Photo

David Stern wants "two and done" rule


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 Chris B

Chris B

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 21,435 posts
  • LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 27 April 2012 - 03:24 PM

While it would be an NBA rule, this is more of an NCAA topic/problem.

http://www.cbssports... ... philosophy

Apparently, almost all groups are in favor of this except the NBA players' union.

Personally, I think they should allow high schoolers go right to the NBA or there should be a requirement that, if you go to college, you must stay there 2 or 3 years.

#2 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 43,034 posts

Posted 27 April 2012 - 03:57 PM

From a labor standpoint, there shouldn't be any rule, in any of the leagues. I don't know how they get away with that, aside from the fact that the leagues have big expensive lawyers arguing on their side and the high schoolers can't really team up and hire anyone to argue on their behalf.

From a fan's standpoint, I agree that I would like a rule similar to baseball's. The guys that are too good and have no business or need being in college, can go Pro right out of HS. The others have to go for a couple years at least.

I don't have a real strong opinion on a two-and-done versus a one-and-done rule, though I suppose I'd rather see the two-and-done.

#3 Pedro Cerrano

Pedro Cerrano

    SportsGuy's Muse

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,869 posts
  • LocationEllicott City, MD

Posted 27 April 2012 - 10:40 PM

From a labor standpoint, there shouldn't be any rule, in any of the leagues. I don't know how they get away with that, aside from the fact that the leagues have big expensive lawyers arguing on their side and the high schoolers can't really team up and hire anyone to argue on their behalf.

From a fan's standpoint, I agree that I would like a rule similar to baseball's. The guys that are too good and have no business or need being in college, can go Pro right out of HS. The others have to go for a couple years at least.

I don't have a real strong opinion on a two-and-done versus a one-and-done rule, though I suppose I'd rather see the two-and-done.


Because these private organizations have a lot of leeway in terms of who they can employ. Generally age is not held to as high a standard as race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc because EVERYONE is young and EVERYONE gets old.

It's a tough argument.

There is baseball, and occasionally there are other things of note

"Now OPS sucks.  Got it."

"Making his own olive brine is peak Mackus."

"I'm too hungover to watch a loss." - McNulty

@bopper33


#4 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 28 April 2012 - 02:48 AM

From a labor standpoint, there shouldn't be any rule, in any of the leagues. I don't know how they get away with that, aside from the fact that the leagues have big expensive lawyers arguing on their side and the high schoolers can't really team up and hire anyone to argue on their behalf.

We also have child labor laws to prevent children from working before they are ready to work. The NBA and other leagues are saying the same thing that they don't think kids are mature enough for their respective leagues.

If these high schoolers had a relevant point, lawyers would be coming to them. Once a point time, MLBers didn't make relatively speaking a lot of money and then came Curt Flood and Marvin Miller. Lawyers are always looking to boost their profile and make some dough.
@levineps

#5 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 28 April 2012 - 02:53 AM

From a fan's standpoint, I agree that I would like a rule similar to baseball's. The guys that are too good and have no business or need being in college, can go Pro right out of HS. The others have to go for a couple years at least.

I don't have a real strong opinion on a two-and-done versus a one-and-done rule, though I suppose I'd rather see the two-and-done.

I agree with this for most part. I like the baseball system and think it would be fine in all sports. No reason Lebron James, Kevin Durant, and the current the Kentucky basketball factory should make a mockery out of college by going for a single year. I don't think that's what the NCAA had in mind when they were founded.

Two years is better than one, but I think one might even be worse than the current system. You have kids now who don't want to be there, but coaches feel obligated to get the best players.

Right now with college basketball, we are asking the same questions every year when they comeback. In the 3 year or after high school, it's a lot easier and better for continuity purposes.
@levineps

#6 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,680 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 28 April 2012 - 11:16 AM

From a labor standpoint, there shouldn't be any rule, in any of the leagues. I don't know how they get away with that, aside from the fact that the leagues have big expensive lawyers arguing on their side and the high schoolers can't really team up and hire anyone to argue on their behalf.


I'm pretty sure that the NBAPA (or, player unions in general) must agree to both the rule in place as well as any changes as part of the CBA. Technically, the high school and college players are not labor until drafted into the league. The union may not wish to pursue the case because by limiting the ability for these players to play right away it opens up money immediately for veteran players as well as raising the overall quality of play which indirectly leads to more money for all.

Even if high-school players wished to sue to end the rule, there is precedent in the Williams/Clarett case against the NFL. That ruling was essentially that the league, as an employer, is allowed to put certain minimum requirements in place for its employees (in that case, that a player is ineligible until three years after their high-school class graduated).

#7 Pedro Cerrano

Pedro Cerrano

    SportsGuy's Muse

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,869 posts
  • LocationEllicott City, MD

Posted 28 April 2012 - 11:52 AM

And it's worth noting that this is binding precedent.

There is baseball, and occasionally there are other things of note

"Now OPS sucks.  Got it."

"Making his own olive brine is peak Mackus."

"I'm too hungover to watch a loss." - McNulty

@bopper33


#8 Nuclear Dish

Nuclear Dish

    Rookie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 573 posts
  • LocationZichron Yaakov, Israel

Posted 29 April 2012 - 04:55 AM

The difference between the ruling in the NFL case and the case against the NBA is that the NFL can make the argument that the players aren't physically ready until they've been out of high school for 3 years, and no one can bring any kind of proof against their argument.

In the NBA, however, there are plenty of examples of players who came straight out of high school and were successful immediately. Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, LeBron James, et al. So the NBA would need to convince a judge that the binding precedent is relevant, while the lawyers for the high schoolers would need to convince him that it's not nearly the same situation.

I'm kind of surprised no one bothered to try this already. Part of the problem is that the way the rule is set up right now, a single player who contested it would likely not be germane to the case by the time it gets decided. It would probably need to be brought by a high school junior (or even younger) or as a class action in order to ensure that the parties involved still had something to gain when it is decided.

I also favor the idea of using the baseball rule (straight from high school or 2-3 years commitment), but this will accomplish 2 things:
1. More players going straight to NBA when they aren't ready and losing eligibility (maybe this helps the NBDL)
2. More players going to community colleges (which for some reason don't have to follow the same rule)

But I believe this is an NCAA rule, not a MLB rule (that explains why community colleges don't have to follow it). So any changes from the NBA wouldn't affect this. I have no idea how the NCAA gets away without being challenged on this. What keeps someone from walking away from their scholarship to get drafted after 1 year?

"Three thousand years of beautiful tradition, from Moses to Sandy Koufax..."

-Walter Sobchak


#9 Chris B

Chris B

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 21,435 posts
  • LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted 10 May 2012 - 06:27 PM

The NBA's players association wants the age limit for the NBA draft to return to 18 years old from 19 but will listen to commissioner David Stern's desire to increase it to 20 only if it gets significant concessions to the rookie wage scale and an incentive program for players who stay in school longer.

The NBPA issued a statement to ESPN.com on Thursday in response to Stern's comments since the end of the NCAA tournament last month, as well as former Suns general manager Steve Kerr's column on the same subject on Grantland.com earlier this week.


http://espn.go.com/n... ... imit-go-up

At least the NBAPA is interested in changing the "one-and-done" rule. IIRC, they were the only group that didn't agree with changing it back to the minimum age of 18, so maybe that happens now.

Though, as a college basketball fan, the 20 year old limit would be intriguing. I'm not sure if I would rather have the best basketball players just go straight to the NBA (where I wouldn't pay as much attention to them) or have them play two seasons in the NCAA.

#10 JeremyStrain

JeremyStrain

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 11,402 posts
  • LocationLanham, MD

Posted 10 May 2012 - 06:38 PM

I'd rather see a 2 and done rule because the immature knuckleheads going to the pros at 19 years old are a lot of why the NBA has a bit of a reputation problem. Too much money too young with no one to corral them (generalizing, I know there are exceptions.)

In baseball these kids (mostly) spend 2-3 years learning in the minors, which is a humbling experience so that they are better prepared mentally and physically to hit the pros. Same with the NHL although there are more teens there, some of those kids are knuckleheads too (see: Kane, Pat). The NFL does a good job of making them work to get to that level. Have to go to school to get drafted, and have to do well enough in school to make it to Junior year basically.
@JeremyMStrain

#11 Nuclear Dish

Nuclear Dish

    Rookie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 573 posts
  • LocationZichron Yaakov, Israel

Posted 12 May 2012 - 05:42 PM

Awesome article by Steve Kerr on why the 20-year age limit makes so much sense all around:

http://www.grantland... ... -limit-nba

"Three thousand years of beautiful tradition, from Moses to Sandy Koufax..."

-Walter Sobchak


#12 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 14 May 2012 - 09:40 AM

The difference between the ruling in the NFL case and the case against the NBA is that the NFL can make the argument that the players aren't physically ready until they've been out of high school for 3 years, and no one can bring any kind of proof against their argument.

In the NBA, however, there are plenty of examples of players who came straight out of high school and were successful immediately. Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, LeBron James, et al. So the NBA would need to convince a judge that the binding precedent is relevant, while the lawyers for the high schoolers would need to convince him that it's not nearly the same situation.

I'm kind of surprised no one bothered to try this already. Part of the problem is that the way the rule is set up right now, a single player who contested it would likely not be germane to the case by the time it gets decided. It would probably need to be brought by a high school junior (or even younger) or as a class action in order to ensure that the parties involved still had something to gain when it is decided.

I also favor the idea of using the baseball rule (straight from high school or 2-3 years commitment), but this will accomplish 2 things:
1. More players going straight to NBA when they aren't ready and losing eligibility (maybe this helps the NBDL)
2. More players going to community colleges (which for some reason don't have to follow the same rule)

But I believe this is an NCAA rule, not a MLB rule (that explains why community colleges don't have to follow it). So any changes from the NBA wouldn't affect this. I have no idea how the NCAA gets away without being challenged on this. What keeps someone from walking away from their scholarship to get drafted after 1 year?

I agree with what you are that a big difference between the NFL and NBA on this one is physical maturity. And I agree it would be harder to justify an older age minimum. Despite the initial successes have those you listed, they still raised the minimum age, so why not again? Here's a reason to do it: Kwame Brown, I'm sure there are others but that one stands out.
@levineps

#13 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 14 February 2014 - 03:49 PM

CBS Sports: NBA commish wants to raise age limit, calls one-and-done 'a disaster'

 

http://www.cbssports...ising-age-limit

 

The current limit of 19 years old, or one year removed from high school graduation, has resulted in the "one-and-done" phenomenon in college basketball. Many college coaches would like to see the eligibility rules change for the professional ranks, and Silver has said that he is hoping to raise the age limit by one year.

 

As Amick notes in the excerpt above, no changes are likely until at least after the 2016-17 NBA season.


@levineps




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Partners