A lot has been projected about this years up coming draft. Before the NCAA season began many had raved about the possibility of this year's draft ranking as the best class since 2003, largely in part of the expected "one and done" talent expected to enter. I, like others, became intrigued and made the effort to catch what ever games that showcased these crop of players. Some of the hype is evident, as seen over the course of the regular season. Where individual and team success was seen, most of these players bowed out earlier in the NCAA tournament than probably anticipated.
Much of what has resulted in the tournament is based on experience. If there is any case to be made about a game changing star in college, such Carmelo Anthony or Derrick Rose, the results show that it remains to be seen. We are into the weekend of the Final four. Out of the teams with players anticipated to enter in this years' draft, according to the mock drafts, Kentucky (4), UConn (1) and Florida (1) remain. A good number of players that garnered much of the attention had exhibited lackluster display in the tournament. I don't use the term lackluster for the sake that their respected teams were ousted, but based on how they lost. The lack of leadership, where it counted the most, was not seen with these players. The draft is based on talent and potential for the most part. If scouts are to really figure out if they have a potential bust on their hands, they should place higher value on the attribute of leadership. It was leadership that was the foundation base that propelled these players to become high school prospects. It's that same leadership drive that encouraged these players to put in that extra work to become prospected talents. Some players demonstrated a little more influence compared to some others and it was perhaps served as a reason as to why those players that had better tournament success.
The games played in March are on another level, that is without question. But this is the time where players are to take that next step. I may not be giving some of these players a fair shake. Some didn't have a strong or experienced team cast. Team chemistry aside, we can take a look at recent players who demonstrated good team leadership at the collegiate level and have transitioned that to the NBA to develop into good players:
a) Carmelo Anthony - Syracuse (2003 NCAA champion)
b) Joakim Noah - Florida (2006 and 2007 NCAA champion)
c) Derrick Rose - Memphis (2008 NCAA finalist)
d) Stephen Curry - Davidson (2008 Elite Eight)
There are surely more to add to the list, but these are some examples of players who accepted the challenge of the NCAA tournament given the attention they attracted. They were leaders on their respected collegiate teams and remain demonstrating those qualities as professional players. The basis of potential is something possible, but not yet actual. Drafting the best talent for certain should never change. But given how some things panned out in this tournament, which I found somewhat disappointing, the focus on leadership as a key attribute to quantify should be greatly factored in to diffuse and avoid drafting just on potential, but someone who can actually reach their potential by being a leading example.
The games played in March are on another level, that is without question. But this is the time where players are to take that next step. I may not be giving some of these players a fair shake. Some didn't have a strong or experienced team cast. Team chemistry aside, we can take a look at recent players who demonstrated good team leadership at the collegiate level and have transitioned that to the NBA to develop into good players:
a) Carmelo Anthony - Syracuse (2003 NCAA champion)
b) Joakim Noah - Florida (2006 and 2007 NCAA champion)
c) Derrick Rose - Memphis (2008 NCAA finalist)
d) Stephen Curry - Davidson (2008 Elite Eight)
There are surely more to add to the list, but these are some examples of players who accepted the challenge of the NCAA tournament given the attention they attracted. They were leaders on their respected collegiate teams and remain demonstrating those qualities as professional players. The basis of potential is something possible, but not yet actual. Drafting the best talent for certain should never change. But given how some things panned out in this tournament, which I found somewhat disappointing, the focus on leadership as a key attribute to quantify should be greatly factored in to diffuse and avoid drafting just on potential, but someone who can actually reach their potential by being a leading example.