Bill Russell

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Bill Russell

    In Response to Re: Bill Russell:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bill Russell : Right, and if Red LOST with the best player in the game, Russell, he would have gotten a pink slip as well.  Brown had MeBron and couldn't deliver.  Once Red got Russ, he delivered Big-Time, despite the juvenile rants of some on here,. What is the World Cup over?  Too bad, I didn't expect to hear from you for another week!!  Stupid, stupid game!
    Posted by Red-16Russ-11[/QUOTE]

    Brown had MeBron and couldn't deliver? Red had Cousy, Macauley, Sharman and he didn't deliver. So are you saying that Red is worse than Brown?

    World Cup was over on 7/11/2010. Do you know who won?
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Bill Russell

    In Response to Re: Bill Russell:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bill Russell : Dang, I forgot that Mike Brown won 10 titles.
    Posted by jrleftfoot[/QUOTE]

    No, but you forget the HOFers Mike Brown had the luck of coaching. Ramsey? Macauley? Cousy? Russell? Heinsohn? Hondo? Sharman? the Jones boys?

    Yep, the Cavs were loaded...

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Bill Russell

    In Response to Re: Bill Russell:
    [QUOTE]Good post Painter.....as far as Russ...? ....the last time they voted on the greatest player in history, Russ was the pick....has their been another vote since...? I don't believe so....although, since the last voting they added Russ' name to the Finals MVP award.....Laker fans have "the Logo" in West...well deserved in my opinion...Celtic fans have "the Greatest"......and the "Finals MVP award".....ok by Celtic fans...MJ was great....but so was Baylor and Robertson......
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]

    Ummm... who voted Russ the greatest player in history?

    ESPN Athlete of the Century:
    1.
    Jordan, 13. Wilt, 17. Magic, 18 Russell

    http://espn.go.com/sportscentury/athletes.html

    AP basketball player of the century:

    1.
    Jordan, 2. Oscar, 3. Wilt, 4. Russell, 5. Magic

    http://lubbockonline.com/stories/121199/pro_1211990096.shtml

    SLAM Magazine Top 50:

    1.
    Jordan, 2. Wilt, 3. Russell

    http://www.slamonline.com/online/the-magazine/features/2009/06/the-new-top-50/


    Sport Magazine's Greatest Athlete of the Century

    1.
    Jordan

    Jordan was not even compared to Russell. He was compared to Gretzky, Brown, Ruth, Ali, etc. and came out on top. No one would be sane enough to put Russell in the category of Gretzky, Brown, Ali and Ruth...

    Now it begs the questions.

    1) Why would
    Jordan be ranked #1 albeit with only 6 rings?

    2) When exactly was Russell voted the greatest? was it before Jordan's peak years?




     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Bill Russell

    good point "champs"!!
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Bill Russell

    http://www.celticstown.com/2009/06/26/bill-russell-celtics-legend/ The last official vote by the NBA writers was done in 1980.....there have been many polls and opinions...but I think this is the last "official ranking" as recognized by the league since then...ESPN didn't exist in 1980....now, if there has been a revision of the ranking then I am in error and I can accept that....this isn't mathematics....there cannot be an exact and clear cut answer....it is an opinion....the writers voted Russ as the Greatest Player in NBA History....someone wants to claim it was MJ....or Bird or Magic? .....fine with me.....I'll stand on the man's record as a winner and how he revolutionized the league.....he invented the blocked shot and was the master of intimidation...his rebounding started the famed fast break that the Celtics relied on to win...
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Bill Russell

    In Response to Re: Bill Russell:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bill Russell : Don't care a whit who won, Roddy Piper.  See, when Red coached the competition was better - not worse like you say.  With only 8 teams, it was HARDER to win, not easier.  How can Red be worse than Brown, when I've said repeatedly he's BETTER than Jackson?  Your hatred bores me now - have a nice day!
    Posted by Red-16Russ-11[/QUOTE]

    Well, it's a fact that logic is not your strong suit.

    which competition is easier for any team to win? a 2-team competition or a 31-team competition?

    A 31-team competition? any team has a 1/31 chance to win.
    A 2-team competiton? any team has a 1/2 chance to win.

    Now, the worse team in the 2-team competition is still 7 triumphs more than the Celtics had. Look at the all-star game. The West still won 24 times, 7 times more than the Celtics.

    So, is it tougher to win in an 8-team league or a 31-team league? I suggest you take some basic probability...
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Bill Russell

    In Response to Re: Bill Russell:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bill Russell : I know as much about soccer,  Roddy Piper, as you do about basketball - NOTHING!  Oh, you can google and have your (wrong) opinions on the matter.  But to denigrate Bill Russell as you do shows you clearly don't understand the game.  It's not just scoring, it's game changing - here is a comparison of two people who changed their positions: Magic - 13 years - 17,707  19.5 ppg    7.2  rpg    11.2  apg Russell - 13 years - 14,500  15.1 ppg    22.5 rpg   4.3  apg And Russ played on a team where he didn't have to score!  He would be great today, he was great then.  Magic would have been great in the 60's as a forward, and he was great in the 80's as a PG.  Pele would be great now, as he was great then, even though it's a stupid game that no one understands!
    Posted by Red-16Russ-11[/QUOTE]

    It's welll known that you know nothing about soccer. So talking about Pele really paint yourself into a corner.

    I know nothing about basketball, but I can spill out all the facts to refute your nonsense such as "No Bynum injury, no Gasol trade", this argument that rings are the only criteria to count greatness (by using your own argument), not to mention your new stuff that it's easier to win in a 8-team competition than a 25+ team competition. So what does that say about your knowledge of basketball? negative?

    When you talk about game changing, yeah, Spudd Webb and Muggsey Bogues are game changing. Yep, they must be greatest of all-time.

    Now you are out of argument on # rings. It's now about game-changing. What do you know about it? I would say someone

    - who is a ball-hog
    - who is not the biggest fan of team basketball
    - who is just a shooting guard
    - who prospered against the convention of "you win with the center", getting center help of Cartwright and Longley
    - with only 1-2 HOF teammates
    - yet still accomplished the two 3-peats

    is more game changing than blocking shots and play defense while his 4 HOF teammates scored an abundance of points. Jordan was totally against the physics of basketball.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Bill Russell

    In Response to Re: Bill Russell:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bill Russell : We are talking human beings here, not robots.  8 teams x 12 players  - that means 96 players. 31 teams x 15 players - 465 players.  Easier to be one of the 465, or the 96? Let's look at another example.  Suppose you are a Catholic (for the most part) living in MA.  You want to go to either Holy Cross or Boston College.  Each year, both schools have about 10,000 applicants.  BC accepts 2000, HC accepts 600.  Which school is harder to get into? Bye!!
    Posted by Red-16Russ-11[/QUOTE]

    See, you are imposing the equal # of applicants in both cases (10000). What a laugh!

    Of course it's easier to be one of 96, when the game was not popular and African Americans only made up 20% of the employees...

    Your argument works only when there are a fixed # of players who can play the game in any era, say 100 in 1957 and 100 in 2011 (as in your 10000 applicants in both cases). Your school has always distorted this argument by ignoring the size of the talent pool, the # people who want a career in the NBA (given it's a million $ job).
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Bill Russell

    I guess I'll side with your very own Jerry West who played along side of Baylor and Wilt....who played with the Big O and the other contemporaries.....West stated that if he had to start with one player it would be Russ....no question about it.....and he has seen them all.....
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Bill Russell

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFqT2vM2h84 Jerry West on Bill Russell
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: Bill Russell


     Everytime these generational discussions come up there is this built in age bias pitting the oldtimers against the  younger fans. For what ever reason each generation seems determined to point out the facts that prove that their generation has a edge on the others.  What is this compelling drive that has each of us passing on to each succeeding generation the glories of our youth. For me, it was my Grandfather extoling the virtures of the athletes of the early 1900's and my Dad raving about the stars of the 20's-30's. Then it was my turn to hype the players of the 40's-50's.  I guess its just plain old fashion nostalgia that sets in when you reach the 60's and we find ourselves hooked on the good old days.  The problem is to determine what is fact and what is fiction. For me, my retirement years and the computer have combined to give me the chance to research the past and to match my memories vs statistical and visual evidences that now exist on-line. For me at least, the "good Old Days" of sports have lost a lot of their glimmer and I now view the Basketball,Football and track and field teams of the mid 70's on back, to be considerably inferior to the 80's on to the present. 
    Seems  
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Bill Russell

    Seems, you always make good points.....I do find it interesting that some of the "youngsters" here also feel the same toward most athletes of the past....I would say that Sandy Koufax, who retired in 1966, would be an all star every year in this generation....I mean, he threw around 95 MPH and had a wicket curve....he was sturdy and well built (6-2 210).....he regularly started 40 games, completed 20+, threw 300 innings, and struck out 300 batters....I believe that baseball does transcend time....the greats of his era would be the same today....and I believe guys like Feller and Grove....going back even years earlier....these guys would be stars....the only difference is that they would have better training....unfortunately, they would also have agents who would want their innings and starts decreased...just my opinion...
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from lakersavenger. Show lakersavenger's posts

    Re: Bill Russell

    In Response to Re: Bill Russell:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bill Russell : Thanks, man.  I'm not 60, by the way.    He IS out of bounds.  I do not attack HIM personally, I go after Bryant and Jackson.  He must think they are part of his family.  I ignore his comments now, mostly, but you all can check and see if I've ever gone after him personally.  I don't like koME or Phil, and this IS a Celtics forum isn't it? Before my father died in 2008, he told me I was a very good father to my kids.  That is the only praise I'll ever need, as he did not compliment often! Thanks again.
    Posted by Red-16Russ-11[/QUOTE]

    You don't attack me personally? You delusional mess! How about starting

    with your favorite word to attack me and others, JERK. I stand by what

    I said about you as a parent. How you behave here as a childish bully

    is what you have modeled for your own children, then to get support

    for these adolescent remarks of yours from the likes of Duke is

    pathetic. You are both the same, no honor, just childish bullies who

    like to gang up on others who challenge your nasty attacks against

    anything that ain't keltic. You're nothing but an old waste of space,

    both you and Duke. What did you both learn in all your decades of

    life. What is so pathetic about both of you is that this board is all

    you have. The keltics long ago triumphs is all you have. It seems as

    if you spend a great portion of your days here with no other

    activities. No working out. I guess you don't work because you post 

    or lurk here all day. Even now in the off season you'd think you'd

    move on to something constructive. Look, if you happened to be in a

    wheelchair or have some other disability that precludes you from

    participating in outside activities, then I understand, but even

    disabled people don't have to be idiots. At your age, and I know it's

    at least mid 50's, don't you think it's time to give up the middle

    school bully thing. You show all the clinical signs of either having

    been a grade school bully or being bullied yourself. So what is it

    Gladys? Were you a bully or were you bullied? As for your own father giving you praise, now we're getting really pathetic, he's the one that brought you up to be an idiot, doesn't say much about your old man.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Bill Russell

    In Response to Re: Bill Russell:
    [QUOTE] Everytime these generational discussions come up there is this built in age bias pitting the oldtimers against the  younger fans. For what ever reason each generation seems determined to point out the facts that prove that their generation has a edge on the others.  What is this compelling drive that has each of us passing on to each succeeding generation the glories of our youth. For me, it was my Grandfather extoling the virtures of the athletes of the early 1900's and my Dad raving about the stars of the 20's-30's. Then it was my turn to hype the players of the 40's-50's.  I guess its just plain old fashion nostalgia that sets in when you reach the 60's and we find ourselves hooked on the good old days.  The problem is to determine what is fact and what is fiction. For me, my retirement years and the computer have combined to give me the chance to research the past and to match my memories vs statistical and visual evidences that now exist on-line. For me at least, the "good Old Days" of sports have lost a lot of their glimmer and I now view the Basketball,Football and track and field teams of the mid 70's on back, to be considerably inferior to the 80's on to the present.  Seems  
    Posted by SeemsToMe[/QUOTE]

    Conditioning and nutrition have improved.  Both Joe DiMaggio and Carl Yastrzemski were smokers-  -Mark Belanger, too.
    The POINT is..........I would never go on a laker site and diss Magic or Jerry West or Kareem (I can here, this is a Celtics blog).  What gives them the right to come on here and diss our players?  Magic was great, West was great, Kareem was great.............but Russell wasn't??

    Having a friendly disagreement over who is the BEST of all -time is a fun exercise, and I don't mind doing it at all.  As you've said, it's  a generational thing.  BUT, when the people you are arguing with won't even give your players common respect and courtesy?  That I cannot and will not tolerate!!
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: Bill Russell

    In Response to Re: Bill Russell:
    [QUOTE]Seems, you always make good points.....I do find it interesting that some of the "youngsters" here also feel the same toward most athletes of the past....I would say that Sandy Koufax, who retired in 1966, would be an all star every year in this generation....I mean, he threw around 95 MPH and had a wicket curve....he was sturdy and well built (6-2 210).....he regularly started 40 games, completed 20+, threw 300 innings, and struck out 300 batters....I believe that baseball does transcend time....the greats of his era would be the same today....and I believe guys like Feller and Grove....going back even years earlier....these guys would be stars....the only difference is that they would have better training....unfortunately, they would also have agents who would want their innings and starts decreased...just my opinion...
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]
     
      Did you notice Duke that I didn't include Baseball as being inferior? I've got about 4 years into my basketball research and will start  shortly with Baseball.
    I don't expect to be really able to reach any conclusive opinion because there is one piece of reliable evidence that is not available for the older players. I don't think I will ever be able to know just how fast the pitches threw the ball. I do know that they were smaller but that does not mean that they could not throw in the mid 90's like Ron Guidry. But he was an exception. In my mind I can give equal reasons for both sides but that only leads to a draw.However, research could alter the picture.
    Seems
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Bill Russell

    You know, I had many a long discussion with a good friend of mine who is a historian of sorts...I argued that the old ball players wouldn't fare as well today...he could probably post a multi page read on just how good they were....but I'll just take one of his points....through the years and, especially in the very early days, the greats were mostly "big men"....everyone thinnks of them as smaller....but take a look at just a few going from the '60's and backward into time...
    ]
    Koufax 6-2 210
    Drysdale 6-5 190
    Feller 6-0 185
    Mathewson 6-1 195
    Alexander 6-1 185
    Johnson 6-1 200
    Young 6-2 210

    just a small sample of good sized ballplayers spanning 60 years...
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: Bill Russell

    In Response to Re: Bill Russell:
    [QUOTE]You know, I had many a long discussion with a good friend of mine who is a historian of sorts...I argued that the old ball players wouldn't fare as well today...he could probably post a multi page read on just how good they were....but I'll just take one of his points....through the years and, especially in the very early days, the greats were mostly "big men"....everyone thinnks of them as smaller....but take a look at just a few going from the '60's and backward into time... ] Koufax 6-2 210 Drysdale 6-5 190 Feller 6-0 185 Mathewson 6-1 195 Alexander 6-1 185 Johnson 6-1 200 Young 6-2 210 just a small sample of good sized ballplayers spanning 60 years...
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]

      For me Duke, its about comparative heights of the pitchers from the different eras. I wonder about how much of a factor height is  in determining the velosity of a thrown ball. Perhaps there is no clear answer. But thats for future research.
      But to kill a little time today, I took a little peek into the past and compared the strikeouts per 9 innings of the top 10 players for each league in 1930,1950 and 2010. The below chart shows the heights of those players.

     Height--6'7"-6" 5" 4" 3" 2" 1" 0" 5'11" 10" 9"
    1930      0    0  0  1  1  2  3  6    4     2  1
    1950   --0    1  1  0  0  5  5  5    2     1  0
    2010   --3    2  1  4  5  3  0  1    1     0  0

      Not sure just what it all means other than the fact that strikeout pitchers are getting taller. Are they more difficult to hit?  The  link below seems to say that the higher the angle that the ball is thrown from the more difficult it is to hit.

      http://sportsillustrated.asia/vault/article/magazine/MAG1082211/1/index.htm

      Ok,its time to get back to basketball-- Whats that! Nothing to talk about in the world of Basketball? Ok Duke-- keep the baseball coming.

      Seems
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: Bill Russell

     

      And here's a link to some info on strike zone changes over the years that can be usefull when talking about changes in the game.

      http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/umpires/strike_zone.jsp

      Seems
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Bill Russell

    Good stuff, as always Seems!! ....keep up the good work buddy!!
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Bill Russell

    Avenger....How the hell did I get into this quarrel between you and Red/Russ....? I thought that I have been pretty civil in our posts....no? It's ok if you want to consider me as an "old man" (which I certainly don't feel like)....but c'mon ...have I gone toe to toe with you that much...? ...and my life revolves around these message boards?.....hey...lighten up a little....life is too short, right.....?   ....believe it or not, I have a very fulfilling lifestyle living here in New England!!
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: Bill Russell

    In Response to Re: Bill Russell:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bill Russell : Conditioning and nutrition have improved.  Both Joe DiMaggio and Carl Yastrzemski were smokers-  -Mark Belanger, too. The POINT is..........I would never go on a laker site and diss Magic or Jerry West or Kareem (I can here, this is a Celtics blog).  What gives them the right to come on here and diss our players?  Magic was great, West was great, Kareem was great.............but Russell wasn't?? Having a friendly disagreement over who is the BEST of all -time is a fun exercise, and I don't mind doing it at all.  As you've said, it's  a generational thing.  BUT, when the people you are arguing with won't even give your players common respect and courtesy?  That I cannot and will not tolerate!!
    Posted by Red-16Russ-11[/QUOTE]


      Red-Russ
      
     "That I cannot and will not tolerate". And just what have you done to stop it?
     Your aggravated, and they are having a blast taunting you. And yet you continue to respond to all their "baiting". You are not going to win this Kids game that they are playing.  The ignore button is there for a reason. Use it. On the other hand, if you really enjoy this type of discussion on a daily basis, keep it going.

     Seems
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from JREwing. Show JREwing's posts

    Re: Bill Russell

    In Response to Re: Bill Russell:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bill Russell : So, serious question.  How would Pele do in the World Cup today?
    Posted by Red-16Russ-11[/QUOTE]
    Pele, great though he may have been, is not even the sport's greatest or most prolific player: Mia Ham (Garciapara) hold that distinction!
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from lakersavenger. Show lakersavenger's posts

    Re: Bill Russell

    In Response to Re: Bill Russell:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bill Russell : Don't care a whit who won, Roddy Piper.  See, when Red coached the competition was better - not worse like you say.  With only 8 teams, it was HARDER to win, not easier.  How can Red be worse than Brown, when I've said repeatedly he's BETTER than Jackson?  Your hatred bores me now - have a nice day!
    Posted by Red-16Russ-11[/QUOTE]

    HIS hatred bores you? What a laugh! The pot calling the kettle...Anyways, thanks for getting my day off with a giggle.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Bill Russell

    In Response to Re: Bill Russell:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bill Russell : Still waiting for you to refute anything I've said.  This is a basketball forum, and you just admitted you know nothing about basketball.  Without the Internet, you'd be home watching World Cup replays.  Without the internet, I'd still have forgotten more about hoop than you'll ever know. Look, I did research on the Gasol trade.  No one disputes the facts but you, that should tell you something right there. Example - on this forum, try calling Bryant a rapist.  (he is not, "just" an adulterer).  lakers fans will come out of the woodwork to defend him.  But if I say, "No Bynum injury, no Gasol trade,"  the ONLY person that comes out of the woodwork is you.........hardly a refute in my book.  We'll have to agree to disagree on that point, as I will not discuss it any further with you. You are comparing Mugsy and Spud to Magic?  WOW - there goes your cred.  Like Cal Ripken, who forever changed our perception of the shortstop, Magic forever changed our perception of the PG.  6'9", with incredible vision and skills, and you are comparing him to two midgets, who were basically a novelty act in the league?  Russ changed the GAME, Magic changed the GAME - not an individual game, but T-H-E GAME!!  I know you can't understand the difference because Scots don't speak English! "Jordan was totally against the physics of basketball." - true!  Good for you.  Da Bulls were the ONLY team to ever have continued success without a true center - the ONLY team.  Oh, and by the way, the "physics" you speak of begin and end with Bill Rusell!! I NEVER said rings are the only criteria to greatness - that's your lakers brethern on here.  If that were true, Sam Jones would be better than MJ and Cousy would be better than Magic.  Neither of them are.  Duncan over the Mailman?  I don't think so!!  Please don't attribute things to me I've never said.  That would make Derek Fisher AS GOOD as Magic?  PUH-LEEZE!! Tell you what, Roddy, you stick to soccer, and I'll stick to basketball - fair enough?
    Posted by Red-16Russ-11[/QUOTE]

    And if I know nothing about basketball, then what you know is negative. It's that simple. "Knowing nothing about basketball" wouldn't have refuted your nonsense that "No Bynum injury, no Gasol trade".

    I mean, your reasoning was that
    - "Lakers was in first place" - a lie. Lakers was 5th in the conference when Bynum was injured, and when the trade was made.
    - "you called ESPN and ESPN told you so". No one has heard it.
    - "you have done your research", no one has seen your research published...

    So, you know basketball and tell us that a team 5th in the conference wouldn't have accepted a gift to boost the team? There isn't one reasonable logic that the Lakers wouldn't have accepted the gift had Bynum not injured.

    But you got that right, "Rings aren't the only criteria to success". That's why other factors are considered for greatness, like how many times you missed the playoffs, how long a drought for championship, the # times you failed in the conference playoffs, etc.



     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Bill Russell

    In Response to Re: Bill Russell:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bill Russell : Nope, incorrect.  Even if BC gets 20,000 applicants, they still only take 2000.  Even if HC gets 5000, they still only take 600.  What is fixed, is the number of available slots you are competing for.    When that number goes up, it makes it easier to get in.  I know you can't possibly understand that. And my school doesn't distort any facts.  With NO athletic scholarhsips to give out, it is much harder to get in to HC than BC.......THAT is a fact!!
    Posted by Red-16Russ-11[/QUOTE]

    But you are not giving an appropriate example. The pool applying for BC and HC are still the same: the same pool of high school seniors that try to go to college. What if they are different pools?

    Say, you are talking about BC's applicants in 2011, while Holy Cross' applicants in 1844. They could have admitted 50 but at that time, but only a small amount of students had college inspirations.

    See, this sheer # of NBA jobs is garbage, since you totally ignore the difference in talent pool sizes.
     

Share