More Changes In The Association This Season

Today the NBA announced two important sets of changes for the 2011-12 season: one impacting on-court play, and one impacting off-court business matters. Both developments are positive, in my view.

The CBA
The new Collective Bargaining Agreement contains tweaks to numerous league protocols. Notably, the new CBA allows a player to renegotiate an existing contract for lower annual money but more years, if the annual salary reduction is no more than 40%. This provision would allow, say, Amare Stoudemire and Carmelo Anthony to take a bit less money in 2012-13 and beyond in order to create more salary-cap room for the Knicks to sign Chris Paul or another top free agent. [Reports Thursday indicate that the Knicks intend to sign Tyson Chandler to a large long-term contract that would cover 2012-13 and beyond. The contracts of those three guys would eat up most of the $58 MM salary cap. Theoretically, all three of Chandler, Stoudemire, and Anthony could agree to reduce their salaries sufficiently to make room for Paul at a large number; perhaps each of them could earn $13 MM annually, say.]

The new deal also sets the minimum team salary at (after a couple years of transition) 90 percent of the salary cap, rather than 75 percent. This provision will help further the goal of competitive balance; cheap owners such as Donald Sterling or Glen Taylor will be forced to hire at least a few middling (as opposed to terrible or very young) players to fill out their roster.

The contentious minimum age for draftees was not changed, but apparently punted to be decided by a future union-league committee. I have previously advocated in this space for the age limit to be raised to two years post-college.

GAME RULE CHANGES
The previously over-generous shooting fouls granted in "rip-through" or "and-one" situations, wherein the shooter was clearly not in a shooting motion before the foul, will be curtailed. Travelling rules will be enforced more strictly (LeBron James's "crab dribble", which we reviewed in this post in 2009, will no longer be legal) and timeouts will be made to conform to the billed 20-second or 60-second lengths. Here at JPO, we have long criticized inconsistent rule enforcement, and this news begets great happification in our hearts.

When The Game Ends We'll Sing Again

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan weighed in today on the NBA's age limit, claiming that the highschool-plus-one-year minimum for draft eligibility "taints" post-secondary educational institutions with one-and-done players who have no interest in their college curricula. To Duncan I would respond: Yes, the one-and-done phenomenon is a mite silly, and does debase universities when freshman players on scholarship don't even bother to attend their spring classes. A better solution would be to raise the age limit by one additional year. Just as the NFL requires players to spend three years practicing their sport after high school, would it be so bad if the NBA required two years? Young aspirants can always play in the NBA Development League if college is not their thing.

La Vérité

Don't have much to say today, but I liked Paul Pierce's thoughts about the state of the NBA and the United States government, at the Boston Globe website. (As previously noted, I disagree with him about the NBA's age limit, but I agree on basically all his other points, including his insatiable need for chocolate.)

Merry (early) Christmas!

Dick Vitale: NBA Age Minimum is "Criminal"

Last night, I had the pleasure of watching the Kansas University Jayhawks play the Memphis Tigers on ESPN in an early season match-up of two of college basketball's perennial powerhouses.

Although I will probably forget the game itself in a few weeks, I will not forget the choice words of ESPN commentator Dick Vitale, czar of the college hoops telestrator. During a brief segue on the NBA on last night's telecast, Mr. Vitale became exercised (as he is so prone) and declared the NBA's age minimum as "criminal." Way to go, Dick!

Two things struck me about Mr. Vitale's comments.

First, although many of us at JPO [read: everyone except Bhel Atlantic] have been critical of the age minimum as bad policy, I was taken aback by Vitale's harsh condemnation of the rule as "criminal." Legally speaking, the NBA age minimum does not run afoul of any state or federal criminal laws. But I take Mr. Vitale's words to be an expression of the age minimum's moral repugnance -- i.e., morally, the age minimum is on par with a criminal act. Is it? Well, as explained in earlier posts, the age minimum prevents a hard-working young man -- often from an underprivileged background -- from making a living to support himself and his family, and forces him to instead toil for 1 or more years in indentured servitude enriching others but not getting paid a single cent.

The age minimum is also quintessentially un-American. The American ethos is that we all have a right to succeed -- especially if we can do it on our own. Ordinarily, we are told, "if you have the desire, the will and the means, go for it!" But with the age minimum, the NBA is saying that you have to help the NCAA and wealthy universities get richer before you can begin enriching yourself. So, yes, if I take Vitale's "criminal" to mean "morally repugnant," then yes, the age minimum is criminal.

Second, I was struck by Vitale's apparent selflessness. The NBA age minimum arguably benefits college hoops and, by extension, Dick Vitale. The age minimum forces NBA-ready high school talent to enroll in college, thereby benefiting the college game and all of those associated with it. So it was refreshing to see someone in the sports business take a stand on principle even if that principle might conflict with his economic interests ...

...But then I read a couple of articles authored by Dick Vitale: see here and here. It seems like part of Vitale's agenda is to improve the college game. Dick would like to see a "blue ribbon panel" evaluate the high-school talent and identify players who are NBA-ready. Those identified players would have the right to choose the NBA or college. All other players would be forced to attend college.

And here's where it gets really zany: "Once they stepped onto college campuses as freshmen, they would be required to stay for three full years, as is the case in college baseball. After that third year, they would again be eligible for the NBA draft."

So at the end of the day, Dick's plan is even more constricting than the current NBA age minimum. Not only would a talented high school player need "permission" to enter the NBA, if he chose to enroll in college for 1 year, he had to make a 3-year commitment (i.e., he couldn't enter the NBA draft if he felt he were ready after 1 or 2 years).

Shame on you, Dick.

NBA Age Minimum Redux

Buzz Bussinger's provocative piece in the NY Times, "Bring Back Basketball's Little Big Men", has already generated considerable buzz on this blog. I have been disturbed to read Bhel Atlantic's defense of Commissioner Stern's proposal to raise the NBA age minimum again -- this time to 20. For reasons mentioned below by my colleague Earl Da Goat, the age minimum smacks of paternalism and should be scrapped -- not raised.

I make three additional observations:

1. Who does David Stern think he is? Raising the age minimum is cruel to high school players who have the skill and desire to make the jump to the NBA. Many pro athletes come from poverty and have worked harder than Commissioner Stern can fathom to get to the point where they can take care of their families. For no good reason, the age minimum deprives these kids of their just rewards. One may argue that their opportunity to play in the NBA isn't denied -- just deferred. But let's not forget that every competitive basketball player risks a career-ending injury every time s/he steps on the floor. Commissioner Stern needs to realize that he is not the Great White Father of NBA players: he is an administrator. He should stick to hawking NBA merchandise in Europe and China rather than trying to play Daddy to a group of remarkable young athletes with whom he shares little.

2. Forcing athletes to go to college against their will doesn't help them. Don't get me wrong: I'm all for student-athletes going to college, getting an education and preparing for life after pro sports. But this is -- and ought to remain -- their choice.

Part of my revulsion for forcing athletes to attend college is because Division I NCAA sports are already exploitative. College athletes generate millions of dollars in revenues for their respective schools but are not allowed to be compensated. In light of this, forcing players to attend college smacks of indentured servitude.

Mr. Atlantic seems to think that NBA players will learn to behave like gentlemen if they go to college. He laments the high number of NBA players who father children out of wedlock and suggests that college will somehow teach them not to have sex with groupies. (I guess UNLV alum Larry Johnson skipped that class.). First, there does not seem to be any correlation between going to college and fathering out-of-wedlock children. Second, the suggestion that the NBA should be in the business of preaching abstinence and family values to its players is highly problematic. It is neither Mr. Atlantic's nor Commissioner Stern's business if NBA players have children out of wedlock. There is nothing illegal about it, and many men who never get married are excellent fathers. I am further curious about what other life skills Mr. Atlantic thinks the NBA should be teaching its young players -- classes on cleanliness? The notion that the NBA needs to civilize its players is downright offensive.

And even if you think that pro athletes need to learn some manners, it's not clear that college is the place to learn. Many players are more spoiled in college than they will be in the NBA. (In the NBA, there are no college coaches or university administrators to conceal who wrote your SATs or hide your drug abuse.)

3. The other supposed benefits of the age minimum are trivial. Bhel Atlantic is a smart guy but even he is struggled to identify the supposed benefits on an NBA age minimum. He argues that the NBA suffers if high school players can enter the draft: because nobody wants to miss out on drafting the next Kobe or KG, NBA teams draft "projects" right out of high school, some of whom will never amount to anything. Poor NBA owners and executives. So NBA scouts will have to get better at their job. Given the downside to the age minimum, that's a burden we should all be willing to live with.

Stern Apologists

I couldn't avoid being provoked by the attempted defense of Massa Stern by my colleague, Mr. B. Atlantic.

Even if you are in favor of the age limit, Mr. Atlantic's response reeks of paternalism and elitism. I suppose Mr. Atlantic's perspective is obvious given his off-hand (and perhaps unneeded) reference to coordination failures on Wall Street (or as some would say, Wall Cheat). But I wonder why the other side thinks that NBA players can't take care of themselves, and perhaps more importantly, why those players who are not on Mr. Atlantic's Eight Fold Path would be remedied by being forced to go to college for one year.

First, the elitism and tinges of racism. I'd be curious to know Mr. Atlantic: how many of these high school to pro players are coming from "rusty gyms in the Mississippi"? Indeed, what fraction of the players affected by the age limit are white? Even in percentage terms, this policy surely differentially hurts the African-American players.

Second, the analysis rests on shoddy counterfactual reasoning. I'm not convinced that LBJ, Howard and Ellis would have behaved any differently had they been forced to go to college. I could easily have imagined it the other way. Atlantic seems to forget the other iron law of unintended consequences. The policy leads to players going to Europe until they turn 19. Does he expect the players to get counseling on condom use on the French Riviera?

Finally, and most importantly, why is forcing someone to go to college for one year the best way to help someone get on the right track? That is, why doesn't the NBA provide more services for these young players, such as someone to help manage finances, the press, family obligations, etc. to get them on the Eight Fold path. What in particular do they learn in college that is relevant? There are much better ways to deal with the alleged issues than forcing someone to go to college.

The obvious answer as to why the NBA does not consider this is that it would directly take out of Massa Stern's pockets, something which he and the owners he represents are unwilling to do.

In Support of Stern

My colleague Earl da Goat, in his post immediately below, wants to know why the NBA is happy to re-distribute the rents from young players to the NCAA.

As Bissinger notes in the article, the NBA benefits from drafting proven talent with an existing popular following, rather than nobodies from rusty gyms in the Mississippi Delta. Of course, without the age rule in place, no GM wants to be the guy who misses out on the next Garnett, so he feels compelled to take the risk. The age rule in the collective bargaining agreement solves the coordination problem and achieves an outcome that is better for all teams. (It seems to me that a similar problem bedeviled Wall Street in recent years; traders, fund managers, etc. felt compelled to take on more risk to keep up with the Joneses [or the Goldmans] even as the collective volatility of portfolios became untenable.)

Additionally, it is not even clear that the NBA loses anything economically from forcing Derrick Rose, Kevin Love, etc. to delay their entry into the league by one year. Despite the extra mileage on their wheels from the college games, the players will likely play the same number of pro seasons as they counterfactually would have without college; everyone feels he is entitled to "get paid" a certain amount. Jersey sales and other merch will likely be the same over time, even discounting the cash flows.

As for "Why do the players agree to this nonsense?" have you ever heard of negotiation, Earl? You give some, you get some. In the last round of bargaining in 2005, players received a bigger cut of revenues and the NBA won shorter contracts (as well as the age limit and dress code).

I support the age limit, and furthermore, I hope the limit is raised to age 20, so that players are forced to spend at least two years in college. Or perhaps the NBA could adopt Major League Baseball's model, where high school players must choose to either enter the draft at age 18, or commit to three years of college. "One and done" players who show up on a university campus for eight months and don't even bother attending class during their second semester make a mockery of the whole exercise. I do believe that college is a useful transition period for young people to test their independence in a controlled environment and learn the folkways of adulthood. What's more, a variety of prep-to-pros such as LeBron James, Dwight Howard, Monta Ellis, and so on have become illegitimate fathers since entering the league. (To be fair, James reportedly spends time with his children.) Surely a bit of campus time with peer counselors waving around condoms could have helped them. Additionally, a little time with some college hotties would have relieved Young Mr. Bynum's hot desire to make a spectacle of himself at the Playboy Mansion.

Paternalism and "Massa" Stern

Today's New York Times has a piece by LBJ biographer Harry Gerard Bissinger III (also known as Buzz and author of Friday Night Lights) describing how we "got punked" by Massa Stern that is well worth reading.

Bissinger's piece displays a shrewdness which affirms his status to be the Kissinger of sport journalists. (I'll understand if you can't get past the paragraph that starts... "If David Stern truly cared about his players’ well-being...")

As BB argues, the age limit on players entering the NBA is obviously a bad policy: it simply takes the rents the players could have earned on their exceptional talents and distributes it to the NCAA. The puzzle for me is, why is the the NBA interested in subsidizing the NCAA?

There was one other place we got punked by Massa Stern and his paternalistic attitude to the NBA players: The NBA dress code.

Why do the players agree to this nonsense?