<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>In a brief interview with Time Magazine NBA commissioner David Stern admitted that he would like to increase the league's age minimum to 20 years, according to the Boston Globe. The change could be made in 2011 when the current Collective Bargaining Agreement expires, but not before.</div> http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives...se_age_minimum/ YESSS please raise it
While a small part of me says "let the kids make the jump if they want to," I'm all for this. Why? It's tearing college programs apart. They work so hard and spend all this money to recruit all these stars, yet they get screwed when they leave after one season. These players aren't going to school because they want to be a part of their programs, they are going because they have to and 9/10 big names are one-and-done. As a college basketball fan, I think this is a very good thing.
Most players are better off going to College for a couple of years at least. Too many kids waste their talent on the bench and struggle with the steep learning curve. The problem is, I don't know what the right age limit should be. 20-21 is not a bad idea since some children still go through puberty at those ages (like Scottie Pippen IIRC, who grew almost half a foot in those years).
This would be great IMO. More college players should stay an extra season or two in college to refine their skills so that they can be become real ballplayers. For example, look at Donte at Syracuse ( had to bring it up). He has so much potential and is so good already, but he knows barely any fundamentals, doesn't post up near as much as a 6-11 player should, and rarely gets to the line. If he doesn't stay for an extra season, I'll be extremely disappointed. I'd also like to point out Durant. I mean, look at how shitty he's been in his transition to the NBA. He was amazing in college, and now IMO he shoots way more than he should, doesn't have near enough strength, his defense sucks, and his post game sucks. He shoud've stayed another year.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Mar 14 2008, 01:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'd also like to point out Durant. I mean, look at how shitty he's been in his transition to the NBA. He was amazing in college, and now IMO he shoots way more than he should, doesn't have near enough strength, his defense sucks, and his post game sucks. He shoud've stayed another year.</div> Jesus. He's the youngest player in the league, putting up 20 a night on a team where the only veteran influence he's had is Kurt Thomas and the only reliable scorer he's had is Wally Szczerbiak. He's had some great games and some horrible games, but "shitty"? He is learning the ropes with not much help. I suppose you were one of those who expected 25 a night and the Sonics to contend for the playoffs straight away.
I support nothing that helps the hypocrites in the NCAA. As much as I enjoy college hoops, I'd much rather Stern build a real, robust minor league system that lets these kids start professional training earlier.
I think that requiring players to at least be a sophomore in college before entering the draft would be good because they could get a full summer of work with the bball program after their freshman year, and it would require players to try and actually apply themselves at school because players who are going pro after freshman year dont need to maintain above a 2.0 to return to school next semester.
Does this mean that college players would have to wait until after their sophomore or junior year to come out? I think making them wait until sophomore year is ok. The players and teams get two years to prove their stuff, make a championship run, build their team, etc. and the NBA gets a much better idea of who can and can't play, who is a hard worker, who can improve their games and who has been a bust. The players gain more fundamentals and get more playing time and big time pressures situations than they would "developing" on an NBA bench for a few seasons. I think it also alleviates some of the anti-senior-bias as well. The last several drafts a lot of great seniors have fallen because they are seniors and perceived to have less potential. Making the gap between the youngest and the oldest players in the draft less will make the "potential" between prospects seem less and teams will start picking better players hopefully. Making guys wait until after their junior year seems like a bit much to me though. 3 years in college is a long time for these guys to wait when a lot will be ready after freshman and sophomores seasons. Theoretically, if players are absolutely dominating in college and can't go to the NBA, thats one more year off of their pro career that they could have spent adapting to the NBA and becoming great there. Did Durant and Oden have much more to learn from the NCAAs after their freshman season? Their development would have been stunted if they went to school any longer. In the NBA they are forced to improve and its only going to make them better sooner down the line.
College programs don't need any more help, they just need to be smarter with their recruiting. Too many colleges go after that one-and-done prospect hoping for the "Carmelo Anthony" storyline and not really planning for the long-term. Sure you should make a run for those top prospects, but good programs fill up the rest of the roster with players that will need a few years in college. Just look at the way UCLA and UNC have recruited over the past couple years. They recruit great college players, not necessarily great NBA players. Increasing the age limit would only be hindering the development of those really good players that truly should be one-and-done. Look at the freshman that were drafted this past year (Oden, Durant, Conley, Wright, Hawes, Young, etc.) and do you really see any that absolutely needed that extra year of college? They may struggle at times during their first year, but they all show signs of being legit NBA players and they're benefiting more by playing at the NBA level. At some point, its in the players' long-term interests to start developing in an NBA environment and playing level as opposed to a college one.
Gerald Green proves why this is necessary. I was sceptical about the age limit when it was raised to 19, but am now all for it and, possibly, think it should be raised again to after the Junior year of college. This allows players to really mature and, importantly, gives them a huge amount to fall back on. Look at Boobie Gibson, he returns to school in the Summer so he can finish his degree. This ought to be encouraged, if not made compuslory, for NBA players to ensure that they have something to fall back on if their careers don't pan out as expected. This might actually help the NBA anyway, as players will be able to play a different style of game. Too many guys come straight into the League playing as though they can dominate a game (especially when they could come out of HS). They are quickly put in their place. If, however, they spent 3 years playing college ball, they would become more adept at playing on a team where they are not the soul leader, and possibly learn to play a different style and/or role. That can only be beneficial to the League.
I'm still waiting for the first batch of players to go to Europe out of high school to make some money in the pros instead of playing NCAA for two or three years.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Mar 14 2008, 11:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>College programs don't need any more help, they just need to be smarter with their recruiting. Too many colleges go after that one-and-done prospect hoping for the "Carmelo Anthony" storyline and not really planning for the long-term. Sure you should make a run for those top prospects, but good programs fill up the rest of the roster with players that will need a few years in college. Just look at the way UCLA and UNC have recruited over the past couple years. They recruit great college players, not necessarily great NBA players. Increasing the age limit would only be hindering the development of those really good players that truly should be one-and-done. Look at the freshman that were drafted this past year (Oden, Durant, Conley, Wright, Hawes, Young, etc.) and do you really see any that absolutely needed that extra year of college? They may struggle at times during their first year, but they all show signs of being legit NBA players and they're benefiting more by playing at the NBA level. At some point, its in the players' long-term interests to start developing in an NBA environment and playing level as opposed to a college one.</div> Why even keep Oden and Durant in College for any amount of time then? This rule was put in place to prevent raw talent from being wasted on the bench. I think making sure the majority of players are at least fully grown (20-21) isn't a terrible idea. I don't know the exact stats on that though, so this is a tough issue to resolve.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (speeds @ Mar 14 2008, 11:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm still waiting for the first batch of players to go to Europe out of high school to make some money in the pros instead of playing NCAA for two or three years.</div> I believe that you can go to the D-League right out of high school. If I were a high profile HS guy who was academically ineligible for college or something I would probably do that, stay in the states and develop my game in the D-League which is much closer in style to the NBA than Euroleagues are. If you're good enough to do very well in the D-League you can get called up by the NBA teams which is a lot easier than dealing with Euro teams who are extremely reluctant to let their young players go. European leagues pay more and some of them (France, Italy) are better competition than the D-League but if I'm an 18 year old HSer I want to stay in the U.S. and have easy access to the NBA. With European leagues they put a lot of weight on seniority; young players will have a hard time getting playing time. You've got to learn the culture, the language, a young guy could easily get homesick and lonely out there if theres no American players on the team. D-League teams will happily play their very young guys and will just play whoever is the best player. You get a lot of NBA exposure and don't have to deal with buyout/contract issues if an NBA team is interested in you.
Colleges should be allowed to pay their players. It's absurd that a software engineering student can get a job in his field but an athlete can't get a job in his field. It's also absurd that the colleges can rake in the big bucks based upon the athletes' labors - they deserve a cut if they can negotiate it. Do this and athletes might stay in college to make about the same good money, and to graduate in the process.
It needs to be done. Don't know if it's been said, but with the current system, you can go to school for 1 year and never step foot in the classroom. Go to 0 classes first semester, 0.0 GPA, academic probation second semester, go to 0 classes, 0.0 GPA, academically ineligible for your ophomore year, and you just jump to the pros.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Mar 14 2008, 01:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Mar 14 2008, 11:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>College programs don't need any more help, they just need to be smarter with their recruiting. Too many colleges go after that one-and-done prospect hoping for the "Carmelo Anthony" storyline and not really planning for the long-term. Sure you should make a run for those top prospects, but good programs fill up the rest of the roster with players that will need a few years in college. Just look at the way UCLA and UNC have recruited over the past couple years. They recruit great college players, not necessarily great NBA players. Increasing the age limit would only be hindering the development of those really good players that truly should be one-and-done. Look at the freshman that were drafted this past year (Oden, Durant, Conley, Wright, Hawes, Young, etc.) and do you really see any that absolutely needed that extra year of college? They may struggle at times during their first year, but they all show signs of being legit NBA players and they're benefiting more by playing at the NBA level. At some point, its in the players' long-term interests to start developing in an NBA environment and playing level as opposed to a college one.</div> Why even keep Oden and Durant in College for any amount of time then? This rule was put in place to prevent raw talent from being wasted on the bench. I think making sure the majority of players are at least fully grown (20-21) isn't a terrible idea. I don't know the exact stats on that though, so this is a tough issue to resolve. </div> The whole point of the limit was to curb the amount of players that were jumping to the pros before they were ready. I think that's worked. We might have to wait a year for the Odens, Durants, etc. but we have far fewer Gerald Greens. But that's why I don't see the need for an increase. It seems to me like a good balance has already been achieved. The players that are leaving early are the ones who deserve that chance and have gotten about as much as they can from the college level. Of course, my opinion will be put to the test with this year's draft class, because it looks like there'll be a lot of freshmen declaring. I think the next two years should give us a better indication of whether or not the age limit should be increased. As it is right now, I don't see the need.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sir Desmond @ Mar 14 2008, 11:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Mar 14 2008, 01:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'd also like to point out Durant. I mean, look at how shitty he's been in his transition to the NBA. He was amazing in college, and now IMO he shoots way more than he should, doesn't have near enough strength, his defense sucks, and his post game sucks. He shoud've stayed another year.</div> Jesus. He's the youngest player in the league, putting up 20 a night on a team where the only veteran influence he's had is Kurt Thomas and the only reliable scorer he's had is Wally Szczerbiak. He's had some great games and some horrible games, but "shitty"? He is learning the ropes with not much help. I suppose you were one of those who expected 25 a night and the Sonics to contend for the playoffs straight away. </div> I wasn't even expecting 20 a night. I don't know if you even read my post, but his defense is shit, his rebounding isn't there, and he has little post game. And my god, those percentages suck. 20 doesn't matter if you're throwing up 20+ shots a night, with the worst percentages, and rarely going to the line. He needed to stay in college to refine his game.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Mar 14 2008, 04:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sir Desmond @ Mar 14 2008, 11:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Mar 14 2008, 01:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'd also like to point out Durant. I mean, look at how shitty he's been in his transition to the NBA. He was amazing in college, and now IMO he shoots way more than he should, doesn't have near enough strength, his defense sucks, and his post game sucks. He shoud've stayed another year.</div> Jesus. He's the youngest player in the league, putting up 20 a night on a team where the only veteran influence he's had is Kurt Thomas and the only reliable scorer he's had is Wally Szczerbiak. He's had some great games and some horrible games, but "shitty"? He is learning the ropes with not much help. I suppose you were one of those who expected 25 a night and the Sonics to contend for the playoffs straight away. </div> I wasn't even expecting 20 a night. I don't know if you even read my post, but his defense is shit, his rebounding isn't there, and he has little post game. And my god, those percentages suck. 20 doesn't matter if you're throwing up 20+ shots a night, with the worst percentages, and rarely going to the line. He needed to stay in college to refine his game. </div> IMO Durant had nothing more to gain from college. He dominated every facet of the game in college, he needs more of a challenge. What more could he refine in college? His shooting? His handle? His post game? Rebounding? Shotblocking? He was the best of the best at everything and no one challenged him. He needed to get to the next level, be more challenged by better players. Defense and FG% are things that rookies usually struggle with. LeBron shot 42% his rookie season, Durant is shooting 41%. LeBron averaged 20.9 ppg, Durant is averaging 19.5. They both are/were poor defensive players their rookie seasons. Once Durant adds 10-15 lbs his FG% will creep up to 45%+ range and he'll be going to the Ft line, converting more shots, etc. Hes obviously only scratching the surface of what hes capable of. If he stayed in college he'd just be going through the same process next year, it was smart of him to come out when he did and start to develop into a pro ASAP.
