NBA Age Limit Debate (TSN: http://www.sportingnews.com/voices/fans_view/20030115.html)

NBA must set an age minimum

January 15, 2003 Print it


You want to be heard? Well, now you can! Throughout the week, we let readers speak out as guest columnists. Want to get something off your chest? Put it in writing and send it to us. Be sure to put "Fans' View" in the subject heading.

Today, NBA fan Ernest Bailey IV explains why the fans, owners and players would benefit from a minimum-age requirement in the league.

I've been thinking about an NBA minimum-age requirement. David Stern has publicly stated that he agrees with the idea, and I can't understand why it hasn't happened. This is a win-win-win situation because the players, fans and owners all benefit.

First, the fans win. I disagree with the Knicks trading Marcus Camby and a lottery pick (Nene Hilario) for the fragile Antonio McDyess, but I agree with the trade's supporters on one thing: I'd rather watch a healthy McDyess than a healthy Hilario, who will be great someday.

If I were a Bulls fan, I would rather watch Elton Brand than Tyson Chandler. The league is full of young guys whose current level of performance simply does not merit a spot on an NBA roster. If players such as Chandler and Eddy Curry would play a minimum of two years of college ball, both the NCAA and NBA would be much better to watch.

Second, the owners win. How much have the Bulls invested in Chandler and Curry to see them grow? Or develop? "Hey, boss, I have an idea! Let's develop talent on our dime, and we won't draw flies in the meantime! What? I'm fired?" That is how it would work in any other business.

Why pay for talent to develop when college basketball will do it for free? Then you grab the talent, and people actually will get to see the talent perform, rather than see the talent watching the game, taking as active a role in the outcome of the game as Joe Blow 15 rows up.

The owners make money when fans are entertained. That is why David Stern is behind this.

Now we move to the confusing part. Why haven't the players jumped on this thing? Rather than having guys such as Charles Oakley practically begging for the opportunity to be on the same team as Kwame Brown, get rid of Kwame and free up a spot. Oakley barely made it on a team for the league minimum. Does anyone here think that Patrick Ewing just decided to retire? No, he still works out everyday in hopes of getting a spot with the Wizards.

What chance would a lesser known player have? I'm talking about the no-name players, and there are plenty of them. There are plenty of players who aren't in the NBA because roster spots are being occupied by players who are not as good but have more potential.

Even the players who are under the proposed 20-year-old minimum would benefit. Young players would learn to play in an environment geared toward -- gasp -- learning to play. Every year there are guys who come out and, after having their heads filled with some agent's pipe dreams, go undrafted. Maybe if they stay and develop, they will end up with decent careers.

The NBA needs a minimum-age requirement. Fans will be able to enjoy watching players, instead of settling for the players watching other players. The product will be better, and that that will help attendance and make money for the owners. The best players will be able to play. And there will be a safety net in place for young, gullible players who buy into their own hype and end up going undrafted.

Everyone wins.