GatewayRedbirds.com

I never said they receive millions in benefits. Mostly my point is that the amount of money any one college basketball player is going to add to an already established elite program is being grossly overstated. There isn't a bunch of mystery people at the school getting rich off of them (unless you work in the KU ticket department). The coach and the networks get the lion's share. The rest usually benefits the player in some way. Rose wasn't the only NBA player on that Memphis squad and other non-pros contributed too. When you factor in elite one on one instruction, nutritionists and on down the line, players are being pretty well taken care of. It's not better than being free to sign with the NBA, but it's not bad.

_________________

Not to completely discredit your argument (because it does play a small role) but something more relevant also happened in 2007. The economy went in the crapper. There are less jobs available for people straight out of high school than at any point in the last 60 years. College enrollment is skyrocketing across the board.

_________________

You must not be reading my posts. Players are still growing at 18. They often put on 20 pounds in that first year out of high school. The difference in physicality and competition in general is big between high school and college and massive between high school and the NBA. The only thing Derrick Rose had "proved" at age 18 was he was better than just about every other 16-18 year old. In my opinion that doesn't entitle you to a spot on an NBA roster. Guys in high school face vastly varied levels of competition. Even if they dominate the AAU circuit, that still doesn't mean they are ready to dominate college, let alone succeed in the pros. Other sports like baseball will draft an 18 year old, but he still has to prove himself over and over against his peers over a period of years before he gets a spot on a pro roster or access to really big money. The NBA doesn't have a viable minor league and not enough roster spots to go around.

Since we're all making bad analogies, does it make business sense to give every kid that made a 4.0 in high school a really good job? Or should you wait until they are surrounded by a lot of other smart people in college and see who stands out from that crowd?

_________________

NBA vets agreed to it because they get more money. As if they care about the welfare of a class of faceless rookies.

_________________

Movie Musings - My Reviews & Analysis (read plz)

Exactly, you have to draw *a* line distinguishing when someone is an adult or not, and that line here in the U.S. (and much of the world) is 18. I personally believe at 18 you should allowed to do whatever you want - including drinking a beer and finding the best job that your talents require. 19 and 21 etc.. are just more confusing.

_________________
"Boy, that was exciting. I always say it ain't over til it's over, but that one should've been over a while ago." ~ Yogi Berra

I'm reading your posts. I just don't understand why you're so concerned about the development of an athlete or the ways owners spend their money. If a team owner wants to spend his money on a risky, undeveloped prospect, they should be able to do so. Wayne Rooney was physically developed enough to be a Premier League star for Everton when he was 16. Lots of other players weren't, so Everton didn't sign them.
LeBron James would have been developed enough to play for the Cavs when he was 16. Lots of other players would not be.

If a team signs someone who isn't ready, then that was a bad investment and they'll just have to be patient and wait for the player to develop. There's no harm in that other than the player not getting the in-game minutes they would get playing at a lower-level, but at the same time they are training with better players, coaches, trainers etc and making a lot of money that could significantly improve their family's position in life.



If you run a business and you think you've found a high school student that is the best candidate to fill a position in your company, by all means, hire that person. If you're wrong, you failed because you made a bad evaluation of that person's value.

_________________
"If it was anyone but Carp, I would have said, 'No,'" Matheny said. "Anyone but Carp."

Of course. That's exactly my point.

The NBA benefits from the rule.
The NBA players benefit from the rule.
The NCAA benefits from the rule.

The only guy that you could make a case for that doesn't benefit is the 18 year old kid. Cardsfansince82 makes a pretty strong case that he's benefitting, as well.

In other words, if more people are benefitting than not, then it seems like a reasonable rule.

Likewise, if your a bazillionaire who has invested his money in an NBA team, you should be able to set the standard of who gets in and who doesn't....... especially if the Players Union agrees with you. The world isn't going to cater to you, just because you've turned 18.

By the way, I'm not picking on Rose here. I love the guy. I'm just debating the merits of the rule.

I bet having that one year of extra education helps long-term for NBA vets as well. Maybe not for the 100m/career guys, but the role players that received a scholarship and play in the NBA for 5-6 years and aren't multi-millionaires.

After retirement they already have one year of schooling, so going back and finishing your degree in a place that you've already established yourself makes a lot more sense.

_________________

Well there is a good point to be made there, regarding legally being able to sign a contract yourself. But really only the NHL and MLB follow the 18 rule, and both have fairly established minor league systems and/or procedures to remain in juniors/college while rights are retained such that 18 year olds aren't rushed to the big time before they are ready, just because their talent dictated a high draft position.

Following his poor analogy to other sports though, a golfer can participate in PGA/LPGA events prior to 18. Tennis players compete in grand slam tournaments before 18. On the other end of the age spectrum, NFL prospects have to wait until they're 3 years out of high school. You have the physical maturity argument there for most players/positions, but does a kid need to be 20/21 to punt or place kick at the NFL level?

My point is that every sport has a somewhat random cut-off point, all based on a day someone was born approximately 16-20 years prior. A few years ago there was a big argument as to whether John Tavarez, consensus top pick in the NHL draft, should be allowed to be drafted a year early because he turned 18 less than a month after the draft. An arbitrary line in the sand based on when he was born, and when the draft took place--he could have waited a month to legally sign a contract.

Honestly, I don't care enough about the NBA or NCAA bball anymore to even form a strong opinion on their age rule. I just thought the writer's analogies were off the mark and hyperbolic. I sincerely apologize for commenting upon them. Carry on.