Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 02:30 PM) The value of their scholarship does not come near to the value they generate for the team or the value of the external contracts they're forbidden from signing. Except what you're talking about is the select few players that actually are marketed by their teams. You're talking in football about 2-3 players max out of what, 40 or more, that get scholarships. In basketball it's 2-3 out of 12 (or sometimes just one on a crappy team). And guess what, those players are the ones that go on and make bank at the professional level. Again, i'm more agreeable to individual athletes getting shoe deals or whatever when they're 8. But 99% of student athletes can't/won't generate that kind of money, and they don't generate anything for the schools they play for.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 01:45 PM) Martial law, summary executions and total gun bans. (btw, East Chicago is a city in Indiana). I know, but it's within the Metro area. 95% of the rest of the crime still happens in Illinois. Although, I guess we could clean up Illinois streets and just push them all into Indiana. Have fun Gary!

That can't be the official poster....

Not sure this really deserves to be in the Republican Thread, but oh well: http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/02/13/ind...2-year-old-son/ It's getting to the point in this City where if I were Governor I would call up the Illinois National Guard, or if I didn't have the authority ask for them, and put 4-8 armed soldiers on each corner with shoot to kill orders. If you're seen with a gun, you're shot on site. No questions asked. Do all the pre-warning bulls*** you want, but after a set deadline, that's the rule.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 12:36 PM) Dude you should really consult an attorney about that because Im pretty sure sexual harassment is different than discrimination. You still bring that under Title VII though don't you? I thought SH was a type of sex discrimination?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 12:29 PM) which would apply to no NBA team ever No I know, just throwing out the law. So when I slap my hot secretary's ass in my 5 attorney (10 person) firm I can't get in trouble

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 12:27 PM) Pretty sure there wouldn't be much to be a fan of if there weren't actual players on the field. Why do the most successful teams with the best recruits generate more revenue than schools with s***ty teams? That there exists some alternative to the NCAA doesn't justify the NCAA refusing to share any of the revenues with the actual athletes or even allowing those athletes to earn money from other sources. Actually they don't. Lower level Big Ten teams make more money than more "successful" programs because of the fact that people are fans of the school/conference in which they play. Yes, obviously that's tied to the players, but guess what, Illinois has sucked for the last 60 years in football (with a token good year every 5-6 years) and yet people still buy Illinois merchandise. The school is still more important than the player.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 12:25 PM) Steve, Even private employers cant discriminate based on race/religion/sex. http://www.eeoc.gov/employers/coverage_private.cfm http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; IIRC if you're an employer with less than 15 employees you can.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 12:21 PM) You know, it wouldn't even have to be salary from the school or from boosters. You could just let these kids sign endorsement deals like pro athletes. I could be talked into something like that, since there wouldn't be a requirement that the school/university has to pay them.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 12:19 PM) That "marketing hype machine" only exists because said machine is making $$$$ off of these athletes, $$$$ which the athletes get none of. Why should various entities get to make a bunch of money by selling jerseys with my name on it and TV and radio contracts to watch me play while I can't even get a free lunch from my (millionaire) coach? (BTW being wrong about a premise isn't a fallacy, it's just being wrong /pedantry) Well, I disagree. The marketing hype machine chews out player after player. Players come through, the system remains. Fans are fans of the school first, the players second. Plus, kids go to college now despite having available alternatives to get paid because they know it's still the better route to get paid big later.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 12:13 PM) Jenks, Its already this way. Wisconsin has no baseball program because it has a Hockey program. I think the best way to prevent this is to allow kids to go to the NBA at 18. Then you can have really strict NCAA rules about payments etc, because you can argue that the kid chose to. The problem is the NCAA doesnt even really want to enforce their rules. They just want to have some semblance of control. Nothing is preventing them from going an alternate route today. But they know that college is the best way to propel themselves into the NBA, even if it's at the "cost" of having to be "just" a college star without the paycheck to match.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 12:06 PM) The coaches couldn't generate s*** without the players on the field, who get nothing. Why should one side be allowed to make millions of dollars while the other side is forbidden from making a single penny? I posted an article that had several proposals a couple of posts up. But what mid-level school has a chance to compete with the bigger schools now? The best schools with the best (highly paid!) coaches and best facilities get the best recruits as it is. Picking NW and Illinois was a bad example, I'm sure a ton of NW alums have deep pockets. There are other ways of compensating student athletes for the billions in revenue they generate besides "anything goes! hookers and blow all around!" How many D-rose college jerseys were sold the year he played? Why shouldn't he receive anything from the people that are making money by printing his name on a jersey and selling it for $50+ a piece? The fallacy of your argument is that players get "nothing." They get a marketing hype machine for free. They get publicity for free. They get the opportunity to play on a national stage, for free. Me being a baller on a recreational league court doesn't mean crap if I can't market myself to the world and scouts.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 12:01 PM) How is that any different than college athletics today? Oh I agree, that's why college football is awful. Basketball is still an outlier though. Every decade you have a handful of mid-level teams that come out of no where and despite the money/facility difference, can still recruit well and be succesful and build up the program. Butler and VCU are recent examples, Gonzaga going back ten years or so. But I think it'd get even worse, and again, we're forgetting that college sports would basically become football and basketball and perhaps a fringe sport like baseball IF the program is good enough for it. Otherwise the school wouldn't have any money to fund those sports. Oh, and then schools get sued for violating Title IX when they get rid of all of their womens programs. So yeah, giant snowball.

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. Eh, I think that's a stretch. Fringe players worried about staying in the league have about 1000 other fringe players to worry about. One year of 5-10 players that are legitimately NBA ready isn't going to matter much.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 11:52 AM) 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) 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? The coaches that make that much money generate that much money and more in most cases. I don't really have a problem with it. And players can't accept gifts because that would open up a pandoras box where, again, recruiting and competitive balance gets ruined. They have to limit it somehow, and while I agree some of the rules are stupid (bagels but not cream cheese, for example), SOME kind of rule is still necessary. A line has to be drawn. How would a free market "whoever can afford the most" system balance recruiting? A mid-level school wouldn't have the ability to compete with bigger schools. "Your favorite school growing up was Northwestern? Oh, well if you go to Illinois you get a free luxury car, a free house on campus, a stocked fridge full of anything and everything you want. Oh and this one booster will make sure you come home to 6 naked chicks that love experimenting." That, and we'll give you enough money that you can spend it on anything you want! Yeah, that's going to be awesome for the sports.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 11:52 AM) Lee Evans banked almost $12 million in straight cash from the NFL. But the NCAA and the Univ of Wisconsin made like 250k off him! TOTALLY UNFAIR.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 11:47 AM) Jake, We can always say "Anyone can do whatever the hell they want". The question is, whether or not it is fair, and whether as a society we believe that these laws are just. I do not. Its not just in the NBA, I do not like barriers of entry in almost every single field. They are generally created to screw people. That is my personal opinion. I work in a filed that has these hilarious barriers. Just because you overcame them does not mean you are good or better than some other guy who didnt. I dont like blanket arbitrary rules. Some people are fine with them. I just am not. So its not just the NBA/NFL, its a much broader social argument about how certain people/classes use barriers to keep other people down. It generally derives from disproportionate bargaining power or wealth. In this case you have both on the side of the NBA, which is why its pretty egregious. Keep people down? What are you talking about? If you're good enough to play professional sports, you'll get there, even if you have to wait a measly year or three to do it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 11:41 AM) 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. 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 and indirectly benefits the academic side of the school as well. And sorry, I don't feel bad for Terrell Pryor, a 20 year old kid that had his knob polished on a daily basis from 1000 different people from the time he was 15 years old, who was given just about anything and everything he ever wanted as a student, but couldn't get a f'n tattoo. Oh god, the horror. We're denying him the right to get a free tattoo during a small 4 year period of his rich and famous life.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 11:34 AM) Its true they are compensated. What I am talking about is the vast difference in negotiating power. Even if a college wants to do more for a kid (give them more perks etc) they arent able to because of the NCAA. That is part of the reason I hate the NBA rule so much. If these colleges were allowed to break the bank and do whatever they wanted for the kids, then it would at least be somewhat fair to have them go to college. But as it is, they cant get paid when they are in the NCAA, so its a double screw job. Then it just comes down to who has better (and richer) alumni. I'm not in favor of that at all either. That's exactly why NCAA football sucks and you realistically only have about 10 teams every year with a prayer of playing for the national championship.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 11:32 AM) 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. 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? I hate the NCAA as much as the next guy, but paying athletes IMO is a terribly stupid idea and would absolutely kill everything that's special about college sports. I'm fine with schools profiting off of a few star athletes. More people profit from that system.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 14, 2013 -> 11:27 AM) 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. They are compensated, not only with their "education," room and board, food, perks, etc. but also by the free marketing/advertising they get for their future careers (speaking to the "stars" of college athletics.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 13, 2013 -> 04:51 PM) These arguments present false premises. If you pass the bar at X age, you can practice law. A similar comparison would be if the NBA had a skills competition and if you were good enough, you could go to the NBA. So while there are "standards" most of the time they are not based on things like "age" or "HS class". For example, I could have graduated college in less than 3 years. That would have put me a class in front. Would it make sense to say that I have to wait 1 year to go to law school because I was in front of my class? Would it make sense after law school to say I have to sit for 1 year because I was to young? The answer is no. So while you can argue that generally other industries have "skill" requirements, most of those "skills" do not include things like "age." Unless its something that by law you can only do when you are a certain age (ie bar tender). I just do not see why a basketball player should be subjected to similar requirements as a lawyer or doctor. And honestly, I dont believe that anyone should be subjected to those requirements. Lawyer requirements are a joke, its nothing more than a barrier of entry to try and prevent other people from becoming lawyers. But once again, id be fine with something like the bar, where if a basketball player can show proficiency in the sport, that they can play in the NBA. Because the point of the bar, isnt to protect lawyers, its to protect the public at large. And Im not sure what we are protecting the public from when it comes to basketball players getting paid at 18 as opposed to 19. That is merely just an attempt to protect the NBA from bad investments. Yeah, they really are. My clerk knows more about the law than I do because she's been involved with cases in a few specific fields for 30 years. Yet she could never be a lawyer because she didn't go to law school.

Well there you go - argument about being forced into college for a year, busted.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 13, 2013 -> 04:07 PM) I think you are missing the argument. Its about Thibs overplaying players who are injured. Deng had a torn tendon, that is an injury, yet Deng played top 5 minutes in the entire NBA. That just does not compute. And Rose was never 100% last year. Thats why he got injured, because he WASNT HEALTHY. That is why (imo) his camp is not rushing him back, last year Rose "manned up" and tore his acl. No I get the argument, I don't agree with it. My issue is placing the blame on Thibs as if he's FORCING these guys to play. I've never heard a player whine to the media about playing too much. I've never gotten a hint of one of them making a comment like "yeah, I was hurt, the expectation is to play, so I played." If this was the case, not only would the players (and ex-players) comment on it, but so would Gar-Pax since they would want to protect their investments. But no one has said anything and we're in year three now. Unless I've missed it, which is possible. IMO, this is all fan/media make-em-ups that started when the Bulls got beat by the Heat. "Oh, well, it must be because they were tired at the end of the year. Thibs played them too much during the season." Crap. They got beat by a better team.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 13, 2013 -> 02:33 PM) The bold is where I disagree. If you look at the game logs from last year, many times after he played around 40 minutes, he would then miss a week or a few weeks. When you play through injuries and you dont let them heal 100%, there is a potential that you do permanent damage or that you slow down the recovery time. Players are humans, humans break down if you overwork them. This is an argument about not playing while injured, not whether playing another 5-8 minutes and being "overworked" contributed to some of those injuries. Either way, he was healed and rested as much as he could be going into the playoffs. That's what sucked so much about the injury - he was FINALLY healthy. And yet he still had a freak injury.