PDA

View Full Version : What's Your Thoughts on This?



BobZag
03-26-2008, 09:09 AM
This morning Billy Packer was on Colin Cowherd's ESPN Radio Show. Packer had some very interesting ideas about college and pro basketball, among other info that I found interesting. The most intriguing topic was how David Stern may increase the one-year-out-of-high-school rule to two years before a kid can go NBA. Packer added some variables to it to accomodate the Lebrons and Kobes of the world. But the general consensus was it would be good for college and the NBA. Cowherd thought it may be a bad idea (and even a civil rights type violation) to dictate that a high school guy wait two years, even though the NFL makes kids wait three years after high school.

Anyway, I think you can listen to it here--

http://espnradio.espn.go.com/espnradio/show?showId=theherd

It may take a bit for the site to be updated from yesterday.

Also discussed, briefly, was that Duke has 8 Mickey D's All-Americans. That kinda surprised me. 8 is an entire rotation.

Rubbadub
03-26-2008, 09:14 AM
I don't see any point in reraising the age limit. One year in college is enough to tell whether these kids are ready yet for pro ball. Some of them have financial concerns that I consider more important than their staying another year and increasing the overall quality of college bball.

The Oregon Spike
03-26-2008, 09:19 AM
Cowherd is such an imbecile. His opinion is utterly worthless.

CDC84
03-26-2008, 09:44 AM
David Stern wanted a 20 year old age limit originally, but he had to lower it to 19 in order to get any age limit passed. The push for a 20 year old limit is just the next progression, and there are many, many college coaches backing it. I think it is going to occur at some point.

gamagin
03-26-2008, 09:54 AM
you are an adult. no exceptions.

MedZag
03-26-2008, 10:20 AM
I think another year could do nothing but benefit players.

But as for making it a legal issue... that kinda makes me shuffle my feet a bit.

The reason football has gotten away with it for so long is (1) the incredible financial success of both the NFL and NCAA football (2) the NFL needs and loves the NCAAs for building star power and fan followings prior to athletes coming to the league (3) 3 years in college is an incredible filter for scouts to gauge talent and only take the athletes with the highest likelihood of success - note: generalization (4) football is perceived as a "man's game" with large lumbering and powerful athletes and young players are seen as "not ready"

Rubbadub
03-26-2008, 10:49 AM
Football talent is harder to evaluate than basketball. Every team has multiple times as many players as basketball. Even the best basketball teams only have seven or eight players who get enough playing time and production to even be considered by scouts--there are four to five times that in football. As well, there are very few opportunities to see any non-wr, rb, qb, cb or safety show off their full range of athletic capabilities. Basketball is the exact opposite. It is pretty obvious who has stamina issues, who can't jump very high, who isn't willing to dive after loose balls, etc. Everyone can be judged pretty much to a t just based on their performace. There just aren't as many people on the court to have to keep track of, as simple as that might sound. As well, NBA draft combines are usually just games against equal competition. NFL combines are like track meets, meant to better evaluate the athletic capabilities of the athletes. Football scouting is a business. Basketball scouting is something ESPN pays Chad Ford to do.

Not meant to be a knock on basketball, just saying it's kind of silly to think bball players need to stay in the ncaa's for two years or more to be able to evaluate them.

drnoe
03-26-2008, 10:55 AM
As much as it flies in the face of my opinions about civil liberties and the God-given right to make a living, I'm all in favor of raising the minimum age to 20. While recognizing the financial situations and academic shortcomings of some athletes, there are other avenues for these athletes...D League? Euro ball? I'm in favor of any policy that will enhance college hoops, and I believe this will. I'd much prefer 2 years of Kevin Durant playing for Texas over 1 year. As for whether or not this policy would improve the NBA, that's debatable, IMO, and I really don't care one way or the other.

Rubbadub
03-26-2008, 11:06 AM
As much as it flies in the face of my opinions about civil liberties and the God-given right to make a living, I'm all in favor of raising the minimum age to 20. While recognizing the financial situations and academic shortcomings of some athletes, there are other avenues for these athletes...D League? Euro ball? I'm in favor of any policy that will enhance college hoops, and I believe this will. I'd much prefer 2 years of Kevin Durant playing for Texas over 1 year. As for whether or not this policy would improve the NBA, that's debatable, IMO, and I really don't care one way or the other.

What I bolded is the only good thing that would come out of this. If that is what you're after, then I agree.

Reborn
03-26-2008, 11:12 AM
I think two years is much better then one. I agree completely with Sterns on this issue. It would be good for both (the NBA and college) but mostly I think it would be good for the young athletes coming out of high school to have some form of supervision, discipline and training, as well as learning to play at a higher level. I think too many young men get wasted in the NBA, and maybe this would help.

CDC84
03-26-2008, 11:30 AM
I heard an analyst on the radio the other day say that Kevin Durant genuinely, in his heart of hearts, wanted to return to Texas and play college basketball this year. That he really, really LOVED the college experience, and that he enjoyed it far more than playing for the Sonics, despite the handsome paycheck he gets every 2 weeks.

But the decision was taken away from him. The influence of agents, family members, friends, scouts and general hangers on basically created a situation where this 19 year old kid was going to the league no matter what.

Look, I don't intend to feel sorry for anyone who is making that much money when there are so many people struggling in this world, but there is more to life than making money. This analyst's take on his situation made me feel a bit sad in a way, to be honest.

chirguy
03-26-2008, 11:45 AM
Why make them go to college and waste our money.

Anyone should be able to go direct to the NBA, but if you go to college you have to wait until your 22.

jbslicer
03-26-2008, 11:46 AM
I like listening to Cowherd. He's much better than Mike and Mike.

rennis
03-26-2008, 11:53 AM
If anything I think two years is better than only 1. Why make them go to school for just one? That makes almost no sense to me.

drnoe
03-26-2008, 12:33 PM
What I bolded is the only good thing that would come out of this. If that is what you're after, then I agree.

Yes, that is what I'm after.

finechina2003
03-26-2008, 12:44 PM
To say that another year in school will enhance college hoops is a little deceptive. It would improve college hoops for who? Not for the vast majority of colleges, but only for the colleges that land the elite one and out type of players. Can you imagine Texas this year if Durant was playing? These are not the type of players that we recruit so a change would not help Gonzaga basketball.

Zag 77
03-26-2008, 01:02 PM
It just seems odd that some pro sports like baseball, soccer and hockey have no qualms about signing 18 year olds to become pro athletes, but it is an issue for basketball and football. It has to be more than a weight and size issue, since hockey players get pounded more than football players.

Why the historical difference?

drnoe
03-26-2008, 01:22 PM
To say that another year in school will enhance college hoops is a little deceptive. It would improve college hoops for who? Not for the vast majority of colleges, but only for the colleges that land the elite one and out type of players. Can you imagine Texas this year if Durant was playing? These are not the type of players that we recruit so a change would not help Gonzaga basketball.

Good points, but I think it could eventually help GU basketball, considering the upward trajectory of GU's recruitment quality.

drnoe
03-26-2008, 01:27 PM
It just seems odd that some pro sports like baseball, soccer and hockey have no qualms about signing 18 year olds to become pro athletes, but it is an issue for basketball and football. It has to be more than a weight and size issue, since hockey players get pounded more than football players.

Why the historical difference?

As for baseball, I think it's just a time-worn tradition. Young kids have always been drafted, and the vast majority of them toil in the minor leagues for up to 5 years. There are plenty of high school kids out there who can throw the ball 90+ m.p.h., but they need at least a few years of minor league ball to work on control and to develop other pitches. Not sure about soccer and hockey.

CaliforniaZaggin'
03-26-2008, 01:34 PM
Also discussed, briefly, was that Duke has 8 Mickey D's All-Americans. That kinda surprised me. 8 is an entire rotation.

Duke getting so many McDonald's All-Americans has almost turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Sometimes I think high school players get press coverage and notoriety simply because of where they committed. If the same recruits committed to other smaller schools, then I bet they would have been left on the Mickey D's team.

zaguarxj
03-26-2008, 01:43 PM
Not sure about soccer and hockey.

Freddy Adu was playing in the MLS at age 14. Wayne Rooney was playing for Everton in the Premier League (the NBA of soccer) at age 16.

VinnyZag
03-26-2008, 03:55 PM
The current system is a joke, at least academically. As many coaches have pointed out, a lot of these kids don't even bother going to classes in the second semester/last two quarters of their freshmen years. And why would they? They don't intend to graduate and classes only get in the way of practice time.

What Bob Knight and some others have recommended is this: Let kids go to the NBA out of high school if they want; but those who go to college must stay for two years and make progress toward a degree.

What I'd propose is this: Let kids turn pro out of high school if they want, but require that they stay in the developmental league (at a reduced salaray, say 100K/year) for their rookie year. If they go to college, make them stay two years and make progress toward a degree, or else they're ineligible.

As for the 'civil rights' argument ... you can't get a job in my field without a four-year college degree. Why is it so outrageous that another employer (in this case, the NBA) should require two years of college as a condition of employment? I realize that Western Civ and English Composition do little to prepare a guy for playing in the NBA, but I think the league could make the case on 'image' and 'maturity' grounds that two years of college is required for incoming players.

HillBillyZag
03-26-2008, 05:40 PM
I agree with VinnyZag and others. The odds of becoming an instant millionare via the NBA draft are very slim. As the NCAA commercial states
"Thousands of student athletes are turning pro when they graduate and not just in sports"!Getting a College degree is more important now than at any time in our history. The Pro's should have a minimum age of 18 to play in their developmental league and 21 to be on an NBA. I do think though that when full ride athletic scholarships are given they should include health insurance and a modest perdiem for clothing & spending money.

CDC84
03-26-2008, 06:35 PM
The problem with the civil liberties argument is the Clarett vs. NFL case. Rightly or wrongly, it gave the NBA the legal precedent to pursue the age limit.......and it will give them the precedent to increase it.

A friend of mine has always felt that the letter of intent should have a stipulation in it that if you bail early for the pros, you should have to pay the school back for the scholarship money you would have received if you had used up your eligibility. Interesting idea. But the problem, as I see it, is that an athletic schoolie is a year to year contract. Your coach doesn't have to give you a schoolie all 4 years...you can be gone after one year if he/she feels like it.

MickMick
03-26-2008, 07:06 PM
If Ammo would have waited another year:

He would have come out in a much stronger draft, would have been drafted later on by a better team, and probably wouldn't have endured as much early pressure to meet the expectations of a lottery pick. He probably would have fared much better with a more talent laden team....something that happens when you are taken later on.

dpouley
03-26-2008, 07:22 PM
if you are an adult you are an adult. no exceptions.

16 years old = Driving age

18 years old = Vote, Smoke, Join the Army, Buy Porn

21 years old = Drinking Age

I agree with you, in my opinion there should be one age, and only one age, in which a child becomes an adult. But in the United States that simply is not the case.

As to the original topic, I am indifferent to the age limit for the NBA. I think that the 19 year old rule is great, and I would probably enjoy the fact that every college player would be in school fro two years. But I do not see any concrete reason to increase the age.

dim4sum
03-26-2008, 08:07 PM
Brandon stuck around for four years and had the maturity and intelligence to make the NBA jump successfully. So did Bobby Jones of UW, a high IQ guy with an engineering major, also a pro.
Let's face it, the almighty dollar has made college admittance a farce. Anytime you see "communications" or "black studies," next to an athlete's name you know he has a dumbed down major that makes few intellectual demands. End the farce by hiring the kids and putting them on contracts they can't renege on for four years. Gonzaga, of course, would never buy into that and would thus have to look for scholar athletes who would stick around for four years. That formula worked very well for the Zags in the past.
It's been a few years that the Zags have recruited an off the radar screen player and that day may never return again if things continue on the present course.

Zagpower
03-27-2008, 06:12 AM
The NBA wants this rule to save the owners from themselves and having to make financially risky decisions. Without the age limit, teams had to make the difficult decision whether to draft talented players that are too young to contribute or wait and draft more mature players out of college.

The owners don't want to pay an 18 year old millions to sit on the bech and learn but they know if they don't do it, some other team will. The age limit makes the decision process much easier for the NBA owners.

LongIslandZagFan
03-27-2008, 06:19 AM
Sadly these guys almost never come back to get their degrees after they leave. Outside of Shaq, I can't think of a major player that went back to finish.

Rubbadub
03-27-2008, 06:42 AM
Sadly these guys almost never come back to get their degrees after they leave. Outside of Shaq, I can't think of a major player that went back to finish.

It's their business if they don't want to, but here's an article on ones who did:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_12_97/ai_60041448

LongIslandZagFan
03-27-2008, 08:20 AM
I agree, that it is their business. But I found that article very refreshing. I'll tell you that I have a tremendous amount of respect for everything that Juwan Howard did to get his degree. Very impressive.

Side questions... Does anyone think that Jordan actually uses his Geography degree? Second, what DOES one do with a Geography degree anyhow? Asking in all seriousness... not making fun of the degree... just want to know.

MedZag
03-27-2008, 10:31 AM
Sadly these guys almost never come back to get their degrees after they leave. Outside of Shaq, I can't think of a major player that went back to finish.

Greg Oden is taking classes back at Ohio State this summer.

But Oden is a pretty unique personality compared to the majority of the NBA.

Rubbadub
03-27-2008, 10:38 AM
But Oden is a pretty unique personality compared to the majority of the NBA.

"Big men are marketable!"

MedZag
03-27-2008, 10:50 AM
I'm a chameleon.

CDC84
03-27-2008, 11:11 AM
What cracked me up about Oden is that his declared major at OSU was accounting.

75Zag
03-27-2008, 03:17 PM
The NCAA is a money making machine for its members, which includes GU to a very small extent. They make hundreds of millions of dollars off of the talent and effort of unpaid kids. The longer that these kids are forced to work for the NCAA for "free", the better deal for the NCAA. The NBA (and the NBA Player's Association in particular) would just as soon see fewer very young kids come into the league because for every 19 year old that makes a starting roster, an older player (and a current NBA Player Association Member) gets benched or cut. Not to the mention the risk that the owners take in signing a 19 year old kid to a ten million dollar no cut contract.

It is hard to feel sorry for all the millionaires in the NBA (and the fat cats in the NCAA offices). I say let the kids stay or go as they choose and quit trying to play nanny.

VinnyZag
03-27-2008, 03:45 PM
Sadly these guys almost never come back to get their degrees after they leave. Outside of Shaq, I can't think of a major player that went back to finish.

Bremerville's own Marvin Williams goes back to Chapel Hill every summer to work on his degree.

TrueLiz
03-28-2008, 06:11 PM
It just seems odd that some pro sports like baseball, soccer and hockey have no qualms about signing 18 year olds to become pro athletes, but it is an issue for basketball and football. It has to be more than a weight and size issue, since hockey players get pounded more than football players.

Why the historical difference?

I'd say a big difference is the minor league system. Hockey teams have one minor league team, plus, a player can be drafted in hockey, and continue to play for their college team (something we're very familiar with up here in Gopher country, since the Gophers are basically a minor league team for the NHL), so they have more avenues for players to develop.

Baseball has 2 levels of rookie ball, lower single A, higher single A, double A & Triple A, so there are six possible levels to send players for development, so they can sign someone at 18, and not have them on the big league team for many years.

The NBDL is still pretty limited. With NBA teams sharing the NBDL teams as well as many free agents playing, and limits about sending players there (only 1st & 2nd year players, or are 3rd year players allowed too?), there's much more pressure to actually play those kids at the NBA level. The guaranteed contracts don't exist in baseball, hockey or football either. Same for tennis, golf, etc., where the players are on their own, and no one is obligated to hand out a big check unless you actually perform, unlike what happens if an NBA team drafts someone in the 1st round.

So I can see how making the minimum age 20 helps both levels. College teams know they aren't spending so much money and time recruiting players who will be one and done, and college fans have a little more excitement to watch out there too. As for the NBA side, they get two full years to evaluate talent against the college level, and also get to bring in kids/young adults who are a little more mature. When you see player interviews, so much is said about all the parts of the NBA that have nothing to do with being on the court and playing ball, and that have everything to do with growing up, learning responsibility, being away from home so long on road trips much longer than college, etc. The NBA gets the benefit of not needing to raise kids, and the NCAA gets to pull in extra $. Who loses in that (except, of course, the handful of kids who don't get to collect the paychecks yet)?

There are a whole lot of jobs in the "real world" that require certain college degrees, so I don't think it's out of line for the NBA to just require 2 years out of high school. Someone who is a superstar at field experience in Secondary Education doesn't get to jump into teaching early without finishing the rest of their schooling & student teaching. : ) (ok, so perhaps teachers don't make as much as NBA athletes and aren't arguing for this benefit...)

I just make all these arguments though, because I want to see 2 college years of Kevin Durant, Michael Beasley, Greg Oden, LeBron James (imagine him in college), etc. It's completely selfish - I'm just trying to find convincing arguments to back up my selfish wishes!