Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

The Case for the 20-Year-Old Age Limit in the NBA

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Case for the 20-Year-Old Age Limit in the NBA

    The Case for the 20-Year-Old Age Limit in the NBA

    By Steve Kerr


    When Kentucky won John Calipari's first national championship earlier this year, it spawned a fierce debate in basketball circles about the NBA's age requirement. Some believe the league should raise it from 19 to 20 years old; others believe it should remain the same; a third faction wants to restore the old rule (which allowed prospects to join the NBA straight out of high school); and there's even momentum for adopting baseball's stance, which allows high schoolers to enter the draft right away OR commit to three years of college before becoming draft-eligible again. There are valid reasons for any of the above courses, but I believe the NBA would best be served by raising its age requirement to 20 years old. Fans and critics have assorted opinions about morals, ethics, education, fairness, and law, but to me, this really comes down to a single issue: Would the NBA's business be stronger by raising the age requirement? I say yes for the following six reasons.
    1. Player maturity.

    I have been involved in the league for the past 24 years, either as a player, a general manager, or (currently) as a television analyst for TNT. I love what I'm seeing right now — the league is teeming with young talent, the style of play is wide-open and fun, the rules have been successfully tweaked to encourage more movement and scoring, and most games are played at an undeniably high level. Unfortunately, there's a collective immaturity that troubles me, especially with some of the league's more talented players. Many enter the NBA as child prodigies: physically gifted, but lacking any concept of how hard the day-to-day work is, or even how the NBA functions as a whole.

    True story: I once had an extremely young teammate ask me when our Christmas break was. He then became visibly shocked and saddened after learning that we didn't get to go home for a week or so. Another time, a different young player asked me how the NBA's playoff format worked. We entered the first round of the postseason and he had no idea what "best of 5" meant. These were players who were ready to be professional athletes?

    That level of immaturity naturally leads to growing pains; it's why so many young players struggle for a season or two as they adjust to the workload, schedule, travel, stress, and media scrutiny, and especially, with seemingly basic off-the-court stuff like managing money, paying bills, and dealing with pressures from their extended family. Even with a few NBA seasons under their belts, that lack of life experience and the backbone of a college education hampers many players' ability to handle adversity and/or make difficult decisions. (See Howard, Dwight.) The league would obviously benefit by its rookies arriving with a little more seasoning, both on and off the court, armed with a little more life experience to prepare them for the oncoming challenge. A more mature workforce means a stronger league. Even one extra year of college would help.
    2. Financial costs

    NBA franchises spend anywhere from 50 million to 100 million on yearly salaries, plus another few million per year evaluating and developing players. For a scout or general manager (I've only been the latter), seeing a prospect for one measly four-month season of college ball increases the risk of being wrong about his potential. Remember, talent evaluation is a business in which, in the words of Jerry West, the greatest GM of all time, "Being right 51 percent of the time means you're doing well." Having an extra season to assess the potential of college players would cut down on the personnel mistakes that teams inevitably make in the draft, something that could potentially save the league tens of millions of dollars every year.1

    Of course, that extra season pushes their moneymaking timetable back, which is why certain agents hate this idea so much. For NBA rookies drafted in the first round, there's a four-year contract scale; after that, they become free agents (and eligible for much more lucrative deals). Had LeBron not been allowed in the NBA until he was 20, his first max deal wouldn't have happened until 24 (not 22), and his second one would have happened at 28 (not 26). That's why certain agents (some of whom influence collective bargaining more than anyone wants to admit) push to keep that age limit in the teens, even if it's counterproductive for their clients. Do you think Tim Duncan or Ray Allen ever looks back at his career and says, "Man, I wish I'd skipped college and gotten my max contracts started earlier!" I'd bet anything that they look at it the other way — without college ball, they wouldn't have been as good (and would have earned less money).
    3. Player development

    Why should NBA franchises assume the responsibility and financial burden of player development when, once upon a time, colleges happily assumed that role for them? Think about the 1980s, when the best college players usually played at least two or three years before entering the draft. Stars like Michael Jordan (three years in college), Larry Bird (four years), and Magic Johnson (two years) used their college time to hone their leadership skills, improve their games, and deal with real pressure (all three played for national championships). They learned how to deal with media scrutiny, how to handle game pressure, even how to handle success and failure under a pretty sizable spotlight. By the time they were drafted, they were ready to succeed at the highest level and compete for titles immediately. Bird and Magic won eight of the league's next nine championships after they entered the league in 1979; Jordan won seven scoring titles and three NBA titles in his first nine seasons. All three thrived immediately as rookies.

    Larry Bird, 1979-80: 38.0 MPG, 21.3 ppg, 10.4 rpg, 4.5 apg, 47% FG, 20.5 PER, 11.2 win shares, 61 Celtic wins (lost in Eastern Finals).

    Magic Johnson, 1979-80: 18 ppg, 36.3 MPG, 7.7 rpg, 7.3 apg, 2.4 spg, 53% FG, 20.6 PER, 10.5 win shares, 60 Laker wins (Finals MVP).

    Michael Jordan, 1984-85: 38.3 MPG, 28 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 5.9 apg, 2.4 spg, 52% FG, 25.8 PER, 14 win shares, 38 Chicago wins (lost in Round 1).

    Compare those numbers to the rookie stats/records of four of today's best players (all of whom arrived straight from high school):

    Kevin Garnett, 1995-96: 28.7 MPG, 10.4 ppg, 6.3 rpg, 49% FG, 15.8 PER, 4.4 win shares, 26 wins (Minnesota missed playoffs).

    Kobe Bryant, 1996-97: 15.5 MPG, 7.6 ppg, 1.9 rpg, 1.3 apg, 42% FG, 14.4 PER, 1.8 win shares, 56 wins (Lakers lost in second round, with Kobe famously firing two air balls in the last minute of the final loss).2

    Dwight Howard, 2004-05: 32.6 MPG, 12 ppg, 10 rpg, 52% FG, 17.2 PER, 7.3 win shares, 36 wins (Orlando missed playoffs).

    LeBron James, 2003-04: 39.5 MPG, 20.9 ppg, 5.5 rpg, 5.9 apg, 42% FG, 18.3 PER, 5.1 win shares, 35 wins (Cleveland missed playoffs).

    Other than lost salaries, what would have been the downside of those last four guys playing two years in college? Garnett and Bryant needed the extra playing time (and added responsibility of carrying a college contender); meanwhile, LeBron and Howard were thrust into unfair positions as saviors of lottery teams, and after seeing how their careers have unfolded, maybe those burdens affected them more than we realized. Neither played a postseason game until his third season; meanwhile, Garnett didn't make it out of the first round until his ninth year, and Kobe didn't start logging big playoff minutes until his third season. You're telling me two years of leading elite NCAA teams wouldn't have been a better basketball/life/social/teamwork experience for those four guys?
    4. Marketing

    In the old days, college basketball was the NBA's single best marketing tool. Nearly all of the league's future stars were well known by the time they were drafted. I'll never forget watching the lottery in 1985, when the Knicks won the right to select Patrick Ewing with the first pick. NBA fans had followed Ewing for four years as he dominated college basketball at Georgetown; by 1985, they couldn't wait to see him on a bigger stage. They knew that whichever team landed Ewing would contend for the next decade, at least. This was a common occurrence back then: college stars like Jordan, Bird, Magic, Hakeem Olajuwon, or David Robinson entering the league to great fanfare and anticipation, poised to change the fortunes of franchises immediately.

    How often does that happen today? Even if Washington fans were excited to draft John Wall two years ago, and Cleveland fans were ecstatic about picking Kyrie Irving last year, none of them were actually thinking, We're back! Look out, playoffs!
    5. A sense of team

    Even if today's players are incredibly gifted, they grow up in a basketball environment that can only be called counterproductive. AAU basketball has replaced high school ball as the dominant form of development in the teen years. I coached my son's AAU team for three years; it's a genuinely weird subculture. Like everywhere else, you have good coaches and bad coaches, or strong programs and weak ones, but what troubled me was how much winning is devalued in the AAU structure. Teams play game after game after game, sometimes winning or losing four times in one day. Very rarely do teams ever hold a practice. Some programs fly in top players from out of state for a single weekend to join their team. Certain players play for one team in the morning and another one in the afternoon. If mom and dad aren't happy with their son's playing time, they switch club teams and stick him on a different one the following week. The process of growing as a team basketball player — learning how to become part of a whole, how to fit into something bigger than oneself — becomes completely lost within the AAU fabric.

    And for elite players who play one college year before turning pro, that process remains stunted. That's the single most important part of a player's development and we ignore it like it doesn't totally matter — basic foundation points like learning how to commit to a team, embracing the unity of a group, trusting your teammates, and working within a larger framework. Harvard coach Tommy Amaker puts it well, saying, "We've become a culture of skipping steps." So many young NBA players might be physically gifted, but they skipped crucial development steps along the way. It would help if they were forced to make one or two more of those steps within the framework of the college game.

    You know what also helps? Being part of a college program for more than a year — an experience that, if it unfolds the right way, can affect you forever. Quick story: I was in New Orleans a few weeks ago for the Final Four and saw a great scene. Late one night I was walking outside my hotel when I came across Draymond Green, Mateen Cleaves, and Steve Smith, all talking animatedly, laughing and joking around. Those three Spartans — none of whom played together, whose careers spanned 22 years at Michigan State — were bonded by their days wearing the green and white. To me, that's so important and so underrated. Green has a foundation for his future success: great mentors, a real connection to a school, and a group of teammates that will live with him forever. I believe that Green's experience playing for Tom Izzo (and such a terrific program) will give him a legitimate advantage as an NBA rookie. As always with these things, we will see.
    6. Mentoring

    This won't be the case for everyone, but let's say a player attends school for two years and plays for a superior coach — not just someone who knows his stuff, but a genuinely good person who cares for his players during their two playing years and beyond. That isn't a huge asset for any player? Think about the impact Dean Smith had on Jordan. The joke back in the day was that the only person on earth who could hold MJ under 20 points was Dean Smith. (And it was true: MJ averaged 17.7 points per game in three seasons at Carolina.) But what was Smith really doing while making Jordan pay his dues and share the ball? Teaching him how to be a good teammate, how to work, and most important, how to deal with success and adversity. Did MJ's experience at UNC help make him the champion that he became in the NBA? Even if there's no way to prove it, I believe the foundation and guidance Smith provided ended up being a big reason for Jordan evolving into the greatest player ever. In fact, Michael even admits this, saying many times that Coach Smith was one of the biggest influences in his life. Their relationship remains important to Jordan to this day.3

    Doesn't this mean … something?

    Wouldn't an extra year have the same effect on dozens of college players every decade? The backbone of the current league isn't just the influx of talent, it's the maturity and professionalism of veteran stars like Tim Duncan, Ray Allen, Grant Hill, Chris Paul, Steve Nash, Dwyane Wade, and Paul Pierce — guys who spent multiple years in college — setting the tone for everyone else. We need more of them.

    The arguments against raising the age requirement hinge on civil liberties, points like, "Who are we to deny a 19-year-old kid a chance to make a living when he can vote, drive, and fight in a war?" If this were about legality or fairness, you might have a case. But it's really about business.4 The National Basketball Association is a multi-billion-dollar industry that depends on ticket sales, sponsorships, corporate dollars, and media contracts to operate successfully. If the league believes one rule tweak — whatever it is — would improve its product and make it more efficient, then it should be allowed to make that business decision. If an 18-year-old basketball whiz wants to earn a living right away, he could play overseas or in the D-League for those two years. Regardless, it shouldn't be the NBA's responsibility to provide working opportunities for teenagers, just like it's not the NFL's responsibility to do so. The NBA should only care about running its operation the best it can. That's it.

    So why hasn't the age limit been raised when David Stern is already on record saying he'd like to add a year? It's an issue that, by law, must be collectively bargained with the National Basketball Player's Association. During last year's lockout, there were more pressing matters for both sides — really, the lockout was all about money, with each side fighting for its share of the pie. The league was fighting to shorten contract lengths, alter the percentages of raises, and bring down total salaries. Anything with a quantifiable price tag became a priority; since the financial impact of a raised age limit is so difficult to quantify, that issue was placed on the back burner. The union wasn't giving that up without getting something in return; the league was doing a lot of taking and very little giving; and many of the agents certainly didn't want to pursue it. That's how the age limit slipped through the cracks.

    And it's a shame, because both sides would have been helped by that age limit bumping to 20. The league would be stronger for every reason discussed above. The union would benefit because veterans would hold their jobs for an extra season. And fans would win because the game would be better — we'd see an influx of elite young talent arriving into the league more prepared, not just physically, but mentally and emotionally. If that translates into better basketball, then isn't that what we all want? I realize I may sound like the old guy — stuck in his ways, out of touch with today's players — but I know what college meant to me; I know what it meant to most of my peers. And I know that the NBA would be a stronger league if its players stuck around school a little longer, too.
    Steve Kerr is a five-time NBA champion.

    FOOTNOTES

    1. The league would save money by being right on more draft picks. And the league would also get more bang for their buck by paying rookies who were ready to contribute right away, rather than spending money to develop them for a couple of years before they're ready to produce.

    2. Kobe didn't become a full-time starter for the Lakers until his third season.

    3. I can't begin to identify with any college freshmen whose lives would be affected with a higher age limit. I had no chance of making the NBA after my first season at Arizona, much less right out of high school. (The thought actually makes me laugh.) As a slow 6-foot-3 white guy, I was lucky to even stick around for one NBA season, much less 15. I had the "anti–Anthony Davis experience," spending five full years in college (redshirting one season with a knee injury) before entering the NBA at 22. And maybe this wouldn't be true for everyone, but for me, those five years at Arizona were the most important of my life. My teammates from those Wildcat teams remain my best friends to this day. Our loss in the Final Four during my senior year in 1988 remains the single most disappointing game of my life — but one that motivated me for the rest of my career. The collective value of the experiences we shared — every tough practice, every difficult loss, every euphoric win, even those times on the bus or the plane — created a bond between us that will live forever. And the education we received from our coach, Lute Olson, had an immeasurable effect on all of us. He was a teacher, father figure, and mentor; without his influence, the last 25 years of my life just wouldn't have turned out the same.

    4. The NFL's rule is that players aren't draft-eligible until after their junior seasons; nobody seems to raise any legal or ethical questions about that. There would be plenty of football players drafted after their freshmen or sophomore years if they were eligible, but the NFL wants no part of developing them, preferring to let the NCAA do the work for them. Smart business.

      http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/...-age-limit-nba
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

  • #2
    Re: The Case for the 20-Year-Old Age Limit in the NBA

    Interesting ........ but just as the players he uses validates his point/opinion - I'm sure that an equal number can be presented that completely oppose his point/opinion.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The Case for the 20-Year-Old Age Limit in the NBA

      Steve just won my vote!
      Nothing in life worth having comes easy.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The Case for the 20-Year-Old Age Limit in the NBA

        I honestly haven't put much thought into this, but I like the idea of doing it like baseball, either come out from high school or go to college for 3 years. Again not much deeper thought to it so it may be flawed, but it sounds good to me...
        Did you know Antonio and Dale aren’t actually brothers?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The Case for the 20-Year-Old Age Limit in the NBA

          Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
          Interesting ........ but just as the players he uses validates his point/opinion - I'm sure that an equal number can be presented that completely oppose his point/opinion.
          Yes, Lebron was ready right out of high school, was immediately a franchise changer, and with the exception of "The Decision", has been a success.

          Two years in college=2 years of risk of injury=Billion dollar empire that never occurred

          Look at Greg Oden. He would have gotten hurt his sophomore year (rookie year in NBA), wouldn't have played college ball for the next 3 anyway due to injuries, and would probably (some crazy GM would of done it though) not have been drafted/GOT PAID.

          While the product may be better coming to them, my biggest problem is limiting these kids earning potential, which is already so short. I only put myself in their shoes, and that is how I would feel about it.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The Case for the 20-Year-Old Age Limit in the NBA

            I like the baseball method, with some refinements: choose the NBA out of high school (age 18 for foreigners), or choose to attend college/play elsewhere (Euro, developmental leagues) for at least 3 years.

            the refinements: High school players choosing the direct-to-NBA route would have to be certified by a review panel of coaches/GMs as "more likely to be drafted or make a roster as a free agent than not" to enter the NBA draft. Those not passing muster in this review can still "go pro" but in Europe or be signed to a D-league team, with no future commitment implied to an affiliated NBA team.

            That way
            -nobody is denied an opportunity, talented or not (there is an NBA option, and options besides college or NBA)
            -those going to college are not continually pressured to leave school each year.
            -college basketball has greater continuity and is a better product, hence it is also a better training ground for NBA talent
            -non-students don't have to pretend to be college students for one year, which is a farce
            -more often than not, players spend more time in college and are more mature when they receive their windfall
            Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-08-2012, 02:38 PM.
            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The Case for the 20-Year-Old Age Limit in the NBA

              Originally posted by Phildog View Post
              Yes, Lebron was ready right out of high school, was immediately a franchise changer, and with the exception of "The Decision", has been a success.

              Two years in college=2 years of risk of injury=Billion dollar empire that never occurred

              Look at Greg Oden. He would have gotten hurt his sophomore year (rookie year in NBA), wouldn't have played college ball for the next 3 anyway due to injuries, and would probably (some crazy GM would of done it though) not have been drafted/GOT PAID.

              While the product may be better coming to them, my biggest problem is limiting these kids earning potential, which is already so short. I only put myself in their shoes, and that is how I would feel about it.
              Meh, I think most people earning potential is limited due to an degree or just experience. Thats the real world we live in and from a business stand point I understand it.

              Would 2 years of college benifit players on and off the court? In most cases yes it probably would.

              I find it funny that most people are concerned about the players ability to make money but fail to realize that 70% of NBA players go broke 5-6 years after their out of the league (Toronto report). I think helping the players keep their money would be more advantageous in the long run.

              Edit: I just had an idea. Maybe colleges should offer an associates degree directly for basketball player or just athletes who want to turn pro. Give them meaningful info that could benefit them long term financially.
              Last edited by Gamble1; 05-08-2012, 02:56 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The Case for the 20-Year-Old Age Limit in the NBA

                I've read a proposal somewhere that suggests linking the number of years players spent in college with the number of years they have to spend under rookie contracts. For example, freshmen and sophomores will have 4 year rookie contracts as before, but juniors and seniors are only obligated to sign 3 year rookie contracts, since they're supposed to be more "NBA-ready". Or alternatively, the rookie scale can be set up such that juniors and seniors will qualify for higher pay.

                Such a system will give a financial incentive for players to stay in college. It also means the NBA is putting its money where its mouth is - if players going to college is so valuable for the NBA, then the NBA should be willing to pay for it.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The Case for the 20-Year-Old Age Limit in the NBA

                  Originally posted by Phildog View Post
                  Yes, Lebron was ready right out of high school, was immediately a franchise changer, and with the exception of "The Decision", has been a success.

                  Two years in college=2 years of risk of injury=Billion dollar empire that never occurred

                  Look at Greg Oden. He would have gotten hurt his sophomore year (rookie year in NBA), wouldn't have played college ball for the next 3 anyway due to injuries, and would probably (some crazy GM would of done it though) not have been drafted/GOT PAID.

                  While the product may be better coming to them, my biggest problem is limiting these kids earning potential, which is already so short. I only put myself in their shoes, and that is how I would feel about it.
                  Sure, Oden got paid big bucks from the NBA, but he's been a total failure as a basketball player. Had he stayed in school, he'd still have an education that could lead to a solid career and a normal life. Rather than being known as a huge draft bust and having terrible health problems.

                  I'm with Kerr on this one. I think having players stay in college longer is better for everyone. It would also address the negative image that the NBA has in the casual fans' eyes, IMO.
                  It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: The Case for the 20-Year-Old Age Limit in the NBA

                    Originally posted by Phildog View Post
                    While the product may be better coming to them, my biggest problem is limiting these kids earning potential, which is already so short. I only put myself in their shoes, and that is how I would feel about it.
                    Earning potential? If these guys play 1 year on a minimum rookie contract they've earned more than I can in 4 years running a pharmacy (which I garauntee is a more challenging job than being an NBA rookie)... I'm sorry that they don't get any sympathy from me on this matter...

                    The other side of this coin is that their earning potential would not be limited if Colleges LEGALLY were aloud to pay these players some of the billions the major colleges rake in every year...
                    Nothing in life worth having comes easy.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: The Case for the 20-Year-Old Age Limit in the NBA

                      Originally posted by pizza guy View Post
                      Sure, Oden got paid big bucks from the NBA, but he's been a total failure as a basketball player. Had he stayed in school, he'd still have an education that could lead to a solid career and a normal life. Rather than being known as a huge draft bust and having terrible health problems.

                      I'm with Kerr on this one. I think having players stay in college longer is better for everyone. It would also address the negative image that the NBA has in the casual fans' eyes, IMO.
                      LOL with the money he has made, he won't have to worry about that anyway, he could still go back to college and become a dentist. I'm not sure I'd want those hands trying to fit into my mouth though.
                      You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: The Case for the 20-Year-Old Age Limit in the NBA

                        I like the baseball model but it involves the NBA taking the step of making the D-League a REAL minor league system. Players should be able to go straight into the professional ranks but they should be working their way up to the NBA at a lower cost to the teams. I think you end up with better college ball (the players who play there stay there), better opportunities for players who have no business going to college (more realistic salary slots), and better NBA pros (they can learn some of the things in the D-League they aren't learning in AAU or even college with one-and-done). With some bigger name stars having to spend a couple of years in the D-League then your D-League teams get more fans as well.

                        Seems like a solution chock full of win for everyone.
                        BillS

                        A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                        Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: The Case for the 20-Year-Old Age Limit in the NBA

                          Originally posted by J7F View Post
                          The other side of this coin is that their earning potential would not be limited if Colleges LEGALLY were aloud to pay these players some of the billions the major colleges rake in every year...
                          Dont confuse the NCAA with colleges. A vast majority of colleges actually lose money with athletics already. Paying their athletes would only worsen the problem. (Not even touching Title IX and the fact that every dollar spent on mens athletics has to be matched for female athletics)
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: The Case for the 20-Year-Old Age Limit in the NBA

                            I would think that for all the kids who would have to stay in college, and get injured before the draft, there is another who completely busts because he did not spend time in college and gain some of the experience Kerr talked about.

                            Originally posted by BillS View Post
                            I like the baseball model but it involves the NBA taking the step of making the D-League a REAL minor league system. Players should be able to go straight into the professional ranks but they should be working their way up to the NBA at a lower cost to the teams. I think you end up with better college ball (the players who play there stay there), better opportunities for players who have no business going to college (more realistic salary slots), and better NBA pros (they can learn some of the things in the D-League they aren't learning in AAU or even college with one-and-done). With some bigger name stars having to spend a couple of years in the D-League then your D-League teams get more fans as well.

                            Seems like a solution chock full of win for everyone.
                            I think it would be good if you could come out of HS, and go to the DL, or stay for three years and enter the draft. I definitely wish the DL were more legitimate like MLB minors.

                            I think changing the rule to 0 or 3 years in college may help the colleges too. At least they are paying money to kids who have some desire to be there.
                            Last edited by ECKrueger; 05-08-2012, 03:39 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: The Case for the 20-Year-Old Age Limit in the NBA

                              Originally posted by Phildog View Post

                              Look at Greg Oden. He would have gotten hurt his sophomore year (rookie year in NBA), wouldn't have played college ball for the next 3 anyway due to injuries, and would probably (some crazy GM would of done it though) not have been drafted/GOT PAID.

                              While the product may be better coming to them, my biggest problem is limiting these kids earning potential, which is already so short. I only put myself in their shoes, and that is how I would feel about it.
                              Why should someone get paid to do a job they aren't physically/mentally able to perform, just because they've shown potential to do it? I don't like the idea of rooting for a kid to get paid on potential alone. As an owner, I certainly wouldn't like to be in the position of paying millions to someone based solely on potential.

                              I like the ideas of basing the length of their rookie contract on time spent in college and/or using the D League as a true minor league system. I think you could incorporate both solutions and solve most of the existing problems.
                              Last edited by A-Train; 05-08-2012, 04:18 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X