Syracuse PG Tyler Ennis declares for the 2014 NBA Draft.

[Qwyjibo]

The only way it can be done is if the Player's Union agrees to it, and the only way they will agree to it is if there is a major concession from the owners, like a big portion of the money.

Would that really be a big issue with the player's union though? They're all in the NBA already. Unless they feel a sense of duty to prospective players, the union will be looking out for what will make them the most money too. If the league and owners show that an age limit will by improving the NBA product, the players will agree to it.

I'm not saying it's right because I'm not in favour of age limits but in the end, the business of the NBA is what matters to them.

[Jyap9675]

Tier 2 PG, reminds me of Eric Maynor. Ceiling would probably be Jeff Teague.

[Clyde]

I highly doubt Silver wants another lockout, at the beginning of his era, all over the age of 19 or 20 year olds coming into the league.

it's really not silvers fault if it did happen...usually the union and the league are in constant talks...

...who represents the union right now? No one.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/silver-...5430--nba.html

Also keeping players in the NCAA will greatly benefit college basketball. Ratings and money wise.

''There has to be a balance in terms of the economic opportunity and us putting the best product on the floor in the NBA. It's awfully risky to use your first pick on someone with limited experience in college and, to me, the right balance would be two years.'' - Adam Silver

[hawksdogsbraves]

Tier 2 PG, reminds me of Eric Maynor. Ceiling would probably be Jeff Teague.

He's not similar to Teague at all, but I agree that he'll never be a star. I would not pick him in the lottery, his ceiling is too low considering how many good PG's are in the league right now.

[secund2nun]

I'm not saying the development is better in college, everything just gets pushed back a year and these players would still get their development AND they'd contribute more to actual wins because they'd be physically better prepared for their first 82 game season.
NBA owners don't want to pay for their development if they can push it a year.

NBA is worried about the level of play in the league, they're not worried about teenagers becoming millionaires a year earlier or later in their life.

If the NFL can discriminate against age so can the NBA, it's a private company and all it has to is be collectively bargained, which it probably will be per Adam Silver.



If it was the rule that they had to stay in college a 2nd year then it's not "a dumb decision", it's just something they have to do. The potentially dumb decision would be staying the 3rd year.

Yeah teenagers lose a year where they could get injured, NBA owners don't care about that. If they play in the NBA there's just as big or bigger chance that they get hurt there, and if they don't play they instead do most of their development on the bench which NBA owners don't want to pay for.
Like I said, NBA owners don't care if a kid that age becomes a millionare a year earlier or later in their life, and quite frankly neither do I, I just want to watch better NBA basketball.

In the NBA they don't train all day long? Do you realize just how many games 82 is and how much travel it takes to get through those 82 games?

I agree that for the NBA it would be better. As for training games are how you get better. You get a lot more practice and training in the NBA than in college.

[ZenMaster]

I agree that for the NBA it would be better. As for training games are how you get better. You get a lot more practice and training in the NBA than in college.

I'm a bit confused, you think they get more training because they play more games, or because they both play more games and practice more?

[senelcoolidge]

These one and done guys if they even pan out typically take 2-3 years to become decent..the amount of time it would have taken them had they stayed in school. Some teams don't have that patience. Some guys are good enough to be good from the beginning but most guys fizzle out or take time. Projects.

[Clyde]

These one and done guys if they even pan out typically take 2-3 years to become decent..the amount of time it would have taken them had they stayed in school. Some teams don't have that patience. Some guys are good enough to be good from the beginning but most guys fizzle out or take time. Projects.

[Sarcastic]

Would that really be a big issue with the player's union though? They're all in the NBA already. Unless they feel a sense of duty to prospective players, the union will be looking out for what will make them the most money too. If the league and owners show that an age limit will by improving the NBA product, the players will agree to it.

I'm not saying it's right because I'm not in favour of age limits but in the end, the business of the NBA is what matters to them.

Yes it would be a big issue with the union, because the agent's are a part of the negotiation process as well, and those kids are their future clients. If the current crop of players were the only ones being considered, they would sign a deal that is awesome for them, but would completely screw over future generations of players.

[Sarcastic]

These one and done guys if they even pan out typically take 2-3 years to become decent..the amount of time it would have taken them had they stayed in school. Some teams don't have that patience. Some guys are good enough to be good from the beginning but most guys fizzle out or take time. Projects.

Anthony Davis has taken 2-3 years to pan out? He's in his second year, and is a superstar.


Contrast him with Thomas Robinson, who stayed 3 years at Kansas. He's already been on 3 teams in 2 years. Do you think Sacramento was better off picking Robinson, or 1 and done Andre Drummond?



You guys are making generalized statements without any facts or truth behind them.

[senelcoolidge]

Anthony Davis has taken 2-3 years to pan out? He's in his second year, and is a superstar.


Contrast him with Thomas Robinson, who stayed 3 years at Kansas. He's already been on 3 teams in 2 years. Do you think Sacramento was better off picking Robinson, or 1 and done Andre Drummond?



You guys are making generalized statements without any facts or truth behind them.

I said the majority of players. Davis is one of those exceptions. The league is getting clogged up with projects.

[Sarcastic]

I said the majority of players. Davis is one of those exceptions. The league is getting clogged up with projects.

I don't have the full article here, but you are incorrect

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story...e-done-players

NBA commissioner Adam Silver has suggested that an additional year in college will give NBA teams an extra year of information and ability to evaluate prospects. And the logic seems sound. After all, it stands to reason that more information can't be a bad thing.

But then we look at the facts. Since the 2005 age-limit rule went into effect that essentially forced players to wait a year following high school -- most often playing one season in college -- NBA teams have been twice as likely to draft a sophomore bust than a freshman, one-and-done bust. Turns out there are more Flynns than Anthony Bennetts. Not only that, but there are more Kevin Durants (stars who left as freshman) than there are Russell Westbrooks (stars who left as sophomores).

If one-and-dones have been the far safer bet, then why are we trying to keep them out?

If you have the full article, it would be much appreciated.

[ZenMaster]

I don't have the full article here, but you are incorrect

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story...e-done-players





If you have the full article, it would be much appreciated.

That's because the reason they come out as one & dones in the first place is because they're generally more talented than those who stay a 2nd year. If they changed it to two years you'd have the same correlation except the discussion would be between sophmores and juniors and the sophmores "would be the safer bet".

Doesn't change the fact that Anthony Davis would have had an even better rookie season had he been forced to stay a 2nd year.

[Sarcastic]

That's because the reason they come out as one & dones in the first place is because they're generally more talented than those who stay a 2nd year. If they changed it to two years you'd have the same correlation except the discussion would be between sophmores and juniors and the sophmores "would be the safer bet".

Doesn't change the fact that Anthony Davis would have had an even better rookie season had he been forced to stay a 2nd year.

He'd be even better if he came in at 24 too.

[ZenMaster]

He'd be even better if he came in at 24 too.

I don't think that's a good argument, it's just too drastic.

There's a curve for players when moving from youth to senior basketball, and a lot of things play in.

Too many of these one & done players have the "need to put on muscle/fill out their frames" in their scouting report for their rookie season and it's simply because they aren't fully grown yet.

''There has to be a balance in terms of the economic opportunity and us putting the best product on the floor in the NBA. It's awfully risky to use your first pick on someone with limited experience in college and, to me, the right balance would be two years.'' - Adam Silver

See how he talks about balance, forcing them to be 24 is too far away from that.
Also, at 24 you're drastically changing their development and possibilites to live up to their original potential, two years in college doesn't do that.

The added bonus for basketball fans is that the college level would be much better as well.