socalogo.gif (8739 bytes)
SoCalHoops Recruiting News

Point-Counterpoint. . . Tellem & Thompson:
Age Limits & The NBA--(May 14, 2001)

Sunday's New York Times featured a very interesting and timely pro & con series, not really a debate, but two essays presented side-by-side, each taking a different side of the age-limit issue:   Should the NBA impose a minimum age limit for draft?  What effect has the current influx of college underclassmen and high school players entering the NBA had on the college game (if any), and what does this trend portend for the future.  What about those players who don't make the draft who are prevented from re-entering (or entering for the first time) college, the ones who've lost their eligibility simply by taking a shot, but never actually making an NBA roster? 

Arn Tellem is one of the most successful player agents, and you can guess which side of the issue he's taking.  And Coach John Thompson, formerly of Georgetown and now a radio talk show host and basketball analyst presents some surprisingly strong arguments in favor of an age-limit.

May 13, 2001
THE AGENT
Pro: Age Limit Is Hollow Altruism

By ARN TELLEM
May 13, 2001
THE COACH
Con: Value of Education Must Be Considered
By JOHN THOMPSON
What do these prominent professional athletes have in common: Chris Evert, Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Venus and Serena Williams, Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, Eric Lindros, Alex Rodriguez, Ken Griffey, Manny Ramirez and Derek Jeter? 

None went to college.

The National Basketball Association is attempting to become the first professional sports league to ban players under age 20. Such a restriction would not only be capricious, but also eminently unfair. For many teenagers, college is necessary to pursue career goals. But, as the above list of pro athletes demonstrates, not for all.

Commissioner David Stern contends that teenagers lack the physical and emotional maturity to play in the N.B.A., and that their presence in the league contributes to the perception that the quality of play is declining. Yet with such outstanding players as Allen Iverson, Vince Carter, Chris Webber, Jason Kidd, Stephon Marbury and Shaquille O'Neal, the N.B.A. has never had a greater pool of young talent than it does today. Interestingly, each of these pros attended college for two years or less.

Even more interesting, three of the league's brightest young stars — Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant and Tracy McGrady — were drafted straight out of high school. At least a half-dozen other teenagers are now either making significant contributions or figure prominently in their teams' futures.

The N.B.A.'s perspective on player marketability is equally disingenuous. The commissioner says that the league's ability to market a player to the public and to advertisers is dramatically increased by the television exposure he receives during his college career. This is patently untrue. Despite never having played a single N.C.A.A. game, Garnett, Bryant and McGrady are among the most marketable players in all of professional sports. Even the marketing of the N.B.A. by NBC and TNT as well as corporate giants Nike and Adidas bears this out. Advertisements promoting the league focus almost exclusively on the young stars.

Why then is the N.B.A. attempting to stigmatize teenage prodigies and indenture them to colleges and universities as unpaid professionals? Should these youngsters not be given a chance to make a living like the rest of us? What if they are simply not academically motivated? After all, declaring yourself eligible for the N.B.A. is a career choice, not a crime. In fact, it has been argued that playing basketball in college only jeopardizes pro careers, which, for the most part, are staggeringly brief.   An N.B.A. career lasts, on average, barely five years. 

Randy Livingston, a high school standout, seemed like a sure lottery pick but he bypassed the N.B.A. for Louisiana State, sustained a serious leg injury and attracted only tepid interest. To the league, Livingston was damaged goods. Through fortitude and perseverance, he carved out a modest career in the N.B.A., but he never earned anything close to what he would have had he turned pro out of high school.

Since the introduction of the rookie wage scale in 1995 — an innovation the commissioner touted as a disincentive for players to turn pro — gifted teenagers have bypassed college and entered the league in increasing numbers. The current collective bargaining agreement locks players into a scaled salary structure for the first four years of their professional careers. They do not become true free agents until after their fifth season. Imagine an 18-year-old with the talent and desire to turn pro. Under the current system, he can seek an agreement that maximizes his earning potential at 22. At the expiration of his first post-rookie-scale contract, he will be young enough (28 or 29) to attract another significant deal. But if he were to attend four years of college, he would enter the N.B.A. at 22 and not be eligible for free agency until 26. At the end of that first major deal he would be 33 — far less likely to command another major one. In Garnett's case, those four extra years of college could have cost him as much as $100 million. No wonder the N.B.A. wants to make teenagers wait!

If Commissioner Stern really wanted high school players to attend college, he would reduce the number of years players are subject to the below- market salaries mandated by the rookie scale. At the least that would give high school students an incentive to attend college. He could further protect teenagers from "bad decisions" by forging an agreement with the National Collegiate Athletic Association that would allow those not picked in the first round of the N.B.A. draft to withdraw from consideration and retain their college eligibility.

The N.B.A. could mirror Major League Baseball, which provides a scholarship fund that enables players signing out of high school or college to complete their education.

The N.B.A. will not. Its goal is N.C.A.A. sports participation, not education. An education can be acquired during the summer and/or after the end of the individual's professional basketball career. Antawn Jamison, O'Neal, Juwan Howard and Jerry Stackhouse are recent examples of N.B.A. players who went back to college and earned their degree after leaving early to turn pro.

The league addresses the issue of "under-age" players by proposing an arbitrary age limit and a developmental league for borderline talents, 20 and older. Do not be fooled. Altruism has nothing to do with these proposals. The projected minor league would be merely another source of revenue and control of young talent for N.B.A. owners. Most distressingly, it would be a new carrot dangled before marginal players. These players, many of whom would leave school to impress N.B.A. scouts, would really benefit from completing their educations.

The real issue for the N.C.A.A. and the N.B.A. is the same: money. The N.C.A.A. is strangely silent about baseball, a sport in which more youngsters are signed straight out of high school in a single year than have been in the entire history of the N.B.A. draft. The reason is simple: basketball is a high- profile, revenue-generating sport for the N.C.A.A. and its member institutions; college baseball is not. Witness the $6 billion contract from CBS for the exclusive television rights for the college basketball tournament.

If the N.C.A.A. were really interested in protecting young people it would abolish the punitive rule that provides complete loss of eligibility if high school graduates — unlike collegians — make themselves available to be drafted. What the N.C.A.A. should do is allow these individuals the opportunity to test the draft waters and see if they sink or swim. That way the prodigies like Bryant, Garnett and McGrady can safely pursue their careers while the lesser prospects can withdraw from the draft and pursue an education.

The N.C.A.A. has adopted the idea of offering loans of up to $20,000 to a select few players to induce them to remain in school. This proposal is laughable and highly unlikely to persuade a Kevin Garnett to pass on a multimillion-dollar guarantee and risk a lifetime of financial security. It is time for the N.B.A. and N.C.A.A. to establish reasonable rules that encourage young people to attend college for the sake of education, not N.C.A.A. sports participation.

The N.B.A. and its hallelujah choir talk often about "making choices" and "drawing lines" in support of their age-limit agenda. Well, our nation's courts and legislatures have already set 18 as the age at which a young man can get married, vote and fight in foreign wars. Surely that same teenager can handle the pressures of playing in the N.B.A.

Arn Tellem, the president of SFX Basketball, represents Kobe Bryant, Tracy McGrady and other National Basketball Association players.

I've always been a large person and at the age of 13 I was big enough to drive a car. I had the desire and the ability, but was not allowed to drive. I might have been able to captain a ship, perform surgery, pilot a plane or start a family, but society didn't want me to do any of those things either. We establish minimum ages for drinking, voting, smoking, marrying, renting a car, going to the movies and working. We do this not based on the individual but because of the larger needs of society. 

When I was 13, I became interested in sports. I lived in a poor neighborhood and part of my fascination with basketball came from the fact that people who looked like me were being praised for what they could do on the court. Their success inspired me and words like college and university became part of my vocabulary. These guys, who didn't seem that different from me, were on a path leading to professional basketball.

I knew that if I were to follow these "role models," I'd have to go through college to get to the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. As I matured, I learned to value the education I got along the way to the N.B.A., and, in the end, that education, which let me keep what I earned, proved more valuable than any dollar amount that could have been thrown at me as a child. (I am aware, incidentally, of the dollar figures in today's N.B.A., just as I am aware of how few receive those figures and how many fewer keep them.)

So, when asked by those opposed to the N.B.A.'s proposed rule that would deny entrance to anyone younger than 20 years old by what right I would deny a 19-year-old (or a 15-year-old) his immediate shot at the N.B.A., I answer by the right society has to improve itself by encouraging education. The impact of not drawing the line goes far beyond the 58 players selected in the N.B.A. draft. The impact of denigrating the importance of education will be felt in the thousands of young people who strive to emulate their heroes. 

As a society, we are creating a new disenfranchised segment of the population, because we are baiting young men into following role models who have avoided college in the pursuit of wealth. This inexperienced, badly undereducated group (how much do your grades in high school mean if you don't plan on college?) are increasingly reliant upon "advisers" — agents, lawyers, family members and acquaintances — rather than upon themselves.

To those who assert that formal education can come later, after basketball, I say, "Bull." If we, as a society, say to young people "cut out the education; it's not important — just get the money," how can we also maintain, "Oh, education is important, get it when your career is over." If education really isn't important, why get it at all, and if it is important, why bypass it to get to the N.B.A.? Remember, not everyone sees education as worthwhile — I didn't until I got some. 

In addition to the societal impact, the N.B.A. players' union is cutting its own throat by not pushing to adopt this rule. In sports, potential is always preferred to experience. Under the system as it stands now, aging veterans will find themselves increasingly replaced by younger and younger players as management attempts to capitalize on potential. (Old shoes may be comfortable, but nobody gets excited about wearing them.)

The N.B.A. needs this rule to preserve the game. As the aging veteran is replaced by the younger recruit, the sport's traditions will disappear. Respect for the game and institutional memory will be lost as older players are squeezed out by younger recruits, recruits who will have fewer fundamentals and less- developed skills. And if we won't draw the line at 20, where do we draw the line? Is 17 too young? Sixteen? If age is irrelevant, does that mean the N.B.A. will feature 15-year-olds? 

Those who argue against the N.B.A. 20-year-old rule may cloak themselves in words like freedom and opportunity, but let's look at their case. Aren't those, who say there should be no minimum age for someone to play professional basketball, saying: "Forget college. Cut to the chase and jump to the N.B.A. So what if you're unprepared for the level of competition because you lack fundamentals. Just shout, `Show me the money!' Who cares if you have no idea how to handle your finances, the attention or the life style? `Show me the money!' Who says the deterioration of basic skills or the loss of fan identification in the sport is your problem? `Show me the money!' What does it matter if you don't actually last long enough to have a career in the N.B.A.? `Show me the money!' Why worry about what's best for you? You'll be surrounded by a bunch of agents, lawyers, family and associates who will also shout, `Show me the money!' "

While I would be the last person to deny the importance of money, we need to keep the bigger picture in mind. Teaching young people that education is unimportant and may be skipped in the pursuit of money hurts everybody. Because of basketball's popularity, failing to adopt some rule that stems the tide will flood the nation with this lesson in a way that baseball, hockey, golf and tennis never could. We need to motivate young people to pursue education, not avoid it. 

Although the N.B.A.'s 20-year-old rule stops short of demanding that kids stay in school, it at least puts us on a path where we have the time to get out the message of the importance of education. I'd ask those who oppose it why they are so eager to live in a world of the undereducated. I'd also ask why they are so eager to keep the floodgates for young potential open at the expense of experience.

Recognizing that dependency increases with ignorance, do those who advocate enticing the undereducated and inexperienced with sudden wealth have an agenda? There are too many costs to society, to the sport and to the players, too many unanswered questions about who benefits from the current state of affairs to oppose this rule.

After playing on two championship teams for the Boston Celtics, John Thompson, a member of the Basketball Hall of Fame, coached Georgetown University's teams for 27 years. He is currently a National Basketball Association analyst for TNT and is the host of a daily sports talk radio program in Washington.

socalogomini1.gif (1928 bytes)
©Copyright SoCalHoops 1997-2001
All rights reserved
Contact: jegesq@SoCalHoops.com