His name was LeBron James.
He was an athletic prodigy, a 6-foot-8, 240-pound man-child with the court vision of a point guard in a body more developed than that of most college power forwards. Even as a junior, he dominated the high school game like few before him.
In another day and age, James would have been courted heavily by every major university in the country. As it stood, however, he only held offers from a handful of schools, most anticipating the inevitable—James traded homecoming for Hummers in 2003, when he graduated high school and declared for the NBA draft.
And just like that, the NBA had its Next Big Thing. James became just the third rookie in NBA history to average 20 points, five rebounds and five assists and is nearly single-handedly resurrecting the moribund Cleveland Cavaliers. He is one of the NBA’s top players and arguably its biggest marketing draw. But what might not be as obvious is that the NBA’s Next Big Thing might be the worst thing to hit the league in quite some time.
James’ success brought the preps-to-pros movement to heights it had never seen before, clouding the NBA’s desperate need for an age limit. In 2004, a record eight high schoolers jumped to the league in search of LeBron’s success. Four got drafted in the lottery. Only one, Dwight Howard, has had the immediate impact one might expect of a lottery pick.
Even worse, some never live up to the potential they show as high schoolers. For every LeBron James or Amare Stoudemire-type prodigy that sets the NBA on fire upon his arrival, there is a Korleone Young or a Leon Smith, an immense talent who never quite lives up to his potential.
As a result, the NBA has diluted its product, frustrating fans, players and colleges alike. Journeymen who might look for a few extra paychecks get squeezed out by young projects who may never see the court. Fans have become increasingly disillusioned with a less cohesive NBA that sometimes bears a greater resemblance to streetball than roundball.
And collegiate programs are being ripped apart by the increasingly early defections of their stars. Indiana head coach Mike Davis, for example, might not be on the hot seat if he had had superathletic forward Josh Smith on his roster this past season. Closer to home, maybe Duke would have been playing in Monday night’s national championship game were it not for the early departure of Luol Deng and the pre-college defection of Shaun Livingston.
But in the zeal to restore some sort of order to the basketball world with an age limit, perhaps NBA Commissioner David Stern is forgetting one group of people: the prepsters themselves. After all, if a James-like player is able to contribute immediately, why shouldn’t he be afforded the opportunity to be drafted? Why should he be forced to wait two or three years, risking injury and keeping himself and his family from the much-coveted luxuries of the NBA lifestyle?
“If someone is able and ready to play in the NBA and the market is there where teams will compete for these players, there is no reason for such a limit,” Alan Milstein, Maurice Clarett’s lawyer in his suit against the NFL’s age limit, told The Chronicle in March. “There’s no profession other than sports where these types of age limits are even remotely permissible.”
Perhaps not, which is why a total age limit misses the point. Once-in-a-generation phenoms like James should be able to make the jump. But what needs to be restored is the principle of productivity over potential.
Baseball seems to have it about right. In its system, all high school players are eligible for the draft. All players opting not to enter the draft, however, must attend three years of college before regaining draft eligibility. And more importantly, draftees are sent to minor league clubs until they are ready to contribute, unlike the NBA, where draftees go straight to the NBA.
The foundations for a basketball minor league are in place. Sending players to the National Basketball Developmental League before the NBA would force players to demonstrate their abilities prior to heading off to the big show. That would open roster spots for ready-to-contribute veterans, discourage borderline projects from declaring and increase the quality of the league’s product. And perhaps most importantly from the college standpoint, a baseball-like system would restore the stability gained from having players in programs at least two or three years.
Nevertheless, something needs to be done soon before the both the NBA and NCAA games are permanently damaged.
“There needs to be a lot of clarification on [the age limit], but I think overall it’s a step in the right direction,” Duke head coach Mike Krzyzewski said. “It could be very good for basketball—it just depends how it’s done.”
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.