From Athletes to Prophets: Age vs. Ability

The big news in the sports world this week was the court decision that upheld the NFL's minimum age rule, effectively ending the possibility for underclassmen, specifically Ohio State's Maurice Clarett and USC's Mike Williams, to be chosen in the upcoming NFL draft and play football professionally (this year, at least). Gregg Easterbrook, among others, supports the NFL's minimum age rule, arguing that allowing younger players into the draft is the primary reason for the decline in the quality of play in the NBA, and uses as an example, "There's no constitutional right to be a 19-year-old airline pilot."

I find this argument curious and--like many others--think the NFL's use of an across-the-board age limit is improper. The NFL, and any such organization, should be looking at players as individuals with distinct talents and abilities, rather than judging everyone using 'generalizations'. The NFL's position is that 19-year-olds are not 'capable' of playing football at a high enough level to succeed in the pros. This position has been reiterated by any number of NFL coaches such as Mike Holmgren and Marvin Lewis who have commented on the issue this week: "They don't have a strong enough body..." "They aren't mature enough to handle the pressure..." etc. These statements, generally speaking, are true: MOST 19-year-olds are not capable of playing in the NFL. But you can't take a 'generally-speaking' standard that's true for MOST people, and use it to judge EVERYONE.

For example, Mike Williams, despite his age, was widely considered to be a first-round draft choice (if he hadn't had his eligibility revoked), and many scouts were saying that he clearly had the ability to be successful in the NFL. (There's no guarantee that he would have been successful in the NFL, of course. Draft picks turn out to be busts all the time--but that's true of ALL ages...) If that's true, though, how is it fair to judge Mike Williams as being 'incapable' of playing in the NFL simply because most other people his age can't? Why not see if MIKE WILLIAMS personally has the skills to succeed in the NFL, and if so allow MIKE WILLIAMS to join the league? Why does age have to matter at all? If he can play, he can play... The NFL has a system already in place to weed out those who can play and those who can't: the draft itself. If Mike Williams has the ability, he'll be drafted, and any of the other 19-year-olds who 'aren't ready' won't be. Now, of course, it looks like he won't get his chance--for the sole reason that other kids his age aren't as talented as he is...

Gregg Easterbrook supports an age limit in the NBA as well, despite the fact that it would have excluded current stars LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony, who are 18 and 19 respectively. There's absolutely no justifiable reason for saying James and Anthony aren't capable of playing in the NBA because of their age, because they've demonstrated otherwise this entire year. Keeping them out because MOST kids their age aren't capable of playing in the NBA, without considering their individual talents and abilities is unfair. On the other side of the coin, Julio Franco of the Atlanta Braves is still playing baseball at age 45. It's certainly true that there are very, very few 45 year olds who can play at the major league level, but would you suggest the league ban any team from using players 40 or older because of it? If JULIO FRANCO--the individual--is judged to still have the physical skills to play baseball at age 45, why shouldn't JULIO FRANCO be allowed to, even if he's the only 45 year old in the league.

The point is: how can you judge ability by age and not by...ability? It's true that very few 14 or 15 year olds can handle college courses, but some can. There aren't many, but there are people who have such an advanced intellectual ability that they can master high-school level material at a much younger age and start college. (I work for one: my boss started BYU at the age of 13, and had his first degree before he was 18...) If you can prove you have the ability, you should be allowed to use it. (I don't see any colleges with a 'minimum age' restriction for admission...or a maximum age restriction. If you can pass the classes, you can get the degree...) And yes, if there's a 19-year-old who possesses the ability, why shouldn't he or she be allowed to be an airline pilot?

In the scriptures, we can find examples of the same kind of ability over age phenomenon. Mormon was called not only to be a prophet, but as a general for the entire Nephite people at the age of 16. Most 16-year-olds wouldn't be able to handle it, but again, that's beside the point--MORMON was and he was given the position. Joseph Smith was called to be a prophet at a young age (Note that his age was often used against him by those who felt he was 'too young' to be called of God). Joseph F. Smith was called to be a missionary at 15. Again, the fact that MOST 15 year olds wouldn't be able to be effective missionaries was irrelevant. The Book of Mormon doesn't give Nephi's exact age during the events of 1st Nephi, but it appears he was also fairly young when called upon to do important things.

On the opposite side, many have complained about the age of the current General Authorities, including President Hinckley who's 93. Sure, most 93-year-olds couldn't handle the travel and the responsibility of being prophet and president--but Pres. Hinckley is not 'most people'. Both in secular and religious issues we should be judging people as individuals--looking at their individual ability instead of their age. As they say, "Age ain't nothin' but a number"...