We've been spending a lot of time the past week on the greatest player of all time, I thought that maybe the NBA's proposed age limit deserved a little time. Stern has said he's lowered his proposed age from 20 to 19. Here are my thoughts on the whole issue and why I believe raising the age limit would be a good thing. The first major issue is whether or not it is fair for the NBA to deny early entry players on the basis of age. 1. I just don't understand the Union's position on this. When Van Exel was on 610 this week, he talked about 'not being able to deny a guy the right to earn a living.' This would make sense if raising the age limit affected CURRENT players' ability to earn a living, but it doesn't, it affects future ones. I don't see why they get that wrapped in it. 2. The focus on a "guy's right to earn a living" is pretty flawed in my opinion. The NBA is a company that markets a product. Instead of televisions or whatever, that product is basketball. As Stern has said before, no one quibbles over newspapers requiring a degree in journalism, or states requiring an individual pass a bar exam. If the NBA wants to insure it puts out the best product, i.e. the best game of basketball, it should be able to ask that players demonstrate that by actually playing against some decent competition instead of having Chad Ford pop a stiffy over how they performed in 17 minutes of action in a Croation under-17 all star game. So, I that's why I think that the NBA has the right to demand a higher criteria for entering the draft, here's why I think a higher age limit would be a good thing for the NBA and basketball in general. 1. The college game will no longer be semi-irrelevant. With players having to spend two years after high school playing non-NBA ball, the college game will once again have people that are more than just likely mid first rounders. Imagine Lebron and Carmelo facing off in the Final Four. Wow, that would've been something to see. 2. Players will develop quicker. Instead of coming out of high school and spending 2+ years riding the pine and getting limited attention in practice (the average NBA practice on a non-travel day is 1.5 hours), players can go to a college where they will be a much larger focus of the coaching staff and get much more help. 3. And MOST IMPORTANTLY, there will be less risk associated with lottery picks. Unlike the European Club model, the NBA is a league which promotes parity in competition to promote greater interest in the product. That's why the crappiest teams have the greatest shot at picking first, and the best teams have no shot. If you look at the drafts, especially in the 80s and 90s, when players were spending 3-4 years in college, the top 5 to 10 picks were such more solid pick ups than the top 10s we see today. Especially when you look at how many more 'oversights' there are now as opposed to in days when players were more tested. Now for everyone of you that says "what about Garnett, Bryant, or Mcgrady?" I respond with "what about Kwame, Tskitishvili, or Lenny Cooke. Who's Lenny Cooke you ask? A kid rated number 1 in high school who declared and is now in the Phillipines. Here's why the stories wash out. Lebron, KG, Carmelo, TMac, Kobe, they would all still be great players in this league, even if they had to go to college for two years. However, if there was a limit, Kwame et. al wouldn't have sunk the fortunes of their respective teams. Insuring there's a year or two more playing against players other than high schoolers will insure that NBA teams have more data to make better decisions. Finally, as an underview. Many of you will probably say "well, teams just shouldn't pick young guys and go for the sure thing." The problem is, allowing early entry creates a race to the bottom mentality. When the players with the most 'tremendous upside po-tential' (as Hubie has soooooo often put it) are coming out with less and less experience. It forces teams to gamble and swing for the fences with an unproven player because they don't want to waste the pick on a player who's potential isn't what you expect from a high lottery pick. Example, in this draft, teams looking for a Center in this draft have absolutely nothing to go on if they don't have a shot at Bogut or Frye. If Andre Bynum went to UConn, they'd at least have SOME idea of what kind of player he is and not just how well he dunks in the McDonald's All Star game. Which, by the way, has to be absolutely dumbest make or break game for a player to decide to declare for the draft. Anyway, those are my initial thoughts. Maybe there should be a set 20 year age limit and an appeals process for great players or ones with pressing family needs, I don't know. Oh well, shoot my view down, I could use a decent debate today.
an age limit is not the same as a degree. please stop saying that. My biggest problems with age limits is that if a team doesn't want to draft 18 year olds, than don't do it.
If teams have to risk drafting young players for the sake of missing out, then you can't argue that young players aren't qualified to be in the NBA. If they weren't qualified, there would be no risk. Why do these High Schoolers or the NBA owe anything to the college game. That isn't their concern.
It is better for me as a consumer of the NBA product. Each draft pick has a quicker return, therefore, giving each team real hope to improve each year. The better talent each team has, the better the competition is. More college for these kids means (hopefully) better fundamental skills. Bottom line: Better basketball, better NBA, better product = good for me, the consumer.
Age restrictions are stupid. If they're good enough to play then there shouldn't be any reason why they shouldn't be allowed to play. There are no age restrictions in other sport besides football and basketball.
If the league is really concerned about developing players, start and promote a true minor league system.
It's been a while... 1. That's in the constitution! However, if the NBA and the PA agree on in it wouldn't matter. 2. Getting degrees, passing tests and all that are fine for all those careers, but to play basketball it is impossible to make such a test. There's nothing that the NBA could require that proves without a doubt that a player is or isn't ready to play in the NBA. 1a. Who cares about what would of been fun to see?! Who cares if the student athletes don't entertain as much people as they used to, people seem to forget that they're their to get an education FIRST! Student-athletes, not athletes/entertainers-students. 2b. No proof that they develop quicker or better in college. In fact, now that college doesn't get the absolute best high school players it has a hard time producing big time NBA players. On the other most of the players that are considered top players in the NBA never wore college uniforms. From T-Mac, and Yao to KG, Dirk, Kobe, Lebron, Manu, Jermain O'Neal, none of them needed college to develop. 3a. Please. NBA GMs and owners will always make some dumbass moves even if they didn't have the option to draft high schoolers. Just last season the Sixers traded for Chris Webber, the Raptors and Hornets traded their franchise players for scrubs, the Mavs signed Erick Dampier to a huge deal, the Lakers traded Shaq and didn't even get an All Star in return, all that was just last year! Scouts and GMs don't just go on McDonald's All Star Games, they go to their games during the season, or watch tape of them. However, those All Star games are important to some because most of those players don't ever play in front of national tv audiences and it gives them an idea of how they handle the spot light. The ONLY argument that I agree with is one that hardly ever gets mentioned, and that's maturation, most high schoolers and teen foreigners come into the league immature and some don't ever mature. Then again, that's the case with plenty of NBA players that come out of college and highly educated people in general.
"CURRENT" players aint the union only charge. ignoring opportunities for their FUTURE clients would be shortsighted. the college analogy is weak. i don't think the NBA should lose too much sleep/time tryin' to bring relevance to the college game. "Players will develop quicker" ???
I think it's good for the game, NBA and college. But bad in general for the players that can generate the hype or display enough talent to get drafted in the first round. I want to see a better brand of basketball. A few kids miss out, big deal. This is all about me.
Since High Schoolers have now been regulars in the draft for over three years, you can't argue that it would be a better product because the talent will be ready to step in. For the group that drafted this year, there was a group two years ahead that are ready to step in. We're beyond that point. And really it doesn't take that long for these guys to get adapted. Look at the way Shaun Livingston played this year or J.R. Smith. These guys put up decent rookie numbers. There's a myth that just because players go to College they come in NBA ready. That has only been true for the greatest of the great. There has always been an adjustment period. Look at Drexler's early years for example.
I'll just summarize what I've said in the other 6 threads on this topic: -Instead of a black-and-white age limit, automatically send all rookies to start off in the NBDL. Make it automatic, no exceptions, and call them up when they're ready. That could be the start of training camp (3 months time in the minors), midseason, or 2-3 years after they were drafted. Pay them their full salary, or sequester half of their salary to be payable as a bonus when called up. Only players able to contribute make active rosters. -Yes, there needs to be a place for the kids. Everytime a Lebron, Amare, or KG makes it, 100 more HSers kill their future by believing they don't need to worry about qualifying for college, haunting them when they go undrafted. Plus, most of those that do come in are clueless socially and financially. -Another major concern is the HSers/young guys that come in with the major misconception that they're already All-Stars that don't need to work on their game. This KILLED Kwame, Curry, Chandler, Diop, Wagner, Carmelo, Darko, and even McGrady among others when they first came in. O'Neal sat for his first several years and was the butt of jokes. Why not put all these guys in the minors first? Wouldn't that be equal to if not superior to college training and experience? If a guy doesn't want or qualify for college, give him an alternative. Evan
"Why do these High Schoolers or the NBA owe anything to the college game. That isn't their concern." 1. Sure it does. If the NBA wants to continue to build and expand its fan base, have players people can get attached to. Everyone laments the lack of 'star power' in the NBA these days. Well, if players went to college, they'd have a built in fan base when they make the jump to the NBA. Example, my dad is a Tennessee alum. He didn't give two hoots in hell about the Colts 'til Peyton went there. It expands your fan base, brining more revenue and a healthier game overall. 2. I just felt like adding it 'cause it's a shame we don't have great college teams like we did in the early 90s e.g. the fab five and the Stackhouse/Wallace UNC team. "My biggest problems with age limits is that if a team doesn't want to draft 18 year olds, than don't do it." You obviously didn't read the end of my post or have trouble following a chain of reasoning. They have no choice because of the race to the bottom. Lottery teams need impact players. Drafting average/solid contributers is not going to help them get out of the bottom of the draft. However, when the players with the best chance of being special players come out younger and younger, it forces teams to go for the impact players with less and less information. It's like the prisoner's dilemma except with David Stern instead of cops. "an age limit is not the same as a degree. please stop saying that" Why? It seems like it to me. Maybe you don't pass a test, but it is a validation of greater experience. Maybe the better analogy would be time spent as a medical intern. Everyone has to put in the time so they a, have the experience and b, will be exposed if they have a weakness. The same is true with players. The longer they play before the draft the more their game is exposed to different challenges. "If teams have to risk drafting young players for the sake of missing out, then you can't argue that young players aren't qualified to be in the NBA." I see a noun, a verb, even some predicates, but this is not a logical thought. I'm not sure what "for the sake of missing out" refers to or why NBA teams being willing to take a flier on them means they're not qualified. See my race to the bottom argument above, teams are forced to draft these players because of the current competitive circumstances. "Who cares about what would of been fun to see?! Who cares if the student athletes don't entertain as much people as they used to, people seem to forget that they're their to get an education FIRST! " This is a joke. I went to Rice, a school lauded for its graduation rate among student athletes. I was Mke Harris's (WAC Freshman of the Year) roomate sophomore year. The kinesiology classes are ridiculously easy. Student-athlete is pretty much an oxymoron. No proof that they develop quicker or better in college. In fact, now that college doesn't get the absolute best high school players it has a hard time producing big time NBA players. On the other most of the players that are considered top players in the NBA never wore college uniforms. From T-Mac, and Yao to KG, Dirk, Kobe, Lebron, Manu, Jermain O'Neal, none of them needed college to develop. Wow, the bad arguments keep on coming. I think I preempted this in my first post, but I'll handle it again. 1. The reason that the best players these days are ones that came out early is because now every player with star potential comes out early. For every Dirk Nowitzki or Lebron there is a Tskitiszhvili or a Dajuan Wagner. Look at last years draft, almost every first round pick was an early entry. Some of those players will be stars, some will not, but the fact that they become stars is not a reason that early entries are good for the game. As more and more players leave school early there will be less and less great 4 year graduates. That's a product of numbers, not of the year they came out. 2. Sure these players are great, but would they not have been great if they had come in at age 20? Yao was over age 20, as was Manu, as was Amare (which most people seem to forget) so those players aren't even warrants against my argument. BUt take a player like Kobe. If Kobe had gone to Duke for two years instead of getting picked 13. He would have probably been a huge college standout, been picked top 5, and helped a team elevate itself. Most of the players you mention dogged it for 2-4 years when they got here, why not put them in a place they'll play. 3. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY. The whole 'but these guys are great and they went out of high school' is all outweighed by the net-benefit to experience. Compare a draft with an 18 vs. a 20 year age limit. WIth an 18 year limit you get players like Kobe, KG, Lebron, etc. But you'd also have the Kwame's, Darius Miles et. al going WAY TOO HIGH. However, with a 20 year old draft you still have KG, Duncan, Lebron, Kobe, being drafted and becoming superstars. But this time they're more of a lock and go to the teams at the top of the draft who need the help. What you don't have is players like Kwame coming into the league too soon and busting a team that needs a solid draft in the top 5-10. "Please. NBA GMs and owners will always make some dumbass moves even if they didn't have the option to draft high schoolers." Sure, but they'll always do dumb stuff, but with an age limit they'll have more information to draw on and will make better decisions. Look at the history of the draft. The first round picks made a lot more sense in the 80s and 90s than when the influx of youngsters began to happen. Sure, there are a few individual exceptions on both sides, but overall, drafts of players with more experience wind up with the picks looking far more logical.
You guys who think the NBA should have an Age Limit can't deny that these High School players are coming into the NBA more prepared every year. The NBA already has a successful minor league. Its called AAU. These kids are playing basketball year round against the best competition. They're already traveling, away from home. The only difference from the NBA is the money the same as college.
I understand the logic behind the 20-year-old age limit, but I think the likely expansion of NBDL and the affiliatation with NBA teams has more or less reduced the need to increase the age a player can enter the draft - An effective minor league will be a good developmental place for all these kids who are not yet ready for prime-time contributions. Of course, there's always the factor of getting a 'safer' pick if the age limit is instituted. Teams will gamble less with their selections, which is a good thing to the league. So in that sense an age limit is a good thing I supposed. In general, I don't think the age limit is a major factor in the CBA talks. It's just a very tiny obstable that will get wiped away immediately if both parties could agreed on other major issues, like the contract length, etc.
im still not sure how I feel about this either. if you can go into the military and die for your country why cant you get a job playing a game? sorry but some people make basketball into something more than it is. A Game. A game where people shoot a ball into a round cyclical thing. what I dont understand is what people are trying to accomplish? some of the biggest busts in NBA history have gone to college and even graduated? Pervis Ellison Chris Washburn Stacey King LaRue Martin If you want your team playing fundamental BB select players that have that.. I think the age limit is another way for GM's to not own up to their own mistakes. Remember when some GM's wanted cap relief for players they signed to huge contracts and never lived up to or even played? Now it seems like GM's who are picking up players not ready for the NBA want protection from themselves.. which is kind of ridiculous. could the league improve as a whole from setting an age limit? maybe / maybe no would the league improve if the GM's and Scouts chose players based on current skill and fundamentals? sure. J
If it's not about education FIRST then why should they go to college? Colleges exist for educations, not for sports. I don't think you'd like it if you had a classmate like Maurice Clarrett. 1. What point were you trying to make? There's more success stories than failures from early entries, same thing could be said for college players as well. For every Duncan there's an Olawakandi, for every Vince Carter there's a Trajon Langdon, for every Grant Hill there's a Dunleavy, for every Baron Davis there's a Chauncey Billups. Some players will be stars some will not... Ok. That's true for college players to, what's your point? 2. I thought Amare was 19. Manu and Yao still didn't go to college, and if you just want to say a 20 year age limit there are plenty of 19 year old early entries that went to college for one season. You don't know what would have happened if a certain player choose to go to college instead of the NBA, nobody does. Kobe goes to Duke? Maybe he becomes as good as Ron Mercer maybe as good as Vince Carter, who knows? Those three guys were McDonalds All Americans, two went to college and played a few years against players they were already better than, one went to the NBA where improvement was necessary to get playing time. 3. You don't know if those guys become superstars had they gone to college, you have no idea. Fact of the matter is that college basketball prepares you to play college basketball, it's night and day compared to the NBA. Kwame busted the Wizards, not really, but so what? Olawakandi busted the Clippers, Bryant Reeves busted the Grizzlies, Robert Traylor, Tony Battie, Drew Gooden, Lorenzen Wright, Danny Forston were all top ten picks as well. Last season who was better for the Hawks, Josh Smith or Josh Childress? Who was the better PG, Shaun Livingston or Devin Harris? Better BIG, Araujo or Jefferson? Better swing man, JR Smith or Kirk Snyder? This is really not the best time to argue for an age limit, the best rookies were high schoolers, and the last rookie of the year to come out of college before Emeka was Mike Miller! Back then yes, but right now it's a completely different ball game, college is not teaching players nearly as well as they used to, coaches are focused more on winning and making money. It's basically all about money. You compare the careers of players that were regarded as equals in high school, but made different decisions when it came to college or NBA and college looks even worse.
Two excellent points. College does not save these guys from being busts. The argument that GMs are forced to take risks is a cop out for guys who get paid all that money just to pick players.
Why can't the NBA be like the NHL or MLB? Nobody cares if a #1 pick busts or if a #1 pick doesn't get called up till they're 25 years old! Nobody starts dreaming about seeing Albert Pujols and Miguel Cabrera on their favorite college teams, nobody wishes that some 18 year old hockey phenom would of chosen the Gophers over the Thrashers. Nobody cares about the ratings and entertainment value of the hockey and baseball college championships, it's only basketball and football players that people complain about. The NBA needs a Minor League more than an age limit.
