I might be wrong, but I thought the end goal of going to college is to secure yourself a good job. Conventional wisdom sort of looks down on athletes who decide to leave school early to join the pros. Once again, CW is illogical and wrong.

The cliched cautionary tale is the athlete who leaves school early, gets injured, and then doesn't have an education to fall back on. If he had stayed in school, he would be more equipped to transition into the regular work force.

However, there are two types of college athletes: 1) athletes who are using college as the minor leagues of pro ball, and 2) athletes who would otherwise be smart and ambitious enough to get a college education even if they didn't play sports.

For the first type of athlete, it makes perfect sense to grab the money while you can. If there's a pro team who thinks you are ready, you'd be wasting your time in college. If the profession was ANY other field, the student would be laughed at for preferring what is essentially an unpaid internship over a paying job. If Bill Gates offered a computer programming junior a sweet gig, but with the caveat that he would have to start immediately, the kid would be an idiot to stay in school.

Let's say this athlete who decides to go pro gets hurt in his first year and is out of the league 6 months later. He'll have already made enough money to pay for a scholarship-less tuition to any college he can get in. And if he's not smart enough for a school to want him (sans athletic eligibility), then college would have been wasted on him in the first place. College degrees, on their own, are overated.

Now, for the second type of college athlete (the one who could actually succeed in a college classroom), college will be there if/when his pro career ends. There are plenty of people who go to college after the traditional 18-22 years. Nobody looks down on them. So what if this athlete/student is a couple of years behind? He will have made more than enough money to justify the slow start.

This is all a preface to my disagreement with Roy Hibbert's decision to come back for another year at Georgetown. The feeling is that right now he would be a 10th pick in the draft, but if he waits a year, he could move up to #2. First, this assumes that he'll actually improve on his game/success, which is always risky. But, it seems like he seems to be failing to realize that he's giving up a year of his earning potential.

[note: these numbers are off, because i could only find data for the 2005/2006 season which was the last season that rookies were locked in for 3 years (with a 4th year option) instead of the current 2 years (with a 3rd and 4th year options)]

If Roy Hibbert gets selected with the 10th pick, he will make 1.6 million in 2007 and 1.7 million in 2008.

If he waits a year and becomes the 2nd pick of hte 2008 draft, he will make 3.2 in his first year, and 3.5 in his second year.

However, what people forget to account for is that he'd be making 0 in 2007.

So, by the end of the 2008 season, the #10 pick Hibbert will have made 1.6+1.7 million (3.3) while the #2 Hibbert will have made only 3.2.

Of course, in 2009, the team's option on #10 hibbert will only be a raise from his 2008 season. So the #2 Hibbert will be making a lot more money than his counterpart. and the same will be true in 2010 (again assuming that both teams pick up the option)

The numbers get muddled, obviously, and even become more speculative when you account for endorsement deals and the like. Perhaps being the face of a championship winning georgetown would make Hibbert more marketable. However, the numbers are closer than people believe. and more importantly, the first million a person makes is the most important, because it becomes life altering. The difference between 7 and 5 million is negligible compared to 1 million and 0 (if he busts his knee and never makes it to the nba)

shoot, there was another point i wanted to make, but i completely lost my train of thought. that's actually a bit scary. Oh yeah...

Finally, I flat out dont' understand Hibbert's theory that being a middle first round pick would mean he would ride the bench but being a top pick means that he would be able to play immediately. I guess there is something to be said about getting more opportunities on a weaker team. However (and this is without any evidence), I feel like early picks are based on "take the best player available" and later picks are need picks.

More importantly, though, is that a player can definitely develop more in one season of NBA practices than in a 30 game college season. In the NBA, a player can give his entire focus to basketball. Even if he's not playing in "games", the practices can develop his skills.

Rookies tend to hit walls midway through the nba season becasue they aren't used to the grueling schedules. Plus, dominating in the college scene probably doesn't really develop your skills. You need to play against the best competition.

blah blah blah. this is too long. Short version: forget college and get drafted.