LeBron James headlines an ad campaign representing his journey from shooting hoops in his backyard to his domination of both the NBA and global sports economy. The tag line: "You don't want to be me; you want to be better than me."
While that seems unlikely given the way the heir to his "airness" is playing this year, it allows for a reference point in the way we view potential NBA players.
The 2005 represented the last NBA Draft during which teams could draft players straight from high school. 2004 and 2005 each had 8 high school players drafted each, a record that will, if the rule holds, never be broken.
If history is any indicator, that is a good thing. Keeping players in college benefits the NBA, college basketball, and most importantly, the players.
In 1999 Jonathan Bender was drafted No. 5 overall from Picayune Memorial High School by the Toronto Raptors, who then traded him to the Indiana Pacers for Antonio Davis. Bender was drafted ahead of Manu Ginobili, Andrei Kirilenko, Ron Artest, Shawn Marion, Richard Hamilton, and Wally Szczerbiak all of whom went on to be NBA All-Stars.
That doesn't even include Andre Miller, Jason Terry, Corey Maggette, James Posey, and Francisco Elson.
Bender was a player who scored 31 points in the McDonald's All-American Game, breaking Michael Jeffrey Jordan's record and was hyped as the leader of a new wave of long, athletic wing players who could score from anywhere.
However, in six seasons Bender never averaged double digit scoring, as he struggled to get off the Pacer's bench.
Clearly, there are numerous cases of players being taken too high or too long, it would be unfair to single out Bender. However, 44 players have been taken directly from high school, only nine have made All-Star appearances. 21 of those players were taken from 2003-2005 and a whopping six average double figures this season.
Raising the minimum age allows NBA scouts to judge talent more effectively. Project lottery picks like Paul Harris and Hasheem Thabeet would have jumped to the NBA and their careers would have fizzled out. Neither was polished enough to play at a high level in the NBA.
Now, both are playing and improving with the potential to be lottery picks coming off of deep NCCA Tourney runs. That not only helps them, but college basketball benefits from their presence and growth, while the NBA will get a better version of their game when it comes.
Players like Lebron James and Kobe Bryant, who are ready to make the jump do not necessarily benefit directly. However, what 18 year old is mentally prepared for the rigors of NBA life, of celebrity. We've seen how it has affected Kobe's life; the NBA “prima donna” image can be shaken if these high school players go to college and learn from some of the best teachers on the planet.
It may be the world renowned professors in the classroom or Professor Williams, Boeheim, or Krzyzewski. Can you imagine Lebron James playing Ben Gordon and Emeka Okafor at UConn on Big Monday?
What about if Kobe had followed in MJ's footsteps and attended UNC where he'd face Tim Duncan twice, maybe three times in a season? The kind of player rivalries we have in the NBA now, we used to have in college basketball. The Magic/Bird rivalry started in the NCAA's.
The freshman class this season appears to be even more talented than the last. Donte Green was fifth in the Big East in scoring and 11th in rebounding. Freshman guard Eric Gordon lead the Big Ten in scoring while Manny Harris was fourth. Michael Beasley was third in the nation in scoring, while leading the Big 12 at 26.5 points a game (DJ Augustine was second at 19.8 ppg).
Beasley also lead the nation in rebounding (differentiating himself by nearly 2 rebounds than his closest competition). The Pac-10 may have the most loaded freshman classes. O.J. Mayo and Jerryd Bayless were second and third in scoring in the Pac-10 while Kevin Love is 2nd in boards. Each one of these players, with the exception of Manny Harris, was expected to be a lottery pick coming into the season.
To this point, they certainly have not disappointed. But in the NBA, Donte Green would not be able to get 20 shots a night and Michael Beasley probably wouldn't grab 13 boards a game (Just look at 'Melo's numbers college versus NBA).
None of that matters, the fact is college basketball needs these players. Derrick Rose led the Memphis Tigers to the National Championship game and everyone was waiting him to see him against top talent. All he did was dominate the Tourney and played well against the great guards from Kansas. What's more, the NBA needs these players to play college basketball, to learn how to play the game the right way.
The NBA has had serious identity issues with mainstream America for quite a while. Notice the #1 and #2 picks in this past year's draft were freshman. We knew Greg Oden was supposed to be the second coming of Patrick Ewing, but Kevin Durant played his way into the lottery.
What he did was even more impressive because he didn't just dominate high-school athletes, he dominated Big 12 teams from wire to wire. With the overall talent pool increased, dominating the college game has become that much more difficult. As a result, the quality of the college game has increased.
The NBA benefits from better players having played against higher levels of competition. Players have a chance to get better, prove their worth, and maybe even learn something in COLLEGE.
Hopefully, we'll see fewer stories about star athletes squandering their lives if they get a chance to learn something about life on their way.
comments (9) write a comment »
write a new comment
5 months ago
I'm a fan of the Paul Harris reference. It's hard to believe when he entered school everyone thought he was NBA ready. Harris might go down as the best example of a player being helped by the NBA age limit. Four years of school should turn him into a guy who can play in the NBA as opposed to the obnoxiously raw talent he was entering his freshmen year.
5 months ago
I think your premise is 2/3 right, but here's the cold hard fact: the age limit is NOT good for the players.
What's worse is that it's not supposed to be.
No matter what Stern or owners or GMs might tell you, 'putting a good product on the floor' is nowhere near the #1 reason they care about this. It's money, pure and simple. NBA teams can't seem to be able to scout well enough to tell how well players are going to perform at the pro level, so to lower the risk of them making poor investments, they want to force players to play at a highler level of competition.
No other profession has such an absurd age requirement that clearly keeps out players who could be performing at the highest level. Do I think that some players would benefit from playing in college rather than riding the pine in the pros? Of course. But for some, the NEED for money for their family is totally legit, and for others it's just a desire. Either is fine and respectable.
The solution? Either drop the age limit or start paying college players. Yes. Everyone except the players is getting paid massive amount of money when a player chooses a school. It's absurd to act like it's wrong to pay people who are doing nothing but making money for people. Not a lot, maybe, but some sort of monthly stipend. The NBA should be paying a portion of this money since they're using college as a development league.
Again, I agree that in many ways it's better for us as viewers to have a draft full of players ready to play right away. But for the players? You bring up Jonathan Bender. Have you read anything of what he's up to now? He's 25, retired, and pursuing whatever investment opportunities he wants to. He's expressed again and again that he's not unhappy with how his NBA career went. We may not love that as fans, but the bottom line is that if situations were reversed, we'd do the same thing.
from 5 months ago
Collegiate players arn't exactly not getting paid. After all, they do have a scholorship, they get fed, and they are obviously well taken care of. At least well enough to not need a monthly income
from 5 months ago
Josiah, that is a mouthful and I will agree that the age limit is about the dollars because teams can't scout high school players. But that is the point I make, how can we know just how good players are when they only play high schoolers? High schoolers don't know either which is why they should go to college for a year (that they won't pay for because they get full rides). If you are that good that you know you're going to the NBA, it isn't hard to get a loan for your struggling family.
And in response to your comments about age limits, there are age limits everywhere whether explicit or implicit. The NFL has a policy on age, but it isn't just professional sports. How many jobs that pay more than 25,000 a year do not require a college degree? That is an age requirement as well.
I agree college players are being exploited by their universities who make millions off players who get paid nothing. I think rules on benefits for players should be loosened, and perhaps per diems on road trips and things of that nature are in order, but paying them? That just doesn't make sense to me
from 5 months ago
There is absolutely no need for college players to get paid, ever. An average student pays 30-40,000 to attend a private university, many taking out loans in the process. An scholarship athlete receives this for free, and emerges from college with no debt. On road trips, these athletes do receive cash to pay for their meals. A cheerleader I knew received $50 per day for meals and personal costs during the NCAA tournament and you cannot tell me that the athletes didn't receive the same stipend. Moreover, how do you even spend that much on food in a day? I can get by on $10-20 and feed myself well, so are these guys going to steakhouses on the school's expense?
Anyone who has attended a college class with athletes knows they are not there for the school work. I hate to stereotype, but I doubt anyone can make an strong argument that most NCAA basketball players are smarter than the average student in the classroom. At many of these good schools (Georgetown, Ohio State, Stanford, etc), if they decide to stay it out the 4 years they get a degree from a school that in all likelihood they couldn't have gotten into on their own. Isn't that an added perk they receive?
I understand the culture today is more about athlete-student than student-athlete and this might lead some to believe they should be paid, but face it, they already receive benefits far exceeding what the normal college student gets. They may not take full advantage of them, but thats not to say they should be ignored. Dedicated private tutoring, usually better workout facilities than the general student population, free textbooks...the list goes on. Even if the athletic department is making millions off them, no one can argue the players get nothing in return. They do much better than your average teaching student working their butt off in school so they can get a $30-40000 job out of college.
5 months ago
I'm frustrated at the fact that a lot of these athletes get scholarships to play basketball only to drop out and head to the NBA after only two years of play. There should be a clause that makes the players responsible to pay back the tuition if they leave for the NBA before their senior season. The monetary value being payed back to the school will be insignificant to the player as he will be getting a multi-million dollar contract. Maybe the tuition reimbursement can go towards a student who's family is financially strapped. That's just my opinion!
P.S. Can anyone name a womens basketball player leaving school early to go to the WNBA? Maybe that will be seen if those salaries get into the millions of dollars.
5 months ago
Tom,
What you say it true to a degree, but for better or worse, based on what the universities value, those athleletes earn everything they get, just like an academic star.
Some of your points are silly, though, since most NCAA players don't go to play in the NBA. Why shouldn't a bench player get the right to get a little bit of pay since he can't hold down a job but won't have a pro career? Again, the university is profiting so much of off these kids, they need to turn a percentage of the money back to them.
"At many of these good schools (Georgetown, Ohio State, Stanford, etc), if they decide to stay it out the 4 years they get a degree from a school that in all likelihood they couldn't have gotten into on their own. Isn't that an added perk they receive?"
First of all, I'm pretty sure you don't have any actual data to support the idea that all college stars couldn't get into the school outside of the sport. Yes, you are stereotyping. There's just no other term for it. Of course some get into schools they probably couldn't attend, but a lot of schools do refuse to sell out, which explains the reason top talent goes to a school like Cincinatti (sorry to any Cincy alums).
All of that said, again, the idea that 'they couldn't have gotten in on their own' is absurd....THEY GOT IN ON THEIR OWN! The school wasn't looking for scholars, they were looking for athletes! People need to quit acting like pursuing an athletic career is somehow less of a world contribution than anything else.
from 5 months ago
Josiah, I'm not sure your bench player argument holds. A star player is the one making the money for his school, bringing national attention to the game. I could go out there and practice with the team, play on the scout team and run the opponents plays. A bench player does not contribute to the profit in the same way and therefore should not be afforded the same treatment, that is the way of the world.
The fact of the matter is, these athletes are being given an opportunity to attend an institution many could not attend if not for their basketball skills. If they do so for free, they are being paid in that way. The men who leave with a degree got a degree and four years playing time at a D-1 school (ESPN/CBS run etc.) and had their college paid for. Now even if they don't play NBA ball, they have a 6 figure education with which they can pursue any number of avenues. Paying student athletes is the silly thing and my most recent article helps prove that point.
For the record, Cincinnati has a number of excellent programs, their standard for athletes under Bob Huggins just happened to be reprehensible.
from 5 months ago
Of all the college athletes playing in the NCAA, most realize that they won't get into professional sports. They use their scholorship to their advantage. Having friends who played collegiately, I've never heard any complain about their college experience, although they did not play in any high profile schools. Sure, money was tight. But money's tight for most students.
When this argument comes up, it's usually concerning high prfile atheletes, "one and done" if you will. If they can't buckle down for a year or two and deal with the stresses related to playing in college, they have no future in any professional sport. You can't tell me that, for example, Ohio State isn't losing money on their womens lacrosse team. They work just as hard as any other athelete with less benefits. If universities were to start dispensing profits towards athletes, they should do so evenly with all of their athletes. Also to all the students doing research for the university, who also don't have time for a job.
Graduating from college and playing a sport looks great on a resume. It takes a high level of discipline to balance studies, college life, and sport related activities. It shows dedication.
write a new comment