So what do you think of the new NBA rule that restricts a player into the draft, if not at least 19 years old?That is the question I ask people when we talk about basketball. I generally get the statements:
"Well, I think its bulls**t!"
OR
"If a players good enough out of high school, why not?"
AND
"Doesn't matter, I don't like basketball."
Which are all pretty legit answers if you consider my audience.
My personal assessment is if a player is as dedicated to his craft as he should be, it wouldn't matter what the rules are. Maybe its a chance to send kids off to college for a little bit more experience, without the fear of injuries. Maybe its a chance to have a player really consider his options, or finally, a way to weed out the scrubs from the ones that really love the game.
I know that the draft for a majority of athletes has everything to do with how much money they make when drafted. I feel like this game has become so consumed but its dollars signs, that it lightweight affects the sports overall. Is the age the real problem, or is it the amount of money that's lost when you know you cant profit off of an 18 year old high profile player anymore? Just a thought.
4 comments:
When they first put that rule in, I thought to myself, "if teams are willing to take the chance of drafting an unproven 18 year old, they might as well." But now that it has been in effect for a year, I can see the benefit of it. Not only does it increase the likelihood of seeing a draftee in action his rookie year, it makes both pro and college basketball better. Now the high school phenoms have to prove themselves against a higher level of competition before they get their shot in the NBA. Imagine if Lebron had played a year of college. Now that would have been interesting.
I guess the conclusion that I've come to on this rule is that it's a rule to protect owners and GM's from themselves. It's a rule that makes basketball in general more fun to watch, but it shouldn't have to be there.
I am glad for this rule being in effect. I mean just look at the Blazers. If this would have been in effect just a few years ago we wouldn't have had that huge mistake of a draft pick that was Sebastian Telfair. Also, we would not have drafted Martel and I am positive this kid could have used that college time.
The NBA isn't the place for kids to gain playing expirence and learn, thats what college and the NBDL are for. Yes there are some special players like Lebron that do not NEED a year in college, but all of them will benefit from it and make the Professional game that much better.
I agree that the rule makes sense for a few different reasons (which I think Jon and Geoff have each touched on).
For a good example of how the rule benefits the NBA, you can look at a guard on Syracuse named Paul Harris. Had the age limit rule not been in place, he certainly would have come out from high school...and been a complete bust. As a freshman last year, he was exposed as being not ready for the big time. Now he has the rest of his college career to work on getting better, rather than fizzling out after a few bench-warming years in the NBA.
Of course, he would have been bench-warming with millions of dollars in his pocket. But still.
Besides the point of earning those few million dollars if a player were to go right into the league out of high school, I feel that it is the most bennificial to play in college for at least one year.
As Mike stated about Paul Harris, things like that can and have happened where players realize they really were not ready to step into the NBA. Along with that, just gaining the college experience and facing the different types of adversity that college (school and basketball) can give you will make the player a better, stronger person and athlete.
Post a Comment