oohah wrote:Martin, just a quick question, I want to understand your position: Are you of the belief that the college basketball system is good and fair to the players the way it is because the players are drawing value from a "free education"?

And that players should be required to go to college in order to pursue a pro basketball whether they want to, or have the academic skills to attend college or not?

***

If you do believe that, does your belief extend to Golf, Tennis, Baseball, Hockey, etc.?

oohah

how about let us start on the other side of things. The NBA pays its rookies on average around $1.5M per over 3 years, essentially a $4.5M total investment because 3 years are guaranteed. Is it smart for them to want to wait on drafting athletes for as long as they can? Let's see:

Most guys don't physically fill out until around 21 years old? I think we can agree that most 18 year olds who are eligible in college are not physically ready for the NBA schedule. In fact, of those drafted, I think we can say that 90% are not physically ready, and of the 18 year olds, maybe 1 a year is physically ready. Of those who are drafted, how many who are drafted actually contribute on a regular basis verus those who are mostly just sucking up a paycheck? And those who are contributing regularly, how many were at least 2 years out of high school?

So, from the NBA's perspective, the investment in a kid straight out of high school is worthless outside of the once or twice every decade. And those 2 players would be no different, ie have to less earning potential over a career, than if they had been drafted 2 years later.

If you abolish the age limit MAYBE the NBA gets 4-5 extra kids a YEAR drafted who fall into 1-2 years out of high school, and of those kids, 2 of them are failures in the NBA.

So, you abolish the age limit, how does the NCAA practices change? I think not at all. So where is the tie?

I see why the NBA would not want to draft young kids.

RemBee76 wrote:The question is, why would they? You’re taking for granted the idea that a year in college is better than a year in the NBA. Why should we assume that’s so, when we see every year how hard it is for players (with one year of college experience or four) to adjust to the NBA game? And where is the evidence that the NBA as a whole benefits from holding back these very few players for a year?

That's a good point. Look at the MVP's and top stars. You pretty much have guys that went to 3-4 years of college and guys who made the jump directly out of high-school.

To me this means that we don't know that a guy who makes the jump has necessartily screwed himself.

I think it may be more individual. Eddy Curry obviously needed more basketball training, but who is to say he would have truly been any better?

I the end, the way I see it, people who generate hundreds of millions of dollars for a business like the NCAA (even though it is non-profit.) should share that benefit.

oohah

Give kids the chance to jump to the PROS from high school, but if they choose college, they must stay for 2 years.

Not paying athletes. Thats a whole nother can of worms with who gets paid and who doesn't.

RemBee76 wrote:

Andrew wrote:PresIke, I don't know if the data in article the provided provides any demonstration that su's point #1 is not valid. Are you referring to the statement that 4 players were stars and 20 still in the league out of 26? Who's to say that those 20 players (and the NBA) would be significantly better off now if they attended 1 or 2 years of college?

The question is, why would they? You’re taking for granted the idea that a year in college is better than a year in the NBA. Why should we assume that’s so, when we see every year how hard it is for players (with one year of college experience or four) to adjust to the NBA game? And where is the evidence that the NBA as a whole benefits from holding back these very few players for a year?

My post was addressing the fact that the data provided in the article was not conclusive of anything.

However, I don't think is a far stretch to think that a 20 year old would be more prepared than an 18 year old entering the NBA. Where is the evidence for either argument? I don't think any fan has hard evidence to argue either way. For me it comes down to the owners. They want to make money. If they thought that having HS players on their team would put more money in their pockets in the long term, I'm pretty sure they would do that.

martin wrote:

sebstar wrote:

martin wrote:

sebstar wrote:We've had this debate for awhile around here. The age limit is anti-american, not insofar as the league is enacting rules for its own self-interest, but its the idea that kids are funneled into a college system where they help to generate billions and aren't allowed to participate in the profits.

Its a cold hustle, thats for sure.

I say it's anti-american for us to tell a business enterprise how to run their own company, ie age limit, no age limit.

Did you read what I wrote, bruh? They are working in concert with a collegiate system that is practically illegal.

practically illegal? working in concert with? You are describing everyday work process for about every company out there. One thing has nothing to do with the other. If you want to hold college institutions accountable or the NCAA accountable, go for it.

The difference between the NBA and the everyday work process is that athletes are directly responsible for a billion-dollar industry. Thats the difference. The athletes are the main spokes in the collegiate financial wheel. The NBA placing an age limit, with no other legitimate alternatives, is practically forcing athletes into a role of indentured servitude.

There is obviously enough gray area for the NBA to get away with it and since athletes have been so demonized as greedy and soulless they have sentiment on their side.

martin wrote:

oohah wrote:Martin, just a quick question, I want to understand your position: Are you of the belief that the college basketball system is good and fair to the players the way it is because the players are drawing value from a "free education"?

And that players should be required to go to college in order to pursue a pro basketball whether they want to, or have the academic skills to attend college or not?

***

If you do believe that, does your belief extend to Golf, Tennis, Baseball, Hockey, etc.?

oohah

oohah, i didn't answer your question with my previous post.

Let me start with a question: On average, how many hours a week does a student athlete on a DIV I basketball team practice?

To my knowledge anywhere from 10 - 20 hours per week, but I could be wrong.

To my understanding, the average Euro-kid professional practices much more than the average NCAA kid.

oohah

oohah wrote:To my knowledge anywhere from 10 - 20 hours per week, but I could be wrong.

To my understanding, the average Euro-kid professional practices much more than the average NCAA kid.

oohah

20 hours/week max in season.

8 hours/week out of season.

...according to the NCAA guidelines.

sebstar wrote:

martin wrote:

sebstar wrote:

martin wrote:

sebstar wrote:We've had this debate for awhile around here. The age limit is anti-american, not insofar as the league is enacting rules for its own self-interest, but its the idea that kids are funneled into a college system where they help to generate billions and aren't allowed to participate in the profits.

Its a cold hustle, thats for sure.

I say it's anti-american for us to tell a business enterprise how to run their own company, ie age limit, no age limit.

Did you read what I wrote, bruh? They are working in concert with a collegiate system that is practically illegal.

practically illegal? working in concert with? You are describing everyday work process for about every company out there. One thing has nothing to do with the other. If you want to hold college institutions accountable or the NCAA accountable, go for it.

The difference between the NBA and the everyday work process is that athletes are directly responsible for a billion-dollar industry. Thats the difference. The athletes are the main spokes in the collegiate financial wheel. The NBA placing an age limit, with no other legitimate alternatives, is practically forcing athletes into a role of indentured servitude.

There is obviously enough gray area for the NBA to get away with it and since athletes have been so demonized as greedy and soulless they have sentiment on their side.

So, the NBA drafts on average 3 extra college kids a year if there is no age limit. How does that change what the NCAA is doing? Nada. So, one has nothing to do with the other.

sebstar, you do a big disservice to all of those tobacco workers of the 17th-18th century by describing student athletes who get tuition, room, board, free choice, etc as "into roll of indentured servitude". Thanks for that.

oohah wrote:

martin wrote:

oohah wrote:Martin, just a quick question, I want to understand your position: Are you of the belief that the college basketball system is good and fair to the players the way it is because the players are drawing value from a "free education"?

And that players should be required to go to college in order to pursue a pro basketball whether they want to, or have the academic skills to attend college or not?

***

If you do believe that, does your belief extend to Golf, Tennis, Baseball, Hockey, etc.?

oohah

oohah, i didn't answer your question with my previous post.

Let me start with a question: On average, how many hours a week does a student athlete on a DIV I basketball team practice?

To my knowledge anywhere from 10 - 20 hours per week, but I could be wrong.

To my understanding, the average Euro-kid professional practices much more than the average NCAA kid.

oohah

great. What's the average pay for baseball minor league, hockey minor league, euro teen contract? ball park guess. be a tad generous.

martin wrote:

oohah wrote:

martin wrote:

oohah wrote:Martin, just a quick question, I want to understand your position: Are you of the belief that the college basketball system is good and fair to the players the way it is because the players are drawing value from a "free education"?

And that players should be required to go to college in order to pursue a pro basketball whether they want to, or have the academic skills to attend college or not?

***

If you do believe that, does your belief extend to Golf, Tennis, Baseball, Hockey, etc.?

oohah

oohah, i didn't answer your question with my previous post.

Let me start with a question: On average, how many hours a week does a student athlete on a DIV I basketball team practice?

To my knowledge anywhere from 10 - 20 hours per week, but I could be wrong.

To my understanding, the average Euro-kid professional practices much more than the average NCAA kid.

oohah

great. What's the average pay for baseball minor league, hockey minor league, euro teen contract? ball park guess. be a tad generous.

is oohah your google assistant? seriously its rude to keep telling someone to go fish. oohah has a valid point. you are just reinforcing it by your avoidance.

the immaturity of the players coming out from highschool or with one year of college under their belt, and majority of whom have never had a 100 paycheck, let alone $4-5million, is astounding. at the end of the day, THIS IS YOUR JOB. sad story is, many players dont treat it as such.

the game is sinking and maybe raising the age limit to force kids to get an education or at least learn to play basketball in a college environment and to grow/fillout their bodies a bit helps shrink the adjustment/learning curve when they finally get to the pros. i dunno, but the level of nba basketball is not fantastic anymore.

thats how i read this article at least.