Potentially good news on the One and Done rule with the NBA

[nathanziarek]

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?

[Pakuni]

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?

[GGGG]

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.

[GGGG]

An adult has the right to freely engage in lawful commerce, including employment, right?

Not if he is excluded by a CBA. 

[SERocks]

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?

[Pakuni]

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.

[Pakuni]

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?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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.

[RushmoreAcademy]

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.

[Pakuni]

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.

[Spaniel with a Short Tail]

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.)

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

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. 

[Pakuni]

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.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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.

[WarriorInNYC]

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.

[burger]

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....

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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!

[GGGG]

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.

[Pakuni]

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.

[WarriorInNYC]

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?

[WarriorInNYC]

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.

[GGGG]

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. 

[21Jumpstreet]

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.