O’Neal’s Cries of Racism Worth a Listen

By: Chicago Sports Review

David Stern was not sitting by himself, reading Frederick Douglas, and thinking, “This guy is full of it.” He was not perusing Mein Kampf under an apple tree when a plump Granny Smith struck a chord.

Nor did he sit down to an evening on the History Channel during Black History Month and wonder to himself why Rosa Parks couldn’t just park it in the rear and not make such a big fuss.

Stern doesn’t look, and has never acted the part of a racist, and should not be accused of being so. But he does remain the Caucasian commissioner of a league that is dominated by African-American players, most with enough money to open their own Hummer dealership.

So when Indiana Pacers star Jermaine O’Neal noted this week that something smelled rotten in Denmark, and implied that a racist stench was emanating from the commissioner’s office, you had to be skeptical. O’Neal reacted to a Stern-backed objective to put an age requirement on league participation. The baseline deal Stern wants is a 20 year-old age limit, or youth limit, when stated more literally.

“In the last two or three years, the rookie of the year has been a high school player. There were seven high school players in the All-Star game, so why we even talking an age limit?” said O’Neal yesterday, himself a former draftee out of high school.

“As a black guy, you kind of think that’s the reason why it’s coming up. You don’t hear about it in baseball or hockey. To say you have to be 20, 21 to get in the league, it’s unconstitutional. If I can go to the U.S. Army and fight the war at 18, why can’t you play basketball for 48 minutes?”

So where does the racism come in?

Only in the numbers. And perception.

Last year seven players were drafted in the first round out of high school. Six were black. Only Robert Swift–currently dusting a Seattle bench with his posterior–was white. Quite simply, the age-limit is not economically or socially responsible on the part of the league. The fact is, more black players are affected than white, and their earning potential is reduced. This in the face of a proven fact that suitors would have been there to swoop them up. With a first round pick guaranteeing a three-year contract, the issue goes right to the wallet.

Don’t they all?

Which is why O’Neal has a point. Stern is not only asking to take away the earning power of few select 18 year-old African-American men, he is rewarding the exploitation machine known as the NCAA, and asking them to incubate the players for another two years. Asked to qualify the last statement, let us merely point out that on paper, the NCAA has the services of Sean May valued at just under $13,000 per year. Any economist with a fraudulent online degree could tell you that May is worth millions, and the NCAA paying him a scholarship and the reward of the (sigh) “college experience” (see: alcohol, women, poker, partying) is like the NBA paying LeBron James with the “Chance to see the United States!”

“Join the Army! See the world! Take a college scholarship and spend 40-hour weeks outside the classroom making your coach and school millions! Make memories! See frat parties!”

Some in Stern’s corner say that high schoolers aren’t prepared to handle the rigors of NBA life, or the responsibility that comes with millions of dollars.

If only my imaginary son could be faced with such a tough lot.

This while, as O’Neal correctly points out, the United States allows fresh high school graduates to travel half way around the world to dodge bullets and defuse roadside bombs.

Granted. That’s a hyperbolic statement. Nobody is asking Stern to equate the two. But he could at least sharpen his rhetoric.

Or better yet, drop it.

The pitfalls of wealth, fame, and the NBA travel schedule have been handled well by 18 and 19 year-old players, and they will in the future. Amare Stoudemire and LeBron James have cruised to Rookie of the Year Awards in the past two seasons before the age of 20, and their inestimable wealth will be handled by money managers, their endorsements by well-paid agents, and their home-life, by (who else) themselves–just like a college student living in an off-campus house.

Why allow the NCAA the services of those players just so you can increase their star power and have their games refined a tad before they enter “The League?”

Pay them what they’re worth.

You could almost cast stones at Stern more for his bad timing than his clueless reasoning.

Ten years ago his argument would have drawn less ire. Try to imagine Shaquille O’Neal lasting in college basketball through his junior season at LSU under the current climate. Almost unthinkable. Yet he did. And Orlando GM Pat Williams struck gold and got his own LeBron.

Shaq was the first pick in the draft, and immediately dominant.

Just like LeBron James would have been when he became eligible. Since he just turned 20, that would have been this summer’s draft. Cavs fans and NBA lovers can only be thankful such a ludicrous age-limit rule wasn’t in place when James was a high school senior in Akron. Right now, he’s the league’s third leading scorer.

Ultimately, we should acknowledge this: An age-limit requirement in the NBA is not tantamount to racism. It does, however, suit only the interests of the league, the NCAA, and perhaps some veteran players. It denies young African-Americans what they’re worth.

The thought of shoving more money into the pockets of Myles Brand and his NCAA cronies is enough to induce gagging.

So are hyperbolic cries of social injustice.

So let’s end this whole thing and drop it all.

Starting with you, David Stern.

Tags: , , , , ,

Share This Article

No Comments

No comments yet.

Comment On This Article