From the Article:

MIAMI BEACH, Fla. -- An attorney for the union representing NBA players strongly indicated Thursday that the association will want players to again have the age limit for going pro lowered in the next round of collective bargaining.
National Basketball Players Association general counsel Gary Kohlman said "quite likely the union will be taking a radically different position" than the NBA on the age issue, which will almost certainly be a contentious point between the sides when they sit down.
"If they were white and hockey players, they would be out there playing. If they were white and baseball players, they would be out there playing," Kohlman said. "Because most of them are actually African-American and are in a sport and precluded from doing it, they have to go into this absurd world of playing for one year.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/124279...orney-says

I continue to be perplexed why the NBAPA has such a hardline public stance on this issue outside of using it as a bargaining chip with the owners.

The current NBAPA veteran members would *benefit* from a higher age limit as it preserves more of their jobs that wouldn't go to rookies. Note that so many people seem to ignore the NFL's age limit which has worked quite well for them and, for that matter, college football.

(03-05-2015 06:04 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I continue to be perplexed why the NBAPA has such a hardline public stance on this issue outside of using it as a bargaining chip with the owners.

The current NBAPA veteran members would *benefit* from a higher age limit as it preserves more of their jobs that wouldn't go to rookies. Note that so many people seem to ignore the NFL's age limit which has worked quite well for them and, for that matter, college football.

It has to get a much larger chunk of the Revenue Pie or something like that...but it appears the new NBPA is going to take a very hard stance in the upcoming CBA.

(03-05-2015 06:04 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I continue to be perplexed why the NBAPA has such a hardline public stance on this issue outside of using it as a bargaining chip with the owners.

The current NBAPA veteran members would *benefit* from a higher age limit as it preserves more of their jobs that wouldn't go to rookies. Note that so many people seem to ignore the NFL's age limit which has worked quite well for them and, for that matter, college football.

One would have to assume that if this is the NBAPA position, the owner's position is the opposite. It seems to me that if this is true, then both sides are taking a position that is contrary to their best interest.

Why does a union favor a position that benefits people who are not yet members at the expense of people who are its current members?

And why wouldn't owners prefer a system in which its future stars would be widely and effectively promoted for several years at no cost to them?

This makes no sense to me.

(03-05-2015 06:13 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 06:04 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I continue to be perplexed why the NBAPA has such a hardline public stance on this issue outside of using it as a bargaining chip with the owners.

The current NBAPA veteran members would *benefit* from a higher age limit as it preserves more of their jobs that wouldn't go to rookies. Note that so many people seem to ignore the NFL's age limit which has worked quite well for them and, for that matter, college football.

It has to get a much larger chunk of the Revenue Pie or something like that...but it appears the new NBPA is going to take a very hard stance in the upcoming CBA.

I don't blame the NBAPA at all on that front - NBA revenue and franchise values are skyrocketing, so the players have every right to demand what they believe to be their market value (especially since the value of individual star players is much higher in the NBA compared to other sports).

(03-05-2015 06:19 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 06:04 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I continue to be perplexed why the NBAPA has such a hardline public stance on this issue outside of using it as a bargaining chip with the owners.

The current NBAPA veteran members would *benefit* from a higher age limit as it preserves more of their jobs that wouldn't go to rookies. Note that so many people seem to ignore the NFL's age limit which has worked quite well for them and, for that matter, college football.

One would have to assume that if this is the NBAPA position, the owner's position is the opposite. It seems to me that if this is true, then both sides are taking a position that is contrary to their best interest.

Why does a union favor a position that benefits people who are not yet members at the expense of people who are its current members?

And why wouldn't owners prefer a system in which its future stars would be widely and effectively promoted for several years at no cost to them?

This makes no sense to me.

They will be members soon and studies show the early draftees earn more (they gain free agency heading into their prime if really good). It is also better for agents and who are players most likely to get advice from?

there's the thing- it's the AGENTS who are pushing this. Plain and simple.

(03-05-2015 06:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 06:13 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 06:04 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I continue to be perplexed why the NBAPA has such a hardline public stance on this issue outside of using it as a bargaining chip with the owners.

The current NBAPA veteran members would *benefit* from a higher age limit as it preserves more of their jobs that wouldn't go to rookies. Note that so many people seem to ignore the NFL's age limit which has worked quite well for them and, for that matter, college football.

It has to get a much larger chunk of the Revenue Pie or something like that...but it appears the new NBPA is going to take a very hard stance in the upcoming CBA.

I don't blame the NBAPA at all on that front - NBA revenue and franchise values are skyrocketing, so the players have every right to demand what they believe to be their market value (especially since the value of individual star players is much higher in the NBA compared to other sports).

That...the upcoming TV Deal and still the Game Changer was the Clippers going for $2 Billion...

On some level, I have to wonder if the NBAPA has concluded that public opinion is so opposed to the current "one and done" model that it will inevitably be scrapped, and they want to be seen as the group that made it happen, not the one that tried to stop it.

But for fans who want it to happen, I would warn them to be careful what they wish for. Replacing one and done won't be better for them if it just means the NBA can draft players right out of high school. The players who don't get drafted in high school could still leave college after one year if they choose (assuming they didn't declare themselves pros earlier). It only helps the schools if the NBA goes in the other direction and refuses to draft players until they have played two or more years in college.

So why did they make this a race topic as well? Majority of hockey players are foreign, teams can draft college players while they still play for their college, and both hockey and baseball have junior and minor leagues that the younger players develop in before going pro.

(03-05-2015 05:59 PM)Maize Wrote:  "If they were white and hockey players, they would be out there playing. If they were white and baseball players, they would be out there playing," Kohlman said. "Because most of them are actually African-American and are in a sport and precluded from doing it, they have to go into this absurd world of playing for one year.

That's silly. If they were any color and hockey or baseball players who want to turn pro at age 18, 99% of them would be riding buses in the minor leagues and not eligible for NHL or MLB free agency until they are about 28.

The NBA's different stance on this is solely due to not having an extensive minor-league player developmental system like NHL or MLB, which results in the NBA using (or abusing, depending on your point of view) college basketball as its almost-exclusive developmental system.

If the agents, errrr, "players union executives", sincerely wanted to make it easier for all 18 year olds (not just those as supertalented as LeBron James) to play professional basketball in the U.S., their demand to the NBA would be the creation of a comprehensive minor league system that includes at least one farm team affiliate for each NBA team.

(03-05-2015 07:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  On some level, I have to wonder if the NBAPA has concluded that public opinion is so opposed to the current "one and done" model that it will inevitably be scrapped, and they want to be seen as the group that made it happen, not the one that tried to stop it.

But for fans who want it to happen, I would warn them to be careful what they wish for. Replacing one and done won't be better for them if it just means the NBA can draft players right out of high school. The players who don't get drafted in high school could still leave college after one year if they choose (assuming they didn't declare themselves pros earlier). It only helps the schools if the NBA goes in the other direction and refuses to draft players until they have played two or more years in college.

This has always been an issue where my principles (where I believe any person that's good enough to play as a pro ought to be able to play immediately) conflict with practicality (where no age limit means that too many people that *aren't* good enough to play as pros immediately enter the draft and get drafted). If only LeBron-types entered the draft and, in turn, NBA GMs only drafted LeBron-types, then there wouldn't be a need for an age limit. The problem is that the top 30 high school seniors all think that they're LeBron-types (or even worse, they've got money-grubbing family members telling them that they're LeBron-types), and then the NBA GMs are so mortified of missing out on the next LeBron-type that they draft non-LeBron-types based on pure athleticism and tremendous upside potential. That can work in baseball and hockey drafts since they have fully-developed minor league systems, but top draft picks in basketball are expected/needed to contribute *immediately* at the top level.

As much as I hate otherwise arbitrary rules in general, an age limit is the only practical mechanism to protect players and NBA GMs from themselves. Both the NBA and college basketball would benefit greatly from a 20-year old age limit.

(03-05-2015 06:13 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 06:04 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I continue to be perplexed why the NBAPA has such a hardline public stance on this issue outside of using it as a bargaining chip with the owners.

The current NBAPA veteran members would *benefit* from a higher age limit as it preserves more of their jobs that wouldn't go to rookies. Note that so many people seem to ignore the NFL's age limit which has worked quite well for them and, for that matter, college football.

It has to get a much larger chunk of the Revenue Pie or something like that...but it appears the new NBPA is going to take a very hard stance in the upcoming CBA.

I hope the owners force the NBPA to agree to scrape guaranteed contracts. Mark Cuban has already started talking about this after the new head of the PA started saying that the players didn't need the owners anymore.

(03-06-2015 01:40 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 07:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  On some level, I have to wonder if the NBAPA has concluded that public opinion is so opposed to the current "one and done" model that it will inevitably be scrapped, and they want to be seen as the group that made it happen, not the one that tried to stop it.

But for fans who want it to happen, I would warn them to be careful what they wish for. Replacing one and done won't be better for them if it just means the NBA can draft players right out of high school. The players who don't get drafted in high school could still leave college after one year if they choose (assuming they didn't declare themselves pros earlier). It only helps the schools if the NBA goes in the other direction and refuses to draft players until they have played two or more years in college.

This has always been an issue where my principles (where I believe any person that's good enough to play as a pro ought to be able to play immediately) conflict with practicality (where no age limit means that too many people that *aren't* good enough to play as pros immediately enter the draft and get drafted).

IMO, principle should triumph: There's nothing magical about pro sports. Once you turn 18, you should be able to get into any line of work you want, which means you have the freedom to screw yourself by getting in to early, as does your employer if they hire you too soon.

No keep guaranteed contracts and drop the age limit. They should create a sustainable minor league system and be allowed to be drafted out of high school like hockey. They would have to stay in the system for 4 to 5 yrs before being cut or traded and if they never make an NBA roster they are free to sign with any NBA or pro team. If they choose to play a sport in college other than basketball they should be allowed to just like baseball. If they want to go to college and just be a student the team who drafts them needs to paid minimum of 2 yrs of their schooling.

(03-06-2015 08:27 AM)rbostic218 Wrote:  No keep guaranteed contracts and drop the age limit.

IMO, the term "contract" implies guarantees. If a contract isn't guaranteed, it's not a contract. One of the great propaganda coups of the leagues that do not have guaranteed contracts is that it gets the media to refer to them as "contracts" anyway.

E.g., in the NFL, a player might sign what is described by their team and the media as a "6-year, $100 million deal". But if only $50 million is guaranteed, the contract is actually a 6-year, $50 million deal, with a $50 million team option.

(03-06-2015 08:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, principle should triumph: There's nothing magical about pro sports. Once you turn 18, you should be able to get into any line of work you want, which means you have the freedom to screw yourself by getting in to early, as does your employer if they hire you too soon.

I understand what you're saying, but it's not true at all that anyone can work anywhere that they want when you turn 18. An 18-year kid that didn't go to college can't get a job as an investment banker at Goldman Sachs even if he is an economic genius. Even in Silicon Valley, where many startups are headed by college "dropouts" (put in quotes since it's quite different to drop out of Harvard to pursue a brilliant business idea as opposed to your typical dropout), just try applying for a job without a college degree even if you have the technical skills and you'll find it tough. The most lucrative jobs in America have top standards that generally preclude people out of high school from getting them, so why should that be any different for the NBA or any other pro sports league?

Plus, the NBA doesn't exist with a mandate to simply hire basketball players in whatever form that may come. The only obligation that the NBA has is to provide an entertaining product... and that's because that's the only thing that we, as the consumers, care about. Soooooo many sports fans have amnesia about how the NBA looked without an age limit - it got bogged down with high draft picks not being ready to play, which is killer for a league whose draft is looked at as a source for players that are supposed to be able to contribute a high level immediately. When the product isn't entertaining, then we stop watching, which is the one thing that pro sports leagues can't allow. The NBA is clearly within its rights to reduce that risk by applying an age limit, just as any other company is clearly within its rights to require a college degree (or 2 years of college or whatever other background requirements might be applicable) in order to reduce the risk of hiring employees that don't perform well.

Take it from me that has to deal with it everyday: hiring bad employees is EXPENSIVE. When you go through how much it costs to recruit someone plus training plus benefits, it's a soul-sucking financial experience far beyond their salary when someone doesn't work out. If it's expensive for a normal company, just imagine the expense of an NBA team that only gets to draft 1 or 2 players per year - you have zero margin for error and you need to reduce every risk factor within your control as much as possible. At least in the NFL, you have a decent depth of draft picks where a bad first round pick doesn't potentially tank your franchise for a generation like it can in the NBA. MLB and NHL have even more leeway since they draft a whole slew of players for their minor league systems every year.

(03-05-2015 07:11 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 06:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 06:13 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 06:04 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I continue to be perplexed why the NBAPA has such a hardline public stance on this issue outside of using it as a bargaining chip with the owners.

The current NBAPA veteran members would *benefit* from a higher age limit as it preserves more of their jobs that wouldn't go to rookies. Note that so many people seem to ignore the NFL's age limit which has worked quite well for them and, for that matter, college football.

It has to get a much larger chunk of the Revenue Pie or something like that...but it appears the new NBPA is going to take a very hard stance in the upcoming CBA.

I don't blame the NBAPA at all on that front - NBA revenue and franchise values are skyrocketing, so the players have every right to demand what they believe to be their market value (especially since the value of individual star players is much higher in the NBA compared to other sports).

That...the upcoming TV Deal and still the Game Changer was the Clippers going for $2 Billion...

One team going for $2 Billion does not lead to an overvaluation of the rest of the league. The highest bid for the Hawks was $800 million and that was rejected. The Clippers were an outlier and if the NBAPA biases their negotiations on that single data point they will get crushed by the owners.

(03-06-2015 10:33 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 07:11 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 06:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 06:13 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 06:04 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I continue to be perplexed why the NBAPA has such a hardline public stance on this issue outside of using it as a bargaining chip with the owners.

The current NBAPA veteran members would *benefit* from a higher age limit as it preserves more of their jobs that wouldn't go to rookies. Note that so many people seem to ignore the NFL's age limit which has worked quite well for them and, for that matter, college football.

It has to get a much larger chunk of the Revenue Pie or something like that...but it appears the new NBPA is going to take a very hard stance in the upcoming CBA.

I don't blame the NBAPA at all on that front - NBA revenue and franchise values are skyrocketing, so the players have every right to demand what they believe to be their market value (especially since the value of individual star players is much higher in the NBA compared to other sports).

That...the upcoming TV Deal and still the Game Changer was the Clippers going for $2 Billion...

One team going for $2 Billion does not lead to an overvaluation of the rest of the league. The highest bid for the Hawks was $800 million and that was rejected. The Clippers were an outlier and if the NBAPA biases their negotiations on that single data point they will get crushed by the owners.

No unfortunately if the NBAPA does that- it's going to lead to a very long work stoppage.

(03-06-2015 10:33 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 07:11 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 06:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 06:13 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 06:04 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I continue to be perplexed why the NBAPA has such a hardline public stance on this issue outside of using it as a bargaining chip with the owners.

The current NBAPA veteran members would *benefit* from a higher age limit as it preserves more of their jobs that wouldn't go to rookies. Note that so many people seem to ignore the NFL's age limit which has worked quite well for them and, for that matter, college football.

It has to get a much larger chunk of the Revenue Pie or something like that...but it appears the new NBPA is going to take a very hard stance in the upcoming CBA.

I don't blame the NBAPA at all on that front - NBA revenue and franchise values are skyrocketing, so the players have every right to demand what they believe to be their market value (especially since the value of individual star players is much higher in the NBA compared to other sports).

That...the upcoming TV Deal and still the Game Changer was the Clippers going for $2 Billion...

One team going for $2 Billion does not lead to an overvaluation of the rest of the league. The highest bid for the Hawks was $800 million and that was rejected. The Clippers were an outlier and if the NBAPA biases their negotiations on that single data point they will get crushed by the owners.

Just don't think the players or their agents see it that way...it also changed the LA Game for the NFL...Again just my opinion.