Now, here's a guy who could've really used the social training of a college campus. To play som amateur psychologist, you can tell this is a guy who is well travelled and educated, but sheltered because his family has travelled around and doesn't seem to have many close friends his age. We're talking about a guy who took Brandy to his senior prom, when he should have been a big man on campus and would have had no shortage of potential dates from his inner circle. If he had gone to college at, say, Duke, I think he would have benefitted from the camaradrie of his peers, enjoying life away from home, or just goofing around as college students often do. He would have learned to trust his teammates, that the whole is more than the sum of the parts, etc etc, Who knows, he may still be the same antisocial prick after 2-3 years of college, but it wouldn't have hurt his development any worse.
Re: MyHouse's list: There are certainly a lot of players who came out of high school, and did/have done very little. But can't the same be said of college players? In the draft, there are busts. For every Tim Duncan, there's a Shawn Bradley, Danny Ferry, etc. The primary motivation for the NBA is to allow players to be developed, for free, by the NCAA. I don't think race is the issue, but it obviously has a disproportionate effect on black players. Someone mentioned how much better Eddy Curry would be had he gone to college. Obviously he would be, but he's pocketed a few million while developing in the NBA, and I don't see how anyone can fault him for that. What if he blows out his knee in college? The worst argument is that these kids should get an education. Obviously, college serves many purposes, including developing an individual socially, intellectually, etc. That's the last of the NCAA's concerns. They make big money with broadcast fees for the tournament and regular season, and they're better served having more talented players who stick around for a while, thereby gaining an identity among fans.
If I remember correctly he was committed to go to LaSalle, and play under Speedy Morris. However, I believe his father was gonna be the assistant coach. So would he have got away from his parents and been any less of an ass? Hard to say.
Christ almighty. The guy is shooting under 42% yet again. He is a turnover machine, i doubt the sixers will even make the playoffs - if the nets beat them next week then the Sixers are in trouble. The sixers just beat the wizards without Iverson. How the ******** is he an MVP candidate? Honestly you fanboys are nauseating. Let me says this again, Iverson plays in the worst division in the NBA. In that worst division the Sixers might not even make the playoffs. If the Sixers played in almost any other division they would be a lottery team. To deny his 12, 11, 8 and 7 turnovers games is ludicrous. What exactly would make any of you fanboys knock Iverson's game? The fact that he can't play with another star? The fact that the sixers pretty much suck as bad with him as they do without him? The fact that ex-teamates rip him? Christ almighty, arguing that Iverson means more to his team than Duncan? Ok here is a little wager....Iverson does not finish in the top 5 in MVP voting. Who wants to take that bet? You know very well lebron, Duncan, Shaq and nash will certainly finish ahead of him. If the sixers miss the playoffs then Iverson won't finish top ten. How can a guy who shoots a terrible field goal percentage, turns the ball over more than anyone I've ever seen and might not even make the playoffs a MVP candidate? Jesus Christ, this is exactly why I love bigsoccer.
This argument is so tired. He has never played with another star. To say a malcontent fraud like Stackhouse is a star, or a 49 year old Mutumbo, or a 18 minute per game Larry Hughes in his rookie season, or an injured Chris Webber is a star is completely ludicrous. Your hatred for Iverson is as extreme as the blind loyalty that some show for the guy. Yeah he has turnovers, yeah he shoots a lot. Fine. He also nearly singlehandedly leads his team to victory each night since their is no other goddamn player on the team who can create their own shot. 99% of the NBA can not create a shot like AI. He also dishes out 8 assists per game. He scores 30. He gets steals and plays consitently good defense. You hate him, fine. Duncan, Nash, Kidd, and others are better all around players? Fine. But to deny that he's still in the upper echelon of NBA players just because you hate him is ludicrous.
Iverson great or just very good, that is the question. A very good question! Let's try and keep it civil, so far its intresting. 30 ppg and 8 assist seems like quality, but he does turn it over quite often, but he does handle the ball a ton of times. I think he has yet to get a solid team around him.
I agree this argument isn't a very good one, and let just say that he went to the NBA finals with Mutombo.........The year after Mutombo was aging and he was a liability on the offense, and I don,t think he was a star at that time. I'm canadian, and to be honest Iverson is better than Nash, Iverson is far much better in defense. Nash is horrible on defense and he's lucky to be playing with teams that are scoring 120 pts per night. Of course this year Nash should be consider as an MVP candidate but if you point to AI turnovers you should also point to the number of time Nash get pass for an easy lay up or the fact that if he would play 43 minutes per game he would have the same amount of TO than Iverson. But I agree with Microwave if the 76ers doesn't make the playoffs AI will not be in the top 5 and maybe top 10, but if they make it he'll be in the top 3 or 5.
Can we officially rename this thread "The Official Detroit Pistons Coronation Thread", now that the playoffs are fast approaching? Fear the Fro, bitches
No. The Pistons are quality, but don't bet the Starbucks money just yet. There's alot of hoops to be played.
38 pts, 16 assists, 6 rebounds, 3 steals and a win over Miami............Iverson isn't a top 10 MVP candidate???
Games like that happen way more often than the 12 turnover game, and thats why he is definately still an elite player in this league. However, should Shaq's 9 turnovers eliminate him from MVP consideration? hmmmmm.....
Shaq played 35 minutes and had 9 turnovers and since he's a center that's more like a 18 turnovers game for him............I have to disqualified him from the MVP award..........
Sorta like eliminateing the NBA's leading scorer who also is in the top 5 in assists from MVP discussion serious? Sure.
Zerou99... April Fools Day is April 1st, not 15th... today is tax day... Seriously, what team has ever suffered with Shaq??? Its even debatable whether Wade would be half the player he has become if Shaq hadnt come over.
No - I mean jokes about eliminating Shaq based on one game - hist first game back from illness - just seems like sarcasm. I don't think it's a joke to argue that Iversen's shooting percentage and turnover ratios should be a factor, just as Nash's lack of defense should be a factor.
um...i'm pretty sure he was joking if you look at the running dialogue on the thread, its fairly obvious.
here is an interesting fact... If AI finishes in the top 5 in assists (currently 5th), he'll become the first player in NBA history to finish a season in the top 5 in points, steals and assists... Does that shock anyone else?