Given all the melt down about the Burke (as of yet, no decision), I thought this article was appropriate. Interesting view from the other side.
Peppers at 10, which seems low.
Given all the melt down about the Burke (as of yet, no decision), I thought this article was appropriate. Interesting view from the other side.
for everyone except the teenage kids from often poor backgrounds who are being prevented from making a crapton of money they would otherwise receive.
They wouldn't get the degree because they'd leave after three years or it'd be in something utterly useless. Do you think the kid that wants to play in the NBA or NFL is going to put a lot of time and effort into that sports comm or kines degree? Maybe a few sure but the vast majority won't care. If they're physically ready to play, why force them to be in school? This whole "they should be happy with what they get" argument is bullshit to me. Who are we to decide what's better for them? A diploma doesn't pay your bills or keep food on your table, money does. These kids aren't going to be doctors and engineers for the most part, why take away their ability to make money?
So the next time people around here are making fun of a degree from MSU or OSU instead of one from Michigan, I assume you won't be joining them. After all, a diploma doesn't pay your bills or keep food on your table.
it matters a great deal where you got your degree from. If you are going to be a professional basketball player, it doesn't.
As a doctor I assure you this is not the case. Med schools mostly care about your MCAT and residencies mostly care about your STEP 1. Most patients don't give a shit where you studied.
Now if you want to be a lawyer or a professor.... Then it matters a lot.
Personally, I always check to see what schools my physicians attended. Its one of the first things I look at. For example, I'd see a Buckeye for a sore throat, but they sure as hell aren't going to be practicing any kind of internal medicine on me.
P.S. You're right about the law school mattering in getting a job.
That pharyngitis and viral URTIs are handled by internal medicine docs (and FP and CNPs)? My preceptor at residents clinic went to Michigan for undergrad, OSU for residency ( a very common arrangement). Would you see someone who has attended both? Just curious
What? My point is that a diploma by itself isn't going to get you a job or put money in your bank account when you have little no marketable skills, no work experience, no interview skills, etc I don't think it's right for us to decide or say "this is better for them so be happy with it".
Interesting, you seem to argue against yourself in this comment. The development a student gets during those three years on campus are the very things which would make a person more likely to be able to present themselves well.
This is the part of college I don't think most people get. It is not all just about the academic education. There is a life development education going on at the same time. You can argue that maturation process could also take place while they are working, but it does not.
I have heard many early NBA entry players say the hardest part was having to suddenly be a grown-up at such an early age.
As my Dad told me when he dropped me off at college: "You will never have another 4 years (and it will only be 4 years) like this again. You are not under my roof, but you are not thrown out to the wolves. Enjoy it."
I agree with the above poster and would like to add that the discussion has overlooked the community aspect of being around other students who are eager to learn.
You're assuming that they'll take that development seriously. It can happen sure.
That is the primary point. As people grow and mature, more times than not, they start to take things more seriously.
They don't have to go to college. There are professional basketball opportunities besides the NBA.
Did you read the article? Cuban proposed that the poor kids can go to FIBA (and make alot of money doing it) or even the D league.
Every employer in the world has a set of criteria that they believe is necessary for hiring a successful employee. We may not like it or agree but it's their right to do so. I'm positive that my last year or two at Michigan didn't make me any better of an employee when I got my first job at an advertising agency, and I'm sure I could have done just as well, in fact made quicker progress and more money, if I was hired after sohomore year. But that option wasn't available. If the NBA did the same, IMO no one should have the right to block or challenge it.
The problem is that you have 30-whatever employers (the teams) all collectively agreeing to discriminate against a class of people.
The NBA can't unilaterally impose such an age restriction, it would be subject to collective bargaining with the player's union.
Actually you can, if the players' union agrees to it. Remember the NFL court case a few years back?
At the risk of being political, I still think it's constitutionally dubious. I know that the Supreme Court rejected hearing Clarett's appeal, but I think the NFL rule could potentially be successfully attacked at another time. The NFL also relied on the argument that players aren't physically ready for pro football until they're two (three?) years out of high school. The NBA can't argue that.
There is also just the principle that we as a society don't (or shouldn't) restrict people's employment opportunities without a good reason. The fact that NBA owners can't stop themselves from drafting 18 year olds is not a good reason.
People's job opportunities are restricted by all kinds of things, from degrees, to experience, to age. So are people's voting rights, driving rights, marriage rights, etc. I don't see why the NBA can't set whatever requirements they want.
You can't set arbitrary limits on what kinds of people can enter professions. We'd all agree that the NBA can't say that it won't draft Latinos, for example. The "one-and-done" rule doesn't carry the sting of something like racism with it, but that's not the point. The point is that they're telling people who are perfectly capable of playing at an NBA level that they can't play b/c they fall into a given category that has nothing inherently to do with being a good basketball player.
Wouldn't this also apply to baseball, with its restriction on players going pro for 3 years if they don't do so after high school? I feel like that would be even harder to justify on a constitutional basis (although I personally like the rule). I'm not a legal scholar, but it seems like there is some precedent for minimum age requirements in employment (at least in some sectors) whereas maximum age limits are universally condemned.
Professional sports have been allowed to live in their own weird little world as far as anti-trust laws and such (look up Casey Stengel's testimony before Congress if you want to see something funny), but I question (FWIW) how long that will last. Players and potential players have so much money at stake now that I could see someone making a very concerted effort to change the status quos.
One thing that works in the NBA's favor is the proliferation of basketball leagues worldwide. The European leagues probably love the age restriction, since it keeps their guys around at least to age 19. China might eventually become more of a destination league as well. Players can make a lot of money playing pro basketball outside of the NBA, though they may have to leave the country.
Football is in a trickier position IMO, given that the only real alternative is the CFL. Someone might be compelled to file suit again.
The issue - like any other, I suppose - is heavily framed by how much in resources people are willing to put into the fight. This issue has never really been fought out with equal resources and vigor on both sides, which is one of the reasons that I think the law could be changed if someone had enough money...But, as I said above, I am not an employment lawyer, and my thoughts should be taken no more seriously than a chimp's.
An NBA agreement to not draft Latinos would fail because race and national origins receives strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause. Because this rule is about eligibility based on age, it just requires the NBA/NBAPA to have a rational basis for the rule.
And while that rational basis might seem questionable because the NBA has previously had successful players who have been drafted immediately out of high school, it's rule is actually more rock solid, legally, than the NFL's because the NBA's rule was the specific result of collective bargaining while the NFL's three year rule was merely a rule created within a collectively bargained agreement (ie, it was imposed by the owners, not bargained, but took shape within a labor market organized around a collective bargaining relationship, and was therefore not subject to anti-trust rulings).
There's a long smart football post about this in relation to the Clarett case, that also has to do with Sonia Sotomayor's jursiprudence related to sports.
But it's not even rational. 18 year old Kevin Garnett (or Anthony Davis) isn't/aren't better than 21 year old Dallas Lauderdale? That's laughable...I know that the NBA's rule is consistent with what the law is right at this minute, but I don't know that it would stand if you got it in front of a judge of a...different...belief system, one inclined to put just a bit of teeth into "rational."
"Rational" has been very broadly defined by the courts. In Kotch v. Board of River Commissioners, the Supreme Court upheld a law that functionally prohibited anyone but friends and relatives of river boat captains from receiving a pilot's liscense in Louisiana because it promoted "moral and esprit de corps" on the river.
The current language governing legal review of restrictions holds that the parties merely have to show that "there is any conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification."
I actually agree with your point morally, but legally, the NBA and the NBAPA can pretty much impose any restrictions they want that don't fall under strict scrutiny.
Edit: argh, your edit makes it look like I'm just being pedantic.
I'm kidding. Your point is well made, and I hear you.
Suppose David Stern could crunch the numbers and find that players aged 21 and up average X points and Y rebounds per game, whereas players under that age average fewer . . . would that constitute a "rational basis" for an age limit?
As Needs said above, it's a very weak test. It's sort of a fuzzy one, though, as well, and a federal judge who was motivated could say, "Well, that may be true of the average player, but what about the exceptional one?" What I would say as Kevin-Garnett-like-guy's lawyer is, "Why can't my client be judged individually just like the player who's been out of school for a year? I'm not asking anyone to draft him if he's not good."
IIRC, when this issue first came about there was some number crunching. Michael Mccann of the Mississippi College School of Law stated that their study found players out of high school not only succeeded more often than their college counter parts, but elite players who bypass college make something like 100 million more dollars over the course of their careers than their college counterparts.
This makes sense, because they have longer careers, are able to get through their rookie deals faster, and have the potential sign two big long term deals, as opposed to just one.
So not only are you arbitrarily restricting them from entering the NBA, but you're killing their earning potential as well.
But the issue wouldn't so much be the longitudinal trajectory of players who entered the league at 18-20 years old, but how they do specifically when they're 18-20 years old. Several of the best HS-to-NBA players (Kobe, Garnett, McGrady) did in fact struggle as rookies and sometimes as second-year players. When they were older they became better players. Now, to argue that this was solely due to chronological age is a stretch, but the league could potentially make it.
I would imagine that an argument claiming that an age restriction would result in an improved level of play, therefore making the NBA more competitive and enjoyable for fans would pass judicial review, especially since that new age restriction would almost certainly have to be collectively bargained (given that the current one is).
If the owners tried to impose a new age restriction, then the NBAPA would almost certainly challenge it as a contract violation.
The conservative (I don't mean that politically) observer would wager that it would pass. I'm just saying that I think there's a crack in the facade that you might be able to squeeze through. But no one should file a lawsuit just because I said that.
with a bunch of rich mostly-white men telling a group of largely-poor, largely-minority teenagers that they can't make money that they would unquestionably receive otherwise simply because it makes the lives of the rich white men easier.
What if the largely-"minority" NBA Players Union agrees to it? Does that make it better?
(BTW, why is "minority" used in sports as a code word for black? Asians, Native Americans et al. don't ever seem to count as "minority" athletes.)
and does not necessarily have the interests of high school kids at heart.
I agree - but why didn't you mention that in the first place, instead of going for a race-baiting angle ("rich white men")? The rich white men can't get any rule changes approved without the "minority" NBPA's approval.
to say that the policy would result in the transfer of money from poor black and latino kids to rich white old men, I'm fine race baiting. One of the biggest positives about big-time athletics is that it takes a number of very poor minority kids out of very bad areas and gives them either a college education or, if they're good enough, millions and millions of dollars. I didn't accuse anyone of racism, and do not think the policy is designed to keep black or hispanic kids impoverished. But the result of the policy is to keep more money in Donald Sterling's pocket and keep it out of Anthony Davis's for 2 more years. I don't see how that's good for anyone but Donald Sterling.
Because they by and large don't play professional sports?
Again, then, why not just call the league "predominantly black" instead of "predominantly minority"? Why the misleading language?
Why do you care? "Minority" isn't a pejorative term. It wasn't as specific as it could have been, I grant.
Actually, some people consider "minority" pejorative (there are actually civil-rights groups that hate the word), but that's another topic for discussion.
I'm genuinely curious to know why "minority" has become a code word for "black" in sports discussions.
My guess is that people are often worried (even if only unconsciously) about being deemed racist of they say something about a given group, so it's easier to just cast a wide net and say "minority." His statement shouldn't have been offensive if he'd just said "black," to me, but we all know that people will sometimes jump down your throat even when it's not justified...There's also possibly an issue with people not knowing whether they should say "African American" or "black." I'm not kidding when I say that. I say "black" most of the time, but I certainly wouldn't be shocked to be upbraided at some point for not saying "African American."
because it's fewer words than "black and hispanic." Nothing more, nothing less.
I thought it was an interesting question generally. My apologies if it seemed like I was projecting my guesses onto you.
It's not misleading. African-Americans are a minority in the United States. They're not a minority in this instance. I really don't get what point you're trying to make. Seems like you're grasping at straws.
Let's not even start with this racism!!1!!! bull. It's so overplayed.
No one in any profession can say, or have others (references, i.e. scouts) say, that he is good enough to work at a particular company, and force the employer to hire him or her on that qualification. The NBA is an employer. There is no legitimate difference. And minority is completely irelevant and a red herring.
IBM can't have a policy of not hiring anyone over 55, for example...well, not without being sued successfully.
to hire Anthony Davis, and the comparison to other employers doesn't work. If I want to work at an investment bank, and can't get a job because I don't have an MBA, that is the result of a bunch of individual employers making individual decisions not to hire me because they think having an MBA is an important aspect of the job.
Here, there is not a single person who disputes that NBA teams want to employ Anthony Davis, and would have wanted to employ him had he been eligible for the draft after high school. The NBA has set up rules to prevent teams from drafting players they would otherwise want to hire. It's a rule set up across the league to prevent indiviual teams from selecting kids they think are good enough to play in the league. The analogy doesn't work.
The NBA is an employer, that is what they do. They are an employer with 30 branches that have compeptitive owners that want to beat each other. Like GE with 30 divisions. David Stern is the CEO. If he and a majority of his owners agree that 3 years is necessary then they think it's best for their businesses to have that rule--it is exactly the same as your MBA example. An employer once believed that some HS students could go directly to their company and succeed--now they believe that the success rate of HS players is too low and first went to 1 year, now want three years of college. It is the same.
If they are good enough to leave early and play in the NBA, then they'll get that money eventually. While they are in college, they get all their necessities paid for through their athletic scholarships. It's not like they're struggling to eat while they're still in school.
Or they could blow out their knee, not be able to play ball again, and have earned nothing for those 2-3 years. Sure they get their degree but who are YOU to decide that that's a fair tradeoff?
College, there should be a 3 year rule. Otherwise go pro.
I think this is how baseball does it, but I'm not positive, but my feeling:
Let players who want to go pro straight out of high school go pro. If you don't want to go straight to the NBA, then 3 years of college (or Euro-league or whatever else) until you are able to enter the draft. That seems to make pretty good sense for almost all parties, the NBA teams, the NBA vets, gets kids that want an education most of an education at least, kids that aren't superstars now will at least get an education to fall back on, kids that just want to play can go Euro, and those that have no desire for one don't have to bluff through a year of it.
the NBA wants to make every high school kid go to college to save NBA GMs from themselves. GMs weren't very good at differentiating between Kwame Brown and Dwight Howard, and want a rule that gets them more information so they don't end up drafting the next Kwame Brown.
They would like to get as much film and legit evaluation time on kids as possible, or at least enough to get a firm read on (which I would assume 3 years would do, you could get a pretty good trend at that point). The players probably wouldn't support it though (as a good hand full of them remember not wanting to be in college anymore). I think that's why you have to give them an out, or essentially you can go straight pro or you can commit to something else for 3 years. It gives assumption that they actually have an option.
They might just draft fewer busts, and more of the NBA's total revenue would go to established veterans rather than speculative bets on 19 year olds.
Not that that's a good idea in and of itself, but in terms of the number of dollars going towards unproductive players, it could help.
As was posted here a week ago or so (by Brian?), David Stern said that he offered the NCAA some sort of deal in which elite MBB prospects would either be insured or paid by the NBA if/when they stayed in college. That would encourage players to stay in school without taking away their freedom to go pro when they wanted to. I love the idea of more guys staying in school, but I don't like the idea of just telling them that they can't do it.
The Players Association would sue the NBA and I'm not sure if it is a hassle that they want to deal with. If it was going to happen last year was the time when everyone was sitting at the table together.
Who is stopping them from having the NHL/NCAA rule? Everyone is draft-eligible when they are 18, and the team retains the rights for four years? If a player wants to go to the team that drafted him, he will know he has a solid chance of getting to the NBA (instead of the uncertainty that comes from the draft). The teams get as many as 4 years to watch a player develop for free, without taking up a roster spot or any team money/energy.
Is it an NCAA or NBA rule that is preventing this from happening?
Draft rules are all handled by the NHL, NFL, MLB and NBA, and you also need to add all four of those PA's on the list as well.
I agree they should go to the NHL or MLB model; either would work fine and get rid of a lot of one-and-done types that aren't gaining anything or helping the college game by being around.
I believe that where college eligibility is concerned, the NCAA handles that, not the NBA.
I'm sure the NBA isn't opposed to drafting kids and allowing them to participate in college hoops, but the NCAA wants to maintain its facade of amateurism.
The NHL does it with no protest from the NCAA, why would the NBA be any different?
To take it to an extreme, why not have some sham team in Europe draft all of OSU's incoming class every year and make the NCAA suspend them, if it were a problem for players to be drafted?
Like I said, I think it's an NCAA issue where they would like to protect their facade of amateurism. I don't think the problem with implementing such a system is on the NBA's end.
Hockey =! Basketball, not even close as far as the NCAA is concerned.
Why does hockey not equal basketball? It's the exact same rulebook.
I meant as far the NCAA is concerned.
NCAA Basketball is a revenue sport, and (IIRC) the NCAA makes most of its money via the tournament. I'd be shocked if NCAA hockey did anything more than lose money for the NCAA. So those two sports are definitely different as far as the NCAA is concerned.
Also, the relationship between NCAA hockey and the NHL is different than the relationship between NCAA basketball and the NBA.
The NHL has a viable minor league system in place, and college hockey makes no money for the NCAA. Not many people pay attention to it, and it's players aren't treated as amateurs in the way that NCAA basketball and football players are.
The NBA needs college basketball to exist as a feeder system, and college basketball needs to exist for the NCAA to make any sort of money what so ever. Therefore, protecting the amateur status of college players is paramount to the NCAA, in order to protect the "purity" of the game.
I also think that they don't want to deal with the logistics of having a myriad of kids with NBA contracts hanging over their heads running around, and having to deal with all of the problems that would create with agents, handlers, and other sordid characticers.
I could go on and on, but suffce it to say, it would create problems that college hockey does not have to deal with, seeing as the money and notoriety are not on the level of basketball. It would open the flood gates to corruption, and completely destroy any semblance of amateurism.
I don't know the hockey system well, but I can't imagine that the drafted players have signed contracts. While their rights are controlled by the teams, they're not receiving money, so the NCAA can maintain the facade of amateurism.
Part of my point was that the NCAA would want nothing to do with that as far as college basketball is concerned.
Things are already dicey enough as it is, so I doubt they'd want to further blur the line between amateur and professional.
The NCAA can do nothing to stop any draft rules the NBA wants to put into place, and they won't change a system for one sport, not in a million years. The NBA could put a rule in place that says if you play in the NCAA, you're ineligible for the first round of their draft, and the NCAA would have no recourse.
Also, hockey picks are worth a lot of money for those able to sign (as I understand it, the NHL minimum is six figures higher than Morris' salary), so it's not likely the NCAA ignores their rules because the NBA still has higher TV ratings than the NHL.
The only problem that I have with this, is that things will most likely go back to the way they were before the one and done rule.
NBA teams will fall in love with high school kids, and start drafting them en masse like they did before the one and done deal. It will also push a lot of kids who otherwise would have gone to college into the draft, because they can't wait three years to get paid due to financial circumstances.
I'm more of a fan of telling all kids they have to go to school for three years, but creating an NBA draft advisory board which kids could petition if they felt they were NBA ready fresh out of high school, or after only one or two years of college.
The draft board would review each case and then make a ruling whether to alllow the kid an exemption, thus allowing them to enter the draft early.
This allows for kids like LeBron or Dwight Howard to bypass college, as they are NBA ready, while protecting kids who need a few years of seasoning and/or maturing, by making them go to college.
I think that the NBA should mandate a three year rule. If kids want to go overseas or to the D-League for three years, fine. But most would stay in college and I think that helps the NBA. The NBA wants recognized names - college is a great place to let basketball fans become familiar with players and let them develop some name recognition. There is a reason Tyler Hansborough and Shane Battier were such interesting draft picks - it is because the basketball loving nation had developed feelings for them and actually cared (love or hate) how they would do in the NBA. There would have been much less interest in both of them had they gone to the NBA after one year (assuming they would have been drafted) I wish more players would recognize that too. Being a huge star at a major university is good for their marketing potential.
But how can you tell adults not to practice their profession if they so desire? A three-year rule with nothing else attached to it is nothing more than the NBA owners saving themselves from themselves.
You can say you need to have a law degree before you can practice law, or a medical degree before you can practice medicine, even if you're the great legal mind ever born and and mastered all the case law before you're 16.
That's not the best analogy. There's stuff you need to learn when you're becoming a lawyer or a doctor whereas you can be physically ready to play in the NBA and have mastered the skillset by the time you're 18. Plus the training ensures competancy when dealing with complex legal issues involving large sums of money or peoples' lives. An incompetent basketball player hurts no one in the grand scheme of things.
The draft is a hiring hall. The collectively bargained contract between the union and the contracted companies determines who is eligible to enter.
But should they be able to? Why can't Kevin Garnett play NBA basketball when he's 18? He was already one of the top 100 or so players in the world.
That's a question that's impossible to answer without going into the politics of organized labor, which is a topic that I'm positive no one here wants to broach.
Our dirty secret, though, is that we talk about potical things all the time. We just don't talk about political parties or address things in overtly political ways. I'm not saying that we should. I'm just saying that the line is a lot more blurry than we sometimes pretend it to be.
I absolutely agree with this, but the unspoken agreement that we keep it covert is what allows this place to keep from degenerating into the rest of the internet.
And "should unions have the right to set rules for work eligibility" seems to me the point where it crosses that line.
There's tons of duties that can be handled by non-lawyers that have been turned into things that only a lawyer can do for $100 an hour. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy where there are an over abundance of laws created by lawyers who then require lawyers to interpret them. There's lots of things people could do for themselves or have non-legal representation for that are a closed shop because they're trying to crush competition. And it's done by other guilds that get laws passed that are far less complex or dangerous than those examples, from a hot dog stand to hair threading. The restrictions are only there because the industry wants them. And they kep people fom working in them unless they meet their arbitrary standards. So yeah, it's a great example.
You have to have a pretty good reason to bar someone from entering into a profession. With medicine, you're protecting patients from death or injury by people who don't know what they're doing. There's almost nothing like that when it comes to the NBA. Anyway, 18 year old Kevin Garnett was a better basketball player than 21 year old Bobby Hurley.
Gilbert Arenas and his gun collection challenge that statement.
You just need to hope they don't hav the money, will, or backing to contest it. This is just a silly example. One could find dozens more. I'd say you're a lot more likely to injure yourself or someone else playing a contact sport than grooming eyebrows. And evn if you're great at it, at 16, they still wanted to impose restrictions on it and make you get a license. As I said, you could be the greatest legal mind of your generation, mastered all the case law by 16....but you don't go to law school you're not joining the club. Because the professin says you need to go to school, even if you've mastered it on your own.
I love collegiate sports more than anything, but I can still see the bs lurking behind the ncaa...
In basketball, those kids should be able to turn pro whenever they want...if a team wants to draft them, best of luck. In football, safety tied to physical development becomes an issue. But in bball, the one-year mandate is just a way of making a lot of young, exciting talent accessible for the march madness stage.
Also: I really hope Burke stays.
Of the top ten scoring leaders this year in the NBA, only one went to college more than two years. Three came fresh out of high school, three were one and dones, two were two year NCAA players (one being LaMarcus Aldridge who had to be talked into going to college by Shaq), and Dirk (I don't know if German A-League is pro which is where he started) and Deron Williams (with 3 years at Illinois). The mindset is that if you "have it" that you don't need the NCAA to improve it.
The all star game roster was pretty much the same.
Once they turn 18, let them go pro whenever they want and in any sport. Let's end the charade.
Do what baseball does, but make it a two-year requirement. You'd have the option of going pro out of HS if you want. If you choose to go to school, you're locked in for two years (or at least, you're not eligible for the draft for two years) but after that you declare whenever. I think that's a fair compromise.
college and or an apprenticeship and go straight to the highest level? Besides that it's in the NBA's best interest to make these kids stay. It would strengthen the NBA, College, and the D-League. They get a small salary in the D-League but can score a very confortable living in Europe for 3 years if they chose to skip college.
What other profession is there, that doesn't require any sort of degree or certification, arbitrarily bars people for a set period of time?
It's good for the NCAA and NBA because players have more time to develop their "brand" in college. It's good for the NBA owners and GM's because they can draft more on evidence and less on potential. It's great for the current players, because it protects their positions on their rosters by creating less of an influx of players for the next three years.
The NFL does this, and it works out fine for them. It would be great for players to have to mature a bit before playing in the NBA so that they are able to represent their product better.
I know it would depirve ten or twenty players a year the right to make a bunch of money, but the current way is screwed up. Players who bolt after one year, turn out to be second round or UFA, and don't catch on with an NBA team have nothing to "fall back on." Many of them have no social skills other than "kiss my ass, I'm a big time athlete," aren't in high demand in the workplace if they can't get paid to play ball, and don't even know how to pay their own bills.
From an NCAA POV, it doesn't matter, because they have no say. From an NBA POV, it would upgrade their product significantly. All of the stars would eventually make it there anyway, and would be more prepared for the realities of the workplace than galoots like Dwight Howard.
There should be a reasonable middle ground, kids can go to NBA straight out of high school, but if they go to college they have to stay 2 years. If a high schooler wants to declare for the draft, the advisory board must rate them as a 1st round pick. If a kid does not go in the 1st round (guaranteed contract), then he goes to college.
Agree with Cuban 100%. I hate this one and done, it is ruining college basketball and not helping the NBA. They are drafting potential which for the most part doesn't live up to the hype. I seem to recall last year, a number of the early departures went completely undrafted.