...to either play 2 years of college ball or wait until they're 20 years old. Sorry for not putting that all in the title. It's a little verbose
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=mc-austin_rivers_nba_age_limit_duke_draft_040811
This would be very interesting. Without any more 1 and dones there'd be a lot more kids actually have to do well in school for more than 1 semester before going pro. Or will this lead more young men heading over to Europe, kickstarting a freshly competitive European league bball?
I think it will increase the number of players going to Europe and increase the number of players taking money from boosters as they wait for draft day.
This could just be a starting position for the owners. They players want to get rid of the rule because they think it is too hard to get 2 max deals in a career. I'd be that they bargain back to one year.
Quote from: HoopsMalone on April 11, 2011, 08:00:29 PM
I think it will increase the number of players going to Europe and increase the number of players taking money from boosters as they wait for draft day.
This could just be a starting position for the owners. They players want to get rid of the rule because they think it is too hard to get 2 max deals in a career. I'd be that they bargain back to one year.
Should be no years.
If a kid wants to try to go pro out of high school, let him. Stupid to make anyone who doesn't want to attend college go so they can pretend to care about school for a year or two while biding their time for the pros.
Why should basketball players be treated any differently than their peers in hockey, baseball, soccer, golf, tennis, etc.? Or in plumbing, contracting, acting, firefighting or any other host of skilled professions that don't specifically require a college degree.
I think it ultimately needs to be up to the employers. Out of curiousity, why is it that there aren't any legal issues with saying you must be a ceratain age to play in the NBA or NFL?
Baseball players have to decide to go pro after high school or wait until three years later to be eligible for the draft again. High school baseball players usually wait until after they are drafted to decide if they will sign a professional contract or attend college. If they choose college, then they can't get drafted again for three years.
Quote from: Pakuni on April 11, 2011, 09:04:49 PM
Should be no years.
If a kid wants to try to go pro out of high school, let him. Stupid to make anyone who doesn't want to attend college go so they can pretend to care about school for a year or two while biding their time for the pros.
Why should basketball players be treated any differently than their peers in hockey, baseball, soccer, golf, tennis, etc.? Or in plumbing, contracting, acting, firefighting or any other host of skilled professions that don't specifically require a college degree.
The NBA is trying to protect themselves from the idiocy of their own GMs and owners who keep drafting HS kids who have no business being in the NBA. Not to mention that these kids are taking roster spots 10-12 from veterans which is who the league tries to look out for.
Quote from: Pakuni on April 11, 2011, 09:04:49 PM
Should be no years.
If a kid wants to try to go pro out of high school, let him. Stupid to make anyone who doesn't want to attend college go so they can pretend to care about school for a year or two while biding their time for the pros.
Why should basketball players be treated any differently than their peers in hockey, baseball, soccer, golf, tennis, etc.? Or in plumbing, contracting, acting, firefighting or any other host of skilled professions that don't specifically require a college degree.
I noticed you didn't include football...which does have a requirement.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 11, 2011, 10:18:04 PM
I noticed you didn't include football...which does have a requirement.
The NFL can at least make a reasonable case for physical maturity being a requisite for player safety at that level. An 18-year-old straight out of high school would get brutalized in the NFL. We've seen plenty of kids straight out of high school fare quite well in the NBA.
But yeah, I think if an 18-year-old wants to try to make the NFL out of high school, then why shouldn't he be given the opportunity?
To answer avid's question, collective bargaining makes it legal for a group of employers and group of employees to reach contractual agreements that otherwise would be unlawful, i.e. years in college, salary caps, franchise tags, maximum salaries, etc.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 11, 2011, 10:18:04 PM
I noticed you didn't include football...which does have a requirement.
Yeah, just ask Maurice Clarett. Point is that the player's unions are run by veterans who are not particularly motivated to use some of their leverage to have their jobs taken.
I think it is a better league when kids cannot come out of high school. Keith Bogans contributes more than a developing high school kid, and having players like him make the game better to watch. I would like to see them negotiate that in there.
I can't wait to see how this CBA turns out. There is no doubt in my mind that salaries will go down. Most people are thinking that it will be a hard cap of between $65-$75M and some revenue sharing. Teams would probably have one or two years to phase into that.
However, the Heat are up a creek in most likely scenarios unless somehow they keep a soft cap with the Mid-level Exception. Check out what Miami has on the books for the next few years: http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=9147
They are in deep, deep trouble if things don't stay as-is. They knew the uncertainty coming though so can only blame themselves. The other 29 owners are not going to bend over backward to agree to a rule that accommodates the Heat's contracts. The league has so many other stars and good teams that they do not necessarily need the Heat to be good for profits. If anything, half of the owners hate the idea of developing players and having them leave in their primes. It will be very interesting.
Quote from: Pakuni on April 11, 2011, 09:04:49 PM
Should be no years.
If a kid wants to try to go pro out of high school, let him. Stupid to make anyone who doesn't want to attend college go so they can pretend to care about school for a year or two while biding their time for the pros.
Why should basketball players be treated any differently than their peers in hockey, baseball, soccer, golf, tennis, etc.? Or in plumbing, contracting, acting, firefighting or any other host of skilled professions that don't specifically require a college degree.
It's not stupid from an owner's perspective.
They own a company.
They pay their employees very well.
They want said employees to have post-high school experience before they hire them.
I've seen plenty of tech guy get recrouted away from college. Why doesn't this seem crazy, bad, or unfair in any industry but sports?
If we lose a few more players to europe that isn't an issue for owners.
If it gives us more power house programs and mid majors don't go on as many runs, oh well.
They have every right to sit around and agree that they want to see more out of a guy before they hand over millions of dollars.
Quote from: RawdogDX on April 12, 2011, 10:33:01 AM
It's not stupid from an owner's perspective.
They own a company.
They pay their employees very well.
They want said employees to have post-high school experience before they hire them.
You're correct .... except nobody, to my knowledge, has ever held a gun up to an NBA owner's head and demanded they draft a kid out of high school. If an owner believes it's crucial that their well-paid employees have post-high school experience, they have the right and opportunity to hire only employees of that sort.
QuoteThey have every right to sit around and agree that they want to see more out of a guy before they hand over millions of dollars.
See above.
For the owners, it has nothing to do with "seeing more out of a guy" or caring about his education, maturity or anything of the sort. It's about an unwillingness to pay a kid millions of dollars and then expend team resources to develop him when colleges can do it for the teams, at no cost.
Also - they don't want to have to scout high school players.
Bad rule for most teams like MU. The best teams like UNC, Duke, etc, get to keep the top players that would have gone pro right out of high school or after one year... so the Duke's and UNC type of teams get to keep this talent around for an extra year.
This is all about NBA teams not wanting to pay 18 year olds to grow up and learn the game a little. Why not wait util they have a couple of years of experience, as pointed out above, which means the NBA doesn't have to pay as much to baby sit these guys when they are away from home the first time.
Good for the NBA, bad for most college teams. Good for the top college teams that pull NBA one and done type of talent.
At the end of the day, both sides are talking out of both sides of their mouths.
The college game has taken a big hit with players doing the one and done stuff. The NBA has taken a big hit by taking chances on unproven kids that don't amount to much or need to be coddled for 4 to 5 years on a bench when they normally would have been developing in college.
Ideologically, I'm with Pakuni that I have no problem with any American that has a chance to earn a buck to take their talents and earn that living. However, there are also repercussions in doing so and there is no doubt in my mind that both the NBA and college have suffered as a result. If they go to a 2 year system, both entities will improve the quality of the game. Yes, some kids will go to Europe but I suspect most will not because they are not mature enough to handle being that far away from home. There will also be some kids that blow their knee out in college in those two years that would have benefited from a one and done or direct to the pros from high school, the critics will then gnash teeth and scream that a 2 year system is unfair.
Personally, I'm hoping for a LONG labor dispute, contraction of several teams. The NBA has been mostly unwatachable for me for more than a decade. I will not shed a tear.
Quote from: GOO on April 12, 2011, 11:43:26 AM
Bad rule for most teams like MU. The best teams like UNC, Duke, etc, get to keep the top players that would have gone pro right out of high school or after one year... so the Duke's and UNC type of teams get to keep this talent around for an extra year.
This is all about NBA teams not wanting to pay 18 year olds to grow up and learn the game a little. Why not wait util they have a couple of years of experience, as pointed out above, which means the NBA doesn't have to pay as much to baby sit these guys when they are away from home the first time.
Good for the NBA, bad for most college teams. Good for the top college teams that pull NBA one and done type of talent.
Disagree. It's not necessarily a bad thing for the Marquettes of the college basketball world. Take Kentucky, for example, if they bring back their 4 star freshmen from last season, they not going to bring in 4 new star freshmen this season. Those freshmen are likely going to play elsewhere. A two-and-done type of player isn't going to want to spend one of those two years playing behind another two-and-done. He's going to want to showcase his skills. That potentially gets more of the schools like Marquette in the mix for their services.
Quote from: Pakuni on April 12, 2011, 11:00:04 AM
You're correct .... except nobody, to my knowledge, has ever held a gun up to an NBA owner's head and demanded they draft a kid out of high school. If an owner believes it's crucial that their well-paid employees have post-high school experience, they have the right and opportunity to hire only employees of that sort.
Who said they had? The owners are letting people know that they want to see two years of post High School work ethic before investing millions. I have no problem with this and don't understand any counter that I've seen so far.
The kids can have an awesome life on campus, or go play in europe and make some cash.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on April 12, 2011, 11:59:08 AM
Disagree. It's not necessarily a bad thing for the Marquettes of the college basketball world. Take Kentucky, for example, if they bring back their 4 star freshmen from last season, they not going to bring in 4 new star freshmen this season. Those freshmen are likely going to play elsewhere. A two-and-done type of player isn't going to want to spend one of those two years playing behind another two-and-done. He's going to want to showcase his skills. That potentially gets more of the schools like Marquette in the mix for their services.
Good point. I may have to rethink this a little.
Quote from: RawdogDX on April 12, 2011, 03:19:09 PM
Who said they had? The owners are letting people know that they want to see two years of post High School work ethic before investing millions. I have no problem with this and don't understand any counter that I've seen so far.
The kids can have an awesome life on campus, or go play in europe and make some cash.
OK ... I'll try to state it more clearly for you.
Any owner who wants "to see two years of post High School work ethic before investing millions" has the prerogative to do just that by not drafting or signing any player before he is out of high school for two years.
What the owners are doing is trying to force that preference upon one another and upon the high school kids who have no interest in college or living abroad to pursue a career. They have the right to seek that through the collective bargaining process, but that doesn't necessarily make it right.
No, they don't have that prerogative.
You can say "just don't draft those", but that isn't how it works. If they are there then you have to do what's best for your team. Having a 'two year or more rule would be a blow to your team.
The owners think what is best for the collective health of all the teams is to just not have them there. Furthermore, the new agreement will probably have increased profit sharing. So you will be paying for those players, even if you don't draft them.
The moral arguments are silly.
Quote from: RawdogDX on April 12, 2011, 04:25:48 PM
No, they don't have that prerogative.
You can say "just don't draft those", but that isn't how it works. If they are there then you have to do what's best for your team. Having a 'two year or more rule would be a blow to your team.
The owners think what is best for the collective health of all the teams is to just not have them there. Furthermore, the new agreement will probably have increased profit sharing. So you will be paying for those players, even if you don't draft them.
The moral arguments are silly.
I agree mostly, but I think it is more Stern protecting the owners (which some have argued is at least 10 that are rich, inept stooges that will throw buckets at money at anyone).
Quote from: RawdogDX on April 12, 2011, 04:25:48 PM
No, they don't have that prerogative.
You can say "just don't draft those", but that isn't how it works. If they are there then you have to do what's best for your team. Having a 'two year or more rule would be a blow to your team.
OK, you're contradicting yourself here. On the one hand you're arguing that owners believe it's best for their teams and the league
not to invest millions in kids out of high school. And yet here you're arguing that if kids were allowed into the league, the owners would have to draft them because "you have to do what's best for your team."
Well, either drafting them is best for your team or it isn't. Can't have it both ways.
Tell me, why can NHL, MLB teams and professional soccer teams, not to mention European basketball clubs, draft/sign and develop kids straight out of high school and younger without it being the ruination of their sport, and yet for the NBA it's a terrible thing? What makes the would-be NBA player unique from players in these other sports and leagues?
Here's what's different: those other sports invest and/or have minor/developmental leagues and programs that the NBA is unwilling to create or fund. And why would it when it can force its talent pool to go develop on someone else's dime in the NCAA? That's what it comes down to. It's got nothing to do with risk or work ethic or education or what's best for the league or the kids. It's about NBA owners not wanting to spend the time and money developing players when someone else is willing to do it for them at no charge.
QuoteThe moral arguments are silly.
It's not a moral argument. It's an economic freedom argument. Anybody who generally believes in free market economics should also believe that an adult has the right to pursue a lawful profession or vocation of their choosing in the manner of their choosing. (And don't tell me they can go to Europe ... requiring someone to go overseas to pursue a career because of his/her age hardly qualifies as free market). The silly moral argument typically comes from the other side, with a spiel about how they're protecting unprepared youngsters from poor decisions and the temptations that come with sudden fame and money.
Quote from: Pakuni on April 12, 2011, 04:57:32 PM
1) OK, you're contradicting yourself here. On the one hand you're arguing that owners believe it's best for their teams and the league not to invest millions in kids out of high school. And yet here you're arguing that if kids were allowed into the league, the owners would have to draft them because "you have to do what's best for your team."
Well, either drafting them is best for your team or it isn't. Can't have it both ways.
2) Tell me, why can NHL, MLB teams and professional soccer teams, not to mention European basketball clubs, draft/sign and develop kids straight out of high school and younger without it being the ruination of their sport, and yet for the NBA it's a terrible thing? What makes the would-be NBA player unique from players in these other sports and leagues?
Here's what's different: those other sports invest and/or have minor/developmental leagues and programs that the NBA is unwilling to create or fund. And why would it when it can force its talent pool to go develop on someone else's dime in the NCAA? That's what it comes down to. It's got nothing to do with risk or work ethic or education or what's best for the league or the kids. It's about NBA owners not wanting to spend the time and money developing players when someone else is willing to do it for them at no charge.
3)It's not a moral argument. It's an economic freedom argument. Anybody who generally believes in free market economics should also believe that an adult has the right to pursue a lawful profession or vocation of their choosing in the manner of their choosing. (And don't tell me they can go to Europe ... requiring someone to go overseas to pursue a career because of his/her age hardly qualifies as free market). The silly moral argument typically comes from the other side, with a spiel about how they're protecting unprepared youngsters from poor decisions and the temptations that come with sudden fame and money.
1) No, I'm not contradicting myself. Not even a little. I can have it both ways because those two things are bearly related at all.
Just because an owner thinks that it would be better for the LEAGUE to not hand out millions to dozens of 18 year olds, does not mean that they wouldn't, under the right circumstances, draft an 18 year old.
Obviously they won't have the option to pass on the kid and then pick him up the following year. This means that they have to scout 16 & 17 year olds and, depending on those scouting reports are put in positions where they are forced to choose those kids now.
They want the kids to show up in the draft pool after they have had time to evaluate them. That is their preference.
2) I'm glad they are using college basketball. If MLB would hold off on drafting 16 year olds then i might watch colege baseball.
3) Your argument could easily be catagorized as ethical. Is depriving 18 year olds, of the right to play in the NBA while they are further looked at morraly acceptable?
Your answer is no because we shouldn't deprive them of their rights.
My answer is yes, because, the owners should be allowed to make rules about their own league and they feel that allowing teams to blow millions on unproven players is bad for a league that is in fiscal trouble. I think, it being their $, they should have the right to make a decision like that.
And how do you figure that Europe isn't an option? Jennings made 1.65 million as a player and signed a 2 mill under armor contract. I'd say he did ok.
I perused the posts here so I apologize if I missed this. Let's not forget another downside of this potential rule change is you would have more professional basketball players taking more scholarships from kids who will actually have to fallback on an education. The one and doners already waste a year scholarship that could have gone to a kid who will end of needing that education. Now this new rule will just take up more scholarships to athletes who have no plan to use their educations going foward.
This may be good for $$$ in college basketball, but bad for four year graduates who play basketball.
The economic freedom arguments are silly. Since this is part of union bargaining a minimum age can be set. It is in other professions all the time. I actually think the nba is working with the ncaa to get the two year rule. The ncaa knows the one and done is a mockery of what they say about the student athlete.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on April 13, 2011, 08:27:09 AM
The economic freedom arguments are silly. Since this is part of union bargaining a minimum age can be set. It is in other professions all the time. I actually think the nba is working with the ncaa to get the two year rule. The ncaa knows the one and done is a mockery of what they say about the student athlete.
OK, once again, nobody is saying the NBA
can't do this. In fact, if you'd read the thread, you'd see that I and others have already explained why and how they can do it.
The questions are
should they do it and what makes potential NBA players different from most other would be professional athletes when it comes to the need for one or two years of faux education.
A two-year requirement would be no less a mockery of what the NCAA says about the student-athlete. Unless you can explain to me why making an uninterested kid do the
absolute minimum for three semesters is such an improvement over one semester.
And since you mention it, please name some of the many other professions that enact age requirements "all the time."
Should they do it? Sure. If they want to and the players agree why not? They feel it would help their product and reduce their costs.
Electricians and plumbers locals often have minimum age requirements.
Quote from: Pakuni on April 13, 2011, 10:37:41 AM
OK, once again, nobody is saying the NBA can't do this. In fact, if you'd read the thread, you'd see that I and others have already explained why and how they can do it.
1)The questions are should they do it and what makes potential NBA players different from most other would be professional athletes when it comes to the need for one or two years of faux education.
A two-year requirement would be no less a mockery of what the NCAA says about the student-athlete. Unless you can explain to me why making an uninterested kid do the
absolute minimum for three semesters is such an improvement over one semester.
And since you mention it, please name some of the many other professions that enact age requirements "all the time."
should, Wouldn't that make it an ethical or moral argument?
Why is every number of years under 4 a faux education?
Why isn't it less of a mockery? They would have gone pro at 18, but they weren't born in 85... So now everything they do is a mockery? Why doesn't the same argument hold for CFB? And yes there is a huge difference between class for 3 semesters and 1. Something happens to people when they go home for the summer after their freshman year and when they go back their sophomore year.
There are still plenty of athletes at schools like MU, schools where it means buying into education. Even if they don't leave with the special piece of paper you have.
Everytime a company requires a degree it is an age restriction.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on April 13, 2011, 10:49:44 AM
Should they do it? Sure. If they want to and the players agree why not? They feel it would help their product and reduce their costs.
Electricians and plumbers locals often have minimum age requirements.
Why not? Because it enacts unfair economic restrictions on a class of individuals and helps make college basketball even more of a mockery. Two pretty compelling reasons, in my book. You're obviously free to disagree. Doesn't seem like either of us has much chance of convincing the other.
It certainly reduces NBA owners' costs, and that's the whole point of it (and clearing roster spots for guys like Rasual Butler and Brian Scalabrine).
But I don't buy it helping their product. Did the early entries of Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant and LeBron James hurt the NBA product, or help it with the additional buzz they generated as high schoolers turning pro?
Did Eddy Curry and Kwame Brown being bad lessen the NBA product any more than Adam Morrison and Michael Olowakandi being bad? Bad play hurts the NBA product, we agree, but there have been far more upperclassmen who came in and played badly as there have been high schoolers. And a majority of the league's best players spent one year or less in college (i.e. seven of the nine American-born all-star game starters), so clearly the early entry is hurting development.
Those minimum ages for plumbing/electricians, usually 17 or 18, are only to keep minors from joining the union. That's not exactly analogous to what we're talking about here. The NBA isn't trying to prevent minors from joining the league. they're blocking adults.
Pakuni you are just making moral arguments. If the nba can get away with not paying for a development system, and it is legal, they should do it. Whether it is "fair" or not isn't really relevant. I mean is it "fair" that bball players are compensated the way they are to begin with?
Quote from: RawdogDX on April 13, 2011, 11:33:06 AM
should, Wouldn't that make it an ethical or moral argument?
Ummm ... no. Every question that begins with the word "should" is not a moral or ethical question.
Should I drive home tonight after drinking 16 PBRs?
QuoteWhy is every number of years under 4 a faux education?
It's not ... except when said education is being "earned" by a kid simply going through the motions and doing the bare minimum to remain eligible through a bunch of basketweaving courses while biding his time for the NBA draft. And that's exactly what this requirement would create (just as the one-year requirement has created it).
QuoteAnd yes there is a huge difference between class for 3 semesters and 1. Something happens to people when they go home for the summer after their freshman year and when they go back their sophomore year.
Since when do college basketball players go home for the summer? And what magical happens between their first and second years?
QuoteThere are still plenty of athletes at schools like MU, schools where it means buying into education. Even if they don't leave with the special piece of paper you have.
Yes, and those are the kids who will lose out on scholarship opportunities when kids who don't want to go to college are forced to by these rules.
QuoteEverytime a company requires a degree it is an age restriction.
Not at all true. A degree is a means of showing you may have the necessary skills, aptitude and education to perform the tasks of a particular job. Nothing a kid learns in Spanish 101, Theory of Music, Basic Geometry or Introduction to Ballroom Dancing is going to make him any more or less able to perform the necessary requirements of professional basketball.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on April 13, 2011, 12:17:40 PM
Pakuni you are just making moral arguments. If the nba can get away with not paying for a development system, and it is legal, they should do it. Whether it is "fair" or not isn't really relevant. I mean is it "fair" that bball players are compensated the way they are to begin with?
Once again, it's an economic argument, not a moral argument.
And of course it's fair for them to compensated the way they are. If people were willing to shell out ridiculous sums for your work product, would you not expect to be be compensated proportionately?
Nobody p*sses and moans about an attorney who's able to bill $1,500 an hour or the actor who gets paid $20 million for three months work on a film, and yet when an athlete earns millions of dollars a year, it's unfair?
An "economic freedom" argument is a moral one. It isn't really based in employee law for instance.
I guess in the end my heart doesn't really go out to the 18-19 ball player who can't play in the NBA. They have alternatives that will enable them to survive. And I can see why the nba would want to do this and that is fine by me.
Quote from: Pakuni on April 13, 2011, 12:44:56 PM
Since when do college basketball players go home for the summer? And what magical happens between their first and second years?
They do go home for a few weeks. And I'm guessing that they aren't so different from most kids today. Most of whom go home, meet up with their highschool friends and have a few awkward moments where they realized that they had changed and those other people didn't. Then they go back and realize that they have more in common with their new friends. This is a common occurrence. And I think it will be a good thing in the development of athletes who will be making a lot of $ very young. Was that too magical for you?
Not at all true. A degree is a means of showing you may have the necessary skills, aptitude and education to perform the tasks of a particular job. Nothing a kid learns in Spanish 101, Theory of Music, Basic Geometry or Introduction to Ballroom Dancing is going to make him any more or less able to perform the necessary requirements of professional basketball.
So you are saying that Employers use college experience as a way of vetting people? To see if they have the skills they need to be successful at their company? Exact same thing the NBA wants.
They don't want to spend millions on people who haven't' been vetted by college. That is their choice. Please stop informing us of how the owners are "Using" cbb. We know, we're cool with it.
Sultan, Rawdog .... respect your opinions, but think you're wrong (obviously). At this point, I'm not going to change your minds and you're not changing mine, so rather than tread the same territory again and again, we'll leave it at that.