If the NCAA is an "association of higher learning" I would think they would make the rules less harsh to help people trying to get an education. I remember 2 instances where the NCAA could have let a student-athlete continue his education but chose not to. One was when Donte Stallworth was a WR at Tennessee, the other involved a football player from U. of Miami (FL). Stallworth declared for the NFL draft in 2002, but changed his mind, saying his mom wanted him to get his degree.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/college/news/2002/01/31/stallworth_ncaa_ap/

Stallworth received over $1000 in "extra benefits" (the whole idea of that rule and its enforcement is another topic) but paid the agent back, and did not sign with him. A kid wanted to come back to school but, as is all too common, the NCAA stubbornly stuck to dictatorial rules and said No to a kid who wanted a degree.

My point here is that I'm fine with kids graduating high school and trying to get drafted. But, if they don't get drafted, why not let them attend college? What is with the strict adherence to "once you signal even INTENT to go pro, amateur eligibility is forfeited?" If the NCAA wants to indeed be for "higher learning" they have a lot of things they need to change.

As for this Vaccaro guy, I don't see a problem with the NBA having and age limit. They are a private company and can run it the way they want. They can "age discriminate" as much as the WNBA can gender discriminate. I'm just waiting for somebody to file a case where a male wants to play in the WNBA.

I don't know enough about the Stallworth situation, Alex, so I can't really elaborate on that. I do know that our Student-Athlete Reinstatement staff and committees always keep the student-athlete at the forefront of its mind when determining whether or not to reinstate someone.

As for the NCAA not allowing kids to return once he "signals even intent to go pro," that's just not true. Right now, a lot of kids are declaring for the NBA draft, but many are electing not to sign with an agent so they can decide before the draft if they want to go back to school or not.

Once the draft occurs, however, that amateur status is gone.

Actually, denying adults the right to earn a living solely based on age and regardless of ability sounds pretty darned unAmerican.

Comparing that to Al-Qaida is non-sensical.

I wasn't comparing the two, simply using an example to show why Sonny's belief that this is the "most un-American thing" he's ever seen is ridiculous. There are plenty of things far more un-American.

It's not worth parsing words. When someone makes a comment about degree (the most un-American), the counterargument find other examples that may or may not qualify. Sonny believes it is un-American to restrict people's right to work based on age. Also, the line about "next year's LeBron or Kobe can get paid, just not by the NBA" is absurd...how would you feel if we said after you graduated college, you could ONLY work for McDonald's and get paid min wage?

That seems kind of absurd. If you're that good and think you can play in the NBA right out of high school, playing in Europe for a year is hardly "minimum wage." There are plenty of players who don't get looks from the NBA but make hundreds of thousands of dollars overseas.

I'm opposed to the age limit in general, but I understand why the NBA wants one. David Stern and the NBA owners want more mature young men entering their leauge. This makes the league more marketable. If they could, I believe they would like to see the age limit raised to 20. On the positive side, it is beneficial for these young men to experience some form of college life, no matter how long or short it may be. Everyone wants instant gratification these days. There is nothing wrong with enjoying life in a higher-learning envirionment. We spend too much time worrying about the elite players able to make this jump, instead of the 99.9 percent who will never make it.

It is more absurd to suggest that it is OK to restrict someone's employment opportunities based on age, simply because they can work overseas.

I also don't know which players Josh refers to who make "hundreds of thousands of dollars" overseas but "don't get looks from the NBA." Players making that kind of money overseas usually "get looks" from the NBA, and in most cases have NBA experience if they are earning that kind of money.

G makes reasonable points, but the value of higher-learning should be a personal choice, not a mandate. If the NBA owners want more mature men, and feel that is an important qualification to work in the NBA, they should simply not draft or sign them. A blanket rule that prevents mature 18-year olds from entering the league is simply unfair.

Fair enough, Aaron. The one that I was thinking about was Gerry McNamara, who wasn't drafted and got a couple of summer league looks. He signed in Greece, where he didn't stick, for more than $400K a year. Using that example, I would assume that there are lucrative opportunities for 18-year-olds who don't want to spend a year in school but are good enough for the NBA.

I think rules should require students to have gone to school for 3 yrs at least. They can either choose to comeback for their last yr or opt for the nba draft. But not any earlier than 3 yrs. This would be great for the game of college basketball, it would make it more interesting, competitive, and fun to watch because there will be more elite players playing. This would also help out the colleges because, they spend so much time and money to recruit these elite players, but then they leave after 1 yr. This screws them up because now they have to rebuild again.