The NBA Age Limit revisited

If you know what Ousmane Cisse is up to, let me know, maybe he can move in with Ndudi Ebi when he gets cut again. There's also a few guys who declared and weren't even drafted.

There's also a lot of guys who also just kind of had their develpment stunted. Johnathan Bender, Kwame Brown, DeShawn Stevenson, DeSagana Diop, Darius - all these guys would have benefitted from 1 or more years in college - and so would the teams that draftedthem for whom they did nothing.

Rashard Lewis cost himself money by being taken in the second round really.

Hell, you know what? If LeBron continues to spiral - HE might be a bust.

All the age limit does is build in a little more certainty to the draft. Great players will still be great players and its arguable whether or not they even lose money off of it (maybe they decide to hang it up one year later, wheret they'd presumably be making more money anyway, right?)

The only guys who really lose out are future busts. Big loss.

 

And he'll be richer next year because he went to college and improved his draft stock. What is the problem now?

So it's unfortunate that a better player is taken ahead of the lesser player? Wheras ex ante it would have been the opposite? That doesn't sound unfortuante to me. It sounds more functional and probably more "fair" if we're really concerned about fairness.

It is a tough argument to win. The league gets better players, college gets better players, and the so-called losers are 18 year old future multi-millionaires having the time of their lives. That's why I'm not upset.

I mean if you want to talk fairness - let's just abolish the draft and salary cap altogether. Why should Kevin Durant have to play in Boston because the celtics suck for a rookie wage scale? Maybe he shouldn't have to. And then it can be like the EPL or something with the same 4 big money teams being on top every year. Great

 

Unless you are a rich kid I would say not having $1M in your pocket for a year does hurt you if you are good enough to get it, even if you don't spend the money and just let it sit in a simple money market account.

Uh the studs will get their money whenever they declare, and considering the minimum wage in the NBA is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, waiting a year will not hurt them. And again, if you see any 18 year olds getting high level positions in businesses let me know, because it just is not happening.


Maybe, maybe not. Not going to college hasn't hurt Kobe or T-Mac from being the best guards in the game. It hasn't hurt D.Howard, or plenty of other stud players.

Uh, kobe and t-mac took years to develop into superstars. And you can't say college would have hurt them either. Kobe didn't even start until year 3 in LA. T-Mac didn't until year 4 in orlando(on a different team than who drafted him). If durant comes out, he could put up the numbers t-mac put up in year 3 in toronto next year at least. And kobe didn't put up his first 20 point season until year 4 in LA.

Wade and Carmelo were averaging over 16 a game in year 1 and became superstars by year 2.

So kids who go to college don't flop in the league?

Of course they do. But they at least have options to do other things with their lives. Juniors and Seniors will have a degree that will allow them to do something else. Freshman and Sophomores who declare have a tougher decision if they don't get selected. But they are more polished players who should be able to catch on overseas easier as well. One would hope they would not sign with an agent unless they are positive about being drafted somewhere.

The high schooler who doesn't get drafted after signing with an agent is screwed as he is ineligible for NCAA ball/scholarship and he has to hope he can catch on good overseas(where he competes against more seasoned college/international players trying themselves to make a living) or the NBDL which pays very little. And he may or may not have the money to put himself through school.

There is a harm if they miss out on getting a fat paycheck that they deserve (as long as they have enough potential to be drafted).

You seem to think these players get worse in college. Most of the players in the fringe range in the draft are good high school players who have free rides to top basketball schools with coaches with high basketball pedigree. More times than not, they will perform well in college and improve their draft stock.



Furthermore this was more about protecting the NCAA and the fact the draft had become a complete crapshoot. Teams were spending lottery picks on high schoolers that they never could get an accurate scouting read on. And owners were not happy. Plus as I said it isn't hurting the NFL any to have only a junior/senior/redshirt soph draft.

 

i think if at 18 you can die in Iraq you can become a bust in the NBA

 

What about guys like T-Mac, JR Smith and Jermaine O'Neal who didn't become really good players until they got to another team?

 

This is stupid.

The reason the NBA has an age limit is the same reason it has a salary cap. The league stepped in because too many freaking teams were making mistakes drafting too young. Both salaries and drafting players are wildly competitive, and teams were getting out of hand and taking stupid risks in an effort to compete. The image of the high school bust was worse for the league overall than it was for the few teams who landed a Kobe or LeBron right out of high school.

The NBA is a business. That business made a policy. The policy is good for business. It's still the only league in the world where someone can make tens of millions a year to play basketball, so if you want that opportunity you have to play by the rules.

No 18 year old kid is entitled to a multi-million dollar payday, period. You want it, you have to earn it. The NBA doesn't owe anybody crap, especially 18 year old future-millionaires.

And for the 18 is legal argument: 18 is only old enough to go to war because by the time you're 21 you're too smart to let people fire bullets at you and not run. Who cares about the other stuff. Just because the law views you as an adult doesn't mean the NBA has to.

 

1) Everything I said was relevant or my personal feelings, whether you like it or not or disagree with it. The main reason you want these players in the pros earlier is because you like the NBA so much. That's it, end of story. Just like I prefer to see both the NBA and NCAA benefit. And this 4 million in lost wages is a crock. For a guy who is a first rounder yes, but lets forget about the 2nd rounders who don't get millions of dollars or even guaranteed contracts in most cases. Also, it isn't harming the player because playing in the NBA is not a right, it's a privilege that the NBA as an entity grants them via employment as a pro basketball player.

2) Um, jermaine o'neal took 5 years to average more than 10 points a game. If he goes to college, he'd be a stud, get more minutes than he was getting as a blazer and not take 6 years to be really good. He'd also have gone to a team where he gets more playing time. You might say he could flame out in college, but the odds of a player as talented as o'neal has proven to be flaming out in college are slim to none. Then T-Mac never got to start every game until he got to his 2nd team, the magic. I'd bet he starts earlier than that after one year of college. And i'm sure the magic felt great about giving him a max deal on potential. And these are some of your elite high schoolers. Sam already covered some of the lesser ones.

3) The whole point was that a company can set whatever requirements they want, and find me another profession other than athletics where a high school kid can reach the pinnacle of his profession without paying his dues first or without any prior training(in this case more basketball experience). You think i'd get to the top of IBM or any other major company on simply potential? I'd have to start bottom up. Bottom up as far as basketball is concerned is going overseas or playing in college or the NBDL before you take that next step. So excuse me for not feeling remorse that they have to go to college for a year. This crap that if you can enter the army at 18, you should be able to enter the NBA at 18 is not comparable and never will be comparable.

4) Does anyone have a problem with the NFL's draft policy? I don't see too many people complaining about it. If the NBA had instituted one from the start people would be used to it and not complaining either.

 

You guys are obviously missing the point. We are talking about playing basketball here?! Renting a car and playing basketball as a job are two totally different things, and to be honest, its a horrible analogy. Playing basketball isnt the same as running of the President.

You can apply for a managerial position at ANY age, but you may not be hired because you are not qualified or good enough. If the guy isnt good enough for the NBA then dont draft him, but the option to declare should be his.

Sure, the NBA or NFL has the rights to set their limits to whatever they want but that doesnt mean it is right. There is an age limit because they are using the colleges as a farm system. Its more of a business move, then a move to help the kids out. If you dont understand that concept, you are delusional.

 

I'm not sure your analogy is truly valid. You can apply for a managerial position at any age, but certain hard prerequisites that the company decides could filter you out before even being considered. How is that different from the NBA? An 18 year can apply for the draft, they just don't have to declare him eligible to be drafted because he's not of age, a rule they decided to use to filter people out.

And why is it not "right" that the NBA chooses who can declare? Who decides what is "right". Thats so subjective. Do you complain about the fact that presidential candidates have to be 35 or older? Is that not right? Of course its a business move, they're trying to maintain the quality of the game. Is that wrong?

 

I think people need to look at the NCAA too. They don't allow players to come back if they simply sign agents and what not. Why is this important? Take a high school bust, any of them. Let's say after 3-4 years they don't make squat out of their NBA career why can't they come back to college and play ball there?

The NCAA also hardly offers these kids anything besides paying for their schooling, which is a valuable commodity, and maybe a minimal stipend but think about. A basketball program like Duke, can make millions upon millions of dollars per season yet a small portion of that goes to the players and more of it goes to the school and faculty. Then you have the next level, the NBA where players are paid millions upon millions. These kids see this and this is why they want to jump. It's not just high schoolers either but college kids leaving after 1-2 years. They simply aren't ready. Why not allow them to come back? Why not give them a little something extra?

 

and they can rent out an entire apartment complex with previous college busts. the draft doesn't appear to become any more of an exact science as players get older. hell, overall #1 picks who go to college have often gone wrong and that should be about the most sure thing there is.

again, how do you figure? what about them would be so much better with a year of college? i argue that people pretty much arrive at the same point, college or no collge. you'll either improve while playing in college or while playing in the nba. you don't take a magic elixir while in college that speeds improvement. you work hard on your game or you don't. nba or college. for some people, college is necessary to get drafted where they want to be drafted, and good for them. for other, it isn't.

again, how do you figure. he made the nba minimum for 2 years, and then made 4M, 4.4M, 6.2M, and 7.0M. if he had gone to college for 2 years and come out as the #1 pick (which he wouldn't have been), he still wouldn't have been paid as much over his 4 year rookie contract as he made in his 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th seasons. at that point, i don't see how 2 years of college + 4 years of the nba vs 6 years of the nba is going to cause a player to arrive at much of a different place in his development and i doubt he gets any more than the 7.7 and 8.5M he's made the last 2 years.

but it doesn't build more certainty. maybe i'm way off, but i don't see the percentage of high school busts being any different than college busts. they still almost all get picked on potential and all live up to that potential at about the same rate. the only thing it seems to do is make it a little easier to save face b/c of the perception that a high school player is more risky and thus if you miss on a college player, what could you have done. and assuming you meant one year earlier, they would have still played the same number of years of basketball whether they declare early or not. i can't imagine it affecting a future 38 or 39 year olds decision to give it a go one more year at all.

and current awesome players.

 

and he'll be poorer in 4 years when he's making rookie money instead of max money. it's a year's worth of earning power gone (max money or whatever it is). 10M out of 200M over a career may seem silly to argue about if you're me and will never see a fraction of 200M but i still think the players would like to decide if they get that 10M or not.

i'm concerned about fairness in terms of a player being able to choose (i guess i'm pro-choice in this debate). if we waited until they were 25 we could probably be really "fair" to all players and teams involved, but i don't think anyone wants that. better players always get taken after lesser players, and they should be able to decide when to throw themselved into the crapshoot of drafting.

but how does the league get better players? maybe you don't think so, but i think, on the whole, a player will be just as well off after 2 years of college as 2 years of the nba. and i would lean to the nba b/c you've already adapted not only to playing the best in the world, but to the lifestyle of the nba. either way, by year X, the league has the same player. in the interim, if he's good enough, the league has that player instead of some 15th man looking for a one year contract. if the player really sucks and never should have declared, he doesn't make his team and we keep the 15th man who is better. either way, the largest pool of talent is made available to the nba at the earliest possible time. it's up the teams to decide who they think is the best and who should be in the nba. i don't see how they lose excepting imcompetence, which has nothing to do with this debate (except that isiah thomas going to college for 4 years may have possibly made him a smarter GM).

that's sort of true, but i guess i don't feel high schoolers entering the draft has been bad for the league or will be bad for the league. the league has to do what is good for it and thus they made this rule b/c they think it's good for the leage (though i don't agree) and other rules such as having max contracts (obviously unfair to say tim duncan can't make more than joe johnson) or having a draft to help different teams rise and fall. i guess that's my biggest point. i don't think it's hurt anything so it has no business being a rule.

 

...who at least went to college and got that much accomplished. Again they're not left thinking "what if I had gone to college instead? would I have had a chance or at least gotten a degree?"

No it becomes easier to sort the wheat from the chaff after players go to college, because it's easier to scout them. You will not find a scout or GM in the entire universe, living or dead, who says it's not easier to scout college players than high school players. THat's the reason why people are arguing about it.

College is a place where one can do a lot of physical and mental growing up, in a less stressful and potentially corrupting atomsphere; you will find entire generations of players who will tell you this. Again, this is not surprising, it's common sense.

Add up the present value high first round rookie deal that he probably forfeited, then he signs an even better deal after season four, and you'll see that it's a huge amount that he passed up.

You are way off, cause every scout and GM will tell you differently. Or else there would be no rationale for the rule. Again, this is pretty much common sense. The more you information you have on a player, the better a chance the evaluation will be accuarate.

and that's easier to realize the more college they go through. That's how terrence morris goes from a surefire lottery pick to a second round bust in the span of a season.

That's if you assume he's going to retire at a certain age. Maybe one less year of wear & tear means one more year at the end of his contract. All speculative and ultimately meaningless. By the way the extra money that he gets from being #1 this year as opposed to being #2-5 last year will probably accomplish that, not to mention that his name recognition is now much higher.

But again, why am I supposed to feel sorry for him again?

Well getting players with free training at how to be an adult and how to play basketball, rather than the Portland Trailblazers to pay millions to Jermaine O'Neal to sit on the bench so that he can go on and become to be a star for Indiana represents a pretty substantial.

You honestly don't think a year or more of college prepares players for the NBA better than four years at some high school? That's pretty counterintuitive and I have yet to hear a reason why

 

but you were simply using emotion and your own feelings to say why should i care about these guys who will probably be rich. it had nothing to do with being fair to them, just making you happy. it somehow seems unfair to affect their lives for your happiness.

while i do like the nba more (though i still watch plenty of college), that has almost nothing to do with it. i haven't found myself flipping through league pass before (when i had it) just to see a recent high schooler picked 15th play 15 minutes. i just think it's fair that they should be able to be drafted.

well in 2004 i think 8 HSers were drafted in the first round and like 1 in the second round so it would have affected a lot of them.

how is going to college and not getting drafted or getting drafted in the 2nd round and not making a team any better? getting better won't mean anything if you don't fulfill your potential to a greater degree than those in your same draft class (i.e. a 2nd rounder out of high school who shows a normal basketball progression is still a 2nd rounder in high school).

again, we all agree the nba can make the rule, the question is if they should and if it's fair.

based on what? most of his getting better was getting more minutes. nothing about going to college guarantees you won't go to a deep team. he could've been a late bloomer who didn't show much more potential than he did in HS, then got drafted late to a good team again.

aside from that, we'll go back to money again. if he had gone to college for 2 years, and been drafted #1, the most he could've made 7 years out of high school would be about 24.6M. as it was, even with no playing time for 4 years, he made 26.6M. and he then started making about 2M more per year because his extra experience allowed him a higher maximum. so he's a badass making more than he would have. i still say it worked out about as well as could be expected for jermaine.

but guys flame out all the time. we got mike williams as a mcdonald's all-american and it turned out he sucked. college did nothing for him. there's just nothing that says college does anything for a player more than the nba does. talented high schoolers amount to nothing in college all the time.

and what job wouldn't take you if you could prove to them that you could do it? if you could've done the job you're doing now out of high school and proven to a company you were valuable to them at that age, why wouldn't they hire you? it's not like teams hire a guy to the job of "best basketball player in the world" or something. every player drafted has "proven" to a team they should be drafted. if an 18 year old can prove that, then how have they not paid their dues and how do they not have the proper prior training (i.e. playing basketball their whole lives up to this point). no one can ever "prove" they can do any job until they start actually doing it, but if an 18 year old can prove it as much as anyone can prove it, then why shouldn't they get the job?

but there's no job called "best basketball player" and no one is drafting them to be the best right away. they get drafted b/c they have shown enough to make a team think they are worthy of being on their team. IBM would hire you if they thought you were good enough to work for them. being president of IMB or the guy who gets to take all the shots and take the game-winning shots are things you would have to prove you are ready for once you actually start your job or playing in the nba.

so screw them b/c they have it better.

everyone being used to it (along with it just plain being harder to be great at a younger age b/c so much of succeeding is based on physical development and not just skill development) probably has a lot to do with it. but if they changed it to letting high schoolers be drafted i wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

but why is that your or the NBA's choice to make? if you wanna forego the possible benefits of a college education to make millions in the nba, why can't you? again other than the NBA can make whatever rules it wants. we could probably tell any individual player what the "smart" choice is (you're lebron, go to the nba; you're ousmane cisse, try this college thing first) but it should be their choice. i'm guessing many actresses and musicians and entertainers forego college and whatever it offers to try to make it big. we could mandate that they don't do it but we decide it's still their choice and they should take whatever path they want.

except at the end of the day, what proves that? 5 of the top 10 nba players (kobe, lebron, tmac, kg, and dirk) didn't go to college. i know dirk played in europe but he was drafted at essentially high school age. considering 8 HSers drafted in the 1st round is the most ever, i would guess the average isn't more than 6, or 20%. yet 50% of the best players are from high school. the fact is HSers produce tremendous successes, future tremendous successes like dwight and amare, really nice successes like jermaine, moderate ones like eddy curry, chandler and bynum at least so far, mediocre guys like darius miles, and big time busts. just like every other level of draftee. the only difference seems to be the conventional wisdom that it's harder to predict them, not what actually happens.

while it's no doubt less stressful, the end results don't seem to indicate the average HSer ends up worse off than the average guy going to college. and i certainly don't see a whole year of college getting the job done, even if there is one to be done.

that's what i did. Option A is declaring out of HS and Option B is 2 years of college and then the nba. in option A, he makes league minimum his first 2 years, and then 4, 4.4, 6.2, and 7.0. in option B he makes 0 for 2 years, and then, even if he was #1 overall, a max of 3.5, 3.8, 4.0 and 5.1. he loses by going to college, there's no arguing against it monetarily. and there's no way you can argue he's going to then make substantially more than 7.7 and 8.5 on his next deal considering we're in year 9 of his career and he'd be hard pressed to get that now on a contract, much less back in year 6. there's no way college is going to affect one's development this far into the future. if you haven't figured it out by now, 2 years of college wasn't your problem. he just wasn't meant to be a stud. a nice player, but nothing special. he did well for himself considering.

and yet, it doesn't seem to affect the accuracy. GM's seem to have the same relative competence or incompetence whether they're drafting 18 year olds or 22 year olds.

but the GMs still seem to strike out just as much. i guess yes, if you could go forever, we'd eventually hit the point that we know exactly who they are. but within the timeframe of college, it's going to be a crapshoot no matter what. adding a year won't change that.

baesd on 2004 #2 vs 2005 #1 money, he'd still be ahead after 4 years (4 years at #2 vs 3 years at #1). then be ready for a max contract, and be ready for a max that gives him 30% of the salary cap instead of 25% a year earlier (assuming he becomes max worthy). starting to make money a year earlier still just helps so much.

well you don't have to. feeling sorry isn't really the right word when someone can get millions. but it doesn't mean it's fair that he could be making almost $4M this year even as the #2 pick and yet is making UT many millions for free.

we can't help that the deepest team in the league took on a high schooler if their only hope was that he would get playing time. and they were certainly free to not trade him for dale davis if they wanted the end result of his development and not dale davis for short term gain (if there was any considering jermaine's first year in indiana).

yet for the nba as a whole, i would say it would be better to have a jermaine o'neal in the league instead of player #450 (or however many were in the nba then). unless anyone thinks he wasn't better than #450. i would say making the league as talented as possible is the goal. we can't help how the talent is distributed. if portland had signed someone to the mle that year and never played them, it wouldn't make the MLE stupid, just the portland trailblazers.

of course it's counterintuitive but then again that's why i never said that. again, of course players on the whole will enter the nba as better players with 4 years of high school plus 1 years or 2 years of college than just 4 years of HS. but 4 years of HS + 1 year of the nba is at least equal to if not better than 4 years of HS + 1 year of college. in relative time since the end of college a player will be better, in absolute time (the one that matters) i don't see how one can say they will be considering the astounding successes of many high schoolers.

if the top 10 players were all college players, several of them 3 and 4 year attendees, and only a few HSers had even broken into the top 20, then there would seem to be a pattern than not going to college was hurting players, but that's not the case. the cross-section of great, good, average, mediocre, and bust players seems to know no class distinction.

 

Life is not fair at points for any of us. If we worried about what was fair everywhere we would have a stack of problems a mile high.

Fair enough, my mistake.

I wasn't talking about one season, but in general.

Because kids in college have the option to get a degree to let them pursue another career(provided they don't hire an agent whenever they declare). Now if they declare, and don't get drafted, they should have a more polished game which leads to better chances in catching on overseas, etc. If they get 2nd round pick status, the added maturity most have will be beneficial in trying to stick in the league.

See my first response above.

Most mcd's all americans get playing time right away in college. He wouldn't have signed somewhere he wouldn't have gotten big minutes early.
Also, let's say he is as good as advertised in college as he has turned out in the pros. He goes to school a year, proves he has the game to match his physical skills and he goes higher than late lottery. He goes to a better situation for pt earlier in the NBA, where he gets to that 18/10 level in one or two years rather than 6. And ask yourself how much fun o'neal was having sitting on the bench never playing for 4 years. Money doesn't=happiness.

in my opinion, you are more ready to come in and help a team right away if you have NBA talent by going to college. Not talking about busts, but the successes from both areas. Look at how long t-mac/kobe took to develop. Then compare that with d-wade/melo/duncan. KG/Lebron are the exceptions to the rule. Also you face a lot better coaching/players in college than high school so you do improve your adjustment period to the NBA. Like right now durant is seeing all different kinds of defenses thrown at him to stop him from succeeding, you think he isn't going to have an idea how to attack NBA teams better next year than say he would out of high school?. Plus there is the benefit of getting acclimated to flying around the country for games.

1) Obviously if I could have my dream job at 18 i'd take it.

2) Uh, I could care less about them getting the money. But you act like it's their right to have that choice not a privilege. It's not. If you want to go the route it is, better start changing a whole bunch of professions then.

Again fair enough. The point about that statement is you don't hear people clamoring these kids right to choose when they can enter the NFL is being violated and the rule is unfair.

 

this rule is crap
and hypocritical until

we put an age limit on Actors/musicians/tennis players/golfers even Jr businessmen and women

basically. . saying YOU CANNOT EARN UNTIL you 19
[but we can make money off you]

When you ready to earn . . . EARN
that is American .. is it not?
that is Capitalism?

Rocket RIver

 

I don't buy the argument that college is not for everyone. In today's day and age, college is a neccessity. However, having said that, I still believe in pro choice. If the players or their advisors lack the foresight to see that an education is important, it's their choice.

It's true that players are probably foresaking millions of dollars in their first few years if they take up college instead, but basketball is not exactly a life long career. At some point in time, you have to be able to survive w/o the life support of an inflated athlete's salary, especially when you are a bust - which is the majority of the atheletes.

So let the people make their own decisions, but just don't come back complaining if things don't exactly work out as planned.

 

A reasonable argument
but
one fact hurts it for me. . . it is Age Discrimination pure and simple

If has nothing to do with these young men's abilities
it is only about their age

Rocket River