So I wanted this to be a funny post, but I will say this first. All these Freshman entering the draft is getting pretty old. I wish the NBA would just do away with the stupid rule. If someone is good enough to get drafted after one year in the NCAA, they are probably good enough to get drafted out of high school. I would rather watch players who *want* to be in school, rather than players who *need* to be because they are too young to enter the draft. In my opinion the rule creates basketballs biggest c***tease.
as for players needing to stay one year... this was David Stern's first step. He now wants them to stay 2 years....how far can he take it... I agree that players shouldn't have to go to college... it's not as physically demanding game as football, and the difference isn't going to put someone in danger... but I do like it that we get to see players play college ball for a year... and I would encourage more players to stay more years... but some of them need the money financially... and I'm biased towards the college game, as I assume many of you are too...
Talent wise, there is no refuting the fact that some kids are ready to play right out of high school. There's no doubt about that. The problem, is that with all the problems athletes have been having away from their respective playing fields, that the NBA is trying to clean up it's "bad-boy" image. By forcing young players to go to school they get to see what a kid might do when they are on their own off the court more so than when they're playing in HS. Not to mention what 18-year-old kid is ready to have millions of dollars to spend responsibly? There's also the travelling aspect that must be considered with 82 games being played teams are travelling constantly.
The money, the constant travel, and the new-found freedom of being out of the house is a lot for an 18-year-old athlete to handle. I'm not saying that is the reason why David Stern is doing this, but I think that would be good enough of a reason. Unfortunately, the 1 year rule is killing college basketball. They need to restrict the limit to either 2 or 3 years or not have it at all.
The other problem, which is why we have seen the huge influx of underclassmen testing NBA waters is because colleges and the NCAA no longer require players to pay back expenses incurred during the workouts if they withdraw. So if there's no potential risk what-so-ever. Get some extra workouts infront of NBA scouts and teams, get your name and face out there even more, and if it doesn't go well you can withdraw and play in college again.
naterb, i agree... the one thing I would add though is that is stern's goal.. to get players to stay in college for as long as possible... no doubt about it he's trying to get right of the "thug, bad boy image".. however, he needs to work everyone in.. if he had said "I want people to stay 3 years in school"... people would have said "hell no"... but he got them to think the 1 year is a good idea... he's working on making it 2... and I'm sure he'd like to make it 3 if not 4 if he could... Could you imagine the hype of a player who stayed 3 years in school.. incredible... I agree that it hurts a little initially that players only stay one year.. but it will work out for the better...
The age rule is not in place to make players entering the League clean up their image. Going to college won't change someone's behavior. The worst image problem in the League has been Ron Artest, and his time at St. John's didn't do much for his behavior. They ultimately have to make their own decisions and hold themselves accountable.
The age limit rule was purely a financial decision on the part of the NBA. High school players don't play on TV. A lot of college fans won't even turn on an NBA game. The age rule allows players to develop a brand name before they enter the League, therefore drawing in an audience that they might not have had before. It's easier for the great players to dominate on the college level, and those are the guys playing in the NBA. I think it's a great business decision for the League, but I also recognize what it's done to the college game, and because of that I wouldn't mind seeing the rule erased.
The age rule is not in place to make players entering the League clean up their image. Going to college won't change someone's behavior.
AZCATSFAN: Nobody ever said that it was. No time in college is going to change someone's character, but the NBA scouts will be able to see what type of player they are and avoid a potential head case. But like I said previously, this isn't why Stern did it (although it is a potential benefit in th NBA's regard).
Ultimately, however, the entire scenario of one year limit is very traumatic to the college game. Stern needs to work with the NCAA Committee to come up with an acceptable rule to all parties involved. The longer this rule continues the worse it is going to get for the sport. I think we'll really see the full effects in another three years.
IMO, the one-and-done recruits will eventually become less desireable, as schools like ASU are building their programs around the 3 & 4 star recruits who will stay longer. With the NCAA regulations on scholarships, these 1 & done players will eventually have dramatic effects on the number of scholarships a given school will be able to have because of graduation rates. You'll have one or two schools with a potential #1 recruit in the Elite Eight, but it will be dominated by schools with later first round, or early second round, players who have been there for three or four years.
Talent wise, there is no refuting the fact that some kids are ready to play right out of high school. There's no doubt about that. The problem, is that with all the problems athletes have been having away from their respective playing fields, that the NBA is trying to clean up it's "bad-boy" image. By forcing young players to go to school they get to see what a kid might do when they are on their own off the court more so than when they're playing in HS.By this statement I understood you to imply that the NBA was trying to clean up its bad image by forcing kids to go to college. I must have misread it.
I agree with you that the rule is effecting the college game in a negative way, although there are positives, too, but I don't think it is in any way Stern's or the NBA's responsibility to govern or work with the NCAA. They are two separate corporations and both should act in their own interests. If helping each other out works for both sides, then obviously it's a good deal, but the NBA has every right to have prerequisites for working in their business.
Yeah, I didn't write it too well. I was in the middle of work with someone screaming into the phone near me. The part where I talked about doubting Stern was motivated by certain things was meant to include the first part as well. I was thinking it clearly, just didn't come out in type the same. lol
No, I don't think you wrote it poorly. I misread it. Whether players getting a chance to mature at the college level is a reason for the rule or just a result is something I couldn't be for sure on. Here is something he said that supports your claim, but my gut tells me that stance is just a maneuver; he's been known to do it before.
A couple of things I said I now think are wrong. You make good points about the players being in good life situations and I realize that the support around them at the college level might influence their behavior in a positive way. I don't think it ensures it to happen, but it can have an effect.
I also think I'm wrong in the sense that it helps the NBA's image problem a little bit. Players still need to behave themselves, but they get a chance to show themselves off as good citizens in front of a large audience before they get into the League.
