http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/opinion/27bissinger.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1256642424-OO66p35V4igYJfy2svU2qg

Now Commissioner Stern says he wants to push the N.B.A. age limit up to 20; once again, don’t be fooled. Such a change would mean that superstar players get two years in college to further sharpen their skills. That would certainly make the N.C.A.A. happier as well as the N.B.A. owners who reap the benefits of a free farm system.

But the right decision would be to abolish the N.B.A. age limit. Equally important, professional sports leagues and the N.C.A.A. should stop jumping into the same Jacuzzi together, turning the idea of “student-athletes” into a farce, padding university coffers and keeping the pro owners from having to pay for the grooming of young talent.

If David Stern truly cared about his players’ well-being, he would advocate that all the silliness over the sanctity of the college academic experience stop and that N.B.A.-bound players get some share of the millions of dollars they generate: in the greatest capitalistic society in the history of the world, this may be the greatest inequity.

instilling an age limit effects two things:

1. makes nba product better b/c player has to go to school for at least a year (i would make it 2)
2. gives the player a chance to mature in a school environment (on and off the court)

but in conjunction with this, i would also start paying student athletes.

PresIke wrote:su,

not sure if you read the article entirely, but it specifically points to legitimate academic studies that demonstrate how the points you raise are contradictory to what is supported by the data.

again, as i have stated before, if there were a real minor league system for pro basketball where players got paid this issue of age would not be a problem.

baseball has one. football, as they show, may need more years for players to be physically ready.

i'm looking at it more as a benefit to society. more kids going to college instead of the workforce = better society (imho).

sebstar wrote:We've had this debate for awhile around here. The age limit is anti-american, not insofar as the league is enacting rules for its own self-interest, but its the idea that kids are funneled into a college system where they help to generate billions and aren't allowed to participate in the profits.

Its a cold hustle, thats for sure.

I say it's anti-american for us to tell a business enterprise how to run their own company, ie age limit, no age limit.

sebstar wrote:We've had this debate for awhile around here. The age limit is anti-american, not insofar as the league is enacting rules for its own self-interest, but its the idea that kids are funneled into a college system where they help to generate billions and aren't allowed to participate in the profits.

Its a cold hustle, thats for sure.

Your right when your talking about the 10=20 star players every year that generate a lot of interest but think about how many Div one teams there are and how few will ever make a living from it. So many kids we don't read about that get a chance to get a free education with room and board and still play in front of 15,000 fans!

For the Brandon Jennings and others that are marketable right out of college to make the pro jump I think it does inhibit them to a degree. Then you got the Eddy's and Kwames who pro teams need to see make good for a year or two before they make an investment.

The Dwight Howards and Lebrons are going to rise up anyway and if one or two go off to europe its really no big deal.

If you start paying the kids then they start going to where they will get the most money and now your talking a whole new problem.

Baseball does have a very strong college system as of course NCAA football as the minor leagues. Its not that broke.

I would be very intereseted in the "junior" programs in Europe that developed Gallo, Lampe, Rubio and Darko as far as education, the % of kids that wash out and are they educated enough to continue on to university (for studies) and what are they really paid? WE don't read enough about them, just the "rubios'" who succeed!

I assume they don't have college ball like we do.

Amatuer status is what gravitates many fans to the college game. If the players are paid instead of studants won't that take some of the lustre away? These teams represent much more than a few players. UK is about Kentucky and civic pride in the state, the Univeristy and the city of Lexington that supports them! Same in dozens of programs across the country that don't produce NBA players every year.

Do you change the whole system because perhaps there are 3-4 NBA ready (Prospects) every year that come out of high school? Other than lebron, how many make an impact until they are 20? Kobe, Howard, KG and Lebron all needed a year or so before so. Would Kobe one or two years at Duke really inhibit his development?

sebstar wrote:

martin wrote:

sebstar wrote:We've had this debate for awhile around here. The age limit is anti-american, not insofar as the league is enacting rules for its own self-interest, but its the idea that kids are funneled into a college system where they help to generate billions and aren't allowed to participate in the profits.

Its a cold hustle, thats for sure.

I say it's anti-american for us to tell a business enterprise how to run their own company, ie age limit, no age limit.

Did you read what I wrote, bruh? They are working in concert with a collegiate system that is practically illegal.

practically illegal? working in concert with? You are describing everyday work process for about every company out there. One thing has nothing to do with the other. If you want to hold college institutions accountable or the NCAA accountable, go for it.

coolbeans wrote:

martin wrote:

sebstar wrote:We've had this debate for awhile around here. The age limit is anti-american, not insofar as the league is enacting rules for its own self-interest, but its the idea that kids are funneled into a college system where they help to generate billions and aren't allowed to participate in the profits.

Its a cold hustle, thats for sure.

I say it's anti-american for us to tell a business enterprise how to run their own company, ie age limit, no age limit.

lol did you miss the bailout? i love capitalism too, but unchecked capitalism meaning business enterprise that does not listen to the consumer and its stakeholders-- fails. and thats been painstakingly proven.

you will let me know how the decision to let 18 year olds vs 19 year olds into NBA even comes close to what happened in the financial markets. I'll start to hold me breath and wait...

And that players should be required to go to college in order to pursue a pro basketball whether they want to, or have the academic skills to attend college or not?

***

If you do believe that, does your belief extend to Golf, Tennis, Baseball, Hockey, etc.?

oohah

Andrew wrote:PresIke, I don't know if the data in article the provided provides any demonstration that su's point #1 is not valid. Are you referring to the statement that 4 players were stars and 20 still in the league out of 26? Who's to say that those 20 players (and the NBA) would be significantly better off now if they attended 1 or 2 years of college?

The question is, why would they? You’re taking for granted the idea that a year in college is better than a year in the NBA. Why should we assume that’s so, when we see every year how hard it is for players (with one year of college experience or four) to adjust to the NBA game? And where is the evidence that the NBA as a whole benefits from holding back these very few players for a year?