Keith Amaral, Fall 2009
One of the big draws of America has always been the country’s reputation as “the land of opportunity.” Everyone who has made the trek, and continues to make the trek, to America’s borders has done so under the premise of freedom. As Americans, we are told how lucky we are to be born into this culture based on its foundation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Of course, the American dream does have an asterisk; understandably, one must be at least eighteen years old to partake in the majority of the freedoms America has to offer. There are exceptions to that rule, most notably alcohol. Given the potentially addictive and harmful nature of the substance, one can argue the merits of its age restriction on good basis. However, on what basis would one argue prohibiting a legal adult from undertaking legal form of employment based on age? During the 2006 NBA season, the league enacted a new rule which stated that the minimum age for anyone entering the league is nineteen (Article X: Player Eligibility and NBA Draft). The general public reaction to the new rule was positive. People appreciated that the institutions of college and professional hoops were “preserved.” In actuality, this rule did nothing more than illustrate just how conflicted and out of touch the NBA and its pro-age-eligibility-rule followers are.
The benefits basketball purists list in regard to the new NBA rule vary; chief among those is the naive belief that all high school graduates should attend college. The sentiment is a noble one. The benefits of a college education, and the college experience as a whole, are impossible to dispute. The majority of parents want their children to attend college—especially those parents never able to attend college themselves. College is an American ideal. A college education opens doors and the college experience encourages personal growth. Unfortunately for many families, the increasing costs of attending college make the prospects of a college education bleak, and in some cases, impossible. That said, a child who has the potential to use a talent, such as their ability to play basketball, to attain a scholarship for a free education is a huge advantage. However, the idea that, based on this scenario, a high school student must attend college is flawed.
College is a choice, and whether or not proponents of the new NBA rule care to admit it, talented young basketball players should be able to exercise their American right to choose their future paths. Basketball, quite frankly, does not require the same scholarly credentials that careers in medicine and law demand. If a youth only aspires to be a basketball player, they should be allowed the freedom to that choice. There is no age limit for attending college, and should the young person someday feel compelled to earn a college degree, college will always be there. Opponents to that idea may claim the college experience is crucial to an impressionable eighteen year old, and that the NBA is “too much, too soon,” but this is a classic case of “babying.” Maybe the “baptism by fire” route is too harsh a concept for many, but eighteen is the age at which youths are supposed to exercise all they have learned as children; eighteen is the age at which a young person is supposed to make adult decisions and live with the consequences. Making the choice to go straight from high school to the NBA might prove to be disastrous for a young man who is not ready for the fast-paced and pressure-packed lifestyle of a pro-baller; however, this is a life lesson that the young man should have the freedom to learn on his own. It is not the NBA’s or anyone else’s job to parent an eighteen-year-old man with a passion for the game of basketball.
There is silver lining to the controversial “baptism by fire” initiative: the initiative allows basketball scholarships to go to the high school graduates who truly need the help and want the education. After all, there are many talented young athletes out there who work to excel at basketball, not because they want to get into the NBA, but because they want to utilize their talent to get an education. These young athletes might not be as talented as the upstarts who want to be professionals at eighteen, but they are just as capable of carrying their college teams. By weeding out the youngsters who take college scholarships only because they have to wait a year to enter the NBA draft, and as a result, need an outlet for their name and talent, the initiative frees up scholarships for young ballers who see the value in the college experience and have a clear vision for their lives after basketball is over. Essentially, by seeking to exert parental control over grown men, all the NBA is doing is prolonging the inevitable, which is that these young men with pro aspirations will leave college for the NBA draft at nineteen years old: if they wanted to be professionals at eighteen, but were not allowed, common sense dictates they will still want to be professionals a year later. Is one year of college for those who do not want the education worth taking away the opportunity from those who do? All the NBA is accomplishing is stripping opportunities from young men who want the college education shunned by the NBA-minded high school students.
There is also another facet to this argument, specifically the half-truth of high school players diluting the professional ranks with their poor fundamentals. Dispelling this idea is fairly simple based on the fact that so few high school players entered the NBA prior to the NBA’s new age-eligibility rule that they could not affect the entire makeup of the league. In the two NBA drafts prior to the new rule, sixteen high school players were drafted and dispersed among thirty teams, each with twelve-man rosters (NBA Draft History). Crediting the downward spiral of the league to twelve players out of 360 is creating a scapegoat. The sad truth is that “all flash and no substance” nature of the NBA comes from the NBA’s very nature as an entertainment-based organization: nobody is hanging posters of Kobe Bryant or LeBron James sending a fundamentally sound pass to another player—they’re hanging posters of Bryant and James dunking the basketball on an embarrassed defender a.k.a. poster-fodder. That is the reason why fundamentals are lacking in the NBA; it is the proverbial nature of the beast. It is not the inexperience of the twelve high school players who entered the league in ’04 and ’05 that is causing the level of play to deteriorate; it is the NBA players’ mentality of wanting to be immortalized on a poster that has them ignoring basketball basics.
The league actually has taken a big step in trying to remedy the problem by instituting a “farm system” much like the one Major League Baseball utilizes. If a team feels a player needs more development, they are sent to the “minor league” NBDL, or the National Basketball Development League, which was implemented in ’01 (The NBDL Goes Generic). In the NBDL, an underdeveloped player can get the necessary attention and playing time to work out the poor fundamentals of his game without hampering the pro ranks. The NBDL makes the age restriction of the NBA that much more ludicrous. What the NBDL potentially accomplishes is twofold: it would allow high school players to become professionals, and it would allow professional teams to nurture a young talent, bringing him along at a pace they feel comfortable with. Essentially, the NBDL should appease the segment of the population that feels the extra year of college is a necessary grooming period for a high school player by offering another option, just without the books these young men did not want to begin with. Unfortunately, the morality police are not interested in the NBDL option because it does not come with the homework and Ramen noodle diets of college.
While the sentiment behind the age-restriction rule may be noble, it is not rational. This is a classic case of the best of intentions having the worst of results. While it may not be politically correct to tell a youth that they should not feel as if they must attend college, it is also extremely anti-American to take away a young adult basketball player’s right to choose their own path. College will always be an ideal, and it would be scary to have your child approach you one day and tell you they want to skip college and be a famous basketball player; however, America needs to allow its young adults to make these decisions regarding their own lives. The NBA’s attempt at being both the morality police and basketball savior is nothing short of misguided.
Works Cited
“Article X: Player Eligibility and NBA Draft.” NPBA.com. National Basketball Player’s
Association. 15 Apr 2009 <http://www.nbpa.com/cba_articles/article-X.php>.
” NBA Draft History.” NBADraft.net. Sports Phenoms, Inc. 15 Apr 2009
< http://www.nbadraft.net/nba_draft_history/index.html>.
” The NBDL Goes Generic.” MinorLeagueNews.com. MLN Sports Group LLC. 15 Apr
2009 <http://www./basketball/aaa/nbdl/features/articles2001/073101.html>.