NBPA Will Seek Lower Age Limit

[FTBS]

Thoroughly wrong.

Just admit you got nothin' and move on.

I'm actually rather confident in my stance. If you have a rebuttal (based on what I actually said) that hasn't already been thoroughly refuted I'm all ears. Otherwise you are more than welcome to take your own advice.

 

[mastermind]

When other folks are gonna be able to get their money or how much they will be able to get is a made up concern. Why does that matter to people who aren't getting a cut of it? Why is it important that guys get in as soon as humanly possible? Detractors of age limits always point to the success of guys like Kobe and KG and the like as if an age limit is gonna keep guys out permanently or as if any of those guys didn't take a year or two or three to really come into their own at around the same age that they would allowed in with an age limit anyway. I don't see how players coming more physically and mentally developed can be a bad thing for a league and it's entertainment value.

there really isnt a point. You are drafting guys because they will be a great player, not because they are great from day one. Thats why teams are in the lottery to begin with.

The Magic didnt draft Shaq in 1992 because they expected him to win a title their first year. They drafted him because they expected him to be the cornerstone of the franchise for the next 10-13 years as they put pieces around him and he reaches his prime and peak.

Same thing with the Rockets drafting Olajuwon in 1984.

Same thing with the Timberwolves drafting Garnett in 1995.

Same thing with the Clippers drafting Olowakandi in 1998.

It is a made-up concern.

And in what I bolded, you answered your own question. You can work as humanly possible in every other employment, so long as you are qualified, then why not in the NBA?


Honestly, I do not believe the age-limit will be lowered, but to say it should not for these reasons is pretty damn banal.

 

[FTBS]

there really isnt a point. You are drafting guys because they will be a great player, not because they are great from day one. Thats why teams are in the lottery to begin with.

The Magic didnt draft Shaq in 1992 because they expected him to win a title their first year. They drafted him because they expected him to be the cornerstone of the franchise for the next 10-13 years as they put pieces around him and he reaches his prime and peak.

Same thing with the Bulls drafting Jordan in 1984.

Same thing with the Warriors drafting Joe Smith in 1995.

It is a made-up concern.

And in what I bolded, you answered your own question. You can work as humanly possible in every other employment, so long as you are qualified, then why not in the NBA?


Honestly, I do not believe the age-limit will be lowered, but to say it should not for these reasons is pretty damn banal.

You didn't answer my questions though. Why does it matter to you or anyone else not associated with a young player that guys get in ASAP? How is that concern not made up? How is it a bad thing to have more physically and mentally ready players coming in? It's been pretty well established that the NBA is not comparable to most jobs. This argument the flip side of the "well if I did that at my job" stuff that people trot out.

 

[mastermind]

You didn't answer my questions though. Why does it matter to you or anyone else not associated with a young player that guys get in ASAP? How is that concern not made up? How is it a bad thing to have more physically and mentally ready players coming in? It's been pretty well established that the NBA is not comparable to most jobs. This argument the flip side of the "well if I did that at my job" stuff that people trot out.

This is circular, so its not worth asking. I can ask you why does it matter to you to keep them out?

Its not a question worth asking because its circular.

And when has it been established that the NBA isn't like most jobs when hiring employees? They hired 18 year olds in the past, and there were not many problems before, except for what people perceived as an issue. They hire qualified 18 year olds to come and do work. Their salaries are lower than vets too.

 

[FTBS]

This is circular, so its not worth asking. I can ask you why does it matter to you to keep them out?

Its not a question worth asking because its circular.

And when has it been established that the NBA isn't like most jobs when hiring employees? They hired 18 year olds in the past, and there were not many problems before, except for what people perceived as an issue. They hire qualified 18 year olds to come and do work. Their salaries are lower than vets too.

It's not worth asking because you don't have a response. If it's all circular and irrelevant and made up and not worth it then then there was really no point in responding to me in the first place. We can't dive head first into a discussion and then turn around and question the relevance or worth of the discussion when we don't like were it ends up. My "circular", "worthless" questions were responses to your own questions. Funny how it didn't become circular or worthless until I was the one asking the questions. It's an issue of perception on both sides. I'm all for having a discussion or debate regarding those perceptions, however getting defensive and shifting every time you are asked to provide support for your side adds nothing to the dialogue.

I don't know too many other jobs that have drafts and salary caps and guaranteed contracts worth millions along with endorsement opportunities and arenas filled to capacity to watch people perform and media commitments or interest for that matter where guys make more money than and wield more power than their superiors. They have also denied younger players entrance in the past as well and there were no problems then either. The league didn't shut down after the most recent age limit was instituted. Everyone is entitled to their preference and perspective. However if you are gonna argue against the opposite perspective you gotta give me something more than faulty comparisons to other jobs and sports with different structures or questioning the relevance or worth of a discussion that you willfully jumped into once your points are rebutted and your questions are turned on you.

I respect you as a poster and enjoy engaging with you. When I ask you questions I am not trying to be an a$$hole or win some sort of gotcha game. If you have answers that can shut me down and teach me something then by all means let me have it. I actually appreciate taking an L if I can learn something from it.

 

[mastermind]

It's not worth asking because you don't have a response. If it's all circular and irrelevant and made up and not worth it then then there was really no point in responding to me in the first place. We can't dive head first into a discussion and then turn around and question the relevance or worth of the discussion when we don't like were it ends up. My "circular", "worthless" questions were responses to your own questions. Funny how it didn't become circular or worthless until I was the one asking the questions. It's an issue of perception on both sides. I'm all for having a discussion or debate regarding those perceptions, however getting defensive and shifting every time you are asked to provide support for your side adds nothing to the dialogue.

I don't know too many other jobs that have drafts and salary caps and guaranteed contracts worth millions along with endorsement opportunities and arenas filled to capacity to watch people perform and media commitments or interest for that matter where guys make more money than and wield more power than their superiors. They have also denied younger players entrance in the past as well and there were no problems then either. The league didn't shut down after the most recent age limit was instituted. Everyone is entitled to their preference and perspective. However if you are gonna argue against the opposite perspective you gotta give me something more than faulty comparisons to other jobs and sports with different structures or questioning the relevance or worth of a discussion that you willfully jumped into once your points are rebutted and your questions are turned on you.

I respect you as a poster and enjoy engaging with you. When I ask you questions I am not trying to be an a$$hole or win some sort of gotcha game. If you have answers that can shut me down and teach me something then by all means let me have it. I actually appreciate taking an L if I can learn something from it.

I respect you as well. I just dont agree with your stance here.

Its not worth asking because its a very circular question. I care because I think if you are able to earn a living and of age and qualified, you should be able to earn a living. You will respond saying otherwise. Thats how this becomes circular. (that question you asked regarding why do I care)

The salary caps and guaranteed contracts stuff is irrelevant to the convo because at the core this is about being able to work. NBA teams have shown they believe 18 and 19 year olds are qualified to work in the NBA, just like apple and google will hire an 18/19 year old that has shown they can work. And those 18 and 19 year olds showed they could work in the NBA.

 

[The Amerikkkan Idol]

nikka please, these nikkas dont care about u......they get their $$$ and shyt on reg black folks, they give that $ right back

nikka, GTFOH

I've seen plenty of NBA players who've given back all kinds of shyt to their communities in multiple ways. And it aint about them caring about me. If the Jews in the music industry tomorrow started making sure nikkaz in Hip-Hop or in music couldn't make a living selling music when that's their trade or if Black actors were not allowed to make a living in Hollywood based on some bullshyt ass racist rules, I'd do the same shyt.

Either you like watching people get exploited or you don't

I just don't

When other folks are gonna be able to get their money or how much they will be able to get is a made up concern. Why does that matter to people who aren't getting a cut of it? Why is it important that guys get in as soon as humanly possible? Detractors of age limits always point to the success of guys like Kobe and KG and the like as if an age limit is gonna keep guys out permanently or as if any of those guys didn't take a year or two or three to really come into their own at around the same age that they would allowed in with an age limit anyway. I don't see how players coming more physically and mentally developed can be a bad thing for a league and it's entertainment value.

BECAUSE IT'S WRONG!!!

Exploiting people and not paying them is WRONG!!!

Why does it have to be about me?

These people are mostly Black dudes who come from desperate situations, why would I want them to not be able to do the one thing they can do for a living and possibly elevate their families out of poverty

I'm actually rather confident in my stance. If you have a rebuttal (based on what I actually said) that hasn't already been thoroughly refuted I'm all ears. Otherwise you are more than welcome to take your own advice.

Dude, I rebutted everything you said.

Nobody's as good as the rookies you named, so the idea that forcing people to stay in college would create modern Chamberlains and Jordans is a bullshyt argument. Nobody could be that much better in a league as competitive as it is today, that's why the best 4 year players aren't marginally more successful than anyone else. Talent is talent.

You didn't answer my questions though. Why does it matter to you or anyone else not associated with a young player that guys get in ASAP? How is that concern not made up? How is it a bad thing to have more physically and mentally ready players coming in? It's been pretty well established that the NBA is not comparable to most jobs. This argument the flip side of the "well if I did that at my job" stuff that people trot out.

How is it not a bad thing in any other sport?

Yet outside of any sports not dominated by young Black dudes they don't do it.

 

[Art Barr]

Don't see how anyone can be for an age limit in the NA. There is no reason for it aside from trying to add significance to the college game. I'm not sure why the NBA feels personally responsible for making the college game more watchable because that's the only thing this rule is good for. "Getting the athletes ready for the pro game" is BS these colleges don't focus on improving these players they just ride em for a year and make bread.

Nba taking that ncaa check for putting life back into college bball.


Art Barr

 

[BillBanneker]

MIAMI BEACH, Fla. -- An attorney for the union representing NBA players strongly indicated Thursday that the association will want players to again have the age limit for going pro lowered in the next round of collective bargaining.

National Basketball Players Association general counsel Gary Kohlman said "quite likely the union will be taking a radically different position" than the NBA on the age issue, which will almost certainly be a contentious point between the sides when they sit down.

"If they were white and hockey players, they would be out there playing. If they were white and baseball players, they would be out there playing," Kohlman said. "Because most of them are actually African-American and are in a sport and precluded from doing it, they have to go into this absurd world of playing for one year."

"That's just total complete hypocrisy."

Kohlman made the remarks while appearing on a panel about college athletics at a sports law conference sponsored by the firm Cozen O'Connor.

NBA commissioner Adam Silver has often said he favors a model where the age limit for entry into the league is actually raised from 19 to 20 in the next labor deal. Kohlman's comments made it clear that the NBPA is opposed to that notion, and he said forcing so many players to attend college for a year before turning pro "is completely ridiculous."

The NBA did not respond to Kohlman's remarks, though Silver has been on record several times explaining why he would prefer to see the age limit increased.

"I think it would be much better for the game if the minimum age were 20 instead of 19," Silver said at All-Star Weekend last month. "Having said that, I do understand the other side of the issue. While the union has stated its view that they want to keep it at 19, we haven't entered collective bargaining. We haven't sat across the table and discussed it with them."

Under the current rules, players must turn 19 in the draft's calendar year to be eligible and, in the case of American players, also be one year removed from high school. The union sought to make the age limit 18 in the last round of negotiations in 2011; the league wanted it to go to 20 then as well.

Kohlman used the example of how LeBron James was able to enter the NBA straight from high school, noting that he's now a vice president in the union. "He gets it," Kohlman said.

Kohlman added that union head Michele Roberts "believes in capitalism," and he essentially asked why talented young athletes and talented young entertainers aren't both able to maximize their financial potential.

"Capitalism means that if you're 17, 18 years old and you're a geek and you want to drop out of college and invent Apple or something else, you can do it," Kohlman said. "In this country, you can do that. And there's nothing stopping you from doing it. If you're an unbelievable blues singer at 17, 18, 19 years old, you can go out and make a fortune."








http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/1...nticipates-clash-age-limit-nbpa-attorney-says

Hmm, suprised that the NBPA is taking this stance, wonder how all of the veteran players feel about it.

 

[FTBS]

I respect you as well. I just dont agree with your stance here.

Its not worth asking because its a very circular question. I care because I think if you are able to earn a living and of age and qualified, you should be able to earn a living. You will respond saying otherwise. Thats how this becomes circular. (that question you asked regarding why do I care)

The salary caps and guaranteed contracts stuff is irrelevant to the convo because at the core this is about being able to work. NBA teams have shown they believe 18 and 19 year olds are qualified to work in the NBA, just like apple and google will hire an 18/19 year old that has shown they can work. And those 18 and 19 year olds showed they could work in the NBA.

Of course I will say otherwise if we disagree. The fact remains that you introduced those questions into the convo. You can't introduce concepts in to a discussion and then scoff at those very same concepts being volleyed right back to you.

Older players (accounting for talent level) tend to be more qualified to contribute immediately thusly it makes sense for a league to want more seasoned and developed players and it makes for a better product IMO. NBA teams have also shown that they question the qualifications of younger players by enacted an age limit and seeking to raise it.

 

[FTBS]

BECAUSE IT'S WRONG!!!

Exploiting people and not paying them is WRONG!!!

Why does it have to be about me?

These people are mostly Black dudes who come from desperate situations, why would I want them to not be able to do the one thing they can do for a living and possibly elevate their families out of poverty



Dude, I rebutted everything you said.

Nobody's as good as the rookies you named, so the idea that forcing people to stay in college would create modern Chamberlains and Jordans is a bullshyt argument. Nobody could be that much better in a league as competitive as it is today, that's why the best 4 year players aren't marginally more successful than anyone else. Talent is talent.



How is it not a bad thing in any other sport?

Yet outside of any sports not dominated by young Black dudes they don't do it.

For starters, the situations of these dudes aren't all desperate and a kid with some athletic potential is gonna have it better than a less talented counterpart. As I said before, it's not like they will never get into the league. You gotta wait years to come up out the hood as a doctor, lawyer, engineer etc. with far less support, access, and opportunities, so we need to stop being so dramatic about this. I'm all for guys being able to capitalize on their likeness in college as well.

The league was actually more competitive in those days because the talent was more condensed on fewer teams. The best 4 year players aren't more successful today because the most talented players don't stay for four years. Talent is indeed talent, that is why such comparisons are silly.

Other sports either have minor league systems to help guys that aren't ready develop or they don't allow guys into until they are more developed. I'm all for the NBA doing either of those two things.

 

[mastermind]

Of course I will say otherwise if we disagree. The fact remains that you introduced those questions into the convo. You can't introduce concepts in to a discussion and then scoff at those very same concepts being volleyed right back to you.

I never asked "why do you care?" when it comes to the convo of players getting drafted out of HS or out of college.

I asked why does it matter that a rookie player, who shows ATG talent, isnt an instant success. Lets get that correct. No one cares that KG didnt set the world on fire his rookie year.

Older players (accounting for talent level) tend to be more qualified to contribute immediately thusly it makes sense for a league to want more seasoned and developed players and it makes for a better product IMO. NBA teams have also shown that they question the qualifications of younger players by enacted an age limit and seeking to raise it.

thats the big caveat, no? According to their talent level.

No one cares that Andrew Wiggins pushes Rasual Butler out the NBA. And Wiggins is not pushing a Carmelo Anthony out the NBA.

And NBA teams have not shown they question the qualifications of younger players by imposing an age limit. The thinking is they dont want to pay people more money than they have too.

 

[FTBS]

I never asked "why do you care?" when it comes to the convo of players getting drafted out of HS or out of college.

I asked why does it matter that a rookie player, who shows ATG talent, isnt an instant success. Lets get that correct. No one cares that KG didnt set the world on fire his rookie year.


thats the big caveat, no? According to their talent level.

No one cares that Andrew Wiggins pushes Rasual Butler out the NBA. And Andrew Wiggins is not pushing a Mike Conley out the NBA.

And NBA teams have not shown they question the qualifications of younger players by imposing an age limit. The thinking is they dont want to pay people more money than they have too.

You asked why it matters that KG didn't come out the gates smoking. How is it not fair to ask why it matters if guys who aren't gonna come out of the gates smoking have to wait a year or two? It's been proven that basketball is a sport that top players can hit the ground running in. Why should a fan not want that for their product over watching guys go through growing pains?

Yes according to their talent level, meaning experience and development ain't gonna help everybody but it does benefit talented guys.

No one would care if Andrew Wiggins wasn't in the league now. The league got along just fine for decades without top 18 and 19 year old talent going through growing pains. You really think teams would balk at bringing in guys that can oversee 32 game turnarounds like Bird or put up stupid numbers like the laundry list of guys that I've listed throughout this thread? If guys were truly good enough out the gate, it wouldn't be an issue. How exactly are they paying more money?

 

[mastermind]

You asked why it matters that KG didn't come out the gates smoking. How is it not fair to ask why it matters if guys who aren't gonna come out of the gates smoking have to wait a year or two? It's been proven that basketball is a sport that top players can hit the ground running in. Why should a fan not want that for their product over watching guys go through growing pains?

Because fans are a lot smarter than you give them credit for.

If they are watching a potential great learning his powers, they will buy in to that and have proven to buy into that. I bought a ticket plan for John Wall's rookie year just to say I saw him before he became that dude. NBA fans are probably the most patient when it comes to that.

And in basketball, even those top players take a few years to really hit their stride. The same time it takes for others. It does not matter if they went to college for 4 years or only out from HS.

No one would care if Andrew Wiggins wasn't in the league now. The league got along just fine for decades without top 18 and 19 year old talent going through growing pains. You really think teams would balk at bringing in guys that can oversee 32 game turnarounds like Bird or put up stupid numbers like the laundry list of guys that I've listed throughout this thread? If guys were truly good enough out the gate, it wouldn't be an issue.

I didnt say they wouldnt balk, but on a basic level the college game and the NBA games are two totally different competitions. Different rules, different tempo, smaller lanes, etc.

Why not let them learn the NBA game faster so that they can reach their zenith quicker and help your team out longer?

How exactly are they paying more money?

by having to give more max contracts to the truly elite guys. Kevin Garnett is teh highest paid player in NBA history because he signed 3 big contracts.

 

[FTBS]

Because fans are a lot smarter than you give them credit for.

If they are watching a potential great learning his powers, they will buy in to that and have proven to buy into that. I bought a ticket plan for John Wall's rookie year just to say I saw him before he became that dude. NBA fans are probably the most patient when it comes to that.

And in basketball, even those top players take a few years to really hit their stride. The same time it takes for others. It does not matter if they went to college for 4 years or only out from HS.


I didnt say they wouldnt balk, but on a basic level the college game and the NBA games are two totally different competitions. Different rules, different tempo, smaller lanes, etc.

Why not let them learn the NBA game faster so that they can reach their zenith quicker and help your team out longer?


by having to give more max contracts to the truly elite guys. Kevin Garnett is teh highest paid player in NBA history because he signed 3 big contracts.

Can't argue preference. I personally don't prefer that though.

I'm still not seeing how guys reach their peaks faster. If that was the case there wouldnt' be an age limit. It only seems like it because we see them at a lower level starting out, so that when they come into their own it seems like they are reaching a peak (see the Anthony Davis/Shaq/Duncan comparisons from earlier). Why would teams be resistant to a system that has younger, cheaper labor peaking earlier? That doesn't make sense.

There is still no denying that the curve is steeper for straight from HS guys no matter how good they are.

We can't just ignore the development issue. Players that are better developed adjust to the NBA far quicker than players who are not.

I don't think a year or two makes that much difference. Of the top 25 earners of all time, 18 of them were at least 20 coming into the league. Duncan is fourth and he went to college 4 years AND took pay cuts. Beyond that salaries are double capped so regardless of what an individual is getting paid most teams bottom lines aren't gonna be drastically impacted in the course of a year or two.