NBA/NFL age limits

[StrangeSox]

I'm telling you revenue by itself is a meaningless number, much like net worth.

 

Ok, so what else do we need to know to determine if schools could afford to compensate athletes?

[southsider2k5]

Well, if your business model is reliant on the bulk of your labor force going unpaid (and, on top of that, actively forbidding them from getting outside revenue streams), something's inherently flawed.

 

If you could show me that there's a net benefit for NCAA colleges on the academic side (don't a lot of athletics programs lose money?), that would be a point in the NCAA's favor. But you'd still need to explain why you would lose that benefit if student-athletes were compensated.

 

The kids are getting a 20k or more a year free education. Would it be different if they paid them $25,000 a year and then charged them full price for their education?

[southsider2k5]

Ok, so what else do we need to know to determine if schools could afford to compensate athletes?

 

They are getting a free education. Even at face value that is a lot of money.

[StrangeSox]

Is that really the case though? A whole lot of places have unpaid internships that people are willing to accept because it opens opportunities for them in the future. That's not an inherent flaw...that's the natural response to an extremely competitive industry. A league with 500 total highly paid jobs per year can set enormous entry barriers and still be able to come up with people who are willing to attempt to get through that barrier.

 

If people are truly unhappy with the restrictions of their internship...they can go find a different line of work, right?

 

That they can and do do these things isn't justification for them. I'm pretty surprised to see you making this argument.

[Soxbadger]

If that attorney is working on a contingency, sure.

 

If a college superstar came to you with a contract to revue, you wouldn't be willing to delay payment until after their contract was signed?

 

I have reviewed agent agreements, but it was not free. Sure if RGIII walks into the office and says he wants to retain our firm, wed do it. But the problem is that no one is giving a lot of these kids advice. They just do not have access to a lot of independent people who dont have something to gain from them.

 

The school wants them to stay so they can make money. The agent wants them to leave so they can make money.

 

This type of stuff there is nothing you can do to change. But due to all of the inequalities all of the potential issues that even the most successful student athletes face, Id just rather give them the benefit of the doubt about being able to enter the draft and not lose eligibility, etc. If Im going to err Id rather err on the side of the players.

[Balta1701]

If you could show me that there's a net benefit for NCAA colleges on the academic side (don't a lot of athletics programs lose money?), that would be a point in the NCAA's favor. But you'd still need to explain why you would lose that benefit if student-athletes were compensated.

The real difficulty in showing a specific benefit is the "Red Queen" phenomenon. Everyone is running as fast as they can just to stay where they are.

 

If Tennessee, for example (where I'm at), just decided that they were going to get rid of their football program, do you think it would impact their students? Guarantee it would. They'd rapidly start attracting fewer, worse students. They'd sell less merchandise. They'd have fewer families with connections to the university. Businesses nearby would be hurt and that would hurt student life.

 

The counterexample right now is Alabama, which has seen a significant improvement in student quality and quantity (according to people I've spoken to there) over the last 3-4 years...which just happened to correlate with a fairly successful football team.

 

Every single team that works this way is generating a whole lot of uncounted things for their university that don't get put on paper.

[StrangeSox]

The kids are getting a 20k or more a year free education. Would it be different if they paid them $25,000 a year and then charged them full price for their education?

 

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.

[StrangeSox]

They are getting a free education. Even at face value that is a lot of money.

 

It's value is a lot less than the revenues super-star athletes generate for their schools.

 

What else do we need to know if we want to determine if multi-million dollar sports franchises athletic departments could afford to compensate their employees students?

[StrangeSox]

The real difficulty in showing a specific benefit is the "Red Queen" phenomenon. Everyone is running as fast as they can just to stay where they are.

 

If Tennessee, for example (where I'm at), just decided that they were going to get rid of their football program, do you think it would impact their students? Guarantee it would. They'd rapidly start attracting fewer, worse students. They'd sell less merchandise. They'd have fewer families with connections to the university. Businesses nearby would be hurt and that would hurt student life.

 

The counterexample right now is Alabama, which has seen a significant improvement in student quality and quantity (according to people I've spoken to there) over the last 3-4 years...which just happened to correlate with a fairly successful football team.

 

Every single team that works this way is generating a whole lot of uncounted things for their university that don't get put on paper.

 

Great, so if we accept that as a true net benefit for most NCAA teams (and not just those with big-name programs), we're still stuck with the second part: why does that benefit go away if these student athletes are allowed to receive compensation or outside endorsement deals?

[Kyyle23]

I have reviewed agent agreements, but it was not free. Sure if RGIII walks into the office and says he wants to retain our firm, wed do it. But the problem is that no one is giving a lot of these kids advice. They just do not have access to a lot of independent people who dont have something to gain from them.

 

The school wants them to stay so they can make money. The agent wants them to leave so they can make money.

 

This type of stuff there is nothing you can do to change. But due to all of the inequalities all of the potential issues that even the most successful student athletes face, Id just rather give them the benefit of the doubt about being able to enter the draft and not lose eligibility, etc. If Im going to err Id rather err on the side of the players.

 

Nobody said these attorneys and agents will work for free. THey will work under the premise that their star client will get drafted and paid well, and THEN they will get paid, which is why the previous post said delay payment.

 

There are players that come from a poor background, and of course they cannot afford good representation at first, but the people that want to represent them know that it is a gravy train if they have a great athlete as a client. Its not like they are going to ask for all their payment up front before the draft happens.

 

And these kids surround themselves with their posses. The advice they get is family and friends. That is their own choice, if they wanted independent advice I am sure they could seek out someone like World Wide Wes

[StrangeSox]

Nobody said these attorneys and agents will work for free. THey will work under the premise that their star client will get drafted and paid well, and THEN they will get paid, which is why the previous post said delay payment.

 

There are players that come from a poor background, and of course they cannot afford good representation at first, but the people that want to represent them know that it is a gravy train if they have a great athlete as a client. Its not like they are going to ask for all their payment up front before the draft happens.

 

otoh this works well for big-name, super-star athletes but probably not so well for late-round or UDFA level players.

[Kyyle23]

otoh this works well for big-name, super-star athletes but probably not so well for late-round or UDFA level players.

 

And those are the players that really dont fit into our discussion, because the likelihood of them skipping College for the Pros is pretty slim. Those types of players would probably recognize that going to college would benefit them a lot.

 

 

Lets be honest here, our discussion pretty much is about Elite high school athletes that everyone recognizes huge potential in.

[Steve9347]

Steve,

 

I dont think you understand how bargaining power works.

 

If I am a rich person, I can hire any agent, lawyer I want, I have the money.

 

If I am a poor person, I may be able to hire any agent, lawyer I want, it depends on if I have the right case/talent etc.

 

People with money are almost always likely to be better represented than people without money. Just because they have an "agent" doesnt mean they have a good one. Ricky Williams hired Masta P. Im pretty sure if Ricky had some money already and could hire outside counsel, they would have told him that was a very very stupid idea.

 

And I have explained why the NBA doesnt want to deal with people coming in who are already rich and entitled. Its always easier to control someone who has very little. If they dont have the money to lord over their heads, theyd have even more trouble keeping these guys in line.

Stop f***ing talking down to me just because you're wrong. Top 10 NBA picks get pro bono agent work given their assumed millions.

 

As for the bolded, the moment they sign an NBA contract they are rich and entitled.

[Soxbadger]

Kyle,

 

My response would go down a very different road about how there is inherent conflict of interest between an attorney and client, and that the problem is that these firms do look at the player as a "gravy train" and thus take actions that are for the benefit of the attorney/firm and often not in the best interest of the client.

 

That has nothing to do with the NBA though, just my general anger about how lawyers make money from clients. Its one of the few professions where you can be more profitable by being bad than good.

[iamshack]

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.

Edited February 14, 2013 by iamshack

[Soxbadger]

Stop f***ing talking down to me just because you're wrong. Top 10 NBA picks get pro bono agent work given their assumed millions.

 

As for the bolded, the moment they sign an NBA contract they are rich and entitled.

 

A pro bono agent?

 

Those agents are being paid contingent on the contract.

 

How about this, the NBA caring or not caring about players getting paid in the NCAA is pretty insignificant. So in an attempt to not care about this issue, I will just say that even if the NBA doesnt care about NCAA players being paid, it does not change my overall stance.

[Soxbadger]

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.

 

I do enjoy the times we are on the same side of an argument

 

[ZoomSlowik]

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.

 

Um, that's pretty much what they did. Do you think David Stern just randomly pulled this out of his ass at the negotiating table? The owners, which make up the league, wanted it.

[knightni]

NBA/NFL/MLB/NHL could pay their tuition. Then they wouldn't be on scholarship.

[StrangeSox]

Um, that's pretty much what they did. Do you think David Stern just randomly pulled this out of his ass at the negotiating table? The owners, which make up the league, wanted it.

 

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?

[ZoomSlowik]

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?

 

Um, yes? It's extremely difficult to project what an 18 year old playing against inferior competition is going to do at the NBA level. Even if you determine that they're one of the best 20 or so high school players in the country, there's a huge difference between similarly rated players from year to year. Your "elite" SF might be Kevin Durant or Carmelo Anthony, or it might be Harrison Barnes or Darius Miles. You just don't know, so they made the rule to get their scouts out of high school gyms and focus on guys that are more likely to help them when they join the league.

Edited February 14, 2013 by ZoomSlowik

[iamshack]

Um, yes? It's extremely difficult to project what an 18 year old playing against inferior competition is going to do at the NBA level. Even if you determine that they're one of the best 20 or so high school players in the country, there's a huge difference between similarly rated players from year to year. Your "elite" SF might be Kevin Durant or Carmelo Anthony, or it might be Harrison Barnes or Darius Miles. You just don't know, so they made the rule to get their scouts out of high school gyms and focus on guys that are more likely to help them when they join the league.

But the point is that the League and its teams have decided then, by obvious action, that the risk was bearable, by continuing to draft those players!

 

This is why banks determine risk thresholds. Imagine if there was a law which stated "no bank can make a mortgage loan to anyone under a 750 credit score." The institutions themselves determine where the appropriate thresholds should be by their own individual risk tolerances.

 

The teams should be able to do the same.

[Soxbadger]

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.

[ZoomSlowik]

But the point is that the League and its teams have decided then, by obvious action, that the risk was bearable, by continuing to draft those players!

 

This is why banks determine risk thresholds. Imagine if there was a law which stated "no bank can make a mortgage loan to anyone under a 750 credit score." The institutions themselves determine where the appropriate thresholds should be by their own individual risk tolerances.

 

The teams should be able to do the same.

 

And those moves largely backfired, so they decided to get those guys out of the draft. If they're in the draft pool, you're going to have to evaluate them and try to take the best course of action. There's no magic number you can use to say "well, this guy is worthy but this guy isn't."

[iamshack]

And those moves largely backfired, so they decided to get those guys out of the draft. If they're in the draft pool, you're going to have to evaluate them and try to take the best course of action. There's no magic number you can use to say "well, this guy is worthy but this guy isn't."

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.