19 year old age limit

[Punch and Judy Garland]

Won't the ones who really need the money go to Ohio State?

[Cerbaho-WG]

I believe Oden will be heading to IU then, as some have said earlier. He's a local product and Davis has been scouting him forever. If the Hoosiers actually play well this year (make the dance, get to Sweet 16) I believe it's a given Oden will attend.

[Jake]

Won't the ones who really need the money go to Ohio State?

 

 

Edited June 21, 2005 by Jake

[ChWRoCk2]

this is gonna make college basketball really exciting to watch

[Soxbadger]

Players like Kevin Garnett who wanted to go to college but did not have the ACT scores to get into UNC will not play JUCO when they can make a million playing in Europe for a year.

 

And if I was a European club, I would pay through the teeth to get a player like Lebron for 1 or 2 years. The guy is one of the best in the NBA already, imagine what he could do for a European franchise.

 

I also do not think it will impact the NCAA significantly as for every Carmello Anthony, there are hundreds who make little to no impact as a freshman. And its not about needing the money, its about risking millions of dollars to play for $40k worth of schooling.

 

If you are injured when you play in the NCAA, you could ruin your entire career with out recieving any compensation besides for a college education. And while that is great and all, most college graduates do not make $20million in a lifetime (50 years of working at $400k per year not counting taxes), let alone in one season.

 

If I were an 18 year old basketball player who felt they would be drafted in the top 10 out of High School and was presented with 2 options:

 

a) Go to college for 1 year, make 0, and then go to the pros.

 

Or

 

B) Go to Europe for 1 year, make $1mil, and then go to the pros.

 

I would have to say choice b is the best option. You can always go to college if you have the money, and if you make $1mil (subtract $200k for college), you are left with $800k profit, versus the 0 you make playing for the NCAA. The injury risk is the same, and as the NBA draft has shown, if you are good enough it does not matter where you play, you will be drafted high.

 

Once again just my opinion, but if at 18 I was offered $1mil a year, I would not have gone to college.

 

SB

[Finkelstein]

I believe Oden will be heading to IU then, as some have said earlier. He's a local product and Davis has been scouting him forever. If the Hoosiers actually play well this year (make the dance, get to Sweet 16) I believe it's a given Oden will attend.

 

It will either be IU or Wake Forest for Oden. OSU will be out of the picture due to the new investigation that is about to take place. Conley also will bolt OSU and will try to get Oden to join him at Wake Forest.

 

For IU's sake, I hope that he chooses Wake. If Davis gets Oden that will probably buy him another year or two and we can't have that!!!

[Palehosefan]

In recent weeks, Oden and teammate Mike Conley were said to be favoring Ohio State just over Wake Forest. There were believed to be question marks for the two respective schools, however – NCAA violation allegations at Ohio State and the distance from home for Wake Forest – though Oden was quick to dismiss both question marks when asked by media members. “We already knew about it ahead of time. They already served their time,” he said in regards to OSU’s NCAA troubles.

 

As for the distance from home to Wake Forest, Oden mentioned that distance wouldn’t likely be a factor in his decision. “Not really,” Oden replied in whether distance was important. “That’s what college is for, to get away, just become a young man.”

 

Oden is pretty much a lock for either OSU or WF, but if those two factors above do prove to be true anyways, IU could be the darkhorse.

[Cerbaho-WG]

It will either be IU or Wake Forest for Oden.  OSU will be out of the picture due to the new investigation that is about to take place.  Conley also will bolt OSU and will try to get Oden to join him at Wake Forest.

 

For IU's sake, I hope that he chooses Wake.  If Davis gets Oden that will probably buy him another year or two and we can't have that!!!

 

C'mon man, just try to imagine a frontcourt of Oden, White and Allen (assuming White doesn't bolt for the pros). You basically have three 7 footers, that's very scary.

[qwerty]

I think that you will see more 18-19 year olds head for Europe to play for a year or 2 and then come back.

 

If you want the money, you do not have to play in the NBA.

 

I am against any sort of age limit on all sports, as it should be up to the team and the player to decide what is best for them. If Microsoft wanted to hire an 18 year old and pay them $10million, you would not see IBM try and make the US create a law that says you have to be 19 before you can be a computer programmer.

 

::shrugs::

 

There is really no reason for this rule, and I hope it burns the NBA with some of the best young talent going over seas.

 

SB

 

The difference between an 18 year old working at microsoft compared to playing in the pros of any sport is very, very different. Only a few rare specimans such as lebron can handle playing 40 a game 82 games a year and put up the numbers he did. Most people his age are not in the shape he was when he came into he league. He was bigger than nearly and sg/sf in all of basketball and could keep up with nearly anyone in his position.

 

The main sport there should be an age limit because players are clearly not ready at the age of 18 is football. Many of those players are just not big enough and could enough to be worthy of a spot on a nfl team. Also you have to think of the health risks playing professional sports at such a young age compared to sitting in a desk working on computers. 18 year old tight ends, wide recievers, and running backs would end up dying in the nfl in my opinion.

[qwerty]

Players like Kevin Garnett who wanted to go to college but did not have the ACT scores to get into UNC will not play JUCO when they can make a million playing in Europe for a year.

 

And if I was a European club, I would pay through the teeth to get a player like Lebron for 1 or 2 years. The guy is one of the best in the NBA already, imagine what he could do for a European franchise.

 

I also do not think it will impact the NCAA significantly as for every Carmello Anthony, there are hundreds who make little to no impact as a freshman. And its not about needing the money, its about risking millions of dollars to play for $40k worth of schooling.

 

If you are injured when you play in the NCAA, you could ruin your entire career with out recieving any compensation besides for a college education. And while that is great and all, most college graduates do not make $20million in a lifetime (50 years of working at $400k per year not counting taxes), let alone in one season.

 

If I were an 18 year old basketball player who felt they would be drafted in the top 10 out of High School and was presented with 2 options:

 

a) Go to college for 1 year, make 0, and then go to the pros.

 

Or

 

B) Go to Europe for 1 year, make $1mil, and then go to the pros.

 

I would have to say choice b is the best option. You can always go to college if you have the money, and if you make $1mil (subtract $200k for college), you are left with $800k profit, versus the 0 you make playing for the NCAA. The injury risk is the same, and as the NBA draft has shown, if you are good enough it does not matter where you play, you will be drafted high.

 

Once again just my opinion, but if at 18 I was offered $1mil a year, I would not have gone to college.

 

SB

 

For every garnett, kobe, mcgrady, and a few other high schoolers that made it big there are tens of thousands of kids who would do nothing in the nba without learning the game better in college. They also is also an oppurtunity for players to mature their games wether it be passing, shooting, handles, overall basketball iq, etc. The league is watered done at this point... it's not even that the talent is not there, it's because the younger players have not learned both aspects of basketball. Some don't even can't even control either aspect of the game but that have shown flashes of greatness that teams just cannot pass them up.

 

For me it is very simple. I want to see players play the game the right way and not sit on the bench for 2, 3, 4 years before doing anything signifigant in the nba ( jermaine o'neal and zach randolph are great examples)>

[Soxbadger]

I want

 

Well this argument should not be about what you want, but instead what the people who it affects want.

 

How can you count how many High School players have made it and how many have not? How many college players do not pan out. I mean there is a significant risk in both.

 

Do you think baseball should not be able to draft players at 18?

 

Teams should be able to control their own destiny. If they want to take a player at 18, maybe he will be the next KG or Lebron, or maybe he wont be. But the same could be said about a whole bunch of college players each season.

 

For every Jordan there is a Sam Bowie.

 

Teams have the choice, players should have the choice, and injuries will happen at all levels. You could even argue that in the NBA they would have better medical access. Not only that, but teams are generally not very willing to just burn out their best youngest players.

 

The only reason the NBA wants to regulate who can enter is because forcing them to play a year in NCAA gives them a free look and better chance to make a wise decision.

 

IE They are risking players careers so that they can save money.

 

SB

[qwerty]

Well this argument should not be about what you want, but instead what the people who it affects want.

 

How can you count how many High School players have made it and how many have not? How many college players do not pan out. I mean there is a significant risk in both.

 

Do you think baseball should not be able to draft players at 18?

 

Teams should be able to control their own destiny. If they want to take a player at 18, maybe he will be the next KG or Lebron, or maybe he wont be. But the same could be said about a whole bunch of college players each season.

 

For every Jordan there is a Sam Bowie.

 

Teams have the choice, players should have the choice, and injuries will happen at all levels. You could even argue that in the NBA they would have better medical access. Not only that, but teams are generally not very willing to just burn out their best youngest players.

 

The only reason the NBA wants to regulate who can enter is because forcing them to play a year in NCAA gives them a free look and better chance to make a wise decision.

 

IE They are risking players careers so that they can save money.

 

SB

 

Difference is high school has a place for the highschoolers and even college players to work on the things they lack. That would be the minor leagues. Once the nba gets a better minor league system ( not the cba or nbdl, etc...) i wouldn't mind as much when 18 year olds get drafted. Each pro team needs a minor league even if it just consists of 8-10 players.

 

I was mostly talking about football and the injuries since they can happen at a higher rate and be more severe than practically anything else in any other sport. Line shot back to the head is up in the list for baseball but that is all i can really think of.

 

Just for giggles here is a funny comparison...

 

http://nbadraft.net/profiles/deshawnstevenson.htm

Edited June 22, 2005 by qwerty

[Rex Hudler]

I personally think the NBA is missing out here. I really believe that the NBA popularity is down right now at least partly because their players lack an identity that they have historically gained while playing in college. College basketball is so much more popular than the NBA and watched by so many more people, I believe the NBA is losing fans because they don't know who the players are. Another factor adding to this is the infusion of overseas players.

 

That said, I do not think a one year push toward college is enough. Marvin Williams was a good if not great player for North Carolina, but nationally he doesn't have the identity and following he would have had he stayed 3 or 4 years (or even 2 at minimum).

 

People that live in NBA cities still follow the NBA at least to some degree. It may or may not be as much as in the past, I don't know. But I am pretty confident in saying that the NBA has become pretty insignificant to people in the rest of the country. Outside of NBA cities which contain large urban areas, the NBA could disappear tomorrow and most would care about as much as they do about the NHL.

 

The NBA's most recent rise in popularity began back in 1980 right after Bird and Magic joined the league. It just so happens that was right after they played against each other in what is still the highest rated NCAA Basketball game EVER. Following Bird and Magic was Jordan, who became well known in just 2 years, but did so by winning a National Championship.

 

The bottom line is that the NBA could benefit by raising the age restriction both in terms of the maturity of the players, but also in the identifiability of them.

 

All that said, I still think that baseball has the best system. If a player enters a 4-year school, he must stay for three years. If a player is drafted, but does not sign with a team, he is still eligible to go to school. If a player cannot qualify for school, then a Junior college is an option, where he would be eligible again the next year.

 

Doing it this way would take some adjustment time, but I really believe that only the very elite players would sign with NBA teams and the rest would end up in college for three years minimum. I think helping to protect the college game would in the long run help the NBA.

 

Just one man's opinion............

[Soxbadger]

Qwerty,

 

Think about how many pitcher arms are blown out in college or the minors who could have potentially been great players. As for the NFL, I think that it would be self regulated. Teams are not going to put millions into an 18 year old that they are not sure about. Think about how when a NCAA player transfers to the NFL, if they are considered small at the NCAA it kills their stock no matter how good they are. So if a HS player is small, very few teams would even look at them, let alone put high draft pick. It would only be a supremely gifted player like Mcpherson from Ok, who would have a shot to really be drafted that young. Right now Adrian has nothing to gain at the college level, he would have been a first round pick, he can just as easily improve his stock as hurt it. But unlike the real stock market, he can not sell his stock at its height, he has to wait. It could cost him millions.

 

Rex,

 

I do not disagree, what is best for the NBA in terms of money, is that they have the least risk as possible. By having kids go to college you weed them out. The ones who can not take the pressure, the ones who can not handle the fame. The ones who let the hype get to their head, etc.

 

Those who can survive 3 years of college, have much less risk than those who have only had success at the HS level. Some of these players may have only put up great numbers for 1 season, and a team is having to base a multimillion dollar investment into it.

 

Of course the NBA wants to protect the owners.

 

And as you said, the NCAA is free publicity for the NBA. The NCAA markets the players, the players are paid 0, and everyone benefits. The players are given a college degree, although even 3 years would mean only the Jay Williams and Vince Carter's of the world would graduate.

 

It is not that I do not think there are benefits for raising the age, I just think those that benefit are the ones that need it the least. Will my life really be better if the NCAA and NBA have a little better competition? Do owners like Mark Cuban or Reinsdorf really need the extra insulation?

 

Or are the people that need it the most, the people everyone else is saying they know whats best for?

 

I mean look at Lee Evans. He decided to stay at Wisconsin because he was a good guy, etc. He goes out in spring practice and wrecks his knee. Luckily for him he was able to eventually come back, but he risked millions on those 2 years of college. And yes it is admirable, yes an education is a very important thing.

 

But why do most of us go to college?

 

It is not because we are going there to expand our mind. We go there so that we can get a job that we want or that pays the most. These people have the chance to have a dream job without having to go to college, I say more power to them.

 

There are plenty of very successful American's who dropped out of college, and most of them were not being offered millions of dollars in contracts, (Gates, Dell, Jobs, Geffen, Huizenga, Turner).

 

Here is an interesting article from the Princeton Review on who college is right for, notice they do not think it is right for everyone...

 

http://www.princetonreview.com/college/res...shouldyougo.asp

 

SB

[SleepyWhiteSox]

It is not that I do not think there are benefits for raising the age, I just think those that benefit are the ones that need it the least. Will my life really be better if the NCAA and NBA have a little better competition? Do owners like Mark Cuban or Reinsdorf really need the extra insulation?

 

NBA players are compensated EXTREMELY well, regardless of whether they go in at 18, 19, or 20. They will still end up making a s***load more than a vast majority of us ever will. Quite frankly, it is an opportunity of a lifetime. One of the sacrifices for living this sort of dream is abiding by the rules of the NBA. This is why I am very hesitant to argue in favor of players.

 

The fact of the matter is that players are treated like royalty in college. It's a great experience for them. We're not in a third-world country where anyone is in such dire need that they cannot sacrifice a couple of years earning a college education (which is a privilege for many) until they make their megamillions.

 

And if they get hurt, tough luck. Worse things can happen to a person. You'll have the opportunity to fall back on a free education, if you choose to do so.

[Palehosefan]

There are plenty of very successful American's who dropped out of college, and most of them were not being offered millions of dollars in contracts, (Gates, Dell, Jobs, Geffen, Huizenga, Turner).

 

Here is an interesting article from the Princeton Review on who college is right for, notice they do not think it is right for everyone...

 

Selig and company are more worried about the fans perception, rather than the owners. The owners only make the money when the fans show up, and the players only get the big contracts when the fans show up. But like Rex said, the NBA's ratings have plummeted the past 10 or so years, and I truly believe as Rex does, that its because the fans don't know who the players are for the most part. Fans also don't like the hip-hop style image, but I don't think a year of college or a year of NBDL ball will help that much. But a year of college could atleast give the player somewhat of a name nationally. Selig only started to care about an age limit when the fans voiced their displeasure in the game by the lack of Nielson ratings etc. I truly believe that if the ratings for the NBA didn't drop, there wouldn't even be an age limit being talked about. Do you really think the NBA wants to lose the marketing power of a possible future Lebron, TMac, Kobe, Jermaine Oneal, or Amare Stoudemire? I think its just a risk they know they have to take.

 

I guess if you want to compare it to programmers, it would be if Microsoft's software began to slip compared to Adobe, Apple etc and it was possibly because of all the 17-18 year old programmers that were brilliant, but un-experienced. Microsoft could force those same kids to attend atleast a year of technical school/IT before Microsoft would hire them hoping that their software would improve in the future to regain some of their market. Its not gonna happen, but if their sales began to slip, I guarantee some extreme measure would take place.

 

I know you are trying to take the side of freedom and the kids this could hurt. But don't feel sorry for them, most of them will either be pampered on campus for a year or more, or end up in the NBDL showing off their talents for a year doing what they love to do. Others will end up overseas still making millions of dollars. Only the Lebron's of the world will suffer from this ruling to me, and those type of players won't be hurting for long.

[Rex Hudler]

badger, I don't think that a player should be excluded because of age... but I think the system should exist that discourages only but the very best.

 

Part of the NBA's problem right now is that it has become somewhat of a "thug league", at least in perception. Middle America (outside of major metropolitan areas) virtually ignores the NBA. The NBA markets itself to two groups: 1. Corporate America for sponsorships and tickets and 2. Urban markets for image and merchandise sales.

 

The pricing and urban focus basically excludes the common basketball fan. The thing that I think would keep the common fan interested is being able to identify with the players. A league full of kids that skipped college and players from overseas is not helping their cause. Part of the "thug" perception also comes from young players who may not be mature enough to handle millions. The NBA has become a lifestyle for young athletes more so than any other sport. I think that lifestyle, along with a lack of identifiability of the players is what drives middle America away.

 

For every Lee Evans you bring up, there are 10 Shea Cotton's or James Lang's, players that thought they were ready and end up struggling in the NBDL or out of basketball completely by 24. And for every Lee Evans there is at least an equal number of players who help their draft status and wallet by staying in school.

 

No matter what you do, someone will be left out, because there are exceptions to every rule. But the idea is to come up with a solution that is a positive for the most people, teams, players, fans, etc.

[ZoomSlowik]

While it's a nice idea, teams aren't just going to flat out avoid high school players simply because they're high school players. The way the draft has gone the last few years, if you want a potential superstar, you have to take a high schooler. Most of the guys that would have been top college players that can start dominating immediately have already been taken in previous years. If the best talent that's available is a high school player, then that's who they'll take, and that will usually be the case since the high schoolers going pro are the top handful of players in their class. The only way to have more prepared players is to not let the real youngsters enter. Teams aren't really controlling their own destiny, since you can only take the guys who are there. After the few solid college players are gone, you're virtually going to have to take a high schooler or a young foreigner to have a real shot to help your team.

 

The rule doesn't really hurt the players that much. First off, as some have said, by the time the draft rolls around many of them will be 19 already. Second, that one year that they are waiting doesn't really hurt them financially. The vast majority of the players are still going to get the same amount of money a year later, and have the potential to make more by improving their draft stock. Also, the potential for a serious injury is not as high as in other sports. A guy tearing an ACL isn't out quite as long as in football (in fact, they're back on the court in decent shape by the start of the next year), and there is nothing like a Tommy John surgery where you are out two years. Even assuming something like a broken leg happens, you just stay in college one more year. That's not exactly the end of the world. Also, if you're a real draft prospect, you can get insurance that would protect you in the event of a career ending injury. So even in the unlikely event of a career ending injury, you'd be able to collect a large sum of money (I believe many of the top college players have multi-million dollar policies). A 19 year old age limit just really doesn't change things all that much. Even if you kick it to a 20 year limit, the only guys it affects are those that can't get the grades, and they can still go to Europe or sit out a year and practice with the team while prepping for a good pre-draft season.

[Soxbadger]

Sleepywhitesox,

 

Sorry I do not agree with if they get hurt tough luck. I think if the NBA is going to enforce an age limit, then they need to do something to make sure those players are protected in case of a career changing injury.

 

Palehosefan,

 

The argument that they are treated great does not overcome the argument that they do not want to be there. You can be at the greatest hotel in the world but if you do not want to be there no matter how great it is, you are not going to really enjoy it.

 

As for who will suffer I can not predict that. You are all saying how great it will be to get Odin, etc, but what if in his first practice he suffers a career ending injury. He may lose a million. Of course you can not predict injury, but at the same time the NBA can not make the argument they are preventing injury. Injuries happen, there are a lot of people who had severe injuries even at the High School level who were prevented from going farther.

 

As for why the NBA is losing fans?

 

Its because basketball players are so unappealing its almost impossible to watch them. Most of them seem to play for a pay check and show up when they feel like it. Personally I think this will make college basketball less enjoyable for me. I watch Wisconsin basketball, they do not have all the flashy players of UNC, but they play a team game and play hard defense. They win because they get players to red shirt, to stay for 4 years, and to take advantage of the fact other teams are filled with freshman and sophmores.

 

Why will college basketball be any better when you have a bunch of freshman going out and trying to get a contract? They are not going to learn fundementals, they are going to try and go out and put up numbers so they are picked first. And coaches will be severely undermined, instead of having all the players want to be there, you are going to have some who do not care.

 

It just is ironic though that many of the NBA's most marketable stars did not go to college, yet they think some how this will solve a problem.

 

And I know that it may not affect many people, maybe it will only affect 1 person ever.

 

But you do not make rules on how many people it may or may not impact.

 

And the reason I do not agree with this, is I do not believe that any arbitrary rule should ever be able to deny a person an opportunity that they wish to seek.

 

SB

[SleepyWhiteSox]

I still say quality of product is the bigger factor.

 

While most all other sports seem to be evolving for the better as athletes are becoming stronger and more athletic, the NBA seems to be going down in quality...

 

Fundamentals need to be stressed instead of relying on the raw athleticism of immature (basketball-wise, and, unfortunately, sometimes overall) high-schoolers. Everbody can dunk and cross-over, but nobody can play solid D or hit a jumper, it seems. Elite college coaches are probably the best at teaching these fundamentals, in my opinion...

 

And by the way, "thug" basketball was around during the second 3-peat, but the Bulls were playing such great basketball that it didn't matter.

[Soxbadger]

The college players with the best fundementals are the players the NBA never picks.

 

They pick based on potential, barely ever do you see a player picked on fundementals.

 

And why are players going to learn more from college coaches than from NBA coaches?

 

You would think that practicing basketball 365 days as compared to going to college and having offseasons would make them better players, yet you argue that it is making them weaker players.

 

SB

[ZoomSlowik]

There are very few high schoolers that were very good players in their first year. Lebron obviously was a freak, and Garnett, Stoudamire, and Howard were pretty good. Everyone else was a role player at best. If you take out Kobe, who was pretty good his second year, everyone else took 3 years to really make a difference. This is pretty much true for the younger European players too, who are another major group that is affected that many here aren't mentioning. Most of these guys are even less prepared than our high schoolers because they either play against weak competition or get no playing time for their club. These guys would still be there in two years, you just wouldn't have to put up with those years riding the bench as much as guys like Milicic or Ebi. Because of that, not only would those players come in more ready to contribute, but the roster spot that the youngster was eating up can be used on a veteran player that can actually add something to the team. In the end, an age limit doesn't really hurt a whole lot, and if a 20 year limit were used, it should improve the level of play in the league, and prevent a lot of young guys that aren't ready for the league from throwing away their careers when/if they don't get drafted (or get cut when they go in the second round).

 

College players (at least upperclassmen) aren't getting drafted as much because by the time their junior or senior year rolls around, at least the top 10 players are gone, often more. Because of that, the guys who had less talent to start with are the only guys left. If a real age limit were put in place, the young talented guys would be there for at least two years. Teams would still be drafting on potential. of course. Why would a team take a guy who's not going to do anything for their team over a guy who might be a major player down the road? Loading up on talentless slugs won't win you anything. But the "potential" guys would be a lot closer to being able to do something.

 

Also, there's a big difference between getting practice time and being involved in game situations. There are a large number of things you can only gain from real playing time. There are plenty of guys that look good in workouts and can run some drills well, but can't translate any of the skills they've learned into a game setting. The intensity level is usually much higher, and there is a diversity of different types of players you can compete against. Also, many pro coaches spend their time on strategy, not skill development. Frankly, that is something that NBA coaches shouldn't have to worry about. Their time would be much better served trying to teach and implement their offensive plan than teaching a bench warmer how to perform some post moves. That's the kind of thing college guys usually do more effectively. I find it hard to believe that Darko Milicic or Ndudi Ebi is developing as much as they would have had they gone to college.

Edited June 22, 2005 by ZoomSlowik

[qwerty]

There are very few high schoolers that were very good players in their first year. Lebron obviously was a freak, and Garnett, Stoudamire, and Howard were pretty good. Everyone else was a role player at best. If you take out Kobe, who was pretty good his second year, everyone else took 3 years to really make a difference. This is pretty much true for the younger European players too, who are another major group that is affected that many here aren't mentioning. Most of these guys are even less prepared than our high schoolers because they either play against weak competition or get no playing time for their club. These guys would still be there in two years, you just wouldn't have to put up with those years riding the bench as much as guys like Milicic or Ebi. Because of that, not only would those players come in more ready to contribute, but the roster spot that the youngster was eating up can be used on a veteran player that can actually add something to the team. In the end, an age limit doesn't really hurt a whole lot, and if a 20 year limit were used, it should improve the level of play in the league, and prevent a lot of young guys that aren't ready for the league from throwing away their careers when/if they don't get drafted (or get cut when they go in the second round).

 

This is how i feel about it 100%.

 

I just can't wait until we get all of these european players over this year that have limited playing experience and are 18-19 based on potential. Wo0t... or lack there of.

[SleepyWhiteSox]

Sleepywhitesox,

 

Sorry I do not agree with if they get hurt tough luck. I think if the NBA is going to enforce an age limit, then they need to do something to make sure those players are protected in case of a career changing injury.

 

What other line of work does that?

 

If you lose your abilities to do some line of work BEFORE you started in it, you don't magically get compensated for what you could have done.

 

Bad analogy alert: If I'm a math whiz and bump my head and lose my smarts before NASA hires me, they're not going to pay me for the job I could have done but can't do.

 

And the reason I do not agree with this, is I do not believe that any arbitrary rule should ever be able to deny a person an opportunity that they wish to seek.

 

SB

 

They are employees of the NBA. Most employers have rules. The NBA just wants to make their product better, and they think this is a step in that direction.

 

2nd bad analogy alert: If I was smart enough to be a doctor and had great potential, I still wouldn't get hired straight out of high school because it would ruin the integrity and high standards of being a doctor and whatever association they're under.

 

The point of that horrible analogy is that the NBA realizes the product is not as good as it can be so they are taking steps to implement rules to make it better. Players are employees of the NBA, and companies will sometimes implement rules to make their company better even if it seems slightly unfair to the individual employee. It does happen.

[Soxbadger]

I knew you were going to use a Dr. so I was going to argue against that in my previous post, but I did not think you would fall into that trap.

 

Dr's have certain standards because they treat other people, they directly impact whether some one lives or dies. Whenever you work in an area where you are directly impacting peoples fortunes, there are always higher standards.

 

You need to pass the bar to be a lawyer, you need a CPA to be an accountant, etc.

 

But to suggest that being a basketball player is on par with being a Dr is ridiculous.

 

There is no way that the difference between being allowed to take the bar or not would be, If you are 18 you can not, if you are 19 you can.

 

Or that you could be a Dr when you turned 23, but not at 21.

 

I guess you missed the show Doogie Howser, where the young boy who was exceptionally gifted was able to be a Dr. It was based on ability, not on age.

 

So if you want to say that there should be a skills competition before you can be an NBA player, than I say go for it.

 

Because the difference is not an arbitrary age, but instead based on the skills of the individual applicant.

 

{Edit}

 

And yes employers have rules, but they can not generally have rules such as age discrimination. The only reason the NBA can is because they are a self governing entity with a collective bargaining agreement which gives the parties the ability to negotiate their own rules.

 

SB

Edited June 22, 2005 by Soxbadger