And I very, very, very much dislike Jrue. I understand the whole “gotta respect everyone who wears the Bruin uniform” thing, but come on, give me a freaking break. Jrue was an immensely hyped prospect (one who definitely would have gone pro out of high school given the opportunity), and therefore you can’t blame me for thinking that he’d have a Kevin Love-like impact on the team. As we all know, he greatly underacheived. That could be forgiven as he was just a freshman, but then he declared for the draft at the last second and spent the next few months slamming Howland’s system and whining about being underutilized while leaving everyone twisting in the wind and wondering if he was going to come back. As he was a projected top 3 pick in 2010 and a projected #7-20 pick in 2009, it definitely made sense for him to return (another year also, of course, would have given him valuable PG experience and better stats to show to the scouts). Of course, he didn’t return, finalizing his plan to play in the NBA at the last second and leaving us with a very thin and depleted roster for the 2009-10 season, one that will definitely be a huge struggle thanks to him. I’m very firmly entrenched in the “What did this guy ever do for me?” camp when it comes to Jrue. I will not support him in the NBA. DC, however, immediately becomes my favorite NBA backup point guard (JF is a close second), and almost makes me want to become a Hornets fan. So yeah, I very much understand the compare and contrast.

The stupid rule is causing a mini-rift in the Bruin family, and that alone is enough of a reason to get rid of the rule as far as I’m concerned.

Why did Holiday have to interrupt his life with a year at a place he didn’t want to be? There is no logical reason for the rule. There are plenty of reasons from the perspective of the player’s union and the nba, but none of those high school phenoms would agree that the reasons are anything but an artificial barrier standing in their way of big bucks. (In OJ2’s case, make that bigger bucks.)

There is a similar barrier in football, which likewise makes no sense. Oh, sure, there is an argument that a 17 year old with a fragile, still growing body could be tremendously hurt, but the difference between a 17 year old and a 21 year old is insignificant in my opinion.

Curt Flood took on an impregnable, iron clad rule and won. (To my dismay, as it happens. I liked the reserve clause because it made my team a dynasty. I was not, obviously, one of the players whose salary was held artificially lower.) I see the next such case being the child prodigy field goal kicker – the 16 year old high school graduate who can kick the ball perfectly straight from 80 yards through the goal posts 100 times out of a 100. That guy will want to play in the pros for big bucks, not in college for an education he neither wants nor needs. And as long as he’s not related to Bill Gramatica, he can cite the almost perfect record of non-injuries to kickers. And if this high school phenom is a she rather than a he, I would love to take her case. I never argued personally before the U.S. Supremes, but I would like to on this sort of case. (Actually, if it got that far, I would like to find a really good Supreme Court advocate to argue the case.) I absolutely see no difference between the date a person was born and the color of the person’s skin on the day he was born for this purpose. (And I know the argument against that thesis, so save it.)

OK. My rant is over. I’m ready to hear what the various people actually argue as the reason that the age barriers exist.

Maybe we’ll start seeing the trend of the high school kids going to Europe to play, then enter the NBA draft.