On Tuesday, my FanHouse colleague Tim Povtak argued that the NBA's age minimum is good for everyone and should be raised to 20 years old. He chastised Congressman Steve Cohen of Tennessee for raising concerns with the NBA, and recanted the league's rationale on the issue. Plenty of discussion points in there ...... but, in my opinion, a real lack of nuance and compassion. The NBA age limit helps two groups, and two groups only: NBA executives and the NCAA oligarchy. Supporters of the age limit may claim some greater interest in the sanctity of basketball as a key tenet, but come on. This is about money. Not education, not better basketball, not the salvation of misguided youth. It's about money, the elimination of some small slice of financial risk for NBA owners and the enrichment of the high-powered athletic programs of American college sports.
And who bears the burden of this policy? Kids like DeMar DeRozan.
Meanwhile, Diane DeRozan, DeMar's mother, continued to suffer from lupus, a painful and destructive disease which causes the victim's immune system to attack the body's healthy cells, muscles, tissues and organs. It's treatable, but terrible. And expensive. Something that, hmm, a multi-million dollar NBA contract might help with. DeRozan, a newly minted Raptor, said as much during his 2009 draft conversation with ESPN's Stu Scott.
Of course, families shouldn't have to rely on NBA contracts to pay for lupus treatments, but that's an argument for another website. The point is that Diane DeRozan shouldn't have had to wait until June 2009 to get the best health care possible. If not for the age minimum, DeMar would have been an NBA player drawing more than $1 million in salary in 2008. She had to wait a whole year for better health care solely because of an arbitrary rule.
Go ahead, tell me, "Well, that's how it's got to be. For the good of the game." Now go tell that to this year's Diane DeRozan. And for what? So UCLA can build a nicer gym? So CBS can sell ads for a higher price in March? So Donald Sterling or Michael Heisley or Clay Bennett can avoid blowing $2 million on an unproductive player if their evaluation systems fail? Those things are more important than the perfectly sensible and, frankly, American right to earn a living in a suitable profession?
The track record that Povtak discards is not ignorable. Three of the five players voted to the All-NBA first team this season (LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Dwight Howard) were drafted at age 18. Six of this season's All-Stars jumped to the NBA straight out of high school. And to say LeBron or Kobe weren't "fun to watch" as 18-year-old rookies? LeBron, who average 20/5/6 and finished ninth in MVP voting his rookie season? Kobe, who was a rotation player for a 56-win team? Dwight, who finished in the top 10 in rebounding and field goal percentage as an 18-year-old rookie, wasn't good enough for our Holy league? Give me a break!
Povtak lists the infamous straight outta high school busts: Kwame and Darius leading the way, with Darko Milicic thrown in for good measure. (As if another season of Adriatic League performance would have discouraged some team from picking Milicic top five.) The age minimum has not eliminated the bust, however.
Heck, in the first draft consummated after the age minimum was instituted, we were treated to selections including junior swingman Adam Morrison at No. 3, senior big man Shelden Williams at No. 5, senior guard Randy Foye at No. 6, sophomore center Patrick O'Bryant at No. 9, 20-year-old center Mohammed Sene at No. 10, senior guard J.J. Redick at No. 11 and senior center Hilton Armstrong at No. 12. Clearly, the age minimum did not fix the draft! You think those lottery teams might have been better off with the opportunity to select from the graduating high school class of that season, guys like Kevin Durant, Greg Oden, Mike Conley and Thaddeus Young? I think Charlotte might have been better off with Durant instead of Morrison. That seems fairly safe to say.
Michael McCann of Sports Law Blog has written a great deal on the age limit, and he has one particular line I think about often when discussing the issue: "[The draft] is not about age and it's never been about age; it's about talent, and scouts' ability to assess it." Don't blame 18-year-olds for the failures of retired ballplayers masquerading as talent evaluators. And please, don't argue the arbitrary age minimum protects the game by keeping woeful talents like John Wall out for an extra year.
And please don't say it's somehow in the players' best interest to live a lie in college for a year. It wasn't in DeMar DeRozan's best interest. There will be a story like his every year so long as the age minimum exists. And if the league gets its way and extends the minimum to age 20 ... families like the DeRozans will have to wait another whole year to earn that salary. All so the Donald Sterlings of the world can avoid a little bit of risk. Great system, y'all.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
7-22-2009 @ 9:30AM
ashark29 said...
How can you say that 18 year olds can just skip college and go straight to the pros? They have not proven their talent against any quality teams, which shadows their true abilities. If the player is a bust and loses his career, what can he do? He cannot get a job to live off of because those jobs need college degrees. There will always be stories like DeRozan for any rule in place. College helps them mature and learn better character because most high schoolers have no self-discipline and think they are the best. They need to go and stay in college for maturing and honing their basketball skills.
Reply
7-22-2009 @ 10:38AM
Tom said...
Yes, I'm sure that if God forbid some injury befell Greg Oden, his semester of History of Rock n Roll at tOSU would get him a nice white-collar job.
Give me a break.
7-22-2009 @ 1:45PM
dodgerbloo15 said...
One year of college doesn't do anything for anyone. Besides, some of the richest, most successful people in our country either dropped out (Steven Jobs) or never went (Bill Gates, Steven Spielberg), or neglected to finish once they got a job (Oprah). College is right for some people and for others it's not. To force someone of legal working age to NOT work, that's un-American.
7-22-2009 @ 9:52AM
Josh said...
I think people need to realize that the NBA is A BUSINESS. It is not some rite of passage or the army where the second you leave high school, you have the right to go to. The NBA is protecting its product. To me, the game has been better the last few years than it was pre-2004.
So DeRozan's mom has lupus and needed treatment. So what? Would you expect a company to hire you straight out of high school and pay you $60,000 (much less a few million) just because your mother was ill? No. They would never do that. The NBA (and any other business) does not give a flying f*ck about your personal life and your personal problems, so why even bring that example into the equation?
Reply
7-22-2009 @ 10:01AM
noaccount said...
ashark29,
That argument smacks of paternalism at best, and racism at worst. It's trite, it's been debunked time and time again, but through mindless iteration somehow still needs to be refuted.
Are you also in favor of teaching creationism in schools? Would you vote for Palin? Do you eat paste?
Reply
7-22-2009 @ 10:08AM
noaccount said...
Josh,
The experience of most 18 year olds doesn't apply to NBA prospects. Most 18 year olds aren't in the 99th percentile of anything. If they are, you can bet that once that talent is identified suitors will be falling over each other to sign em up.
Ziller isn't saying DeRozen should be in the NBA because his mom has lupus, you frickin' dolt. He's saying that DeRozen should be in the NBA based on talent, and delaying that a year is unfair specifically because of how valuable NBA $$$ are when considering the medical expenses he is facing.
Reply
7-22-2009 @ 10:37AM
RMJ=H said...
Tom -
This piece is significantly better than the earlier version on StR. Excellent work here, mate.
As to your point about it not being fair, well, it isn't. It isn't to the athletes and it isn't to the kids. There's always going to be the DeMarr DeRozen's out there.
The point about it not working...it's not clear yet and we can't make a determination, because it hasn't been in effect long enough.
I would agree that the effect on NCAA basketball is suspect as the more #1 prospects go to big name schools allowing the rich get richer (UNC this year).
You can point to all the anecdotal evidence that says that HSers aren't the problem, but the point is that if teams had known Kobe was going to be this good after one year of college (or maybe in Europe) perhaps he goes in the top 10 and not 13th.
That's the goal here: more efficient drafting. And, right now, I'd argue that it's too soon to tell if it's working. Should BJ Mullins have been a top 10 pick or is 15 about right? I'm not sure yet and, I'm not sure you can be either.
I always think that Dan Rosenbaum characterized the rule correctly when he called it a signalling device (known in Economics as a revelation mechanism).
Reply
7-22-2009 @ 1:49PM
dodgerbloo15 said...
This is the worst argument of all. More efficient drafting? NBA teams spend millions of dollars on scouting, talent evaluation, etc. The NBA is a business, BIG business, not a charity event. If a talent evaluator picks the wrong kid, he's the guy who should lose his job, not the kid who is actually dope.
7-22-2009 @ 10:53AM
Jay (Houston) said...
Then let the players go straight from high school to the NBADL or overseas to make some money. If the NBA doesn't want their talent, then that is their choice. If they do not have the patience or determination to wait an entire year to get a really good paycheck... then maybe they need to learn some maturity.
This rule wasn't created because of the few that it worked out for, but for the many that it did not.
The NBA and its teams not only want players that can play, but also young men that can represent their team as spokespeople. Some teams do not have the resources to send scouts out to thousands of high schools, but they all should be able to send them out to dozens of colleges.
Reply
7-22-2009 @ 10:57AM
Tom said...
"This rule wasn't created because of the few that it worked out for, but for the many that it did not."
It has "worked out" for a greater percentage of no-college rookies than "one-and-done" rookies, no doubt.
"The NBA and its teams not only want players that can play, but also young men that can represent their team as spokespeople."
So you're arguing that a player cannot be a good spokesman for the league unless he entered the league at age 19? That single season is the difference between illiterate idiots and well-spoken role models? Are you serious?
Reply
7-22-2009 @ 10:58AM
yokoach said...
so let me get this straight, just because someone comes out of high school they're ENTITLED to work in the NBA? why? because it's their profession and the NBA SHOULD give them a job??? give me a frickin break, should someone be given a job as a bartender just because they can make a perfect martini at home at 18??? puhlease...at one end of the spectrum this is an attack on business because "it's about money" for them, but somehow, at the other end of the spectrum it ISN'T about money for the 18 year old??? i've got news for the naive on this one...IT'S ABOUT NOTHING BUT MONEY FOR THE 18 YEAR OLD...if it wasn't, they would gladly work on their skills, or go to college or wait another year for the opportunity to improve their game and come IN at a more appropriate level to play in the NBA instead of being an 18 year old "Project"...
It's called delayed gratification...and just because someone WANTS to be hired it doesn't mean they should or they're entitiled to be hired.
that the young man given as an example has a mother with a physical challenge is specious reasoning at best...should every person whose family member has a life threatening illness be given a multimillion dollar job at their profession of choice JUST BECAUSE OF THAT RELATIVE'S ILLNEES???? I don't think so...
Keep the limit, in fact, raise it to 21 and make them become more of an adult emotionally before they enter the game, it's no guarantee they will but seasoning will help somewhat...
Reply
7-22-2009 @ 11:02AM
Tom said...
"so let me get this straight, just because someone comes out of high school they're ENTITLED to work in the NBA? why? because it's their profession and the NBA SHOULD give them a job???"
It's not about entitlement to a job. DeRozan was good enough to enter the league. If there was not an arbitrary rule, he would have been drafted in 2008. NBA teams hire 18-year-olds to sweep floors, cook dogs, and I'm sure in some cases dance at midcourt. But an NBA team cannot hire him to play basketball. That's not unfair to you?
7-22-2009 @ 11:01AM
cttc4 said...
It really al comes down to free enterprise versus basic rights. Bseball, and hockey don't have a minimum age limit and they do just fine, why should the NBA be any different? If an 18 year old kid can make a million dollars or go flunk so trig class, it's asisnine to send him to college, plus it's his right to pursue his dream no matter what his age. The NBA, doesn't have the best interests of the kid at heart, no matter what they say. They just want to protect their product by appearing to have standards in place to participate in the league. But, they actually have that right. The problem is, don't lie about your reason for having the age restriction, keep it real and say it's about the league, screw the kids and I could respect that.
Reply
7-22-2009 @ 1:07PM
vittoriodezen said...
Very well-written piece, Ziller. I'm not sure I completely agree, though. A few years ago I definitely did - I was really pissed off when the age limit was introduced. Now, I still don't like it, but I kind of think the NBA has the right to do it because it's a private league.
Players who aren't eligible to go to the NBA can still play basketball for a living, just not in the NBA. DeRozan surely could have gone the Brandon Jennings route for a year.
Reply
7-22-2009 @ 12:38PM
moalkitejp said...
Arbitrary is a funny thing. Doesn't there have to be a line? Why not make it 11th grade? I am sure LeBron could have made it. You speak of this arbitrary rule as if it is some sort of evil. There has to be a line. The business minds of the NBA like where they have set it. As a true fan of the game, I am blind to these age restrictions. I enjoy the product being put out for me to watch. You should too.
Reply
7-22-2009 @ 1:00PM
JagerQ said...
One of the overlooked facts here is that only about 30% of people in the US over the age of 25 have a college degree, based on US Census data from 2008 (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/education/013618.html)
There are a lot of people out there that don't have or need a college degree.
Reply
7-22-2009 @ 1:10PM
yokoach said...
first and foremost, why stop at 18, why not 17, 16 or 15 when they are a "phenom" entering high school and are highly recruited? There has to be an age and the NBA has decreed 18...
Second, re the argument...."I'm sure the NBA hires 18 year olds to sweep floors and cook dogs"....uhm I don't think so...look again...those who "cook dogs" are hired by the subcontracted concessionaires and not NBA employees as for the people who sweep floors? well, most likely, though I don't know for a fact, they are hired by the maintenance staff of the arena which services any number of vendors and therefore not only the NBA which makes them employees of the arena, since the arena doesn't belong to the NBa but is licensed by the individual teams...try again...
and is it unfair that an 18 year old can't be hired in the NBA? to me, nope. is it unfair that an 18 year old can't be a senator? be a bartender? or any other job that has an age to it? nope...is it unfair that there are 10 year olds that can't work 18 hour days even if they're willing and their family can use the money? nope, but emotionally you could make the case for it, after all, he's 10 and trying to help out his family, why deny him the right to put more hours in....notice that the Players Union isn't taking the league on about this one...I wonder why? perhaps, because they're trying to protect their players who already HAVE a job..or perhaps they don't think its the best idea either...
here's a thought...how hot do you think a player would be to join the NBA at 18 if he knew the maximum salary for his first year was $25K ??? and that while he could re-negotiate at 19, he's signed for a 1 year contract ONLY? my guess is NOT many... because while people are talking about the NBA greed ( a logic I still don't fathom regarding this issue) they are dismissing the personal greed of an 18 year old looking for easy coin...and many of them are...
all you need to do to see that money is the driver for players is to watch this years free agent deals....Ariza, a "fine young man" wins a ring with the Lakers and because he felt he wasn't wanted by the Lakers who had about $5.6 million to offer him, he went to the Rockets for $5.7 million, who have 0% chance of winning the ring next year, (unless of course ALL the other teams come down with a plethora of injuries to all 5 of their starting team)
and the list of that strategy goes on...there are very few who will choose the possibility of being in the land of championship over maximum coin possible... and it's not about taking care of their family either (read: Sprewell..."I can't feed my family on $14million for 2 years")
nope, the passion for the game only appears in most (not all, but certainly most) when they've garnered enough coin to let it out...even the Big Ego Shaquille ran down the court in the last year with the Lakers yelling at Dr. Buss publicly, "pay me what I'm worth"...show me the passion for anything but money in that statement...
so the "greed" is on both sides and just because an 18 year old WANTS to play in the NBA...does it mean that the employer should satisfy HIS need for greed? I don't think so...
Reply
7-22-2009 @ 1:55PM
colin said...
I work for an NBA team, and they hire 18-year olds and younger to do menial work around the arena, no subcontracted concessionaire.
Just for what it's worth.
7-22-2009 @ 2:02PM
dodgerbloo15 said...
You make some salient points, but let's not delude ourselves. These kids are not making "easy" coin. It's the NBA bro. Only 430 some odd people are good enough to be a member. That's in the entire world. Talk about an elite level of talent. What's that percentage work out to? So, your argument about giving every 18 year old whatever job they want holds absolutely zero water here.
However, you're right that greed drives both sides. My response? So what? The NBA is a business, an entertainment business. Dakota Fanning was working before she was 10. Should that have not been allowed? Last i checked, Americans live in a capitalist society. You may not believe in capitalism anymore, what with the housing market collapse and banks failing and a worldwide recession caused mostly by capitalist ideals, but that's neither here nor there.
It's all about the CREAM.
It's all about the CREAM for the NCAA. It's all about the CREAM for the NBA. And it's all about the CREAM for the 18-year-old who is good enough to play in the NBA. So why are we putting restrictions on only one of these parties?
7-22-2009 @ 2:15PM
instant35 said...
Wow, you are so smart. Does it matter if they are subcontracted or not? Funny, that they are actually hired directly. Either way though, the NBA is hiring them, either directly or indirectly.
As for your $25,000 salary hypothetical, all I can say is "huh"? Obviously you are not big on economics and the whole supply and demand thing. They will get paid what they are worth naturally, which is way more than $25,000 per year. If they want to forgo that payment to go to college, that is their choice. Saying 18 year olds are greedy because they would rather go to college then get paid $25,000 per year, is ridiculous (and ironically is the same choice a lot of us made). If you got paid $2 an hour to do your job, would you do it? Does saying no make you greedy?
As for your 15 or 16 year old age limit argument, the NBA was fine without an age limit for 60 years. No 15 year olds were drafted. The market naturally implements an age limit. Teams should be able to draft who they want. Obviously, it would be imprudent for an owner to draft a 16 year old, but if he wants to do it, why stop him?