Controversy time.
Followers of the NBA know David Stern is pushing a minimum age requirement to play in the league. The NBA's collective bargaining agreement expires June 30.......two days after the draft. At that time, Stern wants the age limit raised to 20.
Everyone's all over the place on this issue. On one hand we want to say that going to college is the end-all maturation process, so we should be encouraging young folks to go and stay as long as they can. College ball helps in player development, and keeps an 18 year old from entering a mans world of high dollars and little responsibility.
On the other hand, it's a hard case to sell for a young man and his family when he knows he could be making multi-millions next year, instead of studying for chem101.
"[F]rom 1995 to 2003, over 80 percent of drafted high school players became, or will become multi-millionaires by the age of 21, or how they have maximized their earning potential by gaining the ability to become unrestricted free agents -- when as many as 30 teams bid for their services -- by the tender age of 22, when, coincidentally, some of their counterparts will graduate from college and become bound by the nearly non-negotiable rookie salary scale for three to five years.
[M]ost players who skip college may earn as much as $100 million more over the course of their careers than if they had done the "smart thing" and earned a college diploma . . . [H]igh school players who enter the NBA Draft are a small, self-selected group, comprised almost entirely of exceptionally talented players. Simply put, for every Korleone Young, there are two or three Kobe Bryants."
I think it's a hard case to make. Hardest if you imagine it being your own kid. It's easy to look at some high school senior on TV and just say 'go to college, it's best.' But imagine it's your own son who has to weigh the options. On one hand, he goes to college and risks injury for the sake of game and life development. On the other hand, he enters the NBA, and in one year potentially seals his own financial future. (Yours too; and your grandkids, and their grandkids, etc. . . .) I think taking time to mature is a necessity, but who's to say that maturation can't take place on the court? I'm no money-hungry advocate, but if your product earns money, so be it. The old model told us that we go to college to get a good job, so we can earn money. In this case, it's a moot point; Going to college actually stifles wage-earning.
Also, the claim that a busted NBA career leaves little to know options for a high school draftee is ridiculous. It goes something like this: "If your pro career fails, what else is there to do without a college degree?" Give me a break. . . . .The response is simple. If you enter the NBA out of high school, you're not making $10 an hour. . . . you're banking. Take advantage of that bank roll and put yourself through college later, if you like. Or sit back and live on your earned wages. (Note to Carmelo: Don't blow it all on the bling, you might need a little something to retire on.)
The biggest issue is that the new age requirement wouldn't send potential pros to college like all the NCAA fanatics are drooling for. It would send them to the NBA's developmental league, the NBDL, which it's hoping to expand to 15 teams. Two NBA teams splitting each developmental roster. Do you really think the NBA wants to risk their potential money-makers futures by letting them get hurt in college?
Oh yeah, one last thing. . . .Check out this gem of a quote from Jermaine O'Neil about the whole thing:
"As a black guy, you kind of think that's the reason why it's coming up. You don't hear about it in baseball or hockey. To say you have to be 20, 21 to get in the league, it's unconstitutional. If I can go to the U.S. Army and fight the war at 18, why can't you play basketball for 48 minutes?"
Right Jermaine, it's unconstitutional. Well, if you want to bring that up, what about some affirmative action to balance out the lack of white guys in jerseys? Oh wait, I guess that's for another discussion. . . . .
