J. O'Neal calls NBA's proposed age limit racist

[Marc]

Stern wants NBA age limit raised to 20

ESPN.com news services

Indiana Pacers forward Jermaine O'Neal said he thinks racism might have something to do with the NBA's desire to put an age limit in the next collective bargaining agreement.

"In the last two or three years, the rookie of the year has been a high school player. There were seven high school players in the All-Star Game, so why we even talking an age limit?" O'Neal said.

The past two rookies of the year were drafted out of high school: The Cavaliers' LeBron James was the 2003-04 rookie of the year, while the Suns' Amare Stoudemire won the award after the 2002-03 season.

Players currently have to be at least 18 to be drafted, but NBA commissioner David Stern would like to see the age raised to 20.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2035132

I think all players under 20 should be forced to play in the NBDL. It would be a lot better for Darko to be playing there than rotting away on the Pistons' bench, for example. I am not in favor of raising it because I think you should be able to learn a living at 18 and the NBA shouldn't take that away. As for racist implications, that's rubbish.

[HibachiDG]

I don't think ALL players under 20 should be forced into the NBDL. The under 20 rule is just laziness by the NBA. They don't want to work on a minor league system, they don't want to work with the NCAA, so they come up with this.

There's players ready to enter the NBA before they are 20, there are players not ready to enter the NBA before they are 20. Why not make a system that tackles this issue?

That said, it's probably just positioning by Stern. The chances of getting the age raised to 20 in place is going to be next to impossible, legally. It's obvious that someone CAN come into the league at 18 or 19 years old. It'll be a lot easier to fight this rule as an addition compared to the fight to get this taken away in the NFL, because it hasn't been shown that someone 18-19 can come into the NFL and be successful. This just seems like Stern doing something, then when it doesn't happen, Stern can at least point to this when people go "woah, there are too many high schoolers coming in."

Is it racism, though? Probably not.

[doublee]

I have always thought MLB has the best policy. Every HS senior is eligible to be drafted, if you don't get drafted or opt not to sign and you go to college you cannot re-enter the draft until after your junior year. Plus, their minor league system affords major league teams the opportunity to weed out the busts without having to give them a guaranteed multi-year contract worth tens of millions of dollars.

The thing that gets me is if the NBA doesn't want these kids then why draft them in the first round? Only first rounders get the guaranteed three year deal. The only thing being drafted in the second round earns you is an invitation to training camp. All it would really take is one draft where none of these kids go in the first round and they won't see so many kids coming out anymore.

I honestly wonder if this just is not a case of Stern trying to use this as a bargainning chip to get what the owners really want: The elimination of the long-term guaranteed contracts. More NBA teams have to eat tens of millions of dollars on guys who blow out a knee and end up retiring three years before their deal is up. How much money did the Hornets lose on Mashburn the past two years, or the Knicks on Larry Johnson when he retired with several years left on his deal?

[Billy D]

I agree with Doublee.

Bryan Burwell's commentary:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/columnists.nsf/bryanburwell/story/B07D65F6909E9DE086256FE40017D6C9?OpenDocument

[Shawndo]

I thought maybe the NBA was trying to put a stop on the torrent of players coming in straight from high school, and encourage going to college and maturing more first... which I can definitely see the point of that..

But then on the other hand, what right do they have to do that? I just don't see that getting pushed through.

[coachJ]

why not? the NFL does it, why cant the NBA??

[Dublin Mike]

What cracked me up was the comments ONeall was spewing on ESPN 2. "Whats the difference if a college player fails and if a HS player fails?" How about a college degree moron? It might help you find a job better than flipping burgers at McDonalds.

[doublee]

Mike, I understand what you mean there, but how many of these kids that want to go pro at 18 do you honestly think are going to get degrees when forced with the prospects of going to college? These kids have no real interest in going to school in the first place and will do the bare minimum to stay eligible, if they don't have someone else do it for them.

I had the chance to here Kareem Abdul Jabbar speak at my college about 10 years ago and during the Q&A session someone asked him what he thought about all of these kids going pro early without completing their degrees. His response was basically one of what does it matter the kids who are going pro early aren't going to class anyway and were just merely marking time waiting for the right time to enter the pro ranks.

Personally, I would like to see most kids spend at least two years in college. I think most of us who have attended college would agree that we did a lot of growing up the first two years of college being on our own without our parents around.

[KevinBeane]

Doublee (and Kareem, and Shaq) are being very cynical. You gonna say there's NEVER a kids who goes to school to play basketball only, and emerges with a conscience, some maturity, and a degree? College at least gaves them A CHANCE to redeem themselves and have something to fall back on if college doesn't work out. And even if only 5% of basketball-minded kids take advantage of that, then it's worth hearing the NBA out.

[Pimpbot]

I don't agree with the proposed ban, because judging by some of the recent interviews with a lot of the younger NBA players I have read or seen on TV, these guys couldn't make it through a year of college!.

[Marc]

Maybe if O'Neal had gone to college, he wouldn't be saying such STUPID things. :tdown:

The lottery was created to give bad teams immediate help. Half the time, bad teams waste picks on prospects who never develop, and it's a waste for everyone. I think the NBDL needs to be improved and become an MLB-esque minor league system where young players can develop, earn a decent living, and teams can evaluate them.

[HibachiDG]

Originally posted by Marc
Maybe if O'Neal had gone to college, he wouldn't be saying such STUPID things. :tdown:


I think O'Neal might be wrong in some of the stuff he's saying, but nothing he has said is STUPID.

He's said that there are racial implications in the age limit raise. He's said that he doesn't think the people behind the idea are racist. So it just seems to me as if he's pointing out the racial implications of the plan.

The one thing obvious from this is that there are racial implications from the plan. Who does the age limit being raised affect the most? Young black Americans. I think everyone who looks at the plan can see that.

Racist? Like I said before, probably not. Racial implications? Uh...yeah.

[Tarkus]

This is another subject that has a few issues that come into play. I won't discount most I've read in this thread except maybe to what % each plays a part.

The reason I don't mind the idea is on a purist angle where it stops the eroding of the basics in the game. Stated examples like Bryant, James, Anthony, etc. doesn't do much for saying they're ready.

While there has been some success in certain areas of their game, on the whole, it's still obvious that they're far from a finished product which in turn lowers the game standards. Also add in the youthful arrogance of some who are reading their own press clippings & it makes it harder for coaches & management to make themselves be heard.

The angle pointed out that a 18 year old kid can go kill someone in war but is unable to play ball is comparing apples & oranges. These 18 year olds aren't being drafted. They're enlisting for different reasons & are unlucky that there was a war to be sent to.

The NBA is a private business who needs to put the best product (yes, players are business products in the business scheme) on the floor to be successful. Expecting them to let in kids in as young as H.S. just to be politically correct & then citing racial discrimination cuz they're suggesting an age limit is extortion.

Playing in the NBA is not a birth right & anyone complaining about an age limit should learn the old adage...Life isn't fair. Also citing that it stops a young kid a chance to make good money for him & his family is pretty silly also. There are thousands of jobs that won't hire a kid cuz of age/experience yet we don't hear a groundswell for racial discrimination on those.

There will always be some affected by different decisions & it's pretty obnoxious when many go out of their way to "catagorize it" into another area just cuz they don't have a leg to stand on.

This instance is a perfect example where you could argue that it's about the standards of the game or the NBA trying to avoid guaranteed contracts to kids with potential but no college ball resume, etc. but yet amongst it all we have O'Neil stirring the Racial Discrimination stew. I know, I know...he didn't ACTUALLY say it was, just IMPLIED that it had racial undertones. So while I wouldn't classify O'Neils statements to necessarily be stupid, I would definitely say they weren't too bright & poorly chosen...

Some just like controversy & if anyone believes this has anything to do with racial undertones apparently they don't follow the NBA. You would see them trying to eliminate slow Caucasions long before you'd see them limit high flying Brothers from the hardwood...
:lol:

[Shawndo]

I agree- that whole playing the 'race card' was definitely stupid, IMO. Anytime a super-rich superstar athlete tries to go with that argument, it is kind of disgusting. O'Neil didn't throw the card down, but with that kind of hinting at it- he might as well have.
Almost as bad as Sprewell pining for a contract, complaining about 'feeding his family'... enough to make you vomit.

[Brad O.]

Originally posted by Shawndo
I agree- that whole playing the 'race card' was definitely stupid, IMO. Anytime a super-rich superstar athlete tries to go with that argument, it is kind of disgusting. O'Neil didn't throw the card down, but with that kind of hinting at it- he might as well have.
Way, way, WAY off.

You've dismissed O'Neal's concerns out of hand. That's definitely stupid, IMO. I haven't seen anyone in this thread address why they think O'Neal is wrong that race may be involved in this proposal. I think Doug put things pretty well, although I think there's a strong possibility that racism is at least peripherally involved.

The part that really bothered me:
Anytime a super-rich superstar athlete tries to go with that argument, it is kind of disgusting.Race-baiting is awful and yes, maybe even kind of disgusting. And maybe that's all you meant, but you're talking about in the context of O'Neal's statement, which I don't believe falls into that category. He was voicing a legitimate concern, not race-baiting, and not seeking personal profit or protection from the law, etc.

A person's wealth or lack thereof should have no impact on the way we view her/his message. If there's racial injustice at play in any arena, a super-rich superstar athlete has as much right and obligation to call that out as anyone else does.

Our lives begin to end the day we are silent about things that matter.
-Martin Luther King, Jr.

Did it disgust you when Bill Russell or Jim Brown spoke out about civil rights? When Arthur Ashe called for South Africa's expulsion from the ATP? When Muhammad Ali refused to serve in what he believed was an unjust war? When Tony Dungy talks about racial issues in today's NFL?

I've read O'Neal's quote, and clearly, he's a better basketball player than speaker. He didn't express himself well, but that shouldn't invalidate his point. Maybe race wasn't involved on any level. But attacking people who raise the idea that it might have been is regressive at best.

Originally posted by Tarkus
The NBA is a private business who needs to put the best product (yes, players are business products in the business scheme) on the floor to be successful. Expecting them to let in kids in as young as H.S. just to be politically correct & then citing racial discrimination cuz they're suggesting an age limit is extortion.
Do you have any evidence that the presence of teenagers is diminishing the quality of the product? I'm always on shaky ground here in the NBA forum, because I don't watch it, but it's my understanding that most of them either are above-average or don't impact the game at all. There are about a dozen teenagers in the NBA, half of whom never play. The others are guys like LeBron James and Dwight Howard, or a year ago, Carmelo Anthony, or Amare Stoudemire the season before that. It's not clear to me where the NBA's product is hurt. No LeBron, now that's a financial beating for the league.

I'm also nothing less than mystified that you believe the league "let[s] in kids in as young as H.S. just to be politically correct". How on earth did you arrive at that conclusion? It seems made-up.

Originally posted by Tarkus
Playing in the NBA is not a birth right & anyone complaining about an age limit should learn the old adage...Life isn't fair.
Playing in the NBA is not a birth right, but equal treatment is. And "life isn't fair", while true, is an excuse to avoid trying to make things better. Thank goodness Gandhi and Jefferson and King and Mandela and Nader and Roosevelt and Sanger never bought into that. I'm sure you've heard the Serenity Prayer:
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
NBA policy is one of the things you can change. Or maybe not you, but Jermaine O'Neal.

Originally posted by Tarkus
Also citing that it stops a young kid a chance to make good money for him & his family is pretty silly also. There are thousands of jobs that won't hire a kid cuz of age/experience yet we don't hear a groundswell for racial discrimination on those.
Given that you correctly cited an "apples and oranges" scenario regarding serving in war/playing in the NBA, it's surprising that you'd trot out the fruit yourself. The "thousands of jobs that won't hire a kid cuz of age/experience" do so because the kid in question isn't qualified to perform those jobs. Most of the teenagers in the NBA, on the other hand, have persuasively demonstrated that they are qualified not only to perform their jobs, but in many cases, to excel.

And there's nothing silly about a kid wanting to support himself and/or his family.

There will always be some affected by different decisions & it's pretty obnoxious when many go out of their way to "catagorize it" into another area just cuz they don't have a leg to stand on.
I don't follow. What do you mean? Are we still talking about O'Neal?

This instance is a perfect example where you could argue that it's about the standards of the game or the NBA trying to avoid guaranteed contracts to kids with potential but no college ball resume, etc. but yet amongst it all we have O'Neil stirring the Racial Discrimination stew.
I know I said this already, but why is this stew? Maybe I'm missing something that's so obvious it doesn't even need to be said, but what makes O'Neal wrong? Why is there so much support for an age limit in the NBA, and so little for an age limit in white-majority sports like baseball and tennis?

Tarkus actually comes closest, here, to making a case, by mentioning "the NBA trying to avoid guaranteed contracts to kids". But -- and again, I'm going by what I've heard -- are college sophomores and juniors really safer bets than the guys coming straight from high school? Two years later and they're predictable? Don't just as many of those guys flame out as the no-college crowd?

More importantly, though, the existence of one point does not eliminate the possibility of other points. 19th-century Southern landowners supported slavery because it helped them compete economically with the industrialized North. True enough. But they also supported slavery because they were racist. The two are not mutually exclusive. In the same way, the NBA can want an age limit for economic reasons or "quality of the game" issues (which is laughable; why did they wait a decade to address that one?) -- but race could still be a factor.

Some just like controversy & if anyone believes this has anything to do with racial undertones apparently they don't follow the NBA. You would see them trying to eliminate slow Caucasions long before you'd see them limit high flying Brothers from the hardwood...
Uh-oh. Ya got me. I don't follow the NBA. So please, someone, enlighten me (and Doug, who does follow the NBA).

I do have to call you out, though, on the second half of this, as obviously they're going after the high-flyers (could we stay away from "Brothers", please?) before the slow white guys.

[HibachiDG]

You would see them trying to eliminate slow Caucasions long before you'd see them limit high flying Brothers from the hardwood...

Well, I think this is a good example of what O'Neal is trying to say. I mean, you wouldn't think that they'd get rid of the high flying guys over the slow guys, right? But, that's what they're doing. So you have to ask/wonder why. Well, who's still buying the tickets? Who's complaining about the level of thugness in the league?

The game isn't suffering because of high school players coming into the pros...in terms of quality of the game. I mean, the NBA was in a bad bad way just a handful of seasons ago and I think the teenagers have helped raise that level of play somewhat.

I don't think Stern likes to see people stop buying expensive season ticket plans because they can't relate to the players on the floor.

[Shawndo]

Originally posted by Brad O.
Way, way, WAY off.

You've dismissed O'Neal's concerns out of hand. That's definitely stupid, IMO. I haven't seen anyone in this thread address why they think O'Neal is wrong that race may be involved in this proposal. I think Doug put things pretty well, although I think there's a strong possibility that racism is at least peripherally involved.


Brad O.
Welcome to the discussion. It appears you have been a member since 2002 but I've never seen you around before and then you jump in and publish damn near a whole page.

AND you start it off by telling me how way, way, WAY off I am, telling me how STUPID you think my point of view is. Not to mention also calling out Tarkus (who also happens to Moderate this forum).
You've certainly won a special place in my heart already. I have to wonder if you're here just to spark a heated debate. We'll see..

To explain my POV a little better on this issue: I have seen too many examples of black folks using the 'race card' to try to leverage their points of view, and this seems like another possible entry.
I have also seen Jermaine O'Neal give very thoughtful interviews and have respected him for that, so if anything I was biased in FAVOR of him to begin with.

But this playing the race card in this situation seems completely ludicrous to me. I am one of the least racist people you will ever meet. That said, after I read the article and quotes from O'Neal, it seemed very obvious to me that he slipped that in there to leverage his point, as it seemed to have nothing to do with the topic.

Now if you'd like to present some more details that would support your point of view without using any personal attacks on other members (a violation of Sports Central Community Guidelines (http://www.sports-central.org/other/community_guidelines.php) , by the way), please do so. But if you're here just to start a fight, you will be bounced shortly.

[KevinBeane]

First, some adiministrative matters.

Shawn, I'm shocked you are not already familiar with Brad. I guess he must only post in football, and you must never go to football. I can vouch for him as a quality poster, and although "stupid" was not a nice choice of words, he was calling your argument stupid, not YOU stupid. He's been a member of SportsCentral (the main page) even longer than I have. He's "cool."

Secondly Shawn, we have discussed race before, and once again, I suspect (you will probably deny this) you're one of those people who apparently think it's NEVER okay for a black person to bring up race. We still have racial problems in this country (look at executives at all Fortune 500 companies for starters), so despite your cynicism and mistrust (IMO) of blacks who will talk about race rather than grin and say "Thanks, white power strucuture, for being less racist in the last fifty years than before!", it's not true that every time a black person brings up race, he's just doing it for "leverage." I have no doubt that Jermaine BELIEVES what he says.

That said, and as much as I usually agree with Brad on such matters, I don't think it applies here.

To me, basketball isn't a predominantly black sport as much as it is a predominately poor (and poor urban) sport, which makes it a predominately black sport. You don't need any equipment except a ball to play, you don't need an expanse of greenery, pickup games are everywhere....honestly, there is no cheaper, easily-available-to-play sport than basketball. And since blacks are disproportionately impovershed, they are also a predominance of the NBA.

Tennis, on the other hand, is largely a sport of affluence. That's why there's no hue and cry when a kid goes pro in Tennis at 15 and fails, 'cause we know that daddy will be able to pick up the tab if he fails. We don't have to worry abut his future.

But most kids who fail at basketball don't have daddy to send them to Cornell if the basketball thing doesn't work out. That's why to give them two years to learn a trade, develop something to fall back on IF THEY CHOOSE TO, is a pro-black, pro-poor thing to do IMO. There's no shortage of blacks in the front office or coaching staff of the NBA, and I suspect that this was not an idea created and fostered just by Stern and other whites. Plus, this would only affect 10-15 kids a year, so if the real motivation behind this plan is the subconscious hope to get these young G's out of the game, this sure won't do much about it.

[Brad O.]

Originally posted by Shawndo
Brad O.
Welcome to the discussion. It appears you have been a member since 2002 but I've never seen you around before and then you jump in and publish damn near a whole page.

AND you start it off by telling me how way, way, WAY off I am, telling me how STUPID you think my point of view is. Not to mention also calling out Tarkus (who also happens to Moderate this forum).
Shawn, I was being intentionally ironic with "stupid": I just cut and pasted what you had written.
Originally posted by Shawndo
playing the 'race card' was definitely stupid, IMO.Originally posted by Brad O.
That's definitely stupid, IMO.
It was supposed to be funny, or at least funny-ish, but as neither you nor Kevin picked up on it, I probably should have expressed myself differently. I doubt you're stupid, and I don't even think what you wrote was stupid. I do think it's unwise to dismiss concerns of racism. And I do think you were way off, especially that wealthy athletes should never speak about race.

And while you may not know me, Tarkus does; he's one of my favorite posters here. We've had spirited discussions before, and I'm pretty sure he won't be mad at me just for disagreeing with him. Unlike, apparently, you.

Regardless, I don't think it's appropriate to try to scare people away from arguing with moderators.

Originally posted by Shawndo
To explain my POV a little better on this issue: I have seen too many examples of black folks using the 'race card' to try to leverage their points of view, and this seems like another possible entry.
It's not clear to me what O'Neal had to gain by voicing his concerns about the role of race in the league's proposal, and I don't see how this qualifies as playing the race card.

Originally posted by Shawndo
Now if you'd like to present some more details that would support your point of view without using any personal attacks on other members (a violation of Sports Central Community Guidelines (http://www.sports-central.org/other/community_guidelines.php) , by the way), please do so. But if you're here just to start a fight, you will be bounced shortly.
I have stood up for mods in the past and will likely do so again in the future, but I think you're taking yourself a little too seriously, stud.

[Shawndo]

Kevin thanks for the heads up.
Brad, I had never seen you post here before so my 'troll' sensors went off. I have zero interest in football, so I never go to that board. Apparently you've got the thumbs up, so we can move past that, although I don't think you understood it from my point of view ('new poster' comes in and immediately attacks both Mods of forum)... so I'll let your other comments go, stud.

I don't think it's wise to dismiss concerns of racism either, if they have any relevancy to the topic.

All I see is O'Neal dropping the word to get the pot stirred up, without thinking (or consulting his PR agent) first.

I read a few news reports on it, and this one seems to have the most unabridged O'Neal quote: http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/964/1/88/

I have no problem with any of what he said; it sounds like a reasonable point to me,.... EXCEPT this one little piece: "As a black guy, you kind of think that's the reason why it's coming up."

Once again, if someone could make a reasonable case for how that argument has ANY relevancy to the discussion, I'm all ears. Otherwise, O'Neal slipped up and lost a few credibility points IMO, that's all.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Brad O.
Do you have any evidence that the presence of teenagers is diminishing the quality of the product? I'm always on shaky ground here in the NBA forum, because I don't watch it, but it's my understanding that most of them either are above-average or don't impact the game at all. There are about a dozen teenagers in the NBA, half of whom never play. The others are guys like LeBron James and Dwight Howard, or a year ago, Carmelo Anthony, or Amare Stoudemire the season before that. It's not clear to me where the NBA's product is hurt. No LeBron, now that's a financial beating for the league.

First off...good to see ya bring that steel trap mind of yours out of the football forums, Brad. :D Come back more often in the NBA side cuz your slant translates well over here too...:nod:

Now to your point...Actually with me it's not quite that simple. Yes, the NBA would be hurt by no LeBron but I believe it's more of a bandaid for what really ails the game & it's not just about H.S.ers either. But to stay on topic, the forcing H.S.ers into starting positions to help market the NBA is one of the failures continuing the trend from the MJ days.

Yes, James is a wonderful young talent with a high ceiling of potential but it's his high flying offense that makes the splash. He is woefully overmatched on the defensive end. So while it's great to have his offense, it's necessary due to his defense & that situation is using the best young guy around in many peoples opinion.

There is no learning the game & being brought on the floor by showing what you've learned. Nowadays it's glitz it up & learn on the fly which doesn't work that way when it comes to putting the best guys on the floor.

A great example is Ben Gordon of the Bulls. This kid is fearless & leads the NBA in double digit 4th quarters & with the game on the line no less. He has some calling for ROY over Emeka Okafor. Problem is that the impressive offensive outbursts & late game heroics have hidden the fact that at this stage, he's TO prone & couldn't cover a guy with a gun.

To cut to the chase, I find the lack of D & the influx of Not Ready For Prime Time players that are on the floor for highlite reels as opposed to learning the craft to be just some of the problems in the NBA today...

I'm also nothing less than mystified that you believe the league "let[s] in kids in as young as H.S. just to be politically correct". How on earth did you arrive at that conclusion? It seems made-up.

You're mystified??? That makes 2 of us, Brad...:lol:

Actually my quote is as follows..."Expecting them to let in kids in as young as H.S. just to be politically correct & then citing racial discrimination cuz they're suggesting an age limit is extortion."

In other words, people who want them in...I'm not one of them. I believe there's many reasons why not drafting out of H.S. is OK by me....


Playing in the NBA is not a birth right, but equal treatment is. And "life isn't fair", while true, is an excuse to avoid trying to make things better. Thank goodness Gandhi and Jefferson and King and Mandela and Nader and Roosevelt and Sanger never bought into that. I'm sure you've heard the Serenity Prayer:

NBA policy is one of the things you can change. Or maybe not you, but Jermaine O'Neal. [QUOTE]

Yes, I know the prayer but while I can keep on open mind on the reasons why some argue raising the age limit, I just don't accept any reasons flying the racial flag. KB has said it best in that it's a economic situation which in turn can be translated to a black situation. Racial overtones have created what is still a major problem in America.

However, I don't expect to hear it on everything to the point of changing a situation based on different points & reducing it to "racial" thing...


[Quote}Given that you correctly cited an "apples and oranges" scenario regarding serving in war/playing in the NBA, it's surprising that you'd trot out the fruit yourself. The "thousands of jobs that won't hire a kid cuz of age/experience" do so because the kid in question isn't qualified to perform those jobs. Most of the teenagers in the NBA, on the other hand, have persuasively demonstrated that they are qualified not only to perform their jobs, but in many cases, to excel.

And there's nothing silly about a kid wanting to support himself and/or his family.

On the contrary. I didn't "trot out the fruit" but did point out people can't selectively use that argument just for NBA prospects. & I'm sorry to disagree but there are thousands of jobs that kids are as qualified for but don't get cuz age/experience. The NBA lets inexperienced H.S.ers with a resume of playing against teenagers a shot but other businesses don't. That's inequality that I don't find peppering the air waves. We don't hear it cuz it's not glamorous or lucrative but is still more than important to the young man or woman who happens not to be blessed with God given athletic talent....

Pointing out a handful of somewhat successful H.S. players still doesn't take into account the damaging impact the NBA harvest of youngsters does to the poor black community. That should be something that should be spoken of more by everyone but is addressed quite frequently by black Leaders in that the dream of the Promised Land has youngsters foregoing studies & a vision of future learning in the hopes of being the next LeBron.

That I find disturbing to say the least....


I don't follow. What do you mean? Are we still talking about O'Neal?

In the case, yes...still O'Neal. I would be more than easily influenced in that the NBA is trying to cut a buck than any type of racial implication. What O'Neal in this case is bringing up is the collateral damage so to speak in that a young guy would have to wait an extra couple years. In no way is it taking an opportunity away but delaying it.

Is there a risk that young guy might blow out a knee or something??? Of course but that's life, my friend...


I know I said this already, but why is this stew? Maybe I'm missing something that's so obvious it doesn't even need to be said, but what makes O'Neal wrong? Why is there so much support for an age limit in the NBA, and so little for an age limit in white-majority sports like baseball and tennis?

Like I said before, it's not that it's wrong but off target in my eyes. The lifes blood of the NBA is entertaining ballplayers. They won't...I repeat...won't try limiting the source of a product without a good reason (at least to them) & I just don't believe any of them are racially motivated whatsoever.

.... are college sophomores and juniors really safer bets than the guys coming straight from high school? Two years later and they're predictable? Don't just as many of those guys flame out as the no-college crowd?

More importantly, though, the existence of one point does not eliminate the possibility of other points. 19th-century Southern landowners supported slavery because it helped them compete economically with the industrialized North. True enough. But they also supported slavery because they were racist. The two are not mutually exclusive. In the same way, the NBA can want an age limit for economic reasons or "quality of the game" issues (which is laughable; why did they wait a decade to address that one?) -- but race could still be a factor.

Yes, I do believe that an extra couple of years at the college level against better talent & a chance to learn the game better & most importantly a chance at maturing makes that call quite a bit "safer". The other major problem is that in the hunt for the next MJ, teams are putting a ton of money on the line for kids not even able to grow a full mustache...lol...& then are forced to play them before they're ready in an effort to get some return on their investment. Risky but if they find the next LeBron, what a payoff.

Meanwhile we never hear about the "casualties" that never make the grade & have weak academics & no foundation for continuing an education to help them out of that poverty...


I do have to call you out, though, on the second half of this, as obviously they're going after the high-flyers (could we stay away from "Brothers", please?) before the slow white guys.

Once again, that comment was to point out the absurdity of the notion that it was discrimination. & in an effort to not offend anyone in this new age of awareness, I will refrain from the term "Brothers". & that's from a guy who was one of 13 & dirt poor, living in that same setting I'm hearing about now & spent my youth hangin' out with the Brothers while we all referred to each other as such.

This new awareness has me deleting parts of my past (to be nice) just to keep PC....There are days even that pisses me off....

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Doug Graham
Well, I think this is a good example of what O'Neal is trying to say. I mean, you wouldn't think that they'd get rid of the high flying guys over the slow guys, right? But, that's what they're doing. So you have to ask/wonder why. Well, who's still buying the tickets? Who's complaining about the level of thugness in the league?

The game isn't suffering because of high school players coming into the pros...in terms of quality of the game. I mean, the NBA was in a bad bad way just a handful of seasons ago and I think the teenagers have helped raise that level of play somewhat.

I don't think Stern likes to see people stop buying expensive season ticket plans because they can't relate to the players on the floor.

My quote you used was to show how absurd it was (at least to me) & I'm sorry to disagree but I don't think the teenagers have helped at all except at the ticket counter. While sales are important, I don't see inexperienced players being in position to do much for the quality of the game.

Yes, the game was in trouble before that but the bringing in of younger players has not helped change that....

Stern is not so concerned about fans relating to the players as much as he's concerned about the lack of maturity that has players strangling coaches, throwing balls at coaches, telling coaches to F' off, running into stands to fight the fans, etc. IMO....

[HibachiDG]

To cut to the chase, I find the lack of D & the influx of Not Ready For Prime Time players that are on the floor for highlite reels as opposed to learning the craft to be just some of the problems in the NBA today...

But that's not a knock on just the high school guys and the guys that would be hit by this age limit thing. I mean, you used Ben Gordon as an example. 3 years of college, right? Not a teenager. You don't like the glitziness of his game.

I'm not saying the high school players alone salvage the game. That'd be ridiculous. But, I'm pretty sure Amare Stoudamire is not hurting that Suns team.

Teams have the choice of drafting high school players or not. A lot of teams are showing that they'd take the high school kid they can attempt to mold into their system.

Why does Sebastian Telfair get drafted over Jameer Nelson? Because in the few years that Telfair's age is catching up to Nelson's, the organization would hope to teach him their style of basketball rather than re-teach something to Nelson who is older.

Al Jefferson's doing alright in Boston. They get a young player who they can teach their system to. That hasn't been molded already.

Sure, I'm just pointing out a couple positive cases of high school players in Telfair and Jefferson. Two guys who after one year look like they're going to be solid pros. But there are hits and misses with BOTH high school and college players. And pros and cons to taking high school kids. Why not let the organizations continue to sort out what they want? Why does the league need to step in and do this? If the teams dont want high schoolers, they won't draft them.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Doug Graham
But that's not a knock on just the high school guys and the guys that would be hit by this age limit thing. I mean, you used Ben Gordon as an example. 3 years of college, right? Not a teenager. You don't like the glitziness of his game.

It's not disliking the glitziness of his game but the fact that the Bulls staff is showing the proper restraint in that they're not going for the fan pleasing aspect of just offense at the cost of not giving Gordon time to work on the whole game. & like I said before, H.S.ers or rookies thrust into the marketing scheme of NBA Entertainent is one of the symptoms of an ailing league.

I'm not saying the high school players alone salvage the game. That'd be ridiculous. But, I'm pretty sure Amare Stoudamire is not hurting that Suns team.

& I would agree that Stoudamire is helping the Suns but he's also on an established team that's not relying soley on him. But some of the success that we see nowadays is also influenced by poor play thru-out the league fundamentally. Yet another sign of erosion of the basics in the NBA with poor FG%, poor shot selection, poor D, etc.

I've made quite a few "windy" posts on the NBA today from my POV & won't muddy this thread up by going off topic....lol

Teams have the choice of drafting high school players or not. A lot of teams are showing that they'd take the high school kid they can attempt to mold into their system.

But what we're seeing is not a molding of a young mind but of a "lettin' them play" mentality. Using James as an example, his offense is great to see but he's extremely weak on D. Using that offense to offset that weakness is just not the way to go IMO.

Being "a student of the game" has long since left the station. Now it's more about sneaker contracts & poster plays than sacrificing to better your game. If James was around 15-20 years ago, no matter what offensive skills, he would have been coming off the bench as he learned the game.

While his offense has hid his weaknesses, it's still obvious that he's being rushed. His next hurdle will be the mental aspect where he feels he's done everything to help the team & it's just not going anywhere except in truth, his weakness at the defensive end has attributed along with the other Cavalier woes...

Why does Sebastian Telfair get drafted over Jameer Nelson? Because in the few years that Telfair's age is catching up to Nelson's, the organization would hope to teach him their style of basketball rather than re-teach something to Nelson who is older.

Al Jefferson's doing alright in Boston. They get a young player who they can teach their system to. That hasn't been molded already.

Cuz to me it's more a case of teams trying to jump the gun to get a possible special player than run the risk of waiting & missing out when they're available to draft out of college. It's more about making money than about the game. We all know it's a business but I'd like to see young players develop in their own environment than being "indoctrinated" into the adult world of business before they've had a chance to be kids & mature...

Sure, I'm just pointing out a couple positive cases of high school players in Telfair and Jefferson. Two guys who after one year look like they're going to be solid pros. But there are hits and misses with BOTH high school and college players. And pros and cons to taking high school kids. Why not let the organizations continue to sort out what they want? Why does the league need to step in and do this? If the teams dont want high schoolers, they won't draft them.

I see your point, Doug, I just think it's more about the player & the game. I see teams going to H.S. level as more a self serving predatory kind of move than anything else. Like I said before, there's an impact taking a young guy, paying him tons of money, forcing him on the court before he's learned the full game & that's watching a game of low shooting %, less strategy & more run & gun, less earned respect for the game & more players feeling entitled to march to their own drummer, etc. ....

& I won't even go into detail on the damage harvesting youngsters does to the poor community. Now that's worthy of a "racial" discussion........

[HibachiDG]

But what we're seeing is not a molding of a young mind but of a "lettin' them play" mentality. Using James as an example, his offense is great to see but he's extremely weak on D. Using that offense to offset that weakness is just not the way to go IMO.

Being "a student of the game" has long since left the station. Now it's more about sneaker contracts & poster plays than sacrificing to better your game. If James was around 15-20 years ago, no matter what offensive skills, he would have been coming off the bench as he learned the game.

While his offense has hid his weaknesses, it's still obvious that he's being rushed. His next hurdle will be the mental aspect where he feels he's done everything to help the team & it's just not going anywhere except in truth, his weakness at the defensive end has attributed along with the other Cavalier woes...

Yeah, but don't you think if Lebron James is the star that he is expected to be, he's going to realize this after this season or he isn't going to realize it all?

My point on Gordon was that going to college isn't a given to learn the fundamentals these days.

A kid can go to college, play a system and if he doesn't want to learn the fundamentals, he's not going to learn them. So what was the point?

The college game is always going to be there. The college game will arguably always be better than the pro game no matter who plays.

The high school players entering the NBA aren't damaging that game, but more high schoolers with egos going "man I should be in the League" and just playing the college game to get ready for the NBA is potentially damaging to the College game, while wasting years for when that kid goes pro.

[tobynosker]

While I don't believe the restricting of players from entering into the NBA straight from high school is racist, I don't feel Jermaine O'Neal is using the race card. And I also don't feel the NBA has done it's job over the years of proving to those that their isn't racial implications in some of the decision makings in the league (although O'Neal did publicly state he didn't feel anybody involved with this is a racist). Because the stark reality is that 80 percent of NBA players are black while over 90 percent of NBA coaches, management and administration are white.

Take David Leonhardt and Ford Fessenden New York Times article from last month which found "over the last decade, black NBA coaches have lasted an average of just 1.6 seasons, compared with 2.4 seasons for white coaches. That means the typical white coach lasts almost 50 percent longer and has most of an extra season to prove himself. The pattern holds in almost any important category of coaches. Winning black coaches have been replaced sooner than winning white coaches on average, and experienced black coaches have served shorter tenures than experienced white coaches. The same is true among losing coaches, among rookie coaches and among coaches who played in the N.B.A. and those who did not."

Or how about the field day the media had, constantly replaying images of Ron Artest, Jermaine O'Neal and Stephen Jackson having an altercation with white fans at the Palace of Auburn Hills on November 19, 2004. They're many reasons (way too many to get into) about what happened that day, but you can't deny that race and class oppression (more present in the NBA than any other sport) was one of the issues. Because it's true, the majority of the NBA players come from poorer inner cities, and the vast majority of fans are white and who payed for a ticket that is one of the most expensive in any sport.

Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh (football fans will remember him for his deragatory remarks regarding Philadelphia QB Donavan McNabb) wrote in article following the incident entitled "Coarsening of culture ought not suprise us," in which he wrote: "This is the hip-hop culture on parade. This is gang behavior on parade minus the guns. That's the culture that the NBA has become."

Or how about Kenyon Martin who was labeled as a thug and hoodlum for his rough-style of play that led to two suspensions during the 2002 season because of flagrant fouls. "Maybe because I'm black, some people say I'm a thug or I'm a hoodlum or something like that," Martin told Dime magazine. "They don't look at a lot of white young men as thugs or hoodlums, you know? I played the game tough. Bill Laimbeer played tough basketball, and nobody called him a thug."

Or how about in 1997 when then-Golden State Warriors guard Latrell Sprewell had his four-year, $32 million contract terminated and was suspended for the league for one-year by the NBA. After the December 1st incident, Golden State Warriors management was set to suspend Sprewell for 10 games. Then NBA Commissioner David Stern intervened to suspend him for a year. The NBA Players Association filed a lawsuit on Sprewell’s behalf because the one-year suspension and the termination of his contract were imposed without any hearing where Sprewell could defend himself. The Players Association called the NBA actions "arbitrary" and "unprecedented," as it was the first time any NBA player had their contract terminated.

Or how about David Shield's book about the 1994-1995 Seattle SuperSonics season entitled Black Planet: Facing Race During an NBA Season. In the book, Shield's says "The NBA is a place where, without ever acknowledging it--and because it's never acknowledged, it's that much more potent and telling--white fans and black players enact and quietly explode virtually every racial issue and tension in the culture at large. Race, the league's taboo topic, is the league's true subject."

And the issue of race and basketball is relevant at the collegiate level as well. In 2000, the University of South Florida suspended its women's basketball coach Jerry Winters after former USF basketball player Dione Smith filed a federal lawsuit against the university claiming she was retaliated against after reporting to university officials in 1999 there were racial problems in the basketball program. Smith was a starter for three seasons and was cut from the team after telling the university that Winters often used a racial slur in referring to blacks and segregated the players on road trips. The university said it investigated the allegations and concluded there were some problems, ordering Winters to attend a diversity seminar.

It's a definite problem, that has to be stopped and addressed, rather than dismissed.

As for my opinion on an age limit, I think it is wrong. The NFL is the only major sport that limits athletes from coming into the league. Under league rules, a player must be in college for three NFL seasons before he can be drafted. But the NFL has struggled to adhere to this policy, allowing Heisman Trophy runner-up Larry Fitzgerald enter the NFL draft in 2004 after completing just his Sophomore year at the University of Pittsburgh. The number one pick in last year's 2004 MLB First-Year Player Draft was Matthew Bush from Mission Bay High School in San Diego, California. Four of the top ten picks in the draft were high school players, with thirteen total going in the first round. At the upcoming NHL draft in June (which can only be held if a new agreement between players and owners is reached), 18-year old Sidney Crosby is expected to be the number one draft pick. 13-year old Michelle Wie played in the 2003's Kraft Nabisco Championship's final pairing, which is a LPGA Major Tournament. Teenager Freddy Adu became the youngest person to play for a US National Soccer Team in 2004. Tennis star Venus Williams was a finalist for the U.S. Open Singles championship at the age of 17. Her sister Serena Williams won five singles titles and two doubles titles by the age of eighteen.

Sure, for every LeBron James there's a Kwame Brown. But that is the owners choice to bring those players in, and it is the owners mistake for possibly bringing in young, underdeveloped guys.

When Maurice Clarrett was battling in the court systems to try and earn eligibility into the NFL draft, NFL Hall of Fame Running Back Jim Brown had an interesting quote that I believes applies very well to this arguement: "All they need is an opportunity to be drafted; no one has to draft them."

I agree with everyone that says their are a number of businesses and employers who don't give jobs to those that are inexperienced and are without degrees. But those businesses and employers are not the NBA. And while players like LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, and (going oldschool on you) Moses Malone are a dime-a-dozen, they were qualified for their positions. And if you are qualified for a positition and they won't allow for you to receive it, that's discrimination.

Let's face facts: while it may not be a racial issue, an age limit is an issue. It's an issue that would limit someone's rights.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Doug Graham
Yeah, but don't you think if Lebron James is the star that he is expected to be, he's going to realize this after this season or he isn't going to realize it all?

While this can be the case & is for other players, some H.S. & the majority college, the bottom line to me is that the game of basketball suffers while the forced training is ongoing. It's about the money, marketing & getting the upper hand on your fellow owners, not about the players.

My point on Gordon was that going to college isn't a given to learn the fundamentals these days.

A kid can go to college, play a system and if he doesn't want to learn the fundamentals, he's not going to learn them. So what was the point?

But the major difference that in Chicago, he's earning the right to play the game thru his development, not the other way around. James is an exception to the rule in that he has more offensive talent than others but has abandoned growth on the defensive end cuz of that same offensive prowess. That's not growth IMO...

I still don't see the opportunity for him to learn the complete game when he's taking on the responsibility to 'carry his team' tho he in turn is not understanding at this young age that defensive effort, while taking away energy for the offensive end, would win as many games for the Cavs as going balls to the wall in trying to out score their opponent.

The college game is always going to be there. The college game will arguably always be better than the pro game no matter who plays.

There is the crux of the NBA illness. 15-20 years ago you couldn't say the college game was better. The erosion began when the NBA decided it wanted to capture another MJ scenario & began going away from rivalries & fundamentals & went to the individual promotions instead.

Owners began looking to the crystal ball method of beating each other to the next MJ by going younger. Bryant was the theme of the day back then tho history supports the fact that Bryant coming out so early did nothing to show immediate results till he reached an age where he would have been coming out of college anyway.

The high school players entering the NBA aren't damaging that game, but more high schoolers with egos going "man I should be in the League" and just playing the college game to get ready for the NBA is potentially damaging to the College game, while wasting years for when that kid goes pro.

I'm not putting all the responsibility on H.S players for the myriad of problems in the game today but I feel they're adding to it. James is special while others are not IMO. Just saying some will be solid pros doesn't discount the fact that until they are, we treated to a college type ball where it's more individual than team play & the quality, or lack thereof I should say, is more than evident.

& your point of bad attitude H.S.ers damaging the college game is the exact immaturity that pervades the college & pro game today. It's not a birth right & it does more damage not only to the game but the poor communities that the NBA plunders. The tiny % that actually make it doesn't describe the tons that put all their effort into "The Dream" & end up even poorer in their future when they're left by the wayside.

[Shawndo]

Originally posted by tobynosker
While I don't believe the restricting of players from entering into the NBA straight from high school is racist, I don't feel Jermaine O'Neal is using the race card. And I also don't feel the NBA has done it's job over the years of proving to those that their isn't racial implications in some of the decision makings in the league (although O'Neal did publicly state he didn't feel anybody involved with this is a racist).

Toby, I agree with you on most of the rest of the NBA incidents of racism or possible racism or hints at racism.
But these all stray away from the point and have no relevance.
O'Neal publicly stated that he didn't feel anybody involved with this is a racist BECAUSE he KNOWS that that little racist hint he dropped is completely irrelevant.
and that's my whole point. "objection: irrelevant"
"sustained"

There's plenty of good argument about the logistics of the proposed age limitation increase which Tarkus and Doug have pretty much fully covered.

I personally would be in favor of the age increase, IF it would successfully get kids to grab at least a year or two of college and/or the minor leagues before they play their hands in the big leagues.
Gotta have a backup plan, AND it would be nice to see the overall NBA maturity level step back up.

[Tarkus]

Welcome to the boards, toby...

You've had some interesting first few (loooong) posts & besides being impressed by your thoughts, I'm even more impressed with your stamina... :lol:

Originally posted by tobynosker
While I don't believe the restricting of players from entering into the NBA straight from high school is racist, I don't feel Jermaine O'Neal is using the race card.

I totally agree in that it's not & believe O'Neal is off target in his statements than actually trying to make an out & out case for rascism. While you've layed out some glaring examples of present day & not too distant rascism in the NBA, I'll leave that to another thread for another day.

However, sometimes you have the race card played by some who tend to rely on it at times when it's not so cut & dried like Martins following quote...

Or how about Kenyon Martin who was labeled as a thug and hoodlum for his rough-style of play that led to two suspensions during the 2002 season because of flagrant fouls. "Maybe because I'm black, some people say I'm a thug or I'm a hoodlum or something like that," Martin told Dime magazine. "They don't look at a lot of white young men as thugs or hoodlums, you know? I played the game tough. Bill Laimbeer played tough basketball, and nobody called him a thug."

Many called Laimbeer a thug back then with one obvious difference. Laimbeer always acted like he was a saint. Martin on the other hand acted like an angry young man with a chip on his shoulder. I liken him to Rasheed Wallace who acts like the league is out to get him which of course brings more scrutiny & punishment than he actually deserves at times. I find a great portion of what those 2 guys go thru to be more about immaturity & the resulting human nature response than straight up race issues.

Having said that I don't discount for a second that race does play some part in it but just that meeting the league head on doesn't make things easier but much harder...

It's a definite problem, that has to be stopped and addressed, rather than dismissed.

I'm sure the majority of people on the planet would agree with that sentiment...

As for my opinion on an age limit, I think it is wrong....

Sure, for every LeBron James there's a Kwame Brown. But that is the owners choice to bring those players in, and it is the owners mistake for possibly bringing in young, underdeveloped guys.

Regardless if the real & only reason the NBA wants one is to save money, I still would say the benefit would show in the quality of the game & the lessening of damage to young poor players. & if Stern wants to limit owners from making the mistake of bringing in Not Ready For Prime Time players to eliminate the lessening of quality & immaturity, I'm for it 100%.

The only thing I would change in your previous statement is that "for every LeBron James, there's a ton of Kwame Browns including the ones that we never hear of who tried & have been tossed in the trash bin"...

When Maurice Clarrett was battling in the court systems to try and earn eligibility into the NFL draft, NFL Hall of Fame Running Back Jim Brown had an interesting quote that I believes applies very well to this arguement: "All they need is an opportunity to be drafted; no one has to draft them."

& that's probably my biggest beef is that regardless that there's been ample proof in the history of the game of rascism, somehow the opinion is out there promoting restitution in that young players have some sort of birth right to play in a privately owned league.

Let's hope to see positive change in the evil practice of using & abusing minorities but let's keep the focus that the reality is that in the land of freedom of choice means that if you don't like the way a business is run...find some other job like tons of people do in their lives!!!

I agree with everyone that says their are a number of businesses and employers who don't give jobs to those that are inexperienced and are without degrees. But those businesses and employers are not the NBA. And while players like LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, and (going oldschool on you) Moses Malone are a dime-a-dozen, they were qualified for their positions. And if you are qualified for a positition and they won't allow for you to receive it, that's discrimination.

I don't see why there is a difference. I wasn't refering to jobs that require a degree but are based on age (like this issue) & experience. Some jobs don't mind letting someone start with no experience but also make the pay reflect that lack of. In the NBA, owners make foolhardy money decisions that can effect the league & should be held in check by the league itself.

It's not so much that everyone should agree with the idea but on the other hand, everyone should not start calling discrimination when the NBA has every right to make their own decisions they feel is best. That's the point of private business & I personally don't put NBA players on a pedestal to the point of championing their cause when it's a matter of them gaining entry in 2-3 years anyway...

Let's face facts: while it may not be a racial issue, an age limit is an issue. It's an issue that would limit someone's rights.

& there you have it IMO....It's not a right at all.....

[Billy D]

Wow, so much to respond to. But i'll stick to the main point as much as I can.

The right to enter the NBA at 18 is trumped by the NBA's right to impose an age minimum. If the NBA decides it's good for business, they are legally and morally in the right to impose the age minimum. Its effect might disproportionately affect Black youths, but the intent would clearly not be racial-- it would be a mid-to-long-term economic decision by the league.

What if this had applied to LeBron? First of all, an age minimum probably won't happen, period. Secondly, if it does happen, there will probably be exceptions for players like LeBron. That said, I don't think a player could successfully sue for early entry on the basis of denied $-- courts would rule that the age limit benefits all players without substantial harm to the 18-yr olds (they'll get most of their millions in the long run). Maybe we'll see about that. Actually, I'm sure SOMEONE would sue if there were an age limit. And the court of public opinion? Here's where racism might come in, or at least cultural differences.

I can't resist going off topic, since it was mentioned. That Kenyon Martin quote was the only one that Toby listed that I thought was off the mark (although I'm not saying that Toby agrees with what Martin said), I agree with Tarkus that Laimbeer was frequently called a thug. The part about Martin/Laimbeer personality differences is true too, but the main point is that they were both called thugs. Now if Martin's old UC teammate Bobby Brannon had somehow made the NBA, we would have an all new (and White) King of Thugs. Man I can't stand Brannon.

Racism or cultural differences? I guess that's what O'Neal's comment comes down to. The cultural differences happen to be pretty much aligned racially in this case, but it isn't racism (as Jermaine has now implied). At the same time, race affects everything in the NBA. Does that sum it up? I hope so, cuz my hands are getting cramped. How do you do it Toby???


[P.S.-- I've since realized that Tarkus said pretty much the same thing last week. We're going in circles, aren't we?]

[KevinBeane]

My turn again! ;)

Billy, I assume I'm misreading you/being nitpicky, but the "if" in your comment "If the NBA decides it's good for business, they are legally and morally in the right to impose the age minimum." makes it sounds like you're saying, good for business = morally in the right. Obviously, there are plenty of decisions that the NBA could make that would be good for business that are not morally in the right.

Also, how could the league possibly word this proposed rule and allow exceptions like LeBron in? "Drafting of players under the age of 20 is prohibited unless they are really, really good?" Everyone thinks their draft picks are really good.

I also remember distinctly Laimbeer being called a thug in his day.

My problem with the Jim Brown quote is this: If the league and owners did exactly what he suggested (allow them the opportunity to join the draft, and then the owners don't draft any of the kids), the cries of racism would probably be louder than they are with a ban on teenagers. (i.e., people would accuse the teams of not drafting the kids because they're racist).

That said, it's sort of interesting that we need to put this rule in place to protect the billionaire owners from themselves, or from drafting kids who will hurt the game or whatever, but it's still the kids, rather than the owners, that we find a way to whinge about. No one likes a 19-year-old millionaire unless they is us...and they better not just be humble, but pray at the ALTAR of humility. It's kind of silly.

[Billy D]

Originally posted by KevinBeane
Billy, I assume I'm misreading you/being nitpicky, but the "if" in your comment "If the NBA decides it's good for business, they are legally and morally in the right to impose the age minimum." makes it sounds like you're saying, good for business = morally in the right....

Also, how could the league possibly word this proposed rule and allow exceptions like LeBron in? "Drafting of players under the age of 20 is prohibited unless they are really, really good?" Everyone thinks their draft picks are really good....
KB, my responses:

I agree that good for business is not necessarily morally in the right. I just think that they would be in this particular case.

I have no idea how the NBA would word a "LeBron exception". I've just heard the idea tossed around, so I assume someone has a proposal. It would have to be tricky wording!

[tobynosker]

My problem with the Jim Brown quote is this: If the league and owners did exactly what he suggested (allow them the opportunity to join the draft, and then the owners don't draft any of the kids), the cries of racism would probably be louder than they are with a ban on teenagers. (i.e., people would accuse the teams of not drafting the kids because they're racist).

I doubt the cries of racism would be any louder, since the league is 80% African-American. And it's not the league that is losing money on investing in young, underdeveloped talent that were drafted before they were ready. It's owners of the NBA teams that made a conscious decision to select that particular player. The league will continue to make it's money regardless of whether or not LeBron James entered the league at 18 or 20. The issue is whether or not Cleveland's owner would have made his money through merchandising sales, ticket prices and through television deals. Why should it be a forced issue by the NBA, and not a decision by an NBA owner?

My reason for pointing racial issues that persist within the NBA was to merely point out that a young black ballplayer, who grew up in a poor inner city, and now is a member of a league that continues to have racial implications, while ill-informed, might misconstrue what the NBA is trying to do by restricting a majority of young, black ballplayers from entering the league as being another racial issue in a long line of racial problems that still exist. Is he correct? I don't believe so. But do I see where he is coming from? Yes. But again, just by simply dismissing Jermaine O'Neal as ill-informed, we are dismissing an issue that is relevant.

As far as whether or not players even have the right to be members of the NBA, I was wrong earlier. It's not a right. But that doesn't mean that courts wouldn't rule in favor of those high school athletes who would decide to go the legal route (much like Maurice Clarrett did when trying to enter the NFL draft) to try and earn eligibilty in the draft. And that doesn't mean that limiting qualified applicants from being awarded a job isn't discrimination. Because it is.

The only age discrimination law on the books right now is the 1967 Age Discrimination in Employment Act, that protects workers ages 40 and older from job discrimination. Some 70 million workers - about half the nation's workforce - are 40 or older. According to the Department of Labor, the unemployment rate for workers ages 25 to 34 was 6.3% in September, 2003, eclipsing the 3.9% rate for employees 55 and older. The U.S. Supreme Court took up the issue of reverse discrimination in a court case last year, in which they ruled ADEA does not empower relatively younger workers to file so-called reverse-discrimination lawsuits.

In an article published on the Christian Science Monitor website, it states "some analysts argued that the high court has sustained similar reverse-discrimination interpretations of civil rights statutes. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was designed to protect minorities by prohibiting racial discrimination in employment. But the court has read the law to also outlaw same-sex sexual harassment and racial discrimination claims filed by whites."

"The majority justices said that age discrimination is different. The court ruled that when age is teamed with the word discrimination it effectively means old age. The court ruled that the purpose of the law was to protect "older" workers from discrimination."

This seems to me to be the bigger fight on the players' hands, rather than racial discrimination, as the courts have basically ruled that companies can favor older workers. Plus, while watching ESPN's KIA NBA Shootaround program last night, analyst Steven A. Smith has said that he has heard talk that the NBA and player's union would settle on the age limit being reduced from the orginally proposed 20 years of age to 19.

That doesn't mean players like Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, Jermaine O'Neal, Amare Stoudemire, LeBron James and Dwight Howard would have decided play one year in college like Carmelo Anthony did. That means they will once again avoid college, play one year in a prep school, and then move on to the NBA. So where is the improvement for the league? And if their is no improvement, why change the current rules?

[HibachiDG]

While this can be the case & is for other players, some H.S. & the majority college, the bottom line to me is that the game of basketball suffers while the forced training is ongoing. It's about the money, marketing & getting the upper hand on your fellow owners, not about the players.

And how does the age limit help fight this? Does every thug that has the me me me mentality instantly go to college and come out of school without it? I don't think so.

And if the product gets better, I don't even think this would be an issue.

There is the crux of the NBA illness. 15-20 years ago you couldn't say the college game was better. The erosion began when the NBA decided it wanted to capture another MJ scenario & began going away from rivalries & fundamentals & went to the individual promotions instead.

I agree with this completely. (Well, not completely, I could say the college game was better 15-20 years ago. I grew up on the college game over the pro game. But, yeah, during Jordan's era I assume the NBA was more popular than college.)

I think this hits on why I don't think the age limit is a good thing. You can work towards rivalries and fundamentals without imposing an age limit.

Hell, if you took out the three point line, I think you'd move the game forward a lot quicker than you would with this age limit.

I mean, there are things working against this league other than the age thing.


I'm not putting all the responsibility on H.S players for the myriad of problems in the game today but I feel they're adding to it. James is special while others are not IMO. Just saying some will be solid pros doesn't discount the fact that until they are, we treated to a college type ball where it's more individual than team play & the quality, or lack thereof I should say, is more than evident.

Huh? Since when did college type ball get hit with the individual label? I don't understand what you're getting at here. The NBA game is nowhere near "college type ball" right now.

Jordan showed that you could win an NBA Title with one amazing player, a solid player and some decent players. Right? Kobe/Shaq did the same thing.

So why should teams stop trying to hit this formula and go to more of a team game?

Sure, if the Pistons win out over the Heat this year or if the Suns/Mavericks come out of the West, we might start to see more of this.

I'd also say that the best basketball minds, strategy wise are in college basketball. And some of them (Rick Pitino) have tried and failed in the NBA because of it being an individual game.

[HibachiDG]

Originally posted by KevinBeane


Also, how could the league possibly word this proposed rule and allow exceptions like LeBron in? "Drafting of players under the age of 20 is prohibited unless they are really, really good?" Everyone thinks their draft picks are really good.

Well, by their past logic I could see them doing this...

Have a player coming out of high school still be able to enter the Draft, but if he isn't taken in the Top 3, he can't join the NBA. And he can't join the collegiate ranks because he entered the Draft...Stern's logic, not mine.

I don't see why they aren't on the phone with MLB to get some tips on this whole high school, college, draft thing.

[KevinBeane]

I can see Stern and his boys doing just that Doug. You can enter the draft, but if you don't go in the top 3, consider yourself ineligible for ....the rest of the draft. Better yet, they could have seperate ceremonies announcing the top three picks and call it something other than a draft.


Originally posted by Doug Graham
And how does the age limit help fight this? Does every thug that has the me me me mentality instantly go to college and come out of school without it? I don't think so.



Even if only 1% do change in college, it's worth seriously discussing, IMO.

[HibachiDG]

Why would you want to discuss it if only 1% changed? I'm not sure exactly what a totaly that low would change, other than keeping the good high school kids from going pro.

[Billy D]

? I have the same question as Doug.

It reminds me of when someone says, "we've spent thousands of dollars and put hundreds of hours into (insert 'cause' here), but if we save just one life, it's worth it". To that I say "Bullspit". If you could've gotten your act together and devoted your time and effort toward something more useful, you could've saved a whole lot more lives than one! Same deal here. 1%? Seems like a small benefit compared to the hassle it would give people. Anyway, if there's an age limit it will be for the league's benefit more than the kids.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Doug Graham
And how does the age limit help fight this? Does every thug that has the me me me mentality instantly go to college and come out of school without it? I don't think so. And if the product gets better, I don't even think this would be an issue.

I'm not sure how this age issue is coming across as a sole issue to you, Doug. The point of allowing kids time to mature, personally & in their peer setting, is not a given that it'll happen but raise the odds that it can. Completely eliminating all the benefits this can have for the game & young players successfully eliminates any chance whatsoever...

& without many changes, the product won't get better even tho the age limit isn't the sole suggested remedy...



I agree with this completely. (Well, not completely, I could say the college game was better 15-20 years ago. I grew up on the college game over the pro game. But, yeah, during Jordan's era I assume the NBA was more popular than college.)

I think this hits on why I don't think the age limit is a good thing. You can work towards rivalries and fundamentals without imposing an age limit.

Hell, if you took out the three point line, I think you'd move the game forward a lot quicker than you would with this age limit.

I mean, there are things working against this league other than the age thing.

Well, I'm biased for the "old pro game" while you're biased for the "college game"...lol

& I wasn't implying the game was more popular back then but the quality & purity of the game itself. & yes, there's a lot more wrong with the league...hence my comment of "a myriad of problems". & don't get me started on the 3 point line again. Somewhere in the archives is 500 pounds of my posts in an NBA thread about that & other problems from my POV...lol

Huh? Since when did college type ball get hit with the individual label? I don't understand what you're getting at here. The NBA game is nowhere near "college type ball" right now.

What I was referring to was the quality of play, not the individual type play. I expect when pros hit the floor to be able to play like pros, not college guys who need to practice & learn the game...

Jordan showed that you could win an NBA Title with one amazing player, a solid player and some decent players. Right? Kobe/Shaq did the same thing.[/QOUTE]

The Lakers aren't a good example cuz in the beginning when Kobe came out, he wasn't able to help like a Scottie Pippen with MJ. It took Phil Jackson & a more mature Bryant, in game & psyche, plus a solid bench to gain the summit.

[QUOTE]So why should teams stop trying to hit this formula and go to more of a team game?

Having an age limit doesn't change the opportunity going for that special player in the draft instead of paying thru the nose to lure "potential" out of the schoolyards & that's not even addressingnot hamstringing the franchise for years to come with these outrageous contracts nowadays

I'd also say that the best basketball minds, strategy wise are in college basketball. And some of them (Rick Pitino) have tried and failed in the NBA because of it being an individual game.

Agreed but once again like I said, individual play is destroying the NBA landscape & bringing in immature, easily influenced youngsters in some cases, add to it & sure doesn't help the game as a whole either..

[KevinBeane]

Originally posted by Billy D
? I have the same question as Doug.

It reminds me of when someone says, "we've spent thousands of dollars and put hundreds of hours into (insert 'cause' here), but if we save just one life, it's worth it". To that I say "Bullspit". If you could've gotten your act together and devoted your time and effort toward something more useful, you could've saved a whole lot more lives than one! Same deal here. 1%? Seems like a small benefit compared to the hassle it would give people. Anyway, if there's an age limit it will be for the league's benefit more than the kids.

Well, comparing this to anything life or death completely changes the analogy, but let me break it down.

First scenario: take a hundred me-first high school B-ball prodigies who have no interest in college. This rule is passed, the kids are forced to go to college to stay high-visibility in Bball, 10 get drafted, 89 don't and are now working McDonald's because they didn't take college seriously, and 1 saw the light in college and earned a BA and has a good non-college basketball job.

In the second scenario, the rule is not passed, ten get drafted, 90 go to McDonald's or play ball overseas and into oblivion.

Even though only one kid benefited from the first scenario, NONE (other than the ones drafted)benefit in the second.

I've heard a lot of debate about the quality of play in the NBA, but what's the right thing to do by these kids? The more we can push them in the direction of college, the better off they will be. College may not save many, but it will save some and it doesn't HURT anyone, even the people it does save (which is why your analogy, Billy, is unapplicable because you're suggesting you're wasting more lives than you're saving).

I'm hearing a lot of noise about why this rule change is unnecessary, but tell me why it's BAD.

Finally, if 1% isn't worth it, tell me what is? You have to quantify a percentage yourself if you're gonna tell me my quantification is no good.

[HibachiDG]

In the second scenario, the rule is not passed, ten get drafted, 90 go to McDonald's or play ball overseas and into oblivion.

Even though only one kid benefited from the first scenario, NONE (other than the ones drafted)benefit in the second.

We're talking about kids who could have been drafted coming out of High School. Not every me-me-me kid that plays basketball in college. There is a difference. Not to mention that not every kid who goes pro after high school is a me-me-me kid.

Who does this hurt? The kid who could have been drafted coming out of High School but doesn't get drafted for whatever reason because of what happens to them when they go on to the college game. Injury, coaching, there are a number of reasons not directly relating to the players ability that could prevent him from getting drafted.

Now, and I think I've hinted at this, there should be something in place for a high school player that comes out and doesn't get drafted. Right now the NBA doesn't care about these kids. Would the age limit help them? Yes, for sure, but they already can help these kids out.

[Brad O.]

originally posted by Shawndo
'new poster' comes in and immediately attacks both Mods of forum
Shawn, I'm still puzzled that you feel I attacked anyone. I guess if you think it's okay for you to call O'Neal's statements stupid, but not for anyone to do the same thing to you, you could interpret my failed joke as an attack. But I can't imagine how you think my response to Tarkus's post constituted attack -- disagreement is part of any discussion like this. I certainly didn't call him any names or issue any threats.

originally posted by Shawndo
Once again, if someone could make a reasonable case for how that argument has ANY relevancy to the discussion, I'm all ears.
As Doug noted,Who does the age limit being raised affect the most? Young black Americans. I think everyone who looks at the plan can see that.Now obviously, the involvement of race does not, by itself, mean that racism is involved. But given that the proposed age limit would affect a group of young men that (if I'm not mistaken) so far has consisted exclusively of blacks, I would say that discussion of racism has a great deal of relevancy to the issue and deserves to be taken seriously.

originally posted by Tarkus
the forcing H.S.ers into starting positions to help market the NBA is one of the failures continuing the trend from the MJ days.
Careful, Tark, you'll win me over with talk like that. ;)

originally posted by Tarkus
Actually my quote is as follows..."Expecting them to let in kids in as young as H.S. just to be politically correct & then citing racial discrimination cuz they're suggesting an age limit is extortion."
Yeah, I didn't understand what you meant my first time through. Without getting into the money side of it, I agree (of course) that it would be ridiculous for the league to allow teenagers just to be politically correct. But it seems obvious that there are (a great many) other reasons the league has so far been admitting kids right out of HS, none of which are race-related or aimed at political correctness.

originally posted by Tarkus
KB has said it best in that it's a economic situation which in turn can be translated to a black situation.
I agree that this is more fundamentally an economic situation than a racial one, but the economic realities than Kevin noted necessarily make it a racial issue as well. I'm less concerned with the NBA's proposal than I am with the reaction to what O'Neal said. I've been surprised by how many people have dismissed his concerns as "rubbish" or "playing the race card" and so on, and by the vehemence with which some people have turned on O'Neal. It's alarming when people whom I know aren't actively racist don't take his concerns the least bit seriously, don't seem to have even considered their validity.

originally posted by Tarkus
The NBA lets inexperienced H.S.ers with a resume of playing against teenagers a shot but other businesses don't. That's inequality that I don't find peppering the air waves.
Hopefully I won't get banned for this, but I think you're way off. The NBA runs the same way as other businesses: bosses and managers hire the people they think can help the company most. Maybe that means a sharp-looking, tall, white dude with an MBA but who doesn't know Shinola from, uh, crap -- instead of an ugly dude or a woman or whoever. Maybe it means a guy who's been around forever but doesn't have a clue -- instead of a capable young kid with a great head on her/his shoulders. Maybe it means an 18-year-old who could be the next Kevin Garnett instead of a four-year senior who will probably be the next Shane Battier.

Even if other businesses didn't run like that -- and lots do -- trying to paint that as the same kind of "inequality" as racism is absurd.

originally posted by Tarkus
There will always be some affected by different decisions & it's pretty obnoxious when many go out of their way to "catagorize it" into another area just cuz they don't have a leg to stand on.originally posted by me
I don't follow. What do you mean? Are we still talking about O'Neal?originally posted by Tarkus
In the case, yes...still O'Neal. I would be more than easily influenced in that the NBA is trying to cut a buck than any type of racial implication. What O'Neal in this case is bringing up is the collateral damage so to speak in that a young guy would have to wait an extra couple years. In no way is it taking an opportunity away but delaying it.
I agree completely with what you wrote directly above, but I still don't understand the original quote. Were you implying that O'Neal has some personal stake in preventing the NBA from putting this proposal into effect, and that he cried wolf in a desperate attempt to turn opinion against the league?

originally posted by Tarkus
The lifes blood of the NBA is entertaining ballplayers. They won't...I repeat...won't try limiting the source of a product without a good reason (at least to them) & I just don't believe any of them are racially motivated whatsoever.
Well, obviously they are trying to limit a source now, so there must be reasons, and I suspect most of them begin with a dollar sign. But LeBron is the face of the league, Garnett's a fan favorite (and the reigning league MVP), pre-scandal Kobe was hugely popular, and on and on. Melo was 19 when he joined the league. O'Neal's no slouch. Amare Stoudemire's been a star from Day One. There's just no way sending those guys to school for a couple years helps the league's profits.

originally posted by Tarkus
The other major problem is that in the hunt for the next MJ, teams are putting a ton of money on the line for kids not even able to grow a full mustache
Hah. One of the only times someone here has made me laugh aloud. (still my favorite (http://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/showthread.php?postid=84925#post84925))

I don't think the teenagers have helped at all except at the ticket counter.
If they've helped at the ticket counter, that reinforces my $ point, right? But it seems clear that teenage players are not diluting the quality of the league. There are only half a dozen who play, and they're guys like LeBron James and Dwight Howard, or Carmelo Anthony, or Amare Stoudemire. Those are significantly above-average players. For all the flaws in their games, all the fundamentals that may be missing (and I'm not convinced that many college coaches are teaching those, either), they're still good players. Coaches don't put these guys on the floor just to get them experience.

originally posted by Tarkus
Using James as an example, his offense is great to see but he's extremely weak on D.
Yeah, but that's historically been the case for A LOT of young guys. Rick Barry was an awful defender out of college, but he worked on his game and became a pretty good defensive player. Michael Jordan improved his defensive play enough to make nine All-Defensive Teams -- although I hesitate to cite that because I think he was more flashy (lots of steals) than solid (beaten trying for steals). When less-experienced players have a glaring flaw in their games, it is almost invariably defense, and that was true long before anyone jumped straight from high school to the pros. I bet you'll see James come around in the next couple of years.

originally posted by tobynosker
While I don't believe the restricting of players from entering into the NBA straight from high school is racist, I don't feel Jermaine O'Neal is using the race card. And I also don't feel the NBA has done it's job over the years of proving to those that their isn't racial implications in some of the decision makings in the league (although O'Neal did publicly state he didn't feel anybody involved with this is a racist). Because the stark reality is that 80 percent of NBA players are black while over 90 percent of NBA coaches, management and administration are white.
Point.

originally posted by Tarkus
somehow the opinion is out there promoting restitution in that young players have some sort of birth right to play in a privately owned league.
The thing is, they might. The United States government has the right to regulate businesses within its borders, and that includes prevention of discriminatory hiring practices (like age). You probably remember that the NFL's age limit was briefly ruled unconstitutional (or at least illegal; I don't remember) before the league convinced a higher court that removing the limit would harm the league. And I don't believe the NBA is in a position to argue that prohibiting players based on age will help the league. From that standpoint -- domestic law -- young players do have a birth right to play in the NBA.

originally posted by Tarkus
if you don't like the way a business is run...find some other job like tons of people do in their lives!!!
This is a slippery slope, Tarkus. People said that during Jim Crow, too. Crappy bosses or stupid business practices are one thing, but actually prohibiting someone from working for you -- or making the work environment unpleasant -- based on age and/or race is a Constitutional issue.

I'm extremely impressed with toby's legal research, but even beyond the initial ruling in the Clarett case, I believe there's reason to think the NBA might be on shaky legal ground trying to impose an age minimum -- O'Neal's reason. If the player's union, or a LeBron-like high school phenom, can convince the court that the age issue is just a front for the race issue, then a much broader set of non-discrimination laws come into play. And given the players who would have been affected by the law in the past -- they're all either African-American or European, right? -- I believe a good lawyer could probably convince the court of exactly that.

(It's worth noting, of course, that few people believe the NBA will really press this; it's more likely, I've read, that they'll use it as a bargaining chip.)

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Brad O.

I agree that this is more fundamentally an economic situation than a racial one, but the economic realities than Kevin noted necessarily make it a racial issue as well. I'm less concerned with the NBA's proposal than I am with the reaction to what O'Neal said. I've been surprised by how many people have dismissed his concerns as "rubbish" or "playing the race card" and so on, and by the vehemence with which some people have turned on O'Neal. It's alarming when people whom I know aren't actively racist don't take his concerns the least bit seriously, don't seem to have even considered their validity.

I agree it's been a bit over the top at moments against O'Neals statements & without sifting thru my own posts, I'm possibly seen as diminishing his comments as well but for the following reason which pertains with it being the lead in to the merits of the age issue.

First off, I don't believe young players are a huge reason I'm dissatisfied with the NBA nowadays but that I believe they do play a part. It's not necessarily that the players themselves are at fault but the ever growing greed of professional sports owners who are constantly trying to "re-invent the wheel" when it comes to where they find their next boatload of money.

In turn after they raid a schoolyard with a projection of greatness, the burden to "put the product on the floor" to start on returns of that invested money falls to a coach who then has to do just that no matter how far off he feels that player is from starting. At that point the relationship between coach & young player is forever fouled (pun intended...:D ) & the pressures of an adult life force fed to a youngster, add immaturity to the mix & also the immaturity that knows the leverage they have of being the investment & you have a problem...

Once again, not earth shattering damage but another effect on the game by greedy owners (IMO) who have lost sight of the game but don't miss a beat when it comes to a trip to the bank. So when I hear O'Neals comments bring up a powder keg of possible rascism when it plays a collateral damage part in this at best, I want to stand up & howl for people to stay on topic & dispute why age limits are wrong & not to segue off to racism immediately. I would not have any problem hearing a discussion on the point that that rule would predominately effect poor black athletes (which I agree with) but once again, after the merits of the topic which still is about age as a main issue....at least in my eyes...

Hopefully I won't get banned for this, but I think you're way off.

:lol:, Brad...

N/P when it comes to saying I'm way off....It's not that that statement hasn't echoed between my ears before & I'm sure not the last. Besides that, remember that thinly veiled sarcasm earns bonus points for use at SCs end-of-year bake sale....:D

Even if other businesses didn't run like that -- and lots do -- trying to paint that as the same kind of "inequality" as racism is absurd.

I agree but would once again clarify that I was referring to the age issue, not the peripheral & secondary issue of the added effect of who or what race would be affected.

.... but I still don't understand the original quote. Were you implying that O'Neal has some personal stake in preventing the NBA from putting this proposal into effect, and that he cried wolf in a desperate attempt to turn opinion against the league?

Not at all...What I was saying before was that I felt he was off target from the original issue at hand. Having said that, I can understand that after seeing & living first hand rascism having played out in his & the black communities affected, his initial reaction may have been to lead his comments from the serious subject of rascism.

If memory serves, I believe it was you who said he was a much better player than speaker. I think that is exactly why this convo has taken place. If he had led with the argument of "Hey, I think an age limit is faulty for X-Y-Z, but I'd also like to point out the rascist overtones in the effect on impoverished black athletes...." , I believe it would have been much more widely supported...

Well, obviously they are trying to limit a source now, so there must be reasons, and I suspect most of them begin with a dollar sign. But LeBron is the face of the league, Garnett's a fan favorite (and the reigning league MVP), pre-scandal Kobe was hugely popular, and on and on. Melo was 19 when he joined the league. O'Neal's no slouch. Amare Stoudemire's been a star from Day One. There's just no way sending those guys to school for a couple years helps the league's profits.

I also believe that it's $ that leads the list but I think other considerations may include the fact that Stern has been approached by black Leaders in the past on the affect of dangling huge money in front of immature young boys that pin point their focus to an all or none at all attempt at the NBA. Alot of young players who have a couple more years of pre-NBA court time find that they quickly become more run-of-the-mill when they reach the college level competition whereas they were stars on a much smaller & insulated H.S. environment where they may have dominated.

Another being the immaturity level by increasingly bringing in younger players. It's not just about the talent but how a young guy thrust into an adult NBA world reacts where their peers are now years & years ahead of them. I don't believe for one second that Stern & Co. are that concerned about the welfare of young guys but how that affects the league image & that it's self-serving...

A good example is when AI first came on the scene, he had a huge chip on his shoulder when it came to showing respect for established veterans. He swore he didn't have to respect anyone just cuz he had to. Almost immediately after having some behind the scenes talks with MJ & other veterans, current & past, he clarified publicly that he meant it in a competitive way & meant no disrespect.

That's another thing that's eroding is that the NBA doesn't have the Wests, Magics, Birds, Mjs around anymore to help in the league image with the younger players which at this pace will be a lot younger, a lot quicker, in the future. Now that I find to have a huge racial overtone in that I think the league is nervous that they might be viewed as a league of rich gangster type blacks.


(still my favorite (http://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/showthread.php?postid=84925#post84925))

:lol:... Buckeye's a classic, isn't he?? :nod:


If they've helped at the ticket counter, that reinforces my $ point, right? But it seems clear that teenage players are not diluting the quality of the league. There are only half a dozen who play, and they're guys like LeBron James and Dwight Howard, or Carmelo Anthony, or Amare Stoudemire. Those are significantly above-average players. For all the flaws in their games, all the fundamentals that may be missing (and I'm not convinced that many college coaches are teaching those, either), they're still good players. Coaches don't put these guys on the floor just to get them experience.

Also my point on the money but with all the other variables I've said in my posts affecting it also.

I still disagree that the younger players aren't diluting the league tho the % is small compared to the overall play. The above named are above average but also above average where the quality of play has deteriorated thru the years IMO.

I trace it back to the NBA going for more crowd pleasing play that's detracted from the game itself which is showing with lower shooting %, trey happy gunning, & an overall player sense of trying to be an offensive highlight reel to gain fame & fortune. It's ironic how players like VC & Antione Walker have made a resurgence based on a complete game when it got to the point that offense alone wasn't gonna butter their toast anymore. Also funny how most view the Piston success as a fluke when it's about the fundamentals that breed success.

The league is in a downward spiral that won't bottom out in the next couple years but the trend doesn't bode well for the future when it comes to losing fans & revenue for many reasons. Younger players like James aren't going to show up every year & they know it. Anthony doesn't wow me tho I think he'll be OK in the long run & Stoudemire & Howard, while solid, don't make me feel they had to come in the league immediately.

On if college coaches still stressing fundamentals?? With the play from some coming out of college...hmmm...it seems that's slacked off with some of them but that's just a feeling...


Yeah, but that's historically been the case for A LOT of young guys. Rick Barry was an awful defender out of college, but he worked on his game and became a pretty good defensive player. Michael Jordan improved his defensive play enough to make nine All-Defensive Teams -- although I hesitate to cite that because I think he was more flashy (lots of steals) than solid (beaten trying for steals). When less-experienced players have a glaring flaw in their games, it is almost invariably defense, and that was true long before anyone jumped straight from high school to the pros. I bet you'll see James come around in the next couple of years.

Agreed...I think James is something special & the only one in the league that has a chance to become an elite player to be spoken of after he's done. I believe he has the maturity to realize on his own that D is a very important part to his game & will adjust accordingly.

On MJs freelancing D, I think the thing that saved him from just being considered a "Kenny Rogers" (another Buckeye classic..:lol: ) type gambling defender is that he converted a ton into points personally or changed the complexion of the outcome of many a game with them. I thought he was an excellent defender but not a shutdown type like a Dennis Johnson, Michael Cooper, Scottie Pippen, etc...


The thing is, they might. The United States government has the right to regulate businesses within its borders, and that includes prevention of discriminatory hiring practices (like age). You probably remember that the NFL's age limit was briefly ruled unconstitutional (or at least illegal; I don't remember) before the league convinced a higher court that removing the limit would harm the league. And I don't believe the NBA is in a position to argue that prohibiting players based on age will help the league. From that standpoint -- domestic law -- young players do have a birth right to play in the NBA.

& that would change the issue all together if that was ruled as such. I'm not qualified to comment on the letter of the law but still would like to see it stick from not only a game POV but that I honestly think younger players need to be around their own peers than the sputtering direction the NBA has to offer at this time.


This is a slippery slope, Tarkus. People said that during Jim Crow, too. Crappy bosses or stupid business practices are one thing, but actually prohibiting someone from working for you -- or making the work environment unpleasant -- based on age and/or race is a Constitutional issue.

Yes it is, isn't it. Your point may end to be the "last point standing" when everything's all said & done...

I believe there's reason to think the NBA might be on shaky legal ground trying to impose an age minimum -- O'Neal's reason. If the player's union, or a LeBron-like high school phenom, can convince the court that the age issue is just a front for the race issue, then a much broader set of non-discrimination laws come into play. And given the players who would have been affected by the law in the past -- they're all either African-American or European, right? -- I believe a good lawyer could probably convince the court of exactly that.

True...The James scenario may be a case of closing the barn door after the horse is gone for the NBA, dooming any spin they attempt. It would be more than interesting to hear both sides take on this in a court of law...

In closing I just want to point out again that the benefit in an age limit with me is piggy backed on the NBAs agenda which I don't believe is so idealistic in merit...lol

(It's worth noting, of course, that few people believe the NBA will really press this; it's more likely, I've read, that they'll use it as a bargaining chip.)

& that is more than likely, isn't it??

Having just written that, I've realized I've come dangerously close to my 10,000 word limit in a thread. I better be careful, I'm not sure if I'll spontaneously combust if I go over....

[YankeeDoodle]

I don't think race is directly an issue. Directly. I mean sure, perhaps on SOME level, there is SOME association...but I think it's more of difference between sports; I'm not clear on NHL, but in the MLB it's quite different from the NFL and NBA b/c kids can be drafted and then elect to go to college - the draft is basically meaningless since MLB uses a farm system. Mainly Stern probably doesn't want to see another Darko or Kwame...WHO, you ask? No. 2 and 1 picks...yeah, they're household names. And if they played in college...perhaps pro teams would've seen that they hype, is just that.

Anyways, I don't think there should be an age limit, because only half of high school students choose to go to college. Those who don't get a job...so if LeBron thinks he can do it, then fine. European players play in clubs.

That said, college is an experience anyone who can go, should go, IMO. First, there's academics - whatever happened to *student* athletes? Shane Battier? WHY, when someone says he wants to stay for a senior season, but could go as a top pro pick...people call him an idiot? For wanting to stay in college to get a diploma?? Then it's a social experience, too...and it's when most teens become adults, learn to be independent. Some of these straight-out-of-high-school players don't have game - they don't even have the maturity as a person, much less a player. Discipline, fundamentals - that's emphasized in the college game.

College hoops doesn't need star players - Duke vs. UNC is just fine w/o Michael Jordan. And just so O' Neal knows...Affirmative Action is discrimination. An age limit on draft would not be.

[Billy D]

Originally posted by KevinBeane
The more we can push them in the direction of college, the better off they will be. College may not save many, but it will save some and it doesn't HURT anyone, even the people it does save (which is why your analogy, Billy, is unapplicable because you're suggesting you're wasting more lives than you're saving).
KB, I disagree with your assertion that the age minimum would hurt no one. It would cost some players a few years of their career and everything that comes with that: lost development (if they're too good for college, as LeBron probably is), lost fun, lost wages. Heck, in some cases it could mean life or death-- not to overemphasize it, because it would be rare, but some young players have relatives in need of debt relief, surgery, etc.

Originally posted by KevinBeane

I'm hearing a lot of noise about why this rule change is unnecessary, but tell me why it's BAD.
I'm not sure that a rule change would be bad, so someone else will have to answer that.

Originally posted by KevinBeane
Finally, if 1% isn't worth it, tell me what is? You have to quantify a percentage yourself if you're gonna tell me my quantification is no good.
If not 1%, then what %, you ask? I would say you'd have to get a benefit that outweighs the costs in a greater way than your other options, not sure what, but definitely more than 10%. I'm pretty sure that the league or teams could hire tutors and mentors to help 1%, and that wouldn't require an age minimum.

[HibachiDG]

Originally posted by KevinBeane

I'm hearing a lot of noise about why this rule change is unnecessary, but tell me why it's BAD.


Because any form of unnecessary discrimination is a bad thing. Whether it be race, gender or in this case, age.

[YankeeDoodle]

This is sure to be an issue with the collective bargaining agreement.

I remember watching SportsCenter on night...and the details are fuzzy, but back when MJ was in his prime, there was a survey of a certain demographic of boys, and more wanted to be a pro basketball player than a surgeon (or a pro in an actual "pediastrian" work area).

I mean sure...when you're a kid, perhaps you thought about becoming an astronaut, food tester (and some people are)...but then as those kids turn to teens, and teens into adults, one begins to realize that for 99% of the populace, sports is not a realistic profession, and blowing off the SATs "to play ball". Why doesn't anyone want to become a pro-caliber physicist?

Oh please...it is ridiculous (actually I like J.J. Redick so I'm not gonna Redickule him), but the benefits these student-atheletes get...tutors that DO the work for them (whereas the rest of the student body can't even locate their profs)...so either the policy is just SHIP 'EM TO THE NBA, and be done with that...or make student-athletes the real deal.

That's a couple of roster spots at Duke that academia-students could fill instead of these curious Sociology majors...