I think it's a good thing both for these players and for college basketball. For every high school or freshman players that declares early and becomes a success I think there are at least ten that dont that maybe could have been with a couple more years of development under their belt. This years boneheaded decision award goes to Early Clark and Derrick Charachter. As much as I hate UofL these kids are making stupid decisions.

The two year rule will lead to more stockpiled talent on college teams and that can only make the game better while these kids are getting an education at the same time.

My assumption is that the appeal can now be made for a rehearing of the case en banc in the 2nd circuit, and if that challenge is unsuccessful, only the U.S. Supreme Court remains.

If the NFL rule is successfully overturned by the courts, I think that the U.S. Congress will have to get involved.  The idea of allowing these young kids access to the pros, and removing the leagues from having any say about it just goes against my sense of fairness.

Finally, if the young player's appeal is successful, the NBA rule as it currently stands will surely fall under precedent.  We will then be back to square one.

There was talk of the rule being voted in this year, but it was not. Regardless, I think whenever it goes into affect, it will be a good thing.

http://johnclay.typepad.com/sidelines/page/2/

Ultimately it is a good rule for the kid, he gets to improve game skills while hopefully maturing and receiving an education.

However, an argument can be made that it is unfair to deny anyone the opportunity to earn a living.  For instance, let's say player A has  NBA talent and is a sure fire lock to be a top pick right out of high school.  Let's also say he doesn't test well and while he tries hard and is a good kid, his grades are below average and he will have a hard time getting into a top flight college.  Oh, and by the way he is being raised in a single family home where mom/dad has to work two jobs to earn ends meat and he has to help take care of his younger brothers/sisters which in turn makes it even harder for him to study and try to improve his grades.  

Is it really fair to tell this kid he has to wait two years to change the lives of his family for the better.

I am not saying this is the case with all kids wanting to skip the college experience and go straight to the pros, but in this day and age the example above is very realistic.  I personally like the stay in school longer message, but there is a difference between the NBA and NFL.  It's been proven that an 18-19 year old young man can compete in the NBA w/o an overwhelming physical disadvantage.  This is not the case in the NFL, I don't care how big or strong a kid is coming out of high school, it would be a massacre to throw him up against the giants that have 4-5 years under their belts in professional football.  Thus the rule not allowing anyone in unless you are three years removed from HS.

Anyway, that's my soapbox rant on the subject, it's definately a tricky question.  Do you legislate a kid not being able to improve his finacial situation in life in hopes that in the long run he is able to grow as a person an athlete?  Hard to say, look at Greg Oden, had he been forced to stay in school one more year, his knee problems would have occured while at Ohio State and one never knows if it would have cost him MILLIONS of dollars.

I would like to see how long that one is.

I personally feel like this rule is good for both leagues. The more time these kids spend in school the more built in fans they will bring with them to the NBA and that is something the league needs badly.

On paying college kids. IT WONT EVER WORK. If you pay basketball or football players you also have to pay rifle team members and swimmers. Im sorry but the cost would be too expensive if you did it the right way that wouldnt leave you open to all kinds of lawsuits from little known sports.