ESPNInsider Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 The NBA's new CBA will include a rule that players will not be draft eligible until one year from the day their high school class graduates. Although I am in favor of an age minimum, I really don't like this rule. Why not make it 20, or two years out of high school? Making it two years would more then likely push players into college programs where they can grow. Being one year, many players will likely go to the NBDL (which is dropping its age minimum from 20 to 18), go overseas, or pull a Mike Williams/Maurice Clarrett and work out for a year without playing in a program. Making the rule 20 would also help the college game. Players would be forced to stay for two years making it easier for coaches to plan on schollies for the future. There will be instances now where you will have players telling college coaches that they are going to leave as soon as possible, but the coaches will still want them to come to their school. That means one less scholarship for a lesser known kid down the line somewhere. I also think that just maybe if a kid were to go to school for 2 years, a few may actually feel some pride in that school and want to stay a couple more, ala Tim Duncan. One year may do the same, but probably to a lesser extent. Some will say that if an 18 year old can vote and go to war then why can't they play in the NBA. I hate this argument. The rule is not there to hold back the kids that can make it, it's there to help those that can't. It is also in place to protect the owners. Think if you were a gm and there was a really strong high school prospect in the draft who isn't ready yet, but could be the next huge thing. You can't pass up on him and risk looking like an idiot in the future, so you have to take him at a ripe 18 and hope that with all the money you put into him, all the time you spend with him pays off, while now he will be able to go to a college program, progress in his game, and the gm's will be able to see if his potential is a reality. I have strong feelings about the argument of making the NBDL into a true minor league system, but this post is long enough, I will save that for later. Sorry for the length of this post, but I want to see if others have differing opinions (I'm sure many do) and what they are. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 Football and basketball are using the colleges as a minor league system. Affects: - many kids with no interest (or abilities) in college attending college - public (public colleges) is financing professional minor leagues Baseball and hockey actually have minor leagues where an 18-year-old has a real choice: pro or amateur (aka college route). It's time for the NFL and NBA to offer the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ESPNInsider Posted June 22, 2005 Author Share Posted June 22, 2005 Football and basketball are using the colleges as a minor league system. Affects: - many kids with no interest (or abilities) in college attending college - public (public colleges) is financing professional minor leagues Baseball and hockey actually have minor leagues where an 18-year-old has a real choice: pro or amateur (aka college route). It's time for the NFL and NBA to offer the same. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't agree. The way the NFL does it is the best way I think. Only give the guys that really deserve it a chance to play. There are way too many minor leaguers in these other sports. People are hanging on to the dream way too long. You can't say the NHL is doing anything right as they are losing WAY too much money. I also don't like the argument that colleges are financing professional minor leagues. These kids bring in millions of dollars to the University and in return get a few thousand dollars worth of tuition waived. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 How much money really is brought in? Almost all intercollegiate sports require a subsidy from the parent institution Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ESPNInsider Posted June 22, 2005 Author Share Posted June 22, 2005 How much money really is brought in? When talking about the guys we are talking about, quite a bit probably. Sure most teams probably do not cover themselves but you don't think a team with Lebron on it would have made money? You don't think the Fab Five brought in more money then it cost to pay for their educations? Based on this argument you would most likely want the age minimum to be four years out of high school. Otherwise (assuming anyone can go to the draft) the talent level in colleges will be much less and they will most likely lose more money (less fan attraction). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ethanm Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 I think the change in the rookie pay scale might have the biggest impact on kids staying in school. Under the new CBA, only the first two years are guaranteed with the 3rd and 4th both being team options this is down from three years guaranteed and the 4th as a team option. Supposedly, this has already had an impact with foreign players as some agents don't think their client can prove their worth in two years (i.e. Darko Milicic). I don't have a problem with kids like Amare S. and LeBron J. leaving after high school, but these are the exceptions. I think the reason an age limit and the rookie pay scale change are needed is you have more kids declare for the draft than there are draft picks. It doesn't have to do with an age limit, but it's nice to see the NBA is taking a que from hockey. Instead of having to make up injuries, teams will now have active and inactive lists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ESPNInsider Posted June 23, 2005 Author Share Posted June 23, 2005 I think the change in the rookie pay scale might have the biggest impact on kids staying in school. Under the new CBA, only the first two years are guaranteed with the 3rd and 4th both being team options this is down from three years guaranteed and the 4th as a team option. Supposedly, this has already had an impact with foreign players as some agents don't think their client can prove their worth in two years (i.e. Darko Milicic). I don't have a problem with kids like Amare S. and LeBron J. leaving after high school, but these are the exceptions. I think the reason an age limit and the rookie pay scale change are needed is you have more kids declare for the draft than there are draft picks. It doesn't have to do with an age limit, but it's nice to see the NBA is taking a que from hockey. Instead of having to make up injuries, teams will now have active and inactive lists. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Good point. Maybe having the 3rd and 4th years be option years some kids will be scared off a little more. I always lliked how guys would come down with injuries for the entire year just so they wouldn't be on the active roster, but let's just hope that this is the only que the NBA takes from the NHL! What is the rule with trading new guys? Rookies, 2nd year players? Is there some sort of restriction. If memory serves I thought there was? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.