New NBA commish Adam Silver priortizes raising the age limit for NBA

[PcketknfNiels]

Can't fault the NBA for this, they, like any other employer, should have the right to discretion.

Those saying that this system would make it harder for uconn to be successful need to realize that Ollie is going to be pulling in some MONSTER classes, he has every conceivable recruiting advantage on his side (insert squid paying players joke here).

 

[jdubct]

We're going to tell the next LeBron, sorry, you have to put off your paycheck and endorsements for two years while Mark Emmert gets rich off your work. It's because NBA GMs are terrible at their jobs.
Great idea.

Agree. The next Lebron and probably others will play overseas until they're eligible for the NBA draft.

 

[PcketknfNiels]

Agree. The next Lebron and probably others will play overseas until they're eligible for the NBA draft.

No they wouldn't. They'll stay in college for the exposure/development and to build their brand

 

[mauconnfan]

Parents are keeping their kids in HS as long as they can when they feel a "prodigy" is on the line as well as using the 5th year prep then. This will change the mindsets of parents as well as the kids…….

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I think it will be harder for teams like Kentucky to stockpile McD AA's if they are going to be there for 2 years.

 

[tzznandrew]

I think it will be harder for teams like Kentucky to stockpile McD AA's if they are going to be there for 2 years.

It's going to make the talent pool select from a more diversified set of schools.

In 2011, with DeMarcus Cousins and John Wall still there, do Brandon Knight and Terrence Jones commit to UK? Sure UK is going to be great with those two as sophomores, but Brandon Knight and Terrence Jones were damn good as freshmen, and suddenly they are somewhere else (Florida and Washington, probably). Changes all sorts of dynamics.

And I don't think this has an effect on UConn, except maybe pulling in a few more top level recruits. In fact, I think this hurts a school like UK who went from having a reasonable but unexceptional NBA presence in 2008 (Rondo, Bogans, Azibuke, Prince, Mohammed, Chuck Hayes, Magloire, etc.) to having put 16 players in the league since 2010 (and that will grow to 18-20). That gives them incredible credibility, and that number will absolutely shrink if players have to sit behind someone a year or so.

 

[DogMania]

I'm not saying that the 20 year rule (or two years out of HS if they add that to it) is a good or bad idea. But there is one thing that many of you are missing in your argument. Where this benefits the NBA is with protecting some franchises from selecting unproven talent based on too small a sample of data. Many draftees turn out to be not NBA caliber talent or a reach at where they were picked and/or were grossly underdeveloped taking 2 or more years to even play at the NBA level while taking up a roster spot and earning an NBA paycheck, while doing so at the expense of some NBA vets that had to be cut to make room for them.

One could argue that it's a team's own fault if they choose poorly, but just think about how often we and even the so called experts are wrong about what players will and will not perform at the next level. It only makes sense that better decisions can be made when someone has more information. With that said, there will always be some who simpy choose poorly based on poor decision making or even with solid decision making the player simply doesn't perform or develope as projected.

The unfortunate byproduct of this type of change is that the few can't miss NBA ready or close to NBA ready players such as a LeBron James would be forced to play college ball or play overseas for pay till they turned 20. A team that happens to be picking high the year that one or more of the uber-talented youngsters happens to materialize but is not allowed in the draft, is SOL. But take into account that there will probably be some very talented 2 year 20 year old players in the draft with more proven track records they can selet from. Where it would hurt the NBA is when they first institute this if in fact they do. That first year will likely lack the talent of the prior and following year's drafts.

 

[ASweet3781]

It's going to make the talent pool select from a more diversified set of schools.

In 2011, with DeMarcus Cousins and John Wall still there, do Brandon Knight and Terrence Jones commit to UK? Sure UK is going to be great with those two as sophomores, but Brandon Knight and Terrence Jones were damn good as freshmen, and suddenly they are somewhere else (Florida and Washington, probably). Changes all sorts of dynamics.

And I don't think this has an effect on UConn, except maybe pulling in a few more top level recruits. In fact, I think this hurts a school like UK who went from having a reasonable but unexceptional NBA presence in 2008 (Rondo, Bogans, Azibuke, Prince, Mohammed, Chuck Hayes, Magloire, etc.) to having put 16 players in the league since 2010 (and that will grow to 18-20). That gives them incredible credibility, and that number will absolutely shrink if players have to sit behind someone a year or so.

"If Cousins and Wall were still there in 2011...."

Stop there.

If Cousins and Wall are still there in 2011...do we beat Kentucky? I'm glad we never had to find out. Doubtful at best that we do. If we don't, than we don't win the National Title.

Memphis was in our region in 2009. If Derrick Rose and his class that should have won in 2008 were back, do we make it to the Final Four out of that region? A much tougher game than Missouri no?

UConn, outside of CT resident Drummond, has never really associated with the type of players who are one and dones. We have not had our success with these players. This new rule strengthens the programs/coaches who consistently land these players. We are not one of them and haven't been. The only things I'm hearing above are Ollie is going to start landing them and we may get the "leftovers" that will be more spread out. I'm not sold that's a better environment that we have now which has led to unprecedented success for the UConn program.

 

[DogMania]

In a follow up to my prior post, as far as how this might benefit men's college basketball note the following:

Talent will likely be spread out to more teams since the most elite players would choose to go and play where they can get immediate playing time. A program like Kentucky is not going to get back to back large talented recruiting classes for that very reason. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't get very good back to back classes that included as many elite recruits making them all the more dangerous since some of those elite recruits will have at least two years of college experience under their belt.

I think it would make some of the blue chip programs like Kentucky, UNC, Kansas, etc. all the more harder to beat. I still think programs like UConn that get an elite recruiter or two every couple years in addition to some very good late bloomers that stay for 3 to 4 years will still be capable of defeating those programs and turn out to be the last team standing, as we saw in 2011 and just one week ago.

IMO, the 20 year old rule will benefit both college and the NBAas long as they don't allow any players to go right out of high school. If they allow high schoolers to enter the draft some programs will be at risk of signing players that never end up playing for them. Recruits they may have had a chance of landing would have already moved on to other programs seeing players at their position already committed to that program, or the program themselves have moved on to players at other positions or simply no longer pursuing recruits, no longer having any ships to offer at that time.

UConn was one of the few programs where that had never happened until the year before the NBA changed its 19 year old or one year out of high school rule, where they lost Andrew Bynum to the NBA without him ever playing at UConn.

I want KO to be able to recruit as good a player that he wants to without running the risk of losing him either after one year or not even getting him whatsoever. I don't see Ollie recruiting a class made up of predominantly one-and-done type of players, but is likely to recruit mix of both ready to play and high potential recruits that are more likely to stay three and four years, just like JC did. He is going to continue to recruit the take the stairs type of player over the ones that are inclined to take the escalators. 10 toes in type of recruits, that's what we want, and that's what I think KO will continue to go after. The 20 year old rule will only increase the odds of KO landing 1 or 2 elite, high character, hardworking recruits that will stay for at least 2 years. DHam and Prince Ali might already be those type of players that might be ready after 1 year, that would now be forced to play at UConn for two. So even UConn might benefit from this rule change, if it does take place. Granted there's always the risk that these types of players could go overseas to play for pay after one year, or right out of high school after making a commitment to some college program, but I don't think the type of player that Ollie will recruit and is attracted to our program will be the type of person who would consider taking that route.

 

[DogMania]

"If Cousins and Wall were still there in 2011...."

Stop there.

If Cousins and Wall are still there in 2011...do we beat Kentucky? I'm glad we never had to find out. Doubtful at best that we do. If we don't, than we don't win the National Title.

Memphis was in our region in 2009. If Derrick Rose and his class that should have won in 2008 were back, do we make it to the Final Four out of that region? A much tougher game than Missouri no?

UConn, outside of CT resident Drummond, has never really associated with the type of players who are one and dones. We have not had our success with these players. This new rule strengthens the programs/coaches who consistently land these players. We are not one of them and haven't been. The only things I'm hearing above are Ollie is going to start landing them and we may get the "leftovers" that will be more spread out. I'm not sold that's a better environment that we have now which has led to unprecedented success for the UConn program.

If the rule does change, I would not be surprised to see Ollie attract Some of those types of recruits, but the ones that are very high character who want to win, are willing to work hard and put team first. Granted, many of the elite recruits tend to be selfish, but not all of them. Ollie is already attracting the ones that are either religious and/or come from high character type homes or have parent(s) that want their kids to play for a coach that can develop them into high character young men as well as develop them into NBA talent.

Do I think it will be harder for a program like UConn to beat a Kentucky team that has a few elite players with two years of experience under their belt? Yes. Will it be impossible? Absolutely not!

 

[tzznandrew]

"If Cousins and Wall were still there in 2011...."

Stop there.

If Cousins and Wall are still there in 2011...do we beat Kentucky? I'm glad we never had to find out. Doubtful at best that we do. If we don't, than we don't win the National Title.

Memphis was in our region in 2009. If Derrick Rose and his class that should have won in 2008 were back, do we make it to the Final Four out of that region? A much tougher game than Missouri no?

UConn, outside of CT resident Drummond, has never really associated with the type of players who are one and dones. We have not had our success with these players. This new rule strengthens the programs/coaches who consistently land these players. We are not one of them and haven't been. The only things I'm hearing above are Ollie is going to start landing them and we may get the "leftovers" that will be more spread out. I'm not sold that's a better environment that we have now which has led to unprecedented success for the UConn program.

But everyone gets people back, and some of their other talent is elsewhere. Perhaps they have less depth. Perhaps UConn has Walker, Lamb, Napier, and Brandon Knight.

The what ifs are in the past. UConn has beaten teams that had star players stay longer than they would now (Duke in 1999) and beaten teams of young squads.

The end result is that UConn is a top flight basketball program, no matter how you slice it.

 

[DogMania]

But everyone gets people back, and some of their other talent is elsewhere. Perhaps they have less depth. Perhaps UConn has Walker, Lamb, Napier, and Brandon Knight.

The what ifs are in the past. UConn has beaten teams that had star players stay longer than they would now (Duke in 1999) and beaten teams of young squads.

The end result is that UConn is a top flight basketball program, no matter how you slice it.

Good point about the 99 Duke team. Though I don't remember what year were some of their most important players such as Elton Brand and William Avery.

it is a scary thought to think how good the 2013-14 Kentucky team would be if those players returned in addition to adding some of the pieces in there 2014 class. Granted Kentucky would not get all 5 of the elite recruits in the 214 class if the current players were all returning. But imagine if they added some additional help in their backyard, such as a more natural point guard, plus the development of the returning players, how scary that team might be.

I think the rule change would benefit college basketball for the most part where we would get to see the best young players play for at least 2 years. As for the impact on UConn, I guess we'd have to wait and see.

 

[tzznandrew]

Good point about the 99 Duke team. Though I don't remember what year were some of their most important players such as Elton Brand and William Avery.

it is a scary thought to think how good the 2013-14 Kentucky team would be if those players returned in addition to adding some of the pieces in there 2014 class. Granted Kentucky would not get all 5 of the elite recruits in the 214 class if the current players were all returning. But imagine if they added some additional help in their backyard, such as a more natural point guard, plus the development of the returning players, how scary that team might be.

I think the rule change would benefit college basketball for the most part where we would get to see the best young players play for at least 2 years. As for the impact on UConn, I guess we'd have to wait and see.

Brand and Avery were sophomores. Langdon was a senior who had made All-America teams his junior year.

 

[intlzncster]

Do I think it will be harder for a program like UConn to beat a Kentucky team that has a few elite players with two years of experience under their belt? Yes. Will it be impossible? Absolutely not!

To be fair, it seems pretty easy for us right now!

 

[ASweet3781]

I am a UConn fan. In the last ten years I have had a front row seat to the ruthlessness and greed of the Power 5 conferences watching conference realignment play out. Amazingly, I see my school who has done nothing but win with class and dignity on the outside looking in right now. That angers me. I am skeptical of any move that may bring an advantage to the Power 5 right now as they are looking to dominate the athletic landscape and make it nearly impossible for outsiders to compete with them. And I look at where these one and done players go and they go almost exclusively to Power 5 schools. That's who this age raise would help.

The Power 5 ole boys network does not control college basketball right now like they do college football. But boy would they like to. Especially in a decade which has seen mid majors advantage to the Final 4 (Wichita State, Butler, VCU, etc) and an outsider from New England double the National Title total of the nearest competitor in a 15 year span. College hoops right now is the one sport where outsiders can compete and beat the "big boys". The BCS one and doners usually leave before they mature enough to have maximum impact. And the experienced blue collar veteran outsiders can take advantage. And boy has UConn taken advantage. I think this age raise absolutely risks that if not takes it away all together. It puts all the power right back to the big boys as their man child lottery selections get to hang around and have a bigger impact. A more dominant impact. Kentucky, Kansas, Arizona, and Duke would go from Final Four frontrunners next year, to Final Four locks. And the yearly locked Final Four slots would be from the Power 5. That's what they would love to see happen.

Don't forget the things written about UConn and Butler after that title game. It wasn't just about the quality of the game which was admittedly sloppy. "This is why college football has it right..." "These 2 teams would have never have made it to the title game in football..." We had the nerve to win 5 games to get there. The suggestion was that both teams didn't deserve to be there. And if some had their way, they wouldn't be there. The last time I saw a backlash like that was when...oh yeah...our football team had the nerve to win their conference and make a BCS bowl game just 3 months earlier. Funny some schools like Louisville gets celebrated for years like that. We were almost shamed for it in some circles. It was an eye opener for me. As has conference realignment been. Power and money grabs are going on and outsiders are a threat that need to be diminished.

All I am saying is, be very skeptical of any move that would bring an advantage to the Power 5 leagues right now. They have the BCS, all the good bowls, the money, the TV contracts, the media, the pundits, and they want college basketball too. The age raise helps give them college hoops. Yes UConn's program will be fine. But it will be at a disadvantage it is not currently at. And seeing we are in the outside in the AAC with that "wonderful" TV contract I don't want to see any other obstacles placed in front of us right now. That's the problem I have with it.

 

[intlzncster]

I am a UConn fan. In the last ten years I have had a front row seat to the ruthlessness and greed of the Power 5 conferences watching conference realignment play out. Amazingly, I see my school who has done nothing but win with class and dignity on the outside looking in right now. That angers me. I am skeptical of any move that may bring an advantage to the Power 5 right now as they are looking to dominate the athletic landscape and make it nearly impossible for outsiders to compete with them. And I look at where these one and done players go and they go almost exclusively to Power 5 schools. That's who this age raise would help.

All I am saying is, be very skeptical of any move that would bring an advantage to the Power 5 leagues right now.

I want to be IN the Power 5!

And I would absolutely agree with that last statement. I do think that UCONN would not be as negatively affected as you think. I really do think Ollie is going to be recruiting like a beast over the next few years.