Our Congress is wasting more of its time debating with the NBA about its age rule (instead of spending time giving our tax dollars to banks posting billion dollar profits and union cronies who oppose trade that would grow our economy).  There are innumerable precedents to setting an age limit in a workplace, and given that the NBA is a venture entered into by free will, it is only legal and logical that it should be able to set a few basic parameters for working there.

Lots of people oppose age limits (like R Kelly, Roman Polanski, the late Michael Jackson) who argue that players have a right to earn a living.  How is this right taken away?  Players are free to work anywhere else - an office, a restaurant, even the NBDL - and as Brandon Jennings showed us last year, they can make a nice living playing basketball abroad.  The NBA has a responsibility to its shareholders to protect the value and quality of their product and have the right to do it in a manner they see fit.  PR backlash from the drafting of high school players was strong, especially among non-young fans.

Is the game any worse off for not having these players for a year or two?  Couldn't we have done without Kobe's airballs against the Jazz in the playoffs, or Lebron's bad Cleveland teams missing the playoffs, or the initally unimpressive showings of Garnett, Chandler, and Jermaine O'Neal?  And weren't Derrick Rose and OJ Mayo handsomely compensated for their efforts in college? (Zing!)

The NBA age floor provides the league with more polished, mature athletes who have built a bit of a brand for themselves in the college game.  Staying in college didn't hurt Tim Duncan or Brandon Roy, and even helped Kevin Durant and Michael Beasley.  The only people truly harmed are the failures who fold under the pressure of increased competitiveness, like Kwame Brown and his ilk.