Yet, there have been high school kids that have successfully made the jump even though their competition is subpar. How many college players that get drafted actually go on to become stars in the league? Not very many. You said in your post that teams should be able to evaluate prospects against real competition when the fact is that the majority, the very, very large majority, of college players will never ever play in the NBA or professionally period. High school players that are usually deemed NBA-worthy most of the time play at schools that play other top high school talent that is/was college/NBA bound as well and play in AAU and other events against this same pedigree. It's not like the ones deemed NBA ready are out there playing against scrubs. Again, how many college players are ready to play in the NBA and how many actually make it in the NBA and become successful? I am willing to bet it's not much great than 1 in 7 if it is greater at all.
There are several reasons I support an NBA age requirement (my preference is 4 years after high school graduation): 1. Super high school bb players are the GO TO guys on the team because overall talent isn't that great. They haven't had to learn how to play team ball. 2. The human body doesn't finish developing until around 20. Going from playing 25 to 30 games in high school from November thru March straight to playing 82 + games from November to mid June against bigger, stronger, faster and more agile players isn't good for a still developing body. 3. College is a great place to learn how to live out of your parents home and still have their safety net. 4. I really would like to pay NBA ticket prices to see NBA talent not POTENTIAL NBA talent.
ultimately i feel that the age limit is good for the game. fairness aside, the popularity of NBA basketball has shrunk since the 90s. ever since the age limit was in place, i feel like more people are beginning to follow NBA basketball again because they root for college teams and follow their players once they go pro.
I understand your point, but I find funny how the league and some posters here make it out for the betterment of the prospect. The minimum age rule was made to protect crappy GMs from themselves. Instead of letting stupid GMs pay and learn from their mistakes the league instead puts the burden on the players. If the NBA are going to stick by their age requirement then they should make it clear that the rule's for the league itself, and not because they had the player in mind.
18 year old's don't have a right to play for the NBA because the NBA is a private entity that can set it's own rules. However, the supporting arguments the league is using are complete BS, and so are some of the arguments that I am seeing in this thread. Please throw out all of the comparisons about age requirements for public offices, to smoke, other jobs like doctors, etc. Public offices demand a certain amount of intelligence or maturity, which you generally don't have at a young age. Things like smoking or drinking or dangerous and you don't want kids doing them (drugs basically). You need advanced degrees and training for some of those other jobs. How does any of that compare to playing basketball? The question is can you play at that level or not...or really do you have enough potential for a team to want to draft you (play immediately, stash...whatever). You need to be making comparisons to other professions that deal with child prodegies, like tennis players, actors, singers, etc. In those industries, if you have the talent to work on that level then it's allowed. Basketball, similar to those others, is a form of entertainment. Additionally, the league's current stance is complete BS because they claim to want players to mature and crap...yet they only have to go to college for 1 yr. What the hell does 1 yr of college do for you? I would argue that it opens up more doors for trouble or a bogus college experience because everyone knows the kid is usually only there because he has to be. That's not why someone should go to college. 1 and done does nothing.... I would respect the league more if they just said the truth....we have a free development league via college sports and we would appreciate more time to evaluate players without having to pay for it. The same goes for the NCAA...who needs someone to drive their product...that they don't really have to pay. Oh, and please stop using the bust theory. Just as many college kids bust as high school kids. Hell, I would argue that a college kid has more to lose by staying longer....which is why most jump once they have the chance.
How many teams do you think would wait a few years to have a finished version of the players I bolded above? Being NBA ready immediately is a poor argument IMO, because teams have often shown that they will wait on players to develop. Dudes are drafted and stashed all the time, and the T-Pups are giving us crap about being willing to wait for Rubio because in a few years he will still be very young. I would say most draft picks aren't ready to help immediately. And I guarentee you the failure rate above is no higher than the failure rate of dudes who went to college.
I'm just saying a year of college or international ball won't be the worst thing for the players who did not fall in the first category.
1. players with a rookie contract earn more than most of us will ever see in a lifetime, so the injury argument is moot. also, there are already kids who dedicate their lives to basketball, i dont see why this would change anything other than let some of them start making money sooner. 2. i dont see how its the job of the league to decide which players teams should or should not draft. if someone is immature and the gm wants to draft him, that's at the GM's discretion. I don't understand why people think that there will be immature 18 year old's running around considering that the euroleague has no age limit and they aren't viewed that way. if anything it's the other way around because players start learning to be professionals and manage their money from an early age instead of dealing with agents, AAU coaches, "financial advisors", boosters, etc. 3. the NCAA is pretty much a professional league, except they "employ" amateurs so they get to keep all of the profits themselves. you are just as likely to get injured in the ncaa than the nba except in the nba you have a guaranteed contract so you still get paid. in the ncaa? you might just lose your scholarship and REALLY be left with nothing. the NCAA is nothing more than slavery/serfdom.
They are losing out on a yr of making $$. That's not exactly a good thing. I mean, the league can do what they want...but it's still bs. A young basketball player is a prodigy just like any other young entertainer, and we don't think any of them (singers, actors, musicians) need to go to college or need to mature to display their skill for profit. You need more education and maturity to dribble a basketball, but not to sing and dance?
