PDA

View Full Version : Two and Through? Will we have a new age limit?



topdog
11-27-2011, 04:11 PM
One of the "B-list" items yet to be tackled is the age limit for prospective NBA players. How do people feel about this?

Hawkeye15
11-27-2011, 04:14 PM
I would only be in favor of it if they rolled it out immediately lol, due to me being a Wolves fan and the Clippers getting our pick unconditionally. It would then leave talent for the draft next year.

I am neither for it nor against it honestly.

topdog
11-27-2011, 04:20 PM
I like 2 years. High school basketball just isn't competitive enough to evaluate players and one year of college isn't long enough to keep guys serious about improving their games and taking care of business off the court. There would be fewer surprises when they hit the NBA and less "upside" talk.

If they need time to implement this that's fine. But as a Wolves fan owing the Clippers a 2012 pick, I'd like it right away please :D

smith&wesson
11-27-2011, 04:26 PM
OK i dont get this..

either let them chose if they want to come straight out of highschool. or make them go to college and finish!

whats the point in 1 year. or 2 years ? whats the diff if you dont get to finish anyways ? honestly whats the diff.

you guys really think a 21 year old is all that much more mature then a 20 year old ? pfffft. jr smith is still 12. ron artest finally turned 18 last year in terms of maturity.

smith&wesson
11-27-2011, 04:33 PM
I would only be in favor of it if they rolled it out immediately lol, due to me being a Wolves fan and the Clippers getting our pick unconditionally. It would then leave talent for the draft next year.

I am neither for it nor against it honestly.

i just dont get the thought process behind it. college ball is not nba ball. the adjustment will be there if your in college 1 year or 4 regardless.

if its about education then make the players finish and then be allowed entry. if its about maturity i dont think kids between the age 19-21 are all that different. it all depends on the person.

we have had great great great players come out of high school like lebron, kobe, garnet, etc.

we have had busts come out of high school and college. l just dont get what were trying to achieve with this age change.

for example, demar derozan came to the league when he was 19. if he was 20 you think he would be all that much more polished as a player ? he is in his 3rd season and is still develeping as a player. what would have 1 more year of college done for him ?

like i said if its about these guys getting an education then im all for the idea. but again if they dont have to finish then whats the diff

topdog
11-27-2011, 04:35 PM
OK i dont get this..

either let them chose if they want to come straight out of highschool. or make them go to college and finish!

whats the point in 1 year. or 2 years ? whats the diff if you dont get to finish anyways ? honestly whats the diff.

you guys really think a 21 year old is all that much more mature then a 20 year old ? pfffft. jr smith is still 12. ron artest finally turned 18 last year in terms of maturity.

It's a matter of odds and observation. Half of a collegiate career at least has better odds of getting some of these guys a little more education and maturity and more importantly it gives scouts more time to see guys face the same level of competition and see if they develop or rely on the same old routine.

People clamor for a deeper, more competitive league and you get that with clearer draft selections and more complete players.

smith&wesson
11-27-2011, 04:38 PM
the nba is sick of players like thabeet, and all these busts that play 1 year of ball and come to the nba unpolished

they want more experience players, so i understand that

but college ball is very diff from nba ball. the transition will have to be made regardless. players that never even played college ball have become mega stars in the league. and busts come out of highschool, they come out from year one, two, three or four of college too.

you cant prevent busts. some players are great in college and theyre game simply doesnt translate to the nba. you cant prevent busts from happening.

pd1dish
11-27-2011, 04:38 PM
my favorite idea is that we allow players to go straight from high school. if they are that good in high school that they can land an NBA contract, then what the hell, go for it. its probably worth it. however, if you decide to go to college, i think you must stay there for 2 years. i dont like all these one and done players. itll make it more exciting to see all the guys that could have been 1 and done just straight up dominate and create more competition throughout the NCAA.

smith&wesson
11-27-2011, 04:44 PM
It's a matter of odds and observation. Half of a collegiate career at least has better odds of getting some of these guys a little more education and maturity and more importantly it gives scouts more time to see guys face the same level of competition and see if they develop or rely on the same old routine.

People clamor for a deeper, more competitive league and you get that with clearer draft selections and more complete players.

i disagree if your a tweener and have a graet college career there is no garuantee that your game will translate to the nba. wouldnt matter if you had 4 years college experince or 0.

if this theory was true the it suggests that garnet would have been a better player if he went to college. or kobe, or lebron, or jemain oneil.

Lebron was as complete of a player any rookie could be coming in to the league.

topdog
11-27-2011, 04:46 PM
but college ball is very diff from nba ball. the transition will have to be made regardless. players that never even played college ball have become mega stars in the league. and busts come out of highschool, they come out from year one, two, three or four of college too.

you cant prevent busts. some players are great in college and theyre game simply doesnt translate to the nba. you cant prevent busts from happening.

It's not about completely eliminating busts. Thabeet wasn't one-and-done. It's about reducing bust potential.

With high school competition you've got 10-11 boys and 1 man on a team. Being 6'10" or uber athletic is magnified by playing against 6'0" boys who are going to work in offices or be repairmen. College exposes some of these attributes as your facing more similar competition. The longer you play in college, the more your lack of development and reliance on your physical attributes is exposed.

ChiSox219
11-27-2011, 04:47 PM
If a player has the talent he should be able to enter the draft whenever he chooses.

topdog
11-27-2011, 04:49 PM
i disagree if your a tweener and have a graet college career there is no garuantee that your game will translate to the nba. wouldnt matter if you had 4 years college experince or 0.

if this theory was true the it suggests that garnet would have been a better player if he went to college. or kobe, or lebron, or jemain oneil.

I'm not disputing that there aren't guys who could make the leap, but it is rare and what's saying they wouldn't be better for or equally far along spending some development years in the NCAA?

smith&wesson
11-27-2011, 04:59 PM
Ill use this example again.

demar derozan is going in to year three in the nba he is 22 years old.

if he stayed in college 2 years he would be going in to his sophmore year at age 22.

heres my question. is demar derozan a more polished player at age 22 with 2 years of nba experience going in to year 3 or is he a more polished player with 2 years of college and one year of nba experience ?

in my opinion he was fine being drafted after one year of college and having more hands on nba experience rather then having more experience in college. in terms of his game and not his education.

again im for education. i think all players should go through 4 years of college for their own sake. but i dont get the diff between 1 or 2 years of college.

topdog
11-27-2011, 05:13 PM
Ill use this example again.

demar derozan is going in to year three in the nba he is 22 years old.

if he stayed in college 2 years he would be going in to his sophmore year at age 22.

heres my question. is demar derozan a more polished player at age 22 with 2 years of nba experience going in to year 3 or is he a more polished player with 2 years of college and one year of nba experience ?

in my opinion he was fine being drafted after one year of college and having more hands on nba experience rather then having more experience in college. in terms of his game and not his education.

again im for education. i think all players should go through 4 years of college for their own sake. but i dont get the diff between 1 or 2 years of college.

1. DeRozan: highly touted as a freshman, demar was relatively non-existent for his USC team until a late run heading into March Madness when he started to hit the long bomb. What could college have done for him? He would have to continue to develop his role on USC which seemed to include 3-pt. shooting acumen. He builds confidence and leadership experience on a reasonably good USC team and is better prepared to lead his (Toronto) teammates.

2. Two years puts more pressure on players to stay committed to their education in order to remain elgible to play. They can't just slip by.

3. When you're halfway done, it's much easier to finish a degree (probably by unconventional means - online or summer classes). I know that once I had gotten past my second year I though it would be stupid on me not to finish (even though I never wanted to go in the 1st place and thought about dropping out after one year)

smith&wesson
11-27-2011, 05:15 PM
It's not about completely eliminating busts. Thabeet wasn't one-and-done. It's about reducing bust potential.

With high school competition you've got 10-11 boys and 1 man on a team. Being 6'10" or uber athletic is magnified by playing against 6'0" boys who are going to work in offices or be repairmen. College exposes some of these attributes as your facing more similar competition. The longer you play in college, the more your lack of development and reliance on your physical attributes is exposed.

ok so what your saying is bad scouting is killing it for the kids who actually are talented enough to make the leap ? i dont see that as being fair.

you can watch a kid play and understand that his compition is inferior. but you can also see if he has a mid range jump shot, 3pt range, basket ball iq, if he is athletic enough, laterall movements, ball handles,speed etc.. these arent things that your apponent determins.

defence would be tricky to evaluate if he is far superior to his aponent but you can still do some good scouting on a guy. if you pick a bust its because you didnt do enough scouting or your scout simply failed..

smith&wesson
11-27-2011, 05:24 PM
1. DeRozan: highly touted as a freshman, demar was relatively non-existent for his USC team until a late run heading into March Madness when he started to hit the long bomb. What could college have done for him? He would have to continue to develop his role on USC which seemed to include 3-pt. shooting acumen. He builds confidence and leadership experience on a reasonably good USC team and is better prepared to lead his (Toronto) teammates.

2. Two years puts more pressure on players to stay committed to their education in order to remain elgible to play. They can't just slip by.

3. When you're halfway done, it's much easier to finish a degree (probably by unconventional means - online or summer classes). I know that once I had gotten past my second year I though it would be stupid on me not to finish (even though I never wanted to go in the 1st place and thought about dropping out after one year)

derozan doesnt shoot 3s. he is in year 3 in the nba and has yet to add that to his arsenal. what makes you think he would do that in year two of college ? it takes time to add range if you dont have it. and again college ball is different then nba ball. you can be in college ten years and be the most polished player you can be. if your game doesnt translate to the nba it means nothing.

if im not mistaken d.rose was found to have cheated on his exams in college. they found this out in his rookie season on the bulls. im sure the bulls franchise rally gave two ***** about it right ? i dont think they care about these kids education.

again if your going to school, you should finish school. thats for any one. for your own education. but if were talking talent wise... it dosnt take a genius to understand that some 18 year olds can be polished enough to play. specially when history indicates it.


heres what im saying. either let them chose or make them go through the full course. whats this 1 year or two years in between ? thats what im asking.

topdog
11-27-2011, 05:26 PM
ok so what your saying is bad scouting is killing it for the kids who actually are talented enough to make the leap ? i dont see that as being fair.

you can watch a kid play and understand that his compition is inferior. but you can also see if he has a mid range jump shot, 3pt range, basket ball iq, if he is athletic enough, laterall movements, ball handles,speed etc.. these arent things that your apponent determins.

defence would be tricky to evaluate if he is far superior to his aponent but you can still do some good scouting on a guy. if you pick a bust its because you didnt do enough scouting or your scout simply failed..

How is it the failure of scouts if a high school team never plays a good defense because the coach is the gym teacher and the kids have no experience guarding a guy 6" taller than them?

You don't see a lot of those things like i.q. and jumpshots because these "elite" high school players are essentially playing a globetrotters' game every time they take the floor. What's the highest percentage shot? A dunk. Why jumpshoot if you can always get a dunk?

I don't know where I said anything was being killed for the 1 player in the country every 2 years that actually could make the leap. You have to make a system that works for the whole incoming class of prospects not just the rarity and there is nothing in making guys play college that is ruinging their careers.

topdog
11-27-2011, 05:31 PM
derozan doesnt shoot 3s. he is in year 3 in the nba and has yet to add that to his arsenal. what makes you think he would do that in year two of college ? it takes time to add range if you dont have it. and again college ball is different then nba ball. you can be in college ten years and be the most polished player you can be. if your game doesnt translate to the nba it means nothing.

if im not mistaken d.rose was found to have cheated on his exams in college. they found this out in his rookie season on the bulls. im sure the bulls franchise rally gave two ***** about it right ? i dont think they care about these kids education.

again if your going to school, you should finish school. thats for any one. for your own education. but if were talking talent wise... it dosnt take a genius to understand that some 18 year olds can be polished enough to play. specially when history indicates it.


heres what im saying. either let them chose or make them go through the full course. whats this 1 year or two years in between ? thats what im asking.

DeRozan was shooting 3s in college - that's my point. He could have entered the league with more tools and a nice pump-fake and drive/mid-range game.

The more guys that get caught cheating, the stricter enforcement can become.

Most children don't want to go to school, but we make them right? It's for your own good that you're made to do it until you realize that it's good for you. Plus, a two year rule influences younger guys who are just starting high school or even earlier by taking away the "I don't need to study, I'm going to be in the NBA" excuse for tanking it in academics.

smith&wesson
11-27-2011, 05:55 PM
DeRozan was shooting 3s in college - that's my point. He could have entered the league with more tools and a nice pump-fake and drive/mid-range game.

The more guys that get caught cheating, the stricter enforcement can become.

Most children don't want to go to school, but we make them right? It's for your own good that you're made to do it until you realize that it's good for you. Plus, a two year rule influences younger guys who are just starting high school or even earlier by taking away the "I don't need to study, I'm going to be in the NBA" excuse for tanking it in academics.

so your saying if a player like lebron is good enough to enter the league and put up 25 points 9 assists 6 rebounds and 4 steals in his first game ever coming out of highschool should be forced to attend college for two years ?

to make my question more clear ill ask it this way. then why not four years ? why not want them to finish ?

Oldmantrash
11-27-2011, 06:27 PM
This is not about the player getting an education, or making college basketball better.its about giving out rookie contracts to 18-19year olds.

Obviously the NBA executives would rathe have. Couple of years o see thm in college before drafting them.

Right or wrong its about the usual...money

North Yorker
11-27-2011, 06:35 PM
According to reports this wont take affect until after the 2012 draft, if it does in fact go through.

So A.Davis, Drummond, Beal, Teague,etc will all be able to declare if they want.

Heediot
11-27-2011, 06:48 PM
I like the NFL rule 3 years. Yes it imposes on individual liberty and choice but in the long run its a better product for the fan of both College ball and pro ball.

Heediot
11-27-2011, 06:52 PM
To add. I think College players especially those helping generate alot of revenue should get more money/bursary.

J4KOP99
11-27-2011, 07:06 PM
The NFL has the rule for health reasons. A freshman in college is not even close to being fully physically developed.

As for the NBA, I like the idea of letting the HS prospect have the option of going straight to the NBA. However, if they do choose to attend a college, they should have to stay for 2 years. Why not the full 4 years? Because a lot of these guys need $$. 2 years in college can also help certain people learn (especially about how to manage their money)

The way it is now, these HS prospects go into college for one year, they play during the season and then once the season is over, they stop going to classes. That can't be happening.

IndyRealist
11-27-2011, 07:07 PM
This is yet another attempt to protect owners from themselves. They are absolutely horrible at judging talent and maturity, so we're going to keep them in college as long as possible so they can make someone else's job to weed out the bums.

mjt20mik
11-27-2011, 07:21 PM
The NFL has the rule for health reasons. A freshman in college is not even close to being fully physically developed.

As for the NBA, I like the idea of letting the HS prospect have the option of going straight to the NBA. However, if they do choose to attend a college, they should have to stay for 2 years. Why not the full 4 years? Because a lot of these guys need $$. 2 years in college can also help certain people learn (especially about how to manage their money)

The way it is now, these HS prospects go into college for one year, they play during the season and then once the season is over, they stop going to classes. That can't be happening.

I am going to state this again. I have several friends (from my HS) that are playing in the states (specifically schools in Michigan). They get away with anything at school, and really aren't hard pressed for anything (education wise). Having 1 or 2 years of college really is indifferent as the amount of information and material they learn really isn't that significant in those years. If we are talking about getting these kids education, I still think 4 years is ideal.

topdog
11-27-2011, 07:23 PM
so your saying if a player like lebron is good enough to enter the league and put up 25 points 9 assists 6 rebounds and 4 steals in his first game ever coming out of highschool should be forced to attend college for two years ?

to make my question more clear ill ask it this way. then why not four years ? why not want them to finish ?

In part, it is to mitigate the fact that for so long you only had to go to high school so it would add on 4yrs. to that or 3 to what stands right now. You also can sympathize with players worried about injury or supporting their families, but this all must be balanced against college scholarship funds and, since it would be an NBA rule, the health and competitiveness of the league. I feel a 20yr. age limit is a fair compromise of these various issues.

daleja424
11-27-2011, 07:30 PM
I think 3 years should be the number... but 2 is a step in the right direction.

You will get better developed players and people if they have to stay multiple years in college. If football players can do it... in a profession where the life span of a career is half that of the NBA... then basketball players can do it as well.

Making kids stay in school benefits the NBA, college basketball, and the athlete. It is a win, win, win.

mjt20mik
11-27-2011, 07:48 PM
I think 3 years should be the number... but 2 is a step in the right direction.

You will get better developed players and people if they have to stay multiple years in college. If football players can do it... in a profession where the life span of a career is half that of the NBA... then basketball players can do it as well.

Making kids stay in school benefits the NBA, college basketball, and the athlete. It is a win, win, win.

My point exactly. If you listen to the conferences with NFL players, they are able to articulate and express themselves very well. The NBA conferences on the other hand aren't that great.

king4day
11-27-2011, 08:02 PM
I like 2 years. High school basketball just isn't competitive enough to evaluate players and one year of college isn't long enough to keep guys serious about improving their games and taking care of business off the court. There would be fewer surprises when they hit the NBA and less "upside" talk.

If they need time to implement this that's fine. But as a Wolves fan owing the Clippers a 2012 pick, I'd like it right away please :D

I agree with this. You're not just evaluating their talent too. You get a good idea who they are as a person. Were they problematic in school or did they behave. You learn a lot and it could decide a lot.

smith&wesson
11-27-2011, 08:31 PM
In part, it is to mitigate the fact that for so long you only had to go to high school so it would add on 4yrs. to that or 3 to what stands right now. You also can sympathize with players worried about injury or supporting their families, but this all must be balanced against college scholarship funds and, since it would be an NBA rule, the health and competitiveness of the league. I feel a 20yr. age limit is a fair compromise of these various issues.


makes sence

i dont see anything wrong with the way it is now. 1 or 2 years in college isnt going to make that much of a difference honestly.. either way they arent finishing the degree, and they will have to adapt and translate theyre game to the nba anyways. but i hear what your saying they cant just drop 4 years on them like that.