Going Postal July 29 2000

Shot on Hoop Dreams

Perhaps it is due to the limited amount of available space and the general nature of editorial writing, but rarely have I read a piece so contentious and devoid of supporting fact as Amy Jinkner-Lloyd’s column “As plain as black and white” (July 15). Given Ms. Jinkner-Lloyd’s profession, she is undoubtedly aware of the numerous counter-arguments to her assertions. Since she chooses to ignore them, I fear that my efforts to review several of them here will be ignored as well. However, in the spirit of honest debate, I will critique her arguments. (Please take this as a sign of respect. Certain editorialists, such as Neal Boortz, I would consider a waste of time to try to engage in honest discussion.)

Point 1: Basketball players are criticized for leaving school early, in contrast to teenagers turning professional in other sports such as baseball and tennis.

First, a significant percentage of baseball players are black. Second, these sports are structured entirely differently at the professional and collegiate levels. Baseball has a very developed minor league system to nurture and develop players as they prepare for the major leagues. Professional tennis has a number of lesser events that allow younger players to develop. Professional basketball, on the other hand, has no system at all to assist younger players in their transition. I know it’s a tired argument, but for every Kobe Bryant there are a multitude of early departures who find themselves unready for the transition and wash out prematurely.

College basketball has always served as a minor league for the NBA (as college football has for the NFL). In fact, in contrast to other sports, this minor league has served as a highly visible stage for athletes to greatly increase their marketability. Teenage basketball players who turn pro are, in effect, skipping basketball’s minor league and its developmental and promotional opportunities. You may argue that the NBA should emulate pro baseball and develop its own minor league system (I don’t consider the CBA a minor league, since so few of its players go on to the NBA), but my understanding is that baseball is in fact re-thinking the cost of supporting their farm teams.

Third, the prime years for tennis players differ from those of basketball players. Basketball players appear to be in their prime from the age of 22-35. Tennis players (especially women) appear to be at their prime in their late teens or early 20s. By the time they reach 30 they’re considered old. Whereas a basketball player may miss the lowest-paying years of their pro career by staying in school, a tennis player may miss the highest-paying years of their career.

Point 2: “They” are holding back the professional participation of young teens simply because they are girls.

Your implied assertion that the “powers that be” are lying in their expressed desire to allow children to mature a bit before becoming full-time professional tennis players strikes me as completely cynical. Whereas you attempt to ridicule the evidence given to justify the rule, you offer absolutely no evidence at all to support your assertion. Can you point to any statement by any individual involved in creating this rule that would support your assertion?

Point 3: “Certain parties” think it is a crisis for blacks to be making millions in professional sports.

Who are these “certain parties?” I probably do not have as wide a circle of acquaintances as you, but the only people I’ve spoken to who consider athlete’s salaries a crisis are those who put it in the context of what teachers and social workers are paid. And no one has ever said, or implied, that black athletes in particular are overpaid. I sense that the “certain parties” you refer to are different than the people who have expressed their objections to athletes’ salaries to me.

Point 4: White males think their race and gender are the only requirements for employment, and are threatened by blacks.

In decades of conversations with white males, I’ve never heard a single one express this view or fear. Once again, do you have specific cases you can point to as evidence?

Point 5: Maturity and responsibility have nothing to do with age.

Say what? The evidence against this statement is so overwhelming that I feel no need to comment further.

Point 6: 28, 30 and 60-year-olds are no better at money management than teenagers.

At least that’s what you seemed to be saying. Once again, the evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary. Just to give an analogy, 30-year-olds will be involved in thousands of car accidents this year. But the rate of car accidents for 18-year-olds is many times higher.

Point 7: Tennis players will fall out of the top 100 ranking.

I couldn’t really figure out what you were getting at here. It appears you mean to say that young tennis players may get hot but then fail, but you’re not really clear. Even assuming you mean to say young tennis players, I’m unclear as to your message. Certainly, professional tennis players’ competitive careers will come to an end. My observation is that they retire to the country club to charge $100/hour to teach lessons. I don’t know of any analogous fallback job for young basketball players who don’t make it.

Point 8: The problem isn’t college. It’s color.

Once again, I see nothing in your piece to support such an assertion. Your overall piece seems to imply that if a teenager doesn’t leave school early then that money won’t be there a few years later. On the contrary, college stars who have stayed through graduation, such as Tim Duncan and Grant Hill, have done quite well, both from a salary and endorsement standpoint. My observation is that observers are alarmed about players who listen to agents tell them they’ll be a mid-first round choice, declare early, and wash out before they have a chance to develop (love him or hate him, Dick Vitale makes this argument very well).

Moreover, I think your argument is quite destructive on several counts. First, you imply that because the practice of teenagers turning pro in other sports hasn’t been closely critiqued, it shouldn’t be critiqued for basketball players. I think quite the opposite. If you could show that a high percentage of teenagers in other sports have suffered due to turning professional prematurely, then you could make the case that they should be encouraged to stay in school as well. Personally, I think everyone should be encouraged to continue their education, whether they’re Michael Jordan, Martina Hingis or Chipper Jones. It’s just that basketball players seem to suffer particularly strongly when they turn pro prematurely and halt their education.

Second, only a small percentage of teenagers who turn pro will still be earning a living playing basketball by the time they’re 30. Those who don’t make it can always go back to school, but under what circumstances? Will they ever have quite the same opportunity again to have their way paid to go to a top-notch school? Do you really want to push them away from that just to play a few years of pro ball before their prime?

Finally, your argument seems to prescribe defeatism among blacks and women. White men are going to hold them down despite their best efforts, so why even try? The evidence from my previous company (I have my own business now), is quite different. Blacks and women hold many vice president, director and manager jobs. Opportunity is there for those with an education. I invite you to move beyond race baiting to explore these issues in greater depth.

Bill Eastman, Atlanta