Anybody that can get paid shouldn't be prohibited from getting paid. If the NCAA wants to keep players, make scholarships contracts with the years specified, enforced by strong non-compete clauses. Nobody held Justin Bieber back until he was 19.
I hope Stern gets an age rule in place, hell, the players association should probably support it since it protects jobs... anyways, after it's in place, I want more and more talented players to go overseas. This will hurt the college game and make Stern look like an idiot. Anything that makes Stern look like an idiot, I support. God needs to cut him down already.
I think there is a lot of interplay between the age rule and other rules around the draft and rookie contracts. From a free market perspective, I don't support age minimums. But, from a business perspective, if the league rules put a lot of dependency on the draft -- and they do with the long and cheap rookie contracts -- the age rule is important for reducing volatility in the draft and protecting teams from the risks in the draft. Raising the age is probably wise for the league. But, they probably need to concede something to the union to get it. As for the impact on the NCAA, I don't see how it should even enter the calculation. The NBA doesn't have a responsiblity or perhaps even an interest in maintaining a robust college game. But, raising the limit could have 2 disparate effects on college -- (1) top players having a more respectable 2-year stint before leaving, and/or (2) more players choosing to play in Europe or NBDL before their draft eligibility so that they don't have to go 2 years without pay.
No age rule. Accept a college scholarship, and you're ineligible for the draft for 3 years (even if you flunk out). Give each NBDL team a single $150K (non-guaranteed) salary slot exception, since no HS phenom in his right mind is willing to go there for $20K. Stop this nonsense of one-and-done. Quit feeding the farce of student athletics Let the few that are ready to play out of HS get the opportunity to be paid, just like kids can do in golf, baseball, and tennis. Give the phenoms a better NBA prep in the NBDL Let the NCAA quality improve with longer term commitments Age is not the issue.
Don't think we need age rules. I mean, sure on on hand there are some players who failed miserably. But on the other hand the most phenomenon talent all came from High School. Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, Jermaine O'Neal, Tracy McGrady, Amare Stoudamire, Lebron James, Dwight Howard etc. All of these guys are both all-stars and all-NBA team players. And in their prime they would be the first option in nearly every single team in the NBA.
To top it off, even the so-called high school failures aren't that bad off. Kwame Brown and Eddy Curry have made more money in their lives than most of us will ever seen - heck, Robert Swift's made something like 3 million over his NBA career, more than enough for him to go back to school if he wanted. Sure, Curry's broke, but it's not like the ones who went to college avoided that problem.
The so-called "college basketball" is just a joke. How many of those players are in for a college education? Basketball should have a farm system like baseball. Let talented young players who just want to play develop in the minor league. Those who really want to go to college can do so and let college basketball be real COLLEGE basketball play by real college students.
If you are old enough to go die for our country then you are old enough to play basketball for a living.
I think adding another year is a good idea. The players would have a better basketball IQ and would be better fit to play at the NBA level, whether they spend two years in college or in Europe. Yeah, you miss some of the rare talents that are ready to come in, but overall I think it would improve the quality of the NBA.
I hate that the NBA is killing college bball and this "one and done" phenomenon... I strongly favor a 2yr college rule...
The reason this works in the NFL and not NBA is because football players have no alternative to college. Let's face it nobody cares about football outside of the USA and maybe Canada and that's why there aren't any other leagues out there. If football players don't go to college they won't be doing anything before they get to the NFL unless they go to Canada. If the NBA implemented a 2 year rule, this might ruin college basketball. Would you rather play for free (unless you play for Calipari) and risk getting hurt for 2 seasons or go overseas where you can earn money and play against better competition for 2 years? Imagine if the entire Kentucky team went overseas instead of playing college, college ball would suck.
I think it is more the player's union. They look at it as 1 year of basketball could equal 20 million dollars more in lost salary. I sorta see both sides.
My stance is the same. If you are mature/old enough to die for your country then you should be mature/old enough to decide if you want a shot in the pros. The age rule is great for fans, college basketball and the NBA for our selfish reasons but it really sucks for the kids.
Kids can go play in the Euroleagues if money is the issue. Many players come out too early and could use the extra time to develop.
I like how Stern casually tries to make the players look like the bad guys. If I asked them to raise the age limit, they'd be all like well, what you gonna give us if we do? He acts like he is doing them a favor by postponing some stars entering the league for one more year. Stop looking for a short term solution and fix the league. This NBA needs to be officiated less in favor of who he thinks deserves to be a star due to national appeal, and more in favor of markets. Houston is a big market. How would small market teams make money? They would be a farm system where top picks play out their rookie contracts until free agency and revenue sharing.
That's how I feel about it, a player going to college for more 1 year or more I have to agree with John Calipari, why don't we hold tennis players, golfers, and etc [such as soccer - Freddy Adu, boxing, and baseball, not necessarily, exceptionally talented players can move through minor leagues pretty fast]. I will never agree to an age limit for the NBA and will never require a player to play in an amateur league unless a team decides a player is ill-prepared for the professional. It's not necessary, because the failure rate is still there and as high. I feel the same way about any rules or laws that restrict youth of certain privileges that aren't gained at 18. Cannot buy a house (without a co-signer), buy/rent a car (without co-signer and charged at higher rate), go into certain places of repute (in some states/districts), cannot legally possess or buy alcohol, yet you have to sign up for selective service and we can throw you out on a battlefield in some foreign country that half of them probably cannot even find on a map or speak the language of the country. Why do we have all of these special rules for the NBA? They're very discriminatory and sometimes are not based on heavily factual information. I can understand the NFL a little more, because there's a physical development issue and informational knowledge about defensive/offensive concepts that are gained in college versus only playing in high school unless there's a crop of kids who come in and are way ahead of the curve. With college basketball and high school basketball, the disparity is much smaller, therefore you have alot of NBA ready players from high school and freshman from college, yet you have seniors and juniors who are pretty good college players that are not ready for the NBA or have the skills to be competitive at the next level. Some critics believe if you give a high school bust more time in college or in an D-League/amateur league, then they would've panned out. That's not necessarily true. First, most players who have became a bust in NBA history had collegiate experience or did very well overseas, even when some of those players are demoted to inferior ranks, they performed at a level higher than average (if they weren't dabbling in mischief or simply too lazy to perform). I feel like (exceptionally) talented basketball players/athletes/entertainers fall into that special class of kids who can survive without necessarily going to college, vocational school, military, or getting a run-of-the-mill job after college. I'll even add kids who grow up in households where their parents or family has worked in specialized trades, such as a blacksmith, a type of cook or chief, fisherman, fashion designer, animator or a type of maintenance worker. You don't need to go to school for those things, especially if you grew up being exposed to those things, trained by your family, and a part of those occupations in the first place. Another thing is it's a bigger burden for society through taxes to send these kids to school than for them to earn a multimillion dollar contract from a team or program. When kids are in school, they are not producing as much as they could, because they are only building upon their potential to become greater contributors or producers . . . the ability to give more to society and themselves. On the other hand, we have the exceptional talents (like the future NBA players in college) who produce massive amounts of money for universities already, and are ahead of the curve in their field, yet they do not receive compensation for their contributions. Unlike other professions (especially in athletics and entertainment), they cannot go fulfill their untapped potential and economic expansion, freely, because of mere politics and rules in the system that are somewhat illogical. For the most part, I think 95% of the kids should choose something along the lines of a traditional 2-year or 4 year college, a vocational/job training institution, or the military. That's where they are going to learn workplace skills and find a given profession that they can build on for the rest of their lives possibly and give them a steady income. Why do capable basketball players need to go through this process, especially when they are not expected to graduate or attend the school for enough years to graduate in a particular field. Do they even have to attend class -- if you know you are going to NBA without any injuries or major scandals, because I did not want to go to college in first place and only here because of an age limit? Where would be my motivation to actually attend class, and you have no intention of graduating? Still, I fail to endorse such concept. Basically, you are in particular grade of players, if you are projected to be high pick (top 10-20) from college, high school, or overseas, because scouting reports conclude that you have competitive to elite level skills to succeed or contribute at the next level. It's sort of like you have done really well (or superior) at your current grade level, like in 10th grade. We move you up to the next level . . . Again, it's marginal players (below 20-25) that typically struggle unless they are from smaller colleges or overseas and unheralded. Here's my contention with one and dones or two and dones, do they really want to get an education from the school or would they rather play basketball at a higher level? Again, if someone is capable enough, physically and skill wise, why are they locked out from the NBA? I do not understand. College and D-League is not good enough for some of these players (the talent is much too weak, overall, even with adjustment, elite competition is still far and few in between), honestly. Maybe, the more marginal talents, but the players with most potential and greatest skills need to be against the best and superior level competition. If I am a teacher, educator, or mentor, I want my best students to be in toughest level classes or unrelenting tracks. Not in sub-standard general level class or a remedial type class. In education, like most other fields, it's not in our best interest to hold the elite students or performers back. It makes no sense to hold genius-level children in their own grade-levels, because they are too young to go up a grade-level or two. It's a contentious issue, but academically it makes sense. For the greatest young basketball players, that plateau is the NBA or Euro basketball. How many all-stars or super reliable NBA starters have had time in the D-League or development league? Not many. It's more for marginal players, or players who are just not focused or have the motor for NBA basketball. If NBA scouting is worth gnat's size of credibility, then it should be able to determine which players are ready and which ones are not. For some odd reason, the most NBA ready or talented players tend to be high-school seniors, college freshman and sophomores. NBA teams do not have to draft players from those classes, yet they still get drafted. Since, they have the most potential and competitive skills, I do not care if a kid is 17, 27, or is purple guy from another planet. If they are good players, then I want them on my team. I want those players, instead of settling for a run-of-the-mill college senior who is a good player, but not a great potential NBA talent.
