So? First off, I haven't seen convincing evidence that going to college prepares players any better than playing in the pro. For every Ndudi Ebi or Lenny Cooke there is a Felipe Lopez, Jason Fraser, or Zendon Hamilton whose development stalled after going to college. Even if these players are immature and making stupid decisions. who cares? These players are legal adults and they are qualified to do the work. Not only are they qualified, it's the market and the team's themselves, by drafting them, that are indicating that they are qualified. It seems hypocritical for the nba to now say that they're somehow not qualified to do the work when they have been, and still would be, drafting them. If these high schoolers are making poor decisions, then it's too bad for them, but it's a freedom they should have.
I agree that they should have the option but I don't think they should be allowed to go back to play college ball even if they went undrafted. That opens up a whole other can of worms.
The rule is in place to protect the kids - how can you not see that? There were several kids who thought they were good enough to make the jump right out of high school, and now they're unemployed. What possible benefit comes out of allowing kids to enter the league right out of high school? The only reason anyone ever makes is, "oh his family is in a tight financial situation, so he has to go pro to get paid." I have a really hard time believing any of the families of the top young talents in the NCAA struggled to keep their sons in school. The school would pretty much make any and every accomodation to making sure they weren't taking out loans for the kid to play ball for them. I understand your point about high schoolers should be able to have the freedom to make poor decisions. But I agree with the NBA's stance - college will do nothing to hurt those players. They'll learn to be more disciplined, self-independent, and halfway to a college degree should they ever chose to go back and get it (Which A LOT of NBA players do). You take a HS kid whose never not lived at home, give him a few million a year, and bad things are bound to happen. This rule protects the kids, plain and simple.
I don't see that. Anything a college can give a player, the NBA should be able to provide. The NBA needs to do a better job with training instead of relying on colleges to do it. The current setup is only desirable because it transfers risk from the league to the player via the slavemaster called NCAA. I understand why the league wants to do it, saving them from themselves. But, it's a bit funny saying it's to the player's benefit. Reasons why skipping college and jumping straight to the NBA is better for players who can get drafted: * Stock may never again be high enough to get drafted into the NBA, thereby missing out on rookie contract cash ----- Scouts may realize from college career that the player isn't good enough for the NBA ----- May suffer career-ending injury during college * While not as severe, college play will add wear and tear to the body and shorten the years a player can play for pay * A dollar now is worth more than a dollar two years from now * On one one-year minimum contract, a player cut from the NBA can pay for a 4-year education at the country's most expensive private colleges a couple of times over * As soon as a college player has a serious injury, even his educational support is in peril
Um ...no. Kwame would never have made the money he's made if he'd gone to college. Any kid who's drafted top 10 should make the jump rather then risk a disappointing college stint, or injury. The rule helps the NCAA product by keeping the top talent there an extra year....and it helps the NBA by providing less uncertainty regarding players drafted. Since nobody forces kids to declare early.....they currently have the option of staying in school if that's to their benefit.
They would market the Euro player in AMERICA. And like I said, Nike or Adidas would take on that burden to ensure the rights to that player when he does come over. And you can bet they will have him hyped up and ready to go. I never intended that they market those players in Europe. Imagine Lebron in Europe for 2yrs. Think of some of the crazy commercials Nike would have running. I can see it now... "75ppg, 13rpg, 18apg, 2 time MVP, 2 time champion, 20yrs old" "hes coming home" "chosen one" "witness" "NBA draft live yada yada yada"
Who cares if it's good for the player or not? They're not entitled to anything. What's important is what's best for the teams and the league as a whole.
The rule is in place for a lot of reasons. Call me cynical, but, imo, the main reason the rule is in place is because it helps the NBA (and the NCAA) make more money. NBA franchises are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Top draft picks are enormous investments for these franchises. They more accurate they are able to scout and project these players, the better it is for the franchises. Playing in the NCAA and march madness, also raises the profile for the incoming draft picks, making them more marketable. Age rules may secondarily be intended to protect the young players from themselves. It may actually benefit the young players. I'm not sure that is actually true, but it's certainly possible. But these players are legal adults, if they are qualified to work in their field they should be able to. According to nbadraft.net mock draft (just as an example, take it for what it's worth) 8 of the top ten draft picks this year are projected to be players subject to this rule. The concerns you listed (immaturity, lack of discipline, etc) should be taken into effect by the market and the teams drafting. That the teams still draft these players in overwhelming numbers indicates to me that these concerns are not serious enough to be the basis of a rule change. Also, basically, kids their same age are entrusted to go over to Iraq and fight and die for our country. They should have the right to work in their field if they are qualified. Also there are labor law and anti-trust issues here. Imo, just about any potential rule change like this that imposes a significant labor restriction should be collectively bargained with the union. Particularly in a monopoly like organization like the NBA. If it's a unilateral move, the NBA would open itself up to legal challenges that the collectively bargained 2005 age limit was not subject to.
BTW, it looks as if Stern is planning on getting this past the players union by caving in on something else...anyone have any guesses?
You reallythink the hype for LeBron would have been bigger with him playing in half-filled Euro-barns for a few years rather than hiim playing say with Greg Oden before a sold-out Superdome? SOrry but I disagree. If you want to market players in the US you should do it in the highly marketable college game. THe NCAA tournament is probably the most-watched basketball sporting event of the year, including the NBA playoffs or the finals - as a NIke, you'd pass up that exposure for euroleague games that nobody cars about happening at 3 in the afternoon on a week day? I would not.
They pay money to see a team. Players are employees of that team. This rule helps the product on the floor. Good for the owners, good for the fans. If the players don't like it they are free to play elsewhere.
what has been so bad about kobe, mcgrady, garnett, lebron, etc. coming in the league? how has the product been hurt? secondly, the league can't just do what they want, there are labor laws in this country so I wish you would quit repeating an untrue mantra.
Who cares if it is good for the league or not? They're not entitled to anything. Besides, I was arguing LongTimeFan's contention that the rule was there to benefit the players (and his incredulity that others couldn't appreciate that fact). And, players are entitled to something. They have a right to work. The NBA will have to jump through hoops to deny them the opportunity to compete for jobs in NBA franchises.
These same kids, who are now legally adults as some have mentioned, would not be allowed to drink or buy alcohol, run for office as Senator, Representative, or President, would not be allowed to gamble at most casinos, etc. One could then argue if they are not ready for these high-profile positions and privileges then what makes you think they are ready to handle a lifestyle where they are given millions of dollars, constant travel, high celebrity, and so on? I'm not saying I agree but it could really go either way.
That's kind of the point. The NBA basically has a monopoly on global top-notch basketball. The players really can't go play anywhere else. The NBA basically possesses the exclusive market for premium basketball and no one else really comes close. Which is a primary reason why this rule may be illegal if not collectively bargained.
There's nothing so bad about those superstars coming into the league, you know that. They're not the problem. I'm not arguing whether what they're doing is "legal" or not because really, it's irrelevant. They can use all kinds of clever phrasing to get around that. As a fan of the league I'm in favor of whatever makes teams better. What's not important to me is that a high school kid has to get a free education for a couple years before he signs his multi-million dollar contract.
