Proposal: Player is Only Eligible for NBA Draft If Age is 21 or Older

[PhoSita]

Major Con- What's the point of keeping someone who's ready to play professionally in college for 3 years? Guys like Towns and LeBron don't need to go to college at all, and forcing them to lose 3 years of their careers is an impediment to both them and us.

Guys like that are probably so good they could be valuable straight out of high school, or after only a few months of seasoning in the D-League.

Let guys who are good enough go straight to the NBA.  But for those who go to college, I think it's reasonable to require them to commit for at least a couple years, provided that doing so does not prevent them from getting drafted and getting guaranteed money prior to leaving.

[hwangjini_1]

Major Con- What's the point of keeping someone who's ready to play professionally in college for 3 years? Guys like Towns and LeBron don't need to go to college at all, and forcing them to lose 3 years of their careers is an impediment to both them and us.

Guys like that are probably so good they could be valuable straight out of high school, or after only a few months of seasoning in the D-League.

Let guys who are good enough go straight to the NBA.  But for those who go to college, I think it's reasonable to require them to commit for at least a couple years, provided that doing so does not prevent them from getting drafted and getting guaranteed money prior to leaving.

this could be aided by letting kids get drafted, and if they dont pan out, THEN go to college. they get an education at least. and, also let them reenter the draft. why not? gives kids a second chance, which for many 18 years is a good thing. 

ultimately, all this debate, analysis, and moral outrage is focusing upon a few hundred people who populate nba rosters. a few of them might make a few fewer millions dollars in their career. color me un-outraged.

the much bigger "injustice" is college sports. but that is for another thread.

[max215]

Major Con- What's the point of keeping someone who's ready to play professionally in college for 3 years? Guys like Towns and LeBron don't need to go to college at all, and forcing them to lose 3 years of their careers is an impediment to both them and us.

Guys like that are probably so good they could be valuable straight out of high school, or after only a few months of seasoning in the D-League.

Let guys who are good enough go straight to the NBA.  But for those who go to college, I think it's reasonable to require them to commit for at least a couple years, provided that doing so does not prevent them from getting drafted and getting guaranteed money prior to leaving.

I'd be open to the MLB model, for sure. You can go from prep to pro, or you can go to college for at least 2 or 3 years.

[mmmmm]

The problem with letting teenagers in the NBA, especially when there isn't a quality minor league that teams can really utilize, is that we end up with multiple NBA teams that are effectively minor league teams for multiple seasons while they train a bunch of teenagers on the job.

That's a problem caused by lack of a development mechanism within the current NBA roster structure, not by the age at which players can become professionals in their chosen trade.

Other sports leagues use expanded roster formats so that they have players who are under professional contract (whether it is a minor league contract or a major league contract, but designated for assignment at the minor league affiliate) in the right level for their development prior to putting them on the major league roster and on the major league product floor/field/ice.

The NBA is slowly expanding the D-League to provide enough teams to have affiliate relationships for all NBA clubs, and if they get to that, then an expanded roster model becomes possible.

There are plenty of models for how to do this correctly, to get the NBA unshackled from it's current dependency on the NCAA hypocrisy machine.   It is definitely doable.  It will just take a willingness to actually address the issue by the owners and the NBPA.

I agree with you.

I think that the best solution to the problem will seek to address it in a way that can improve the product at the NCAA and NBA level without penalizing the players that want to play in college and get a degree or the players that just want to play professional ball straight out of high school.

Yes.  Lots of players in both baseball and hockey still choose to go through college.   The minor league development systems do not preclude the college path to the majors.

What they do, is remove the hypocrisy associated with forcing all kids to go through the college path.

[mmmmm]

Major Con- What's the point of keeping someone who's ready to play professionally in college for 3 years? Guys like Towns and LeBron don't need to go to college at all, and forcing them to lose 3 years of their careers is an impediment to both them and us.

Guys like that are probably so good they could be valuable straight out of high school, or after only a few months of seasoning in the D-League.

Let guys who are good enough go straight to the NBA.  But for those who go to college, I think it's reasonable to require them to commit for at least a couple years, provided that doing so does not prevent them from getting drafted and getting guaranteed money prior to leaving.

Requiring them to "commit for at least a couple of years" bothers me greatly.  Why?   What is in it for them to do so?

The NCAA makes money off them during this time.   They are foregoing entry into their profession for ... ?

I think if the student wants to go to school he should go to school.  If he wants to drop out and dedicate his life to the trade of playing basketball professionally he should be able to do that, same as any other kid.

The problem, fundamentally, is that colleges are now sunk into the venture of running these huge entertainment business, for which they have been able to fuel with almost free labor.   

Colleges should acknowledge this for what it is:  An entertainment business that they run in order to make money and they should simply pay the athletes a fair return for their labors and risks as they would with any employees of any other business the college runs.   If the kid wants to also take classes towards a degree (and can pass entrance standards) they should offer tuition remission programs, just like they do with other employees.

Or they should get out of this business and focus on being academic institutions.

[Celtics18]

Major Con- What's the point of keeping someone who's ready to play professionally in college for 3 years? Guys like Towns and LeBron don't need to go to college at all, and forcing them to lose 3 years of their careers is an impediment to both them and us.

Guys like that are probably so good they could be valuable straight out of high school, or after only a few months of seasoning in the D-League.

Let guys who are good enough go straight to the NBA.  But for those who go to college, I think it's reasonable to require them to commit for at least a couple years, provided that doing so does not prevent them from getting drafted and getting guaranteed money prior to leaving.

Requiring them to "commit for at least a couple of years" bothers me greatly.  Why?   What is in it for them to do so?

The NCAA makes money off them during this time.   They are foregoing entry into their profession for ... ?

I think if the student wants to go to school he should go to school.  If he wants to drop out and dedicate his life to the trade of playing basketball professionally he should be able to do that, same as any other kid.

The problem, fundamentally, is that colleges are now sunk into the venture of running these huge entertainment business, for which they have been able to fuel with almost free labor.   

Colleges should acknowledge this for what it is:  An entertainment business that they run in order to make money and they should simply pay the athletes a fair return for their labors and risks as they would with any employees of any other business the college runs.   If the kid wants to also take classes towards a degree (and can pass entrance standards) they should offer tuition remission programs, just like they do with other employees.

Or they should get out of this business and focus on being academic institutions.

I'd greatly prefer the latter.