The House of Blue

I agree with you. Something I was thinking about is parents might hold the kids back a year so they could still be a one and done. IIRC Wall was 19 his freshman year, so he could have still left under the proposed new rule.

You have to admit that would take a lot of assumptions to hold a kid back a year in school just to keep them from going to college. How long does a family know their kid is nba talent, and what would the difference be between a extra year at one school vs another?

^^^This

The NBA is a league and they can create rules to best fit their league. If they deem their league is a better product with only 20 year olds and up, I don't see how anyone can complain about it.

Our country does allow 18 year olds to fight in a war, but the same country won't allow anyone to be President unless they're at least 35. I don't see how the military age applies to the NBA.

The NBA was 100% spot on by stopping te flood of highschool kids trying to go pro. It hurt both the NBA and NCAA on soany levels. I'm not saying the one and done rule is much better but still better. I'm not sure the 20 year old age limit is the answer either. I like the age better than the one and done rule however. Either way, as someone posted earlier, we will continue to recruit well no matter the rule.

Kbrew, I really hope history doesn't repeat itself. I used to really enjoy your posts bbl in the KI days. Hope to see some of that old school flavor you used to bring.

Btw...FOOTBALL. LOL

And I've been here for all of it. Even before maggard.

Anywho, I'm not saying the NBA doesn't have the right to declare an age minimum. President should be 35+. 18 year olds seem to be fine in the military. I'm just saying the "gee whiz" factor behind it makes me scratch my head. The NBA isn't a birthright, but why give them a birth control pill? Lets make the next Kobe or LeBron spend 2 years in college **errrr** overseas. In the future it is imaginable for the FIBA game to be bigger than the NBA. How long will it be before 18 year olds go there, generate excitement, command similar salaries as the NBA, not pay taxes on it, and then David Stern is left with 2nd tier 20 year olds and a lesser brand.

Just makes no sense to me. Thats all. Carry on.

That is a fact for sure. But with increased product, would come increased priority to keep that product from leaving. Wouldn't happen overnight, but we are seeing foreign interest in buying NBA franchises. These are smart, rich, and powerful people who are going to learn how to operate. I think the foreign game will evolve eventually. If not willingly, at least out of necessity. But I agree, going overseas isn't the cakewalk that most of us (me) make it seem.

The sports fan in me thinks a 2 year rule would produce a better product in the NCAA and NBA. The practical, realist side of me says phooey on age limits and on the kids that gamble and don't make the NBA. So what? After exhausting opportunities - or making poor choices - for college, then the NBA, then the NBADL, then overseas, they have to go out and get a job like the rest of us? Imagine that. Why is it that these kids, while getting a privileged high school experience and then the opportunity for college and/or huge sums of money that few others get, garner so much sympathy when neither works out?

IF the new 20 year old rule is inacted, it would not impact the Gilchrist and Davis class. The first class impacted would be the 2012 class with Shabazz and Co.

I didn't read the whole thread before my initial post, so I'll comment on this real quick.

Kbrew, you could certainly make an argument that the NBA should employ 18 and 19-year-olds and that the league would be hurt if it didn't. All the top kids might go to Europe and stay there forever and the NBA would never be the same. But I think most people would strongly disagree with that notion, and it is ultimately a business decision the NBA will have to make. It doesn't change the fact that the employer (NBA) should have the liberty of choosing its employees however it sees fit -- to its benefit or to its detriment.

IMO, the NBA and college basketball would both be WAY better with an age limit of 20-21 years of age. There would be an obvious increase in talent in college bball, and you'd have 10-15 impact rookies in the NBA each year instead of 5-6.

I think these kids get some sympathy mainly because most of them have so many people in their ears and very very few have the kids best interest in mind. Kids are so easily influenced and often times taken advantage of. Or at least that my take.

You know, there is a reason why kids under 21 are not allowed in bars. They are not ready for that type of atmosphere or culture and often make poor decisions when first going. I think the same applys with the NBA.
These kids are simply just not ready for it. Only a small handful actually were and made it, but that's me.

Again, not saying they don't have the option to do as they feel fit. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it. Hell, in Ohio we can't smoke in bars. Don't smoke, but don't agree with it either. I just don't think it makes sense. If a kid isn't ready for the NBA, don't draft him. If at 18 years old he is, by all means allow him to play professional ball. All it would take is sound decisions by the NBA to draft the right kids, and kids to get sound advice from the NBA on if they should indeed declare. The NBA drafts so much on potential that they burn themselves. I just don't like that a young man has to go to college against his will if he's good enough to make it professionally. Just my take, but I see a lot of good points in this thread that are the opposite of my opinion. Good stuff. I like it.