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

NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

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

  • #91
    Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

    I dislike keeping people out of the NBA, I also hate one and done players in college.

    If you have worked your entire life to follow your dream and you have all the skills to be a professional in that field without going to college, there is really no point to it. Also, there are a TON of NBA players that take college classes over the summer, so the option to get an education is still there. When you have so many guys looked at as one and done prospects, it really screws over college basketball. You don't have the same kind of team that you used to have when players stayed 2-4 years. Kentucky is a perfect example - each year they have a completely different team, its silly. I'm sure Kentucky fans love watching their freshman play, but it has really screwed up college basketball when loyalty and dedication no longer exists.

    My thinking is allow players to go straight to the NBA out of HS, this is good for the NBA and good for college basketball. If a player ends up being a bust, they've at least made enough money to pay their way through school(if they so choose). IF a player does go to college, require them to stay at least 2 years. Now, obviously this is probably asking something unrealistic, and could even force some guys to choose the pros over two years at college which I would not like, BUT it would bring a level of excitement back to college basketball I feel like. Its fun watching some of these one and done guys, but you don't really get attached to them. Again, it seems as if its more about those one and done guys showcasing themselves to the NBA rather than trying to play team basketball, its just a shame.

    I don't think there is a perfect solution, I just dislike the whole one and done thing in college and want to get rid of it, so if raising the age limit does that, I'll be okay with it, though I still feel like a player is getting screwed over in the scenario.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

      Why exactly do I want someone unqualified taking money away from a better prospect?

      So he made enough money to put himself through college. So what? Is this a charity?

      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

        Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
        But that is the whole point, they aren't being paid they are being forced to pay college ball. If the NBA is forcing kids to stay in school the least they can do is pay the insurance of these elite prospects. Chris Webber couldn't afford to buy pizza and food to get through the week when he was at Michigan how the hell would he afford an insurance policy?
        Look at the first part of my post... Colleges should cover insurance for their student athletes against catastophic injures, which they do I believe... But the NBA should not be paying for insurance should a player decide to go the D league route... That is something that as a professional basketball player they should pick up the tab for...
        Abba Zaba, your my only friend.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
          Why exactly do I want someone unqualified taking money away from a better prospect?

          So he made enough money to put himself through college. So what? Is this a charity?
          Why do you care if a better prospect is losing out to some 18 or 19 year old kid?? No sweat off of your back, nor is it that big of drop in product really...
          Abba Zaba, your my only friend.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

            Originally posted by bballpacen View Post
            Why do you care if a better prospect is losing out to some 18 or 19 year old kid?? No sweat off of your back, nor is it that big of drop in product really...
            It IS a drop off in product. Am I the only one noticing rookies coming into the NBA much less prepared than they used to be.

            What I want is a league with established prospects, where the NBA draft is something that actually matters again. Where the rookies are actually impact players from day one and not stealing money so they can develop into stars 3-4 years down the road.

            Again, people act like teenagers are barred from playing professional basketball. They are not. There are other pro leagues besides the NBA.

            It is not an entitlement to make millions of dollars playing pro ball, no matter how talented you are. If the NBA says you have to be 20, it's a better product for everyone involved, and it helps the NBA's image of talented players coming into the league fundamentally broken and incapable of playing the game without their athletic superiority.

            And it is damn near impossible for an NBA scout to get an good read on a highschool kid. It's almost impossible to get a good read on a college freshman for that matter. It's much better for business to get an accurate read and being reasonably sure about the kid you just guaranteed millions of dollars to.

            Obviously there will always be bad picks, but it isn't exactly fair to NBA scouts when the top of the NBA draft is the most critical in any draft in all of pro sports.
            Last edited by Kstat; 03-13-2014, 04:53 AM.

            It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

            Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
            Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
            NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

              I don't get why the hate, if players go the D-League let them, College basketball players earn more from staying in college the 2 years than going to D-league. D-League salary is less than College who pays for tution, room, and board, and you get even more perks, one of them being an eventual education. It's like an internship for basketball players.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                It IS a drop off in product. Am I the only one noticing rookies coming into the NBA much less prepared than they used to be.

                What I want is a league with established prospects, where the NBA draft is something that actually matters again. Where the rookies are actually impact players from day one and not stealing money so they can develop into stars 3-4 years down the road.
                I'm sure college players would love if the NCAA and universities didn't steal money from them for 1-4 years.

                Again, people act like teenagers are barred from playing professional basketball. They are not. There are other pro leagues besides the NBA.
                They are barred, because in America the NBA constitutes an entire industry and there are no other comparable leagues in the United States. Europe doesn't count because it's a different country. There are tech companies in Europe as well, if Google, Facebook and Microsoft merge into a monopoly and only offer employees $20,000 a year, the answer is not "go work in Europe."

                It is not an entitlement to make millions of dollars playing pro ball, no matter how talented you are. If the NBA says you have to be 20, it's a better product for everyone involved, and it helps the NBA's image of talented players coming into the league fundamentally broken and incapable of playing the game without their athletic superiority.
                It's an entitlement in America to have access to work you are qualified for. The NBA does not require any certification or training. There is no good reason to bar 19 year olds from entering.

                And it is damn near impossible for an NBA scout to get an good read on a highschool kid. It's almost impossible to get a good read on a college freshman for that matter. It's much better for business to get an accurate read and being reasonably sure about the kid you just guaranteed millions of dollars to.

                Obviously there will always be bad picks, but it isn't exactly fair to NBA scouts when the top of the NBA draft is the most critical in any draft in all of pro sports.
                High school players were drafted extremely well with lottery picks. By my count, 17 high school players were taken in the lottery between 1995 and 2006. Out of 17, eight have made an All NBA team in their career. 11 are still playing today. There was no problem with scouting. Kwame Brown was a bad pick, but so was Olawakandi, who played four years in college.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

                  Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                  It IS a drop off in product. Am I the only one noticing rookies coming into the NBA much less prepared than they used to be.

                  What I want is a league with established prospects, where the NBA draft is something that actually matters again. Where the rookies are actually impact players from day one and not stealing money so they can develop into stars 3-4 years down the road.
                  I think that this is less of an issue than your making it out to be... I think that the production obviously varries from draft class to draft class... I would also say that the overall increase in talented players takes away the need for a rookie to come in and be "productive."

                  Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                  And it is damn near impossible for an NBA scout to get an good read on a highschool kid. It's almost impossible to get a good read on a college freshman for that matter. It's much better for business to get an accurate read and being reasonably sure about the kid you just guaranteed millions of dollars to.

                  Obviously there will always be bad picks, but it isn't exactly fair to NBA scouts when the top of the NBA draft is the most critical in any draft in all of pro sports.
                  I disagree here, I would say that most good scouts have a good feel on a player coming out of HS... Look at the late 90s as an example where there were so many "hits" and very few misses relative to today... I think there are bigger issues, such as a sense of entitlement by this generation as well as more scouts trying to make a name for themselves by finding the next Kobe or KG as early as possible... But my point is that good scouts have enough knowledge to be able to know a player by the time they get out of HS...
                  Abba Zaba, your my only friend.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

                    Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                    I'm sure college players would love if the NCAA and universities didn't steal money from them for 1-4 years.
                    Boo hoo. There are like 3 players in the NCAA during any given season that actually matter more than the uniform they wear and mean more to the university than the scholarships they receive. If they feel their talents are worth more than that, Europe or the D-league is right there.

                    You're given a scholarship worth over 100K to play a sport for the school. That's the deal. If you're exploited beyond that scope you can sue for damages.

                    If those conditions are so terrible, nobody is preventing anyone from starting up a rival league to the mean, stingy NBA.

                    They are barred, because in America the NBA constitutes an entire industry and there are no other comparable leagues in the United States. Europe doesn't count because it's a different country. There are tech companies in Europe as well, if Google, Facebook and Microsoft merge into a monopoly and only offer employees $20,000 a year, the answer is not "go work in Europe."
                    ....and I should care about this....why?

                    There's nothing relevant about this. None. If Microsoft only offered 20K to the best young tech prospects, another company would simply start up and overtake them by offering better wages. If said employes knew there were 7-8 figure contracts waiting for them after two years? Uh, I think they still take the deal over a competitor. It's called betting on yourself and proving your worth. God forbid we ask prospects to prove themselves at an entry level position before forking over massive, life changing money.

                    There are other leagues. That's all that matters. Comparable in salary? No, but you're not entitled to make millions for playing basketball.
                    It's an entitlement in America to have access to work you are qualified for. The NBA does not require any certification or training. There is no good reason to bar 19 year olds from entering.
                    There is. It's called a better product. And no, you're not entitled to do anything you believe you're qualified for. Other businesses besides the NBA have age requirements.

                    On that note, even teams that draft HS prospects don't know if they're qualified or not. They're betting 2-3 years down the road that they will be qualified to play to or above their draft status. MLB does this with HS players as well, but in MLB they have an actual farm system and they aren't forced to dole out 8-figure guaranteed contracts.

                    High school players were drafted extremely well with lottery picks. By my count, 17 high school players were taken in the lottery between 1995 and 2006. Out of 17, eight have made an All NBA team in their career. 11 are still playing today. There was no problem with scouting. Kwame Brown was a bad pick, but so was Olawakandi, who played four years in college.
                    This stupid line again....

                    Even most HS players that succeed in the NBA do not do so right away. Much better for the NBA to let them develop in college or another league overseas and come into the NBA as established products, like back when the NBA itself was a better product.

                    NBA teams do not need to be developing teenagers. NFL and MLB don't bother with this either. They bring in mature prospects either via college or through a farm system.


                    There was no problem with scouting, huh? None whatsoever?

                    1995- Kevin Garnett #4
                    1996- Kobe Bryant #13, Jermaine O'Neal #17
                    1997- Tracy McGrady #9
                    1998- Rashard Lewis #32
                    1999- Jonathan Bender #5
                    2000- Darius Miles #3
                    2001- Kwame Brown #1, Tyson Chandler #2, Eddy Curry #4 Desagana Diop #8
                    2002- Amare Stoudemire #9
                    2003- LeBron James #1
                    2004- Dwight Howard #1

                    So....once the HS boom started in 1995, it took NINE DRAFTS until a player straight out of high school actually performed to his draft slot....but nope, no problem at all scouting teenagers...
                    Last edited by Kstat; 03-13-2014, 06:18 AM.

                    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                    Comment


                    • Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

                      Originally posted by bballpacen View Post
                      I think that this is less of an issue than your making it out to be... I think that the production obviously varries from draft class to draft class... I would also say that the overall increase in talented players takes away the need for a rookie to come in and be "productive."


                      I disagree here, I would say that most good scouts have a good feel on a player coming out of HS... Look at the late 90s as an example where there were so many "hits" and very few misses relative to today... I think there are bigger issues, such as a sense of entitlement by this generation as well as more scouts trying to make a name for themselves by finding the next Kobe or KG as early as possible... But my point is that good scouts have enough knowledge to be able to know a player by the time they get out of HS...
                      Look at how many 5-star college recruits turn out to be mediocre players, and how many 3-star guys outplay them.

                      The difference is if a college coach bites on a lemon, he can recruit another kid or two and be rid of his current one in 4 years (or less if he transfers). In the NBA you can't just recruit another handful of lottery picks. You get one high pick per season and if you miss out you're probably screwed. That's a wasted asset you cannot get back.

                      The NBA's record of properly rating HS prospects is nothing short of awful. Other than LeBron and Dwight they missed on pretty much everyone.

                      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                      Comment


                      • Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

                        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                        Boo hoo. There are like 3 players in the NCAA during any given season that actually matter more than the uniform they wear and mean more to the university than the scholarships they receive. If they feel their talents are worth more than that, Europe or the D-league is right there.

                        You're given a scholarship worth over 100K to play a sport for the school. That's the deal. If you're exploited beyond that scope you can sue for damages.
                        That is the deal, now. I don't think it will be for much longer.

                        If those conditions are so terrible, nobody is preventing anyone from starting up a rival league to the mean, stingy NBA.
                        Nobody said the conditions were terrible. I don't think a 2 year embargo on basketball players is a good idea. I never said the league was terrible.

                        There is. It's called a better product. And no, you're not entitled to do anything you believe you're qualified for. Other businesses besides the NBA have age requirements.
                        I tried to google this, can you tell me what they are? I don't know of any off the top of my head except for government positions.

                        This stupid line again....
                        I don't think it's stupid. High school players were more successful than the average, even right out of school.

                        NBA teams do not need to be developing teenagers. NFL and MLB don't bother with this either. They bring in mature prospects either via college or through a farm system.
                        The MLB does through a well structured minor league. The NFL does through the unsustainable current system of college athletics. I would prefer the NBA do the former, now it does the latter.

                        Comment


                        • Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

                          If the NBA wants to commit to the farm system, fine. But it needs to allow draft picks out of HS to spend time in the D-league without taking up NBA roster space, and up to two years maximum at D-league salary before a call-up, and when a prospect is called up their NBA rookie scale salary kicks in.

                          This will likely never happen, but it's the best business model possible. It allows teams to take very talented but pro-unready prospects and properly grow them in the proper environment. No more wasting NBA games trying to force undeserving teenagers into an NBA rotation.
                          Last edited by Kstat; 03-13-2014, 06:27 AM.

                          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                          Comment


                          • Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

                            So....once the HS boom started in 1995, it took NINE DRAFTS until a player straight out of high school actually performed to his draft slot....but nope, no problem at all scouting teenagers...
                            Pau Gasol was drafted in 2001.

                            Comment


                            • Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

                              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                              If the NBA wants to commit to the farm system, fine. But it needs to allow draft picks out of HS to spend time in the D-league without taking up NBA roster space, and up to two years maximum at D-league salary before a call-up, and when a prospect is called up their NBA rookie scale salary kicks in.

                              This will likely never happen, but it's the best business model possible.
                              I would prefer this, or that the NCAA start paying players.

                              Comment


                              • Re: NBA to raise minimum age to 20?

                                Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                                Pau Gasol was drafted in 2001.
                                What high school in Spain did FC Barcelona draft him from?

                                It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                                Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                                Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                                NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X