Only one Freshman per year should enter the NBA

[wdleehi]

Fans once again taking the side of billionaires over millionaires. The one-and-done rule should be illegal and is borderline racist. Unfortunately the player's union does not have enough leverage to change it because they have bigger fish to fry.

People need to be more skeptical whenever they hear the words "for the good of the game." The translation is almost always "for the good of the owners over the players."

Besides, what's wrong with players coming out when they're not "ready"? Due to the rookie salary scale, the ones who are worth anything are still making less than they're worth over those four years.

There's no evidence that a player who came out earlier than was expected ended up having a bad career because he missed out on a year of college. Chances are that player was evaluated incorrectly to begin with and wasn't ever going to be that good regardless. Yes, there isn't any way to verify that for sure but the demand for talent is so great in the league that anybody with promise is usually given ample opportunity to succeed.

Lol "racist".


Wow.

I don't think it's an outrageous statement at all. I'm certainly not the first person to mention it.

Other sports have athletes go directly to pro leagues without going to college. Nobody has ever made the patronizing argument that those kids would be better off "getting an education."

I want to clarify that I haven't necessarily heard those comments here and am not accusing anybody on the board of being racist. The ideas here are more about fans selfishly wanting the league to be better but penalizing the players to do so, since that would be easier than reforming things like the draft, the NBDL, and the rookie wage scale. The onus should be on the owners to come up with a system that is both good for the product and also fair to the players. An arbitrary age limit is just a convenient, crappy solution to a bigger issue (which also happens to save them money).

The holier-than-thou "but these kids need an education!" argument used to be a very popular during the "thug" days of the league from the mid 90s until the mid 2000s. What a coincidence.

The two team sports have a true minor league and the NFL forces players to be three years out of high school with no other option but college. 

[manl_lui]

Fans once again taking the side of billionaires over millionaires. The one-and-done rule should be illegal and is borderline racist. Unfortunately the player's union does not have enough leverage to change it because they have bigger fish to fry.

People need to be more skeptical whenever they hear the words "for the good of the game." The translation is almost always "for the good of the owners over the players."

Besides, what's wrong with players coming out when they're not "ready"? Due to the rookie salary scale, the ones who are worth anything are still making less than they're worth over those four years.

There's no evidence that a player who came out earlier than was expected ended up having a bad career because he missed out on a year of college. Chances are that player was evaluated incorrectly to begin with and wasn't ever going to be that good regardless. Yes, there isn't any way to verify that for sure but the demand for talent is so great in the league that anybody with promise is usually given ample opportunity to succeed.

Lol "racist".


Wow.

I don't think it's an outrageous statement at all. I'm certainly not the first person to mention it.

Other sports have athletes go directly to pro leagues without going to college. Nobody has ever made the patronizing argument that those kids would be better off "getting an education."

I want to clarify that I haven't necessarily heard those comments here and am not accusing anybody on the board of being racist. The ideas here are more about fans selfishly wanting the league to be better but penalizing the players to do so, since that would be easier than reforming things like the draft, the NBDL, and the rookie wage scale. The onus should be on the owners to come up with a system that is both good for the product and also fair to the players. An arbitrary age limit is just a convenient, crappy solution to a bigger issue (which also happens to save them money).

The holier-than-thou "but these kids need an education!" argument used to be a very popular during the "thug" days of the league from the mid 90s until the mid 2000s. What a coincidence.

The two team sports have a true minor league and the NFL forces players to be three years out of high school with no other option but college.

I still don't get how that's considered racist though? Like others have said, the draft has always been a gamble. If the players feel they are ready for the next level let them declare...it's up to the teams to decide if they are truly ready to be drafted that high. What's stopping players from going overseas right after high school like Brandon Jennings?

[wdleehi]

Fans once again taking the side of billionaires over millionaires. The one-and-done rule should be illegal and is borderline racist. Unfortunately the player's union does not have enough leverage to change it because they have bigger fish to fry.

People need to be more skeptical whenever they hear the words "for the good of the game." The translation is almost always "for the good of the owners over the players."

Besides, what's wrong with players coming out when they're not "ready"? Due to the rookie salary scale, the ones who are worth anything are still making less than they're worth over those four years.

There's no evidence that a player who came out earlier than was expected ended up having a bad career because he missed out on a year of college. Chances are that player was evaluated incorrectly to begin with and wasn't ever going to be that good regardless. Yes, there isn't any way to verify that for sure but the demand for talent is so great in the league that anybody with promise is usually given ample opportunity to succeed.

Lol "racist".


Wow.

I don't think it's an outrageous statement at all. I'm certainly not the first person to mention it.

Other sports have athletes go directly to pro leagues without going to college. Nobody has ever made the patronizing argument that those kids would be better off "getting an education."

I want to clarify that I haven't necessarily heard those comments here and am not accusing anybody on the board of being racist. The ideas here are more about fans selfishly wanting the league to be better but penalizing the players to do so, since that would be easier than reforming things like the draft, the NBDL, and the rookie wage scale. The onus should be on the owners to come up with a system that is both good for the product and also fair to the players. An arbitrary age limit is just a convenient, crappy solution to a bigger issue (which also happens to save them money).

The holier-than-thou "but these kids need an education!" argument used to be a very popular during the "thug" days of the league from the mid 90s until the mid 2000s. What a coincidence.

The two team sports have a true minor league and the NFL forces players to be three years out of high school with no other option but college.

I still don't get how that's considered racist though?

Because of the race of the majority of the players vs majority of the owners.


I think it is hogwash as well.  It is not like it will cause a sudden shift in who is drafted, how many are drafted.  It will just shift those who get drafted for measurables but do not grow in skill.

[obnoxiousmime]

I should also point out that any reform has to take into consideration the other player in this sordid mess, and that is the NCAA and their broken, fraudulent system. They are convenient bedfellows for the NBA which doesn't want to pay for their own extensive minor league system or publicity service, preferring the NCAA to do it for them for free.

The best system would probably allow drafted players to go to school while still picking up an NBA paycheck, since that would preserve the rich history of NBA players having a college background/legacy. Of course, that is also impossible for the NCAA to consider, which means the NBA needs to either take matters into their own hands or wait for the NCAA to inevitably crumble and have their hand forced.

[D Dub]

D1 athletes should be earing salaries from the Universities they represent, that way, they'd have incentive to stick around longer.

the NBA's a mans league anyways -- high school seniors do need education, both on and off the court.   

[wdleehi]

It is not the NBA's job to fix college sports (which needs to be fixed). 


They need to worry about what would be best for the NBA game.

[clover]

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.

[wdleehi]

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?

[obnoxiousmime]

Fans once again taking the side of billionaires over millionaires. The one-and-done rule should be illegal and is borderline racist. Unfortunately the player's union does not have enough leverage to change it because they have bigger fish to fry.

People need to be more skeptical whenever they hear the words "for the good of the game." The translation is almost always "for the good of the owners over the players."

Besides, what's wrong with players coming out when they're not "ready"? Due to the rookie salary scale, the ones who are worth anything are still making less than they're worth over those four years.

There's no evidence that a player who came out earlier than was expected ended up having a bad career because he missed out on a year of college. Chances are that player was evaluated incorrectly to begin with and wasn't ever going to be that good regardless. Yes, there isn't any way to verify that for sure but the demand for talent is so great in the league that anybody with promise is usually given ample opportunity to succeed.

Lol "racist".


Wow.

I don't think it's an outrageous statement at all. I'm certainly not the first person to mention it.

Other sports have athletes go directly to pro leagues without going to college. Nobody has ever made the patronizing argument that those kids would be better off "getting an education."

I want to clarify that I haven't necessarily heard those comments here and am not accusing anybody on the board of being racist. The ideas here are more about fans selfishly wanting the league to be better but penalizing the players to do so, since that would be easier than reforming things like the draft, the NBDL, and the rookie wage scale. The onus should be on the owners to come up with a system that is both good for the product and also fair to the players. An arbitrary age limit is just a convenient, crappy solution to a bigger issue (which also happens to save them money).

The holier-than-thou "but these kids need an education!" argument used to be a very popular during the "thug" days of the league from the mid 90s until the mid 2000s. What a coincidence.

The two team sports have a true minor league and the NFL forces players to be three years out of high school with no other option but college.

I still don't get how that's considered racist though?

Because of the race of the majority of the players vs majority of the owners.


I think it is hogwash as well.  It is not like it will cause a sudden shift in who is drafted, how many are drafted.  It will just shift those who get drafted for measurables but do not grow in skill.

No, it's because this debate first came up 15-20 years ago when it became popular for high schoolers to go directly into the draft. A lot of the arguments then were not purely basketball related. There were comments that high schoolers (practically all of whom were black) would be best served getting an education or getting the "maturity" that college supposedly provides.

This coincided with the NBA being concerned about their image "problem" of young black stars who seemed too "thuggish" and not family-friendly or relatable to a largely white fan base. This led to things like Stern's infamous dress code policy.

[wdleehi]

Fans once again taking the side of billionaires over millionaires. The one-and-done rule should be illegal and is borderline racist. Unfortunately the player's union does not have enough leverage to change it because they have bigger fish to fry.

People need to be more skeptical whenever they hear the words "for the good of the game." The translation is almost always "for the good of the owners over the players."

Besides, what's wrong with players coming out when they're not "ready"? Due to the rookie salary scale, the ones who are worth anything are still making less than they're worth over those four years.

There's no evidence that a player who came out earlier than was expected ended up having a bad career because he missed out on a year of college. Chances are that player was evaluated incorrectly to begin with and wasn't ever going to be that good regardless. Yes, there isn't any way to verify that for sure but the demand for talent is so great in the league that anybody with promise is usually given ample opportunity to succeed.

Lol "racist".


Wow.

I don't think it's an outrageous statement at all. I'm certainly not the first person to mention it.

Other sports have athletes go directly to pro leagues without going to college. Nobody has ever made the patronizing argument that those kids would be better off "getting an education."

I want to clarify that I haven't necessarily heard those comments here and am not accusing anybody on the board of being racist. The ideas here are more about fans selfishly wanting the league to be better but penalizing the players to do so, since that would be easier than reforming things like the draft, the NBDL, and the rookie wage scale. The onus should be on the owners to come up with a system that is both good for the product and also fair to the players. An arbitrary age limit is just a convenient, crappy solution to a bigger issue (which also happens to save them money).

The holier-than-thou "but these kids need an education!" argument used to be a very popular during the "thug" days of the league from the mid 90s until the mid 2000s. What a coincidence.

The two team sports have a true minor league and the NFL forces players to be three years out of high school with no other option but college.

I still don't get how that's considered racist though?

Because of the race of the majority of the players vs majority of the owners.


I think it is hogwash as well.  It is not like it will cause a sudden shift in who is drafted, how many are drafted.  It will just shift those who get drafted for measurables but do not grow in skill.

No, it's because this debate first came up 15-20 years ago when it became popular for high schoolers to go directly into the draft. A lot of the arguments then were not purely basketball related. There were comments that high schoolers (practically all of whom were black) would be best served getting an education or getting the "maturity" that college supposedly provides.

This coincided with the NBA being concerned about their image "problem" of young black stars who seemed too "thuggish" and not family-friendly or relatable to a largely white fan base. This led to things like Stern's infamous dress code policy.

Don't care about any of that.


I want to see better prepared rookies like we see in the other major sports leagues.

[obnoxiousmime]

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?

[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?

But you don't need specialized training to play in the NBA.  Athletes aren't like doctors.  A 5 year old can perform the basic skills required to play a sport for a living.  Sure a 5 year old isn't tall enough, strong enough, fast enough, etc., but a 5 year old can dribble a basketball and shoot it, which is basically all basketball is.  A 5 year old can throw and catch a football or throw and catch a baseball, or ice skate with a stick in his hand, or kick a ball, etc. 

Lebron James didn't need college to play in the NBA, heck he probably didn't even need high school to do it.  And, yeah not all players are Lebron James, but very few straight from high school players didn't at least see a second contract in the league.  In fact, a larger percentage of college seniors don't see a second contract than the high school players before them.  And that is 1st round picks we are talking about since I think only one guy went from high school and was not a 1st round pick. 

Some guys will benefit from college, some guys will be harmed, and some guys it probably doesn't matter much.  For example, Kenny Satterfield went from a projected late lottery pick after high school to a late 2nd round pick after two years of college.  He certainly didn't benefit from going to college and he is not alone.  Now sure, it is better for the NBA team to not waste a pick on a guy like Satterfield, then again if he didn't spend the two years in college and instead spent them on a NBA roster, maybe he would have played more than 75 games in the NBA. 

[BudweiserCeltic]

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?

Actually, you're a bit wrong there. There are plenty of companies that require a Bachelor Degree to employ those genius coders you mention.

Each company has its policies.

Also, while company may have their budget concerns, they don't operate under some sort of strict limit of how many people they can employ. Teams have limited roster spots to offer, many of those roster spots are being occupied by players who have no business sniffing the basketball court.

[slamtheking]

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?

Actually, you're a bit wrong there. There are plenty of companies that require a Bachelor Degree to employ those genius coders you mention.

Each company has its policies.

Also, while company may have their budget concerns, they don't operate under some sort of strict limit of how many people they can employ. Teams have limited roster spots to offer, many of those roster spots are being occupied by players who have no business sniffing the basketball court.

not to mention that in the business world, there are no guaranteed deals.  a company hires a coder, degree or not, and that coder doesn't live up to expectations they'll be looking for a new job.

take that guaranteed money away from rookies, I think you'll see a lot of these borderline players stay in school to improve their game so they can stick with the league.  (obviously there are injury exceptions to this). 

I think the basic rub against young players is that so many aren't good enough or prepared to play well in the league.  they're taking advantage of 'potential' to get a guaranteed contract that will pay them more money than most people will make in a lifetime.  They take up a roster spot that could go to another player that may cost the team a little more but would actually be better able to contribute to the team.  Take away the guarantee to put the onus on the players to be sure they're ready and/or remove their slot on the big league roster preventing the addition of player able to contribute and I think 90% of the dissatisfaction with this situation goes away.

[jay]

I think there should be a system similar to baseball.

Let anyone come straight out of HS, but require them to spend first year in the NBDL. They will learn not only basketball, but require them to take class/seminars about managing money and other rookie topics. They still get paid according to the rookie salary scale, but wouldnt be eligible to play for the NBA team until year 2.

If you do decide to go to college, require that the player has to stay in college for 2 or 3 years (baseball and football are both 3 years I believe) so that they have to go to class and attempt to gain credits towards a degree.