What do these prominent professional athletes have in common: Chris Evert, Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Venus and Serena Williams, Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, Eric Lindros, Alex Rodriguez, Ken Griffey, Manny Ramirez and Derek Jeter?

None went to college.

The National Basketball Association is attempting to become the first professional sports league to ban players under age 20. Such a restriction would not only be capricious, but also eminently unfair. For many teenagers, college is necessary to pursue career goals. But, as the above list of pro athletes demonstrates, not for all.

Commissioner David Stern contends that teenagers lack the physical and emotional maturity to play in the N.B.A., and that their presence in the league contributes to the perception that the quality of play is declining. Yet with such outstanding players as Allen Iverson, Vince Carter, Chris Webber, Jason Kidd, Stephon Marbury and Shaquille O'Neal, the N.B.A. has never had a greater pool of young talent than it does today. Interestingly, each of these pros attended college for two years or less. Even more interesting, three of the league's brightest young stars -- Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant and Tracy McGrady -- were drafted straight out of high school. At least a half-dozen other teenagers are now either making significant contributions or figure prominently in their teams' futures.

The N.B.A.'s perspective on player marketability is equally disingenuous. The commissioner says that the league's ability to market a player to the public and to advertisers is dramatically increased by the television exposure he receives during his college career. This is patently untrue. Despite never having played a single N.C.A.A. game, Garnett, Bryant and McGrady are among the most marketable players in all of professional sports. Even the marketing of the N.B.A. by NBC and TNT as well as corporate giants Nike and Adidas bears this out. Advertisements promoting the league focus almost exclusively on the young stars.

Why then is the N.B.A. attempting to stigmatize teenage prodigies and indenture them to colleges and universities as unpaid professionals? Should these youngsters not be given a chance to make a living like the rest of us? What if they are simply not academically motivated? After all, declaring yourself eligible for the N.B.A. is a career choice, not a crime. In fact, it has been argued that playing basketball in college only jeopardizes pro careers, which, for the most part, are staggeringly brief. An N.B.A. career lasts, on average, barely five years.

Randy Livingston, a high school standout, seemed like a sure lottery pick but he bypassed the N.B.A. for Louisiana State, sustained a serious leg injury and attracted only tepid interest. To the league, Livingston was damaged goods. Through fortitude and perseverance, he carved out a modest career in the N.B.A., but he never earned anything close to what he would have had he turned pro out of high school.

Since the introduction of the rookie wage scale in 1995 -- an innovation the commissioner touted as a disincentive for players to turn pro -- gifted teenagers have bypassed college and entered the league in increasing numbers. The current collective bargaining agreement locks players into a scaled salary structure for the first four years of their professional careers. They do not become true free agents until after their fifth season. Imagine an 18-year-old with the talent and desire to turn pro. Under the current system, he can seek an agreement that maximizes his earning potential at 22. At the expiration of his first post-rookie-scale contract, he will be young enough (28 or 29) to attract another significant deal. But if he were to attend four years of college, he would enter the N.B.A. at 22 and not be eligible for free agency until 26. At the end of that first major deal he would be 33 -- far less likely to command another major one. In Garnett's case, those four extra years of college could have cost him as much as $100 million. No wonder the N.B.A. wants to make teenagers wait!

If Commissioner Stern really wanted high school players to attend college, he would reduce the number of years players are subject to the below-market salaries mandated by the rookie scale. At the least that would give high school students an incentive to attend college. He could further protect teenagers from ''bad decisions'' by forging an agreement with the National Collegiate Athletic Association that would allow those not picked in the first round of the N.B.A. draft to withdraw from consideration and retain their college eligibility.

The N.B.A. could mirror Major League Baseball, which provides a scholarship fund that enables players signing out of high school or college to complete their education. The N.B.A. will not. Its goal is N.C.A.A. sports participation, not education. An education can be acquired during the summer and/or after the end of the individual's professional basketball career. Antawn Jamison, O'Neal, Juwan Howard and Jerry Stackhouse are recent examples of N.B.A. players who went back to college and earned their degree after leaving early to turn pro.

The league addresses the issue of ''under-age'' players by proposing an arbitrary age limit and a developmental league for borderline talents, 20 and older. Do not be fooled. Altruism has nothing to do with these proposals. The projected minor league would be merely another source of revenue and control of young talent for N.B.A. owners. Most distressingly, it would be a new carrot dangled before marginal players. These players, many of whom would leave school to impress N.B.A. scouts, would really benefit from completing their educations.

The real issue for the N.C.A.A. and the N.B.A. is the same: money. The N.C.A.A. is strangely silent about baseball, a sport in which more youngsters are signed straight out of high school in a single year than have been in the entire history of the N.B.A. draft. The reason is simple: basketball is a high-profile, revenue-generating sport for the N.C.A.A. and its member institutions; college baseball is not. Witness the $6 billion contract from CBS for the exclusive television rights for the college basketball tournament.

If the N.C.A.A. were really interested in protecting young people it would abolish the punitive rule that provides complete loss of eligibility if high school graduates -- unlike collegians -- make themselves available to be drafted. What the N.C.A.A. should do is allow these individuals the opportunity to test the draft waters and see if they sink or swim. That way the prodigies like Bryant, Garnett and McGrady can safely pursue their careers while the lesser prospects can withdraw from the draft and pursue an education.

The N.C.A.A. has adopted the idea of offering loans of up to $20,000 to a select few players to induce them to remain in school. This proposal is laughable and highly unlikely to persuade a Kevin Garnett to pass on a multimillion-dollar guarantee and risk a lifetime of financial security. It is time for the N.B.A. and N.C.A.A. to establish reasonable rules that encourage young people to attend college for the sake of education, not N.C.A.A. sports participation.

The N.B.A. and its hallelujah choir talk often about ''making choices'' and ''drawing lines'' in support of their age-limit agenda. Well, our nation's courts and legislatures have already set 18 as the age at which a young man can get married, vote and fight in foreign wars. Surely that same teenager can handle the pressures of playing in the N.B.A.

Photo: The Timberwolves' star, Kevin Garnett, went straight to the N.B.A. from high school. (Reuters)