from what should be done.
One and Done under pressure from NBA
...I still don't see how you can prohibit adults from taking part in employment because they're 19 or 20 instead of 18. Then again, I am not a constitutional lawyer...Also, I don't mean to comment on whether the NBA should do this. I just question whether they ought to be able to. It was Patrick Henry, after all, who said, "Give me the liberty to play in the NBA when I'm 19, or give me death!" And while people at the time thought he was crazy, because they didn't know what the NBA was, he meant what he said.
...that in the "land of the free" 18 year old adults are kept out of the NBA and forced into the college game by default.
It's crazy to think that a Kobe Bryant or Lebron James would now be untouchable to an NBA until they reached 20 years old.
Isn't the answer simply that the NBA has a right to set an age limit for the employment of its players? Assuming it's legal for the NBA to do so -- is it not? -- then there you go. Nobody seem to be challenging the NFL's age-limit. As for the NBA: young players who won't/cant attend college can play oversees or (perhaps) in the D-league. I realize the D-league is affiliated with the NBA. But maybe the arrangement can be tweaked to accomodate under-20s. Ideally, the NBA will turn the D-league into something more like a true minor-league system akin to that which successfully serves MLB.
There are all kinds of age restrictions for employment in certain fields. It's really not that unusual.
Name one outside of government / military work that isn't 18 or related to alcohol consumption.
16 to be a pizza delivery guy.
that's because you need a license
35 to be a US Senator.
Name one outside of government / military work that isn't 18 or related to alcohol consumption.
You had to be 15 to be a lifeguard where I worked.
I am pretty sure that the federal labor laws give the right to the employers and unions to set these sorts of conditions. Absent assent from the union, excluding the players because of age would pretty clearly be a violation of the anti-trust laws.
...what the court that shot down the Clarett appeal said.
what is that reason in the NBA's case?
The NBA players union and the league ownership negotiated it in their labor contract.
NBA is a private entity right? I don't see how setting a minimum age is any different than any other employer setting any sort of criteria for employment (requiring a bachelor's degree, x amount of years experience, etc.)
couldnt it be argued as some sort of age discrimination which is illegal
How's it any different than standard qualifications for a job?
If a position requires the applicant to have, for instance, a Masters Degree and minimum 5 years experience but someone only has a BS and 2 years experience, chances are they won't be hired.
I am not taking a position on whether it should be done but based on your comment on its effect on college basketball it would by definition improve the game - guys who are one and dones would stay 1 more year. Period - the quality of play would improve.
Now you asked what effect would have on UK? That might be a question of be careful what you ask for - I bet a lot of those guys would still see him as the "key" to getting into the NBA and he'd still have a loaded team but with some experience thus making them even tougher. Where it would hurt him is he could only "load up" every OTHER year in the recruiting, which would help other teams in his OFF years.
As to the constitutionality and all -I know you dont want 19 year olds in the NFL but there is a specific rule that disallows until 3 years for that league, so the NBA could do the exact same thing with its own set determination. If someone at age 19 wants "employment" before then they are free to go to Europe. The NBA can set its own rules. I think it helps the NBA game as well because you will have a better idea of the potential of players being drafted - 1 more year of college is 1 less year of plain guessing.
Why would Calipari only be able to load up every other year? If he's got 5 sophomores leaving for the NBA, he can replace them with 5 recruits. How is that different from 5 freshmen leaving to be replaced by 5 recruits? It won't affect him after the first couple years. If anything, it lets him take more guys because right now, a guy who's not quite a one and done takes up a roster spot for the next season. With 2 and done, he can almost guarantee that every one of his starters would be NBA ready by that point and plan to take 5 guys every year.
Probably the only way this would hurt the Calipari model is that guys who want immediate playing time are probably less likely to join a team where they'll be stuck behind a bunch of NBA ready guys for a season. So it might result in a bit of sharing of the wealth.
Sorry you are right.... in the long run - as sophomores run off, freshman replace. It would only change in the very near term if they do a rule change because one class of freshman who assumed they'd be headed to the NBA would be locked in for their sophomore year thus not needing to be replaced.
So I guess Calipari to the NBA is the only thing that would change it ;)
They would have to actually go to class. Right now, after first semester, do most of the one and done's really go to class at UK? why would you.?
Not saying all the other schools are really educating all their players but they at least have to get one year of report cards to remain eligible.
Did you attend UK and witness this first hand? I grew up a UM football and hockey fan and attended UK for undergrad. The only player to skip out and not attend class after the season is Daniel Orton.
It's actually very common for players to disappear as soon as their last game is complete. Not just at Kentucky...
of funneling talented kids onto college campuses who don't have the slightest interest in being students. Naturally, the NFL and NBA appreciate having free farm systems that push employee training and development costs onto someone else's ledger, but jeebus, what a crock of hypocrisy. These are legal adults who, in many cases, come from poverty stricken backgrounds and ought to be free to ply their talents for people willing to pay for it. Wealthy or middle class adults, too.
Cartels, man. Nothing good ever comes from them.
EDIT: if they really care about the education of these kids, fine, go back to the days when freshmen were ineligible so they could concentrate on adjusting to college life and academics before their full-time jobs as athletes begin as sophs.
Is it really a "problem" that talented athletes are steered to college? Generally speaking, don't most people benefit from additional education?
I highly doubt that 2 years of "playing school" with no intention of earning a degree is worth all that much compared to 2 years of pro basketball earnings (or earnings in basically any job for two years).
Given that 1) most pro careers are very short and 2) the NBPA itself claims that 50% of its ex-players are broke within five years of retirement, the current method doesn't seem to be a winner for a lot of guys. Getting a guy on the road to a degree, even if he doesn't finish it right then, can pay dividends down the road if he needs it later on. Keep in mind that even many sports-related jobs require a college degree.
Even if you think all of these athletes are going to be taking UNC-style joke courses, there is still something to be said for having some extra time to mature as a person and player before entering the dog-eat-dog professional world. Some 18-year-olds can make the transition, but a lot can't. (And while McGary might be an exception, the risk of career-threatening injury in college basketball is not all that great, and definitely lower than in football.)
I mean, that's noble and all, but if college were such a great way to mature you into responsibility, you'd expect much more out of ex-NBA players, most of whom spent at least some time in college. I doubt the after NBA success rate is substantially higher for 2 and dones vs 1 and dones.
And the shortness of NBA careers makes the idea of spending time in college even less appealing - if you're only going to be in NBA shape for 10 years or 5 years or whatever, it's important to maximize your revenue in that short window.
Is there any evidence that players who enter the league at 20 have shorter careers than those who enter at 19, or those who entered at 18 when it was allowed? I'm not sure.
Basketball is different than football, where the physical grind is almost as bad in college as it is in the pros. College basketball players have a far lighter schedule to play than NBA players. Michigan's season lasted almost as long as an NBA regular season, but we played 37 games (39 including exhibitions) instead of 82. The toll on your body should be less severe going through a college season.
Is there any evidence that players who spend an extra year in college are more likely to not go bankrupt? Or any evidence that players who stay 2 years vs. 1 are more likely to finish their degree after their pro career?
Do basketball players get "worn out" or do they get "too old"? I really don't have direct evidence, but if I were forced to guess I'd say it's some of both. Meaning that an extra year of college probably doesn't take a full year off your pro career, but it probably takes away some of it.
But even if your pro career length is totally independent of how old you are when you leave college, you still lose out on a year of earnings (at whatever job you take after the NBA) by spending an extra year in college. So the question is whether that college year is worth those lost earnings. It might be, if you finish your degree, if you don't need to retake any classes, and if the earnings potential of "former NBA player with communications degree" are substantially higher than "former NBA player with high school diploma". There are a lot of ifs in there.
...but it's an unusual one, at least when pushed that far.
If the maturation benefits of being in college are so great that we should be forcing people to attend, even if (1) they have skills that could command a substantial salary in the professional world and (2) they have no intention of ever completing a degree and (3) they're all going to be taking joke courses...
...then why isn't "higher education" compulsory? If the economic benefits of delaying entry into the workforce in favor of two years of compulsory joke courses is greater than the salary commanded by an NBA rookie, then it's surely greater than the economic value generated by the rest of the 18- and 19-year-old population.
Whether in favor or not, any argument that refers to the NBA rule in terms of compulsory college is obviously off base. The NBA has no real interest in college or whether you go overseas. The point of the rule is the same as any rule requiring a degree of some kind (I know that sounds weird given what I just said but bear with me.) The idea is to increase the chances that all applicants for the job are qualified for it, not to ensure every qualified applicant has a chance at the job. That's a principle that exists in any job search you can think of, so anyone calling the age limit un-American misses the point completely. And the age limit is to give the league more time to evaluate and make sure that its draftees are qualified so they don't wind up babysitting a bunch of people that aren't. What company in the world doesn't do that?
Of course the rule is in place for the reasons you mention. My comment was a response to jmblue's, which left the NBA's reasons aside and instead argued for the rule because of the benefits to the players.
The NBA doesn't care about the education of its' players, and it doesn't care about whether its future players go to class. It cares about giving players more time to develop as basketball players before they enter the league so that teams have more time to evaluate guys before drafting them. That's not hypocrisy, it's good business.
What would be even better: You may apply for the draft at age 18. If you are drafted, you may choose to sign a contract or reject a contract. If you reject it, you mainitain NCAA eligibility and may go to college if you choose. However, you may not reapply for the draft for two years.
I like that idea, but college coaches don't want to wait until the end of June to have their rosters set. They voted to move up the draft withdrawl deadline to mid-April for that same reason.
Not all the cards. The NCAA decides whether a player has forfeited his eligibility, not the NBA.
"If we're going to be successful in raising the age from 19 to 20, part and parcel in those negotiations goes to the treatment of players on those college campuses and closing the gap between what their scholarships cover and their expenses," Silver said. "We haven't looked specifically at creating a financial incentive for them to stay in college. That's been an option that has been raised over the years, but that's not something that is on the table right now."
This part is very interesting if it ever "gets on the table" - they did not feel the need to do that when they changed the rule from HS players could come in to you had to play 1 year in NCAA - thus there was financial risk for players who "had" to go to the NCAA rather than going direct to NBA i.e. Wiggins and Parker this year. Why would it be different in year 2 of a player's career in the NCAA if they go to "2 and done"?
If you were going to do something like this you could have an insurance policy of sorts - have an advisory board like you have now and even kids straight out of HS - let them be evaluated and if they are deemed a first round pick (say 80%+ odds) they get an insurance payment in case they get hurt in a catastrophic way. Same for 1st year players who would have been "one and done" - they get an insurance policy for their 2nd year in college.
But paying them outright - boy that opens up a Pandora's box. And one that the football guys who would want to leave after 2 years would be asking for just the same.
David Stern claimed at one point to have offered the NCAA almost exactly what you describe in your third paragraph. He said the NCAA turned him down.
It's too bad the the NBA D League wasn't actually for developing players instead of a place for NBA washouts to land.
I kind of like how MLB has it. They can draft/sign a kid right out of HS then put him in the team's farm club until he's ready or play right away if he's a Bryce Harper kind of talent.
Hockey seems to have it the best.
Kids can be drafted at 18 and then go to college if they want. If they stay in college long enough the team who drafted them even loses rights and the kid is a free agent (see Schultz from edmonton and Dekeyser from the wings). They are however still on a rookie contract so there isn't a large incentive to stay in college and try to his as a UFA.
Really there should be 3 choices with this scenario.
1) go to the league directly. give up college elligibility, take your chance to make the team and risk getting cut.
2) go to college on a yearly scholarship and decide at the end of each season to jump or not. But your college team can decide not to maintain your scholarship.
3) go to college on a 4 year scholarship. team is required to keep you for four years but you agree to stay 4 years, or until you complete your degree. There needs to be a penalty if you break the 4 year agreement for the NBA/NFL/NHL. For example a mandatory donation to a scholorship fund for walk-ons from low income families.
And i think that is by design by the NBA. The age requirement for the d-league is 18. So why wouldnt that league want a WIggins or Parker who truly doesnt really want to be in college join straight from high school? it boils down to marketing dollars that the dont want to spend on a D league player even if he is a really good player.
If I were the next LeBron or Kobe I would take my talents to Europe for 2 years if I couldn't do the 1 and done. While many players there only make $100k or so, I'd think a player like LeBron could command more and also make endorsement money from companies wanting to lock him in before he blows up in the league.
Even for a player just below that level like Wiggins or Randle, they could still make some nice money for a couple years while playing ball fulltime.
Worked for our players the last two years. However, there was debate here about the readiness of some of our stars last year and this year. I don't think the rule change would affect most schools.
Take a team like Kentucky that gets recruits that prefer a one-and-done model. Their "sixth man" freshman this year didn't get a lot of PT*, but may have started elsewhere. Does this rule make Kentucky stronger by constantly having sophomores leave for the NBA while freshman are better developed? I think so.
Take a guy like Carmelo Anthony - would the rule change limit his ability to earn a wage? I think so as he was NBA ready as a freshman.
* Until the tourney, due to an injury to the starter.
Used to be that college basketball players were required to stay all four years. Then they abolished that rule, and you could go straight out of high school, because athletes felt taken advantage of. Then they added one more year onto that. Now it's gonna be two.
There were a couple stories about how, in addition to other incentives, Silver has floated the idea of providing subsidies for college athletes as an incentive to stay an extra year in college. This would apparently include providing for basic needs and the league covering for the attendance gap for provisions over and above their scholarship. He also brought up the idea of a more comprehensive insurance including disability coverage to mitigate the fear of injury. Granted, it has only been discussed broadly by colleges, the league and the union, but it is an interesting discussion, I am sure.
Seems to have quite a bit of support from league owners, though I'm not sure why.
Pretty simple: they'd like players to be more finished products when they arrive in the league. They hate paying big bucks to watch a guy slowly develop over a few years. Also, they want their rookies to be well-known before they enter the league.
The owners wanted a two-year rule all along, but the NBPA initially balked and the one-year rule was a compromise. Now it seems that NBPA is more amenable to the idea.
I know I'm in the minority here, but it's in the owners' best interests to support this. For every Kobe or LeBron, there are 20 Darkos. The NBA has been watered down because of unproven talent. Let the kids develop in college, and the teams now have a better idea of who they are drafting.
I know it's a different sport, but the Red Wings are commended for not rushing to call up their guys, which is why so many of their players are NHL ready from the get-go.
Yeah but the risk is inherent to the situation of drafting, not just because the players are young. There are 4 year college players who bust in the pros.
Developing in college is great if you are the player who needs to. All players dont need to develop in college because for some of them the competition/talent gap is to great so its best they go and develop in the league. And its funny you mention Darko because under these rules he wouldnt be forced to play college ball since he is from Europe.
You are not in the minority. Age limit most likely = better college basketball and better NBA. Yes, about .002% or therabouts of the college basketball players will be negatively impacted by not going pro early. Maybe more, but it is way less than 1% and they go to the right college they do get the benefit of great coaching.
I say draft them all at 18 with rights until they turn 22. That way, teams are in no hurry to sign kids until they know they can help and kids can go to college to mature physically, emotionally and intellectually.
This would force NBA scouts to do a better job while taking some pressure out of the entire process. It would also keep 19 year-olds from having to make a decision to give up their eligibility based on guessing whether they will be a first round pick or not.
I really can't think of anyone who would "lose" here.
And this is already being done with overseas players. Im a Bulls fan and we have a kid stashed overseas since we drafted him in 2009.
Tried to type "baseball" but my fingers apparently didn't want to. Anyway, my intent was pretty clear. And, of course, I was too late to edit.
I agree. Why not change the system to reflect what baseball does? If a kid is good enough out of high school to enter the draft then they should be able to go, if not then the kid goes to college for two or three years.
Here is the problem I have with the age minimum and who is a draft eligible player: its different for U.S. players and those coming from overseas. If the NBA and NCAA were truly worried about players getting an education, then why no concern for our overseas brethern and their education? The NCAA wants to keep the players in school because it helps justify the tv contracts and the NBA is willing to help them because like another poster said, they get players who have now being marketed to us for two years instead of one. Also rookies would be older meaning they could have them in their rookie deals at an age when players now are cashing in on that first big contract. If i can have a 22 year old Jabari Parker two years into his rookie deal vs 22 year Jabari Parker who could be potentially coming off his rookie deal and signing a new max deal contract, from an owners standpoint you take the former.
Overseas players face the same age limit as Americans. They currently can't enter the league before age 19, and it will be 20 if this passes.
Yes but unlike the their US counterparts, they are not required to be one year removed from high school. The argument being made is these kids need to mature in college and work toward a degree for life after basketball. Why is that same argument for European players? Also the d-league age limit is only 18. Why is that? My point is this is not about ensuring players mature and get an education; this is about whats best for the college coaches who want to keep the players who help them in in college longer to help them to continue to win.
There are a couple of things at play here:
First, in many European countries, kids are winnowed at 14 or 15, with the serious students going on to high school and the weaker students going to a vocational school to learn some kind of trade. The NBA can't require a kid to finish high school if he never is allowed to attend in the first place. (Actually, they don't require American kids to finish high school either. They just have to be a year removed from their class's graduation.)
The other thing is that school age varies from one country to another. In some countries you can finish high school at 17, some 18, some as late as 20. The NBA isn't going to have a different rule for every country.
They want a better product and teams are tired of Darko's and Korleon Young's.
Of course. NBA gets more time to evaluate players without having to bear any costs associated with developing them during their formative years.
Why can't players make money off endorsements?
... in some sense, but have chosen to form a cartel to divvy up the available labor pool. The NCAA is in a tricky spot since its supposed mission is to manage a side endeavor of a bunch of students, but the tail has long since moved to wagging the dog here. The NBA on the other hand is unconflicted: it's a professional sports league. The ownership and players have one purpose - accumulate wealth by entertaining people with sport.
Ownership's in favor of this because it reduces their cost and risk - more experienced players cost less on rookie deals and have had more time to winnow out busts. The NBAPA is in a tricky spot, though; increasing the pool of potential NBA players is good, but those guys will take jobs away from current union members (i.e. teams will pay a rookie less to do a veteran's job if the results are at all comparable).
NBA Owners - less risk in the draft, protects their FREE farm system
NCAA - protects the quality of their key products (MBB and CFB), secondarily helps the pro leagues which they need as an incentive to draw the kids to college, and protects their continued use of college sports as a huge fundraising draw - remember most schools are lucky to break even on college sports - most actually lose money - but feel it is worth it because of alumni and general public support
Current Pro Players - controls competition
Players union - wants more jobs but not lose current membership - in an ideal world, they'd like to see roster size expanded.
College Players - one more hoop to jump through
One other benefit for the NBA: if these guys stay in college two years, they'll make much more of a name for themselves before they enter the NBA, thus increasing general interest. When players were going pro straight out of high school, that was a pain for the league from a marketing standpoint, because it was now dealing with players who had no name recognition whatsoever when they entered the league.
Also, it can't really be quantified, but a lot of fans (particularly older ones) have more respect for guys who stuck around in college awhile. Not going to college is something that I think has hurt both LeBron and Kobe from a marketing standpoint. (It hasn't crippled them in this regard, of course, but they haven't attained MJ-levels of marketing appeal, and I think this is a factor.)
Why? The quality of the game has not changed in the past 10 seasons since they instituted the 1 year out of high school rule. Forcing kids to stay another year will not make any difference. Especially when you consider who is being replaced by the young men who will be drafted who have the "He Has Potential" tag on them. Those young men will be replacing aging veterans who are trying to get a few more years of earnings before retiring. I remember reading a comment from the NBAPA from years ago stating that their job is not to protect future employees but current ones. So, for the most part, we'll be seeing these aging veterans who play 5 minutes per game out of every six games instead of that super athletic young guy who can't develop a jump shot. I know I'm being extreme, there are many in-betweens, but I just can't stand the "quality of the game" argument.
Also, remember when Darko was drafted? He wasn't old enough so the NBA reduced the age limit to allow him to be drafted. There are other European players, IIRC the African-Greek kid that plays for Milwaukee is also very young. Giannis Antetokounmpo was 18 when he was drafted. The hypocrisy is annoying. What a bunch of crap. 1 year or 2 years out of high school for American (overwhelmingly black) players to play in the NBA but European players, b/c they can play professionally at 14 or whatever, are allowed into the NBA at 18.
The age limit didn't exist when Darko was drafted. It was introduced in 2005. Europeans can't enter the draft any sooner than Americans can - the age limit is 19 in either case.
The NBA is dramatically better right now. Don't believe me? Watch the players when they go to the Olympics now compared with 2004.
Make them go for two years but let them make money off their likeness. What are the potential issues?
"Hi, I'm Mr. Ross, I'd like to pay you 5 Million for a picture of you after your first touchdown in a Michigan Jersey"
Or how about Nike paying all of Oregons football team?
Two very different organisations make these decisions.
From the thread title I thought the the NBA was putting pressure on a player from the XBA...
How in the hell is the development better in a minor league? Maybe true for baseball, but if you want to play for the best coaches(who go where the money is aka not the minor leagues), and learn to play in charged atmospheres in games that matter. Then college is the place. There's an argument for more games and no practice limits, but I think on balance college is better right now.
NBA execs cant trust themselves to evaluate kids who only had 1 year of college. They come into NBA immature and not as developed as they need to be. Too easy to pick wrong. Giving them 2-3 years in their FREE FARM SYSTEM called the NCAA alleviates that.
Plus having more time in collee further builds name recognition and exposure, which the NBA gets for free too.
You point out the real issue. Why would a pro league care or want to become involved into anything the NCAA is tied up with unless it is to protect their very successful de facto farm system. There is a steady stream of players each year which the NCAA happily provides the NBA and the NFL.
Were there already a strong or traditionally established farm system (like with baseball and world wide with futbol) then this argument goes away. In futbol, kids as young as 9 and 10 are being identified and signed up to youth deals.
Slightly OT - it is clear to everyone that there is an enormous revenue stream in college sports. A lot of people and companies are making a lot of money from this cash flow. The players do get some benefits undoubtedly, but perhaps the argument that is being made about pay places the wrong emphasis. Rather than thinking of the athletes as being employed by the Athletic Department, at most places, their real impact and benefit is as walking breathing ad for the Development Department (the unit that fundraises and goes out looking for alumni and general public donations). Most (the vast majority) of the athletic programs actually are lucky to break even, so why do the schools fund them? Because of the Development benefit.
Not really fair to call the NBA out for having a free farm system, given that they do have the d league, which is a true farm system. You are right that they want to increase the age so that players are more prepared for the NBA and they can make better assessments for the draft. Also, very few 19 year olds make an impact in the NBA, so why pay millions for someone who is not going to be an impact player. If I were the NBA commish I would require four years of college and a set number of credits in finance and marketing, but that is just me.
I think the most interesting item here isn't the one-and-done news but the confirmation that the prospective rules changes we were discussing on the other thread are being driven by the NBA negotiations. It explains why Beilein was perplexed by the fact that the items the coaches were concerned with, like clarifying the charge/block calls, were completely ignored. You'd expect Beilein to be in the loop on competition issues but the coaches aren't driving that bus any more.
And if I'm reading Silver's quote right, it's not just rules but officiating style. Don't like perimeter players putting their shoulders down and barging their way into the lane? Too bad for you; it's good training for the NBA.
I suspect the college game will regret it. Somebody (might have been Brian, I think it was mentioned on the front page) linked a study a while back showing that there wasn't a lot of overlap between pro football fans and college football fans. People were passionate about one or the other, but seldom both. I suspect the same is true of basketball, and moves to make the college game more closely resemble the NBA, so that it better serves as a farm system, will cost them fans in the long run.
It's sad, too, that those changes will probably be implemented at all levels. D3 schools that wouldn't turn out one NBA player per century will be stuck will rules and officiating designed for an NBA developmental league, whether they make sense at that level or not.