(04-18-2014 06:08 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  The unions will be for it because it will

A) Protect the current NBA players and

B) Keep players in college longer, where the unions are trying to set up shop.

this "i know what the union wants" (despite the fact you don't) game is pointless especially since the union HAS ALREADY stated where they stand on this topic

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketbal...-age-limit

They should do like MLB and allow them to go pro out of high school but if you go to college you have to stay 3 years.

(04-18-2014 05:42 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 04:08 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  One and done is an NBA rule. It has nothing to do with colleges and universities. What people are failing to realize is that colleges and universities actually have nothing to do with the rule. Secondly, no union anywhere is ever going to knowingly support any measure that harms their members who are paying dues. Collegiate kids do not pay dues until they are actually in the league, so what veteran player in his right mind is going to support any measure that will hasten his own departure from employment? It is common sense. And speaking of common sense: why would the owners and commissioners be behind this type of measure? Obviously it is because it is costing them money to have kids on their payrolls who are not ready to play. So this is a win-win-win for ownership, players and universities. It is what has happened in the NFL for generations.

Kids still have the option of playing basketball professionally; but just not in the NBA until they reach a certain age. It is no different than what the NFL does and to some degree what baseball does.

It looks like the NBA is pushing a minor league basketball system too:

http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/story/20...mark-cuban

so i give you a link with direct quotes from the union and its leaders DIRECTLY saying they want to lower the limit and have zero intentions of increasing it and you are still trying to debate me that they actually want to increase it?
im done

O.K., so here is a common sense point that you clearly don't understand. The players union didn't change the rule. The crap you are citing was thrown out there during the lockout as a threat to the owners, but when the players actually had a chance to change the rules they decided to form a committee to discuss this matter. Guess what they are going to do?:

The current eligibility rules were established under the NBA's 2005 collective bargaining agreement (CBA), which expired in 2011, resulting in a lockout. The new CBA, approved in December 2011, made no changes to the draft rules, but called for the NBA and its players union to form a committee to discuss draft-related issues.[8][9] The basic rules that started in the 2006 draft are:
All drafted players must be at least 19 years old during the calendar year of the draft.[10] To determine whether a player is eligible for a given year's draft, subtract 19 from the year of the draft. If the player was born during or before that year, he is eligible.
Any player who is not an "international player", as defined in the CBA, must be at least one year removed from the graduation of his high school class.[10]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eligibility..._NBA_Draft

(04-18-2014 07:42 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 05:42 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 04:08 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  One and done is an NBA rule. It has nothing to do with colleges and universities. What people are failing to realize is that colleges and universities actually have nothing to do with the rule. Secondly, no union anywhere is ever going to knowingly support any measure that harms their members who are paying dues. Collegiate kids do not pay dues until they are actually in the league, so what veteran player in his right mind is going to support any measure that will hasten his own departure from employment? It is common sense. And speaking of common sense: why would the owners and commissioners be behind this type of measure? Obviously it is because it is costing them money to have kids on their payrolls who are not ready to play. So this is a win-win-win for ownership, players and universities. It is what has happened in the NFL for generations.

Kids still have the option of playing basketball professionally; but just not in the NBA until they reach a certain age. It is no different than what the NFL does and to some degree what baseball does.

It looks like the NBA is pushing a minor league basketball system too:

http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/story/20...mark-cuban

so i give you a link with direct quotes from the union and its leaders DIRECTLY saying they want to lower the limit and have zero intentions of increasing it and you are still trying to debate me that they actually want to increase it?
im done

O.K., so here is a common sense point that you clearly don't understand. The players union didn't change the rule. The crap you are citing was thrown out there during the lockout as a threat to the owners, but when the players actually had a chance to change the rules they decided to form a committee to discuss this matter. Guess what they are going to do?:

The current eligibility rules were established under the NBA's 2005 collective bargaining agreement (CBA), which expired in 2011, resulting in a lockout. The new CBA, approved in December 2011, made no changes to the draft rules, but called for the NBA and its players union to form a committee to discuss draft-related issues.[8][9] The basic rules that started in the 2006 draft are:
All drafted players must be at least 19 years old during the calendar year of the draft.[10] To determine whether a player is eligible for a given year's draft, subtract 19 from the year of the draft. If the player was born during or before that year, he is eligible.
Any player who is not an "international player", as defined in the CBA, must be at least one year removed from the graduation of his high school class.[10]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eligibility..._NBA_Draft

this one is from 2 days ago, no lockout things for you to twist

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-d...26042.html

please stop its rather frustrating, you refuse to admit you're wrong, stop trying tell me what "you think" they believe, when im giving you actual quotes and credible information on what they actually believe

(04-18-2014 06:39 PM)jerrycoog92 Wrote:  They should do like MLB and allow them to go pro out of high school but if you go to college you have to stay 3 years.

I like the idea:)

I would push for "Three and Free" just so these kids are at least 21 and can have a beer after a game....

(04-18-2014 08:03 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 07:42 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 05:42 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 04:08 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  One and done is an NBA rule. It has nothing to do with colleges and universities. What people are failing to realize is that colleges and universities actually have nothing to do with the rule. Secondly, no union anywhere is ever going to knowingly support any measure that harms their members who are paying dues. Collegiate kids do not pay dues until they are actually in the league, so what veteran player in his right mind is going to support any measure that will hasten his own departure from employment? It is common sense. And speaking of common sense: why would the owners and commissioners be behind this type of measure? Obviously it is because it is costing them money to have kids on their payrolls who are not ready to play. So this is a win-win-win for ownership, players and universities. It is what has happened in the NFL for generations.

Kids still have the option of playing basketball professionally; but just not in the NBA until they reach a certain age. It is no different than what the NFL does and to some degree what baseball does.

It looks like the NBA is pushing a minor league basketball system too:

http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/story/20...mark-cuban

so i give you a link with direct quotes from the union and its leaders DIRECTLY saying they want to lower the limit and have zero intentions of increasing it and you are still trying to debate me that they actually want to increase it?
im done

O.K., so here is a common sense point that you clearly don't understand. The players union didn't change the rule. The crap you are citing was thrown out there during the lockout as a threat to the owners, but when the players actually had a chance to change the rules they decided to form a committee to discuss this matter. Guess what they are going to do?:

The current eligibility rules were established under the NBA's 2005 collective bargaining agreement (CBA), which expired in 2011, resulting in a lockout. The new CBA, approved in December 2011, made no changes to the draft rules, but called for the NBA and its players union to form a committee to discuss draft-related issues.[8][9] The basic rules that started in the 2006 draft are:
All drafted players must be at least 19 years old during the calendar year of the draft.[10] To determine whether a player is eligible for a given year's draft, subtract 19 from the year of the draft. If the player was born during or before that year, he is eligible.
Any player who is not an "international player", as defined in the CBA, must be at least one year removed from the graduation of his high school class.[10]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eligibility..._NBA_Draft

this one is from 2 days ago, no lockout things for you to twist

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-d...26042.html

please stop its rather frustrating, you refuse to admit you're wrong, stop trying tell me what "you think" they believe, when im giving you actual quotes and credible information on what they actually believe

So your first theory was disproved, so now you come back with another article? All you need to know is that the players are posturing. The players union represents players that pay dues who don't want to lose jobs to a bunch of kids that are being drafted on their potential rather than any skills that they may or may not eventually develop. Have you ever been in or negotiated with unions before?

If the NBA raises their entry age from 19, you will see a horde of HS graduating players heading to Europe, Japan or Australia to play and get paid. No player who think he is good enough to play professionally when they graduate HS will stand for having to play 2 years of college ball for no $ when they can get paid playing overseas.

So the talent level of the college game IMO will be reduced because HS players who are talented enough will not spend any time in college knowing they have to give up 2 potential income producing years.

(04-18-2014 09:10 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  So your first theory was disproved, so now you come back with another article? All you need to know is that the players are posturing. The players union represents players that pay dues who don't want to lose jobs to a bunch of kids that are being drafted on their potential rather than any skills that they may or may not eventually develop. Have you ever been in or negotiated with unions before?

you are delusional!!!
you didnt disprove any article, you made up some ridiculous argument that it was a tool in the lockout and i showed you a new link that they showed their stand point hadnt changed post lockout. your point that it was ploy because they didnt change it is weak, the players didnt have leverage in the lockout especially to change an already passed rule

i dont want to hear another ridiculous argument from you. if you cant show me a credible link that shows that the union wants to increase the age limit shut it. (and i doubt you will as i just posted an article from yesterday that the players union president completely opposed it aswell as players and coaches with leverage)

you= the union wants to increase the age limit
actual quotes from the union= we want to lower the age limit
you= they actually dont mean it and were just using it as leverage in the lockout 2 years ago
union president yesterday= we do no support in any way increasing the age limit
you= they are just posturing they dont mean it

i dont want to hear any more of your crazy arguments that have no backing and some of which lack common sense , if you cant prove your statements with links and/or quotes from the union supporting increasing the age limit, stop pretending you know what you are talking about

(04-18-2014 09:38 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 09:10 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  So your first theory was disproved, so now you come back with another article? All you need to know is that the players are posturing. The players union represents players that pay dues who don't want to lose jobs to a bunch of kids that are being drafted on their potential rather than any skills that they may or may not eventually develop. Have you ever been in or negotiated with unions before?

you are delusional!!!
you didnt disprove any article, you made up some ridiculous argument that it was a tool in the lockout and i showed you a new link that they showed their stand point hadnt changed post lockout. your point that it was ploy because they didnt change it is weak, the players didnt have leverage in the lockout especially to change an already passed rule

i dont want to hear another ridiculous argument from you. if you cant show me a credible link that shows that the union wants to increase the age limit shut it. (and i doubt you will as i just posted an article from yesterday that the players union president completely opposed it aswell as players and coaches with leverage)

you= the union wants to increase the age limit
actual quotes from the union= we want to lower the age limit
you= they actually dont mean it and were just using it as leverage in the lockout 2 years ago
union president yesterday= we do no support in any way increasing the age limit
you= they are just posturing they dont mean it

i dont want to hear any more of your crazy arguments that have no backing and some of which lack common sense , if you cant prove your statements with links and/or quotes from the union supporting increasing the age limit, stop pretending you know what you are talking about

I didn't make up anything you mope. You provided a silly 3 year old article detailing how the union intended to fight the one and done rule imposed by the owners. I in turn provided you proof that showed that the players union did nothing to fight that rule even though they could have. What other credible link do you need other than the damn collectively bargained agreement. I linked it for you. I will post if for you now:

(b) A player shall be eligible for selection in the first NBA Draft with respect to which he has satisfied all applicable requirements of Section 1(b)(i) below and one of the requirements of Section 1(b)(ii) below:

(i) The player (A) is or will be at least 19 years of age during the calendar year in which the Draft is held, and (B) with respect to a player who is not an international player (defined below), at least one (1) NBA Season has elapsed since the player’s graduation from high school (or, if the player did not graduate from high school, since the graduation of the class with which the player would have graduated had he graduated from high school);


http://web.archive.org/web/2008022706564...icle-X.php

The players could have bargained for a change of the "one and done" provision before the last lock out ended; but they didn't. So what does that tell you?

But go ahead and keep posting one little silly article after another, because they are easily disproven. And then somehow you got around to mentioning the NBPA President. The NBPA doesn't even have an executive director right now, so this whole process will not be addressed until that is first resolved. Be that as it may the owners are going to have their way on that issue.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-04...-new-chief

(04-18-2014 09:15 PM)Policiious Wrote:  If the NBA raises their entry age from 19, you will see a horde of HS graduating players heading to Europe, Japan or Australia to play and get paid. No player who think he is good enough to play professionally when they graduate HS will stand for having to play 2 years of college ball for no $ when they can get paid playing overseas.

Many thought the same thing when the NBA made 19 the entry level age (i.e. 17-18 yr old HS Seniors would bolt to Europe to get paid vs going to college for 1 year), and well, they were wrong...as almost ALL top rated recruits enrolled in college vs playing "professionally" prior to become 19 years old.

If the NBA makes minimum age 20, not much will change...and while a handful might bolt to Europe 95% of the top rated HS players will enroll in college, get all that TV/Pub...which their agent will use to help secure a top deal when they go pro.

(04-18-2014 10:26 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 09:38 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 09:10 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  So your first theory was disproved, so now you come back with another article? All you need to know is that the players are posturing. The players union represents players that pay dues who don't want to lose jobs to a bunch of kids that are being drafted on their potential rather than any skills that they may or may not eventually develop. Have you ever been in or negotiated with unions before?

you are delusional!!!
you didnt disprove any article, you made up some ridiculous argument that it was a tool in the lockout and i showed you a new link that they showed their stand point hadnt changed post lockout. your point that it was ploy because they didnt change it is weak, the players didnt have leverage in the lockout especially to change an already passed rule

i dont want to hear another ridiculous argument from you. if you cant show me a credible link that shows that the union wants to increase the age limit shut it. (and i doubt you will as i just posted an article from yesterday that the players union president completely opposed it aswell as players and coaches with leverage)

you= the union wants to increase the age limit
actual quotes from the union= we want to lower the age limit
you= they actually dont mean it and were just using it as leverage in the lockout 2 years ago
union president yesterday= we do no support in any way increasing the age limit
you= they are just posturing they dont mean it

i dont want to hear any more of your crazy arguments that have no backing and some of which lack common sense , if you cant prove your statements with links and/or quotes from the union supporting increasing the age limit, stop pretending you know what you are talking about

I didn't make up anything you mope. You provided a silly 3 year old article detailing how the union intended to fight the one and done rule imposed by the owners. I in turn provided you proof that showed that the players union did nothing to fight that rule even though they could have. What other credible link do you need other than the damn collectively bargained agreement. I linked it for you. I will post if for you now:

(b) A player shall be eligible for selection in the first NBA Draft with respect to which he has satisfied all applicable requirements of Section 1(b)(i) below and one of the requirements of Section 1(b)(ii) below:

(i) The player (A) is or will be at least 19 years of age during the calendar year in which the Draft is held, and (B) with respect to a player who is not an international player (defined below), at least one (1) NBA Season has elapsed since the player’s graduation from high school (or, if the player did not graduate from high school, since the graduation of the class with which the player would have graduated had he graduated from high school);


http://web.archive.org/web/2008022706564...icle-X.php

The players could have bargained for a change of the "one and done" provision before the last lock out ended; but they didn't. So what does that tell you?

But go ahead and keep posting one little silly article after another, because they are easily disproven. And then somehow you got around to mentioning the NBPA President. The NBPA doesn't even have an executive director right now, so this whole process will not be addressed until that is first resolved. Be that as it may the owners are going to have their way on that issue.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-04...-new-chief

did you even read the second article i linked?? it was from literally just yesterday and it even in that article states that the players didnt have any leverage to get that in the lockout a few years ago and that it was one of the things that had to be put aside for the bigger issues.
you realize that the lockout isnt the players choosing which rules they want to keep and which they dont? that its trying to bargain with the owners, that they will get somethings and not get others. the article clearly states this is looking like this is going to be a collision course between the union and silver in the 2016/017 lockout and is shaping out to be one of the main topics.

your whole argument is ridiculously circumstantial at best, " you see they didnt push extremely hard for it in the last lockout, that must mean they want the complete opposite"

again quit trying to justify your argument with ridiculous statements and "your justifications", if the union supports it their will be tons of statements from them about it and supporting it.
find me ONE link saying they support it, ONE link
not a link saying they didn't get it in the last lockout, not a link of something ridiculously circumstantial. a DIRECT link saying they support it

i can give WAY more links of the union opposing it and have yet to find one with them support it.

"The players union opposes raising the age requirement, primarily because as a labor union they legally owe a “duty of fair representation” to all future players"

http://fordhamsportslawforum.com/uncateg...quirement/

"Based on this legal reality, Commissioner Silver almost certainly could not raise the league’s age requirement alone. He would need to first obtain union approval.

Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that the NBA Players Association would agree to raise the minimum age requirement at this time"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelman/...l-mistake/

silver himself completely acknowledges the players and unions are completely against it even though he doesnt agree
"Silver also notes elsewhere in his interview with Amick that he has “never quite understood” opposition to a higher age limit from the NBPA, though the reason for their resistance seems obvious."
http://nba.si.com/2014/02/14/nba-higher-...am-silver/

calipari aswell as the big 12 commish wanting the age limit removed
"NBA have been irresponsible in not providing other legitimate opportunities for kids that really don't want to go to college"
http://dfm.nhregister.com/article/no-sur...7fe11db2d1

ill wait till you show me a link where it says the union supports it

Marv..... how hard is it to understand that your point would only apply to one year? After that you're back at the "faucet example" pesik provided. It's still the same players entering the league, just one year later and at less risk for the NBA organizations.

(04-18-2014 10:55 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 10:26 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 09:38 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 09:10 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  So your first theory was disproved, so now you come back with another article? All you need to know is that the players are posturing. The players union represents players that pay dues who don't want to lose jobs to a bunch of kids that are being drafted on their potential rather than any skills that they may or may not eventually develop. Have you ever been in or negotiated with unions before?

you are delusional!!!
you didnt disprove any article, you made up some ridiculous argument that it was a tool in the lockout and i showed you a new link that they showed their stand point hadnt changed post lockout. your point that it was ploy because they didnt change it is weak, the players didnt have leverage in the lockout especially to change an already passed rule

i dont want to hear another ridiculous argument from you. if you cant show me a credible link that shows that the union wants to increase the age limit shut it. (and i doubt you will as i just posted an article from yesterday that the players union president completely opposed it aswell as players and coaches with leverage)

you= the union wants to increase the age limit
actual quotes from the union= we want to lower the age limit
you= they actually dont mean it and were just using it as leverage in the lockout 2 years ago
union president yesterday= we do no support in any way increasing the age limit
you= they are just posturing they dont mean it

i dont want to hear any more of your crazy arguments that have no backing and some of which lack common sense , if you cant prove your statements with links and/or quotes from the union supporting increasing the age limit, stop pretending you know what you are talking about

I didn't make up anything you mope. You provided a silly 3 year old article detailing how the union intended to fight the one and done rule imposed by the owners. I in turn provided you proof that showed that the players union did nothing to fight that rule even though they could have. What other credible link do you need other than the damn collectively bargained agreement. I linked it for you. I will post if for you now:

(b) A player shall be eligible for selection in the first NBA Draft with respect to which he has satisfied all applicable requirements of Section 1(b)(i) below and one of the requirements of Section 1(b)(ii) below:

(i) The player (A) is or will be at least 19 years of age during the calendar year in which the Draft is held, and (B) with respect to a player who is not an international player (defined below), at least one (1) NBA Season has elapsed since the player’s graduation from high school (or, if the player did not graduate from high school, since the graduation of the class with which the player would have graduated had he graduated from high school);


http://web.archive.org/web/2008022706564...icle-X.php

The players could have bargained for a change of the "one and done" provision before the last lock out ended; but they didn't. So what does that tell you?

But go ahead and keep posting one little silly article after another, because they are easily disproven. And then somehow you got around to mentioning the NBPA President. The NBPA doesn't even have an executive director right now, so this whole process will not be addressed until that is first resolved. Be that as it may the owners are going to have their way on that issue.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-04...-new-chief

did you even read the second article i linked?? it was from literally just yesterday and it even in that article states that the players didnt have any leverage to get that in the lockout a few years ago and that it was one of the things that had to be put aside for the bigger issues.
you realize that the lockout isnt the players choosing which rules they want to keep and which they dont? that its trying to bargain with the owners, that they will get somethings and not get others. the article clearly states this is looking like this is going to be a collision course between the union and silver in the 2016/017 lockout and is shaping out to be one of the main topics.

your whole argument is ridiculously circumstantial at best, " you see they didnt push extremely hard for it in the last lockout, that must mean they want the complete opposite"

again quit trying to justify your argument with ridiculous statements and "your justifications", if the union supports it their will be tons of statements from them about it and supporting it.
find me ONE link saying they support it, ONE link
not a link saying they didn't get it in the last lockout, not a link or something ridiculously circumstantial. a DIRECT link saying they support it

i can give WAY more liks of the union opposing it and have yet to find one with them support it.

Sigh. I swear you don't understand how this works. The owners know that the players are splintered which was on full display when the players union and Billy Hunter had their fracas. The owners will just agree to increase the veterans minimum contract and the players union will in turn not bother fighting the new 2 and done rule. Common sense tells you that veteran middle of the road players are all for blocking early entry and their union is going to protect them.

(04-18-2014 11:20 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Marv..... how hard is it to understand that your point would only apply to one year? After that you're back at the "faucet example" pesik provided. It's still the same players entering the league, just one year later and at less risk for the NBA organizations.

The issue is that they are trying to slow the early entries. That allows for a longer evaluation period of players. The players will just leave after their 2nd year like a Majic Johnson or an Isaiah Thomas, but the players in theory should be more mature and basketball ready.

I still think the best plan for this has been proposed numerous times by Bill Simmons and Jalen Rose. Give freshmen coming into the NBA a 3+2 contract and players leaving after their sophomore season a 3+1 contract and those after their junior or senior years a 2+1. Basically, it removes the argument that going out early will allow you to get to your post-rookie Max Deal sooner, thus creating a different argument for most players deciding between coming out after their freshman or sophomore year.

(04-18-2014 11:28 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 11:20 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Marv..... how hard is it to understand that your point would only apply to one year? After that you're back at the "faucet example" pesik provided. It's still the same players entering the league, just one year later and at less risk for the NBA organizations.

The issue is that they are trying to slow the early entries. That allows for a longer evaluation period of players. The players will just leave after their 2nd year like a Majic Johnson or an Isaiah Thomas, but the players in theory should be more mature and basketball ready.

Yeah, got it. Thing is that really makes no difference for the players union.... except for delaying the early entries one season. For the most part, the same number of players will be leaving school early.

One reason the players opt for college vs overseas is due to the "brand building potential " of playing in the NCAA/D1

(04-18-2014 02:51 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  Looks like it is coming. Or at least the age of 20 is being pushed.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/108033...p-priority

If it leads to a better NBA game with kids more prepared to play I am all for it. Growing up I was a big NBA fan following the Knicks and Magic.....but over the last 10 years I just stopped watching the NBA b/c it's a vastly inferior game than I used to watch in the 80s and 90s. Hardly anybody can hit a jump shot and zero fundamentals.

Plus it was always fun to watch kids develop for 4 years in college and then watch them move on to the NBA, similar to rooting interests we still develop with college football players. Nowadays.....meh.

IMO, they should be allowed to be drafted coming out of high school and if they don't like their position they can return to college and be eligible after their junior year.....just like in baseball.