The foundation – and a small one that may turn out – to raise the NBA's highest age to 21 is that both the tournament and the dormitories are the most restrictive.
The colleges will be beneficial because the great players who would otherwise be proficient will spend their younger old schools for a new year, increasing their dormitory level. And the NBA will be beneficial because the novice players are equipped with the skills and the savoir-faire to better represent themselves and extend the NBA product.
These are loud arguments on both sides. The only thing that is ignored is its central voice – the athlete himself.
Suppose you're 20 years college basketball and talented. Twenty-six or six-nine, you can race in a racing race and fly like a bird and put it in front of the seams to try to test the NBA jar.
But the powers – that is to say we have to wait another year – of course for their own benefit. Even though you are old enough to go abroad and die, you are not quite mature about the professional basketball's difficulties.
Another year is the school you need, they agree – a new season of seasoning and sophistication. Keep in mind that you have not seen the inside of the classroom yet – that there are only two buildings in the campus at the campus and in the cafeteria at the university.
Your university will do all you can – at least your coach and fans – but you do not see that one year will hang something smarter. And for your life, you do not see a new year in the U state satisfying those people who always exclaim the importance of higher education.
No, you're not a scientist, but you can not help understanding the idea.
You see the dormitory gets its services for a year, when it's offered in the open market. And you figure out that the NBA keeps the future job market on the farm at the expense of the college. But since the college offers millions of revenue from the basketball program …
Limitation of age limit is obviously unfair to athletes and may violate their right to life illegally.