HUNDYSPOT.COM

Recently, former NBA role player Steve Kerr wrote a piece for Bill Simmons’ GRANTLAND sports and pop culture website http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7883540/steve-kerr-problems-age-limit-nba where he attempted to make the case for the NBA raising its current age limit of 19 to 20. The piece uses many different arguments in its attempt to convince the reader why the league, its players and fans would all be better off with the raised age limit. However, while he tries to make arguments which appeal to the reader’s sense of decency like ‘sense of team’ and ‘mentoring’, Kerr eventually drops the façade, drops these points, tramples on arguments centred around protecting players civil liberties and declares that the NBA is all about the dollar and that “The NBA should only care about running its operation the best it can.”

In this piece I will look at some of the arguments made by Kerr and of course the other half baked arguments that have become popular for raising the draft age to 20. And then categorically debunk them. The purpose of this exercise is to demonstrate that raising the draft age is not only not the best way to make the NBA as a product better, but doing so is just an exercise in futility which allows incompetent owners and team managers like Steve Kerr to continually make bad front office decisions while blaming others for their problems.  And while Steve Kerr was shown the door before he could convince management that the Boogey-Man was responsible for Phoenix’s prompt down turn upon is arrival, there are still plenty of GMs looking for scapegoats so without further ado,  to business…

Player Maturity, Player Development, Sense of Team, Mentoring, Young Players Dun Took Our Jobs etc.

Unlike Steve Kerr I don’t get paid by the letter, so I will loop together the most popular arguments on young players lacking skills and maturity if they enter the league too early and that somehow raising the age limit from 19-to-20 will cure all the underperforming headcases in the NBA into one analysis.

With respect to lacking skills, what age limit proponents forget to mention is that the game’s most popular, skilled and team leaders are all guys who entered the league after high school or one year of college. Lebron James, Zach Randolph, Derrick Rose, Kevin Durant, Carmelo Anthony, Amar’e Stoudamire, Dwight Howard,  Trace McGrady, Jermaine O’Neal, Tyson Chandler, Al Harrington, Al Jefferson, Andrew Bynum, John Wall, Mike Conely, Kendrick Perkin, Monta Ellis, Josh Smith and Kobe Bryant are all players who either played no or only one year of college basketball. And you know what? THESE GUYS RULE THE LEAGUE!!!

I will never get this aspect of the age-limit argument that high school players or one year guys are somehow lacking in skills. In fact, I reviewed the list of high school players drafted into the NBA, and the majority of them have been notable players in the league, totally in line (if not superseding )the late-great-not-really-late Jerry West’s 51% wellness standard for good drafting.

In sum anyone who makes the argument that high school players or even guys who leave college after a year cannot have the same basketball skill set as other players are totally full of it, you should never buy what they are selling and if any GM truly believes this they will sooner or later surely join Steve Kerr on the unemployment line.  

With respect to the lack of maturity or sense of team absence, this argument is somewhat more plausible to buy into due to the fact that young people are for the most part less mature then older people due the latter group having more life experience and stabilized emotions. However, it is also a fact that no matter how old your players are you are never going to have an organization as large as the NBA that will ever be free from immature headcases like Ron Artest or Dennis Rodman. Furthermore, to say that people who are only one or two years older will be leaps and bounds more mature than younger counter parts is far less persuasive of an argument than to say the difference in maturity level between a 19 years old and a 20 year old would only be incrementally higher. Therefore, to me the difference in maturity level between a 19 and a 20 year old, or an 18 and 20 year old, on average, is negligible. However, even if you disagree with me, and you (like Steve Kerr) believe that players are need to be around older people and mentors at a young age for maturity purposes, what better place is there then the NBA when they can learn from older players in the league and be mentored by one of the many former players often given cushy front office jobs? Since more often than not they screw things up on the management end, if you are concerned with developing a mentor-protégé relationship (which mind you can last far longer than even 4 years with a college coach), let these former players  who are busy running franchises into the ground, take a step back and mentor these young guys. Its win-win.

Finally, while the “sense of team” might seem on the surface again might seem like a decent reason to force players to stay in college longer, the fact that young players have the opportunity to play 4 years of high school ball in addition to the obvious fact that they can build a sense of team with their new NBA teammates, which in the vast majority of cases (especially with the new CBA) will be much longer then 2 or 3 years of college. Furthermore, as for the argument that AAU teams do not adequately foster a sense of team, that is not only highly debatable, but even if people like Steve Kerr question the system, why not pen a critique or actively try and change the rules of that system instead of forcing extra unpaid and ultimately financially unfruitful years on up-and-coming players, many of whom are from impoverished backgrounds.

And speaking of financials…

Marketing Costs, Financial Costs…THE ALL MIGHTY DOLLAR $$$$$$$

In the movie Casino, Joe Pecsi’s character Nicky Santoro has a great line which encapsulates the essence of almost every thing or every “reality” we are exposed today, “it’s about the dollars. It’s always about the fucking dollars.” And of course the NBA is no different. Even after Steve Kerr and the other pro-college pundits try and pull at your heart strings by saying that the young players are missing out on college life, sense of team, acquiring maturity blah blah blah etc. they will eventually  cop to the fact that what it boils down to is money (and of course, Steve Kerr is no exception). And probe a little deeper and you will see that what it is really about, and its simply keeping fat cats fat even if that means stepping on the civil liberties and financial security of the players that are responsible for keeping these fat cats fat and giggly in the first place.

However, while we as a society have accepted the fact that those who have will always seek to keep their gravy trains running on time, there are several reasons why even from a business perspective forcing young players to remain in college is not the best way to maximize fat cat dollars, present or future.  

Astonishing you say? Well here is why…

One of the biggest problems with the current debate about the age-limit is that it allows GMs and other front office persons an excuse for doing their jobs badly when things go wrong. Steve Kerr and others who share his view postulate that having an extra year to watch kids in college will allow them to watch players for an extra year and make better decisions. However, whether or not this is true is of little consequence due to the fact that the front office brass should be able to make the same informed decisions and do the same required background research on most prospects the way past NBA executives have had to make for years. Thus the real reason brass push for the age-limit is because they want an opportunity to make their cushy jobs even more so, and have an extra year to saunter through an evaluation process that other competent executives have done for years. I’m sorry but for the money being made in front offices around the league, decisions should be made efficiently and executives should be held accountable. Obviously if some GMs are keeping their jobs for years on end some people are able to cope with the demands of the jobs and make their teams in to winners and thus  it should be survival of the fittest. In sum, keeping the current draft age-limit, or even putting it back to 18, will keep front office personnel sharp, force them to do their jobs efficiently and keep them accountable.

Building on the last point, there is also another reason why raising the draft limit will not help the NBA from a business perspective and it is because it will not help cure or help prevent the culture of nepotism and “cronism” which has infested front-offices league wide(and sadly, not just in the NBA). In fact, keeping the draft limit where it is will help put the spotlight back on NBA front office and make sure people are not just hired because of who their daddy is, what frat they belonged to and, in the case of former players who are way under-qualified from a business and sports management standpoint to be in the front office anyway, how big of a local hero they might be. Clearing house and making sure you have qualified people able to meet the demands of tighter scouting, recruiting and the resulting evaluation process will do much more for improving the NBA business as a whole then raising the draft limit ever could.

With respect to the interest generating and or marketing argument I am going to dispel that very quickly  as hogwash for the simple reason that while there was indeed tremendous anticipation for talented guys like Patrick Ewing when they entered the league, you cannot convince me or anyone that talented guys like Lebron James did not generate equally is not more interest when they entered the league (he was getting guys like Shaq to come down watch him in high school, while also appearing on the cover of SI so give me a break). Further, even if some people are willing to concede that the press might have been greater for college vets entering the league back in the day, that means nothing because again, all of the leagues best players today, the super-duper stars, the guys that move the jerseys, make the headlines and sell out the games, are mostly perp-to-pro guys or one and dones. The list is huge, so give me a break with the losing out on marketing argument.

With respect to the argument that younger players do not put up numbers right away similar to how past greats like Jordan, Magic and Bird did in their rookie years, the fact that most new players do not is a fair point. However, not only were those guys were three of the all-times greatest players ever, but  players today be they high school phenoms or college vets do not put up rookie numbers like that simply because the game has changed and the minutes are simply not there for rookies as more time is usually spent on development in the first year. However, if you take the second year numbers from some of the best players today like Kevin Durant or Lebron James for example, their numbers are as good if not better then those put up by even said Dream Team All-Stars. And what does this mean from a business stand point? Well it means that in terms of age v. production, the younger guys today are able to produce at comparable (if not better) rates much earlier then guys who would still be in college under the proposed new age limit. So really, on average GMs would be coming out ahead. Still don’t believe me, well look at the facts…

For example, Michael Jordan was 21 when he entered the NBA and, admittedly he put up fantastic numbers right away.

However, Lebron James was 18 when he entered the league and by 19 he put up similar numbers to Jordan

And it isn’t just a phenom like Lebron, the trend is also visible when you look at the end year numbers of other guys like Carmelo Anthony and Kevin Durant

Carmelo Anthony 2^nd year

*rookie year bonus

Kevin Durant 2^nd year

Therefore, if there were no draft limit, teams would be able to utilize these eye pop numbers and the skills of young stars right away and two to three years earlier.  And of course that added jump spike in numbers who obviously correlate to more team interest, higher ticket sales, better tv deals, increased jersey sales, sponsorship deals and eventually wins (which further multiplies everything) much sooner. Therefore, why keep your golden goose on the shelf when it is ready to lay eggs right away, or at least much sooner. 

Lastly, even if all the other reasons and examples are wrong, and bottom-lines were actually effected by players playing in college, is enacting legislation forcing them against their wills and/or civil liberties the best way to accomplish this? Won’t you just get an increasing amount of players complaining that you are treating them like property and not human being (oh wait, this is happening now? Shit)? Won’t this in turn lead to ugly, contentious, and non-interest based negotiations with the very player that make your league and put money in your pocket(oh wait, this also just happened? Double Shit)?  Aren’t you going to have to make a worse deal and suffer a longer then necessary work stoppage then you otherwise would have if these terrible feelings never existed(oh wait, this is precisely what happened? Triple Shit)?

Won’t all of these things ultimately affect your bottom line (I know, SHIT)?

Simply, put instead of trying to force your erroneous convictions about raising the draft limit on a group of players  who again, the majority of which come from impoverished background and are desperate to help their families, why not just work with the NCAA to change their rules on paying players so that players have an actually have an incentive to stay in college and have a real free choice about going to college or playing in the NBA (it is also a great and overdue business decision for the NCAA because they will be able to hang on to kids longer and avoid the scandals which seemingly give them and the college teams they represent  a different blackeye everyday). With respect to payment I am not advocating paying the players a ton of money at the college level, just a stipend amount (maybe 500-1000 dollars a month) so that they are even minimally financially compensate for their efforts and are able to develop a sense of responsibility and  self-worth early on. These feelings of fairness will help to avoid the us-against them mentality which currently exists between players and owners (not just in the NBA but in other leagues as well), and thus eliminate many of the roadblocks based on personal conflicts which hold up negotiations, and ultimately keep the gravy train from running on time.

In sum, I have prepared a point by point counterargument aimed not a just Steve Kerr, but to all those who think that a higher draft age will magically cure all of the ills plaguing the NBA. Ultimately attempting to whitewash a problem very rarely works, and in this instance with respect to the NBA it is notdifferent. The NBA is riddled with a variety of different problems keeping it from realizing its true potential both from a business and non-business standpoint, and as is often the case bad management is the problem. As a whole we are culture that shirks responsibility, than looks for excuses/the scapegoat and than the quick fix to larger underlying problems. Unfortunately, these quick fixes never work, but are merely patch jobs until the problems either rears its ugly head again or gets worse. Unless, the NBA actually looks at the root causes holding it back, only time will tell if the higher draft limit is the former or the latter.