The Instigator
BurnsMSC2014
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tousignantmsc2014
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Basketball players should have to be a year removed from high school to play in the NBA.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
tousignantmsc2014
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/19/2013 Category: Sports
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,682 times Debate No: 40879
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

BurnsMSC2014

Pro

Basketball players should have to be a year removed from high school to play in the NBA. These are 17 and 18 year old kids, and none are mature enough to make the jump, both mentally and physically. A year in college will act as a bridge that will allow the athletes to start to grow up and mature. Going from high school to then being a superstar and signing a multi-million dollar contract will lead to many opportunities for bad choices, which an 18 year old will not be able to pass up.
tousignantmsc2014

Con

To say that none of them are mature enough mentally or physically is simply incorrect. Before this rule existed, it was fairly common for athletes to enter the professionals immediately after high school and succeed. For example, Lebron James, Kobe Bryant, and Kevin Garnett entered the draft after their senior year of high school and all had success. All three were capable of playing in the league at such a young age without a major decrease in their basketball production and an inability to make mature decisions. They have agents that exist solely to manage their money in order to make sure it is not wasted shortly after signing the multi-million dollar contracts. Also, if they want to waste their money, it is their choice to do so. The NBA should not have the power to decide the precise moment when a young man is mature enough to handle his own money, it should be up to the player. In addition, the one year spent in college will not make that much of a difference in the athlete's decision making skills. In fact, it may only prolong the inevitable in that their egos will expand after a year of being treated as a king on a college campus before entering the real world a year later. Basically, there is no decision that an 18 year old will not be able to pass up that a 19 year old could.
Debate Round No. 1
BurnsMSC2014

Pro

BurnsMSC2014 forfeited this round.
tousignantmsc2014

Con

I'm assuming that you forfeited the previous round because there was simply no response to my flawless reasoning, so I will present a new point. It does make sense to get a college degree before going pro when you could get the education for free. However, this rule does not force the athletes to graduate before going pro. The new "one and done" concept has become the norm for legitamate NBA prospects. They go to college for one year in order to follow the rule, and then go right to the pros. Forcing them to go for one year will not change any of the athlete's minds to stay for four and get a degree.
Debate Round No. 2
BurnsMSC2014

Pro

I only forfeited the previous round because I felt bad for you. While most NBA prospects do not get a college degree, it still helps them by going for the one year. The average career length of an NBA player is 4.87 years, meaning if they leave after one or two years they will be out of the league by the time they are around 25 (The average age of a player when he retires is 28). This means now they are without a job or a degree. If they skip college all together, they will be 24. They could go try to take classes at a college, but they would not get into a good school. If they already started taking classes, then the process would be easier to transition back. Another reason why the rule is a good thing is that it benefits the college. If a college has a superstar basketball player on their team, more fans will go to the games. If more fans go, then the more money the college will make. Also, the students who went to the same college as this star player will want to pay attention to him as he goes to the pros, which will give the NBA more of a fan base.
tousignantmsc2014

Con

It seems like you are trying to win the debate by simply throwing numbers around without any meaning. It doesn't matter what age they retire at: if they stay one year in college or don't go at all then they will be "without a job or degree" either way. This rule should not be put in place with the hope of benefiting colleges. The NCAA is a billion dollar industry that benefits solely off of amateur athletes who aren't allowed to make money off of their own name. The NCAA uses these kids for one year to make money, but at the same time prevents the athletes from making money. If this rule wasn't in place, then so many student-athletes would not have to endure the hypocrisy that is the NCAA.
Debate Round No. 3
BurnsMSC2014

Pro

The NCAA is a necessity for the NBA to continue to flourish though. College basketball is needed for coaches to fully evaluate player and allow players to mature. If a player goes straight to the NBA, coaches wouldn't have seen the prospect play against real competition. Playing in high school is a completely different world from college basketball. It is a greater risk for professional teams to draft a player out of high school. That leaves a greater chance they will waste a draft pick on someone so young, and have them get caught in all the distractions and not develop as well as if they spent a year in college.
tousignantmsc2014

Con

True, but it's not about what is best for the NBA. It's not about what's best for the NCAA. It's really not even about what is best for the player. It's about what's fair for the athletes. If the player wants to skip college, it should be THEIR choice. If the player wants to go all four years and get a degree, it should be THEIR choice. While it clearly makes sense to go to college, each player should still have the right to choose their career path. If they want the professional salary right away, they should be able to get it. If the NBA teams don't want to risk their draft picks and money on a high school player, then they shouldn't draft him!
Debate Round No. 4
BurnsMSC2014

Pro

Benefiting college basketball and then benefiting the NBA is important, also. The more money the NBA makes, the more the players will be paid. The rule is just looking out for what's best for the athlete. Forcing the athlete to go to college is what's best for the athlete, so why not make it a rule? That way they will be guaranteed at least an attempt at becoming mature and allowing them to develop. An 18 year old does not know whats best for them self, so he should be forced to do what is, which is going to college.
tousignantmsc2014

Con

No, this rule is not looking out for what is best for the players. Forcing the player to go to college for one year does not benefit them. You are making a judgment call on the maturity level of all 18 year olds. In addition, this rule does not even force them to go to college. Brandon Jennings went to Europe to play basketball for a year before coming to the NBA. Forcing them to go through the formality of one year of college only helps the NCAA and NBA. Players should be allowed to go pro directly out of high school.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by youngmsc2014 3 years ago
youngmsc2014
I agree with Mr. Tousignant. One year in college is going to do nothing for the player except allow for the possibility of an injury which might hinder their chance at an NBA career. As Elijah stated players have the ability to make their own choices. This includes money. They can be smart and save it or be a stupid idiot and blow it that is also their choice. Sticking with the "choices" theme, they should have the choice to skip college and go to the pros. If they do they obviously think they are mature enough for it and if it doesn't work out then it is by their choice not someone else's. Elijah is correct.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Yraelz 3 years ago
Yraelz
BurnsMSC2014tousignantmsc2014Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: To evaluate this debate it desperately needed a criterion. Con offers one when he says that the personal choice of the player should be prioritized. Pro argues that it's in the players best interest and the NBAs because then they can scout better. Con argues that the NBA doesn't have to draft anyone, thus it's not a net benefit to enforce the 1 and done rule. If a player doesn't get drafted then they just go to college anyways. Ultimately I believe Con's arguments considering the empirical examples of Garnett,, Kobe, and Lebron. The college rule is not in the players best interest, only the NBA's.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
BurnsMSC2014tousignantmsc2014Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: This was just a beatdown from Con. He literally slapped pro around like a ragdoll. Pro starts out by giving reasons as to why kids out of highschool are not mature enough to play in the nba. Con shoots this down fast with examples of players whom have succeeded. Con also brings up the point they have no intent on finishing college. This is where pro responds with, its good for the NCAA. This is a valid point but again is swiftly refuted by Con. Con argues for respect and what is fair for the players instead of focusing on the NCAA. Essentially con is saying why send them to college if they could get hurt, when they could go straight to the pros and earn a living. In retrospect he is defending the will of the players and saying it should be their choice. Therefore Arguments to con and conduct to con due to FF.