The mainstream sports media this week has been agog, sounding like orgasmic Bond Girls: "Ooooh, James."
But it's all been about a kid. A high-school senior kid. Who's gonna graduate this year and go straight into his chosen profession, where he'll make more per year than...well, I could insert a true statistic like "12 of the top wall street investment bankers," but why bother? LeBron James is a very good basketball player. And his entire story (as seen all day December 12th on ESPN and ESPN2) has opened up the old debate about basketball players going pro early.
A lot of people are against it, but everybody knows you can't stop someone from making a (unbelievably lucrative) living. So I'm gonna thank LeBron, wish him well and leave it at that.
Now it's time to get into high schoolers (and temporary college Corey Maggette types). One side says "it's ruining the quality of the game--both college and pro." The other side says "That's racist. Why don't you bark about tennis players and baseball kids who turn pro in their teens?" One side says "these guys need to learn the fundamentals." The other side says "yeah, well, it's a free market system. If it didn't work, it wouldn't occur."
Here's my solution, which may or may not address the biggest issues at play. Decide for yourself whether it makes sense. As far as I can tell, the NUMBER ONE reason most kids are going pro is agents-to-be advising them to skip college so they can get paid sooner. But what this really means is, skip college so you can get drafted and sign your three-year rookie deal ASAP and THEN after that you can get paid serious ca$h. The rookie deal is on a pay scale which is small by NBA standards. The rationale that the agents-to-be put forth is "Get that small change out of the way early so you can put serious cash in your pocket after the three years expire." There's a lot wrong with that. It puts kids in a man's game, where most of them take 3-5 years to really mature as players. Smart readers will see that number and immediately realize that the team that drafts the player may not actually have him when he is playing his best. Tons of arguments stop here.
What can we do to encourage kids to go to college and hone their game? (I'm not even going to pretend they go there to become scholars. Some do, yes. But most treat the NCAA like it's a minor league.) Here is what I propose: If the NBA can make rule stating that all draftees must sign three-year deals, then they can replace it with another rule. Let's institute a sliding scale, where the draftee can be an unrestricted free agent (read: BIG MONEY) five years after they graduate from high school. That way, a LeBron James signs a five-year rookie deal with the team that picks him. A player who leaves after his freshman year signs a four-year rookie deal. An Iverson who leaves after his sophomore year gets a three-year...and so on until you get to the Duncans and Battiers who merely have to play for one year at the rookie pay rate and then get paid.
Is this unfair to kids declaring early? When compared to the current plan, yes. But one can argue that the current system is unfair to the kids who stay all four years. That's the entire reason we got to this point. This idea balances things out a bit. LeBron is going to get paid. But it's not like LeBron in his fifth year is going to be forced to accept an unrestricted deal similar to what a theoretical Dan Dickau (four-year college player) would be looking at. Plus, it actually benefits the teams who invest in a young player and get left behind when Tracy McGrady blows up in his fourth year.
So that is my word. Have at it.
-- Rizz
11:52:24 PM 
|
