Kerr on NBA age limit - DWade mention

[jesmu84]

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."

[TomW1365]

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. 

[Hards Alumni]

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.

[jmayer1]

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.

[bilsu]

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.

[MerrittsMustache]

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?

[MerrittsMustache]

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.

[MDMU04]

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.

[lab_warrior]

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.   

[JWags85]

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.

[Warriors10]

For every KG/Kobe/LeBron there are 10-15 kids that never make it past the midway point in their rookie contracts...

[MDMU04]

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.

[MerrittsMustache]

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.

[CTWarrior]

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.

[lab_warrior]

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.  

[MerrittsMustache]

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?

[jmayer1]

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.

[Silkk the Shaka]

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.

[MerrittsMustache]

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.

[lab_warrior]

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.   

[MU82]

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.

[Henry Sugar]

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.

[MU82]

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.

[MerrittsMustache]

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.

[CTWarrior]

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.