The NBA isn't likely to get the 20 year old age limit

[mj2k10]

The NBAPA is going to fight it, and try to get it pushed back to 18.

I think it will end up being a bargaining chip issue, and stay at 19. Long-term, though, this does not bode well for college basketball. The absurdity that highly, highly, highly valuable 18 year old basketball players should spend a year playing for free can't last forever. Eventually, if the NBA really wants to keep 18-19 year olds out of the pros, they're going to have to pay for the privilege by starting some kind of paid (legitimately, not poverty-level wages like the D League) feeder system.

 

[buckkiller]

I love it for Cal and Kentucky if it stays 1 and done!

 

[wildcatsboston1984]

Originally posted by mj2k10:
The NBAPA is going to fight it, and try to get it pushed back to 18.

I think it will end up being a bargaining chip issue, and stay at 19. Long-term, though, this does not bode well for college basketball. The absurdity that highly, highly, highly valuable 18 year old basketball players should spend a year playing for free can't last forever. Eventually, if the NBA really wants to keep 18-19 year olds out of the pros, they're going to have to pay for the privilege by starting some kind of paid (legitimately, not poverty-level wages like the D League) feeder system.

You need a massive reality check if you think D League salaries are poverty-level...

 

[azubuikefan]

Originally posted by wildcatsboston1984:

Originally posted by mj2k10:
The NBAPA is going to fight it, and try to get it pushed back to 18.

I think it will end up being a bargaining chip issue, and stay at 19. Long-term, though, this does not bode well for college basketball. The absurdity that highly, highly, highly valuable 18 year old basketball players should spend a year playing for free can't last forever. Eventually, if the NBA really wants to keep 18-19 year olds out of the pros, they're going to have to pay for the privilege by starting some kind of paid (legitimately, not poverty-level wages like the D League) feeder system.

You need a massive reality check if you think D League salaries are poverty-level...

Do some research and get back to us.

 

[brianpoe]

What difference does it make?

Letting them go straight to the pros hurts college ball. NCAA is much better with Okafor, Townes, Russell, etc. even for just one year.

Two year rule we would dominate even more than we do now.

Why is it absurd to have an age limit? Why is the NBA different from other employers that require age limits?

 

[UKErik]

Salaries remain flat: $25,500, $19,000 and $13,000[/B] for the league's three player classifications, which means D-League players are virtually playing for free -- and a modest per diem on the road of $40 compared to $120 in the NBA -- although they do receive housing and insurance benefits.

That's what the ol' Google said about NBADL salaries.

GBB!!!

 

[gossie21]

I'm not terribly worried. The players want a bigger cut of the league revenues. That's what they are going to be fighting for more than anything. And to be fair, that's what the league is going to be fighting over mostly as well.

The draft eligibility rule is simply a bargaining chip for both sides. It would be silly for either side to start off the negotiations saying, "sure we'll just do whatever they want."

 

[Pope John Wall II]

Originally posted by wildcatsboston1984:

Originally posted by mj2k10:
The NBAPA is going to fight it, and try to get it pushed back to 18.

I think it will end up being a bargaining chip issue, and stay at 19. Long-term, though, this does not bode well for college basketball. The absurdity that highly, highly, highly valuable 18 year old basketball players should spend a year playing for free can't last forever. Eventually, if the NBA really wants to keep 18-19 year olds out of the pros, they're going to have to pay for the privilege by starting some kind of paid (legitimately, not poverty-level wages like the D League) feeder system.

You need a massive reality check if you think D League salaries are poverty-level...

I'm pretty sure D-League salaries are less than 30,000 a year.

 

[catfaninsc]

"The NBA isn't likely to get the 20 year old age limit"


I think they will. Owners and GM's have been talking about it for some time.

 

[Aike]

The new head of the NBAPA is ready to go to war. She feels like the owners have taken more than their share of late. She is likely to oppose almost anything that the league thinks is a good idea on principle.

 

[UKErik]

There shouldn't be an age requirement, IMO. Let people that can make money go to work.

And how many players would it affect each year? Less than a handful most likely.

GBB!!!

 

[brianpoe]

Regardless the number it is only for 6 months. $5k a month to play bball?

 

[Lumpy 2]

How is it in the players' best interest to oppose raising the age limit to 20?

 

[Aike]

Originally posted by brianpoe:
Regardless the number it is only for 6 months. $5k a month to play bball?

Huh? The low level guys are only making $13 grand. And if they want to stick in the D-league and possibly climb the ladder, then they have to be dedicated full-time to the sport. It is very close to a poverty level gig for a shot at something special.

This post was edited on 3/5 7:14 PM by Aike

 

[lacocat]

The NBA has the age limit to help NBA GM's from taking a High School lottery pick who ends up being a bust anbd wasted money for the franchise. The extra year at collegiate level gives the GM's a better look at a players potential in many cases. Transcendant players like LeBron, Kobe, Garnett yiou didn't need to see them in college a year, but numerous other High School picks turned into busts and seeing them a year in college could help avoid that.

The players, and their union want players into their second contract as soon as possible so they can get their market value and not the rookie salary scale structure. I think a logical compromise is to raise the age limit one more year, but take one year off the length of time they have to spend working under their rookie contract.

 

[KY_Kid]

I never understood why the player's association opposes a higher age limit. You think they would favor it. It would free up roster spots and salary for veterans. I guess it's just something to disagree about so they can use it as a bargaining chip.

 

[Pope John Wall II]

Originally posted by lacocat:
The NBA has the age limit to help NBA GM's from taking a High School lottery pick who ends up being a bust anbd wasted money for the franchise. The extra year at collegiate level gives the GM's a better look at a players potential in many cases. Transcendant players like LeBron, Kobe, Garnett yiou didn't need to see them in college a year, but numerous other High School picks turned into busts and seeing them a year in college could help avoid that.

This is posted every time this discussion comes up, and every time it is exaggerated. There weren't nearly as many flat out busts as you think you remember, and the ratio of star-bust isn't as bad as you think either.

 

[Aike]

Originally posted by Lumpy 2:
How is it in the players' best interest to oppose raising the age limit to 20?

I don't think it really is. I think the agents have convinced the players that it is only right to allow everyone the same shot they were afforded, and as early as possible.

Financially, there is no good reason for existing Union members to take on extra guys right out of HS, even if there are only 7 or 8 of them.

 

[Catapult]

It really shouldn't be about age anyway. Every other business is allowed to set criteria for employment, usually degree or equivalent work experience. Why not pro sports?

 

[Seth C]

Originally posted by Catapult:
It really shouldn't be about age anyway. Every other business is allowed to set criteria for employment, usually degree or equivalent work experience. Why not pro sports?

That's precisely what they are doing. They want someone with a minimum of high school plus one year of college or work experience. The owners want to bump that to two years experience.

 

[IL Wildcat]

Originally posted by catfaninsc:

"The NBA isn't likely to get the 20 year old age limit"


I think they will. Owners and GM's have been talking about it for some time.

Yes I agree with this. This was on the table at the last CBA negotiations, but was not acted upon. The owners don't want the age limit to go back to straight out of high school. It caused too many teams to spend large amounts of cash on guys based on potential that was never realized. It's very bad for business. And the player's association may say they want it to be 18 or straight out of high school, but the truth is that it's not good for the current NBA players, either. It makes their position even weaker because they're carrying a bunch of dead weight in players getting big salaries who don't pan out.

The truth is that a 20yr-old or 2 years removed from high school would be the best for everyone. It would make the NBA better. It would weed out players that dominate high school ball but can't get it done at the next level. It keeps owners from blowing money on bad investments. It puts the player's association in a position of strength to ask for league minimums to be higher and negotiate other, more important issues to the current players rather than trying to negotiate for guys who may end up washing out.

My guess is that the players will be using this age limit to get themselves something good, and the owners will make the deal.

And by the way, the NBA doesn't have to consider how their decisions affect the NCAA at all, but a 2-year rule would make college basketball even better. Letting guys skip college altogether would mean a crappy product on thw floor. I hated it when players skipped college. I would have loved to see Lebron in college somewhere for at least a year, even if it had been Memphis.

 

[dlh331]

Originally posted by UKErik:
There shouldn't be an age requirement, IMO. Let people that can make money go to work.

And how many players would it affect each year? Less than a handful most likely.

GBB!!!

Football too?

Darryl

 

[mj2k10]

Originally posted by Pope John Wall II:

Originally posted by lacocat:
The NBA has the age limit to help NBA GM's from taking a High School lottery pick who ends up being a bust anbd wasted money for the franchise. The extra year at collegiate level gives the GM's a better look at a players potential in many cases. Transcendant players like LeBron, Kobe, Garnett yiou didn't need to see them in college a year, but numerous other High School picks turned into busts and seeing them a year in college could help avoid that.

This is posted every time this discussion comes up, and every time it is exaggerated. There weren't nearly as many flat out busts as you think you remember, and the ratio of star-bust isn't as bad as you think either.

Actually, the ratio of stars/quality players to busts was astronomically better than your average draft picks. But that doesn't fit the desired narrative for some people.

And as for the more general topic that some people have addressed here as to why the player's union seems to care so much, I think there are a couple of factors at work. One is that athletes inherently respect talent and performance. That's really all that matters in their world, and everything else is secondary. It doesn't matter if you're 17 or 35, as long as you can perform.

The other is sociological/racial. The NBA is 75% African-American, and those players look around and see teenagers in every other sport in the world (except football) given ample opportunities to cash in on their talent whenever they can, while a bunch of (white) NBA owners try to tell them how it's in everyone's best interest to, basically, keep money away from players until they're 20. That's not an easy sell, no matter the potential upside, especially not when a big chunk of the best players in the league started in the league before they were 20.

 

[IL Wildcat]

Originally posted by UKErik:
There shouldn't be an age requirement, IMO. Let people that can make money go to work.

And how many players would it affect each year? Less than a handful most likely.

GBB!!!

Hey erik. You're right that it would only be a handful that make the NBA each year from high school. But if you remember, there were about another 10 or more that put their names in the draft because they were listening to their homies tell them they're the next Kobie or Lebron. But they lose collegiate eligibility once they declare. And they end up sitting the bench for some Euro team instead of improving under a good coaching staff and learning to become a young man in college. But they take that gamble with their lives because they're kids getting bad advice and don't know any better.

 

[mj2k10]

Originally posted by Catapult:
It really shouldn't be about age anyway. Every other business is allowed to set criteria for employment, usually degree or equivalent work experience. Why not pro sports?

Because the only way an age limit holds up in court is if the player's union agrees to it. That's what the Spencer Haywood case was about. A case the NBA lost.

To go even further, the NBA draft itself is legal only because it's collectively bargained. No collective bargaining agreement= no right for the NBA to tell any player where they can or can't play, or how much they can play for.

 

[dlh331]

I find it humorous how folks think it is fair for the NBA to draft players directly out of high school (which will greatly dilute
the quality of basketball) but go "Oh My God, no" when asked if football players should be allowed to do the same. The
18 year olds are no more ready for the mental aspect of the NBA than the football players are ready physically.

But their thinking is nothing should ever be allowed to damage KING FOOTBALL!!!

Darryl

 

[mj2k10]

Originally posted by IL Wildcat:

Originally posted by UKErik:
There shouldn't be an age requirement, IMO. Let people that can make money go to work.

And how many players would it affect each year? Less than a handful most likely.

GBB!!!

Hey erik. You're right that it would only be a handful that make the NBA each year from high school. But if you remember, there were about another 10 or more that put their names in the draft because they were listening to their homies tell them they're the next Kobie or Lebron. But they lose collegiate eligibility once they declare. And they end up sitting the bench for some Euro team instead of improving under a good coaching staff and learning to become a young man in college. But they take that gamble with their lives because they're kids getting bad advice and don't know any better.

Name them.

 

[brianpoe]

Originally posted by mj2k10:

Originally posted by Pope John Wall II:

Originally posted by lacocat:
The NBA has the age limit to help NBA GM's from taking a High School lottery pick who ends up being a bust anbd wasted money for the franchise. The extra year at collegiate level gives the GM's a better look at a players potential in many cases. Transcendant players like LeBron, Kobe, Garnett yiou didn't need to see them in college a year, but numerous other High School picks turned into busts and seeing them a year in college could help avoid that.

This is posted every time this discussion comes up, and every time it is exaggerated. There weren't nearly as many flat out busts as you think you remember, and the ratio of star-bust isn't as bad as you think either.

Actually, the ratio of stars/quality players to busts was astronomically better than your average draft picks. But that doesn't fit the desired narrative for some people.

And as for the more general topic that some people have addressed here as to why the player's union seems to care so much, I think there are a couple of factors at work. One is that athletes inherently respect talent and performance. That's really all that matters in their world, and everything else is secondary. It doesn't matter if you're 17 or 35, as long as you can perform.

The other is sociological/racial. The NBA is 75% African-American, and those players look around and see teenagers in every other sport in the world (except football) given ample opportunities to cash in on their talent whenever they can, while a bunch of (white) NBA owners try to tell them how it's in everyone's best interest to, basically, keep money away from players until they're 20. That's not an easy sell, no matter the potential upside, especially not when a big chunk of the best players in the league started in the league before they were 20.

It is all about risk. That risk is gambling on an unknown product. The risk is money. Trying to place race in this is a very poor argument.

 

[gossie21]

Originally posted by Pope John Wall II:

Originally posted by lacocat:
The NBA has the age limit to help NBA GM's from taking a High School lottery pick who ends up being a bust anbd wasted money for the franchise. The extra year at collegiate level gives the GM's a better look at a players potential in many cases. Transcendant players like LeBron, Kobe, Garnett yiou didn't need to see them in college a year, but numerous other High School picks turned into busts and seeing them a year in college could help avoid that.

This is posted every time this discussion comes up, and every time it is exaggerated. There weren't nearly as many flat out busts as you think you remember, and the ratio of star-bust isn't as bad as you think either.

Not only that, but look at some of the bone-headed selections even with the one-and-done rule in place.

2006 - #3 Adam Morrison, #5 Shelden WIlliams, #9 Patrick O'Bryant, and #21 Rajon Rondo
2007 - #7 Yi Jianlian
2008 - #8 Joe Alexander
2009 - #2 Hasheem Thabeet before James Harden, #6 Johnny Flynn before Steph Curry.
2010 - #2 Evan Turner and #4 Wesley Johnson before Boogie Cousins

I could keep going on, but I've already lost interest. The point is that NBA GM's can screw up the draft no matter what. It's not science, players can develop or not once they get in the league.

The biggest argument for the age limit is that it protects the NBA's product and drives up interest. If you have a kid that has played 1 or 2 years in college, then fans can be excited to see how this wirey kid named Anthony Davis can handle himself against grown men in the NBA. Or they can watch this other-world athlete Andrew Wiggins play against college kids and see if he's worth all the fuss for a #1 pick.

 

[UKErik]

I'd let football players go right out of high school. Why not? Again, if a person wants to make that decision for his life, why not let him? Football would be fine either way. You'd just end up with some 18 year old kids unemployed and without an education.

GBB!!!

 

[gossie21]

Originally posted by UKErik:
I'd let football players go right out of high school. Why not? Again, if a person wants to make that decision for his life, why not let him? Football would be fine either way. You'd just end up with some 18 year old kids unemployed and without an education.

GBB!!!

Because both the NBA and the NFL have the right to protect their product. And frankly there really is no incentive for them not to place age restrictions. College sports provide a free minor league (and that is what needs to change).

 

[truebluewildcat]

it's not going to be the end of college basketball...

there isn't going to be some sort of mass exodus every year from high school straight to the pros...only 20 will have a legit shot, and maybe 10-15 of those will get solid draft grades and guaranteed feedback from franchises...

people seem to forget there is a limited amount of room in the NBA...

CBB did fine without KG, Marbury, T-mac, J. O'neal, Kobe, Amare, Lebron etc...

 

[catfaninsc]

Originally posted by mj2k10:

Originally posted by Catapult:
It really shouldn't be about age anyway. Every other business is allowed to set criteria for employment, usually degree or equivalent work experience. Why not pro sports?

Because the only way an age limit holds up in court is if the player's union agrees to it. That's what the Spencer Haywood case was about. A case the NBA lost.

To go even further, the NBA draft itself is legal only because it's collectively bargained. No collective bargaining agreement= no right for the NBA to tell any player where they can or can't play, or how much they can play for.

The reason it holds up in court is because of the collective bargaining agreement between the union and the league. This shields the league from some aspects of antitrust labor law and more. Salary Cap, Luxury Tax, Maximum Salaries, Minimum Salaries etc. . This protection extends as long as the group,(the union) exists. The owners will never go back to 18yr rule. And will push for the 20yr. The union will threaten to decertify the union, which would open the league up to antitrust labor law, as a negotiation chip to get something else and will accept the 20yr rule in the end.

Should the union decertify, which it won't, then everything is up in air for both the players and the league. And neither want that.

 

[UKErik]

gossie21, they can protect their product by not drafting 18 year olds. Just because a kid declares for a particular draft doesn't mean he'll be drafted.

GBB!!!

 

[mj2k10]

Originally posted by brianpoe:

Originally posted by mj2k10:

Originally posted by Pope John Wall II:

Originally posted by lacocat:
The NBA has the age limit to help NBA GM's from taking a High School lottery pick who ends up being a bust anbd wasted money for the franchise. The extra year at collegiate level gives the GM's a better look at a players potential in many cases. Transcendant players like LeBron, Kobe, Garnett yiou didn't need to see them in college a year, but numerous other High School picks turned into busts and seeing them a year in college could help avoid that.

This is posted every time this discussion comes up, and every time it is exaggerated. There weren't nearly as many flat out busts as you think you remember, and the ratio of star-bust isn't as bad as you think either.

Actually, the ratio of stars/quality players to busts was astronomically better than your average draft picks. But that doesn't fit the desired narrative for some people.

And as for the more general topic that some people have addressed here as to why the player's union seems to care so much, I think there are a couple of factors at work. One is that athletes inherently respect talent and performance. That's really all that matters in their world, and everything else is secondary. It doesn't matter if you're 17 or 35, as long as you can perform.

The other is sociological/racial. The NBA is 75% African-American, and those players look around and see teenagers in every other sport in the world (except football) given ample opportunities to cash in on their talent whenever they can, while a bunch of (white) NBA owners try to tell them how it's in everyone's best interest to, basically, keep money away from players until they're 20. That's not an easy sell, no matter the potential upside, especially not when a big chunk of the best players in the league started in the league before they were 20.

It is all about risk. That risk is gambling on an unknown product. The risk is money. Trying to place race in this is a very poor argument.

Read the link I posted, very first post in this thread. Get back to me on that.

You may think it's a bad argument. You don't play in the NBA. Apparently, a lot of guys who do play in the NBA think it's a pretty good argument.

 

[gossie21]

Originally posted by UKErik:
gossie21, they can protect their product by not drafting 18 year olds. Just because a kid declares for a particular draft doesn't mean he'll be drafted.

GBB!!!

But why even open yourself up to that type of risk? You have college sports that have provided free minor leagues for years. Just let them keep doing their thing and take the pressure off of your scouts.

 

[bthaunert]

Originally posted by Pope John Wall II:

Originally posted by lacocat:
The NBA has the age limit to help NBA GM's from taking a High School lottery pick who ends up being a bust anbd wasted money for the franchise. The extra year at collegiate level gives the GM's a better look at a players potential in many cases. Transcendant players like LeBron, Kobe, Garnett yiou didn't need to see them in college a year, but numerous other High School picks turned into busts and seeing them a year in college could help avoid that.

This is posted every time this discussion comes up, and every time it is exaggerated. There weren't nearly as many flat out busts as you think you remember, and the ratio of star-bust isn't as bad as you think either.

Agree. Over and over again, this is de-bunked, but people always want to bring up Kwame Brown and forget about all of the high school players that were successful.

 

[brianpoe]

Originally posted by mj2k10:

Originally posted by brianpoe:

Originally posted by mj2k10:

Originally posted by Pope John Wall II:

Originally posted by lacocat:
The NBA has the age limit to help NBA GM's from taking a High School lottery pick who ends up being a bust anbd wasted money for the franchise. The extra year at collegiate level gives the GM's a better look at a players potential in many cases. Transcendant players like LeBron, Kobe, Garnett yiou didn't need to see them in college a year, but numerous other High School picks turned into busts and seeing them a year in college could help avoid that.

This is posted every time this discussion comes up, and every time it is exaggerated. There weren't nearly as many flat out busts as you think you remember, and the ratio of star-bust isn't as bad as you think either.

Actually, the ratio of stars/quality players to busts was astronomically better than your average draft picks. But that doesn't fit the desired narrative for some people.

And as for the more general topic that some people have addressed here as to why the player's union seems to care so much, I think there are a couple of factors at work. One is that athletes inherently respect talent and performance. That's really all that matters in their world, and everything else is secondary. It doesn't matter if you're 17 or 35, as long as you can perform.

The other is sociological/racial. The NBA is 75% African-American, and those players look around and see teenagers in every other sport in the world (except football) given ample opportunities to cash in on their talent whenever they can, while a bunch of (white) NBA owners try to tell them how it's in everyone's best interest to, basically, keep money away from players until they're 20. That's not an easy sell, no matter the potential upside, especially not when a big chunk of the best players in the league started in the league before they were 20.

It is all about risk. That risk is gambling on an unknown product. The risk is money. Trying to place race in this is a very poor argument.

Read the link I posted, very first post in this thread. Get back to me on that.

You may think it's a bad argument. You don't play in the NBA. Apparently, a lot of guys who do play in the NBA think it's a pretty good argument.

First off, you don't know I that I don't play in the NBA.

Second, these old white guys are trying to keep "EVERYONE" off their money, not just 19 year old black kids. According to you Michael Jordan is racist. I don't even see how race can be invoked in this deal It is very obvious why the owners want to see the kids at least for one year out of high school and it's not so they can manage a plantation with their white hoods over their faces.

 

[UKErik]

gossie21, you're absolutely right about college athletics equating to a free minor league system for professional sports. No question about it. It's great for the NFL. It's great for college football. But is it fair to people who might not need three years of college to get ready for pro football?

I think any discussion about these people being eligible out of high school is more about them than what's good for college and professional sports. No doubt, getting a look at these kids in college is incredibly beneficial to professional teams.

GBB!!!

 

[brianpoe]

Originally posted by UKErik:
gossie21, you're absolutely right about college athletics equating to a free minor league system for professional sports. No question about it. It's great for the NFL. It's great for college football. But is it fair to people who might not need three years of college to get ready for pro football?

I think any discussion about these people being eligible out of high school is more about them than what's good for college and professional sports. No doubt, getting a look at these kids in college is incredibly beneficial to professional teams.

GBB!!!

I don't think I need a law degree to practice law.

I don't think I need most of the requirements employers require.

I don't think I have the right to tell employers their criteria for those they pay for services either.

E, you can't just single out the NBA because of the services they offer.