine
2. Loren Woods
3. Earl Watson
4. Jarron Collins

Good International Picks (0)

Bad Senior Picks (9)
5. Jeff Trepagnier
6. Damone Brown
7. Ken Johnson
8. Sean Lampley
9. Eric Chenowith
10. Ruben Boumtje Boumtje
11. Andre Hutson
12. Bryan Bracey
13. Alvin Jones

Bad International Picks (2)
1. Antonis Fotsis
2. Robertas Javtokas Lietuvos Rytas

2002

Good Senior Picks (6)
1. Dan Gadzuric
2. Matt Barnes
3. Lonny Baxter
4. Flip Murray
5. Darius Songaila
6. Rasual Butler

Good International Picks (2)
1. Juan Carlos Navarro
2. Luis Scola (Spurs Pick)

Bad Senior Picks (7)
1. Steve Logan
2. Robert Archibald
3. Vincent Yarbrough
4. Chris Owens
5. Jason Jennings
6. Tamar Slay
7. Corsley Edwards

Bad International Picks (5)
1. Milos Vujanic
2. Peter Fehse
3. Mario Kasun
4. Federico Kammerichs
5. Mladen Sekularac

2003

Good Senior Picks (8)
1. Jason Kapono
2. Luke Walton
3. Steve Blake
4. James Jones
5. Matt Bonner
6. Keith Bogans
7. Willie Green
8. Kyle Korver

Good International Picks (1)
1. Zaza Pachulia

Bad Senior Picks (4)
1. Travis Hansen
2. Derrick Zimmerman
3. Tommy Smith
4. Brandon Hunter

Bad International Picks (10)
1. Maciej Lampe
2. Sofoklis Schortsanitis
3. Szymon Szewczyk
4. Slavko Vranes
5. Sani Becirovic
6. Malick Badiane
7. Paccelis Morlende
8. Remon Van de Hare
9. Nedzad Sinanovic
10. Andreas Glyniadakis

2004

Good Senior Picks (2)
1. Royal Ivey
2. Chris Duhon

Good International Picks (1)
1. Anderson Varejão

Bad Senior Picks (13)
2. Jackson Vroman
3. Lionel Chalmers
4. Antonio Burks
5. Ricky Minard
6. Denard Robinson (Bobcats pick)
7. David Young
8. Justin Reed
9. Romain Sato- bad pick from Spurs- very surpising
10. Rickey Paulding
11. Luis Flores
12. Marcus Douhit
13. Blake Stepp
14. Rashad Wright

Bad International Picks (8)
1. Peter Ramos
2. Albert Miralles
3. Sergey Lishchuk
4. Ha Seung-Jin
5. Viktor Sanikidze
6. Vassilis Spanoulis
7. Christian Drejer
8. Sergei Karaulov-another bad Spurs pick

2005

Good Senior Picks (3)
1. Daniel Ewing
2. Ronny Turiaf
3. Ryan Gomes

Good International Picks (3)
1. Ersan Ilyasova
2. Roko Ukic
3. Marcin Gortat

Bad Senior Picks (4)
1. Robert Whaley
2. Orien Greene
3. Dijon Thompson
4. Lawrence Roberts

Bad International Picks (7)
1. Mickaël Gelabale
2. Erazem Lorbek
3. Uros Slokar
4. M. Andriuskevicius
5. Mile Ilic
6. Axel Hervelle
7. Cenk Akyol

2006

Good Senior Picks (3)
1. Steve Novak
2. Craig Smith
3. Ryan Hollins

Good International Picks(0)

Bad Senior Picks (6)
1. James White
2. Paul Davis
3. Bobby Jones
4. Denham Brown
5. Dee Brown
6. Hassan Adams

Bad International Picks (8)
1. Marcus Vinicius
2. Lior Eliyahu
3. V. Veremeenko
4. Yotam Halperin
5. Eden Bavic
6. Ejike Ugboaja
7. L. Mavrokefalidis
8. Damir Markota

2007

Good senior Picks (2)
1. Carl Landry
2. Aaron Gray

Good International Picks (2)
1. Kyrylo Fesenko
2. Marc Gasol

Bad Senior Picks (7)
1. Chris Richard
2. Derrick Byars
3. Adam Haluska
4. Reyshawn Terry
5. Stephane Lasme
6. Jared Jordan
7. Herbert Hill

Bad International Picks (6)
1. Stanko Barac
2. Renaldas Seibutis
3. Brad Newley
4. Sammy Mejia
5. Giorgos Printezis
6. Milovan Rakovic

2008

Good Senior Picks (3)
1. Sonny Weems
2. James Gist (Spurs Pick)
3. Joe Crawford

Good International Picks (4)
1. Nikola Pekovic
2. Omer Asik
3. Goran Dragic (Spurs pick)
4. Semih Erden

Bad Senior Picks (10)
1. Kyle Weaver
2. Sean Singletary
3. Patrick Ewing JR
4. Malik Hairston
5. Devon Hardin
6. Shan Foster
7. Darnell Jackson
8. Maarty Leunen
9. Sasha Kaun
10. Deron Williams

Bad International Picks (2)
1. Ante Tomic
2. Tadija Dragicevic

2009

Good Senior Picks (8)
1. Jeff Pendergraph
2. Dante Cunningham
3. Sam Young
4. Jon Brockman
5. Marcus Thorton
6. Danny Green
7. AJ Price
8. Lester Hudson

Good International Picks (2)
1. Jonas Jerebko
2. Nick Calathes- went to HS in USA

Bad Senior Picks (4)
1. Goran Suton
2. Jack McClinton
3. Robert Vaden
4. Robert Dozier

Bad International Picks (4)
1. Sergio Llull
2. Sergii Gladyr
3. Nando De Colo
4. Emir Preldzic

2010

Good Senior Picks (6)
1. Dexter Pitman
2. Andy Rautins
3. Landry Fields
4. Magnum Rolle
5. Luke Harangody
6. Jeremy Evans

Good International Picks (1)
1. Pape Sy

Bad Senior Picks (5)
1. Jarvis Varnado
2. Jerome Jordan
3. Stanley Robinson
4. Ryan Reid
5. Dwayne Collins

Bad International Picks (3)
1. Tibor Pleiss
2. Nemanja Bjelica
3. Paulo Prestes

2011

Good Senior Picks (1)
1. Chandler Parsons

Good International Picks (0)

Bad Senior Picks (3)
1. Justin Harper
2. Jon Diebler
3. Vernon Macklin

Bad International Picks (7)
1. Bojan Bogdanovic
2. Davis Bertans
3. Milan Macvan
4. Chukwudiebere Maduabum
5. Tanguy Ngombo
6. Adam Hanga
7. Ater Majok

Herb Pope, who played his college career at Seton Hall, talks to us about his NBA prospects and what he thinks his next steps are in his career.

Erving Walker, a guard who just completed his college career at Florida, talks with us about his attendance at this year’s Portsmouth Invitational and where he sees his current draft stock.

Henry Sims, a 6’11″ PF/C who just finished up his senior season at Georgetown, worked to show he might be an NBA prospect at the Portsmouth Invitational this year. We caught up with Henry to get his thoughts on his draft prospects and what he’s working on to try and get to that pro level.