Given all the melt down about the Burke (as of yet, no decision), I thought this article was appropriate. Interesting view from the other side.
this week in unintentionally grim-sounding recruiting headlines
Given all the melt down about the Burke (as of yet, no decision), I thought this article was appropriate. Interesting view from the other side.
for everyone except the teenage kids from often poor backgrounds who are being prevented from making a crapton of money they would otherwise receive.
They wouldn't get the degree because they'd leave after three years or it'd be in something utterly useless. Do you think the kid that wants to play in the NBA or NFL is going to put a lot of time and effort into that sports comm or kines degree? Maybe a few sure but the vast majority won't care. If they're physically ready to play, why force them to be in school? This whole "they should be happy with what they get" argument is bullshit to me. Who are we to decide what's better for them? A diploma doesn't pay your bills or keep food on your table, money does. These kids aren't going to be doctors and engineers for the most part, why take away their ability to make money?
So the next time people around here are making fun of a degree from MSU or OSU instead of one from Michigan, I assume you won't be joining them. After all, a diploma doesn't pay your bills or keep food on your table.
it matters a great deal where you got your degree from. If you are going to be a professional basketball player, it doesn't.
As a doctor I assure you this is not the case. Med schools mostly care about your MCAT and residencies mostly care about your STEP 1. Most patients don't give a shit where you studied.
Now if you want to be a lawyer or a professor.... Then it matters a lot.
Personally, I always check to see what schools my physicians attended. Its one of the first things I look at. For example, I'd see a Buckeye for a sore throat, but they sure as hell aren't going to be practicing any kind of internal medicine on me.
P.S. You're right about the law school mattering in getting a job.
That pharyngitis and viral URTIs are handled by internal medicine docs (and FP and CNPs)? My preceptor at residents clinic went to Michigan for undergrad, OSU for residency ( a very common arrangement). Would you see someone who has attended both? Just curious
What? My point is that a diploma by itself isn't going to get you a job or put money in your bank account when you have little no marketable skills, no work experience, no interview skills, etc I don't think it's right for us to decide or say "this is better for them so be happy with it".
Interesting, you seem to argue against yourself in this comment. The development a student gets during those three years on campus are the very things which would make a person more likely to be able to present themselves well.
This is the part of college I don't think most people get. It is not all just about the academic education. There is a life development education going on at the same time. You can argue that maturation process could also take place while they are working, but it does not.
I have heard many early NBA entry players say the hardest part was having to suddenly be a grown-up at such an early age.
As my Dad told me when he dropped me off at college: "You will never have another 4 years (and it will only be 4 years) like this again. You are not under my roof, but you are not thrown out to the wolves. Enjoy it."
I agree with the above poster and would like to add that the discussion has overlooked the community aspect of being around other students who are eager to learn.
You're assuming that they'll take that development seriously. It can happen sure.
That is the primary point. As people grow and mature, more times than not, they start to take things more seriously.
They don't have to go to college. There are professional basketball opportunities besides the NBA.
Did you read the article? Cuban proposed that the poor kids can go to FIBA (and make alot of money doing it) or even the D league.
Every employer in the world has a set of criteria that they believe is necessary for hiring a successful employee. We may not like it or agree but it's their right to do so. I'm positive that my last year or two at Michigan didn't make me any better of an employee when I got my first job at an advertising agency, and I'm sure I could have done just as well, in fact made quicker progress and more money, if I was hired after sohomore year. But that option wasn't available. If the NBA did the same, IMO no one should have the right to block or challenge it.
The problem is that you have 30-whatever employers (the teams) all collectively agreeing to discriminate against a class of people.
The NBA can't unilaterally impose such an age restriction, it would be subject to collective bargaining with the player's union.
Actually you can, if the players' union agrees to it. Remember the NFL court case a few years back?
At the risk of being political, I still think it's constitutionally dubious. I know that the Supreme Court rejected hearing Clarett's appeal, but I think the NFL rule could potentially be successfully attacked at another time. The NFL also relied on the argument that players aren't physically ready for pro football until they're two (three?) years out of high school. The NBA can't argue that.
There is also just the principle that we as a society don't (or shouldn't) restrict people's employment opportunities without a good reason. The fact that NBA owners can't stop themselves from drafting 18 year olds is not a good reason.
People's job opportunities are restricted by all kinds of things, from degrees, to experience, to age. So are people's voting rights, driving rights, marriage rights, etc. I don't see why the NBA can't set whatever requirements they want.
You can't set arbitrary limits on what kinds of people can enter professions. We'd all agree that the NBA can't say that it won't draft Latinos, for example. The "one-and-done" rule doesn't carry the sting of something like racism with it, but that's not the point. The point is that they're telling people who are perfectly capable of playing at an NBA level that they can't play b/c they fall into a given category that has nothing inherently to do with being a good basketball player.
Wouldn't this also apply to baseball, with its restriction on players going pro for 3 years if they don't do so after high school? I feel like that would be even harder to justify on a constitutional basis (although I personally like the rule). I'm not a legal scholar, but it seems like there is some precedent for minimum age requirements in employment (at least in some sectors) whereas maximum age limits are universally condemned.
Professional sports have been allowed to live in their own weird little world as far as anti-trust laws and such (look up Casey Stengel's testimony before Congress if you want to see something funny), but I question (FWIW) how long that will last. Players and potential players have so much money at stake now that I could see someone making a very concerted effort to change the status quos.
One thing that works in the NBA's favor is the proliferation of basketball leagues worldwide. The European leagues probably love the age restriction, since it keeps their guys around at least to age 19. China might eventually become more of a destination league as well. Players can make a lot of money playing pro basketball outside of the NBA, though they may have to leave the country.
Football is in a trickier position IMO, given that the only real alternative is the CFL. Someone might be compelled to file suit again.
The issue - like any other, I suppose - is heavily framed by how much in resources people are willing to put into the fight. This issue has never really been fought out with equal resources and vigor on both sides, which is one of the reasons that I think the law could be changed if someone had enough money...But, as I said above, I am not an employment lawyer, and my thoughts should be taken no more seriously than a chimp's.
An NBA agreement to not draft Latinos would fail because race and national origins receives strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause. Because this rule is about eligibility based on age, it just requires the NBA/NBAPA to have a rational basis for the rule.
And while that rational basis might seem questionable because the NBA has previously had successful players who have been drafted immediately out of high school, it's rule is actually more rock solid, legally, than the NFL's because the NBA's rule was the specific result of collective bargaining while the NFL's three year rule was merely a rule created within a collectively bargained agreement (ie, it was imposed by the owners, not bargained, but took shape within a labor market organized around a collective bargaining relationship, and was therefore not subject to anti-trust rulings).
There's a long smart football post about this in relation to the Clarett case, that also has to do with Sonia Sotomayor's jursiprudence related to sports.
But it's not even rational. 18 year old Kevin Garnett (or Anthony Davis) isn't/aren't better than 21 year old Dallas Lauderdale? That's laughable...I know that the NBA's rule is consistent with what the law is right at this minute, but I don't know that it would stand if you got it in front of a judge of a...different...belief system, one inclined to put just a bit of teeth into "rational."
"Rational" has been very broadly defined by the courts. In Kotch v. Board of River Commissioners, the Supreme Court upheld a law that functionally prohibited anyone but friends and relatives of river boat captains from receiving a pilot's liscense in Louisiana because it promoted "moral and esprit de corps" on the river.
The current language governing legal review of restrictions holds that the parties merely have to show that "there is any conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification."
I actually agree with your point morally, but legally, the NBA and the NBAPA can pretty much impose any restrictions they want that don't fall under strict scrutiny.
Edit: argh, your edit makes it look like I'm just being pedantic.
I'm kidding. Your point is well made, and I hear you.
Suppose David Stern could crunch the numbers and find that players aged 21 and up average X points and Y rebounds per game, whereas players under that age average fewer . . . would that constitute a "rational basis" for an age limit?
As Needs said above, it's a very weak test. It's sort of a fuzzy one, though, as well, and a federal judge who was motivated could say, "Well, that may be true of the average player, but what about the exceptional one?" What I would say as Kevin-Garnett-like-guy's lawyer is, "Why can't my client be judged individually just like the player who's been out of school for a year? I'm not asking anyone to draft him if he's not good."
IIRC, when this issue first came about there was some number crunching. Michael Mccann of the Mississippi College School of Law stated that their study found players out of high school not only succeeded more often than their college counter parts, but elite players who bypass college make something like 100 million more dollars over the course of their careers than their college counterparts.
This makes sense, because they have longer careers, are able to get through their rookie deals faster, and have the potential sign two big long term deals, as opposed to just one.
So not only are you arbitrarily restricting them from entering the NBA, but you're killing their earning potential as well.
But the issue wouldn't so much be the longitudinal trajectory of players who entered the league at 18-20 years old, but how they do specifically when they're 18-20 years old. Several of the best HS-to-NBA players (Kobe, Garnett, McGrady) did in fact struggle as rookies and sometimes as second-year players. When they were older they became better players. Now, to argue that this was solely due to chronological age is a stretch, but the league could potentially make it.
I would imagine that an argument claiming that an age restriction would result in an improved level of play, therefore making the NBA more competitive and enjoyable for fans would pass judicial review, especially since that new age restriction would almost certainly have to be collectively bargained (given that the current one is).
If the owners tried to impose a new age restriction, then the NBAPA would almost certainly challenge it as a contract violation.
The conservative (I don't mean that politically) observer would wager that it would pass. I'm just saying that I think there's a crack in the facade that you might be able to squeeze through. But no one should file a lawsuit just because I said that.
with a bunch of rich mostly-white men telling a group of largely-poor, largely-minority teenagers that they can't make money that they would unquestionably receive otherwise simply because it makes the lives of the rich white men easier.
What if the largely-"minority" NBA Players Union agrees to it? Does that make it better?
(BTW, why is "minority" used in sports as a code word for black? Asians, Native Americans et al. don't ever seem to count as "minority" athletes.)
and does not necessarily have the interests of high school kids at heart.
I agree - but why didn't you mention that in the first place, instead of going for a race-baiting angle ("rich white men")? The rich white men can't get any rule changes approved without the "minority" NBPA's approval.
to say that the policy would result in the transfer of money from poor black and latino kids to rich white old men, I'm fine race baiting. One of the biggest positives about big-time athletics is that it takes a number of very poor minority kids out of very bad areas and gives them either a college education or, if they're good enough, millions and millions of dollars. I didn't accuse anyone of racism, and do not think the policy is designed to keep black or hispanic kids impoverished. But the result of the policy is to keep more money in Donald Sterling's pocket and keep it out of Anthony Davis's for 2 more years. I don't see how that's good for anyone but Donald Sterling.
Because they by and large don't play professional sports?
Again, then, why not just call the league "predominantly black" instead of "predominantly minority"? Why the misleading language?
Why do you care? "Minority" isn't a pejorative term. It wasn't as specific as it could have been, I grant.
Actually, some people consider "minority" pejorative (there are actually civil-rights groups that hate the word), but that's another topic for discussion.
I'm genuinely curious to know why "minority" has become a code word for "black" in sports discussions.
My guess is that people are often worried (even if only unconsciously) about being deemed racist of they say something about a given group, so it's easier to just cast a wide net and say "minority." His statement shouldn't have been offensive if he'd just said "black," to me, but we all know that people will sometimes jump down your throat even when it's not justified...There's also possibly an issue with people not knowing whether they should say "African American" or "black." I'm not kidding when I say that. I say "black" most of the time, but I certainly wouldn't be shocked to be upbraided at some point for not saying "African American."
because it's fewer words than "black and hispanic." Nothing more, nothing less.
I thought it was an interesting question generally. My apologies if it seemed like I was projecting my guesses onto you.
It's not misleading. African-Americans are a minority in the United States. They're not a minority in this instance. I really don't get what point you're trying to make. Seems like you're grasping at straws.
Let's not even start with this racism!!1!!! bull. It's so overplayed.
No one in any profession can say, or have others (references, i.e. scouts) say, that he is good enough to work at a particular company, and force the employer to hire him or her on that qualification. The NBA is an employer. There is no legitimate difference. And minority is completely irelevant and a red herring.