Jokic’s MVP Run Proves Why We Need to Value College Stays
The MVP Debate Misses the Point on Player Development
Look, I get it. The NBA MVP race is always a hot topic, especially with Nikola Jokic doing what he does for the Denver Nuggets. The guy is a walking triple-double, leading the league in assists for a center, averaging 26.4 points, 12.4 rebounds, and 9.0 assists last season. He’s an incredible talent, probably the best passing big man we’ve ever seen. But the conversation around his greatness, and the greatness of other top NBA players, often completely sidesteps the journey, particularly the college journey, that shapes these guys.
Thing is, Jokic never played a minute of college ball. Neither did Luka Doncic, another perennial MVP candidate, who was a pro in Europe at 16. Same goes for Giannis Antetokounmpo. We celebrate their immediate NBA impact, and rightfully so, but it creates this false narrative that skipping college is always the fast track to superstardom. It’s not. For every Jokic, there are dozens of overseas prospects who never pan out, never even sniff the NBA.
The Underrated Value of a College Program
Real talk: The MVP conversation should make us appreciate the development path for players who do spend time in college. Think about a guy like Jalen Brunson, who just signed a five-year, $104 million deal with the Knicks. He didn’t just pop. He spent three years at Villanova, winning two national championships, including one where he averaged 18.9 points and 4.6 assists as a junior. That’s where he learned to be a leader, to play in a system, to handle pressure. That’s invaluable.
And it's not just about the on-court stuff. These young men are growing up. They're learning to manage their time, dealing with media, navigating a new city, often for the first time without their parents. That structure, that slow burn of development under a consistent coaching staff, is something you just don't get jumping straight to the pros, whether it's the G-League or Europe. For every Paolo Banchero who feels NBA-ready after a year at Duke, there are ten more who could genuinely benefit from a second or third year of college ball, like Zach Edey is showing at Purdue, averaging 25 points and 12.2 rebounds this season.
My hot take? If more guys stayed in college for two or three years, the NBA would actually have a more fundamentally sound and strategically diverse pool of talent, even if it meant waiting a bit longer for their debut. The pro game would actually improve, not decline.
The Next Wave of Talent Needs More Time
We’re constantly scouting high school kids, projecting them three, four, five years down the line. But how many of those projections would be safer bets if these players committed to a two or three-year college plan? Look at a player like Hunter Dickinson, who transferred from Michigan to Kansas. He’s averaging 18.2 points and 11.2 rebounds for the Jayhawks this year, continuing to refine his post-game and leadership. He didn’t rush. He got better. That's how you truly prepare for the next level, not by skipping steps.
The success of a few European phenoms shouldn't overshadow the proven track record of college basketball in honing skills, building character, and preparing athletes for the rigorous demands of professional life. The MVP race is fun, but it’s a consequence of years of development, and we should talk more about what those development paths actually look like for the vast majority of players.
I predict we’ll see a slight resurgence in multi-year college stays for top recruits within the next five years, as more players recognize the long-term benefits of sustained development over a quick cash grab.