ARCHIVES

cjfile.jpg (5413 bytes)

MESSAGE TO NBA: LET KIDS DECIDE THEIR OWN FUTURE
By CHARLES JAY, Editor/Publisher, TotalAction.com
June 25, 1999

Essentially, David Stern wants to keep those players 20 years of age and younger out of the NBA Draft in the future.

He has cited the declining level of play in the NBA. He has cited the "bad advice" that has "ruined" more than one player's life. He, and others, have noted that many of the players who come out of school early are not ready to play in the NBA.

So what?

If the players who come out early are contributing to the lower level of play in the NBA; if they truly are not ready, I have a message for the teams who feel that way - DON'T DRAFT THOSE PLAYERS, or use veterans only.

What is so hard about that?

The fact is, some of that stuff is only half-true. For one thing, to say a freshman or sophomore coming out of school is not ready, is a little misleading. After all, how many rookies, no matter how old, are ready to play in the NBA right out of school anyway? It clearly differs from player to player, doesn't it?

And I'm trying to find all the incredible "tragedies" among the players who came out of high school to play in the NBA, or who left after their freshman season of college.

There are not many of them to begin with, and as I go down the roster I haven't found too many who are on the bread line, or who will be in the immediate future.

-- Kevin Garnett is an NBA All-Star, the main man on his team, and by all indications, will be a star for years to come.

-- Kobe Bryant needs to mature, but he has All-Star offensive skills and is going to be playing at a high level for many years to come also.

-- Tracy McGrady started to make some big contributions for Toronto last year and is slated for an even bigger role as the Raptors move toward contention.

-- Al Harrington learned on the bench and will certainly be a part of the Indiana Pacers' future. Ditto for Rashard Lewis of the Houston Rockets.

-- Jermaine O'Neal of Portland is a free agent this summer, and should be in reasonable demand. He's developed some as a player, and should make some serious money, and get more playing time, with another team.

-- Shareef Abdur-Rahim is hands-down one of the best offensive players in the NBA, and has been for a couple of years now. And he went to college for just one year.

-- Tim Thomas spent just one year at Villanova, and got a slow NBA start, but he will be a main cog for George Karl at Milwaukee, and I only say that because Karl is unabashed in his affection for Thomas' game.

-- Stephon Marbury spent just one year at Georgia Tech, and he's considered by many one of the better point guards in the NBA right now.

--Shawn Kemp didn't play college ball, and he's a solid NBA All-Star as well.

-- Larry Hughes came out after one year at St. Louis, and everyone who has seen him seems to think he's going to be a great NBA player (myself included).

Where are the tragedies? I don't seem to find them.

Even Bill Willoughby, who's supposed to the poster child for this "hardship syndrome", carved out an NBA career of seven or eight years. This just in - that's more years than most guys are able to stick around.

The point is that the attrition rate for these kids is no different than that of any other group of players in the NBA. There doesn't appear to really be a direct correlation between the number of years a player stays in school and the eventual level of success he is able to achieve in the NBA.

I just don't understand how or why you would tell a kid who is really not going to college to get an education that he should pass up the opportunity to earn big dollars to do what, in effect, he was trained to do.

When the player gets to the point where he thinks he's not going to gain anything else by staying in school, the time in college is really wasted. And whether that player can get a million or two more by staying in college another year or two, is the player's own business decision to make. It's not a moral question, and therefore it's no one's business but the player's.

And let's talk about the lawsuits that would ensue, because you know someone would challenge this rule.

Let's say this year, a player like Jonathan Bender, who is straight out of high school, winds up signing a three-year contract worth $18 million (I really don't know what figures are going be involved). The next year you deny a kid out of high school, just as good as Bender, the chance to go pro and earn some money. he takes the NBA to court, gets some "expert witnesses" who will testify that he would have been a top five or six pick, the family produces its welfare records, the hardship situation is created, and all of a sudden, you have a $12-20 million lawsuit on your hands. No doubt other players under 20 would follow, and then it would get ugly. I just don't see how they could make it stick.

Combine this with the freshman ineligibility rule, which is under consideration from the NCAA. So on the one hand you're trying to keep top players from leaving college early, or jumping to the pros from high school. On the other hand, you're driving them away. I happen to like the rule that would make freshmen ineligible, because it would help these youngsters get a year under their belt to adjust to college life. But only if they would be allowed a redshirt year for medical reasons later during their eligibility period.

But I also recognize that a developmental league is going to have to take flight, which will be designed for players who really don't care too much about college (and there is one getting ready to kick off, which we'll talk about next week).

I'm going to let you in on a little secret - the deferred loans the NCAA is talking about handing out are not going to be a deterrent. I mean, giving players a $20,000 loan ain't gonna make it. That's going to be Corey Maggette's tip money next season.

As it stands now, players can pull themselves out of the NBA Draft up to seven days beforehand. But during this time, they SHOULD have access to advice, either from an agent or someone from an advisory staff the NBA provides.

Of course, that's if their concern about the welfare of these kids is legitimate. The jury is still out on that, but I'm pretty sure about the NCAA. They don't care at all.

If they did, they wouldn't have turned away the appeal from junior college center Aleksandar Radojevic, who played a few pro games a couple of years ago in Yugoslavia, earning only $13,000, and wanted to transfer to Ohio State, and in fact was willing to pay the money back, taking a suspension, anything he could to get to go to the four-year school.

The NCAA turned him down flat, and thus he was thrust into the NBA Draft.

The NCAA should NOT disqualify any player from pulling his name out of the draft and returning to college, on the basis of hiring an agent, if that player has not received above a certain amount from the agent. Maybe some expenses, no bonuses. After all, where are these kids going to get any worthwhile professional advice from? If David Stern or the NCAA were really concerned about kids getting bad advice from people, why would they penalize them from going somewhere to get advice, often-times the only people they're able to talk to?

Yeah, I know you're going to tell about how bloodthirsty the agents are, how they'll convince a kid to come out of school even if it's in their best interests to stay.

Maybe that's a point well-taken, but it's still better than getting the advice of some selfish coach who is focused on keeping his job, enhancing his position, getting more from his shoe deal, etc., which of course behooves him to talk the kid into staying.

And if the NBA and the Players Association have screened their certified agents well enough, they'll exhibit enough professional ethics to render an honest appraisal of the prospect's draft prospects, enough to help him make the most educated decision possible.

And that's all anyone can ask.