martin wrote:

RemBee76 wrote:

martin wrote: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.

Right, we know why the NBA established an age limit.

Now tell me how this benefits those kids to lose out on that $1.5 million while the colleges profit?

From an NBA perspective, if a kid is good enough to be drafted at 18 and the same at 20, he will be drafted, so there is no loss., and there is a LOT gained from NOT drafting those who don't pan out (and that number would be greater).

Again, why make this argument from the NBA's perspective? No one is arguing against the benefits from to the NBA financially to having what is essentially a development league they don't have to pay for.

The issue is I have yet to hear an argument for the benefits to the player. Considering that players career is finite (unlike that of a banker, who can do whatever it is they do into their 70s if they feel like it) you need to make that argument if you are going to deny that player $1.5 million while making money off of them.

Is a player better adjusted to go into the NBA at 19 than they would at 18? Prove it. Trying to adjust to a major collegiate program, while also attending classes, etc, is a damn hard adjustment to make. We know that. And then you have to make that second adjustment to the NBA a year or two later anyway.

You take $3 million away from a talented kid, you have to show how that is benefitting the kid. Bottom line, the NBA hasn't done that.

kam77 wrote:Its not illegal.. A College education costs 6 figures. Many athletes get a free ride, and also get the prestige that comes with national exposure. A history major with no athletic abilities doesn't get to take advantage of that. That person has to start out their life saddled with debt.

A college education is only worth anything to a student. If you are not really a student a free college education is like offering a lifetime of free steaks to a vegetarian.

oohah

The real problem here is that we are all used to rooting for Georgetown and St. Johns! And while we want to keep that, it does not really work for the present day athlete.

oohah

oohah wrote:A college education is only worth anything to a student. If you are not really a student a free college education is like offering a lifetime of free steaks to a vegetarian.

Well said. A year at the most expensive school out there is $40,000. Where is the benefit to the kid who could be making 3 mill?

And that, for me, is what we are talking about. I'm not dogging the NCAA system which on the whole benefits tens of thousands of student-athletes. I'm talking about the 3 maybe 4 guys a year who could, add should, be making the jump into the pros.

martin wrote:

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.

This isnt all that complicated. Its wrong to make such an obscene amount of money off the backs of students, period.

If you were an athlete for a major program and you saw the merchandise being sold and your face splattered all over television, and people told you that you living in a 10 X 10 room and eating spagetti every night was "fair" compensation --- you would sing a different tune.

martin wrote:companies are beholden to their owners, not the kids they do not hire.

I'm not sure how this is in any way germane.

The NBA gets no benefit from the NCAA system?

RemBee76 wrote:

martin wrote:companies are beholden to their owners, not the kids they do not hire.

I'm not sure how this is in any way germane.

The NBA gets no benefit from the NCAA system?

let me know how drafting 3-4 extra kids a year changes the way the NCAA works.

martin wrote:

RemBee76 wrote:

martin wrote:companies are beholden to their owners, not the kids they do not hire.

I'm not sure how this is in any way germane.

The NBA gets no benefit from the NCAA system?

let me know how drafting 3-4 extra kids a year changes the way the NCAA works.

Again, not sure where you are going with this. We are talking about those 3-4 kids, not the NCAA.

The NCAA benefitted greatly from having Greg Oden in the fold for a year. You don't think Ohio State made millions off of him? You don't think every school in the country would have lobbied hard,if given the chance, to force LBJ to do a year in college?

The benefits to the NCAA are obvious.

But where is the benefit to those 3-4 extra kids, when there is no evidence that their game benefits during that year, and zero evidence that the NBA product, on the whole, is improved by holding those 3-4 extra kids out a year?

Of course an exploitative system benefits someone. That makes it OK?

oohah wrote:

kam77 wrote:Its not illegal.. A College education costs 6 figures. Many athletes get a free ride, and also get the prestige that comes with national exposure. A history major with no athletic abilities doesn't get to take advantage of that. That person has to start out their life saddled with debt.

A college education is only worth anything to a student. If you are not really a student a free college education is like offering a lifetime of free steaks to a vegetarian.

oohah

What is a vegetarian doing in the steak market? If you go to college then you are a first and foremost a student.

David Stern is not holding on gun to anyone's head. No one is forced into College. If you're only in it for the hoops, be like Brandon and go to Europe. The NBA doesn't owe you a job. If nobody stepped in when Sterm imposed an age-limit, nobody can say anything when he raises the age limit.

RemBee76 wrote:

martin wrote:

RemBee76 wrote:

martin wrote:companies are beholden to their owners, not the kids they do not hire.

I'm not sure how this is in any way germane.

The NBA gets no benefit from the NCAA system?

let me know how drafting 3-4 extra kids a year changes the way the NCAA works.

Again, not sure where you are going with this. We are talking about those 3-4 kids, not the NCAA.

The NCAA benefitted greatly from having Greg Oden in the fold for a year. You don't think Ohio State made millions off of him? You don't think every school in the country would have lobbied hard,if given the chance, to force LBJ to do a year in college?

The benefits to the NCAA are obvious.

But where is the benefit to those 3-4 extra kids, when there is no evidence that their game benefits during that year, and zero evidence that the NBA product, on the whole, is improved by holding those 3-4 extra kids out a year?

Of course an exploitative system benefits someone. That makes it OK?

There is clear benefit to the NBA to hold off on drafting kids. That has been shown.

I guess I mixed up several different arguments. Didn't know you were championing the 3-4 kids who were not getting drafted. Excellent points.

martin wrote:by all accounts, all of us who watch NCAA are complicit by taking time to cheer for our fav college team. Thanks.

99.99% of "student athletes" can't get a job playing their sport in the pros. For them, the NCAA system is a somewhat fair one, allowing them to showcase their talents and get a free education while the school benefits from whetever prestige that college sports afford them. Shit, most NCAA sports don't even have a pro league.

But you can't begin to make that argument for the very select few who are being forced to participate in that trade (yes Kam, they are forced) when it isn't a balanced one.