I was talking to a buddy of mine who coaches AAU ball down in Atlanta. One of the things we talked about is the effects of the AAU "super teams" - where guys go to play with other stars, college "super teams" where multiple 5-stars go to play with one another, even high schools that become "basketball magnet schools" and the effect that is having on the game.
We were wondering if the fact that you have so many studs on one team is preventing the development of "super stars" in the traditional sense. Take a look at a guy like Brunson who took his team, placed them on his shoulders, and carried his team to a state title, almost single handed. Does that develop him to be a better leader in the future - compared to a guy who gets on a team with other 5 stars and that player doesn't have to "take charge" but can wait for others to do so?
Is there an advantage for a kid like AJ who doesn't play on an elite AAU team? If he doesn't play well, gets injured, or gets into foul trouble - his team is going to suffer. That's the type of pressure that would seem to help prepare a kid for the grind of a B1G season.
Even in the NBA, where guys are now going to play together like the Heat did - does that stop the development of players like MJ who forge their way forward and somehow raise the play of their teammates and draft choices to get to their goals?
Tonight in the Kentucky game - they really didn't have a consistent go to player when they needed points. Now we all know it's nice to have an evenly spread team in terms of points. But, isn't there an advantage to a team to have a guy who stops other teams from scoring unanswered points - a rally killer, so to speak. I'd have thought that I'd have tried to get Towns the ball on the inside more often to keep control of the game once we came back from being down 9 points in the first half and certainly after coming back from 8 points in the 2nd half.
Maybe this isn't a big deal, but we were noticing that the "alpha dog" seems to be a vanishing species.
Anyone have any thoughts - though this doesn't have anything to do with the FF or the championship game.
We were wondering if the fact that you have so many studs on one team is preventing the development of "super stars" in the traditional sense. Take a look at a guy like Brunson who took his team, placed them on his shoulders, and carried his team to a state title, almost single handed. Does that develop him to be a better leader in the future - compared to a guy who gets on a team with other 5 stars and that player doesn't have to "take charge" but can wait for others to do so?
Is there an advantage for a kid like AJ who doesn't play on an elite AAU team? If he doesn't play well, gets injured, or gets into foul trouble - his team is going to suffer. That's the type of pressure that would seem to help prepare a kid for the grind of a B1G season.
Even in the NBA, where guys are now going to play together like the Heat did - does that stop the development of players like MJ who forge their way forward and somehow raise the play of their teammates and draft choices to get to their goals?
Tonight in the Kentucky game - they really didn't have a consistent go to player when they needed points. Now we all know it's nice to have an evenly spread team in terms of points. But, isn't there an advantage to a team to have a guy who stops other teams from scoring unanswered points - a rally killer, so to speak. I'd have thought that I'd have tried to get Towns the ball on the inside more often to keep control of the game once we came back from being down 9 points in the first half and certainly after coming back from 8 points in the 2nd half.
Maybe this isn't a big deal, but we were noticing that the "alpha dog" seems to be a vanishing species.
Anyone have any thoughts - though this doesn't have anything to do with the FF or the championship game.
