04/25/24
July 29, 2005
The Sports Law Blog has broken down data on NBA players arrested with some interesting results in the age and education level variables. The education level was recently added, with the results showing that "though 41.1 percent of all NBA players went to college for 4 years, 57.1 percent of arrested NBA players went to college for 4 years. In contrast, though 14.8 percent of all NBA players either did not go to college or went for one year, only 9.6 of arrested NBA players share the same educational background." Interesting stuff.
posted by Ufez Jones to basketball at 08:16 PM - 13 comments
Addendum: Two more talking points: The Sports Economist, where I found this article, has their own theory about the update. Also, I'd love to see compartive stats with the other major (US) leagues, strictly based on players and percentages, given the NBA's 'thuggish' status. Finally, I resolve to not use "a bit" for a long time coming.
posted by Ufez Jones at 08:40 PM on July 29, 2005
Man, I love this kind of look at the numbers. I would agree that looking at it with both repeat offenders included and not would give a clearer picture. I'd love to comment on the actual site/data but China blocks blogspot websites. D'oh.
posted by geekyguy at 09:43 PM on July 29, 2005
geekyguy: I won't post the entire table (since it's huge) but here's the summary that the sports-law blog gives:
What does this data tell us? First, college education does not appear to diminish the probability of a player getting in trouble with the law. In fact, some of the most notorious NBA players are those with college degrees, while many others have three years of a college education. That is not to say that a college education is a “bad thing,” but it does undermine the popular and paternalistic argument that “these kids need more schooling” because otherwise they would somehow be less-prepared for life as an NBA player. Just the opposite, actually, the data suggests that premiere high school seniors might be better off skipping college altogether, perhaps in order to avoid the disturbing external influences that afflict many college basketball programs, or perhaps because the average Division I college basketball player spends 40-50 hours a week playing games, practicing, attending team meetings, working out, and traveling – an arrangement that does not leave much time for “education” or “the college experience,” and that is a problem only worsened by most players having minimal financial resources (which, consequently, can instill a greater temptation on their part to be influenced by those who hang around the team and who always have plenty of money in hand). On the other hand, the lack correlative power of education might only reflect intervening causes (such as personal and professional relationships) that can obscure the lessons one learned in school (or at home or with friends etc.). In that respect, I found some of the media coverage of the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case especially baffling. Here was a player who was considered the NBA's poster child for most of his first seven seasons, during which time he was routinely praised for his charity work with the Los Angeles Girls and Boys' Club, and then, at age 24, we are supposed to believe that he suddenly became a rapist because he didn't go to college seven years earlier? Second, players appear more likely to get in trouble with the law towards the middle and end of their careers than at the start. This could be interpreted in a number of ways. For instance, it might suggest that the “pressures of being an NBA player” are more manageable at the start of one’s career, perhaps because the player is less autonomous and more reliant on the team. This interpretation is bolstered by the financial stake of NBA teams in facilitating the transition of their players from life as an amateur to life as a pro. Second, and related to the preceding interpretation, new NBA players are often surrounded by veterans in their late 20s and 30s who can monitor them and serve as de facto “big brothers.” The presence of these veteran players is obviously something distinct from the college experience, where the “veterans” are often just 20 or 21-years old, and are thus not likely to be as well-equipped in steering their 18 and 19-year teammates away from nefarious influences. Alternatively, the data may suggest that as the player accumulates wealth and notoriety, he is more likely to succumb to these “pressures.” No matter the interpretation, it doesn’t appear that the recent decision by the NBA and NBPA to raise the age of NBA draft eligibility from 18 to 19 (or one year out of high school) will improve the overall law-abidingness of NBA players. If anything, actually, this data suggests that it might have the opposite effect.He does note, though, that:
The averages and medians only count a player once, with the number averaged (e.g., even though he had three arrests, Vernon Maxwell’s education and age are only counted once as an average—4 years of college, 31 years old, and 9th NBA season).I hadn't noticed that tidbit before. Guess that answers part of #2 at least. Hope that helps.
posted by Ufez Jones at 11:05 PM on July 29, 2005
Since when does education have anything to do with getting into or not getting into trouble? It has to do with two main things. 1). You have to have some common sense. 2). Good parenting. You can be the most book-smart person on the planet and have no common sense. E=MC2 isn't going to keep you from getting into trouble and neither is knowing the growth rate of asparagus.
posted by dbt302 at 11:19 AM on July 30, 2005
I would love to see how this compares to football. I think they both have really aggressive recruiting programs, as well as training programs.
posted by volfire at 12:02 PM on July 30, 2005
To add to Ufez's points: I would like to know whether or not the NBA's Rookie Orientation has had any effect on these statistics. The program was enacted in '86 though I don't think any of the data collected in the blog would allow for a comparison, as it seems to be fairly recent (post '85).
posted by lilnemo at 12:17 PM on July 30, 2005
I think the fact that most star athletes (especially the rare and privileged few that make it to the NBA) that go to college are not getting an education in any traditional academic sense needs to be mentioned in this conversation; they are there to make money for the University, nothing more. there are exceptions of course, David Robinson springs to mind...
posted by sic at 06:12 PM on July 30, 2005
I also believe Jesse Jackson tried to point that out this year. Most of the class loads that are taken by scholarship program athlete's are just enough to keep the money. All the school is interested in is the sports.
posted by volfire at 07:24 PM on July 30, 2005
I think the fact that most star athletes (especially the rare and privileged few that make it to the NBA) that go to college are not getting an education in any traditional academic sense needs to be mentioned in this conversation; they are there to make money for the University, nothing more. Not directly, at least, and not even indirectly, some say. Using the sport with the biggest dollars involved as an example, the revenues in football are bigger, but so are its expenditures, so only 65 of the 1200 NCAA college football programs pay for themselves. And there's also some question about whether even a successful program "make[s] money for the University" through increased donations.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 06:26 AM on July 31, 2005
This study doesnt mean a whole hell of alot seeing how although these players may have spent time in college they most likely didnt spend it in class learning anything . What study they should have done is comparing the grades of these players while in college to see what thier intellect level is and see if any true student atheletes got in trouble or just pLaYeRz .
posted by evil empire at 08:51 AM on July 31, 2005
That may be, evil empire, but the NBA has yet to set any restrictions on players entering the draft based on GPA. They have instituted restrictions on age. One of the major reasons given for this (but not the only by any means) was the theory that college is such a formidable time and the extra year(s) spent without the millions of dollars would help players mature and be ready for the limelight. This study kind of proves that that excuse doesn't hold water.
posted by Ufez Jones at 09:06 AM on July 31, 2005
maturity in the nba , thats funny . as you can see by this study as the players get older they are just as immuture as when they entered , maybe even less seeing how they get full of themselves because they are pro atheletes .
posted by evil empire at 04:17 PM on August 02, 2005
That said, I've got two reservations about the study: 1) Given the fact that H.S.'ers going into the draft is a more recent phenomenon than the history of the NBA (even with the newly est.'d age restriction), might that skew the numbers a bit? 2) Would taking out the multiple offenses for repeat offenders (of which there are quite a few) change the numbers a bit? I know it's Friday evening (I'm just killing time until I have to go work again for a bit), but I'd be interested to hear some thoughts on this. And, btw, what an excellent blog.