Originally Posted by GH
If the NBA (and NCAA) feel that it is in their best interest to raise the age limit, does it have to consider the rights of 19-years old and under athletes?
I could see this raise in age limit benefiting the NBA generally by making the developmental league more relevant as a farm league while also making star players stay in college longer (and possibly letting the college game develop the players for a year or two longer, and letting the college experience give them a longer social experience from their parents home before they sign big contracts and become businesses for their hanger-ons).
I wonder what the ratio is for stars vs bust for those one and done players and guys that tried to jump to the league from high school?
As a fan, I would like the kids to stay in college longer, but I understand that those athletes are also doing work they could get paid a lot of money for, for very little incentive above a free education and a showcase for their talents.
I do not consider the fairness of the situation inrelation to the quality of the game and the long term health of the sport I like to watch - if the player is good/great enough to play in the NBA, a few more years in college or Europe or NBA DL will not hurt the vast majority of the players and will likely help them develop into more complete players and mature people.
If the NCAA, the 300+ member schools, the NBA, and the 30 pro teams are allowed to band together to control the market, why does everyone blow a gasket when the players want to band together have a say (Northwestern)?