Oh those poor players... getting a free education and not going into debt like most college students, oh those poor players they are on television all the time, oh those poor players they get turned into celebrities at their school and get any girl they want, oh those poor players getting a nice stack of cash every month in the form of a stipend. (sarcasm) Should I keep going?

The players get more than enough for what they do. How do you pay the players anyways? haha. This is what I want to hear. How much do you give a Sam Bradford type football player compared to a volleyball player at UTEP? Surely they get an equal slice right?

Call me crazy...

wonder what would happen to intercollegiate athletes and kids like this if you made DI and DII and NAIA like DIII with no athletic scholarship money at all.....

jordo212000 wrote: Oh those poor players... getting a free education and not going into debt like most college students, oh those poor players they are on television all the time, oh those poor players they get turned into celebrities at their school and get any girl they want, oh those poor players getting a nice stack of cash every month in the form of a stipend. (sarcasm) Should I keep going?

The players get more than enough for what they do. How do you pay the players anyways? haha. This is what I want to hear. How much do you give a Sam Bradford type football player compared to a volleyball player at UTEP? Surely they get an equal slice right?

OK, I get it. Makes a little more sense now.

ernest_t_bass wrote: Do you not agree that some of these universities make insane amounts of money off these players? How about the NCAA institutes a rule that no merchandise bearing any roster player's number be sold. Would that work?

No one is forcing these players to go to college. They could simply sit out a year after high school or go play pro ball in Europe. The NBA made a rule that players have to be out of high school a year. Many professions have restrictions regarding when you can work in them. Most players see playing college ball and going to college for free for a year as a great opportunity. If they don't like that deal, they can play pick-up games and work at McD's for a year.

ernest_t_bass wrote:
OK, I get it. Makes a little more sense now.

seriously, how do you propose the NCAA start paying every single Division 1 athlete? I am interested to hear

Again, there is nothing wrong with the current rule.

Players who are good enough leave after 1 year.. Players who aren't, stay.

jordo212000 wrote:

ernest_t_bass wrote:
OK, I get it. Makes a little more sense now.

seriously, how do you propose the NCAA start paying every single Division 1 athlete? I am interested to hear

Can you imagine the title 9 complaints if they only paid in football and men's basketball?

Title IX stuff is already bad enough...

jordo212000 wrote: Title IX stuff is already bad enough...

I agree, but can you imagine the feminazis if they started paying male athletes.

ernest_t_bass wrote: Do you not agree that some of these universities make insane amounts of money off these players? How about the NCAA institutes a rule that no merchandise bearing any roster player's number be sold. Would that work?

Absolutely not.

We're talking, again, about a very small number of schools that break even, let alone make money on their athletic programs. What you're suggesting would involve the following.

Every school would have to actually itemize and provide open information to a third party to have their finances analyzed. It would be required, then, for a school to allocate a certain amount of money to be able to pay each athlete equally. And if you don't think that a women's rower or fencer would be paid the same as a Heisman winner, then think again.

What would inevitably happen is that, in order to both make money to pay out to remain competitive and comply with Title 9, it would be the death of small sports. Baseball? Gone. Golf? Gone. Men's tennis? Gone. Wrestling? Gone. Hockey? Gone. The entire athletic department would consist of football, basketball, and women's sports.

Do you really feel like yanking scholarships and opportunities from hundreds of thousands of kids nationwide every year because of ten fucking basketball players?

I just think it's shit that these universities are banking on some of these kids, when they could actually make it in the NBA. Yes, I know it is a small amount of players. I like the baseball deal. Make it like baseball. Allow them to enter the draft but still attend college if they did not get drafted, or something like that.

Why would we expect them to make a decision like this intelligently?

It doesn't matter what we expect. What if our expectations are wrong? What if the kid gets injured and it costs him a pro career. Do our expectations put food on his table and a roof over his head?

There aren't any age restrictions on actors,actresses.tennis players, boxers, etc.... Why should basketball players be treated differently??

Prescott wrote:

Why would we expect them to make a decision like this intelligently?

It doesn't matter what we expect. What if our expectations are wrong? What if the kid gets injured and it costs him a pro career. Do our expectations put food on his table and a roof over his head?

There aren't any age restrictions on actors,actresses.tennis players, boxers, etc.... Why should basketball players be treated differently??

It is an NBA restriction. There isn't anything preventing another league starting that could be for 18 year olds. There are age restrictions on many of the occupations that you listed. Actors/actresses under a certain age can only work so many hours. There is an age limit to turn pro in tennis. State boxing commissions aren't going to give a kid a license to fight at a young age. You may disagree what the age limit should be, but most occupations have an age limit.

It is an NBA restriction.

I am aware of that.

There are age restrictions on many of the occupations that you listed. Actors/actresses under a certain age can only work so many hours.

But, they can work and earn money.These restrictions have to do with child labor laws. That law does not apply to 18 year- olds.

There is an age limit to turn pro in tennis.

The Professional Golf Association (PGA), Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA), the National Hockey League (NHL), Major League Baseball (MLB) the World Tennis Association (WTA), (NASCAR) stock car racing, and (MLS) Major League Soccer impose no such limits.

http://www.gibbsmagazine.com/Professional%20Sports%20Age%20Limits.htm

State boxing commissions aren't going to give a kid a license to fight at a young age.

I would bet money that a license would be issued to any 18 year-od.

It is curious to me that 18 year old kids can make the "Intelligent" decision to put themselves in harms way by joining the armed forces, but they can't make the "Intelligent" decision to go pro or go to college.

Prescott wrote:

It is an NBA restriction.

I am aware of that.

There are age restrictions on many of the occupations that you listed. Actors/actresses under a certain age can only work so many hours.

But, they can work and earn money.These restrictions have to do with child labor laws. That law does not apply to 18 year- olds.

There is an age limit to turn pro in tennis.

The Professional Golf Association (PGA), Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA), the National Hockey League (NHL), Major League Baseball (MLB) the World Tennis Association (WTA), (NASCAR) stock car racing, and (MLS) Major League Soccer impose no such limits.

http://www.gibbsmagazine.com/Professional%20Sports%20Age%20Limits.htm

State boxing commissions aren't going to give a kid a license to fight at a young age.

I would bet money that a license would be issued to any 18 year-od.

It is curious to me that 18 year old kids can make the "Intelligent" decision to put themselves in harms way by joining the armed forces, but they can't make the "Intelligent" decision to go pro or go to college.

You're fighting the wrong battle here prescott. The NBA, like any other privately owned organization or association has set standards and limitations. If you don't like them, they will tell you that you can collectively "fuck off" as the case may be. It's like a private club, and there are certain guidelines that you have to meet to get into that club. Talent is NOT the only dictation of what you need to have to get in. It's their organization, and if you want to reap the benefits of playing in it an making millions of dollars yourself from it, then you abide by the rules that govern it in order to get into it. They don't have to let anyone in if they don't want to. It's not a right that a kid with insane basketball talent automatically gets to go to the NBA. The problem is that you have to set a cutoff somewhere. Hell, OJ mayo was like 37 years old and still in high school, why not just let players like him declare for the draft after their junior year of HS? In all seriousness, I have known several kids who were 18 at the end of their junior year of HS, graduating when they were about 19 and a half. So is it based on age, or on school completion? Because if it's based on age, you're going to have some kids that leave HIGH SCHOOL at age 18 and declare for the draft when they have not graduated yet. If it's solely based on school completion, you're in the same boat you are right now, especially with your argument of "well if they are good enough to succeed in their chosen profession (basketball) they should be able to leave whenever they want. Who's to say that a junior in high school, who people think is good enough to make it in the NBA, should be restricted by his high school or the state he lives in from pursuing his career? By your logic anyways. And don't compare basketball to other sports that don't have age restrictions or as rigid of guidelines for young athletes. That's a cop-out way to say "look, these people don't have to!!!". So what? Just because theyre doing it doesn't make it the right way to go.

And as for acting, golf, nascar etc not having certain age restrictions, it's more done for the developement of the player. Golf, acting, even auto-racing are not full contact sports like football, basketball or even baseball who have these rules in place.

Prescott wrote:

It is an NBA restriction.

I am aware of that.

There are age restrictions on many of the occupations that you listed. Actors/actresses under a certain age can only work so many hours.

But, they can work and earn money.These restrictions have to do with child labor laws. That law does not apply to 18 year- olds.

There is an age limit to turn pro in tennis.

The Professional Golf Association (PGA), Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA), the National Hockey League (NHL), Major League Baseball (MLB) the World Tennis Association (WTA), (NASCAR) stock car racing, and (MLS) Major League Soccer impose no such limits.

http://www.gibbsmagazine.com/Professional%20Sports%20Age%20Limits.htm

State boxing commissions aren't going to give a kid a license to fight at a young age.

I would bet money that a license would be issued to any 18 year-od.

It is curious to me that 18 year old kids can make the "Intelligent" decision to put themselves in harms way by joining the armed forces, but they can't make the "Intelligent" decision to go pro or go to college.

http://www.itftennis.com/shared/medialibrary/pdf/original/IO_29956_original.PDF

Rule 2, you have to be 14 in tennis.

An 18-year probably would get a license in boxing, but that is much different than saying that there is no age limit.

I just see the NBA trying to improve their league. I know there have been a few that came in and were great players right out of high school, but most that came right from high school struggled their first few years or never really made it all. Overall, the quality of the league has gone down since it became more common for players to go right from high school to the NBA. The NBA, like any other organization, is just doing what they feel is in their best interest for business.

I understand completely that it is an NBA rule and it is within the NBA's rights as an organization to limit their membership.

Although, I disagree with the NBA rule, I am not debating that point. I am debating the idea that if a player chooses to attend college he must stay in college for a period of time(like the baseball rule). I am of the belief that he should be able to choose a pro career if it is offered to him no matter how many year(s) he has spent in college.

Prescott wrote: I understand completely that it is an NBA rule and it is within the NBA's rights as an organization to limit their membership.

Although, I disagree with the NBA rule, I am not debating that point. I am debating the idea that if a player chooses to attend college he must stay in college for a period of time(like the baseball rule). I am of the belief that he should be able to choose a pro career if it is offered to him no matter how many year(s) he has spent in college.

I don't debate what you are saying. The player just needs a league that would be willing to accept him. At this point, that would probably be Europe. It would be interesting to see if the NBA every put in a restriction that said you had to wait 2 or 3 after high school if someone would try to start a pro league in America that players could go to.

ernest_t_bass wrote: I just think it's shit that these universities are banking on some of these kids, when they could actually make it in the NBA. Yes, I know it is a small amount of players. I like the baseball deal. Make it like baseball. Allow them to enter the draft but still attend college if they did not get drafted, or something like that.

Why is it shit? Most sports programs break even or lose money, only the very big ones end up in the + and they only net a small profit margin. They give these kids a FREE COLLEGE EDUCATION, and a small stipend, what more do you want?