O'Neal is the poster child...

[Cheesebeef]

How do you do homework on these kids without impairing their "civil rights". What are going to do hire private investigators to check into their behavior, that just opens the door for Jesse Jackson to get involved.

you think there aren't people digging into the backgrounds of these kids already? Come on - thats the height of naivete. And since when does hiring a P.I. infringe on someone's civil rights?

 

[schutd]

The league has all sorts of rules to protect incompetent owners or GMs from screwing up their teams. All teams in the league are in the same boat, and while it's nice for the winners to have losers to pick on, ultimately they need one another to survive.

The so-called Ted Stepien (sp?) Rule, preventing a team from trading away their first-round picks in consecutive future drafts, is a good example. The current draft lottery system is similar, in that it (partially) discourages the totally incompetent from losing a bunch of games on purpose. Even the salary cap rules are in the same category, attempting to discourage the Isiah Thomases and Donald Sterlings (on opposite ends of the spectrum) from screwing up their franchises with idiotic financial strategies.

Imposing an age limit on the draft would be similar. Some teams are smart enough not to gamble high picks on long-shot prospects, but others aren't. By protecting the weaker teams from their own stupidity, the rule would improve competitive balance, which is in the league's overall interest.

Good points, all. and I agree with them. Ive been convinced, that while I think its hypocritical, and unfair to the players, that the NBA should do whatever it sees fit, within the law, to make its league stronger, more competitive and profitable. Its their right. The cries of racism and such, thats never going to go away, so that has to be treated like water off a duck.

Eh, I guess the age limit is the best option going right now.

 

[fordronken]

The best part about O'Neal's comments is that he doesn't back them up whatsoever. He has no opinions as to why it is racially motivated. He says "Stern's not a racist. I'm not a racist. But look, football and baseball don't have it, but basketball, a mainly black sport, does." He doesn't ever explain why. If it's not pure racism, it really doesn't make any sense. Hm, maybe he should have taken a social studies class in college. Oh...wait.

 

[coloradosun]

you think there aren't people digging into the backgrounds of these kids already? Come on - thats the height of naivete. And since when does hiring a P.I. infringe on someone's civil rights?

I think that all you have to go on with these kids is hearsay, you are not going to get the full story. Carmelo Anthony is a prime example, he was still hanging out with some shaddy characters when he was caught on video with a drug dealer. That's not naivete, that's fact. Allen Iverson gang banging in the bowling alley, there are a lot of stories out there that will never be fully cataloged.

 

[Chaplin]

I think that all you have to go on with these kids is hearsay, you are not going to get the full story. Carmelo Anthony is a prime example, he was still hanging out with some shaddy characters when he was caught on video with a drug dealer. That's not naivete, that's fact. Allen Iverson gang banging in the bowling alley, there are a lot of stories out there that will never be fully cataloged.

You can talk about Iverson and his stupidity all you want, but it has nothing to do with the age limit because he was older than 20 at the time.

 

[elindholm]

Allen Iverson gang banging in the bowling alley

That's gonna leave a mark.




(Explanation for the bowling-imparied: A "mark" is when you get either a strike or a spare in the frame. So it's like a pun, see? He "scores" in the bowling alley, and it "leaves a mark." Hilarious, right?)

 

[coloradosun]

Eh, I guess the age limit is the best option going right now.

The age limit would have denied us the benefit of having Amare and the pleasure of watching LeBron.

Contract limitations on 18-20 year old players makes more sense. The reward right now for coming out of high school is that they will have 4 year guaranteed contracts and that is the risk to the franchises. Lower the reward to the player and lower the risk to the franchise and I think everyone would be happy, don't completely eliminate the NBA as an option.

For example, Azibuke from Kentucky decided to go pro and hired an agent because he wanted to help his father out financially. Francisco Garcia also wants to get his mother out of a bad living enrionment. 600,000 for the first pick in the second round is more than enough to help, that will be an immediate benefit but also an incentive to improve. If the kid really wants to become a superstar, he will have a totally different attitude knowing that his second year is not guaranteed and is at the mercy of the team picking up his option.

Magic, Jordon, Shaq got great exposure from attending? college and it helped their marketablility. College then becomes a viable alternative to sitting on the bench in the NBA or going to NBADL. This will have a benefitial effect on the NCAA as well.

 

[Chaplin]

The age limit would have denied us the benefit of having Amare and the pleasure of watching LeBron.

Come on. Hindsight is 20/20. Yes, it would have denied us Amare at the time, but that's the past and DOES NOT MATTER. What matters is the future, and by and large, the draft has gotten worse because the talent pool is so diluted by these high schoolers that aren't ready. The idea of having every lottery team having a potential player to contribute right away is intriguing and could only help the league, not hurt it.

 

[KloD]

You can talk about Iverson and his stupidity all you want, but it has nothing to do with the age limit because he was older than 20 at the time.

Which is an example that maybe it's not the age that is the problem.

 

[Chaplin]

Which is an example that maybe it's not the age that is the problem.

Then again, I don't think the reason for this topic in the first place has to do with thuggery at all. That is another issue that needs to be addressed. Maybe the rookie orientation people, and the groups the NBA has that handle younger players aren't doing a good job.

 

[coloradosun]

Come on. Hindsight is 20/20. Yes, it would have denied us Amare at the time, but that's the past and DOES NOT MATTER. What matters is the future, and by and large, the draft has gotten worse because the talent pool is so diluted by these high schoolers that aren't ready. The idea of having every lottery team having a potential player to contribute right away is intriguing and could only help the league, not hurt it.

They are coming into the league because some scouts are telling them that they are 1st round picks with first round contracts. If they know they are only going to able to be selected in the second round with second round money and commitments, then their decision to go to the NCAA becomes more appealling.

Like I said if impact players like LeBron and Amare were second round selections, the endorsement money would still be available and possilby more substantial than their first round contracts. By just getting into the league will help out their marketability. Jordon on the other hand was an unknown commodity coming out of HS (like most HS players), but definitely improved his marketability by going to North Carolina, that's probably what Jermaine O'Neal should have done, looking at hindsight.

 

[KloD]

The best part about O'Neal's comments is that he doesn't back them up whatsoever. He has no opinions as to why it is racially motivated. He says "Stern's not a racist. I'm not a racist. But look, football and baseball don't have it, but basketball, a mainly black sport, does." He doesn't ever explain why. If it's not pure racism, it really doesn't make any sense. Hm, maybe he should have taken a social studies class in college. Oh...wait.

I will play the devils advocate here.
Yes, he does back up his comments by giving examples of other sports that are not dominated by African Americans. It is not his job to explain 'why' that is. Perhaps his comments refer simply to the fact that NBA basketball players over the past 10 years have been getting in more trouble, and that the call for an age limit has less to do with the overall game, but more to do with young people making that kind of money. It just so happens that most of them are AA and if that the case, that is wrong. Pointing at A.I. or others as some have done on this thread just further shows that it is not age that is the problem. Those two years do not seem to show a significant level of maturity between them, so what other reasons could the league have for adding a age limit. Perhaps they are blaming the whole 'gangster' image of some in the NBA on young uneducated kids becoming instant millionaires. If this is why and it isn't what takes place on the court, than yes, he might have something with the race comment. I will even go as far as saying his comment wasn't calling out that it is direct racism, but more indirect as it affects one race far more than any other in this case.

 

[coloradosun]

You can talk about Iverson and his stupidity all you want, but it has nothing to do with the age limit because he was older than 20 at the time.

I thought he did it while he was in high school, my mistake.

 

[KloD]

Then again, I don't think the reason for this topic in the first place has to do with thuggery at all. That is another issue that needs to be addressed. Maybe the rookie orientation people, and the groups the NBA has that handle younger players aren't doing a good job.

I agree with that. I think far too much money is made in professional sports from all involved and that we as fans of these sports are to blame in some degree because of the position in our society that we give these players as well as the costs we are willing to meet in order to attend games and such. We can blame the players, owners, or whoever, but this ugly monster did not grow to it's current form all by its lonesome.

 

[baltimorer]

The problem with the whole "age limit" idea is that, basically, it's pointless. Stern seems to talk about how guys need to go to college for a little bit, and this and that, and everyone gives vague answers, but none of them really make sense.

I mean, I'm all for going to a dorm, getting lots of free food, having several naked women show up at their door each night, and playing basketball while having tutors do most of my work outside of the game - but these kids can do that in the NBA, and actually get paid to do it!

Unless the NBA ups the rookie age limit to 23, so that every player not only goes to college, but also graduates, an age limit isn't going to do anything. Because, if a player who has the talent to play basketball in the League at 18 but has to wait until he's 20, he'll go to college for 2 years and enter the draft after his Sophomore year. But what do you think he'll be doing for those 2 years in college? He most likely won't be focusing on his studies, because he has no intention of graduating and knows that, baring any bad injuries, he is going to be financially set for the rest of his life. If that player had an intention to graduate with a Major, he would have to complete the classes - lower and upper levels - that are necessary to do so. However, if you're only going to be in class for 2 years, you can take the easiest classes at the easiest school in the University, concentrate mostly on basketball and girls and partying, get whatever GPA is necessary to maintain NCAA eligability, and coast by in school. It's a question of motivation. It is possible that they will want to learn in college just for the sake of bettering themselves intellectually, but if that was the case, they'd go to college anyway before entering the draft, and the NBA age limit wouldn't apply.

Moreover, it is true that some players come out of high school and can't make it in the NBA. Not everyone can be Lebron James or Kobe Bryant. Hell, not everyone can be Deshawn Stevenson. Nevertheless, the percentage of players who are successful coming out of high school is actually much higher than that of players coming out of college. Who were the players picked before and after Kobe Bryant was picked by Charlotte? Kwame Brown has been a disappointment, but he's had a relatively succesful NBA career. The idea that being a little bit older will help players be more successful in the League is absurd.

I disagree with O'neal's idea that this is somehow fueled by racism, although I do understand that white guys don't really come straight from high school, and saying that kids aren't old enough to live in the real world could possibly have something to do with the idea that it's not young kids who can't make it, but that young BLACK kids can't make it. However, I disagree with that. I seriously doubt that David Stern is a racist.

 

[coloradosun]

In response to your last paragraph.

I do believe that white parents emphasis that their kids get an education, while black parents may emphasis taking the money that the NBA offers, then getting an education latter (if at all).

 

[zett]

I think they should not allow them to enter the regular Draft. And after two rounds they can have a secondary draft With high schoolers and college players undrafted, and Hold another lottery style draft with all teams involved and you can have the option of drafting another player or passing, This way they still have the option of playing in the league and a dumb team doesn't have to draft potential.There salary can be set up as say 250,000.00 for the 1st year gauranteed, and the 2nd and 3rd year rights be retained by it's team and resigned at a 10 to 15% incuments if they so choose or they can cut them loose, 2nd and 3rd year's not guaranteed. If they truely belong after the 3rd year they can be elligable to sign up to a max deal. anyone want to chime in on other options feel free!

 

[F-Dog]

The age limit is about one thing, and one thing only--forcing young superstar basketball players to play college basketball, so the NBA can benefit from the NCAA hype machine. A college superstar like Carmelo Anthony is bulletproof--he can trash his own image every week for six months, and his jersey sales don't even slow down. How much money do you think the NBA will make off of the current NCAA golden boy, J.J. Redick? Double digits?

The problem is that it's no longer in LeBron's (or J.R. Smith's) best interest to go to college, because the owners and greedy veterans have set things up so that rookies' salaries are capped for four years, and the max salary is based on service time. The upshot of that is that we've got LeBron James--an MVP candidate and the most popular player in the league--making the MLE for the next three years. Does this really sound like a smart idea to anybody?

And the NBA's new 'fix' is to force the next LeBron (how much does LeBron bring into the league every year? $100m? $200m?) to take a two year unpaid internship to build his name recognition, then play under the rookie salary cap for four years, then play under an even smaller max salary than we currently have? All this to put money in the pockets of Dick Vitale and Stan Kroenke, and to a much lesser extent, James Lang and Michael Curry?

Gee, I hope nobody is looking to build a new professional sports league from scratch. The NBA's best young players might be interested in making what they're actually worth, for a change.

 

[Joe Mama]

In response to your last paragraph.

I do believe that white parents emphasis that their kids get an education, while black parents may emphasis taking the money that the NBA offers, then getting an education latter (if at all).

I could not disagree with you more. I would say that if the parents have a lot of money they might be more apt to push their kids toward school, but I don't think it has anything to do with black-and-white. I'm not even sure how much the financial background has to do with it. It's really just common sense. If you are going to be guaranteed at least $2 million over 3-4 years while getting an internship with an NBA basketball team you do it. Some people will say that if you go to school a couple years you might move up in the draft and make more, but there is also the risk of injury and that you don't perform well and moved down in the draft.

The age limit is about one thing, and one thing only--forcing young superstar basketball players to play college basketball, so the NBA can benefit from the NCAA hype machine. A college superstar like Carmelo Anthony is bulletproof--he can trash his own image every week for six months, and his jersey sales don't even slow down. How much money do you think the NBA will make off of the current NCAA golden boy, J.J. Redick? Double digits?

The problem is that it's no longer in LeBron's (or J.R. Smith's) best interest to go to college, because the owners and greedy veterans have set things up so that rookies' salaries are capped for four years, and the max salary is based on service time. The upshot of that is that we've got LeBron James--an MVP candidate and the most popular player in the league--making the MLE for the next three years. Does this really sound like a smart idea to anybody?

And the NBA's new 'fix' is to force the next LeBron (how much does LeBron bring into the league every year? $100m? $200m?) to take a two year unpaid internship to build his name recognition, then play under the rookie salary cap for four years, then play under an even smaller max salary than we currently have? All this to put money in the pockets of Dick Vitale and Stan Kroenke, and to a much lesser extent, James Lang and Michael Curry?

Gee, I hope nobody is looking to build a new professional sports league from scratch. The NBA's best young players might be interested in making what they're actually worth, for a change.

This makes a little bit of sense, but I still think it has more to do with the quality of play in the NBA than marketing. Besides, LeBron James is probably the last person you would want to use as an example. Even though he came straight from high school he is probably the biggest name to come into the NBA since Shaquille O'Neal.

Joe Mama

 

[F-Dog]

You shouldn't get hired for a job based on the potential you have. You need to do some sort of work to prove that you are ready, whether it be experience or a degree.

The NBA is no different. These kids need to show that they are mature, coachable and able to live up to the hype. Whether that be in college, over seas or a developmental league - they need to prove it somewhere before a team invests millions into them.

Young players are already forced to "prove themselves", by playing under the rookie salary cap. Many of those players are paid less than they're actually worth to their teams, to say nothing of their future potential.

Look at the Suns. How many players on the Suns are getting paid less than half of what they're actually worth, judging by their contributions this season? How many of them are playing under their rookie contracts?

I don't know about you, but I see the same three guys in both categories.

 

[Southpaw]

Hooey. That is an invalid rationale. Annointing high schoolers as Superstars is something I don't buy. All of the other pro leagues have development programs and the NBA had one in the NCAA. Nothing wrong with that, except that agents and union offiicials destroyed it. So now the talent level is diluted. It still takes 4 years for a high schooler to be worth a crap on a winning team. Big deal if LeBron stars on a suck team. Hero worshipping is for the kids. In 2 years he will be in New York or L A. The only controlling mechanism is owners and Gen Mgrs. They have ignored common sense so far and now that the league is suffering from diluted talent, they need to legislate to obtain a better product.

 

[F-Dog]

I was frustrated to no end with Greg Anthony who kept saying that for every high school player who didn't contribute immediately he could find a four-year college player who also didn't contribute immediately. Well no kidding. That's not the point. The point is that if the high school player, prime example Jermaine O'Neal, had played somewhere else for two years he most likely would have been much more ready to contribute when he was drafted. You wouldn't have fallen to the bottom of the first round. In fact he probably would have been one of the top draft choices. He would have played immediately instead of sitting on the bench for four years. Lastly and most importantly he could have helped some team at the top of that draft more immediately and actually earned his paycheck.

As small as that paycheck is by NBA standards, almost all of the under-20 kids drafted last year are "earning it". And remember, this is the first year of a four-year contract for all of them.

Dwight Howard
Shaun Livingston
Luol Deng
Andris Biedrins
Telfair
Al Jefferson
Kris Humphries
Josh Smith
J.R. Smith

The bottom seven players are in their team's rotation when healthy, which is all they need to do to justify their salaries. Howard and Livingston are both significant contributors when healthy, which is what they need to do to justify their (slightly larger) salaries.

Next year, every one of those players is going to be significantly underpaid.


The young players who aren't "earning their money":

Robert Swift
Dorrell Wright
Podkolzine

Podkolzine is the closest comp to JO, since neither of them had a real opportunity to "earn their money" because of their teams' veteran depth.

 

[F-Dog]

LeBron James and Amare Stoudemire are probably the two most successful straight from high school players back to and including Kevin Garnett. as good as those guys were in their rookie years can you imagine how much better they would have been after two years of college, development league, or international ball?

I think Amare is a great example, because there's no question he's a better basketball player today because he went straight to the pros. If he went to Memphis U., the question isn't whether he would have grown faster than he did on the Suns (where he was working full-time with some of the best coaches in the world, instead of working 25 hours a week with mediocre coaches whose main priority is winning games). The question is whether he would have gotten any better at all.


Every time I hear what a great job college does at maturing basketball players, I'm reminded of what Bill Russell said--that most of these players have been 'on scholarship' since the third grade. Take Dwight Howard--he had a strong family and did things the right way, by most accounts. However, as it turned out, he was nearly illiterate coming out of HS.

What Dwight Howard really needed was to go back to HS, for real this time. Instead, he would be going to college with a full course load, while most of his time and focus would go to basketball (and much of the rest on his new social life). He's not making it through a semester without some kind of cheating.

As for social maturity, I don't see college providing that at all--in fact, I would say that big basketball stars are cocooned to the point where many of them come out of college worse than they came in. Was Carmelo any more coachable when he left Syracuse than before? Did Kirk Snyder leave Nevada with more sportsmanship? Did the Fab Five get anything from their time at Michigan besides STDs? (Actually, scratch that. Webber did pick up $200,000.)

Right now teams like the LA Clippers, Golden State, etc. are taking players that are still just developing their basketball skills. Some people will say, "well that's their fault for making that mistake." That's just not true. The problem is there are only a couple of players with mature basketball skills who are ever worthy of a top draft pick any more. If these teams don't take the guy with enormous potential they are for the most part taking guys who would have fallen to the bottom of the first-round years ago.

The Clippers and the Warriors are two of the most talented teams in the league, and the reason for that is that they've both been able to collect multiple high draft picks. Look at the Bulls--last year they were the popular example of a team that drafted too young, but suddenly their future is extremely bright, even though they never lucked into a Tim Duncan or LeBron. They suffered through a long stretch of losing, and now they're going to reap the benefits.

The league's real talent problem is that there weren't enough good players coming into the NBA ten years ago (you know, back when all of the players went to college). If the next four years of the draft are even close to the last four years, the league will be just fine from a talent standpoint.

 

[F-Dog]

Imposing an age limit on the draft would be similar. Some teams are smart enough not to gamble high picks on long-shot prospects, but others aren't. By protecting the weaker teams from their own stupidity, the rule would improve competitive balance, which is in the league's overall interest.

Teams don't gamble on long-shots because they're stupid. They do it because you can't win championships in the NBA without a superstar (until last year, at least). It's arguable that a team with its sights on a championship is better off drafting a long-shot that busts than drafting a decent player who'll cost them lottery balls in the next draft.

Superstars are what kill the league's competitive balance, too--there's no other team sport where a single great player can make that kind of difference. The age limit will make competitive balance worse, because superstars will now be so cheap that even an incompetent GM should be able to build a great team around one.

Think of the ease with which San Antonio has built a juggernaut around Tim Duncan, as opposed to the difficulty Minnesota has had building around Kevin Garnett under the old salary rules.

 

[clif]

STDs? (Actually, scratch that.

Isn't that what people usually do with them?









sorry couldn't resist. I agree with you.. what does college have to do with being mature?