Goodbye College, Hello Europe: The New Destination for High School Basketball Stars

Last week, I explored the intricacies of the race for the 2016 Olympics, choosing to focus on the substantial influence of new President-elect Barack Obama. Now that the afterglow of the historic election has begun to wear off, however, I decided to examine a very important story appropriate to the current sports world. As the college basketball season kicked off last week, one player that figured to be very prominent in national discussion for NCAA Player of the Year was notably absent. Brandon Jennings, last year’s number one recruit in the nation, did not take the court with the Arizona Wildcats, where he previously committed to play; rather, he was practicing with his new team, Lottomatica Roma, an ocean away in the heart of Italy. There, Jennings will try to improve his skills in order to raise his draft stock for next year while living in a grand apartment provided by the team and earning millions of dollars from his team contract and his endorsement deal with Under Armour. He is the first player to play professionally overseas rather than attend college for the mandatory year since NBA Commissioner David Stern constructed the age restriction two years ago. As a result, Jennings (pictured left) initiated a media firestorm, and has paved the way for what many believe to be the new, popular way for NBA hopefuls to make money out of high school while still adhering to the league’s age rule. In order to investigate this story in greater detail, I chose to search the blogosphere in an attempt to uncover further opinions on the subject. In doing so, I encountered and commented on two dynamic and well-regarded blogs. First, I discovered former ESPN Radio reporter and Cleveland Metro Network’s Sports Director Jeff Sack’s Le Basketbawl blog. In his entry, “Stern says Jennings playing in Europe is ‘a pretty cool thing,’” Sack nicely identifies the future implications of the Jennings’ decision for the NBA and the NCAA by focusing on the reactions of Commissioner Stern and NCAA President Myles Brand. Next, I unearthed the highly renowned New York Times College Sports Blog, The Quad, to which former ESPN journalist Pete Thamel regularly contributes. Thamel’s post, “At 19, plotting new path to N.B.A., via Europe,” provided a more detailed description of Jennings, from his daily life in Rome to an explanation of the process that led him there, and the resulting influence on future players. In addition to publishing my comments directly on the authors’ respective blogs, I have also posted these comments below.

“Stern says Jennings playing in Europe is ‘a pretty cool thing’"

Comment:

Thank you for your thoughtful and intriguing post regarding the widespread impact of Brandon Jennings’ resolution to forego college in favor of playing professionally in Europe. Clearly, his success will be heavily scrutinized and will probably determine whether or not similar choices by high school stars will become the norm or will fade off the radar. With that said, I particularly liked that you expanded your analysis to include the ramifications for all parties involved, from the NBA, to the NCAA, to future high school graduates. To be perfectly honest, I agree wholeheartedly with your “cynical side,” (as I do in most cases involving any sport in which profit is involved) that NCAA President Brand is almost certainly more worried by a potential loss of revenue than he is with the loss of one year of education. Realistically, a player similar to Jennings (whose SAT scores were on the verge of preventing him from playing anyway) is already thinking about the NBA, and would only attend college to market himself in a way that will make him more money in the future, not as a lawyer or a doctor, but as an NBA star. A single year at Arizona would not grant him a degree, nor would he be likely to make much of an attempt at studying anything besides basketball.

In terms of the NBA, I found myself somewhat surprised by Commissioner Stern’s complete approval of the Jennings situation. As you note, he was “the driving force” behind forcing high school graduates to wait at least a year before entering the NBA. If this rule was not intended to force players to attend college for a year in the hopes of preparing them for life in the NBA, I do not understand why it was designed. As I recall, Stern emphasized the maturity factor for instituting the “one and done” statute. In that case, how is an eighteen-year-old mature enough to adapt to life a foreign country, play alongside many others that do not speak his language, and negotiate endorsement deals as well as his contract, but not developed enough to adjust to life in the NBA? Ultimately, I believe that Jennings acted in the best interest of both him and his family. I find it difficult to fault someone for taking advantage of the system to make millions of dollars while honing his game for next year’s draft. I wonder, however, if you share my concern that his success will create false hope for those that will inevitably follow in his footsteps, that will hope to ride what you refer to as the “wave of the future.”

“At 19, plotting new path to N.B.A., via Europe”

Comment:

Thank you for your comprehensive post pertaining to the announcement by Brandon Jennings to play professionally overseas prior to entering the NBA rather than attending a university for a year. You addressed a wide variety of important aspects of this decision, most notably the consequential impact on the NCAA. Initially, I concluded that the future could be disastrous for President Brand (pictured right) if he begins to lose all the top-tiered talent to European professional teams. I would imagine, for example, that the wildly profitable “March Madness” tournament would have suffered in recent years without one-year-wonders such as Kevin Durant, Derrick Rose, and Michael Beasley. Yet, you astutely point out that the “one and done” rule was established only two years ago, and that college basketball flourished even as a generation of superstars (Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, and LeBron James) journeyed directly to the NBA from high school.

Overall, I believe that Jennings did what will be most beneficial to his future career; however, I have a few qualms about the overall message of his choice. As you mention, Jennings is an “admittedly apathetic student,” referred to college as “the easy road,” and even considered taking the entire year off to work out and train rather than attend the University of Arizona. Already, he is thriving, in position to earn more than one million dollars this year, and by most accounts is quite happy living in Rome. Yet, what does this say to others who might also consider foregoing college to play in Europe? Above all, it demonstrates that Jennings’ attitude towards college education is acceptable, which certainly should not be. NBA careers last, on average, 4.82 seasons, according to TIME Magazine. While many are likely to play longer than that, nothing is guaranteed. Inevitably, players will imitate Jennings, go to Europe, and will feel uncomfortable and lost, play poorly and their draft status will plummet. What then? They will have no college education and will be poorly equipped to pursue a fulfilling career after basketball. Again, it is much too early to proclaim Jennings’ achievements as good or bad for the NBA, NCAA, or the players themselves. Indeed, the twelve elite high school players that are reportedly interested in following his path may enjoy similar stardom; nevertheless, they must realize that not everyone will end up like Brandon Jennings.

The Obama Effect: 2016 Chicago Olympics?

For the last several months, Barack Obama and John McCain desperately appealed to voters, each insisting that he had the superior plan to end/win the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, fix the economy, and improve the healthcare system. Since Obama emerged victorious one week ago, however, even left-leaning pundits acknowledged that significant change will not occur overnight and that the American people should be patient with the President-elect. Nevertheless, Obama’s immense international admiration has already led him to the forefront of another major campaign: Chicago’s bid for the 2016 Olympics (pictured below, right). While this proposal will certainly not be the definitive movement undertaken by the new President, it is safe to say that his support will provide a huge boost to Chicago’s chances. Indeed, as ESPN’s Lester Munson reports, “experts agree that… his presence in Copenhagen (at the IOC meeting in 2009) could easily win the Olympics for Chicago.” The importance of this race for the U.S., moreover, should not be understated. One needs to look back no further than August to remember the vast success of the Beijing Olympics for China, both in terms of medals and in terms of international recognition (save for the pollution and human rights issues). The situation in the U.S. presents an even more beneficial scenario for 2016. Obama faces unprecedented challenges in the coming years, but perhaps none will be more difficult than restoring U.S. international standing. As a result, he has already listed the closing of the controversial Guantanamo Bay prison as one of his first executive orders, and he repeatedly maintains that he will be diplomatic with both allies and enemies in an attempt to foster enhanced international relationships. Assuming (for the sake of argument) that Obama is reelected in 2012, a successful bid for the 2016 Olympics would allow him to welcome the world to his hometown in the final months of his Presidency and, as Chicago bid leader Patrick Ryan asserts, to demonstrate that the U.S. is again prepared to “reach out to the rest of the world,” and to continue “building bridges of friendship.”

Certainly, it is much too early to crown Chicago as the winner of the race. Primarily, there exists the possibility that Obama will be involved in some sort of crisis on October 2, 2009, preventing him from attending the IOC meeting in Copenhagen. Perhaps more importantly, Chicago is still not universally considered the frontrunner. As recently as June 2008, the IOC’s technical evaluation deemed Tokyo the top city with Madrid a close second, according to Reuters. Of course, many Japanese media members admit that Obama’s landslide victory will advance Chicago’s chances, but they also stress that the competition is not a popularity contest. Others, such as Madrid bid leader Mercedes Coghen, contend that the election of Obama has been blown out of proportion with regards to the Olympic race, emphasizing that, “I’m happy for Obama’s victory, but in this race for the Olympics, every bid has its moments.” Furthermore, each of the cities (Tokyo, Madrid, Chicago, Rio de Janeiro) must be comprehensive and detailed in their bid, beginning with the required submission of a candidature file by February and including the hosting of a thorough IOC evaluation of the city sometime in the spring. Thus, Tokyo officials, including communications manager Masanori Takaya, remain optimistic that they still have the edge. In fact, Takaya even believes that former Olympic shooter and current Prime Minister Taro Aso will act as their secret weapon, and that he “could prove an even bigger asset to Tokyo’s Olympic hopes than Obama does to Chicago’s.” Although global media members have already proclaimed Obama as the decisive factor in securing Chicago’s nomination, Takaya alleges otherwise, declaring, “not many countries have an Olympian as head of state.”

Still, the advantages that Tokyo and Madrid accumulated over the last several months may have already dissipated in the minds of IOC officials. The Obama effect unofficially began last Tuesday night, when media and observers from Kenya to China watched the President-elect deliver a moving speech (pictured left) in front of 125,000 at Grant Park in Chicago, which, as part of the proposed Olympic village, would host archery, be the site of the marathon start, and offer entertainment such as concerts and big-screen televisions to watch the events. Accordingly, Chicago not only received unprecedented international exposure, but also proved it could handle large crowds on a short notice. This positive view of Chicago is also likely to increase over the next year, suggests Ryan, as people from around the world begin to understand that Obama “developed his professional and political career in Chicago and Illinois.” Recent patterns in Olympic bid contests, moreover, may be the most telling sign that hints towards Chicago’s victory. In 2005, Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair helped win London the bid for the 2012 Olympics at the IOC meeting in Singapore, and according to many experts, his “charismatic presentations were said to have led the IOC to pass over Paris, which seemed to have the leading bid.” Last year, at the IOC meeting in Guatemala, Vladimir Putin’s appearance “was instrumental in Sochi getting the 2014 Winter Games.” Consequently, it would appear that Tokyo and Madrid have little hope. Only a few months ago, Obama appeared in Berlin to give a speech intended to illustrate his determination to improving America’s image, unaware that 200,000 adoring Europeans would be there to chant his name. This admiration is unlikely to wear off anytime soon; rather, his election to office has already begun to sway the opinions of IOC officials, such as Irish member Patrick Hickey, head of the European Olympic Committees, who noted, “if the president of the United States comes to Copenhagen, it has to have a massive impact.” Hence, Chicago now has the inside track towards winning the race, despite the technical advantages of both Tokyo and Madrid. If all goes well, the U.S. will again host the most prestigious international event for the first time since 1996. Coincidentally or not, the Atlanta games twelve years ago (despite the bombings) validated the U.S. as a benevolent hegemon, a dominant but respected superpower. Maybe by 2016, President-elect Obama will return the country to that coveted position.

The NFL in London: Redesigned and Reformed

Last week, I chose to inspect a recent and politically significant story describing the creation of the first home soccer stadium ever for Palestine. In examining this monumental event, I found that while political tensions are certain to continue to run high in the near future, the new stadium would at the least provide a measure of hope for the people. This week, I decided to go in a completely different and less political direction, returning to a theme that I explored several weeks ago: international expansion. In this entry, I focused on the recently played NFL regular season game at Wembley Stadium (pictured left) in London, in an attempt to ascertain the level of progress in terms of generating interest in American football abroad, a task that has been historically difficult. However, the game played last Sunday between the Saints and the Chargers represented a new stage of positive growth for the NFL. After last year’s rainy, sloppy game between the Dolphins and the Giants, the NFL opted to schedule two offensively oriented teams, and undertook a variety of well-designed publicity measures in order to generate interest in the UK. As a result of the high-scoring, highly entertaining game, many believe that the UK is finally paying attention to the NFL, possibly even enough so to raise the possibility of an eventual team in London. In order to further investigate this developing story, I discovered and commented on two highly regarded blogs. I first commented on “N.F.L. in London, Part II,” written by Naila-Jean Myers of the well-renowned New York Times N.F.L. blog, “The Fifth Down.” In her entry, Myers highlights and provides links to a multitude of articles from UK sources devoted to different phases of the game as a means of exhibiting the rising degree of interest for American Football. I then unearthed another distinguished blog from FOX Sports, written by Senior NFL writer and current president of the Pro Football Writers of America, Alex Marvez, and responded to his entry, “English interest in NFL is picking up.” He accurately identifies a great deal of varying signs pointing towards progress for NFL interest in the UK, before raising the prospect of a permanent NFL team in London. In addition to publishing my comments directly on the authors’ respective blogs, I have also posted these comments below.

"N.F.L. in London, Part II"
Comment:
I would like to first thank you for your dynamic and detailed post regarding the NFL game in London last weekend. I find that the aspect of expansion for the NFL is one of extreme importance in the coming years, particularly with other popular American sports, such as basketball, undergoing similar transformations. You did a fine job of exploring this concept through the use of varied and helpful links to multiple UK sources that demonstrated the growing popularity of American football. Moreover, the depth of your entry immediately impressed me, specifically concerning your thoughts on international soccer expansion from the UK as somewhat of a response to the fact that “N.F.L. owners have already infiltrated the Premier League.” Still, I find it unsurprising that their proposed “39^th game” (an extra game played at a foreign site) has not received much support from FIFA and fans alike, considering the additional costs and implications for home fans. I would guess that fans of Arsenal, for example, would be just as discontented with the proposal as the thousands of New Orleans Saints fans that lost one of their cherished home games this year.

With that said, however, I agree with you that the NFL is on the right track. Although expansion may not be realistic for the Premier League, it has begun in full force for the NFL. Granted, last year’s rainy, poorly played slugfest between the Giants and Dolphins left much to be desired, but this year’s game benefited from not only much better game play, but also much improved marketing. By bringing in two high-scoring teams (Saints and Chargers), the NFL smartly advertised the most intriguing facet of their game: offense. Furthermore, as you mention, newspapers from The Guardian to The Times featured prominent stories on different features of the game, from a profile of LaDainian Tomlinson to the positive steps taken by Saints players to revive post-Katrina New Orleans. Clearly, Kevin Cadle’s claim that the game was the equivalent of the Super Bowl was hyperbolic, but his point is well taken. As you indicate early in the post, “talk of N.F.L. team in London is rampant,” an idea that would be the next logical step to take. I wonder, then, whether or not you believe this a realistic goal for the NFL to achieve in the next several years?

"English interest in the N.F.L. is picking up"
Comment:
I would like to thank you for this thoughtful and expansive post pertaining to the recently played NFL game in London last weekend between the Saints and Chargers. Your entry initially struck me for its ability to approach the topic both from a statistical standpoint and from a personalized perspective (the comments made by Jay Boyd and John Page). Prior to discovering your blog, I had only unearthed information regarding the overall implications of this game for the NFL as a whole; as such, it was refreshing to learn about the experience of an average fan. Likewise, I particularly enjoyed the progressive manner in which you detailed the many positive signs that this game provided for the NFL, from a vague interest level (“They’re screaming, ‘Football!’”) to a more calculated and determinable level (a sold out stadium and a surprising profit margin). Perhaps what impressed me most, however, was your attention to detail concerning the specific steps taken by the NFL to increase interest in and raise awareness of American football. It seems to me that the league learned from the failings of last year’s game, choosing this year to simplify the media circus (no twenty-six foot statue of Jason Taylor, pictured right), and instead focus on teaching the game, in part by airing messages during the game that “show such basics as ‘how to catch the ball, tackle, and what a block is.’”

Nevertheless, team sports rely on their home fan bases for support and revenue; thus, the NFL will not truly catch on until London is home to a permanent team. Will this happen? I certainly agree with you that the NFL is heading in that direction, especially if the schedule eventually expands to eighteen games as I expect it will. Still, such a commitment is unlikely to occur in the near future for several reasons that you illustrate. Primarily, it is a lot to ask for teams such as the Chargers, a team forced to travel overseas immediately following its game the prior week, obliging them to practice all week in a foreign country with an eight-hour time difference. Moreover, one sellout game is not enough to suggest that the NFL could sustain enough interest in a permanent team to turn a profit. In any case, the game itself exemplified progress for expansion and is a very positive sign for years to come.