|
Macklin
Jul 11, 2005 17:59:40 GMT -5
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jul 11, 2005 17:59:40 GMT -5
I think that winning a national championship is a some what rare occurence that actually doesn't happen to the overwhelming majority of programs each year (for example - did you know that over 300 NCAA DI programs finished 2nd or worse last year?!). My point being that if we won a national championship and suddenly 8 of our 12 student athletes were being offered multi-million dollar contract then I would expect them all to at least consider leaving despite their previous committment - I have no problem with that.
What I do have a problem with is the logical increase in the second type of player that will be pkaying in the NCAAs after the NBA rule change.
(I also have a problem with the fact that tennis and golf - sports primarily played by caucasians will let 14, 15, and 16 year olds play with the pros but the NBA which Larry Legend calls "a black man's game" takes that decision away from the players themselves because it is assumed that they will be duped or seduced by an agent - but that's for another thread - probably not on the Hoya Talk section of this board).
|
|
PopeJohn2
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Ultimate bailout is yet to come and unavoidable. Uncle Sam gonna pay your debt for you!
Posts: 1,465
|
Macklin
Jul 11, 2005 19:08:16 GMT -5
Post by PopeJohn2 on Jul 11, 2005 19:08:16 GMT -5
The way to build a team (think Duke, Uconn, Arizona, UNC, Kentucky):
8 top 50 -100 (4 year core) 2 top 25-50 (potential two/three and doners) 2 top 25 (potential one and doners)
EQUALS
3 Final fours every 6 years 1 National Championship every 5 years
This is JTIIIs plan thats why hes my MAN!
And SPH, I agree with you, the age limit is subconciously racist. You omitted baseball and hockey.
|
|
|
Macklin
Jul 11, 2005 20:23:41 GMT -5
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jul 11, 2005 20:23:41 GMT -5
I did only because hockey and baseball are mixed examples - tennis and golf are really great examples because they are traditionally dominated and associated with caucasians. You are right to use the word subconciously, because I believe this is an instance of what philosophy on inclusion in political and economic choice-making calls "societal discrimination" - there is no single perpetrator or motive involved in the instance of racism, but rather it is most likely caused (notice i don't say "is") by societal attitudes towards the players and the game as seen through the prism of race.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Macklin
Jul 11, 2005 20:34:54 GMT -5
Post by SirSaxa on Jul 11, 2005 20:34:54 GMT -5
I think that winning a national championship is a some what rare occurence that actually doesn't happen to the overwhelming majority of programs each year (for example - did you know that over 300 NCAA DI programs finished 2nd or worse last year?!). My point being that if we won a national championship and suddenly 8 of our 12 student athletes were being offered multi-million dollar contract then I would expect them all to at least consider leaving despite their previous committment - I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the logical increase in the second type of player that will be pkaying in the NCAAs after the NBA rule change. (I also have a problem with the fact that tennis and golf - sports primarily played by caucasians will let 14, 15, and 16 year olds play with the pros but the NBA which Larry Legend calls "a black man's game" takes that decision away from the players themselves because it is assumed that they will be duped or seduced by an agent - but that's for another thread - probably not on the Hoya Talk section of this board). The only golfer of any note in the past 10 years who left college early to start his pro career was TIGER WOODS. He is not caucasian. Who were the most successsful teenage tennis phenoms of recent years? Venus and Serena Williams, both of whom are African Americans. As for the NBA.... the rule was instituted not to protect the players from being duped or anything else. It was to protect the owners from making fools of themselves by spending millions on unproven kids, only some of whom turn into LeBron or Kobe. Finally, if one really is to look at jobs in the NBA and how young black teenagers are being deprived of an opportunity to pursue their career.. it is necessary to look at the other side. Whose jobs are being saved by preventing these young African Americans from being employed by NBA teams? Quite clearly, it is older African Americans who have been in the league for many years. No matter how you analyse it, it is really tough to prove RACIAL discrimination in the NBA's new age rule. It can be criticized on the basis of totally unjustified AGE discrimination, but not on the basis of racial discrimination.
|
|
PopeJohn2
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Ultimate bailout is yet to come and unavoidable. Uncle Sam gonna pay your debt for you!
Posts: 1,465
|
Macklin
Jul 11, 2005 21:05:09 GMT -5
Post by PopeJohn2 on Jul 11, 2005 21:05:09 GMT -5
saxa
on golf and tennis, there are plenty of other people other than tiger/williams who went pro right out of high school or even well before. i think sph's gripe is that none of those sports PROHIBITED people from turning pro. why do it in basketball? tennis should have banned it after capriati.
on your other point, how does having a guy get 1 or 2 years of college experience under his belt protect the owners from making stupid choices? tons of guys who spent years in college but were stupid picks come to mind (think shawn bradley and adonal foyle come). and it seems that pound for pound the high schoolers have as high a success rate as the college lottery picks.
i believe the background for the age limit was to protect young kids who "do not have the maturity to handle" the nba and the money and the fame.
if society is so concerned about kids not being ready for money and fame, then they only need to ban child stars from hollywood (think macauly caulkin and lindsay "i used to be hot" lohan).
basically, i think me and sph see the age limit as a inadvertant racial thing. whitey probably means well but hes not in tune with his inner jim crowe.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,420
|
Macklin
Jul 11, 2005 21:10:38 GMT -5
Post by the_way on Jul 11, 2005 21:10:38 GMT -5
Well, well, well. Nothing like the four-letter word "race" to spice things up. To say race is not a determining factor in the NBA age-limit, is like saying the sky is not blue. Race is and will always be a factor as long as the earth exists. I think its insulting for the Stern and the NBA to say that they care for kids, when they don't. Stern cares only about the money in his own pockets. That's okay. That is his job. I don't have a problem with that. Just come out in say it. Don't be a wolf in sheep's clothing. I think its insulting for Stern to say he wants NBA scouts out of high school gyms, but will allow 18 year-olds into the NBDL. I think its insulting for Stern to not push for a 20 year old limit, and cop out to a 19 year-old limit, but yet he says he cares about the kids. Its okay for Lebron, McGrady, Kobe, and KG to be your cash cow now, and because you don't think their will be players like that down line, now it is convienent for Stern and the NBA to care about the kids and institute an age limit, NOT because it is morally responsible, but because it is FISCALLY responsible for the NBA's self-interest.
Moreover, the fact of the matter is, there are segments of the population that have a problem with young, black males becoming instant millionaires without proving anything. Only demonstrating potential. Basically, they are perceived as "getting over" for doing nothing. This infuriates some people. Not because they are getting over, but because they are BLACK and getting over. Larry Legend is correct when he alluded to the fact that this is a "black man's game". But Larry Legend was also correct when he insinuated the truth that while the NBA may be a "black man's game", this is still a "white man's world". That is, the majority that watch the games and attend the NBA games,i.e., the real "ballers and shot-callers", are predominantly white. That is what he meant when he said that there needs to be more white players in the league and it would be good for the league. And unfortunately, while we have made some progress in terms of race-relations, there are some in this country, to be frank, that are not comfortable with the "dynamics" of the NBA in its current form. The age limit will not get rid of this problem. This problem is bigger than the NBA. And unfortunately, probably will never be solved.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Macklin
Jul 11, 2005 21:11:13 GMT -5
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 11, 2005 21:11:13 GMT -5
It's not a racial thing.
It's a money thing. It's always a money thing. Does racism exist? Yes. But the decision makers here (NBA owners), even if racist, have more concern about their money well spent. Whatever Stern says, the real reason for the age limit has NOTHING to do with protecting the players. It is protecting the owners from themselves (every owner gets an additional year to evaluate talent) and an attempt to improve the end product.
It has nothing to do with goodwill towards players like Lenny Cooke, Omar Cook or Korleone Young. It has everything to do with Minnesota spending millions on Ndudi Ebi or Cleveland on DaSagana Diop or the Wizards on Kwame Brown. It's expensive, bad PR, and lowers the level of play.
It's ridiculous to compare a team support with an individual sport. In tennis or track or whatever, there are no owners paying guaranteed salaries. If Michelle Wie goes pro, it can't possibly hurt golf. It can help, with media attention, but if Wie sucks, the only person out cash is Michelle Wie.
Baseball is only somewhat comparable.
1) Baseball has a minor league. There have been only two players in the draft era I know of that have legitimately gone from drafted to the pros (not including promotional stunts like David Clyde). There may be a couple more, but not many. Since the NDBL is open to all, what's your issue?
If an 18-year old is drafted in baseball, everyone expects it to take him at least 3 years to make the pros. That's not true in basketball. He takes up a roster spot from Day 1.
2) The respective histories of the sports are completely at odds. Professional baseball grew up with college baseball; even faster, really. With the exception of a short period of time, it was everyman's sport. College baseball was never big -- pro baseball was EVERYTHING. And baseball has a 130-year history of signing 18 year olds.
Contrast that with football and basketball. The early NBA and NFL were nothing. College versions of these sports were more popular for a long period of time. Pickup basketball and football were not nearly as common as baseball, if they were common at all. So the NFL and NBA took their players mostly from the college ranks -- the only place it was really taught.
There's a lot of inertia and tradition there.
3) The salaries in basketball for draft picks are much higher. The Top Picks can get a lot, but the median first rounder is looking at $1.2MM. Then he gets paid about $20-30k/year while in the minors, and $300k each of his first three years in the majors. He then gets three more years of arbitration, and if he's average, that's about $3MM/year or so.
What does the #13 pick get in basketball? Like $2-3MM/year and then he's a free agent at the end of year 3 or 4?
|
|
|
Macklin
Jul 11, 2005 21:46:02 GMT -5
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jul 11, 2005 21:46:02 GMT -5
I don't think its that rediculous to compare a draft in a team sport and the rules that govern entry into that draft because they are all about whether a sport affirms the right of an individual to play in that sport. While you are correct that teams (and their owners as you state in your argument) make decisions on which individual players they have on their team as a function of economics (or personal taste or other variables that do not play into racism), my statement was that the overall rules that govern entry into basketball are inadvertantly racist. No one is specifically at fault - but it most likely stems from the fact that the NBA Commissioner's Office and the leaders of the players association have not had to make economic decisions similar to those of a high school player who wishes to enter the draft. There are many, many failed players in other team and individual sports - the list of highly drafted MLB players who waste away in the minors is huge - so why do these players possess the maturity that high school basketball players do not?
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Macklin
Jul 11, 2005 21:55:23 GMT -5
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 11, 2005 21:55:23 GMT -5
I don't think its that rediculous to compare a draft in a team sport and the rules that govern entry into that draft because they are all about whether a sport affirms the right of an individual to play in that sport. While you are correct that teams (and their owners as you state in your argument) make decisions on which individual players they have on their team as a function of economics (or personal taste or other variables that do not play into racism), my statement was that the overall rules that govern entry into basketball are inadvertantly racist. No one is specifically at fault - but it most likely stems from the fact that the NBA Commissioner's Office and the leaders of the players association have not had to make economic decisions similar to those of a high school player who wishes to enter the draft. There are many, many failed players in other team and individual sports - the list of highly drafted MLB players who waste away in the minors is huge - so why do these players possess the maturity that high school basketball players do not? 1. I do not understand how the age limit can be inadvertantly racist, at least by your logic. They apply to white, black, hispanic and asian players. Just because something likely affects African-Americans more than Caucasians does not mean it is racist. By your logic, everything needs to be adjusted just because of demographic preferences. Let's say black people hate ballet but love baseball. SF ballet season tickets are $200/ticket/performance. Comparable SBC Park tickets are $50/ticket/game. Is that racist against whites? Those are two entertainment options of approximately equal value. Some whites go to baseball, some blacks watch ballet. But since the overall demographic (in our example) of ballet is overwhelmingly white, isn't this racist? Why is black entertainment cheaper? 2. You don't seem to understand that the age limit has nothing to do with immaturity, at least not in the way you mean it. If most baseball draft picks received $8-12MM guaranteed and were FAs after 4 years instead of given about $2MM guaranteed and free agents usually after 9-10 years after drafting (and six years of ML service), you'd see clamoring for an age limit there, too. We can argue about this forever. I'm not saying racism doesn't exist; I'm not saying some people who support the limit aren't racists. I'm just saying a) the age limit isn't inherently racist and b) I think the most likely motivation is not any kind of racism but rather a desire by the owners to save money.
|
|
|
Macklin
Jul 11, 2005 22:23:09 GMT -5
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jul 11, 2005 22:23:09 GMT -5
1. Its a theory of systematic discrimination - The rule does apply equally to all players in the draft. But the group that it applies to is comprised of an overwhelming number of african-american players from urban areas some of whom have modest or little economic means which is the driving factor in their decision making. If we suppose that there is a middle class player of any race that is also effected by this rule, he does not have as much at stake in the rule change. Maybe he is bummed out that he can't play in the NBA immediately, but it is not an issue of there being an immediate need for him to raise the economic standing of his family. This draft entry rule therefore discriminates indirectly against players who do not have the economic means for their family to sustain themselves (with or without government assistance) while they are in college. By forcing this year in college the NBA is indirectly discriminating against economically disadvantaged players who wish to enter the draft out of high school - these players are overwhelmingly African American.
I think you might be thinking of racism as something that has to be perpetrated by one person or a group of people to directly and conciously diadvantage another on the basis or color, creed, sexual orientation, economic means, or any other point of difference. Discrimination and racism, which is a sub-form of discrimination, is no less disadvantaging when it is unintended, implied, or indirect.
2. The age limit does have nothing to do with immaturity - my point is that if erstwhile immature MLB prospects are admitted in to the minor leagues every year after signing major league contracts, let on to the tour, allowed to play at Wimbeldon, or sign with Premiership sides are allowed to do so as soon as they choose to enter these professional leagues, then why should the NBA find it necessary to say that their players are somehow more immature than all of these other players and mandate specific restrictions being set to stipulate when they can join the league? I contend that to the extent that these players are immature, they are generally speaking, in the same boat - they can either achieve their potential or fail at doing so. And there has been no statistical (or other objective, compelling) evidence presented stating that NBA draftees fail at a rate higher than in other professional sports - so why do they mandate this special attention?
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Macklin
Jul 11, 2005 22:28:51 GMT -5
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 11, 2005 22:28:51 GMT -5
I personally don't agree with the legality of the age limit.
But you keep acting as if the NBA is saying anything about immaturity or basing anything on immaturity. This is the NBA owners reducing risk and saving money in a collective bargained environment. Might as well ask why do NFL players not have guaranteed contracts -- it isn't because NFL players deserve them less. It's because that's how they bargained.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Macklin
Jul 11, 2005 22:33:52 GMT -5
Post by SirSaxa on Jul 11, 2005 22:33:52 GMT -5
saxa on golf and tennis, there are plenty of other people other than tiger/williams who went pro right out of high school or even well before. i think sph's gripe is that none of those sports PROHIBITED people from turning pro. why do it in basketball? tennis should have banned it after capriati. Yes, there have been plenty of other people. But can you name anyone who benefitted more from early entry than Woods, Williams and Williams? I can't. That would make the racial argument very difficult to support. I understand the gripe is that none of these sport prohibit youngsters. I agree with that. i don't see why they should be prohibited if they can play competitively at the top level. You are right, it doesn't protect the owners from making stupid choices. It merely (in theory) reduces their risk somewhat because at least they can see the kid against top college competition for a year or two. Owners will still make lots of stupid choices. Some may say that, but I don't believe it. It was a money issue for the NBA pure and simple. I don't agree that an age limit is justified... in any of these sports. But I do not see RACE as the reason and no one on this thread has posted anything that clearly indicates that race is a reason. There is no supporting evidence whatsoever. And no one has shown how protecting the jobs of older African Americans in the NBA from younger African Americans who want to be in the NBA is racist. Finally, popejohn, is "whitey" an acceptable, non-racist term where you come from? In my experience a lot of people take offense at that. I am surprised someone would use it in a forum like this during a discussion of whether racism is an issue in the NBA age limit.
|
|
PopeJohn2
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Ultimate bailout is yet to come and unavoidable. Uncle Sam gonna pay your debt for you!
Posts: 1,465
|
Macklin
Jul 11, 2005 23:33:46 GMT -5
Post by PopeJohn2 on Jul 11, 2005 23:33:46 GMT -5
the reason i believe race plays an issue is that if all the high schoolers coming out were white, this age limit would not have been instituted. sure much of this conclusion is my opinion only as we can never test what really would be the case, but i just dont accept it as coincidence that an instance of such overt age discrimination coincidentally takes place where primarily/solely blacks are involved and it would be compeletely devoid of the race element.
i believe much of it is subconcious. i believe stern thinks that it is economic. but i just dont believe they would be making the same decision if the boys were white.
the simple fact of the matter is that if it was such a huge financial risk to draft a high schooler, then just dont draft him. or draft him after the lottery where the guaranteed salary is lower. this is what separates the great general managers from the bad. but no, instead of letting the free market decide, lets just institute a rule which keeps black kids from making millions but save the white general manager from making a fool of himself and the white owner from wasting money. that sounds fair and balanced!
if you have not read the book, moneyball, i suggest you read it. clearly major league baseball has a history of signing unproven high schoolers (who are mostly white) to multi-million dollar contracts. the vast majority of these high schoolers dont pan out. the vast majority. but baseball didnt ban high schoolers. instead, many teams just wont draft a high schooler no matter how highly touted.
it should be a free market system. i believe the powers that be believe that their intention is race blind. but race is an issue because if the players were white, the solution would have been different (i.e. see baseball), if only because subconciously whitey doesnt think it "weird" to hold back black players because society finds it not unacceptable.
if you understand banking, it would be akin to saying the u.s. federal reserve is not classist when they choose a policy of high interest rates, "they are just thinking about the economy" you might argue. well, high interest rates benefit the rich, and historically has wreaked havoc on farmers, labor, and the poor. (i can go into the detailed theory if you like). but if the those disadvantaged groups had more political clout, the fed wouldnt be so easily disposed to institute high rates. as the wise SPH and i are able to notice, this is not an instance of "overt, direct" classism, but just a function of a "system" which has inherent biases built in that the layman fails to see.
as per the whitey comment, i guess my open minded viewpoints on the heated race issue makes me comfortable making tongue in cheek, non-pc remarks. if i offend, my apologies. but we all should learn to approach the topic with a lighter heart.
p.s. i disagree that racism will always be around. in 1,000 years everyone will look the same and speak the same language. it is happening before our eyes!
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Macklin
Jul 11, 2005 23:52:34 GMT -5
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 11, 2005 23:52:34 GMT -5
1. It's pretty darn hard to argue with a completely hypothetical situation. No one is going to convince anyone of anything.
2. Did you even read my posts? Re: baseball...a. there's an established minor league (note: age rule for NDBL is 18) and b. dollars commited to draft picks in baseball are nowhere near those committed to NBA draft picks. It is nowhere near a comparable situation.
3. While I'm not offended by whitey, and I'd love it if we could all joke, I wonder how well a joke making fun of black people would've gone over. Minorities have a lot more reasons to be sensitive, IMO, but I doubt even the most well-intentioned black nickname or joke would go over well. Is that the point, or fair? I dunno. But something to think about.
|
|
PopeJohn2
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Ultimate bailout is yet to come and unavoidable. Uncle Sam gonna pay your debt for you!
Posts: 1,465
|
Macklin
Jul 12, 2005 0:02:30 GMT -5
Post by PopeJohn2 on Jul 12, 2005 0:02:30 GMT -5
1. agreed. but the dialogue sometimes leads to understanding a different point of view which leads to an enriched society.
2. yes (but in some cases the baseball minor league contracts are comparable). my point is that money should not be the reason to justify discrimination. just because its "a lot more money" doesnt make it ok. baseball found a different solution. so should the nba. if taking kobe with the #1 pick looks like a good gamble, then do it. if it doesnt, then pick someone else. dont put up a blanket rules which excludes everyone, even those that are deserving. baseball didnt do it, neither should the nba.
3. your right, using a derogatory nickname for whites is different than for blacks. its like calling person a beanpole versus a fat tub of lard. someday, hopefully it will all be as equally innocuous.
|
|
|
Macklin
Jul 12, 2005 0:43:00 GMT -5
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jul 12, 2005 0:43:00 GMT -5
my point is that if erstwhile immature MLB prospects are admitted in to the minor leagues every year after signing major league contracts, let on to the tour, allowed to play at Wimbeldon, or sign with Premiership sides are allowed to do so as soon as they choose to enter these professional leagues, then why should the NBA find it necessary to say that their players are somehow more immature than all of these other players and mandate specific restrictions being set to stipulate when they can join the league? I contend that to the extent that these players are immature, they are generally speaking, in the same boat - they can either achieve their potential or fail at doing so. And there has been no statistical (or other objective, compelling) evidence presented stating that NBA draftees fail at a rate higher than in other professional sports - so why do they mandate this special attention? Why did Bart Giamatti have the authority to ban Pete Rose from baseball for life? Why can hockey have a rule barring players from taking Sudafed before games? Why can the PGA prohibit golfers from donning shorts during tournament play? Sports leagues put out an entertainment product, and have the right to manipulate that entertainment product within certain bounds. Rose is out of baseball because MLB decided having the sport associated with a cheater tarnished its product. Hockey players can't take meds in part because the NHL wants to preserve its tough-guy image. The PGA bans shorts because they make spoiled 30 year old golfers look ridiculous. The NBA has just as much a right to regulate the product it puts out. If the public perceives the NBA as a bunch of Kwame Browns whining it up, then the league has to do something to change that perception/protect its product. So one answer to your above question, St Pete, is that Wimbeldon feels it BENEFITS from allowing younger players to compete. Ever since Becker won in 1985, there's a story about a great young player EVERY year (this year it was the young Brit--forget his name). If Wimbeldon ever changes its mind about young players, it can institute an age limit. If ratings/attendance are falling, the All-England Club can let players wear colored shirts, or change the surface to super-bouncy rubber for all I care. It has the RIGHT to do that. The notion that players, who don't back the league financially and don't make key organizational or financial decisions for the league, have more of a right than the owners or the commisioner to determine the output of an entertainment product seems pretty ridiculous to me. I'm not even going to tackle the racism argument because I think SFHoya has done a pretty good job of disposing of it. I will however, note that nobody is clamoring to file race discrimination lawsuits against the NBA because of this new rule.
|
|
|
Macklin
Jul 12, 2005 0:44:27 GMT -5
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jul 12, 2005 0:44:27 GMT -5
1. I think that the differences between the NBDL and the minor leagues are where your recourse to that example breaks down - high schoolers are frequently signed to contracts and shipped to the minor leagues - but they have a major league contract and they are not encumbered by an age limit. The NBDL has an age limit that is 1 year younger than the NBA's, so their solution is the worst of all possible worlds: there are two age limits and a player cannot get the financial security that he is seeking in playing professional basketball.
2. If this rule change is about protecting franchises from picking unevaluated project players who might not be ready for the NBA by forcing them to play in a developmental league or in college so that their talent can be fully evaluated, then why doesn't a similar waiting period rule apply to foreign players (on whom NBA franchises waste just as many picks)? This contradiction is probably unintended but does feed the argument that this rule unfairly discriminates against high school basketball players who are primarily african-american.
3. The issue here is access - The NBA is defining its values by saying who can have access to the organization. Untested European players - ok. Untested college players - ok. Untested High school players - not ok. What is wrong with this picture? The issue here is not of protecting players' jobs in the NBA, it is about who has access to playing positions on the teams (If african american players jobs are saved by instituting the age limit it is certainly not the question that the age limit is intended to address and is really out of the scope of the argument here.) If you are denying a group of people who are predominantly black the ability to take part in NBA basketball and disadvantaging them in comparison to another gorup of players (veterans and European players), then you are being racist. You do not have to be acting directly on race for it to become an issue of race.
|
|
|
Macklin
Jul 12, 2005 1:12:14 GMT -5
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jul 12, 2005 1:12:14 GMT -5
my point is that if erstwhile immature MLB prospects are admitted in to the minor leagues every year after signing major league contracts, let on to the tour, allowed to play at Wimbeldon, or sign with Premiership sides are allowed to do so as soon as they choose to enter these professional leagues, then why should the NBA find it necessary to say that their players are somehow more immature than all of these other players and mandate specific restrictions being set to stipulate when they can join the league? I contend that to the extent that these players are immature, they are generally speaking, in the same boat - they can either achieve their potential or fail at doing so. And there has been no statistical (or other objective, compelling) evidence presented stating that NBA draftees fail at a rate higher than in other professional sports - so why do they mandate this special attention? Why did Bart Giamatti have the authority to ban Pete Rose from baseball for life? Why can hockey have a rule barring players from taking Sudafed before games? Why can the PGA prohibit golfers from donning shorts during tournament play? Sports leagues put out an entertainment product, and have the right to manipulate that entertainment product within certain bounds. Rose is out of baseball because MLB decided having the sport associated with a cheater tarnished its product. Hockey players can't take meds in part because the NHL wants to preserve its tough-guy image. The PGA bans shorts because they make spoiled 30 year old golfers look ridiculous. The NBA has just as much a right to regulate the product it puts out. If the public perceives the NBA as a bunch of Kwame Browns whining it up, then the league has to do something to change that perception/protect its product. So one answer to your above question, St Pete, is that Wimbeldon feels it BENEFITS from allowing younger players to compete. Ever since Becker won in 1985, there's a story about a great young player EVERY year (this year it was the young Brit--forget his name). If Wimbeldon ever changes its mind about young players, it can institute an age limit. If ratings/attendance are falling, the All-England Club can let players wear colored shirts, or change the surface to super-bouncy rubber for all I care. It has the RIGHT to do that. The notion that players, who don't back the league financially and don't make key organizational or financial decisions for the league, have more of a right than the owners or the commisioner to determine the output of an entertainment product seems pretty ridiculous to me. I'm not even going to tackle the racism argument because I think SFHoya has done a pretty good job of disposing of it. I will however, note that nobody is clamoring to file race discrimination lawsuits against the NBA because of this new rule. That's a very good treatment of the issue from an entirely legalistic perspective - of course the NBA is with in the letter of the law by negotiating this in a contract with its players' union and can regulate the product it puts on the court with in the bounds of this agreement. That is why there are no legal challenges to it. That does not mean that the move was right or proper in the context of America's history of race relations. Just because something is within the law does not mean that its implications are not improper, harmful, or at the very least unfortunate. It has not been explained how this agreement does not disadvantage the gifted african-american high-school athlete who would like to make the jump to the NBA to support his family. Joining the NBDL won't work because he can't bring his family out of poverty by sigining a low value contract - large parts of which will cover his temporary relocation to a new geographic area (apartment rent, utilities, food, transportation, etc.). He will have spent a year in a city with out the money to support his family and without any guidance on how to live alone or how to adapt to life in a new community - all in the search of maturity. This example shows how instituting an age limit is racist and discriminatory because it favors the access of European players to the league, at the expense of telling African-American high school players that they are "immature" and need to be sent to a remidial league where they will forego a great amount of their earning potential that year and are being demeaned by being labled "immature" and "risky" enough to warrant the existance of a remedial league where they become mature through the meaningless exercise of simulating their first NBA season - only with significantly less of a financial means to absorb the shock.
|
|
|
Macklin
Jul 12, 2005 1:58:14 GMT -5
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jul 12, 2005 1:58:14 GMT -5
Like I said, I didn't really want to touch on racism into my post above. I also wasn't trying to speak from a legal viewpoint. I think that ethically/morally speaking, people who are responsible for the commerical success of enterprises such as professional basketball leagues have a right to make difficult decisions, even if it inconviences a handful of people. If you run a business, you get to call the shots. My point was that sports leagues discriminate based on other factors all the time. Most of the time this discrimination is viewed as positive. Who really wants to see Craig Stadler wearing shorts?
It's disturbing to me that in each of your arguments, the black player trying to get into the NBA is from a poor background and needs to support his family. Is this the Noble Savage revisited? Let's be realistic: Lebron was probably getting action from the rich girls who attended his private high school in the back of his Hummer for four years. Not working 50 hours a week at WacArnolds in between time at the gym so he could support his family and realize his dream of providing for them with a fat NBA paycheck. I mean, come on. You think Kobe Bryant took Brandy to his high school prom on a Schwinn? They probably took Jelly Bean's Caddy. Yeah, there are some examples of young men who genuinely want to provide for their families and are blessed to have the opportunity to do so through playing professional basketball. Francisco Garcia is a good example. But let's not pretend every 18 year old is a good-hearted kid who wants to buy his mom a house but never could because he had it rough coming up and the NBA was the only way out of his neighborhood.
Consider this: there are 36 million black Americans. Eight black high schoolers were selected in the NBA draft. If you're going to make yourself out to be a white knight crusading for equality, perhaps you should pick your battles more wisely.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Macklin
Jul 12, 2005 3:06:05 GMT -5
Post by SirSaxa on Jul 12, 2005 3:06:05 GMT -5
Two points.
1. Everyone keeps stating that David Stern instituted this rule. But we all know that age discrimination would be illegal except for the fact that Billy Hunter, executive director of the NBA Players' Association, negotiated the CBA deal with Stern and agreed to the age limitation. Billy is black. The board of directors of the players association is black. They agreed to the new deal because it was to the advantage of their members. Shall we now assume they are all racist too?
2. Tossing off the crucial point that the jobs being saved belong to African Americans by saying it is outside the scope of this discussion is absurd. If someone is being deprived of a job, then someone else is being enabled to keep that same job. If both parties are black, how can one possibly say that is racist?
|
|