David from Chelsea, NY asks, "Should the NBA raise the age limit from 18 to 20?"
If you say "18 to 20" to a potential NBA prospect, he's not thinking years. To him, 18 to 20 is the decision he has to make about the number of carats in that diamond stud he's going to buy for his ear(s) when he signs that first contract. That's his right, as is the decision to go pro at 18. So, no, the age limit should not be raised.
If these kids can vote and go to war, as well as play professional baseball and hockey, how can the NBA in good conscious tell them they can't play in the NBA? Just think: if the age limit was already in effect, we would have been deprived of at least two years of the careers of Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, and LeBron James.
But what about those high-schoolers who didn't make it in the NBA? Who really cares? If they weren't good enough to make the NBA at 18, then they probably wouldn't have made it at 20. Chances are, they are playing in Europe, the Middle East, or some other foreign country whose language they have learned. They darn sure wouldn't have learned that in college.
No one should feel sorry for a kid who had an opportunity to make millions and failed. At least he knows early that basketball is not his future. If he saved an invested wisely, he should easily be able to afford college. And I don't even want to hear about the high-schooler who doesn't even get drafted. If you're stupid enough not to ask around and do the research to know if you'll be drafted, then you'll be a failure wherever you go, like college.
So many students attend college, get a degree, and end up in a well-paying profession in which nothing they learned in college applies to their job. For example, a salesman. If society allowed a kid to go straight into sales without wasting his years in college, shouldn't he be allowed to do so? Of course he should, especially if he was looking at several million.
College, for some players, is just a training ground for the NBA. Is there a better training ground for anything than playing with the world's best in that field? Probably not. Most high-schoolers who go pro don't immediately become superstars. If and when they become superstars, it comes at a time when they otherwise would have been in college. Why delay the inevitable? If a player has the skills to become a professional, and a millionaire, then nothing should stop him, especially not his age.
Advocates of college basketball would argue that forcing players to go to college before the NBA would improve the college game. Is there any thing wrong with the college game? The last I looked, it was still exciting and had its fair share of incredible athletes. Players can choose to play in college, and if they choose not to, they should not be punished.
Ultimately, it's up to the player. If he feels he's ready to make that jump to the NBA, it should be his choice. It's also his responsibility to deal with the consequences, whether they are good or bad. If he can make it in the NBA straight out of high school, he wins and the NBA wins. If he doesn't make it, and others as well fail, then that will be a natural deterrent to others considering the same attempt at the NBA from high school.
In short, when you get your high school diploma, you earn the right to make certain decisions. The decisions may be good ones or bad ones. The NBA has no right to assume, by raising the age limit, that they are making the right decision for you.
Joe from Beaufort, SC wants to know, "Does anyone care about boxing anymore?"
As it has been since its existence, boxing is the most corrupt sport in athletic competition. As I say that, I'm sure the Don King is teasing his hair and grinning from ear to ear, probably because he just signed a fight that no one wants to see. But somehow, it will be available on pay-per-view for $49.95, and enough suckers will pony up the charge for King to pay the boxers way too much, and himself even more.
Simply put, boxing is a joke. Why? Well, anytime the biggest news in a sport is the cancellation of the Tonya Harding versus miscellaneous transvestite fight, as was the case earlier this year, then that sport is a joke. What's even more of a joke? I wanted to see that fight. Why on Earth, do you ask? Not for the drama. Not for the competition. Not to see Harding suffer a well-deserved pummeling. But only for the spectacle. Boxing has become a spectacle, a freak show, a train wreck. Hey, did I just describe Mike Tyson? Yes, but not on purpose, but I'll use that segue anyway. The decline of boxing, as well as its previous popularity, parallels the rise and fall of Tyson.
If you're old enough to remember, boxing was actually broadcast on network television. I was only 12 at the time, but I seem to recall Sugar Ray Leonard winning the WBC welterweight title from Wilfredo Benitez in prime time on ABC. And CBS, with analyst Gil Clancy and partner Tim Ryan, and NBC, with "The Fight Doctor" Ferdie Pacheco and Marv Albert, broadcast championship fights on a regular basis.
Today, you never see a championship fight on network television. On cable, you could see a title fight, but it's usually for some second-rate, fringe belt (usually, the more letters in the federation abbreviation, the less prestigious is the belt). Not that these fights aren't entertaining; these guys are usually not superstars, and are fighting to reach that status, and the payday that comes with it. Only then do the crooks descend with the compassion of a vulture on carrion. This is what happened to Mike Tyson.
When Tyson was trained by Cus D'Amato and managed by Jim Jacobs, Tyson was shielded from the leeches that infected the industry. Sure, Tyson had a habit of felonious behavior, but the influence of D'Amato and Jacobs was able to transfer that aggression to the ring. Tyson would later become a "monster," but then, he was simply a "beast." Tyson still had compassion, and was fighting for himself, and not for the thugs who would later litter his payroll and drive him to bankruptcy.
In a 1986 fight against Marvis Frazier, son of Joe, Tyson knocked Frazier unconscious in less than a minute. Then, what did he do? He checked to see if Frazier was okay. Would the Tyson of today or 10 years ago do that? Not a chance. While being interviewed by ABC's Alex Wallau after the fight, Tyson innocently reviewed the tape and described the knockout in his own words: "Boom! I'm gonna hit him. I like to hit him." Never has this word been used to describe anything about Tyson, but the moment was "cute." It was boxing at its best: an anticipated fight, a devastating knockout, a likable fighter, and it was all on network television.
But that would be the end of the "innocent" Tyson era. D'Amato had passed away in late 1985, and Jacobs died in 1988. The impressionable Tyson was without his protectors, and was easy prey for anyone willing to tell him what he wanted to hear. The new Tyson era ushered in a more volatile Tyson, championship belts, more money than Tyson could properly manage, and higher-priced pay-per-views. Although, for a while in this era, Tyson pay-per-views were a bargain. In Tyson's devastating title reign, a pay-per-view featuring the heavyweight was worth the price, even though the most you would see of Tyson was two rounds.
But the anticipation was the real excitement. The success of Tyson placed the spotlight squarely on the heavyweight division, the weight class that has driven boxing from the start. As the cost of Tyson PPVs rose, people willingly paid, so promoters took advantage and eventually gouged the price of all PPVs. Now, there seems to be no price range for PPVs. Whether its Oscar De La Hoya/Feliz Trinidad or a junior bantamweight title bout from Pyongyang, North Korea, the price is $49.95. That's a month of satellite or cable right there. So, essentially, Tyson drove up the price of PPVs, and now, he won't go away.
Tyson will return to the ring on June 11th to face Ireland's Kevin McBride. I'm sure the PPV buy will be $49.95. It's pathetic matches like this (the aging, tattoo-faced Tyson versus an Irish guy!?) that steal the spotlight from the lower weight classes, where there is actual competition. But to the sports fan who's "on the fence" about boxing, a 12-round slugfest between two 126-pound Hispanic fighters won't catch their attention, although it should. Boxing needs a new heavyweight hero; Tyson needs to disappear from the boxing landscape. I understand he needs the money, but with every additional fight, the legacy of Tyson, and boxing, takes a hit.
So, to answer your question, yes, some people care about boxing. But I think I'm a good model of the average boxing fan. And, right now, I don't care about boxing. Maybe if it were accessible for free, like nearly every other sport in the world, I would be more of a fan. I honestly don't understand how boxing can make the money it does. I just know they won't do it on my dime.
Get Your Questions Answered!
Do you have a question or comment? Need those tough tax law questions answered? Looking to cure that flesh-eating disease? Need a discreet steroid distributor? Then send your question/medical records/W2s/dilemna along with your name and hometown to [email protected]. You may get the answer you're looking for in the next column on Friday, April 29th.
Leave a Comment