NBA/NFL age limits

[Jenksismyhero]

Jake,

 

We can always say "Anyone can do whatever the hell they want".

 

The question is, whether or not it is fair, and whether as a society we believe that these laws are just.

 

I do not. Its not just in the NBA, I do not like barriers of entry in almost every single field. They are generally created to screw people. That is my personal opinion. I work in a filed that has these hilarious barriers. Just because you overcame them does not mean you are good or better than some other guy who didnt. I dont like blanket arbitrary rules.

 

Some people are fine with them. I just am not. So its not just the NBA/NFL, its a much broader social argument about how certain people/classes use barriers to keep other people down. It generally derives from disproportionate bargaining power or wealth. In this case you have both on the side of the NBA, which is why its pretty egregious.

 

Keep people down? What are you talking about? If you're good enough to play professional sports, you'll get there, even if you have to wait a measly year or three to do it.

 

 

[witesoxfan]

wite,

 

I said "he still ended up playing in the nfl and things worked out"

 

But at the moment Evans got injured, there were serious concerns about what would happen. Its just unnecessary risk. And I hate that.

 

You let me hate Lee Evans in peace

[Soxbadger]

And I want whats good for the 18 year old kid because I think that a group of millionaires are in a better position to absorb a mistake than an 18 year old.

 

If NBA executives cant keep their dick in their pants over 18 year olds, thats their problem, no reason to punish the kid who is getting generational wealth, so much that potentially his grandchildren would never have to work.

[Steve9347]

Lee Evans banked almost $12 million in straight cash from the NFL.

[StrangeSox]

Again, so there's zero competitive balance, it's all about how much money a school has and how many boosters a school can sell on giving a big donation. College athletics would be immediately ruined.

 

 

And who cares how much they profit (btw, where does that NCAA profit go? You think it just goes to the 10 white board members or something? It pays for a hell of lot of non-revenue generating sports and programs in college athletics). Those people make profits so that 10,000 other students at a school can get scholarships. Money generated by sports programs pay for other sports programs

 

The coaches are making millions of dollars a year while the players on the field make zero. Can't even accept a free hamburger from their coach or a fan. How the f*** does that make any sense at all? After paying for all of those non-revenue sports, they still find millions laying around to hand out to coaches, AD's, etc.

 

BTW I appreciate the irony that you're arguing against a free market situation here (biggest, best-funded schools buy the best talent; people compensated at market wages for their labor) and I'm arguing against something that at least theoretically levels the ability for schools to recruit.

 

and indirectly benefits the academic side of the school as well.

 

In a lot of places, no, it doesn't.

 

And sorry, I don't feel bad for Terrell Pryor, a 20 year old kid that had his knob polished on a daily basis from 1000 different people from the time he was 15 years old, who was given just about anything and everything he ever wanted as a student, but couldn't get a f'n tattoo. Oh god, the horror. We're denying him the right to get a free tattoo during a small 4 year period of his rich and famous life.

 

Yeah, why should Pryor not be able to get a free tattoo, or, God forbid, be paid for the millions of dollars being made off of his name and play, while his coach is receiving a contract worth over $20M?

Edited February 14, 2013 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

Lee Evans banked almost $12 million in straight cash from the NFL.

 

But the NCAA and the Univ of Wisconsin made like 250k off him! TOTALLY UNFAIR.

[Soxbadger]

Keep people down? What are you talking about? If you're good enough to play professional sports, you'll get there, even if you have to wait a measly year or three to do it.

 

And what does that do for the people who are already in league?

 

It puts a barrier up against the competition from outsiders.

 

Hence you keep the people outside, down. This is why the NBA/NFL players have no problem with it. It lessons competition by restricting supply.

 

Id think people who are free market economists wouldnt like this type of market manipulation.

[StrangeSox]

I've made my point - I prefer a good NBA product, and so does the NBA and that's why they made this rule for their private league. All this did was save the Raptors from dealing with a defense only, 14mpg player blowing out his ACL. That's good for the NBA.

 

Yeah, ultimately we're talking about a handful of kids every year (1 or 2?) who are legitimately qualified to jump right to the NBA level.

[MexSoxFan#1]

The NCAA is making a killing on the backs of impoverished kids who, let's face, really don't care to earn a college degree and are trying to make it to the NBA. Most will never get a degree (and most college coaches couldn't care less) nor make to the NBA. Compensate them monetarily for the boatloads of cash their bringing in.

 

That's why I don't care for college basketball, it's a big scam taking advantage of mostly poor black kids, IMO

[StrangeSox]

And what does that do for the people who are already in league?

 

It puts a barrier up against the competition from outsiders.

 

Hence you keep the people outside, down. This is why the NBA/NFL players have no problem with it. It lessons competition by restricting supply.

 

Id think people who are free market economists wouldnt like this type of market manipulation.

 

Overall supply over a period of time isn't going to be affected really.

[Soxbadger]

Its funny that you guys are protecting this, when even states are starting to say that its wrong:

 

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/...athletes-pac-12

 

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- California will become the first state to mandate financial protections for student-athletes who suffer career-ending injuries in some of the state's top college sports programs under a bill Gov. Jerry Brown announced signing Thursday.

 

So I guess some other people think its kind of unfair too.

[Steve9347]

If NBA executives cant keep their dick in their pants over 18 year olds, thats their problem, no reason to punish the kid who is getting generational wealth, so much that potentially his grandchildren would never have to work.

If it makes the on-court product suffer and the ratings go down and the interest in the league dwindle, then it's a problem. Hence why the NBA created the rule in the first place.

[StrangeSox]

Here's a pretty good article from a year or two ago that lays out the problems with not allowing the compensation of student-athletes and potential alternatives to allow it:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine...?pagewanted=all

[Steve9347]

And what does that do for the people who are already in league?

 

It puts a barrier up against the competition from outsiders.

 

Hence you keep the people outside, down. This is why the NBA/NFL players have no problem with it. It lessons competition by restricting supply.

 

Id think people who are free market economists wouldnt like this type of market manipulation.

Yes, I'm sure Shaq was just terrified of Kwame Brown and that's why the league made sure no more Kwames came around.

[StrangeSox]

Yeah, there's still the same number of players drafted every year, it's not really 100% analogous to other professional licensing restrictions.

[Soxbadger]

If it makes the on-court product suffer and the ratings go down and the interest in the league dwindle, then it's a problem. Hence why the NBA created the rule in the first place.

 

So would it be okay if the league banned white players if it could be proven that the ratings would go up, that the on court product would be better and that the NBA would make more money?

 

The answer is no, because discrimination whether it be due to age, race, etc, is unfair. Unless (imo) you can show that there is a public policy reason, that is that the people of the United States will be harmed unless we create an age restriction.

 

Otherwise I think its age discrimination and I do not believe US law should allow that. Merit based is quite different, and this is not merit based.

[Soxbadger]

Yes, I'm sure Shaq was just terrified of Kwame Brown and that's why the league made sure no more Kwames came around.

 

No you are missing the point.

 

Its why someone like Shaq, doesnt care. Once he is already in the league, he doesnt care if someone else cant get in.

 

Its just like the drinking age of 21. Once YOU turn 21, you dont care about the people who cant drink anymore.

[Kyyle23]

What if he doesnt get drafted in the first round?

 

What if his knee gets infected and his leg is amputated?

 

Its really easy to say "Oh who cares" and give the BEST CASE SCENARIO.

 

There was a pretty famous Wisconsin player named Lee Evans who came back to school for another year. He had a devastating knee injury. It hurt his draft stock. He ended up still playing in the NFL and things worked out. But I will never forget the moment when I thought that this poor guy had given up generational wealth over a stupid college game.And I love college sports, its just not worth it for some of them.

 

Was that his choice? Or was this because he didnt have 3 years under his belt?

[Jenksismyhero]

The coaches are making millions of dollars a year while the players on the field make zero. Can't even accept a free hamburger from their coach or a fan. How the f*** does that make any sense at all? After paying for all of those non-revenue sports, they still find millions laying around to hand out to coaches, AD's, etc.

 

BTW I appreciate the irony that you're arguing against a free market situation here (biggest, best-funded schools buy the best talent) and I'm arguing against something that at least theoretically levels the ability for schools to recruit.

 

 

 

In a lot of places, no, it doesn't.

 

 

 

Yeah, why should Pryor not be able to get a free tattoo, or, God forbid, be paid for the millions of dollars being made off of his name and play, while his coach is receiving a contract worth over $20M?

 

The coaches that make that much money generate that much money and more in most cases. I don't really have a problem with it. And players can't accept gifts because that would open up a pandoras box where, again, recruiting and competitive balance gets ruined. They have to limit it somehow, and while I agree some of the rules are stupid (bagels but not cream cheese, for example), SOME kind of rule is still necessary. A line has to be drawn. How would a free market "whoever can afford the most" system balance recruiting? A mid-level school wouldn't have the ability to compete with bigger schools.

 

"Your favorite school growing up was Northwestern? Oh, well if you go to Illinois you get a free luxury car, a free house on campus, a stocked fridge full of anything and everything you want. Oh and this one booster will make sure you come home to 6 naked chicks that love experimenting." That, and we'll give you enough money that you can spend it on anything you want!

 

Yeah, that's going to be awesome for the sports.

[LittleHurt05]

Again, so there's zero competitive balance, it's all about how much money a school has and how many boosters a school can sell on giving a big donation. College athletics would be immediately ruined.

 

How is that any different than college athletics today?

[Soxbadger]

Was that his choice? Or was this because he didnt have 3 years under his belt?

 

It was his choice. He wanted to stay. I just was saying that (imo) that was a really unnecessary risk. And while as a Wisconsin fan, I loved him playing, as a human I was considerably worried that he may be risking millions of dollars over college athletics.

[Jenksismyhero]

And what does that do for the people who are already in league?

 

It puts a barrier up against the competition from outsiders.

 

Hence you keep the people outside, down. This is why the NBA/NFL players have no problem with it. It lessons competition by restricting supply.

 

Id think people who are free market economists wouldnt like this type of market manipulation.

 

Eh, I think that's a stretch. Fringe players worried about staying in the league have about 1000 other fringe players to worry about. One year of 5-10 players that are legitimately NBA ready isn't going to matter much.

[Soxbadger]

Jenks,

 

 

(Edit)

 

This was in response to the money statement.

 

 

The NCAA is already that way. Different schools have different facilities for athletes to live in, study in, etc. So if a school takes its endowment and builds single family homes for athletes to stay in, that is okay. So its already money based.

 

(second response)

 

Im not saying that supply restraints are a big reason. I am just saying that in general, I hate them, so this is just another example of where I do not like them. I more was saying that if people are fine with it in the NBA, they should be fine with supply restrictions everywhere.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Soxbadger

[Steve9347]

It was his choice. He wanted to stay. I just was saying that (imo) that was a really unnecessary risk. And while as a Wisconsin fan, I loved him playing, as a human I was considerably worried that he may be risking millions of dollars over college athletics.

So your example that you decided to post when we are discussing kids being screwed or not by the system and losing potential millions because he was forced to stay in school was a player who chose to stay in school, got drafted 12th overall, and banked $12 million.

[StrangeSox]

The coaches that make that much money generate that much money and more in most cases. I don't really have a problem with it.

 

The coaches couldn't generate s*** without the players on the field, who get nothing. Why should one side be allowed to make millions of dollars while the other side is forbidden from making a single penny?

 

And players can't accept gifts because that would open up a pandoras box where, again, recruiting and competitive balance gets ruined. They have to limit it somehow, and while I agree some of the rules are stupid (bagels but not cream cheese, for example), SOME kind of rule is still necessary. A line has to be drawn. How would a free market "whoever can afford the most" system balance recruiting? A mid-level school wouldn't have the ability to compete with bigger schools.

 

I posted an article that had several proposals a couple of posts up. But what mid-level school has a chance to compete with the bigger schools now? The best schools with the best (highly paid!) coaches and best facilities get the best recruits as it is.

 

"Your favorite school growing up was Northwestern? Oh, well if you go to Illinois you get a free luxury car, a free house on campus, a stocked fridge full of anything and everything you want. Oh and this one booster will make sure you come home to 6 naked chicks that love experimenting." That, and we'll give you enough money that you can spend it on anything you want!

 

Yeah, that's going to be awesome for the sports.

 

Picking NW and Illinois was a bad example, I'm sure a ton of NW alums have deep pockets.

 

There are other ways of compensating student athletes for the billions in revenue they generate besides "anything goes! hookers and blow all around!" How many D-rose college jerseys were sold the year he played? Why shouldn't he receive anything from the people that are making money by printing his name on a jersey and selling it for $50+ a piece?

Edited February 14, 2013 by StrangeSox