At some point during the NBA lockout, the league will push to extend the age minimum to 21 or three years out of high school. This would be a cynical, greedy mistake. The Hook explains why.
Aug 29, 2011 - The 2011 NBA lockout is focused on bigger issues than the league's age minimum, but that is still something that is on the table. Because the money issue is so divisive -- we still have hundreds of millions of dollars separating the union and the owners -- these other impactful negotiating points seem to fly under the radar. The negotiators may not be giving short shrift to the non-monetary issues, but it seems as though those of us writing about the lockout are.
The murmurs have been that the NBA is looking to extend the age minimum not to 20 years of age, but to three years removed from high school ... just like the NFL. The age limit was a bad idea at one year removed from high school; it pushes future NBA players into the tricky waters of the NCAA or international basketball. Why do owners like it? They don't have to cover the expense of scouting high schools and the AAU circuit. Oh, they still do scout high school and AAU ball, or at least pay stringers to do so. But they don't have to as a course of due diligence. Rare are the high school stars who don't draw appropriate attention in college.
The second part of that rationale for the passage of the one-and-done rule from the owners' standpoint is that top picks are financially risky: Greg Oden has made $21 million over his first four seasons, for example. Spending that on a high school kid is terrifying, especially after the Kwame Brown disaster. But, of course, focus on the high school busts ignores the very real college busts, like Michael Olowokandi, who came to the NBA just a few short years before Kwame.
The league has one more rationale for the age minimum, one that's a bit more controversial given its reprecussions: the NCAA is effectively a free promotional tool for the NBA's young stars. A dozen college games are on cable TV every week, and two weeks of the March sports calendar are seemingly totally dedicated to the amateur game. Because of the attention college basketball gets, Derrick Rose is already well-known when he enters the NBA. Greg Oden means something to more than us dedicated obsessives who pore over YouTube clips and Rivals' scouting reports.
But that free promotion for the NBA comes at a cost.
The cost isn't just giving away some of its best talent for one year, and perhaps in the future three years. That is a real cost, but when you consider that perhaps only LeBron James and Dwight Howard actually sold tickets as rookie preps-to-pros stars, it's not as big a concern with regards to the one-year rule. The three-year rule, essentially granting the NCAA and the University of Kentucky someone like John Wall for three years? That's when the cost of conceding talent becomes an issue.
But the bigger issue is that by legislating a three-year gap between high school and the NBA, you basically force young players -- the future foundation of the NBA -- into the murky, poisoned waters of college basketball. Look at Rose, for example. He had issues with his SAT. It still isn't clear if he had someone else falsify an SAT score so that he could enroll at Memphis, if the school took it upon itself to handle it, or if his advisers did the deed. But somewhere along the way, Rose became NCAA-eligible on the basis of a fake SAT. He was the NBA's Rookie of the Year before the hammer came down on Memphis. It didn't really matter to Rose or to the NBA.
Now imagine we had a three-year rule. He'd have been entering his junior season ... and he'd essentially have been ruled ineligible or otherwise suspended for a chunk of time. How does that help the NBA, to see one of its brightest young stars trapped in the mire of NCAA sanctions, to become a negative talking point on TV and talk radio before he even hits the league? That situation would, unfortunately, be repeated several times over. And what's the alternative ... Europe? Brandon Jennings made it work because he had a support system and the Bucks took a brilliant chance on him. But it's not as if the NBA's scouting operation saved any money, time or heartburn scouting Jennings in Rome vs. Jennings in Compton (or at Oak Hill). The D-League remains an underutilized opportunity for young players, but it's hard to see a young star like Austin Rivers committing to the Tulsa 66ers for three years when Duke comes calling. Until the salary structure of the D-League changes wildly -- don't hold your breath -- top recruits will effectively be paid better to attend a top-25 school than play in the D-League. It's just the reality.
My objections to the age minimum are more ideological, but even in the most results-oriented perspective, it's a sloppy rule that creates as many problems as it seeks to solve. The biggest issue for me -- and where my ideology comes in -- is that at no point in the discussion of benefits does what is best for the players come into play. We're prioritizing lower scouting expenses and increased promotional benefits for pro teams owned by very wealthy men over the living situations and rights of 18-year-olds who often come from the poorest backgrounds. It's a wholly cynical decision to make. If the union consents to an age minimum increase, it will be doing so for equally cynical reasons: to preserve veteran jobs for the next two years, a ridiculously short view of an impactful decision.
We know that players aged 18, 19 and 20 can thrive in the NBA. We have a 22-year-old one-and-done MVP and a 22-year-old one-and-done two-time defending scoring champ, for goodness sake. The winners of the three previous MVP awards (Kobe, LeBron, LeBron) had played a combined total of zero college games. Like everything with regards to the lockout, the NBA prioritizes money over everything. In this case, that greed makes a real impact on the lives of young men and their families -- men who don't make an average salary of $5 million. Isn't that worth paying attention to?
The Hook is an NBA column that runs Monday through Friday. See the archives.
9 comments
5
Nov 28
3
Nov 27
Comments
You and I....
May not always see eye to eye on the “intensive margin” question of the NBA age minimum, but we can certainly agree that this “extensive margin” question seems far too drastic a step.
The NBA owners aren’t stupid, neither are players. I don’t believe this will get done.
by RMJ equals Hero on Aug 29, 2011 9:27 AM EDT reply actions
Me either
this to me reeks of a bargaining chip that really isn’t a bargaining chip, just something the owners can say they were willing to give up.
Words of wisdom from the great Billy Dee Williams
Oh so you disagree. Well then, here is a mature, sophisticated, and compelling rebuttal.
by wallywagon11 on Aug 29, 2011 11:04 AM EDT up reply actions
Better trained players
You overlooked one major point in your discussion of the age-limit rule. The NBA used to get instant impact rookies when the convention was to stay in school for at least three years (and often the entire four years). Now must rookies still need to learn the game of basketball after they enter the league. The occasional LeBron James or Dwight Howard is so physically gifted that they can make up for their lack of skills training, but most rookies have to go through several of seasons of ramp up before making a huge impact.
The way I see it, Stern doesn’t want players coming into the league who are learning the game on the league’s dime. He wants guys who are already polished, so that the teams are paying for productivity rather than potential. That is where the big savings will come for teams.
Now I am going to waffle and state that I am neither for or against the age limit, but I do think that your post overlooked one of the major considerations in the debate.
by DW19 on Aug 29, 2011 11:07 AM EDT reply actions
+1
by ZM15 on Aug 29, 2011 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Only issue with that is, the NCAA is not a minor league system for the NBA. A player is a PF in college for the good of the team might fit best as a 3 in the NBA. He might have 4 years of college experience but if its out of position, it does not really matter.
The goals of a coach in the NCAA are not aligned with the needs of a NBA coach. Systems are vastly different and I am not convinced that just spending longer in college ensure that they develop to become NBA players.
The Mikan Drill
by JoshuaR on Aug 29, 2011 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe the NCAA shouldn’t be a minor league system for the NBA, but it has essentially been that in the past.
Totally agree with you here. Although the longer the players stay in college the more incentive their college coaches have to develop them because there development will lead to more wins for the coach.
by DW19 on Aug 29, 2011 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s not really a minor league system. It may be a feeder system but its nowhere near the minor league system of the MLB, which I am comparing it to. There is no top down communication of values and teaching principles. Heck, the D League doesn’t really have that yet.
Players will develop in college but they may not be progressing toward a NBA career. Take this article.
http://hoopspeak.com/2011/08/pro-development-in-college-think-again/
Marshall will become a better player at Butler. Brad Stevens is a great coach. But Marshall will be playing the 4 in college, when he likely translates to a NBA 3. No matter how long he stays in college, he will stay a 4 but will need to be a 3 when he gets to the NBA but he won’t have the skills needed.
College coaches can develop players. They just have no incentive to develop them to become the best NBA players, only the best players for their team. Those two things could mean two opposite things.
The Mikan Drill
by JoshuaR on Aug 29, 2011 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions
That's where I stand in this debate
TZ says it a lazy solution to protect greedy owners, I disagree. It protects the ticket buying fans like myself from paying millions to some (talented) kid while I have to watch him learn basic basketball.
That may not matter to armchair fans (cough cough) – but it sure matters to me.
Also, I firmly believe that an increase in the age limit would indeed raise both the quality of the D-league and the salaries as more ‘blue chip’ players choose to go that way. Many of their famililies may be poor but I think they can wait on the BMW for another year or so until their maturity and skills have progressed – the majority of them in any case.
The next Labron in Boise for two years? Great for Boise and great for increasing the size of the NBA fanbase.
"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
- Chessmaster Savielly Grigorievitch Tartakower
by lietothegirls on Aug 29, 2011 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Age limit increase means major cost savings
I’m inclined to leave the age limit as is, but you missed entirely the reason the owners would want a higher limit. It’s big money. It effectively pushes a second contract out by one year, so rookies would enter the league no earlier than 20, sign a second contract no earlier than 24 or 25. By the time they come up for a third contract, they will be 30 and even the Atlanta Hawks wouldn’t give Joe Johnson a $122 million contract if it began at age 30 instead of 28. If the owners also negotiated lower annual increases – say 5% instead of 10.5% – and eliminated the 20% gross up for first round draft picks which is supposed to be voluntary but never is (see Memphis, Xavier Henry and Grievas Vasquez) then the owners would get much of what they say they need in a new CBA. In a drema world, they would also convert the fifth year of rookie scale from a qualifying offer to a team option with salary to be governed by the same grossup used for qualifying offers, or via an arbitration process. That would push out the second contract two years, one for later entry into the league and one for making the fifth year of rookie scale controllable by the team.
So I don’t see this as a bargaining chip at all. It’s potentially the Trojan horse where the dispute is settled, phasing in all of the above on the back of players not yet in the league since everyone already in the league would have existing contracts grandfathered.
by sebring on Aug 29, 2011 12:19 PM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed