The 20 Year Old Age Limit

[Dunkenstein]

DeShawn Stevenson - took some time, but his found his niche . . .

Kwame Brown - nothing but a bust . . .

Tyson Chandler - another guy that took some time . . .

Eddy Curry - a waste of talent

DeSagana Diop - not worth his draft position . . .

Travis Outlaw - project turned basketball player . . .

Robert Swift - showed some signs early . . .

Sebastian Telfair - career started rough . . .

Dorell Wright - has been poorly developed . . .

Gerald Green - complete bust . . .

C.J. Miles - hasn't shown much . . .

Louis Williams - another guy that it took a little time . . .

Andray Blatche - a knucklehead with a lot of talent, has already shown he can produce in this league, has a bright future ahead of him if he continues to work . . .

Amir Johnson - still a work in progress.

I've used your own comments on a number of the players you listed. I think these are examples of players who would have been better served if they had gone to college for two years and gotten playing time while learning the fundamentals of the game, rather than sitting on the end of some NBA bench and making occasional trips to the D League.

I believe Stern is making the argument (and I agree with him) that at the end of those two years in college they would have been better prepared to contribute to their teams than they were after two unproductive years in the NBA having entered the league right out of High School.

I agree with MightyReds2020 that a "success rate" that considers how many of these HSers actually became NBA-caliber players before they turned 20 is a more accurate way to evaluate how well the HS-to-pro system worked (or didn't work). For every Kobe or LaBron, unfortunately there are at least four times as many DeShawns and DeSaganas who just weren't ready to contribute to their teams. These are the players who would benefit from the two-year rule, along with the teams that draft them.

[see4miles]

Hi there... I don't understand this trade part

"2001
Kwame Brown - nothing but a bust, but he's the best trade asset in the history of the league "

Also what about Milicic? What agw was he in the leBron draft?

[arenas809]

I'm just curious where guys get their evidence that leads them to make conclusions like..

"If Louis Williams had spent 2 years at Georgia instead of on the Sixers bench, he'd be a better NBA player today."

There's nothing out there substantial that would even allow for a reasonable conclusion to be made that more time in college helps a player for their game in the pros.

If anything, there's more out there that says more time in college hurts.

[Dunkenstein]

I'm just curious where guys get their evidence that leads them to make conclusions like..

"If Louis Williams had spent 2 years at Georgia instead of on the Sixers bench, he'd be a better NBA player today."

There's nothing out there substantial that would even allow for a reasonable conclusion to be made that more time in college helps a player for their game in the pros.

If anything, there's more out there that says more time in college hurts.

Until they perfect that time machine, there's no way to actually prove it one way or another. But I would hazard a guess that Brandon Roy's four years at Washington made him a better NBA player.

Also I'll point at the "big four" from the 03 Draft: James, Anthony, Wade and Bosh. Only James didn't attend college. I'd say college helped Anthony, Wade and Bosh, especially the championship run for Anthony.

And I'm sure that spending time leading their college teams helped make Deron Williams and Chris Paul the top young NBA point guards that they've become.

You can easily argue that Roy, Anthony, Wade, Bosh, Williams and Paul would be as great today if they'd come into the NBA right out of High School. So if you believe that, where's your evidence? And if you do agree that college helped those six, then why wouldn't two years as a college starter have helped Louis Williams become a better NBA player today?

[Duiz]

I think longer stay in college will be better for players, but without a doubt the NBAPA would create another lockout season when the CBA negotiations start again.

[my2bits]

The NBA is full of it. Increasing the age limit is not the real answer. The perceived problem of draftees being less mature or less prepared is a very small portion of what's wrong with the game. The real answer is for teams and their front offices to stop drafting raw players on physical measurements and "potential". The reason these players declare in the first place is because they have seen others go high in the draft. Essentially the owners want to create a rule which prevents the organizations from making bad decisions in the draft. The amateur players can't draft themselves and aren't responsible for teams poor evaluation and scouting. Instead of taking away players ability to declare earlier, how about drafting some of those "beloved"upperclassmen that go undrafted in favor of international players (which have proven to have just as many busts) and college freshman. If a person of legal age can enter a 6 wk training course and become a soldier or a police officer and be handed a firearm and trusted to use his or her judgement/character to protect the rights of others, without an age limit or a prerequisite for college then why are there so many restrictions on the game of basketball. A full fledge minor league affiliate for each team and no age limit would be a much better solution to this issue.

[nodeal]

I think the more accurate way to look at the "success rate", with consideration of 20-year-old rule, is how many of these HSers actually became NBA-caliber players before they turned 20 and thus, as FGump put it, not became a waste of salaries and for developing purposes only.

Here's what I have:

LeBron, Kobe, Amare, Howard, Josh Smith, Bynum, Ellis

That's exactly 7 who produced at NBA-level before they turned 20, or a 17% "success rate". I think that's the point Stern (and Gump here) was trying to make.

This thread is insanely old and theres a good chance this guy im replying to is deceased. but...

If you take out all the under 21 yr olds in the league do you know who you are replacing them with? The Lance Thomas, Shane Edwards, Hamady N'Diaye, Brandon Heath, Stephen Jackson, and Shane Lockett's of the world. Can anyone say honestly this is about the product on the floor? It's about money for the owners, and the old vets who have no business to still be in the league for the players union.

I will take 83% of all 18-20 yrs olds sitting at the end of the bench with the occasional lebron, kobe to watch play as an 18 yr vs 100% 24-40 yr old scrubs sitting at the end of the bench.

[Devin 1L]

The NBA is full of it. Increasing the age limit is not the real answer. The perceived problem of draftees being less mature or less prepared is a very small portion of what's wrong with the game. The real answer is for teams and their front offices to stop drafting raw players on physical measurements and "potential". The reason these players declare in the first place is because they have seen others go high in the draft. Essentially the owners want to create a rule which prevents the organizations from making bad decisions in the draft.

Ya' think?

The amateur players can't draft themselves and aren't responsible for teams poor evaluation and scouting. Instead of taking away players ability to declare earlier, how about drafting some of those "beloved"upperclassmen that go undrafted in favor of international players (which have proven to have just as many busts) and college freshman. If a person of legal age can enter a 6 wk training course and become a soldier or a police officer and be handed a firearm and trusted to use his or her judgement/character to protect the rights of others, without an age limit or a prerequisite for college then why are there so many restrictions on the game of basketball. A full fledge minor league affiliate for each team and no age limit would be a much better solution to this issue.

Eh, yeah, that mostly exists.

[DBoys]

1 I'd rather see players who are MORE developed, MORE mature, and have built up a better hoops reputation before they hit the NBA, and I bet the owners would too. Doesn't that make for a better league?
2 " Essentially the owners want to create a rule which prevents the organizations from making bad decisions in the draft." ....I doubt that's their primary issue, but is it wrong for owners to want the most deserving players to get the most money? People fail to realize that the undeserving who take money out of the system do it at the expense of other players, not the owners.
3 The eventual success of some like Lebron or Kobe doesn't mean that 18 year olds are good for the league. No one seriously believes that a higher age limit means we would have been forever deprived of seeing Lebron or Kobe, do they? We would have seen the talent, but without some of the growing pains.
4 " If a person of legal age can enter a 6 wk training course and become a soldier or a police officer and be handed a firearm and trusted to use his or her judgement/character to protect the rights of others, without an age limit or a prerequisite for college"....I've seen this argument before, and it's so much BS. There are age limits and education requirements in all sorts of jobs, where you can't get a job there right out of HS because you don't meet the age requirement (and sometimes several others as well).
5 I think the NBA has made a mistake in making it as an age thing, rather than experience. If they want 20-year-olds, they ought to say you must have "two years of post-high-school playing experience" after the age of 18. If players want to get that experience in college, in Europe, in China, in the D-league, that's up to them.

[Dunkenstein]

All I can say is that I stand by my comments from six years ago, and am astounded that I was so articulate at such a young age.

I'm not sure why this old thread was even dredged up. And who are these old posters. I think FGump has since retired to a tropical island. Someone with Arenas in his user name has to be as irrelevant as his namesake. And six years ago Mark Deeks wasn't even Sham yet, while answerthink was making and losing billions in hedge funds.

Worst of all, Dick Cheney was still vice president, while Barry Obama was promising us hope and change. What a joke that turned out to be.

[nodeal]

All I can say is that I stand by my comments from six years ago, and am astounded that I was so articulate at such a young age.

Until they perfect that time machine, there's no way to actually prove it one way or another. But I would hazard a guess that Brandon Roy's four years at Washington made him a better NBA player.

We cant prove either way, you hazzard a guess college made these players better. Your reasons: 1) Leading a team in college will make you a better NBA player. 2)...

My reasons for the opposite.
1) You are training and learning the NBA game not the college game 2) you are playing/practicing against players multiple times better than college players. 3) Teams have a vested interest in you and they are going to give you the best training/coaches possible 4) your life is dedicated to Improving your game.

[Smitty731]

As a basketball fan in general, not just NBA, I'm ok with the college game getting better too, by keeping guys around longer. But, I also realize that a guy will likely develop better on an NBA bench than by playing in college. I just want to see the best players at their best. However they get there, I'm ok with.

[my2bits]

There are and always will be busts /disappointments in every draft. The draft is based upon potential, hype and speculation. If a player is overrated or underrated by those who are evaluating them then the player cannot be faulted. The talent is there in some form or another, hence the draft buzz. Some teams are willing to reach at the smallest possible glimpse of stardom. No one is forcing them to draft these guys. There is a reason that these teams are picking in the lottery to begin with. Frequently, lottery teams are lacking in scouting, have bad roster composition and do not have an identity and direction as a frame work for success. They just draft whoever is supposed to be a hot prospect irregardless of team needs, chemistry or maturity. Poor management is one thing the age limit will not prevent. If they pass the age limit then they should revoke the rookie pay scale. If you want players to enter the league ready to make an immediate impact via seasoning then a seasoned more mature rookie should be paid accordingly. You shouldn't expect to draft a finished product and then pay them the lowest amount possible for 3-5 years.

[DBoys]

"If they pass the age limit then they should revoke the rookie pay scale."

While there's some logic in that, the other side of the coin that has to be considered is that this money would come out of the pockets of other players, not from the owners. There was a real resentment in the league in years gone by when the rookies, not the guys who had actually done the work of making the league, were unjustly getting all the reward, and the rookie scale fixed that.

In addition, adding a year of maturity and experience before getting to the NBA is very unlikely to provide any "finished products" but instead is likely to reduce the amount of development time needed to turn a raw product into a productive contributor, while also having the potential to add fans to the NBA (from seeing the players longer before they get there, bringing a bit of a bigger fan base with them). More fans equals more money for everyone.

As for the argument that waiting a year will simply provide a better chance for the right players to get drafted highest, that's not a bad thing. Players, owners, and fans alike should want the best incoming players to get picked first and get the biggest contracts, so whatever enhances that likelihood is a positive for all, in that regard.

[MarkDeeks]

What about all the players who go to college for four years and who don't get any better? How come we never cite them?

[DBoys]

What about all the players who go to college for four years and who don't get any better? How come we never cite them?

There are certainly players whose ceiling is college-level play, and that's life.

But if you are postulating that college doesn't develop an NBA-capable player past the high school level, doesn't let him mature from the high school level, and doesn't make more fans interested in him as a player than he had in high school, I gotta strongly disagree.

[MarkDeeks]

I don't recall saying that. What I said was, what about all the players who go to college for four years and who don't get any better? How come we never cite them? Aren't they just as indicative as the Lenny Cooke types?

[DBoys]

If you're asking a question different than what I answered, not sure what it is.