LeBron James. Amare Stoudemire. Kevin Garnett. Kobe Bryant. Tracy McGrady.
Brothers. Brothers joined not by blood but by talent. Five players who share a connection as deep as the Grand Canyon. Five players who represent the best the NBA has to offer, with a new-school twist.
They’re NBA stars who have never played a game of college basketball. All they needed was their high school diploma — and, of course, their undeniable talent — and they were ready to sign an NBA contract.
That jump, however, will no longer be possible because of the NBA’s new labor agreement, which requires all players who declare for the draft to be at least 19 years old.
This rule will keep these potential all-stars from making a profound impact on their generation — the new school. Players such as LeBron and Stoudemire exhibit a style of high-flying basketball, including showboating and an array of outrageous dunks targeted at younger fans. The new age restriction would suck some of this young life and energy out of the league.
During LeBron’s first game as a pro, against the Sacramento Kings in 2003, ESPN earned a rating of 2.8, higher than all but one of the network’s 69 regular-season games last season, according to CBS Sports Line. With the NBA’s new age limit, that impact is gone. For at least a couple of years, anyway.
For most high school graduates, being 18 means the start of college. For basketball players, that could mean one to four years of playing for heart, love and everything intangible. But no money.
College administrators who give out scholarships have good intentions, but scholarships don’t help athletes provide for families who are having trouble paying the bills.
Sure, college is the route that most players should take. Only a rare few have the talent of Kobe, LeBron and T-Mac. And for those who do, why make them jump through extra hoops?
With the age limit intact, those willing to sacrifice their education to go pro, would be forced to play overseas if they want to make money to support their family.
Or they could go to college, where they’d stay for maybe a year or two. That environment may benefit the team, but not necessarily the player. The vigorous life of a student-athlete wears and tears on the body like sandpaper on wood.
After a year, theplayers who were meant to go pro would make that jump, turning the NCAA into a breeding ground or extra practice facility.
So why waste time competing at a lower level? Why make an age limit that’s only hindering the American Dream of achieving success, fame and wealth through hard work?
LeBron came into the league in 2003 as the most-hyped rookie in NBA history. He put up spectacular numbers and took home the Rookie of the Year award. Under this new rule, he wouldn’t be the national idol he is today. College would have slowed him down, and the hype would have died down like Pogs in the late ’90s.
It would also be interesting to see what would be up with Kobe’s career these days if he had to face the minimum-age restriction. If he went to college for three years, he would have been just a rookie, not a three-year veteran, when the Lakers started their championship dynasty in 2000.
If education is the issue, skipping college doesn’t necessarily mean not getting a degree. Look at Shaquille O’Neal. He left Louisiana State University after his junior year to go pro, but eventually earned his bachelor’s degree. On June 25, he earned his master’s degree from the University of Phoenix and said he plans to pursue his doctorate.
It’s like Robert Frost wrote in “The Road Not Taken:” “Two roads diverged in a wood, and I —I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.”
For some, the traditional route is best: high school to college to the pros. For others, the road less traveled is just as good of a choice.
An age restriction is an unnecessary confinement. A year in college doesn’t provide athletes with an adequate education, nor real experience at the collegiate level. Why decrease NCAA competition, lower NBA potential and ratings, and destroy the American Dream?
Seems to be a lose-lose situation.