The NBA Age Limit revisited

someone mentions a great example with shuan livingston. he sucks because he lacks the proper schooling. there are many other examples. and how about brandon roy. he would probably be out of the league now had he declared for the nba and actually get drafted.

 

It's the NBA's choice to make, just like it's the NBA's choice to have a draft or a salary cap at all. And in the case of the busts it would have helped them.

The scouts who make the evaluations who say it's easier. I mean they're the ones who are doing it. And anyway just saying "these guys were high schoolers and they're stars" doesn't really help you, cause really if you look closely it doesn't support your case - see below:

And scouts failed to properly evaluate all of these players when drafting them except for LeBron. IF they had an NBA redraft, these guys would all be taken 1 or 2 overall.

If it was easier or as easy to evaluate high schoolers as college players, or if these guys went to one year of college would Kobe Bryant have been drafted 13th, in front of Lorenzen Wright, Kerry Kittles,Samaki Walker, Erick Dampier, Todd Fuller, and Vitaly Potapenko and then traded for Vlade Divac?

McGrady went 9th behind Antonio Daniels, Tony Battie, Ron Mercer, Kieth Van Horn, and Adonal Foyle.

Garnett was closest to being right (5th overall) but he still went behind Joe Smith and Antonio McDyess.

Dirk went 9th, after Robert Traylor, Olowokandi, Larry Hughes and Raef LaFrentz.

Let's look at a few more. Amare Stoudamire 9th, behind Nene Hilario, Mike Dunleavey, Drew Gooden, Tzikitishvili (another 18 year old draftee bust)

Al Jefferson 15th, (who is becoming a damned good player) went 7 spots before Rafa Araujo - who might be the worst NBA player ever.


Then there's the high school bust draft of 2001. 4 of the top 8 players drafted where high schoolers, with only two of them (Curry and Chandler) coming close to the expectations set, though still underachieving by most measures. If you re-draft that year the best players are probably Pau Gasol (3rd) Zach Randolph (19th) Joe Johnson (10th) Tony Parker (another teenager- 28th) and Richard Jefferson (13th).

The only high schooler who they seemed to really nail it on was Dwight Howard.

Now, scouts didn't properly evaluate Joe Smith either (or at least Golden State's didn't, who knows if everybody elses did) - but you see a pattern here? (just for the record, there are a few players they drafted ahead of these guys that were justifiable, such as Duncan first overall when McGrady was drafted). That doesn't mean that drafting ANY player is an exact science, but there appears to be rather high proportion of high school players being taken where they shouldn't be, either too high or too low. Now, you can obviously look back and find college players who have the same issue - but really the sample size is so much bigger that it's almost meaningless to compare the two.

Well there's not really anything to measure it by so I don't think you can judge the "end results" yet. But anyway "worse off" is impossible to quantify in this situation. There are so many variables to that. Also the "average guy" is impossible to quantify. Average lotto pick? Average top 10 pick? Average all-star? And sample size issues - really this statement doesn't mean much.

Option B is two years? Why not just one year? The bottom line is that if he's a lottery pick a year later (as he likely would have been had he excelled) he's richer today.

Not really. See above - and it beear With the exceptions of LeBron and Howard, the dominant high school players of this era (Kobe, Garnett, McGrady, Stoudemire, Jermaine O'Neal) were all drafted outside of the top five (or actually fifth for Garnett). They were late-lottery players

The most dominant players who went to some college? Duncan (first overall) Shaq (first overall) Carmelo Anthony (3rd) Wade (5th overall) Iverson (first) Jason kidd (second) Elton Brand (first). With the exception of Steve Nash and Gilbert Arenas (who would have been undrafted had he declared out of high school) almost all of today's superstars who went to college were top of the lotto-selections.

They strike out just as MUCH because there's a lot more college players drafted, however they do a better job of drafting them in the right place

You're not even close to using the right years, and there's no guarantee he would ahve even gone 2nd overall this past draft.

Separate issue. But hey life isn't fair, and it's not worth it to me to be worrying about it.

Actually we can help it, and we did - that's why they put in an age limit.

I'm pretty sure the difference between the league having Jermaine O'neal's 4.3 ppg for his first two seasons and not having it is pretty small.

Actually we can help how it's distributed. That's why there's a draft in the first place, to distribute talent. If you want a laissez-faire approach to talent distribution, that's fine, but be prepared to sacrifice the draft, the salary cap, the CBA (and parity), and be prepared to watch the Knicks vs. Lakers in the finals every year.

Anyway, I can't believe you're accusing the league of acting against its own best interests, when in the same breath accusing them of having only their own interests in mind.

So that's what the league thinks too.

Says who, you? Anyway now you're comparing rookies to players with a year of experience. i'm talking about rookies vs. rookies.

But then you get into the realm of the intangible and what-if's. Would Kobe have become a better more mature player faster, and learned to subjugate his massive ego, had he played for Dean Smith for a few years? It's highly possible. Then maybe he doesn't have the blow-up with SHaq, etc etc etc. Look at LeBron & Wade. One seems a lot more mature than the other and their career paths seem to be headed in opposite directions.

The ultimate amount of harm done to these guys (oh , poor collegians, have to spend an awful year getting laid, sleeping late, and living life as gods in horrible spots like Austin or Chapel Hill before becoming millionaires) is so minimal it's not even worth the HTML you have devoted to it. Even in the cases where you calculate the interest and find out there's a net monetary loss - the marginal utility of that is probably pretty low.

 

QUESTION: With the increasing number of International bust
will we be ok when the NBA says .. . they must play 1 yr in an American College . . before coming?


Rocket River

 

They'd be ineligible for the NCAA because they were paid professionals, so it will never happen.

 

My 2 pennies:

-I'm fine with it as long as there is a viable, paying alternative to college ball. Attending college as a prerequisite for pro ball is a farce and a scam that has become a monster (basketball and football) in the past 50 years. From admissions to boosters to academic cheating to profiting off kids not allowed to get a cut, it's a horrific disaster that everyone pretends isn't as bad as it is. The only sport that has it right is baseball, with a full minor league system that allows HS kids to choose whether they want to go in that directly or college.

-Everyone slaps up Kobe and McGrady as posterchilds, even though they weren't very good out of the chute. Most HS guys that make it need 3 years of BSing (Jermaine O'Neal, Chandler) before they finally ready to go. Major exceptions are LeBron and Amare.

-Out of that small pool of success stories, go back and count the number of kids that ruined their careers trying to come out too soon. When these debates happen, who even remembers DeAngelo Collins? Lenny Cooke? Korleone Young? Leon Smith? So many HS guys got screwed up thinking that the NBA was an out from college, and allowed agents to destroy their future. We know that NBA teams enjoy the extra year to judge prospects to avoid making a screw up, but the age limit also gives an additional year for the preps to gauge their chances and forces them to make at least a short term plan for a non-NBA life.

It's a good thing. It's not perfect, but it's a good thing. Beef up the NBDL as a minor league for young Europeans and kids who aren't right for college.

Evan

 

In every job listing i've ever looked at, there were always basic requirements like a GED or high school degree or something, even for menial jobs like mailroom clerk or gopher.

I don't know why the NBA won't just put that kind of requirement in there for anyone who wants to qualify for a job in the NBA. I'm sure the admin people have to meet those kinds of basic requirements, why should the other employees be any different?

 

IIRC... The rule is not that they must attend college. The rule is they must be 19 years of age... and be one year removed from high school in order to take part in the draft. Meaning they could finish high school or get their GED, go play in a rec league for a year and then be eligible for the draft. If they don't want to play in college they don't have to.

Anyone have the link to the actual ruling?

 

I will say this, the NBA age limit has "increased" my interest for college basketball. I go out of my way to watch games with Oden, Durant, Wright etc. I wouldn't give those games much attention if they weren't there.

Also, those players will be more seasoned by the time they get to the NBA. They will be just that more ready to contribute "right away."

From my perspective, as a FAN, I love the age limit. More interesting college basketball, and better prepared players when they come in the NBA. From a "FANS" perspective, win-win.

 

Uh, I am a double certified teacher. I couldn't have even applied to sub straight out of high school. Are my rights being violated? And if so, why is it that we aren't debating changing the rules. What about jobs you have to have college degrees to apply for, 18 year olds get the shaft there too, let's go change them all. Will not happen.

There are only certain jobs most 18 year olds can get, whether via lack of credentials or experience. This is no different. This is the NBA saying you need a year of college in order to apply to work for us. They can earn money for basketball at 18 if they wish by going overseas. So they aren't taking away their right to make a living playing basketball at 18.

Secondly how is the NBA making money off college stars? If anyone is making money it's the NCAA.

 

I totally agree with this. For every successful case there are 2 unsuccessful cases. I'd rather them get the experience in college than pretty much waste their first year in the league getting accustomed to it. Sure, no matter how much time they spend in college they are going to need time to get used to the NBA, but I firmly believe the more time they spend in college, the easier and faster their transition into the NBA will be.

Pugs

 

It's not about the kids, Ice. You know that.

How many baseball players start within two years of being drafted? With Bball, there's no minor league -- so if a team's to keep the rights to a drafted kid, they need to keep a roster spot for them. (except for the Euro's)


Others have mentioned it...but it's really the same logic as the salary cap. In an ultra competitive environment, some felt GM's were taking too big a risk on younger players. The age limit is to curtail that. Just as the salary cap and max salaries curtails bidding wars on salaries. It's about the teams, about the NBA, and, to some extent, the paying public. It's not about the kids. Surprised?

Who was the big loser when Kwame was drafted first overall? He may have become a better player in college -- but more than likely, his limits would have been exposed and he certainly would not have been a number 1 pick. Perhaps he drops to the second round -- or right out of the draft? Instead -- he gets Number One money. Even as a 'bust' he's better off. The Wizards -- not so much. Give Kwame a choice today. $10m guaranteed with the possibility of being out of the league in three years, or a couple of years in college -- better training and the possibility of being a better long term player. And the real possibility of no $10M guarantee. Anybody who cares about Kwame, as a person, tells him to take the cash.

Baseball is different because of the minor league system. And don't they have about twelve hundred rounds? besides, since when is MLB the measure of the best overall system?

And who's to say a football player is not ready? Sure size is important -- but it's not a height or weight restriction football has -- it's age. So the GM's are forbidden from taking a flyer on some HS kid who may be great down the road -- or may be ready now. But based on age, the kid can't be drafted. If it's so obvious the HS kids are not ready for the NFL, why have a rule about it? Wouldn't GM's simply not draft them until they're ready?

Tennis, golf, etc. Individual sports. If Michelle Wie bombs out -- doesn't impact any franchises, any teams, or any perceived 'integrety' of a draft.

Why have a draft at all? Kids get to select their colleges. Other employees get to choose where they work. Yet the best prospect gets to play for the worst franchise -- in whatever town it happens to be.

Again....it's not about the kids. It's about the NBA.

 

A baseball player drafted out of high school tends to mature for the 4-6 years he generally spends in the minor leagues.

Joe Mauer is arguably the best player to be drafted out of high school this decade (2001) and it still took him until 2004 to make his major league debut.

 

You are missing the point entirely. I could be the brightest high school grad 18 year old in the world. Know for a fact I could teach right away and I would have to wait regardless of my talent/potential. At the very least I know I could sub but I wouldn't have the 60 college hours.
But do you hear people claming these rules are unfair for teachers? No. If the NBA had said all along this was the rule for entrance to the league nobody would be whining like they are now. Also, guys like t-mac and kobe hadn't proven anything before entering the league. They were hired(drafted) on potential and given 3-4 years of training in the hopes they would work out. They had not proven they were better players than certain collegians, etc.

Furthermore go ask the Raptors how they feel about T-Mac now. All his success happened in a different uniform. Or the blazers and o'neal. Or the wizards and kwame brown. Some of those are successes some aren't, but all 3 are not with the team that drafted them. How about the pacers and johnathan bender. The list goes on. And I said outside athletics as far as jobs go. Because there are tennis players, baseball players etc who go pro that young. And on baseball players: they get a signing bonus, but they have to earn their way to the majors. With an NBA player, the D-League is still developing at best. These high schoolers had to be put on nba rosters right away. Also in MLB, if you don't go pro out of HS, you have to have 3 years of college, any level of junior college, or be 21 years old. Most players either come out in HS, or when they are juniors/21 yr olds. The NBA never had it like that.

But the bottom line is it's the NBA's rule. Their requirement for employment in their league. I don't see you whining that other professions make people have certain credentials to work for them. You act like it's unfair for companies to set standards of employment. It's not.

 

The NBA is just trying to defend it's own product from being overrun by teenagers that can't play. People can bring up Kobe and Lebron all they want, but the majority of HS players stink it up the first few years they're in the league and fans are forced to endure the whole growing process, occasionally a HS kid will grow to be something with the team that originally drafted him, most of the time they don't.

So now the NBA has found a way to fix it, send them to college for a year, let the scouts get a better look at them against better competition, in pressure situations, let the GMs have some more information before they screw their picks up. The quality of play in the league will go up with fewer guys running when they should be learning how to crawl first; the quality of NCAA basketball will improve, you won't be seeing a team like LSU in the finals again. Fans of basketball should be happy because they see a better product in both college and the NBA.

The only people who aren't happy are the few players that want to make the immediate jump to the league, well too bad for them. Those guys can 1) go play in Europe, 2) join the NBDL, 3) start their own league.

 

I'm going to go my usual route and disagree with everything bob knight says. The rule FORCES those who want to join the NBA to go to college. Whether or not they have to attend class and work while they're there is up to the NCAA and the individual schools. But if something doesn't work out, these kids still have something to fall back on.

 

Congress has an age limit of 25. There are roughly the same number of congressmen as NBA players. Why is it okay for congress to have a 25 year age minimum, but people have a problem with the NBA having an 18 year age minimum? They are both their for basically the same reason, to protect the interests of the people they serve (the constituents or the owners).

 

No one is forcing the basketball player to go to school. They are just telling him that he cannot apply for an NBA job until a certain point.

Even Nolan Ryan spent a few years in the minors and he "pitched like Nolan Ryan". The last pitcher that I am aware of to make the jump from high school to the majors was David Clyde (in the '70s). That publicity stunt by the Rangers arguably ruined his career.

 

TE=francis 4 prez]while i think it helps college by letting better talent play there and probably helps the nba*, i'm completely against it. if someone is good enough to play in the nba or if someone thinks they are and is willing to draft them, they should be allowed to, imo. now the nba gets to make its own rules and can do what they want, but i don't have to agree with it.

this whole argument of there being busts seems silly to me. most of the biggest stars in the league never played in college, and while there are busts, there are busts among guys who go to college. i'm guessing the rate isn't much different, and given the enormous su

even sillier are the people looking out for the welfare of the players. first of all, you should be free to make your own decisions for yourself, they don't need you looking out for them in your spare time. most all of them get drafted in the 1st round and get a guaranteed contract over a million dollars. they'll be just fine. even someone considered a bust like kwame made probably $18M on his first contract and then got another one for $25M. chandler, curry, miles those guys have huge second contracts. livingston will get some money. the only ones with problems are the ones who get bad advice and go when they aren't first round picks. if you are a first round pick, it's pretty much never a bad decision to go get set for life. but even plenty of guys in college get told to come out early when they aren't first round picks, so again college doesn't solve the problem.

but they'll get better faster in college. who says? kobe, tmac, garnett, dirk, amare, dwight howard, lebron didn't seem to have any problem getting better in a hurry. terrence morris was a lottery pick after 2 years in college, and then was a 2nd round pick after 4 years. there's nothing magical about college that makes you get better. you have more time to learn without having to make a huge adjustment, but in the nba you get to play against the best and learn how to play against the best faster. in college you don't have to learn to deal with the nba life, but in the nba you get accustomed to it before guys who come out later. there are tradeoffs either way. they don't practice as much in the nba, but practice time is limited in college and you don't have access to the training and stuff in the nba and you even have to go to class occasionally instead of focusing everything on basketball like in the nba.

you get better or don't whether you go to college or not. the main things in getting better are developing an nba body and working hard. college doesn't make either of those happen. if you wanna get better and will put in the work, you'll probably get better. if you don't, you'll probably be a bust. if you get lucky and develop an nba body and don't end up as a tweener or something, that also helps. either way, putting in the work is what matters. they don't teach a magic version of basketball in college to make you better.

now you'll obviously be better your first year in the nba if you stay in college 2 or 3 years, but you won't be any better at age XX by going to college. maybe shaun livingston would be better when he entered the nba if he had gone to college, but he might not even be in the nba yet and wouldn't have made millions of dollars yet either.

*as far as helping the nba, yeah the talent that shows up has developed for an extra year or two so that helps, but then those 1 or 2 years you don't have lebron or durant or oden is another year or 2 some 15th man hangs around in the nba instead of being replaced by a superior player. so while it seems obvious that guys who are more ready help, even unready stars are better than the guy they kick out. and many go to rebuilding teams as it is so they aren't exactly dragging down the spurs, mavs, and suns here.




why should anyone care about anything that affects someone else then? a law that says everyone who isn't a white guy from houston 25 and older has to pay 100% taxes would only hurt others bank accounts, but i don't think it would be a good idea. if it's not fair to them, why should they just get screwed just to make others happy?



and who says it wouldn't if he went to college? maybe he goes to college, everyone realizes he isn't talented and won't develop, and never gets drafted or paid at all.



but why? what was college going to do to make him so much better? to change his personality? if most of the best players in the league didn't go to college, what about it is so necessary?[/QUOTE]
most of college plays i think are not childprodigy.so its necessary to set up such age limitation.