NBA to push for higher age limit

[royski]

"yeah but still can't buy a beer"

Legally.

[Buckets]

This is purely a money move by the NBA, to get America more familiar with players' names before they enter the draft. If you've shown that you can compete against top college players for a full year, why shouldn't a player be allowed to leave? It's obviously going to make the college game a lot more competitive and a better product, but I'm not sure the NBA players' association will let this one fly...

[DudeSlade]

Is there any chance that Brand was the one that approached Stern about this and Stern is doing this to help out the NCAA which of course will end up helping the NBA out? I think the current 1 year rule has really helped the NBA to evaluate talent a lot better and will add to the quality of the incoming players, so I don't see a 2nd year benefiting the NBA as much as the NCAA. That said, I think it's a great thing all the way around, especially for us fans as the NBA and NCAA will be better over the long run.

[PDRHoya99]

Apr 7, 2008 18:48:14 GMT -5 Buckets said:

...but I'm not sure the NBA players' association will let this one fly...

Why would the Player's Association be opposed to this? Given that the people it will impact aren't current members of the players association, and that they are likely to take spots from people who are, why wouldn't you vote for such a proposal? Seems like limiting competition for their jobs would be a smart move, especially for all the journeyman types that seem to bounce around the end of various NBA benches.

[SFHoya99]

Apr 7, 2008 18:48:14 GMT -5 Buckets said:

This is purely a money move by the NBA, to get America more familiar with players' names before they enter the draft. If you've shown that you can compete against top college players for a full year, why shouldn't a player be allowed to leave? It's obviously going to make the college game a lot more competitive and a better product, but I'm not sure the NBA players' association will let this one fly...

It's a money move, but not because of the reason you are saying. I don't think it has anything to do with marketing and everything to do with scouting, risk and letting someone else make the investment in development.

It's nice PR, but systematically creating more information for drafting teams is the big winner here.

The Players Association is made up of players already drafted. Historically, existing players don't have a lot of sympathy for future players.

[Eurostar]

Apr 7, 2008 11:08:43 GMT -5 MCIGuy said:

If Memphis wins tonight you are talking about a team that mostly plays one-on-one basketball.

No way... this is great basketball. Some might even call it "Princeton on steroids".

/sarcasm

[PDRHoya99]

Apr 7, 2008 20:56:28 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

The Players Association is made up of players already drafted. Historically, existing players don't have a lot of sympathy for future players.

Exactly. If you're Shavlik Randolph I'm guessing you'd prefer to keep getting your $1,130,000 a year for 2.7 minutes, 0.9 points and 1.4 rebounds per game, and don't want some punk kid who happens to be 6'10"+ to take it away from you. If you can force them to wait an extra year, that's another $1.1M for you.

On a related note, I wish I got $5k/minute of actual work. I'd definitely post less on this site.

[Gold Hoya]

And just think, without that pesky college stopover Shavlik might have been picked higher in the draft.

[hoyaboy1]

Apr 7, 2008 21:07:54 GMT -5 PDRHoya99 said:

Exactly. If you're Shavlik Randolph I'm guessing you'd prefer to keep getting your $1,130,000 a year for 2.7 minutes, 0.9 points and 1.4 rebounds per game, and don't want some punk kid who happens to be 6'10"+ to take it away from you. If you can force them to wait an extra year, that's another $1.1M for you.

The only draft that will have fewer eligible players will be the first one after the rule is enacted - every year after that will be the same overall as before the rule change, except with no freshman and a lot more sophomores.

So while I suppose it helps in the very short-run, I'm not sure why it benefits the players' association long-term.

[PDRHoya99]

Apr 7, 2008 21:20:19 GMT -5 hoyaboy1 said:

The only draft that will have fewer eligible players will be the first one after the rule is enacted - every year after that will be the same overall as before the rule change, except with no freshman and a lot more sophomores.

So while I suppose it helps in the very short-run, I'm not sure why it benefits the players' association long-term.

Agreed, but given that these players might only have a handful of years in the league, every year counts. You certainly wouldn't think they'd oppose a measure to decrease competition for roster spots, even if it only affected one year of their careers.

[SFHoya99]

Plus, it's less that there is huge incentive to pass it than there is little reason not to pass it. If they can get a different concession out of Stern/owners, they'll give this up easy.

[theexorcist]

I really can't see any way that this is legal. There are no age limits enforced to be a stockbroker or a real estate agent or work in a lye factory or be an actor. If the NBA enacts this, expect a legal challenge.

The other, potentially fun, possibility, involves Nike, adidas, or someone else with lots of money essentially signing up lots of recruits for a "barnstorming tour" where they get paid and make cool commercials while every so often playing Latvia Select. The chances of this happening are really low, but if it happens, the potential ramifications may be significant.

[SFHoya99]

Apr 8, 2008 8:25:59 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

I really can't see any way that this is legal. There are no age limits enforced to be a stockbroker or a real estate agent or work in a lye factory or be an actor. If the NBA enacts this, expect a legal challenge.

No, don't. Who's going to challenge? Any case would easily take the two years that the player would spend in college. That's why remarkably few have challenged the NFL's rule, but nothing has come of that, either.

You can also make the NFL argument in court -- the players are not physically ready to the point that there is increased injury risk. Might be dicier to prove, but considering this is only delay on when agents, shoe companies and players get their money, I find it hard to believe anyone is going to pay the lawyer fees to jump at the exact same time.

The other, potentially fun, possibility, involves Nike, adidas, or someone else with lots of money essentially signing up lots of recruits for a "barnstorming tour" where they get paid and make cool commercials while every so often playing Latvia Select. The chances of this happening are really low, but if it happens, the potential ramifications may be significant.

Who's going to do this? Very few players get significant shoe contracts now. Now we're going to invest right out of HS? The shoe companies want to see if they are any good as well -- giving $60MM to Durant never would have happened without a year at Texas. So Nike can either give him the money, then waste a year of development playing no one where everyone forgets him and gets enamored with Beasley and Rose, or send him back to Texas where he leads his team to the Final Four and let the NCAA and CBS pay for his promotion.

Seems like an easy decision for me.

[Filo]

Re: legal challenge -- not saying who is going to do it, but I know who should do it: the same person who could challenge the one-year rule. That is, the 17-18 year old wiz kid who has no interest in college and could make the NBA right now, but is being prevented from doing so. Has anyone challenged the rule in the past (NBA, NFL, whatever)?

[ColumbiaHeightsHoya]

Of course I am still interested but I am a Colts fan so it hasn't been too hard for the past seven or eight years to cheer for them. I'll still pull for a losing squad, but my passion might shift to another sport.

[ColumbiaHeightsHoya]

Clarett comes to mind in the NFL. There is no legal challenge. These are monopolies that are allowed to operate outside of many corporate laws so I don't think an 18 year old would be able to fight this.

[Jack]

Apr 8, 2008 8:25:59 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

I really can't see any way that this is legal. There are no age limits enforced to be a stockbroker or a real estate agent or work in a lye factory or be an actor. If the NBA enacts this, expect a legal challenge.

The NBA did enact this, except with 19 year olds rather than 20 year olds. And Maurice Clarett challenged a similar policy in the NFL unsuccessfully. Turns out, there is no inalienable right to play in a particular sports league. So the legal challenge is probably not going to happen, unless maybe it comes from within from a franchise that believes it should be able to select whoever the next Lebron James is they year they happen to have the number 1 pick. But I don't even see Cuban trying that.

Very few people will object to this rule change because it seems to "help" both college basketball and NBA basketball in terms of quality of play. My objection to it is based solely on what I see as a further degrading of the concept of the student-athlete and the mission colleges as educators.

It is a difficult stance for me to maintain as a fan of a college basketball team that competes at the highest level and admits many students who would not otherwise be admitted. I take considerable comfort in the fact that GU's most recent stars, even if they are destined for professional careers, also seem to take their education seriously and view it as a benefit and not a burden to their participation in the team. It concerns me that many other college basketball stars do not have the same motivation.

If the NCAA is truly concerned about academic integrity, and not just the quality of play (and attendant tv ratings), they must insist that the NBA offer an actual viable alternative for young men who are exclusively concerned with basketball and have no interest in books. The way to do is to model the baseball system, require a minimum 3 year commitment to college (perhaps even with a loophole for true "hardships"), and let anyone who cannot commit to those 3 years work their way up through the alternative system.

My understanding now is that the NBDL has the same age restrictions as the NBA, which means that there is no choice other than pretending to be a student for some kids. If the NBA believes that 18 and 19 year old kids need more education or supervision, then by all means the NBA should provide whatever they feel is necessary, much as baseball franchises provide English lessons and lifeskills and media relations courses for their Rookie leaguers. But there is no reason that colleges and universities should be both places for higher learning and farm leagues for the NBA, with no connection between the two.

[SFHoya99]

Apr 8, 2008 8:47:27 GMT -5 Filo said:

Re: legal challenge -- not saying who is going to do it, but I know who should do it: the same person who could challenge the one-year rule. That is, the 17-18 year old wiz kid who has no interest in college and could make the NBA right now, but is being prevented from doing so. Has anyone challenged the rule in the past (NBA, NFL, whatever)?

Right, so you challenge, rack up hundreds in thousands in legal fees and after two-three years of appeals, they let you play? In what world is this case a month and over with?

[Filo]

I guess one way around the length of the process is to seek a preliminary injunction or something along those lines. But, I never said it would work or made sense.

I understand the monopoly angle and the fact that there is no "right" to play in the NBA. My problem is with forcing someone to go to college as a prerequisite for "employment" in the NBA. That works in many professions, where certain minimal education standards must be met. But there is no connection whatsoever between the need for a college education and the ability to play NBA basketball, and forcing some of these kids to go to college is such a blatant charade.

[RBHoya]

This is easily a good move for the NBA. Lot easier to make scouting decisions, plus free marketing in a minor league system that they don't need to financially back.

It is arguably a good thing for the NCAA. Yes, all the best college basketball players are going to have to spend 2 years in school, meaning the NCAA's talent level is less "watered-down". At the same time the farse of big time players staying in good academic standing is going to be prolonged.

More importantly, it changes the face of the college game in a major way. And IMO, that's why it's really not good for Georgetown.

If you force the top players to stay in college for more than one year, then the schools that land the top players are going to be the ones that win the title, every year. Can you imagine if somebody had forced LeBron James to play 2 years of college basketball? Whatever team he played for would be pretty much a lock to win the title in his sophomore year. Same is true with a guy like Dwight Howard. What if somebody had forced Oden, Conley and Cook to do another year at OSU? If they stayed healthy there is almost no chance they don't win it all this year.

The rule benefits the teams that are going to land the top 1-5 players in their class every year. That's teams like UCLA, UNC, OSU, and a few others. Granted we landed one of the top players in 2008 and a top 10-20 guy in 2007, so we're not going to be left out in the cold or anything. But this is clearly a move that's going to help the elite teams, and will thus hurt the "not-so-elite" teams. When the very best players were only required to stay one year, they'd make an impact but there was still an adjustment to the higher level of play, longer season, travel, etc. But if you make the best players stay 2 years, the team that wins the championship is going to be a team that landed a top 5 recruit 2 years prior. Every time. Guaranteed.

So, it emphasizes further the need to land the very best player in each class, meaning that people will be slobbing on guys like OJ Mayo even earlier in their lives... Great . It also means that teams like Memphis who can keep ANYBODY eligible will continue to get top players, since the Tyreke Evans of the world are just looking for the easiest route to the league. And it means that "non-elite" teams like Xavier, Butler, Davidson, etc. will NEVER win the championship, because as solid as those teams may be, there is no chance that they are ever going to beat a sophomore LeBron James/Dwight Howard/Greg Oden.

I understand the rationale for this thing but... as a college basketball fan, I'm not convinced it's good for the sport. It's going to end up being UNC, OSU, and couple of the other programs that recruit the best passing the title around every year. In basketball one dominant player and a solid supporting cast is good enough to win the championship. And if you're forcing guys to stay in school for 2 years the teams that have those truly dominant players like a LeBron James are going to win it all, guaranteed. And I'm just not crazy about that. I prefer parity and watching teams settle it on the court. I don't think you should essentially lock down a title 2+ years in advance when you get a kid like LeBron James to committ to play for you.

Oh, and I also agree that it's totally BS for the players.