What the NBA Could Learn From the WNBA: Staying in School FTW

. Wednesday, April 8, 2009
  • Agregar a Technorati
  • Agregar a Del.icio.us
  • Agregar a DiggIt!
  • Agregar a Yahoo!
  • Agregar a Google
  • Agregar a Meneame
  • Agregar a Furl
  • Agregar a Reddit
  • Agregar a Magnolia
  • Agregar a Blinklist
  • Agregar a Blogmarks

Martin Johnson wrote a nice little piece for TheRoot.com about how the University of North Carolina men's team won the national title primarily on the strength of their upperclassmen...which is further support for the NBA to implement a higher age minimum, as the WNBA has always done. The result could be better basketball:

As a result, the sort of “veteran” teams that we’ve become accustomed to seeing cut down the nets on the first Monday in April, may become the norm throughout the NCAA. Building a winning college basketball program used to be equal parts recruiting talented players and coaching them into a unit. Since the mid-‘90s, it seemed that recruiting had begun to take on a dominant share. With the recent title teams and coming changes in the NBA, those veteran teams will become the standard across the board. When they do, the upsets that once characterized this tournament will return.


The response from women's basketball fans: uh, duh....

No matter what critiques one might have about women's basketball this is something that it has right already -- their players stay longer and it makes for the development of great teams rather than the fleeting excitement of great individual performances.

Nevertheless, I often go back and forth on this age minimum issue (especially when considering Darnellia Russell's situation), but you can't deny the results: as a fan, it makes for better basketball during one of the premiere basketball events in the U.S. -- March Madness. How can you argue with that?

So I wonder, having just witnessed March Madness and now looking forward to the draft, does anyone really believe that the WNBA should loosen their age minimum? If so, how?

I'm honestly soliciting thoughts on this rather than purporting to have something new to say about the issue... but I will just rehash some of the age-old arguments for the sake of discussion...

The Phenom Factor

I would call you foolish without reservation if you said that LeBron James was not ready to go pro. Ditto for Greg Oden...Kevin Durant...the list goes on. The latest in that line of players who has absolutely nothing further to gain from college basketball is clearly Blake Griffin, who announced that he's making the jump to the NBA yesterday.

So would the WNBA cave or bend their age requirement with a player like Brittney Griner coming through the pipeline...or having already watched Maya Moore play around with college kids all season?

Clearly players like Chamique Holdsclaw and Candace Parker have argued that staying in school was a good decision...so I don't know how much clamoring for a change there really is. And honestly, if Parker and Holdsclaw are ok with it, there aren't really many other college players in the world who should have a problem with it.

But is it fair to confine a player of Griner's obvious talent to the NCAA?

Why the Phenom Factor *Should* Not Matter for the WNBA?

People love stories.

Plenty of people have done research on that... but really, I think we can all agree on that.

Women's basketball needs a narrative that will "legitimize" it to people who have doubts, draw them in, and keep them coming back.

Those narratives should start by watching the players develop a college legacy -- from the recruitment stages, to the growing pains of losing in the early years, to winning championships in their later years. It gives us something to hold on to. Something to look forward to...and builds upon long-standing college allegiances to build pro allegiances.

Furthermore, it goes back to developing a narrative about what a female athlete *is* before even trying to move forward with marketing a professional women's game. We have to shift the narrative of what it means to be a female athlete if we really want to see women's sports take off in this country.

So then...

Why Not Scrap the Age Minimum and Start Creating Those Narratives With Younger Players?

Simple answer (to the completely absurd hypothetical question I've made up to set up the rest of my post): It's just plain silly to send messages about a glamorous career in sports to kids who have not even lived away from their guardians yet. In fact, it borders on irresponsible, reprehensible, immoral.

OK... strong words... (perhaps you can tell the recruiting industry bothers me).

But when I see stories about sixth grade phenoms who are ranked as a member of next decade's recruiting class, I almost want to vomit. I mean wasn't there a great movie documenting how corrupting these elusive Hoop Dreams can be on players, family members, and coaches? Was that not convincing enough? Why do we continue to want to perpetuate this cycle of setting kids up to be crushed?

And though the NBA can not be held responsible for some opportunistic wanna-be who feels the need to make a living ranking sixth graders in basketball, part of what keeps this insane recruiting industry sinking to new lows is the large amounts of money in the promised land at the top, in the NBA. The easier it is to get to that promised land -- meaning you don't have to pretend to take four years of classes seriously -- the easier it will be to legitimize the idea that someone should be tracking kids as early as sixth grade. So although I don't blame the NBA (or the NY Times) for creating this basketball mythology, I think that sending a message from the top that there is more to life than basketball (*gasp*...I can't even believe I wrote that) is valuable.

So I will come to a tentative conclusion about the WNBA age requirement: if women's basketball wants to avoid this race to the bottom of convincing kids who still watch Saturday Morning cartoons that "Basketball is Life" then the age requirement is one way to keep things in perspective. This is a game, kids should enjoy as a game, and hopefully continue to see it as a ticket to getting a top flight education rather than a gambling on the fragility of a professional basketball career.

I reserve the right to change my mind tomorrow... ;)

Transition Points:

For anyone who really wanted to Free Brittney Griner from the horrific tyranny of a college education, then consider the Brandon Jennings plan -- go play in Europe and get your money until you're eligible to play pro in the U.S. Call me crazy, but I happen to think Griner made the right decision by choosing education... but how long before a female baller decides she's better off bolting to Europe for a few years?

Comments (7)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
It's not unheard of for women to do the Europe thing. Schuye Larue left Virginia for pro ball in Europe after her sophomore season. Britany Miller is in this year's draft after flunking out of Florida State and spending a season over there.
I am so glad you're blogging again. I love your smart thoughtful posts.

I think one of the biggest arguments is that the WNBA simply isn't as lucrative as the NBA. Very few WNBA players are going to be set for life. They all need something else to fall back on and in this climate a college degree is better than no college degree.
We won't see female players making the jump even were the age limit to be lowered. These women have short careers and don't make near the kind of money that the men do. Even the best paid women overseas make less than the NBA veteran minimum. They need a college education to be prepared for their life after basketball. A few possibilities, like Candace Parker or Maya Moore might be talented enough, play for a big enough program, and frankly, be "pretty" enough to land big endorsement deals, but they will remain rare.
I would also argue that even phenoms need polishing. Brittney Griner might be tall and athletic, but the WNBA would eat her lunch if she jumped right now. Even the Mystics' post game would give her trouble. She's too raw. Kim Mulkey and Leon Barmore will polish her into the star she has the potential to be, and in the meantime, she gets a free education. And as pilight pointed out, those who think they're good enough (who... usually aren't) will drop out and go overseas for the money. (In case you're wondering, LaRue was drafted by the Sparks but didn't advance far in training camp; the rumor was she'd failed a drug test.)

I think we already have narratives- it's just that no one's telling them. Look at Nicky Anosike- a kid from an immigrant family, with the added burden of growing up on Staten Island ;), who graduated from Tennessee as a triple major. Look at any team in the league, and you'll find the stories. But the league's not looking hard enough because that's not the direction they want to go, for reasons that completely escape me. They'd rather fall into line with traditional marketing.h
1 reply · active 832 weeks ago
Queenie -- totally agree with you on the fact that phenoms need polish... and I'm glad that the WNBA forces people to do so. Some of these kids leaving for the NBA are just destroying their lives....

As for the narratives issue...I agree the narratives exist and that the WNBA is inexplicably not telling them. But I think there's an intermediary step I'm looking for too in terms of promoting women's sports -- how could we tell the stories in ways that will not just resonate with people, but push them to challenge their preconceived notions about women's sports in ways that make them seem more viable? I guess part of the WNBA's challenge is convincing people to come along for the ride and considering the possibility that women's sports is really viable... thus far (as you say) they've skipped that step and then continue to scramble for respect... hmmm...
Another major factor in why the WNBA has problems telling their stories is that the sportswriters that WNBA depends on to do so are male. They have some of the same dismissive attitudes and negative prejudices about women's sports as many male sports fans.

There have been more than a few times I've observed male ESPN anchors make snide condescending remarks in their infrequent reports on the league.

And poker is NOT a sport, so why is it on ESPN in the first place when you could be using that time to put women's soccer and the WNBA on?.
You are always able to learn many new things when you are having some passion for achieving the goal. Surely there are many things for which I am really excited upon reading about them.

Post a new comment

Comments by