But the most interesting segment (in my opinion) was Stern's take on the age limit. In a nutshell, the NBA went for it because it is good for business:
- This was not a social program, this was a business issue. There was a serious sense that this was hurting our game. Having an 18-year-old player not playing, sitting on the bench, is not good for basketball. If we could have these kids develop for another year, either (A) they'd see that they weren't so good, and we'd see that they weren't so good, or (B) they would get better, and when they came, they would be able to make a contribution. And that would improve the status of basketball.
****
. . . [P]eople were killing us for it, they were saying, "Oh, the basketball's terrible because the players are too young, they don't have the requisite skills, they don't have this, they don't have that." Actually, some do, some don't, a year later they're going to be better, [plus] the opportunity to send them down, like a Gerald Green, to get minutes so the team could say, "You know what, he looked good. He got his rhythm back, he got his confidence back, he got to play a few minutes." That was the whole idea. This last collective bargaining agreement was about basketball and about player reputation. It wasn't about the money."
But it does respond to Mike's excellent points regarding whether -- as a matter of policy -- leagues should have age floors. It is true that age limits will harm the interests of certain players (i.e., Frank Gore and Randy Livingston), but at the end of the day, if the NBA as a whole is not healthy, all of the players will suffer. Stern has a duty to maximize not only the growth and revenue of the NBA, but the popularity of basketball as a whole. By doing so, he ensures that hundreds more young men -- economically disadvantaged and otherwise -- will have an opportunity to make millions of dollars playing a game they love.