NBA/NFL age limits

[StrangeSox]

That 30-for-30 on broke athletes was interesting

 

edit: but if I'm remembering it correctly plenty of the broke athletes were NFL players. "Going to college" for 3-4 years of usually meaningless classes when you're really just there to play sports isn't going to educate all that much on personal finance.

Edited February 14, 2013 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

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.

 

Nor do most people generate income comiserate to the value they generate for their company. But the other side of it is that it isn't their capital at risk. If the NBA fails the only thing the players lose is future salary.

[Soxbadger]

I'm sure you would. Unfortunately, I've seen this situation really go poorly and the same player be destitute by 30. Again, I don't think 1 year does it. I would go for 3-4 years if no true minor league system is available.

Sometimes kids need to be told what is best for them in the long run and not be short sighted because as you said earlier not every kid could afford you or one of your brethren.

 

but the reason they are destitute is because they arent getting good advice. If they took the 20mil, id immediately put Ymil in a trust that would pay out X per year and you cant touch principal. That would eb their safety net. They then would get other money to use as "fun" money.

 

Scottie Pippen went to college for multiple years, he was bilked out of millions by a very well known law firm.

 

You cant prevent bad things from happening to people. You can only put them in the best position to succeed. 99% of the world will never make 20mil in their life time, so if you can get that type of generational wealth, you do it, and you figure out how to protect it afterwards.

 

The real issue is that during those 4 years if they get injured and get $0mil, no amount of growing up or knowledge is going to make that magically turn into $20mil.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Soxbadger

[southsider2k5]

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.

 

Really if it were up to the NBA alone, they would have a three or four year rule. The only reason it takes this watered down form is because of the NBA players forcing it lower.

[StrangeSox]

Nor do most people generate income comiserate to the value they generate for their company. But the other side of it is that it isn't their capital at risk. If the NBA fails the only thing the players lose is future salary.

 

I'm talking about the NCAA here.

 

But losing your future salary i.e. how to feed, clothe and house yourself is a pretty big deal whereas an NBA owner whose team folds is still going to have a bunch of money elsewhere.

[Soxbadger]

Bad investment or no investment and yeah, that money is gone in a flash. People don't think they could ever spend $40 million or so, but when you get bounced from the league in say 5-6 years and then have nothing to do, you start to spend money very poorly. It's not like a lot of these guys have real world skills, and they generally will not subject themselves to cooking at a fast food restaurant or anyting along those lines.

 

But this has nothing to do with college.

 

Latrell Sprewell was college for 4 years and he wasted all his money.

 

Kobe didnt go to college and hes seemingly good with money.

[southsider2k5]

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?

 

Yet if all 29 NBA GMs decided not to draft an 18 year old at the same time, they would get sued for collusion, even if they were all acting in their individual team best intersts.

[Soxbadger]

Really if it were up to the NBA alone, they would have a three or four year rule. The only reason it takes this watered down form is because of the NBA players forcing it lower.

 

No its because they are worried if they make a rule that is to prohibitive a court will overturn it and then they lose everything.

 

NBPA has no incentive to lower the age, its a good bargaining chip that they dont care about.

[Balta1701]

Kobe didnt go to college and hes seemingly good with money.

Kobe has been paid so much by both the lakers and shoe companies that he'd have to have more kids than Cromartie before it started mattering. He's legitimately making $50 million+ a year on endorsements and his contract.

[StrangeSox]

Yet if all 29 NBA GMs decided not to draft an 18 year old at the same time, they would get sued for collusion, even if they were all acting in their individual team best intersts.

 

This didn't happen prior to the age restriction.

[Soxbadger]

Yet if all 29 NBA GMs decided not to draft an 18 year old at the same time, they would get sued for collusion, even if they were all acting in their individual team best intersts.

 

How is this true?

 

If a player isnt drafted in the draft they cant sue the NBA saying it was collusion that no one drafted them. To sue for collusion youd have to prove that each team talked to eachother and purposefully screwed the player. Not that each team came to their own independent conclusion.

[Soxbadger]

Kobe has been paid so much by both the lakers and shoe companies that he'd have to have more kids than Cromartie before it started mattering. He's legitimately making $50 million+ a year on endorsements and his contract.

 

But hes no good with money because he never went to college.

 

How can this be?

[southsider2k5]

Because there is an inherent conflict of interest between the NBPA and players not currently in the NBA. The NBPA has very little reason or incentive to look out for non-NBA players. So if they can bargain more for current NBA players at the expense of future NBA players, they take that all the time.

 

This is why the 1 year rule is fundamentally flawed. The NBPA has no reason to fight it, especially if the NBA says "If you fight the 1 year rule we are going to lower salary cap and hurt players already in the NBA."

 

But they did.

[Soxbadger]

But they did.

 

Right they are smart at negotiating.

 

I fight for things my clients dont really care about all the time (well call them X), if it means I can say "oh ill give you X if you give me Y"

 

You dont give away a negotiating chip for free, even if you dont care about it. Thats just dumb.

 

(edit)

 

Ill use a quick example, divorce which is something most are familiar with.

 

Husband loves dog more than anything

 

Wife hates dog.

 

Wife says she wants dog and that she is going to fight for it.

 

Husband offers money if wife gives up dog.

 

Wife gives up dog.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Soxbadger

[Balta1701]

But hes no good with money because he never went to college.

 

How can this be?

He only had to give up $75 million and 3 houses as a payment for his divorce.

 

Btw, if his assets were $150 million at the time of his divorce, then he's probably blown through more than 50% of his lifetime earnings already.

[southsider2k5]

No its because they are worried if they make a rule that is to prohibitive a court will overturn it and then they lose everything.

 

NBPA has no incentive to lower the age, its a good bargaining chip that they dont care about.

 

But they are fighting it. You are completely wrong here. The logic states one thing, but in practice the complete opposite is true.

[Soxbadger]

He only had to give up $75 million and 3 houses as a payment for his divorce.

 

Btw, if his assets were $150 million at the time of his divorce, then he's probably blown through more than 50% of his lifetime earnings already.

 

A lot of people who graduated college have had to give up more in divorces, and they didnt cheat/potentially rape a girl.

 

Hes a pretty clever fellow all things being considered.

[southsider2k5]

Right they are smart at negotiating.

 

I fight for things my clients dont really care about all the time (well call them X), if it means I can say "oh ill give you X if you give me Y"

 

You dont give away a negotiating chip for free, even if you dont care about it. Thats just dumb.

 

(edit)

 

Ill use a quick example, divorce which is something most are familiar with.

 

Husband loves dog more than anything

 

Wife hates dog.

 

Wife says she wants dog and that she is going to fight for it.

 

Husband offers money if wife gives up dog.

 

Wife gives up dog.

 

The example is irrelevant. In practice the NBAPA is fighting this. What you make up doesn't really matter.

 

[StrangeSox]

He had to give up $75M plus three houses, so his assets would have been north of $150M if you assume a 50/50 split. Having to give up that much in the divorce doesn't say anything about his money-managing skills. And, really, if you want to look at it that way, he spent a boatload more and enjoyed it that would have otherwise gone to his ex-wife. And he still has generational wealth. Sounds like he's doing fine financially, and I'm not sure what 3 years of "sports management" classes would have gained him.

[Soxbadger]

But they are fighting it. You are completely wrong here. The logic states one thing, but in practice the complete opposite is true.

 

I could be wrong there is certainly that possibility as Im not affiliated with the NBPA.

 

But (imo) this is just a negotiating ploy. Where you argue for something you dont really care about so you can exchange it for something you do want. This happens all the time, so Im assuming that is what the NBPA is doing.

 

But you are right, its just an assumption.

[southsider2k5]

This didn't happen prior to the age restriction.

 

Because they didn't want to miss out on players and/or get sued if they all did it. Instead the NBA's product was seriously harmed.

[StrangeSox]

The example is irrelevant. In practice the NBAPA is fighting this. What you make up doesn't really matter.

 

It's a bargaining chip. If the NBA owners want it, the NBPA is going to want something in return for allowing it if it doesn't really benefit them otherwise.

[StrangeSox]

Because they didn't want to miss out on players and/or get sued if they all did it. Instead the NBA's product was seriously harmed.

 

Prior to '95, when Garnett came out of HS. No lawsuits in 94, 93, 92, etc.

[Soxbadger]

The example is irrelevant. In practice the NBAPA is fighting this. What you make up doesn't really matter.

 

We both are making up their motivation for fighting it.

 

You are saying its altruism.

 

I am saying its not.

 

At least I am honest enough to admit Im merely speculating, whereas you are acting as if you are part of the NBPA and privy to their negotiations.

[southsider2k5]

I could be wrong there is certainly that possibility as Im not affiliated with the NBPA.

 

But (imo) this is just a negotiating ploy. Where you argue for something you dont really care about so you can exchange it for something you do want. This happens all the time, so Im assuming that is what the NBPA is doing.

 

But you are right, its just an assumption.

 

You are wrong. It was a major issue in the last bargaining.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5899152