# I think the age limit is wrong



## Roscoe Sheed (Jun 19, 2006)

David Stern is ruining the league in every way. On top of everything being a foul for perimeter players, great players now have to wait unnecessarily long before entering the NBA.

I don't understand the reasoning for the age limit. Look at some of the best players in the NBA: KG, Kobe, J O'Neal, T Mac, LeBron. They never went to college. Didn't seem to hurt them. Nobody cares if Hockey, Baseball, Golf, or Tennis players become pros early. Why is the NBA different?


----------



## D.J. (Mar 9, 2006)

Roscoe Sheed said:


> David Stern is ruining the league in every way. On top of everything being a foul for perimeter players, great players now have to wait unnecessarily long before entering the NBA.
> 
> I don't understand the reasoning for the age limit. Look at some of the best players in the NBA: KG, Kobe, J O'Neal, T Mac, LeBron. They never went to college. Didn't seem to hurt them. Nobody cares if Hockey, Baseball, Golf, or Tennis players become pros early. Why is the NBA different?



Because the commissioner is a racist edit? Keep in mind a lot of these players come from the ghetto and they skip college so they can make big money and get their families away from the crime. Tennis players can become pro at 14(?), same with soccer. I don't know what Stern's reasons are but they are probably stupid to begin with.

That word is construed to be derogatory in this context.

- *Premier*


----------



## different_13 (Aug 30, 2005)

to try and get players better prepared for the NBA, give them more maturity.
When looking at players that get drafted and then dont play for 3 or 4 years, i'd rather they went to college. It also means at least they get some qualifications if their basketball careers don't pan out.

It might not be the best solution, and it may weaken this year's draft - but i think it works pretty good - We all know Oden can dominate 17 year olds, let's see how he fares against 20 year olds (pretty damn good i'd guess, but it will be good to see highschool phenoms get either exposed, or to allow them to show their talent even more).

The rule should lessen the amounts of busts in the draft i'd say.


----------



## LamarButler (Apr 16, 2005)

> Because the commissioner is a racist edit?
> 
> That word is construed to be derogatory in this context.
> 
> - *Premier*


Whats with the Jew comment?


----------



## Roscoe Sheed (Jun 19, 2006)

On a side note, I think the horrible officiating has contributed to the US decline in International competition. The perimeter players don't get the sweetheart treatment and the interior players can't get away with all the pushing and shoving. Can you imagine Shaq playing Int'l basketball? He'd foul out in 2 minutes.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

LamarButler said:


> Whats with the Jew comment?


Yea. What the hell, man.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

a) There was already an age limit in place before the current one, didn't hear much complaining about that. 
b) KG, Kobe, J O'Neal, T Mac, and LeBron wouldn't just disappear. With an extra year to mature as a basketball player and as a person they would probably be better prepared to play in the NBA, as would many others who ruin a potential career by trying to get into the league when they're not ready.


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

a lot of these kids will barely be 19 when they do get drafted so it doesnt really put them back too far, if they get to college and arent that good they just did everyone a favor. the nba wanted 2 years and settled for 1.


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

David Stern is doing whats right for the NBA. Hes making sure there are less of Kwame Browns and more Shaquile O'Neals. Players coming from College have more developed skills as well as being better defenders. Stern is looking at the future for the NBA.
Not all highschool players can come in and become as good as LeBron. I think it was
a great move by Stern.


----------



## ohiostfbfan (Jul 1, 2006)

Even tho it sucks for the Raptors ( not being able to get Oden ) and it weakens this draft its not as bad as u may think. There wont be as many busts and you wont have to wait as long for a players "potential" as they can develop in college.


----------



## lolac101 (Jun 23, 2005)

The age limit is there to protect the NBA not the kids. Anyone that thinks its good to play one year of college ball and take a bunch of intro courses is crazy. The majority of the best players today are the ones that joins the NBA early and reap the benefits of state of the art facilities. Yea, some become bust but there are bust from the batch of kids coming out of college too (luke jackson).


----------



## Kuskid (Aug 18, 2004)

Unfortunately, now it looks like there are gonna be less high school busts and more international ones, the bad drafting is just moving overseas. The solid players always have been, and always will be coming out of college, not sure why GM's don't see that.


----------



## remy23 (Aug 15, 2002)

Kuskid said:


> Unfortunately, now it looks like there are gonna be less high school busts and more international ones, the bad drafting is just moving overseas. The solid players always have been, and always will be coming out of college, not sure why GM's don't see that.


You'll continue to see college busts as well. If you prevent high schoolers from coming into the league, then the college players and internationals will take over from there and your busts will continue to enter the league. The issue really boils down to people doing their job. Poor GMs will always select busts, regardless of who can and can't enter the league. Even if the age limit were raised yet again, the bad GMs in the league would still select busts, only this time it being older college kids and internationals.


----------



## Big J (Jul 29, 2005)

The age limit is a good thing. Sure Kobe, KG, Lebron, and crew all came straight out of high school, those are the minority. Most kids from high school play for 2-3 years & you never hear from them again. I would be in favor of a 21-year old age limit for the sole reason that it would give NBA teams 2-3 years of college to see the full potential of what they're going to draft. Most high school kids are drafted for "potential" and the teams hope they get better. With an age limit, they get to scout more. There's nothing wrong with an NBA age limit. In fact, it only helps weed out the trash in the draft...


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

lolac101 said:


> Anyone that thinks its good to play one year of college ball and take a bunch of intro courses is crazy.


Are you joking?



lolac101 said:


> The majority of the best players today are the ones that joins the NBA early and reap the benefits of state of the art facilities.


That's because the majority of the players who come out early are the best players.


----------



## Charlie Brown (Oct 22, 2002)

Yeah, making someone go to college for a year.

How horrible.


----------



## reHEATed (Jun 29, 2003)

D.J. said:


> Because the commissioner is a racist edit?
> 
> That word is construed to be derogatory in this context.
> 
> - *Premier*


who is the racist one?

just an idiotic comment


----------



## Roscoe Sheed (Jun 19, 2006)

Charlie Brown said:


> Yeah, making someone go to college for a year.
> 
> How horrible.


Making these guys go to college is a joke- basically, they take fake classes and get fake grades for ONE year. Yeah, that makes the person more mature.

That makes a farce out of college, as if it isn't already.

LeBron was ready at 18. Any other player should have the right if they are ready. If it is okay for MLB and the NHL, it is okay for the NBA.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

Roscoe Sheed said:


> LeBron was ready at 18. Any other player should have the right if they are ready. If it is okay for MLB and the NHL, it is okay for the NBA.


LeBron was ready at 17, yet he couldn't enter then.


----------



## scamrock (Jun 29, 2006)

I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. BUT...

What about a high school dropout with a great potential for the NBA? What about a kid that finishes high school, can't make the grades to get to college? Or doesn't feel he should have to further his education just to pursue a career that will have absolutely nothing to do with the classes he is taking? You can't major in professional athletics. If you could, it may make more sense. I know people will argue that having a degree will give them something to fall back on if they are injured or just can't make it in the NBA. But here are some arguments to think about. First, a "plan B" isn't required to join the NBA. What if you do have a "plan B" but it doesn't require a college degree? Making somebody go to school that doesn't need to is unnecessary. And should you choose not to go to college, you wouldn't be forced to sit a year without getting your playing time just waiting for your birthday. What about a guy like Lenny Cook(I know he didn't get drafted anyway, but lets suppose it was Lebron instead) who didn't even get to play his senior year because he was 19 his senior year? He would still have been able to sign up for the draft right out of high school. Or what about somebody who graduates early at 17 and won't be 19 until his sophomore year in college?

What they need is to establish a minor league/developmental league for the NBA. I know a lot of guys play semi-pro or go to europe. But if the NBA teams had their own minor league franchise as well it would benefit those who don't wish to pursue college as well as those who did go to college, but still need some polishing up before coming to the NBA. Detroit could have had Darco playing here in the states getting in game experience readying him to become the player the invisioned.

It would work.


----------



## remy23 (Aug 15, 2002)

Roscoe Sheed said:


> Making these guys go to college is a joke- basically, they take fake classes and get fake grades for ONE year. Yeah, that makes the person more mature.
> 
> That makes a farce out of college, as if it isn't already.
> 
> LeBron was ready at 18. Any other player should have the right if they are ready. If it is okay for MLB and the NHL, it is okay for the NBA.


I was also always under the belief that college shouldn't waste money, scholarships, resources and spots in class for guys who don't want to be there and are in essence forced to be there. If college is about learning, then guys who don't want to major in biology and truly are basketball majors, should be pursuing basketball, not subjects they don't give a damn about.


----------



## scamrock (Jun 29, 2006)

Roscoe Sheed said:


> If it is okay for MLB and the NHL, it is okay for the NBA.


Also, there are a lot more oportunities for a baseball player between HS and MLB. That is why I think the NBA should run a high profile develpmental/minor league team. A lot of people actually get into summer leages. I like watching the Rookie Challege at ASW. It would be like a summer league but a whole season worth.


----------



## lolac101 (Jun 23, 2005)

Charlie Brown said:


> Yeah, making someone go to college for a year.
> 
> How horrible.


Im for letting people do whatever they want as long as it doesnt hurt anyone. If some 18 year old kid doesn't want to go to college, fine dont let him. There are kids everywhere that go straight to work after highschool. 

Also, if you look real close, these highschool kids joining the nba have the support of their parents. Why should the NBA decide what is right for these kids instead of their parents and themselves.


----------



## scamrock (Jun 29, 2006)

lolac101 said:


> Im for letting people do whatever they want as long as it doesnt hurt anyone. If some 18 year old kid doesn't want to go to college, fine dont let him. There are kids everywhere that go straight to work after highschool.
> 
> Also, if you look real close, these highschool kids joining the nba have the support of their parents. Why should the NBA decide what is right for these kids instead of their parents and themselves.


I suppose Stern could argue that the powers that be can decide wether or not they want employees with college experience and that the NBA is no different.


----------



## lolac101 (Jun 23, 2005)

scamrock said:


> I suppose Stern could argue that the powers that be can decide wether or not they want employees with college experience and that the NBA is no different.


Companies don't care about college experience, they want a college degree. I don't think it is easier to get a job as a college dropout as oppose to someone that didn't go to college at all. 

I would love to see Stern ask everyone without a college degree to leave the NBA.


----------



## scamrock (Jun 29, 2006)

lolac101 said:


> Companies don't care about college experience, they want a college degree. I don't think it is easier to get a job as a college dropout as oppose to someone that didn't go to college at all.
> 
> I would love to see Stern ask everyone without a college degree to leave the NBA.


I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying they will come up with some lame reason.


----------



## Diophantos (Nov 4, 2004)

I think the thing a lot of people are confused about (at least from my POV) is that they think the age limit is some sort of forced humanitarian effort from the NBA. It's like they think the NBA is saying, "Go to college, it's good for you. Have a fallback option in case the league doesn't pan out. We care about your future." And they resent that.

That's not what it's about. It's about increasing the average quality of the players on NBA rosters. 

If you're a high school kid like Lebron who can come in and contribute right away (and those are few and far between), well, then you should be able to do that even better in a year.

If you're a high school kid with a chance to contribute later on, but who is raw now (say like a Jermaine O'Neal) then you'll have a year to develop your skills, and then you'll be drafted, if you're promising enough. Until then, your spot in the NBA will be taken up by a veteran who is more ready to play NBA minutes right now. 

If you're a high school kid who will never be good enough to play in the NBA, despite a great high school career (and there are many of them) then a year of playing college or NBDL or euroball might show GM's that, and there is a smaller chance of you getting drafted and taking up roster space that could have gone to a contributing vet.

This is not a charity age limit. This is about increasing quality of play in the league. You can argue about whether it's effective or not (I laid out why it could be, but that's certainly not definitive), but don't argue it by saying that "they should be free to choose themselves" or "why should they have to take one useless year of college?". That's missing the point, I think.


----------



## KingOfTheHeatians (Jul 22, 2005)

There's no constitutional right to be an NBA player. The NBA is a private business which has the right to set its own terms of employment. If you don't like it, too bad. But they're not violating anyone's rights or doing anything unjust. David Stern came to the conclusion that it's better for the NBA to not have high schoolers coming into the league. Teams now can see a player face college competition for a year and get a better evaluation of that player. 

The owners and GM's don't want to commit big money and years to someone who they're not sure can play. We're talking about millions of dollars of guaranteed money. Teams want more security on their investment. That's all it's about. Stern didn't say that, of course, because it doesn't sound as good from a PR standpoint as saying he's looking out for the kids. But that's what it's about. 

And in the long term, it will certainly be better for the NBA. And that is Stern's only responsibility.


----------



## remy23 (Aug 15, 2002)

Diophantos said:


> That's not what it's about. It's about increasing the average quality of the players on NBA rosters.
> 
> If you're a high school kid like Lebron who can come in and contribute right away (and those are few and far between), well, then you should be able to do that even better in a year.
> 
> ...


If you place high school kids in the NBDL, which effectively places them on the inactive list, I don't see the problem. If you had a scrub who wasn't ready to play (and it doesn't matter if he's a high school kid or even a college guy) and he's wasting a spot on your active roster, then that's a team problem. That would be a case of an organization not doing their job. Since you can stash away people who aren't ready to play, issues about PT or roster spots shouldn't be a real issue.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Where's the uproar about all those gymanstic girls/figure skating girls who basically are professional athletes, teenage tennis players both men and female, etc who all play even before they are 19?

The age limit was a copout by the NBA. What they should have done is assure with something like the NBDL that these kids would be protected from the more nefarious aspects of professional while still allowing them to do what they want. I went to college and graduate school for 4 years but that's because I needed that education to prepare for my profession. On the other hand, If I could do what I wanted to do out of high school then why should I be forced to not to play because of a very arbitrary age limit


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

^So you agree that 12 year olds should be allowed to play in the NBA?


----------



## lolac101 (Jun 23, 2005)

Diophantos said:


> This is not a charity age limit. This is about increasing quality of play in the league. You can argue about whether it's effective or not (I laid out why it could be, but that's certainly not definitive), but don't argue it by saying that "they should be free to choose themselves" or "why should they have to take one useless year of college?". That's missing the point, I think.


I'll stop if pro-agelimit poster stop with the stuff about the nba looking out for the kids. The agelimit is for the benefit of the NBA, not the players. Also, I don't think the age limit is an effective way to weed out draft bust. Look at all the duke player given a shot when they shouldn't. There is no way Stern could fix teams drafting bad players. This is all up to the team scout and GM, not him. I feel the age limit is a worthless rule that is bad for the players and in some aspect, the NBA.


----------



## lolac101 (Jun 23, 2005)

socco said:


> ^So you agree that 12 year olds should be allowed to play in the NBA?


Freddy Adu is playing soccer at age 14. How many child stars are there in Hollywood. It's being done so why not. Why should this only be a problem in the NBA? I wouldn't have a problem if the movie "Like Mike" came true?


----------



## Diophantos (Nov 4, 2004)

remy23 said:


> If you place high school kids in the NBDL, which effectively places them on the inactive list, I don't see the problem. If you had a scrub who wasn't ready to play (and it doesn't matter if he's a high school kid or even a college guy) and he's wasting a spot on your active roster, then that's a team problem. That would be a case of an organization not doing their job. Since you can stash away people who aren't ready to play, issues about PT or roster spots shouldn't be a real issue.


From what I understand, the NBA's perspective is this: A 15-man NBA roster is not the place for stashing players. Your roster should be the one that allows the league to showcase the best possible talent on any given night. That means putting contributing pieces even at the end of your bench, in case of injury, so that when those guys do play, they play as well as possible. There's a conflict of interest there between individual teams and the league as a whole, but it's the league that makes these decisions.



lolac101 said:


> I'll stop if pro-agelimit poster stop with the stuff about the nba looking out for the kids. The agelimit is for the benefit of the NBA, not the players.


Yeah, exactly. I can't "stop pro-agelimit" posters from doing anything, but you can address the truth of the argument and not the false premises.




> Also, I don't think the age limit is an effective way to weed out draft bust. Look at all the duke player given a shot when they shouldn't. There is no way Stern could fix teams drafting bad players. This is all up to the team scout and GM, not him. I feel the age limit is a worthless rule that is bad for the players and in some aspect, the NBA.


Of course the age limit can't eliminate draft busts, and I don't think anyone, including the league, expects it to. What it can do is provide GM's added information on how these untested prospects play against higher level competition. Shouldn't that help? If you've only seen a player drop 100 points against slow white guys like my old high school basketball team, then it tells you far less than if he dominates the NCAA tournament or the NBDL. It's supposed to prevent a constant influx of guys who aren't ready to contribute.


----------



## remy23 (Aug 15, 2002)

Diophantos said:


> From what I understand, the NBA's perspective is this: A 15-man NBA roster is not the place for stashing players. Your roster should be the one that allows the league to showcase the best possible talent on any given night. That means putting contributing pieces even at the end of your bench, in case of injury, so that when those guys do play, they play as well as possible. There's a conflict of interest there between individual teams and the league as a whole, but it's the league that makes these decisions.


I understand the NBA's take but I don't see the problem with stashing kids away. That should be a decision left for organizations to make. If a team is against doing it, then they won't stash kids away in the minors and will probably avoid drafting such kids and taking that risk. But for teams who are confident in their scouting staff, who believe they are finding diamonds in the rough and want the ability to nurture their selection, will stash some players away. If one sees this issue as select teams against the league at large, then the league will obviously win. But I see it as an issue of choice, as in giving teams the option to do something. Having the power of choice is only a bad thing if one can't make the right decisions or the temptations/pit falls are just near-automatic, as in the waters are too choppy to navigate. But I don't think giving teams a choice to stash players threatens the league or the unity of the league. It is a conflict but is the conflict one that requires a ruling?

Didn't the league change the 15-man roster so that you can change it night to night, instead of having to stash people away for a minimum of 5 games (in the past, where make believe injuries were made to stash players away)? The NBDL should grow with time and the active/inactive roster has been made more flexible than before. With these tools at teams' disposal, I don't see the problem. The guys who aren't ready aren't just sitting out games and collecting dust. They're getting experience in the minors, improving their craft and doing something constructive. If there wasn't a minor league set in place, I could see the problem. The young kids who aren't playing are at least getting some burn elsewhere. Compare that to other players, who when not activated, are just sitting courtside watching games in suit and tie.


----------



## Diophantos (Nov 4, 2004)

remy23 said:


> I understand the NBA's take but I don't see the problem with stashing kids away. That should be a decision left for organizations to make. If a team is against doing it, then they won't stash kids away in the minors and will probably avoid drafting such kids and taking that risk. But for teams who are confident in their scouting staff, who believe they are finding diamonds in the rough and want the ability to nurture their selection, will stash some players away. If one sees this issue as select teams against the league at large, then the league will obviously win. But I see it as an issue of choice, as in giving teams the option to do something. Having the power of choice is only a bad thing if one can't make the right decisions or the temptations/pit falls are just near-automatic, as in the waters are too choppy to navigate. But I don't think giving teams a choice to stash players threatens the league or the unity of the league. It is a conflict but is the conflict one that requires a ruling?
> 
> Didn't the league change the 15-man roster so that you can change it night to night, instead of having to stash people away for a minimum of 5 games (in the past, where make believe injuries were made to stash players away)? The NBDL should grow with time and the active/inactive roster has been made more flexible than before. With these tools at teams' disposal, I don't see the problem. The guys who aren't ready aren't just sitting out games and collecting dust. They're getting experience in the minors, improving their craft and doing something constructive. If there wasn't a minor league set in place, I could see the problem. The young kids who aren't playing are at least getting some burn elsewhere. Compare that to other players, who when not activated, are just sitting courtside watching games in suit and tie.


I just don't think the league feels the choice to acquire players for "stashing" or "nurturing" rather than actually contributing is one that should be permitted, and they decided to eliminate that choice. I agree with you that the current system is not the best possible one, but I think it has been misunderstood and thus unduly criticized. The fact is, first round draft picks that aren't ready to play are not usually sent down to the NBDL, and if they are, it's not for long.

I also agree with you that the current system fails to reward teams who scout high school players well, and I think the key to a resolution is the NBDL. Perhaps the optimal system is to allow teams to draft players out of high school, but put an age limit in place before those players can be on an NBA roster? I.e., allow Minnesota to draft Ndudi Ebi, but maintain that he must play in the NBDL for a year before joining the team. That would reward good scouting teams for recognizing a players skill as early as high school, while keeping the 15-man NBA roster full of players ready to contribute at the moment.


----------



## pmac34 (Feb 10, 2006)

Roscoe Sheed said:


> David Stern is ruining the league in every way. On top of everything being a foul for perimeter players, great players now have to wait unnecessarily long before entering the NBA.
> 
> I don't understand the reasoning for the age limit. Look at some of the best players in the NBA: KG, Kobe, J O'Neal, T Mac, LeBron. They never went to college. Didn't seem to hurt them. Nobody cares if Hockey, Baseball, Golf, or Tennis players become pros early. Why is the NBA different?


look at eddy curry, tyson chandler, Kwame brown, etc. etc.
the age limit is right, the 1 year removed from high school is what im on the fence about


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

I mean, people make this out to be a lot more simple than it is.

Major sports players in the NCAA are exploited, as the schools pull in major dollars not only off of the games, but merchandising (including the player's likeness on jerseys, which the players don't receive a dime).

The NBA is protecting itself, which is understood, but it makes the age limit seem pointless when they are advancing the NBDL allowing players 18 years old to play in the league, and allow teams to allocate players down. If they moved that along they could've used that to develop their young talent that they get in the draft instead of have them rotting on the end of the bench.


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

Diophantos said:


> The fact is, first round draft picks that aren't ready to play are not usually sent down to the NBDL, and if they are, it's not for long./QUOTE]
> 
> It's too early to say that, since it's only be one season of the NBDL where teams were allowed to allocate players down. With the success of this past season, expect to see more teams send players down there to get playing time.


----------



## Roscoe Sheed (Jun 19, 2006)

pmac34 said:


> look at eddy curry, tyson chandler, Kwame brown, etc. etc.
> the age limit is right, the 1 year removed from high school is what im on the fence about


Yeah, those guys didn't exactly pan out, but many college players didn't pan out as well: Laettner, Joe Smith, Pervis Ellison, etc.

You can't expect every one of them to become superstars, but over half of the high schoolers have gone on to have pretty good careers or are on their way.


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

for once i'm going to stick up for ownership, its their league, they make the rules. the unions's job is to protect their membership(current players). i think the union did pretty well getting the college rule to be 1 year instead of 2, the union really didnt even have to do that.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

There are a lot of things that have age limits in life. I don't see how it's wrong for the NBA to have an age limit.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

socco said:


> ^So you agree that 12 year olds should be allowed to play in the NBA?


 By you're logic, I would say if you truly want to promote maturity we should only let in 26 yo olds


----------



## Diophantos (Nov 4, 2004)

Coatesvillain said:


> It's too early to say that, since it's only be one season of the NBDL where teams were allowed to allocate players down. With the success of this past season, expect to see more teams send players down there to get playing time.


I hope so.


----------



## lolac101 (Jun 23, 2005)

Diophantos said:


> Yeah, exactly. I can't "stop pro-agelimit" posters from doing anything, but you can address the truth of the argument and not the false premises.


So we agree that the agelimit is benefiting only the nba. Awesome. I only brought up the other stuff to rebut the crap about the agelimit benefiting the players. It's not my argument against the age limit.



Diophantos said:


> Of course the age limit can't eliminate draft busts, and I don't think anyone, including the league, expects it to. What it can do is provide GM's added information on how these untested prospects play against higher level competition. Shouldn't that help? If you've only seen a player drop 100 points against slow white guys like my old high school basketball team, then it tells you far less than if he dominates the NCAA tournament or the NBDL. It's supposed to prevent a constant influx of guys who aren't ready to contribute.


Giving GM's a chance to see player with higher competition would help but how often would that be the case. Not every player is going to get the chance to play in a top division school. I see what the NBA is trying to do but it's not going to work.

I just think the age limit is bad for the NBA because its basically is taking away a talent pool. College, high school, and foreign players. Those are the three places to get players and taking away one of them, to me at least, prevent teams from being able to draft the best player around. Case in point, this year draft with toronto, bargaini, and greg oden. Teams unable to handle drafting high school kids should just hire better GMs and scouts.


----------



## lolac101 (Jun 23, 2005)

23AJ said:


> There are a lot of things that have age limits in life. I don't see how it's wrong for the NBA to have an age limit.


Its not illegal to have an age limit and if they want one, they should and do have it. Its just I dont agree with its purpose and think it should go away. I feel it is pointless and it hurts the NBA and players trying to enter.


----------



## compsciguy78 (Dec 16, 2002)

The age limit is whacked! I agree with the analogy of tennis players becoming pros in their teens and basketball players should be able to do the same. 


Other sports that allow teens as pros....

....soccer, tennis, golf, surfing, olympic sports, Xgame sports, NASCAR, boxing, cycling....

Greg Oden doesn't need to go to college. IF anything there should be a minor league for each NBA team so they can bring up players as needed, kind of like baseball. The NBDL is supposed to be the minor leagues but it clashes with college basketball and doesn't have a team for each NBA team. 


You shouldn't be able to take great high school players away from making money and starting their career earlier. Maybe they could have averaged 15 points and 10 rebounds their first year as a rookie out of high school. What does this mean? You are basically destroying their chance for better career stats. You never know what could happen. Greg Oden could have a career ending injury in college and never get to grace the NBA hardwood. What if Lebron didn't have that first year in the NBA out of high school? He would have been X amount of points behind and X amount of assists behind what he is now. Don't take away from the great high schoolers because the other high schoolers aren't as good. You are taking away from the high schoolers chance to create their own legacy in the NBA. 

If you want the answer don't draft subpar high school players! That is the answer! 

The onus should be on the GM's and teams to scout better.


Otherwise put them in the NBDL and make the NBDL a legitimate minor leagues.


----------



## Diophantos (Nov 4, 2004)

lolac101 said:


> Giving GM's a chance to see player with higher competition would help but how often would that be the case. Not every player is going to get the chance to play in a top division school. I see what the NBA is trying to do but it's not going to work.


Any college competition is a better tableau for judging skills than high school. 



> I just think the age limit is bad for the NBA because its basically is taking away a talent pool. College, high school, and foreign players. Those are the three places to get players and taking away one of them, to me at least, prevent teams from being able to draft the best player around.


It's not taking away a talent pool. All the players that would've been drafted straight from high school will still be around to be drafted after college. GM's will just have more information on them. If you're the best player around one year, then you should be among the best players around the next year. If not, then maybe you weren't such a good prospect to begin with.




> Case in point, this year draft with toronto, bargaini, and greg oden. Teams unable to handle drafting high school kids should just hire better GMs and scouts.


Sometimes it's just impossible to tell. How many times have we had high school kids who nearly everyone thought were going to be excellent (or at least solid) NBA players that just didn't pan out? Kwame Brown, Dajuan Wagner, etc. I mean, almost everyone thought these guys were going to be good. High school is just not a very good venue for predicting how well a player will perform in the NBA. A year of college or even NBDL is nowhere near perfect either, but it's better than high school alone.


----------



## lolac101 (Jun 23, 2005)

Diophantos said:


> It's not taking away a talent pool. All the players that would've been drafted straight from high school will still be around to be drafted after college. GM's will just have more information on them. If you're the best player around one year, then you should be among the best players around the next year. If not, then maybe you weren't such a good prospect to begin with.


Yeah, but the team that desparately needs them wont be able to wait a year and draft them. Because of the agelimit, toronto didn't draft oden this year and probably won't draft him next year either.

I agree, judging a player's talent from highschool game isn't as good as college or NBDL, but who cares. Having more players to choose from is always a good thing. I think that would be better for the NBA as oppose to giving teams a extra year to scouts high school kids.


----------



## Diophantos (Nov 4, 2004)

lolac101 said:


> Yeah, but the team that desparately needs them wont be able to wait a year and draft them. Because of the agelimit, toronto didn't draft oden this year and probably won't draft him next year either.


So someone who desperately needs him next year will get him. Who cares? Only raps fans.



> I agree, judging a player's talent from highschool game isn't as good as college or NBDL, but who cares. Having more players to choose from is always a good thing. I think that would be better for the NBA as oppose to giving teams a extra year to scouts high school kids.


The age limit doesn't result in significantly less players to choose from (only in the first year it is implemented). After that, it's just a re-ordering. It's still the same set of players getting drafted.


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

The NBA age limit is discrimination!  



> With the NBA about to institute an age limit for players entering the league, I have to question their motives and lack of concern for young basketball players in this country. Isn't there a better solution than an age limit. I support the standard arguments that:
> 
> A. An age limit discriminates against young black males who are far more likely to leave school early to play basketball than young white males. This argument rings truer when you understand that professional hockey, baseball, soccer, & golf (all predominately white sports) have no age limits. That means that a white 16 year old athlete (who is more than likely playing baseball/hockey/soccer/golf) can begin earning a salary in the profession of their choice while a 16 year old black athlete (who is more than likely playing basketball/football) cannot. Adding fuel to the fire is the fact that the NBA is the ONLY major professional sports league that doesn't provide a minor league of some sort for the specific purpose of developing young talent.
> 
> ...


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Theres nothing wrong with the age limit. And the NBA can't make everyone happy. It's fine if people think it's discrimination or "not fair" or "wrong" of the NBA. However I had no issues when High School players were not enterting the NBA in the past. And things were just as bad then as they are now for certain pro prospects coming out of bad living conditions. Also If people don't like the rules/regulations of the National Basketball Association , maybe they should pick up a Golf Club, Tennis Racket, and etc since those sports allow younger age's to go pro.

Also I totally disagree with anyone that trys to tell me getting a free college education/experience isn't compensation enough! There are many other college students that bring in money like the engineering students is a good example. However you don't hear anyone crying over the fact that the money they get donated to the school doesn't go to just them, that it's used for a lot of other college fields. Thats the way colleges work, it's not just the athletics that brings in all the money.

Also the fact people throw around the word slavery like it's so comparable to what actually happened in the history of our country turns my stomach.


----------



## remy23 (Aug 15, 2002)

23AJ said:


> o.Also I totally disagree with anyone that trys to tell me getting a free college education/experience isn't compensation enough! There are many other college students that bring in money like the engineering students is a good example. However you don't hear anyone crying over the fact that the money they get donated to the school doesn't go to just them, that it's used for a lot of other college fields. Thats the way colleges work, it's not just the athletics that brings in all the money.


Athletics brings in so much more money than engineering students or other examples that it isn't even funny. The college players are the main draw, the main exploitation.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

remy23 said:


> Athletics brings in so much more money than engineering students or other examples that it isn't even funny. The college players are the main draw, the main exploitation.


Exploitation ? I think not, these college athletes that have the potential to be big stars some day are getting all the compensation they deserve with a free education. Some people fight for things that others take for granted I guess.

Also you still don't hear people upset over the money, that students that write a great paper to get people to donate money to their respective colleges. Yet not all of those funds are even used for the certain fields the money is donated to. Yet nobody cares about that. Also Can you provide any kind of actual data that supports your opinion ?


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

I don't have a problem with the age limit per se, but I do have a problem with the NBA and it's leaders (including the players association) lying as to why they want it. All of the excuses center around comments like "The age limit will protect players and make them better," or "The age limit will improve the NBA game." or "The age limit will better prepare players for the rigors of the NBA." These comments are nothing more than politically correct commments masking the reality of the situation. 

The league insituted this age limit for obvious reasons that relate to protecting the veteran players and more importantly marketing to mainstream audiences. Waiting an extra year to become eligible to be drafted doesn't help the majority of prospects, but it gives that illusion. If you are that talented going to college for one year virtually has no value. 



> *Highschool players drafted in modern era (since 1995):*
> Kevin Garnett, Farragut Academy, Chicago, Illinois (1995)
> 
> Kobe Bryant, Lower Merion High School, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (1996)
> ...


So, since 1995 6 out of 40 highschool players who were drafted are no longer in the league. With numbers like that no one can tell me highschool players entering the NBA is a problem as it relates to players not panning out. *I would almost guarantee from a ratio standpoint these numbers are better than college seniors all the way down to foreign players.* However, the NBA has no problem with foreign players entering the league because the league is focused on making the NBA game global and what better way to do that than by drafting players into the league, as it's about money! This is the NBA and the best players make it regardless of how they enter the league and an age limit will not change this. At this level of talent forcing a player to attend college for 1 season won't change anything. 

Another issue I have is why force these people to college? If they don't want to be there why make them go? This only undermines the true purpose of college and it's athletic programs.


----------



## LA68 (Apr 3, 2004)

Roscoe Sheed said:


> David Stern is ruining the league in every way. On top of everything being a foul for perimeter players, great players now have to wait unnecessarily long before entering the NBA.
> 
> I don't understand the reasoning for the age limit. Look at some of the best players in the NBA: KG, Kobe, J O'Neal, T Mac, LeBron. They never went to college. Didn't seem to hurt them. Nobody cares if Hockey, Baseball, Golf, or Tennis players become pros early. Why is the NBA different?


You mention five players in ten years !! And in that span more than 50 did not get drafted at all!! Where is that list ??

When those kids go to high school, they get no education because they are jocks and slide through school. We all know this. When they get very bad advice and go pro and don't get drafted or get cut, where can they go ?? 

They can't go back to high school. They are not good enough for D league. They have no education ,no skills. They are SOL !! Then you see them caught slanging drugs because that is all they can do to make any money. 

The idea is to get them to go to one year of college. If they bomb there , they would have bombed in the NBA. They can see that they need to stay in school and get their skills together and have a chance at a real education in case they never make it to the Pros. 

No racism involved in it. If anything it helps the poor athlete from making a horrible decision


----------



## duncan2k5 (Feb 27, 2005)

The age limit makes no sense. you say you wanna send the players to college to get experience? the best experience is to be on the battle field, not the practice ground. look at tony parker. this would have been his 1st or second year if he came out of college, he wouldn't have been this good. Lebron would not have been this good, none of the HS players would have been this good because they would have been lacking the experience that HS players get when they go straight to the pros. 

and those HS players who go undrafted? ask Allen Ray what he thinks about them. they are all in the same boat, because i GUARANTEE Ray wont go looking for a job in wall street. he is a basketball player. he will go overseas. same as the high school players do when they go undrafted. so they all are in the same boat.

and rawlaw, you are my hero. you made a DAMN good point. repped


----------



## duncan2k5 (Feb 27, 2005)

they said i gotta spread some around...sorry


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

an 18 yr old tennis player with tremendous potential to be the best player ever, who currently is very raw and not great, who goes pro, toils away on minor circuits until he gets his act together. you take spots of other pros when you can actually beat them. not when others think you can someday beat them.

an 18 yr old basketball player with tremendous potential to be the best ever, who currently is very raw and not great, gets drafted very high and takes a roster spot while they learn to play the game.


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

kflo said:


> an 18 yr old tennis player with tremendous potential to be the best player ever, who currently is very raw and not great, who goes pro, toils away on minor circuits until he gets his act together. you take spots of other pros when you can actually beat them. not when others think you can someday beat them.
> 
> an 18 yr old basketball player with tremendous potential to be the best ever, who currently is very raw and not great, gets drafted very high and takes a roster spot while they learn to play the game.


The thing is these veterans that lose their jobs when HSers make the jump straight to the pros, are the same veterans who lose their jobs when collegians or international players come to the league via the draft. So make sense of that.


----------



## lolac101 (Jun 23, 2005)

Diophantos said:


> The age limit doesn't result in significantly less players to choose from (only in the first year it is implemented). After that, it's just a re-ordering. It's still the same set of players getting drafted.


fine, your right. Having more players or less doesn't make a real different in how many draft bust comes out each year. You gotta admit having a extra year of scouting won't help either. Bad GMs are still gonna make bad picks or decisions no matter what happens. age limit doesn't do anything toward the quality of players entering.

Ralaw is riight. All the politically correct statement is all bull. He get a rep point from me too.



> All of the excuses center around comments like "The age limit will protect players and make them better," or "The age limit will improve the NBA game." or "The age limit will better prepare players for the rigors of the NBA." These comments are nothing more than politically correct commments masking the reality of the situation.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Coatesvillain said:


> The thing is these veterans that lose their jobs when HSers make the jump straight to the pros, are the same veterans who lose their jobs when collegians or international players come to the league via the draft. So make sense of that.


the argument isn't over veterans losing their jobs to players who are better players. it's about veterans who lose their jobs to players who are simply potentially better somewhere down the road. again, in other sports, where the age limit isn't an issue, the younger players need to actually beat the older players. they need to be able to qualify. in the nba, you need only display potential. 

the nba, like the nfl, has no legitimate farm system where teams can place players who aren't ready. it's no coincidence that these are the leagues that have an age limit. 

take away any age limit, and it's still potentially worth it for teams to take the short term hit and draft 15-16 year olds, for the chance at landing the next shaq or lebron. it would happen, and you'd have them sitting on the bench, and occassionally getting on-the-job training, even though they're not ready. the actual product suffers, but the team could actually benefit in the long run. take away the temptation - the players who would get drafted at 15 or 16 get drafted when they're actually more ready to contribute physically and mentally. you have less franchise gambling on unfinshed products.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

people have to realize part of the reason this situation arose was the rookie salary cap. the financial commitment to a top rookie used to be huge - guys were holding out for $100M contracts. now, the money is made on contract #2. the risk of going pro is less for the early entrants, because they're not sacrificing a huge payday today, and they're in the market sooner for contract #2. the risk for the teams drafting is also far less, as they're not making the $100M commitment. used to be you'd stay in college to move from a #12 pick to a top 2 pick, because there was a huge financial difference. now, that makes no sense.


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

kflo said:


> the argument isn't over veterans losing their jobs to players who are better players. it's about veterans who lose their jobs to players who are simply potentially better somewhere down the road. again, in other sports, where the age limit isn't an issue, the younger players need to actually beat the older players. they need to be able to qualify. in the nba, you need only display potential.


Even with the one year out of HS rule, there are players who are drafted and based upon potential push a veteran off of a roster, and potentially out of the league.

So what changed?

Same thing happens in the NFL with first day draft picks, they'll push many players who are at the bottom of the roster off of a team, even if they won't play.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

what changed is the average physical and emotional maturity level of the league is that much higher.


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

I'm sorry, but I don't buy that.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Coatesvillain said:


> I'm sorry, but I don't buy that.


what's not to buy? remove 18 year olds and the league is on average slightly older. true or false?


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

kflo said:


> what's not to buy? remove 18 year olds and the league is on average slightly older. true or false?


That's not what you said in the post I responded to. The league on average is slightly older, but one year aged has nothing to do with emotional or physical maturity.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

ralaw said:


> So, since 1995 6 out of 40 highschool players who were drafted are no longer in the league. With numbers like that no one can tell me highschool players entering the NBA is a problem as it relates to players not panning out. *I would almost guarantee from a ratio standpoint these numbers are better than college seniors all the way down to foreign players.*


That's because the players who are entering early are generally the more talented players. You can't compare LeBron James to Brandon Hunter.



ralaw said:


> Another issue I have is why force these people to college? If they don't want to be there why make them go? This only undermines the true purpose of college and it's athletic programs.


There are other options besides college.



Bulls4Life said:


> The NBA age limit is discrimination!


Actually I went through past drafts to see which players would've been affected by the rule (this was a year or two ago when this was actually a hot topic), and white players would've been affected at a higher rate than black players, relative to the ratio of players already in the league. 



Coatesvillain said:


> The league on average is slightly older, but one year aged has nothing to do with emotional or physical maturity.


Yes it does.


----------



## remy23 (Aug 15, 2002)

socco said:


> Yes it does.


Why? And please explain in good detail.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

socco said:


> That's because the players who are entering early are generally the more talented players. You can't compare LeBron James to Brandon Hunter.


That's my point, at the NBA level only the best players make the league regardless if you come in out of highschool or wait until after graduation. However, this fact doesn't stop people from painting the picture that a bunch of highschool players aren't panning out due to them not having attended college. Only 11 out of 45 highschool players who declared for the draft aren't in the league. So statisically speaking 76% of highschool players who enter the draft make it. However, the same can't be said for players who attended college or foreign players. This is the problem, as the argument isn't consistent across all types of players.

This age limit is less about the actual players and more about the NBA's veteran players and the NBA's "image" among maistream audiences. The NBA could care less about the likes of TAj McDavid, Ellis Richardson and Lenny Cooke, etc, as the league keeps making money regarldess. However, they paint the picture that they care. This simply isn't true.


----------



## travel_monkeys (Feb 22, 2006)

Roscoe Sheed said:


> David Stern is ruining the league in every way. On top of everything being a foul for perimeter players, great players now have to wait unnecessarily long before entering the NBA.
> 
> I don't understand the reasoning for the age limit. Look at some of the best players in the NBA: KG, Kobe, J O'Neal, T Mac, LeBron. They never went to college. Didn't seem to hurt them. Nobody cares if Hockey, Baseball, Golf, or Tennis players become pros early. Why is the NBA different?


How ignorant. For every T Mac or Lebron, there are 10 stiffs who can't play. The age limit will improve overall quality of play for sure. I'd even like to see it raised a year.
As for perimeter fouls, again, how ignorant. Remember the mid 90s before they started calling them? 73-66 games with no action. Everything clutching and grabbing. It was terrible.
David Stern is THE REASON the NBA is as big a success as it is.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

travel_monkeys said:


> How ignorant. For every T Mac or Lebron, there are 10 stiffs who can't play. The age limit will improve overall quality of play for sure. I'd even like to see it raised a year.
> As for perimeter fouls, again, how ignorant. Remember the mid 90s before they started calling them? 73-66 games with no action. Everything clutching and grabbing. It was terrible.
> David Stern is THE REASON the NBA is as big a success as it is.


May I ask you to name 20 stiffs between every McGrady and Lebron?

I'll help you out. Here's the list of highschool players who have declared for the draft:

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3751343&postcount=55

As I said, the NBA and the media paint a picture that isn't true.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

remy23 said:


> Why? And please explain in good detail.


pretty simple. because physical and emotional maturity come with age. physical maturity, in particular, only goes in 1 direction. at least at 18.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

again, the nba could draft 16 year olds, and they'd probably have a better long term success rate than college seniors, but that doesn't mean those 16 year olds are ready to play in the nba.


----------



## remy23 (Aug 15, 2002)

kflo said:


> pretty simple. because physical and emotional maturity come with age. physical maturity, in particular, only goes in 1 direction. at least at 18.


How can physical and emotional maturity be a simple topic? Maturity does not come with age alone and in the name of evolution, in the high school ranks, I see kids who are 16-19 with better bodies than grown men who are 25. So it's not a simple matter.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

I would also like for someone to explain to me how ridding the league of highschool players improves the overall game. However, drafting Tyrus Thomas, Cedric Simmons, Hilton Armstrong or Patrick O'Bryant somehow improves this. Is Patrick O'Bryant any more ready than Andrew Bynum?


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

remy23 said:


> How can physical and emotional maturity be a simple topic? Maturity does not come with age alone and in the name of evolution, in the high school ranks, I see kids who are 16-19 with better bodies than grown men who are 25. So it's not a simple matter.


an individual becomes more physically mature as they get older. an individual is more physically mature at 20 than at 18. that some 18 year olds are more physically mature than some 20 year olds doesn't change that.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

remy23 said:


> Why? And please explain in good detail.


It's pretty much common sense. As time goes by people mature both physically and mentally. I'm sure your response wil be pointing out some 17 year old who is more mature than a 27 year old, but that's flawed logic. You can't compare two seperate individuals here, you gotta look at one person over time. I can't believe anybody is actually questioning whether a teenager matures as he grows older.



ralaw said:


> That's my point, at the NBA level only the best players make the league regardless if you come in out of highschool or wait until after graduation. However, this fact doesn't stop people from painting the picture that a bunch of highschool players aren't panning out due to them not having attended college. Only 11 out of 45 highschool players who declared for the draft aren't in the league. So statisically speaking 76% of highschool players who enter the draft make it. However, the same can't be said for players who attended college or foreign players. This is the problem, as the argument isn't consistent across all types of players.


Why are we judging these players just on whether they're in the league or not. Who's to say that a year or two in college would've helped Jonathan Bender out and he would've been a star in the NBA? Yet he stuck around the league for a long time. 

And sure 76% of high schoolers make it in the NBA, but who's to say that those equally talented who opted to go to college didn't make it at a higher rate? You're comparing LeBron James to Brandon Hunter, and that's not fair. Compare LeBron James to an equally talented player who chose not to go straight to the NBA, and compare Brandon Hunter to an equally talented player who chose to leave early to the NBA. 

One thing I find quite puzzling is that people want to narrow it down to one reason for the age limit being enforced. People want to settle on just one reason, whether it be making the players more prepared, protecting the nba veterans, league image, protect gm's from themselves, etc. But it doesn't have to be just one of those, it can be, and is a combination of many.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

socco said:


> Why are we judging these players just on whether they're in the league or not. Who's to say that a year or two in college would've helped Jonathan Bender out and he would've been a star in the NBA? Yet he stuck around the league for a long time.


I'm judging them in that way because the argument for them not being drafted is that they don't make it. Besides look at the list of players who actually make it. If you do you would notice the majority of them are among the top in the league.



socco said:


> And sure 76% of high schoolers make it in the NBA, but who's to say that those equally talented who opted to go to college didn't make it at a higher rate? You're comparing LeBron James to Brandon Hunter, and that's not fair. Compare LeBron James to an equally talented player who chose not to go straight to the NBA, and compare Brandon Hunter to an equally talented player who chose to leave early to the NBA.


I'm not comparing LeBron James to Brandon Hunter. Where did you get that from? I simply said the ratio of highschool players making the league is much higher than college or foreign players and this is something that is convienently overlooked. You are correct highschool players generally are more talented and have more potential, which is why they should be allowed to enter the league. In order to make the league you have to be among the most talented in the league and if highschool players are among that then so be it.



socco said:


> One thing I find quite puzzling is that people want to narrow it down to one reason for the age limit being enforced. People want to settle on just one reason, whether it be making the players more prepared, protecting the nba veterans, league image, protect gm's from themselves, etc. But it doesn't have to be just one of those, it can be, and is a combination of many.


I'm sure there are several reasons, but I really don't get why you felt a need to mention this, as most people who are arguing for allowing players to enter the league have touched on all of these reasons.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

kflo said:


> pretty simple. because physical and emotional maturity come with age. physical maturity, in particular, only goes in 1 direction. at least at 18.


 There is very little to no evidence that adding that one year would do anything for the standards of play in the NBA.

Amazing we forget about guys like Washburn, Isiah Rider, Bias, etc. who all went to college. Much good it did them


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

socco said:


> It's pretty much common sense. As time goes by people mature both physically and mentally. I'm sure your response wil be pointing out some 17 year old who is more mature than a 27 year old, but that's flawed logic. You can't compare two seperate individuals here, you gotta look at one person over time. I can't believe anybody is actually questioning whether a teenager matures as he grows older.


I don't think the issue is whether people mature across the board as they get older, but does waiting one year actually allowing these players to grow and mature for the league, which is the excuse given. If this is the belief than why not make these players wait until after their 3rd year out of highschool like the NFL? This is my problem with the rule, as it isn't consistent. In other words, the rate of physical and mental maturity varies on an individual basis and can't be assumed.


----------



## remy23 (Aug 15, 2002)

kflo said:


> an individual becomes more physically mature as they get older. an individual is more physically mature at 20 than at 18. that some 18 year olds are more physically mature than some 20 year olds doesn't change that.


Physical maturity also can be related to weight training, dieting and discipline. All of which isn't dependent on age but rather good habits and sound training. 



socco said:


> It's pretty much common sense. As time goes by people mature both physically and mentally. I'm sure your response wil be pointing out some 17 year old who is more mature than a 27 year old, but that's flawed logic. You can't compare two seperate individuals here, you gotta look at one person over time. I can't believe anybody is actually questioning whether a teenager matures as he grows older.


My response is that physical maturity is an individual issue, not a simple issue of age. And with that said, you judge each case individually because no two cases are exactly alike. The question is not about a teenager maturing over time. The question is whether a teenager can be mature enough for the league. If there is a certain level of maturity one needs to ascertain, then there should be some standard or something to go by. Instead of making a blanket ruling on the matter. There are some teenagers who are not physically mature enough for the league and with that said, do not belong in the league. And there are some teenagers who are mature enough for the league and do belong in the league now (since they are ready for it).


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

kflo said:


> pretty simple. because physical and emotional maturity come with age. physical maturity, in particular, only goes in 1 direction. at least at 18.


There's no direct correlation between age and emotional maturity. None.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

ralaw said:


> I'm judging them in that way because the argument for them not being drafted is that they don't make it.


What does "making it" mean? The best way to judge that is to look at whether or not they reached their potential. A career average of 10 ppg for Lebron is not making it imo, while 10ppg for Brandon Hunter would be. The question here is whether a year or more of college helps players. You can't ignore how good they were before that when judging it.



ralaw said:


> I'm not comparing LeBron James to Brandon Hunter. Where did you get that from?


You're comparing the HS players that make it to the college players that do. LeBron has a much higher chance of making it because he's a much more skilled player. Saying more HS players make it is not proof that going to college for one year doesn't help. You need to compare a Lebron who goes to the NBA from HS to a Lebron who goes to college for a year or two. 



ralaw said:


> I'm sure there are several reasons, but I really don't get why you felt a need to mention this, as most people who are arguing for allowing players to enter the league have touched on all of these reasons.


I meantioned it because they want to dismiss some of those completely because they don't believe that's the sole reason why the rule was put in place. For example some people say the reason the rule is in place is to protect the veteran players. They dismiss the notion that the league wants to help out the younger players by letting them get more experience before they get to the NBA. But it can be both.



ralaw said:


> I don't think the issue is whether people mature across the board as they get older, but does waiting one year actually allowing these players to grow and mature for the league, which is the excuse given. If this is the belief than why not make these players wait until after their 3rd year out of highschool like the NFL? This is my problem with the rule, as it isn't consistent. In other words, the rate of physical and mental maturity varies on an individual basis and can't be assumed.


Why not have them wait until their 3rd year? Because the NBA believes that it is best that they wait for 1 year. Yes it varies with every individual, but isn't that true for everything? There may be a 25 year old that is better suited to be the president, but he'll have to wait another 10 years before he can. There are arbitrary rules for everything, the NBA is no difference. And there was one in place before the current rule. Age discrimination is accepted in the world we live in. It may not be logical but it's all over the place.



remy23 said:


> If there is a certain level of maturity one needs to ascertain, then there should be some standard or something to go by.


a) How do you propose we do that?
b) Is this any different than age limits for everything else in life?



Pioneer10 said:


> There is very little to no evidence that adding that one year would do anything for the standards of play in the NBA.
> 
> Amazing we forget about guys like Washburn, Isiah Rider, Bias, etc. who all went to college. Much good it did them


If it were the case that one year does raise the standard of play in the NBA, would there be any evidence anyways?

And nobody is forgetting about them. Stop looking at individual cases and look at the big picture. The difference between 18 and 19 years old is pretty significant. As is the difference between being a high school senior and a college freshmen.


----------



## remy23 (Aug 15, 2002)

socco said:


> a) How do you propose we do that?
> b) Is this any different than age limits for everything else in life?


If the league is hanging their hat on this "maturity issue," then somehow, someway they need an established standard to justify their position. I'm under the impression that establishing a standard would be hard (which would mean you're keeping kids out of the league by an untestable standard, giving them absolutely no chance at all) and that any standard made might raise a few eyebrows (suppose you make standards in terms of weight lifting - having to bench X amount of weight; standards in stamina - have to run a mile in such and such time; and other physical tests). If maturity is such an issue, the league should have no problem saying, "You need to be this mature to be in the league." Since this maturity talk seems vague (except for when talking about stick figures kids who are painfully obviously not ready), this issue is a little confusing. If it's about maturity, then a standard should be made. But if a standard can't be made or nobody can agree upon a standard, then does the league retract the maturity rationale or do they keep that line of reasoning despite not giving a testable standard that people can examine/test?

The reason this issue irks me is because upon closer expectation, each "reason" given seems questionable. If the age limit is about education, then you're dealing with kids going to college only for the mandatory 1-year wait and not giving a damn about learning (nothing like forcing kids to go to school when they don't want to go). If the limit is about caring for the kids and what not, you have to question whether the league's heart is truly bleeding for these children or it's merely a noble sounding reason given to look good and end the debate (absolutely pure and honorable if true, but deceitful if not true).


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

socco said:


> What does "making it" mean? The best way to judge that is to look at whether or not they reached their potential. A career average of 10 ppg for Lebron is not making it imo, while 10ppg for Brandon Hunter would be. The question here is whether a year or more of college helps players. You can't ignore how good they were before that when judging it.


I'm not sure what "making" it means, as this is a better question for those who are for the rules since they use it to validate their beliefs. Reaching potential is a rather subjective term, as several factors are involved. However, I would venture to say there aren't many players who by skipping college suddenly reached their "potential" at 18. This is one of the overrated aspects when it comes to talking about players at this talent level. Besides the majority of highschool players who came into the league turn into good players, so the argument is rather pointless. Regarldess of how you get into the league only the best will survive and this won't change even with an age limit. 



socco said:


> You're comparing the HS players that make it to the college players that do. LeBron has a much higher chance of making it because he's a much more skilled player. Saying more HS players make it is not proof that going to college for one year doesn't help. You need to compare a Lebron who goes to the NBA from HS to a Lebron who goes to college for a year or two.


This is reality, and without making assumptions I nor you can possibly project a LeBron who plays a year or two in college. However, when looking at the facts highschool players make it at a 76% clip and whether they are more talented or not doesn't matter, as this is the fact. Througout this thread people have said the age limit will protect the numerous players who didn't pan out and this simply isn't true, as the statics show the majority of them are successful at making the jump. 



socco said:


> I meantioned it because they want to dismiss some of those completely because they don't believe that's the sole reason why the rule was put in place. For example some people say the reason the rule is in place is to protect the veteran players. They dismiss the notion that the league wants to help out the younger players by letting them get more experience before they get to the NBA. But it can be both.


They wouldn't tell you this, but the league doesn't care about the younger players, and truth to this can be seen througout it's history. If the league was so concerned about these players they would have had programs and an age limit a long time ago similar to the NFL. The only reason the league cares about this issue know is due to a drop in interest among mainstream audiences and was nothing more than a scapegoat for the league as to why the game (on and off the court) had become so bad, which also is far from the truth. 



socco said:


> Why not have them wait until their 3rd year? Because the NBA believes that it is best that they wait for 1 year. Yes it varies with every individual, but isn't that true for everything? There may be a 25 year old that is better suited to be the president, but he'll have to wait another 10 years before he can. There are arbitrary rules for everything, the NBA is no difference. And there was one in place before the current rule. Age discrimination is accepted in the world we live in. It may not be logical but it's all over the place.


I can see what you are saying, but waiting one year is rather arbitrary and this is the point. I understand this is the rule, but that doesn't change it from being pointless. If the rule is installed to allow players to mature phyically and mentally it seems using a precedent (the NFL) that has been deemed successful is the obvious choice. The age limit is nothing more than a frivolous rule only ment to appease mainstream audiences.


----------



## Roscoe Sheed (Jun 19, 2006)

travel_monkeys said:


> How ignorant. For every T Mac or Lebron, there are 10 stiffs who can't play. The age limit will improve overall quality of play for sure. I'd even like to see it raised a year.
> As for perimeter fouls, again, how ignorant. Remember the mid 90s before they started calling them? 73-66 games with no action. Everything clutching and grabbing. It was terrible.
> David Stern is THE REASON the NBA is as big a success as it is.


So now we have phantom fouls deciding games and single players shooting well over 20 FTs a game on touch fouls or no contact at all, or better yet offensive fouls called as defensive fouls. What an improvement. :no:


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

remy23 said:


> If the league is hanging their hat on this "maturity issue," then somehow, someway they need an established standard to justify their position. I'm under the impression that establishing a standard would be hard (which would mean you're keeping kids out of the league by an untestable standard, giving them absolutely no chance at all) and that any standard made might raise a few eyebrows (suppose you make standards in terms of weight lifting - having to bench X amount of weight; standards in stamina - have to run a mile in such and such time; and other physical tests). If maturity is such an issue, the league should have no problem saying, "You need to be this mature to be in the league." Since this maturity talk seems vague (except for when talking about stick figures kids who are painfully obviously not ready), this issue is a little confusing. If it's about maturity, then a standard should be made. But if a standard can't be made or nobody can agree upon a standard, then does the league retract the maturity rationale or do they keep that line of reasoning despite not giving a testable standard that people can examine/test?


You didn't really answer the question. What possible way could it be done other than age (which is used universally). I'm very surprised that people have a problem with this part of it given that age discrimination is commonplace in our society.



remy23 said:


> The reason this issue irks me is because upon closer expectation, each "reason" given seems questionable. If the age limit is about education, then you're dealing with kids going to college only for the mandatory 1-year wait and not giving a damn about learning (nothing like forcing kids to go to school when they don't want to go). If the limit is about caring for the kids and what not, you have to question whether the league's heart is truly bleeding for these children or it's merely a noble sounding reason given to look good and end the debate (absolutely pure and honorable if true, but deceitful if not true).


Maybe it's a combination of all those reasons. Like I was saying to ralaw, it doesn't have to be one specific thing.



ralaw said:


> I'm not sure what "making" it means, as this is a better question for those who are for the rules since they use it to validate their beliefs. Reaching potential is a rather subjective term, as several factors are involved. However, I would venture to say there aren't many players who by skipping college suddenly reached their "potential" at 18. This is one of the overrated aspects when it comes to talking about players at this talent level. Besides the majority of highschool players who came into the league turn into good players, so the argument is rather pointless. Regarldess of how you get into the league only the best will survive and this won't change even with an age limit.
> 
> This is reality, and without making assumptions I nor you can possibly project a LeBron who plays a year or two in college. However, when looking at the facts highschool players make it at a 76% clip and *whether they are more talented or not doesn't matter*, as this is the fact. Througout this thread people have said the age limit will protect the numerous players who didn't pan out and this simply isn't true, as the statics show the majority of them are successful at making the jump.


Absolutely not true. That's what matters the most. We're looking at the impact of college on the players. The question isn't simply whether or not they stay in the league for a certain number of years. What you have to look at is how a year or two of college ball improves players careers. High schoolers will make it at a higher rate because they're better players to begin with. But that doesn't say whether those that "make it" out of high school could've been even better had they gone to college, or whether that 76% could be more like 86% or 96% had they gone to college.

I guess you're just reacting to those who talk about all the guys who fail, and that's why you continue to talk about the "making it" stuff. That's not really the point though. It's the affect that college has on these players. 



ralaw said:


> I can see what you are saying, but waiting one year is rather arbitrary and this is the point. I understand this is the rule, but that doesn't change it from being pointless. If the rule is installed to allow players to mature phyically and mentally it seems using a precedent (the NFL) that has been deemed successful is the obvious choice. The age limit is nothing more than a frivolous rule only ment to appease mainstream audiences.


Maybe they think that the NFL's rule goes over the top, or they feel it's longer because it's more of a physical sport and that's why the players need that extra year or two. I don't see how the current rule is any more or less arbitrary than the past rule or the NFL's rule.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Coatesvillain said:


> There's no direct correlation between age and emotional maturity. None.


is this a joke?


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

baseball and hockey allow players to get drafted without the same limits as the nba. how many of those kids find themselves on the major league roster? how many are physically and emotionally ready? if baseball or hockey had no minor league system, would the product on the field suffer as they carry "potential" on their major league rosters?


----------



## remy23 (Aug 15, 2002)

socco said:


> You didn't really answer the question. What possible way could it be done other than age (which is used universally). I'm very surprised that people have a problem with this part of it given that age discrimination is commonplace in our society.


Age is the safest route and I can understand why it's common in society. I understand why some believe strongly for it. But I guess I'm an idealist because I believe if you're good enough, you're old enough. So I'm a believer in skill determining things. 

If high schoolers need to prove they belong and prove their worthiness, have teams extensively work out with younger talent. Place the kids in a put up or shut up type situation that weeds out the weak and leaves only the strong behind. Give teams the choice to select a high school kid or refuse. Then for those teams that select a young kid, have a try-out of sorts where the team works out with him and decides whether or not to keep him. My answer would be to improve the predraft workouts (apparenly some people have a workout, look like a God in that workout and are drafted based upon a godly workout). At the end of the day, all people can do is reduce errors by getting more educated about their selections (which holds true for college and international players as well, because they bust at a regular rate as well). You can play it safe with the age limit or you can try to improve the system (scouting, workouts) to help teams judge talent better and have a better perspective on who can and who can't play. 



> Maybe it's a combination of all those reasons. Like I was saying to ralaw, it doesn't have to be one specific thing.


Good point. From that angle, I understand it. This means each point isn't good enough to stand on its own legs individually but when coupled together with other reasons, stands by way of combination.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

socco said:


> Absolutely not true. That's what matters the most. We're looking at the impact of college on the players. The question isn't simply whether or not they stay in the league for a certain number of years. What you have to look at is how a year or two of college ball improves players careers. High schoolers will make it at a higher rate because they're better players to begin with. But that doesn't say whether those that "make it" out of high school could've been even better had they gone to college, or whether that 76% could be more like 86% or 96% had they gone to college.


Well I have a hard time believing attending one year of college somehow improves a player to the point where they all of a sudden have the ability to reach their potential. Are we to assume had Desagana Diop attended atleast one year of college he would currently be having a greater impact and be a top center in the league? I would venture to say he would be no better than he currently is and the only difference is he wouldn't have been a top 10 pick. Going to college would have only delayed the process that he was destined to take.




socco said:


> I guess you're just reacting to those who talk about all the guys who fail, and that's why you continue to talk about the "making it" stuff. That's not really the point though. It's the affect that college has on these players.


I guess it's this professed "affect that college has" where I'm having trouble. I can see that argument if your talking about a substantial amount of time, but I just don't see the value in making players wait one extra year.


----------



## rebelsun (Nov 25, 2003)

I can understand the thought process behind instituting the age limit, but it does absolutely nothing for the superstars.

I fail to believe that a year of college helps guys like Oden prepare for the league. Even with the limit, there are still guys that make ill-advised decisions to enter the draft - the Darius Washington's along with the no-name guys from Okie Tech CC. Uber-talents like Durant, who has been vocally opposed to it, are just going to cruise through their year. Why would they care about school? They're getting paid next summer.

Stern has said that he thinks the American developmental system for basketball is weak. If this is a response to that, I think it's a weak one.


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

lolac101 said:


> Its not illegal to have an age limit and if they want one, they should and do have it. Its just I dont agree with its purpose and think it should go away. I feel it is pointless and it hurts the NBA and players trying to enter.


I'm at the beginning of page 4, so I'm not sure if this got addressed, but my God, how many times are you people going to say this garbage! It ABSOLUTELY IS ILLEGAL. The age limit is arbitrary. Take a look at the Civil Rights Act and I'm sure you'll find that age is a factor which businesses cannot discriminate in terms of hiring. The NBA being a monopoly in the nation, they are subject to rules that control it much more than your average private business. Maurice Clarett was robbed, that judge's reasoning was garbage, and if the Supreme Court heard the appeal, he would have won. Unfortunately, no appeal was heard and its assumed that professional sports age limits cannot be successfully challenged.

Let me break this down for you, an 18 year old adult can do anything he wants if he is qualified. The NBA has a monopoly on professional basketball in this country (the ABA and other mickey mouse leagues do not count for practical and legal purposes), so if an 18 year old adult wants to play basketball they have to play in the NBA. The NBA has decided to violate the Civil Rights Act with its arbitrary age discrimination. In order to do that, they need a compelling reason as to why someone must be 19 in order to be qualified to play professional basketball. So far, all I've heard from the NBA is "these kids aren't ready", meaning they aren't ready for the lifestyle and the challenge of the game. With so many success stories from 18 year olds in the NBA, like KG, LeBron, and Kobe this is not a valid argument and the age limit is seen as what it is, completely arbitrary age discrimination. It is illegal.


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

Nimreitz said:


> I'm at the beginning of page 4, so I'm not sure if this got addressed, but my God, how many times are you people going to say this garbage! It ABSOLUTELY IS ILLEGAL. The age limit is arbitrary. Take a look at the Civil Rights Act and I'm sure you'll find that age is a factor which businesses cannot discriminate in terms of hiring. The NBA being a monopoly in the nation, they are subject to rules that control it much more than your average private business. Maurice Clarett was robbed, that judge's reasoning was garbage, and if the Supreme Court heard the appeal, he would have won. Unfortunately, no appeal was heard and its assumed that professional sports age limits cannot be successfully challenged.
> 
> Let me break this down for you, an 18 year old adult can do anything he wants if he is qualified. The NBA has a monopoly on professional basketball in this country (the ABA and other mickey mouse leagues do not count for practical and legal purposes), so if an 18 year old adult wants to play basketball they have to play in the NBA. The NBA has decided to violate the Civil Rights Act with its arbitrary age discrimination. In order to do that, they need a compelling reason as to why someone must be 19 in order to be qualified to play professional basketball. So far, all I've heard from the NBA is "these kids aren't ready", meaning they aren't ready for the lifestyle and the challenge of the game. With so many success stories from 18 year olds in the NBA, like KG, LeBron, and Kobe this is not a valid argument and the age limit is seen as what it is, completely arbitrary age discrimination. It is illegal.


do you want to do research before making claims that are just wrong.


in case you were wondering, the civil rights act on employment:


> SEC. 703. (a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer--
> 
> (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
> 
> ...


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

Ok, done reading.

Socco, I think the best way we can stop "comparing LeBron James to Brandon Hunter" is to take either the top 5 high school players from the past 10 years (or maybe the 10 starters in every McDonald's All American Game for the past 10 years) and track each's career. We assign them a rank from 1 to 5 for how well they have developed as a player, and then we categorize them by when they were drafted, either high school, or each year into college. That way you have an objective way of comparing similar players at one stage in their career and how college actually helped them. You can argue that Robert Swift didn't have the same potential as Dwight Howard, so they shouldn't be treated as the same, but what about DeAngelo Collins? He didn't do anything with his potential and he had all of it in the world. I think it probably evens out over time.

If someone undertakes this study, I'm sure they will find that going to college not only stunts the betterment of a player in the short run, but it does it in the long run too. College does not develop a player's game anywhere near sitting on an NBA bench does. In the NBA there are no arbitrary limits about how much time your coach can spend helping you develop, but there are in the NCAA. In the NCAA you can't practice as a team for what, 6 or 7 months a year is it?

EDIT: Ralaw, your argument about high school players being better is hampered because it doesn't take in to account the DeAngelo Collins' that go undrafted. While you are generally correct, your argument is weak because of this; I've made the same argument many times and understand this weakness.

EDIT2: I Start Fires, okay fine, now I'll do research. You know what, it's a lot harder than just throwing out stuff that isn't true. A player denied from undertaking a profession he is qualified for is being deprived of his property without due process of the law. I confess that I have forgotten quite a bit recently about 14th Amendment Constitutional Law, but when I was studying it the illegality of an arbitrary age limit like the NBA's was just aparantly clear. It was not even in question in my mind, it was obviously illegal. I mentioned that the NBA holding a monopoly on pro basketball was important, but didn't really say why in my last post; I believe this is important for a 14th Amendment claim, but don't quite remember. If someone can find a case or line of decision making that supports my argument, I'll rep you every day for a week.

Here's what I've found, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act according to the Court only applies to discriminating based on old age. The law isn't written like that, but the Justices found that it is clear. Scalia (and Thomas) give one of their classic "common sense" dissents that makes them not quite as unbearable as they would be. They say if "age" meant "old age" it would be in the law, it isn't. They also say that age is just like sex and race, reverse age discrimination is just as illegal and outlawed as reverse racism.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

kflo said:


> baseball and hockey allow players to get drafted without the same limits as the nba. how many of those kids find themselves on the major league roster? how many are physically and emotionally ready? if baseball or hockey had no minor league system, would the product on the field suffer as they carry "potential" on their major league rosters?


 So why not improve the NBDL and actually get involved with player development instead of letting the shoe companies and corrupt aau coaches run things?

The age limit is a copout that is simply window dressing instead of addressing the real issues of trying to protect inexperienced and young individuals in a competitive environment. Unfortunately physical and mental maturity don't necessarily match and so we have to deal with the situation. Adding one year of college doesn't change this: hell brain research for example show parts of you're frontal lobes that help control emotion aren't fully developed till you're early 20's


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Had to throw my two cents in because I love this topic as most know. I am now fine with the age limit, because it's giving Stern time to create his D-League the way he wants to.

First year with allocation system = 8 teams.
Second year with allocation system = 12 teams (Lakers owning one).
Third year with allocation system = ??? 

Now here are some areas that are being discussed (some of these teams are confirmed already, but haven't been announced):

Hoffman Estates, IL (Chicago Burbs)
Gary, IN 
Fort Wayne, IN
Reno, NV (were going to the CBA, but decided D-League was better, will probably be the Kings affiliate)
Richmond, VA
Ft. Myers (Florida Flame will be back in 2007-08)
Ft. Lauderdale (Florida Pitbulls from ABA will be in D-League in 2007-08)

D-League is probably adding 8 more teams next year. Also, if you're a talented HS kid, you can forego college and go right to the D-League and play against pro caliber talent. It didn't happen with this years' group, but I am still eager to see what OJ Mayo does. 

He can enter the D-League right out of HS and he could conceivably sign with the LA Lakers D-League affiliate and be able to practice against pros before making the jump as a rookie. 

In my opinion, if I was someone like Mayo, that would be more attractive then one year in college, cause he gets his shoe deal and he can get tips from a guy like Kobe Bryant in the process.

I'm just saying... In 4 years (when the new CBA is done) the Age limit will be raised again and then the draft will start working in conjunction with the D-League.

18 to go pro or 3 years in college before turning pro. I think that will be best, once the D-League is fully up and running.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

HKF said:


> D-League is probably adding 8 more teams next year. Also, if you're a talented HS kid, you can forego college and go right to the D-League and play against pro caliber talent. It didn't happen with this years' group, but I am still eager to see what OJ Mayo does.
> 
> He can enter the D-League right out of HS and he could conceivably sign with the LA Lakers D-League affiliate and be able to practice against pros before making the jump as a rookie.
> 
> ...


I think you bring up a great point about the D-league. I'm just hoping it gets the same treatment that the MLB minor leagues system gets, which seems Stern is trying to do. Right now, most of the top highschool players probably wouldn't go, as it really doesn't have the same ring to it, as someone doing to a college. I can see Mayo doing it as well, as it seems more and more like he probably wouldn't fit in the college system. It think the NBDL good for college basketball and for those students who seriously do not want to attend college. With the new NBA age limit I was worried about players basically going to college for one year only to play in the NBA. This could get rid of those players while giving the true college players the opportunity to play. It's a good weeding process for college basketball.

However, as you said I can see the league if this system proves to be successful attempting to raise the age limit again. It will be interesting to see if this league does become successful if it takes away from college basketball from an overall product, as most of the top recruits may decide to take this route. 



> A player is eligible to be signed to a D-League contract if he is or will be at least 18 years old during the calendar year in which the D-League draft is held and his high school class has graduated.


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2407522


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

It would make for an intriguing draft if you have to choose between the college stud or the D-League All Star. However I still don't like the NBA age limit because it hurts the LeBrons out there and now days there's a high schooler who will make an All Star team on his first contract in every draft. So OJ Mayo has to stay in the D League for a year (or three years as you propose later in your post) even if he's averaging 30 points per game and no one can guard him? That's stupid. In real farm systems, when a kid is ready he gets brought up. If a D Leaguer is under contract, but is too young to get promoted to the NBA, what's the point of working hard to get better? All that hard work won't mean anything.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Nimreitz said:


> It would make for an intriguing draft if you have to choose between the college stud or the D-League All Star. However I still don't like the NBA age limit because it hurts the LeBrons out there and now days there's a high schooler who will make an All Star team on his first contract in every draft. So OJ Mayo has to stay in the D League for a year (or three years as you propose later in your post) even if he's averaging 30 points per game and no one can guard him? That's stupid. In real farm systems, when a kid is ready he gets brought up. If a D Leaguer is under contract, but is too young to get promoted to the NBA, what's the point of working hard to get better? All that hard work won't mean anything.


You bring up a great point. Which also is my problem with the age limit, as it doesn't allow for the LeBrons or Odens, which will become more and more prevelant as players are becoming bigger, faster, stronger and skilled and at faster rates now due to various factors.


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

kflo said:


> is this a joke?


Nope.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Nimreitz said:


> It would make for an intriguing draft if you have to choose between the college stud or the D-League All Star. However I still don't like the NBA age limit because it hurts the LeBrons out there and now days there's a high schooler who will make an All Star team on his first contract in every draft. So OJ Mayo has to stay in the D League for a year (or three years as you propose later in your post) even if he's averaging 30 points per game and no one can guard him? That's stupid. In real farm systems, when a kid is ready he gets brought up. If a D Leaguer is under contract, but is too young to get promoted to the NBA, what's the point of working hard to get better? All that hard work won't mean anything.


Keep in mind, the current CBA is only for four more seasons. That means four more drafts. It will probably be raised to 3 years or right out of HS. The difference is, all of the talent will be drafted into the D-League and if a player proves to be a Lebron, he won't spend a minute in the D-League. 

People have to realize that change is not an overnight thing. It takes time. The NBA can't just put 30 D-League teams out there. They tend to plan a year in advance before adding newer D-League teams. So by the time 2010 arrives, they should have 30 fully operational D-League franchises. Then you will see the draft change to the baseball model. 

There will never be a double A or single A basketball league, because quite honestly there aren't enough basketball players to make it worthwhile. Baseball has way more players (since height isn't a requirement).

This is what I feel Stern's plan was from the beginning, but as with any plan, it's usually when the plan is completed that people see the true intent of it.


----------



## butr (Mar 23, 2004)

It takes away the some of the uncertainty in that you get a chance to evaluate a player out of the HS environment. Lebron was super special. Ideally you could just really take those that are ready and willing. But too many are not ready.

In the end it saves teams money.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

ralaw said:


> Well I have a hard time believing attending one year of college somehow improves a player to the point where they all of a sudden have the ability to reach their potential.


I think you're being a bit too dramatic with it. They don't have to go from role player to superstar. I think it's very reasonable to say that a year of college ball would be beneficial for most players careers.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

socco said:


> I think you're being a bit too dramatic with it. They don't have to go from role player to superstar.


I think you're placing too much value on one year making a difference in the top player's development and I never said the player should turn into a superstar. I don't think you understand my point so I'll attempt to say it again. At this level of talent, a player is going to be what he is going to be whether he attends one season in college or not and this is my point. The only thing going to college for one season will do is delay the developmental process. 

The notion that a top highschool player will be some how learn and appropriate the necessary fundamentals in order to play in the NBA in one year is comical to me. Many of the top players in the country will basically be hired guns used to push a team over the top on the court and off the court. These college coaches won't have time (per NCAA rules) or the desire (knowing the player will be gone) to spend time with a one-and-done player, as they would rather focus their attention on those less talented players who are more likely to stay in college. 



socco said:


> I think it's very reasonable to say that a year of college ball would be beneficial for most players careers.


I think this comment is rather obvious when you speak about "most" players, but I'm talking about the 
on average top 1-5 highschool players in the country who would declare had the age limit never been installed.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

ralaw said:


> I think you're placing too much value on one year making a difference in the top player's development and I never said the player should turn into a superstar.


I think you need to reread your DeSagana Diop comment.



ralaw said:


> I don't think you understand my point so I'll attempt to say it again. At this level of talent, a player is going to be what he is going to be whether he attends one season in college or not and this is my point. The only thing going to college for one season will do is delay the developmental process.


I disagree. I assume you think four years in college could help. So why not 3? Why not 2? Why not 1?



ralaw said:


> The notion that a top highschool player will be some how learn and appropriate the necessary fundamentals in order to play in the NBA in one year is comical to me.


They don't have to learn everything and all of a sudden be a proven NBA player, but what's comical to me is the notion that a year at a much higher level of play will make no difference on how prepared they will be for the NBA.



ralaw said:


> I think this comment is rather obvious when you speak about "most" players, but I'm talking about the on average top 1-5 highschool players in the country who would declare had the age limit never been installed.


And why won't it help them? And no, them becoming superstars is not proof that it wouldn't help. Who's to say that any of the current HS stars would've been even better, or better sooner, had they got some college experience?


btw, for those against the concept of an age limit all together, I'm watching the hot dog eating contest on ESPN right now, and you have to be 18 years old to enter.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

socco said:


> I think you need to reread your DeSagana Diop comment.


The Diop comment was less about him becoming a star and a more about are we to assume had he went to college he would be a better player today? I find it hard to believe that not attending college stunted his growth causing him to peak earlier.



socco said:


> I disagree. I assume you think four years in college could help. So why not 3? Why not 2? Why not 1?


I don't need to argue about the amount of college necessary for a player to become more successful on the NBA level because I do not agree with the current age limit. However, I'm sure if you believe 1 year is beneficial, than you must also believe playing 2, 3 and 4 would be more beneficial. Correct?



socco said:


> They don't have to learn everything and all of a sudden be a proven NBA player, but what's comical to me is the notion that a year at a much higher level of play will make no difference on how prepared they will be for the NBA.
> 
> 
> And why won't it help them? And no, them becoming superstars is not proof that it wouldn't help. Who's to say that any of the current HS stars would've been even better, or better sooner, had they got some college experience?


I never said they had to learn everything and become a proven NBA player from day 1. However, if you are going to be a "project type of player" it makes more sense to be a "project player" in the NBA, as you would be playing against the best competition possible. I also never said attending college won't help them out at all, but the magnitude of "helping them out" is minimal to the point where it's practically useless. I'm not going to deal with the "what if" arguement as it relates to highschool players attending college, as I could easily assume an arguement in my favor and you could easily do the same.

It's not about being a superstar, it's about being productive on the NBA level and being able to compete, which is what 76% of the players who come out of highschool become.



socco said:


> btw, for those against the concept of an age limit all together, I'm watching the hot dog eating contest on ESPN right now, and you have to be 18 years old to enter.


Why not 19? It seems to me if they waited until they were 19 as opposed to 18 they may be more physically and mentally ready for the rigors of training for the hotdog eating contest. I know with me when I was 18 I could only eat like 2 hotdogs at a time, but when I reached 19, I miraculously became more mentally and physically mature causing me to be able to eat 3 hotdogs at a time. 

I don't have a problem with the concept of an age limit, but I do have a problem with the rational being used for it being necessary.


----------



## PhatDaddy3100 (Jun 16, 2002)

Is an age limit stupid? No. Is a only one year of college Age limit stupid? Yes. IT should have been two years, or nothing at all. Making kids go to college for one year and then bolt kind of ruins some college coaches. However, It does help the kids. Does anyone honestly Think Luol Deng would have been a top ten pick coming out of high school? no. What about Tyrus Thomas? No. Basically, the NBA is a business, they should be able to set an age limit or requirements like any other business. Its their right. They can do it and should be able too.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

PhatDaddy3100 said:


> Is an age limit stupid? No. Is a only one year of college Age limit stupid? Yes. IT should have been two years, or nothing at all. Making kids go to college for one year and then bolt kind of ruins some college coaches. However, It does help the kids. Does anyone honestly Think Luol Deng would have been a top ten pick coming out of high school? no. What about Tyrus Thomas? No. Basically, the NBA is a business, they should be able to set an age limit or requirements like any other business. Its their right. They can do it and should be able too.


I don't like this argument because it can be used both ways. Paul Davis was considered a top 10 pick coming out of highschool, yet after 4 years of playing under one of the best coaches in college basketball he was only a second round pick. This is why looking at a few players (micro) to prove a point isn't wise. We should look at it from a macro level. From a macro level 76% of highschool players are able to contribute effectvely on the NBA level.


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

PhatDaddy3100 said:


> Is an age limit stupid? No. Is a only one year of college Age limit stupid? Yes. IT should have been two years, or nothing at all. Making kids go to college for one year and then bolt kind of ruins some college coaches. However, It does help the kids. Does anyone honestly Think Luol Deng would have been a top ten pick coming out of high school? no. What about Tyrus Thomas? No. Basically, the NBA is a business, they should be able to set an age limit or requirements like any other business. Its their right. They can do it and should be able too.


Actually yes, I think Luol Deng was a top 10 pick comming out of high school. He was the concensus #2 guy behind LeBron wasn't he?


----------



## crazyfan (Dec 9, 2005)

Nimreitz said:


> Actually yes, I think Luol Deng was a top 10 pick comming out of high school. He was the concensus #2 guy behind LeBron wasn't he?




yes he was ranked no.2 and if guys like ndudi ebi and travis outlaw could go 1st round, theres no reason why Deng couldnt.

Well if u remember back in 2000, Darius Rice or something like that was predicted as a 1st round pick out off high school but he stayed in school 4 years and now he's out off basketball.


----------



## Quasi-Quasar (Jul 18, 2002)

While I'm undecided on the age limit, blaming Stern is ignoring the biggest proponent of the age limit, the NBAPA... Additionally, the NBA is a balance of the opportunity of the player and the actual business venture it is... Certainly you can't take the stance that the player's rights and benefits take priority of those of the owners. The belief that athletic talent entitles them to special rights is a wrong approach. Without the owners and the league (etc), that athletic talent has no value, monetary or inherent.

So while I'm not taking a stance on my feelings regarding it, the owners and the league have a good case that they're protecting their interests to the best of their ability... And the NBAPA is protecting their hides too. It's their means of providing some additional job security (even if it appears nominal).

It's like buying a car. you want to get the best deal and work over the dealer, but if you **** the dealerships dry, they have no incentive to continue. Which leads to no car dealerships... Thus the withholded markup on cars...

It may be best for the owners to not support an age limit (although the NBAPA has strong interest in it), or it may be. It has yet to be seen. In the least though, it's bust-proofing the league a bit... Lebron, Howard, Shaun Livingston, etc would have performed at a high level in the NCAA, and still would have gone high. And guys like Tony Key and Lenny Cooke would have a marketable skill after flunking out of NBA contention (presumably a year in the NCAA would convince them to stay or improve their mental games).

Brandon Roy almost made the worst decision of his life, and would have busted out immediately. Instead he made himself a lotto pick, and mentally matured.

So maybe the solution is a limit with exemption on a case-by-case basis, maybe not. Too often though players minds get filled and poluted by delusions of grandeur, by word on "the street," their advisors, etc.

Another added benefit is to the education and progression of players. They won't be as encouraged to stay longer in HS (or go back a year earlier) to play weaker competition longer. The next generation's OJ Mayo would have an incentive to complete HS in a timely manner (rather than Mayo's path, which will lead him to the social security line soon j/k ).

The bottom line is, it's hard to project benefits vs. harms, and the rule was not implemented at the request of one man, or an evil tyrant.


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

TheGoods said:


> So maybe the solution is a limit with exemption on a case-by-case basis, maybe not. Too often though players minds get filled and poluted by delusions of grandeur, by word on "the street," their advisors, etc.


I haven't argued for this because it goes against an average player's right to turn pro at 18, but I could be for this if this was the only option. Secondly, it just seems fundamentally unfair, but just as I read this in your post I thought back to when Larry Fitzgerald declared for the NFL Draft. Technically he had only been in college for 2 years, so strictly reading the NFL rules, he would have not been eligible. However, he also had a year at prep school and so appealed to the NFL and they let him in. Sure he had that year of prep school, but that didn't give him an extra year of college, he had to appeal. I think if a special player appeals, they should be allowed to come in, and that decision should be made by everyone. Players Association, Owners, and NBA Scouts/GMs. Call it the NBA's version of a PGA sponsor's exemption.


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

The NBA surely wanted this rule for their own benefit more than for the kids, but there can be no denying that an awful lot of high schoolers every year were making a pretty terrible decision by deciding to declare for the draft. Now, the fact that the NCAA banned them from receiving scholarships if they declared might be the real problem, but that's the world we live in.


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

I started late but here's what I have to say:



lolac101 said:


> Freddy Adu is playing soccer at age 14. How many child stars are there in Hollywood. It's being done so why not. Why should this only be a problem in the NBA? I wouldn't have a problem if the movie "Like Mike" came true?


You wouldn't have a problem if someone cheated to get into the NBA (or any other profession) by finding a magic pair of shoes? :laugh:



Nimreitz said:


> I'm at the beginning of page 4, so I'm not sure if this got addressed, but my God, how many times are you people going to say this garbage! It ABSOLUTELY IS ILLEGAL. The age limit is arbitrary. Take a look at the Civil Rights Act and I'm sure you'll find that age is a factor which businesses cannot discriminate in terms of hiring. The NBA being a monopoly in the nation, they are subject to rules that control it much more than your average private business. Maurice Clarett was robbed, that judge's reasoning was garbage, and if the Supreme Court heard the appeal, he would have won. Unfortunately, no appeal was heard and its assumed that professional sports age limits cannot be successfully challenged.
> 
> Let me break this down for you, an 18 year old adult can do anything he wants if he is qualified. The NBA has a monopoly on professional basketball in this country (the ABA and other mickey mouse leagues do not count for practical and legal purposes), so if an 18 year old adult wants to play basketball they have to play in the NBA. The NBA has decided to violate the Civil Rights Act with its arbitrary age discrimination. In order to do that, they need a compelling reason as to why someone must be 19 in order to be qualified to play professional basketball. So far, all I've heard from the NBA is "these kids aren't ready", meaning they aren't ready for the lifestyle and the challenge of the game. With so many success stories from 18 year olds in the NBA, like KG, LeBron, and Kobe this is not a valid argument and the age limit is seen as what it is, completely arbitrary age discrimination. It is illegal.


Uh how come when I was 15-16, all the retail stores wouldn't hire you unless you were 18? (The real answer is so if you stole, you could be prosecuted as an adult). They don't have to hire you if they don't want to.

Now about the actual topic, the age limit is good for a few good reasons. Teams dont have to pay a 3 year guaranteed contract to a player that they have to develop when that could be done in college. Straight from HS players that aren't ready dont have to sit on the end of the bench in street clothes every game day and rot the next two-three years away. Colleges of course get better, even though it may be for one or two years. But that one kid that decides to play for your team will draw other kids and future players.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

SeaNet said:


> The NBA surely wanted this rule for their own benefit more than for the kids, but there can be no denying that an awful lot of high schoolers every year were making a pretty terrible decision by deciding to declare for the draft. Now, the fact that the NCAA banned them from receiving scholarships if they declared might be the real problem, but that's the world we live in.


That's not true and this is one of my arguments against the age limit as the league and the media are painting a picture of highschool players entering the draft that isn't true. Here is a list of every highschool player who has declared for the draft since 1995. 



> *Highschool players drafted in modern who played in the NBA(since 1995):*
> Kevin Garnett, Farragut Academy, Chicago, Illinois (1995)
> 
> Kobe Bryant, Lower Merion High School, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (1996)
> ...


74% of those playes who declared for the draft out of highschool since 1995 are in the NBA currently. Obviously there are those who could have benefited from playing in college, but nonetheless the overwhelming majority of them have been successful.


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

ralaw said:


> That's not true and this is one of my arguments against the age limit as the league and the media are painting a picture of highschool players entering the draft that isn't true. Here is a list of every highschool player who has declared for the draft since 1995.
> 
> 
> 
> 74% of those playes who declared for the draft out of highschool since 1995 are in the NBA currently. Obviously there are those who could have benefited from playing in college, but nonetheless the overwhelming majority of them have been successful.





> Highschool players drafted in modern who played in the NBA(since 1995):
> Kevin Garnett, Farragut Academy, Chicago, Illinois (1995)
> 
> Kobe Bryant, Lower Merion High School, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (1996)
> ...


7 (Dark Red) are stars
4 (Green) are solid players
7 (Bold) are out of the league
The last two year's don't really count since the jury is still out on them (with the exception of Dwight Howard, who has made a name for himself already)
The remaining 6 have not made any sort of impact in the league. The only reason why they are still in the league is because of the guaranteed rookie contract or because their "upside" and "potential" is still there. Or as I like to call the, busts (Travis Outlaw isn't exactly a bust since he was chosen late in the first round) but the remaining 5 are lottery/top 5 picks and *NONE* of them are on their drafted teams.

7/24 or 30% are superstars
4/24 or 17% are decent players
7/24 or 30% are MIA
6/24 or 25% are busts

so that leaves more than half of the 24 (55%) as donezo.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

deanwoof said:


> 7 (Dark Red) are stars
> 4 (Green) are solid players
> 7 (Bold) are out of the league
> The last two year's don't really count since the jury is still out on them (with the exception of Dwight Howard, who has made a name for himself already)
> ...


Your numbers are bias. No one is saying every highschool player is a star, as everyone isn't going to become that. The question that needs to be asked is are they contributing to a team and have they shown promise? I'm not sure what your defintion of "stars," "superstar," "decent player," "MIA," "solid players" and "busts" are, so I can't address them. However, I will say being a considered a bust is less about the player and more about people's perception of them because the last I checked Kwame Brown, Eddy Curry, Darius Miles, DeShawn Stevenson, Shawn Livingston, Telfair, Al Jefferson, Josh Smith, JR Smith (before Scott - who is an idiot), Webster and Monta Ellis, all were contributing players to their teams and the latter few has already show promise to become good to great players. 

You can't judge these player based on people's expectations, but on what they accomplish for their team. For some reason people expect every highschool player to become a superstar because of what KG, Kobe, McGrady and Lebron have accomplished, but this isn't fair. When looking at college and foreign players this isn't expected and much of this can be attributed to the media pumping this into people's mind. The reality is every draft regardless if they come from highschool, college or are international players has every range of player from great, good, average to below average.


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

ralaw said:


> That's not true and this is one of my arguments against the age limit as the league and the media are painting a picture of highschool players entering the draft that isn't true. Here is a list of every highschool player who has declared for the draft since 1995.
> 
> 
> 
> 74% of those playes who declared for the draft out of highschool since 1995 are in the NBA currently. Obviously there are those who could have benefited from playing in college, but nonetheless the overwhelming majority of them have been successful.


Yeah, and by your calculations 26% of the kids who declared effectively shot themselves in the foot. That's a high enough percentage for me to feel that an age limit is a good thing.


----------



## jskudera (Dec 2, 2004)

David Stern... is a smart man.

The dress code was a very good idea because it gets the "thug" image away from the TV screen for younger people who watch the game. The world is full of violence already, you don't want to make things worse.

The age limit gives all the bone heads coming right out of high school some ****ing education instead of bull****ting in high school for 4 years. It's sad when these NBA players are so rediculously stupid, but they're millionaires. Yes they have a skill, but get some real education. So many of these players wouldn't make it through a 4 year college if it weren't for basketball.

David Stern is simply changing the image the NBA perceives to younger children.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

:stupid: How you dress makes you look like a thug huh? Violence happens anywhere. The dress code continues to be a sham. Who cares if athletes where gaudy jewelry?


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

jskudera said:


> David Stern... is a smart man.
> 
> The dress code was a very good idea because it gets the "thug" image away from the TV screen for younger people who watch the game. The world is full of violence already, you don't want to make things worse.
> 
> ...


Judging by the way you type, it's obvious that you're not much smarter and could use the advice yourself. Look at this post and see how ignorant you look. It's been said that you can tell a person's intelligence by the kind of words you use. Those censors tell the story about your educational background or lack thereof.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

SeaNet said:


> Yeah, and by your calculations 26% of the kids who declared effectively shot themselves in the foot. That's a high enough percentage for me to feel that an age limit is a good thing.


That's a fair argument.


----------



## jskudera (Dec 2, 2004)

HKF said:


> Judging by the way you type, it's obvious that you're not much smarter and could use the advice yourself. Look at this post and see how ignorant you look. It's been said that you can tell a person's intelligence by the kind of words you use. Those censors tell the story about your educational background or lack thereof.


So since someone uses vulgar words to express something they feel is very true, that means they are ignorant? The only people angry with David Stern and his regulations are they ones who are affected by it.

Although it is extremely stereotypical to judge someone by the way one dresses, talks, and walks... it's true that "thugs" are perceived as wearing baggy clothes, tons of jewelry, rap, associates themselves with drugs, violence, etc etc. It's a FACT that people are looked at this way. Do you want your kids to see brawls on national tv (i.e. ron artest) or have them talk like "thugs"? I can guarantee you your answer to that is no. So what David Stern is doing is trying to preserve the innocence of youths growing up.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

jskudera said:


> So since someone uses vulgar words to express something they feel is very true, that means they are ignorant? The only people angry with David Stern and his regulations are they ones who are affected by it.
> 
> Although it is extremely stereotypical to judge someone by the way one dresses, talks, and walks... it's true that "thugs" are perceived as wearing baggy clothes, tons of jewelry, rap, associates themselves with drugs, violence, etc etc. It's a FACT that people are looked at this way. Do you want your kids to see brawls on national tv (i.e. ron artest) or have them talk like "thugs"? I can guarantee you your answer to that is no. So what *David Stern is doing is trying to preserve the innocence of youths growing up.*


No, Stern is trying to preserve the NBA's image by trying to get back the mainstream fans causing the league to make more mone, to which I have no problem with. I also don't have a problem with the dress code as it is, and though I have a problem with the application of the age limit; I can see where Stern is going with it, and I agree. I believe Stern has done an excellent job running the league.


----------



## MR. VADA (Jun 29, 2006)

jskudera said:


> David Stern... is a smart man.
> 
> The dress code was a very good idea because it gets the "thug" image away from the TV screen for younger people who watch the game. The world is full of violence already, you don't want to make things worse.
> 
> ...


 i wonder if your white *** was good enough to go straight to the nba, would you??? how many white players come straight from high school? you're the typical little dick white dude thats mad because a black man can do something you cant while dealing with all the racist bull**** people like you like to pump up in the media.


----------



## MR. VADA (Jun 29, 2006)

SeaNet said:


> Yeah, and by your calculations 26% of the kids who declared effectively shot themselves in the foot. That's a high enough percentage for me to feel that an age limit is a good thing.


 well tell all the little white kids that look up to all these "high school thugs" to go watch hockey or something, and to stop talking and dressing like us, and tell all these white *****es to stop saying that somebody raped they flat-booty ***. i wanna see how you racist mutha****az would fair if you were on the short end of the stick like black people and everybody acted like they didnt give a **** about you...oh and if we cant seem to get along with each other wouldnt you say that you have a lot to do with that...of course you wouldnt...vada


----------



## jskudera (Dec 2, 2004)

MR. VADA said:


> i wonder if your white *** was good enough to go straight to the nba, would you??? how many white players come straight from high school? you're the typical little dick white dude thats mad because a black man can do something you cant while dealing with all the racist bull**** people like you like to pump up in the media.



Heh. If I was good enough to go straight to the NBA from high school, I wouldn't. First and foremost, an education is way more important than skipping college to go right to the NBA. Look at statistics buddy; violence, crime, and drugs occurs mainly in areas where education is far less superior than elsewhere. And please, do not call me racist because you really have no idea.

I grew up in an area where I was the minority, and let me tell you -- I've been exposed to more racism then you'll ever know. So before you start trying to accusing others, know who you're talking to first. People like you are the reason an age limit is set because your head is so hollow you can't comprehend the purpose of it.

And just because you're black does not mean you can accel at basketball any better than a white person. Again, this shows your stupidity. Want to know what else shows how ignorant you are? You assume that by thug, I mean african american.

Idiot.


----------



## MR. VADA (Jun 29, 2006)

jskudera said:


> David Stern... is a smart man.
> 
> The dress code was a very good idea because it gets the "thug" image away from the TV screen for younger people who watch the game. The world is full of violence already, you don't want to make things worse.
> 
> ...


 so let me get this str8...you have to be a genius to be a millionare...and...its okay to go kill innocent people because you have a real education...hippocrit...you push a pencil for the rest of your life...i'd rather see my young black men dunk on white boys...but know this, i love all people, i just have a problem with ignorant racist ones like you...vada


----------



## jskudera (Dec 2, 2004)

MR. VADA said:


> so let me get this str8...you have to be a genius to be a millionare...and...its okay to go kill innocent people because you have a real education...hippocrit...you push a pencil for the rest of your life...i'd rather see my young black men dunk on white boys...but know this, i love all people, i just have a problem with ignorant racist ones like you...vada


Again, you assume too many things. Get the perception out of your big head that a thug has to be black. I'm constantly proving my point that you're a moron who can't understand simple comments with no big words in them.

If you got an education, #1 you can learn how to spell, #2 learn how to write somewhat complete sentences, and #3 understand that definitions have multiple meanings.


----------



## MR. VADA (Jun 29, 2006)

jskudera said:


> Heh. If I was good enough to go straight to the NBA from high school, I wouldn't. First and foremost, an education is way more important than skipping college to go right to the NBA. Look at statistics buddy; violence, crime, and drugs occurs mainly in areas where education is far less superior than elsewhere. And please, do not call me racist because you really have no idea.
> 
> I grew up in an area where I was the minority, and let me tell you -- I've been exposed to more racism then you'll ever know. So before you start trying to accusing others, know who you're talking to first. People like you are the reason an age limit is set because your head is so hollow you can't comprehend the purpose of it.
> 
> ...


 thugs come in all shapes sizes and colors ask Georgie Bushy...so does that make eminem an african american studio thug??? dont get me started...and if you could travel around the world and play basketball for a living you'd say **** a book...liar...minority...Ha Ha...trailer park minority...what, did the black boy take you lunch money???... im from south central los angeles ca.(the i see racisim on a daily basis so i know it when i read it). hollow...the only thing hollow is your nuts...oh, and how many white boys were drafted outta high school???...1...robert swift...Ha...
stupidity??? i garuntee that if white boys were commin outta high school like kobe, garnett, and lebron there would be no age limit...holla...vada


----------



## MR. VADA (Jun 29, 2006)

jskudera said:


> Again, you assume too many things. Get the perception out of your big head that a thug has to be black. I'm constantly proving my point that you're a moron who can't understand simple comments with no big words in them.
> 
> If you got an education, #1 you can learn how to spell, #2 learn how to write somewhat complete sentences, and #3 understand that definitions have multiple meanings.


i type like this because i dont give a ****


----------



## jskudera (Dec 2, 2004)

MR. VADA said:


> thugs come in all shapes sizes and colors ask Georgie Bushy...so does that make eminem an african american studio thug??? dont get me started...and if you could travel around the world and play basketball for a living you'd say **** a book...liar...minority...Ha Ha...trailer park minority...what, did the black boy take you lunch money???... im from south central los angeles ca.(the i see racisim on a daily basis so i know it when i read it). hollow...the only thing hollow is your nuts...oh, and how many white boys were drafted outta high school???...1...robert swift...Ha...
> stupidity??? i garuntee that if white boys were commin outta high school like kobe, garnett, and lebron there would be no age limit...holla...vada


Honestly, I understood 0% of that post. 50 cent, thug. Eminem, thug. Yeah, trailor park right here man. You got it right. Last time I checked, the NBA played 99% of the games in the United States & Canada. I'd play basketball for a living when I get some type of education so I don't sound like a complete moron when my career is over. 

What grade did you finish? 9th? You sound like it with your stupid comments about my nuts being hollow. I don't even feel like getting into this anymore because I feel like im arguing with a 12 year old. What's next, yo momma comments? Holla.


----------



## MR. VADA (Jun 29, 2006)

jskudera said:


> Again, you assume too many things. Get the perception out of your big head that a thug has to be black. I'm constantly proving my point that you're a moron who can't understand simple comments with no big words in them.
> 
> If you got an education, #1 you can learn how to spell, #2 learn how to write somewhat complete sentences, and #3 understand that definitions have multiple meanings.


#1 its called ebonics man, #2 i aint got no time for punctuations... #3 see i can spell...vada


----------



## jskudera (Dec 2, 2004)

MR. VADA said:


> #1 its called ebonics man, #2 i aint got no time for punctuations... #3 see i can spell...vada


It's called *IGNORANT*, or in ebonics, *IGNANT*


----------



## MR. VADA (Jun 29, 2006)

jskudera said:


> Honestly, I understood 0% of that post. 50 cent, thug. Eminem, thug. Yeah, trailor park right here man. You got it right. Last time I checked, the NBA played 99% of the games in the United States & Canada. I'd play basketball for a living when I get some type of education so I don't sound like a complete moron when my career is over.
> 
> What grade did you finish? 9th? You sound like it with your stupid comments about my nuts being hollow. I don't even feel like getting into this anymore because I feel like im arguing with a 12 year old. What's next, yo momma comments? Holla.


 that **** about my momms dosent phase me for a second...all it tells me that i won the war of words...and if you too biased to or guilty to understand what i mean, someone else will...and i dont think anybody cares how you sound when your paying their salary...vada


----------



## MR. VADA (Jun 29, 2006)

jskudera said:


> It's called *IGNORANT*, or in ebonics, *IGNANT*


 that was the most intelligent **** you said...you must watch Dave Chappelle...vada


----------



## jskudera (Dec 2, 2004)

MR. VADA said:


> that **** about my momms dosent phase me for a second...all it tells me that i won the war of words...and if you too biased to or guilty to understand what i mean, someone else will...and i dont think anybody cares how you sound when your paying their salary...vada


You make no sense. I'm done arguing with someone that has the IQ of a rock.


----------



## MR. VADA (Jun 29, 2006)

jskudera said:


> So since someone uses vulgar words to express something they feel is very true, that means they are ignorant? The only people angry with David Stern and his regulations are they ones who are affected by it.
> 
> Although it is extremely stereotypical to judge someone by the way one dresses, talks, and walks... it's true that "thugs" are perceived as wearing baggy clothes, tons of jewelry, rap, associates themselves with drugs, violence, etc etc. It's a FACT that people are looked at this way. Do you want your kids to see brawls on national tv (i.e. ron artest) or have them talk like "thugs"? I can guarantee you your answer to that is no. So what David Stern is doing is trying to preserve the innocence of youths growing up.


no i want my kids to see america go to war with a country to take their oil and hopefully when they get old enough they can die in the war so i can collect dat check... and who made david stern mr. nanny in the first place...and where do drugs come from??? who allows it into the country...oh, and do you mean brawl as in hockey???...vada


----------



## MR. VADA (Jun 29, 2006)

jskudera said:


> You make no sense. I'm done arguing with someone that has the IQ of a rock.


you know i make sense and you love me...vada


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

jskudera said:


> If I was good enough to go straight to the NBA from high school, I wouldn't. First and foremost, an education is way more important than skipping college to go right to the NBA. Look at statistics buddy; violence, crime, and drugs occurs mainly in areas where education is far less superior than elsewhere. And please, do not call me racist because you really have no idea.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Idiot.


Hey, just a question, but did you know you can go to college after making millions of dollars? Did you realize you can get an education without going to college? After four years of college the only thing I'm better at now than if I had sat down and just read a bunch of stuff is writing, but if you're talking about an education to know what's actually going on in the world reading books and keeping up on current events is fine.

But honestly, you would pass up millions of dollars to do something you could do after you made your millions? I don't see that point, you're risking the millions, which could be a one time shot, to do something that you can do at any point in your life.


----------



## MR. VADA (Jun 29, 2006)

Nimreitz said:


> Hey, just a question, but did you know you can go to college after making millions of dollars? Did you realize you can get an education without going to college? After four years of college the only thing I'm better at now than if I had sat down and just read a bunch of stuff is writing, but if you're talking about an education to know what's actually going on in the world reading books and keeping up on current events is fine.
> 
> But honestly, you would pass up millions of dollars to do something you could do after you made your millions? I don't see that point, you're risking the millions, which could be a one time shot, to do something that you can do at any point in your life.


you are so right...thank you...vada


----------



## jskudera (Dec 2, 2004)

Nimreitz said:


> Hey, just a question, but did you know you can go to college after making millions of dollars? Did you realize you can get an education without going to college? After four years of college the only thing I'm better at now than if I had sat down and just read a bunch of stuff is writing, but if you're talking about an education to know what's actually going on in the world reading books and keeping up on current events is fine.
> 
> But honestly, you would pass up millions of dollars to do something you could do after you made your millions? I don't see that point, you're risking the millions, which could be a one time shot, to do something that you can do at any point in your life.


Who wants to go to college as a millionaire? If I was, I wouldn't want to. If you're good enough to go to the NBA as a high schooler, then 4* years of college ball is going to do nothing but make you better. It wouldn't be considered a one time shot. Also, I don't know about anyone else, but if I'm trying to go to the NBA, I don't want to end up like Kwame Brown. Sure, he makes his money, but he is horrible. I'd want to atleast have a role on a team.

* EDIT: Not even 4 years, man. Stern is asking for one friggin year, and everyone is complaining.


----------



## MR. VADA (Jun 29, 2006)

jskudera said:


> Who wants to go to college as a millionaire? If I was, I wouldn't want to. If you're good enough to go to the NBA as a high schooler, then 4 years of college ball is going to do nothing but make you better. It wouldn't be considered a one time shot. Also, I don't know about anyone else, but if I'm trying to go to the NBA, I don't want to end up like Kwame Brown. Sure, he makes his money, but he is horrible. I'd want to atleast have a role on a team.


he might be horrible but that check aint...and he does have a role...PASS THA BALL TO KOBE!!!...holla at me on the clippers site...i love white people sorry if i offended any of you...except...vada out.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

ralaw said:


> The Diop comment was less about him becoming a star and a more about are we to assume had he went to college he would be a better player today? I find it hard to believe that not attending college stunted his growth causing him to peak earlier.


How do you find that hard to believe? You don't think a year at a level in between pimply 5'6" white boys and beasts who eat those kids like Shaq would've helped him be more prepared, and therefore help him grow better into the player he could be?



ralaw said:


> I don't need to argue about the amount of college necessary for a player to become more successful on the NBA level because I do not agree with the current age limit. However, I'm sure if you believe 1 year is beneficial, than you must also believe playing 2, 3 and 4 would be more beneficial. Correct?


My point is that if you think 4 years is beneficial, why not 1? Is there some cutoff where it starts becoming beneficial? And yes, for the most part an extra couple years would help (could go deeper into this but I don't think that's necessary), but maybe the NBA just wants them to get a taste of it.



ralaw said:


> I never said they had to learn everything and become a proven NBA player from day 1. However, if you are going to be a "project type of player" it makes more sense to be a "project player" in the NBA, as you would be playing against the best competition possible.


Or would it make sense to be in college where you can get much more attention and coaching, and you can actually improve your game as you're playing on a level playing field rather than being lost every second you're on the court. One of the hot topics in this discussion is the NBDL. If it makes more sense for these guys to be playing with the big boys, why would they be trying to develop a minor league system? It's there so these guys can get more game experience and actually improve rather than sitting on the bench every day.



ralaw said:


> I also never said attending college won't help them out at all, but the magnitude of "helping them out" is minimal to the point where it's practically useless. I'm not going to deal with the "what if" arguement as it relates to highschool players attending college, as I could easily assume an arguement in my favor and you could easily do the same.


Actually I think you did, I think you actually said it will hurt them. And if you think the magnitude is little, cool. The NBA thinks it isn't little, and that's why they made the rule. Pretty simple.



ralaw said:


> Why not 19? It seems to me if they waited until they were 19 as opposed to 18 they may be more physically and mentally ready for the rigors of training for the hotdog eating contest. I know with me when I was 18 I could only eat like 2 hotdogs at a time, but when I reached 19, I miraculously became more mentally and physically mature causing me to be able to eat 3 hotdogs at a time.


You're SEVERLY downplaying, and even completely ignoring, what the college experience does for a prospective professional athlete. Is physical or mental maturity really that big of a deal for somebody stuffing their faces with hot dogs? Not at all, while it obviously is for a professional athlete. The reason I brought this up is that there's really no reason for an age limit in a hot dog eating contest, yet there is one. Age limits are all around and they're not going away. That's just how things work and will always work. That's how they worked in the NBA too, and nobody complained about it. The only reason there are complaints is because something changed. It's the change causing a raucous, not the actual ramifications of the change.



ralaw said:


> I don't have a problem with the concept of an age limit, but I do have a problem with the rational being used for it being necessary.


If you're just referring to the rule change (there was already an age limit prior to this one), it's not necessarily necessary. The league would survive without it. But the league would've survived without the hand checking change, or the illegal defense change, etc. The NBA felt that this rule change would better their league, and that's why they did it. Don't make it out to be some do or die situation. 



ralaw said:


> No one is saying every highschool player is a star, as everyone isn't going to become that.


Aren't these guys the best of the best though? Shouldn't the vast majority of them be superstars?


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

socco said:


> How do you find that hard to believe? You don't think a year at a level in between pimply 5'6" white boys and beasts who eat those kids like Shaq would've helped him be more prepared, and therefore help him grow better into the player he could be?


Diop wasn't playing against 5'6'' pimply white boys in high school, he played at Oak Hill. The teams he was playing were better than some mid major college teams.


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

jskudera said:


> Who wants to go to college as a millionaire? If I was, I wouldn't want to. If you're good enough to go to the NBA as a high schooler, then 4* years of college ball is going to do nothing but make you better. It wouldn't be considered a one time shot. Also, I don't know about anyone else, but if I'm trying to go to the NBA, I don't want to end up like Kwame Brown. Sure, he makes his money, but he is horrible. I'd want to atleast have a role on a team.
> 
> * EDIT: Not even 4 years, man. Stern is asking for one friggin year, and everyone is complaining.


No, it's not going to do "nothing but make you better", it's going to stunt your potential growth and your potential earning power. If I can increase as a player +2 every year in college with the limited amount of time I can spend with my coach, I can probably increase my ability +4 going against NBA Players every day in practice with the coaching staff on call for my every basketball need 24/7. So if you come out of high school with ability of 10, you can either be a 22 year old player with the ability 26, or the ability 18. And if you came out after high school not only are you better, but you are comming into your second contract, so the chump you graduated with isn't even close to as good as you and is on the rookie scale when you're on the max.

And by the way, in case you didn't know improvement is a lot easier to make when a player is young. The kid in college could have made huge strides as an 18-20 year old in the NBA, but he won't make as good strides as a 22 or 23 year old. Oh, and of course with the 4 less years in the league if he's truly special his legacy will be diminished because it's 4 less years he could be scoring and setting records.

And by the way, saying "who wants to go to school as a millionaire" shows your true view on education, it's only for the people who need it. Kwame Brown by your standards then doesn't need a college education because he's a millionaire, why would he go to college? So why should he have to go after high school if he really doesn't have to at all?


----------



## crazyfan (Dec 9, 2005)

jskudera said:


> Who wants to go to college as a millionaire?




Precisely. The opportunity cost is too high. Who would give up the chance to make millions to go to college, pay tuition fees(although its not much to millionaires) and waste time.


----------



## MR. VADA (Jun 29, 2006)

socco said:


> How do you find that hard to believe? You don't think a year at a level in between pimply 5'6" white boys and beasts who eat those kids like Shaq would've helped him be more prepared, and therefore help him grow better into the player he could be?
> 
> 
> My point is that if you think 4 years is beneficial, why not 1? Is there some cutoff where it starts becoming beneficial? And yes, for the most part an extra couple years would help (could go deeper into this but I don't think that's necessary), but maybe the NBA just wants them to get a taste of it.
> ...


 i get it, let's penalize young black men (who are being drafted) and their familes for one year because a GM cant tell who's ready or not, and because they dont want the next star to go to their competitor... that's what the NBDL is for. you should be able to draft an 18-year old and leave him in the NBDL for a year or two to develop. you should have college coaches and NBDL college coaches to prepare young NBA players. if you want an education stay in school. a lot of players get severely hurt in college and are never the same or healthy.(peep baron davis)...and if you learn so much about basketball in college why aren't college coaches making as much as nba coaches. **** let them run the whole league and run zone to death...the quality of the game is fine, you just want mutha****az to play like robots. if you cant play team ball you shouldnt play...like i said earlier if white kids were comming outta high school str8 to the NBA this wouldnt be a disscusion. nobody likes a black man with m-o-n-e-y...even other black men...and what the **** does a hotdogg eating contest age limit have to do with an nba age limit...you fulla hotdoggs...vada


----------



## MR. VADA (Jun 29, 2006)

jskudera said:


> Who wants to go to college as a millionaire? If I was, I wouldn't want to. If you're good enough to go to the NBA as a high schooler, then 4* years of college ball is going to do nothing but make you better. It wouldn't be considered a one time shot. Also, I don't know about anyone else, but if I'm trying to go to the NBA, I don't want to end up like Kwame Brown. Sure, he makes his money, but he is horrible. I'd want to atleast have a role on a team.
> 
> * EDIT: Not even 4 years, man. Stern is asking for one friggin year, and everyone is complaining.


a lot can happen in a year...but you wouldn't know that...vada


----------



## PhatDaddy3100 (Jun 16, 2002)

Wow.. this thread went off-topic. Anyways, so I was mistaken on the Deng thing. However, Look at Dwayne Wade. He went to college, what 3-4 years and led his team to a championship. Shaq, 3 years and led all the lakers to championships. Ask yourself this, Name me the last player to lead his team to a Championship that came straight out of high school? Lakers = Shaq Spurs = Duncan Pistons = Billups/Hamilton/Wallace(s) This may just be coincendence. But I see a correlation between Winning and time spent in college.


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

Billups was a 2 year guy wasn't he? Kobe arguably was just as important as Shaq to the Lakers. And it's tough to judge this anyway because the influx didn't really start until 2003 or 2004, so most of those players never had a chance to lead their teams to titles. The only real guys you can judge are KG, Kobe (who has), and T-Mac. Those are the only guys who are old enough to be big time franchise players out of high school who actually did have the talent to match. Maybe JO as well. Plus, Billups and Shaq never led their teams to anything unless you count the Tournament.

I don't buy the whole "you learn to win in college". I actually don't buy that argument period, but on top of that most players don't win in college, they won in high school though.

I do think it's a coincidence; there have only really been like 4 teams that have won a recent title, and it just so happens that the stars from high school haven't had the right situation on their team to unseat one of the usual suspects, except Kobe, who has.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Wade was in college for 3 years (but only played two. he was academically ineligible his first year).


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Billups was at Colorado for two seasons. Rasheed for two seasons at UNC. Rip for 3 years at UConn. Prince 4, Ben 4.


----------



## jskudera (Dec 2, 2004)

Nimreitz said:


> And by the way, saying "who wants to go to school as a millionaire" shows your true view on education, it's only for the people who need it. Kwame Brown by your standards then doesn't need a college education because he's a millionaire, why would he go to college? So why should he have to go after high school if he really doesn't have to at all?


That doesn't show my true view on education. It just shows that once you make money, your interest in education is completely blocked by the millions of dollars you make. That's why it's important to get it first.

High school players play high school ball. That's it. They have little time management. They have skill to do whatever against high school players. Going to college improves time management, lets you play against players your size and bigger, helps you with stamina, being physical, etc. What you are trying to tell me is that it's better to throw some high school kid in a pack of veteran NBA players as opposed to gradually getting them into higher levels by playing college ball? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I paid no attention to your "point system" because it just sounded rediculous.

Take a look at Dajuan Wagner. He played ball in Camden NJ, scored 100 points in 3 quarters, did this, did that. Wanted to jump into the NBA, but decided to go to Memphis for one year. Got in a bunch of trouble, got drafted. Now look at him. No where to be seen. Sure he had some injuries, but his career is probably done. Camden one of the most dangerous cities in the US... Wagner getting into lots of trouble. Am I proving my point yet?


----------



## cgcatsfan (Jun 10, 2005)

Whether it is well done or not, the age limit is a gesture at getting kids to stay in school. 
Since very few make the pros, this IS a good idea. They always had hardship deferrments before, for players that wouldn't be going to school anyway. 

The fact is, that a four year degree will in no way stop you from making the NBA if you were going to. It will, however carry you through if you don't. Once you declare and hire an agent, your scholarship is GONE and that eligibility is lost forever.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

The current age limit is inevitable; therefore, I would like to discuss the best possible scenario for all parties (colleges, highshoolers and the NBA) involved. As HFK already pointed out the age limit is the first step towards getting the NBDL up and running. I anticipate the majority of players who are drafted being sent to the NBDL much like in baseball. I have come to the conclusion that the 19 year old age limit is nothing more than a temporary fix to appease the NBA detractors pending the development of the NBDL. Thusly, I can actually see the age limit being dropped back down to 18 when the NBDL and its teams (1-2 for every NBA team) is fully established. This is why the age limit for the NBA is set at 19, while the age limit for the NBDL is set at 18.

This would allow teams to draft an "Andrew Bynum" type of highschooler and immediately send him to the NBDL for future development; however, if he is ready ala a "LeBron James" caliber of player he could go straight to the NBA. This gives teams an option, while also preventing a "LeBron James" caliber player from having to wait a useless year in the minor league system or in college. Yes, the players aren't in the NBA, but they're still professionals and would be paid as such (obviously prorated pending the player making the NBA). 

In doing this, I expect the NCAA and the NBA to workout some type of agreement similar to baseball, where if a player out of highscool decides to attend college he must wait 2-3 years before being eligible for the draft. This situation would work well for all parties by preserving college basketball, giving highchoolers an option on whether to attend college or go to the NBDL and would help the NBA with getting players who appear to be "more ready." Giving the appearance of the players being “more ready” would serve its purpose for the NBA, because it would appease the NBA detractors by giving the illusion the NBA cares (which is what the current age limit is really about).


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

jskudera said:


> Take a look at Dajuan Wagner. He played ball in Camden NJ, scored 100 points in 3 quarters, did this, did that. Wanted to jump into the NBA, but decided to go to Memphis for one year. Got in a bunch of trouble, got drafted. Now look at him. No where to be seen. Sure he had some injuries, but his career is probably done. Camden one of the most dangerous cities in the US... Wagner getting into lots of trouble. Am I proving my point yet?


Another post where you prove you have no idea what you are talking about. Dajuan Wagner was never a troublemaker. Wagner went pro after one year of scoring 20+ points a game. When he got to the NBA, he couldn't stay healthy period. He lost his colon you doofus. His bowel system is completely messed up. 

I would take it, that he's probably happy he went pro sooner rather then later, cause he'd still have no colon and wouldn't of had millions of dollars with that. He'd have his degree and his dream would still be gone, big frickin deal.

With the money, he can go back to school if he so chooses, because he can afford to. I wouldn't expect you to know all of this though, because you've been talking out of your butt since you came on this thread.

The U.S. education system is truly sad when people like you can use it and misrepresent key points in a discussion, by not telling the full story.


----------



## jskudera (Dec 2, 2004)

HKF said:


> Another post where you prove you have no idea what you are talking about. Dajuan Wagner was never a troublemaker. Wagner went pro after one year of scoring 20+ points a game. When he got to the NBA, he couldn't stay healthy period. He lost his colon you doofus. His bowel system is completely messed up.
> 
> I would take it, that he's probably happy he went pro sooner rather then later, cause he'd still have no colon and wouldn't of had millions of dollars with that. He'd have his degree and his dream would still be gone, big frickin deal.
> 
> ...



He also had foot problems, so maybe you should tell the full story? Did you know Dajuan Wagner when he went to high school? Yeah... didn't think so. I grew up with him as a rival at my school -- I think I might know a little bit more about his childhood then you do. But anyway, I'm done arguing. Point is, the age limit is a good stride for the NBA.


----------



## Dumpy (Jan 6, 2005)

I think everyone has missed the point. The fundamental idea behind the draft is for the bad teams to get IMMEDIATE help. This differs from, say, baseball, when teams draft players years before they are expected to contribute to the team. The problem is, though, when HS players enter the draft, the bad teams are in a quandry: If they take the most athletic players with the highest upside, they will NOT get immediate help, because these players are not ready to contribute on a professional level. Instead, they will have to force-feed these players or let them sit on the bench for a few seasons, allowing them to "develop" at a cost of several million dollars per year, during which these teams continue to be bad. After a few years, when these players are starting to become productive, presto! They become free agents, and, of course, they will leave for the better teams. The other option is to draft second-rate prospects taht are more "ready" to play in the NBA. The team will then get slightly better, but will NEVER be able to contend for the title, because, again, their young players are all second-rate. In addition, the better teams with the more stable rosters will be the ones that will bea ble to take the "risk" on young HSers that arene't ready to play, and let them sit on the bench for a few years while they develop while the team continues on its merry way. The end result is that the good teams will stay good indefinitely, while the bad teams are forever at a competitive disadvantage.

The age limit helps even the playing field. The idea is that the better players in the draft are also the ones taht are most ready to contribute NOW. Hence, the bad teams actually have a chance to see year-to-year improvement.

The comparisons to youngsters playing golf and tennis are inapposite. Those are individual sports, not team sports. If the NBA consisted solely of individual 3-point and slam dunk contests, there would be no need for an age limit, either. 

Anyway, don't flame me; I have not and will not indicate my feelings on this. But, like it or not, that's the reason behind the age limit.


----------



## socco (Jul 14, 2002)

Nimreitz said:


> Diop wasn't playing against 5'6'' pimply white boys in high school, he played at Oak Hill.


I know, and even then the competition wasn't even close to college level.



MR. VADA said:


> i get it, let's penalize young black men (who are being drafted) and their familes for one year because a GM cant tell who's ready or not, and because they dont want the next star to go to their competitor... that's what the NBDL is for. you should be able to draft an 18-year old and leave him in the NBDL for a year or two to develop. you should have college coaches and NBDL college coaches to prepare young NBA players. if you want an education stay in school. a lot of players get severely hurt in college and are never the same or healthy.(peep baron davis)...and if you learn so much about basketball in college why aren't college coaches making as much as nba coaches. **** let them run the whole league and run zone to death...the quality of the game is fine, you just want mutha****az to play like robots. if you cant play team ball you shouldnt play...like i said earlier if white kids were comming outta high school str8 to the NBA this wouldnt be a disscusion. nobody likes a black man with m-o-n-e-y...even other black men...and what the **** does a hotdogg eating contest age limit have to do with an nba age limit...you fulla hotdoggs...vada


The rule change affects whites at a higher rate, relative to the ratio currently in the league, than blacks. So it's really penalizing young white men. Scary, eh?


----------

