An accusation of racism by Jermaine O'Neal being the root cause of the age limit proposition is the fuel by which the renewed debate over minimum age for the NBA burns. While I, and most sensible basketball fans, disagree with such a notion, the thought of such a limit is irrational and absurd. The many ways in which this limit would weaken all aspects of the game of basketball is proof enough, if the ways it would hurt the players and the fans aren't.
In its purest form, this is really a debate about opportunity. In my opinion, delaying a prodigy's ability to make a living in his field of excellence two years later than he would normally be able to is ridiculous and unconstitutional. The belief that a minimum age rule would help improve a supposedly low-quality college game is equally ridiculous. If the NBA were to institute an age limit of 20, what's to stop high school prodigies from going across the Atlantic to European teams that will happily pay them for two years? Having America's finest preps in Europe won't help the college game any. It's nearly as idiotic to suggest that forcing them to go to college will improve their games and create a more talented player went they arrive in the NBA. If you're good enough to make an NBA roster, then 10 minutes in a professional game and the benefit of practicing day in and day out with highly-skilled NBA players will do you much more good than dominating at the college level. If Albert Einstein was bored in school because he was too advanced for his peers, isn't it reasonable to assume that LeBron James would also be bored going head-to-head with players far below his talent level?
An age limit would also have a difficult time standing up legally. "If you try to put an age limit on when someone can play pro sports, somebody always is going to challenge it," 19-year-old Chris Bosh said. "You'll be in court all the time." If the rule David Stern would like introduce were in effect, Bosh would still be at Georgia Tech. Recent developments in the Clarett case have proved as much, as the NFL bylaw stating that a player must be three years removed from high school was ignored while a judge ruled that Clarett, who played one collegiate year, is eligible for the April draft. Stern will have a difficult time upholding such a rule, especially without the support of the players, the union, and many powerful owners and managerial figures.
Speaking of Stern, his logic behind his push for an age limit is illogical at best. Stern said last week, "I just feel a little diminished focusing on kids who are 10 or 11 years old, and who are thinking they're going to be the next Carmelo Anthony or LeBron James. I think it's better for them to stay in school." Apparently the man who also said, "We could put an all-star team together with our young players," would like to keep those young players from coming to the league before 20. If that makes any sense to you, feel free to contact me. I have a difficult time seeing Stern saying such things a few years back while he was relying on Michael Jordan, who made an early departure from college himself, to popularize the league.
Amare Stoudemire. LeBron James. Those are the names of the past two rookies of the year, both skipped college for the pros. Add to those two the names of Jermaine O'Neal, Rashard Lewis, Kobe Bryant, Tracy McGrady, and Kevin Garnett. Those are the names of the seven players without college experience who played in this year's all-star game. The preps-to-pros stars are very successful. If they are capable of handling the NBA, why not let them? As Jermaine O'Neal said, "To say you have to be 20, 21 to get in the league, it's unconstitutional. If I can go to the U.S. Army and fight the war at 18, why can't you play basketball for 48 minutes?"
So how do you make kids go to college, make the college and NBA games more talented, and keep those 18-20 year olds from going to Europe? The real answer is simple. Collegiate athletes should be allowed to receive some kind of payment while in school. The reason many high school athletes go straight to the pros is the risk of injury while playing payless college ball. In this scenario, everyone wins. The players get the money, the NBA gets players who are ready, the NCAA can keep talented players for longer periods of time, and the fans aren't deprived of seeing the prodigies in the pros straight out of high school.
However, Stern continues to insist upon an age limit that would be detrimental to every facet of basketball, save the NCAA, and only to a minimal extent there. The reality of the situation is, it is wrong to bar a teenage phenomenon from playing professional basketball simply because a commissioner holds the opinion that "it's better for them to stay in school." Opinion is opinion, and fact is fact. And the fact of the matter is, no adult should be denied the right to earn a living, and the fans of an entertainment franchise should not be denied the right to see him do it. Age should be no limit.
In its purest form, this is really a debate about opportunity. In my opinion, delaying a prodigy's ability to make a living in his field of excellence two years later than he would normally be able to is ridiculous and unconstitutional. The belief that a minimum age rule would help improve a supposedly low-quality college game is equally ridiculous. If the NBA were to institute an age limit of 20, what's to stop high school prodigies from going across the Atlantic to European teams that will happily pay them for two years? Having America's finest preps in Europe won't help the college game any. It's nearly as idiotic to suggest that forcing them to go to college will improve their games and create a more talented player went they arrive in the NBA. If you're good enough to make an NBA roster, then 10 minutes in a professional game and the benefit of practicing day in and day out with highly-skilled NBA players will do you much more good than dominating at the college level. If Albert Einstein was bored in school because he was too advanced for his peers, isn't it reasonable to assume that LeBron James would also be bored going head-to-head with players far below his talent level?
An age limit would also have a difficult time standing up legally. "If you try to put an age limit on when someone can play pro sports, somebody always is going to challenge it," 19-year-old Chris Bosh said. "You'll be in court all the time." If the rule David Stern would like introduce were in effect, Bosh would still be at Georgia Tech. Recent developments in the Clarett case have proved as much, as the NFL bylaw stating that a player must be three years removed from high school was ignored while a judge ruled that Clarett, who played one collegiate year, is eligible for the April draft. Stern will have a difficult time upholding such a rule, especially without the support of the players, the union, and many powerful owners and managerial figures.
Speaking of Stern, his logic behind his push for an age limit is illogical at best. Stern said last week, "I just feel a little diminished focusing on kids who are 10 or 11 years old, and who are thinking they're going to be the next Carmelo Anthony or LeBron James. I think it's better for them to stay in school." Apparently the man who also said, "We could put an all-star team together with our young players," would like to keep those young players from coming to the league before 20. If that makes any sense to you, feel free to contact me. I have a difficult time seeing Stern saying such things a few years back while he was relying on Michael Jordan, who made an early departure from college himself, to popularize the league.
Amare Stoudemire. LeBron James. Those are the names of the past two rookies of the year, both skipped college for the pros. Add to those two the names of Jermaine O'Neal, Rashard Lewis, Kobe Bryant, Tracy McGrady, and Kevin Garnett. Those are the names of the seven players without college experience who played in this year's all-star game. The preps-to-pros stars are very successful. If they are capable of handling the NBA, why not let them? As Jermaine O'Neal said, "To say you have to be 20, 21 to get in the league, it's unconstitutional. If I can go to the U.S. Army and fight the war at 18, why can't you play basketball for 48 minutes?"
So how do you make kids go to college, make the college and NBA games more talented, and keep those 18-20 year olds from going to Europe? The real answer is simple. Collegiate athletes should be allowed to receive some kind of payment while in school. The reason many high school athletes go straight to the pros is the risk of injury while playing payless college ball. In this scenario, everyone wins. The players get the money, the NBA gets players who are ready, the NCAA can keep talented players for longer periods of time, and the fans aren't deprived of seeing the prodigies in the pros straight out of high school.
However, Stern continues to insist upon an age limit that would be detrimental to every facet of basketball, save the NCAA, and only to a minimal extent there. The reality of the situation is, it is wrong to bar a teenage phenomenon from playing professional basketball simply because a commissioner holds the opinion that "it's better for them to stay in school." Opinion is opinion, and fact is fact. And the fact of the matter is, no adult should be denied the right to earn a living, and the fans of an entertainment franchise should not be denied the right to see him do it. Age should be no limit.
0 Responses to “Age As A Limit”
Post a Comment