NBA/NFL age limits

[Balta1701]

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.

So then let's turn around and ask on the other end...by some estimates, within a few years after retirement, 60% of NBA players are broke.

[StrangeSox]

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

 

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

So what did they get in exchange for allowing it? What negotiating room did that buy them?

[Soxbadger]

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

 

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

 

How can I be wrong?

 

You are literally just quoting a pr piece and saying "The NBPA is honest and they have no incentive to lie"

 

Give me a break, at least be honest that we dont know their true motivation.

[StrangeSox]

So then let's turn around and ask on the other end...by some estimates, within a few years after retirement, 60% of NBA players are broke.

 

What are you asking?

 

How many of that 60% are ex-college players? How many were 3-4 year college players? Is there any evidence that those extra years in college is buying them anything long-term and not actively reducing their lifetime income by taking valuable early playing years away from them?

 

I fully endorse every potential professional athlete who wants to completing a full undergrad degree. I also have no problem with any of them who have no interest in college in the first place wanting to skip a fake year of it.

Edited February 14, 2013 by StrangeSox

[witesoxfan]

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

 

How can this be?

 

Even people good with their finances go broke or declare bankruptcy.

[Soxbadger]

Even people good with their finances go broke or declare bankruptcy.

 

Exactly.

 

That is why its nonsense to suggest 1 year of college is going to dramatically improve someones chances about being foolish with their money.

 

There is literally no evidence to support it.

[ptatc]

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.

You can advise that they is a safety net that they cannot touch but most don't listen.

 

You can't prevent bad things from happening but you can put them into the best position to make good decisions. Many of the under 20 players don't lose their money because of poor investments, it's spending the money like it will never end.

 

The injuries that will preclude someone that talented from making his money are few and far between. Am injury may delay them a year but rarely are there career ending ones.

[StrangeSox]

Exactly.

 

That is why its nonsense to suggest 1 year of college is going to dramatically improve someones chances about being foolish with their money.

 

There is literally no evidence to support it.

Maybe if there were mandatory personal finance classes for all scholarship athletes, but then there's that article Balta just posted in the 'buster about how ineffective financial education efforts are in general...

[Balta1701]

What are you asking?

 

How many of that 60% are ex-college players? How many were 3-4 year college players? Is there any evidence that those extra years in college is buying them anything long-term and not actively reducing their lifetime income by taking valuable early playing years away from them?

If you want a comparison, a similar number of NFL players have the same issue within a few years of retirement.

 

So basically, college years seem to have little impact on whether or not a player goes bankrupt when his career ends. THat is true both in teaching financial literacy and in terms of the player's long term earnings potential.

 

In other words, it's really the wrong issue.

[ptatc]

Exactly.

 

That is why its nonsense to suggest 1 year of college is going to dramatically improve someones chances about being foolish with their money.

 

There is literally no evidence to support it.

Agreed. 1 year isn't enough.

[StrangeSox]

If you want a comparison, a similar number of NFL players have the same issue within a few years of retirement.

 

So basically, college years seem to have little impact on whether or not a player goes bankrupt when his career ends. THat is true both in teaching financial literacy and in terms of the player's long term earnings potential.

 

In other words, it's really the wrong issue.

So I'm left wondering what you were trying to say. Were you agreeing with me?

[Soxbadger]

You can advise that they is a safety net that they cannot touch but most don't listen.

 

You can't prevent bad things from happening but you can put them into the best position to make good decisions. Many of the under 20 players don't lose their money because of poor investments, it's spending the money like it will never end.

 

The injuries that will preclude someone that talented from making his money are few and far between. Am injury may delay them a year but rarely are there career ending ones.

 

Some listen, some dont. But whether or not they listen, isnt dependent on whether they went to college. Some of the people who listen best to advice are those who didnt go to college. Some of the people who are the worst, have graduate degrees.

 

Many smart people dont listen to advice, because they think they are so smart that no one else possibly could have anything to tell them.

 

I honestly think that while we have different opinions we both are actually wanting the same thing, for these athletes to have the best chance to succeed. I just dont trust the NCAA/NBA to be making the best choices for them.

[Balta1701]

So I'm left wondering what you were trying to say. Were you agreeing with me?

That effectively, worrying about the long term financial health of the players in terms of going to college or not is essentially the wrong issue. The extra year or two of earnings while your 18 has little benefit down the road, as does extra education at the time.

 

For me, the proper issue for the league seems like it should be quality of play. That's the way the league is likely to see increased revenues, which increases earnings for both the players and the league.

[Soxbadger]

Agreed. 1 year isn't enough.

 

And Im strangely more accepting of the NFL rule where they have to legitimately go to college for a few years, because 1) you get to argue that its about them getting bigger/stronger etc and 2) because you can argue that actually staying in college for multiple years and not getting kicked out etc, shows maturity and is a good way to help these players transition to the pros.

 

Now I know that there will be very little evidence to actually support this, but at least with the football rule I can see some positives.

[southsider2k5]

How can I be wrong?

 

You are literally just quoting a pr piece and saying "The NBPA is honest and they have no incentive to lie"

 

Give me a break, at least be honest that we dont know their true motivation.

 

Common sense here. If it didn't matter, they would have given it away totally in exchange for something else.

[Soxbadger]

For me, the proper issue for the league seems like it should be quality of play. That's the way the league is likely to see increased revenues, which increases earnings for both the players and the league.

 

This is the best argument for why the NBA rule is okay Ive seen yet.

 

At least you are saying that it some way has a tangible benefit for the players, they will receive more money later on.

[Soxbadger]

Common sense here. If it didn't matter, they would have given it away totally in exchange for something else.

 

No once again, if you created a rule that was to prohibitive it is more likely to get attacked in court.

 

When the NBA was deciding this you had 3 leagues to base it off of, NHL, NFL and NHL.

 

2 leagues do not have a requirement of 18.

 

1 league does.

 

It makes perfect sense that both sides agreed on a year amount that would have been less than or equal to the NFL rule.

 

And also you once again are assuming you know what was being offered. What if the NBPA couldnt get much more if they agreed to 2 years instead of 1?

 

Its a complete assumption to act like either of us know the true motivation.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Soxbadger

[Balta1701]

This is the best argument for why the NBA rule is okay Ive seen yet.

 

At least you are saying that it some way has a tangible benefit for the players, they will receive more money later on.

That's the only thing I would have gone on anyway. The NBA benefits somewhere between very little and not at all if Lebron James is playing in the league at age 18 versus age 19, but it benefits hugely if it can get a guy like Eddy Curry some time on the court against higher levels of play before the draft happens.

 

It's also worth considering that it's at least plausible playing 82 game seasons at age 18 can do enough damage to the body of a developing youth that it could also harm the quality of play by putting players out of the league or onto the inactive list more often, although I haven't seen that well enough established yet.

[Soxbadger]

Balta,

 

If those things are true, if there is tangible reasons why the rule benefits the kids, I have no problem with it. I just think the current 1 and done rule is broken. And that it should be something like you can go to the draft, but then you cant get drafted for 3 years, or if you go to college you have to stay 2.

 

I dont know I just would rather give the kids more options and try and find a way to also make the NBA product stay strong.

[Jenksismyhero]

If you were dirt-poor and couldn't receive any compensation during that 4 years of college play, you wouldn't be living the high life. You'd be dirt-poor, but with a roof over your head and regular meals. Unless you're relying on corruption to undermine the NCAA rules, which means we're right back to asking why those payments shouldn't just be above-board in the first place.

 

Your rep, fame and fortunes as a professional athlete are going to be much, much greater than as a college athlete. I don't think Lebron missed out on much by skipping college.

 

Go read up on what Kentucky basketball players get (and other similar D1 programs). They live a very nice lifestyle in college. Better with tens of millions in the bank? Sure. But not anything like their dirt-poor upbringing.

 

And yes, NBA life is great too, but you immediately get thrust into an adult world. You think Marcus Teague is having the time of his life at 19 hanging out with a bunch of older guys on the road all the time? Or would he have more fun hanging out with coeds?

 

Keep in mind that if you're THAT good, your chances of not making bank are incredibly small. These injuries are really rare.

[Steve9347]

This is a silly little tangent you've all gone off on recently.

 

There are stupid people and there are smart people across all walks of life. There are stupid basketball players who burn their cash and don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. There are smart NBA players who save money and don't knock up 16 women.

 

None of that has anything to do with this.

 

The NBA set an age restriction on its private league to protect their on-floor product. They are entitled to this. One player getting injured and watching his draft stock drop from 1 to 5 won't change that.

[Balta1701]

Balta,

 

If those things are true, if there is tangible reasons why the rule benefits the kids, I have no problem with it. I just think the current 1 and done rule is broken. And that it should be something like you can go to the draft, but then you cant get drafted for 3 years, or if you go to college you have to stay 2.

 

I dont know I just would rather give the kids more options and try and find a way to also make the NBA product stay strong.

If you really want the best option, it's what MLB does, a minor league system. That way, you can have teams draft a guy even when they're 18, give them some money, but then let the team decide when the guy is ready to be brought up. And most players would be in a situation where college would be a reasonably good option as a way to improve their skills.

 

But what is needed to make this happen is...you need the same service time setup as in the MLB. You need an 18 year old who goes to the "Minor leagues" to not start their clock towards free agency until they come up to the big leagues, because teams won't put 18 year olds in their minor leagues if their free agency clock runs from the day they sign their rookie deal.

[Steve9347]

The NBA doesn't give a f*** what the players do with their money as long as it doesn't get in the news (ie hookerznblow), and I doubt they care if they go broke after they retire. The NBA wants to protect its product, and that's the sole reason these kids can't jump.

[Soxbadger]

Balta,

 

Unfortunately no one wants a minor league system. NBA doesnt want to pay for it. NBPA doesnt want to agree that its players can be put in a development league and not get time counted.

 

Steve,

 

Yes we have heard you. You think that private companies should be able to create any rule to protect their product. You dont care about the athletes.

 

I dont think most of us in this thread agree with that. Even the people I am arguing with, many of us are just trying to find better ways to help the athletes, not more ways for the NBA to ensure that they have the best product regardless of what it takes.

[Balta1701]

Balta,

 

Unfortunately no one wants a minor league system. NBA doesnt want to pay for it. NBPA doesnt want to agree that its players can be put in a development league and not get time counted.

And in that case, the best way for the NBA to work with the quality of product on their courts is to make use of the highly restrictive but free and already set up minor league system(s) provided by college and overseas basketball.

 

Whether 1 year is the perfect amount I'd happily debate, I could see the NBA still benefiting from 2 years. But I'm convinced that the NBA's product quality suffers significantly when they put 18 year olds on the court. The 2000's chicago bulls are the best example I can give you. Drafted 2 18 year olds and wound up with disaster, drafted a 19 year old and wound up with a star (and that 19 year old would not have been the #1 pick had it not been for his year at Memphis, I believe)