http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7883540/steve-kerr-problems-age-limit-nba
"The backbone of the current league isn't just the influx of talent, it's the maturity and professionalism of veteran stars like Tim Duncan, Ray Allen, Grant Hill, Chris Paul, Steve Nash, Dwyane Wade, and Paul Pierce — guys who spent multiple years in college — setting the tone for everyone else. We need more of them."
This has been an age old debate in the NBA. I tend to agree with Steve Kerr's feeling that the NBA would benefit from a minimum age of 20 years old. It would also benefit the NCAA game and after all is said and done, the kids would be better prepared for life.
Quote from: jesmu84 on May 08, 2012, 10:43:11 AM
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7883540/steve-kerr-problems-age-limit-nba
"The backbone of the current league isn't just the influx of talent, it's the maturity and professionalism of veteran stars like Tim Duncan, Ray Allen, Grant Hill, Chris Paul, Steve Nash, Dwyane Wade, and Paul Pierce — guys who spent multiple years in college — setting the tone for everyone else. We need more of them."
I was about to post the same article.
I totally agree. I honestly think the minimum age should be 21.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 08, 2012, 11:50:18 AM
I was about to post the same article.
I totally agree. I honestly think the minimum age should be 21.
Of course, a lot of the very best players (Lebron, Kobe, Durant, Rose, Westrbook, Howard, Griffin, Love, Chandler, Bynum, Anthony) never went to college or only went 1 year.
I am fine with the current age minimum. If guys are good enough to play in the NBA, there's no reason they shouldn't have that right. This isn't football we're talking about where guys could get hurt if they aren't physically ready.
Quote from: TomW1365 on May 08, 2012, 11:37:08 AM
This has been an age old debate in the NBA. I tend to agree with Steve Kerr's feeling that the NBA would benefit from a minimum age of 20 years old. It would also benefit the NCAA game and after all is said and done, the kids would be better prepared for life.
I think this is not a benefit to the college game. Most of the pro players out of high school gravitate towards a few colleges. This results in the NCAA title most likely going to Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke, Kansas, etc. Let the superstars go directly out of high school and the talent gap is not as great between them and the other schools. A school that can keep a good class together for four years has a chance to win the title. Right now they are going to be dominated by Kentucky's yearly influx of super talent. The 20 age limit would be great for Kentucky, but would suck for Marquette and programs like them.
Quote from: jmayer1 on May 08, 2012, 12:16:48 PM
Of course, a lot of the very best players (Lebron, Kobe, Durant, Rose, Westrbook, Howard, Griffin, Love, Chandler, Bynum, Anthony) never went to college or only went 1 year.
I am fine with the current age minimum. If guys are good enough to play in the NBA, there's no reason they shouldn't have that right. This isn't football we're talking about where guys could get hurt if they aren't physically ready.
Griffin went to OU for 2 seasons.
Points 1, 3 and 5 in the article all illustrate the benefit that 2 years in school would have had on those players you listed. Just about every guy on your list has had issues with immaturity and/or selfishness and/or cluelessness. You don't think that growing up a little would have helped that, helped their games and helped the league as a whole?
Quote from: bilsu on May 08, 2012, 12:21:33 PM
I think this is not a benefit to the college game. Most of the pro players out of high school gravitate towards a few colleges. This results in the NCAA title most likely going to Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke, Kansas, etc. Let the superstars go directly out of high school and the talent gap is not as great between them and the other schools. A school that can keep a good class together for four years has a chance to win the title. Right now they are going to be dominated by Kentucky's yearly influx of super talent. The 20 age limit would be great for Kentucky, but would suck for Marquette and programs like them.
Actually, it would have the opposite effect. A player who plans to be a two-and-done would not want to waste of year of eligibility playing behind other two-and-dones at programs like Kentucky, UNC, etc. They'd want to get on the court right away. That would open up opportunities for Marquette and other similar programs. Think Noel, Poythress and Goodwin would be going to UK if Davis, Teague and MKG were still going to be there? I don't.
Quote from: bilsu on May 08, 2012, 12:21:33 PM
I think this is not a benefit to the college game. Most of the pro players out of high school gravitate towards a few colleges. This results in the NCAA title most likely going to Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke, Kansas, etc.
In the last 40 years, there have been 7 tournaments won by the non "blue-bloods". These were won by Maryland, Arkansas, UNLV, Michigan, NC State and Marquette. It's been 10 years since a non blue-blood won.
That pretty much tells me that regardless of what you do to the eligibility rules, the blue-bloods are probably going to win the tournament anyways.
Quote from: jmayer1 on May 08, 2012, 12:16:48 PM
Of course, a lot of the very best players (Lebron, Kobe, Durant, Rose, Westrbook, Howard, Griffin, Love, Chandler, Bynum, Anthony, Garnett) never went to college or only went 1 year.
+1, added KG, too.
That initial list is somewhat cherry picked. The NBA either needs to up it to 21/21+, or just let HS guys back into eligibility. The current one and done is totally half-a**.
I'm ~100% sure that if they upped the age limit higher, you'd see a significant number of guys take the Brandon Jennings path, and jet to Europe instead of college.
Quote from: MDMU04 on May 08, 2012, 12:51:28 PM
In the last 40 years, there have been 7 tournaments won by the non "blue-bloods". These were won by Maryland, Arkansas, UNLV, Michigan, NC State and Marquette. It's been 10 years since a non blue-blood won.
That pretty much tells me that regardless of what you do to the eligibility rules, the blue-bloods are probably going to win the tournament anyways.
You consider Florida a blue blood? I also wouldnt consider Arizona a blue blood. They had a similar run to Maryland. They only have 1 more FF than Marquette, their run is just a bit more recent.
For every KG/Kobe/LeBron there are 10-15 kids that never make it past the midway point in their rookie contracts...
Quote from: JWags85 on May 08, 2012, 01:13:19 PM
You consider Florida a blue blood? I also wouldnt consider Arizona a blue blood. They had a similar run to Maryland. They only have 1 more FF than Marquette, their run is just a bit more recent.
I'm not having another tiresome blue-blood/non blue-blood debate. Even adding your two teams to the list that makes it 10 out of the last 40 instead of 7. Doesn't change the math much.
Quote from: MDMU04 on May 08, 2012, 01:22:27 PM
I'm not having another tiresome blue-blood/non blue-blood debate. Even adding your two teams to the list that makes it 10 out of the last 40 instead of 7. Doesn't change the math much.
Georgetown, Michigan St (twice), Louisville (twice), Villanova, Arizona, Syracuse, UConn (thrice), Florida (twice).
That's 20 of 40 non blue-bloods.
The term "Blue Blood" as it pertains to college basketball isn't a lot more than your current coach. Your definition arbitrarily contains UConn and Michigan State but not Maryland or NC State. The only thing UConn and Michigan State have on Maryland or NC State is the current coach. The list of True Blue Bloods, schools that will be very good year in and year out as long as they have a minimally competent coach, is very small. Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, UCLA. Not sure there are any more than that. Duke is Duke because of Coach K. UConn is UConn because of Calhoun. Syracuse is Syracuse because of Boeheim, and so on.
A guy like Calipari would be highly successful at any Power 6 conference school. Same with Pitino. Whatever school those guys are coaching is a Blue Blood as long as they are there.
As for the larger point, if they could predict the future, most players with NBA aspirations would want to play for the best college team on which they would actually play and be a factor. So pushing the age to 20 or make 3 years after high school graduation mandatory like college baseball would more likely spread the talent around a little bit, as guys won't want to risk getting stuck behind other great players.
Quote from: Warriors10 on May 08, 2012, 01:15:33 PM
For every KG/Kobe/LeBron there are 10-15 kids that never make it past the midway point in their rookie contracts...
And for every Carmelo/Wade/Rondo (ie guys that leave after only 1-2 years), there are also tons of one-and-done failures. If a guy isn't making it in the NBA, 1-2 years of college isn't going to solve that.
Quote from: lab_warrior on May 08, 2012, 01:29:34 PM
And for every Carmelo/Wade/Rondo (ie guys that leave after only 1-2 years), there are also tons of one-and-done failures. If a guy isn't making it in the NBA, 1-2 years of college isn't going to solve that.
So if Wes left MU after his freshman season, he'd be having the same success he's having now?
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 08, 2012, 12:35:34 PM
Griffin went to OU for 2 seasons.
Points 1, 3 and 5 in the article all illustrate the benefit that 2 years in school would have had on those players you listed. Just about every guy on your list has had issues with immaturity and/or selfishness and/or cluelessness. You don't think that growing up a little would have helped that, helped their games and helped the league as a whole?
My bad on Griffin.
If they can play, let them play. How would making Lebron attend school for a couple more years help him at all? Of course, there are a lot of guys that come out early that never have a hint of success, but that's the breaks. Would those kids have been helped by staying in school a couple more years? Maybe, maybe not.
You brought up the case of Wes, but that doesn't really make much sense to me. He had the option to leave and he didn't; not sure how he figures into this discussion at all--nobody forced him to stay. A better case might be to look at Tyson Chandler. Clearly he wasn't ready to play in the NBA at 18, but after a few years of trials and tribulations he found his niche in the league. Would making him go to UNC for 2/3 years made him a better player today? Who knows, but it defnitely can't be proven one way or the other.
In my opinion, the best players will be the best players, regardless of whether they are made to attend college for a few years.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 08, 2012, 01:38:07 PM
So if Wes left MU after his freshman season, he'd be having the same success he's having now?
Wes didn't have the option.
Quote from: jmayer1 on May 08, 2012, 01:48:44 PM
My bad on Griffin.
If they can play, let them play. How would making Lebron attend school for a couple more years help him at all? Of course, there are a lot of guys that come out early that never have a hint of success, but that's the breaks. Would those kids have been helped by staying in school a couple more years? Maybe, maybe not.
You brought up the case of Wes, but that doesn't really make much sense to me. He had the option to leave and he didn't; not sure how he figures into this discussion at all--nobody forced him to stay. A better case might be to look at Tyson Chandler. Clearly he wasn't ready to play in the NBA at 18, but after a few years of trials and tribulations he found his niche in the league. Would making him go to UNC for 2/3 years made him a better player today? Who knows, but it defnitely can't be proven one way or the other.
In my opinion, the best players will be the best players, regardless of whether they are made to attend college for a few years.
lab said: "If a guy isn't making it in the NBA, 1-2 years of college isn't going to solve that." If Wes entered the NBA as a 19-year-old, he wouldn't have made it. Therefore, the extra years in college obviously helped him. It was an extreme example but that was my point.
EDIT: There are definitely cases where 4-year guys and veterans get big money deals but don't make it. Those are also bad for business, but in those cases, guys are being paid but not putting up results, while the HS are being paid to sit on the bench and "develop."
As for Chandler, it's all about business. The Bulls paid him nearly $25MM before he "found his niche" and was able to contribute...in New Orleans. That's bad business. If he spent 2 years at UCLA, for example, there's a decent chance that he would have been able to figure it out sooner and become a better player sooner.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 08, 2012, 01:38:07 PM
So if Wes left MU after his freshman season, he'd be having the same success he's having now?
I'm not so sure he wouldn't have. Given how Wes worked his a** off in Utah to crack the starting lineup, and the Jazz had enough patience to wait for him to develop, sure--it had to be just the right circumstances, though.
My point was that no matter what the system, there will always be busts. For every Carmelo, there is a Michael Beasley. For every Wade, that left as a JR., there is a Mike Sweetney, or Jarvis Hayes.
We had this discussion a few weeks ago, no?
Even though Stern, coaches at both the college and pro levels and most of us here would love to see the minimum NBA age rise, this is an issue that must be collectively bargained. The sides are coming off a contentious contract fight that forced a big chunk of the season to get canceled. The union has rejected a higher age minimum, and talks are not about to get reopened at this point.
It's fun to discuss, but it's a non-issue for many, many years.
Players hit their peak in the NBA around the age of 24 and generally remain at that level until around the age of 28 or 29. In addition, a player's contributions by their third year are generally what they will be for the long term.
The sweet spot of age on drafting a player is around 20 or 21. That way, by the end of the club's option for a fourth year, you know almost exactly how good that player will be. If you draft an 18 year old, you don't know at the end of four years if that 22 year old player still needs a little more seasoning or if they are a bust.
Quote from: Warrior's Path on May 08, 2012, 02:46:18 PM
Players hit their peak in the NBA around the age of 24 and generally remain at that level until around the age of 28 or 29. In addition, a player's contributions by their third year are generally what they will be for the long term.
The sweet spot of age on drafting a player is around 20 or 21. That way, by the end of the club's option for a fourth year, you know almost exactly how good that player will be. If you draft an 18 year old, you don't know at the end of four years if that 22 year old player still needs a little more seasoning or if they are a bust.
With these two paragraphs, you make the union's point.
The union wants players entering their prime to be working on their second or even third contract -- both of which are huge money compared to the deals players get in their first 3 or 4 seasons.
Don't expect the union to give away the right to have a 23-year-old land the kind of $95 million contract Derrick Rose got before this season. I can't even imagine what owners could give in return to get the union to bargain that away.
The earlier the players get into the league, the sooner they get to Contract No. 2. It's finances. It's economics. It's capitalism. It's math. And it's not going away anytime soon.
Quote from: MU82 on May 08, 2012, 02:55:11 PM
With these two paragraphs, you make the union's point.
The union wants players entering their prime to be working on their second or even third contract -- both of which are huge money compared to the deals players get in their first 3 or 4 seasons.
Don't expect the union to give away the right to have a 23-year-old land the kind of $95 million contract Derrick Rose got before this season. I can't even imagine what owners could give in return to get the union to bargain that away.
The earlier the players get into the league, the sooner they get to Contract No. 2. It's finances. It's economics. It's capitalism. It's math. And it's not going away anytime soon.
Therein lies the problem. Billy Hunter wants the most money for his players (get them in early). The veteran players, on the other hand, don't want their careers cut short because rosters spots are being filled by kids sitting on the end of the bench who won't make a meaningful contribution for 3 years. In other words, the players have a different preference than the union that represents them.
Quote from: jmayer1 on May 08, 2012, 01:48:44 PM
If they can play, let them play. How would making Lebron attend school for a couple more years help him at all?
On the surface, your comment seems right. But did you watch Lebron shy away from the ball in big spots in the playoffs? Perhaps if he went to college where he would have no doubt been THE man and then had some success in a big spot like a conference or NCAA tournament he would have a better mindset in crunch time now. Not necessarily true, but I think a couple years in college with the right coach does more to develop any player's game then getting thrown right to the NBA wolves straight out of high school does.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 08, 2012, 03:04:48 PM
Therein lies the problem. Billy Hunter wants the most money for his players (get them in early). The veteran players, on the other hand, don't want their careers cut short because rosters spots are being filled by kids sitting on the end of the bench who won't make a meaningful contribution for 3 years. In other words, the players have a different preference than the union that represents them.
I would be surprised if the majority, or even a sizable minority, of players feel this way. I'd be interested in your research that backs this up.
Quote from: MU82 on May 08, 2012, 04:07:38 PM
I would be surprised if the majority, or even a sizable minority, of players feel this way. I'd be interested in your research that backs this up.
Do a Google search. There's plenty of "research" to back it up.
Quote from: CTWarrior on May 08, 2012, 03:13:33 PM
On the surface, your comment seems right. But did you watch Lebron shy away from the ball in big spots in the playoffs? Perhaps if he went to college where he would have no doubt been THE man and then had some success in a big spot like a conference or NCAA tournament he would have a better mindset in crunch time now. Not necessarily true, but I think a couple years in college with the right coach does more to develop any player's game then getting thrown right to the NBA wolves straight out of high school does.
Not to pick on you specifically because I hear this a lot, but I absolutely can't stand this nonsense about Lebron. He had a bad series against the Mavericks, nobody is denying that. Did you watch him against the Bulls in the series before that, or how he single-handedly carried the Cavs past the Pistons to the finals, or his game 7 against the Celtics. Lebron's been an absolute stud, the best player since Jordan, the guy didn't need any fu#king college. Any time he would have spent in college would have been robbing basketball fans of witnessing his greatness.
I wonder how much Jordan would get roasted in today's sports society at the same age--probably a bunch of bs about how he doesn't make his teammates better and shoots too much. There's a decent likelihood Lebron will be on the same title pace as MJ was (both won/may win their 1st title in their age 27 season).
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 08, 2012, 09:21:12 PM
Do a Google search. There's plenty of "research" to back it up.
I did a Google search of Billy Hunter early entry NBA. The first two pages contained not one word of such an intra-union disagreement on this issue. I don't have enough time or interest to search any more. So, let's just assume I'm right and move on! ;)
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on May 08, 2012, 01:26:14 PM
Georgetown, Michigan St (twice), Louisville (twice), Villanova, Arizona, Syracuse, UConn (thrice), Florida (twice).
That's 20 of 40 non blue-bloods.
Are you saying these schools in this list are blue-bloods or are not?
Quote from: jmayer1 on May 08, 2012, 09:57:31 PM
He had a bad series against the Mavericks, nobody is denying that. Did you watch him against the Bulls in the series before that, or how he single-handedly carried the Cavs past the Pistons to the finals, or his game 7 against the Celtics.
It's not that he had a bad series against the Mavs, it's that he refused to shoot or do pretty much anything in the 4th quarter. Say what you want about Kobe Bryant or Michael Jordan or a lot of other guys, but they never shrunk from the big moment. I watched him quit in his last playoff series with the Cavs, too. There is no doubt he's the most talented player and little doubt he's the best player right now, but there are lots of players (Wade among them) in whose hands I'd rather the ball be when the game is on the line.
I think a better analogy for Lebron is Wilt Chamberlain, who was a force of nature for his time and dominated ball games but took a long time to win a title and finished with 2.
Of course I can't be sure that time in college would have made any difference in Lebron's game, but I still think a year or two with a guy like Izzo or Coach K would have been beneficial for him. Probably cost him some money, but money is the least of Lebron's concerns.
Not to get political, but we have a society where we trust 18 year olds to fight for our freedom and be able to vote to determine the direction of our country, but they are not mature enough to make a decision about personally profiting on their god given individual athletic talents? This is about special interests. Let the free market reign like in baseball.
Quote from: jmayer1 on May 08, 2012, 12:16:48 PM
Of course, a lot of the very best players (Lebron, Kobe, Durant, Rose, Westrbook, Howard, Griffin, Love, Chandler, Bynum, Anthony) never went to college or only went 1 year.
I am fine with the current age minimum. If guys are good enough to play in the NBA, there's no reason they shouldn't have that right. This isn't football we're talking about where guys could get hurt if they aren't physically ready.
Yeah, but the greatest players of all time did -- Jordan, Jabbar, Johnson, Russell, Chamberlain, Robertson, Havilchek, West.....
Maybe some of these guys didn't go all four years, but most did and their seasoning as a pro was outstanding. Heck, Abdul Jabbar led the Bucks to an NBA Championship in his SECOND year. That's because he played for what may have been the best basketball program ever -- John Wooden at UCLA.
Michael Jordan had three years at UNC with Dean Smith and had an immediate impact on the Bulls. He brought a dead, drug infested franchise back to life. Don't tell me Dean Smith and the UNC program didn't have a solid impact. And then there's Magic and his three years at Michigan State, or DWade and his two years at Marquette.
All in favor of an NBA age limit here. Very, very few high schoolers are solid enough to enter the NBA and most are sold a bill of goods.
Quote from: Hoopaloop on May 08, 2012, 10:19:34 PM
Are you saying these schools in this list are blue-bloods or are not?
Not.
Quote from: CTWarrior on May 09, 2012, 07:12:45 AM
It's not that he had a bad series against the Mavs, it's that he refused to shoot or do pretty much anything in the 4th quarter. Say what you want about Kobe Bryant or Michael Jordan or a lot of other guys, but they never shrunk from the big moment. I watched him quit in his last playoff series with the Cavs, too. There is no doubt he's the most talented player and little doubt he's the best player right now, but there are lots of players (Wade among them) in whose hands I'd rather the ball be when the game is on the line.
I think a better analogy for Lebron is Wilt Chamberlain, who was a force of nature for his time and dominated ball games but took a long time to win a title and finished with 2.
Of course I can't be sure that time in college would have made any difference in Lebron's game, but I still think a year or two with a guy like Izzo or Coach K would have been beneficial for him. Probably cost him some money, but money is the least of Lebron's concerns.
BINGO! Perfect analogy. Wilt was possibly the most physically gifted player in history, but he paid too much attention to what other people thought (i.e. he led the league in assists because some thought he shot too much) and just didn't have that killer instinct.
I had said on another thread that Lebron and Kobe have low basketball IQs but, thinking about that more, it was poor wording on my part. It's not a matter of basketball IQ, it's more a matter of basketball maturity. Both guys have quit on their teams in playoff games, both guys are me-first people, both guys struggle knowing when/how to get others involved, both guys have tremendous ability but can't always get it to fit into the team concept, both guys are insanely concerned about the public perception of them. Kobe has definitely "matured" some during his time in the NBA but that maturation process is something that could have laregly taken place over a 2-years stretch at Duke.
Lebron is much more interesting because he has a huge ego but, deep down, he just wants to be one of the guys (watch "More Than a Game" if you don't believe me). He still surrounds himself with his HS buddies who are basically yes men who are ill-equipped to be in charge of the "business" that is Lebron James. Think "The Decision" still happens if Lebron had spent 2 years away from his childhood buddies and with a well-respected college coach? I don't.
The age limit is not all about ability. It's also about maturity.
Quote from: jmayer1 on May 08, 2012, 12:16:48 PM
Of course, a lot of the very best players (Lebron, Kobe, Durant, Rose, Westrbook, Howard, Griffin, Love, Chandler, Bynum, Anthony) never went to college or only went 1 year.
I am fine with the current age minimum. If guys are good enough to play in the NBA, there's no reason they shouldn't have that right. This isn't football we're talking about where guys could get hurt if they aren't physically ready.
Take kobe out of that list and I don't see many rings.
But that doesn't matter since this isn't about the players. A group of business men, feel like it would be a smart business move to hire people with a certain level of college or other post high school job experience. People are fine with that theory in every industry but basketball. When nba owners are hiring graphic designers, engineers, marketing people or accountants they don't hire 18 year olds. There are plenty of 24-29 year old graphic designers out there that could have skipped school and still been at the top of their profession today. They were also physically ready with no danger of being hurt at 18.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on May 09, 2012, 07:29:51 AM
Let the free market reign like in baseball.
So, declare after high school or be forced into 3 years of college? I actually wouldn't mind that.
Watched Andrew Bynum last night and it confirms the thoughts here. vey immature and little basketball awareness. been frustrated all year at his inability to shift to the weakside and defend the basket or recognise double and triple teams and pass the ball. Players need a few more years of coaching aftr HS before their skills match their abilities
Quote from: elephantraker on May 09, 2012, 10:37:31 AM
Watched Andrew Bynum last night and it confirms the thoughts here. vey immature and little basketball awareness. been frustrated all year at his inability to shift to the weakside and defend the basket or recognise double and triple teams and pass the ball. Players need a few more years of coaching aftr HS before their skills match their abilities
If only they had coaches in the NBA.
The whole argument against allowing kids to skip school for the NBA is ridiculous. If teams think they are ready and want to draft them, they should have that right. The only thing raising the age minimum would do is protect NBA GMs from themselves.
If a company wanted to hire a HS kid as an accountant or engineer, they could. Of course they don't because those fields require prerequisite knowledge that can't be learned on the fly but has to be taught by knowledgeable professors. Basketball (or any sports) don't work like that. These guys know how to play, it's just a matter of whether or not they are good enough at that age or need to progress a bit more. However, that decision shouldn't be unilaterally made for them. Either the kids or the scouts/coaches who are advising these kids should be able to make that decision.
Quote from: jesmu84 on May 09, 2012, 09:57:36 AM
So, declare after high school or be forced into 3 years of college? I actually wouldn't mind that.
It does sound interesting but baseball and basketball are very different in terms of development.
The MLB Draft has 60 rounds and over 1,500 players are selected. An overwhelming number of the players drafted know that they're going to spend 5+ years in various levels within the minors before possibly even getting a sniff of the big leagues and 90% of them won't make it at all. Players can go to college for 3 years to hone their skills and get an education as opposed to playing for peanuts in the minors for those 3 years.
If a HS basketball player is selected in the NBA Draft, he'll likely going to get at least a million dollar deal and be on an NBA roster from day 1. What's the motivation to go to college for 3 years if there's a 7-figure deal on the table? It's the same reason why so many HS players drafted early in the MLB Draft bail on their scholarships to go pro. If a HS basketball player was told that if he gets drafted, he'll play in a minor league system for 5 seasons making $20k a year, it would obviously be a much tougher decision (after all, Kentucky pays more than that - sorry, it was too easy).
The NBA needs to create a better minor league system than the D league. The obvious problem is that creating and maintaining a minor league costs money and they already have a free "minor league" in the NCAA.
Quote from: jmayer1 on May 09, 2012, 10:50:22 AM
If only they had coaches in the NBA.
The whole argument against allowing kids to skip school for the NBA is ridiculous. If teams think they are ready and want to draft them, they should have that right. The only thing raising the age minimum would do is protect NBA GMs from themselves.
If a company wanted to hire a HS kid as an accountant or engineer, they could. Of course they don't because those fields require prerequisite knowledge that can't be learned on the fly but has to be taught by knowledgeable professors. Basketball (or any sports) don't work like that. These guys know how to play, it's just a matter of whether or not they are good enough at that age or need to progress a bit more. However, that decision shouldn't be unilaterally made for them. Either the kids or the scouts/coaches who are advising these kids should be able to make that decision.
If that was the case, this wouldn't even be a discussion.
Quote from: jmayer1 on May 09, 2012, 10:50:22 AM
If only they had coaches in the NBA.
The whole argument against allowing kids to skip school for the NBA is ridiculous. If teams think they are ready and want to draft them, they should have that right. The only thing raising the age minimum would do is protect NBA GMs from themselves.
If a company wanted to hire a HS kid as an accountant or engineer, they could. Of course they don't because those fields require prerequisite knowledge that can't be learned on the fly but has to be taught by knowledgeable professors. Basketball (or any sports) don't work like that. These guys know how to play, it's just a matter of whether or not they are good enough at that age or need to progress a bit more. However, that decision shouldn't be unilaterally made for them. Either the kids or the scouts/coaches who are advising these kids should be able to make that decision.
Yeah, because there isn't a single kid out there that could be a graphic designer without a college degree. Are you out bitching about some company not hiring that guy? there isn't a single kid who could be a cop? fix an ac unit? (tech school) plumb?(6 year apprenticeship!?!?!)
Your argument is bull crap. The accounting field has 1000 people who could have been lebron of accounting, they're just not on espn so you don't think they exist. Everyone else, who is amazingly ahead of the rest of the population in their given field, have times when people don't want to take a risk on them when they are 'too' young. They get passed over, they get offered less.
No decision is being made unilaterally. They can work at a gas station, go to college, or experience a foreign country while getting paid like no one else from their neighborhood. There is just 31 companies, in their field, that aren't interested with people with their level of experience. Why shouldn't an nba owner have the right to not pay 18 year olds millions?
waaa waaa to kids who hate the thought of being a college stud for 2 years or making a few hundred k while hitting czech girls. who here wouldn't have traded for that deal?
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on May 09, 2012, 07:29:51 AM
Not to get political, but we have a society where we trust 18 year olds to fight for our freedom and be able to vote to determine the direction of our country, but they are not mature enough to make a decision about personally profiting on their god given individual athletic talents? This is about special interests. Let the free market reign like in baseball.
We do trust 18 year olds under the right circumstances to fight for this country and vote, but that doesn't mean they are mature people. Some are but we all know many 18 year olds (25 year olds for that matter) that aren't very mature.
Maturity doesn't magically happen with a calendar page turned.
Quote from: RawdogDX on May 09, 2012, 09:32:24 PM
Yeah, because there isn't a single kid out there that could be a graphic designer without a college degree. Are you out bitching about some company not hiring that guy? there isn't a single kid who could be a cop? fix an ac unit? (tech school) plumb?(6 year apprenticeship!?!?!)
Your argument is bull crap. The accounting field has 1000 people who could have been lebron of accounting, they're just not on espn so you don't think they exist. Everyone else, who is amazingly ahead of the rest of the population in their given field, have times when people don't want to take a risk on them when they are 'too' young. They get passed over, they get offered less.
No decision is being made unilaterally. They can work at a gas station, go to college, or experience a foreign country while getting paid like no one else from their neighborhood. There is just 31 companies, in their field, that aren't interested with people with their level of experience. Why shouldn't an nba owner have the right to not pay 18 year olds millions?
waaa waaa to kids who hate the thought of being a college stud for 2 years or making a few hundred k while hitting czech girls. who here wouldn't have traded for that deal?
Was this english? That was tough to read.
I'm talking about professional jobs. There is no kid that could come straight out of high school and pass a professional exam (accountant, engineer, lawyer, doctor, nurse..etc). That's why companies don't and won't hire kids straight out of high school for these positions.
However, that point aside, none of the positions you mentioned (cop, graphic designer, plumber, hvac tech) would preclude a company from hiring somebody straight out of high school and giving them on the job training. However, if companies aren't interested in hiring kids without experience that's their prerogative, there is no rule that prevents them from doing this.
If 31 teams teams don't want to hire 18 year olds to play in the league then they don't have to (before the mid 90's this very rarely happened) but why should there be a rule that disallows this? I can't think of another profession, other than sports and certain political positions, that imposes a unilateral age minimum above standard labor laws. The fact is there are 31 teams who are very interested in hiring 18 year olds, but aren't allowed because there was some silly rule put in place by the league to protect the GM's from themselves.
Quote from: jmayer1 on May 10, 2012, 10:20:35 AM
If 31 teams teams don't want to hire 18 year olds to play in the league then they don't have to (before the mid 90's this very rarely happened) but why should there be a rule that disallows this? I can't think of another profession, other than sports and certain political positions, that imposes a unilateral age minimum above standard labor laws. The fact is there are 31 teams who are very interested in hiring 18 year olds, but aren't allowed because there was some silly rule put in place by the league to protect the GM's from themselves.
1) "why should there be a rule that disallows this?"
2) " there was some silly rule put in place by the league to protect the GM's from themselves."
Seems like you answered your question.
The owners think it is good for business to have the rule. They run the business. They made the rule. They take the risk and get rewards. They don't want to give millions of dollars out to 18 year olds any more. Who are you to call that decision silly?
Quote from: RawdogDX on May 11, 2012, 09:32:48 AM
1) "why should there be a rule that disallows this?"
2) " there was some silly rule put in place by the league to protect the GM's from themselves."
Seems like you answered your question.
The owners think it is good for business to have the rule. They run the business. They made the rule. They take the risk and get rewards. They don't want to give millions of dollars out to 18 year olds any more. Who are you to call that decision silly?
You nailed it. The more guess work NBA GMs can eliminate the easier their decisions. 19 year olds are a gamble, but after a year in a college weight room, a year of playing high level competition, a year of "character revealed" away from home, etc., they're less a gamble than 18 year old high school kids. Colleges are more than eager to serve as a kind of free "minor league", so why not? I wouldn't be surprised if raising the age limit to 20 is the next step.
FYI, Deadspin's Timothy Burke did a nice counterpoint to Kerr's article here. It's a good read.
http://deadspin.com/5908998/before-steve-kerr-sends-19+year+old-players-back-to-college-he-should-try-some-academic-research-himself