StrangeSox

Yeah, there's still the same number of players drafted every year, it's not really 100% analogous to other professional licensing restrictions.

Here's a pretty good article from a year or two ago that lays out the problems with not allowing the compensation of student-athletes and potential alternatives to allow it: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine...?pagewanted=all

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 11:54 AM) And what does that do for the people who are already in league? It puts a barrier up against the competition from outsiders. Hence you keep the people outside, down. This is why the NBA/NFL players have no problem with it. It lessons competition by restricting supply. Id think people who are free market economists wouldnt like this type of market manipulation. Overall supply over a period of time isn't going to be affected really.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 11:49 AM) I've made my point - I prefer a good NBA product, and so does the NBA and that's why they made this rule for their private league. All this did was save the Raptors from dealing with a defense only, 14mpg player blowing out his ACL. That's good for the NBA. Yeah, ultimately we're talking about a handful of kids every year (1 or 2?) who are legitimately qualified to jump right to the NBA level.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 11:46 AM) Again, so there's zero competitive balance, it's all about how much money a school has and how many boosters a school can sell on giving a big donation. College athletics would be immediately ruined. And who cares how much they profit (btw, where does that NCAA profit go? You think it just goes to the 10 white board members or something? It pays for a hell of lot of non-revenue generating sports and programs in college athletics). Those people make profits so that 10,000 other students at a school can get scholarships. Money generated by sports programs pay for other sports programs The coaches are making millions of dollars a year while the players on the field make zero. Can't even accept a free hamburger from their coach or a fan. How the f*** does that make any sense at all? After paying for all of those non-revenue sports, they still find millions laying around to hand out to coaches, AD's, etc. BTW I appreciate the irony that you're arguing against a free market situation here (biggest, best-funded schools buy the best talent; people compensated at market wages for their labor) and I'm arguing against something that at least theoretically levels the ability for schools to recruit. In a lot of places, no, it doesn't. Yeah, why should Pryor not be able to get a free tattoo, or, God forbid, be paid for the millions of dollars being made off of his name and play, while his coach is receiving a contract worth over $20M?

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 11:39 AM) Yes, but there's zero doubt that the college players who have more experience can contribute meaningful bench minutes regardless, and aren't complete wastes crushing the on-court game. Everyone here has been talking about how great the game is now compared to the era that was crushed by players jumping straight to the pros over in the NBA thread, now you all want to see that ruined because a guy got hurt in college while getting tons of national publicity and free room and board. It's not a travesty. It was crushed by s***ty gm's drafting bad players and maybe by an overall lack of talent.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 11:41 AM) Successful college teams and interest in the NCAA allows scholarships to be given across all sports - women's/men's etc. Great point. Yeah, that is a good point. Collegiate baseball survives, though.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 11:37 AM) Then say goodbye to womens sports and basically every sport but basketball and football for most universities. On top of that, how would you go about determining what a player is worth in college? Recruiting. "Hey, Cam Newton, we'll pay you $x a year to play at Ohio!" "We'll pay you $2x to play at Alabama!" Coaches, AD's, and the NCAA gets to make huge profits while the people that are actually playing the games are legally forbidden from getting free tattoos or selling trophies. If what's special about college sports is that the big-name athletes are fake-students who don't get paid for all of the revenue that they're generating, then I'll pass.

Wasn't there debate over who should go #1, Rose or Beasley?

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 11:34 AM) Kobe went 13th behind perennial greats such as Lorenzen Wright, Samaki Walker, Erick Dampier, Todd Fuller and Vitaly Potapenko. There was legitimate discussion of Dwight vs Emeka. KG went 5th. Meanwhile, teams spent years on wasted picks like Kwame Brown, Eddy Curry, Darius Miles, Sebastian Telfair, Gerald Green, Jonathan Bender, DeSagna Diop, Robert Swift, Martell Webster, Dorrell Wright, Leon Smith, DeShawn Stevenson, Travis Outlaw, Ndudi Ebi, Robert Swift, Sebastian Telfair, CJ Miles - all the while the product on the floor suffered. Meanwhile, we're in the midst of one of the best eras of entertainment the NBA has ever seen, but Nerlens Noel clumsily flies into a basketball hoop and now the rules have to go back to that garbage? Pass. s*** happens. Who was being passed over for those s***ty HS players, though? Maybe the talent pool just sucked at that time? Wait, without the one-and-done rule, Rose would not be a Bull. Never mind, fully support it, I'll direct all of my dislike at the NCAA.

They don't get actual compensation, are legally forbidden from receiving it and would have otherwise been making millions of dollars that same year. Meanwhile, in many states college coaches are the highest-paid "public" employee and the NCAA recently signed a $10B+ TV contract for the tournament.

QUOTE (Jake @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 11:25 AM) I have zero problem with it. It makes the hiring process more accurate and forces these guys to have something that resembles a real world experience before they're left on their own in the NBA. The NBA wants grown men and this makes you prove you can live without your parents for at least a year. As a human being, it benefits you immensely even if you do not graduate. If you get hurt, you're being paid to go to school so you'll still be better off than your average joe. So why can't the NBA draft "grown men" (is a 19 year old college superstar a "grown man"? I know I was still immature as hell my sophomore year) without a hard rule against the occasional HS draftee? They're not being paid to go to school, they're getting a full scholarship for a year and then, if they were good enough to be drafted right out of HS, they'll be gone. They're not there for the classes, and if they are injured to the point that their NBA career is gone, then they'll be losing their athletic scholarship as well. If they were actually being paid appropriately for the revenue they generate, that'd be different.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 11:24 AM) He's not allowed to play in the NBA. Yeah, but why, and does it make sense? Just repeating the rule back to me isn't saying anything. Speaking of irrelevant... Well, there's Kobe, Garnett, Howard and others. But if they can't evaluate HS talent, then a good GM shouldn't draft them. Problem solved. Like I said, if they were paid a decent chunk of the billions of dollars they generate for the NCAA, I wouldn't really care. Really, I have a much bigger issue with the NCAA than the NBA's rule. I just think the NBA's rule reinforces what's wrong with the NCAA.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 11:20 AM) He could have chosen to get paid plenty of money to play overseas. He chose the national spotlight and the p**** train. Ok, the p**** train would have happened overseas, too. Right, he could have left the country for a year to go make less money than he would if he were allowed to play in the NBA. Why does that make any sense? If NBA teams were drafting s*** HS talent for a few years, that's on them. They got by for years without having this age restriction.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 11:18 AM) Not just in Europe but in South America as well. But the way to prevent the abuse, is to force the team to actually use a roster space on the talent. No one is drafting a 6 year old and using a roster space on them. Allowing parents to sign over a minor's future employment options (restricted to play for that team) seems like a potential issue.

He otherwise would have been making millions instead of wasting everyone's time taking classes for two semesters.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 11:08 AM) MLB, and hockey do it. Right, and they have robust minor league systems, as Steve points out. ptact is right, it's this way because the NBA/NFL doesn't want to bother with running minor league system when they can have the NCAA do it for them.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 11:10 AM) No they aren't. You have to go through waivers to be a on a practice squad. If we're talking about reworking the rules to allow an NFL team to draft an 18 year old, we can assume they'd modify other rules to allow for development of those players.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 11:01 AM) Except Sen turban said we can't allow "him" to be the first Hispanic to sit on the S.C. That is only allowed for the sympathetic, feel your pain liberals. The end justifed the means even though your stated means were not the true means. I'm trying to figure out where I supported the use of the filibuster over Estrada there? I said that it doesn't really compare to how it's being used by Republicans right now to nullify two executive bodies by refusing to let any nominees come to a vote. Not voting down the nominees, but refusing to allow a vote to take place. The only thing I can legitimately support is if the threat of a filibuster caused the Meirs nomination to be pulled back. That was such a terrible nominee. Otherwise, I'm 100% behind complete removal of this extra-constitutional parliamentary gimmick. edit: this seems appropriate: QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 28, 2013 -> 06:17 AM) Your only analytic mode seems to be "tu quoque"

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 10:55 AM) Because the NBA requires you have experience in a different market before entering. They are an elite organization in American society, they can do so. Sure, they can. I'm not arguing that they should be legally forbidden from having this (imo) dumb rule, just that it's dumb and unfair to the handful of 18 yo's that would be drafted right out of HS. I probably wouldn't care if 'student'-athletes were compensated.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 10:54 AM) It's a private entity that wants to protect itself. Why should a private entity not be able to protect itself against legitimate risks to its own existence? By this logic, the NBA should be able to draft LeBron's kids as soon as they are born, because they shouldn't have to wait to suffer the potential fate have having more of moms gene's than dads. I'm not making the legal argument that soxbadger is making. I'm saying it's a dumb rule that should be changed. And no, by that logic, you don't automatically extend draft rights to minors, stop being silly. Plus it'd be dumb anyway e.g. Jordan's kid and 18 years until payoff of a pick.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 10:55 AM) If the risk was losing the next RGIII? They would draft them, and have it hurt the team until they maybe matured to help the team. Could you actually evaluate HS talent as "the next RGIII?"

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 10:53 AM) Baseball teams do. Why wouldn't NFL teams? If you can draft a player with the upside of Andrew Luck or Robert Griffin III or Tom Brady or Peyton Manning in the 5th or 8th round, and you can let them grow and develop on your practice squad for 3 years or carry them around as a backup? Yeah, I think a lot of teams would take the minimal investment that would take. Ok, but then they're being kept on a practice squad and not subjected to actual game NFL physical requirements. Why would you even want play an undeveloped, undersized linemen? RGIII does represent a decent counter, though, because teams will obviously put the players in dangerous situations.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 10:51 AM) For sports teams I think they are a must. Coming out of high school most of them are far too immature physically and socially/emotionally. Physically it does the league and the player a disservice because they are an injury waiting to happen and can be a danger to themselves and others around them. Socially/emotionally they do not handle becoming a millionaire over night very well. Between the entourages and people taking advantage of it or the late night scene, it really is a disservice to them. I've seen far too many players just not handle it well at a young age. How does that really change after 1 fake year of college, though? Wouldn't the whole college scene and the wider national exposure make the late night scene and the hangers-on even worse?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 10:51 AM) You must be, atleast in ND, 19 to serve alcohol at a restaurant. You must be 21 years old to work in a liquor store. I don't necessarily agree with the NBA's rule, but full understand the NFL's. They feel it is simply too dangerous to play progressionally unless you are 3 years removed from college graduation. The problem therein lies with a guy like Amobi Okoye who graduated at 20 years of age. Those examples are so few and far in between that I think their rule is probably the best. Saying "you must have two years experience" or "internship required" or whatever else is merit based. There are absolutely some jobs where they will not consider you unless you have experience. Consider their year in college or Europe to be an internship to gain experience, and it's not nearly as unruly. But that's the league setting requirements for individual teams, not exactly the same as an individual company or manager setting requirements for a certain position. If Lebron James were coming out of HS this year, why shouldn't the team with the #1 pick be able to take him?