Two and out NBA rule

[tzznandrew]

I don't know. What if Knight said to himself, I have to be in school two years anyways so what does it matter if the first year is behind Wall or I start two years somewhere else?

On a related note, did anyone catch the squid's arrogant and obnoxious quote from their midnight madness:

"Tonight we begin to write the next chapter. Tonight we feel the Kentucky effect in full force as we once again redefine college basketball. "

What a blowhard!!!!!

I don't know their scholarship situation. But maybe they get Knight, but can't fit in Terrence Jones because they still have Wall, Cousins, Bledsoe, Orton, etc. That team is damn good, perhaps wins the title, so my argument isn't that it necessarily weakens them. But that Knight or Jones, or other players end up somewhere else.

 

[RS9999X]

There are variations on the rule.

1) Clubs can draft 18 YO players in the first round but they still need to wait until after the first opening day when they are 20 to play in the NBA. No mid year adds. Such players get 3-year no cut contracts after 2 years of college or just plain dicking around.

2) 18 YO players coming our of HS can be drafted first round and paid minimum rookie scale and sent to D-Leagues or Europe. Can't play NBA until after the first opening day when they are 20 to play in the NBA. No mid year adds. Such players get 4 year minimum scale contracts. No path to riches but they get a paycheck for 4 years.

Salaries count against the cap.

.

 

[dogfan96]

Thing is that people talk about the guys who don't make it, but comparatively a lot of them DO make it.. I can make you a list a mile long of guys who are good NBA players that didn't go to college or only stayed a year. They're not necessarily LeBron or Kobe, but they're good rotation players nonetheless.. and then of course you have LeBron, Kobe, Howard, KG, etc.

 

[Scoe]

Thing is that people talk about the guys who don't make it, but comparatively a lot of them DO make it.. I can make you a list a mile long of guys who are good NBA players that didn't go to college or only stayed a year. They're not necessarily LeBron or Kobe, but they're good rotation players nonetheless.. and then of course you have LeBron, Kobe, Howard, KG, etc.

Yes like Kendrick Perkins, Tyson Chandler, Al Jefferson, Bynum, Harrington.

 

[NHUConnfan]

Thing is that people talk about the guys who don't make it, but comparatively a lot of them DO make it.. I can make you a list a mile long of guys who are good NBA players that didn't go to college or only stayed a year. They're not necessarily LeBron or Kobe, but they're good rotation players nonetheless.. and then of course you have LeBron, Kobe, Howard, KG, etc.

Yes like Kendrick Perkins, Tyson Chandler, Al Jefferson, Bynum, Harrington.

OK - a few of them made it but for some of them, think about if they actually had some development. Of course, McGrady and Garnett should make that list too. The whole list of those who skipped out on college ball is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_high_school_draftees#1995.E2.80.932005

But I'd like to point to you to the end of the list. Look at how many draftees in '04 and '05 were complete busts. Some of them have been abject failures: Andray Blatche, Lou Williams, Gerald Green (huge bust for the Celts), etc.

Some of them took years to develop into useful tools on an NBA team: Monta Ellis, CJ Miles, Dorell Wright, Sebastian Telfair (in my opinion), etc.

The trend was heading towards less success for these high schoolers. I think this is about improving the product of the NBA - and let's be honest, the kids are better off in college than the NBA's D-league, which is really a laughable joke.

 

[intlzncster]

Thing is that people talk about the guys who don't make it, but comparatively a lot of them DO make it.. I can make you a list a mile long of guys who are good NBA players that didn't go to college or only stayed a year. They're not necessarily LeBron or Kobe, but they're good rotation players nonetheless.. and then of course you have LeBron, Kobe, Howard, KG, etc.

Heck, some of them don't even have to be good. Kwame Brown made bank. Granted, he was drafted number 1 overall, but still. Darko made some bank. He sucks too.

 

[aceboon]

OK - a few of them made it but for some of them, think about if they actually had some development. Of course, McGrady and Garnett should make that list too. The whole list of those who skipped out on college ball is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_high_school_draftees#1995.E2.80.932005

But I'd like to point to you to the end of the list. Look at how many draftees in '04 and '05 were complete busts. Some of them have been abject failures: Andray Blatche, Lou Williams, Gerald Green (huge bust for the Celts), etc.

Some of them took years to develop into useful tools on an NBA team: Monta Ellis, CJ Miles, Dorell Wright, Sebastian Telfair (in my opinion), etc.

The trend was heading towards less success for these high schoolers. I think this is about improving the product of the NBA - and let's be honest, the kids are better off in college than the NBA's D-league, which is really a laughable joke.

Lou Williams was a 2nd round pick and has averaged double figures off the bench for the Sixers for the last 4 years, he's not a failure at all. He's an undersized shooting guard and college wouldn't have changed that, he's made a nice career for himself. Blatche was also a 2nd round pick and while he is an idiot, he's also averaged double figures the past 3 years. He's basically a 6'10" version of JR Smith, guys who would be knuckleheads whether they went to college or not, but they're useful players. Neither Williams or Blatche belong in the same class with Green, they've made it.

 

[Adios]

Players can also go to Europe or Asia and play.

 

[Scoe]

OK - a few of them made it but for some of them, think about if they actually had some development. Of course, McGrady and Garnett should make that list too. The whole list of those who skipped out on college ball is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_high_school_draftees#1995.E2.80.932005

But I'd like to point to you to the end of the list. Look at how many draftees in '04 and '05 were complete busts. Some of them have been abject failures: Andray Blatche, Lou Williams, Gerald Green (huge bust for the Celts), etc.

Some of them took years to develop into useful tools on an NBA team: Monta Ellis, CJ Miles, Dorell Wright, Sebastian Telfair (in my opinion), etc.

The trend was heading towards less success for these high schoolers. I think this is about improving the product of the NBA - and let's be honest, the kids are better off in college than the NBA's D-league, which is really a laughable joke.

Of course there will be failures that will always happen it will happen with guys leaving school early as well. Thats the risk you take players should be given that choic though. I think they should go back to the original rule that you can go to the NBA straight out of HS. Some will go out for the draft and to make some money knowing they will have to really fight to get playing time but go up against NBA vets every day, plus you have more time to work on your game as a professional since you dont have to worry about your academics. Theres always the pros and cons of leaving early, selfishly i would love to have the 2 year rule so we get 2 years of AD lol.

 

[Nully]

I'm sure this would impact recruiting, spreading the wealth more. For example if Drummond were to stay for 2 years we may lose out on a 3-4 year recruit. It would certainly affect the landscape of college bball and make for a better product.

Actually, the opposite is true. The less a kid is required to stay in college, the more it helps parity. Being able to jump straight to the pros skims off a lot of talent that would've gone to elite colleges. That helps the Butlers and the VCU's, not the UCONN's and the Kentucky's. On the other extreme, a 4 year rule...well, a 22 year-old Andre Drummond or Anthony Davis kind of speaks for itself.

 

[Scalito]

This perspective is always one that perplexes me. No one complains when other employers require degrees or experience to land a job, but for some reason the NBA is obligated to hire any talented kid right out of high school. The fact is that NBA owners want the kids to stay in school longer so that they don't have to dish out millions of dollars developing kids that might not even become NBA caliber players. Seems logical to me.

Your analogy fails to acknowledge that the NBA is attempting to impose a collusive rule on individual teams, something that no trade association would ever be able to do on its member businesses because it is a flat out antitrust violation. If GE wanted to hire the next Steve Jobs straight out of high school or after one year of college education, it could, notwithstanding the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's objections.

I find the age rules pretty abhorent personally. The NBA teams are essentially agreeing not to hire employable players---there's no need for the the restriction unless some of the teams would hire these guys---because they know that the NCAA will develop them for them. And the NCAA loves the rule because it increases the quality of the on-the-court product and the bottom line. Yet at the same time we punish kids who get paid for giving autographs or trade jerseys for tattoes.

But hey, it's all about student-athletes and we all can convince ourselves that those two years of forced college education and athletic development are all in the kids' best interests. I mean, why should we let them make their own decisions. Best to support a rule that coincidentally increases our television viewing pleasure.

 

[intlzncster]

Your analogy fails to acknowledge that the NBA is attempting to impose a collusive rule on individual teams, something that no trade association would ever be able to do on its member businesses because it is a flat out antitrust violation. If GE wanted to hire the next Steve Jobs straight out of high school or after one year of college education, it could, notwithstanding the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's objections.

I find the age rules pretty abhorent personally. The NBA teams are essentially agreeing not to hire employable players---there's no need for the the restriction unless some of the teams would hire these guys---because they know that the NCAA will develop them for them. And the NCAA loves the rule because it increases the quality of the on-the-court product and the bottom line. Yet at the same time we punish kids who get paid for giving autographs or trade jerseys for tattoes.

But hey, it's all about student-athletes and we all can convince ourselves that those two years of forced college education and athletic development are all in the kids' best interests. I mean, why should we let them make their own decisions. Best to support a rule that coincidentally increases our television viewing pleasure.

I know it's not really related to this discussion, but what do you think about football, given the thoughts above? Having restrictions in place to allow guys to be physically ready for the NFL.

 

[Scalito]

I know it's not really related to this discussion, but what do you think about football, given the thoughts above? Having restrictions in place to allow guys to be physically ready for the NFL.

My thoughts are exactly the same. I believe the "physically ready" excuse to be no more than an excuse. If some kids are ready, and a team will draft them, let 'em play. The NFL only needs the restriction to keep those kids who are ready and therefore would get playing time out of the game.

 

[Scoe]

The NFL is way different then the NBA, totally different sport, the only guys I could think of they could have gone straight from highschool to the NFL are physical freaks like Adrian Peterson and Megatron.