Brandon Hoffman over at RealGM lays down a wicked case for the Uselessness of the NBA Age Limit. He argues that there is no evidence that college ball helps players professionally, personally, etc...It's a strong argument, but it also shows the limits of the current debate.
Hoffman, like most age limit-analysts, bases his argument on an implicit battle between players' rights and Lig vitality. Yet many, if not most rules, do not fit easily in one category or the other. Many rules are put into place that are not directly beneficial for individual players (the salary cap, most conspiculously.) Yet by making the game more competitive, with rules like the salary cap, the Lig prospers and the players reap the rewards. [In theory.]
A different question needs to be (at least) considered: Would a mandatory two years in college benefit the NBA? If the age limit made the Lig healthier, more competitive, more popular (on the dovetails of March Madness,) wouldn't all the players benefit?
Furthermore, rosters are a zero-sum game. 19-y-o draftees take up spots from older players still trying to bust into the Lig. If this frosh class hadn't been drafted, I guarantee that Ronald Dupree would be on a bench right now. With a few more spots would Jamario Moon have gotten his chance sooner? The roster spots don't disappear. Paying a 19-y-o means that you're not paying a veteran.
An age limit would certainly benefit the D-Lig by helping fill its rosters with better-known college players. The more popular the D-Lig, the bigger its coffers. The bigger its coffers, the more it can pay its players. The more it can pay its players, the better it will compete with European squads for talent...
The debate over age limits is a constructive one. And I certainly have not covered many (and most) of the key issues. Nonethess, the debate needs to be broadened. It is not just a scheming David Stern and a loose mob of underinformed selfish fans who back the rule change. Players are role models. From dress codes to drug tests, from mandatory post-game interviews to nbacares, sports in the last two decades has passed a torrent of rules to better the image and values of its players. In this sense, would a mandatory two years in college send a positive message similar to "standard of conduct" clauses? Or is that impinging too heavily on players' rights? I can appreciate both sides of the argument...
[Update: Cuban weighs in.]