this may be getting ridiculous...

[Amonkey]

Is this kid guaranteed to be the next Jordan? Like, 100%? If not,
I hope the kid likes flipping burgers... cuz he'll be doing it at some point.

Whether its after his pro career, or in place of it when he doesn't pan out...

he will be flipping. 

I don't think that'll happen.  Even if he doesn't play in the States, he can make more than enough money in Europe.  One of my school's best friend, who went on to play at UMaine, went to Belgium to play there.  They gave him a car and a house right away, and this kid is not even that great.  The only way he'll be flipping is if he gets some kind of wierd injury that he can't play anymore or if he's not that good, which either way wouldn't get him that far.

Also, the people that think that athlete's college degrees are worth something haven't really noticed the type of education they've been receiving.  There are some real scholar athletes out there, but there are places like UMass, where athletes gets college credits for attending a "study-session" type of things, where they just have to show up and play on the computer.

I think an issue is going to be his body.  Him starting to play professionally this early is really going to put wear and tear on his body in my opinion.  I think he will get better talent wise, but I want to see how his knees are in 18 years.

That's somewhat a good point, except that you have to remember that he would be playing professionally.  These guys have some of the top of the line doctors continuously checking up on these players and high quality strenght and conditioning coaches making sure these guys are safe.  I don't see much of a difference than a kid playing in college.

[Chris]

To be honest, I could care less.  The way I look at it, either the kid is making a terrible mistake, and he will learn it the hard way, or he will make some extra cash, and be more prepared for when he enters the NBA.  Either way, it's his call.

I like the NBA's age limit rule, because I think it puts a strain on teams, and the game in general to allow 18 year old kids to come to the NBA, and have to grow up and learn to play, while taking money and roster spots from guys who are better players right now, and would make the product on the floor better.  For every Lebron, there are 20 Gerald Greens or Jermaine Oneals, who either never pan out, or never pan out of the team that took all that time and energy to develop them.  In fact, I think they should raise the age limit even more, to help improve the quality of the product even more.

But as far as what players do before they get to the NBA, I could care less.  If they want to get paid to play in leagues where it is allowed, then good for them.  If they prefer to play in college, that is great too. 

[2short]

 
What could be better!  Spending a few formative years in europe, seeing the world and learning GOOD FUNDIMENTAL baketball.  Many college bb players don't graduate and shouldn't be in college anyways.  Along with the fact that they come into the nba and don't know anything except how to dunk.
If anyone follows soccer they know there isn't a problem with this and no guys won't be worn out, euro bball is not as many games etc etc.  

[JSD]

I read in SI he'll at least be getting his Good Enough Diploma through Penn Foster.

[ederson]

I heard on the radio a couple of days ago that his manager was in Athens talking to Panathinaikos and Olympiacos.... That`s the best way to ensure that the kid won`t have any progress! You get better by playing. Sitting on the bench won`t do any good. Even Childress , a known player , well trained, talented, experienced and he doesn`t get as much play time as expected. A 17-19 years old will have a very hard time in teams like CSKA, Panathinaikos, Real etc.
Unless the kid is a Moses Malone clone.....


@Cordobes do you have link about the marousi rumour?

[bdm860]

If a rich kid studies in Europe for a couple of years, it's called studying abroad and is very much encouraged. Just about all universities have programs allowing students to study abroad. 

I think Tyler and Jennings are different. I didn't like when Jennings did it, I felt he only did it because he couldn't get a high enough score on the SAT, don't use Europe as a loophole not to study.

But I think Tyler is a different situation.  He has the grades to go to college (I believe) but thinks he'd get more out of playing in Europe from a basketball development standpoint.  I have no problem bucking against hypocrital, greedy, billion dollar empire that is the NCAA.

Also Sonny Vaccoro who basically put together the deals for Jennings and Tyler, has advised most kids not to go to Europe. Link

Vaccaro says about 15 high school players in the last year have asked him whether they should skip college to play pro overseas but he advised most not to because they didn't have the game, the maturity or the family support system Jennings had in Europe and Tyler will have.

And from that same article, a great point against the argument of "well people go pro in golf and tennis at a young age":

Paul Hewitt, Georgia Tech men's basketball coach and president of the Black Coaches Administrators, has a different view: "The reality is if you're a tennis player or golfer, your family has a safety net."

[indeedproceed]

good research

[cordobes]

ederson:

http://www.sportando.net/eng/europa/esteri/2173/maroussi-tyler_first_talks.html

And from that same article, a great point against the argument of "well people go pro in golf and tennis at a young age":

Paul Hewitt, Georgia Tech men's basketball coach and president of the Black Coaches Administrators, has a different view: "The reality is if you're a tennis player or golfer, your family has a safety net."

I don't even understand that argument about the safety net. I mean, what's exactly the downside for the kid? Having to finish his high-school when he's 19 or 20 but hundreds of thousands of dollars richer? And the idea that tennis players families have safeties net is quite anachronistic.

[Fan from VT]

I have 3 major concerns with this subject:

1. It seems like only with basketball do people complain about young people going pro.

Why? I think it has to do with race and class. There's a bit of a patronizing middle class "we need to make the right choice for these kids because they can't make it on their own" attitude. Of course, there's no outcry about players going straight into baseball (white, all-american) from high school, or into tennis (upper class) or soccer (predominantly foreign). 


2. The outcry from the league is utterly dishonest.

The league does not care one iota for the individual athletes in question. They care only about protecting themselves from bad gambles because NBA owners have shown no willpower or self-restraint when it comes to a)free agents, and b)project players. Ideally, a team makes a calculated risk when it either signs a big free agent or drafts something of an unknown quantity. The teams know this when they enter into contracts. If owners were smart, they'd look around the league at all the mistakes and learn to make smart choices. Instead, they lobby to unjustly bar 18 year olds from their league to save themselves from themselves. Gerald Green, as an 18 year old, was able to parlay his basketball abilities into several million dollars. The NBA knew about him and had scouted him. By all accounts, he was not much of a student Had he gone to college and demonstrated a lack of true NBA skill while also failing academically, would the NBA have cared then? No, he would have been on his own and the NBA wouldn't have taken a second look as he flunked out and went on his way. Let's just be honest and clear that the age limit in the NBA is about one thing: owners' money.


3. People really only seem to care when it's an athlete leaving early.

There are millions of people in the U.S. who face a constant uphill battle against ridiculous obstacles just to reach adulthood, let alone obtain a good job, let alone graduate from college, let alone graduate from high school. When faced with a lifetime of hopelessness and trauma, I applaud any individual making a choice to take a proactive step to get themselves a foothold in society. It would be one thing if the U.S. provided adequate services that truly allowed any citizen the chance to focus on education and eventually learning a useful trade (does need-based scholarship really mean much in the face of constant violence and possibly the need to provide income, at the age of 16, for your family?), but by and large individuals are left to fend for themselves. To watch people grow up in terrible poverty, then say "shame" for making what you think is a bad choice, is not rational. I think it ends up being selfish. Many people do not care (or would even applaud the nobility of such an act) if a child of poverty left school early to work a job to buy food for his family. Many of those same people cry foul when a player leaves school early to enter the NBA or even earlier to chase Euro dollars. Why do they care now? Because this affects the quality of the basketball they watch.

[Fan from VT]

ederson:

http://www.sportando.net/eng/europa/esteri/2173/maroussi-tyler_first_talks.html

And from that same article, a great point against the argument of "well people go pro in golf and tennis at a young age":

Paul Hewitt, Georgia Tech men's basketball coach and president of the Black Coaches Administrators, has a different view: "The reality is if you're a tennis player or golfer, your family has a safety net."

I don't even understand that argument about the safety net. I mean, what's exactly the downside for the kid? Having to finish his high-school when he's 19 or 20 but hundreds of thousands of dollars richer? And the idea that tennis players families have safeties net is quite anachronistic.

The argument about safety nets is that to be a competitive golfer or tennis player, there's about a 99.9% chance you come from a family that could spend money on club/course memberships, equipment, lessons, etc. 

[indeedproceed]

ederson:

http://www.sportando.net/eng/europa/esteri/2173/maroussi-tyler_first_talks.html

And from that same article, a great point against the argument of "well people go pro in golf and tennis at a young age":

Paul Hewitt, Georgia Tech men's basketball coach and president of the Black Coaches Administrators, has a different view: "The reality is if you're a tennis player or golfer, your family has a safety net."

I don't even understand that argument about the safety net. I mean, what's exactly the downside for the kid? Having to finish his high-school when he's 19 or 20 but hundreds of thousands of dollars richer? And the idea that tennis players families have safeties net is quite anachronistic.

I agree that saying that there is a saftey net for golf and tennis players is a bit small minded. We a know the only sport with a mandatory safety net is lacrosse.

But as far as the downside..I agree its not evident, really..I could see someone arguing that if a prospect went abroad to get pt, but his ability or maturity didn't measure up to hype and he was waived..he may never get another chance..but lets face it..there are 60 players taken in the draft each year, and of those 60, what....35 actually stick with the team the drafted them for more than a year?

Fact is, bouncing at age 18 from a Euro team then toiling in a D-League squad to get better is no different than bouncing from the second round of the draft and toiling for a D-League team.

[indeedproceed]

The only issue I'd have is that the Euro competition is so much better, players might get marginalized while in college they'd be the face of a university.

[ToppersBsktball10]

Thing about this kid is in highschool whne u have a dynamic player you have a sick record, his highschool team was like 10-13 this year or something. Doesn't seem to be worth all the hype. But this story's old he announced this a while ago

[cordobes]

ederson:

http://www.sportando.net/eng/europa/esteri/2173/maroussi-tyler_first_talks.html

And from that same article, a great point against the argument of "well people go pro in golf and tennis at a young age":

Paul Hewitt, Georgia Tech men's basketball coach and president of the Black Coaches Administrators, has a different view: "The reality is if you're a tennis player or golfer, your family has a safety net."

I don't even understand that argument about the safety net. I mean, what's exactly the downside for the kid? Having to finish his high-school when he's 19 or 20 but hundreds of thousands of dollars richer? And the idea that tennis players families have safeties net is quite anachronistic.

The argument about safety nets is that to be a competitive golfer or tennis player, there's about a 99.9% chance you come from a family that could spend money on club/course memberships, equipment, lessons, etc. 

I doubt that number is still accurate. Anyway, why does that matter? If the kid didn't go to Europe, what exactly would be his safety net? A high school diploma? Well, he can get a high school diploma in Europe, but even if he doesn't, he can get it later: 2 years older and with a much bigger bank account. What's not to like?

[cordobes]

The only issue I'd have is that the Euro competition is so much better, players might get marginalized while in college they'd be the face of a university.

Yeps, that's also my worry. There are many levels of competition in Europe though; he needs to find the right league and the right club for him. As the Draftexpress article says, going to a powerhouse would be a very costly mistake (in terms of his development as a basketball player; it'd hardly ruin his life).