RealGM

The Boston Globe -
In a brief interview with Time Magazine NBA commissioner David Stern admitted that he would like to increase the league's age minimum to 20 years, according to the Boston Globe.

The change could be made in 2011 when the current Collective Bargaining Agreement expires, but not before.

I guess that thread about the Euroleague the other day wasnt too far off... in his crusade to "better" the game i think he's going to ruin it somewhat... I guess we have to wait and see...

How does everyone else feel about this?

Just trying to make sure no one breaks Lebron's "youngest to do records". No, but seriously, this is stupid, 1 and done to 2 and done? meh

i believe age shouldn't matter if a player whos 18 and is good enough to have an nba team sign him then whats the problem? it's the franchises and players decision.

I have mixed feelings.

I like the age of 19. I think it's really important that these 18 year olds live outside of the house a year before they go off and make a few million a year. It really helps their maturity level among other things. Also, the lottery is designed to help the very poor teams get talent fast, and help them on their way. Too many times there was a "can't miss prospect" but you had to sit on him 2-3 years to get anything, which is not REALLY what the lottery is designed for. They are bad, and then they get no help for another year, so they are bad again and again. There were really only 3 high schoolers that came out and helped their teams off the bat, and those were Amare, Dwight, and LeBron.

At the age of 20 your impeding on their ability to make money and better themselves. I think 1 year separation is fine, but at 20 I think it betters the lottery even more, but not as much as from 18 to 19.

I think most players would benefit from it skill wise and just overall basketball wise, but I wouldn't do it. I think for players like Durant and Beasley, it doesn't matter how long they stay in school for, they're skill set is just so above the competition that they get bored and it doesn't do them any good, but for players like Brandon Wright and Thaddeus Young can really benefit from it. Help them get their bodies stronger and it they get more experience. But I don't think it is a good idea just because its getting ridiculous the amount of prerequisites it takes just to play in the NBA.

Stern always said he'd like the min age to be 20. He said he made concessions with the players union during the last CBA deal to ensure that there a player could not be drafted until at least a 1 year after HS.

Nothing wrong with raising the age. Less "raw" players which leads to more mature guys. Anyone who thinks differently doesn't like to see good NBA ball. Sure, you'll get a KG or a LeBron but what about Gerald Green and Jackie Butler? It's a good thing.

NCAA putting pressure on stern?

Youngblood wrote:Nothing wrong with raising the age. Less "raw" players which leads to more mature guys. Anyone who thinks differently doesn't like to see good NBA ball. Sure, you'll get a KG or a LeBron but what about Gerald Green and Jackie Butler? It's a good thing.

There have been a lot of College Busts as well

It's good. Just raising it to 19 has already markedly improved the product and some of the attitudes.

NBA is the place to see the best of the best. It shouldn't be a developmental league, guaranteeing millions, for raw guys who haven't demonstrated a thing beyond high school level. Even one year out of high school is too little time to see what a guy's mature character and work ethic will become in 'the real world'.

The fewer busts drafted "on potential" wasting valuable roster and cap space the better. The LeBron's will still make their way into the league -- it didn't stop MJ.

Stern's not trying to dilute the talent in the league; rather, he wants better talent coming in. I like where his head's at. Too bad this will never pass.

All for it ... no more Gerald Greens' and Sebastian Telfail's ... or at least until they can develop their game.

One year is enough. Let the kids play in the pros or pay them in college. That's why so many of them go to the NBA early anyway...money!

I agree. I'm not quite sold on the one year deal, in general I don't think it's quite enough. Two years only expands things for the player (as a player and person), even for the high-class prospects.

Plus I like that it'd make the college game better.

Two years expands the burden a lot of them will be to their colleges. Not every ball player is there for an education.

I like it. This is the only thing I want Stern to change. I think it helps both the NBA and the NCAA. For the NCAA, it helps the game out with the kids staying an extra year longer. A year playing organized basketball can only be beneficial for these kids. It helps out the NBA mostly by getting scouts an extra year to scout prospects. It also helps the league by giving teams more polished prospects instead players with just raw talent.

Moses_Malone95 wrote:Two years expands the burden a lot of them will be to their colleges. Not every ball player is there for an education.

I didn't specify any area as you did, I just meant as a whole like I said.

wiseguys wrote:I like it. This is the only thing I want Stern to change. I think it helps both the NBA and the NCAA. For the NCAA, it helps the game out with the kids staying an extra year longer. A year playing organized basketball can only be beneficial for these kids. It helps out the NBA mostly by getting scouts an extra year to scout prospects. It also helps the league by giving teams more polished prospects instead players with just raw talent.

Completely agree.

I like it...

I like it because it's worked in the NFL.

20 years old for me means that you get a better product. Then the NCAA, you have your teams keep Superstar Players for another NCAA title run.

It would be great.


There is no disadvantages

Player have to learn more fundamentals, get more education, and mature

There is too many Gerald Greens, Darius Miles', Telfairs

Sure there is a KG, Lebron, Kobe..but those players are rare

I disagree with this unless they change the rookie wage scale. If they are not going to do that, then this is being done to help owners make even more money and I don't agree with it. If you do this and change the rookie wage scale to give players the option of being R-FA's after two years, then I don't mind it. However, now you age the talent a year, but get to keep them for four years at a discount rate, even if they come in like gangbusters.

I don't think there is anyway the NBAPA will go for it, unless the concession becomes either straight out of HS or two years in college.