Wasn't the minimum age supposed to make the NBA better?

I thought that having a 19 year old  minimum age in the NBA was supposed to make things better?

I thought it was supposed to make things better by getting rid of high school draft picks in a league where its best players (kobe, JG, lebron, and NBA champions tyson chandler and Dirk who did not go to college)

But when you see a draft like tonight and all international players and weak college draft, I think that the NBA is actually killing their product...

What use is it to force players to go to college one year and play against college competition with college rules? 

Practicing shooting from the college 3 point line perhaps... I mean isnt it said that shooting ability is something that lacks in the NBA?

and because they dont want to be there, they leave first chance they get  "ready or not"... Which actually makes the draft weaker and you dont see people committed to staying all 4 years like a Tim duncan/dwayne wade, because college is a mandate not a choice and really not constructive...

Wouldnt a young player be better served playing in the d-league or limited minutes in the NBA and practicing and working on an NBA game rather then having to go to college?

It also allows them to learn about the NBA life style rather then having to wake up take classes that they dont care about to play basketball when they should be waking up to work out, practice and condition...  Forcing a kid to take classes just to play when he has absolutely no desire to complete his education is stupid...

Also this gives international plays a leg up over American player because they can get professional experience with/against players over 23 years old and might have played professionally over a decade and allowed to develop in a professional atmosphere rather then college...

I think the number of international players drafted speaks to this model, especially when you can use the European professional leagues as your d-league...

I hope the NBA wakes up an realize that in their attempt to try help the leauge and its players, it is stiffing talent, especially in the USA...

Well its really hard to comment on this as you are right with what you say.

couldn't disagree more, dl.

paying these high-school kids on the come means they never grow up and they never have to work for anything

can you name one, save the first (KG), who isnt a complete jerkoff?

Players don't have to go to college. They can enter the d-league or play in Europe. The international players have no advantage in that regard. I think this year was just a coincidence in that only a few good good players happened to be born 19 years ago. And the fact that there are so many bad teams, they don't want a low risk low reward upperclassman. They need a superstar not a role player in order to compete.

The argument that the draft was weak because these kids had to go to school for a year isn't making much sense to me. If they weren't required to go, then these same players of the weak draft, could just been drafted a year earlier and be that much less skilled. You have a point that some of these kids might not LIKE going to school, but if you can't make it through a year of college without crying about it, you really don't deserve to make millions of dollars to play a game.

Oh, and as for the classes they are forced to take, have you ever seen the first semester courses. They probably take ridiculously easy courses, including a public speaking course which might be of use to them seeing as they will be doing interviews on national t.v

Rule should be changed to 2 years.

These kids need to learn responsibility, mature, and being able to live on their own. IF you toss them into the limelight you are setting them up to fail. Also college coaches are better developers of talent than the international coaches. The basketball in the USA is leaps and bounds above that of the international stage. There are been more failures than successes when talking about high schoolers who jumped straight to the league.

Its like soccer in the US vs. the international stage... They are much better in that aspect than the US and always will be better.

So they are better off going though one year at a college that they have business going to academically, past through their classes and given illegal benefits and money with no real consequence because everything is after the fact and the college program suffers while the player is in the pros?

the one year rule is only marginally better.

they need to go back to the old way / the NFL way.

the kids have a chance to grow up, learn some discipline / get some work ethic, and make some mistakes in an environment that is less scrutinized. once you give a 19 yr old a couple million, he will no longer listen to a thing you say.

now, i do think the NCAA needs to give them at least a stipend, but that's a different discussion.

if a kid really needs money, let him play his 3 years in the D League (at a D League appropriate payscale).

so many of these one and done kids want to stay in college (who didnt like banging 19 yr old chicks), but the "adults" advising them (agents, freeloaders, etc.) pressure them into taking the money.

it's hard to develop a post-up game when you're 19 and being guarded everyday in practice by DHoward (gotta learn to walk before you can run)

finally, watching college ball was so much more enjoyable when you could watch kids / teams develop over a 3 or 4 yr period (the quality of play was much better too).

 

i guess you dont remember how bad the talent was when soooo many highschool players were coming out and they were awful right away, got discouraged, and left the league in a hurry... you listed a bunch of guys that came from highschool but what about the other 95% of guys that came directly from highschool that failed miserably and are no longer in the league... A lot of them would of learned a lot from a year of college and some of them would of gotten drafted in the first round.  A lot of them thought they would get drafted in the first round but got drafted in the 2nd round where there is no guaranteed money and they screwed themselves..  So basically, there are some successes from going to highschool directly to the nba but those guys are special players, there are 10x the amount of failures for every 1 of those successes...

 

I will agree though that it does suck that a guy cant make a living/make money for his family right away coming out of highschool, i think nba is the only sport that you cant go directly to becoming a professional.  It is better for the nba cause they learn from that year of college and scouts can get a better idea how good they are  BUT it is bad for the player that would be a top 5 pick cause what if his stock drops or what if he gets injured and so on. The nba is stopping someone from making a living which seems wrong. Lot of these guys are pretty poor...

whos to say that nba highschool flops would have benefited or made it in college...  at least in the pros they have one thing to worry about, improving their game...

In college there are more distractions, going to class, making grade, staying away from illegal money/support...there are just more ways for the b-ball phenom to fail/mess up and not be on the court...

Stern passes the buck by having the kids fail in the college rather then the NBA, so he doesnt make the over all game of b-ball better, he just passes the buck to the college system to absorb the duds...

I think the invest needs to come on the part of the owners who demand more out of these younger players in terms of practice, and paying for one on one coaching and mentorship...  making investments in players will pay off for their team and for game because you will have these skilled/well coached players that have been working on their game for many more hours per day and months more of time a year then the college season...

perhaps structuring rookie contracts on merit where they get paid per a practice... per an hour to work one on one with a trainer/coach... bonuses for achieving goals of fitness or skill/practice goals (like 90+/100 free throws, 7 days in a row)
 
but have them approach it like a job where they clock in an clock out... paid to improve their game and thus improving "the game"... a far better use of their time then sitting in a lecture hall trying to take notes on a class hat doesnt matter because they dont want to be there and wont graduate...

There are some jerks on this list, but there are plenty of good guys on it to. 

Moses Malone
Darryl Dawkins
Connie hawkins
Brandopn jennings
Garnett
Jermaine ONeal
McGrady
Al Harrington
DeShawn Stevenson
Kwame brown
Darius Miles
Tyson Chandler
Amare Stoudemire
Lebron James
Travis Outlaw
Kendrick Perkins
Shaun Livingston
Al Jefferson
Josh Smith
JR Smith
Dorell Wright
Martell Webster
Bynum
Gerald Green
CJ Miles
Monta Ellis
Louis Williams
Andray Blatche
Stephen Jackson
Rashard Lewis?
Dwight Howard
Kobe Bryant

Here is an actual intelligent post from Barkley which makes a lot of sense:

Charles Barkley on if he’d agree that taking European players is the biggest crap shoot beacuse of how little they’re able to watch them: “First of all, you’re correct. Even if they watched them play, they couldn’t have watched them…I think to watch a guy play, you have to watch him four or five times. But you can say the same about Kyrie Irving; he only played 10 games basically in college. But also, one of the reasons I don’t like the draft is because I would listen… Jeff Van Gundy is very good and Jay and Jon were good, but like, all you hear all night is ‘he’s a project. He’s got potential.’ See, that’s why I hate young kids coming to the NBA, because that’s not what the draft is for. The draft is designed for bad teams to get help; they’re not supposed to get a project. I think it does a disservice to the game, I think it does a disservice to the fans — because if I’m a fan and my team is a crappy team, I don’t want them drafting a guy that I’ve got to wait to see if he’s going to be any good; that doesn’t help me as a fan.

The NBA wishes it could have players go to college for 2 years intead of 1, it is better for the NBA because they get to see how players develop against better competition than they did in highschool instead of taking on a project, paying him millions of dollars when he isnt ready to play in the nba....  but like i said in my other post, it isnt good for the athlete cause the nba is stopping him from making a living coming out of highschool... 

To get a guy at 21/22 or the same guy at 18, obviously the nba would rather draft him at 21 where he is more polished/his body is more mature and they have a better idea of the player they are getting but if a guy comes out after highschool, lot of teams have to go on potential, on what they 'think' he could be... 

 

Dwight Howard?

This actually does more to ruin college basketball IMO.  Look at Kentucky...have to replace half their roster every year.

Yeah, Dwight's not a jerkoff, but he is a loser.

Everything is a joke to this guy, and just like LeBoob, when the pressure starts to mount, he responds with more dancing and more clowning, not to mention more clothes and more commercials.

Most of these guys have been surrounded by nothing but enablers since the 7th grade. By the time they first hear the word "no", they are already in the NBA, and already have millions in the bank. Now, all of a sudden, they're going to listen to a short, fat, bald-old-white-fuck like Stan Van? (i like SVG)

Not only do NBA coaches have to now teach such simple concepts as entry-passes, shot selection, and defence, but they also have start at the ground floor when it comes to discipline? Go to college, learn your craft - just like most other professions. LeBoob and Dwight could have got a taste for winning (with the right college coach), rather than get surrounded by bad examples on some sorry ass franchises.

It wasnt until Dwight's 7th year in the NBA that he actually developed a post game (and that's only because Hakeem came in to work with him).

Completely agree about it ruining college ball.