RealGM

Here's an interesting question for all of us CBA aficionados.

John Wall, who Chad Ford says could be the top pick in the 2010 draft, is a fifth year senior. He will be 19 in September. But is he actually eligible for 2009 draft?

Article 10 of the CBA says that for a player to be eligible to be drafted: "The player (A) is or will be at least 19 years of age during the calendar year in which the Draft is held, and (B) with respect to a player who is not an international player (defined below), at least one (1) NBA Season has elapsed since the player's graduation from high school (or, if the player did not graduate from high school, since the graduation of the class with which the player would have graduated had he graduated from high school)"

When he entered high school, he was a member of the class of 2008, and he did not graduate with that class. A year has passed since that class graduated, and he passes the age test.

On the other hand, he will graduate with the class of the class of 2009.

If he wants to declare for the 2009 draft as an early entrant, should the NBA let him?

Glad someone started the ball rolling on this.

I am curious to see everyone's take.

The language in the CBA to me appears a bit clumsy.

Technically, since he is graduating from high school, he would therefore not qualify as someone who "did not graduate from high school" so I think to go by the exact letter of the law here, that would not allow him to be eligible once he graduates.

Still going by the letter of the law, he could just not graduate high school this year and therefore be eligible for the draft. So at this point, just make some arrangement with the school to not actually graduate. Maybe don't take a necessary exam, or don't hand in some end of the year project and arrange to hand it in or take the exam during summer school? If they don't let him do that, he could just tank however many classes would be necessary to prevent him from graduating. He'd really hurt his GPA, but he would preserve his credits in the rest of his classes, allowing for farily easy susbequent graduation via a summer school class at some point. High schools where I am from allow the student to participate in the graduation ceremony if they are only a few credits short (that they can presumably make up in summer school). They do the whole cap and gown ceremony, etc., but there is just a placeholder handed to them instead of an actual diploma.

I think it would be pretty stupid for him to have to go through the above nonsense. That would mean discouraging him from actually graduating high school. The NBA should make a point to do what it takes to make him eligible without forcing him to not graduate this year. I think it is something they should be able to do without too much trouble. They should rule him as eligible and get the NBPA, and the entire board of governors to sign off on that ruling. And they should do it ASAP. Before the draft lottery. Would any party amongst them really object? Certainly the NBPA wouldn't. But would any of the 30 teams?
Something like that should be sufficient to make him eligible for the draft, yes?

1. I don't think he qualifies under any contrived reading of the rules. If he graduates, he's eligible in another year. If he doesn't, it will be the class of 2009 that he would have graduated with but didn't. (It's not the class he entered high school with, but the class he was closest to graduating with.)

Therefore I don't think any of GAD's workarounds would do anything other than rob him of his diploma and his eligibility for an NCAA scholarship.

2. The NBA should push for him now? Surely you jest, GAD. I don't see the NBA as having any desire to encourage him into the NBA immediately. That sort of idea ignores a major underlying benefit to the wait-a-year rule in the first place, which is to force added age/maturity and give an opportunity for more notoriety and ability to bring to the table in entering the league.

The NBA isn't going to work to gut their goals. Your thought that they would want to do so seems poorly thought out.

FGump wrote:1. I don't think he qualifies under any contrived reading of the rules. If he graduates, he's eligible in another year. If he doesn't, it will be the class of 2009 that he would have graduated with but didn't. (It's not the class he entered high school with, but the class he was closest to graduating with.)

I don't read it like that. What if he would have dropped out before the 1st semester was even complete this year? He then wouldn't have had the ability to graduate in 2009 due to lack of credits, so which class are you putting him in then? 2009? He'd then be closer to graduating with the class of 2010, going by your standard, not 2009.

FGump wrote:2. The NBA should push for him now? Surely you jest, GAD. I don't see the NBA as having any desire to encourage him into the NBA immediately. That sort of idea ignores a major underlying benefit to the wait-a-year rule in the first place, which is to force added age/maturity and give an opportunity for more notoriety and ability to bring to the table in entering the league.

The NBA isn't going to work to gut their goals. Your thought that they would want to do so seems poorly thought out.

I'm very much in favor of the more restrictive draft eligibility the NBA went with in the 2005 CBA. I would even make it more restrictive and tack on another year.

But I am of the belief that he technically would be draft eligible if he dropped out without graduating. My point was only that the NBA would rather not discourage him from graduating just so he could get in under that technicality.
If he had dropped out of high school after his junior year, he would be draft eligible for the 2009 draft.

That is what is inconsistent with what the NBA is trying to encourage. He's not coming out after 3 years in high school and a year of being a high school drop out. He's coming out after 5 years of high school. Why would it be consistent with the NBA's goals to allow the former to be draft eligible in 2009 but not the latter?
I agree that part of what they want is for the player to preferably have played a year of college ball so that they are going up against better competition, among other reasons, but that is not a requirement either. You can go overseas for a year. Or spend a year working on your game here in the U.S. Those are things you can do and then be draft eligible. Wall went to school for an additional year. Having him wait an additional year because he made that choice instead of dropping out earlier, etc. is what seems inconsistent.

I think this section of the CBA needs to be tweaked to clean up these inconsistencies.

GrandAdmiralDan wrote:

FGump wrote:1. I don't think he qualifies under any contrived reading of the rules. If he graduates, he's eligible in another year. If he doesn't, it will be the class of 2009 that he would have graduated with but didn't. (It's not the class he entered high school with, but the class he was closest to graduating with.)

I don't read it like that. What if he would have dropped out before the 1st semester was even complete this year? He then wouldn't have had the ability to graduate in 2009 due to lack of credits, so which class are you putting him in then? 2009? He'd then be closer to graduating with the class of 2010, going by your standard, not 2009.

Despite now-impossible what if's, the FACT is that right now he is on a specific graduation track and he is either going to graduate in 2009 or he isn't. MY POINT BEING - whether he finishes or not, he's become part of the class of 2009 not 2008.

If he flunked his classes this year and came back again? Then I'd say once he enrolled next year, he'd be making himself a part of the class of 2010.

Obviously this is all theory, the kids not going to test the issue anyhow, and the NBA will come back and clean up the language if they think it has any ambiguity. But I think the intent of the rule is clear, even if Chad Ford thinks he's found a loophole that no one is testing.

GrandAdmiralDan wrote:

FGump wrote:2. The NBA should push for him now? Surely you jest, GAD. I don't see the NBA as having any desire to encourage him into the NBA immediately. That sort of idea ignores a major underlying benefit to the wait-a-year rule in the first place, which is to force added age/maturity and give an opportunity for more notoriety and ability to bring to the table in entering the league.

The NBA isn't going to work to gut their goals. Your thought that they would want to do so seems poorly thought out.

I'm very much in favor of the more restrictive draft eligibility the NBA went with in the 2005 CBA. I would even make it more restrictive and tack on another year.

My point was only that the NBA would rather not discourage him from graduating just so he could get in under that technicality. If he had dropped out of high school after his junior year, he would be draft eligible for the 2009 draft.

That is what is inconsistent with what the NBA is trying to encourage. He's not coming out after 3 years in high school and a year of being a high school drop out. He's coming out after 5 years of high school. Why would it be consistent with the NBA's goals to allow the former to be draft eligible in 2009 but not the latter?

The intent is BOTH age-related and life-related imo. That is to say, they want a human being who has lived a year of life beyond the cocoon of high school.

And keep in mind that the restriction is dual: under the age rule, the one with 3 years in high school ("coming out after 3 years in high school and a year of being a high school drop out") might have to wait TWO years not one, due to age.

Let's also be clear here. There's no way the NBA had any intent to motivate kids into becoming early dropouts. So if they think there's ambiguity, it's logical to expect they'll come back and find a way to clean it up where no advantage is available by such a move.

The NBA allows a player who finishes four years of high school and then goes to a Prep School or an Academy to be eligible for the draft. But in such a case he will have finished his four years of High School.

If instead of spending his fifth year of high school at the same school, he had gone to a Prep School in Connecticut, he would probably be eligible for the draft. But by staying at the same high school, should he be penalized by losing his eligibility? I think the NBA would probably say yes.

There is also the question of when he lost his year of high school? If he had to repeat his Sophomore year for example, the school moved him from the class of '08 to the class of '09 at that point in time. The NBA could argue that because of this decision by the high school, he is ineligible.

Dunkenstein wrote:The NBA allows a player who finishes four years of high school and then goes to a Prep School or an Academy to be eligible for the draft. But in such a case he will have finished his four years of High School.

While this graduate-then-went-to-prep-school avenue looks workable on paper, can you cite any PRACTICAL situation where this might be a used loophole? I don't see one.

The reason why it doesn't seem practical is that in order for Prep School to be a conduit straight to the NBA, the player would have had to graduate the year prior (rather than using the extra year of school to graduate/become NCAA eligible). But if he already has the diploma and the eligibility, isn't he going to play in college for that next year rather than against high schoolers? I'd suspect the unanimous answer would be yes, making it a moot issue in practice even if not on paper.

FGump wrote:

Dunkenstein wrote:The NBA allows a player who finishes four years of high school and then goes to a Prep School or an Academy to be eligible for the draft. But in such a case he will have finished his four years of High School.

While this graduate-then-went-to-prep-school avenue looks workable on paper, can you cite any PRACTICAL situation where this might be a used loophole? I don't see one.

The reason why it doesn't seem practical is that in order for Prep School to be a conduit straight to the NBA, the player would have had to graduate the year prior (rather than using the extra year of school to graduate/become NCAA eligible). But if he already has the diploma and the eligibility, isn't he going to play in college for that next year rather than against high schoolers? I'd suspect the unanimous answer would be yes, making it a moot issue in practice even if not on paper.

The Prep School/Academy route is primarily meant for players who don't qualify academically for college.