Only one Freshman per year should enter the NBA

[obnoxiousmime]

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.

The main goal for the union is still to raise the 51% number. The owners have the player's union at a disadvantage because 30 billionaires will always be able to hold out longer than 400-odd millionaires, most of whom are not stars and feel the impact of lost game checks. Most of the owners have made their fortunes in other businesses and are not reliant on NBA business to "put food on the table," whereas the average NBA player is lucky to still be playing far past age 30.

The age-limit is an easy thing for them to pass because it primarily affects young players who are not in the league yet and don't have a big union representation. The league knows this and throws it in there because they know it's almost a certain "win." In the big scheme of things the players are not going to die on a hill due the one year of lost salary, but that doesn't make it right nonetheless. The league is already proposing a 20-year old limit for the next CBA with the goal of keeping the 19-year old rule as a fake compromise.

[guava_wrench]

I would love to see more top level talent go to Europe and not bother with the NCAA. I would also love to see a European team throw so much money to a transcendent talent that they play a chunk of their prime abroad.

The young players need to somehow break the NBA monopoly that allows the NBA to make rules that hurt the pre-draft players, but foreign leagues are far from being ready to be real alternatives.

[guava_wrench]

If they are going to add more barriers to young players, they should shorten the duration of rookie deals. 2 years of rookie scale is sufficient.

[soap07]

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

Right - but I would add - the teams don't "have" to pick anybody! If you feel you don't have enough information on a high school player, then don't pick them. Simple as that. It's a gamble, but it's a gamble that a team and player who are mutually willing should be allowed to make.

If a high school player signs an agent, and loses his college eligibility - and then gets screwed by not getting picked in the draft - well that's on the player. That's a risk he chose. But he should be allowed to take that risk.

[mctyson]

I completely disagree with setting rules on NBA eligibility.

The league should drop its age requirements.  Guys who want to play basketball for a living should be allowed to as early as they want (like in Europe). 

There is actually a quite serviceable 'minor league' now for the NBA.  Players who ultimately don't make it have ample opportunity in Europe and China.  I reject the idea that teenagers are better off with one year under John Calipari than they are playing against actual pros ten years older.

Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, Lebron James.  Arguably 3 of the top 5 players to play the game over the last 25 years.  Straight from high school without ever winning Duke or Kentucky a championship. 

These rules are nonsense.

[obnoxiousmime]

I think that the NBA should be careful in the next say, 15 years how they approach all salaries, rookie or superstar especially. The reason being, at some point the Chinese market will be mature enough to pay more for talent. If the NBA isn't careful in how they structure deals, they could be giving players incentive to make the jump.

Fortunately, the US still has a near-monopoly on NBA talent and it's still a tough decision for any player to go to a new country. However, money talks and there's going to be a class of basketball player that feels underserved and those would be the prime candidates. It could be a young player who thinks the rookie deal is way too low and/or he doesn't want to go to the crappy team that drafted him. It could be a superstar on a max deal taking some billionaire's crazy offer. Or, it could be the middle class player who could be paid like a star in a different league.

Currently the CBA (Chinese Basketball Association) only allows two foreign players because they want to develop their own country's talent. At some point they will raise that number and, along with the improvement of China's own players and the infusion of more foreign talent the quality of play will increase (it's unwatchable currently). OK, maybe the next 20 years.

[KG Living Legend]

I completely disagree with setting rules on NBA eligibility.

The league should drop its age requirements.  Guys who want to play basketball for a living should be allowed to as early as they want (like in Europe). 

There is actually a quite serviceable 'minor league' now for the NBA.  Players who ultimately don't make it have ample opportunity in Europe and China.  I reject the idea that teenagers are better off with one year under John Calipari than they are playing against actual pros ten years older.

Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, Lebron James.  Arguably 3 of the top 5 players to play the game over the last 25 years.  Straight from high school without ever winning Duke or Kentucky a championship. 

These rules are nonsense.

 Umm, did you even read the thread title?

 The premise is there is usually one player that stands head and shoulders above the rest.

 If Kobe came out of the draft now he'd be the #1 pick. Lebron was #1. Anthony Davis #1 Kyrie#1.

 Read the whole thread before making such comments.

[fairweatherfan]

Yeah, Kevin Durant should really have had to miss out on a year of max salary and the compounded raises throughout his career that it would produce.  Sorry guy, we've got an arbitrary number and we're sticking to it.

[KG Living Legend]

 Do you think Durant's year of dominating college basketball, though they did bad in the tournament, hurt his confidence or development?

 Likely that year was extremely important to him.

[KG Living Legend]

 Yeah Guy, and if Durant runs out of the hundreds of millions he makes, it will be because he manages his money like Antoine Walker. Not because of one year of lost wages.

 I can't believe people feel sorry for these ridiculously overpaid people.

[Tr1boy]

There should be a two year rule.

I don't care what anyone says. Most kids out of high school/freshmen year , leaving school bc of money get screwed. It's their choice but they are also just kids and need guidance.

NBA has a responsibility

Why after 2 year draft is better

1. Shows 1st year was not a fluke (better for NBA teams)
2. Add strength necessary to play in the NBA
3. Only  year away after to obtain a basic degree if things don't workout

Yes for the NBA from a financial standpoint its not as good(bc its better than for college tv ratings) but in the end these kids need guidance.

Otherwise the NBA should guarantee 1st year deals for NBA 2nd round picks

[fairweatherfan]

 Do you think Durant's year of dominating college basketball, though they did bad in the tournament, hurt his confidence or development?

 Likely that year was extremely important to him.

You missed the point.  Durant was the 2nd freshman picked in 07.

[KG Living Legend]

 The scouts would decide collectively who the player was. If the Majority were smart they would have picked Durant anyway.

 And if not Durant goes back to school, plays for a college title. He's never one anything of importance so that may have furthered his toughness and mindset.

[KG Living Legend]

 That was a horrible decision by Portland and just more proof players should stay in school. Especially big guys with foot problems and leg length problems.

 Durant would be the hands down #1 selection today. At that time there still was an infatuation with big guy's.

[Eja117]

It wouldn't crush me if the NBA only allowed maybe what they considered the top ten underclassmen to come out.

I do think, however, that this one freshman rule would severely increase tanking.