[ESPN] Should the NBA have an Age rule?

What about the players who were busts and attended college for two or more years?

I'd would agree with your point, if you had more in-depth statistics on it. Where does basketball IQ come from? Why can you gain it more in college, and not the NBA? They have scouts and trainers in both leagues to evaluate your game and what you need to work on.

 

College hoops is a joke, they are professionals under the name of amateurs. It is a billion dollar industry and they just say they are students to make it so they keep all the money. Fact is they hardly receive an education, they attend minimal classes, just have to get Ds, and usually get helped on that. So a one and done player would goto 3 classes his first semester, barely get Ds and show up minimally. The next semester, he won't goto class at all, finish teh tournament and leavevschool. The school might've generated millions from him, he just hung around.
That said, I want to see the NBA age rule at 20,21. I think the players if they ar sure basketball is it, then goto Europe for the best experience or the Dleague, then the league. Otherwise college if you actually want to goto classes

 

With football, it's not necessarily about alternatives, but more about development issues. Physically and talent-wise, there's a huge disparity between high school and NCAA D-IA football players. Most teams you play are not going to be very good, or comparable in talent unless it is another powerhouse or state playoff game, as most teams aren't going to be stacked with superior level talent on most weekends.

NCAA D-IA, you are going up against the best young football players in the country, who were the best players in their states or districts. You are also going up against NFL ready seniors and juniors. Add in the fact, that the offensive and defensive schemes are much more complicated and intensive.

That's alot more to overcome.

You look at the NBA and NCAA basketball in comparison, you see freshman dominate the games all of the time. There's something off, when you go into college dominating and you have to stay there for so many years, because of some rule that makes no sense. A team of the best high school players in the country would actually stand a chance against alot of D-IA teams.

Honestly, if it were applicable in the 60s, you would've seen Wilt Chamberlain, Julius Erving, Pete Maravich, and handful of other players enter right into professional ranks. Truth be told, the college basketball game has always been weaker in comparison to the NCAA football programs in terms of talent. The talent pools in football are so much greater and well-rounded. It's a much harder field to overcome.

How come some of the most heavily scouted players for next year's draft class and 2014, haven't even earned their high school diplomas, yet? If there's such an important emphasis on college success and achievement for basketball players, then why are NBA scouts already looking at juniors and seniors in high school, even more so than juniors and seniors in colleges?

 

more like some of the ghettoest stars. aside from Kobe who is actually intelligent. But LeBron? C'mon, the dude would be working the deep fryer at KFC if it wasn't for basketball.

 

I hate the blatant insult of this, but it's true. College does not make people brighter, unless individual wants to be enlightened.

 

Here's what it should be:

Coming out of high school? Spend one year in the d-league.

Going to college? Stay at least 3 years.

Coming from overseas? Must be at least 21 or spend a year in the d-league.

 

Yet, it is completely irrelevant. I'm sure that could apply to other fields of entertainment and athletics. He has been given alot of opportunities, but at the same time he seems to be a very industrious young man, so he does have ambition.

Same with Dwight Howard, Kevin Garnett, and others.

 

This is actually a great idea.

It brings attention to the d-league and removes the stigma surrounding it.

 

Yes, I'd like to see the d-league evolve into a more minor league system, maybe even one with 30 teams.

 

All those guys would have still come into the league and been great even with an age rule. All the age rule does is give the flawed players enough rope to hange themselves with. The great out-of-high-school players would just be great out-of-college players with a more respectable rookie season.

Ummm, that's why they wanted an age rule in the first place. They had guys like Kwame Brown and Eddy Curry becoming millionaires at the NBA's expense while killing the cap-position of a foolish GM, and never becoming good enough basketball players to justify the money. With 2 more years of good data, Kwame Brown wouldn't ever be picked #1 and be guaranteed over $10m before his 1st day of work.

 

That's not true. Plenty of dudes who played multiple years in college are busts as well and never justify the investment made in them. High school kids are busting at a higher rate than dudes who played multiple seasons in college.

 

that's true, but in the meantime some 15th man on the bench was sticking around the nba. even kobe's rookie season was better than a 15th man on the bench. I think we should try to get the 450 best basketball players in the world in the nba. regardless of experience.

if they want an age limit then they should do away with rookie contracts. or shorten them by every year they raise the age limit. they want an age limit to have time to evaluate the players while the players get no money (and no one cares because the players aren't in the union***, the nba wants to protect gm's, and fans hardly ever side with players on anything), then they want rookie contracts to essentially evaluate them below market value for another 4 years. if you haven't figured a guy out by age 22, then you're doing it wrong. and kwame brown still got like a $9M/yr contract (something like that) after his rookie contract and eddy curry got like $14M/yr after his rookie contract. that's how stupid gm's are.


***the numbers wouldn't be big enough to influence anything, but if i was a guy who got held in college for 2 years when i could have come out and made more money, i'd remember who the union president was when the rule changed and if he/the union ever needed anything from me i'd remember how much he/they cared about what i needed years before.

 

are we trying to have the best players in the nba or the d-league?

 

i'm not sure i understand people's fasicnation with the MLB system for basketball. it puts the decision pressure points at pretty much the two most worthless ages to put them at. while i am fine with no age limit (kobe, lebron, and dwight really ruined the nba with there rookie years), i can at least understand the 1 year of college age limit. it's hard enough to project players from college to the pros. asking scouts to project them from high school to the pros when the level of competition is so disparate and coaching isn't up to par is certainly a difficult task. but after one year of college, you've separated the high school frauds from the rest, you've seen what they do under real coaches who have power at their schools and how they handle that and you've gained a lot of information that you didn't have from high school. it's largely apparent if someone is ready to take the leap at this point. by year 3 you've got players who have just been hanging around college working for free for no reason for 2 years. there will still be guys who stay 3 years because they need that long to prove their future worth, but holding the stars back is just punishing guys for not being willing to make the jump straight from high school.

instead of simply allowing players to naturally enter the nba when they are ready, you're just arbitrarily punishing people on both ends of the 0 or 3 years choice.

you basically you force a bunch of good players to speed up their decision for no reason and give them the choice of no money for 3 years or maybe going to the nba unprepared and you force scouts to still have to try to deal with projecting from high school. on the other end, you simply punish the standouts who aren't sure if they are quite ready and then prove themselves beyond capable. why not just allow players to develop naturally?

or is this just a case of people wanting to protect the college game at the expense of the players involved?

 

20/5/5 is not ready for the nba? we're gonna have to get rid of a whole lotta current players then.

he was still better than the 15th man on the bench. if you can only choose one to be in the nba, why do you want the 15th man and not the guy who is better than the 15th man? that doesn't make sense.

i assume you're also in favor of an upper age limit then? the nba shouldn't be about 34 and 35 year olds who are no longer at their peak and who are declining. sure, tim duncan was an all-star, but now he's only playing 28 minutes and not even grabbing 10 boards a game.

 

I don't know if a new rule is a must have either way as I can see both sides of the issue, but I do like how staying at least one year in college helps with the overall fundamentals of some of the top young players we've seen (D. Rose, Durant, Griffin and even Wall & Kyrie Irving were ready for the most part and successful their first year).

The additional coaching and learning how to really work on your overall game for a year has helped to some extent. There will always be players who bust, but an extra year or two reduces the percentage a little, I think.

I wouldn't be opposed to them raising the age to 20 and having players stay for two years and if they want to go pro out of H.S., they can go overseas or into the D league draft (maybe increase pay for top picks?) that pays players out of high school if they choose that road.

In effect, somewhat making the system like the MLB idea people like, 2 years in college or go pro in the D league or overseas.

 

Simply, no.

 

so how do you feel about an upper age limit?