The NBA isn't likely to get the 20 year old age limit

[BoulderCat]

I've said many times I think the NBA GM's/owner's have no interest in changing things. The way it is they get to evaluate player's at a higher level of competition before drafting them. The NBPA's position I also understand. I'm not sure it's all about race, but it's a fair argument. As a college basketball fan I'd be happy with either change. What usually happens though when you have 2 powerful sides entrenched against one another? Often nothing. So I suspect the whole thing will get tabled in favor of other issues more relevant to the current player's. Perhaps the current "discussions" over making freshmen ineligible are in fact just a pressure point to soften the owner's position, but I see it as ineffective. Whether guys play in college or overseas for a year the same is true, they get to evaluate them at a different level than HS. Bottom line, I don't see it changing in the foreseeable future, and expect more and more program's will go after these guys just as the NCAA's golden boy K has done. Writers, fans, and administrators across the country will continue to criticize it, but coaches will do what they've always done, when they see something working for someone else the copy it.

 

[mj2k10]

Originally posted by UK till Death:

Originally posted by mj2k10:

Originally posted by UK till Death:
Is mj2k10 doing his Al Sharpton impression again?

Are you wearing your Klan hood again?

Keep playing that race card, DB.

You defeat your arguments easier/quicker than anyone else with your tired rhetoric and weak, pedantic analysis.

I just saw someone talk about Tubby's lazy recruiting in another thread... sick 'em!

In this case, not my argument, Massengill. Which you might see, if your head wasn't shoved so far into an unnatural position.

In fact, I would say that race is a very minor factor here in the broader view. Age-limits in basketball and football have far more to do with the fact that the NBA and the NFL were expressly created because of the popularity of the college versions of basketball and football. Pro basketball came along because college basketball was popular. That's the exact opposite of hockey and baseball, in which college versions of the sports came along because the sports were generally popular, including established professional leagues. College basketball and football have been the most successful minor leagues in history, by far, so of course owners in those leagues want to utilize them as much as possible. Especially since they cost the owners nothing.

However, because of the racial makeup of the NBA and NFL, it's almost inevitable that restrictions are seen, by the players, as having a racial element. Which is exactly what the NBAPA lawyer is quoted as saying in the article.

The fact that you and your buddy take offense to me mentioning something THAT'S NOT EVEN MY IDEA (though I can understand why the players might tend to see it that way), but instead is something an NBAPA rep said, just shows what a complete knee-jerk buffoon you are. But you keep fighting the good fight against "race-baiting", because as you well know, racism has been completely eradicated except for assholes like me who want to pretend that sometimes, just sometimes, it might be an issue.

 

[mj2k10]

Originally posted by cats2010:

Originally posted by mj2k10:


FROM THE ARTICLE.

Quote, from Gary Kohlman


"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."

I know you are just quoting someone else but the if they were white BS crap doesn't fly. I don't know about hockey and don't care enough to look it up but in MLB the average rookie is 24 years old, 6 years removed from high school. Sure they have a right to go pro but spend many years in the minors before ever making it to the big club. Screw the two year rule, I want three. Every other person who wants a successful career has to do 4 years of grad school plus another 2-4 years of post grad all while racking up a six figure student loan debt. Don't buy it's not fair, life's not fair, there is no entitlement. If Michael Jordan can play three years of college ball, then they all can as far as I am concerned.

And the top prospects in baseball are paid very, very, very well for serving a multi-year apprenticeship in the minor leagues. That's the difference. Last year's MLB 1st round pick signing bonuses ranged from 7.9 million for the 1st pick to a low of 1.6 million. And 16 of the 34 guys picked were coming straight out of HS.

If the NBA had a minor league, none of this would be an issue. The NBA chooses not to have one, because college basketball does a fantastic job of promoting their future players, and because it costs them nothing. In the big picture, this might not be a terrible thing for anyone- players, owners, or fans- but I can understand why a lot of basketball players disagree with it.

This post was edited on 3/6 10:11 AM by mj2k10

 

[The_Godfather]

The sooner you guys realize that mj2k10 is simply an idiot who also has a quick trigger to start questioning your intelligence and ulterior motives as soon as you say something in which he disagrees, the better off your will be.

Just for reference, he actually had the balls to mock me while he claimed that Kwame Brown was in fact NOT a busted draft pick.

So, I suggest you all do as I did and put him on ignore with the rest of the dipshits who pollute this board. You'll thank me for it.

 

[RDCat07]

The NCAA needs to make it so they don't lose their eligibility if they go un drafted or choose not to go to where they are drafted. I think it is just a silly rule, I was paid as a TA in graduate school, I worked in my professional field while I was in grad school. Just make them ineligible only after they play their first minute of professional basketball. I could care less if a bunch of 18 year olds test the waters in the draft and don't get drafted, let them come and play somewhere, they would prob stay longer than 1 year that way. Or the NBA could just require everyone to have a min of an associates degree. And the only true way to make this all about student athletes is for the nba to require a 4 year degree (they can consult UNC on this

)

 

[mj2k10]

Originally posted by The_Godfather:
The sooner you guys realize that mj2k10 is simply an idiot who also has a quick trigger to start questioning your intelligence and ulterior motives as soon as you say something in which he disagrees, the better off your will be.

Just for reference, he actually had the balls to mock me while he claimed that Kwame Brown was in fact NOT a busted draft pick.

So, I suggest you all do as I did and put him on ignore with the rest of the dipshits who pollute this board. You'll thank me for it.

That's truly special.

You wanted to argue that HS players drafted into the NBA were busts. You were wildly wrong. I listed every single player drafted out of HS from 95-2005. Would you like me to do it again?

For Kwame Brown, I'm pretty sure what I said was that though he was a bust, he still managed to play 600 games in the NBA, which is not something a lot of players do (fact).

If facts mock you, you need to look in the mirror to find the real problem. (oops, was that mocking you again?).

 

[anon_013cn8yrfncx2]

"However, because of the racial makeup of the NBA and NFL, it's almost inevitable that restrictions are seen, by the players, as having a racial element. Which is exactly what the NBAPA lawyer is quoted as saying in the article."

I doubt this. This is what they have been told to see by the race hustlers who have their own axe to grind. Hence the Al Sharpton reference toward you. And just like in the political arena, the average person can see right through the argument.
There is no racial bias by the owners but there are those who say so for their own ends. And there are a few and sometimes many who want to identify with that rhetoric. Just the NBAPA's version of "hands up, don't shoot"

 

[mj2k10]

This post was edited on 3/6 10:53 AM by mj2k10

 

[mj2k10]

Originally posted by no_neutrality:

"However, because of the racial makeup of the NBA and NFL, it's almost inevitable that restrictions are seen, by the players, as having a racial element. Which is exactly what the NBAPA lawyer is quoted as saying in the article."

I doubt this. This is what they have been told to see by the race hustlers who have their own axe to grind. Hence the Al Sharpton reference toward you. And just like in the political arena, the average person can see right through the argument.
There is no racial bias by the owners but there are those who say so for their own ends. And there are a few and sometimes many who want to identify with that rhetoric. Just the NBAPA's version of "hands up, don't shoot"

Take it easy, Champ, maybe stop talking for a while.

BTW, apparently most NBA players can't "see through the argument", since it was their rep who made it in the first place. Something (call it intuition) tells me he wouldn't be walking out on that limb unless he felt like most NBA players would agree.

Which

Is

Why

I

Talked

About

It

In

The

First

Place.

Did you do the dramatic pause between each line? (good).

The fact that people can get so incredibly flustered by an NBAPA rep saying that he thinks age-restrictions for the NBA draft have a racial element is incredibly revealing, BTW.

 

[BlueCat43]

What do you guys think about raising the league minimum, and having a tiered salary system where if you come straight out of HS you start at the league minimum? I would say make the contracts 1+1 (with the +1 being a team option). With 1 year experience (i.e. one year in college or professionally overseas) you get a little better rookie salary and it goes up for 3 or 4 years of experience. This would give players the option to go straight to the league if they so wish but for less money. This takes a little risk off the GMs and owners and gives incentive for the players to play in college. I think this makes everyone happy (other than the agents who are licking their chops over the elite talent and the big rookie contracts they get).

Another wrinkle would be to have straight from HS kids get the league minimum and a 3+1 contract. For each year of experience the salary goes up a little and the length goes down. So a OAD player would get more money and a 2+1 contract, and a 2 year or more player would get even more money and a 1+1 contract.

 

[Aike]

Kwame Brown might have been a bust as the first pick, but the guy made $64 million in his career.

Steven Hunter was a center picked 15th in the same draft. He made $22 million.

Vlad Rad went 12th and made $43 million.

DeSagana Diop went 8th and made $47 million.

So in my mind it isn't so much that Kwame was a bust, just that he was drafted too high. Had he been a late lottery pick he would have just made a ho-hum $64 million dollars and most people wouldn't even remember his name.

 

[brianpoe]

I don't think the bust term is applicable to the players as much as it is to the ownership who didn't get the value for their money spent.

As to mjk, just because the players believe their is a racial aspect to the OAD rule doesn't make it true that the owners actually feel that way. No one is an idiot. You seem to think because a player rep says it then its true. You cannot convince me that the OAD is due to a bunch of old white guys not wanting to give money to a handful of black kids, but instead give money to black kids a year older. I don't care what the players or their reps say, they may very well believe it, I just don't.

 

[mj2k10]

Originally posted by BlueCat43:
What do you guys think about raising the league minimum, and having a tiered salary system where if you come straight out of HS you start at the league minimum? I would say make the contracts 1+1 (with the +1 being a team option). With 1 year experience (i.e. one year in college or professionally overseas) you get a little better rookie salary and it goes up for 3 or 4 years of experience. This would give players the option to go straight to the league if they so wish but for less money. This takes a little risk off the GMs and owners and gives incentive for the players to play in college. I think this makes everyone happy (other than the agents who are licking their chops over the elite talent and the big rookie contracts they get).

Another wrinkle would be to have straight from HS kids get the league minimum and a 3+1 contract. For each year of experience the salary goes up a little and the length goes down. So a OAD player would get more money and a 2+1 contract, and a 2 year or more player would get even more money and a 1+1 contract.

I think this is a little too restrictive, basically categorizing everyone as exactly the same purely based on age, but I agree with the direction it's going, and I absolutely agree that the NBA would be well-served by giving guys some legit motivation to stay in school longer. Right now, EVERYTHING about the system encourages a guy to declare for the draft ASAP. There is almost 0 advantage to delaying that decision. If you really want guys to delay that choice, give them a legit reason to do so.

 

[brianpoe]

Originally posted by mj2k10:

Originally posted by BlueCat43:
What do you guys think about raising the league minimum, and having a tiered salary system where if you come straight out of HS you start at the league minimum? I would say make the contracts 1+1 (with the +1 being a team option). With 1 year experience (i.e. one year in college or professionally overseas) you get a little better rookie salary and it goes up for 3 or 4 years of experience. This would give players the option to go straight to the league if they so wish but for less money. This takes a little risk off the GMs and owners and gives incentive for the players to play in college. I think this makes everyone happy (other than the agents who are licking their chops over the elite talent and the big rookie contracts they get).

Another wrinkle would be to have straight from HS kids get the league minimum and a 3+1 contract. For each year of experience the salary goes up a little and the length goes down. So a OAD player would get more money and a 2+1 contract, and a 2 year or more player would get even more money and a 1+1 contract.

I think this is a little too restrictive, basically categorizing everyone as exactly the same purely based on age, but I agree with the direction it's going, and I absolutely agree that the NBA would be well-served by giving guys some legit motivation to stay in school longer. Right now, EVERYTHING about the system encourages a guy to declare for the draft ASAP. There is almost 0 advantage to delaying that decision. If you really want guys to delay that choice, give them a legit reason to do so.

Totally agree with this.

 

[BlueCat43]

Originally posted by mj2k10:

Originally posted by BlueCat43:
What do you guys think about raising the league minimum, and having a tiered salary system where if you come straight out of HS you start at the league minimum? I would say make the contracts 1+1 (with the +1 being a team option). With 1 year experience (i.e. one year in college or professionally overseas) you get a little better rookie salary and it goes up for 3 or 4 years of experience. This would give players the option to go straight to the league if they so wish but for less money. This takes a little risk off the GMs and owners and gives incentive for the players to play in college. I think this makes everyone happy (other than the agents who are licking their chops over the elite talent and the big rookie contracts they get).

Another wrinkle would be to have straight from HS kids get the league minimum and a 3+1 contract. For each year of experience the salary goes up a little and the length goes down. So a OAD player would get more money and a 2+1 contract, and a 2 year or more player would get even more money and a 1+1 contract.

I think this is a little too restrictive, basically categorizing everyone as exactly the same purely based on age, but I agree with the direction it's going, and I absolutely agree that the NBA would be well-served by giving guys some legit motivation to stay in school longer. Right now, EVERYTHING about the system encourages a guy to declare for the draft ASAP. There is almost 0 advantage to delaying that decision. If you really want guys to delay that choice, give them a legit reason to do so.

They could additionally have tiers for where they are drafted (as it is now) in addition to what I outlined above.

 

[KMKAT]

Guys declare when they determine that their value is as good as its going to get. Some miss that mark, but most hit the mark and ready or not, like Cousins, they head into the league.

I always thought that putting salary aside, that being drafted by a previous year's playoff team is the way to go. Tayshaun was very fortunate as well as Rondo, to not be seen as the best coming out and they have had a great run with playoff teams.

But, like Cousins, Wall, Davis & MKG, you have to leave if you're highly valued against the competition. The onus is on the NBA teams to pick and develop the right talent.

I think the NBA has been fantastic this year. It was tiring to see LA & BOS dominate the league. Now, parity is actually happening.

I'm all for letting you go when you feel you're ready. I don't prefer 1 or 2 years waiting. You go with the rules and let Cal figure out the best combination.

The ones who aren't happy with one and done aren't seeing any success with OAD. That's on their coaching staffs. Pretty simple to me.

What's pretty incredible is that out of all the teams that aren't successfully winning the OAD game, they're actually pointing the blame elsewhere when its their staff that doesn't like the process of chasing elite talent.

 

[KopiKat]

Originally posted by brianpoe:

Originally posted by mj2k10:

Originally posted by BlueCat43:
What do you guys think about raising the league minimum, and having a tiered salary system where if you come straight out of HS you start at the league minimum? I would say make the contracts 1+1 (with the +1 being a team option). With 1 year experience (i.e. one year in college or professionally overseas) you get a little better rookie salary and it goes up for 3 or 4 years of experience. This would give players the option to go straight to the league if they so wish but for less money. This takes a little risk off the GMs and owners and gives incentive for the players to play in college. I think this makes everyone happy (other than the agents who are licking their chops over the elite talent and the big rookie contracts they get).

Another wrinkle would be to have straight from HS kids get the league minimum and a 3+1 contract. For each year of experience the salary goes up a little and the length goes down. So a OAD player would get more money and a 2+1 contract, and a 2 year or more player would get even more money and a 1+1 contract.

I think this is a little too restrictive, basically categorizing everyone as exactly the same purely based on age, but I agree with the direction it's going, and I absolutely agree that the NBA would be well-served by giving guys some legit motivation to stay in school longer. Right now, EVERYTHING about the system encourages a guy to declare for the draft ASAP. There is almost 0 advantage to delaying that decision. If you really want guys to delay that choice, give them a legit reason to do so.

Totally agree with this.

Your efforts are amazing. Your conclusions are incomplete. You base them on appearances instead of on the potential outcomes they avoid. This is exactly why you and so many others do not understand why league owners and GMs have implemented the "one year removed from high school" rule.

To be precise, the NBA has no "one and done" rule. That is slang terminology for the rule which states (paraphrased loosely) that a player must be removed from high school a minimum of one year prior to obtaining roster status in the NBA.

So what does that rule accomplish, other than creating a one and done culture in the collegiate ranks? If you would do yourself a favor and answer that question intelligently instead of emotionally then you and the other posters who have exchanged with you would be able to understand the reason WHY the NBA has the "one year removed from high school" rule.

I will answer it for you by doing this: go back and look at the year the rule was implemented, 2006. Then, go back and look at the year when OJ Mayo was between his high school junior and senior years (also 2006). If you don't already know, OJ had to leave North College Hill under unfavorable circumstances. It is almost certain that OJ would have quit high school after his junior year (2006) and entered the NBA draft. By then OJ was already 18 1/2 years old. It is not a coincidence that the NBA's one year removed from high school rule began with the 2006 NBA draft. Beginning with OJ Mayo, this rule was created for this purpose and this purpose only. Please read carefully and slowly:

TO PREVENT PLAYERS FROM QUITTING HIGH SCHOOL FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENTERING THE NBA DRAFT

OJ Mayo not only would have done this but would have done so successfully. He would have been a very, very high lottery pick. The NBA did not risk the bad publicity that would have occurred by showering riches upon a quitting HS junior and so created this folly rule that to this day has intelligent observers confused about it's orginal intent. Have a nice day.

 

[Aike]

Originally posted by KopiKat:

Originally posted by brianpoe:

Originally posted by mj2k10:

Originally posted by BlueCat43:
What do you guys think about raising the league minimum, and having a tiered salary system where if you come straight out of HS you start at the league minimum? I would say make the contracts 1+1 (with the +1 being a team option). With 1 year experience (i.e. one year in college or professionally overseas) you get a little better rookie salary and it goes up for 3 or 4 years of experience. This would give players the option to go straight to the league if they so wish but for less money. This takes a little risk off the GMs and owners and gives incentive for the players to play in college. I think this makes everyone happy (other than the agents who are licking their chops over the elite talent and the big rookie contracts they get).

Another wrinkle would be to have straight from HS kids get the league minimum and a 3+1 contract. For each year of experience the salary goes up a little and the length goes down. So a OAD player would get more money and a 2+1 contract, and a 2 year or more player would get even more money and a 1+1 contract.

I think this is a little too restrictive, basically categorizing everyone as exactly the same purely based on age, but I agree with the direction it's going, and I absolutely agree that the NBA would be well-served by giving guys some legit motivation to stay in school longer. Right now, EVERYTHING about the system encourages a guy to declare for the draft ASAP. There is almost 0 advantage to delaying that decision. If you really want guys to delay that choice, give them a legit reason to do so.

Totally agree with this.

Your efforts are amazing. Your conclusions are incomplete. You base them on appearances instead of on the potential outcomes they avoid. This is exactly why you and so many others do not understand why league owners and GMs have implemented the "one year removed from high school" rule.

To be precise, the NBA has no "one and done" rule. That is slang terminology for the rule which states (paraphrased loosely) that a player must be removed from high school a minimum of one year prior to obtaining roster status in the NBA.

So what does that rule accomplish, other than creating a one and done culture in the collegiate ranks? If you would do yourself a favor and answer that question intelligently instead of emotionally then you and the other posters who have exchanged with you would be able to understand the reason WHY the NBA has the "one year removed from high school" rule.

I will answer it for you by doing this: go back and look at the year the rule was implemented, 2006. Then, go back and look at the year when OJ Mayo was between his high school junior and senior years (also 2006). If you don't already know, OJ had to leave North College Hill under unfavorable circumstances. It is almost certain that OJ would have quit high school after his junior year (2006) and entered the NBA draft. By then OJ was already 18 1/2 years old. It is not a coincidence that the NBA's one year removed from high school rule began with the 2006 NBA draft. Beginning with OJ Mayo, this rule was created for this purpose and this purpose only. Please read carefully and slowly:

TO PREVENT PLAYERS FROM QUITTING HIGH SCHOOL FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENTERING THE NBA DRAFT

OJ Mayo not only would have done this but would have done so successfully. He would have been a very, very high lottery pick. The NBA did not risk the bad publicity that would have occurred by showering riches upon a quitting HS junior and so created this folly rule that to this day has intelligent observers confused about it's orginal intent. Have a nice day.

I think this is close to right, but not quite. They could have prevented high school juniors from coming out by simply requiring someone to obtain their high school diploma before entering the draft. No, the one year removed rule was at least in part intended to provide the league with more time to evaluate prospects.

Additionally, the NBA did not like the image of scouts and GM's hanging out in high school gyms. So I think an element of the rule was to prevent high school juniors from looking up in the stands and seeing Mitch Kupchak. So it made sense to put a year's distance between graduation and advancement to the NBA for PR purposes.

 

[KopiKat]

Originally posted by Aike:

Originally posted by KopiKat:

Originally posted by brianpoe:

Originally posted by mj2k10:

Originally posted by BlueCat43:
What do you guys think about raising the league minimum, and having a tiered salary system where if you come straight out of HS you start at the league minimum? I would say make the contracts 1+1 (with the +1 being a team option). With 1 year experience (i.e. one year in college or professionally overseas) you get a little better rookie salary and it goes up for 3 or 4 years of experience. This would give players the option to go straight to the league if they so wish but for less money. This takes a little risk off the GMs and owners and gives incentive for the players to play in college. I think this makes everyone happy (other than the agents who are licking their chops over the elite talent and the big rookie contracts they get).

Another wrinkle would be to have straight from HS kids get the league minimum and a 3+1 contract. For each year of experience the salary goes up a little and the length goes down. So a OAD player would get more money and a 2+1 contract, and a 2 year or more player would get even more money and a 1+1 contract.

I think this is a little too restrictive, basically categorizing everyone as exactly the same purely based on age, but I agree with the direction it's going, and I absolutely agree that the NBA would be well-served by giving guys some legit motivation to stay in school longer. Right now, EVERYTHING about the system encourages a guy to declare for the draft ASAP. There is almost 0 advantage to delaying that decision. If you really want guys to delay that choice, give them a legit reason to do so.

Totally agree with this.

Your efforts are amazing. Your conclusions are incomplete. You base them on appearances instead of on the potential outcomes they avoid. This is exactly why you and so many others do not understand why league owners and GMs have implemented the "one year removed from high school" rule.

To be precise, the NBA has no "one and done" rule. That is slang terminology for the rule which states (paraphrased loosely) that a player must be removed from high school a minimum of one year prior to obtaining roster status in the NBA.

So what does that rule accomplish, other than creating a one and done culture in the collegiate ranks? If you would do yourself a favor and answer that question intelligently instead of emotionally then you and the other posters who have exchanged with you would be able to understand the reason WHY the NBA has the "one year removed from high school" rule.

I will answer it for you by doing this: go back and look at the year the rule was implemented, 2006. Then, go back and look at the year when OJ Mayo was between his high school junior and senior years (also 2006). If you don't already know, OJ had to leave North College Hill under unfavorable circumstances. It is almost certain that OJ would have quit high school after his junior year (2006) and entered the NBA draft. By then OJ was already 18 1/2 years old. It is not a coincidence that the NBA's one year removed from high school rule began with the 2006 NBA draft. Beginning with OJ Mayo, this rule was created for this purpose and this purpose only. Please read carefully and slowly:

TO PREVENT PLAYERS FROM QUITTING HIGH SCHOOL FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENTERING THE NBA DRAFT

OJ Mayo not only would have done this but would have done so successfully. He would have been a very, very high lottery pick. The NBA did not risk the bad publicity that would have occurred by showering riches upon a quitting HS junior and so created this folly rule that to this day has intelligent observers confused about it's orginal intent. Have a nice day.

I think this is close to right, but not quite. They could have prevented high school juniors from coming out by simply requiring someone to obtain their high school diploma before entering the draft.

lol - as if the NBA is going to require ANY form of completed education in order to obtain basketball employment status. Seriously, that is hilarious.

 

[BlueCat43]

Originally posted by KopiKat:

Originally posted by brianpoe:

Originally posted by mj2k10:

Originally posted by BlueCat43:
What do you guys think about raising the league minimum, and having a tiered salary system where if you come straight out of HS you start at the league minimum? I would say make the contracts 1+1 (with the +1 being a team option). With 1 year experience (i.e. one year in college or professionally overseas) you get a little better rookie salary and it goes up for 3 or 4 years of experience. This would give players the option to go straight to the league if they so wish but for less money. This takes a little risk off the GMs and owners and gives incentive for the players to play in college. I think this makes everyone happy (other than the agents who are licking their chops over the elite talent and the big rookie contracts they get).

Another wrinkle would be to have straight from HS kids get the league minimum and a 3+1 contract. For each year of experience the salary goes up a little and the length goes down. So a OAD player would get more money and a 2+1 contract, and a 2 year or more player would get even more money and a 1+1 contract.

I think this is a little too restrictive, basically categorizing everyone as exactly the same purely based on age, but I agree with the direction it's going, and I absolutely agree that the NBA would be well-served by giving guys some legit motivation to stay in school longer. Right now, EVERYTHING about the system encourages a guy to declare for the draft ASAP. There is almost 0 advantage to delaying that decision. If you really want guys to delay that choice, give them a legit reason to do so.

Totally agree with this.

Your efforts are amazing. Your conclusions are incomplete. You base them on appearances instead of on the potential outcomes they avoid. This is exactly why you and so many others do not understand why league owners and GMs have implemented the "one year removed from high school" rule.

To be precise, the NBA has no "one and done" rule. That is slang terminology for the rule which states (paraphrased loosely) that a player must be removed from high school a minimum of one year prior to obtaining roster status in the NBA.

So what does that rule accomplish, other than creating a one and done culture in the collegiate ranks? If you would do yourself a favor and answer that question intelligently instead of emotionally then you and the other posters who have exchanged with you would be able to understand the reason WHY the NBA has the "one year removed from high school" rule.

I will answer it for you by doing this: go back and look at the year the rule was implemented, 2006. Then, go back and look at the year when OJ Mayo was between his high school junior and senior years (also 2006). If you don't already know, OJ had to leave North College Hill under unfavorable circumstances. It is almost certain that OJ would have quit high school after his junior year (2006) and entered the NBA draft. By then OJ was already 18 1/2 years old. It is not a coincidence that the NBA's one year removed from high school rule began with the 2006 NBA draft. Beginning with OJ Mayo, this rule was created for this purpose and this purpose only. Please read carefully and slowly:

TO PREVENT PLAYERS FROM QUITTING HIGH SCHOOL FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENTERING THE NBA DRAFT

OJ Mayo not only would have done this but would have done so successfully. He would have been a very, very high lottery pick. The NBA did not risk the bad publicity that would have occurred by showering riches upon a quitting HS junior and so created this folly rule that to this day has intelligent observers confused about it's orginal intent. Have a nice day.

My idea was not perfect. I did not say it was. I was asking what everyone thought about it. I don't think it warranted you trying to treat me like I'm stupid. I understand that some with self-esteem issues may feel the need to try to talk down to others to make themselves feel better and if that is the case then I hope it served its purpose for you.

I understand that there were most likely several issues involved in the creation of the rule and honestly none of us, myself included, know what all of those were. I was simply discussing (I know surprising on a discussion board) and idea that I thought might go in a different direction.

 

[brianpoe]

Originally posted by BlueCat43:

Originally posted by KopiKat:

Originally posted by brianpoe:

Originally posted by mj2k10:

Originally posted by BlueCat43:
What do you guys think about raising the league minimum, and having a tiered salary system where if you come straight out of HS you start at the league minimum? I would say make the contracts 1+1 (with the +1 being a team option). With 1 year experience (i.e. one year in college or professionally overseas) you get a little better rookie salary and it goes up for 3 or 4 years of experience. This would give players the option to go straight to the league if they so wish but for less money. This takes a little risk off the GMs and owners and gives incentive for the players to play in college. I think this makes everyone happy (other than the agents who are licking their chops over the elite talent and the big rookie contracts they get).

Another wrinkle would be to have straight from HS kids get the league minimum and a 3+1 contract. For each year of experience the salary goes up a little and the length goes down. So a OAD player would get more money and a 2+1 contract, and a 2 year or more player would get even more money and a 1+1 contract.

I think this is a little too restrictive, basically categorizing everyone as exactly the same purely based on age, but I agree with the direction it's going, and I absolutely agree that the NBA would be well-served by giving guys some legit motivation to stay in school longer. Right now, EVERYTHING about the system encourages a guy to declare for the draft ASAP. There is almost 0 advantage to delaying that decision. If you really want guys to delay that choice, give them a legit reason to do so.

Totally agree with this.

Your efforts are amazing. Your conclusions are incomplete. You base them on appearances instead of on the potential outcomes they avoid. This is exactly why you and so many others do not understand why league owners and GMs have implemented the "one year removed from high school" rule.

To be precise, the NBA has no "one and done" rule. That is slang terminology for the rule which states (paraphrased loosely) that a player must be removed from high school a minimum of one year prior to obtaining roster status in the NBA.

So what does that rule accomplish, other than creating a one and done culture in the collegiate ranks? If you would do yourself a favor and answer that question intelligently instead of emotionally then you and the other posters who have exchanged with you would be able to understand the reason WHY the NBA has the "one year removed from high school" rule.

I will answer it for you by doing this: go back and look at the year the rule was implemented, 2006. Then, go back and look at the year when OJ Mayo was between his high school junior and senior years (also 2006). If you don't already know, OJ had to leave North College Hill under unfavorable circumstances. It is almost certain that OJ would have quit high school after his junior year (2006) and entered the NBA draft. By then OJ was already 18 1/2 years old. It is not a coincidence that the NBA's one year removed from high school rule began with the 2006 NBA draft. Beginning with OJ Mayo, this rule was created for this purpose and this purpose only. Please read carefully and slowly:

TO PREVENT PLAYERS FROM QUITTING HIGH SCHOOL FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENTERING THE NBA DRAFT

OJ Mayo not only would have done this but would have done so successfully. He would have been a very, very high lottery pick. The NBA did not risk the bad publicity that would have occurred by showering riches upon a quitting HS junior and so created this folly rule that to this day has intelligent observers confused about it's orginal intent. Have a nice day.

My idea was not perfect. I did not say it was. I was asking what everyone thought about it. I don't think it warranted you trying to treat me like I'm stupid. I understand that some with self-esteem issues may feel the need to try to talk down to others to make themselves feel better and if that is the case then I hope it served its purpose for you.

I understand that there were most likely several issues involved in the creation of the rule and honestly none of us, myself included, know what all of those were. I was simply discussing (I know surprising on a discussion board) and idea that I thought might go in a different direction.

I don't think it is a terrible idea, and thanks for being part of a good discussion. Not sure who Kopi is addressing his remarks, and they are relevant thoughts, but he has had a hateful tone the last couple of days.

 

[KopiKat]

Originally posted by BlueCat43:

Originally posted by KopiKat:

Originally posted by brianpoe:

Originally posted by mj2k10:

Originally posted by BlueCat43:
What do you guys think about raising the league minimum, and having a tiered salary system where if you come straight out of HS you start at the league minimum? I would say make the contracts 1+1 (with the +1 being a team option). With 1 year experience (i.e. one year in college or professionally overseas) you get a little better rookie salary and it goes up for 3 or 4 years of experience. This would give players the option to go straight to the league if they so wish but for less money. This takes a little risk off the GMs and owners and gives incentive for the players to play in college. I think this makes everyone happy (other than the agents who are licking their chops over the elite talent and the big rookie contracts they get).

Another wrinkle would be to have straight from HS kids get the league minimum and a 3+1 contract. For each year of experience the salary goes up a little and the length goes down. So a OAD player would get more money and a 2+1 contract, and a 2 year or more player would get even more money and a 1+1 contract.

I think this is a little too restrictive, basically categorizing everyone as exactly the same purely based on age, but I agree with the direction it's going, and I absolutely agree that the NBA would be well-served by giving guys some legit motivation to stay in school longer. Right now, EVERYTHING about the system encourages a guy to declare for the draft ASAP. There is almost 0 advantage to delaying that decision. If you really want guys to delay that choice, give them a legit reason to do so.

Totally agree with this.

Your efforts are amazing. Your conclusions are incomplete. You base them on appearances instead of on the potential outcomes they avoid. This is exactly why you and so many others do not understand why league owners and GMs have implemented the "one year removed from high school" rule.

To be precise, the NBA has no "one and done" rule. That is slang terminology for the rule which states (paraphrased loosely) that a player must be removed from high school a minimum of one year prior to obtaining roster status in the NBA.

So what does that rule accomplish, other than creating a one and done culture in the collegiate ranks? If you would do yourself a favor and answer that question intelligently instead of emotionally then you and the other posters who have exchanged with you would be able to understand the reason WHY the NBA has the "one year removed from high school" rule.

I will answer it for you by doing this: go back and look at the year the rule was implemented, 2006. Then, go back and look at the year when OJ Mayo was between his high school junior and senior years (also 2006). If you don't already know, OJ had to leave North College Hill under unfavorable circumstances. It is almost certain that OJ would have quit high school after his junior year (2006) and entered the NBA draft. By then OJ was already 18 1/2 years old. It is not a coincidence that the NBA's one year removed from high school rule began with the 2006 NBA draft. Beginning with OJ Mayo, this rule was created for this purpose and this purpose only. Please read carefully and slowly:

TO PREVENT PLAYERS FROM QUITTING HIGH SCHOOL FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENTERING THE NBA DRAFT

OJ Mayo not only would have done this but would have done so successfully. He would have been a very, very high lottery pick. The NBA did not risk the bad publicity that would have occurred by showering riches upon a quitting HS junior and so created this folly rule that to this day has intelligent observers confused about it's orginal intent. Have a nice day.

My idea was not perfect. I did not say it was. I was asking what everyone thought about it. I don't think it warranted you trying to treat me like I'm stupid. I understand that some with self-esteem issues may feel the need to try to talk down to others to make themselves feel better and if that is the case then I hope it served its purpose for you.

I understand that there were most likely several issues involved in the creation of the rule and honestly none of us, myself included, know what all of those were. I was simply discussing (I know surprising on a discussion board) and idea that I thought might go in a different direction.

I was replying to BrianPoe. Not to you. I specifically replied to him. You have no reason to defend yourself and even less reason to think any of my remarks were directed at you. But since you went there, I will say that I like the idea of raising the minimum wage, yes. Actually, I HATE the NBA wage restriction rules as I think they account for almost all of the visible problems (current problems) at the college level. This goes back to the days when Glen Robinson signed his 7 year, 70 million dollar contract straight out of Purdue (2003 I think) and when veteran players like Charles Barkley thought that was unfair, and John Q. Public thought it was just inherently wrong for entry-level NBA labor to get that much money: 10 million his first year and that was more than 20 years ago. So yes, they created their NBA rookie scale (cap) and players have been bolting to the NBA at much younger ages with much less education ever since. Why? Because it pays to have as many players on your roster as possible playing with their earnings restricted. NBA careers are now shorter. The average age of an NBA player is now younger. Attrition rates in the NBA are now higher. etc., etc., etc., So yes, I agree with your idea that increasing the amount paid to entry-level NBA labor will immediately offset at least some of these issues. However, until the earnings caps are elminated completed it will not be corrected (assuming the goal is to get it back to when players stayed in college).

But again, I wasn't replying to you. Please, let's get that part clear.

 

[brianpoe]

Originally posted by KopiKat:

Originally posted by BlueCat43:

Originally posted by KopiKat:

Originally posted by brianpoe:

Originally posted by mj2k10:

Originally posted by BlueCat43:
What do you guys think about raising the league minimum, and having a tiered salary system where if you come straight out of HS you start at the league minimum? I would say make the contracts 1+1 (with the +1 being a team option). With 1 year experience (i.e. one year in college or professionally overseas) you get a little better rookie salary and it goes up for 3 or 4 years of experience. This would give players the option to go straight to the league if they so wish but for less money. This takes a little risk off the GMs and owners and gives incentive for the players to play in college. I think this makes everyone happy (other than the agents who are licking their chops over the elite talent and the big rookie contracts they get).

Another wrinkle would be to have straight from HS kids get the league minimum and a 3+1 contract. For each year of experience the salary goes up a little and the length goes down. So a OAD player would get more money and a 2+1 contract, and a 2 year or more player would get even more money and a 1+1 contract.

I think this is a little too restrictive, basically categorizing everyone as exactly the same purely based on age, but I agree with the direction it's going, and I absolutely agree that the NBA would be well-served by giving guys some legit motivation to stay in school longer. Right now, EVERYTHING about the system encourages a guy to declare for the draft ASAP. There is almost 0 advantage to delaying that decision. If you really want guys to delay that choice, give them a legit reason to do so.

Totally agree with this.

Your efforts are amazing. Your conclusions are incomplete. You base them on appearances instead of on the potential outcomes they avoid. This is exactly why you and so many others do not understand why league owners and GMs have implemented the "one year removed from high school" rule.

To be precise, the NBA has no "one and done" rule. That is slang terminology for the rule which states (paraphrased loosely) that a player must be removed from high school a minimum of one year prior to obtaining roster status in the NBA.

So what does that rule accomplish, other than creating a one and done culture in the collegiate ranks? If you would do yourself a favor and answer that question intelligently instead of emotionally then you and the other posters who have exchanged with you would be able to understand the reason WHY the NBA has the "one year removed from high school" rule.

I will answer it for you by doing this: go back and look at the year the rule was implemented, 2006. Then, go back and look at the year when OJ Mayo was between his high school junior and senior years (also 2006). If you don't already know, OJ had to leave North College Hill under unfavorable circumstances. It is almost certain that OJ would have quit high school after his junior year (2006) and entered the NBA draft. By then OJ was already 18 1/2 years old. It is not a coincidence that the NBA's one year removed from high school rule began with the 2006 NBA draft. Beginning with OJ Mayo, this rule was created for this purpose and this purpose only. Please read carefully and slowly:

TO PREVENT PLAYERS FROM QUITTING HIGH SCHOOL FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENTERING THE NBA DRAFT

OJ Mayo not only would have done this but would have done so successfully. He would have been a very, very high lottery pick. The NBA did not risk the bad publicity that would have occurred by showering riches upon a quitting HS junior and so created this folly rule that to this day has intelligent observers confused about it's orginal intent. Have a nice day.

My idea was not perfect. I did not say it was. I was asking what everyone thought about it. I don't think it warranted you trying to treat me like I'm stupid. I understand that some with self-esteem issues may feel the need to try to talk down to others to make themselves feel better and if that is the case then I hope it served its purpose for you.

I understand that there were most likely several issues involved in the creation of the rule and honestly none of us, myself included, know what all of those were. I was simply discussing (I know surprising on a discussion board) and idea that I thought might go in a different direction.

I was replying to BrianPoe. Not to you. I specifically replied to him. You have no reason to defend yourself and even less reason to think any of my remarks were directed at you. But since you went there, I will say that I like the idea of raising the minimum wage, yes. Actually, I HATE the NBA wage restriction rules as I think they account for almost all of the visible problems (current problems) at the college level. This goes back to the days when Glen Robinson signed his 7 year, 70 million dollar contract straight out of Purdue (2003 I think) and when veteran players like Charles Barkley thought that was unfair, and John Q. Public thought it was just inherently wrong for entry-level NBA labor to get that much money: 10 million his first year and that was more than 20 years ago. So yes, they created their NBA rookie scale (cap) and players have been bolting to the NBA at much younger ages with much less education ever since. Why? Because it pays to have as many players on your roster as possible playing with their earnings restricted. NBA careers are now shorter. The average age of an NBA player is now younger. Attrition rates in the NBA are now higher. etc., etc., etc., So yes, I agree with your idea that increasing the amount paid to entry-level NBA labor will immediately offset at least some of these issues. However, until the earnings caps are elminated completed it will not be corrected (assuming the goal is to get it back to when players stayed in college).

But again, I wasn't replying to you. Please, let's get that part clear.

Replying to me?

All I ever stated in this thread was that I disagreed mjk regarding the issue of racism regarding the owners and the OAD, and agreed with mjk regarding some kind of better system. And you go through some 3 paragraph rant on OJ Mayo when I never expressed any type of specific idea or solution?

Did I bang your mom 20 years ago or what?

 

[KopiKat]

Originally posted by brianpoe:

Originally posted by KopiKat:

Originally posted by BlueCat43:

Originally posted by KopiKat:

Originally posted by brianpoe:

Originally posted by mj2k10:

Originally posted by BlueCat43:
What do you guys think about raising the league minimum, and having a tiered salary system where if you come straight out of HS you start at the league minimum? I would say make the contracts 1+1 (with the +1 being a team option). With 1 year experience (i.e. one year in college or professionally overseas) you get a little better rookie salary and it goes up for 3 or 4 years of experience. This would give players the option to go straight to the league if they so wish but for less money. This takes a little risk off the GMs and owners and gives incentive for the players to play in college. I think this makes everyone happy (other than the agents who are licking their chops over the elite talent and the big rookie contracts they get).

Another wrinkle would be to have straight from HS kids get the league minimum and a 3+1 contract. For each year of experience the salary goes up a little and the length goes down. So a OAD player would get more money and a 2+1 contract, and a 2 year or more player would get even more money and a 1+1 contract.

I think this is a little too restrictive, basically categorizing everyone as exactly the same purely based on age, but I agree with the direction it's going, and I absolutely agree that the NBA would be well-served by giving guys some legit motivation to stay in school longer. Right now, EVERYTHING about the system encourages a guy to declare for the draft ASAP. There is almost 0 advantage to delaying that decision. If you really want guys to delay that choice, give them a legit reason to do so.

Totally agree with this.

Your efforts are amazing. Your conclusions are incomplete. You base them on appearances instead of on the potential outcomes they avoid. This is exactly why you and so many others do not understand why league owners and GMs have implemented the "one year removed from high school" rule.

To be precise, the NBA has no "one and done" rule. That is slang terminology for the rule which states (paraphrased loosely) that a player must be removed from high school a minimum of one year prior to obtaining roster status in the NBA.

So what does that rule accomplish, other than creating a one and done culture in the collegiate ranks? If you would do yourself a favor and answer that question intelligently instead of emotionally then you and the other posters who have exchanged with you would be able to understand the reason WHY the NBA has the "one year removed from high school" rule.

I will answer it for you by doing this: go back and look at the year the rule was implemented, 2006. Then, go back and look at the year when OJ Mayo was between his high school junior and senior years (also 2006). If you don't already know, OJ had to leave North College Hill under unfavorable circumstances. It is almost certain that OJ would have quit high school after his junior year (2006) and entered the NBA draft. By then OJ was already 18 1/2 years old. It is not a coincidence that the NBA's one year removed from high school rule began with the 2006 NBA draft. Beginning with OJ Mayo, this rule was created for this purpose and this purpose only. Please read carefully and slowly:

TO PREVENT PLAYERS FROM QUITTING HIGH SCHOOL FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENTERING THE NBA DRAFT

OJ Mayo not only would have done this but would have done so successfully. He would have been a very, very high lottery pick. The NBA did not risk the bad publicity that would have occurred by showering riches upon a quitting HS junior and so created this folly rule that to this day has intelligent observers confused about it's orginal intent. Have a nice day.

My idea was not perfect. I did not say it was. I was asking what everyone thought about it. I don't think it warranted you trying to treat me like I'm stupid. I understand that some with self-esteem issues may feel the need to try to talk down to others to make themselves feel better and if that is the case then I hope it served its purpose for you.

I understand that there were most likely several issues involved in the creation of the rule and honestly none of us, myself included, know what all of those were. I was simply discussing (I know surprising on a discussion board) and idea that I thought might go in a different direction.

I was replying to BrianPoe. Not to you. I specifically replied to him. You have no reason to defend yourself and even less reason to think any of my remarks were directed at you. But since you went there, I will say that I like the idea of raising the minimum wage, yes. Actually, I HATE the NBA wage restriction rules as I think they account for almost all of the visible problems (current problems) at the college level. This goes back to the days when Glen Robinson signed his 7 year, 70 million dollar contract straight out of Purdue (2003 I think) and when veteran players like Charles Barkley thought that was unfair, and John Q. Public thought it was just inherently wrong for entry-level NBA labor to get that much money: 10 million his first year and that was more than 20 years ago. So yes, they created their NBA rookie scale (cap) and players have been bolting to the NBA at much younger ages with much less education ever since. Why? Because it pays to have as many players on your roster as possible playing with their earnings restricted. NBA careers are now shorter. The average age of an NBA player is now younger. Attrition rates in the NBA are now higher. etc., etc., etc., So yes, I agree with your idea that increasing the amount paid to entry-level NBA labor will immediately offset at least some of these issues. However, until the earnings caps are elminated completed it will not be corrected (assuming the goal is to get it back to when players stayed in college).

But again, I wasn't replying to you. Please, let's get that part clear.

Replying to me?

All I ever stated in this thread was that I disagreed mjk regarding the issue of racism regarding the owners and the OAD, and agreed with mjk regarding some kind of better system. And you go through some 3 paragraph rant on OJ Mayo when I never expressed any type of specific idea or solution?

Did I bang your mom 20 years ago or what?

Twenty years ago my mother had already been passed for almost ten. And no that is NOT all you have stated in this thread. Here are only some of your own words:




Letting them go straight to the pros hurts college ball.


It is all about risk. That risk is gambling on an unknown product.


It is very obvious why the owners want to see the kids at least for one year out of high school and it's not so they can manage a plantation with their white hoods over their faces.


These few stars that could possibly go right out of high school are not sacrificing too much in that year before the next NBA draft.


Not to mention the difference in size and strength. A high schooler could get seriously injured, real bad.I left out the one where you implied that you could possibly be a current NBA player. Nonetheless, you have commented frequently in this thread as an authority for why the "one year removed" rule exists. Yet not once were you close to being correct. In particularl, I found your estimation of "not sacrificing too much" to be among the most corrupted and selfish words I've ever read on this message board. What exactly do you think gives you the right to determine such values for other men? Or is it that you feel it is your duty to make these determinations on the behalf of early adult age black males?
This post was edited on 3/6 2:42 PM by KopiKat

 

[BlueCat43]

Originally posted by KopiKat:

Originally posted by BlueCat43:

Originally posted by KopiKat:

Originally posted by brianpoe:

Originally posted by mj2k10:

Originally posted by BlueCat43:
What do you guys think about raising the league minimum, and having a tiered salary system where if you come straight out of HS you start at the league minimum? I would say make the contracts 1+1 (with the +1 being a team option). With 1 year experience (i.e. one year in college or professionally overseas) you get a little better rookie salary and it goes up for 3 or 4 years of experience. This would give players the option to go straight to the league if they so wish but for less money. This takes a little risk off the GMs and owners and gives incentive for the players to play in college. I think this makes everyone happy (other than the agents who are licking their chops over the elite talent and the big rookie contracts they get).

Another wrinkle would be to have straight from HS kids get the league minimum and a 3+1 contract. For each year of experience the salary goes up a little and the length goes down. So a OAD player would get more money and a 2+1 contract, and a 2 year or more player would get even more money and a 1+1 contract.

I think this is a little too restrictive, basically categorizing everyone as exactly the same purely based on age, but I agree with the direction it's going, and I absolutely agree that the NBA would be well-served by giving guys some legit motivation to stay in school longer. Right now, EVERYTHING about the system encourages a guy to declare for the draft ASAP. There is almost 0 advantage to delaying that decision. If you really want guys to delay that choice, give them a legit reason to do so.

Totally agree with this.

Your efforts are amazing. Your conclusions are incomplete. You base them on appearances instead of on the potential outcomes they avoid. This is exactly why you and so many others do not understand why league owners and GMs have implemented the "one year removed from high school" rule.

To be precise, the NBA has no "one and done" rule. That is slang terminology for the rule which states (paraphrased loosely) that a player must be removed from high school a minimum of one year prior to obtaining roster status in the NBA.

So what does that rule accomplish, other than creating a one and done culture in the collegiate ranks? If you would do yourself a favor and answer that question intelligently instead of emotionally then you and the other posters who have exchanged with you would be able to understand the reason WHY the NBA has the "one year removed from high school" rule.

I will answer it for you by doing this: go back and look at the year the rule was implemented, 2006. Then, go back and look at the year when OJ Mayo was between his high school junior and senior years (also 2006). If you don't already know, OJ had to leave North College Hill under unfavorable circumstances. It is almost certain that OJ would have quit high school after his junior year (2006) and entered the NBA draft. By then OJ was already 18 1/2 years old. It is not a coincidence that the NBA's one year removed from high school rule began with the 2006 NBA draft. Beginning with OJ Mayo, this rule was created for this purpose and this purpose only. Please read carefully and slowly:

TO PREVENT PLAYERS FROM QUITTING HIGH SCHOOL FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENTERING THE NBA DRAFT

OJ Mayo not only would have done this but would have done so successfully. He would have been a very, very high lottery pick. The NBA did not risk the bad publicity that would have occurred by showering riches upon a quitting HS junior and so created this folly rule that to this day has intelligent observers confused about it's orginal intent. Have a nice day.

My idea was not perfect. I did not say it was. I was asking what everyone thought about it. I don't think it warranted you trying to treat me like I'm stupid. I understand that some with self-esteem issues may feel the need to try to talk down to others to make themselves feel better and if that is the case then I hope it served its purpose for you.

I understand that there were most likely several issues involved in the creation of the rule and honestly none of us, myself included, know what all of those were. I was simply discussing (I know surprising on a discussion board) and idea that I thought might go in a different direction.

I was replying to BrianPoe. Not to you. I specifically replied to him. You have no reason to defend yourself and even less reason to think any of my remarks were directed at you. But since you went there, I will say that I like the idea of raising the minimum wage, yes. Actually, I HATE the NBA wage restriction rules as I think they account for almost all of the visible problems (current problems) at the college level. This goes back to the days when Glen Robinson signed his 7 year, 70 million dollar contract straight out of Purdue (2003 I think) and when veteran players like Charles Barkley thought that was unfair, and John Q. Public thought it was just inherently wrong for entry-level NBA labor to get that much money: 10 million his first year and that was more than 20 years ago. So yes, they created their NBA rookie scale (cap) and players have been bolting to the NBA at much younger ages with much less education ever since. Why? Because it pays to have as many players on your roster as possible playing with their earnings restricted. NBA careers are now shorter. The average age of an NBA player is now younger. Attrition rates in the NBA are now higher. etc., etc., etc., So yes, I agree with your idea that increasing the amount paid to entry-level NBA labor will immediately offset at least some of these issues. However, until the earnings caps are elminated completed it will not be corrected (assuming the goal is to get it back to when players stayed in college).

But again, I wasn't replying to you. Please, let's get that part clear.

I apologize for my comments then. The post you replied to was a one liner that seemed to have little to do with your response and so I took it that you were directing it towards me. Thank you for clarifying it.