except for one thing: Europe has had junior pro leagues that featured the likes of Darko Milicic when he was 14. That's a major difference between their developmental system and ours, which is strictly through the high schools and colleges that exploit the players.

Does the term "student athlete" even apply any more? It's painfully obvious to anyone that the one year out of high school rule exists only to line the pockets of colleges, much like the NFL's rules. It's sad to see a young man leave his family to play hoops but I'll give him credit for wanting to further his career without fattening a colleges pocket through those sham rules.

It's nice to see an article that goes beyond the normal bloviating, BUT:

1. is race really the issue here? tennis, gymnastics, etc. have all moved to limit early entry (maybe not as late as basketball, but doesn't that have to do with the nature of those sports as well).

2. the NBA issue is risk - the younger you draft someone, the more difficult it is to predict their success. The NBA has a strong interest in limiting their risk, so do a lot of players who can go to college, get a degree, and by their senior year really have a better understanding of their professional earning potential.

3. There is a symbiotic relationship here between athletes, colleges, the public, and pro leagues. Great basketball players (and football players), build name identification, hone their skills and get to share college life with their peers - all of which increases their lifetime earning potential. Colleges get publicity, a campus rallying point, and a spot in the money lottery (some win, most lose) that is athletic business. The public gets their circus, and knows that their funding gets recycled into funding the college experience of the 95% of college athletes who have no hope of turning pro and will get their degree and a valuable connection with peers and the school itself through their (paid) participation in college sports. Pro leagues get players who are more valuable from a marketing and developmental prospective.

It seems to me, this gives everyone what they want: a Euro team is taking the risk and getting the benefit of this kid's ability, if he develops. Colleges don't have to deal with a kid who isn't going to be a student-athlete at any level. Tyler gets paid, who cares what some talking head says about that, as long as the checks cash, and the NBA gets to let someone else take the risk. So what's the problem? (beyond the fact that a kid is risking his future for relatively little money in the short term and taking a pretty big risk in terms of being prepared for "plan B" with no high school diploma or anything)

DaveM, that's a pretty flexible and unprovable statement; one could easily argue the relative opposite, which is: "The NBA issue is ancillary profits". As the NBA's brand is their players, the NCAA has honed the one-and-done Roses and Anthonys of the game into worldwide brands, for free. If the NBA is really trying to mitigate risk, they would get rid of *any* draft restrictions, since one major injury in a college game is all it takes to derail a future superstar's career (see, potentially: Oden, Greg).

Anyhoo, nice article, Buntin/Zirin, I unequivocally agree, maybe 'cuz you guys are extolling free market principles, whether you like it or not.

I would say that race may be the issue since basketball and football are the only sports really impacted by these sorts of regulations, yet they are *not* the only sports with big money returns. I went to high school with Eric Lindros, and he was in class for maybe 1/3 of the time, the rest off on tournaments and his junior team. However, these under-18/under-21 tournaments and the junior playoffs get big TV ratings and a relatively strong gate. But, for some reason, nobody cares that these mostly white players do not end up in college, let alone have a normal high school life.

It is strange to say, but by comparison Canada and Europe are actually more free market than the US. In hoops, as mcaldez mentioned, players from Darko to Pau to Bargnani have been home (road?) schooled -- and paid -- since their teens. What's wrong with that?

Unfortuntaly, living in a foreign land can be disorienting for anyone, let alone youngsters like Jennings and Tyler without their peer group and/or shared cultural references. It is a real shame that what their only recourse is ultimately detrimental to their maturity and happiness. This would not be the case if there was actually a similar system to Euroleagues and Canadian junior hockey in the US.

Does it make sense for kids like Jennings and Tyler to forgo college. Maybe. All the best to them, but the NBA's policy is also based on solid business logic not racism. Take DeAndre Jordan for instance. Had he come straight out of high school he would have been a lottery pick for sure based on untested potential. Instead he goes to Texas A&M, plays poorly, and goes in the second round where he belongs. The system works.

jskillz - I think you're misunderstanding my point. The younger the prospect, the MORE risk there is in drafting him. The NBA would like to restrict the draft to kids who have exhausted their college eligibility - giving them more time to a) develop their game and b) to mature physically, emotionally, and as marketable players. The one and done kids simply have to make it through a college season as the stars they're supposed to be and they make the big bucks. Not every "can't miss" kid actually excels - at least this way the NBA doesn't commit resources to him, and he can focus on getting a degree . . .

The other consequence of hockey's junior system is it creates a caste of un-educated wage slave players, lowering EVERY players salary and weakening their bargaining position vis-a-vis the owners. At least in the college system, if you're washed up at 22 you have every chance of earning a college degree . . .

...doesn't your argument provde that the NBA could care less about the needs of future draftees? If they were out for the players' best interests, why should these talented kids be forced into attending 4-year bachelor's degree-granting college? Who says that a 4-year degree is the way to go if they can't make the pros? Well, the NBA says so, because these 4-year schools offer exposure "sufficient" for a $6 billion, 11-year contract from CBS.

The whole notion that attending a college = success is a joke. Anecdotally, most 4-year degrees are useless unless accompanied by a graduate or professional degree, which most of these kids -- who spend 90% of their time on the court/field anyway -- are not prepared to pursue, as they would be competing against academically-inclined students.

For many of these kids -- and for many non-athletes in general -- it would make more sense to go to a technical school and learn a craft. Unfortunately, UConn or UNC do not offer a degree in plumbing. And the kids who flunk out of a 4-year degree-granting school, and don't make the pros, will have to pay for this technical degree out of their own pockets, after lining the coffers of their former alma maters

The point is, the NCAA system forces adults to enter into a situation that offers them little. At least every NHL prospect, no matter how minimal the chances of his success, gets paid. If you think a single year of undergrad enhances the maturation process for these 18-year-olds, you obviously haven't been a freshman lately.

"Maybe becoming a Euro-pro will turn out to be wrong decision for Jeremy Tyler. But maybe the system shouldn't be set up so wrong decisions look like common sense."

That is exactly right. There should be investment in a real minor leagues like baseball.

-- JeTed, the author's point is that the race issue comes into play the most when gaging double standards in fan and media reaction.

-- jskillz, it is a statistical fact that future earnings significantly rise greatly with a college degree.

Hi, good post. I have been pondering this topic,so thanks for posting. I will certainly be subscribing to your posts.

I have an MA. If I had the option of either getting paid now at a good job or doing my phd for free and then getting paid... i wouldn't even think about it.

race is an issue here when one considers the the way these things are discussed publicly. the NBA itself can't be seen as racist for these particular policies (sure thing for others) but the ways these things are talked about do reproduce a power structure