Baseball is the only major sport whose season (summer) is incompatible with the academic calendar. So the whole season has to be shoved into the spring (and late winter!) which gives southern and western schools an unfair advantage...and if the schools in the media-heavy northeast can't win occasionally, nobody's gonna cover it.

So college baseball will never be a big deal, with multi-gazillion dollar TV contracts. So who cares if the players graduate or not?

I disagree. College football is a multi-billion dollar business, and schools in the media-heavy northeast rarely win anything. Penn State is really the only powerhouse in the region.

Well, I've never understood why kids getting drafted out of high school was a problem that needed a solution for the NBA, but it's an accepted practice in baseball.

Well, I've never understood why kids getting drafted out of high school was a problem that needed a solution for the NBA, but it's an accepted practice in baseball.

Because MLB and the NHL have minor leagues where players can develop before arriving at the top professional level whereas the NFL and NBA like to use the NCAA as their minor leagues.

Not sure how many people RTFA, but this is pretty bizarre. The first reader comment had it - How is Alvaraz like Mayo?

There are problems in college baseball, for sure, but this is just dumb.

Because MLB and the NHL have minor leagues where players can develop before arriving at the top professional level whereas the NFL and NBA like to use the NCAA as their minor leagues.

No, its because people care about college football and college basketball, whereas people don't care about college baseball.

Let me translate that for you: Baseball players were less likely to graduate from college than basketball players.

That's because college basketball players are a lot smarter than college baseball players.

No, its because people care about college football and college basketball, whereas people don't care about college baseball.

The NFL and the NBA don't care about college football or college basketball though, and they're the ones who made the rules. If it was in their best interest to have 19 year olds soaking up bonuses and sit on the bench until they're 22, they would allow it.

The NFL and the NBA don't care about college football or college basketball though, and they're the ones who made the rules. If it was in their best interest to have 19 year olds soaking up bonuses and sit on the bench until they're 22, they would allow it.

Exactly, it's economics. Without the age cap, you have a bunch of NBA players coming in at 18, not playing (or contributing much) for two years, then becoming real good real quick. They hit their first free agency between 21-23. Big money. If you could delay that free agency until 23-26, wouldn't you?

It's more than that, Jimmy. The players who come right out of high school into the NBA make big bucks and aren't ready. Their fundamentals are lacking and there is no place to train them other than by having them occupy a valuable space on the roster.

Plus, they're immature and don't have the disipline and work ethic to justify such salaries. All they are is potential. I'd much rather give the money to people who have already shown they deserve it or have shown every indication they will in the near future.

Its in the NBA's best interest to delay entry until 21 or 22, but the PR backlash ("why aren't these kids allowed a shot?") would be too much.

No, its because people care about college football and college basketball, whereas people don't care about college baseball.

bingo.

Your statements are contradictory. If people care about college basketball, then the NBA gets bad PR by drafting HSers, thereby ruining the college game, which is the complaint heard most often.

The criticism from making the kids wait 3 years after HS would be from a small minority.

Its college baseball I said people don't care about.

I understand that. You say there will be a backlash from forcing kids to go to college to play basketball, but also that people care about college basketball. If they do, then they won't revolt against forcing the best high school basketball players play in college.

The players who come right out of high school into the NBA make big bucks and aren't ready. Their fundamentals are lacking and there is no place to train them other than by having them occupy a valuable space on the roster. Plus, they're immature and don't have the disipline and work ethic to justify such salaries. All they are is potential.

Yes, Bryant and Garnett and James were so overmatched as 18-year-old rookies. Clearly they would have been much better served practicing the fundamentals in college.

I'd much rather give the money to people who have already shown they deserve it or have shown every indication they will in the near future.

Then do that. No one forces any team to spend money on 18-year-olds. That they chose to do so means they thought the players were a worthwhile investment.

Yes, Bryant and Garnett and James were so overmatched as 18-year-old rookies. Clearly they would have been much better served practicing the fundamentals in college.

Bryant was overmatched.

The criticism from making the kids wait 3 years after HS would be from a small minority.

That minority would include the kids themselves, though, most of whom would go to play in Europe for the three years they were not allowed to make money playing in the US. And maybe they wouldn't come back.

I didn't read the article but Whitlock's closing point in the excerpt is the more interesting. Why does the media go along with this? Why the constant moralizing about how important it is for young basketball players to get that college experience but nobody says anything about baseball players much less teenage women's tennis superstars. (OK, there has been some moralizing and regulation in recent years about teenage professional women's athletes)

But then I guess the real question is why anyone cares about people moralizing about sports ... be it Jay Mariotti, Jason Whitlock or me.

Then do that. No one forces any team to spend money on 18-year-olds. That they chose to do so means they thought the players were a worthwhile investment.


Well, you can't wait for them to mature, some other team will just take them instead before that, the early bird gets the worm and all.

Soccer clubs sign 12 year olds all the time...

You say there will be a backlash from forcing kids to go to college to play basketball, but also that people care about college basketball. If they do, then they won't revolt against forcing the best high school basketball players play in college.

I'd selfishly prefer that all basketball players play 4 years of college since I'm a college hoops fan. But I'm a libertarian and I'd also like any 18 year old to be able to go pro if he wants to. Its a complicated issue.

That minority would include the kids themselves, though, most of whom would go to play in Europe for the three years they were not allowed to make money playing in the US. And maybe they wouldn't come back.

I think you are incorrect that "most" of them would go to Europe rather than pretend to be college students, and really incorrect that they wouldn't come back.

Bryant was overmatched.


Obviously, since he was 8th in minutes on a 56-win team.

Yeah, the "cesspool" of street agents, runners, handlers, scouts and agents we love to rail against in basketball co-mingle in baseball at high school All-American games without raising a word of dissent

Just speculation, but the much narrower focus of the NBA draft might have something to do with this. The NBA drafts only 60 players a year, a fair number of whom, nowadays, come from overseas and haven't played college ball in the US. The top rookie salaries, though not as insane as in the old Shawn Bradley days, are still fairly fabulous. Baseball drafts ... cripes, I dunno, last year I see it was 1,453 players. Some of them don't get bonuses that are worth leaving or passing up college for. A few get bonuses that they'd be crazy to stay in college despite. It's a much looser market, with considerably less hypocrisy.

I think you are incorrect that "most" of them would go to Europe rather than pretend to be college students, and really incorrect that they wouldn't come back.

Pretend to be college students for three years? That's a long time for people who could be actually getting paid.

When a soccer team signs a 14-year-old he goes to train on the youth team or maybe at a youth academy. Then when he hits 17 or 18 or so he's on the reserve team and/or loaned out to a lower division club. He might not play on the first 11 until he's in his 20s, if at all. The NBA doesn't have that sort of development system.

Well, you can't wait for them to mature, some other team will just take them instead before that, the early bird gets the worm and all.

But who cares? If they "aren't ready" and are "occupy[ing] a valuable space on the roster" and are "immature and don't have the disipline and work ethic to justify such salaries," then let someone else take them. Either they are worth the investment and the patience, or they aren't. If another team takes them, it's worth it to that team.

Pretend to be college students for three years? That's a long time for people who could be actually getting paid.

Then why do they bother with one year of college now? They could go Euro for a year, then NBA.

Soccer players, In Europe at least, will often joing the club at 10-11 years old when they are still in junior school. A raft will be released when they hit 17 or before and be picked up by other clubs while the good ones will progress upwards. And more often they will be sent on loan to other clubs rather than sit in the reserves.

If they're good enough they will play at a young age. Their have been more than a few players who have started playing in the first teams at 16.

They'd go to college rather than Euro and it's really quite simple why.

When was the last time you saw a Euroleague game on TV? I bet more people know Taylor Coppenrath had a training camp with the Celtics than what team Coppenrath now plays for.

Go to Euroleague and you could be the best friggen player there and you'll fall off the map. Go to NCAA and be the best player there and you've got a $10m shoe deal before you know what happened.

I'd selfishly prefer that all basketball players play 4 years of college since I'm a college hoops fan. But I'm a libertarian and I'd also like any 18 year old to be able to go pro if he wants to. Its a complicated issue.

That's you. There aren't nearly enough yous to create a PR backlash against the NBA.

You'd be surprised what happens.

The Times is an awesome newspaper

Had me. Lost me.

I have a problem with a league like the NBA and NFL passing rules that limit the right to work of others in order to protect themselves from their own stupidity.

If a kid can't hack it in the pro game, don't draft him. It's not that hard. If anything, the intelligent teams should love the system because they can sit back, let other teams pay these kids huge bonus money on a wasted roster spot, and then swoop in three or four years later to sign them as a free agent with lesser bonus demands, years of physical maturity and meaningful NBA experience and training.

Then why do they bother with one year of college now? They could go Euro for a year, then NBA.

Because it makes oh so much sense for an 18 year old to get in contact with a European team, be scouted, sign a one year contract, pack up his life and move all by himself to another continent with a foreign language and culture.

If a kid can't hack it in the pro game, don't draft him. It's not that hard.

That's not the issue. The issue is one of merit. The way the system is set now, the people deserving the money aren't necessarily getting it and some stud kid with loads of potential but zero actual accomplishment and without any work ethic is.

"Deserving" the money? You decide who deserves money and not the teams, huh?

Kevin's just upset Al Jefferson is going to blossom on another team.

I'm talking about the players, Ian.

"The NBA doesn't have that sort of development system."

There's nothing stopping them from making one. There was a time when baseball teams didn't have farm systems, too...

Just a couple good articles to read on comparing high school basketball players with their college contemporaries:
http://sports-law.blogspot.com/2005/07/nba-players-that-get-in-trouble-with_20.html
This article has a chart outlining all NBA players who have been arrested within recent years (circa 1995). It shows that the more college education a player has the more likely he is to be arrested.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=567745#PaperDownload
This is a great article written by the attorney who represented Maurice Clarett when he challenged the NFL age rule. He researches high schoolers who made themselves eligible for the draft and includes when they were drafted, their NBA earnings, and how their playing career turned out. It shows that high school players are drafted earlier than their college peers, earn substantially more than their college bound peers, and have better careers than those college bound.

The reason for the age limit is not to protect the players at all (since they are empirically ready) but to provide the NBA with a better chance to scout. More games against higher competition will more readily show the flaws of a player thus making it more likely that teams will make better draft selections. Though Michael Olowokandi, Pervis Ellison, and Joe Smith (taken four picks before high schooler Kevin Garnett) shows that of course, even with the extra scouting time, teams make mistakes.

In addition to the scouting college provides a free development league, though I think that for most high school players who would be a high draft pick developing in the NBA or the NBDL would be at least as good for improving their skill as well as infinitely better for improving their bank accounts. And the bank accounts is an important factor, read The Jump by Ian O'Connor for an inside look at Sebastian Telfair's decision to forego college for the good of his family as well as his belief that he could play in the NBA. He has not had the best career but has been a solid player and earned his family over 7.5 million in four years. Those four years spent in college would have earned him nil.

Also, the NBA is in the process of developing a minor league system. While the NBDL does have many flaws (multiple teams using the same minor league team thus giving the coach conflicting system and lessening playing time for their players, coaches trying to win to impress potential owners rather than actually developing the players, a distrust by teams of the stats put up by players in the minor leagues, etc.) it is improving and the examples of teams shuffling players back and forth between the NBDL and the NBA is a clear indication that this league is being viewed as a true minor league.

I apologize for the length of this post but I passionately believe in the right of an individual to seek employment without any restraints. Unless one is into restraints, of course.

D'arcy

ps. I hope these links come out right.

"The NBA doesn't have that sort of development system."

There's nothing stopping them from making one.

Don't they have the NBADL?

EDIT: I should have refreshed.

The thing I don't get about the argument that people should be able to play when they are 18, is why stop there? LeBron would likely have been the first pick in the 2001 draft over Kwame Brown and possibly the 2002 draft over Yao.

I mean, employers and industries put restrictions on who can work for/in them all the time. You can't direct a Hollywood movie unless you are a member of the director's guild, you can't be a lawyer unless you have a law degree and pass the bar, you can't teach unless you have a college degree and a teaching certificate, you can't be a Senator until you are 30, or the president until you are 35, etc. Why can't the NBA require that a guy can't play in the league until he's 19 or 20 or 21, especially if the issue has been collectively bargained with the player's union?

I guess I don't see the big deal if guys can't play until they are 19. You couldn't get most professional jobs at that age.


On a different note, there have been 4 players who were actually good directly out of high school: Moses Malone, LeBron, Dwight Howard and Amare Stoudemire. Guys like Garnett, Jefferson, Bryant, McGrady, etc. showed massive promise but weren't anything special on the court in their first years. Even Howard and Stoudemire weren't anything close to dominant.

I'm not even sure Stoudemire and Garnett would have been restricted because both of them had been held back a year at some point. If the current rules were in place, I could see someone (agent, parent, whoever) getting them skipped back ahead to their correct grades, so they still may have entered the league at the same age under the current rules. I believe Moses was also in the same boat.

As for LeBron and Howard, it would have been a shame to miss out on them for a year, but what about guys like Kareem and Oscar? They were surely ready to dominate the NBA right out of high school, but they were forced to miss 4 years. By comparison, 1 (or even 2) missed year(s) doesn't seem bad.

I should add that Whitlock is a real d-bag. For proof people should read an article he wrote last week where he rails against tattoos and says that NBA ratings are up because the last few teams don't have many tattooed players. He even brings concern for "the children" into the article. It is so bad that it reads like a parody.