That's a smokin' post, right there. David Stern thinks he's doing the right thing, I'm sure, but his actions fly in the face of facts, a common occurence in almost any large corporation that has lost touch with it's constituency.

The NBA is facing falling ratings and revenues, and Stern cannot seem to figure out how to bridge the gap from Jordan to now. Preventing potential employees from a job does little to improve the game, but at least he's doing something, right?

 John J Perricone -- 7/14/2007 2:47 PM  

Isn't the plan effectively giving the NBA free marketing from the college game. I don't follow basketball very closely and I haven't heard of Amir Johnson, but I have heard of Greg Oden and Kevin Durant. I am assuming those two players have endorsement opportunities far and beyond anything that Johnson is going to command this year.

 Anonymous -- 7/14/2007 4:24 PM  

In terms of the 19 year age limit, we, obviously, take a long look at the effects of the player, but the point of the limit, I believe is to protect the team, from drafting on potential. In a league, where free agency is rampant, teams should be drating on how they fit with the team, instead of the potential fo the player, which the team would be able to tell of when the player would be exposed of in college.

 Anonymous -- 7/14/2007 10:28 PM  

Professor McCann,
Don't unions essentially always protect the interest of their current members against potential members?

 Ben -- 7/15/2007 12:40 AM  

Thanks for these comments.

John,

I agree completely. David Stern has pursued a number of policies that don't seem supported by empirical data or even common sense, and while they might appease certain fans, at least initially (I know there are some fans, whatever their motivations or biases, who really like the age limit and dress code), I don't think they do much to help the game or attract new fans. Stern has done well marketing the NBA to foreign markets, but I question how well has done so to our market.

Anonymous 1,

In terms of Greg Oden, I think he was a big name long before he showed up at Ohio State. In fact, there were ESPN and HBO specials of him while he was a high school junior. Kevin Durant seems like a better example of a player who improved his name recognition by starring in college, although we'll never know if he would have received similar acclaim had he directly entered the NBA and done well. But more generally, I don't think the NBA sells its players based on their college acclaim; I think they sell them based on those players' NBA performance and how well their NBA teams play. If Kevin Durant stinks next year, I don't think Seattle fans will be buying tickets because he was good at Texas. Just the same, if Acie Law ends up as Rookie of the Year, I don't think Hawks fans will be buying tickets because he was also good at Texas Tech.

Anonymous 2,

I understand the premise and logic of your point, and many have brought it up, but where is the statistical support for it? Where is the evidence that college seniors, as a group, do better immediately in the NBA than other groups entering the league? Along those lines, why protect teams from the very players who appear to be safest bets? Moreover, why protect teams when they aren't required to "draft on potential"? Some teams seem to draft to fill need, and usually do when their general managers will lose their jobs if their teams have another lousy year.

Ben,

You are correct, unions of all kinds protect the interests of their own members over those of future members. And, for many good reasons, courts have accepted that. But I wonder if that system is good with pro sports. That is, why are sports leagues and players' associations largely treated as legal equivalents to companies and unions in traditional collective bargaining relationships? Why does the law treat the Ford Motor Company, one of many automakers, roughly the same as the NFL or the NBA, neither of which have a rival, or why millionaire NFL and NBA players, whose careers tend to last just four or five years, are treated akin to Ford assembly line workers, who might work for forty-five years and never earn what some NFL or NBA players earn in one year? Could the law not adjust to the different settings, or is there too much risk of unintended consequences?

 Michael McCann -- 7/15/2007 9:20 PM  

It seems that it works all for all parties involved. The NBA protects itself from bad investments in too-young players, the NCAA heightens its marketing machine with the best young talent coming to a college near you, and the players have at least one year to hone their skills and boost their marketing potential.

 Jarrett Carter -- 7/16/2007 2:26 PM  

Jarrett,

Thanks for your comment. I agree that the age limit works great for the NCAA and colleges since they can generate a ton of money from those players (see Mark Alesia study, linked on the side bar).

I don't agree, however, that it works well for the NBA (see data above and in the empirical studies cited).

And I vehemntly disagree that removing the option of high schoolers to enter the NBA works well for them. Why shouldn't they be able to decide, on their own, what it is in their best interests? They are mature enough to enlist in the United States Armed Services, from which they may kill or be killed, but they are not mature enough to dribble a basketball and cash a paycheck at the same time? I agree that some may prefer to go to college in hopes of improving their marketing potential and skills (while hoping that they don't blow out a knee a la Randy Livingston, under-perform, or play for a college coach who doesn't best utilize their skills), but others may prefer to directly enter the NBA and hone their skills there, playing and practicing against the world's best players, under the guidance of pro coaches, trainers, and dietitians, all the while earning a lot of money that they can use for themselves and loved ones.

 Michael McCann -- 7/16/2007 4:29 PM  

Prof McCann,

Good stuff as usual, but again, I think you are glossing over the marketing aspect of the age limit. The age limit is not about what is good for Amir Johnson, its about what is good for the league that offers Amir Johnson the opportunity to make his money.

The bottom line is the league is driven by stars and personalities, not uniforms. There are no pinstripes in the NBA, look at the lack of popularity of legacy clubs like Boston and NY that happen to be terrible right now.

JR Smith, Al Jefferson, Amir Johnson, Jermaine O'Neal, Tracy McGrady, Kobe Bryant, and any HS player not named Kevin Garnett (who had buzz because he was the first) is infintely more valuable to the league if they have a college career behind them. People know who they are, they are more interested in their careers, and have more of an affinity for the league. which increases the value of the league, and in effect, helps all the players.

I'm happy for Amir Johnson, but I care much more about the long term vlaue of the league and the assets that make it up. Anything that increases an assets value is a positive.

 Anonymous -- 7/18/2007 7:14 PM  

Post a Comment