Over in the LA Times this morning, USC head basketball coach Tim Floyd gave his take on the downside of opting to play in Europe for a few years instead of playing NCAA basketball:
Asked if he could understand the allure of playing in Europe for a year, Floyd said, "Not necessarily, no. Being away from your family, speaking another language, playing against 30-year-old men versus 18- to 22-year-old players. . . . Until this doesn't work for the young people who have come in, I can't see the appeal of wanting my child to go over there unless we were in dire financial straits or I couldn't get in [to college].
Excuse me, but I thought the purpose of college was to educate young people, not to serve as some sort of 4-year holding tank to cosset them from the demands of the real world. And if I recall correctly, America traditionally sends literally thousands of its college students overseas every year in order for them to experience a semester abroad in another culture, claiming that it's a "learning experience" that broadens one's perspective on the world and America's place in it.
I know one thing: Holding a job in a foreign country and learning to interact with adults as a professional while playing basketball for FC Barcelona is probably a superior learning experience to spending a junior year abroad in the same city, partying and pretending to attend class. That's especially the case for elite basketball recruits who normally don't spend a whole lot of time in the classroom anyway. And as I recall, one of the reasons we see increasing numbers of Euros coming to the NBA, is because they seem to possess better fundamental skills than their stateside counterparts. If that's the case, then what could be better than spending a year in Europe where coaches will spend the time and effort drilling their charges in just those same fundamentals.
Welcome to global competition. It's a good thing, unless of course all you want to do is grouse about it.
