Hi... so... for my english class im doing a paper on whether college and high school athletes should be able to bypass college (if your in hs) or forgo the rest of your college career (if your already in college)... i have a good grasp so far on this paper... i just want to know some of your guy's view points and reasoning... if you can contribute... i would appreciaite it.... and i know this topic has been covered a million times but... i much rather write about this than healthcare or sumthing
I've always said that players should be able to enter the NBA out of high school again (as long as they are given a 1st round grade by a majority) and if they go to college they should have to stay for two years.
The NBA should be able to have whatever age limit they want if they believe it will improve the quality of their product.
in baseball... you can get drafted out of hs right? but you still have to wait three years out of hs to get into the majors??
There is no set amount of time prospects have to stay in the minors before they can be called up to the big leagues.
i think hs players should be able to enter the draft right out of HS. However I do enjoy watching all the awesome freshmen in college
I think anyone should be able to be drafted out of HS. I wish the NCAA would allow undrafted players to play in college. Even if a sophomore enters and goes undrafted, I think he should still be able to go back. I also think what each league does works for them. Football is 3 years and is needed. Baseball is either HS or 3 years college which I think is fine for them because of minor leagues. If the NBA can give each team a D League affiliate I have no problem with guys entering from HS. Until then, I like the idea of 2 and done better than 1. This may be because I'd rather see the college game with a bit more parity.
Considering each party's rights is the first thing I could focus on. The NBA has a clear right to regulate the pre-draft requirements of those entering their league. However, one could question the wisdom of that rule. What data does the NBA use to determine that their product is improved by forcing kids to sit out one year between high school and the pros? What's really behind this decision to limit admission? Frankly, I really don't know and I'm unaware of data that demonstrates it makes things better in any way. Everyone's argument on this issue seems to come down to a personal preference entirely void of real data. As a result, though I admit the NBA has the clear right to make the call for their own league, I'd prefer they not restrict it unless they have some measurable reason to do so.
Related Issue: I hate the NCAA's rule that students who enter the draft become inelegible for college hoops the next year, regardless of whether or not they've been drafted. I think this is a rule that clearly hurts the student athlete. Student athletes should be able to throw their hat in the ring to see if their future could come early, and should be able to return to college hoops the next year if they go undrafted. I've yet to see a single reasonable argument demonstrating how this rule helps the student athlete in any way--it clearly lessens their opportunities. And unlike the NBA, the NCAA is not supposed to be about money--it's supposed to be all about helping the student athlete. As we know, they fail miserably in this regard.
I'm sure they looked at some data, but the reason for the rule change was because they wanted to make better decisions. What best way to make more informed decisions on prospects than to gather MORE information on them in higher settings. Evaluation in the college setting is WAY better than in HS or AAU ball. GMs and scouts get to see these players perform under more intense scrutiny and pressure situations. They get to see how these players adapt to not having everything catered to them, how they adapt to a more organized system and how they respond to bigger, better, more athletic competition.
The NBA is a for-profit organization. And as such, it is legally free to choose what type of employees it wants.
If a job posting required you to have 5 + years of experience as a SVP, they can reject you on the basis of you not having that experience. You might THINK that your 1 year of experience is more than sufficient for the position, but they can legally not hire you because you do not have what they're looking for.
The same goes for the NBA. If they're looking for a player with 1+ years of experience in college, there are no legal barricades stopping the league from setting that rule.
In my opinion, this is not an issue of ethics, it is an issue of labour laws.
Here was something I wrote way back when:
Definitely have gotten into even more. As much as I feel there is very little proof of need for it, one thing I will say is that the draft has changed enormously since early entry became prevalent. Think potential was much less of a factor and that it was a tad easier to spot a players development as they had more overall seasoning. In that sense, I see why owners want to protect their investment and not be sending scouts scouring HS gyms.
I have always referred to the "one and done" rule as a guilty pleasure. Like seeing guys get that one year of development at the college level and I am sure most teams do as well. All in all, teams prefer players that can come in and compete right away. Minor leagues in basketball are not what they are in baseball or hockey. Sure, kids in those leagues get drafted, but only a handful actually play in the bigs right out of HS. The NCAA has been the NBA/NFL's minor league, just the way it is until they actually admit that is the case and pay the players making these schools money. The issue would be I think "who?" more than "how much?" We paying a 13th schollie guy as much as Chris Webber or Jalen Rose? That is a whole other discussion, hope this helps to some extent.