NBA/NFL age limits

[ZoomSlowik]

Its clear the rule benefits the NBA.

 

The question is whether its in societies best interest to allow entities to create rules like this.

 

Some people think yes, some people think no. For the majority of history discrimination was allowed in hiring. The question is whether age discrimination is something that also should be protected.

 

You're making way too much out of this. There's been less than 10 guys since I started following basketball that can legitimately argue that they were ready to contribute to an NBA roster in their first year out of high school. And this whole thread started because instead of Noel going #1 and making like $22 million on his first deal, he's going to go somewhere around #5 and make somewhere around $14 million on his first deal. Wow, that guy is f***ed!

[ZoomSlowik]

You could determine that someone that has not played above the high school level was too big of an economic risk to bother drafting.

 

Just like some MLB teams will often times practically refuse to draft high school players in favor of college players.

 

It is a decision that can clearly be made by the teams themselves, simply by refusing to take the risk.

 

Baseball isn't really comparable because they can bury guys in the minors for years and hope they develop. The financial investment is also significantly lower. The bonus slot for the #1 pick in baseball is $7.2 million and they're not going make significantly more than that until they've played at least 3 years in the majors. They also don't eat up a roster spot like they do in the NBA.

 

For the NBA, the payout over the first 4 years on the #1 pick is over $20 million, and they don't have a minor league system that allows them to play and develop (Well, not a good one that is frequently used I should say, legitimate prospects are rarely sent to the D-League). So instead, they use the NCAA as a free minor league system.

Edited February 14, 2013 by ZoomSlowik

[iamshack]

Baseball isn't really comparable because they can bury guys in the minors for years and hope they develop. The financial investment is also significantly lower. The bonus slot for the #1 pick in baseball is $7.2 million and they're not going make significantly more than that until they've played at least 3 years in the majors.

 

For the NBA, the payout over the first 4 years on the #1 pick is over $20 million, and they don't have a minor league system that allows them to play and develop. So instead, they use the NCAA as a free minor league system.

All the more reason NOT TO SELECT HS players!

 

I'm not sure why you are acting as if the teams don't have their own free will or something, and need an arbitrary rule to keep them from f***ing themselves.

[Soxbadger]

You're making way too much out of this. There's been less than 10 guys since I started following basketball that can legitimately argue that they were ready to contribute to an NBA roster in their first year out of high school. And this whole thread started because instead of Noel going #1 and making like $22 million on his first deal, he's going to go somewhere around #5 and make somewhere around $14 million on his first deal. Wow, that guy is f***ed!

 

I guess if this is no big deal, then there really is no reason such an unnecessary and prohibitive rule is in place to begin with.

 

And I dont know whether or not $8mil is a big deal to you, to most people that is a pretty big deal. If you make $50k a year, that is over 100 years of income. So Im not really agreement that $8mil isnt a big deal.

 

I just dont think that industries should be allowed to collude like this. Its one thing when the Bulls make a rule "no headbands" its another when every employer in a certain sector agree that they are going to create an arbitrary rule.

 

For example, I dont think it would be fair if all the law firms in the US agreed that they would not hire any new lawyers under the age of 40. It would be great for me, but it would be pretty unfair to everyone else who wants to be a lawyer.

 

(Edit)

 

And in that example all these Americans can just go to Europe or other countries if they want to be lawyers, because that would make it fair.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Soxbadger

[ZoomSlowik]

All the more reason NOT TO SELECT HS players!

 

I'm not sure why you are acting as if the teams don't have their own free will or something, and need an arbitrary rule to keep them from f***ing themselves.

 

Because if high school players are in the draft, they're going to get selected. It's not like there are an unlimited number of players that are good enough to play in the league.

[Soxbadger]

But if they are being selected isnt that evidence that NBA teams believe that they are ready for the NBA?

 

Isnt it counter-intuitive that NBA teams are selecting players who they think are worse or not as ready?

 

When they pick Kobe over a college player, isnt that saying someone in the NBA believes Kobe right then is better than numerous college players?

[witesoxfan]

All the more reason NOT TO SELECT HS players!

 

I'm not sure why you are acting as if the teams don't have their own free will or something, and need an arbitrary rule to keep them from f***ing themselves.

 

Except that the elite talent will be high schoolers then, and you simply can't win in the NBA without some sort of elite talent. The last team I can think of that didn't have someone "elite" was the Detroit Pistons. They still had Rasheed Wallace as an all around play-maker, and that team was pretty well stacked all the way around as well.

 

So then you are either drafting mediocre college talent that will get you 30 wins a year, or you are taking shots in the dark on high schoolers.

[ZoomSlowik]

I guess if this is no big deal, then there really is no reason such an unnecessary and prohibitive rule is in place to begin with.

 

And I dont know whether or not $8mil is a big deal to you, to most people that is a pretty big deal. If you make $50k a year, that is over 100 years of income. So Im not really agreement that $8mil isnt a big deal.

 

I just dont think that industries should be allowed to collude like this. Its one thing when the Bulls make a rule "no headbands" its another when every employer in a certain sector agree that they are going to create an arbitrary rule.

 

For example, I dont think it would be fair if all the law firms in the US agreed that they would not hire any new lawyers under the age of 40. It would be great for me, but it would be pretty unfair to everyone else who wants to be a lawyer.

 

It's a necessary rule because 99.something% of basketball players aren't ready to contribute after their high school career is over. It prevents people on both sides from making horrible decisions.

 

The second paragraph is ridiculous. Yes, $8 million is a lot of money. However, it's not like he went from $8 million to zero, he's going from $22 million to $14 million. $14 million is still a lot of f***ing money, and he still has a chance to make signficantly more after that contract. It's not drastically going to affect his life, he can still buy a bunch of Bentleys and gaudy jewelery.

[witesoxfan]

But if they are being selected isnt that evidence that NBA teams believe that they are ready for the NBA?

 

Isnt it counter-intuitive that NBA teams are selecting players who they think are worse or not as ready?

 

When they pick Kobe over a college player, isnt that saying someone in the NBA believes Kobe right then is better than numerous college players?

 

No, it's evidence that they believe they will SOMEDAY justify that draft pick and be a worthy player in the NBA. They may not believe they can help them much that year.

[Soxbadger]

No, it's evidence that they believe they will SOMEDAY justify that draft pick and be a worthy player in the NBA. They may not believe they can help them much that year.

 

And dont they make that same decision with college players, when they draft a more raw guy over a guy who had better stats or production?

 

Its the same whether they are 18,19, or 30.

 

Zoom,

 

If it was about both sides they would allow people to enter the draft and not lose college eligibility.

 

That way if you are drafted top 5 you can leave and make your money. If you arent you can stay in college and hopefully get better.

 

The only people it hurts is the NBA, who want to have, like you said, a free system to evaluate talent.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Soxbadger

[ZoomSlowik]

But if they are being selected isnt that evidence that NBA teams believe that they are ready for the NBA?

 

Isnt it counter-intuitive that NBA teams are selecting players who they think are worse or not as ready?

 

When they pick Kobe over a college player, isnt that saying someone in the NBA believes Kobe right then is better than numerous college players?

 

No, it means that they think they MIGHT be ready for the NBA at some point in their career. The draft isn't about drafting the best players right now, it's about drafting the players that people think are going to provide the most value to their franchise. Nerlens Noel (pre-injury) and Alex Len are not better college players than Cody Zeller, but both of them were projected to go in front of him.

 

 

[Jake]

How about the notion that the if the NBA recognizes that drafting high school players is too big of a risk, the teams figure that out themselves and stop doing it? Allow market forces to determine what the League or its teams are willing to bear financially and what they aren't.

 

As for the barriers to entry, I completely agree with Badger.

 

There is not one justification currently being made that can be at all supported by data to suggest this rule actually accomplishes anything.

 

If the drafting of these kids hurts the overall quality of the League, like Badger said, allow the League and its teams to devise protections for that. Making an arbitrary rule which hurts individuals from gaining entry is placing the burden on those that are the least well-suited to bear it. Usually, the law requires that burden to be placed on the individual or entity in the best position to bear that burden, generally.

 

The mere fact that an individual can simply sit at home and age a year and then be magically qualified to enter the League, whereas he was not before for some reason or another, is evidence enough of it's inequity.

 

Great, maybe they should require that you play the entire time.

 

 

Its clear the rule benefits the NBA.

 

The question is whether its in societies best interest to allow entities to create rules like this.

 

Some people think yes, some people think no. For the majority of history discrimination was allowed in hiring. The question is whether age discrimination is something that also should be protected.

 

Just curious, are you not fond of the age requirements to serve in some political offices? Perhaps we should strip minors of their protective rights and also give them the rights that we take from them because they are minors. Those are also very arbitrarily based but are based on a reasonable assumption of when someone can be ready.

 

 

 

Another issue I have with these anti-age requirement arguments is the central assumption seems to be that not making as much money is the only factor. The income of the player is the only measure of whether the player has benefited or not. Leading them to education, even if they would not have chose it otherwise, even giving it to them for free, has no value. Whether the financial gain of going to the NBA at 18 will offset the potential lifestyle issues that arise from it is immaterial.

 

Also curious. Do you not like jobs that require college degrees? Sometimes it isn't technical training so much as wanting proof that you can make it in the world. Show up to stuff on time, get your heart broken and not drop out, have someone offer you drugs and not have it ruin your life, etc.

[ZoomSlowik]

Zoom,

 

If it was about both sides they would allow people to enter the draft and not lose college eligibility.

 

That way if you are drafted top 5 you can leave and make your money. If you arent you can stay in college and hopefully get better.

 

The only people it hurts is the NBA, who want to have, like you said, a free system to evaluate talent.

 

The two things are separate issues. The NBA is doing what's in their best interest independent of what the NCAA is doing. The NCAA is doing their own things that IMO are much worse than this, like making the deadline to pull out of the draft and retain your eligibility earlier than the NBA's deadline to declare. That makes it so you can't work out or interview with teams to improve/evaluate your stock before making a decision, all because a couple of coaches b****ed that they wanted to know if they had to recruit someone during the Spring signing period (like you have any hope of replacing an NBA prospect that late in the game).

Edited February 14, 2013 by ZoomSlowik

[Steve9347]

And I dont know whether or not $8mil is a big deal to you, to most people that is a pretty big deal. If you make $50k a year, that is over 100 years of income. So Im not really agreement that $8mil isnt a big deal.

Nerlens Noel wasn't going to go #1 in last year's draft. He'd likely have been around Andre Drummond territory at #9.

 

Also, yes, to some slob making $50k, that's a f***ton of money. But you have to compare apples to apples - this would be a 50k person possibly getting 71k. Yes, it's a big difference, but it's not life-changing.

 

In the end, the NBA having these rules allows him to slip to a dogs*** draft, where he might have gone #1, will now go #5, and will make more money on his rookie deal than if he'd come out last year.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Steve9347

[Soxbadger]

Just curious, are you not fond of the age requirements to serve in some political offices? Perhaps we should strip minors of their protective rights and also give them the rights that we take from them because they are minors. Those are also very arbitrarily based but are based on a reasonable assumption of when someone can be ready.

 

 

 

Another issue I have with these anti-age requirement arguments is the central assumption seems to be that not making as much money is the only factor. The income of the player is the only measure of whether the player has benefited or not. Leading them to education, even if they would not have chose it otherwise, even giving it to them for free, has no value. Whether the financial gain of going to the NBA at 18 will offset the potential lifestyle issues that arise from it is immaterial.

 

Also curious. Do you not like jobs that require college degrees? Sometimes it isn't technical training so much as wanting proof that you can make it in the world. Show up to stuff on time, get your heart broken and not drop out, have someone offer you drugs and not have it ruin your life, etc.

 

Jake,

 

1) I am not fond of any age requirement. In general age requirements are arbitrary and hypocritical. You can be 18 and drafted, but you cant drink. The entire idea of age requirement is that somehow age makes you magically more qualified, which I dont agree with. If the people of the US wanted to vote a 20 year old President, why shouldnt they be able to? Why do a group of select individuals, get to make a rule about who can hold that power. And isnt it coincidental that the people who get to make the rule, are already over the age that its okay. Its a barrier of entry. If I am a Senator, I want less competition. An easy way is to say "No one under X can get my job". I hate it.

 

2) I am not making any assumptions about whether or not going to school or making money is more valuable. It would be impossible to predict. What I can say is that Id rather someone have a CHOICE.

 

3) I have no problem with merit based requirements. If the NBA rule was HS graduate, I would have no issue with that at all. A player can graduate HS early, they can graduate HS late, but its MERIT based. You had to accomplish something.

 

I dont consider waking up 1 day and saying "Well yesterday I was 18, now Im 19" as merit. And thus I do not compare, College Degree, passing the bar, passing boards, which are merit based, to something that is arbitrary.

 

There is a reason why Dr, lawyer etc is not based on age, but is instead based on merit.

[iamshack]

No, it's evidence that they believe they will SOMEDAY justify that draft pick and be a worthy player in the NBA. They may not believe they can help them much that year.

Is there some data that can be provided which shows that college freshman are more successful in the NBA that those drafted out of high school?

 

Ultimately, the teams in the NBA will make their risk tolerance whatever they want it to be. I'm not sure why we need to set it for them in this very minor instance, without any data which suggests it is necessary.

[Soxbadger]

Zoom,

 

I guess you just explained my NBA/NCAA working together better than I could. Its both entities screwing the player, thats why its such a problem. If 1 one of them was acting in favor of the player, it likely wouldnt be an issue.

[Jenksismyhero]

The value of their scholarship does not come near to the value they generate for the team or the value of the external contracts they're forbidden from signing.

 

Except what you're talking about is the select few players that actually are marketed by their teams. You're talking in football about 2-3 players max out of what, 40 or more, that get scholarships. In basketball it's 2-3 out of 12 (or sometimes just one on a crappy team). And guess what, those players are the ones that go on and make bank at the professional level.

 

Again, i'm more agreeable to individual athletes getting shoe deals or whatever when they're 8. But 99% of student athletes can't/won't generate that kind of money, and they don't generate anything for the schools they play for.

[Jenksismyhero]

Are NBA GM's so bad that they need a hard rule to prevent them from being bad at their jobs and prevent the occasional pro-ready HS grad from playing, though?

 

Given the last labor negotiations....yes.

[StrangeSox]

Let's open up the free market to student athletes and see if you're right. What's the harm? It's not like major NCAA sports isn't already incredibly corrupt.

[StrangeSox]

Given the last labor negotiations....yes.

NBA GM's don't negotiate with the NBAPA.

[ZoomSlowik]

Zoom,

 

I guess you just explained my NBA/NCAA working together better than I could. Its both entities screwing the player, thats why its such a problem. If 1 one of them was acting in favor of the player, it likely wouldnt be an issue.

 

The NCAA is a different story. The NBA offers the opportunity for these guys to make tens of millions of dollars, so I don't consider making them wait a year to be that much to give up.

[ptatc]

How does that really change after 1 fake year of college, though? Wouldn't the whole college scene and the wider national exposure make the late night scene and the hangers-on even worse?

I agree one year doesn't work. It should be more.

[Kyyle23]

NBA GM's don't negotiate with the NBAPA.

 

No, but their Owners do, and I am sure the owners dont like seeing picks and money being wasted on the Leon Smiths of the world

[Jenksismyhero]

NBA GM's don't negotiate with the NBAPA.

 

Yeah but a lot of the provisions that were negotiated (amnesty clause, for example) was the NBA throwing up it's hands saying "our GM's are f***ing stupid, they keep throwing money and long term deals to s*** players and killing their franchises, so let's do something about it." That was my point.