Reading some of this has be laughing quite a bit. I was a college athlete 20 years ago and I first started lifting weights summer before college. I put on 20 pounds just like that as an 18 year old college freshman. Until the recent decade or so kids weren't training like they are today, or were they hitting weights earlier. Now that I've had sons who are athletes through high school all I see now are kids who have a build you earn in the weight room. Of course boys mature more between 16 to 18 and then to 20, but I too would concur that these comments are way too dramatic. Back when I played another sport at Carolina the rule of thumb was if you ain't good enough as a second year guy, you'll never be. I never saw a good college athlete and contributor who went from zero to being a starter because he turned 20 from 19 or whatnot. It sounds a lot more to me like this PG year is a needed extra for guys who need to catch up. But those aren't the guys who will stand out after the arrive. It just doesn't work that way.
A lot of this PG stuff is being initiated by the travel coaches and college coaches. The athletes we are talking about are ones that need to get better. They are great athletes that might need some maturing to do or get their grades up. That's what a PG year does. I have to say any athlete at 20 is better than the same athlete at 18. I played D1 ball and I know at 20 I was better than I was at 18. It's that's simple. Did I start at my position at 18 no because there was a senior at my position but I did start as a sophomore. It doesn't mean I wasn't able to play but that a more mature and better player was at my position. Coach saw my potential but with every year of maturity came a year of physical development. So coaches are looking to take an older more mature player. That's what the coaches are saying.
