I would be in favor of forcing the youngsters to wait four years after graduating HS to make the NCAA more competitive. But I do not support a one year wait.
The NFL rule is stupid to. Maurice Clarrett would have been better off if he came out after his freshman year.
I had to be 16 to drive 16 to get a job without a special work permit 18 to buy tobacco 18 to buy/watch p*rn 18 to vote 18 to fight a war 21 to drink 25 to rent a car 62 to start collecting Social Security. Age requirements are a part of life. I don't like the rule because I hate all the one & dones. I really don't have a problem from a legal aspect. I think they should enter the draft or give a two year college commitment.
I love seeing me a 18 yr old Bynum on the bench taking up a roster spot because of his "potential". Only took him 3 years to find out his max wasn't really worth it! Drop the age restriction it's great! @#$% potential. In the real world, you got to show what you can do first, then get paid. !@#$ all this high school potential garbage. For every TMac, KG, Lebron, there are thousands, millions of people who can't make it.
Playing in the NBA is not a right, it is something granted to prospects who have proven to be capable. Yes, it is for teams to protect themselves. Give the teams a chance to evaluate potential draft picks against real competition instead of HS competition. Give teams a chance to see prospects learn from some of the best coaches in the game before joining their team. What is wrong with that? Playing in the NBA should be like any other job, and setting an age minimum gives employers a chance to evaluate talent better. Keep in mind these jobs pay millions of dollars. Some HS players prove to be worth it, while others (the majority of kids that came out of HS back when it was allowed) did not. It is hard to see who is capable of earning that much money against weak competition. What is wrong with a business setting standards (in this particular case an age limit) for potential employees?
Let's remember that at the end of the day, the NBA is a product that has to be marketed to people. David Stern feels like his product would be tainted if there are a bunch of 18 year olds on the court, because people would view them as children, and not watch games with the awe they had for guys like Jordan, Bird, Magic, Kareem, etc. Forget the fact that you can join the Army at 18, it's not about any of that. It's about dollars and cents. The NFL has a much more viable reason for their age restraint.....at 18, your body simplyhas not developed enough to be able to take the punishment of an NFL season. The NBA, however, is doing it for economic reasons only. People are much more inclined to admire and idolize a player with a little age and experience under their belt.....as long as they aren't named LeBron.
The rule is blatant age discrimination, just like the case of the 78 year old woman who was denied a waitress job at Hooters.
I'm not sure I agree with you that this is about the right to employment. People are basically free to apply for whatever job they like. Their qualifications for that job may include an age limit. The goverment itself limits by age who can be President, etc. I'm sure plenty of us could make the argument that there are brighter, more capable people who should be the President. This isn't a slight at Obama at all, just that the government already has it's hands dirty and really ought to worry about more important issues than a bball player crying because they are too young to play in the NBA. There is employment for them in other leagues obviously. On top of this the Von Wader thread touches on immature players being showered with money, gifts and fame then flaming out in life. Lowering the age requirement may be an unwanted increase in liability for the league in addition to increasing the amount of "life coaching" likely required.
This is a flawed argument. Yes, you can go to war and die before you are eligible to play in the NBA. So what? You also can't buy tobacco or alcohol. How many NBA players are being drafted to go to war? How many Americans? None. We employ a volunteer armed service, not some conscription service like in Japan or Colombia where 18 year olds serve a mandatory two year stint in their own armies. Some people in this country have a very skewed vision in their heads about what they perceive as unfair.
I'm sure, besides economic reasons, image plays a big role. As an example, having 18 year olds in the league would make for a less-competitive, immature league (which was alluded to earlier). A major point of the rule is to show that admittance into the league is not anyone's right, but a privilege for those who are 1.) capable and 2.) [presumably] mature enough to live the lifestyle. Both of those points are relative, as some may be more mature and capable than others. However if you let anyone at any age in, there's going to be more drug, criminal, and overall drug issues. It's an image thing in my opinion. What college offers (even if it is for a year) is a chance to develop on the court and, to an extent, in life. Think about this: ESPN will cover college players just as much as NBA players these days. It's an entirely different experience to be "the man" in college than it is to be "the destined bench warmer" in the league. I personally believe every potential NBA player should go to college since, in general, it would be better for their future (beyond basketball). And what about those who can't qualify academically for college? My opinion: if you aren't capable of getting into college then you simply won't succeed in the league (and in life). There's more to basketball than simply athletic ability and potential. Communication and other aspects (understanding defense, moving without the ball, etc.) are vital for success and having experience in college (or overseas) will only assist a player's chance for long-term success in the league. It's unfortunate that the NBA is solely forced to take a stand on this issue when what should occur is a joint agreement or special program with the NCAA. The NCAA NEEDS to institute an eligibility requirement just like it is done with baseball players: The basic idea with college baseball players is if you sign to play in college, you are committed for at least 3 years (or until age 21).
I'm not sure why you quoted me to make that argument. I was just saying that arguing this rule is for the good of high school prospects is not persuasive. I never said playing in the NBA was a right, nor did I say I thought the age restriction was wrong. They can go ahead with this rule, so far as I care. But, I do think they are wagging the dog a bit. There is an imbalance in their internal talent market that drives teams to draft long-shot prospects. But, instead of teams learning th true risk-reward balance and correcting their behavior accordingly, they just legislate away the problem, and put the cost of uncertainty of young prospects onto the prospects themselves instead of on the league. One effect I do like is that it increases the ability of the draft to improve very bad teams. Before, teams that were very bad and picking high will be tempted to swing for the fences with a young prospect, which might result in their continued underperformance if the prospect doesn't pan out. Or, they pass on the prospect to get the sure thing, and a good team will end up taking a flyer (with a cheaper draft slot) on a prospect that works out, and that team would continue to be great. With the age limit, you force more of a convergence between the great prospects and the sure-things, so that the very bad teams can get both when they draft.
I think people are confusing the constitutional legitimacy of the age requirement and the desirability of one. I think that the age limit doesn't make sense from a purely basketball point of view, because high-schoolers have been the most successful pool of NBA draftees. There was a study by the Mississippi Law School, I think, that showed that "busts" were rarer than among college players. It may make sense from a marketing standpoint, increasing the likelihood that incoming stars are more marketable (having more business saavy with age, being more comfortable with the press, etc.) But do eighteen-year-olds have a right to play for an NBA team? No way. Of course the age rule is a restriction on liberties, as Congressman Cohen says, but so are speed limits and labor laws. (There is no "right to liberty" as such). The comparison of the age rule to slavery--alleging that it is somehow racist because, well, most basketball players are black--is outrageous. Congress needs to be focused on productive legislation, and it needs to stop prostituting itself to the media and fan constituencies as when it concerns itself with the MLB and NBA. The quality of our legislators makes be embarrassed to be an American sometimes.
There are age restrictions on the senate and the presidency, positions voted on by the public. If a guy can't represent his state because of his age, even if the entire population is behind him, then what makes congress think they can interject on possibly ageist policies of a private enterprise?
Isn't that flawed logic? You're saying give teams the chance to gauge prospects that have played against real competition. What makes the competition they face in high school better than college? What about Euro players that get drafted? What about high school players that came into the league without that year of college and have become successful, so successful that many are saying they will be among the greats of the game (James, Bryant) not to mention other successful ones such as Howard, McGrady, Garnett, etc. Also, I see a lot of people sit here and say that the majority or many of those that made the jump from high school to NBA have been unsuccessful at doing so but the truth is the majority of them have had success and continue to be successful.
What makes the competition they faced in HS better than College or Europe? Are you kidding? Europe is professional basketball while college has some of the best coaches in the game and has proven to produce more NBA-ready players. From 1975 to 2005, 42 HS to pro drafted (not my list tho I separated it, tried to be as objective as I could) players were drafted: Success (by their soph season): Kevin Garnett Kobe Bryant Amare Stoudemire LeBron James Dwight Howard Monta Ellis Took time (more than 1 year) to develop but became successful: Darryl Dawkins Jermaine O’Neal Tracy McGrady Rashard Lewis Al Jefferson Josh Smith Solid (but took more than a year to develop): Andrew Bynum DeShawn Stevenson Al Harrington Tyson Chandler DeSagana Diop Travis Outlaw Kendrick Perkins Sebestain Telfair J.R. Smith Eddy Curry (and thats me being nice) C.J Miles Unfortunate (jury still out tho): Shaun Livingston Martell Webster Dorrell Wright Not so successful: Bill Willoughby Jonathan Bender Darius Miles Kwame Brown Amir Johnson Complete failure: Gerald Green Taj McDavid Korleone Young Leon Smith Ellis Richardson Osumane Cisse Tony Key DeAngelo Collins Lenny Cooke Ndudi Ebi James Lang You are right in the sense that most are successful/solid but only 6 of them were ready the moment they got drafted (ie proved they belong within their first 2 years). So basically 1 in 7 HS to Pro are mature enough to play in the NBA. Wouldn't call those odds too great.
Your forgetting Steven Jackson in your list. He was a bust when he first came in the 2nd round I believe.
