Fwiw

[playmakr]

Ah, nothing like being young and dumb... living in a black and white world...

Man I wish I was still young.

Did you or CoolM have any more to add? I'm almost with you on it, but needed a bit more than "LOL whatever" and perhaps being younger than you.

You are either talented or not talented by age 20. Sure, guys can "improve." But very rarely are there dramatic jumps in talent/growth spurts by that point in life. Granted, out of 5000 Division 1 Men's players at any 1 given time, there are bound to be a few examples.

 

[MNsooner]

Man I wish I was still young.

Did you or CoolM have any more to add? I'm almost with you on it, but needed a bit more than "LOL whatever" and perhaps being younger than you.

You are either talented or not talented by age 20. Sure, guys can "improve." But very rarely are there dramatic jumps in talent/growth spurts by that point in life. Granted, out of 5000 Division 1 Men's players at any 1 given time, there are bound to be a few examples.

On nearly every team in the country there is a player who doesn't contribute much until they become a Jr/Sr. This isn't a rarity. Players get better, people get more mature.

 

[playmakr]

On nearly every team in the country there is a player who doesn't contribute much until they become a Jr/Sr. This isn't a rarity. Players get better, people get more mature.

Contributing and being good/talented are not the same. Take your example Osby, he was a top 100 talent, so he was good before 20. This isn't about maturing, this is about being a good player. Some of the best players I've ever seen growing up in Chicago, playing high school ball, and playing in college never matured but were ballers long before 20. You either are or you aren't by then, almost always. And I'll say again, talent is probably a better word to use than "good."

 

[DenverSooner]

In the history of college basketball what player made the biggest improvement from high school to some point in college? I would say Bryant Reeves is high on the list. Having followed OU, OSU and to a lesser degree Big 8/XII basketball since the mid 80s pretty closely, I cannot think of single player in the conference that remotely did what he did. Certainly others have been really good players but they were not projects coming out of high school.

Terry Evans was a late bloomer. Some might not realize this based on his four years of playing at OU but he barely got a scholarship (don't take this wrong, Evans was a borderline Big 8 player but he probably got his chance at OU partly due to his father - a very well known high school coach in OKC) and per coach Tubbs was absolutely abused in practice by Blaylock. Dave Seiger was a late bloomer. Tubbs is quoted as saying he thought he made a recruiting mistake on Dr. Dave. Perhaps Stacy King was a bit of late bloomer. He went from being a role player to a super star between his sophomore and junior seasons.

Jeremy Lynn seems to be a late bloomer. I had never even heard of that guy before this year but I suspect he was tearing up the Ivy League for four years in college.

 

[StatGeek]

Contributing and being good/talented are not the same. Take your example Osby, he was a top 100 talent, so he was good before 20. This isn't about maturing, this is about being a good player. Some of the best players I've ever seen growing up in Chicago, playing high school ball, and playing in college never matured but were ballers long before 20. You either are or you aren't by then, almost always. And I'll say again, talent is probably a better word to use than "good."

I understand what you are saying, and when it comes to basketball I think you are right. People are confusing accomplishment with talent, but the reality is that there aren't a lot of basketball players playing in the Big 12 who are lacking in the talent department.

 

[MNsooner]

I understand what you are saying, and when it comes to basketball I think you are right. People are confusing accomplishment with talent, but the reality is that there aren't a lot of basketball players playing in the Big 12 who are lacking in the talent department.

If you define talent that broadly then it isn't a dumb thing to say, just a meaningless thing to say.

 

[playmakr]

If you define talent that broadly then it isn't a dumb thing to say, just a meaningless thing to say.

No, it being defined strictly would be more meaningless, which is what you meant to say.

 

[MNsooner]

No, it being defined strictly would be more meaningless, which is what you meant to say.

No I meant that if you define talent such that everyone who gets Big 12 scholarship is talented then of course only talented players are succeeding. You'll notice I was responding to the post I was quoting. If you're going to be condescending you should make sure what you are saying is correct.

 

[playmakr]

No I meant that if you define talent such that everyone who gets Big 12 scholarship is talented then of course only talented players are succeeding. You'll notice I was responding to the post I was quoting. If you're going to be condescending you should make sure what you are saying is correct.

Right, I know that you are defining it broadly, which then wouldn't be meaningless in your eyes. Not every Big 12 player is talented enough to a major player at that level and they aren't going to gain that ability with the blink of an eye, of course, is the entire point. That type of talent is strict to either being a baller or not, not "talent" in the sense of defining it broadly compared to the average joe and saying all they need is coaching or some motivation, because if they aren't any good (compared to the peers at their level) none of that matters. Not sure why that is condescending, but that's the problem with reading typed words, it's difficult to convey and assess such things. It's not my intent to be condescending, and I know which quote you posted.

 

[SoonerinNC]

To be realistic I am trying to remember a player from OU who suddenly emerged from role player to impact player.

I missed a lot of OU basketball from about 1960 until the mid-90's. Didn't get to see a game except from the years when the Billy Ball and Kelvin teams made national TV. So some of you will probably have some good examples.

I think there be very few.

I can't think of any of the men. Najera comes closest. Maybe Cade Davis.

On the women's side Ny Stevenson and maybe Olijawan. But both were considered good talents going in.

So the chance that Bennett will suddenly emerge and take minutes from Fitz are probably pretty remote. A guy like Tyler Neal could emerge since he has big shooting range.

Of course a newbie has a better shot to excell out of nowhere like Sherene Campbell.

 

[WaymanFan]

In reading between the lines, I guess Playmakr is pointing out that guys who were not highly recruited and made few contributions in college after two seasons generally never improved greatly. Obviously, it's all subjective as to what the expectations are. Stacey King is the only OU "superstar" who made little contribution prior to his junior year, but I would say he wasn't lightly recruited (nor close to a Burger Boy).

Since the '80s, the only lightly recruited player who started his collegiate career at OU that fits this mold would be Kermit Holmes. The guy went from being a "Why did Coach Tubbs give this guy a scholarship?" to averaging about 16 PPG his senior season. There are several other Sooners who came from the JUCO ranks who really turned it on in their senior year after a mediocre junior year. The most notable would be Bryatt Vann. I couldn't figure out why Coach Tubbs gave this guy a scholly...until he led the team in scoring his senior season.

 

[skyvue]

To be realistic I am trying to remember a player from OU who suddenly emerged from role player to impact player.

Stacy King. He was probably highly ranked coming out of high school (I didn't follow recruiting then -- or now, really), but he hadn't done much as a Sooner until his junior season, when he did plenty.