My buddy and I had debate about reasons why the NBA benefits or not from not allowing High School kids going pro. I was trying to tell him that the NBA doesn't really benefit from not drafting High school kinds because GM's still draft bust players coming out of college. He said as a whole the NBA sets a requirement because they see these kids at another level, college. I tell him that these superstars just end up playing they same highschool students that we've been beating since highschool. He says their less likly to draft bust players you can compare them in a smaller pool.
So does the NBA really benefit from stopping high school kids to jump straight to the NBA?
Maybe there's kind of a deal with NCAA, because if the best players get drafted out of high school then college basket-ball lose popularity. Look at John Wall, if he could have been drafted out of high school there will be no buzz around Kentucky as one of the favorite for NCAA championship, etc...
I just think it protects stupid gms from making even more horrible mistakes but you are right they still make horrible mistakes now.
if they would like to invest millions into a 18 year old kid I dont see why they shouldnt allow him to do so. I think the rule is total B.S. st
It would have prevented Kwame from going so high. All he did in high school was dunk on people a foot shorter than him.
tonyl33 asked, " does the NBA really benefit from stopping high school kids to jump straight to the NBA?"
The answer to his question is a resounding yes!
NBA GMs were tired of making fools out of themselves spending number one draft choices on high school kids who play against inferior competition. Many of those selections were big gambles. Now they can spend at least one year watching those same guys play against the best in the nation. That was the one and only reason the rule was implemented
As a result, we have "One and Done" players who have zero interest in a college education. They pretend to be students for several months and they don't take any academic courses. Then after one college basketball season where they demonstrated to the NBA they can play against top flight competition, they make a small fortune.
"NBA GMs were tired of making fools out of themselves by spending number one draft choices on high school kids who play against inferior competition."
Here's an idea... They should NOT have picked them then! You act like somebody made GM's pick kids out of high school. It was their choice, not anybody elses.
There are juniors and seniors who get drafted in the first round who make GM's look foolish too.
Tezo83, please read what I wrote. I never said they were forced to select high school kids. Those were your words. I was only answering tonyl33's question. The scenario I described above was the primary reason the rule was implemented.
As for your second point about NBA GMs making fools out of themselves drafting college players, I completely agree.
The benefiters are the colleges. The appeal that a player like John Wall or Derrick Rose can bring to a college can be huge. Their merchandise sales increase, they have a better shot at securing more funding as a more dominant team (due to the success these players bring) and it attracts not only better players, but also more students to the school. More competition to get into the school gives the school higher value, allowing them to increase tuition as well.
M DYMES, you made an excellent point. However, they're reaping in extra revenue by perpetrating a fraud when they pretend that "One and Done" athletes are students. "One and Done" guys take Phys Ed courses in the fall semester and they don't have to finish any courses in the spring semester. They register for classes in the spring semester but they can drop out of school after the basketball season.
well i heard in interviews that alot of GM's dont like drafting players from high school cuz it keeps them out of high school gyms.....
i understand wat your sayin then why dont they just not go then..but i think some GM fold and just end up doin wat either then owner wants..or wat their fans want...who knows i could be wrong..
Okay, I misunderstood that!
I just think it's silly when people act like GM's had to pick those high school kids. NBA GM's are supposed to be the best basketball talent evaluators in the world. It was their choice whether or not to draft a player straight out of high school.
kurtu17, many NBA GMs aren't very smart. As Tezo83 pointed out, nobody was forcing them to scout and/or draft high school guys. There are plenty of college and European players available to complete a successful draft.
But for those idiots who couldn't resist scouting and drafting a high school kid, some of their selections made them look like fools. As a result, NBA GMs lobbied for the current rule, pretending it was somehow beneficial to high school players.
Most of the major college basketball coaches are opposed to this rule. I don't think John Calipari is one of the coaches who opposes the current rule [LOL].
Imo they should change it to, you can make the jump from HS to the pros and if you decide to go to college you have to stay until your sophomore year
RTBT your right it is a messed up situation but still the colleges are benefiting even if their "student" athletes are a not really "students". People say college is so valuable, but the majority of these type of guys headed to the NBA, they know their first couple paydays are gonna set them up for years if not their lives. Plenty of them don't give a &$#%#&@! about being a student.
that is true they can just stop going to classes but most of them dont. its is a shame to say they are student athletes ( for the ones that are one and dones). and it is the gm's faults for picking them but i can understand that they are under pressure because you dont know if that highschooler is gonna become the next great star. they shouldnt complain though if they pick them and they dont become a star though. something that needs to be pointed out though is its not just the one and dones who arent students, its also the 2 year and sometimes the three year guys who are just taking easy courses or carrying just 12 hrs. there goals of making the nba are the same and some do lil as possible to continue to play untill there stock is high enough to go to the nba. its even worst these days because more and more are starting to realize that if they are just out side the gate of the nba talent wise, then they can just go to europe and make at least 6 figures
M DYMES, you are absolutely correct, the colleges do reap enormous financial benefits from "One and Done" players. I'm OK with that if they in turn agree to stop their public relations ads and promos that paint college basketball players as student athletes.
Just admit that you're running a John Calipari minor league franchise for the NBA and I'll be satisfied with the truth.
It continues to be a case by case scenario as far as players being busts. In my opinion, there are certain trends that are caused by the success of other players. The initial success of high school players like Garnett, Kobe, and O'Neal's over the course of a couple seasons paved the way for trends that caused players like Kwame, Chandler, and others going very high. The idea is great, you draft a guy with tons of success and potential and instead of him going to college to learn more you can cultivate him yourself. However, a lot of the top prospects going into college are not the guys being drafted in the top 10 or 15 by their sophomore years, a lot of them fall through the cracks only no one invested 20+ million dollars in them.
Although there have been many successful players from Europe to play in the NBA in the 80's and 90's, I think Dirk Nowiski started a trend of teams drafting tall "European big men" very high, some panned out like Gasol and others didn't like Nokoloz Tskitishivli, there were 87 international players drafted between 2001 and 2006, and although Europeans still are chosen frequently in the draft, this trend has proven to be case by case thus resulting in less Euro prevalent crazy 1st rounds.
I think the current trend, with the success of Rondo and Rose, and Evans ( and with John Wall looking like the #1 pick) is trying to find the 6'4'' super athletic slasher point guard who can change the game in the open court and learn to shoot jumpers down the line. There haven't been a high draft picks of this point guard make bust yet, but eventually GM's will try to overlook weaknesses and try to "make" or convince themselves that the next 6'4'' athletic point guard who comes out of college is that type of player when he really isn't and then the trend will change as the game continues to evolve.
Wow, I didnt mean to rant, but case by case, Stern did it because it kinda looked bad and took some of the best players out of college basketball and a lot of high school players were getting drafted in the 2nd or getting skipped and falling through the cracks, all in all I think its a good rule, but I don't think they should try to extend the rule to make it 2 years out of high school to go pro.
I think at the age of 18, if you are considered an adult and go fight a war over seas for your country, you should damn well be able to apply to enter the NBA without college experience. If you can go off a die for your country you should be able to....
1. Have a drink at 18 legally
2. Smoke some ganja
3. Be able to apply for the NBA draft
Get F' ed up and enter the draft!!! lol
I hear you, but the NBA is a company and an enormous organization and if they want to make those rules then they can. You can't enter the NFL draft until you are 2 years removed from high school sports. It's a company not a government organization and companies can decide what kind of guidelines and qualifications they want their employees follow, as long as they are not breaking any laws or practicing discrimination.
IMO the nba should allow high school prospects to enter the NBA straight from high school, but I think some type of advisory committee should be put into effect, like the NFL. Allowing many of the top prospects to get a feel of where they get drafted. This could allow the prospects to weigh the decision of entering the draft or going to college.
Also, The NFL requires prospects to be 3 years removed from their high school class to enter the draft. For example a junior or red-shirt sophomore
The rule against one and dones is solely so the NCAA can make money. And the rule doesn't prevent busts. There is still the same talent to choose from. And if it does prevent busts, it encourages steals.
I think I remember reading that this was a players union issue. They were upset that a kid being drafted out of high school, and was a project, was just going to sit on the bench and take a spot from a veteran. I'm sure that this wasn't the sole reason why the rule went into effect, but I remember this being an issue with the union.
As far as football, the rule makes total sense. An 18 year old kid is just not ready to play a physical game like football at that age. They would get killed.
To answer the question though, I think the NBA does benefit long term from this. I am sure there were a bunch of guys who declared early over the years that might have panned out if they had played some college ball.
You know how GM's can draft a guy under contract from a foreign country and he may not play for that team for another couple years. I think they NBA should allow teams to draft high school players and the year they enter they lose there first round pick for the next year, or if they don't have a first rounder for the next year then they lose it for the year after. An example, say the Clippers decided to draft John Wall instead of Blake Griffin in 2009 it would mean if Wall enters in 2010 they would lose there 2010 1st round pick. I sound it sounds kind of stupid, but it would be a win win for both sides.
lol..i feel what youre saying joe. but they still havent found that 6'4 pg because they all end upbeing 6'2 and a half to 6'3.
i can understand why the nfl doesit, because there sport is alotmorephysical and violent. then again cant you be a pro boxer at the age of 18 oryounger?
DanEBoy is right, the Players Union made an issue out of this for the very reasons he cited. So between NBA GMs and the veterans, they implemented a rule that helps makes a mockery of the term "student athlete". It also protects NBA GMs from looking stupid by investing a ton of money in a high school player who may be years away or never making it.
As I mentioned above, they should simply get rid of this rule and give young men the same choice every other high school senior has. They can go to college, they can join the military, or they can apply for a job in their chosen profession, even if it's professional basketball.
If the rule is changed, maybe John Calipari can go back to being a college basketball coach, as opposed to being the coach of an NBA Developmental League team.
Q, the difference with boxing is that a team isn't risking giving you millions of dollars if you get slaughtered in the ring. You get paid by the fight not a multi year contract like the NFL
The league has benefited greatly, and Lance Stephenson is the perfect example. If the one-and-done rule wasn't in effect, he would have tried to go from high school. He'd be taking up a roster spot right now. He has been at Cincy, had some success and some failure, and yesterday said that he is going to stick around for him sophomore year because he doesn't think he is ready. The league is better off for that. Lance Stephenson is better off for getting the dose of reality that the Big East hands out.
If there was any reform to the rule, I'd allow the league to reject applications for early entry. Have that pannel that sends prospective draftees info as to where they are likely to be taken the power to reject applicants. If an 18-year old wants to apply, fine. The league can send him a rejection letter. Even then, though, a guy like Stephenson would have probably gotten through and been in the league before he is ready.
Honestly, for every Kevin Garnnet, there is a Gerald Green AND a Sebastian Telfair. I personally did not enjoy watching these raw kids take PT away from proven veterans who konw the game.
Kwame was ESPECIALLY difficult to watch because if you come to the NBA, you gotta come legit. I ain't paying hundreds of dollars a year to watch some really tall teenager running around the floor like a deer in the headlights.
Some things Kwame Brown would have DEFINITELY learned if he WENT to college even for a year:
1. Running back on defense (at least once in a while) I see the dude sprint like a gazelle when going for transition dunks. And Trots like a turtle when getting back on D. If he went to any major College, that'd be eliminated.
2. How to set a screen without getting called for the foul
3. How to pass out of AN EFFECTIVE NBA SIZED double team or baseline trap... at all. Watching this guy trying to pass was like watching.... Charles Barkley trying to Rap for Taco Bell I mean, you're SUPPOSED to be able to somewhat do it. (No Racial?) (Actually, yes racial, my bad)
I my honest opinion, the Age limit has made the game slightly better to watch from a skill level perspective.
I think ALL of the HS players drafted in years past will PASS any panel because there's no WAY a GM drafts a player that the panel rejects.
How about this:
I like the panel idea. What if we just have a Panel rank the 10 TOP HS players in the country every year? ONLY these players have the OPTION to put their name into the draft?
High School players are both blessings and curses... Once in awhile you end up getting a big box with a big (?) and hoping to find something good... There are some who lands a hit on them... Let's say LeBron James... There are some who end up like a scrub like Kwame Brown... There are still those people who are unsure about that player especially when they were selected ahead over the heavy top pick favorite... Head Case: Dwight Howard over Emeka Okafor (I know I heard some boos that night when the Magic made their choice) But look at them now, Dwight is a monster while Emeka seems like a daily routine guy who never improved in his 6 year tenure in the L... There are guys whom you can depend on like Josh Smith and JR Smith... There are guys who are failures like Ousmane Cisse and Robert Swift...
Bottomline... College is a great experience and whether some people understand it or not, it's a great step for learning the game of basketball... It allows guys like Lance Stephenson to come in and be more ready when they come to the NBA...
Yeah the GM's don't have to draft high school players its just another way for the NBA to cover themselves.
There are plenty of guys drafted that made it big not going to college but so many H.S. guys have been busts too.
Some of the smaller names that haven't produced much Gerald Green, Robert Swift, Sebastian Telfair, Dorrell Wright.
Imagine if they didn't change the rookie contracts either.
A little long but i think there are good point people will enjoy
I think the rule benifits the players as much as it benefits the Colleges and NBA to evaluate. First it stops a bunch of high school players from entering the draft that shouldn't since i dont know the actual stats on how may high school players entered each year before the rule was put in place but i would assume it was probably around 10 or so and what that means is maybe 5 get drafted the other 5 dont get anything their careers are over and gotta get a job working somwhere at least with this rule if they go to college and find out after a year that they are not as good as they were thinking they were coming out of high school at least they can go to college.
Second it benefits the colleges because they get star players that increase revenue though there may be cases like OJ Mayo where money was involved and the school has penalties but they will still gladly take another one and done player. Also there are alot of times where the best player in the high school class dont pan out and players way down the list are the stars and it gives the GM's an oppurtunity to see that for instance Evan Turner was in the same class with Rose and Beasley and he got no love and was i beleive the 49th ranked player in the class and now he is a 2nd overall pick.
Third it benefits the NBA in the sense that the players are more prepared personally i think there are players that could have made it to the NBA out of high school like recent players like Rose, Beasley, and Mayo are just some but who is to say that Rose would have had the same type of rookie season he might have not really played at all and turned the ball over alot when he was in or for Mayo he may have just shot a horrible percentage coming straight out of high school and lost his confidence and not be playing the way he is now.
Of cousre there are perfect examples where teams found a player the had all potential and has turned into a good player for instance Bynum has turned into a good player but thats only because the lakers really pushed him and made him stronger and trained with Kareem.
And to be honest i think the rule was put in place because of how bad of a pick Kwame Brown was since he dominated everyone he played against since he was bigger and stonger until he got to the NBA also a side note is its good thing to note is that the NBA has a rookie contract unlike the NFL were the player gets 80 million just because they played well in college.
Who cares if schools like Kentucky turn into an NBA farm team because of Calpari? I mean it's not hurting anyone, everyone benefits, the players who are allowed to one and done, and the school who financially reap the benefits of the players. The school's shouldn't be ashamed or embarrassed about it, it's not like they use the money to fund something illegal, it's to better an institution created to give people a higher education...&$#%#&@!, they should get all the money they want.
Keep the one year rule, college ball wouldn't be the same without it...I think everyone everyone on here can agree that they wouldn't want to see college ball without it's stars.
It also gives the opportunity to the players to receive an education, sure there are going to be kids who take no legit classes then leave after their first year, but there are guys like Lance Stephenson who could be half way towards a degree by the time he gets drafted next year, which is a great starting point if his career doesn't pan out.
If the issue is because of financial reasons of the player for their family or whatever, there's always Europe, but that also runs the risk of having an experience like Jennings or Jeremy Taylor.
With one significant exception, I agree with almost everything FastDan said above. The rule obviously benefits the NBA, it can often turn out beneficial for the young men, and it certainly makes NCAA basketball more interesting. It also provides significant extra revenue to a school like Kentucky.
The one area where I disagree is the question he asked. FastDan wrote, "Who cares if schools like Kentucky turn into an NBA farm team because of Calpari?" The answer is I do and l don't think I'm alone. If the game of basketball is your only priority, this rule accomplishes it's goals. However, if you have concerns that go beyond the game of basketball, you probably have a different point of view.
At the very least, I would like to see college athletes who are REQUIRED to attend and pass college courses. I realize there are many ways around that but the "One and Done" rule actually allows basketball players to do nothing more than audition for the NBA.
In the end, Kentucky is essentially an NBA Developmental League team. Maybe that doesn't bother you but I find it very troubling. College is supposed to teach our young people values. But the message that "One and Done" sends is deception and fraud is OK. You can pretend to be a college student for one basketball season and reap the financial benefits at the expense of our values. Where does it end?
dan teams risk millions anyway from drafting euro and college guys who dont pan out. and the stats show that the highschoolers are more likely to pan out then the college guys
Someone may have already said this but i just skimmed thru the posts so im not sure, I dont think its right for these players to be forced to go to school, its just not fair to them, and im a huge NCAAB fan, prolly more so then the NBA, so i love seeing players like the roses, walls, durants, etc. come thru college, even if it is for the one year. but to me its just not a fair thing to do to these kids, take for example a Paul Harris from cuse, this kid was a top 10 recruit and prolly would of been a lottery pick, but since he was forced to go to school for a year his stock kept falling year after year and he ended up not getting drafted at all, and for what? so the NBA and NCAA can say these kids went to school for a year, like several people have mentioned, if these kids are superstar one and dones, they dont go to class, so in the end whats the point? Let the kids get there paydays as soon as they get out of highschool and if they turn out to be a bust well that sucks, but atleast they have some money to go to college on there own if they choose to, and if they turn into superstars, even better, but i dont think anyone should stop a young man from making money to support himself and his family.
The rule is not based in fact. Very little would have changed besides risking potential injuries.
High schoolers who were top-10 picks:
- Kevin Garnett, No. 5 in 1995
- Tracy McGrady, No. 9 in 1997
- Jonathan Bender, No. 5 in 1999
- Darius Miles, No. 3 in 2000
- Kwame Brown, No. 1 in 2001
- Tyson Chandler, No. 2 in 2001
- Eddy Curry, No. 4 in 2001
- DeSagana Diop, No. 8 in 2001
- Amare Stoudemire, No. 9 in 2002
- LeBron James, No. 1 in 2003
- Dwight Howard, No. 1 in 2004
- Shaun Livingston, No. 4 in 2004
- Martell Webster, No. 6 in 2005
Of those, five were clearly worth the hype: Garnett, McGrady, Stoudemire, James and Howard.
Of the remaining, three likely would have performed well enough in college to maintain their status as a top-10 pick: Chandler, Curry and Livingston.
Why? Because physically, they were superior to NCAA players. Curry would have shot 60 percent from the field in college, bullying all opponents. Chandler would have been seen as a raw stud no matter when he came out, as that's exactly what he's been in the NCAA, too. And Livingston (and possibly Bender, too) would have overwhelmed perimeter defenders in college and the hype he had was that of Penny Hardaway Part II.
The remaining five?
- Bender and Miles very well could have lit up the NCAA. Each was always a great scorer, and injuries had substantial effects on their NBA careers. Of course, Miles' attitude problems may have come out more in college, but that's hardly guaranteed.
- Brown and Diop almost certainly would have been exposed for their lack of feel around the basket. Their stocks would have slipped, but their size and athleticism would have kept them in the first round at any point, likely. And I don't think either of them would be much better NBA players with college.
- Webster is a tricky case. He may be the only guy on this list who really could have gained a LOT from college. He might actually be a better NBA player had he went to Washington for two or three years, playing alongside Brandon Roy for one.
But if Paul Harris is getting worse , why should an NBA team suffer. This isnt charity, its basketball. Also there is only so many roster spots available, he would be taking one away from another player.
Do you own an NBA team or something?lol, i mean thats why nba teams pay scouts, so if a paul harris type player can convince a team of being a lotter pick, and he turns out to be a bust, well then thats the teams problem. But i think the player shouldnt be told he cant go right to the pros just so he can go to a fake year of college so a bunch of rich white guys can line THERE pockets while the player suffers. And as far as him taking someones roster spot, its not as if an nba team picks a player based on name or anything like that, they go by talent, If player A is better then player B there going to take player A and vice versa.