Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

    While I can understand why this new rule may seem unfair (there are many good arguments against having an age limit), this comment by Oden from the recent Indy Star article is precisely the reason why the NBA wants the age limit rule:

    "It's said and done, so there's nothing you can do about it now," Greg Oden said. "I'm not sad, but I feel bad for whenever the next LeBron comes along and he has to go to college and something happens, either he gets injured or doesn't live up to expectations."

    "Or doesn't live up to expectations"

    Well, if a player can't "live up to expectations" at the college level, then he never deserved to be paid the millions he would have gotten in the NBA based solely on his "potential". Just because you dominated at the high school level, that doesn't necessarily translate to how you're going to play in the NBA. I see nothing wrong with the NBA owners wanting the players they're about to pay millions to wanting to have a better idea as to what they're getting for their money.

    Or, even if a player eventually does live up to expectations, what if he takes four years to do so? Like, say, Jermaine O'Neal did? Is it fair to the Portland Trailblazers that they paid O'Neal millions of dollars to sit on their bench for four years and learn the NBA game, only to see him leave and prosper with another team?

    Sure, O'Neal benefited from the whole deal because he got his money, but does it make good business sense to have a system in place that rewards unproven talent at the expense of 1) the owners who are forced to gamble on the unproven talent and 2) veteran players who could have occupied that seat on the bench, but were pushed aside in favor of "potential"?

    Again, I could easily argue the unconstitutionality of an age limit rule, but if you look at this from the standpoint of the owners and the league, an age limit rule is a good thing.

    The league didn't suffer back in it's heyday in the 80's because Larry Bird didn't come in to the league at 18. The league didn't suffer because Charles Barkley didn't come into the league right out of high school. Hakeem Olajuwan's time spent at the University of Houston didn't seem to inhibit his Hall of Fame career or his ability to win two NBA Champions. Did the league struggle because Michael Jordan spent three years at the University of North Carolina? Did Michael? Reggie Miller spent four years at UCLA. Would he have been better off, both as a person and a player, had he languished for four years on the Pacer bench trying to learn the NBA game? I seriously doubt it.

    One of the biggest complaints about the NBA right now is the fact that the players aren't fundamentally sound. Well, a big reason for that is that many of the players in the league have not had the benefit of being prepared before entering the league. In what other profession do we see kids promoted to CEO based on their potential? No, you spend your time learning your profession and are then promoted based on ability, not potential.

    If these kids are truly ready for the NBA, one year in college will not change that. And if they're not, perhaps one year in college will expose that, and owners will be better off for it.

  • #2
    Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

    Interesting view you have there, but so far off base and more importantly so lobsided in the favour of the "owners" that you seem to overlook a few things here:

    1. Owners are NOT forced to sign high school talent, they do so totally voluntair.
    2. The second a GM select with his first round draftpick a "HS-Talent" he knows what he has to pay and what he is buying, that is what the scouting system is all about.
    3. A player who is not fundamentally strong enough to make the NBA wont make it in college either, to pick a player that is not fundamentally strong is again a perogative of the GM, the higher the risk etc.
    4. Would LeBron have been better when he went to college for 1 year?
    5. Is it right for colleges to function as "training-ground" for NBA teams?
    6. Wouldn't the place (and scholarship) given to a player with NBA potential that teams are willing to sign to a NBA contract, and who is most likely to leave college now after his 1st year, not better been given to someone who intents to finish college?
    7. Is the risk of getting injured really a risk that a talented player with NBA potential, who under the "old" rules could have gotten a lucrative multi-million dollar deal to be left squarely on the player's shoulders?

    The owners are making money of their team, at least that is their intention, if not then they can afford a very expensive hobby and we still do not have to feel sorry for them, in both cases limiting their "risks" from above is ridiculously lobsided as there is no "reduced" risk possible for the HS talent that is now locked out.

    Let's keep Oden as an example, since everyone is convinced he's the Next LeBron, let's say he goes to college for the year, as he is now "supposed" to, we can at this moment in time say that Oden would be a #1 pick, at least most of us agree on that.
    His guaranteed salary for the first 3 years would be (based on 04-05 season figures) $3,483,100 $3,744,300 $4,005,600 totalling roughly 12 million dollar.
    This money is guaranteed, providing he's the 1st draft pick, would he be the last in the 1st round he would get little over 2 million dollars guaranteed over the 1st 3 years.
    Now, if he does not pan out, his 4th year option will not be picked up, however, if he does, it will, meaning in his 4th year he will still be "cheap".

    In either case we are looking at more money then he will make in a large number of years working with his college degree.

    Now, he gets a knee injury in his (only) college year.

    IF it is deemed likely he will be playing again sometime, he might "just" drop to the last pick of the first round ( for a loss of 10 million dollar) or the second round, for a loss of 12 million dollar.
    He will however still be able to make the money in the future, be it that he will have to wait longer and grow slower, so the total loss of income will be around 20 million dollar.

    This is money saved by the "owner" usually someone who is listed in the Forbes hot 100.

    If he can not go to the NBA because of this injury, his total loss of income can be estimated around 100 million dollar.

    So, in effect to save the "owner" a possible loss (risk) of a failed #1 pick, at 12 million dollar, you require a kid to risk his 100 million dollar, taking into account that the owner has the millions and the kid has nothing.

    Now you come back and tell me where that is "reasonable" or "fair", as I can not see that anywhere in this ridiculous construction of nonsense that the "age" limit is.

    To make it even more interesting the NBDL will be expanded, players can play there from age 18, so we tip the scales even more in the favourable balance of the owners.

    Example: kid is 18, would be lottery pick, average estimated income over the first 3 years 8 million dollar.
    He does not have the academic grades to go to college, and lets say he is not interested either.
    He is now offered a NBDL contract, by the owner of an NBA team, he will make 100 thousand the first 2 years or so, in anyway that is more money then he would otherwise be able to make, so choices are limited, please do not bring up the argument that prices on salary in the NBDL will rise drastically, owner share the teams, so they will most certainly not start the bidding wars they had in the NBA. He has a clause in his contract that (after the first year) he can be "called-up" to the NBA, his salary will then raise to the league's minimum, but in exchange for the the owner gets an option year (or two).

    If he doesn't pan out, the owner only loses a few hundred thousand dollar, the kid only gets that money and if he DOES pan out, in 4 years time, he will have made 1 million instead 8 million.

    Doing anything else in the meanwhile is dangerous, he is not insured for the income, as he would be in the NBDL or the NBA, so playing for a college or "grade" is certainly if your parents aren't "well off" to begin with a very big risk.

    (that btw is where the racial part comes in, considering most kids are of a poorer background)

    So in order to "feast" upon the college system we demand an 18 year old to risk an income he can only dream of in "normal" circumstances, but do not hand him any insurance in the meanwhile.

    Did you ever wonder why a country like the Netherlands is continuously int he top 5 of the world's strongest football nations ? among Brazil, Argentine, Germany ?
    15 million people surely produce less talent then 100 million Brits, or 400 million Americans.
    It has to do with the structure of professional football in that country, kids are scouted at very young ages, and go to special institutes to be honed, and get private tuition paid for by the club that scouted the kid and pays for the institute.
    If they don't pan out, they have a very good education, if they do the world is their home and they make money beyond their dreams.
    But the teams bear the cost of those institutes, they bear the cost of living, they pay a modest salary when the kids turn 15 or 16 and start playing for representative age group teams, and so on and so on.
    The kids are insured (income-loss) while in training, or while playing.

    A kid that is deemed a talent but doesn't pan out, it is a business risk, a kid that has the talent and likely will pan out but gets injured playing for a scholarship because he was not allowed to turn pro and will never get his payday is what?
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

      Originally posted by A-Train
      Or, even if a player eventually does live up to expectations, what if he takes four years to do so? Like, say, Jermaine O'Neal did? Is it fair to the Portland Trailblazers that they paid O'Neal millions of dollars to sit on their bench for four years and learn the NBA game, only to see him leave and prosper with another team?

      Is it JO's fault that Portland never gave him the chance to prosper? He's not the coach, all he can do is play. I highly doubt that the reason was he wasn't ready to play. Jermaine even said in the March Issue of ESPN the magazine that Scottie Pippen commented once that even one of our best players doesn't get in the game, and that by his third year he was outplaying most guys in practice.
      Life without water is tough, life without air is hard,life with one leg only is wobbly, Life without Reggie Miller, is impossible.

      Do Not Trade Austin

      Originally posted by Conrad Brunner
      Veteran Austin Croshere, the longest-tenured Pacers player on the roster, has proven reliable when called upon, invariably ready to step in regardless of the circumstance.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

        How much money has Jonathan Bender made in his career? How much of that was earned?

        Was it his "right" to have made that money just because he was a very good high school basketball player? Had he gone to college and had a similiar string of injuries and, subsequently, lost out on being a high draft pick, would he have "lost" that money, or did he simply never deserve it in the first place?

        Great points, able. Like I said, I could argue the other side just as well, but have chosen to take the side of the age limit. And it comes down to Bender's example for me... was it his "right" to earn that money based on potential? I just don't see how someone has "lost" salary when they never deserved it in the first place.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

          Originally posted by A-Train
          I just don't see how someone has "lost" salary when they never deserved it in the first place.

          Yeah, I know what you mean, this quote

          "I'm not sad, but I feel bad for whenever the next LeBron comes along and he has to go to college and something happens, either he gets injured or doesn't live up to expectations."
          has gotten under my skin since I heard it, if you can't live up to expectations in College, how are you expected to in the NBA?
          Life without water is tough, life without air is hard,life with one leg only is wobbly, Life without Reggie Miller, is impossible.

          Do Not Trade Austin

          Originally posted by Conrad Brunner
          Veteran Austin Croshere, the longest-tenured Pacers player on the roster, has proven reliable when called upon, invariably ready to step in regardless of the circumstance.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

            Bender was selected on "potential".
            He was a deliberate risk taken by a GM who even took that risk further by extending the contract of that player.
            Bender is still only 24 years old, and he can still (however unlikely) pan out.
            No matter what argument you make by saying what you did, you just enforced mine, the "owner" would have saved a hell of a lot of money on a gamble he made, but since gambling is not illegal in most states, certainly not if it is a private bet (between the owner and the player panning out) the owner took a risk, he was not forced to take that risk, nobody held a gun against his head, and in this particular case Donnie even traded a known entity in order to be able to take this gamble.

            Had he had the same injury string in college the only one "saving" anything would have been the team willing to take the risk in the first place, why would he have to loose this income because someone else needs to be protected from gambling?

            His potential paid him his future, one day he might or might not fullfill that potential, but the risk was taken after carfeful consideration, not a forced matter.

            Henceforth he is entitled to that money and if other owners want to gamble that way, then who is the NBA to stop them from doing that?
            So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

            If you've done 6 impossible things today?
            Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

              There's so many facets to this argument that it gets overwhelming.

              But it always boils down to one thing to me. If a company wants to take a risk on an 18-year old, there's no reason that anyone should be able to stop said company.

              Employer, employee.

              Let the owners run their business the way each of them invidually wants to.

              I've even got another argument, which I find to be truly laughable:

              These 18-year-olds go out and spend a lot of money on junk sometimes. Mercedes, whatever. That's stimulating the economy, baby.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

                Originally posted by 8.9_seconds
                Yeah, I know what you mean, this quote

                has gotten under my skin since I heard it, if you can't live up to expectations in College, how are you expected to in the NBA?
                Ever heard of the stock market ?

                People used to buy shares for the dividend paid each year, a company had a set value, usually about 7 times the annual turnover.
                Since there was a "risk" involved, divident payouts were tax free and usually a little netter then normal bank interest.

                Over time the market changed, people bought stock to speculate on the value of a company or a commodidity over time, in other words, buy pigskins now, in a good year make 200%.
                Or if you would have bought M$ in the startup or Yahoo for that matter, or Netscape on float, you name 'm you would have made millions upon millions.
                The collapse proved that it was really a risk, people who were satisfied with their bank interest or their dividend on bonds did not loose any money when the Nasdaq came a tumbling down.
                Those who took the risk of a high payback lost a lot of money, were the companies they invested in "entitled" to that money? were they "worth" the investment?
                Obviously someone thought they were, hence they paid and hence someone now is very rich due to that fact.
                Several "owners" who "floated" their company during the boom became Billionaires while their company now is worth pennies, if still traded.

                Nobody says that it is unfair people lost their money in the stock market, they knew the risk they were taking, wel the same goes for owners of NBA teams, by signing a HS kid you know you take a risk, it either pays off (LeBron, Wade) or it doesn't (Brown, Bender).

                That however does not mean that the "potential" be it a company or a human being is not worth the money someone else is willing to gamble on them.

                Are you prohibited of buying shares in "young" companies?
                So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

                  I wrote a paper on this a while back and I used alot of the points able did.

                  Like Able and Kraft said, It's the owners risk. He doesn't have to draft that high school player with potential..He can go with said player from college if he wants to...Which is why an age limit is bogus to begin with. It shouldn't be up to Stern and company to decide who these owners are drafting.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

                    I think that the NBA is sick of seeing these high schoolers come in and not contribute anything right away. Yes there will always be some busts in any sports draft but this rule should help prevent them somewhat.

                    Another thing that alot of people use as an arguement say Lebron, KG, Kobe, TMac, JO, and so on are making impacts in the NBA but my question is how did they do in there first year? Lebron is the only one who played well. Amare Stoudamire made a nice contribution to the Suns but what alot of people don't know is he was 20 early into his NBA career. [His Birthday = 11/16/82.]

                    I don't think that there is a single person who can honestly say that one year to develope wouldn't have helped teams project players such as Jonathan Bender, Kwame Brown, Tyson Chandler, Eddy Curry, Desagana Diop and so on.

                    Also don't forget that there is more to the NBA than just on the court. There is off the court where you have to be extremely mature to handle it all. That one year in between HS and the NBA should help these players mature off the court too.

                    In the end the NBA is only trying to improve the quality of play in the NBA. They want to try and make sure that these younger guys are a little more prepared which should make us fans alot happier.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

                      Originally posted by rommie
                      I think that the NBA is sick of seeing these high schoolers come in and not contribute anything right away. Yes there will always be some busts in any sports draft but this rule should help prevent them somewhat.

                      Another thing that alot of people use as an arguement say Lebron, KG, Kobe, TMac, JO, and so on are making impacts in the NBA but my question is how did they do in there first year? Lebron is the only one who played well. Amare Stoudamire made a nice contribution to the Suns but what alot of people don't know is he was 20 early into his NBA career. [His Birthday = 11/16/82.]

                      I don't think that there is a single person who can honestly say that one year to develope wouldn't have helped teams project players such as Jonathan Bender, Kwame Brown, Tyson Chandler, Eddy Curry, Desagana Diop and so on.

                      Also don't forget that there is more to the NBA than just on the court. There is off the court where you have to be extremely mature to handle it all. That one year in between HS and the NBA should help these players mature off the court too.

                      In the end the NBA is only trying to improve the quality of play in the NBA. They want to try and make sure that these younger guys are a little more prepared which should make us fans alot happier.

                      despite what anyone might have u believe, this has nothing to do with the product and everything to do with the owners pocketbooks and their lack of control over their own greed.....its greed that motivates them to draft high schoolers....and its greed that has been the motivation behind the age limit....

                      everything else is smokescreen...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

                        Originally posted by foretaz
                        despite what anyone might have u believe, this has nothing to do with the product and everything to do with the owners pocketbooks and their lack of control over their own greed.....its greed that motivates them to draft high schoolers....and its greed that has been the motivation behind the age limit....

                        everything else is smokescreen...
                        Uhh ok.....I don't really understand how they have greed drafting high school players and now they are greedy because of the age limit.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

                          Originally posted by rommie
                          Uhh ok.....I don't really understand how they have greed drafting high school players and now they are greedy because of the age limit.
                          its very simple....

                          they dont want that elusive superstar talent to elude them, so they attempt to find them at a younger and younger age....not unlike colleges used to scout and recruit juniors and seniors, now they are in junior highs and even in elementary in rare cases....

                          they do this in the hopes of getting that leg up....well everyone does it and in their haste to try and find that superstar they end up picking alot of people that dont pan out....noones holding a gun to their heads....they could draft college juniors and seniors only....and if they all did that....how many high schoolers would enter the draft???? but its their greed that motivates them to try and find that needle in a haystack....

                          and since they are unable to control themselves, they end up wasting millions and millons on bad decisions on high schoolers....so now they want an age limit to force them to not be able to make that decision....

                          they cant control their greed, so they ask for an age limit to give them no choice....

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

                            Originally posted by rommie
                            Uhh ok.....I don't really understand how they have greed drafting high school players and now they are greedy because of the age limit.
                            In which case you perhaps should read the arguments above yours posted more thorough,

                            There are a lot of reasons that explain it is nothing but greed.

                            It has nothing to do with the product and less to do with the welfare of the kids.
                            So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                            If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                            Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

                              Originally posted by able
                              It has nothing to do with the product and less to do with the welfare of the kids.
                              Do you believe the NBA, as a whole, is a better product now than it was 15-20 years ago?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X