View Single Post
02-22-2013, 07:54 AM
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Brick by Brick
Originally Posted by
Some players are a "shot in the dark", and some aren't. If you move the draft age to 20, then this would mean no 18 and 19 year olds in the NHL, right? Well Crosby was never a "shot in the dark" and belonged in the NHL at 18, if not younger. It wouldn't be right to hold players of that ilk back. And I don't think there is anything wrong with the draft being so full of uncertainty. Are you suggesting moving the draft age forward two years just to make judgments more certain? Why do we need that?
Understandable, you will have the "phenoms" so to speak... There's a lot of talk around the water cooler about this in regards to Jadeavon Clowney from South Carolina and if he should sit out this season of SEC Football to prepare for the draft next April as he can't go pro till next year (at least in the NFL) and he'd be the projected first overall this april. You are going to have the rare "Crosbys" as well, so there would need to be a "Special Case" rule, the junior leagues actually have them now, and I think Sid was granted it to play at a younger age in the "Q" than most elgibles.
The NBA is suffering from this right now. The one and done rule is absolutely ridiculous if you ask me. Twisting arms to attend college for one season only to go pro is crazy. You want to go to the NBA right from HS? Ok, but if you choose to attend college, you stay at least three years.
An extra two years in a system somewhere would give the scouts and teams a better and more accurate barometer for assessing potential big league talent.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by KeithBWhittington