PDA

View Full Version : Indy Star - "NBA age rule troubles [Oscar] Robertson"



JayRedd
06-30-2008, 12:07 PM
Bothers me too. Still have never heard a legit argument of why it's not illegal.

Anyway, this is a just a comment he made while being interviewed because of the real story. He was honored this weekend at Conseco for being the 2008 national Pathfinder Award winner for his contributions to youth. Herb actually won the same award for the state of Indiana.

It also talks about how he gave his kidney to his daughter if you weren't aware.

As the official "Oscar Robertson" of TCT, that has always touched my heart.

Matt Baker
IndyStar

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080630/SPORTS04/806300332/1062/SPORTS04

duke dynamite
06-30-2008, 12:10 PM
I really think that the whole point of the age rule was for the potential draftees to get a little bit of a college education while still playing ball.

I understand where Oscar is coming from. These kids are one and out. They aren't going to learn anything in that short amount of time other than basic math or English.

If their career flops or they don't even get drafted and picked up, they're screwed.

I really think that they need to try harder with this rule.

NuffSaid
06-30-2008, 02:44 PM
I really don't see this as a legal issue as much as it's an attempt to fix the image of the NBA by forcing young players to consider the route they take in order to get to the NBA.

High school players in general aren't mature enough to handle the pressures of being a professional athlete and all that comes with it. That's not to say some haven't adapted quickly, i.e., Moses Malone, Kobe Bryant, JO, LeBron and a few others. But overall, not many have.

The other side of this argument which I think is really the intent of the NBA is to try and get more of these high school players to go to college where they just might stay and develop their skills further. The idea, of course, is to put a more fundamentally skilled player on the floor once they go pro. There are some who follow the "letter of the law" and attend college for 1 yr before entering the NBA draft. Howere, the shift has begun where more players are following the "spirit of the law) and staying in college for 3 and 4 yrs before going pro.

One could argue as JO tried to do when this issue first came up that the age limit restricts high schoolers from having a fair chance at competing for the pros. The majority argument here is high schoolers typically come from poor urban areas where their only "out" is basketball...that's the view anyway. I disagree with it, but I do see their point. My recommended solution: provide more 2-yr scholarships to these "prospects". It's a win-win for both sides.

The high schooler gets the opportunity to attend college which is where recruiting for basketball talent should start IMO, and the NBA gains a player who has been able to hon his skills at the college level for atleast 2 yrs. It's either that or the NBA needs to impose a rule (or change it) so that the high school draftee goes to the NBDL for atleast a year before playing for the pro team who drafted him. Either would work, only having the draftee go to the NBDL would eliminate any question of tempering with the recruiting process by sports scholarships being "handed down" from the NBA through select colleges to select high school players.

Just my 2-cents worth, but there's nothing illegal about the NBA - an employer - following government age requirements for employment. The minimum age is actually 16, but the NBA has set theirs at 18.

For those interested in the finer points of the age debate, I recommend reading this article, "Age Requirement in Professional Sport (http://www.thesportjournal.org/article/age-requirement-professional-sport)," by Greg Bianchi of the United States Sports Academy (ISSN: 1543-9518).

ABADays
06-30-2008, 02:55 PM
I don't agree with the age restriction. And, yes, I will use the old adage about if they can fight for their country they can work at their chosen profession. But, corporate America seems to be able to institute about any kind of rule they want as long as it only infringes on the rights of a few and not the masses.

I had one BIG issue with Oscar though. It's not the press' fault the NBA has such a lousy perception now. If Tinsley and posse want to go gangsta at the bars then they are going to write about it. If I did it my name would be in the paper too. As far as the charity work, my guess is a far greater percentage of average citizens are involved in charity work than NBA players. Very few have articles written about them. Big O seems to want special recognition when charity work shouldn't be a PR event. Why should the press write about something people should be doing in their personal lives anyway.

And I had to laugh. Who would you think has more maturity - Tinsley or a recent high school grad?

Arcadian
06-30-2008, 03:10 PM
I think reporting players' infringements is a recent development of finding filler for sports radio. Sports reporting is becoming less and less about sports. A lot of it is he said/she said nonsense.

I don't think I will ever see ABADays in the paper for various reasons. One being ABA has common sense. It would not sell papers.

Also and this really doesn't mean anything but just about every NBA player does off the court charity work because it is an expectation that comes with the job.

I expect NBA players are just about like any millionaire 20 somethings. People are people.

Hicks
06-30-2008, 07:17 PM
If I run a restaurant, am I obligated to hire 18 year olds? What if I only want 211 or older (nothing to do with alcohol, just age/experience)?

ChicagoPacer
06-30-2008, 07:44 PM
If I run a restaurant, am I obligated to hire 18 year olds? What if I only want 211 or older (nothing to do with alcohol, just age/experience)?

You're permitted to require a certain amount of experience, but it's illegal to discriminate based upon age. Just like it's illegal to discriminate against an older applicant. In practice, this stuff happens all the time, but it's generally not in an applicant's interest to sue when there are 100 other restaurants/employers paying the same wages from which to choose. In other words, it doesn't generally cause economic loss to the applicant.

On the other side, what alternative is there for an 18 year old with the ability to play in the NBA? Will this alternate league pay him the same as the NBA?

This will be challenged from a legal standpoint sooner or later.

juadam09
06-30-2008, 07:52 PM
If I run a restaurant, am I obligated to hire 18 year olds? What if I only want 211 or older (nothing to do with alcohol, just age/experience)?


Are there any of them out there? :p

count55
06-30-2008, 07:57 PM
Bothers me too. Still have never heard a legit argument of why it's not illegal.

I believe the primary defense of the legality is that it was collectively bargained, thought that's not bulletproof. Maurice Clarett filed suit against the NFL and, at first, won the right to enter the draft less than 2 years after high school, but then lost on appeal.

However, the NFL leaned on the excuse that younger athletes weren't physically ready for the rigors of such a physical sport. The court ruled:


"no different from the typical worker who is confident that he or she has the skills to fill a job vacancy, but does not possess the qualifications or meet the requisite criteria that have been set."

It's obvious the NBA would not have that defense as High School age players have played in the NBA before, so the only thing they can hang their hat on is that the NBAPA agreed to it. However, the people affected are not in the union. It's likely that the NBA would be in trouble if it were seriously challenged by someone in court.

(BTW...this is just my opinion from what I've read...I have absolutely no legal background.)

OTD
06-30-2008, 08:00 PM
Just my old way of see things. If a HS boy is good enough for the Pros. he has the smarts to go to College. I for one think they should have to stay 4 years in school. The down side is what if they get hurt.

ABADays
06-30-2008, 09:32 PM
If I run a restaurant, am I obligated to hire 18 year olds? What if I only want 211 or older (nothing to do with alcohol, just age/experience)?

Great!!! Now I know where to find a job when I get out of this place.

ABADays
06-30-2008, 09:33 PM
I believe the primary defense of the legality is that it was collectively bargained, thought that's not bulletproof. Maurice Clarett filed suit against the NFL and, at first, won the right to enter the draft less than 2 years after high school, but then lost on appeal.

However, the NFL leaned on the excuse that younger athletes weren't physically ready for the rigors of such a physical sport. The court ruled:



It's obvious the NBA would not have that defense as High School age players have played in the NBA before, so the only thing they can hang their hat on is that the NBAPA agreed to it. However, the people affected are not in the union. It's likely that the NBA would be in trouble if it were seriously challenged by someone in court.

(BTW...this is just my opinion from what I've read...I have absolutely no legal background.)

That's the way I see it.

Young
06-30-2008, 10:27 PM
I don't think it's about the players right as much as about the teams.

Would it be a shame to see someone like Lebron playing college ball? Maybe not a shame but it would not have been right. He was more then ready for the NBA his first year in the league. The problem is most high schoolers are not.

Even if these guys do develope it usually takes them a couple of years

Overall it is really unfair for these NBA scouts to have to judge 17-18 year olds.

Maybe the players still won't have big impacts in their rookie years, I think that is difficult in the NBA, but with an age limit there will be less draft mistakes. It won't be perfect though.

I can live with or without an age limit. It just depends if you are looking at it from a player or team perspective.

Bball
06-30-2008, 10:43 PM
If GM's could keep their hands out of the cookie jar there wouldn't need to be a minimum age. Unfortunately, too many GM's get too carried away with projections and 'potential'. Meanwhile, the poor fanbase has to suffer thru too many cases of this just being wasted draft picks.

I don't know how else you'd police that... it appears no matter how many times someone got burned they (and their peers) were ready to do it again (pick the next 'alleged' HS phenom).

That said, if I was a projected #1 pick coming out of HS you better bet I'd be talking to a lawyer about challenging the minimum age. If GM's are foolish enough to throw dollars at a kid based on what he's done in high school, more power to the kid. The kid has nothing to gain by going to college when some team is already willing to pay him a huge sum of money. You can always go to college, you can't always be a top pick in the NBA draft.

As a fan... especially one who has seen his team blow a pick on a HS'er (let alone see questionable maturity issues with these HS to pro players), I hope the minimum age stays in place.

Since86
07-01-2008, 02:03 PM
Just my old way of see things. If a HS boy is good enough for the Pros. he has the smarts to go to College. I for one think they should have to stay 4 years in school. The down side is what if they get hurt.

Can anyone actually come up with a list of players that got hurt in college and ruined their chances at a career in the NBA?

You would have to have a serious injury to have your hopes shattered that quickly.

Brandon Rush is a perfect example. Tears his ACL in a pickup game, when he was planning on going pro, has to go back to school and now he's back. Knee injuries aren't what they used to be, talk to Willis McGahee.

The chances of them recieving that kind of an injury while playing in college would be significantly lower than the risk of driving in a car or some other daily routine activity, my guesstimate.

I think it's one of those 'what if' factors that is blown completely out of proportion, with no evidence to support it.

bellisimo
07-01-2008, 02:26 PM
instead of an age limit - why not require college education/basketball skills to qualify for the nba?

if you want to be a manager/etc in the corporate world - you can't do jack with just a H.S. degree...and there is no such thing as it being a discrimination when these guys are not hired...

2minutes twowa
07-01-2008, 02:56 PM
If a team wants to decide for itself not to draft anyone straight out of high school, that's their right. I just don't see how it can be a league decision. If someone's 18 or older, they should be able to get any kind of job they are qualified for. It would be like the Indianapolis Symphony Orchestra wanting to hire an 18 year old violinist and the American Orchestra League (totally made up by the way) saying they can't. Where's the outcry against gymnists, musicians, actors and artists? If you have the skills to make a living at any vocation at the age of 18, you should have the right to.:soapbox:

2minutes twowa
07-01-2008, 03:01 PM
:3deadhorsI also don't understand why Stern created the D league immediately following the 1 year in school rule. It seems to me that the D league was formed for players not yet ready for the NBA, so why not 18 year olds. I would be fine with a rule that players spend at least one year in the D League. But then how do you make a Lebron James type player go to the D League when he's obviously ready for the NBA from day one?

Since86
07-01-2008, 03:11 PM
From my understanding, he didn't create the D League. They bought another league, and just renamed it such.

It's not just for players not ready for the NBA.

Also, working at a certain company isn't a right. It's a privilege. They have no more right to work there than I do, they just have the phsyical capabilities of doing so.

Kraft
07-01-2008, 03:13 PM
I just think it's hilarious when the NBA markets the hell out of a player that nowadays would have to wait a year. You know, like all the big stars. It's laughable: 'These guys are amazing, but we f'd up letting them in the league early.'

Since86
07-01-2008, 03:50 PM
For every LeBron, there are two Lenny Cook's.

2minutes twowa
07-01-2008, 03:53 PM
From my understanding, he didn't create the D League. They bought another league, and just renamed it such.

It's not just for players not ready for the NBA.

Also, working at a certain company isn't a right. It's a privilege. They have no more right to work there than I do, they just have the phsyical capabilities of doing so.

Did you have the "right" to go get a job instead of going to school when you turned 18? All this is is the NCAA and the NBA trying to make sure that each of them makes a ton of money. It's not about education or maturity for the players.

And yes, the NBDL is for players not ready for the NBA. Every guy on those teams is trying to make it to the NBA.

Since86
07-01-2008, 03:58 PM
Working at a company isn't a right, you have the privilege to work for them. If I want to work at a top five company for accounting, do they have to hire me because it's my right?

Just because they want to make it to the NBA doesn't mean that's the reason for the league. There is a restriction on how many players each team can send down, and on the experience of the players.

Well over 50% of the players have no affliation with NBA teams. The Pacers just can't call anyone up from the Mad Antz, only the players that they already have on contract.

That's like saying that leagues in Europe are for players not ready for the NBA.

ChicagoPacer
07-01-2008, 04:01 PM
Can anyone actually come up with a list of players that got hurt in college and ruined their chances at a career in the NBA?

Off the top of my head from the era when the best generally played all 4 years, I can think of three:

-Ed O'Bannon. Still drafted a lottery pick. He didn't have the quickness to play in the NBA. He did pre-injury.

-Derek Anderson. Had a solid career, but in today's system, probably would have left after Jr. year at Kentucky, been drafted based on his old explosiveness pre-ACL tear his Sr. year. He wasn't the same player.

-Hank Gathers. With what he did scoring and rebounding-wise his Jr. year, he easily would have been a first rounder. Maybe he enters the draft, undergoes physicals, his heart condition is detected and he's alive today. Maybe they don't detect it, he signs a contract, and drops dead his rookie year. At least he could have left his family some money in the bank.

2minutes twowa
07-01-2008, 04:04 PM
Working at a company isn't a right, you have the privilege to work for them. If I want to work at a top five company for accounting, do they have to hire me because it's my right?

Just because they want to make it to the NBA doesn't mean that's the reason for the league. There is a restriction on how many players each team can send down, and on the experience of the players.

Well over 50% of the players have no affliation with NBA teams. The Pacers just can't call anyone up from the Mad Antz, only the players that they already have on contract.

That's like saying that leagues in Europe are for players not ready for the NBA.

So if you graduate the top of your class from Harvard Business School with an accounting degree, you'd be fine if the company says they can't hire you because they're not allowed to hire anyone younger than 25?

Since86
07-01-2008, 04:13 PM
Fine? No, but that's their right as a company.

As long as the reason isn't my race, color, sex, religion, or national heritage they have every reason not to hire me.

I can have the best scores ever and I still don't have the right to pick and choose where I work. My employer does.

Since86
07-01-2008, 04:19 PM
Off the top of my head from the era when the best generally played all 4 years, I can think of three:

-Ed O'Bannon. Still drafted a lottery pick. He didn't have the quickness to play in the NBA. He did pre-injury.

-Derek Anderson. Had a solid career, but in today's system, probably would have left after Jr. year at Kentucky, been drafted based on his old explosiveness pre-ACL tear his Sr. year. He wasn't the same player.

-Hank Gathers. With what he did scoring and rebounding-wise his Jr. year, he easily would have been a first rounder. Maybe he enters the draft, undergoes physicals, his heart condition is detected and he's alive today. Maybe they don't detect it, he signs a contract, and drops dead his rookie year. At least he could have left his family some money in the bank.

Ed tore is ACL at the beginning of his career at UCLA. He performed quite well afterwards, putting up 30 in the championship game. He was one hell of a player in college after that injury. How he managed to get over the injury playing college but not the NBA is beyond me. Sounds like a built in excuse for anyone that has ever seriously rolled an ankle. "I was just never the same player after that even though I won national player of the year awards 2years after the injury." *SIGH*

Hank Gathers? You're going to use a player with a heart defect as an example for an injury stopping his NBA career?

ChicagoPacer
07-01-2008, 04:32 PM
Ed tore is ACL at the beginning of his career at UCLA. He performed quite well afterwards, putting up 30 in the championship game. He was one hell of a player in college after that injury. How he managed to get over the injury playing college but not the NBA is beyond me. Sounds like a built in excuse for anyone that has ever seriously rolled an ankle. "I was just never the same player after that even though I won national player of the year awards 2years after the injury." *SIGH*

Hell, there are all kinds of player who win awards in college who can't get it done in the NBA, and its because their position and athleticism don't translate properly.

Ed O'Bannon was the consensus #1 rated prospect the year he went to school. He was 6-8 230 lbs and quick. He played almost no minutes his freshman year as a result of his injury. He lost footspeed and was quick and big enough to play PF in college (not the NBA), but too slow to play SF in the pros thanks to two really horrible knees. I saw Ed O'Bannon play in person before he got hurt, and he would have been a hell of player in the NBA, youngun.


Hank Gathers? You're going to use a player with a heart defect as an example for an injury stopping his NBA career?

It stopped his career before he got to the NBA didn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you asking examples of players whose NBA careers were hurt/cut short due to playing several years of college ball?

Since86
07-01-2008, 04:44 PM
Hell, there are all kinds of player who win awards in college who can't get it done in the NBA, and its because their position and athleticism don't translate properly.

Ed O'Bannon was the consensus #1 rated prospect the year he went to school. He was 6-8 230 lbs and quick. He played almost no minutes his freshman year as a result of his injury. He lost footspeed and was quick and big enough to play PF in college (not the NBA), but too slow to play SF in the pros thanks to two really horrible knees. I saw Ed O'Bannon play in person before he got hurt, and he would have been a hell of player in the NBA, youngun.

The first part is more my point. Ed figured out how to play afterwards, I actually can remember watching the championship game. Tyus Edney also had a pretty good career, and he didn't translate to anything in the league either.

Some players are really good in college and just don't pan out later down the line. While his injury may have caused him to loose a step I don't think there's enough proof to say it cost him millions.

I mean we can have if's and but's about how much of an impact an injury had on one. Danny has been compared to Scottie. If we wanted to play the game about how much injuries cost them I could try to make the argument that it has cost Danny a Scottie like contract, and that he would have full filled that comparison if he never had knee issues.


It stopped his career before he got to the NBA didn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you asking examples of players whose NBA careers were hurt/cut short due to playing several years of college ball?

Not because they played college ball, but because while they were there, they suffered an injury that completely took out the possibility of them making it. A heart defect is about as much of an injury as lack of height. It can't be avoided.

avoidingtheclowns
07-01-2008, 04:54 PM
one could argue shaun livingston is a perfect example of what you're asking for. shaun clearly didn't go to college, but if you look at the rate at which he's been injured, it isn't out of the question to say these same injuries would have emerged in college (as it seems to have more to do with his body than NBA vs. collegiate play.)

had shaun not been allowed to enter the draft when he did, he might never have had access to the type of money he was offered as a lotto pick.

indygeezer
07-01-2008, 05:28 PM
Here's a question......who gives a rat's *** what O thinks anyway? He went to college for 4 years and then played pro ball long enough to retire from the game. Does that make him an expert on labor relations?

Anyway...this arguement is brought out at least 2x a year or whenever the media needs something to spice up a dull period. My humble answer has been and always will be....graduated payscale based upon years of education/experience when entering the job market. Almost every industry has a salary structure based upon years of education or prior experience. Simple as that, start a high schooler at a lower salary than someone with 1-2-3-4 years of college or developmental ball and graduate it up to the vet scale...some actuarian can calculate that, not me. Make the starting salary high for a HS'er enough to be legit but within a reasonable point say 50-100K per year and go up from there.

JayRedd
07-01-2008, 05:35 PM
Here's a question......who gives a rat's *** what O thinks anyway?

Pretty much everyone associated with the NBA or the game of basketball ever.

Arcadian
07-01-2008, 05:37 PM
Some 18 year olds are able to contribute in the NBA. Most employers (the GM's) are willing to hire them. I see no reason to set artificial requirements for who is NBA ready. Plenty of people are making big money off of them as amateurs. They should be able to cash in on that. It is the American way.

JayRedd
07-01-2008, 05:48 PM
Fine? No, but that's their right as a company.

As long as the reason isn't my race, color, sex, religion, or national heritage they have every reason not to hire me.


You forgot the first one on this list:

http://www.eeoc.gov/types/index.html

Currently, the only (that I know of) federal law regarding age discrimination (The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) only applies to workers over the age of 40. But here is one of its stipulations:


Job Notices and Advertisements
The ADEA generally makes it unlawful to include age preferences, limitations, or specifications in job notices or advertisements. A job notice or advertisement may specify an age limit only in the rare circumstances where age is shown to be a "bona fide occupational qualification" (BFOQ) reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the business.

Older workers were traditionally discriminated against because of the perceived lower productivity levels of someone over the age of, say, 55. They were also traditionally discriminated against because employers assume they will have more medical problems, which will cost them money/lead to absenteeism/etc.

Since the AARP and other groups have so much lobbying power, they were able to get this law on the books.

But in theory, its key principle applies to every adult: "You do not have the right to assume what my abilities are because of your stereotypical view of my age. I am an individual and should be treated as such."

There really is no difference whether you're over 40 or below 20. It's the same assumption based on a stereotype. Stern, GMs and the Players Association have a view that 18-year-old kids are like Lenny Cook, Kwame Brown and the rest. But that's a stereotype. And due to that stereotype, adults like Michael Beasley and Derrick Rose are unable to work for employers who would otherwise like to pay them an agreed upon wage for their services.

How the collusion of multiple organizations (chiefly, the NBA, the Players Association and the NCAA) to create a restriction against willful and qualified adults from engaging in employment is not discriminatory is beyond me.

There is no law currently on the books (federal anyway...I know at least Illinois is drafting legislation to protect age discrimination against the young. Other states may already have things on the books.) to protect these people, but I'm not sure there's really an argument to be made that it's not discriminatory.

ChicagoPacer
07-01-2008, 06:31 PM
He went to college for 4 years and then played pro ball long enough to retire from the game. Does that make him an expert on labor relations?

You might want to google the following terms: "Oscar Robertson" and "labor relations" and NBPA.

ChicagoPacer
07-01-2008, 06:48 PM
Stern, GMs and the Players Association have a view that 18-year-old kids are like Lenny Cook, Kwame Brown and the rest. But that's a stereotype. And due to that stereotype, players like Michael Beasley and Derrick Rose and unable to work for employers who would otherwise like to pay them an agreed upon wage for their services.

Amen. Legal arguments aside, which are most likely unwinnable by the NBA, there is this misconception out there that there are more high school "busts" out there than if players were forced to go to college. The misconception doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Looking at the high school classes of 1996 through 2003 (who would all be in the NBA in 07/08 if they played 4 years of college ball), we have 16 American-born players drafted in the first round straight from high school. I’m not going to look at the second round, because second rounders are a total crap shoot. I would argue that high school players should not be permitted to be selected in the second round, but that’s a different argument.
<O:p</O:p
6 of 16 were unqualified successes where they were selected: James at #1, Garnett at #5, Stoudemire at #9, McGrady and Bryant both at #13, and O’Neal at #17. There is not a single player selected below these guys who turned out any better. 90% of the time, there is someone out there selected below a player who turned out better. In about 40% of HS cases, it turned out not to be the case.
<O:p</O:p
Another seven of the sixteen were no worse to better than the players taken ahead of them and directly behind them. I’d take today over anyone in the top ten of his draft. It’s debatable, but I’d take him today over Gasol, Battier, and definitely over Jason Richardson or Joe Johnson. Perkins and Harrington at #27 and #25 were good picks. Stevenson, legal problems aside, was a good #23 pick. Travis Outlaw did nothing at #21, but he had a better NBA career than 6 of 8 players picked ahead of him. Darius Miles is considered a flop at #3, but he turned out no worse than the guy taken at #2 (Swift) and 10 of 12 players taken behind him. Leon Smith is supposed to be the poster child of bad high school picks at #29, but there were far worse picks in that draft (Tim James at #25, Fred Weis at #15, Radojevic at #12). The guys taken directly behind Smith fared no better the he did on the court (Rico Hill and John Celestand).

<O:p</O:p
That leaves us with only 3 “bad” picks out of 16, which is statistically better than picking 3 or 4 year college players. Kwame Brown at #1. Eddy Curry at #4, although I wouldn’t call this a catastrophic pick. GMs reach for centers, and the next 4 college players taken were Battier, <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comhttp://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/ /><st1:City w:st=Chandler </ST1http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/ /><st1:City w:st=<ST1:pRichardson</ST1:p</st1:City>, Eddie Griffin, and Rodney White. The third bust is someone whose story we all know, Jonny B. We could spend all day trying to figure out how much of his problems were due to injuries vs. him just not “getting it.”
<O:p</O:p

Bad stories among high school players are the exception rather than the rule.

Hoop
07-01-2008, 08:38 PM
If I run a restaurant, am I obligated to hire 18 year olds? What if I only want 21 or older (nothing to do with alcohol, just age/experience)?
Of course you can hire who you want, but you shouldn't be able to stop all the other restaurants from hiring 18 year olds just because you don't want to.

Nobody is forced to hire or draft anyone. If the kids come out and they are not ready it's nobody's fault but their own. Every other 18 year old in life has to live with their own decisions, no matter how bad they are. Why do we feel bad for ballplayers if they make a bad decision, they can always get a "real" job like everybody else.

Hicks
07-01-2008, 09:28 PM
These kids can always go play in the CBA (I think it's still around in some form?) or overseas for a year.

ChicagoPacer
07-01-2008, 10:07 PM
That's the problem Hicks. They generally can't go play overseas for a year. Different labor laws in different countries. As a non-EU citizen, you generally can't get a work permit to go play in Europe if you're coming out of high school, so you can't play there. It's the law there, but not here.

There is always the Philippines league or something for $30,000 a year. There is the minor league ball here. Of course, the money isn't there either. That would be like telling all executives, "Sorry we passed a law saying no CEOs over 55. No million plus salary for you, but you can always go work at Taco Bell for $15,000 a year." That's essentially how much minor league basketball players make a year.

A lawsuit is inevitable, because the league (operating as a cartel) is essentially depriving someone of income that legally they would receive if the league was not operating as a cartel.

Arcadian
07-01-2008, 10:13 PM
Why would it be OK for them to play overseas or CBA and not the NBA?

Since86
07-02-2008, 01:19 PM
You forgot the first one on this list:

http://www.eeoc.gov/types/index.html

Currently, the only (that I know of) federal law regarding age discrimination (The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) only applies to workers over the age of 40. But here is one of its stipulations:



Older workers were traditionally discriminated against because of the perceived lower productivity levels of someone over the age of, say, 55. They were also traditionally discriminated against because employers assume they will have more medical problems, which will cost them money/lead to absenteeism/etc.

Since the AARP and other groups have so much lobbying power, they were able to get this law on the books.

But in theory, its key principle applies to every adult: "You do not have the right to assume what my abilities are because of your stereotypical view of my age. I am an individual and should be treated as such."

There really is no difference whether you're over 40 or below 20. It's the same assumption based on a stereotype. Stern, GMs and the Players Association have a view that 18-year-old kids are like Lenny Cook, Kwame Brown and the rest. But that's a stereotype. And due to that stereotype, adults like Michael Beasley and Derrick Rose are unable to work for employers who would otherwise like to pay them an agreed upon wage for their services.

How the collusion of multiple organizations (chiefly, the NBA, the Players Association and the NCAA) to create a restriction against willful and qualified adults from engaging in employment is not discriminatory is beyond me.

There is no law currently on the books (federal anyway...I know at least Illinois is drafting legislation to protect age discrimination against the young. Other states may already have things on the books.) to protect these people, but I'm not sure there's really an argument to be made that it's not discriminatory.

And yet out of all that legal argument, the NFL's age requirement stood up in Federal court, which is the reason I left it out.

It's been tested and it's stood up against the test.

I think that GM's aren't so willing to draft them, and actually are in favor of the age limit. The pressure to land the next LeBron is so great that the risk is well worth the reward.

You can name players that were drafted out of high school and talk about how good they are now, and how they panned out. That is NOT the point of the argument. If they are good enough they will find their way into the league no matter if it's when their 18 or 20 or 22.

You don't want to put Eddy Curry on the list, but you're hesitant about that now after he's been in the league 5 years. He had no business getting picked at 18. He's barely ready now, let alone then.

LeBron would be LeBron if he went to school, and Kobe would still be Kobe. It's not so much the risk of a bust, but the waiting on them to develop.

If they go to school it helps weed out the busts, the 3 bad picks may never have gotten picked the next year. It saves the organizations money and gives them better evaluating tools.

Picking Bender because he MAY be the next KG was about as bad as can be, and I doubt Donnie felt good making the selection. The reward was so high it outweighed the high risk. High risk/high reward is deadly for a team that gets the short of the stick, especially when they're in the lottery.

You really think Stern is happy with the financial situation of the league right now? The Sonics are on their way out, the Grizz look to be moving again, or atleast are giving indications with how they're shedding salary.

Put in place more guidelines to help teams get away from such high risk situations, and into good picks based on good evaluations. A few GMs feeling the heat of needing to land a big player forces the hands of the rest.

For the record, I'm all for Geezer's proposal.

Arcadian
07-02-2008, 01:30 PM
So James should lose millions of dollars because GMs make bad draft choices?

Since86
07-02-2008, 01:36 PM
It was from his rookie contract, how much did he make that first year?

I doubt that one extra year of salary is helping keep food on the table.

EDIT: And yes. If LBJ losing one extra year of salary helps keep other organizations afloat then I don't think that's too much to ask.

Arcadian
07-02-2008, 01:41 PM
Please. The NBA is not going out of business and if it were it wouldn't be over 18 year olds in the NBA.

Also if you say that a rookie contract isn't a big deal to James then it certainly shouldn't be a big deal to an organization as large as the NBA.

JayRedd
07-02-2008, 01:47 PM
My point has never been that it's not good for the NBA or the NCAA...or even for the players. It's probably good for most everyone involved -- aside from of course players who want to and are highly capable of playing in the NBA at 18 years old.

My only point is that it is a baseless discriminatory labor restriction against an adult seeking employment.

Telling someone they are not allowed to do something solely because of a prejudice against a physical characteristic of theirs is discriminatory. It just is. There's no disputing that.

Young
07-02-2008, 01:49 PM
had shaun not been allowed to enter the draft when he did, he might never have had access to the type of money he was offered as a lotto pick.

He doesn't deserve the money he has.

If you can't play you shouldn't be getting paid.

Maybe it's bad for the players. Had Shaun not been able to be drafted and get the money sure it's bad for him. But what about the team? I'm a little more worried about the team as a whole than I am about the players. And I know without the players you have no team but that doesn't mean that these guys deserve the money.

Since86
07-02-2008, 02:02 PM
My point has never been that it's not good for the NBA or the NCAA...or even for the players. It's probably good for most everyone involved -- aside from of course players who want to and are highly capable of playing in the NBA at 18 years old.

My only point is that it is a baseless discriminatory labor restriction against an adult seeking employment.

Telling someone they are not allowed to do something solely because of a prejudice against a physical characteristic of theirs is discriminatory. It just is. There's no disputing that.

To be President you have to be atleast 35y/o. Should we challenge that under the argument that it's discriminatory?

EDIT: I have a lot bigger problems with age restrictions than whether or not someone makes millions of dollars because they can effectively put a leather ball through a metal ring. I love this game to death, but the received notion is because they're gifted athletically they should just be given millions of dollars because it's their "right." Sorry, but that attitude drives me up a wall. Why don't we just turn into Europe and start drafting the rights to 13 y/o's while we're at it.

Why should they wait another 5 years, and miss out on all that money?

JayRedd
07-02-2008, 02:08 PM
Works in baseball.

And the amount of money is irrelevent to the principle.

Since86
07-02-2008, 02:19 PM
How does getting drafted by a baseball team work? They don't necessarily get paid or even have a job.

They can draft players then not even offer a contract.

I didn't bring up the money issue. It's brought up because of the thinking that it's someone's right to make millions a year earlier.

Arcadian
07-02-2008, 02:30 PM
It is players' right to get a cut of the money people are making off of them. This happens way before they turn 18 and until they turn pro it is illegal for the player to get any of that money.

I'd say there are plenty of other people taking advantage of the situation. When the governing bodies seek to limit the adults greasing their palms on the system maybe I'll be more sympathetic towards the idea of trying to fix the system by restricting the choices of the victims.

count55
07-02-2008, 02:31 PM
How does getting drafted by a baseball team work? They don't necessarily get paid or even have a job.

They can draft players then not even offer a contract.

I didn't bring up the money issue. It's brought up because of the thinking that it's someone's right to make millions a year earlier.


Strictly speaking, teams in the NBA (or NFL) can draft players and not even offer a contract. It's rarer, if not unheard of, in the NFL, but in the NBA we need look no further than Stanko and our very own Larry Bird (with Boston).

The Pacers drafted Willam Njoku in the second round, then never offered a contract.

However, the issue isn't that they weren't not offered a contract. These guys were not offered contracts because of their relative ability or because they had other opportunities (NCAA, International Ball) rather than any restriction on their age.

Since86
07-02-2008, 02:41 PM
It is players' right to get a cut of the money people are making off of them. This happens way before they turn 18 and until they turn pro it is illegal for the player to get any of that money.

I'd say there are plenty of other people taking advantage of the situation. When the governing bodies seek to limit the adults greasing their palms on the system maybe I'll be more sympathetic towards the idea of trying to fix the system by restricting the choices of the victims.

They do. It's called a scholarship. They get about $6000 every semester. They get shoes, shirts, shorts, bags, money for food when they're on the road. They get free access to training facilities, dining facilities on campus. Free books for classes, which is well over $200 per semester.

I hang out with guys who used to be on the Ball State golf team. They would give us Titlest Pro V1 golf balls by the dozen, which is about $60. They would get new golf shoes that cost well over $100, new golf bags. They got green fees to local courses. They just gave things away because the school had so much in the budget they would spend on that program. The money was used for equipment, not clubs, and they had so much excess they give them to their friends.

Through financial aid and a having a partial scholarship I knew one of them that was getting a grand per semester money in pocket because his partial scholarship was the lowest it could go and it was overpaying his tuition.

EDIT: I wish college athletes got paid a certain amount, I really do, but it's not feasible. For big schools like ND, or USC sure they can afford it. But smaller D1 schools can't. They have tight budgets with no surplus. Ball State doesn't even have a mens track team because they can't afford it. (Has a womens because of Title IX. Ugh....)

Since86
07-02-2008, 02:45 PM
Strictly speaking, teams in the NBA (or NFL) can draft players and not even offer a contract. It's rarer, if not unheard of, in the NFL, but in the NBA we need look no further than Stanko and our very own Larry Bird (with Boston).

The Pacers drafted Willam Njoku in the second round, then never offered a contract.

However, the issue isn't that they weren't not offered a contract. These guys were not offered contracts because of their relative ability or because they had other opportunities (NCAA, International Ball) rather than any restriction on their age.

Over half of the draft has a guaranteed contract. (Doesn't the first pick of the second round get one? That's why I said over half.)

Baseball isn't even close to that.

Arcadian
07-02-2008, 02:50 PM
I guess you think that the Native Americans got fair value on New York as well.

That is no where near fair compensation. They get that free stuff because they are walking billboards. The colleges give the scholarships because they make money off having a good team. Of course they are going to allow them free access to train facilities. That is what they are "paying" the for. What you are talking about is peanuts compared to what they would make in the NBA.

Since86
07-02-2008, 02:51 PM
And yet its a Rolls-Royce to the rest of the student body.

Naptown_Seth
07-02-2008, 02:53 PM
Please keep in mind that the NBA is ONE COMPANY in the field of sports entertainment. Like McDonalds and other companies they have franchises with their own owners. And also like those situations they are "competiting" with each other just as much. Certainly you can drive down the street to a different McDonalds and spend your money there.

But also in both cases the company limits the competition between franchises by location and other restrictions of business strategy. The NBA would never approve a 2nd NBA franchise to be located in Indianapolis, for example.

If you don't want to work for the NBA you can certainly work for any number of other basketball entertainment leagues. Those companies aren't as successful of course, they don't pay as well, but not everyone gets to work for Lilly or IBM.


I don't see how the NCAA has any say in the matter. They benefit to be sure, but what actions are they taking in "collusion" with the NBA regarding age limits? None of these kids has to go school. Whatever NCAA eligibility they give up by going into the NBA draft or signing with an agent they would also face by getting paid by some other pro league. Go to the new ABA and you lose your NCAA eligibility too.

And it's not basketball entertainment anyway. It's sports entertainment. If your juggling act stinks then you are just out of work. If that's all you can do then it's time to get out of the entertainment field altogether. It happens every day.

rexnom
07-02-2008, 03:00 PM
Ideally, the US would be like Europe with no collegiate athletics and only professional athletes. Unfortunately, things don't quite work out that way. The NCAA is little more than a higher quality NBDL at this point.

Naptown_Seth
07-02-2008, 03:06 PM
If they go to school it helps weed out the busts, the 3 bad picks may never have gotten picked the next year. It saves the organizations money and gives them better evaluating tools.

And IMO this is exactly how the NBA, the company, makes this stand up in court. We are in the business of hiring athletes and we have found that our ability to do this function improves when we wait till a potential hire gets a few years older.

It stands up to an age restriction justification just like plenty of other jobs do.

Not only that but both the NBA and the union can then show that they are PROTECTING the age rule as it applies to OLDER players by shifting the playing range from 18-38 to 20-40 instead. You still need X amount of players so what you lose on the front end gets made up on the back.


Remember the age limit does NOT say you must go to college. And it certainly could be modified to say the company requires all new hires to have at least 1 year of organized basketball experience beyond the HS level.

ChicagoPacer
07-02-2008, 05:01 PM
A few (okay a lot) of comments. My apologies for the length.


Please keep in mind that the NBA is ONE COMPANY in the field of sports entertainment. Like McDonalds and other companies they have franchises with their own owners. And also like those situations they are "competiting" with each other just as much. Certainly you can drive down the street to a different McDonalds and spend your money there.

This is not the case for McDonald's nor is it the case for the NBA. The NBA is one company, and the teams are their own companies. The NBA does not have an ownership stake in any NBA franchise, and McDonald's (to the best of my knowledge) does not own any of its franchises. They share licensing agreements and terms of contracts, but they are arm's length, third party agreements. It's the same thing as me paying you $1 a hat to put the term "Naptown Seth" on baseball hats. We aren't the same company, just two parties conducting a business transaction under negotiated terms.

Each McDonald's franchise can use discretion in its hiring practices, but they aren't doing it in concert and none of them can violate the terms of federal law in hiring. Why would the NBA be any different?

Legally, you can make the argument that certain restrictions need to be in place to ensure competition. This is why a draft and cap can work. The league recognizes that a free market system would lead to 5 or 6 good franchises, 25 horrible franchises, and a worse product for all. The burden on the age restriction issue would be on the league to show how drafting high school players is anti-competitive, and so far, a shred of evidence supporting this has not been produced anywhere.


If they go to school it helps weed out the busts, the 3 bad picks may never have gotten picked the next year. It saves the organizations money and gives them better evaluating tools.

And yet when you look at the 16 American-born high school players taken in the first round, statistically, they have performed equal to, if not better than their college counterparts in similar draft positions within the same draft. The "we don't know how to evaluation high school talent" argument simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It's true that high school players have the "upside" X factor, but those things are factored into where a player is drafted for everyone. You have the safe, maxed out potential college picks vs. the upside college picks and GMs need to make qualitative judgments. How do you project NBA abilities for Euroleague, French League 1, NCAA D1, NCAA D2, JUCO, and NAIA players? You use the exact same qualitative adjustments that you use to judge high school players. And strangely enough, GMs have been equally good at judging 8 or 9 different levels of play when making draft choices, high school included.

The Clarett case is an interesting one, but legally it is different, for the reasons mentioned in this thread and in published articles. It all amounts to a bunch of lip service by the NBA. The NBA likes the idea of a free minor league system, AKA NCAA ball. If they were really interested in the betterment of the game and labor rights, they'd set up a legit minor league. Tell everyone they need either one year of Euroleague experience or 1 year of legit minor league experience. Don't make it an age issue. Raise the minimum salary to $300,000. For the price of 1 Jamaal Tinsley, they could pay 15 players $300,000 a year to fill out a legit minor league roster of high schoolers, college players, and internationals w/out Euroleague experience. They can be called up at mid-year and vets can be sent down at their current salary for no more than 1/2 a year. Vets sent down for more than 1/2 year can be picked up by other teams at a new salary, but their current NBA team must pick up the salary difference (like the waiver system).

It's economically beneficial for 95% of the labor market. It gives vets a financially comfortable place to land when their NBA contract expires other than Europe. It also gives them more flexibility to switch teams rather than rot at the end of the bench. It gives new guys a level playing field to be called up. It increases the minimum salary for marginal guys. Star contracts might go decline from $17 million a year to $15 million a year to make up some of the difference. My heart bleeds for them. I don't see how the union would not like this. The NBA franchises might incur an extra $2 million a year per minor team in costs. In return the league gets a better product on the floor while growing the game (and getting gate receipts) in secondary markets like Austin, St. Louis, Cincinnati, etc. The league also gets a place to groom coaches. I don't see why the league wouldn't like this. No more OJ-Mayoeque corruption in college ball. Maybe I'm missing something, but it makes way too much sense to me.