The Pro Sports Draft Dilemma: Are Age Limits Harmful or Helpful?

By Nick

With the NBA Draft only hours away, the age-old discussion has risen once again: When should players be eligible for professional drafting, and what's more important - money or education.

Up until 2005, when the NBA's minimum age limit was raised to 19 (with much scrutiny), players were allowed to forgo enrolling at a college in favor of entering the NBA Draft. On a very basic level, the age limit rules were changed not only to encourage high-schoolers to get a college education; but also because Commissioner David Stern didn't want young players viewing the NBA as a sure-fire shot at fame and wealth. The change immediately drew accusations of racism, as former high-school-to-NBA star Jermaine O'Neal took offense to the rule.

Unfortunately, the system has somewhat backfired. Many feel that the age limit has only delayed the inevitable, and has even contributed to some scandals involving recruits being paid under the table , including current Memphis Grizzlies guard, O.J. Mayo (pictured above). Another player by the name of Brandon Jennings, decided to skip college and play 1 year professionally in Europe. Jennings' reasoning was, he can play at a higher level and gain professional experience before entering the NBA Draft, while also getting paid. After a year playing for a pro team in Italy, Jennings is now a projected early first-round pick in tonight's Draft.

There are some college coaches that feel the age limit is negatively affecting the college game, and the college experience in general. Jeff Capel, Head Men's Basketball Coach at Oklahoma University, recently said, "It's a bad rule. A really bad rule. It makes a mockery of a college education." The coaches naturally have a gripe, knowing that the top-notch players they recruit to come to their school are going to play for one year, and then bolt to the NBA (or as it's commonly known, the "one and done" rule). Stern has received criticism from more than a few, and recently even from Congressmen, prompting some to view the 19-year-old age limit as a "free NBA Minor Leagues."

Let's switch gears to baseball, for a moment. Recently, a 16-year-old prospect by the name of Bryce Harper elected to leave high school after 2 years, take his GED, and enroll at a local Nevada college in the fall, which would make him eligible for the 2010 MLB Draft. A quick glance at the age will make most people gasp. As a result, Harper's father, Ron, was immediately criticized for allowing his son to make such a decision. When it came down to it, Ron said, "people say, well, you're the adult, you need to make that decision for him, but he's a pretty mature kid, and he's a good kid, and the level of baseball that he's been playing at, and the level of school he's been at, he needs to be pushed. And I believe that, and my wife and the coaches and the whole staff from the HS believe it too."

Based on Bryce's highlight reel, it's hard to argue with him and his family's decision. And with the MLB Draft eligibility rules, such a decision is possible. So the question remains, is the age limit unfairly preventing young prospective players from making their own career decisions?

A point that seems valid, specifically in the NBA vs. College case, is that at the age of 18, a player is already legally capable of making employment decisions, among many other rights. What right, then, do any of us have in prohibiting that? As Jermaine O'Neal appropriately put it, "If I can go to the U.S. Army and fight the war at 18, why can't you play basketball for 48 minutes?"

Unfortunately for college sports, it would seem the age limit rule is neither valid nor effective. If a player opts for the NBA straight from high school and fails to be a star, or gets injured, that player can always go back to school and get his degree. On the flip side, if a player opts to stay in school and fails to be a star or gets injured, he's missed the chance at the very least to try his hand at the higher level and the chance to earn a salary. And we've seen what the rule has done to college basketball -- believe it, the one and done's will continue.

So if the question is, what's more important, money or education? The answer is, choice. The right to choose our own future path and make our own decisions, is something we all possess at the age of 18. To establish any rule against that right is unjust.

Of course, we all know this debate will continue for years to come; or at least until 2010 when the rule is up for amendment. But in the mean time, what do you think? If you're a high-school player, would you want the option of going straight to a professional league? Or if you're a parent, would you want your child to be obligated to enroll at a college institution? Even if they're sitting on a winning lottery ticket?