# Eddy Graces the cover of USA Today...who turned down 4 yrs 30 million?



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

There's was a nice cover spread about the big men that went direct to the NBA from high school in the draft class of 2001.

If you want the paper, the USA Today's friday edition covers the entire weekend, and you can find it at your newstand, other wise click the link below.

Funniest quote was Silas saying that if Diop continued to improve he could be a backup center as soon as next season. :biggrin: 


All of Kwames embarrassing moments are mentioned, and Wennington flicks hot ashes at the big two too.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2005-02-24-2001-draft-high-school-cover_x.htm


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

> Brown is the most intriguing of the four and faced the highest expectations. Like his counterparts, he has endured growing pains — on and off the court.
> 
> The Wizards were shocked to learn in a story in The Washington Post Magazine that early in Brown's rookie season he was eating Popeye's fried chicken for every meal because he didn't know how to grocery shop.
> 
> And there was the time Brown complained that he had nothing to wear despite having recently bought a closet full of new suits. It turned out that each time Brown wore a suit, he took it off and threw it in a pile. *He didn't know he had to take the suits to a dry cleaner.*


Wow.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

The laundry/food thing with Kwame was entirely the Wiz's fault- how can you spend $3 or $4 million a year on a young player and not invest $75,000 a year on a personal assistant to be the player's shadow?


----------



## PD (Sep 10, 2004)

I dont' know. That might be a good decision and bad decision. If Brown stays with Washington, he will not have much opportunity beside doing what he has been doing. If i were him, i would join another team. You need to be in a system that works for you. He sure has the potential to be good so might as well try. But again, if things don't work out, $30M is $30M. That's a lot of money.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Here's a really observant quote from Billy Hunter, my favorite Players' Association guy, about the age limit in the draft:



> The players union would have to agree to a minimum age, which is part of ongoing collective bargaining talks with the league. The union says there's no empirical evidence to support Stern's view that teenagers don't belong in the NBA.
> 
> Executive director Billy Hunter often has said it's the teams' responsibility to do a better of job of evaluating talent and the union is being asked to save teams from making mistakes by agreeing to the minimum age.
> 
> "If you take the top 10 players in the league, eight or nine of them came out of high school," he says. "Kids are getting better at a much younger age. If you don't want them in league, don't draft them. Don't create an arbitrary rule."


I have to agree with this. Let the teams punish themselves for drafting unreadied high schoolers. If the trend is really that they are less NBA-ready, I think that the scouting will tell that story; NBA GM's are not idiots, nor do they hire completely idiotic staff.

Does Stern care about the kids? No. If they are good enough to play in the league, and they have that kind of earnings potential, regardless of the age, who is he to decide what is good for their lives?

So what's the point? There must be another agenda.

I suspect that Stern and Hunter will come to an agreement, though.


----------



## adarsh1 (May 28, 2003)

desagana diop...did u guys read that quote by paul silas saying that he would've advised him to go to college. That was interesting


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Showtyme said:


> I have to agree with this. Let the teams punish themselves for drafting unreadied high schoolers. If the trend is really that they are less NBA-ready, I think that the scouting will tell that story; NBA GM's are not idiots, nor do they hire completely idiotic staff.
> 
> Does Stern care about the kids? No.


He cares about the product, and I tell you what: Hunter thinks more like Stern than he does like the people he represents. He does a good job representing them, but he's got the same goals and feelings that Stern does.

He just says the part of it that his clients can stomach hearing.

The young players entering the league unready to play are hurting the product because they're taking roster spots from players who can add value to the game, and because teams are playing them at the expense of the product on the floor.

It's not a money issue.


----------



## Ron Mexico (Feb 14, 2004)

bullsville said:


> The laundry/food thing with Kwame was entirely the Wiz's fault


not really can't his mother tell him that, or a friend, or anybody one around him about taking suits to the laundry mat or not eating popeyes every day?? its not an NBA's team job to teach common sense


reading this article it is kinda funny/a sick joke that the big name high schoolers after them (Amare, Lebron and Dwight Howard) are/were more ready to play the NBA game when they entered the NBA game, what happened to high school ball after the draft of 2001???


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

GB said:


> He cares about the product, and I tell you what: Hunter thinks more like Stern than he does like the people he represents. He does a good job representing them, but he's got the same goals and feelings that Stern does.
> 
> He just says the part of it that his clients can stomach hearing.
> 
> ...


And here's what's so mystifying: you'd think the veteran players would favor an age limit. So many of them are losing their spots on the roster to these kids.

There was a time when veteran players had an impact on the CBA. Remember the grousing about Glen Robinson's rookie contract? Vets found it abhorent that unproven rooks should be making more than established vets...and now we have a rookie pay scale. 

So now the veteran players are once again being pushed to the back of the bus and off rosters, this time in favor of teenagers. But you don't hear a peep out of the union in defense of the older players on this issue. 
:whoknows:


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

sboydell said:


> not really can't his mother tell him that, or a friend, or anybody one around him about taking suits to the laundry mat or not eating popeyes every day?? its not an NBA's team job to teach common sense
> 
> 
> reading this article it is kinda funny/a sick joke that the big name high schoolers after them (Amare, Lebron and Dwight Howard) are/were more ready to play the NBA game when they entered the NBA game, what happened to high school ball after the draft of 2001???


Sure, Kwame should have someone around to help him out, a friend or mother or something- but that wasn't my point at all.

My point was that with all the money the team is spending and all the time they spend developing a player, why not spend another $100,000/year to be 100% positive that the guy they are paying millions has some life skills?


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

sboydell said:


> not really can't his mother tell him that, or a friend, or anybody one around him about taking suits to the laundry mat or not eating popeyes every day?? its not an NBA's team job to teach common sense
> 
> 
> reading this article it is kinda funny/a sick joke that the big name high schoolers after them (Amare, Lebron and Dwight Howard) are/were more ready to play the NBA game when they entered the NBA game, what happened to high school ball after the draft of 2001???


It was a bad HS class. I have a link to it in my personal forum. Forget it. Here's the link:
*
Pre-Summer:*
http://home.nc.rr.com/rsci/rsci_2001.htm

*Post-Season:*
http://home.nc.rr.com/rsci/RSCI_100_PostSeason_2001.htm

Now peep that HS class. How many sure fire NBA all-stars in that bunch?


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Look when it comes to this age limit, when people talk about young players pushing vets out of the NBA, do you mean vets like David Wingate or Tony Massenburg, who aren't that good to begin with? It's putting guys in the NBA, who belong there and taking out vets who aren't worth dung. Why should their be more guys like Mark Madsen, Mamadou N'Diaye and Bryce Drew in the NBA? Because their veterans? Give me a break. It's bad enough we have some of these no talent bums in the NBA now (that are vets), Jared Reiner? C'mon. Yes, let's keep more Jannero Pargo's and Frank Williams and Ronald Dupree in the NBA, because they are so helpful to the game.

So please don't tell me about some veterans. A lot of these guys are not very good (and need a guy like Lebron, KG, Duncan) just to stay in the league.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Hong Kong Fooey said:


> It was a bad HS class. I have a link to it in my personal forum. Forget it. Here's the link:
> *
> Pre-Summer:*
> http://home.nc.rr.com/rsci/rsci_2001.htm
> ...


#41- Ben Gordon
#99- Emeka Okafor


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

bullsville said:


> #41- Ben Gordon
> #99- Emeka Okafor


Just to let you know on Gordon, he was a top 10 HS player before his junior year, but decided not to play any AAU tournaments and just work on his game and fell 30 something spots. Which just goes to show you how backwards the AAU system is. Gordon worked on his game (as a top 10 HS player) and fell, because he didn't participate in glorified pick-up games.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Hong Kong Fooey said:


> Just to let you know on Gordon, he was a top 10 HS player before his junior year, but decided not to play any AAU tournaments and just work on his game and fell 30 something spots. Which just goes to show you how backwards the AAU system is. Gordon worked on his game (as a top 10 HS player) and fell, because he didn't participate in glorified pick-up games.


Thanks, I did not know that. I don't really follow recruiting that much- I know Tubby is going to get one or two blue-chippers every year, and if they listen to him (translation- play defense), we'll have a good season.


----------



## Deng101 (Jan 13, 2005)

Hong Kong Fooey said:


> Look when it comes to this age limit, when people talk about young players pushing vets out of the NBA, do you mean vets like David Wingate or Tony Massenburg, who aren't that good to begin with? It's putting guys in the NBA, who belong there and taking out vets who aren't worth dung. Why should their be more guys like Mark Madsen, Mamadou N'Diaye and Bryce Drew in the NBA? Because their veterans? Give me a break. It's bad enough we have some of these no talent bums in the NBA now (that are vets), Jared Reiner? C'mon. Yes, let's keep more Jannero Pargo's and Frank Williams and Ronald Dupree in the NBA, because they are so helpful to the game.
> 
> So please don't tell me about some veterans. A lot of these guys are not very good (and need a guy like Lebron, KG, Duncan) just to stay in the league.



lol Jared Reiner is a rookie i hope you know.... and those other 3 are solid bench players... Frank Williams has a lot of talent just a lazy bum


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Deng101 said:


> lol Jared Reiner is a rookie i hope you know.... and those other 3 are solid bench players... Frank Williams has a lot of talent just a lazy bum


I know he's a rookie. However, why should I wait for Dwight Howard to come into the NBA, just so I can watch a Jared Reiner play more. Why should I wait for Gasol, so I can see more Lonny Baxter instead for a year or two? The veterans it pushes out of the league are the bottom of the barrel pond scum that don't deserve to be in the league anymore because they simply aren't good enough to begin with. They are only there because they are vets. You don't lose your job if you produce. Should your company keep older employees, even if their work stinks, just cause they have been there awhile? Business doesn't work like that. If you're a seasoned vet and you're getting beat out by Trevor Ariza (drafted in the 2nd round), maybe you don't belong in the league because obviously you're not good enough. 

The Blazers have Travis Outlaw instead of Geno Carlisle. Poor Geno.  

How about we bring Greg Kite, Sharone Wright, Loy Vaught back. They deserve to be in the NBA, because their veterans. Darn whippersnappers stealing their jobs.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Hong Kong Fooey said:


> Look when it comes to this age limit, when people talk about young players pushing vets out of the NBA, do you mean vets like David Wingate or Tony Massenburg, who aren't that good to begin with? It's putting guys in the NBA, who belong there and taking out vets who aren't worth dung.



This isn't exactly true, and it's missing the point.

So many of the leagues top players are top players because they were top physical specimens. Teams can look at players in HS and see that they are or will be those type of specimen...and become terrified of missing on the next great thing. Sometimes they're right...LeBron, Amare, etc.

More often, they take these players and they can't <I>be used </i> yet because they're not fundamentally sound or they find the talent level too great of jump to make. Sometimes they are emotionally unready for life on the road and life with adults (I'm quoting the USA today article) and it translates onto non-productive court play---if their coaches let them see the floor at all.

Yes...they're often better basketball players than the people they push out, but they can't replace what those players can add to the team in their first season, sometimes two.

What Stern is saying is to let them take the intermediate step to the NBA by going to college for a year or two (or Europe). It leaves the team with NBA players, and it gives the player a chance to see whether they <I>are</i> trully ready for the NBA.

Thats something a lot of them don't want to find out until <I>after</i> the first check is signed...


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Then why can't the teams not draft them. They don't have to. They are not compelled to do so. Draft the Luke Jackson's, Josh Childress', Shane Battier's of the world in the top of the draft. Futility awaits.

Listen, you can't say the HS players are the reasons for the hurting of the NBA, because if you understand the history of this game, the only reason HS to the pros happened, was because the NBA went through a talent drought to make it possible for HS players to come into the NBA (blame expansion mostly). 

You name me Bender, Miles, Curry, Chandler, Diop, Brown and say they should have went to college. Well the mindset that every HS to the pros player should be a superstar is foolish (that some people hold, not saying you do). 

I name you Lebron, KG, Kobe, T-Mac, Howard, Josh Smith, Amare, Al Jefferson, JR Smith, Livingston, Rashard Lewis, Al Harrington, Jermaine O'Neal who are all great or going to be great by their 3rd years. You know guys bust from out of college all the time. It's not an exact science. 

If you want an age limit that's fine. I don't got a problem with that. But you better make a minor league where these kids can go to it, if they don't want to play college basketball and they want to be paid for their talents. See if the Lebrons of the world got to make money off their talent (rather than letting colleges pocket all the loot), then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

The major college level is all about manipulation and exploitation and guys like Dickie V will tell you it's awesome baby. GB how old are you if I may?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Hong Kong Fooey said:


> Then why can't the teams not draft them. They don't have to. They are not compelled to do so. Draft the Luke Jackson's, Josh Childress', Shane Battier's of the world in the top of the draft. Futility awaits.


I'd rather draft the Wades, Okafurs, Gordons and Hinrichs. But thats just me.

Theres enough talent to sustain the league at it's current levels without having to cart around diaper dandies who have a roster spot at the expense of players who can add something to their team to enable it to better win games that season. 

The league is becoming about potential, instead of production. About wait n see instead of here and now. Looking off into the future. A developmental league instead of the elite league where the best of the best of the best play.

"Just wait until Livingston! Oh yeah...Sebastion is gonna make him..."

I hear people talking about _8th graders_ that are gonna be able to skip college and go to the league.

Insane. The league will survive strong as ever without them for a season or two. There will always be exceptions like LeBron and Amare...but the game as a whole will be better for it.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

GB said:


> I'd rather draft the Wades, Okafurs, Gordons and Hinrichs. But thats just me.
> 
> Theres enough talent to sustain the league at it's current levels without having to cart around diaper dandies who have a roster spot at the expense of players who can add something to their team to enable it to better win games that season.
> 
> ...



Give me some names of players who aren't in the league that can help a team that aren't right now. Don't tell me that you have any names. Also, can you indulge me with your age please?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

i guess no one around here likes luol deng , if the nba had its way he wouldn't have been elgible to play in the nba. or josh smith , dwight howard or lebron james (he turned 20 during the season so he wouldn't have been elgible either even now).

Its not right to make rules to keep qualified people from working because of their age , and that goes both ways , too old or too young, if a team thinks a player is talented enough to draft him or thinks its worth the wait , why should they be limited in their choices, also why should any person who is qualified be told no just because of whatever reasons , obviously dwight , luol, lebron and josh smith can handle themselves in the nba they are all starters. and lebron is a top 10 playr possibly top 5.


----------



## theyoungsrm (May 23, 2003)

this arguement for age limit in the nba is awful for a number of reasons, some of which have been already pointed out in this thread....but lets recap...

first off in what other profession in the world does your age preceed your ability to perform in that profession, if there are some, there not many....when a team drafts you, it means they have a good feeling that you are qualified to perform....sure there is some risk there in selecting a high schooler, you're making a decision based on potential, but guess what our doing the same thing with a college player, whether a guy plays four years or not. 

i guess there is this perception that four years of college makes you a sure thing, that there is no risk involved that you know exactly what your getting....along those same lines in the misconception that college is this fantasic fantasy world that magically transforms boys into men and untrained raw talents into polished professionals....its not that simple, you have it both ways...plus one year of college isnt gonna get you this career and life altering change we so poetically speak of..

lets let the market(teams) decide if these high schoolers are ready rather than creating some arbitary age standard....the idea that you rather draft the Wades, Okafurs, Gordons and Hinrichs or rather draft the Curry, Chandlers, Amares, or Howards of the world is really really stupid...how about you draft the best player for your organization despite whatever, i rather have eddy curry over chris mihm and rather have emeka okafor over diop....the bulls are a perfect example of that..this team doesnt work without the HS(Curry, Chandler) or college guys (Gordon, Kirk)

butthe idea that these young guys are some how destrying the league is really awful...i mean in actuality these high school players are pushing out the 14th and 15th men of these teams....i dont think robert swift being taken and corie blount being pushed out of the league really has a significant effect on the overall league is a tall order, even if it repeated 5-10 times a year...plus if the HS'ers arent ready they arent gonna play, just like the 14th and 15th men didnt play...thereby having no effect on the on the cour talent of the league...now someone might say that a team is kinda forced to play a guy that they drafted high, but fine that pressure lies with a HS or college baller

finally think about why teams are "scared" into picking high schoolers...maybe the high schoolers at that pick are better options....maybe this being scared is really just understanding the recent history and seeing all of these successful players coming out of college...id love to see a comparsion of the success rate of college guys to HS guys, i better the numbers would shock alot of people ....and if people really have a problem with this stuff they need to extend their critque to the Euro projects, what is there affect on the game?

so basically if guys arent good enough dont draft em...but NBA gm are too smart for that


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

theyoungsrm said:


> this arguement for age limit in the nba is awful for a number of reasons, some of which have been already pointed out in this thread....but lets recap...
> 
> first off in what other profession in the world does your age preceed your ability to perform in that profession, if there are some, there not many....when a team drafts you, it means they have a good feeling that you are qualified to perform...



..in a few years time. But the NBA is a _players league_, not a developmental league. Alot of guys simply are not players, and they aren't the best of the best...which is what the league is trying to position it self as.

They will be one day. Come then.



I won't get into a discussion of individual players because the argument is going to dissolve into a "Crawford Update" thread length discussion of silly semantics...the 5 foot view of the league. I'm looking at the big picture (50,000 foot view), and I've already acknowledged that some players who are ready are going to get pinched. Thats a sacrifice that should be made for the good of the league.

My age doesn't matter. I'm a basketball fan like you guys. No us vs. them here. :yes:


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Q: Are you adamant about a 20-year age limit for the NBA rather than the current 18?
> 
> Stern: I’m strong in my belief. … It would be a good idea for our younger players to have more life experience to better enable them to adjust.
> 
> ...


http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/sports/other_sports/10885096.htm



> Insider spoke to four sources, two from management, two from the players' side, all of whom are familiar with the negotiations. And all four confirmed a number of specifics about where the two sides are in the process, as of All-Star weekend.
> 
> Among the key points: The implementation of a 20-year-old age limit looks more likely than ever; contract length and raises likely will be reduced; and the salary cap might be raised.
> 
> ...


http://proxy.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&id=1997799&CMP=ILC-INHEAD



> arter said the success of James and other preps-to-the-pros athletes is having a negative effect on other youngsters who want to follow suit.
> 
> And it bothers him enough to take a soft stance against the players' union wishes to not have a minimum-age limit, which NBA commissioner David Stern is trying to implement.
> 
> ...


http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050227/SPORTS/502270495/1002



> Although the question always irritates Stern, the fact that the league suffers from an acute lack of fundamentals is clear. It was never more apparent than in the disastrous 2004 Olympics or last season's rookie game that degenerated into a defenseless dunk-a-thon. Overly occupied with the job of babysitting, coaches do not have time to teach; an age limit, then, might provide the next generation of stars with a better foundation by forcing players to stay longer in college or at least get what they need in a genuine minor league.


http://www.jsonline.com/sports/buck/feb05/303542.asp


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I'm not worried at all, Curry and Chandler have a better work ethic then Diop and Brown, and are both more talented then Diop and Brown. We got the two good ones from that drafts, and props for Jerry Krause on bringing Chicago a good offensive force downlow, and the best defensive force downlow in the league.


----------



## theyoungsrm (May 23, 2003)

GB said:


> ..in a few years time. But the NBA is a _players league_, not a developmental league. Alot of guys simply are not players, and they aren't the best of the best...which is what the league is trying to position it self as.
> 
> They will be one day. Come then.
> 
> ...


first off, everyone has to develop whether your a high schooler or college guy...chris duhon needs to develop a jumpshot, ben gordon needs to develop better d ...and so on and so on.....being a 20 year old or 4 year college vet doesnt not make you someone that is completely ready and not in need of development....and guy what you'll have you exceptions to the rule on both sides (Duncan, LeBron) etc.

guys are gonna get drafted based on "potential" with or without a age rule or with or without highh schoolers....there creating some type of rule solves nothing....it doesnt make the game incredibly better and you risk the chance of pushing alot of guys that are ready (deng, lebron,amare), and are flying in the face of the fundamental fairness america has run on for years...if u can do the job..do it


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

An age limit of 20 keeps college freshmen out too. Our very own Luol Deng doesn't turn 20 for another month and a half; he was supposedly one of the most NBA-ready guys out there. You think it was really Duke that made him that way? We don't even need to go into that argument.

The top talents in this past year's draft were collegiates. And you know what? For the most part, they are really successful. Okafor is probably going to be the ROY, with Ben Gordon a distant second. Iguodala is panning out well in Philly, Devin Harris started a few games for Dallas. And yes, high schoolers drafted high haven't been terrific. Dwight Howard has actually shown tons of promise to break out, but Robert Swift and Sebastian Telfair are definitely still works in progress. 

Okay, that's fine, but for the most part, that was in alignment with the draft picks. The better talent (happened to be collegiate) went higher. The less NBA-ready talent (happened to be high schoolers) went later in the lottery.

Post lottery? I can make an easy argument that Kris Humprhies (just turned 20 this month) Josh Smith, Al Jefferson, and even JR Smith have had more contributing times this season than anyone else taken after the lottery, except for maybe David Harrison.

Second round? Well, Duhon was a sleeper, and a four-year senior. Good job to him. Anderson Varejao is the equivalent of a college senior, and he's contributed in spurts. But then there's Trevor Ariza, picked up at 44 by New York, and turning 20 in June.

Shall we go further back in time? 

NBA-ready rookies:

2003 (under 20 at draft):
Lebron James
Carmelo Anthony
Chris Bosh

20 or over:
TJ Ford (just turned 20 that year)
Kirk Hinrich
Dwyane Wade
Josh Howard

2002 (under 20 at draft):
Nene 
Amare

*there were VERY few under 20 draftees this year, in backlash from the year before... Dajuan Wagner, Jamal Sampson, and that's about it. Proves the point that teams can identify talent.

20 or over:
Everyone else. Jay Williams, Yao Ming, Caron Butler, Jiri Welsch, Tayshaun Prince, John Salmons, Carlos Boozer. Altogether not an extremely strong draft class.



2001 was the year that the draft got overflooded with the under-20 picks, and I assert that GM's have learned since then. The trend has not gone to giving kids more ideas about getting drafted. They see what the GM's see: objective talent.

The argument that we have "diaper dandies" running around the league and that they bust more often than college guys... that's just not true. I'd be willing to bet that if we took the percentage of first round picks out of high schoolers that could be considered among the top 10 rookies of their class (like 30% of hsers, let's say) and then the percentage of first round picks out of college that could be considered the same, we'd see a higher percentage in the HSers. And if we included EVERYONE under 20 (college freshmen, some sophomores), the percentage would be even higher.

Stern is just straight up wrong. This cracks me up:


> I don’t think (having players under 20) enhances our league or does anything for our reputation.


PLEASE. Lebron vs. Carmelo is what CARRIED this league's regular season last year. And a few years ago, seeing Darius Miles in the top 5 electrified the league.

I, contrary to what I may be conveying, believe an age limit should be set as follows: under 18 are not allowed, unless they have completed their high school eligibility. That puts a stopper on the slippery slope, and then you can make the legal argument that we're not robbing people from their potential earnings... people under 18 are not yet considered legal adults, and that can be an obvious barrier to an NBA jump.

But 20 is arbitrary, unhealthy for the league, and if anything, discriminatory.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Showtyme said:


> But 20 is arbitrary, unhealthy for the league, and if anything, discriminatory.


How is it any less arbitrary and discriminatory than a limit of 18?

Clearly Stern thinks this would make the league healthier. From a selfish standpoint, I would rather see these guys play 2 years of college ball. Both college and the pros would be better. The Lebrons and even the Dengs are the exception, not the rule.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Personally I think its wrong to arbitrate rules for people being too young for something once they turn 18 after that our society terms them an adult capable of leading your own life , who is David Stern to say different , there are a bunch of silly rules on the books concerning age(i still cant be president for 6 years and its tearing me up inside...but on the brighter side i can run for congress ...next year) and they should all be abolished, if you aren't capable chances are no arbitrary day in your near future is going to make you ready, Truthfully i know immature senior citizens who dont know when to say when its time to stop drinking or how to conduct themselves in a normal adult way.

that 21 years or older drinking rule didn't mature them up , and no rule makes you mature enough for anything its on the person to make themself that way.

the nba is a job once your perspective employers deem you qualified thats it you are , to make a rule that would suddenly undo that no matter your abilities, past your entry into adulthood is discrimintion.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

theyoungsrm said:


> first off, everyone has to develop whether your a high schooler or college guy...chris duhon needs to develop a jumpshot, ben gordon needs to develop better d ...and so on and so on.....being a 20 year old or 4 year college vet doesnt not make you someone that is completely ready and not in need of development....


But even with those faults, they can add value to a team. 



Show: Some *will* get pinched for a season or two. The majority will benfit, as will the league.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I don't know about the age limit. Like Eddy, he couldn't produce good for a whole season until last year, his 3rd season. 2 years in college would be good, but if someone is out of highschool and an adult, they should be able to play in the NBA. You have the goof offs like Eddy Curry, but can you blame the guy. He had to get tired of losing, so he just joined up with the only guy having fun on the team, Eddie Robinson. So then the two chumps phone called each others, shared fashion tips with each other, and transferred songs to each others Ipods. Then you got the Luol Dengs that force a team to cut the goofing off E-Robbery. And the Lebron James, and Carmelo Anthony. Have you seen the commercial with Melo with his shirt off, not pretty at all. He came in at 19, the league needs to keep immature punks like him out of the NBA so we don't have to see him with his shirt off. But then again, when do you need college education to play in the NBA?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

BabyBlueSlugga7 said:


> can you blame the guy.


Yes.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Showtyme said:


> Here's a really observant quote from Billy Hunter, my favorite Players' Association guy, about the age limit in the draft:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

theyoungsrm said:


> this arguement for age limit in the nba is awful for a number of reasons, some of which have been already pointed out in this thread....but lets recap...
> 
> first off in what other profession in the world does your age preceed your ability to perform in that profession, if there are some, there not many....


That's false. EVERY OTHER PROFESSION IN THIS COUNTRY has an age limit. It's just between 16 and 18.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> That's false. EVERY OTHER PROFESSION IN THIS COUNTRY has an age limit. It's just between 16 and 18.



Agreed.

What about this. The ability to play basketball in the NBA has only one requisite: a high school diploma. If the GED equivalent is taken, then the age limit is 18. If there are foreign draftees who are on a different education system, then the age limit is 18. 

That is, kids who are 17 and younger cannot play, and if they are from the United States, they can't be 18-year-old juniors in high school, unless they've taken the GED and precociously passed out of the high school requirements.

The question remains: why 20? What makes a 20-year-old less of a diaper dandy than an 18-year-old?

My final argument: If you give approval to the 20-year-old rule, then you give disapproval to the current Bulls roster.

Assuming we still trade Brand (and this is a stretch of a what-if), and assume that the draft order is the actual draft order that GMs stand by, this is what we'd have after the 2000-2004 drafts:

Mike Miller (since Darius would be gone, Fizer would have gone to L.A.)
Jason Richardson and Shane Battier (cancel out Kwame, Tyson, and Eddy, then Pau goes #1 and J-Rich #2, and #3 is Shane)
Jamal Crawford (just barely of age)
Jay Williams (good)
Mickael Pietrus (top four were all under 20, so Wade at 1, Kaman at 2, Hinrich at 3, Ford at 4, Sweetney at 5, Hayes at 6, and Pietrus to us)
Devin Harris and Luke Jackson (no Dwight, so Okafor goes 1 and Gordon goes 2 and no Livingston so Harris at 3)

Yeah, we'd probably have drafted size somewhere in there, so maybe we'd have kept Mihm over Crawford, and other team needs would have messed it up too. And Curry and Chandler might have come out in 2003, so that'd mess everything up, but who knows how well they would have played the college game? 

So while this is somewhat of a futile exercise, you have to admit: Curry, Chandler and Deng would not be there for us on our roster. These are components to a team that is now on its way to the playoffs.

Maybe you could argue that with Jason Richardson and Shane Battier and Chris Mihm we'd be a playoff bound team, but J-Rich hasn't carried his team to the playoffs yet, and Battier, Mihm, Mike Miller, etc.... these guys have all basically been role guys, not central key players.

The talent came in our younger picks. Heck, Elton Brand had just turned 20 when we drafted him, and we wouldn't have had access to Ron Artest.

*It just doesn't make sense.*


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Now meet Indiana's next big thing, Lawrence North High School center Greg Oden. A 7-foot-1, 250-pound junior, he is the top high school player in the country. He's also 20 pounds heavier than Shaquille O'Neal was at the same age.
> --
> Once the game started, Oden made a believer out of me.
> 
> ...


http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~113~2694992,00.html


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

GB said:


> http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~113~2694992,00.html


Yes, so you don't want to see him in an NBA uni? Another diaper dandy to take care of?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Showtyme said:


> *It just doesn't make sense.*


It will be a different NBA...just as it was a different NBA after the last CBA.

Everyone will adjust.


20 gives a nice balance between what the GM's/Owners want and what the players will want.

Don't forget: The GM's and Stern both work for the same folks.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Showtyme said:


> Agreed.
> 
> What about this. The ability to play basketball in the NBA has only one requisite: a high school diploma. If the GED equivalent is taken, then the age limit is 18. If there are foreign draftees who are on a different education system, then the age limit is 18.
> 
> ...


I'm not disagreeing with any of that. In fact, I'm not supporting the 20yo argument. I'm just playing a little devils advocate for fun. We'll call it an arbitrary mental exercise.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Showtyme said:


> Yes, so you don't want to see him in an NBA uni? Another diaper dandy to take care of?


Can't wait. Hope he comes in like Duncan, instead of like Tyson.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

> Now meet Indiana's next big thing, Lawrence North High School center Greg Oden. A 7-foot-1, 250-pound junior, he is the top high school player in the country. He's also 20 pounds heavier than Shaquille O'Neal was at the same age.
> --
> Once the game started, Oden made a believer out of me.
> 
> ...


Its moot to use him in this argument either way. If that article's date is right, he's 20 years old.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> Its moot to use him in this argument either way. If that article's date is right, he's 20 years old.



He was 16 as of last July

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/preps/basketball/2004-07-19-oden_x.htm


----------



## theyoungsrm (May 23, 2003)

The Krakken said:


> That's false. EVERY OTHER PROFESSION IN THIS COUNTRY has an age limit. It's just between 16 and 18.


no no no...its true...the federal government limits ages where people can work and the profession my require some type of degree or certification, but in very few professions (i cant think of any, but there might be a few) is there an arbitary age limit set irregarless of the ability to perform....true


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Interesting developments on the age front:



> *We came away from All-Star Weekend with the distinct impression that the veterans are more than willing to give on the age-limit issue, if it leads to a more favorable deal.* No one doubts that the youth infusion has helped the league, but if the players can gain some significant financial concessions, they'll undoubtedly give David Stern what he wants.
> 
> This comment from Ray Allen was typical:
> 
> ...


http://www.nj.com/columns/ledger/dalessandro/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/1109485929322770.xml


:wordyo: to David Stern


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

GB said:


> He cares about the product, and I tell you what: Hunter thinks more like Stern than he does like the people he represents. He does a good job representing them, but he's got the same goals and feelings that Stern does.
> 
> He just says the part of it that his clients can stomach hearing.
> 
> ...


One of the key questions is whether LeBron James, Josh Smith, J.R. Smith, Luol Deng, Al Jefferson, Robert Swift, etc. are putting more or fewer fannies in the seats than the NBDLers or marginal veterans that would replace them. My guess is that the answer is a resounding no. One thing these really young players provide is hope for the future. And I think that hope is what gets fans of really bad teams to keep coming to the games. Take that hope that Josh Smith will turn into a superstar in the future and why do Atlanta fans go to the game? It is a lot easier to project superstardom on a mediocre 19 year-old than it is on a mediocre 21 year-old. How many Bulls fans came to the games to watch the future Shaq and Garnett as 19 year-olds? Bring them into the league as 21 year-olds and it would be evident that they would not be superstars.

What keeping the 19 and 20 year olds will do is get rid of a lot of the hope that keeps fans attending games for really bad teams. An age limit will kill these teams at the box office, even if the NBDLers and marginal veterans that replace the young guys result in a "better" product. Hope is part of the product.

I do not believe that the NCAA provides any better training than the NBA does for these young players. In fact, I think it may provide worse training. Mike Dunleavy, Jr. made an argument to this effect a couple years ago. I think players develop bad habits by playing against the inferior talent that they face in college. Remember, many of the high schoolers would have been flops had they went to college, as well. And it still may have taken a couple years in the NBA to figure that out.

What the age limit does buy the NBA is the marketing muscle of the NCAA, especially the NCAA tournament. It also delays by two years players signing max contracts. That marketing and cost savings might be enough to offset the worse product that an age limit likely would create.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> One of the key questions is whether LeBron James, Josh Smith, J.R. Smith, Luol Deng, Al Jefferson, Robert Swift, etc. are putting more or fewer fannies in the seats than the NBDLers or marginal veterans that would replace them. My guess is that the answer is a resounding no. One thing these really young players provide is hope for the future.


They provide it at 18 and 19, they'll also provide it at 20, and 21.

See the Ray Allen comment above too.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Kwame should join the Paris Hilton/Nicole Richie duo.


----------



## BealeFarange (May 22, 2004)

I'm torn, Dan. I agree with you that the hope quotient is much higher with 18/19 year olds than with college grads and that people attend games largely because of that factor. However, I'm not so sure the die-hard fan (you or I or anyone here) would stop going to the games...and I'm not so sure the REST of the people that go to Atlanta or New Orleans games have the slightest clue who Josh Smith or JR Smith even are. At least not enough to persuade them into buying a 200 dollar pack of tickets for the family to watch what they KNOW is an unpolished and undeveloped player. I totally love the "hope" factor...but I'd still go to the games to watch a pack of Gordons and Hinrichs play...

I'm also not sure, with Ben as an example, where potential really starts/ends. I agree that there's something insanely exciting for the diehard fans about Ndudi Edi or Skita that wouldn't translate if they were years older. Obviously. I still, however, get goosebumps trying to forecast how good the already "matured" Ben Gordon will be in the future...I don't think hope dies with college. And I think the "average" fan is more excited for a Ben Gordon than a Josh Smith as it is...and it is these average fans who fill the stadium. 

All this being said, I'm against an age limit and don't see the Player's Union clamoring to protect the owners from their own giddy prognostications. I also don't really see why a talented eighteen year old should have to go to college if he doesn't want to...in basketball or not, especially if the only financial rewards will be reaped at the institutional level. Why would DeSagana Diop, for example, want to expose himself in college and cheat himself out of the guaranteed money of a lotto pick? Doesn't seem like his "fault" that the Cavs picked him where they did...

Hope will spring eternally, with or without an age limit. I just think we here in the diehard sector would really be the only ones in a tizzy over Biedrins getting eleven minutes of playing time...average Warriors fans are convinced enough by the novelty of attending a game. Etcetera.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

GB said:


> They provide it at 18 and 19, they'll also provide it at 20, and 21.
> 
> See the Ray Allen comment above too.


GB, you completely miss the point here. A player who enters the league at age 18 provides hope at ages 18, 19, 20 and 21. A player who enters at age 20 only provides hope at ages 20 and 21. Also, fans expect more out of that 20 or 21 year-old. The occasional good plays or good games that are impressive for an 18 or 19 year-old are not so impressive for a 20 or 21 year-old. Again, I think these really young guys provide a reason for fans of really bad teams to come to the games.

Now I agree that not everyone down in Atlanta has heard of Josh Smith, but after the dunk contest a lot more have. And don't you think a few of those dunks might be on lots of commercials in the Atlanta area these days? And the real question is which NBDLer or marginal veteran would put more fannies in the seats that Josh Smith? It is not like keeping Josh Smith out of the league is going to bring back Dominique in his prime.

And, on balance, do we really think that we would be seeing better play if Cleveland did not have LeBron, if the Bulls did not have Deng, if Atlanta did not have Josh Smith, if New Orleans did not have J.R. Smith, if the Celtics did not have Al Jefferson. What guys currently out of the NBA would add more to the NBA than these players?

But I do understand Ray Allen and Grant Hill wanting to protect the jobs of folks in the union - guys who are their friends. IMO, the Union should be the party pushing for an age limit. Heck, if they had their way, they probably would push for a grandfathered-in 25 year-old age limit or maybe 30 year-old age limit.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

BealeFarange said:


> I'm torn, Dan. I agree with you that the hope quotient is much higher with 18/19 year olds than with college grads and that people attend games largely because of that factor.


And thats the problem. It should be about the game and about winning...not watching bad players play badly and thinking/wondering/hoping about how good they'll be in the future.

It goes back to what I said about the product thats put on the floor. We've lowered our expectations, and the game has been lowered because of it too.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> GB, you completely miss the point here. A player who enters the league at age 18 provides hope at ages 18, 19, 20 and 21. A player who enters at age 20 only provides hope at ages 20 and 21. Also, fans expect more out of that 20 or 21 year-old. The occasional good plays or good games that are impressive for an 18 or 19 year-old are not so impressive for a 20 or 21 year-old. Again, I think these really young guys provide a reason for fans of really bad teams to come to the games.


This option will force those teams to go elsewhere to be competitive with the entertainment options in their city -- like putting a credible team on the floor.

And the NBA as a whole will be better for it.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

GB said:


> This option will force those teams to go elsewhere to be competitive with the entertainment options in their city -- like putting a credible team on the floor.
> 
> And the NBA as a whole will be better for it.


But GB, again you miss the point. The number of wins is fixed; it does not depend on the age limit. The real point here is that you are arguing that the NBA would be better off if Kenny Anderson and Tony Delk were getting more burn and Josh Smith was playing in college somewhere. But why? Even with the holes in his game, Josh Smith is a better player than Kenny Anderson and Tony Delk. And he will be a better player next year after a year of playing against NBA players than he would be playing PF or C in college. So having Josh Smith playing rather than Kenny Anderson and Tony Delk results in a more credible team for Atlanta this season, as well as in future seasons.

For David Stern, I think the age limit is more about reducing the number of years players are on max salaries and in trying to appeal to Red America by getting them used to seeing some of these guys playing college basketball. It is about marketing and reducing salaries, not about promoting education and increasing the quality of play in the NBA. It takes a very roundabout argument that restricting labor supply will increase labor quality. And I have yet to hear a convincing roundabout argument from you or anyone else.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> But GB, again you miss the point. The number of wins is fixed; it does not depend on the age limit. The real point here is that you are arguing that the NBA would be better off if Kenny Anderson and Tony Delk were getting more burn and Josh Smith was playing in college somewhere. But why? Even with the holes in his game, Josh Smith is a better player than Kenny Anderson and Tony Delk. And he will be a better player next year after a year of playing against NBA players than he would be playing PF or C in college. So having Josh Smith playing rather than Kenny Anderson and Tony Delk results in a more credible team for Atlanta this season, as well as in future seasons.


This is exactly why I said you can't take the 5 foot view of this problem and boil it down to individual players. <B>Some</b> will get pinched.

But as a whole, a team selling the concept of a athletically talented but basketball-retarded player as the next great hope has to end. All that earns the league is 2 or 3 or 4 years of bad basketball during his "development time". Letting them go to college or having them play in a minor league until they are ready to take the floor and contribute is good for the league. Drafting them out of high school and sending them down to play in the minors won't work either, because you'll have two or mini-sideshows every seasons of players revolting and refusing the play in the "JV" league. Let them go to college or play elsewhere. 

I believe a lot of the really young players are able to play only because the level of play has fallen in the NBA.



> For David Stern, I think the age limit is more about reducing the number of years players are on max salaries and in trying to appeal to Red America by getting them used to seeing some of these guys playing college basketball. It is about marketing and reducing salaries, not about promoting education and increasing the quality of play in the NBA.


It's all about basketball, and I'd agree that there are other good reasons too.



> It takes a very roundabout argument that restricting labor supply will increase labor quality. And I have yet to hear a convincing roundabout argument from you or anyone else.


I'm not an economics guru like you. 

I compare it to the difference between hiring someone to learn to be a carpenter out of highschool based on his grades and physical dexterity shown in PE and Shop...versus hiring someone whose spent two years as an apprentice.

Errr....hmmm...thats kind close to what I'm trying to say. :biggrin:


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> For David Stern, I think the age limit is more about reducing the number of years players are on max salaries and in trying to appeal to Red America by getting them used to seeing some of these guys playing college basketball. It is about marketing and reducing salaries, not about promoting education and increasing the quality of play in the NBA. It takes a very roundabout argument that restricting labor supply will increase labor quality. And I have yet to hear a convincing roundabout argument from you or anyone else.


I think it has a lot to do with marketing costs, tv ratings, etc. By and large, high school guys don't make themselves national celebrities through playing high school ball. Sure, there was LeBron, but most of the high school players coming in to the NBA aren't particularly known beforehand. If they go to a big college program where they play on regional or national tv, they create names for themselves. This is even more true b/c they're more likely to be able to dominate the competition at that level. Then, when these players come to the NBA, they are better draws for the fans b/c they are more well known. They are more watchable on television because the viewer is more likely to have some familiarity with the player. The casual fan might have more of a reason to watch Ben Gordon or Emeka Okafor b/c they saw them win a national title and already know who they are, which makes them more interesting. Without this process, the NBA has to go out and establish these players themselves. They have to start from scratch and sink extra money, time, and effort into building these guys up into characters that people care to watch. If the NBA can have somebody else do this work for them for free, I'm sure they're interested in preserving that arrangement.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

GB said:


> This is exactly why I said you can't take the 5 foot view of this problem and boil it down to individual players. <B>Some</b> will get pinched.
> 
> But as a whole, a team selling the concept of a athletically talented but basketball-retarded player as the next great hope has to end. All that earns the league is 2 or 3 or 4 years of bad basketball during his "development time". Letting them go to college or having them play in a minor league until they are ready to take the floor and contribute is good for the league. Drafting them out of high school and sending them down to play in the minors won't work either, because you'll have two or mini-sideshows every seasons of players revolting and refusing the play in the "JV" league. Let them go to college or play elsewhere.


But the really bad high schoolers don't play, so there is no bad basketball that fans get exposed to. And the only cases where they do play are those where they are exceptional players (LeBron, Deng, Stoudemire, etc.) or where the alternatives are even less inviting (Josh Smith, J.R. Smith, Eddy Curry). So all I see is a tradeoff between better options (these high schoolers) and worse options (a Kenny Anderson or Tony Delk). You have refused over and over and over again to point out the NBDLers or marginal veterans who by getting rid of LeBron, Deng, Josh Smith, etc. would raise the quality of play in the NBA. Where is this improvement in play going to come from? From bringing Corie Blount back or getting Ronald Dupree out on the court more?

And what is so magical about what happens in college? How in the world would LeBron benefit from college? Do you think Curry or Chandler would be better now if they had went to college? I don't. Playing against a bunch of big guys who are 6'8" or can't move wouldn't help them one bit. And they can learn fundamentals in practice in the NBA just as well as they could in college. In college coaches need to win. So practice isn't about fundamentals - it is about preparing for the next opponent - figuring out how to get Eddy Curry the ball against his 6'8" opponent. And playing against a bunch of 6'8" guys, why would Eddy need to improve? How would he know what he needed to improve?

So how exactly is an age limit going to improve the level of play in the NBA when we know it is going to replace better players (LeBron, Deng, Stoudemire, Anthony, Josh Smith) with worse players (Blount, Anderson, Delk, Dupree, etc.)?


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

The problem is, college fans for years have long not tuned into the pro game (even before the prep-to the pro phenomenon) due to some silly notion that the college game is more pure, even though it's more mercenary than the NBA ever was. Sure you'll gain a few extra fans, but the pro game has always been a game that appealed to little kids (through to their 30's and upper 40's), not old curmudgeons (50+) who would like to see the kids play out their servitude in college. 

Why should we cater to them, when they don't put any cash into the pocket of the pro game anyway?


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> One of the key questions is whether LeBron James, Josh Smith, J.R. Smith, Luol Deng, Al Jefferson, Robert Swift, etc. are putting more or fewer fannies in the seats than the NBDLers or marginal veterans that would replace them. My guess is that the answer is a resounding no. One thing these really young players provide is hope for the future. And I think that hope is what gets fans of really bad teams to keep coming to the games. Take that hope that Josh Smith will turn into a superstar in the future and why do Atlanta fans go to the game? It is a lot easier to project superstardom on a mediocre 19 year-old than it is on a mediocre 21 year-old. How many Bulls fans came to the games to watch the future Shaq and Garnett as 19 year-olds? Bring them into the league as 21 year-olds and it would be evident that they would not be superstars.
> 
> What keeping the 19 and 20 year olds will do is get rid of a lot of the hope that keeps fans attending games for really bad teams. An age limit will kill these teams at the box office, even if the NBDLers and marginal veterans that replace the young guys result in a "better" product. Hope is part of the product.
> 
> ...


I pretty much don't buy anything you've written. I honestly don't think fans what hope. They want results. Aren't we, as Bull fans, the very definition of what you're advocating? We've been subject to six years of "hope", waiting for our collection of young potentials to finally converte that hope to actual wins. Isn't part of this teams turnaround because of the addition of three-year stud Ben Gordon? Four-year solid floor leader Chris Duhon? Even one-year Luol Deng? How about our 24 year old rookie Andres Nocioni? Fans buy into hope or hype because that's all there is.

I also disagree about your assesment of the college game. C'mon Dan. You're a college professor - right? I'm sure you've got students in your classes that have no business being there or even in college for that matter. You've also got some students whom you probably feel aren't even being challenged by what your teaching. The cream tends to always rise to the top. That's what college is all about. In academics as well as athletics. It's about being able to show the maturity and work necessary to get the good grades or to become the best athlete possible. Usually, those kids that just can't cut it drop out. I'm not going to get into a dissertation about the evils of the college basketball system. This isn't the place for that. Basically, college is a big weeding out process. It separates the wheat from the chaff.

You named some potentially good players in your post. They may all pan out to be very good to great players. We just don't know that yet. But what about the Tim Duncan's of the world? Dwayne Wade anyone? What about Emeka Okafor and Ben Gordon? You talk of teams losing the likes of Josh Smith being a death sentence for a struggling franchise? Isn't Charlotte much better off having the polish and maturity of Emeka Okafor over the raw and still questionable Dwight Howard? Give it a couple of years for the high school talent that is forced to go to college for two years and instead of the top of the draft being all about potential, it'll be all about results. Don't you think fans in atlanta would be a lot more excited over the prospect of a Tim Duncan than a Josh Smith - regardless of all his otherworldly physical gifts?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Nice response Flash. Veeeeery nice response.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> I pretty much don't buy anything you've written. I honestly don't think fans what hope. They want results. Aren't we, as Bull fans, the very definition of what you're advocating? We've been subject to six years of "hope", waiting for our collection of young potentials to finally converte that hope to actual wins. Isn't part of this teams turnaround because of the addition of three-year stud Ben Gordon? Four-year solid floor leader Chris Duhon? Even one-year Luol Deng? How about our 24 year old rookie Andres Nocioni? Fans buy into hope or hype because that's all there is.
> 
> I also disagree about your assesment of the college game. C'mon Dan. You're a college professor - right? I'm sure you've got students in your classes that have no business being there or even in college for that matter. You've also got some students whom you probably feel aren't even being challenged by what your teaching. The cream tends to always rise to the top. That's what college is all about. In academics as well as athletics. It's about being able to show the maturity and work necessary to get the good grades or to become the best athlete possible. Usually, those kids that just can't cut it drop out. I'm not going to get into a dissertation about the evils of the college basketball system. This isn't the place for that. Basically, college is a big weeding out process. It separates the wheat from the chaff.
> 
> You named some potentially good players in your post. They may all pan out to be very good to great players. We just don't know that yet. But what about the Tim Duncan's of the world? Dwayne Wade anyone? What about Emeka Okafor and Ben Gordon? You talk of teams losing the likes of Josh Smith being a death sentence for a struggling franchise? Isn't Charlotte much better off having the polish and maturity of Emeka Okafor over the raw and still questionable Dwight Howard? Give it a couple of years for the high school talent that is forced to go to college for two years and instead of the top of the draft being all about potential, it'll be all about results. Don't you think fans in atlanta would be a lot more excited over the prospect of a Tim Duncan than a Josh Smith - regardless of all his otherworldly physical gifts?



How many Tim Duncan's are out there? When you use guys like him (once in a lifetime players), you ruin your argument. Dwyane Wade had to go to college, as he was an unknown. Gordon and Okafor were also rated 41 and 99 in the HS class respectively. How are they going to go pro with that kind of reputation from scouts?

I'll put it this way. If the Bulls had Kevin Garnett and Amare Stoudemire instead of Tyson Chandler and Eddy Curry, some of you wouldn't be advocating an age limit at all, because you'd be contending for championships. Just because Krause drafted the avg. HSers (from an avg. HS class no less) doesn't mean that HSers are ruining in the league.

I'm sure some of you would prefer to have two more years of Mark Madsen, Corie Blount, Ronald Dupree and Bryce Drew playing important minutes. When most of these dudes don't belong in the league.

Like I said before. If you want an age limit (for selfish college reasons) fine. I want a minor league with it, where guys can go and be called up if they prove they can play. Lebron, Dwight Howard and Greg Oden shouldn't be forced to go to college and a minor league would serve that purpose.

Also note that a real minor league will turn college basketball into college baseball. So be careful what you wish for age limit proponents.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> I pretty much don't buy anything you've written. I honestly don't think fans what hope. They want results. Aren't we, as Bull fans, the very definition of what you're advocating? We've been subject to six years of "hope", waiting for our collection of young potentials to finally converte that hope to actual wins. Isn't part of this teams turnaround because of the addition of three-year stud Ben Gordon? Four-year solid floor leader Chris Duhon? Even one-year Luol Deng? How about our 24 year old rookie Andres Nocioni? Fans buy into hope or hype because that's all there is.


There are always going to be bad teams regardless of the age limit. So there are always going to be teams as bad as the Bulls were the last few years. But imagine if those teams would have been stocked with crusty veterans or marginal four-year college guys, do you think fans would have been as patient. I think fans were patient because they saw a glimmer in Curry's game or Chandler's game or Crawford's game and they said, we can imagine a time when these guys could be really good NBA players. They would not be able to say that about a team stocked with crusty veterans or marginal four-year college guys. Remember the 1999 Bulls team. Just imagine if that had been the Bulls team over the past five years. What the young guys did for the Bulls is buy some time until they could could get really good players in here to play. 



> I also disagree about your assesment of the college game. C'mon Dan. You're a college professor - right? I'm sure you've got students in your classes that have no business being there or even in college for that matter. You've also got some students whom you probably feel aren't even being challenged by what your teaching. The cream tends to always rise to the top. That's what college is all about. In academics as well as athletics. It's about being able to show the maturity and work necessary to get the good grades or to become the best athlete possible. Usually, those kids that just can't cut it drop out. I'm not going to get into a dissertation about the evils of the college basketball system. This isn't the place for that. Basically, college is a big weeding out process. It separates the wheat from the chaff.


I don't know what you are trying to say here. I just don't think these elite players are best served by playing against inferior competition.



> You named some potentially good players in your post. They may all pan out to be very good to great players. We just don't know that yet. But what about the Tim Duncan's of the world? Dwayne Wade anyone? What about Emeka Okafor and Ben Gordon? You talk of teams losing the likes of Josh Smith being a death sentence for a struggling franchise? Isn't Charlotte much better off having the polish and maturity of Emeka Okafor over the raw and still questionable Dwight Howard? Give it a couple of years for the high school talent that is forced to go to college for two years and instead of the top of the draft being all about potential, it'll be all about results. Don't you think fans in atlanta would be a lot more excited over the prospect of a Tim Duncan than a Josh Smith - regardless of all his otherworldly physical gifts?


Of course, Atlanta would prefer Tim Duncan, but a Tim Duncan is typically not available in the middle of the first round. And I am not arguing that Howard would have been a better pick for the Bobcats than Okafor. What I am arguing is that these younger players give the really bad teams a way to imagine how they might be better in the future. And since there are always going to be really bad teams, if there is a way to make these teams somewhat entertaining, then that is a huge plus for the league. Having a young Curry or Chandler or Josh Smith to dream about in the lean years, I think, is a good thing for the NBA. There is nothing worse than a bad team with almost no future - e.g. the Knicks.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

HKF said:


> How many Tim Duncan's are out there? When you use guys like him (once in a lifetime players), you ruin your argument. Dwyane Wade had to go to college, as he was an unknown. Gordon and Okafor were also rated 41 and 99 in the HS class respectively. How are they going to go pro with that kind of reputation from scouts?
> 
> I'll put it this way. If the Bulls had Kevin Garnett and Amare Stoudemire instead of Tyson Chandler and Eddy Curry, some of you wouldn't be advocating an age limit at all, because you'd be contending for championships. Just because Krause drafted the avg. HSers (from an avg. HS class no less) doesn't mean that HSers are ruining in the league.
> 
> ...


So where was Tim Duncan rated out of HS? I think you're helping me out here. You cite Goron and Okafor's HS ratings as evidence of some sort. Yet, here we are three years later and they're at the top of the draft class - already producing at a high level without subjecting the fans of their respective franchises to two, three or four years of "hope". Is it possible that in high school, these young men haven't had the time to have their cream rise to the top? You bring up Garnett and Stoudamire vs. Curry and Chandler. Hell yes, I'd rather have the former two over the latter two. I'd still advocate an age limit though. See, Garnett and Stoudamire would have continued to dominate in college, just like they did in high school. When they would have been drafted, they would have been pretty much sure things. Curry and Chandler, I'm not so sure about. Instead of the fans of the Bulls having to have been subjected to less than stellar production relative to their draft position, these guys would have been "rising" to their level of mediocrity. After two years of college, I seriously doubt Chandler is the #2 pick and Curry is #4. Kwame Brown definatly isn't #1 and DeSagana Diop would probably have gone undrafted.

I don't really think highschoolers are ruining the league per-se. I think that the league is slowed down waiting for them to either become something or fall into the ranks of the average NBA'er. Again, that's what college is for. If you have a particular dislike for the college system (and there's a LOT to dislike), call it a development league or whatever floats your boat. I still stand by the stance that trying to ascertain WHICH 18 year old is going to make it and which ones aren't is far too risky for the dollars that are being bandied about.

Sorry. That's just my take on things.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> There are always going to be bad teams regardless of the age limit. So there are always going to be teams as bad as the Bulls were the last few years. But imagine if those teams would have been stocked with crusty veterans or marginal four-year college guys, do you think fans would have been as patient. I think fans were patient because they saw a glimmer in Curry's game or Chandler's game or Crawford's game and they said, we can imagine a time when these guys could be really good NBA players. They would not be able to say that about a team stocked with crusty veterans or marginal four-year college guys. Remember the 1999 Bulls team. Just imagine if that had been the Bulls team over the past five years. What the young guys did for the Bulls is buy some time until they could could get really good players in here to play.


I believe we're still waiting on Curry, Chandler and Crawford. Meanwhile, it's Hinrich (4 years @ Kansas), Duhon (4 years @ Duke), Gordon (3 years @ UCON), Deng (1 year @ Duke) and Nocioni (What, 5 years international experience?) who have turned this ship around in one year. You make it sound like without 18 year olds in the league, the only other option is some sort of geriatric ward rejects. I would say that the game might "suffer" for two years while the age mandate catches up. After that, the talent flow out of the college game would more than suffice for the league and that talent flow will be much more based on actual production over hope. IE Okafor vs Howard. 

I'll take a somewhat opposite tack to your position. Imagine if Curry and Chandler and Brown and Diop had been forced to school for two years. Also imagine that the age limit had been instituted all along. Do you think that Krause could have nabbed two guys who would be giving us more now than Curry and Chandler given two years of the college processing to weed out those players who maybe weren't worthy of the #2 or #4 pick? I'd venture to guess we, as fans of this team, wouldn't of had to have been subjected to six years of waiting. Could it have been possible that with more polished talent this team could have been better three or four years ago? Is that such a bad thing?




> I don't know what you are trying to say here. I just don't think these elite players are best served by playing against inferior competition.


What I'm saying is that if all the elite players are forced to college for two years, you're going to find out that not all of them are, in fact, elite. Also, you're going to find that there are others (as HKF has helped me out with) who weren't "elite" in high school and yet thru college seasoning have turned out to be pretty damn good. Something about being a league MVP is pursuading me here... Also, if they're all forced to play against themselves in college - isn't that elite players going against elite players?




> Of course, Atlanta would prefer Tim Duncan, but a Tim Duncan is typically not available in the middle of the first round. And I am not arguing that Howard would have been a better pick for the Bobcats than Okafor. What I am arguing is that these younger players give the really bad teams a way to imagine how they might be better in the future. And since there are always going to be really bad teams, if there is a way to make these teams somewhat entertaining, then that is a huge plus for the league. Having a young Curry or Chandler or Josh Smith to dream about in the lean years, I think, is a good thing for the NBA. There is nothing worse than a bad team with almost no future - e.g. the Knicks.


I wasn't aware that the Hawks, who currently own the worst record in the league are going to be selecting in the middle of the first round. My point is that after a couple of years of a mandated age limit, the draft isn't about hope and potential anymore. It can be about actual, on-court results. I'm of the apparently odd stance that a fan shouldn't have to pay top dollar on the "hope" that he/she is entertained and treated to their favorite team winning a game. I suppose it's better to hope that in three or four years the player that my team selected might make a difference rather than having a high level of comfort that the player my team has selected WILL make a difference sooner rather than later.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

An age limit is stupid, plain and simple.

People keep mentioning the few failures like Diop, but look at the percentage who have succeeded compared to 4 yr pros in recent years. I see a lot more stars from HS.

As for college, screw the college game. The schools are making cash of the kids, while the kids face potential injury risks, instead of being able to cash in on millions of dollars.

If you don't have enough talent, then you won't get drafted, in which case, college will be good for you. But if you do have the talent, why not practice playing against the best?

The NBA is a professional basketball league that gets players from all around the world, as far as I know, it owes nothing to college basketball, and has no official relationship w/ the NCAA either.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

KennethTo said:


> An age limit is stupid, plain and simple.
> 
> People keep mentioning the few failures like Diop, but look at the percentage who have succeeded compared to 4 yr pros in recent years. I see a lot more stars from HS.
> 
> ...


You might want to look at the ratio of preps-to-pros as all-stars vs. preps-to-pros as non-all-stars or flat-out busts. You might not like the results. I only used Diop as an example. Quickly off the top of my head... Curry, Chandler, Brown, Diop, Stevenson, Bender, Cooke, Smith (leon), Cisse... I'm sure there are at least a dozen others that I just can't think of.

You make it sound so simple like drafting a HS player is a guarantee of drafting a superstar. It isn't. If it was, wouldn't the Bulls have been a much better team over the last four years?

Like I had written, I'm not getting into the evil of the college game. It is unfair. I just think an age limit is a good idea. That's all.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

I guess I just don't get the point. Right now, there are lots of productive 20 and 21 year-olds - some entered the league as high schoolers and some didn't. An age limit will not somehow produce more of them. An age limit simply will get rid of the productive 18 and 19 year-olds - guys who right now are deemed by coaches and GMs to be more productive than the NBDLers or marginal veterans that they replace. The unproductive 18 and 19 year-olds don't play and and their minutes are already replaced (except for mop-up minutes) by NBDLers and marginal veterans.

So when NBDLers and marginal veterans - players that coaches and GMs have the option of playing right now, but for some reason do not - replace the minutes of the productive 18 and 19 year-olds, how exactly is that going to improve the quality of play in the NBA?

An age limit will improve the draft, but that is beside the point. What the age limit will do is take the minutes played by LeBron, by Carmelo, by Howard, by Stoudemire, by Josh Smith, by J.R. Smith, by Curry, by Chandler, etc. and give them to NBDLers and marginal veterans. If we are frustrated by the inconsistent play of these young players, why is that going to get better when we are instead watching NBDLers or marginal veterans playing?

The tradeoff is not Tim Duncan after four years of college versus Josh Smith out of high school. Tim Duncan is going to be in the NBA regardless of age limit. Leaguewide, the tradeoff is Josh Smith versus Tony Delk. Eddy Curry a couple years ago vs. Dickey Simpkins. Dwight Howard vs. Tony Battie. LeBron James vs. Lucious Harris. Luol Deng vs. Andres Nocioni or Adrian Griffin or Ronald DuPree. Al Jefferson vs. Tom Gugliotta (pre-trade). The tradeoff is between these young players and NBDLers or marginal veterans who don't get very many minutes right now.

Are these young players so horrible that this tradeoff is clearly in favor of the NBDLers and marginal veterans?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Ray Allen seems to think so. And even if the effect isn't that great...there _are_ other factors to consider.

We'll just wait in see. Give this thread a bump in 36 months.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> I guess I just don't get the point. Right now, there are lots of productive 20 and 21 year-olds - some entered the league as high schoolers and some didn't. An age limit will not somehow produce more of them. An age limit simply will get rid of the productive 18 and 19 year-olds - guys who right now are deemed by coaches and GMs to be more productive than the NBDLers or marginal veterans that they replace. The unproductive 18 and 19 year-olds don't play and and their minutes are already replaced (except for mop-up minutes) by NBDLers and marginal veterans.


Dan. Respectfully. You're flat-out wrong. I think you're only looking at one side of the coin. Wouldn't an age limit also weed out those 18 year olds that don't belong in the league anyway or otherwise adjust their value relative to actual production versus potential? Do the T-Wolves take a Ndudi Ebi in the first round or might they be better suited getting a more seasoned player? Does Darius Miles get picked fourth if he goes to college for two years or might he have slid to the second round when his "potential" is exposed at the collegiate level for two years? Is it right for a team to basically make a millionaire out of a person who, in all actuality, has no business being paid what he's making?

You make this stance that 18 and 19 year olds are deemed more worthy by their coaches. Isn't it more like these same coaches have little to no choice in the matter? Why is it that all the "great" coaches always seem to coach veteren-laden teams? Why won't Larry Brown play Darko Millicic? Could Phil Jackson make winners of Josh Smith and the Hawks?

I have already contended that for two years, the league might suffer something of a talent drought while the talented high-schoolers matriculate in college. What you will see after that though is a wealth of 20 to 21 year old players entering the league who are ready to play, not just hopefully ready to play. After that, the flow of talent from college and over-seas would level off.



> So when NBDLers and marginal veterans - players that coaches and GMs have the option of playing right now, but for some reason do not - replace the minutes of the productive 18 and 19 year-olds, how exactly is that going to improve the quality of play in the NBA?


You keep citing productive 18 and 19 year olds. Most of this draft class' high schoolers are either getting playing time on very bad teams or are stuck on the bench of better teams. Deng is about the only exception that I know (and Bron-Bron, but he's special!)




> *An age limit will improve the draft, but that is beside the point.* What the age limit will do is take the minutes played by LeBron, by Carmelo, by Howard, by Stoudemire, by Josh Smith, by J.R. Smith, by Curry, by Chandler, etc. and give them to NBDLers and marginal veterans. If we are frustrated by the inconsistent play of these young players, why is that going to get better when we are instead watching NBDLers or marginal veterans playing?


Gotta take issue with that first sentance. If improving the draft isn't the point of an age limit, what is the point? And no, an age limit will not take away the minutes played by Lebron, Anthony, Curry, et al. It only _defers_ those minutes into the future. It will also make many of those same minutes much more productive ones. Especially in the case of guys like Curry, Chandler, the Smiths, etc.




> The tradeoff is not Tim Duncan after four years of college versus Josh Smith out of high school. Tim Duncan is going to be in the NBA regardless of age limit. Leaguewide, the tradeoff is Josh Smith versus Tony Delk. Eddy Curry a couple years ago vs. Dickey Simpkins. Dwight Howard vs. Tony Battie. LeBron James vs. Lucious Harris. Luol Deng vs. Andres Nocioni or Adrian Griffin or Ronald DuPree. Al Jefferson vs. Tom Gugliotta (pre-trade). The tradeoff is between these young players and NBDLers or marginal veterans who don't get very many minutes right now.


In a sense, I see your point. The trade-off isn't between Duncan and Smith, it's between Smith now and Smith two years from now. It's about not being able to enjoy Travis Outlaw at all vs. possibly having him contribute from the get-go or saving the Blazers four years of time, about 5 or six million dollars and a roster spot that could have been given to a more deserving player. It's about picking a guy at #4 and after four years of heavy playing time still wondering if he's actually a player or not versus grabbing a guy off the national champs who took his team to a title. I don't think you can just make a sweeping generalization and assume that every single HS player is better than fringe NBA players.



> Are these young players so horrible that this tradeoff is clearly in favor of the NBDLers and marginal veterans?


Nope. That's not the tradeoff though, is it?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Thats some pretty good smack Flash.

I'm going to go get some popcorn. This is like Andre the Giant and Hulk Hogan.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

GB said:


> Thats some pretty good smack Flash.
> 
> I'm going to go get some popcorn. This is like Andre the Giant and Hulk Hogan.


Nah. I'm not in Dan's league. I think ( or at least I hope) we both have made good points here. It really is two sides of the same coin.

Dan, I enjoyed the back and forth. Thanks! Time to spend time with the little woman now! For some bizarre reason, she's not interested in the Lakers vs. Knicks. I guess it's time for more Animal Cops or Miracle Deliveries.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

If HS'ers like Lenny Cooke, DeAngelo Collins, Ousmane Cisse, Jackie Butler and Tony Key are in the discussion, how can these young men be considered busts, when they weren't first round picks. Obviously teams didn't think very highly of them if they were 2nd round and undrafted players.

Leon Smith was a special case. If you're in IL, you should know the story of Leon Smith. You know, ward of the state, no parents, went pro because he couldn't get qualified for college. Illinois turned him loose with no guardians at 18. Imagine you didn't have parents. The system failed Leon Smith, so please don't use him to try to further your agenda.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

HKF said:


> If HS'ers like Lenny Cooke, DeAngelo Collins, Ousmane Cisse, Jackie Butler and Tony Key are in the discussion, how can these young men be considered busts, when they weren't first round picks. Obviously teams didn't think very highly of them if they were 2nd round and undrafted players.
> 
> Leon Smith was a special case. If you're in IL, you should know the story of Leon Smith. You know, ward of the state, no parents, went pro because he couldn't get qualified for college. Illinois turned him loose with no guardians at 18. Imagine you didn't have parents. The system failed Leon Smith, so please don't use him to try to further your agenda.


Had to check in on my favorite thread before bedtime and this is what I get?

Agenda?

There's no agenda here. Only discussion and opinion. Why is it you feel justified bringing up Garnett, Bryant, McGrady and James and I can't bring up Cisse, Smith, Korleone Young or Lenny Cooke? Weren't all these HS players who declared and entered themselves into the draft after High School? Isn't that what's being discussed here? Those young men should have went to college. What about three more that I've bought up... Ebi, Outlaw and Miles? What about this years HS class, none of whom will make an all-star game before their 21st birthday anyway.

I grew up in Illinios. I know full well the story of Leon Smith. Before you begin condescending to me, maybe you should try to get to know me first. I suspect that I've been playing this game and a fan of it before you were even born.

All I wanted was an intelligent debate and you have to resort to accusing me of an agenda? Get over yourself. If you can't argue the points, stay out of the thread. I was enjoying this until you decide to throw your two cents in. How about answering my questions that I asked? Where was Tim Duncan ranked out of high school? I think you already know the answer and since it doesn't fit _your_ agenda, you choose to ignore it. Why is it that Wade, Gordon and Okafor are excelling if they were such terrible HS talents? Doesn't this street go both ways?

The colligiate systems is far from perfect and I can tell you have a severe distaste for it. I'm not advocating that and I'd love to see some serious reform in the way college athletics, particularly basketball and football are handled. 

One more time, I simply think an age limit would be overall good for the game... So shoot me. Good grief. Good night.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> Had to check in on my favorite thread before bedtime and this is what I get?
> 
> Agenda?


Substitute agenda with opinion. They're synonyms here anyway. 



> There's no agenda here. Only discussion and opinion. Why is it you feel justified bringing up Garnett, Bryant, McGrady and James and I can't bring up Cisse, Smith, Korleone Young or Lenny Cooke? Weren't all these HS players who declared and entered themselves into the draft after High School? Isn't that what's being discussed here? Those young men should have went to college. What about three more that I've bought up... Ebi, Outlaw and Miles? What about this years HS class, none of whom will make an all-star game before their 21st birthday anyway.


I didn't say you couldn't use 2nd round HS players, but why would you? Since when are 2nd round picks expected to excel in the league. It doesn't matter if you're a College, International or HS star, being drafted in the 2nd round usually means every team picking doesn't believe you belong in the 2nd round. Obviously there are guys who prove that wrong (Ginobili, Arenas, Boozer, Redd and Lewis) but for the most part it's accurate. 

Again, Smith wasn't going to be eligible, nor was Lenny Cooke as he took gifts for years before college and didn't even have the grades. How was he going to go to school? Korleone Young, if you didn't realize was at the heart of the Myron Piggie Scandal, you know the one where Corey Maggette, Jaron Rush, Kareem Rush and Young all took large cash payouts from Piggie. It's the reason Maggette went pro, as the NCAA was sniffing around Duke (and should have put them on Probation for playing an ineligible player). Young would have got whatever team he went to ineligible. So he should have to college for what? To sit on the bench in street clothes cause he wouldn't be allowed to play? You do realize that Tyson Chandler couldn't play college basketball for all the gifts he received as well correct? FROM COLLEGES.

Cisse would have went to college if his guardian Don Jackson didn't steer him to the NBA. He came off a knee injury as well. Tough break for Cisse, but it happens. He can still go to school (he had a 3.6 GPA). 



> I grew up in Illinios. I know full well the story of Leon Smith. Before you begin condescending to me, maybe you should try to get to know me first. I suspect that I've been playing this game and a fan of it before you were even born.


And I went to school in Illinois, so what are you saying? I went to Bradley around the time of Smith's recruitment. I know full well the details of why schools backed off him. Leon is mentally ill, but has no guardians or mentors. Not so easy to succeed and go to college with no foundation, but since you said you know full well of Leon Smith, then maybe you shouldn't have mentioned him. 



> All I wanted was an intelligent debate and you have to resort to accusing me of an agenda? Get over yourself. If you can't argue the points, stay out of the thread. I was enjoying this until you decide to throw your two cents in. How about answering my questions that I asked? Where was Tim Duncan ranked out of high school? I think you already know the answer and since it doesn't fit _your_ agenda, you choose to ignore it. Why is it that Wade, Gordon and Okafor are excelling if they were such terrible HS talents? Doesn't this street go both ways?


Tim Duncan was recruited by Delaware and Wake Forest. The only reason why he wasn't a highly recruited player is because no one knew who he was. Dave Odom and his staff just happened to see Duncan and get him signed or Duncan would have been a Blue Hen. It was without question a fluke. If Duncan would have been able to go 4 years through ABCD or Nike Camps, he would have been one of the most highly recruited big men in the country, just like Rasheed Wallace and Joe Smith were.

I've explained Gordon's situation many times here. His lack of exposure on the summer circuit caused him to drop. Credit him for improving his game with hard work. If you saw Gordon as a freshman (he was the 2nd best player on UConn behind Butler). Okafor and his HS teammate John Lucas were not highly regarded by the gurus, but Matt Doherty of UNC (at the time) did recruit Okafor to Chapel Hill as well. Just couldn't get him from UConn. Okafor also didn't play in the AAU tournaments because he was more a student than an athlete. Duncan and Okafor are rare exceptions.

As for Dwyane Wade, coming out of Chicagoland area, he was a prop 48. No one would touch him, because his grades were not good at the Major Division I level, except for Tom Crean. To this day, he's Marquette's only prop 48 in their history. Wade improved in college for sure, but he put in the work to improve. He had to work for it, because he wasn't as great coming out of HS. Credit to him. 

HS recruiting is an inexact science, but it's more accurate than you believe. Wade, Okafor and Gordon are terrific exceptions, but Lebron, Deng, Howard, Amare show that being at the top of your class (especially in a strong year) means something.

Okafor and Gordon's class on the whole has proven that the HS class as a whole was/is a bust. Not an NBA superstar in the bunch (although I feel Gordon will be one and so will Arenas). 



> The colligiate systems is far from perfect and I can tell you have a severe distaste for it. I'm not advocating that and I'd love to see some serious reform in the way college athletics, particularly basketball and football are handled.
> 
> One more time, I simply think an age limit would be overall good for the game... So shoot me. Good grief. Good night.


Nope, I don't have a distaste for the college game at all. I just don't like how people think it's bad for young black men to cash in on their talents in football and basketball, but baseball and every other sport it's no big deal. I've said and continue to say, if you want an age limit, fine have an age limit. I want a minor league where guys aren't forced to go. College is incredibly overrated from a minority experience at predominantly white colleges, especially if you're not drinking and you can't relate to the people you go to school with. Not to mention that the athletes are in a bubble. 

Fact is, so what if 4-5 guys go pro every year. The simple solution is to not draft them. There it is. Or if you're going to have an age limit, I want a minor league. Simply put, I'm sick of these major colleges using these kids, with no skills development, no real motivation to get them interested in a legit major (not some phony major like Arts & Letters), giving them free cars (hello SEC and many others), sell their jersey's for profit, but kids can't get a job as it's a violation, only 20 hours of real ability to work on your game, but it's all in game preparation. 

Yeah, but college is great. YAY. Go home team. :no:


----------



## theyoungsrm (May 23, 2003)

HKF said:


> Nope, I don't have a distaste for the college game at all. I just don't like how people think it's bad for young black men to cash in on their talents in football and basketball, but baseball and every other sport it's no big deal. I've said and continue to say, if you want an age limit, fine have an age limit. I want a minor league where guys aren't forced to go. College is incredibly overrated from a minority experience at predominantly white colleges, especially if you're not drinking and you can't relate to the people you go to school with. Not to mention that the athletes are in a bubble.
> 
> Fact is, so what if 4-5 guys go pro every year. The simple solution is to not draft them. There it is. Or if you're going to have an age limit, I want a minor league. Simply put, I'm sick of these major colleges using these kids, with no skills development, no real motivation to get them interested in a legit major (not some phony major like Arts & Letters), giving them free cars (hello SEC and many others), sell their jersey's for profit, but kids can't get a job as it's a violation, only 20 hours of real ability to work on your game, but it's all in game preparation.
> 
> Yeah, but college is great. YAY. Go home team. :no:


i can tell you as a student at the university of illinois and a student of sports this is by far the most truth thing in this thread....basically there is no response...


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> College is incredibly overrated from a minority experience at predominantly white colleges, especially if you're not drinking and you can't relate to the people you go to school with.


It would probably be a good thing to try to learn to fit in. Those are the people they're going to spend their working life rubbing elbows with.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

A really interesting post... I just thought this was particularly interesting:



HKF said:


> I didn't say you couldn't use 2nd round HS players, but why would you? Since when are 2nd round picks expected to excel in the league. It doesn't matter if you're a College, International or HS star, being drafted in the 2nd round usually means every team picking doesn't believe you belong in the 2nd round. Obviously there are guys who prove that wrong (Ginobili, Arenas, Boozer, Redd and Lewis) but for the most part it's accurate.
> 
> Again, Smith wasn't going to be eligible, nor was Lenny Cooke as he took gifts for years before college and didn't even have the grades. How was he going to go to school? Korleone Young, if you didn't realize was at the heart of the Myron Piggie Scandal, you know the one where Corey Maggette, Jaron Rush, Kareem Rush and Young all took large cash payouts from Piggie. It's the reason Maggette went pro, as the NCAA was sniffing around Duke (and should have put them on Probation for playing an ineligible player). Young would have got whatever team he went to ineligible. So he should have to college for what? To sit on the bench in street clothes cause he wouldn't be allowed to play? You do realize that Tyson Chandler couldn't play college basketball for all the gifts he received as well correct? FROM COLLEGES.
> 
> Cisse would have went to college if his guardian Don Jackson didn't steer him to the NBA. He came off a knee injury as well. Tough break for Cisse, but it happens. He can still go to school (he had a 3.6 GPA).


I like these examples because one of the arguments I keep hearing is how an age limit is needed to protect these kids from themselves.

But the reality we see is that an age limit would HURT all of these kids, and they're precisely the ones the proponents think they'd be PROTECTING.

It's not Lebron they're worried about, it's the kid who gets himself disqualified and HAS NO OTHER OPTION but to go pro. Of course they may not make it as pros, but it's not the fact they WANT to go pro that's keeping them out of college.

Again, it's the money. Or lack therof that gets them disqualified from or kicked out of college. Where does a Corey Maggette go if he CAN'T go to the NBA and he's no longer welcome in college?

Now, the guys who want to "help" by imposing this rule surely think it will do good. Maybe they think kids like Maggette, will no longer make the mistake of taking money like this if they know there's no option to jump straight to the NBA. But to me that seems like wishful thinking.

First, the number of guys this applies to is quite small in the first place. But more importantly, there are already plenty of rules in place against and plenty to lose by doing what they did. They didn't care about those consequences. So why should we expect them to care about one more when they're typically poor kids being offered an assload of power and money?

Much like most every other rule we impose to try and help people, I think its likely to harm the folks its intended to help.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> A really interesting post... I just thought this was particularly interesting:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good points. Unintended consequences are often the arch enemy of well-intentioned social engineering. In fact, it can be argued that much of the growth in early entry is an unintended consequence of the rookie scale contracts and rules for maximum salaries. The league created those rules to fix a problem and unintended consequences got in the way and created another problem for them. Social engineering often is fool's gold.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

I know about Oden next year, but are there any standout prep stars that it might pinch if put into place this year?


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

2005 has no prospects that are worthy of being drafted in the first round this year. However 2006 has possibly 5 of the top 10 players from HS. Problem, those guys are better (as HS juniors) than 90% of the guys playing college basketball right now.

As I said before, an arbitrary age limit is not a good idea, without a real minor league. Forcing guys to go to college for 3 years is just the dumbest thing I've ever heard.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

GB said:


> It would probably be a good thing to try to learn to fit in. Those are the people they're going to spend their working life rubbing elbows with.


GB, you haven't refuted any of my points (because you can't), but I have you pegged, so it's not worth it. I do not have to fit in (why didn't you use the word assimilate), because I wouldn't be true to who I am. Maybe you can sleep better knowing you do it, everyday, but we're obviously two different people.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

HKF said:


> GB, you haven't refuted any of my points (because you can't), but I have you pegged, so it's not worth it. I do not have to fit in (why didn't you use the word assimilate), because I wouldn't be true to who I am. Maybe you can sleep better knowing you do it, everyday, but we're obviously two different people.



Thats a pretty sad take on society. Fitting in doesn't mean you're not being true to who you are. Opting to not fit in is an attitude that often contributes to separation and segregation in society...more of the us vs them.

But whatever.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

GB said:


> Thats a pretty sad take on society. Fitting in doesn't mean you're not being true to who you are. Opting to not fit in is an attitude that often contributes to separation and segregation in society...more of the us vs them.
> 
> But whatever.


Not it's not a pretty sad take at all. Obviously, you're so far removed from that experience you really have no opinion on the matter. Your so delusional in your _edited for MikeDC_, that it's not even worth talking to you, quite honestly. I didn't think so at first, but more and more it becomes evident.

I call it Bill Cosby syndrome. You have no contact with the people this would be affecting, yet you swear it's better for the game. As I said, you can't dispute my points and really offer no real value other than coat-tailing other's opinions. Buy a clue brotha.

You should never have to change who you are as a means of fitting in. That's not a society I will be apart of. I'm going to be me, whether you like me or not. It has nothing to do with race either, it has to do with personality.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

<I>Your so delusional in your ******** dance...Buy a clue...</i>
Can't have a discussion without calling names?

<I>You have no contact with the people this would be affecting, yet you swear it's better for the game.</i>
Those are two seperate things. It will be better for the game, and what did people do before it was vogue to enter the NBA early? If their families are really hurting and they need to work they can do like the millions of other 18 year olds do who don't have their athletic gifts. 

<I>It has nothing to do with race</i>
Who said anything about race?

<I>You should never have to change who you are as a means of fitting in. </i>
I never said that either.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

HKF said:


> in your ******** dance


That seems pretty uncalled for.



> You should never have to change who you are as a means of fitting in. That's not a society I will be apart of. I'm going to be me, whether you like me or not. It has nothing to do with race either, it has to do with personality.


That's a statement I agree with, but it's also one of those things people say too much without thinking about it.

Never is a strong word.

And who you are is a lot.

Lots of people, white, black, and anything are just plain *******s. And if they want to fit in, they need to change. I mean, you wouldn't support someone who says "being a wife beater is part of my personality and screw the world if they want me to change". Not saying *you* are guilty of this, but lots of folks who use this line of thinking do it not because society (at least the people you actually have to deal with) asking anything unreasonable of them, but because they, themselves, are unreasonable.

My point is just that things work both ways. You can be your own man and still "fit in" in the sense you can do your own thing and still work well and be a part of a group. Not always, of course, and you have to stand up for yourself the way you say, but my experience is that acceptance and working with other people and "society" in larger settings is often more about how things are said than what is actually said.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

GB said:


> If their families are really hurting and they need to work they can do like the millions of other 18 year olds do who don't have their athletic gifts.


Very interesting . . . I take it you think that Hollywood should institute an age limit, then (cf. any of the numerous teenage millionaire movie stars or musicians), as well as private industry (teenage programmers / game developers / stealth advertising / consulting / etc.)? 

Why can't these 18-year-olds maximize their earning potential at the same age as everyone else? Again, if it makes an NBA team squeamish, they can draft 30-year-olds for all I care.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> You can be your own man and still "fit in" in the sense you can do your own thing and still work well and be a part of a group.


I agree with Mike.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> but my experience is that acceptance and working with other people and "society" in larger settings is often more about how things are said than what is actually said.


 :yes:


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Very interesting . . . I take it you think that Hollywood should institute an age limit, then (cf. any of the numerous teenage millionaire movie stars or musicians), as well as private industry (teenage programmers / game developers / stealth advertising / consulting / etc.)?
> 
> Why can't these 18-year-olds maximize their earning potential at the same age as everyone else?


Man these illustrations are spinning _so_ far out of control.

You're right...except the business and the union of current workers doesn't want them. They don't feel their contribution is necessary for the continued success of their business. It's their right to do this, and their pocketbook and reputation are on the line and will take a huge toll if they're wrong.

It's their bet to make. They're all smart people, so lets see what they have in store for their product.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

GB said:


> Man these illustrations are spinning _so_ far out of control.
> 
> You're right...except the business and the union of current workers doesn't want them. They don't feel their contribution is necessary for the continued success of their business. It's their right to do this, and their pocketbook and reputation are on the line and will take a huge toll if they're wrong.
> 
> It's their bet to make. They're all smart people, so lets see what they have in store for their product.


Well, just so it's clear and on the record, I think that with this one very retrograde step, Stern is endangering the health of the league and risking his legacy. 

No one -- not on this board or out in the real world -- has even put forth a mildly believable argument that high-school players (who make up a tiny percentage of the league) are what's ailing the NBA, assuming anything's ailing the NBA at all, or that going to college for any amount of time has anything to do with becoming a good professional basketball player (in other words, the quickest way for an elite 18-year-old talent to become a good NBA player is to play in the NBA).

And what is so "out of control" about invoking other highly skilled, specialized forms of teen labor? Seems to be a pretty good basis of comparison to me.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

All we can do now is wait and be proven right or wrong. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: It's not <I>all</i> about basketball. It's some of the same reasons Artest is gone till next season (if then) when he could rejoin the team right now...

...and some of it is probably this reason too: http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1946924&postcount=7


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

A viable minor league system is the only thing that makes sense to me. As a fan, I wouldn't mind it if guys like Diop, Ebi, Outlaw, and such weren't taking up spots on active rosters. But it's not their fault that a team drafted them despite obvious weaknesses in their games and, in some cases, lack of minutes in the rotation. If I were them, I wouldn't turn down the chance to earn 2mil per season to sit on the bench most of the time either.

So, even though an age limit might make the game marginally better in some senses (but I'm not even sure of that. I like watching Lebron, darnit), I'm not in favor of one. This is for Stern, Hunter and other NBA bigwigs to discuss, but there must be a middle ground between an age limit that basically forces prospects into college and the current system. Relax the NCAA penalties for accepting gifts and money so that guys might be inclined to stick around that extra year. Put guys who aren't ready for the league yet on an NBDL team and pay them a salary that's a middle ground between the full rookie salary and the peanuts that a college scholarship is in comparison. I mean, if they could do those two things, an age limit might not even be that big a deal. Let NBA teams draft guys at 18 and keep their rights. If another Lebron comes along, he can light up the NBDL for 2 years, make $1million or so from his team, be able to line up endorsements, and crash the NBA party when he's 20. That's not totally fair, but it's not utterly repugnant either, and it would give Stern his precious wish while giving the 18and 19yr olds who don't want to go to college a way to hone their wares while being compensated somewhat fairly.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Well, just so it's clear and on the record, I think that with this one very retrograde step, Stern is endangering the health of the league and risking his legacy.
> 
> No one -- not on this board or out in the real world -- has even put forth a mildly believable argument that high-school players (who make up a tiny percentage of the league) are what's ailing the NBA, assuming anything's ailing the NBA at all, or that going to college for any amount of time has anything to do with becoming a good professional basketball player (in other words, the quickest way for an elite 18-year-old talent to become a good NBA player is to play in the NBA).
> 
> And what is so "out of control" about invoking other highly skilled, specialized forms of teen labor? Seems to be a pretty good basis of comparison to me.


One wonders how the NBA possibly survived all those years when there was an age limit. I mean, if the league should happen to be successful in re-instituting an age limit I'm beginning to think that every franchise will go belly up. It's universal Armegeddon.

As a counter, not one person on this board or in the real world, has put up even a mildly belivable argument that having a age limit would hurt the league.

I've got no problem with a minor league system. Beautiful. Try selling that to the 18 year olds who have been told by their HS coach, their AAU coach(es), the ever-present shoe companies and a dozen other special interest groups that going to a "minor league" is acceptable. Colleges have their flaws. I've got no argument with that. I've read about players "fitting in" and posters who refuse to "fit in" if it means comprimising who they are. Seems to me that the athletic world in college sports - especially basketball and football - have done as much as possible to distance themselves from the general student population as the student population has done to "ostricize" the athlete. I've read about "unintended consequences" and the best laid plans of mice and men... I've read that an age limit _in fact_ hurts young players. I hadn't realized that something like that had been proved - conclusively or otherwise.

The problem goes well beyond a simple age limit. I agree that it sucks if a young kid who doesn't know any better takes money, cars or whatever from an institution or person simply because they're doing what they can to help their family out and then those same institutions (and their governing bodies) turn around and deny that young man the very avenue he needs to get ahead in life leaving them with the only choice of turning pro when they're not ready.

So yes, the system in place as it stands now stinks. My ONLY contention with agreeing with an age limit is that the quality of the players comming into the league would be better - overall. I'm all for giving young men the opportunity to earn a living. I ardently support it. If the league could get a true minor league system to work and get the players (both young and old) to buy into it, that would be great. The system as it stands has been in place for a very long time and there are some damn powerful institutions (can anyone say the NCAA?) that would fight the League tooth and nail to prevent it.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> not one person on this board or in the real world, has put up even a mildly belivable argument that having a age limit would hurt the league.


And...



ScottMay said:


> No one -- not on this board or out in the real world -- has even put forth a mildly believable argument that high-school players (who make up a tiny percentage of the league) are what's ailing the NBA


http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1946936&postcount=89


:biggrin:


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

fl_flash said:


> As a counter, not one person on this board or in the real world, has put up even a mildly belivable argument that having a age limit would hurt the league.


I think the fact that Lebron wouldn't be in the league yet is evidence that the league could be hurt by an age limit. The guy is already an utter superstar and he almost singlehandedly rescused a moribund franchise before he hit 20. I think Dan and others' arguments that many of the prep-to-pro players are no worse than the fringe veterans who are hanging on by a thread is also pretty credible. 



> I've got no problem with a minor league system. Beautiful. Try selling that to the 18 year olds who have been told by their HS coach, their AAU coach(es), the ever-present shoe companies and a dozen other special interest groups that going to a "minor league" is acceptable.


if they weren't permitted to play in the NBA until age 20 and had a choice between a minor league where they make 6 figures and are free to sign endorsement deals, and going to college on a scholarship but next to no money beyond that, I think they'd be fine with playing in the minors until they hit 20. the main sticking point is making sure that an NBA minor league is able to offer salaries competitive with Euro leagues and such so that the best players don't head off to Europe for 5 years. 



> The problem goes well beyond a simple age limit. I agree that it sucks if a young kid *who doesn't know any better* takes money, cars or whatever from an institution or person simply because they're doing what they can to help their family out and then those same institutions (and their governing bodies) turn around and deny that young man the very avenue he needs to get ahead in life leaving them with the only choice of turning pro when they're not ready.


I think the part I bolded is awfully presumptuous. Don't know any better? I can't put myself in these young mens' shoes, but if my family was hard up for cash and living in a bad neighborhood, I imagine it would take almost superhuman willpower to shun the agents and "friends" who approach you with gifts, even if you're somewhat aware that it could bite you in the rear later on. People in those situations must find it very difficult to put off a windfall today in the hopes of a better one in what seems like a distant future.



> So yes, the system in place as it stands now stinks. My ONLY contention with agreeing with an age limit is that the quality of the players comming into the league would be better - overall. I'm all for giving young men the opportunity to earn a living. I ardently support it. If the league could get a true minor league system to work and get the players (both young and old) to buy into it, that would be great. The system as it stands has been in place for a very long time and there are some damn powerful institutions (can anyone say the NCAA?) that would fight the League tooth and nail to prevent it.


Getting the NCAA to go along with any of these things is probably a pipedream, I agree. But they should have no say in whether the NBA creates a real minor league. Yeah, they'll be hurt if that happens, but they're losing a LOT of the best talent to the NBA already as it is. If they want NCAA basketball to stay relevant, it's in their best interests to be prepared to adapt to changes instead of resisting them out of hand.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> My ONLY contention with agreeing with an age limit is that the quality of the players comming into the league would be better - overall.


But your point isn't provable. We don't know how Tim Duncan would have played if he'd gone straight to the league, or how Amare Stoudemire would have played after four years at whatever school Jim Harrick Sr. was coaching. The cream of the 18-year-olds -- the Garnetts, the McGradys, the Bryants, the Stoudemires -- have learned to be NBA players fastest by being in the NBA. And Dan has argued pretty eloquently and persuasively as to why it's in a team's interest to develop a flawed young player with a giant upside as opposed to the marginally skilled superannuated veteran.

And we DO KNOW that an age limit will deny qualified (and by qualified, I mean liable to be drafted by an NBA team, which, it bears mentioning, the overwhelming majority of 18-year-olds declaring have been) 18-year-olds the best possible living they can earn playing basketball.



> I'm all for giving young men the opportunity to earn a living. I ardently support it. If the league could get a true minor league system to work and get the players (both young and old) to buy into it, that would be great. The system as it stands has been in place for a very long time and there are some damn powerful institutions (can anyone say the NCAA?) that would fight the League tooth and nail to prevent it.


Stern has no intention of using the minor league as anything but a safety net for the guys who are too poor or stupid or unlucky to go to major colleges. His real motive is one that the NCAA fully supports -- he wants to get back to the days when college basketball had huge individual personalities and delivered a ready-made audience to the NBA (well, after the league got rid of guys doing coke during the games and stuff, that is). 

Unfortunately, the cat is very much out of the bag. The 18-20 (21?) year-olds will be harshly and unduly punished for something that they had nothing to do with.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> I think the fact that Lebron wouldn't be in the league yet is evidence that the league could be hurt by an age limit.


The league was OK pre-LeBron. It'll survive 4 more seasons without Oden. It could survive without Amare and Livingston too. 

They'd all get here eventually. People keep acting like these players will NEVER EVER come to the NBA.

They'll arrive. They don't stop accruing birthdays after they turn 18.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> The cream of the 18-year-olds -- the Garnetts, the McGradys, the Bryants, the Stoudemires -- have learned to be NBA players fastest by being in the NBA.


Your point isn't provable.


Amare is a very highly productive player, but by no means a complete basketball player. How do we know that a season with coach K wouldn't have him at a better spot right now in his career than he is?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Oh...and lets stop blaming Stern. Hunter and the people that wear the uniforms have to agree to it.

Stern can <B>only propose</b> it.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

GB said:


> The league was OK pre-LeBron. It'll survive 4 more seasons without Oden. It could survive without Amare and Livingston too.
> 
> They'd all get here eventually. People keep acting like these players will NEVER EVER come to the NBA.
> 
> They'll arrive. They don't stop accruing birthdays after they turn 18.


That's still 2 years that the league doesn't have Lebron. That hurts the league. I'm not saying that the league would fold without Lebron, but denying a player with his ability the chance to play in it when he's obviously ready does hurt the league (and the player).

What if Lebron ruptures his achilles in college? Gloom and doom scenario I admit, but it could happen. He might never get the chance to improve the league or make the salary he deserves in that case. 

Do I think the league would be doomed by an age limit? Of course not. The quality of play might even go up a tick. But to say that there's NO basis for saying that the league can be hurt when Lebron, Amare (though he's 20+ now), Dwight Howard, Luol Deng, Carmelo Anthony, and even Josh Smith, wouldn't be in the league yet? Please. Those guys are helping the league as we speak - holding them out for 2 more years could certainly have a net negative effect.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

GB said:


> Your point isn't provable.
> 
> 
> Amare is a very highly productive player, but by no means a complete basketball player. How do we know that a season with coach K wouldn't have him at a better spot right now in his career than he is?


It's not provable either way. But saying that the opposing viewpoint isn't provable doesn't mean that it's wrong. Some would argue that college experience prepares kids for the NBA because they develop basketball skills. HKF and plenty of others can make perfectly cogent arguments that college can erode a natural phenom's NBA fortunes by drilling a system into his game and hampering other parts of his game. 

If you're going to make the argument in favor of college, I don't think Amare is the best example. He came into the league and played big minutes against the best comptetition in the world. I think that did more for him than a year of beating up on 6'7" centers in college could have. He was a manchild who needed to play against guys his own size. Curry, on the other hand? College might have helped him learn to rebound and provide help defense. It's all hypothetical in any event.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> That's still 2 years that the league doesn't have Lebron. That hurts the league.



No it doesn't. That defies reason. What harm? 

Having accrued a benefit and _then_ losing it causes harm. But what benefit would the league have had...and then lost?



> The quality of play might even go up a tick.


 :cheers: to that one...


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> But your point isn't provable. We don't know how Tim Duncan would have played if he'd gone straight to the league, or how Amare Stoudemire would have played after four years at whatever school Jim Harrick Sr. was coaching. The cream of the 18-year-olds -- the Garnetts, the McGradys, the Bryants, the Stoudemires -- have learned to be NBA players fastest by being in the NBA. And Dan has argued pretty eloquently and persuasively as to why it's in a team's interest to develop a flawed young player with a giant upside as opposed to the marginally skilled superannuated veteran.


And your point is no more "provable". I keep reading about the Garnetts, the McGrady's and so and so as proof that there shouldn't be an age limit. What you conviently ignore are the Curry's, the Chandlers, the Browns, the Diops, the Stevensons, the Ebi's the Outlaws, the Miles and on and on. (No second rounders listed there as to not strike the ire of certain other posters... Apparently that's not permissable in an argument and yet folks like you can bring up 15 year old tennis players or kid actors in Hollywood and that's perfectly fine...) You say that these young blue-chippers learned the fastest by playing in the NBA and yet you even state that you have no idea how Duncan would have developed. You have no proof of that assertion. None.

Also, I'm sorry. Dan's "argument" was in no way, shape or form "persuasive". It must have been to you because you are of the same opinion. His stance was that fans of NBA teams are supposed to sit and wait for "potential" because that gives them "hope" while they are subjected to possibly years of futility watching their team lose. I've seen how much "hope" the fans of this board had prior to this season. Yea. That's a real persusive argument. Got me on that one!




> And we DO KNOW that an age limit will deny qualified (and by qualified, I mean liable to be drafted by an NBA team, which, it bears mentioning, the overwhelming majority of 18-year-olds declaring have been) 18-year-olds the best possible living they can earn playing basketball.


You're right. An age limit would deny quailified young men the ability to earn a living. I think you're a little off on the whole "overwhelming majority" stance tho. See, the problem is that it's hard to identify what "qualified" is. Incredibly gifted HS players who routinely go against kids with 1/2 their skills look good to everybody. How those skills translate to a completly different stage is not such an easy thing to determine.




> Stern has no intention of using the minor league as anything but a safety net for the guys who are too poor or stupid or unlucky to go to major colleges. His real motive is one that the NCAA fully supports -- he wants to get back to the days when college basketball had huge individual personalities and delivered a ready-made audience to the NBA (well, after the league got rid of guys doing coke during the games and stuff, that is).
> 
> Unfortunately, the cat is very much out of the bag. The 18-20 (21?) year-olds will be harshly and unduly punished for something that they had nothing to do with.


I'm glad I now have the inside dish on Sterns plans. Thank you. Got any idea what Billy Hunter had for lunch? Please excuse the sarcasm. I've got this slight suspicion that neither you, nor I or anybody here knows what Stern's intentions may or may not be with respect to a minor league that doesn't even exist and may well never.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

GB said:


> No it doesn't. That defies reason. What harm?
> 
> Having accrued a benefit and _then_ losing it causes harm. But what benefit would the league have had...and then lost?


So, denying itself a potential revenue and PR bonanza for 2 years due to an arbitrary rule doesn't harm the league just because they never had it in the first place? Now you're reaching. So, to use an extreme example, there's no harm in having a winning lottery ticket and never claiming your prize for 2 years? Technically I guess that's true, but that's an awfully small fig leaf. What if you accidentally shred the ticket (ie Lebron suffers a catastrophic injury before he turns 20 and never plays in the NBA)? No harm done? Come on. Saying foregone profits aren't a harm is basically an admission that you're hanging on to the argument based on semantics and nothing else.



> :cheers: to that one...


I said it COULD go up a tick. Personally I don't think it would. Having a washed up Kendall Gill as your 12th man instead of Ndudi Ebi isn't going to change a team's fortunes all that much. The end of the bench doesn't play much.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

GB said:


> Your point isn't provable.
> 
> 
> Amare is a very highly productive player, but by no means a complete basketball player. How do we know that a season with coach K wouldn't have him at a better spot right now in his career than he is?


Okay, I guess I can cede that point on provability, although I thought that this was the current conventional wisdom: for the truly elite player, the Kobe/Garnett/Stoudemire type, not the Jon Bender or Robert Swift type, nothing sped the learning curve better than being on a pro team.

But what we DO KNOW is that two years with Renegade Coach X or Minor League Team Y would deny Stoudemire the 5-10 million dollars he's making with the Suns and accompanying endorsements. This is the only provable, inarguable fact that matters here.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

For perspective Amare Stoudemire was committed to Memphis. What was snake-oil Calipari going to teach him? What did he teach DaJuan Wagner? Wagner played even more selfishly on the college level then he did in HS. 

Amare Stoudemire was also forced to go to many different schools, had his transcript fudged on purpose by Mt. Zion HS so he couldn't go to a different school after deciding he didn't want any part of their basketball program. It led to him being ineligible to play for practically two years. They were out to screw the kid flat out.

Mike Dunleavy Jr said, he wished he could have went to the NBA sooner, because everything he learned in college didn't apply and help him at all. So here's a college star who felt he should have came sooner, because the college game is built on winning, not skills development.

There are a few guys who teach skills development. Jim Calhoun and Lute Olsen and Roy Williams. Until Dean Smith, Guy V. Lewis and John Thompson return to the sidelines, maybe college isn't the best place to hone your skills. In fact I think otherwise.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> An age limit would deny quailified young men the ability to earn a living....


...playing basketball. They can still join the Carpenters or Plumbers Union and earn a check from day 1 to take care of their family with while learning a skill.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> One wonders how the NBA possibly survived all those years when there was an age limit. I mean, if the league should happen to be successful in re-instituting an age limit I'm beginning to think that every franchise will go belly up. It's universal Armegeddon.


No, but a small step backwards is still a step backwards.



> As a counter, not one person on this board or in the real world, has put up even a mildly belivable argument that having a age limit would hurt the league.


Perhaps because I find it may help the league, at least financially.

The league would also be helped financially if David Stern put on a ski mask, stuck up a convenience store, and put the loot in the league bank account.

But it wouldn't be right.



> I've got no problem with a minor league system. Beautiful. Try selling that to the 18 year olds who have been told by their HS coach, their AAU coach(es), the ever-present shoe companies and a dozen other special interest groups that going to a "minor league" is acceptable.


Which is why the NBA/PA is protecting these special interests rather than the 18 year old kids.



> Colleges have their flaws. I've got no argument with that. I've read about players "fitting in" and posters who refuse to "fit in" if it means comprimising who they are. Seems to me that the athletic world in college sports - especially basketball and football - have done as much as possible to distance themselves from the general student population as the student population has done to "ostricize" the athlete. I've read about "unintended consequences" and the best laid plans of mice and men... I've read that an age limit _in fact_ hurts young players. I hadn't realized that something like that had been proved - conclusively or otherwise.


I think it's pretty conclusive that an age limit hurts younger players.

LeBron... are you helped or hurt by having to play basketball basically for free for the next two years when, if the rule didn't exist, you'd be making many millions of dollars?

What's inconclusive about that? On one hand you've got the possibility of being a gazillionaire, and on the other you've got the possibility of playing for minimum wage in the CBA or for free in college.

That's about as certain as certain gets.



> The problem goes well beyond a simple age limit. I agree that it sucks if a young kid who doesn't know any better takes money, cars or whatever from an institution or person simply because they're doing what they can to help their family out and then those same institutions (and their governing bodies) turn around and deny that young man the very avenue he needs to get ahead in life leaving them with the only choice of turning pro when they're not ready.
> 
> So yes, the system in place as it stands now stinks. My ONLY contention with agreeing with an age limit is that the quality of the players comming into the league would be better - overall. I'm all for giving young men the opportunity to earn a living. I ardently support it. If the league could get a true minor league system to work and get the players (both young and old) to buy into it, that would be great. The system as it stands has been in place for a very long time and there are some damn powerful institutions (can anyone say the NCAA?) that would fight the League tooth and nail to prevent it.


I agree with all of this, I guess, although I'm still not sure the basketball being played would be better. It would just be more marketable. Which is fine... marketing is a legitimate part of the product (if a tree falls in the woods and all that). But if it just seems to me that the better thing to do would be to break the back of the NCAA rather than put yet another means in place to prop up and corrupt system that makes everything worse.

And while I think it's a tougher case to make, I think the argument can be made that in the long run, that'd be best for the NBA too.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

GB said:


> ...playing basketball. They can still join the Carpenters or Plumbers Union and earn a check from day 1 to take care of their family with while learning a skill.


Yep, there's no problem with that. The value of their marginal product is valued at $2mil by the NBA, but because of an arbitrary age limit, they'll just go make 10-15 bucks an hour fixing people's toilets and fences as a tradesman's apprentice. How could they possibly complain about that?


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Perhaps because I find it may help the league, at least financially.
> 
> The league would also be helped financially if David Stern put on a ski mask, stuck up a convenience store, and put the loot in the league bank account.
> 
> But it wouldn't be right.


How, exactly, does having an 18 year old in the league help it financially versus a 20 year old? I get the stance that the league would be "deprived" of the cash cow that is Lebron James for two years. I've stated that there would be something of a talent drought for two years. I also somehow think that a multi-billion dollar enterprise such as the National Basketball Association would function just fine if King Lebron were to die in some horrific accident tomorrow. Don't you? The sun will still rise and the NBA Marketing machine would move onto Dwayne Wade. I think you, and most of the others on this thread are assigning FAR too much value on an 18 year old basketball player. All that would happen is that the wonderous apparation that is King James would have to wait two more years to step onto the big stage. He would THEN make his mega-millions and all can be well with the world again.




> I think it's pretty conclusive that an age limit hurts younger players.
> 
> LeBron... are you helped or hurt by having to play basketball basically for free for the next two years when, if the rule didn't exist, you'd be making many millions of dollars?
> 
> ...


So, really what your saying is that Lebron is hurt because he can become a "gazillionare" at 18 verses a 20 year old "gazillionare"? Damn. Life's rough. Again, got me on that one. So, to take your argument further - why in the world should LeBron play high school ball for free? Hasn't he been hurt by playing four years of HS ball for free? This system sucks! Bron Bron should have been getting paid for his skills since the age of six!

Sounds pretty ridiculous huh? The age of 18 is pretty much arbritrary. Lebron is Lebron and whether he makes his millions at 16, 18 or 20 it's pretty much a given that he's going to get his.

Let me ask you to look at the other side of the coin for a bit Mike (and others). I see you're point about allowing a young man to earn a living. I support it and agree with it. So, what about the teams side of things? Should the Cleveland Cavaliers be forced to pay DeSegana Diop about $12 million dollars for basically being a 300+ pound waste of space? Why is it a travesty for Lebron James to be denied earning a living for two years and a player like Diop is made a multi-millionare even though he has no discernable skills other than being really big? Should Diop give the money back? Is there some responsibility on his part to accept less money? Should the Cavs have the option of terminating his contract because he's proven to be nowhere near worth what he's making? It's all well and go to use some sort arbritary age to say so-and-so should make a living and if he's denied that, that's wrong. What about the other side of it? What about those young men who are earning a living but really aren't worth it? Isn't that equally wrong?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> So, denying itself a potential revenue and PR bonanza for 2 years due to an arbitrary rule doesn't harm the league just because they never had it in the first place?


Not if that discipline could reap rewards in other areas. It's judgement call.



> there's no harm in having a winning lottery ticket and never claiming your prize for 2 years?


Equally extreme: What if you're working on your last 3 or 4 semesters of law school and know yourself well enough to know that once you have access to that money you're not going to be focused enough to finish your classes?

If you have 3 years to claim the prize, whats the harm in asking a family member to put it in a safe deposit for you where you won't have access to it so you can claim it in two years?

Thats the problem with these illustrations. Too extreme.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> Damn. Life's rough. Again, got me on that one. So, to take your argument further - why in the world should LeBron play high school ball for free? Hasn't he been hurt by playing four years of HS ball for free? This system sucks!


:laugh: Ahh fooey! Diet Pepsi on the keyboard and monitor again. :laugh:


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> So, what about the teams side of things? Should the Cleveland Cavaliers be forced to pay DeSegana Diop about $12 million dollars for basically being a 300+ pound waste of space? Why is it a travesty for Lebron James to be denied earning a living for two years and a player like Diop is made a multi-millionare even though he has no discernable skills other than being really big? Should Diop give the money back? Is there some responsibility on his part to accept less money? Should the Cavs have the option of terminating his contract because he's proven to be nowhere near worth what he's making? It's all well and go to use some sort arbritary age to say so-and-so should make a living and if he's denied that, that's wrong. What about the other side of it? What about those young men who are earning a living but really aren't worth it? Isn't that equally wrong?


Contracts can be terminated if it's apparent the player isn't holding up his end of things drug-wise (Shawn Kemp), conditioning-wise (Chris Childs), or jib-wise (Qyntel Woods). So yes, if there is a legally justified reason to terminate a contract, the team can proceed on that basis (and I have no problem with that).

But if the player just sucks or merely doesn't live up to expectations, well, that's another story. The Cavs have no one to blame but themselves for Diop's shortcomings, or those of four-year college graduate Trajan Langdon for that matter.

So in a nutshell your position is that you want an age limit because you don't trust the teams to make good personnel decisions, and you think college players are less likely to bust than 18-year-olds? Man . . . there isn't enough bandwidth for me to list all the horrible college-school draft picks over the years. I'm afraid an age limit will do nothing to stop that.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Why shouldn't the teams be held accountable for poor scouting and drafting? You don't have to draft HS players. They have a salary cap, a rookie salary cap, now they want an age limit. Anything to keep and help the owners reap more of the profits. Forget that, the Cavs didn't have to draft Diop. The Bulls could have drafted Battier and Troy Murphy. Why didn't they?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> I think it's pretty conclusive that an age limit hurts younger players.
> 
> LeBron... are you helped or hurt by having to play basketball basically for free for the next two years when, if the rule didn't exist, you'd be making many millions of dollars?
> 
> ...


Yeah, thats definately true. It also allows some players who would be drafted lower or not at all in the first round to be taken high because their flaws haven't been exposed the way they are (or would be) in college.

LeBron is a very special case. Veeery.

Could Magic or Bird have played in the league today straight from High School?

Could LeBron have enjoyed the same success straight from High School back in their first days in the league?


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

fl_flash said:


> How, exactly, does having an 18 year old in the league help it financially versus a 20 year old? I get the stance that the league would be "deprived" of the cash cow that is Lebron James for two years.


I've been one of those making this argument. And it's simply in response to the nearly absolute claim provided by you and GB that an age limit would unequivocally HELP the NBA. You provide no proof, yet decry the perceived lack of proof provided by those arguing the other way. Sure, the league would do fine without Lebron for 2 years. No one is disputing that. The question is whether holding Lebron out of the league for those 2 years helps or hurts the league. It wasn't a matter of scale until you and GB made it one because you had no other basis with which to argue against the claim. Lebron, in less than 2 years, has almost single-handedly made the Cleveland Cavaliers a relevant NBA team again, has sold who knows how much merchandise, and is already worth talking about as an MVP candidate. Holding him out of the league wouldn't help the league, it would hurt it. The fact that the league would "survive" without Lebron until age 20 is a retreat and an attempt to argue the point on more favorable ground, as far as I can tell. No one is saying an age limit would destroy the NBA, so that's not really the point of the discussion.

It's my personal opinion that the positive things Lebron has done as a teen balances out the drag that several Desagana Diops create, but that's obviously utterly subjective. I also don't think Lebron should be punished because guys like Diop were busts. Busts happen no matter how old the drafted player is. coughPervisEllisoncoughShawnRespertcough.

your "Lebron is getting screwed out of millions as a HS player" sarcasm seems like a red herring. High schools, even private ones, can't afford to shell out salaries to their players as far as I know, but the NCAA, with its TV contracts and such, probably can pay the Carmelo-type cash cow players something if they work at it. I don't like the fact that players of the highest caliber are punished so cruelly for accepting gifts, no matter their age, but what does that have to do with the NBA? Teenage players should be able to sign endorsement deals without consequence IMO. Kid actors do it and it doesn't ruin their college eligibility. The age of 18 is somewhat arbitrary, but even I'm aware that a line needs to be drawn somewhere. We allow people to vote at 18, smoke at 18, etc. Most young people don't enter the workforce in any sense other than part-time low-wage jobs until they're around that age. 20 or 21 is far "more" arbitrary than 18. I understand your allusion to the slippery slope (if 18's ok, it's only a matter of time until we have HS juniors in the draft, then sophs, etc.), but I don't see much debate over that idea. I think even the prep phenoms are OK with waiting until age 18.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

HKF said:


> Why shouldn't the teams be held accountable for poor scouting and drafting? You don't have to draft HS players. They have a salary cap, a rookie salary cap, now they want an age limit. Anything to keep and help the owners reap more of the profits. Forget that, the Cavs didn't have to draft Diop. The Bulls could have drafted Battier and Troy Murphy. Why didn't they?


Interesting stance. Again, you only want to look at one side of things and completely ignore the other. Same with Scott May. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that an age limit would help the owners reap more profits? Surely that can't be your stance. I mean, what a terrible thing to have happen! A business that is in the business of making a profit might have a vested interest in doing so. What next? Expecting airlines to take you to the city of your destination or to go where the pilot feels like? 

Do you think the Cavs take Diop @#7 if he'd have played two years _anywhere_ ? Yes, it is partially the Cavs fault for taking Diop. It's also been a drain on their resources because they've sunk quite a nice chunk of change in a resource that hasn't returned even 1/100th of the investment. To you, somehow, that's justified. I can't see how and yet here you are advocating just that.

I'm not arguing that the draft isn't a gamble. It always has been and always will be. I'm saying that by waiting two years, the littany of medicore HS players who have been selected may well have never been taken or would have been taken at a lower level which would have better approximated their value. Hence, a better wage scale for the player which makes the venture as a whole more profitable. In the end, whether you like it or not, that's beneficial for everyone.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> I'm not arguing that the draft isn't a gamble. It always has been and always will be. I'm saying that by waiting two years, the littany of medicore HS players who have been selected may well have never been taken or would have been taken at a lower level which would have better approximated their value. Hence, a better wage scale for the player which makes the venture as a whole more profitable. In the end, whether you like it or not, that's beneficial for everyone.


So what makes you right and everyone else wrong? Because Stern agrees with you? Stern has singlehandedly almost destroyed this league, with his stupid marketing gimmicks (star system, no accountability for referees, sweeping things under the rug in regards to MJ and others). I have to mention college basketball again, because it belabors my point. Carmelo Anthony had a 1.3 GPA at Syracuse during his year there. Had he come back to college, he would have been academically ineligible. Why didn't Boeheim push him to going to class, getting tutors and pulling his grades up? Since Carmelo won Jim his only championship, he's not going to say a bad word about the kid, but it's fairly obvious that Carmelo was never a student to begin with. Now, how is this is a mission statement for the NCAA. 

I have to keep reiterating this point. If guys don't want to go to college, they shouldn't have to. All you need to do is institute a viable minor league and I don't have a problem with an age limit. A more fair way of doing an age limit, would be like baseball. You can declare for the draft at 18 (the team will either put you in the minors or bring you to the big club) or you go to school for 2-3 years (depending on age) and you can't reply for the draft till that time is finished. That's much more fair.

Just making an 18 year old age limit for guys who might not be able to do the course work at college just to stay eligible doesn't seem right and saying well this will make them focus on their grades more isn't really a good argument because for years Nolan Richardson and Norm Stewart had guys who stayed 4 years who didn't even get close to getting their degrees. 

I don't want to see the college game benefit at all, with no regards to revamping their corrupt system and I am a college basketball fan, but I see truth.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

fl_flash said:


> I'm not arguing that the draft isn't a gamble. It always has been and always will be. I'm saying that by waiting two years, the littany of medicore HS players who have been selected may well have never been taken or would have been taken at a lower level which would have better approximated their value. Hence, a better wage scale for the player which makes the venture as a whole more profitable. In the end, whether you like it or not, that's beneficial for everyone.


So why is it somehow less appalling for a guy like Shawn Respert to be drafted #7 and be a huge drain on their teams, than a guy like Diop? The ratios of success to bust for high school players isn't that bad. What "littany" are you talking about? Diop, Leon Smith, Korleone Young, Ebi, Outlaw? There's a "littany" of college busts, too, and that was true before the prep-to-pro legacy began. While you could be right that a guy like Diop would be exposed as a stiff, the history of the draft suggests that there's a plenty-good chance that another stiff would take his place anyway.

The wage scale will always be skewed as long as guys like Michael Redd and Arenas go in the 2nd round and busts like Olowokandi go #1. Such is life in pro sports where scouting is a very inexact science. Happens in football too. I'm hardly convinced by that argument that it'd be "better for everyone", another unproven absolute. 

Whereas it's equally easy to name Lebron, Garnett, Kobe, Jermaine O'Neal, Dwight Howard, Amare, Harrington, Lewis, and it looks like Josh Smith, JR Smith, and Livingston are on their way to being productive players, if not stars, sooner rather than later too. guys like Curry, Chandler and Brown were drafted higher than their skill level deserved back in 01, but they certainly deserve to be in the league and probably deserved to be in the lottery that year regardless.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Travis Knight - 4 years at UConn
Jim McIllvaine - 4 years at Marquette
Todd Fuller - 4 years at NC State
Andrew Declerq - 4 years at Florida
Michael Olowokandi - 4 years at Pacific
Mark Blount - 3 years at Pitt
Eric Montross - 4 years at UNC
Greg Ostertag - 4 years at Kansas
Scott Pollard - 4 years at Kansas
Loren Woods - 5 years at Wake Forest/Arizona

Going to college doesn't make anyone less of a stiff. What did college do for their games? In some cases these guys have been stealing money from the league for years, but I don't see you having a problem with that.

I'm sure the majority of fans just loves seeing them play.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> How, exactly, does having an 18 year old in the league help it financially versus a 20 year old? I get the stance that the league would be "deprived" of the cash cow that is Lebron James for two years. I've stated that there would be something of a talent drought for two years. I also somehow think that a multi-billion dollar enterprise such as the National Basketball Association would function just fine if King Lebron were to die in some horrific accident tomorrow. Don't you? The sun will still rise and the NBA Marketing machine would move onto Dwayne Wade. I think you, and most of the others on this thread are assigning FAR too much value on an 18 year old basketball player. All that would happen is that the wonderous apparation that is King James would have to wait two more years to step onto the big stage. He would THEN make his mega-millions and all can be well with the world again.


I'm not sure I follow here. I never said it'd be horrible for the league to wait two years on a guy and then recoup even more reward than they'd get by not waiting. That's part of my whole point; it makes sense for the league to try and do just that!

My contention is just that it does so by denying a deserving guy a "seat at the table". In a way, that's no different than if the NBA robbed him.



> So, really what your saying is that Lebron is hurt because he can become a "gazillionare" at 18 verses a 20 year old "gazillionare"? Damn. Life's rough. Again, got me on that one. So, to take your argument further - why in the world should LeBron play high school ball for free? Hasn't he been hurt by playing four years of HS ball for free? This system sucks! Bron Bron should have been getting paid for his skills since the age of six!


If someone would pay him, sure. It happens in plenty of other entertainment venues.

I think where we might disagree is that I see a difference between complaining about whether a market will or won't pay someone and whether a person has an opportunity to get into the market in the first place.

Obviously you've got common sense age of majority issues, too, but the basic point of contention is not whether you _should_ try to get paid to play ball at age 12 but whether you're _allowed_ to try.

It's perfectly ok in my opinion to see people try and fail, but it's not ok to disallow people entirely.

Moreover, the interesting thing in this case- and where you really see that it's a *collusive* rule, is that without a rule, some team will certainly try to sign an 18 year old Lebron. Even without the imposition, a 6 year old Lebron is probably out of luck.



> Sounds pretty ridiculous huh? The age of 18 is pretty much arbritrary. Lebron is Lebron and whether he makes his millions at 16, 18 or 20 it's pretty much a given that he's going to get his.


It's not arbitrary though. That's the age of majority- we might make a case that the whole societal convention is arbitrary (an idea that will probably get this age limit business whacked in court), but once it becomes a societal convention it's no longer arbitrary to individuals within the system. 



> Let me ask you to look at the other side of the coin for a bit Mike (and others). I see you're point about allowing a young man to earn a living. I support it and agree with it. So, what about the teams side of things? Should the Cleveland Cavaliers be forced to pay DeSegana Diop about $12 million dollars for basically being a 300+ pound waste of space? Why is it a travesty for Lebron James to be denied earning a living for two years and a player like Diop is made a multi-millionare even though he has no discernable skills other than being really big? Should Diop give the money back? Is there some responsibility on his part to accept less money? Should the Cavs have the option of terminating his contract because he's proven to be nowhere near worth what he's making? It's all well and go to use some sort arbritary age to say so-and-so should make a living and if he's denied that, that's wrong. What about the other side of it? What about those young men who are earning a living but really aren't worth it? Isn't that equally wrong?


No, because there's the essential difference I mentioned before. The example you give of Diop features a contract written up by two sides who freely chose to enter into the contract and a framework agreed to by the players association (of whom DIOP is a member) and ownership (the Cavs are represented here). In the Lebron/age limit rule, one side has no seat at any table and is barred by a system in which he has no say whatsoever.

Your example is an agreement everyone believes will be mutually beneficial that doesn't work out according to expectations. That's life.

The age limit example is a non agreement imposed (rather than agreed to by all parties) for the expected benefit of some at the harm of others. It's collusion.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> Interesting stance. Again, you only want to look at one side of things and completely ignore the other. Same with Scott May. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that an age limit would help the owners reap more profits? Surely that can't be your stance. I mean, what a terrible thing to have happen! A business that is in the business of making a profit might have a vested interest in doing so. What next? Expecting airlines to take you to the city of your destination or to go where the pilot feels like?
> 
> Do you think the Cavs take Diop @#7 if he'd have played two years _anywhere_ ? Yes, it is partially the Cavs fault for taking Diop. It's also been a drain on their resources because they've sunk quite a nice chunk of change in a resource that hasn't returned even 1/100th of the investment. To you, somehow, that's justified. I can't see how and yet here you are advocating just that.
> 
> I'm not arguing that the draft isn't a gamble. It always has been and always will be. I'm saying that by waiting two years, the littany of medicore HS players who have been selected may well have never been taken or would have been taken at a lower level which would have better approximated their value. Hence, a better wage scale for the player which makes the venture as a whole more profitable. In the end, whether you like it or not, that's beneficial for everyone.


Can you name a single team that hasn't turned a profit STRICTLY because of high-school players they drafted that haven't panned out?

The Bulls have been the most profitable team in the league since drafting their high schoolers.

LeBron, as VF has pointed out, is the only reason there's still a pro basketball team in Cleveland. Kevin Garnett has been equally important to the Timberwolves.

Dirk Nowitzki was drafted as a sub-20, IIRC. Tracy McGrady. Kobe Bryant. Rashard Lewis. 

Cumulatively, the sub-20s are making the owners a freaking ton of money. The NBA has a revenue sharing system in place where the only way the owners can lose money is if they make bad decisions. 

Again, an age limit won't cure that.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> I've been one of those making this argument. And it's simply in response to the nearly absolute claim provided by you and GB that an age limit would unequivocally HELP the NBA. You provide no proof, yet decry the perceived lack of proof provided by those arguing the other way. Sure, the league would do fine without Lebron for 2 years. No one is disputing that. The question is whether holding Lebron out of the league for those 2 years helps or hurts the league. It wasn't a matter of scale until you and GB made it one because you had no other basis with which to argue against the claim. Lebron, in less than 2 years, has almost single-handedly made the Cleveland Cavaliers a relevant NBA team again, has sold who knows how much merchandise, and is already worth talking about as an MVP candidate. Holding him out of the league wouldn't help the league, it would hurt it. The fact that the league would "survive" without Lebron until age 20 is a retreat and an attempt to argue the point on more favorable ground, as far as I can tell. No one is saying an age limit would destroy the NBA, so that's not really the point of the discussion.


Well, since I don't think I've responded directly to you... Here goes!

I wonder if you and others even bother reading what I write or simply see my name, already know what I've written and then argue about things I've never said.

One more time, for the record. I don't believe that I've ever stated that an age limit would UNEQUIVOCABLY help the league. I've stated, this will be the fifth or sixth time now, that for two years there would be a talent drought. Do you get that? A talent drought. Are we clear on that yet? Can we move on now? Neither side has any proof and never will. I've also acknowledged that too. I'm not fully understanding your position because you state that the league would have been just fine without Lebron and then in the next sentences you state all the glorious things he's done. Is it somehow that Lebron couldn't have been a marketing bonaza at 20? Could he only have been as good as he has been at 18? Is it possible that there could have been even MORE HYPE and anticipation if Lebron had spent two years in College or some minor league or whatever and he was able to show the world that he's definatly for real? Are you saying that before Lebron James that the league was going defunct? See, I am old enough to remember the NBA when they only allowed graduating college seniors in the league. Games were played. Teams won Championships. I'm old enough to remember when the started to allow "hardship" cases in the league. Games were played. Championships were won. I've been around for the HS invasion. Games are played. Championships will be won.

All I'm saying is that whether Lebron hit the league at 18 or 20, he was/is going to be Lebron. If it took till he was 20 to get there, life would still go on and the league would have been just fine. Garnett, Bryant, Stoudamire, T-Mac and possibly even some of this years HS class are going to excel regardless of whether they're in the league now or had to wait until they were 20. In any event, they would be in the league and they'd be making the exact same impact they are now or more. That can only be good. Maybe a JR Smith stays in some league for a couple of years and rather than being an up-and-down contributor to the Hornets, he could be (in two years) a much more consistant, exciting contributor. Isn't that a better option than having to wait for two years for that hope to come to pass? It's as much the marginal HS talent that as it stands now are getting paid far beyond what they are really worth or producing.




> It's my personal opinion that the positive things Lebron has done as a teen balances out the drag that several Desagana Diops create, but that's obviously utterly subjective. I also don't think Lebron should be punished because guys like Diop were busts. Busts happen no matter how old the drafted player is. coughPervisEllisoncoughShawnRespertcough.


I wholly agree. Again, I'd be all over a workable minor league where, if a player demonstrates the skills required to play at the NBA level could do so, regardless of age, and if they didn't they could refine those skills in a more developmental environment where they are also earning a living - unlike college.



> your "Lebron is getting screwed out of millions as a HS player" sarcasm seems like a red herring. High schools, even private ones, can't afford to shell out salaries to their players as far as I know, but the NCAA, with its TV contracts and such, probably can pay the Carmelo-type cash cow players something if they work at it. I don't like the fact that players of the highest caliber are punished so cruelly for accepting gifts, no matter their age, but what does that have to do with the NBA? Teenage players should be able to sign endorsement deals without consequence IMO. Kid actors do it and it doesn't ruin their college eligibility. The age of 18 is somewhat arbitrary, but even I'm aware that a line needs to be drawn somewhere. We allow people to vote at 18, smoke at 18, etc. Most young people don't enter the workforce in any sense other than part-time low-wage jobs until they're around that age. 20 or 21 is far "more" arbitrary than 18. I understand your allusion to the slippery slope (if 18's ok, it's only a matter of time until we have HS juniors in the draft, then sophs, etc.), but I don't see much debate over that idea. I think even the prep phenoms are OK with waiting until age 18.


Again, on the whole, I agree. The sarcasm wasn't a red herring. It's equally applicable given the logic and arguments being bantied about. Hell, if the colleges would pay these guys even a fraction of what they're worth, I'd be all for it. Where do I sign up? I agree that even college ballers should be able to sign a shoe deal or otherwise accept "gifts". The NCAA's antiquated notion of the student-athlete is absurd. It may have worked prior to television and big corporate interests but now the games are simply cash cows for the respective institutions without compensating those that are providing the entertainment (the players).

See, you and I (and even the rest of the "no age limit" group) aren't all that far off. I just believe that after the two year drought (there it is again!) that teams will have a better (but not perfect) handle on where players skill sets are in relation to the league. If a system could be put into place where a player had the wherewithal to play at age 18 because they've shown the ability to do so, I'd be all for it. 

As an aside. I've really enjoyed going back and forth with you folks. For the most part it's been civil and clean. Nobody is going to convince anybody else to change their views and the arguments put forth by the "no age limit" contingent have been well thought out. I just don't happen to wholly agree with them!!! :biggrin:


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

So how did you feel about Spencer Haywood back in '70?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> the "no age limit" contingent


I'm a No Age Limit Soldier.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

fl_flash said:


> See, you and I (and even the rest of the "no age limit" group) aren't all that far off. I just believe that after the two year drought (there it is again!) that teams will have a better (but not perfect) handle on where players skill sets are in relation to the league. If a system could be put into place where a player had the wherewithal to play at age 18 because they've shown the ability to do so, I'd be all for it.


Admittedly, I didn't read the whole thread but I did read the last few pages. I agree with your analysis that this "efficient drafting" is not only a possible benefit to the age floor, but a likely benefit. But I think it is a collateral benefit to what the league really wants, and that is free marketing of its players before they are drafted.

I don't know if this was said earlier in the thread, but I believe the league's primary motivation in establishing this "floor" is so that when the players do eventually get drafted, Joe and Jane Six Pack know who the heck they are. There are a lot of people who follow college basketball who don't really follow the NBA anymore. The reason is because the elite only play for a year or don't go to college at all (or come from overseas). Hence, with very few exceptions like 'Melo and LeBron, these guys are drafted with very few "average" people knowing who they are. As a result, the college fan doesn't tune into a TBS Thursday night double header to watch "their guys" play - because they don't have any of "their guys" playing. "Their guys" went to Europe or became assistant coaches at Boise St. when their college careers ended.

As good as Greg Oden is expected to be, you all know people that won't watch a Pacers game to see him play unless they first watch him play 2 years for the Hoosiers, Boilermakers or whoever. Unless Oden makes his mark in college first, he's just another "punk high school millionare who went pro too soon" to a lot of people who otherwise might tune in to see him play - or buy his pro jersey - had he suited up as a Spartan for a couple of seasons.

This whole thing is about better marketing of NBA players by turning them into household names before they are ever drafted. The league has seen the dip in fan interest accompany the influx of highschool kids, college freshman, and foreign players in the lottery. The age floor is intended to correct that.

P.S. I don't agree with the concept, I'm just interpreting the motivation behind it.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I believe the league's primary motivation in establishing this "floor" is so that when the players do eventually get drafted, Joe and Jane Six Pack know who the heck they are. There are a lot of people who follow college basketball who don't really follow the NBA anymore. The reason is because the elite only play for a year or don't go to college at all (or come from overseas). Hence, with very few exceptions like 'Melo and LeBron, these guys are drafted with very few "average" people knowing who they are. As a result, the college fan doesn't tune into a TBS Thursday night double header to watch "their guys" play - because they don't have any of "their guys" playing. "Their guys" went to Europe or became assistant coaches at Boise St. when their college careers ended.
> 
> As good as Greg Oden is expected to be, you all know people that won't watch a Pacers game to see him play unless they first watch him play 2 years for the Hoosiers, Boilermakers or whoever. Unless Oden makes his mark in college first, he's just another "punk high school millionare who went pro too soon" to a lot of people who otherwise might tune in to see him play - or buy his pro jersey - had he suited up as a Spartan for a couple of seasons.
> 
> This whole thing is about better marketing of NBA players by turning them into household names before they are ever drafted. The league has seen the dip in fan interest accompany the influx of highschool kids, college freshman, and foreign players in the lottery. The age floor is intended to correct that.


This is a good post. If it's his primary motivation, then Stern is also an astute businessman.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

GB said:


> If it's his primary motivation, then Stern is also *an astute businessman*.


He's that, and then some.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Just wanted to throw this out there... Why not allow 16 year olds declare for the draft as well? 16 is the legal working age here in the states and we see the European (and Chinese?) leagues pay their kids when they're under 18.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> He's that, and then some.


Ron, 

I agree with your post on Stern's motives, even if I think he's way, way off base.

But this is actually one instance where I have to seriously question his business acumen: I think it's pretty unwise to give those who comprise what's emerging as the league's primary talent base -- 18-20 year-olds, foreign or domestic, who have absolutely no personal or economic interest in confining themselves to a college team or minor league -- ANY reason whatsoever to consider an option other than the NBA.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

fl_flash said:


> Well, since I don't think I've responded directly to you... Here goes!
> 
> I wonder if you and others even bother reading what I write or simply see my name, already know what I've written and then argue about things I've never said.


I read every word before I respond, usually. My responses did address your points, did they not? Conceding that there would be a brief talent drought is all well and good, but when you say that certain consequences of an age limit "will benefit everyone whether you (we) like it or not", that's awfully imperative language and almost borders on condescending. This whole argument is a set of hypotheticals for the most part, so I don't think anyone here, on either side, is qualified to set their opinion down as fact. Yes, you've stated certain concessions about how an age limit could temporarily be a step backward in a couple of ways, but that doesn't absolve you from certain, more concretely-worded claims. 



> One more time, for the record. I don't believe that I've ever stated that an age limit would UNEQUIVOCABLY help the league. I've stated, this will be the fifth or sixth time now, that for two years there would be a talent drought. Do you get that? A talent drought. Are we clear on that yet? Can we move on now? Neither side has any proof and never will. I've also acknowledged that too.


OK, fair enough. But decrying the opposition's argument for lack of proof seems a bit hypocritical when you have none of your own. That was my only real beef on that matter. The above comment is related to this.



> I'm not fully understanding your position because you state that the league would have been just fine without Lebron and then in the next sentences you state all the glorious things he's done. Is it somehow that Lebron couldn't have been a marketing bonaza at 20? Could he only have been as good as he has been at 18? Is it possible that there could have been even MORE HYPE and anticipation if Lebron had spent two years in College or some minor league or whatever and he was able to show the world that he's definatly for real?


I don't see why you're having trouble understanding my position...Yes, the league would do fine without Lebron. BUT LEBRON'S ABSENCE STILL WOULD HURT THE LEAGUE. It's not an either/or proposition, but you seem to be making it one. The league would lose 2 years worth of Lebron's positive influence and marketability, and they wouldn't be able to get it back. He'll only play until he's 40 at the oldest most likely, whether he had come out at 18 or 20. That's 2 years of foregone benefits. Can they wait until he's 20? Sure! That doesn't change the fact that they'd have been better off letting him play at 18. Ask the Cleveland Cavaliers if there would be no negative consequence from holding Lebron out until age 20. That team was a wasteland before he got there. Could he have generated more hype in a minor league? In Lebron's case, I freaking doubt it since he was immediately a near-superstar type of player. He was for real from his very first game when he scored 27 (or whatever) against the Kings. In other players' cases, you might be on to something.




> Are you saying that before Lebron James that the league was going defunct? See, I am old enough to remember the NBA when they only allowed graduating college seniors in the league. Games were played. Teams won Championships. I'm old enough to remember when the started to allow "hardship" cases in the league. Games were played. Championships were won. I've been around for the HS invasion. Games are played. Championships will be won.


OK, here's where I get to ask you if you're reading MY posts. I explicitly said in the post you were responding to that no one is saying the league would have to fold if it holds out Lebron for two years. I do, however, as stated above and several times now, think they'd be hurting themselves by doing so. The fact that that harm isn't enough to sink the league is neither here nor there.



> All I'm saying is that whether Lebron hit the league at 18 or 20, he was/is going to be Lebron. If it took till he was 20 to get there, life would still go on and the league would have been just fine.


probably, but that's two years where he can rupture an achilles or have some other event derail his career. While you might say that the NBA would just move on to the next phenom, and that's true to an extent, Lebron is a once-in-a-generation kind of talent and the NBA would have missed out on having him at the table, as MikeDC would say. Even if he was destined to rupture his achilles regardless of where he was playing, that'd still be 1-2 years of foregone benefit because of the age limit. Yes, the league would move on in his absence and do fine, but that doesn't mean they didn't hurt themselves.



> Isn't that a better option than having to wait for two years for that hope to come to pass? It's as much the marginal HS talent that as it stands now are getting paid far beyond what they are really worth or producing.


marginal talent is marginal talent. At least with HS players, there's some hope that they have a future. If you draft a stiff after 4 years of college, are you really going to have any hope for him to improve? They're equally draining on teams except that the younger guy might have the proverbial higher ceiling, and teams seem to be exercising more caution in drafting HS players at the top after the underwhelming Chandler/Curry class.



> I wholly agree. Again, I'd be all over a workable minor league where, if a player demonstrates the skills required to play at the NBA level could do so, regardless of age, and if they didn't they could refine those skills in a more developmental environment where they are also earning a living - unlike college.


That's exactly what I'd love to see. I'd have a minor league system where the premier prospects can be paid 6 figures and prepare for the NBA against lesser, but still competitive talent, and get called up whenever the team thinks they can help. College would be further weakend by this, but at this point I feel little sympathy for them, as I feel like the NCAA is too stubborn to adapt to changing conditions.



> Again, on the whole, I agree. The sarcasm wasn't a red herring. It's equally applicable given the logic and arguments being bantied about. Hell, if the colleges would pay these guys even a fraction of what they're worth, I'd be all for it. Where do I sign up? I agree that even college ballers should be able to sign a shoe deal or otherwise accept "gifts". The NCAA's antiquated notion of the student-athlete is absurd. It may have worked prior to television and big corporate interests but now the games are simply cash cows for the respective institutions without compensating those that are providing the entertainment (the players).
> 
> See, you and I (and even the rest of the "no age limit" group) aren't all that far off. I just believe that after the two year drought (there it is again!) that teams will have a better (but not perfect) handle on where players skill sets are in relation to the league. If a system could be put into place where a player had the wherewithal to play at age 18 because they've shown the ability to do so, I'd be all for it.
> 
> As an aside. I've really enjoyed going back and forth with you folks. For the most part it's been civil and clean. Nobody is going to convince anybody else to change their views and the arguments put forth by the "no age limit" contingent have been well thought out. I just don't happen to wholly agree with them!!! :biggrin:


fair enough. :cheers:


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> That's still 2 years that the league doesn't have Lebron. That hurts the league. I'm not saying that the league would fold without Lebron, but denying a player with his ability the chance to play in it when he's obviously ready does hurt the league (and the player).
> 
> What if Lebron ruptures his achilles in college? Gloom and doom scenario I admit, but it could happen. He might never get the chance to improve the league or make the salary he deserves in that case..


is it really all that gloomy considering john chaney recently sent in a goon (his word not mine) to foul someone and that player now has a broken arm because of it.

Its alot to ask someone to put off their future job aspirations just because of an arbitrary rule that is given without consideration if a person is good enough to qualified to play.

I always hear about the impoverished african american who cant wait because he needs the money, or took some money he wasn't supposed to because of circumstances well within his control , but did tracy mcgrady need the $ , did kobe? , did eddy curry ?

is robert swift an impoverished african american?

the NFL can with some security say that football players straight out of high school cant handle the rigors of professional football, but its not something the nba can say at all , for one theres that lebron guy running around who pretty much destroys that theory , its obvious if you are good enough in basketball you just are, 2 straight from high school players have won rookie of the year awards and dwight howard is at least in the running this year although its very doubtful he will finish above 3rd .


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

happygrinch said:


> is it really all that gloomy considering john chaney recently sent in a goon (his word not mine) to foul someone and that player now has a broken arm because of it.


Good point. Most players aren't critically injured between ages 18-20, but it certainly happens. That was my point. I think you agree?



> Its alot to ask someone to put off their future job aspirations just because of an arbitrary rule that is given without consideration if a person is good enough to qualified to play.


Yep. That's one of the tenets implicit in my arguments in this thread.



> I always hear about the impoverished african american who cant wait because he needs the money, or took some money he wasn't supposed to because of circumstances well within his control , but did tracy mcgrady need the $ , did kobe? , did eddy curry ?
> 
> is robert swift an impoverished african american?


Did those guys disqualify themselves by taking gifts? (I honestly don't know) If they did, well, that was silly of them I guess. I was talking more so about the guys who ARE in tough financial and domestic situations and would have a lot of trouble passing up substantial gifts. Just because not EVERY prep-to-pro or top prospect fits that mold doesn't mean it's not a situation worth addressing. 




> the NFL can with some security say that football players straight out of high school cant handle the rigors of professional football, but its not something the nba can say at all , for one theres that lebron guy running around who pretty much destroys that theory , its obvious if you are good enough in basketball you just are, 2 straight from high school players have won rookie of the year awards and dwight howard is at least in the running this year although its very doubtful he will finish above 3rd .


yep. if you haven't, keep reading the thread. There's more about this stuff further back, too (not so much the physical rigors part, more the "if they're good enough to produce, they should be in regardless of age (within reason)" part)


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Ron,
> 
> I agree with your post on Stern's motives, even if I think he's way, way off base.
> 
> But this is actually one instance where I have to seriously question his business acumen: I think it's pretty unwise to give those who comprise what's emerging as the league's primary talent base -- 18-20 year-olds, foreign or domestic, who have absolutely no personal or economic interest in confining themselves to a college team or minor league -- ANY reason whatsoever to consider an option other than the NBA.


The NBA is, and will always be the ultimate basketball league. It also has the advantage of being located in America...their home and the land of their birth.

It doesn't matter where they spend those three years...when they get the opportunity to play in the NBA...they're a'coming.

No doubt.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Ron,
> 
> I agree with your post on Stern's motives, even if I think he's way, way off base.
> 
> But this is actually one instance where I have to seriously question his business acumen: I think it's pretty unwise to give those who comprise what's emerging as the league's primary talent base -- 18-20 year-olds, foreign or domestic, who have absolutely no personal or economic interest in confining themselves to a college team or minor league -- ANY reason whatsoever to consider *an option other than the NBA.*


There isn't one. I understand what you are saying and in theory it is logical, but in application it probably isn't. Kids from Serbia now grow up hoping to come to America to play in the NBA. Going to USC for a couple of years isn't going to make a kid from Oakland change his NBA dream - particularly when he'll be in the same boat as everyone else. 

Could someone pull a Desmond Howard and go to a different pro league? Sure, but it will have about as big an impact on the NBA as Desmond Howard's move had on the NFL. At least thats what I predict.

Not only is Stern's reason sound, but he'll be proven right about the impact it will have on the league's ability to market its players to a wider fan base. Like I said, I disagree with the principle of the an age floor because I consider it a restraint on employment and trade. But I think it ultimately will help the league from a marketing standpoint - it just denies adequately talented kids two extra years of salary in the process.


----------



## Ron Mexico (Feb 14, 2004)

golf, tennis, soccer, hockey, baseball don't have age limits why should basketball??


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

sboydell said:


> golf, tennis, soccer, hockey, baseball don't have age limits why should basketball??


Or football?


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I don't know if this was said earlier in the thread, but I believe the league's primary motivation in establishing this "floor" is so that when the players do eventually get drafted, Joe and Jane Six Pack know who the heck they are. There are a lot of people who follow college basketball who don't really follow the NBA anymore. The reason is because the elite only play for a year or don't go to college at all (or come from overseas). Hence, with very few exceptions like 'Melo and LeBron, these guys are drafted with very few "average" people knowing who they are. As a result, the college fan doesn't tune into a TBS Thursday night double header to watch "their guys" play - because they don't have any of "their guys" playing. "Their guys" went to Europe or became assistant coaches at Boise St. when their college careers ended.
> 
> As good as Greg Oden is expected to be, you all know people that won't watch a Pacers game to see him play unless they first watch him play 2 years for the Hoosiers, Boilermakers or whoever. Unless Oden makes his mark in college first, he's just another "punk high school millionare who went pro too soon" to a lot of people who otherwise might tune in to see him play - or buy his pro jersey - had he suited up as a Spartan for a couple of seasons.
> 
> ...


This is a very well-written post. I agree that this is the league's motivation for an age limit, along with the added bonus of reducing the number of years players are eligible for max contracts. I worry about unintended consequences that might throw a wrench in the works. Espeically since a good deal of the early entry is an unintended consequence of other provisions in the CBA.

But what is really frustrating to me is that Joe and Jane Sixpack are already in the process of ruining this country, and it pains me to see them getting their grips on the NBA and potentially making it worse, as well. And all because Joe and Jane Sixpack will not accept young "punks" making a lot of money in the NBA if they have not had the pleasure of watching them being exploited by colleges and especially college coaches for two or three years.

Ugh! It just makes me sick.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> But what is really frustrating to me is that Joe and Jane Sixpack are already in the process of ruining this country


Why do you say this? The condensed version. 

I think if Joe and Jane Sixpack have a problem with 'young punks', the social rot will migrate from the NBA to the college ranks in their eyes.

How long before we hear complaints from them about public universities wasting a $50,000 scholarship on someone just so they can play basketball? Actually, it'll be the guys that aren't fans making those complaints.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Stern knows that immaturity and childlike mistakes can do as much harm to a league built on entertainment value as bad play can do.
> 
> For every behaving, teenage Kevin Garnett coming straight out of high school, there is at least one Carmelo Anthony seemingly making a fool of himself at every turn.
> 
> ...


http://www.suntimes.com/output/telander/cst-spt-rick021.html


----------



## theyoungsrm (May 23, 2003)

GB said:


> ...playing basketball. They can still join the Carpenters or Plumbers Union and earn a check from day 1 to take care of their family with while learning a skill.


its comments like these where you know people are totally disconnected from the world they discuss.....you're a athlete coming out of high school...you have no real skill and no family to support you...in fact, you have to support them.....you also have a dream of playing professional basketball....in the inner city, you just dont walk up to the plummers union


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> This is a very well-written post. I agree that this is the league's motivation for an age limit, along with the added bonus of reducing the number of years players are eligible for max contracts. I worry about unintended consequences that might throw a wrench in the works. Espeically since a good deal of the early entry is an unintended consequence of other provisions in the CBA.


Agree with this 100%. That's my opinion of their motivation too.

On the other hand...



> But what is really frustrating to me is that Joe and Jane Sixpack are already in the process of ruining this country, and it pains me to see them getting their grips on the NBA and potentially making it worse, as well. And all because Joe and Jane Sixpack will not accept young "punks" making a lot of money in the NBA if they have not had the pleasure of watching them being exploited by colleges and especially college coaches for two or three years.
> 
> Ugh! It just makes me sick.


This is not only way out in left field, it's so completely at odds with what you say agree with in the first paragraph I have trouble making sense of it. It's snooty and elitist, but at the same time completely misses the point about who "the elite" and who "Joe Sixpack" are.

The fact that its snooty and elitist sounding itself just rubs me the wrong way. There are plenty of guys here who disagree with me on the position, yet I think are doing a fine job of arguing a well thought out case. The Joe Sixpack implication that anyone who disagrees with you (Mr. Ph.D) is some rube is dangerous to say the least, if only because its an easy way to turn off the debate. Again, it's how things are said, not what's said.

But more importantly, just look at what's actually going on here. *The people we *agree* are pushing for the age limit sure as hell ain't Joe Sixpack!* David Stern? Billy Hunter? The guys running the NCAA and AAU basketball programs?

*Those guys are the elites.*

And they are the guys pushing for this to happen.

Of course guys like LeBron might qualify as elites, but your Oussamme Cisses and even your Eddy Currys basically don't, at least before they are allowed into the system. And all they are asking for is the same right that every Joe Sixpack should have to go out and work in whatever field he thinks he's get the chance and the desire to do bet in. THEY are the Joe Sixpacks, and THEY are the guys getting screwed. That's the whole point.

Moreover, I just don't see the hue and cry for an age limit from the general public. Some folks are, and for some legitimate reasons (although I don't think it will solve the problems they see- which are real). But you see just as many folks here (which at least forms a sample of what us Joe Sixpacks think) who think the age limit is a stupid idea.

All I'm pointing out is that there is a split in popular opinion over it. It doesn't have to be a 50/50 split or anything, it's enough to say its well divided. Given that its divided, its pretty unlikely they're imposing this rule just to make Joe Sixpack happy.

But I don't get why you tack on this case in the first place when you've already agreed the motivation is to make money by (largely) making use of the college marketing machine (which itself is another elite served by the age limit rule).


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

theyoungsrm said:


> its comments like these where you know people are totally disconnected from the world they discuss.....you're a athlete coming out of high school...you have no real skill and no family to support you...in fact, you have to support them.....you also have a dream of playing professional basketball....in the inner city, you just dont walk up to the plummers union


It was an example. I wish there was a smiley for stuff that goes over peoples heads...


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> This is not only way out in left field, it's so completely at odds with what you say agree with in the first paragraph I have trouble making sense of it. It's snooty and elitist, but at the same time completely misses the point about who "the elite" and who "Joe Sixpack" are.
> 
> The fact that its snooty and elitist sounding itself just rubs me the wrong way. There are plenty of guys here who disagree with me on the position, yet I think are doing a fine job of arguing a well thought out case. The Joe Sixpack implication that anyone who disagrees with you (Mr. Ph.D) is some rube is dangerous to say the least, if only because its an easy way to turn off the debate. Again, it's how things are said, not what's said.
> 
> ...


I don't think my snootiness is the issue here. What I think the marketing is all about is getting Joe and Jane Sixpack to not find NBA players so revolting. In a way it is Joe and Jane Sixpack's revulsion towards the young "punks" making big bucks in the NBA that I am a reacting to. I do, however, believe that race and class play a role in Joe and Jane Sixpack's feelings about NBA players, and it does bother me that the NBA product might suffer in order to placate Joe and Jane Sixpack. I don't mind the placating in general, but placating them because of misguided sentiments driven partially by race and class is what irks me.

So feel free to call me a snooty professor who is looking down on the rest of the world, but the folks that I supposedly am looking down upon include my parents and my wife's parents. They also include most of the folks that I grew up with and most of the professors that I work with.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> I do, however, believe that race and class play a role in Joe and Jane Sixpack's feelings about NBA players


No doubt about that. As evidenced by the fact that when a Josh Smith goes pro theres all sorts of hand-wringing and moaning about the decline of the pro game and the need for the "college experience" yet when Darko becomes the youngest drafted player ever, no one says anything.

Its also why no one complains about 16 year old pro tennis players, 19 year old golfers, and 18 year old minor league baseball players. Its all basketball baby, and its no coincidence that it just happens to be considered the "inner city" sport of choice.

Not to change the subject or anything. :biggrin:


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Can a mod or admin adjust the title of the thread?


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> No doubt about that. As evidenced by the fact that when a Josh Smith goes pro theres all sorts of hand-wringing and moaning about the decline of the pro game and the need for the "college experience" yet when Darko becomes the youngest drafted player ever, no one says anything.


Couldn't this perceived double standard have been because scouts were saying that Darko was the Lebron of Europe? And weren't many scouts saying Josh Smith was incredibly raw and some college would have been good for him? 

I'm not saying that racism doesn't exist, but I do think people are too quick to play that card these days. Stern's motivation is to screw the young black man? Sorry, but I don't buy it. Get free publicity for 2-3 years? Possibly, but I don't see how that will be accomplished with a minor league system. How familiar are you guys with minor league baseball players? As far as I can tell, the NBDL or whatever that league evolves to won't have the marketing power that would come close to the NBA. Heck, we can barely see our own games televised, let alone a minor league's game. I think Stern's motivation is a concern for the game. Just a guess, but Stern sees how long it's taken some franchises (<b>read Bulls and Wizards</b>) to get back to respectability and how Paxson was able to jumpstart our makeover by drafting winners from strong college programs.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

sp00k said:


> *Couldn't this perceived double standard have been because scouts were saying that Darko was the Lebron of Europe? And weren't many scouts saying Josh Smith was incredibly raw and some college would have been good for him? *
> 
> I'm not saying that racism doesn't exist, but I do think people are too quick to play that card these days. *Stern's motivation is to screw the young black man? Sorry, but I don't buy it. * Get free publicity for 2-3 years? Possibly, but I don't see how that will be accomplished with a minor league system. How familiar are you guys with minor league baseball players? As far as I can tell, the NBDL or whatever that league evolves to won't have the marketing power that would come close to the NBA. Heck, we can barely see our own games televised, let alone a minor league's game. I think Stern's motivation is a concern for the game. Just a guess, but Stern sees how long it's taken some franchises (<b>read Bulls and Wizards</b>) to get back to respectability and how Paxson was able to jumpstart our makeover by drafting winners from strong college programs.


Darko and Josh Smith were examples. But the same applies to Diop, Curry, Chandler, Kwame, J.R. Smith, etc. - everyone but LeBron. On the other end of it, you didn't hear anyone complaining about Radmanovich, Gasol, Turkoglu, Peja, that big Russion or any Euro teenager. They were just in the draft. No concerned discussion at all. I don't "play the race card" period and I'm not playing it here. I'm simply stating the undeniable truth about a collective set of circumstances.

And for the record, spook, I didn't say anything about Stern trying to "screw the young black man." How you derived that from my post is beyond me. I've already stated what I think Stern's motivation is - marketing. I've got nothing but respect for the man, I'm not criticizing him at all.

I'm simply pointing out the flood of commentary from media and fans alike about concern over "high school kids" going pro in the NBA - all of whom have been black - when there is no such concern expressed about the teenagers who go pro in historically "white" sports like tennis, baseball, and basketball. Also, to preemptively address any "apples and oranges" arguments directed to comparing separate sports, I pointed out that the white teenagers who routinely declare for the NBA draft - all European - do so without a word of concerned commentary other than "how do you pronounce that guy's name."

Is there any other reasonable explanation other than the conclusion that it is based on race and class issues? In my opinion there is not.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Sorry Ron, entire post wasn't directed towards you. I've just seen race brought up as a factor several times in this discussion while no one else has disputed it.

But to get on track, could it be that the foreigners have panned out for the most part? Skita looks to be a bust but the others that you listed have either worked out or were drafted too low to really be of consequence (if draft position will be used as an argument). Hard to say outright, but if Yao Ming, Nene and Gasol took the same learning curve as Eddy, Kwame, Diop, and Tyson then we'd hear a lot more belly aching about the Europeans/foreigners. And I can all but guarantee that we'll hear it if Biedrins and Darko end up busts, regardless of skin color.

As far as why the historically white sports are concerned, such as golf and tennis - could it be these are mostly individual sports where the participant needs to pay to enter? And isn't baseball a team sport comprised of 25 players where if you don't play you eventually find yourself in the minors (at a modest wage)? Those environments are pretty much sink or swim.

Personally, I don't see this based on race or class. Stern is concerned about the degradation of the game. To look at things from a wider lens, four HSers were drafted in the first eight picks and still have yet to scratch their potential. Three of the four will be up for multimillion dollar extensions for production that doesn't warrant such. The US has been getting their butts handed to them in international play. Scouts are searching for the next big thing in HS and junior HS gyms. Whether these players getting impacted most were black or white is irrelevant IMO. It would have been growing concern regardless and Stern would have acted upon it.

But again I throw this out there. If no to a 20 year old age limit, why not allow 16 year olds to declare as well? Or at the minimum 17? Afterall, you can get in the Army at 17.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> No doubt about that. As evidenced by the fact that when a Josh Smith goes pro theres all sorts of hand-wringing and moaning about the decline of the pro game and the need for the "college experience" yet when Darko becomes the youngest drafted player ever, no one says anything.
> 
> Its also why no one complains about 16 year old pro tennis players, 19 year old golfers, and 18 year old minor league baseball players. Its all basketball baby, and its no coincidence that it just happens to be considered the "inner city" sport of choice.
> 
> Not to change the subject or anything. :biggrin:


I think this is all true, but my bone of contention with Dan is that I don't think David Stern gives a rat's hindquarters about this. (So I'm changing the subject right back  ).

He's not concerned with catering to the prejudices of Joe Sixpack, he's concerned with selling him product.

From his perspective, there's not much difference between Darko and Josh Smith. If anything, there's actually some benefit to the culture war over Smith, because that at least generates some interest. Darko is a flatliner.

Point is, yes, the culture/racism thing is there, but it's not driving the bus. What's driving the bus is Joe Sixpack's love of the college game, even though there's a lot of hypocritical garbage under the facade of the "scholar athlete".

People love their college teams- casual fans who don't care about the NBA in other contexts will ask me how MoPete or Mateen Cleeves or Jason Richardson are doing. 

Because those bonds are so tight, it draws fan interest into the league in a way Darko or Smith doesn't.

That's what Stern and co are worried about, no placating the unwasheds desire for crew cuts and nice jibs.

*It's not cause Josh Smith is a black kid that turns off the average casual fan. The average casual fan roots for all the other black kids on his favorite college team. But he doesn't root for kids he's never heard of, and he gets a vague sense of discomfort when he sees people cashing in like Smith and bypassing the college system (which they enjoy watching) altogether. It forces us to confront the hypocrisy of the system, and the easy response to that is often to blame the guy who makes us confront it.*

But by and large, I think, the fans in general aren't the guys making a big deal about it. It's the "pros" in the college basketball world who see their fat cat livelihoods slipping away with every Josh Smith who doesn't get suckered in by them.



Ron Cey said:


> Is there any other reasonable explanation other than the conclusion that it is based on race and class issues? In my opinion there is not.


And those pros don't care about Darko because they never had a chance to get their hooks in him in the first place. Josh Smith, however, left the plantation, and that's something that college and AAU pundits fear and loathe in a way well beyond what the typical fan may care about (although the former will attempt with all their power to stir up the latter).


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> But by and large, I think, the fans in general aren't the guys making a big deal about it. It's the "pros" in the college basketball world who see their fat cat livelihoods slipping away with every Josh Smith who doesn't get suckered in by them.
> 
> 
> 
> And those pros don't care about Darko because they never had a chance to get their hooks in him in the first place. Josh Smith, however, left the plantation, and that's something that college and AAU pundits fear and loathe in a way well beyond what the typical fan may care about (although the former will attempt with all their power to stir up the latter).


Although I think fans do make a little bit bigger of a deal out of the situation than you suggest, I agree 100% with your take on the "pros" of collegiate athletics. You couldn't be more right.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Although I think fans do make a little bit bigger of a deal out of the situation than you suggest, I agree 100% with your take on the "pros" of collegiate athletics. You couldn't be more right.


Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

sp00k said:


> Personally, I don't see this based on race or class. Stern is concerned about the degradation of the game.


I want to reiterate one point, sp00k. I don't think Stern is doing anything for racial reasons. I think he's completely above all that, is a stand-up guy and, yes, one who is concerned about the degradation of the game in the sense that it makes his product harder to sell. He's actually like a quasi-hero of mine. My comments on the link between race and "early" entry are referring to fans and the press (and by press I'm including the "pros" that MikeDC referred to).


----------



## Illstate2 (Nov 11, 2003)

Why can't the NBA have the colleges act as their minor league?

If a guy isn't ready to come in and play, send him down to a university somewhere. Pay all of his school expenses, and give him a stipend that is a limited portion of what he'd be making if he was playing in the league.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Illstate2 said:


> Why can't the NBA have the colleges act as their minor league?
> 
> If a guy isn't ready to come in and play, send him down to a university somewhere. Pay all of his school expenses, and give him a stipend that is a limited portion of what he'd be making if he was playing in the league.


Then the NBA team would still have his rights, is that right? Its creative, but I think it creates a pretty significant conflict of interest between the NBA team and the college team.

Edit: Although, I think a variation on what you are proposing used to be allowed. I might be totally wrong about this, but didn't Boston draft Larry Bird the draft before his senior year at Indiana State? I'm going to go look it up (something I should have done before posting this and running the risk of looking like an idiot).


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Whew! I don't look like an idiot (this time).

Link: http://www.basketballreference.com/draft/draftyear.htm?yr=1978&lg=N

The Celtics acquired Bird's draft rights after his Junior season with the 6th pick, thereby taking the risk that he wouldn't get hurt his senior year before joining their roster. I don't know when this practice was barred.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Wasn't Larry Bird drafted a year before he actually would play? How was that pulled off?

Ultimately, I think the only answer will be to pay NCAA athletes. Unfortunately, doing this will completely destroy some athletic programs. For example, who's going to bother going to SIU or ISU? Not to mention what this might do for other college sports such as gymnastics, swimming, or even polo. Maybe the league can come up with a solution where the U-20 crowd can be drafted but have a contract in the realm of 2 years guaranteed, 5 years team option at the rookie scale that can be exercised annually by the team? Otherwise those that are 20 get a guaranteed 4 year deal?


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

It's not fair to expect exceptional basketball/football players to pay for the entire athletic department (Title IX), but all they receive is a college education. A minor league would be fine with me, although college fans wouldn't like it, tough. I watch college basketball personally for the little guy to knock off the major schools.


----------



## Illstate2 (Nov 11, 2003)

I wonder why they stopped allowing that to happen.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

HKF said:


> all they receive is a college education.


How much is four years at Duke or Princeton going for these days?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

GB said:


> How much is four years at Duke or Princeton going for these days?


In the case of the former, nowhere even remotely as much as the revenue generated by the men's basketball team divided by the number of players on the team.

But for a non-revenue-generating student, I think it's closing in on pretty damn close to $200,000.


----------



## BealeFarange (May 22, 2004)

I'm confused as to why it's a "solution" of any kind to offer SHORTER contracts to guys that are under 20. What the heck would the Bulls have gained w/ Eddy and Tyson in that scenario? It may have knocked both of them into school--maybe--but they both would have been picked up by someone after two years for the same reason the Bulls drafted them: Potential. But the team that did draft them, the Bulls in this case, wouldn't have nearly enough time to evaluate the KNOWN projects that are willingly drafted.

Heck, if anything, sign these kids to longer contracts for less money and expand NBA rosters/create a minor league. That limits the risk of drafting them--and that's the REAL issue here. There is NO question that the kids benefit far more from being in the league and getting paid than they do being treated like superstars for peanuts at a college program...and if the NBA doesn't think so, stop drafting them until they have the "experience" you think the job "requires."


----------



## BealeFarange (May 22, 2004)

GB said:


> How much is four years at Duke or Princeton going for these days?


This is irrelevant. Getting a college degree for most of these guys is superfluous. They already have the innate skills they need to be succesful, contributing members of society. They don't need to go to college any more than a brilliant young entrepeneur "needs" to go to college or a supermodel, actor/actress, rock star, bank robber, or trapeze artist. 

The value of college to these kids is nowhere near 200,000 bucks...unless it puts them in a much better basketball situation than getting drafted out of high school would. Great for Kirk Hinrich (certainly not an NBA prospect out of high school) and bad for Chris Duhon (whose stock silpped and slipped the closer he got to his degree) or obviously Lebron, who got the most money possible by being the #1 pick and getting endorsement deals. Where's the value added in a college degree for Lebron James?


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

BealeFarange said:


> I'm confused as to why it's a "solution" of any kind to offer SHORTER contracts to guys that are under 20. What the heck would the Bulls have gained w/ Eddy and Tyson in that scenario? It may have knocked both of them into school--maybe--but they both would have been picked up by someone after two years for the same reason the Bulls drafted them: Potential. But the team that did draft them, the Bulls in this case, wouldn't have nearly enough time to evaluate the KNOWN projects that are willingly drafted.
> 
> Heck, if anything, sign these kids to longer contracts for less money and expand NBA rosters/create a minor league. That limits the risk of drafting them--and that's the REAL issue here. There is NO question that the kids benefit far more from being in the league and getting paid than they do being treated like superstars for peanuts at a college program...and if the NBA doesn't think so, stop drafting them until they have the "experience" you think the job "requires."


 Please re-read my post. I said 2 years guaranteed with a team option for 5 additional years to be exercised annually. A total of 7 years for that first rookie contract for those under 20..


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

sp00k said:


> Please re-read my post. I said 2 years guaranteed with a team option for 5 additional years to be exercised annually. A total of 7 years for that first rookie contract for those under 20..


Baseball does something similar. The teams get to hold the rights to minor league prospects for I think 6 years. Thus the risk of losing a prospect before you know what he can do is diminished. That's not a bad idea.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I think it's closing in on pretty damn close to $200,000.


So they recieve good valued in the near six figures to play basketball?

Not bad for an 18 year old.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

BealeFarange said:


> This is irrelevant. Getting a college degree for most of these guys is superfluous. They already have the innate skills they need to be succesful, contributing members of society.


For a handful of them (literally). And they're only guaranteed 20-22 years of work at the most for the best of the best of them. Then they have another 30-40 years to figure out how to be "succesful, contributing members of society".

Wouldn't do to end up like Rodman when a free education at the best institutions was there for the taking.


----------



## BealeFarange (May 22, 2004)

Yikes, I'm sorry sp00k...I'm a little overexcited today for various reasons and this whole age-limit thing has me in a tizzy. I also was wrong in another post about Colvin being cut. Sheesh!

I think a two year guarantee with a five year annual option is a GREAT idea but still doesn't really solve anything because the players would still make the leap and the potential would still sucker the Gm's into at least two more seasons at a decent price. In this case, then, the players that do deserve more money would be locked in at less for a longer period...but not so much less that they'd go to college instead for two years. 

Sorry!


----------



## BealeFarange (May 22, 2004)

GB said:


> For a handful of them (literally). And they're only guaranteed 20-22 years of work at the most for the best of the best of them. Then they have another 30-40 years to figure out how to be "succesful, contributing members of society".
> 
> Wouldn't do to end up like Rodman when a free education at the best institutions was there for the taking.


First off, Dennis went to college. Two, actually. I'm not sure he has a degree 100% but he was there long enough to benefit from higher education.

Secondly, some of these players just aren't interested in college, though...MOST of these players just aren't interested. If I could work 20-22 years and then retire a rich and famous man, I would. I think most of the players have no problems keeping themselves busy. Sure you get the occasional Rodman or Jayson Williams (or MJ ) that doesn't really know what to do with himself upon retirement...but they have the means to do whatever they'd like. 

Once they're out of the NBA, they can get private tutors and Nobel Laureates to tutor them privately for the fees they can afford. While they're in the prime of their physical abilities, however, and can capitalize in the NBA, they might as well do so. Heck, they can even go back to school while they're in the NBA (Vince, anyone?) _ if that's what they want to do. _

edit: And I do think you mean "figuratively" when speaking of a handful of NBA players...unless you're getting all religious on us...


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

GB said:


> So they recieve good valued in the near six figures to play basketball?
> 
> Not bad for an 18 year old.


Yup, not bad for them, but much better for the school.

In 2002, Duke's men's basketball team generated revenues of 9.3 million dollars and spent only 4.8 of it LINK, earning the athletic department a tidy 4.5 million dollar profit. Let's assume that at Duke, 2002 wasn't an anomaly, and that over the course of four years, the basketball team will earn $20 million dollars. A scholarship basketball player accounts for roughly $2 million dollars of "profit" (or whatever a nonprofit institution calls a plus on the balance sheet) for the Duke athletic department if he plays all four years.

And despite Duke's unparalled brand name, their revenue stream is limited somewhat by their tiny antiquated building and other factors. The income generated by powerhouse state school football and basketball programs dwarfs what I've written above, and not just because tuition and fees are lower than they are at a place like Duke. Many big state schools, particularly those who are strong in basketball AND football, also sign mammoth regional TV deals.

The other thing to consider is the impact of these athletic programs on academic recruiting. Top-notch academic schools like Duke, Boston College, Notre Dame, Stanford, and so on attract some of the nation's best academic talent because of their sports teams. That, any university president will tell you, is priceless.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

When an 18 year graduates from HS, they have a plethora of options available to themselves. If they have an in-demand skill, one of those options is using that skill to procure goods for themselves, be it money or other services.

A basketball player, for example.

But just because he has that skill, it does not mean that every and anyone who in the market for that skill is obligated to accept him. The elite leagues, for whatever reason, may legally choose to raise barriers to his entry. That doesn't deny him the use of his skill, it means he has to seek another venue in which to get compensated for his skill. Perhaps he chooses to go to college, perhaps he chooses to go overseas, perhaps he chooses to play minor-league basketball. He still has choices. 

If he chooses college, _thats_ his choice. Maybe it's a bad system, but he's choosing to play in that system.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Only 23 men's teams in the 65-team NCAA Tournament managed to graduate at least 50 percent of its student athletes while women's teams in the postseason continue to graduate at a much higher rate, according to a University of Central Florida study released Tuesday.


Looks like the "at least they'll get an education" argument vis a vis the age limit is a bunch of nonsense. The majority of scholarship basketball players clearly aren't.

Two Division I teams -- Minnesota and LSU -- didn't graduate any players, and there is a sharp disparity between graduation rates for white and black players.

More "good" stuff here: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/ncaatourney05/news/story?id=2014449


----------

