2008 Woodie Awards
Curry, Kwame, Chandler prove merits of rule
Multimillion dollar question: Is the NBA age requirement good?
Gaurav Garg
Issue date: 5/5/08 Section: Sports
When the NBA owners and players union agreed on a new Collective Bargaining Agreement before the 2005-06 NBA season, one of the issues in the agreement was the minimum age for entering the NBA draft. Before the new CBA, players who graduated from high school in the U.S. were eligible upon graduation, while foreign players were eligible the year they turned 18. Now the rule is Americans have to be 1 year out of high school, plus turn 19 the year they get drafted, while foreigners have to turn 19 the year they're drafted.
Recently, there has been debate over whether or not the minimum age should be bumped up to two years and 20 for Americans and 20 for international players. The Flame here debates the merits of the rule and the idea of increasing it another season.
I say no. Keep it the way it is. First off, when the CBA was up for re-negotiation, David Stern originally wanted to make it two years and 20 years of age for both Americans international players, while the players union wanted to keep the then status quo, so the compromise was made to have the current system. The only amendment I would like to see to it is that Americans have to be one year out of high school. Forget the part that they have to be 19.
Second, when this was implemented, the whole idea was to stop the prep-to-pro jump. I liked it then, and I still like it. People argue that Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Dwight Howard, Kevin Garnett, Dwight Howard, and others, all of them superstars and franchise players, show that going prep-to-pro works just fine. To that I say, for every one of them, there are a lot more Kwame Browns, Eddy Currys, and Tyson Chandlers, all three of whom were McDonald's High School All-Americans in 2000-01, their senior year in high school. None of them have paned out as expected.
The point is, jumping to the NBA right out of high school is not good. Going to college can't harm a player. If Curry or Brown or Chandler had gone to college, they'd be better suited for the pro game. They would realize their game itself is not suited for the NBA, anyway.
Recently, there has been debate over whether or not the minimum age should be bumped up to two years and 20 for Americans and 20 for international players. The Flame here debates the merits of the rule and the idea of increasing it another season.
I say no. Keep it the way it is. First off, when the CBA was up for re-negotiation, David Stern originally wanted to make it two years and 20 years of age for both Americans international players, while the players union wanted to keep the then status quo, so the compromise was made to have the current system. The only amendment I would like to see to it is that Americans have to be one year out of high school. Forget the part that they have to be 19.
Second, when this was implemented, the whole idea was to stop the prep-to-pro jump. I liked it then, and I still like it. People argue that Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Dwight Howard, Kevin Garnett, Dwight Howard, and others, all of them superstars and franchise players, show that going prep-to-pro works just fine. To that I say, for every one of them, there are a lot more Kwame Browns, Eddy Currys, and Tyson Chandlers, all three of whom were McDonald's High School All-Americans in 2000-01, their senior year in high school. None of them have paned out as expected.
The point is, jumping to the NBA right out of high school is not good. Going to college can't harm a player. If Curry or Brown or Chandler had gone to college, they'd be better suited for the pro game. They would realize their game itself is not suited for the NBA, anyway.
Be the first to comment on this story