Meanwhile, Dan Wetzel of Yahoo! sports, one of the more underrated sports writers from one of the more underrated sports websites , put out an interesting piece about the NBA's 19 year old age limit. It made me wonder if the 19 year old age limit could become the top off-season issue of 2009 before the 2010 Goldrush.
Key Figures in the 19 year old age limit debate:
- NBAPA Executive Director Billy Hunter, the not-so-public-but-effective union leader
- NBA Commissioner and Council on Foreign Relations member David Stern, aka public enemy #1 (to some of us)
- Congressman Steve Cohen (D-Tenn) , perhaps best known for being the white guy easily re-elected to the house in a majority black congressional district
It could be an interesting showdown if the three men end up battling it out in the halls of Congress...though I would think their time would be better spent working on issues like the Great Recession. Interestingly enough, all three would probably describe themselves as political liberals or progressives but have different thoughts about this age limit. It's easiest for me to disagree with Stern.
Though from most objective measurements such as growth of the league and global reach, Stern has done a good job as Commish, personal grudges (maybe or maybe not fixing playoff games like when Doug Christie's face somehow fouled Kobe Bryant's elbow, the creation of a Zombie Sonics, the refusal to admit any mistakes) turn me against him.
But it shouldn't be personal. Ultimately this is an economic issue. The position of Commissioner in sports has always been to back the owners; it's not a neutral job (see "Eight Men Out" for some history.) I believe the NCAA and NBA both benefit from the 19 year old age limit -- or any age limit, for that matter. The NBA gets to structure its collective bargaining agreement in a way to prevent players from gaining two maximum contracts; the NCAA gets rent-a-players like Derrick Rose for a year to increase their revenue as well, especially from March Madness, their biggest cash cow. Does anyone think that Rose's financial, intellectual, or basketball life was improved by spending a year playing in Conference USA? I'd love to hear the argument.
A few youths will buck the system like Jeremy Tyler but if the age limit is not changed in contract negotiations I fear the next American Ricky Rubio (who has played pro ball since he was 14) will be forced to waste a year as a Kentucky Wildcat or maybe traveling to Europe, which I don't think is good for the players or the fans*. And aren't those the two groups the game should reward first?
*I realize Kentuckians might be excited by that hypothetical prospect but I consider most of them zealots and crooks, not fans.
No comments:
Post a Comment