Only one Freshman per year should enter the NBA

[Moranis]

It's a free country and these young men, largely from very poor backgrounds, should be free to maximize their income as soon as they would like.

Yet training in some form or another is required for most high paying jobs.  Why should athletics be any different?

Because athletics is talent-driven. Tech companies are similar, they don't let the lack of a degree stop them from hiring someone if they're a genius coder. "Oh wait, I notice that you didn't finish college. Mmmm, I'm sorry, we can't hire you then."

The only reason it's possible is because professional sports leagues are a government-supported monopoly in the USA.

Let's say there are two basketball leagues. One has no age limit and one does. Which league would get the best players and how fast would the league with the age limit change their policy?

You have to be a liberal, right?  Don't agree with a rule or policy because it "isn't fair."  I would hope the league is more concerned with protecting the quality of its product than what people think is fair.  Also, there are plenty of pro basketball leagues that don't have an age rule, and aren't as successful as the NBA, so no I disagree with your hypothetical which clearly wasn't very well thought out.

Why does that mean he's a liberal? And what does being a liberal have to do with what this conversation is about. Plenty of conservatives agree with this point simply because they believe in the "free market"'s ability to choose and that people shouldn't be hindered from maximizing their earning potential to support an unpaid labor system.

Keep the politics out of it. Calling someone a liberal shouldn't be some type of derogatory comment. Plenty of reasonable, smart people lean both liberally and conservatively on a whole host of issues. People shouldn't be judged on the basis of their political beliefs. America's broad range of political viewpoints has been a strength of this country throughout it's history and should be embraced.

He injected race.  Hence the liberal comment.  It has everything to do with it. 

Also no one is forcing anyone to play college basketball. So not sure how you can claim they are being forced to participate in an unpaid labor system.  An 18 year old kid with a high school diploma doesn't really have their pick of the litter so a 30-40k a year scholarship seems like a pretty good deal to me.  They also have the opportunity to go over seas, but we will ignore that as well.

I mentioned race because it is historically relevant to this debate, though I also admitted that it wasn't as big a factor as it used to be in the 90s. I never said the league itself was racist. The league has one concern, and that is money. If the environment is racist and their league consists of mostly blacks, then that affects their bottom line. What the league is is cynical.

For example, if the predominately white fan base is having problems "relating" to young black men from urban environments, then what's the solution? A dress code! Do you really think that policy would exist if the league were mostly white? No, because there never would have been any need for it in the first place.

They ARE essentially being forced to participate in an unpaid labor system. Mudiay decided to play in China and his draft stock dropped. He was penalized because he was playing in a foreign league that teams do not trust as much as the NCAA. He was also penalized because the CBA is geographically farther away and harder to scout, and because the NCAA publicity system wasn't there to keep his name in the headlines to increase his buzz among fans and journalists. There is intense pressure for prospects to fall in line and go to college or risk hurting their draft stock.

Not to mention there is the risk of injury in college. You are not getting paid, and yet you are risking injury that could lower your stock or worse, have longstanding effects on your career. If you are going to risk injury, you should at least be getting paid.

Scholarships? Really? The cost of a scholarship could easily be paid for by a minimum salary in the NBA. How much education do you really think these one-and-done candidates are getting?

I went to school at a Blue Blood and have seen plenty of NBA players come and go so I don't really need to speculate as to what kind of education they are getting.  Even one year is an eternity when we are talking about the maturation or development of an 18 or 19 year old.

Basically you are upset that employment as a player in the NBA works te same way as employment in essentially every other field.  Could I have made more money shoveling rocks than I did while I was in college?  Sure.  You mock a 30k-50k scholarship as if it is nothing but it happens to be the best deal on the table for an 18 year old with a high school education.  They also benefit from the exposure while at these schools.  So I don't understand how what is seemingly the best opportunity available is an unfair deal. 

Anyway it is pointless debating this.  Anything that seems "unfair" to you and doesn't fit into your utopia is either patently wrong or a prima facie case of racism.  The owners own the teams and as far as I'm concerned if they want to impose a simple age restriction in the best interest of the league that's good enough for me.

But it wasn't the best option available until the league mandated a ridiculous 1 year rule to protect the owners from themselves (when in reality they didn't need to do that as by and large the straight from high school players had more success than the ones that went to college and there were very few total busts). 

[BballTim]

It's a free country and these young men, largely from very poor backgrounds, should be free to maximize their income as soon as they would like.

Yet training in some form or another is required for most high paying jobs.  Why should athletics be any different?

Because athletics is talent-driven. Tech companies are similar, they don't let the lack of a degree stop them from hiring someone if they're a genius coder. "Oh wait, I notice that you didn't finish college. Mmmm, I'm sorry, we can't hire you then."

The only reason it's possible is because professional sports leagues are a government-supported monopoly in the USA.

Let's say there are two basketball leagues. One has no age limit and one does. Which league would get the best players and how fast would the league with the age limit change their policy?

You have to be a liberal, right?  Don't agree with a rule or policy because it "isn't fair."  I would hope the league is more concerned with protecting the quality of its product than what people think is fair.  Also, there are plenty of pro basketball leagues that don't have an age rule, and aren't as successful as the NBA, so no I disagree with your hypothetical which clearly wasn't very well thought out.

Why does that mean he's a liberal? And what does being a liberal have to do with what this conversation is about. Plenty of conservatives agree with this point simply because they believe in the "free market"'s ability to choose and that people shouldn't be hindered from maximizing their earning potential to support an unpaid labor system.

Keep the politics out of it. Calling someone a liberal shouldn't be some type of derogatory comment. Plenty of reasonable, smart people lean both liberally and conservatively on a whole host of issues. People shouldn't be judged on the basis of their political beliefs. America's broad range of political viewpoints has been a strength of this country throughout it's history and should be embraced.

He injected race.  Hence the liberal comment.  It has everything to do with it. 

Also no one is forcing anyone to play college basketball. So not sure how you can claim they are being forced to participate in an unpaid labor system.  An 18 year old kid with a high school diploma doesn't really have their pick of the litter so a 30-40k a year scholarship seems like a pretty good deal to me.  They also have the opportunity to go over seas, but we will ignore that as well.

I mentioned race because it is historically relevant to this debate, though I also admitted that it wasn't as big a factor as it used to be in the 90s. I never said the league itself was racist. The league has one concern, and that is money. If the environment is racist and their league consists of mostly blacks, then that affects their bottom line. What the league is is cynical.

For example, if the predominately white fan base is having problems "relating" to young black men from urban environments, then what's the solution? A dress code! Do you really think that policy would exist if the league were mostly white? No, because there never would have been any need for it in the first place.

They ARE essentially being forced to participate in an unpaid labor system. Mudiay decided to play in China and his draft stock dropped. He was penalized because he was playing in a foreign league that teams do not trust as much as the NCAA. He was also penalized because the CBA is geographically farther away and harder to scout, and because the NCAA publicity system wasn't there to keep his name in the headlines to increase his buzz among fans and journalists. There is intense pressure for prospects to fall in line and go to college or risk hurting their draft stock.

Not to mention there is the risk of injury in college. You are not getting paid, and yet you are risking injury that could lower your stock or worse, have longstanding effects on your career. If you are going to risk injury, you should at least be getting paid.

Scholarships? Really? The cost of a scholarship could easily be paid for by a minimum salary in the NBA. How much education do you really think these one-and-done candidates are getting?

I went to school at a Blue Blood and have seen plenty of NBA players come and go so I don't really need to speculate as to what kind of education they are getting.  Even one year is an eternity when we are talking about the maturation or development of an 18 or 19 year old.

Basically you are upset that employment as a player in the NBA works te same way as employment in essentially every other field.  Could I have made more money shoveling rocks than I did while I was in college?  Sure.  You mock a 30k-50k scholarship as if it is nothing but it happens to be the best deal on the table for an 18 year old with a high school education.  They also benefit from the exposure while at these schools.  So I don't understand how what is seemingly the best opportunity available is an unfair deal. 

Anyway it is pointless debating this.  Anything that seems "unfair" to you and doesn't fit into your utopia is either patently wrong or a prima facie case of racism.  The owners own the teams and as far as I'm concerned if they want to impose a simple age restriction in the best interest of the league that's good enough for me.

But it wasn't the best option available until the league mandated a ridiculous 1 year rule to protect the owners from themselves (when in reality they didn't need to do that as by and large the straight from high school players had more success than the ones that went to college and there were very few total busts).

  Does your list of "successful" players include those who didn't get drafted high, or didn't get drafted at all? I think those kids lost their college eligibility when they entered those drafts, and that was one of the reasons for the one and done rule.

[CelticSince83]

It's a free country and these young men, largely from very poor backgrounds, should be free to maximize their income as soon as they would like.

Yet training in some form or another is required for most high paying jobs.  Why should athletics be any different?

Because athletics is talent-driven. Tech companies are similar, they don't let the lack of a degree stop them from hiring someone if they're a genius coder. "Oh wait, I notice that you didn't finish college. Mmmm, I'm sorry, we can't hire you then."

The only reason it's possible is because professional sports leagues are a government-supported monopoly in the USA.

Let's say there are two basketball leagues. One has no age limit and one does. Which league would get the best players and how fast would the league with the age limit change their policy?

You have to be a liberal, right?  Don't agree with a rule or policy because it "isn't fair."  I would hope the league is more concerned with protecting the quality of its product than what people think is fair.  Also, there are plenty of pro basketball leagues that don't have an age rule, and aren't as successful as the NBA, so no I disagree with your hypothetical which clearly wasn't very well thought out.

Why does that mean he's a liberal? And what does being a liberal have to do with what this conversation is about. Plenty of conservatives agree with this point simply because they believe in the "free market"'s ability to choose and that people shouldn't be hindered from maximizing their earning potential to support an unpaid labor system.

Keep the politics out of it. Calling someone a liberal shouldn't be some type of derogatory comment. Plenty of reasonable, smart people lean both liberally and conservatively on a whole host of issues. People shouldn't be judged on the basis of their political beliefs. America's broad range of political viewpoints has been a strength of this country throughout it's history and should be embraced.

He injected race.  Hence the liberal comment.  It has everything to do with it. 

Also no one is forcing anyone to play college basketball. So not sure how you can claim they are being forced to participate in an unpaid labor system.  An 18 year old kid with a high school diploma doesn't really have their pick of the litter so a 30-40k a year scholarship seems like a pretty good deal to me.  They also have the opportunity to go over seas, but we will ignore that as well.

I mentioned race because it is historically relevant to this debate, though I also admitted that it wasn't as big a factor as it used to be in the 90s. I never said the league itself was racist. The league has one concern, and that is money. If the environment is racist and their league consists of mostly blacks, then that affects their bottom line. What the league is is cynical.

For example, if the predominately white fan base is having problems "relating" to young black men from urban environments, then what's the solution? A dress code! Do you really think that policy would exist if the league were mostly white? No, because there never would have been any need for it in the first place.

They ARE essentially being forced to participate in an unpaid labor system. Mudiay decided to play in China and his draft stock dropped. He was penalized because he was playing in a foreign league that teams do not trust as much as the NCAA. He was also penalized because the CBA is geographically farther away and harder to scout, and because the NCAA publicity system wasn't there to keep his name in the headlines to increase his buzz among fans and journalists. There is intense pressure for prospects to fall in line and go to college or risk hurting their draft stock.

Not to mention there is the risk of injury in college. You are not getting paid, and yet you are risking injury that could lower your stock or worse, have longstanding effects on your career. If you are going to risk injury, you should at least be getting paid.

Scholarships? Really? The cost of a scholarship could easily be paid for by a minimum salary in the NBA. How much education do you really think these one-and-done candidates are getting?

I went to school at a Blue Blood and have seen plenty of NBA players come and go so I don't really need to speculate as to what kind of education they are getting.  Even one year is an eternity when we are talking about the maturation or development of an 18 or 19 year old.

Basically you are upset that employment as a player in the NBA works te same way as employment in essentially every other field.  Could I have made more money shoveling rocks than I did while I was in college?  Sure.  You mock a 30k-50k scholarship as if it is nothing but it happens to be the best deal on the table for an 18 year old with a high school education.  They also benefit from the exposure while at these schools.  So I don't understand how what is seemingly the best opportunity available is an unfair deal. 

Anyway it is pointless debating this.  Anything that seems "unfair" to you and doesn't fit into your utopia is either patently wrong or a prima facie case of racism.  The owners own the teams and as far as I'm concerned if they want to impose a simple age restriction in the best interest of the league that's good enough for me.

But it wasn't the best option available until the league mandated a ridiculous 1 year rule to protect the owners from themselves (when in reality they didn't need to do that as by and large the straight from high school players had more success than the ones that went to college and there were very few total busts).

Alright I give up.  You are right.  It is ridiculous for team owners to have an age restriction because you personally don't like it.  What would you like it to be changed to?  12?  14?  16?  No age limit at all?  18 is just as arbitrary as a year removed from high school, so there's really no reason not to move it 3 or 4 years.  As long as it seems fair to you.

[Moranis]

It's a free country and these young men, largely from very poor backgrounds, should be free to maximize their income as soon as they would like.

Yet training in some form or another is required for most high paying jobs.  Why should athletics be any different?

Because athletics is talent-driven. Tech companies are similar, they don't let the lack of a degree stop them from hiring someone if they're a genius coder. "Oh wait, I notice that you didn't finish college. Mmmm, I'm sorry, we can't hire you then."

The only reason it's possible is because professional sports leagues are a government-supported monopoly in the USA.

Let's say there are two basketball leagues. One has no age limit and one does. Which league would get the best players and how fast would the league with the age limit change their policy?

You have to be a liberal, right?  Don't agree with a rule or policy because it "isn't fair."  I would hope the league is more concerned with protecting the quality of its product than what people think is fair.  Also, there are plenty of pro basketball leagues that don't have an age rule, and aren't as successful as the NBA, so no I disagree with your hypothetical which clearly wasn't very well thought out.

Why does that mean he's a liberal? And what does being a liberal have to do with what this conversation is about. Plenty of conservatives agree with this point simply because they believe in the "free market"'s ability to choose and that people shouldn't be hindered from maximizing their earning potential to support an unpaid labor system.

Keep the politics out of it. Calling someone a liberal shouldn't be some type of derogatory comment. Plenty of reasonable, smart people lean both liberally and conservatively on a whole host of issues. People shouldn't be judged on the basis of their political beliefs. America's broad range of political viewpoints has been a strength of this country throughout it's history and should be embraced.

He injected race.  Hence the liberal comment.  It has everything to do with it. 

Also no one is forcing anyone to play college basketball. So not sure how you can claim they are being forced to participate in an unpaid labor system.  An 18 year old kid with a high school diploma doesn't really have their pick of the litter so a 30-40k a year scholarship seems like a pretty good deal to me.  They also have the opportunity to go over seas, but we will ignore that as well.

I mentioned race because it is historically relevant to this debate, though I also admitted that it wasn't as big a factor as it used to be in the 90s. I never said the league itself was racist. The league has one concern, and that is money. If the environment is racist and their league consists of mostly blacks, then that affects their bottom line. What the league is is cynical.

For example, if the predominately white fan base is having problems "relating" to young black men from urban environments, then what's the solution? A dress code! Do you really think that policy would exist if the league were mostly white? No, because there never would have been any need for it in the first place.

They ARE essentially being forced to participate in an unpaid labor system. Mudiay decided to play in China and his draft stock dropped. He was penalized because he was playing in a foreign league that teams do not trust as much as the NCAA. He was also penalized because the CBA is geographically farther away and harder to scout, and because the NCAA publicity system wasn't there to keep his name in the headlines to increase his buzz among fans and journalists. There is intense pressure for prospects to fall in line and go to college or risk hurting their draft stock.

Not to mention there is the risk of injury in college. You are not getting paid, and yet you are risking injury that could lower your stock or worse, have longstanding effects on your career. If you are going to risk injury, you should at least be getting paid.

Scholarships? Really? The cost of a scholarship could easily be paid for by a minimum salary in the NBA. How much education do you really think these one-and-done candidates are getting?

I went to school at a Blue Blood and have seen plenty of NBA players come and go so I don't really need to speculate as to what kind of education they are getting.  Even one year is an eternity when we are talking about the maturation or development of an 18 or 19 year old.

Basically you are upset that employment as a player in the NBA works te same way as employment in essentially every other field.  Could I have made more money shoveling rocks than I did while I was in college?  Sure.  You mock a 30k-50k scholarship as if it is nothing but it happens to be the best deal on the table for an 18 year old with a high school education.  They also benefit from the exposure while at these schools.  So I don't understand how what is seemingly the best opportunity available is an unfair deal. 

Anyway it is pointless debating this.  Anything that seems "unfair" to you and doesn't fit into your utopia is either patently wrong or a prima facie case of racism.  The owners own the teams and as far as I'm concerned if they want to impose a simple age restriction in the best interest of the league that's good enough for me.

But it wasn't the best option available until the league mandated a ridiculous 1 year rule to protect the owners from themselves (when in reality they didn't need to do that as by and large the straight from high school players had more success than the ones that went to college and there were very few total busts).

  Does your list of "successful" players include those who didn't get drafted high, or didn't get drafted at all? I think those kids lost their college eligibility when they entered those drafts, and that was one of the reasons for the one and done rule.

If they went undrafted as long as they didn't sign with an agent they were college eligible.  In fact, the only two players I found that declared out of high school and were not drafted were Charlie Villanueva (he might have withdrawn, I've seen conflicting reports) and Thomas Hamilton, both of whom ended up in college after the draft (Charlie V obviously had  a pretty career after 2 years at UConn, Hamilton went to Pitt and played 33 games in the league including 11 with Boston). 

There were a number of 2nd round picks, though Stephen Jackson, Amir Johnson, Andray Blatche, and many others had or have long NBA careers (and a guy like Blatche with all the off court problems, probably would not have had he gone to college).  This notion that the NBA was protecting the kids from making a terrible decision is just nonsense.  The rule was changed to protect the owners from themselves. 

[Celtics18]

I really don't understand why the NBA hasn't developed the D-League more. If every team had their own minor league affiliate, it'd be much better for the sport. Nobody bats an eye when baseball and hockey players skip college and go to the pros to play in the minors a for a few years. There's no reason for the NBA not to do it. College basketball is a huge racket and it'd actually benefit NBA teams to get players used to their systems rather than learning some college coach's way and then having to adjust.

They add more each year.  I'm not sure what it's up to now, but I think it's close to twenty.

I'm looking forward to the day when there's a full thirty team D League.  If the NBA keeps the nineteen year old age limit after that, they are either insane or just too deep in bed with the corrupt NCAA to change.

Edit:

I just checked the D league website.  It's currently at nineteen teams with three more teams to be added next year to bring it to twenty-two.

It looks like the individual NBA franchises are increasingly having sole control of their own teams.  That's a good thing in my book.

I hope it's only a matter of time before we see an end to the ridiculous farce of colleges and universities serving as training grounds for prospective NBA players.

[soap07]

Basically you are upset that employment as a player in the NBA works te same way as employment in essentially every other field.  Could I have made more money shoveling rocks than I did while I was in college?  Sure.  You mock a 30k-50k scholarship as if it is nothing but it happens to be the best deal on the table for an 18 year old with a high school education.  They also benefit from the exposure while at these schools.  So I don't understand how what is seemingly the best opportunity available is an unfair deal. 

Except the NBA is not "essentially every other field." It's unique in its skill set, financial set ups, etc. That's great that a player can "benefit from the exposure while at these schools." But if a kid wants to go straight to the NBA - and an NBA team is willing to take the risk to employ that person, why is the NBA stepping in to say no, you have to arbitrarily go to college for a year?

In terms of "better prepared rookies" - do you guys think an 18 year old who gets drafted to the NBA is going to sit around for a year? They're in practice. Being coached by actual NBA coaches, not in the D-league. They see other NBA players, work out with them with actual NBA rules. That's worse development than one year of college ball at the expense of millions of dollars in salary - in a field that limits you, if you're lucky, to 15 years because of the physicality?

[soap07]

Alright I give up.  You are right.  It is ridiculous for team owners to have an age restriction because you personally don't like it.  What would you like it to be changed to?  12?  14?  16?  No age limit at all?  18 is just as arbitrary as a year removed from high school, so there's really no reason not to move it 3 or 4 years.  As long as it seems fair to you.

This is a straw man's argument. No one is saying there shouldn't be an age limit period. Having one set for the official adult age seems reasonable. Requiring that someone finished high school - there isn't a real reason that's not reasonable.

And it's not ridiculous for team owners to have an age restriction because people don't like it. There are various economic factors - and talent factors - as to why it's ridiculous. I know you have read many of them because you've responded to them. I'm not sure why you just said that.

[BballTim]

But it wasn't the best option available until the league mandated a ridiculous 1 year rule to protect the owners from themselves (when in reality they didn't need to do that as by and large the straight from high school players had more success than the ones that went to college and there were very few total busts).

  Does your list of "successful" players include those who didn't get drafted high, or didn't get drafted at all? I think those kids lost their college eligibility when they entered those drafts, and that was one of the reasons for the one and done rule.

If they went undrafted as long as they didn't sign with an agent they were college eligible.  In fact, the only two players I found that declared out of high school and were not drafted were Charlie Villanueva (he might have withdrawn, I've seen conflicting reports) and Thomas Hamilton, both of whom ended up in college after the draft (Charlie V obviously had  a pretty career after 2 years at UConn, Hamilton went to Pitt and played 33 games in the league including 11 with Boston). 

There were a number of 2nd round picks, though Stephen Jackson, Amir Johnson, Andray Blatche, and many others had or have long NBA careers (and a guy like Blatche with all the off court problems, probably would not have had he gone to college).  This notion that the NBA was protecting the kids from making a terrible decision is just nonsense.  The rule was changed to protect the owners from themselves.

  Two things:

  one, *college* players who didn't hire an agent could retain their eligibility. High schoolers who declared for the draft lost their college eligibility, at least they used to. The owners aren't overly altruistic, but aside from looking out for their self interests, this was one of the (fairly well known) reasons for the one and done rule.

  two, you seem to be looking at players who went directly from HS to the nba. There were a number of HS players who declared for the draft, weren't drafted, and never played in the nba. They don't show up in your analysis, and I don't think they'd fit into the "successful" category.

[CelticSince83]

Alright I give up.  You are right.  It is ridiculous for team owners to have an age restriction because you personally don't like it.  What would you like it to be changed to?  12?  14?  16?  No age limit at all?  18 is just as arbitrary as a year removed from high school, so there's really no reason not to move it 3 or 4 years.  As long as it seems fair to you.

This is a straw man's argument. No one is saying there shouldn't be an age limit period. Having one set for the official adult age seems reasonable. Requiring that someone finished high school - there isn't a real reason that's not reasonable.

And it's not ridiculous for team owners to have an age restriction because people don't like it. There are various economic factors - and talent factors - as to why it's ridiculous. I know you have read many of them because you've responded to them. I'm not sure why you just said that.

They are frivolous arguments because they are all from the players perspective, without the consideration of the owners who have a direct financial stake in the overall product.  High school graduation is just as arbitrary as a year removed.  I don't disagree that as far as player development goes that sitting on an NBA bench and practicing with the team is any less beneficial than a year at school, it probably depends on the individual as to what makes the most sense for that particular player.  You are however delaying shelling out millions of dollars, and giving the GMs an extra year to scout these players which I think benefits the league as a whole.  And that's the whole point, to put out the best product possible.  Can you really tell me the NBA is hurting because Ben Simmons is stuck at LSU for a season?  Skal can barely make a **** lay up at UK this year, is the product hurting because he was prohibiting from entering the draft this season?  I just want the league to be good and I imagine that is what the owners would like as well and I don't see how reducing the age restriction does that. 

[Moranis]

But it wasn't the best option available until the league mandated a ridiculous 1 year rule to protect the owners from themselves (when in reality they didn't need to do that as by and large the straight from high school players had more success than the ones that went to college and there were very few total busts).

  Does your list of "successful" players include those who didn't get drafted high, or didn't get drafted at all? I think those kids lost their college eligibility when they entered those drafts, and that was one of the reasons for the one and done rule.

If they went undrafted as long as they didn't sign with an agent they were college eligible.  In fact, the only two players I found that declared out of high school and were not drafted were Charlie Villanueva (he might have withdrawn, I've seen conflicting reports) and Thomas Hamilton, both of whom ended up in college after the draft (Charlie V obviously had  a pretty career after 2 years at UConn, Hamilton went to Pitt and played 33 games in the league including 11 with Boston). 

There were a number of 2nd round picks, though Stephen Jackson, Amir Johnson, Andray Blatche, and many others had or have long NBA careers (and a guy like Blatche with all the off court problems, probably would not have had he gone to college).  This notion that the NBA was protecting the kids from making a terrible decision is just nonsense.  The rule was changed to protect the owners from themselves.

  Two things:

  one, *college* players who didn't hire an agent could retain their eligibility. High schoolers who declared for the draft lost their college eligibility, at least they used to. The owners aren't overly altruistic, but aside from looking out for their self interests, this was one of the (fairly well known) reasons for the one and done rule.

  two, you seem to be looking at players who went directly from HS to the nba. There were a number of HS players who declared for the draft, weren't drafted, and never played in the nba. They don't show up in your analysis, and I don't think they'd fit into the "successful" category.

One. I named two high school kids that declared for the draft, were not drafted, and went to college.  So I'm not sure where you are getting your analysis that they couldn't go to college.

EDIT: Two.  I've seen the list (it includes Villanueva and Hamilton).  Tony Key (who didn't qualify for college which is why he declared before playing Juco ball).  Taj McDavid (who wasn't even a high school All American and ended up at a DII school).  DeAngelo Collins (who was a disaster off the court and wasn't drafted because of it). Lenny Cooke (who was too old to even play as a senior in high school). and last but not least Jackie Butler (who went undrafted, but ended up on the Knicks roster after the draft before signing a 7 million dollar free agent contract with the Spurs). 

So you basically have a bunch of guys that had to declare for personal reasons, that had no business declaring, or that ended up back in college (whether DI, DII, or Juco).

The rule wasn't about protecting the players, it was about protecting the Owner's from themselves.

[BballTim]

But it wasn't the best option available until the league mandated a ridiculous 1 year rule to protect the owners from themselves (when in reality they didn't need to do that as by and large the straight from high school players had more success than the ones that went to college and there were very few total busts).

  Does your list of "successful" players include those who didn't get drafted high, or didn't get drafted at all? I think those kids lost their college eligibility when they entered those drafts, and that was one of the reasons for the one and done rule.

If they went undrafted as long as they didn't sign with an agent they were college eligible.  In fact, the only two players I found that declared out of high school and were not drafted were Charlie Villanueva (he might have withdrawn, I've seen conflicting reports) and Thomas Hamilton, both of whom ended up in college after the draft (Charlie V obviously had  a pretty career after 2 years at UConn, Hamilton went to Pitt and played 33 games in the league including 11 with Boston). 

There were a number of 2nd round picks, though Stephen Jackson, Amir Johnson, Andray Blatche, and many others had or have long NBA careers (and a guy like Blatche with all the off court problems, probably would not have had he gone to college).  This notion that the NBA was protecting the kids from making a terrible decision is just nonsense.  The rule was changed to protect the owners from themselves.

  Two things:

  one, *college* players who didn't hire an agent could retain their eligibility. High schoolers who declared for the draft lost their college eligibility, at least they used to. The owners aren't overly altruistic, but aside from looking out for their self interests, this was one of the (fairly well known) reasons for the one and done rule.

  two, you seem to be looking at players who went directly from HS to the nba. There were a number of HS players who declared for the draft, weren't drafted, and never played in the nba. They don't show up in your analysis, and I don't think they'd fit into the "successful" category.

One. I named two high school kids that declared for the draft, were not drafted, and went to college.  So I'm not sure where you are getting your analysis that they couldn't go to college.

  Obviously I never said they couldn't go to college, just that they weren't eligible to play D1 college ball. You listed a player who never hired an agent and withdrew from the draft before it occurred and a player who attended college but, according to his wiki page, never played ball there. I'm "getting my analysis" from having followed the nba and the draft when these things were happening. Here's an article about one of the players:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2100489-lost-and-found-taj-mcdavid-today-is-more-than-an-nba-draft-punch-line

"According to NCAA rules, high school students who applied for the draft surrendered their eligibility to play for an NCAA member institution."

  Look into the subject and you''ll see the same thing elsewhere.

EDIT: Two.  I've seen the list (it includes Villanueva and Hamilton).  Tony Key (who didn't qualify for college which is why he declared before playing Juco ball).  Taj McDavid (who wasn't even a high school All American and ended up at a DII school).  DeAngelo Collins (who was a disaster off the court and wasn't drafted because of it). Lenny Cooke (who was too old to even play as a senior in high school). and last but not least Jackie Butler (who went undrafted, but ended up on the Knicks roster after the draft before signing a 7 million dollar free agent contract with the Spurs). 

So you basically have a bunch of guys that had to declare for personal reasons, that had no business declaring, or that ended up back in college (whether DI, DII, or Juco).

  I didn't check much but the list I saw also included Ellis Richardson. As you've noticed, those players weren't exactly success stories. Also, when you're considering whether the players who went straight from high school to the pros were successful or a bust, consider that many of the guys who were drafted late thought that they were going to be high lottery picks when they declared. A year or two of college would have definitely helped those players out.

The rule wasn't about protecting the players, it was about protecting the Owner's from themselves.

  In general it was about both. They added the process to do the early entry exploratory process at the same time they added the one and done rule (iirc).

  Even with that, I wouldn't characterize the rule as "protecting owners from themselves". They were getting players in the draft that weren't nba ready and hadn't played much against high level competition.

[Celtics4ever]

2016 Ben Simmons and everyone else. Ingram is the clear cut #2 prospect and its easy to see he could definitely use a second college season.

This is no longer the case.  Ingram has improved and muddied up the waters.

[wdleehi]

Basically you are upset that employment as a player in the NBA works te same way as employment in essentially every other field.  Could I have made more money shoveling rocks than I did while I was in college?  Sure.  You mock a 30k-50k scholarship as if it is nothing but it happens to be the best deal on the table for an 18 year old with a high school education.  They also benefit from the exposure while at these schools.  So I don't understand how what is seemingly the best opportunity available is an unfair deal. 

Except the NBA is not "essentially every other field." It's unique in its skill set, financial set ups, etc. That's great that a player can "benefit from the exposure while at these schools." But if a kid wants to go straight to the NBA - and an NBA team is willing to take the risk to employ that person, why is the NBA stepping in to say no, you have to arbitrarily go to college for a year?

In terms of "better prepared rookies" - do you guys think an 18 year old who gets drafted to the NBA is going to sit around for a year? They're in practice. Being coached by actual NBA coaches, not in the D-league. They see other NBA players, work out with them with actual NBA rules. That's worse development than one year of college ball at the expense of millions of dollars in salary - in a field that limits you, if you're lucky, to 15 years because of the physicality?

I think you nailed the key.  The NBA does not want them coming in so soon.  That is why the owners push to raise the age. 

But until the age is raised, teams have to pick the player they think is best with the limited information. 

[BballTim]

Basically you are upset that employment as a player in the NBA works te same way as employment in essentially every other field.  Could I have made more money shoveling rocks than I did while I was in college?  Sure.  You mock a 30k-50k scholarship as if it is nothing but it happens to be the best deal on the table for an 18 year old with a high school education.  They also benefit from the exposure while at these schools.  So I don't understand how what is seemingly the best opportunity available is an unfair deal. 

Except the NBA is not "essentially every other field." It's unique in its skill set, financial set ups, etc. That's great that a player can "benefit from the exposure while at these schools." But if a kid wants to go straight to the NBA - and an NBA team is willing to take the risk to employ that person, why is the NBA stepping in to say no, you have to arbitrarily go to college for a year?

In terms of "better prepared rookies" - do you guys think an 18 year old who gets drafted to the NBA is going to sit around for a year? They're in practice. Being coached by actual NBA coaches, not in the D-league. They see other NBA players, work out with them with actual NBA rules. That's worse development than one year of college ball at the expense of millions of dollars in salary - in a field that limits you, if you're lucky, to 15 years because of the physicality?

I think you nailed the key.  The NBA does not want them coming in so soon.  That is why the owners push to raise the age. 

  I think that was in response to the owners getting outsmarted a little. They pushed for the rookie wage scales so they wouldn't have to pay a fortune to guys who had never played in the nba. What they ended up with was guys jumping into the league before they were ready, spending much of that rookie contract becoming nba-ready, and then getting to max contracts at a younger age.

[wdleehi]

Basically you are upset that employment as a player in the NBA works te same way as employment in essentially every other field.  Could I have made more money shoveling rocks than I did while I was in college?  Sure.  You mock a 30k-50k scholarship as if it is nothing but it happens to be the best deal on the table for an 18 year old with a high school education.  They also benefit from the exposure while at these schools.  So I don't understand how what is seemingly the best opportunity available is an unfair deal. 

Except the NBA is not "essentially every other field." It's unique in its skill set, financial set ups, etc. That's great that a player can "benefit from the exposure while at these schools." But if a kid wants to go straight to the NBA - and an NBA team is willing to take the risk to employ that person, why is the NBA stepping in to say no, you have to arbitrarily go to college for a year?

In terms of "better prepared rookies" - do you guys think an 18 year old who gets drafted to the NBA is going to sit around for a year? They're in practice. Being coached by actual NBA coaches, not in the D-league. They see other NBA players, work out with them with actual NBA rules. That's worse development than one year of college ball at the expense of millions of dollars in salary - in a field that limits you, if you're lucky, to 15 years because of the physicality?

I think you nailed the key.  The NBA does not want them coming in so soon.  That is why the owners push to raise the age. 

  I think that was in response to the owners getting outsmarted a little. They pushed for the rookie wage scales so they wouldn't have to pay a fortune to guys who had never played in the nba. What they ended up with was guys jumping into the league before they were ready, spending much of that rookie contract becoming nba-ready, and then getting to max contracts at a younger age.

I understand but the point stands.  The employer wants to change the requirements, push for it.


Union, use this to push for something else that will help their membership.