i wouldn't mind it - i'd rather the kids come into the league more polished, but i can understand how potential players wont like this at all.
nyk4ever wrote:i wouldn't mind it - i'd rather the kids come into the league more polished, but i can understand how potential players wont like this at all.
I don't think it has anything to do with polish. This is to give the NCAA another year to milk these athletes for money. I can understand 19 year limit so we can see how these players do against better competition than in high school. The NCAA gets to milk them for 1 year and then they can make their own money. The NCAA makes soooooo much money and never gives the athletes any of it. The only way I would ever go for a wage increase is if the D league is turned into a real minor league. Where teams can gather young talent and develop them while paying them some money. The players should not count against the NBA teams roster either.
Clean wrote:nyk4ever wrote:i wouldn't mind it - i'd rather the kids come into the league more polished, but i can understand how potential players wont like this at all.
I don't think it has anything to do with polish. This is to give the NCAA another year to milk these athletes for money. I can understand 19 year limit so we can see how these players do against better competition than in high school. The NCAA gets to milk them for 1 year and then they can make their own money. The NCAA makes soooooo much money and never gives the athletes any of it. The only way I would ever go for a wage increase is if the D league is turned into a real minor league. Where teams can gather young talent and develop them while paying them some money. The players should not count against the NBA teams roster either.
With the league as dilute talent-wise as it currently is a strong d-league is not feasible. Maybe once 2-3 teams are cut down. In baseball players bloom later and are developed longer so its much easier to find 20 and 21 year old studs bringing their games together before they tackle the majors.
it's good for me as a fan,
it's a more polished product and it's good for the lower leagues/colleges, so that they get a cut of the ballers,
win win
IronWillGiroud wrote:it's good for me as a fan,it's a more polished product and it's good for the lower leagues/colleges, so that they get a cut of the ballers,
win win
They already get a huge cut off the ballers, in fact they get the entire pie!
so we're going to restrict where and how people can work and earn money?
So all of these Billionaire owners who are in all likelihood rabid free market advocates are for socialism!
Dagger wrote:IronWillGiroud wrote:it's good for me as a fan,it's a more polished product and it's good for the lower leagues/colleges, so that they get a cut of the ballers,
win win
They already get a huge cut off the ballers, in fact they get the entire pie!
They gotta keep getting it! And it's not like the ballets don't get a uni degree in return
Win win
Clean wrote:nyk4ever wrote:i wouldn't mind it - i'd rather the kids come into the league more polished, but i can understand how potential players wont like this at all.
I don't think it has anything to do with polish. This is to give the NCAA another year to milk these athletes for money. I can understand 19 year limit so we can see how these players do against better competition than in high school. The NCAA gets to milk them for 1 year and then they can make their own money. The NCAA makes soooooo much money and never gives the athletes any of it. The only way I would ever go for a wage increase is if the D league is turned into a real minor league. Where teams can gather young talent and develop them while paying them some money. The players should not count against the NBA teams roster either.
i dont think you understood my post. it's obvious that both the NCAA and the NBA have their selfish reasons for doing this, but as a fan, i'd much rather see players come into the league more polished, which they would, if this was instituted. not saying it's right or wrong.
I choose 19 that's the only protection I'm giving the owners, they'll have enough time to do a through research on their investment like they would in the "corporate business world".
Let the NCAA GO BACK TO BEING A AMATEUR SPORT for these young men who choose to stay in school.
Let the ones who want to make a living but aren't ready, be developed with the D-League affiliate.
NCAA is the ones trying to get paid for free labor of young men that creates revenue for them called "entertainment"
Who said they have to go to college?
At the same time, if they go in later and are more mature and a better "investment", then I would expect the rookie scale to go up!
The players can make themselves more valuable and compensated for it.
I remember reading about the best draft picks on whole were the players picked at 18-19 years old throughout the last 12-15 years or so. I think one and done is just fine--1 year of life wont change much.
OK for all you NCAA backers, explain this:
Former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon was named as the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit alleging former college football and basketball players are illegally denied a share of profits made by the NCAA through the sale of television and online reruns, video games, jerseys and other paraphernalia.
"I've always been one to wonder why former student athletes weren't compensated for their games on television," said O'Bannon, who helped lead UCLA to an NCAA championship in 1995. "The NCAA is making money off of DVDs and old reruns with people like me in it. Hey, I'm no longer in college. Something is wrong here."
The suit, which was filed in U.S. District Court in Northern California, seeks class-action status and strikes at the delicate balancing act that the NCAA has long performed.
The Indianapolis-based NCAA, a nonprofit organization sheltered from paying taxes because of its ties to higher education, brings in revenue that would be the envy of a large corporation -- its 11-year, $6-billion TV contract with CBS to broadcast basketball a prime example. Yet to maintain their amateur status, the NCAA can't allow its athletes to share in those profits, although it does provide many with scholarships.
Also cut from the revenue are former athletes, despite the fact they increasingly help make significant sums for the NCAA and business partners such as the Collegiate Licensing Co., also named in the suit.
Former athletes are featured in TV reruns of classic games and their generated likenesses, slightly altered, can be seen in videos. Their replica jerseys are sold in sporting goods stores and online. Also available online are actual, game-used jerseys, sold for hundreds of dollars each.
Is it a conspiracy that the NCAA and NBA are in cahoots with each other? Was the NCAA\college TV and other revenue drastically affected when the age limit was changed the last time? IMO it doesn't matter how many high profile players play or don't play in college. I has no bearing with the core college viewers and popularity of the college game.
Andrew wrote:Is it a conspiracy that the NCAA and NBA are in cahoots with each other? Was the NCAA\college TV and other revenue drastically affected when the age limit was changed the last time? IMO it doesn't matter how many high profile players play or don't play in college. I has no bearing with the core college viewers and popularity of the college game.
I would say yes, college athletics is a amateur sport it should go back to being that.
Then Maybe it would be ok for kids to stay in school, because they aren't being exploited.
only silver and stern and players care about the age limit...
the owners really shouldn't.
if they pick someone who is young and unpolished, they essentially drafted someone who couldn't provide immediate dividends
therefore they could be putting a bad product out there on the floor if you are a young team.
20 plus years old or not, what kind of impact are you really having on a veteran team...? at the very best it is average.
in other words, this question really matters to teams who dont already have superstars.
well.. if you draft on "potential" like the bucks did with giannis, they have to take the hit for now by smaller revenue from the fans... they made the choice.
as far as the overall nba product day in and day out... there's enough stars in this league (and more will develop over time as some retire) for it to be entertaining.
if you draft for immediate dividends, you would probably have to go with a player who is 20 plus years old in most cases.
what the players don't understand is that if they come in the league out of highschool like amare did and rely strictly on strength and talent, you better have a work ethic like kobe's to survive in the league for that long. otherwise, you could be looking at knees like amare, and being on the knicks in their future.
silver is doing them a favor by raising the limit, how many players do we see that come in unpolished and last in the league for a max of 5 years and no one wants them.
jared jeffries is now doing a tv show on fishing. where is eddy curry and jerome james.
look at bird man, dude has no game, when was the last time he made a jump shot... he's surviving in this league simply based on hard work and hustle. that's what many 19 yr old players do not understand. I would even be ok with folks coming in at 21 yrs and over.
we see an overall better product. and we pay more. everybody wins.
playa2 wrote:Andrew wrote:Is it a conspiracy that the NCAA and NBA are in cahoots with each other? Was the NCAA\college TV and other revenue drastically affected when the age limit was changed the last time? IMO it doesn't matter how many high profile players play or don't play in college. I has no bearing with the core college viewers and popularity of the college game.
I would say yes, college athletics is a amateur sport it should go back to being that.
Then Maybe it would be ok for kids to stay in school, because they aren't being exploited.
Exploited? Do you realize how many scholorships are given to players that never will sniff the NBA?
Who builds the arenas? Hires the coaching staff? Builds them dorms, training facilities?
Hundreds of players benefit from this.
But a kid, like Jeremy tyler does not even have to finish high school. He was good enough to be play on a pro team in israel. not all kids are college material, but now your asking Dleague and Pro teams to now help these kids with how to eat, clean clothes, learn about money, etc where some of that they can get being in a system. Some of these diva players are way too enabled to think they don't need to do anything but play ball. Thats their cross to bare if they don't make it "big" but really playa, enough with the exploitation thing. The NBA is not saying "Go to NCAA and enrich them", they are saying "get your life together and prove your a good investment". Basically they have three choices: NCAA, overseas, Dleague. Maybe overseas teams don't want the headache of a big name immature player who will be a problem if he does not get his minutes or perform.
If anything the Dleague has a very low cap and those teams will be exploiting a big name kid paying him some 50k and drawing bigger crowds. Think if Randle, wiggens and Parker were in Dleague they would not get more attendance and viewship on TV?
Is that ok playa? Then we can blame the greedy owners instead of the greedy colleges? those foriegn teams will also be "greedy" and may screw the kids over.
NBA wants more polished mature kids. If they want to do that the Union should demand a higher rookie scale. I would imagine the NBA would not have a problem with that. They are paying for a better product. They will have to give in order to get that concession.
Cartman718 wrote:only silver and stern and players care about the age limit...
the owners really shouldn't.if they pick someone who is young and unpolished, they essentially drafted someone who couldn't provide immediate dividends
therefore they could be putting a bad product out there on the floor if you are a young team.
20 plus years old or not, what kind of impact are you really having on a veteran team...? at the very best it is average.
in other words, this question really matters to teams who dont already have superstars.
well.. if you draft on "potential" like the bucks did with giannis, they have to take the hit for now by smaller revenue from the fans... they made the choice.
as far as the overall nba product day in and day out... there's enough stars in this league (and more will develop over time as some retire) for it to be entertaining.
if you draft for immediate dividends, you would probably have to go with a player who is 20 plus years old in most cases.
what the players don't understand is that if they come in the league out of highschool like amare did and rely strictly on strength and talent, you better have a work ethic like kobe's to survive in the league for that long. otherwise, you could be looking at knees like amare, and being on the knicks in their future.
silver is doing them a favor by raising the limit, how many players do we see that come in unpolished and last in the league for a max of 5 years and no one wants them.
jared jeffries is now doing a tv show on fishing. where is eddy curry and jerome james.
look at bird man, dude has no game, when was the last time he made a jump shot... he's surviving in this league simply based on hard work and hustle. that's what many 19 yr old players do not understand. I would even be ok with folks coming in at 21 yrs and over.
we see an overall better product. and we pay more. everybody wins.
The cutoff age seems arbitrary. I don't think there are any studies out there suggesting that 19-year-old prospects are less likely to succeed than 20-year-old prospects. There are plenty of 20 and 21-year-old players who wash out after a brief period in the NBA.
I believe NBA teams and scouts are responsible for this age obsession. Prospects are penalized by scouts for being older because they have limited upside. Look at Shabazz Muhammad. He was a surefire top 10 pick until scouts found out he was year older than his listed age.
I think it's hypocritical for Silver to cry foul over a system that's being sustained by the league he presides over.
Plus, with kids reclassifying and enrolling in prep school, there is still the chance of kids meeting the age requirement with a limited amount of college experience.
I think Jerome James was 21 when he started playing pro basketball. Just goes to show how ridiculous it is to gauge that maturity of people between the ages of 19 and 21. I think the 18-year-old age limit is overkill.
An arbitrary age limit isn't about protecting GM's from busts. It's about contract control. Generally speaking, an NBA player's prime is going to last from about age 26-32. Under the current system, a first round prospect can become an unrestricted free agent after 8 years in the league (assuming the guy is good enough to warrant the three-year deal, plus restricted free agency. The current system is about preventing what the Miami Heat did from happening again, and increasing the age limit gives ownership more control of a player's peak.
It's about contract control. NBA players peak from ages 26-32, roughly speaking. If that player comes in at 18, he gets to become a free agent at age 26, right as he's peaking. If he comes in at 21, the owner of the original team that drafted and developed the guy keeps control of him until he's 29.
y2zipper wrote:An arbitrary age limit isn't about protecting GM's from busts. It's about contract control. Generally speaking, an NBA player's prime is going to last from about age 26-32. Under the current system, a first round prospect can become an unrestricted free agent after 8 years in the league (assuming the guy is good enough to warrant the three-year deal, plus restricted free agency. The current system is about preventing what the Miami Heat did from happening again, and increasing the age limit gives ownership more control of a player's peak.It's about contract control. NBA players peak from ages 26-32, roughly speaking. If that player comes in at 18, he gets to become a free agent at age 26, right as he's peaking. If he comes in at 21, the owner of the original team that drafted and developed the guy keeps control of him until he's 29.
Rookie contracts are 4 years. The RFA contract is a minimum of 3 years. So its actually 7 years with the team that drafted you (unless of course the player decides to accept the 1 year qualifying offer and become an UFA after 5 years with the team.
So with that and the 20 year old entry date that is being reported it puts the player right in their peak at 27 for the next contract right? Good time to sign your next contract no?
If you're going to raise the age, then it's only fair they introduce a generous compensation package in case these young players suffer career ending injuries before they get to the nba. And shorten rookie contracts too by a year or two.
I have been hoping they would do this for the longest time. Too many kids enter the league and it's taking way too much time for them to develop because they don't even have a baseline skillset established. It's a joke that these guys enter the league and it takes them 5 or so years to develop and by then, they already have a decent amount of mileage.
This is business not charity. The NBA shouldn't give out any packages or feel bad for anyone. Just like any business, future candidates to play for NBA need to reach criterion. There are too many bad teams and underdeveloped players in the league as is. Time for the crap to change.
To suggest that college players are being exploited is a joke.
