Pat Forde wrote a column on ESPN today about Josh Selby over at Kansas. Basically, Josh Selby was one of the top 5 recruits in the country in the high school class of 2010. If the NBA’s age limit was not in place, he would have been a lottery pick last year. Then, he arrived at Kansas, broke his hand, and never lived up to his hype. He is heading to the NBA draft anyway, even though he will probably be a late first round pick at best. Millions of dollars disappeared due to the college age rule. Forde’s thesis was that the age rule does a disservice to athletes and universities alike and that the NBA’s age rule should be abolished. I agree.
College provides kids with an education and a degree that maximizes their earning potential over time (even if they major in Philosophy). Those lucky few, people like Josh Selby, or Kevin Garnett, or Lebron James, or Gerald Green, have been blessed with abilities that make college unnecessary (much like Bill Gates was blessed with an ability that made college unnecessary). They can make millions of dollars right out of high school. For some of these kids (see Gerald Green) college could have either (a) exposed weaknesses in their game and cost them millions or (b) provided them with the valuable coaching and maturity needed to maximize their career and earning potential over time. The kids that are ready for the NBA immediately are the exception, not the rule. But shouldn’t the NBA recognize that exception instead of creating barriers to earning a paycheck?
There are talented players who come to college, recognize how much fun it is, and realize that the money will still be there in a few years. Harrison Barnes and Jared Sullinger both fall into that category. But who is David Stern to say that, at 18, a kid who needs the money has to turn back in his winning lottery ticket to go to “school” for a year. Isn’t it incredibly paternalistic to tell a kid that they have to go to school for a year when they neither want to go or need to go? And doesn’t that, in turn, take a scholarship away from another kid that both wants to and needs to go to school? I mean, I get it, NBA teams like the age rule because it gives them an extra year to evaluate players. Fans like the age rule because it prevents the college product from becoming overly diluted. The rule protects the kids who get bad advice from the wrong people and throw away their college eligibility to never get drafted. But the age rule needs to be abolished, a true minor league system put in place, and sanity needs to be restored to college basketball.
I'm not saying the age rule is good, but I take issue on a few points:
ReplyDelete1. David Stern has no obligation to maximize the earning potential of NBA players. Blame the NBPA.
2. I don't see the rule as paternalistic (at least not entirely). the NBA is not telling anyone they have to go to school and they are not preventing anyone from collecting a paycheck. Brandon Jennings got paid.
3. The NBA is protecting its teams from over-speculation and protecting the fans from watching Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler as rookies (could've won the tournament of bad).
4. I don't know if a minor league system in basketball is sustainable. The rosters are small and the talent can go oversees to get paid.
1. A fair point. The Player's Association allowed the age rule to get in place. And Stern is trying to put the best product on the floor. But clearly the point of the rule is to force kids to go to college for a year.
ReplyDelete2. It is paternalistic. The exposure an athlete gets to scouts in the college ranks is infinitely greater than the exposure they get in Europe where they often play limited minutes. Jennings got paid, but if he lit up the college ranks for a year, he's a top 3 pick.
3. NBA teams still over speculate. The speculation just comes a year later. Marvin Williams was the 2nd pick in the Chris Paul, Deron Williams draft. Selby and Jereme Richmond may actually be picked in the first round. Having the draft age set at 19 instead of 18 does nothing to change that speculation. Chandler and Curry would still have been lottery picks at 19, even if they under achieved for a year in college.
4. Minor league system could be sustainable, but it would need to truly be a developmental system. Extend the NBA draft, let teams take high schoolers in later rounds, try to sign them and stash them in a minor league franchise to develop. The high school kids are less likely to bolt for Europe. Especially if they get signing bonuses like baseball players do.
Fair points, but if the NBA is paternalistic then so is the NFL
ReplyDeleteThat's true. I cannot in good conscience argue for one age rule as being paternalistic and then in the same breath argue the other is not. The age rule in the NFL is much less of an issue just because kids are very, very rarely physically ready for the NFL while in high school and scouting high school football players in much more difficult than scouting high school basketball players.
ReplyDelete