Bippity10 wrote:are we back to equating receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in free education, housing and professional development(coaches, personal trainers etc) to slavery?

No, although if I remember correctly there was at least one US Senator who did so when they held hearings on this subject.

It was an example at hand (with the aid of the above) of something that was unfair, immoral and exploitative and also legal. Maybe Sharecroppers (which still exist) would be a better example? I thought the Stephen A. Douglas example was particularly good as he wasn’t necessarily for or against slavery as long as it was constitutional.

As for those “hundreds of thousands of dollars” it’s more like 40 thousand. Probably less than that if it’s a state school. And of course, these guys could get an equivalent education at a community college for free, so, it’s a problematic argument when compared to the $3 million starting salary of a high draft pick.

Andrew wrote:No Bippity....pay attention. We are equating the injustice of a few players that will make $100 million dollars over their career when they could be making $110 million to slavery.

Ah, so because they will be making just so much money its ok to take $3 million from them?

Got it. I mean, these guys probably lose that much in the cushions of their couch, am I right?

RemBee76 wrote:

Andrew wrote:No Bippity....pay attention. We are equating the injustice of a few players that will make $100 million dollars over their career when they could be making $110 million to slavery.

Ah, so because they will be making just so much money its ok to take $3 million from them?

Got it. I mean, these guys probably lose that much in the cushions of their couch, am I right?

How many high school players are we talking about here? Do you have any figures that substantiates your claim because you do realize that less that .08% of high school players ever make it the NBA. Out of this small percentage how many of these players would get drafted in the lottery?

I see this has already been pointed out to you yet you continue with this argument about the 2 or 3 players that might get drafted in the lottery

To me, this is exactly the same as the regular Joe or Sally that's struggling in life, but can't get a job because she wouldn't finish up college. There's no difference.

Just take some responsibility and get a C in your classes for a couple of years. It's hard but not THAT hard. They aren't less capable then the rest of the students who actually work instead of playing basketball.

oohah wrote:Now I'm going to get deep on you guys.

You think this is about the NBA and pro athletes but it isn't.

This is about a paradigm shift in American culture where the onus and risk of training for and creating job opportunities falls upon the worker as opposed to the employer.

***

Not so long ago, the way to get a job was through apprenticeship. An employer would find young talent and cultivate them. For example my father was a newspaper employee by the time he was 13-14 years old. He covered high school sports for the local paper. He put himself through school getting his bachelors in journalism working as a journalist. By the time he was in his late 30s he was a sports editor at the New York time.

It worked similarly in finance and the whole gamut of occupations.

***

Nowadays, you have to pay for your education up front and hope that you can land a job later. You're tens of thousands of dollars in debt and it may take anywhere from 5 to 20 years to work off your school loans!

And that is just to get a regular job. To me this is wrong. The employers should be cultivating young talent, laying out the money, taking the risk...and rightfully expecting something back from the employee, loyalty, competence etc.

The NBA is no different. They are offloading all the risk of development to somebody else. But in this case 1 percent makes it pro, 80% doesn't graduate and the other 20 may or may not make it just like the rest of us schmoes who pay for their education.

This model is not fair no matter how you slice it. So when players start heading off to Europe in drove, and college basketball keeps losing star power, don't be surprised.

The same way our workforce is filled with drones trying to pay off their student loans. The stars try to find a different path, in the old days they would have been brought into the fold from a young age.

The lesson: Employers should take a strong interest in developing talent themselves. When you leave it to someone else, quality suffers. We all remark at how polished these European players are at a young age. The reason is they are professionally trained rfom a young age by organizations that have an interest in employing them later on.

oohah

You cannot equate the NBA to most industries in the US, how many professions will pay you close to a million dollars starting off? Furthermore, why should a industry that pays out millions of dollars to most of their employees not expect a certain level of experience before they consider hiring them. Seriously you act as though these are some poor working schleps making minimum wage but most professions if you want to reach a higher earning potential it's usually done through education and experience. The NBA is not even necessarily requiring education but rather they are just requiring one year of post high school experience.

bitty41 wrote:But we are talking about a very small small percentage of players but what about the tons who get terrible advice and would leave for the NBA after high school to their detriment?

What tons? 3 to (at most) 4 American players entered the league from high school when there was no age limit. Why do we think it would be more now?

bitty41 wrote:Furthermore, why should a industry that pays out millions of dollars to most of their employees not expect a certain level of experience before they consider hiring them.

Obviously the NBA can do that, it’s their right. For me, the article (and my arguments) was more of an attack on the justifications for the age limit as being, by and large, total bull****.

It’s a big fat kiss to the NCAA, and it’s largely driven by the excellent point that Kam made earlier. Having an age limit keeps a few roster spots open for aged veterans who otherwise would be cut, and not about improving the quality of the product.

Come out and say it, Mr. Stern, then I’m cool.

RemBee76 wrote:

bitty41 wrote:But we are talking about a very small small percentage of players but what about the tons who get terrible advice and would leave for the NBA after high school to their detriment?

What tons? 3 to (at most) 4 American players entered the league from high school when there was no age limit. Why do we think it would be more now?

bitty41 wrote:Furthermore, why should a industry that pays out millions of dollars to most of their employees not expect a certain level of experience before they consider hiring them.

Obviously the NBA can do that, it’s their right. For me, the article (and my arguments) was more of an attack on the justifications for the age limit as being, by and large, total bull****.

It’s a big fat kiss to the NCAA, and it’s largely driven by the excellent point that Kam made earlier. Having an age limit keeps a few roster spots open for aged veterans who otherwise would be cut, and not about improving the quality of the product.

Come out and say it, Mr. Stern, then I’m cool.

You honestly think David Stern's number one concern is the NCAA? Dude his numero uno concern is the profit levels of the NBA and best believe if the bottom line wasn't being affected by the decline of skill in the game he wouldn't have even consider the age limit. David Stern is a businessman is about the league's popularity and the revenue it generates. Really if it was strictly about giving a fat-kiss to the NCAA he would have made the requirement of one year of college instead of an age-limit.

martin wrote:just got back from errands. could someone remind me what we were arguing about? Are we taking the position that we should force companies and other private entities to hire people that may be under-qualified and lack experience and/or whom they just don't want?

I think the argument is that some of us have the altruistic belief that the NBA should be developing their own talent and paying them like every other revenue generating sport in the world with the exception of American football.

And the opposing position are people who think so little of the young men/players who are training to be professional basketball players should not be paid under any circumstance, but they are not sure why they think this other than they haven't been paid (In America) to this point.

Oh and that these professionals-in-training should pretend to be students and their "payment" is an education that they neither want nor will take advantage of, while the schools are okay with that corrupt system as long as the players can play ball and line their grimy fat-cat pockets.

I think that sums it up pretty accurately!

oohah

oohah wrote:

martin wrote:just got back from errands. could someone remind me what we were arguing about? Are we taking the position that we should force companies and other private entities to hire people that may be under-qualified and lack experience and/or whom they just don't want?

I think the argument is that some of us have the altruistic belief that the NBA should be developing their own talent and paying them like every other revenue generating sport in the world with the exception of American football.

And the opposing position are people who think so little of the young men/players who are training to be professional basketball players should not be paid under any circumstance, but they are not sure why they think this other than they haven't been paid (In America) to this point.

Oh and that these professionals-in-training should pretend to be students and their "payment" is an education that they neither want nor will take advantage of, while the schools are okay with that corrupt system as long as the players can play ball and line their grimy fat-cat pockets.

I think that sums it up pretty accurately!

oohah

So, we should force the NBA to create a minor league system? Let's go broader, every business in America should have a minor league system.

Should we not allow companies to use the excuse "you don't have enough experience" when job interviewing? Should that be illegal?

bitty41 wrote:You do realize the NBA has been in existence for almost 60 years correct? Basketball had a 50 year history of players being developed at the collegiate level and worked for them. So why are even attempting to compare the NBA to tennis, Golf, Hockey, and Soccer. Also using the terms "breaking away" suggest that this is a recent development which it is NOT NBA and NFL has been existence for over 50 years in which they've both been successful.

It's pretty easy to compare the NBA and Football to these other sports. I'm just waiting for you to tell me why the player development systems those other sports have in place cannot work with basketball and why you are so diametrically opposed to paying young basketball players. I believe my wait will be quite long while you formulate your answer.

You do realize that things change right Bitty? Pay attention and you will see that The NBA is getting progressively worse, 50 year history and all and so is college basketball 90 year history and all. Now our homegrown talent is leaving for other countries to reap the benefits they give to their own players and we are threatened every year in international competition by players who are paid and trained as professionals from a young age without all the free education garbage we pretend to give our players.

The term "breaking away" does not suggest a recent development. It suggests that we are using an antiquated formula when others have a better one that they have in place for quite a while now. Why not address my question above rather than circumventing the point I am making?

Things change Bitty. 50 years ago is not today. Time to let go and change with the times. Fighting it only makes it harder.

oohah