MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: ChicosBailBonds on March 28, 2016, 11:52:57 AM
-
NBA Commissioner Adam Silver said that his push for an adjustment to the one-and-done rule that would force prospects to wait until at least two years after completing high school to enter the draft is a "growing issue but one that is considered minor when dealing with the players’ union," according to Gary Washburn of the BOSTON GLOBE. The one-and-done rule "is not going to derail a new labor agreement." Silver: "From the league’s standpoint, our stance remains the same. We’d rather these young men spend two years out of high school rather than one, which is our current rule, before entering the NBA." He added, "I’m making a business decision for the NBA, which is to the betterment of the league and the roughly 430 jobs we have in this league. We feel that these players are better off having more time developing as players before they enter into this league.” Silver noted that a lot of younger players are "dealing with serious injuries early in their careers." He said, "We’re now seeing the type of injuries in young players that we used to see when they were much older. I think there needs to be more of a holistic response to this. It isn’t just about whether the minimum age should be 19 versus 20. I think, as I’ve said before, we need to get together with the larger basketball community and talk about the number of games these young players, boys, are playing, beginning 12, 13, 14, often eight games in a weekend at tournaments" (BOSTON GLOBE, 3/27).
BUCKING THE TREND: In Detroit, Drew Sharp notes there "could be as many as 10 seniors among the 20 starters Saturday night at NRG Stadium in Houston" during the Final Four, and there will "only be two freshmen starters." This is a "more singular moment than revolutionary movement," but it is "refreshing that this Final Four accurately reflects an overall college basketball season that contradicted convention." There were "six freshmen starters in last year’s Final Four just between Duke and Kentucky." All six were "selected in the first round of last year’s NBA draft." The lack of dynamic freshmen in this year's tournament "didn’t diminish the game’s overall star power as many feared." Seniors "proved they’re more than capable of shining when the mood strikes" (DETROIT FREE PRESS, 3/28).
-
"Good news" would be doing away with any college requirement and let the players act in what they believe are their best interests, just as we do in baseball, hockey, tennis, golf, soccer, auto racing, etc.
Never understood what conditions exist in professional basketball that make it too difficult for a kid straight out of high school, but aren't present in numerous other professional sports.
-
"Good news" would be doing away with any college requirement and let the players act in what they believe are their best interests, just as we do in baseball, hockey, tennis, golf, soccer, auto racing, etc.
Never understood what conditions exist in professional basketball that make it too difficult for a kid straight out of high school, but aren't present in numerous other professional sports.
A real minor league system where kids who aren't ready to contribute at the highest level go to develop their game, rather than kill their career.
-
A real minor league system where kids who aren't ready to contribute at the highest level go to develop their game, rather than kill their career.
Exactly...and the NBA currently has a free system like that in college basketball. The D-League has improved lately and most NBA teams have affiliates but there's still a long way to go and not much motivation to take it there.
-
I think this would benefit both the NBA and NCAA basketball. Hope the Union will allow this.
-
A real minor league system where kids who aren't ready to contribute at the highest level go to develop their game, rather than kill their career.
1. Yes, and the NBDL can and should be that. But it won't be as long as the NBA prefers to use the NCAA as a free development league instead, to the financial benefit of everyone but the players.
2. So one year of college, i.e. 30ish games, is all the development a kid needs before being ready to contribute at the highest level?
-
I think this would benefit both the NBA and NCAA basketball. Hope the Union will allow this.
Where do the rights of the players fit into the equation?
-
1. Yes, and the NBDL can and should be that. But it won't be as long as the NBA prefers to use the NCAA as a free development league instead, to the financial benefit of everyone but the players.
2. So one year of college, i.e. 30ish games, is all the development a kid needs before being ready to contribute at the highest level?
2) In many cases, yes. That freshman year of college is the first time almost all high level basketball players truly find the weight room. For most of them they've been able to physically dominate the game without being knocked around one bit for their entire lives. For the first time in their lives, they're the little guy who has to figure out how to compete without the physical advantage, and it's the first time they're seeing what it's like to play with grown men instead of high school kids.
Edit: There will always be players who are not ready to play professionally that will leave early and try to do so anyways. But at least after 1 year of college that's completely on them. If they play their freshman year and are overmatched at that level, they need to be smart enough to return. When they could come out of high school, they could seem ready, but really very few could truly know.
-
"Good news" would be doing away with any college requirement and let the players act in what they believe are their best interests, just as we do in baseball, hockey, tennis, golf, soccer, auto racing, etc.
Never understood what conditions exist in professional basketball that make it too difficult for a kid straight out of high school, but aren't present in numerous other professional sports.
But that's a poor comparison, because hockey, baseball, have minor leagues. Football requires a minimum number of years, as well.
-
Where do the rights of the players fit into the equation?
Turn 18, go to the NBDL. Simple.
-
I think the MLB model may work well for the NBA. Guys can come out of high school if they want, but if they don't and commit to going to college, they aren't eligible to be drafted until after their junior season.
-
But that's a poor comparison, because hockey, baseball, have minor leagues.
So does basketball. They're just not required to use it as such.
Football requires a minimum number of years, as well.
I think we can agree football is an entirely different beast because of the significantly more physical nature of the sport.
-
I think the MLB model may work well for the NBA. Guys can come out of high school if they want, but if they don't and commit to going to college, they aren't eligible to be drafted until after their junior season.
Hockey's model is even better. Kids can get drafted, but if they don't sign a pro contract they can go to college. And teams retain their rights for a period of time after they leave college.
-
Turn 18, go to the NBDL. Simple.
But why be forced to the NBDL if an NBA team is willing to draft and pay you?
If your child was sitting on two job offers, would you suggest he take the lower-paying, less prestigious one? Or better yet, a take a year or two to work for free first?
-
Hockey's model is even better. Kids can get drafted, but if they don't sign a pro contract they can go to college. And teams retain their rights for a period of time after they leave college.
Wouldn't this be worse? In essence, a team could draft a player, but not offer the, a pro contract until they feel they are ready to contribute to their team. They could in essence force players to stay in the NCAA longer than they may want, as they own their rights.
-
Wouldn't this be worse? In essence, a team could draft a player, but not offer the, a pro contract until they feel they are ready to contribute to their team. They could in essence force players to stay in the NCAA longer than they may want, as they own their rights.
A kid can leave college any time he wants. That starts the 30-day clock ticking on the drafting team's rights. If the player is unsigned 30 days after leaving college, he becomes a free agent and the team that drafted him gets a compensatory pick if he signs elsewhere.
-
But why be forced to the NBDL if an NBA team is willing to draft and pay you?
If your child was sitting on two job offers, would you suggest he take the lower-paying, less prestigious one? Or better yet, a take a year or two to work for free first?
I agree. Basketball has always stood out as meritocratic: if a player's got "it" then he'll have a place on an NBA team. Why prohibit a player, an adult no less, from doing what the market says he can be doing just because he's young?
Choosing whether to play in college or develop in the pros should be dictated by the market for that player's skills and the player's free will, not Adam Silver.
-
But why be forced to the NBDL if an NBA team is willing to draft and pay you?
If your child was sitting on two job offers, would you suggest he take the lower-paying, less prestigious one? Or better yet, a take a year or two to work for free first?
So this is completely different than the player's "rights". If the league wants to make the rule that players need 2 years after high school, then they totally should.
I'll try and fit it into your example here. If I'm a sophomore in college and show insane "accounting skills" and have shown every ability necessary to be able to jump into the corporate world, my rights aren't infringed when companies won't hire me because I haven't fulfilled the minimum requirement of having a college degree.
-
nm
-
2) In many cases, yes. That freshman year of college is the first time almost all high level basketball players truly find the weight room. For most of them they've been able to physically dominate the game without being knocked around one bit for their entire lives. For the first time in their lives, they're the little guy who has to figure out how to compete without the physical advantage, and it's the first time they're seeing what it's like to play with grown men instead of high school kids.
Do we have any actual evidence of this?
I mean, are the one-and-dones of today any more productive/ready for the pros than the straight to the NBA players from 10+ years ago? Guys like LeBron, Kobe, Garnett, Howard, McGrady, Stoudemire, etc., seemed OK without that additional year of development. Not just asking rhetorically, wondering if there's actually anything to support this/
There were obviously notable busts in the straight-to-the-NBA crowd, but the one-and-done rule hasn't eliminated or even reduced that, just forestalled it a year. (see: Anthony Bennett, BJ Mullens, Daniel Orton, Josh Selby, Jereme Richmond).
-
Two separate areas of concern here that are related but should be acknowledged independently. 1. is what is good for the NBA 2. is what is good for the athlete.
If the NBA wants to say that players can't join the league until they're 20(or something similar) that is within their scope to dictate. It's no different than a company or job type requiring certain education or certifications.
Where I have issues is people rationalizing a rule to "keep kids in college" as reason to have the NBA change their one and done. Do I want the college game to be as good as possible, absolutely, but not at the expense of the players themselves. By "forcing" a kid to go to college you are denying them the opportunity to maximize their revenue and actually using them as a form of indentured servitude. The schools are making money off these kids backs, and yes they are getting value in return but when you do the accounting around what they earn in college versus what they earn in the NBA its not close.
I ultimately think the model should be the ability to retain college eligibility as long as a contract isn't signed but they can be drafted and their "rights" are retained for up to a year after they leave school. The students can leave school whenever as long as they leave in good standing, so if they go to school but don't meet prescribed academic thresholds then there would be some sort of impact on their ability to play professionally. This would limit the impact on one and dones just showing up for basketball. If you choose to go to school and play, school will be required.
-
So this is completely different than the player's "rights". If the league wants to make the rule that players need 2 years after high school, then they totally should.
I'll try and fit it into your example here. If I'm a sophomore in college and show insane "accounting skills" and have shown every ability necessary to be able to jump into the corporate world, my rights aren't infringed when companies won't hire me because I haven't fulfilled the minimum requirement of having a college degree.
The analogy doesn't hold up because it's a totally different situation.
Your rights as a wannabe accountant would not be infringed if companies individually chose not to hire you because you haven't met some arbitrary requirement that is not essential or legally required for the job (i.e. a college degree).
But what if several accounting firms were willing to hire you, but some association of accounting firms declared that they could not for some arbitrary reason completely irrelevant to your ability to do the work?
That's what's happening here. I think many teams would have been happy to draft Ben Simmons last year or Jahlil Okafor the year before, because they know one year of college is not essential or necessary to become an NBA player.
-
Let's look at it from the player's perspective once. I'll use Henry as an example, just because he is close to our hearts at the moment. Let's say Henry wants to stay in school for another year, to develop his game and his body, and possibly advance far in the NCAA tournament, but of course risks leaving $10M on the table due to injury etc....
The family cannot afford to purchase insurance to cover that catastrophe. I don't know what it would cost, but why not allow the schools to work with a player such as Henry, and have the school purchase a policy for him. That way MU would benefit (get Henry's services for another year, probably sell more tickets, etc etc....), Henry would benefit (ability to grow into his game, and develop his body before being abused at the NBA level) and the fans would benefit.
Seems to me there is little difference between offering a scholarship for schooling or an insurance policy against injury. The player benefits in either case, but it is not a straight out cash payment that would violate a bunch of sensibilities.
-
The analogy doesn't hold up because it's a totally different situation.
Your rights as a wannabe accountant would not be infringed if companies individually chose not to hire you because you haven't met some arbitrary requirement that is not essential or legally required for the job (i.e. a college degree).
But what if several accounting firms were willing to hire you, but some association of accounting firms declared that they could not for some arbitrary reason completely irrelevant to your ability to do the work?
That's what's happening here. I think many teams would have been happy to draft Ben Simmons last year or Jahlil Okafor the year before, because they know one year of college is not essential or necessary to become an NBA player.
How are these completely different situations? In the example of the accounting firms that are part of this association, they would have to uphold to the rules of their association, regardless of who they want to hire.
If I wanted to work professionally as an accountant, I could then go to other firms that are not part of that association (NBADL) or I could go to Europe to work as an accountant where they didn't have that rule.
-
Where do the rights of the players fit into the equation?
I wasn't aware it was a person's right to become a professional basketball player at 18.
-
Where do the rights of the players fit into the equation?
Where do my rights fit when I read "5 years experience required" in job descriptions for my field?
-
I wasn't aware it was a person's right to become a professional basketball player at 18.
An adult has the right to freely engage in lawful commerce, including employment, right?
-
Let's look at it from the player's perspective once. I'll use Henry as an example, just because he is close to our hearts at the moment. Let's say Henry wants to stay in school for another year, to develop his game and his body, and possibly advance far in the NCAA tournament, but of course risks leaving $10M on the table due to injury etc....
The family cannot afford to purchase insurance to cover that catastrophe. I don't know what it would cost, but why not allow the schools to work with a player such as Henry, and have the school purchase a policy for him. That way MU would benefit (get Henry's services for another year, probably sell more tickets, etc etc....), Henry would benefit (ability to grow into his game, and develop his body before being abused at the NBA level) and the fans would benefit.
Seems to me there is little difference between offering a scholarship for schooling or an insurance policy against injury. The player benefits in either case, but it is not a straight out cash payment that would violate a bunch of sensibilities.
The school can purchase such a policy right now and my guess would do so for Henry if he requests.
-
An adult has the right to freely engage in lawful commerce, including employment, right?
Not if he is excluded by a CBA.
-
The school can purchase such a policy right now and my guess would do so for Henry if he requests.
Seriously? I had no idea. How come I have not heard of this being done then? Or has my head been buried in the sand?
-
Not if he is excluded by a CBA.
Yes, I know. That's why I'm arguing it's a bad rule, not an unlawful rule.
-
How are these completely different situations? In the example of the accounting firms that are part of this association, they would have to uphold to the rules of their association, regardless of who they want to hire.
Except in your example, there was no association (and is no association) of accounting firms preventing a college sophomore from leaving school and going to work. There is such an association in professional basketball. That's why the situations are different.
If I wanted to work professionally as an accountant, I could then go to other firms that are not part of that association (NBADL) or I could go to Europe to work as an accountant where they didn't have that rule.
Right. So even though a person is qualified and capable of doing the work, they should be barred from it because of an arbitrary and non-essential requirement.
For which other professions do we require this?
-
An adult has the right to freely engage in lawful commerce, including employment, right?
Not if he doesn't meet the requirements for the job. I could have done my first job out of grad school without a masters but I needed it in order to be eligible. I could have done my current job right out of grad school but I needed three years of experience in order to be eligible. I could do my bosses job now but need another two years of experience before I am eligible. In theory, I could be a great president but I'm not allowed to run for another 8 years.
Jobs place restrictions on eligibility all the time. It is well within their right to do so. This is no different. No one has a right to be hired no matter their level of experience.
-
Right. So even though a person is qualified and capable of doing the work, they should be barred from it because of an arbitrary and non-essential requirement.
For which other professions do we require this?
Mine. My field has a professional association that sets standards for hiring practices for its members.
Police Officers. Lawyers. Doctors. Vets. I'd imagine a lot of fields have standardized eligibility requirements.
There is nothing wrong with a company (the NBA) setting requirements for employment. They are a private entity that wants to be as profitable as possible. The company doesn't have to sacrifice that just because some people don't want to wait to get into the NBA.
-
Two separate areas of concern here that are related but should be acknowledged independently. 1. is what is good for the NBA 2. is what is good for the athlete.
If the NBA wants to say that players can't join the league until they're 20(or something similar) that is within their scope to dictate. It's no different than a company or job type requiring certain education or certifications.
Where I have issues is people rationalizing a rule to "keep kids in college" as reason to have the NBA change their one and done. Do I want the college game to be as good as possible, absolutely, but not at the expense of the players themselves. By "forcing" a kid to go to college you are denying them the opportunity to maximize their revenue and actually using them as a form of indentured servitude. The schools are making money off these kids backs, and yes they are getting value in return but when you do the accounting around what they earn in college versus what they earn in the NBA its not close.
I ultimately think the model should be the ability to retain college eligibility as long as a contract isn't signed but they can be drafted and their "rights" are retained for up to a year after they leave school. The students can leave school whenever as long as they leave in good standing, so if they go to school but don't meet prescribed academic thresholds then there would be some sort of impact on their ability to play professionally. This would limit the impact on one and dones just showing up for basketball. If you choose to go to school and play, school will be required.
This says it all. It's within the NBAs rights and they can do what they think is best for their product. Disguising it is dumb. They can make their own point of entry and they do.
Thinking guys have done right to play when they want makes no sense.
-
Not if he doesn't meet the requirements for the job. I could have done my first job out of grad school without a masters but I needed it in order to be eligible. I could have done my current job right out of grad school but I needed three years of experience in order to be eligible. I could do my bosses job now but need another two years of experience before I am eligible. In theory, I could be a great president but I'm not allowed to run for another 8 years.
Jobs place restrictions on eligibility all the time. It is well within their right to do so. This is no different. No one has a right to be hired no matter their level of experience.
You don't specify your career field, which is fine, but based on the information you did provide, it seems everything you list here (well, except the U.S. presidency) are eligibility requirements imposed not by the entire industry in which you work, but by your specific employer.
It would be more akin to single NBA team deciding that as a matter of policy they won't draft a kid straight out of high school. That's fine and fair for an individual employer to make that decision.
What I'm arguing is not fair is that all employers in the industry to decide that as a whole they will not hire someone based on something as arbitrary as whether the kid has spent some months in college.
I'd also argue that your employers' eligibility rules probably are not arbitrary as you imply, but rather they have a reason for them, and that reason is much better than the one the NBA employs for its policy.
Who knew so many Scoopers had such disdain for the free market.
-
Union wants no age restriction while the NBA wants one so players mature and teams have a greater body of work they can evaluate before drafting. How about NBA removes the age restriction, but if a player does select college then not eligible for draft until after sophomore year? That allows the top players to get to the NBA right away (easy for teams to spot that talent) but the others can get a semblance of an education and develop basketball skills along the way. From my perspective, this would go a long way to purging college basketball from its current role as a farm team for the NBA with the added benefit of making Calapari a college, not pre-professional, basketball coach.
(Sorry if I'm not keeping up but I actually started this before lunch.)
-
What I'm arguing is not fair is that all employers in the industry to decide that as a whole they will not hire someone based on something as arbitrary as whether the kid has spent some months in college.
It is not even a requirement to spend time in college or achieve something meaningful. Just a requirement to not enter until a certain age.
It is within their rights to do this - particularly if they feel the draft has become too speculative and the ownership group is not honest enough to control themselves. It is however stacked against the handful of kids every few years that are good enough to go from HS to the pro's.
-
Mine. My field has a professional association that sets standards for hiring practices for its members.
Police Officers. Lawyers. Doctors. Vets. I'd imagine a lot of fields have standardized eligibility requirements.
Yes, and but these requirements are essential to one's ability to do the job, not arbitrary and capricious standards like the NBA rule. As we've seen from the many high school-to-pro players who've gone on to productive and even Hall of Fame careers, a year in college is far from essential to becoming an effective professional basketball player.
There is nothing wrong with a company (the NBA) setting requirements for employment. They are a private entity that wants to be as profitable as possible. The company doesn't have to sacrifice that just because some people don't want to wait to get into the NBA.
You're right. I'm not arguing that they have to do anything. I'm arguing what's right and fair. I think it's right and fair to allow an adult to pursue his chosen career path to the best of his ability without capricious impediments standing in his way. I'm saying the NCAA's and NBA's ability to profit from its players shouldn't come at the expense of the players' ability to choose their own paths.
You disagree. That's fine.
-
You don't specify your career field, which is fine, but based on the information you did provide, it seems everything you list here (well, except the U.S. presidency) are eligibility requirements imposed not by the entire industry in which you work, but by your specific employer.
It would be more akin to single NBA team deciding that as a matter of policy they won't draft a kid straight out of high school. That's fine and fair for an individual employer to make that decision.
What I'm arguing is not fair is that all employers in the industry to decide that as a whole they will not hire someone based on something as arbitrary as whether the kid has spent some months in college.
I'd also argue that your employers' eligibility rules probably are not arbitrary as you imply, but rather they have a reason for them, and that reason is much better than the one the NBA employs for its policy.
Who knew so many Scoopers had such disdain for the free market.
No. My employer belongs to a professional organization that requires its members to have certain hiring standards. I could go to an employer outside of the organization but if you want work at the highest level than you work for an employer in this organization.
NBA isn't requiring anyone to go to college. They can go to Europe, they can go to the NBADL, they can sit at home and play video games. They are just requiring some years after high school which is fair and speaks to a player's ability to do their job. Most 18 and 19 year olds are not ready for all that is required of a professional NBA player. Some are, but the NBA is willing to sacrifice those few for the betterment of their product.
You sir are the one for disdain for the free market. You want to force a private entity, the NBA, to change its standards that it has established for itself in order to increase its profitability. The NBA is free to make whatever standards it wants.
-
You don't specify your career field, which is fine, but based on the information you did provide, it seems everything you list here (well, except the U.S. presidency) are eligibility requirements imposed not by the entire industry in which you work, but by your specific employer.
It would be more akin to single NBA team deciding that as a matter of policy they won't draft a kid straight out of high school. That's fine and fair for an individual employer to make that decision.
What I'm arguing is not fair is that all employers in the industry to decide that as a whole they will not hire someone based on something as arbitrary as whether the kid has spent some months in college.
I'd also argue that your employers' eligibility rules probably are not arbitrary as you imply, but rather they have a reason for them, and that reason is much better than the one the NBA employs for its policy.
Who knew so many Scoopers had such disdain for the free market.
Why isn't it fair for an association to decide what is in their best interests? And again, these kids have other options available to them. NBADL and Europe are both viable options.
No disdain for the free market, just am ok with employers and associations protecting and making rules for their own interests.
-
I wasn't aware it was a person's right to become a professional basketball player at 18.
It is called restraint of trade......It is a federal felonious action typically used against a company that another company may be dependent on.....
Lets say Intel did not give all OEM's samples of the latest and greatest CPU.....thus giving certain people/companies an unfair competitive advantage......just an example....
-
It is called restraint of trade......It is a federal felonious action typically used against a company that another company may be dependent on.....
Lets say Intel did not give all OEM's samples of the latest and greatest CPU.....thus giving certain people/companies an unfair competitive advantage......just an example....
I think this is a stretch....at best.
Can't wait to see the NFL get sued for restraint of trade!
-
It isn't a restraint of trade. It isn't illegal.
If the NBA decides it wants players two years out of school, I have no problem with it. There are a number of options available for high school kids who want to play professional basketball.
-
NBA isn't requiring anyone to go to college. They can go to Europe, they can go to the NBADL, they can sit at home and play video games. They are just requiring some years after high school which is fair and speaks to a player's ability to do their job. Most 18 and 19 year olds are not ready for all that is required of a professional NBA player. Some are, but the NBA is willing to sacrifice those few for the betterment of their product.
Oh, come on.
You don't really believe this has anything to do with the "betterment of their product" or looking out for the interests of 18- and 19-year-old players. It's about "the betterment of their (and the NCAA's) bottom line."
I mean, not to get too far off topic, but 18- and 19-year-olds can handle military life (and war), but not life in the NBA? Do we have any actual data or evidence that supports one-and-dones to better either on or off the court than the previous generation of players who went from high school to the NBA?
You sir are the one for disdain for the free market. You want to force a private entity, the NBA, to change its standards that it has established for itself in order to increase its profitability. The NBA is free to make whatever standards it wants.
Could you show where I suggested "forcing" the NBA to do anything?
Once again, I'm not arguing what the NBA can or cannot do. I'm arguing what they should do.
Also, I suspect you realize that the whole point of an association like the NBA and its CBA with players is to circumvent the free market.
-
What a joke... The NBA wants players to develop on the NCAA 's dime. Kids shouldn't be restricted to compete for a job because they need to develop. If the NBA wants to enforce a rule then go all the way and require a degree to play for a team otherwise teams should shell out money and place talent in the development league just like MLB. If they were smart they would place the development league in China or Europe were they could make money on the deal.
-
Oh, come on.
You don't really believe this has anything to do with the "betterment of their product" or looking out for the interests of 18- and 19-year-old players. It's about "the betterment of their (and the NCAA's) bottom line."
I think most of us do realize this. And TAMU explicitly stated that it is for the interest of the NBA bettering their own product.
Most 18 and 19 year olds are not ready for all that is required of a professional NBA player. Some are, but the NBA is willing to sacrifice those few for the betterment of their product.
And again, what is wrong with them wanting to better their product?
-
What a joke... The NBA wants players to develop on the NCAA 's dime. Kids shouldn't be restricted to compete for a job because they need to develop. If the NBA wants to enforce a rule then go all the way and require a degree to play for a team otherwise teams should shell out money and place talent in the development league just like MLB. If they were smart they would place the development league in China or Europe were they could make money on the deal.
So they do have a development league in which players are welcome to join straight out of high school should they so choose.
-
What a joke... The NBA wants players to develop on the NCAA 's dime. Kids shouldn't be restricted to compete for a job because they need to develop. If the NBA wants to enforce a rule then go all the way and require a degree to play for a team otherwise teams should shell out money and place talent in the development league just like MLB. If they were smart they would place the development league in China or Europe were they could make money on the deal.
The bolded happens in almost every profession.
-
I would say the free market angle in this is that you are free to start your own private association and decide on your own rules. If you want 18 year olds to play professional basketball start the PakuniBA, set you rules, compete within the free market against the NBA, and see what happens. And, in my opinion the rule is bad, if the kid is ready and a team wants to put their own resources and risk into the kid, so be it, but I imagine this is not so simple with the teams collectively bargaining and different motivations.
-
The bolded happens in almost every profession.
Agreed.
The difference is the NBA is placing a false standard on necessary development (age), rather than one based on required skills, abilities and education (as with, say, doctors or architects).
Ultimately, the NBA has a right to put its interests ahead of the players' interests. Nobody says otherwise. But that doesn't make it any less unfair or cr@ppy.
-
I thought athletic scholarships were offered so a STUDENT can get a degree. How naive of me to think otherwise. Wouldn't it be a novel idea that the NBA require a 4 year under graduate degree to play basketball just like most other professions.
-
Oh, come on.
You don't really believe this has anything to do with the "betterment of their product" or looking out for the interests of 18- and 19-year-old players. It's about "the betterment of their (and the NCAA's) bottom line."
I mean, not to get too far off topic, but 18- and 19-year-olds can handle military life (and war), but not life in the NBA? Do we have any actual data or evidence that supports one-and-dones to better either on or off the court than the previous generation of players who went from high school to the NBA?
Could you show where I suggested "forcing" the NBA to do anything?
Once again, I'm not arguing what the NBA can or cannot do. I'm arguing what they should do.
Also, I suspect you realize that the whole point of an association like the NBA and its CBA with players is to circumvent the free market.
I'll clarify, by betterment of product, I meant NBA's bottom line. I don't care if they are making a decision to make themselves more profitable, its what businesses do. As long as their methods aren't unethical, which I hardly feel making players wait an extra year while getting to go to college for free is qualifies as.
And I'll apologize. You are right, you never suggested forcing the NBA to do anything. Silly wording on my part.
-
But why be forced to the NBDL if an NBA team is willing to draft and pay you?
If your child was sitting on two job offers, would you suggest he take the lower-paying, less prestigious one? Or better yet, a take a year or two to work for free first?
I don't think it is for the NCAA to fix a problem that impacts .1% of all players. The NBA can fix that. The NCAA can't be all things to all people, and especially to the smallest of the small percentages. It was never intended to be and shouldn't start now.
I get your point, but I also think the NBA knows they are a beneficiary of the college basketball system. Doing a 1 and done plan hurts college basketball and potentially hurts the NBA because teams are having to takes guys based on one year potential. They would rather take kids on 2 years of work, even if that doesn't necessarily what some of the players want. To this, I would suggest to those players, you have options. Go to Europe...go to the NBDL, or you can play college ball for two years. If the NBA wants guys to go directly to the NBA at age 18, then they can do that, but don't saddle that problem onto the NCAA. Either do it, or make them play a few years. One or the other.....or, the players can pick other options. Hell, if the idea is so great, then a minor league system can be started, but I view today's comments from Silver as a good thing for the NBA and an even better thing for college basketball.
-
Excellent point. There is no way a 19 year of can compete physically with a 30 year old or play in 100 games without his body breaking down. Come on NBA and NCAA get together and establish a rule on a 21 year old minimum age.
-
Do we have any actual evidence of this?
I mean, are the one-and-dones of today any more productive/ready for the pros than the straight to the NBA players from 10+ years ago? Guys like LeBron, Kobe, Garnett, Howard, McGrady, Stoudemire, etc., seemed OK without that additional year of development. Not just asking rhetorically, wondering if there's actually anything to support this/
There were obviously notable busts in the straight-to-the-NBA crowd, but the one-and-done rule hasn't eliminated or even reduced that, just forestalled it a year. (see: Anthony Bennett, BJ Mullens, Daniel Orton, Josh Selby, Jereme Richmond).
I will leave it to the NBA to come up with the evidence, but I am willing to take their word for it. They have a better idea of the players they are drafting. The league surely benefits from getting an extra year to watch a player develop so that they are not drafting strictly on potential and hope. That seems reasonable enough. The NBA came up with the one-and-done rule to avoid getting players directly out of high school. Yes, LeBron and Kevin Garnett and Tracy McGrady were ready to play directly out of high school. Many players are not, or at least they are not ready to contribute enough to justify their salary. I cannot recall the name of the player some years ago who came directly out of a Chicago public school to Dallas, and was gone in about two weeks. It was not even a matter of athletic ability. It was that he simply was not able to handle showing up for a demanding job every day. It seems to me that the NBA has a right to protect itself from those situations. And players can go to the D-League or can go to Europe or can stay home and practice at the local playground. That may not be enough options for players, but that is not the NBA's problem.
The current one-and-done rule is a farce that benefits no one. It is typical for players who know they are going to turn pro to effectively drop out of school. Even seniors do it, which is why many get around to graduating a semester or two late. What that means in a one-and-done situation is that a player has to remain eligible for the first semester. I would like to think, and truly believe that Marquette required Henry to attend class like everybody else on the team. Does anybody really believe that Cal at Kentucky requires that of his players? I expect they can take twelve hours of Sandbox and Introduction to Learning or something, then effectively skip class for the second semester. A two year rule would at least require a player to complete a full year of college and remain in good academic standing. Of course, that would still be meaningless at many places, but any rule is going to have people evading it.
-
Excellent point. There is no way a 19 year of can compete physically with a 30 year old or play in 100 games without his body breaking down. Come on NBA and NCAA get together and establish a rule on a 21 year old minimum age.
You are spot on. We all totally sucked our first when we entered the league when we 19 or younger, we totally should've waited 3 years.
Best regards,
Giannis, Bradley Beal, Anthony Davis, Andrew Wiggins, Aaron Gordon, LeBron James, KG, Kobe, Dwight Howard, Justice Winslow, D'Angelo Russell, Karl Anthony Towns...
-
You sir are the one for disdain for the free market. You want to force a private entity, the NBA, to change its standards that it has established for itself in order to increase its profitability. The NBA is free to make whatever standards it wants.
I'm sorry, but as a matter of antitrust law the NBA is not free to make whatever standards it wants. The NBA needs justifications for the eligibility requirements it imposes on prospective players as these requirements are definitionally an agreement in restraint of trade. Restraints like these aren't per se illegal, but they can be illegal if they aren't justified by pro-competitive effects.
It is debatable how a court would rule on whether the NBA's justifications for its age-requirement, but personally I think it'd likely be found illegal. In any event, legally it is a more complex question than just saying the NBA can do whatever it wants.
-
Excellent point. There is no way a 19 year of can compete physically with a 30 year old or play in 100 games without his body breaking down. Come on NBA and NCAA get together and establish a rule on a 21 year old minimum age.
Having just lived my 30th year, it should be the other way around. My buddies and I are in good shape but playing pickup hoops, still get smoked by the college kids. Adam Silver should establish a maximum age rule to protect the 30-and 40-year-olds.
-
I think this would benefit both the NBA and NCAA basketball. Hope the Union will allow this.
The problem is it would not benefit teams like Marquette unless we get another one-and-done.
If you go to two years, you end up with Kentucky and other blue bloods keeping the most talented players in the country for a second year, when they are twice as good as the freshman year. I don't believe you have open years like this where a ton of teams have a chance at the title. The chance programs like our recent great teams have is that the freshman dominated power teams make so many mistakes (turnovers, stupid shots etc.) that on any given day they can lose.
Make Caliprari keep trying to win it with a new set of characters learning the game every year - it gives the rest of us a chance for that miraculous year.
-
But it also spreads out the talent because cal doesn't have those open scholarships every year. Also, cal couldn't offer the same treatment to two year players. He can get away with one and dones never going to class. That doesn't work with two year players. It would hurt Kentucky more than help them
-
But it also spreads out the talent because cal doesn't have those open scholarships every year. Also, cal couldn't offer the same treatment to two year players. He can get away with one and dones never going to class. That doesn't work with two year players. It would hurt Kentucky more than help them
+1 - I don't know that it would hurt UK, but it would improve college bball to increase the number of talented players -- particularly in a world of fixed number of scholarships per team. On the flip side, how many one-and-dones are there per year....I would guess somewhere between 5 - 15...so not a huge number compared to the total number of college players.
-
It will go to a 2 year cap because both the NBA and the players union want it to be that. The union opposes it in public as a negotiating ploy so they can "give something up" that they wanted. A union is always interested in the needs of the current membership not future potential members and if they can reduce the available pool of talent (18-40 years is a bigger pool than 20-40 year) that drives up the value of the pool (supply and demand).
At the end of the day, the NBA will find a legal justification to do it and they will do it while window dressing it as doing the right things for the kids. Which is crap, they are doing it so the NCAA can be both their development and talent assessment tools.
What will be interesting is what happens when the new rules are in effect and some LBJ 2.0 comes along, a can't miss talent out of high school that doesn't want to go to college. One and dones work in college because the APR is weight just so that you can take a couple of those hits, but to keep a kid eligible for two years and not negatively impact the APR is really tough if they don't want to be there. So does this LBJ 2.0 go the Europe or China route. Once someone successfully goes professional overseas and gets drafted into the NBA at 20....those "can't miss" talents will go that route and forgo college all together. Not saying whether that's a good or a bad thing, but a 2 year rule will eventually lead to talent skipping college and going overseas.
-
Agreed.
The difference is the NBA is placing a false standard on necessary development (age), rather than one based on required skills, abilities and education (as with, say, doctors or architects).
Ultimately, the NBA has a right to put its interests ahead of the players' interests. Nobody says otherwise. But that doesn't make it any less unfair or cr@ppy.
The NBA instituted the one year out of high school rule for the simple reason that it's hard to be sure how good a player is based on him dominating other high school kids. Watching a guy play for a year against college competition gives them a much better feel for their actual talent and reduces the risk of spending a high draft pick on player that doesn't pan out. Plus a year in college gets them a year of interest and hype for a kid that wouldn't otherwise have it. It is a selfish rule for the NBA, but a good one for them and them alone.
There's really not much the NCAA can do about it, as they'll never be able to stop a kid from quitting school, nor should they be able to. I also think that one year is probably enough for NBA teams to evaluate a kid's potential, so I'm not sure why it is in their interest to change the rule to two years, unless they feel that they can less often pay first round money for a benchwarmer for a year.
-
It will go to a 2 year cap because both the NBA and the players union want it to be that. The union opposes it in public as a negotiating ploy so they can "give something up" that they wanted. A union is always interested in the needs of the current membership not future potential members and if they can reduce the available pool of talent (18-40 years is a bigger pool than 20-40 year) that drives up the value of the pool (supply and demand).
This has always been my thinking as well.
-
The NBA instituted the one year out of high school rule for the simple reason that it's hard to be sure how good a player is based on him dominating other high school kids. Watching a guy play for a year against college competition gives them a much better feel for their actual talent and reduces the risk of spending a high draft pick on player that doesn't pan out. Plus a year in college gets them a year of interest and hype for a kid that wouldn't otherwise have it. It is a selfish rule for the NBA, but a good one for them and them alone.
There's really not much the NCAA can do about it, as they'll never be able to stop a kid from quitting school, nor should they be able to. I also think that one year is probably enough for NBA teams to evaluate a kid's potential, so I'm not sure why it is in their interest to change the rule to two years, unless they feel that they can less often pay first round money for a benchwarmer for a year.
It's in the NBA's interest because they don't have to develop a player. There is no doubt that Henry in his 2nd year out of Marquette is a better, more ready to contribute player than 1st year Henry.
Essentially, the GMs in the NBA need to be saved from themselves as they will draft potential over proven track record every time.
-
But it also spreads out the talent because cal doesn't have those open scholarships every year. Also, cal couldn't offer the same treatment to two year players. He can get away with one and dones never going to class. That doesn't work with two year players. It would hurt Kentucky more than help them
I donno. Won't Cal just $nag players #1-6 every year, and have a dominant team of soph's with top freshman coming off the bench?
-
I donno. Won't Cal just $nag players #1-6 every year, and have a dominant team of soph's with top freshman coming off the bench?
Part of Cal's sell is that one and dones will spend their entire time focused on basketball. Their class loads are independent studies and physical educations. As mueng pointed out, it becomes a lot harder once you add that second year of eligibility. I really think this would throw a huge wrench in Cal's machine.
-
Part of Cal's sell is that one and dones will spend their entire time focused on basketball. Their class loads are independent studies and physical educations. As mueng pointed out, it becomes a lot harder once you add that second year of eligibility. I really think this would throw a huge wrench in Cal's machine.
If Cal can figure out how to keep Kentucky as a player development program that does the minimum to keep players academically eligible for two years, his model will work....but that is really really tough especially since the NCAA requirements go up from freshmen to sophomore year.
What will truly break Cal's model, if they go to two years, will be players successfully skipping college all together, going overseas and coming back as 1st round draft picks. Then the only kids that'll go to college and be drafted will be the Kris Dunn/Jimmy Butler types that need multiple years of development and a fall back in case they don't get drafted.
-
Cal hasn't seemed to have a problem keeping kids eligible who were potential one and dones who stay longer than expected. Alex Poytress had his career derailed by injury and he earned his bachelor's degree in three years and is in graduate school this year. Tyler Uliss, the Harrison twins, etc. have all stayed multiple years.
I think it's kind of insulting to one-and-done types that keeping them eligible is going to be a problem. Just because they are great basketball players doesn't mean that they are poor students.
-
Cal hasn't seemed to have a problem keeping kids eligible who were potential one and dones who stay longer than expected. Alex Poytress had his career derailed by injury and he earned his bachelor's degree in three years and is in graduate school this year. Tyler Uliss, the Harrison twins, etc. have all stayed multiple years.
I think it's kind of insulting to one-and-done types that keeping them eligible is going to be a problem. Just because they are great basketball players doesn't mean that they are poor students.
Not my intention to imply all high talent basketball players are automatically bad at school, nor was my intent to say that one and dones are dumb so can't cut it in school. But the % of one and dones that are not academically viable or not focused on school is higher than players that are intending to be in school for multiple years.
I have zero doubt that Ben Simmons is smart enough to get a 4 year college degree but he clearly wasn't interested in even maintaining anything more than the bare minimum in school though(couldn't win the Wooden because he couldn't get a 2.0 as a freshman). It is really easy to get a 2.0 in college when you are a basketball player who isn't getting a degree and has a ton of academic support staff.
-
I wasn't trying to single you out mu03. But I think many one-and-dones like Simmons aren't great at school because they don't have to be like you say in your second paragraph. I think good coaches, and I include Cal among them, talk to their players about these situations and tell them to keep their eye on the ball academically. Because you never know...
-
Cal hasn't seemed to have a problem keeping kids eligible who were potential one and dones who stay longer than expected. Alex Poytress had his career derailed by injury and he earned his bachelor's degree in three years and is in graduate school this year. Tyler Uliss, the Harrison twins, etc. have all stayed multiple years.
I think it's kind of insulting to one-and-done types that keeping them eligible is going to be a problem. Just because they are great basketball players doesn't mean that they are poor students.
I was looking at this from a recruiting angle. Poythress came to Kentucky being promised he would never step foot in a classroom. When it became apparent that he wouldn't be drafted he adjusted and is now getting a degree. Not saying they would be poor students, but part of Cal's recruiting pitch is that one and dones will be able to solely focus on basketball. If loses that pitch, his machine won't be as successful.
-
I was looking at this from a recruiting angle. Poythress came to Kentucky being promised he would never step foot in a classroom. When it became apparent that he wouldn't be drafted he adjusted and is now getting a degree. Not saying they would be poor students, but part of Cal's recruiting pitch is that one and dones will be able to solely focus on basketball. If loses that pitch, his machine won't be as successful.
Was Poythress "promised he would never step foot in a classroom?" I doubt that.
I don't necessarily think Kentucky's curriculum for first year basketball players is substantially easier than many other schools.' I think he sells the residence hall, the academic support, the crazy atmosphere at Rupp, and the fact that he will go balls-to-the-wall for his players to help them get to the NBA.
I mean, there is no way that Poythress could have graduated in three years unless he took a regular course of study starting his freshman year, first semester.
-
I think this is a step in the right direction. To me it makes business sense to have a more polished college athlete product and also more name recognition . The student will benefit as well, by building brand equity in their name as well as skills.
Ideally it would be like baseball. Either come our after high school or stay a minimum of three.
-
It will go to a 2 year cap because both the NBA and the players union want it to be that. The union opposes it in public as a negotiating ploy so they can "give something up" that they wanted. A union is always interested in the needs of the current membership not future potential members and if they can reduce the available pool of talent (18-40 years is a bigger pool than 20-40 year) that drives up the value of the pool (supply and demand).
At the end of the day, the NBA will find a legal justification to do it and they will do it while window dressing it as doing the right things for the kids. Which is crap, they are doing it so the NCAA can be both their development and talent assessment tools.
What will be interesting is what happens when the new rules are in effect and some LBJ 2.0 comes along, a can't miss talent out of high school that doesn't want to go to college. One and dones work in college because the APR is weight just so that you can take a couple of those hits, but to keep a kid eligible for two years and not negatively impact the APR is really tough if they don't want to be there. So does this LBJ 2.0 go the Europe or China route. Once someone successfully goes professional overseas and gets drafted into the NBA at 20....those "can't miss" talents will go that route and forgo college all together. Not saying whether that's a good or a bad thing, but a 2 year rule will eventually lead to talent skipping college and going overseas.
mu03eng:
You know I respect you, and we have had many great conversations. But I don't know how you can state as some kind of fact that the union will accept a second year in college. They publicly state they are against it but they are secretly for it? The union has every reason to support the current 1-and-done rule, which has helped today's players become multimillionaires a year sooner than a 2-and-done rule would. And which in turn has helped with the second and third contracts. So it DOES benefit current players. And, as an aside, it also is more fair to the super-talented young man trying to earn a living in his chosen profession.
But that's only my opinion, just as what you said is only your opinion. I guess we'll see when the next CBA comes out.
I do agree with the rest of what you say. Certainly, if the NBA gets the union to buy in, it will fend off any legal challenges, just as the NFL has done.
I also think it would lead to plenty of two-year Brandon Jennings situations.
I don't agree with Chicos that going from 1 year to 2 would be "good news" for the athletes. It would be yet another way for the power and the money to keep the indentured servants down.
-
mu03eng:
You know I respect you, and we have had many great conversations. But I don't know how you can state as some kind of fact that the union will accept a second year in college. They publicly state they are against it but they are secretly for it? The union has every reason to support the current 1-and-done rule, which has helped today's players become multimillionaires a year sooner than a 2-and-done rule would. And which in turn has helped with the second and third contracts. So it DOES benefit current players. And, as an aside, it also is more fair to the super-talented young man trying to earn a living in his chosen profession.
But that's only my opinion, just as what you said is only your opinion. I guess we'll see when the next CBA comes out.
I do agree with the rest of what you say. Certainly, if the NBA gets the union to buy in, it will fend off any legal challenges, just as the NFL has done.
I also think it would lead to plenty of two-year Brandon Jennings situations.
I don't agree with Chicos that going from 1 year to 2 would be "good news" for the athletes. It would be yet another way for the power and the money to keep the indentured servants down.
You are totally right....you do respect me cause I'm awesome ;D
Kidding aside, you are right it's not a fact it is expressly my opinion(should have been more clear) but one I base off the NBA unions behavior in previous negotiations(that's how we ended up with a one and done) as well as observing union negotiations in general. Take Kohler in Wisconsin, they negotiated a two tier pay system where the current employees would get higher wages but in exchange new union employees would get lower wages and couldn't achieve the wages of the current employees. Human nature to protect the now and not the future.
So at the end of the day I think the player's union trades an issue they really don't care about that impacts future players for an issue that impacts the current players and we have a 2 and done rule.
The great irony(and somewhat sickening) stance of those like Chicos and the union/NBA, NCAA officials, etc. is that they profess to be looking out for these kids when really they are padding their own wallets with money generated off the back of these student athletes. Limiting a persons potential to earn money is in no way a "good news" scenario
-
mu03eng:
The union has every reason to support the current 1-and-done rule, which has helped today's players become multimillionaires a year sooner than a 2-and-done rule would. And which in turn has helped with the second and third contracts. So it DOES benefit current players.
I agree with a lot of your points, but how does it help any current NBA player to keep the post high school requirement at one year? Continuation of the current rule would only benefit future union members, not current ones. In fact, as was pointed out, the few extra guys that make it the first year will take jobs from current members. A union that was interested in what is best for their members in perpetuity would not want post high school expansion to two years, but selfishly the current NBA players would be very slightly better off if the rule was changed to two years. My guess is that their opposition to the rule is more of a bargaining chip to get something else in exchange for allowing the rule to change.
-
I think the question is: How many kids that get 2 full years and 1 summer end up graduating compared to 1 year? My guess is its a pretty big difference. its not about getting drafted and sitting at the end of the bench its about being drafted and playing and staying in the NBA for 10 years. My guess is guys that are drafted 1 and done from # 5- #30 compared to 2 or 3 and years drafted between # 5-#30 what do you think the success rate is? My guess is it probably doubles. Also how many 1 and done wash out players end up broke? I think its pretty alarming. Henry is the exception, many of the these kids do not have allot of direction. I think it should be either no years or 2 years. You can make a argument either way. For every Lebron that the no college helps them make millions how many players does that rule hurt? you can make a good case either way. It works I the NFL? they do 3 years.
-
I agree with a lot of your points, but how does it help any current NBA player to keep the post high school requirement at one year? Continuation of the current rule would only benefit future union members, not current ones. In fact, as was pointed out, the few extra guys that make it the first year will take jobs from current members. A union that was interested in what is best for their members in perpetuity would not want post high school expansion to two years, but selfishly the current NBA players would be very slightly better off if the rule was changed to two years. My guess is that their opposition to the rule is more of a bargaining chip to get something else in exchange for allowing the rule to change.
(http://media0.giphy.com/media/PS7d4tm1Hq6Sk/giphy.gif)
-
I agree with a lot of your points, but how does it help any current NBA player to keep the post high school requirement at one year? Continuation of the current rule would only benefit future union members, not current ones. In fact, as was pointed out, the few extra guys that make it the first year will take jobs from current members. A union that was interested in what is best for their members in perpetuity would not want post high school expansion to two years, but selfishly the current NBA players would be very slightly better off if the rule was changed to two years. My guess is that their opposition to the rule is more of a bargaining chip to get something else in exchange for allowing the rule to change.
I guess I am assuming that the faster the kids come to the pros and earn, the faster and higher the salaries go for current pros. Maybe that is an incorrect assumption, but I don't think it is.
-
I guess I am assuming that the faster the kids come to the pros and earn, the faster and higher the salaries go for current pros. Maybe that is an incorrect assumption, but I don't think it is.
I think it's net neutral at best. For every new player that shows up on a roster that means a current player that isn't on the roster since roster size is fixed.
-
I think it's net neutral at best. For every new player that shows up on a roster that means a current player that isn't on the roster since roster size is fixed.
Fair enough.
Although I do wonder if the union really cares more about a fringe pro -- a guy who is the 15th man on a team's roster today -- vs, say, Ben Simmons or whomever the Next Great One (and next great earner) is going to be.
Yes, the union is supposed to care more about the fringe pro, but does it?
-
Fair enough.
Although I do wonder if the union really cares more about a fringe pro -- a guy who is the 15th man on a team's roster today -- vs, say, Ben Simmons or whomever the Next Great One (and next great earner) is going to be.
Yes, the union is supposed to care more about the fringe pro, but does it?
I don't think they do as evidenced by the fact that rookie contracts are fixed. So regardless of straight out of high school or one or two years later...if 20 year old Lebron was drafted now he would be making less than any number of mid-level guys that have been in the league a couple of years. 20 year old Lebron should be making more than Khris Middleton, but wouldn't under the current CBA...ergo, union don't care about rooks.