Soxbadger

I agree with Felix. The worst player on the court was the white guy. Some people just dont understand how good Tamika is.

His hangover prevention was hilarious.

When you got ralent, you get chances.

Im liking the Americans, but those 100s were new Benjis not old benjis.

Well no one to blame but themselves but it sucks.

Bo has been less than stellar at the end of games recently. Hes made a few really bad decisions. One game he didnt realize how many fouls there were. I dont know whats going on.

Bo Ryan has been making some odd choices lately. Not fouling immediately is rough.

Why are minnesota fans groaning. Evans at the line or Brust shooting a 3? You take evans at the line this is a gift.

No idea how the announcers were making it a good call. At best its an iffy call, but Id say that goes 99/100 for the offensive team.

Wow so i think Wisconsin just got a call there.

Damn Evans and his free throws these are just self inflicted wounds. Also Jackson needs to pass more. Its greedy to want a win on the road, but when you have a lead under 4 minutes you want it more.

Wisconsin cant buy a call right now. Going to need to make some shots

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 06:48 PM) Except they didn't give it away, and now they have to wait 10 years to use it, if it is even relevant in 2020. What are you talking about? Players used to be able to enter the NBA at any age, now its after 1 year. How did they not give that to the NBA???

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 06:45 PM) Seeing as they came to an agreement, that means the NBAPA really f***ed up in your world. No it doesnt. They gave away something they didnt want, and got something valuable in return. Thats called winning. Its just like in a trade where 1 team is giving up a player they dont really want, but feels the other team highly values them. They try and get as much as possible for the player, but eventually make the deal when theyve pushed as far as they can. I dont know how that can be construed as f***ing up.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 06:01 PM) So they held on to the thing that they really really didn't want, and that is supposed to make sense? lol. OK. Its not always about what you want, it also matters what your opponent wants. If you have a valuable negotiating piece you hold onto it. Value can be determined 2 ways. 1 by what you are willing to pay for it or 2 by what someone else is willing to pay for it. Just because a ticket to the Cubs game may be worthless to me doesnt mean Ill just give it away to a Cubs fan if I think they are willing to pay $1milllion dollars for it. And if I determine that is my most valuable piece, I am going to hold onto it, regardless of what its worth is actually to me, until I get a deal that I want. This is pretty common in settlements, parties often value property differently but you leverage what you have.

I actually didnt even think it was bad until someone said the firing comment, then I looked back at it and was like "Oh wait that little kid doesnt have a shirt on" not everyone knows that Groce's son either.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 05:22 PM) If the motivation is them not caring common sense states it would be the first thing to get given away, regardless. No it isnt. If you know the other side wants something bad, regardless of how little it may matter to you, you hold onto it for leverage as long as possible. The first thing to be given away is the thing that the you think the other side wants the least and you also want the least. You hold onto your big chip for something you really really want, and usually the other party doesnt give you what you really really want on the first go around.

Balta, Unfortunately no one wants a minor league system. NBA doesnt want to pay for it. NBPA doesnt want to agree that its players can be put in a development league and not get time counted. Steve, Yes we have heard you. You think that private companies should be able to create any rule to protect their product. You dont care about the athletes. I dont think most of us in this thread agree with that. Even the people I am arguing with, many of us are just trying to find better ways to help the athletes, not more ways for the NBA to ensure that they have the best product regardless of what it takes.

Balta, If those things are true, if there is tangible reasons why the rule benefits the kids, I have no problem with it. I just think the current 1 and done rule is broken. And that it should be something like you can go to the draft, but then you cant get drafted for 3 years, or if you go to college you have to stay 2. I dont know I just would rather give the kids more options and try and find a way to also make the NBA product stay strong.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 05:06 PM) Common sense here. If it didn't matter, they would have given it away totally in exchange for something else. No once again, if you created a rule that was to prohibitive it is more likely to get attacked in court. When the NBA was deciding this you had 3 leagues to base it off of, NHL, NFL and NHL. 2 leagues do not have a requirement of 18. 1 league does. It makes perfect sense that both sides agreed on a year amount that would have been less than or equal to the NFL rule. And also you once again are assuming you know what was being offered. What if the NBPA couldnt get much more if they agreed to 2 years instead of 1? Its a complete assumption to act like either of us know the true motivation.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 05:04 PM) For me, the proper issue for the league seems like it should be quality of play. That's the way the league is likely to see increased revenues, which increases earnings for both the players and the league. This is the best argument for why the NBA rule is okay Ive seen yet. At least you are saying that it some way has a tangible benefit for the players, they will receive more money later on.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 05:00 PM) Agreed. 1 year isn't enough. And Im strangely more accepting of the NFL rule where they have to legitimately go to college for a few years, because 1) you get to argue that its about them getting bigger/stronger etc and 2) because you can argue that actually staying in college for multiple years and not getting kicked out etc, shows maturity and is a good way to help these players transition to the pros. Now I know that there will be very little evidence to actually support this, but at least with the football rule I can see some positives.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 05:00 PM) You can advise that they is a safety net that they cannot touch but most don't listen. You can't prevent bad things from happening but you can put them into the best position to make good decisions. Many of the under 20 players don't lose their money because of poor investments, it's spending the money like it will never end. The injuries that will preclude someone that talented from making his money are few and far between. Am injury may delay them a year but rarely are there career ending ones. Some listen, some dont. But whether or not they listen, isnt dependent on whether they went to college. Some of the people who listen best to advice are those who didnt go to college. Some of the people who are the worst, have graduate degrees. Many smart people dont listen to advice, because they think they are so smart that no one else possibly could have anything to tell them. I honestly think that while we have different opinions we both are actually wanting the same thing, for these athletes to have the best chance to succeed. I just dont trust the NCAA/NBA to be making the best choices for them.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 04:58 PM) Even people good with their finances go broke or declare bankruptcy. Exactly. That is why its nonsense to suggest 1 year of college is going to dramatically improve someones chances about being foolish with their money. There is literally no evidence to support it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 04:55 PM) You are wrong. It was a major issue in the last bargaining. http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5899152 How can I be wrong? You are literally just quoting a pr piece and saying "The NBPA is honest and they have no incentive to lie" Give me a break, at least be honest that we dont know their true motivation.