I don't think that racism is the motive behind the age limit at all, but I do think that the reason why a wide portion of the general public supports it is because of implicit race perceptions. That's not to say that people conciously think "18 your old Blacks shouldn't be in the NBA and making money!", but there is a huge gray area when it comes to the effects of race on people's thought processes. The fact is that people don't bring up these age-limit arguments for any other pro sport except the NBA and the NFL (though in the NFL there is a huge physical reason to it). Yeah, sure, baseball has a minor league system, but why is no one proposing the same for the NBA instead of an all out ban? And how about every single other sport in the world (Soccer, NHL, any individual sport)? There's no outrage at all when Maria Sharapova plays in Wimbledon at 17. So, I don't think there are racial
motives for putting an age limit in, but I do think that if these were a bunch of well to do (white) childred, people would have no where near the same strong sentiments on the matter. As for Stern, he's obviously doing it for the money, as hyping kids in the college game brings hype into the NBA game when they get drafted.
And I don't get at all why people are trashing Jermain O'Neal in this thread. God forbid a pro athlete has a controversial social opinion! It's not like he's a rambling lunatic here; he makes a very good and legitimate observation: the only two pro sports in the ENTIRE WORLD to have an age limit (assuming the NBA adopts one) happen to be one of only three (with track and field the other) which are predominently Black. That's a striking correlation. I don't agree with (or rather if he did) his statement that racism is the motive behind adopting it, but I also don't see it as black and white as some of you simplify it to. Race can be a factor without being the be all end all motive.
As for a court challenge, this would not be a slam dunk case for the NBA. Yeah, Maurice Clarett failed in his court challenge, but he did win some early victories. More importantly, in any NBA trial, the high school player can point to the fact that the last two ROY were high school kids and that high school kids are having a higher success rate in the pros than college kids at this point (primarily because they have the most talent, of course). A lot of the NFL's argument was that high school kids weren't ready for the NFL, and the NBA will not be able to use that same argument.
Furthermore, LeBron is really the only player who did the prep-to-pro thing and was ready to compete right away. Pretty much every player took a few years to develop - (Jermaine O'Neal was drafted by the Blazers, but didn't become a star until he played at Indy), so these guys are being payed millions for "developing" their game at the next level. Stern wants to use the NCAAs for that.
BS. Amare won ROY the year before Lebron. Dwight Howard is already averaging a double double this year. Shaun Livingston, JR Smith, Al Jefferson, and Josh Smith have all played better than any college kid this year save 3 (Gordon, Okafor, Deng). People forget that the success rate for any NBA draftee isn't all that high. They cite these examples of failed high school kids.....but I can easily cite 5 failed college kids as well. Jermaine didn't play well at first because the Blazers utterly refused to play him. Almost the second he got traded to Indiana, he became an all-star. People forget that, as well.