^If you read what Jermaine O'neal said you will see that he does have a good point. Baseball and Hockey teams (hockey teams especially) are able to draft players at the age of 18. He is saying because the NBA is primarily black and because the 4 out of the 5 top players in today's game are from highschool that the move is plain racist. He has a point but he is flawed in his judgement. Hockey and baseball teams have minor leagues set in place where they can move players and allow them to develope. The whole reason why an age limit is being imposed is because David Stern wants to raise the level of play in the NBA. IF the league had a minor league system in place then I can't see a reason why they would still want an age limit but then that would seriously dilute the competition in college. All in all the NBA is in a rock and a hard spot. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Voodoo Child:</div><div class="quote_post">Besides, these statistics say it all. Carmelo Anthony is not one of the thirty best players in the NBA (I know it's arguable, but I don't want to stray off topic on that), yet his jersey sale is ranked #2. Marbury is arguably not even one of the top five point guards in the NBA, yet his jersey is ranked #5. Where's Dirk Nowitzki or Jason Kidd on that list? If the NBA's fans like the white players better, then shouldn't they top the list over Carmelo Anthony and Stephon Marbury?</div> I'm planning on getting a Matt Bonner jersey so more power to me
In one hand, I don't think age limit is right, and I don't think it will ever be placed. Like many people mentioned, players like James, Stoudmire, Howard or other high schoolers had immidiate impact for their clubs, and players union will defend against age limit with full force. In other hand, it really has nothing to do with racism, and I can understand why age limit is brought up. Many teams draft players just based on the raw talents. But, since they are as raw as sushi, they are forced to take a roster spot for years, and they are really lucky to get couple mins in 30 pts blow out game. Players like McGrady or O'Neal warmed the bench for 3 years, Darko became a human victory ciger, and even if I am a Warriors fan, guys like Pietrus or Biedrins could use some extended playing time. They can develop their games by getting playing time somewhere, and, when it comes to NBA, it's just not a good business. Both Baseball and Hockey have minor league systems, and Football has age limit. I wish both players union and NBA can agree on creating a minor league system, so that NBA can develop many young players, who just can't get a min at this point. And, it would be much better for the league as well. I mean, which one is more exciting? Hearing Darko scoring 20 pts in minor league or watching Darko playing 2 mins in 30 pts blow out?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Voodoo Child:</div><div class="quote_post"> First of all, you have yet to address my point that you seem to throw around the terms like "thug" as if all thugs are black males. While I do believe that a large group of Americans have stopped watching basketball because of the "thugs", a thug could be Jason Williams or Brad Miller. Also, even if the thugs they are referring to are black, that doesn't mean they see all blacks as thugs. Whether you want to believe it or not, the NBA does have a lot of thugs, both black and white. So the criticism of the NBA's "thugs" is almost deserved and isn't racial at all.</div> The NBA is predominantly black. A racial stereotype is that young black men are prone to be criminals or thugs. So, when certain people look at the NBA and say, "Oh, it's just a bunch of thugs" -- that could mean two things. They are either (a)looking at the behavior of players and making the conclusion that they are thugs, or they are ( looking at their appearance and drawing the conclusion based on a stereotype. I think some people do (a) and some do (. It's wrong for me to say that anyone who makes such a statement is racist. But they should be able to present actual examples beyond just pointing at their appearance or their mannerisms. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">The lack of education in other sports is not complained about, because those sports don't have players on television saying something absurd, being arrested, or disputing with teammates as often as the NBA does. Also, their draft processes are different. The NFL does have a strict age limit, the NHL allows players to still play college hockey after being drafted, and the MLB has an excellent minor league system.</div> I don't notice NBA players being, in general, less mature or responsible than players in other sports. Maybe that's the case, I don't know. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Let's say the worst case scenario is revealed as true (as crazy as it is) and many white NBA fans in America comes out and says they do not like the black players. Even if this were true, why would you think the NBA would think up something like an age limit to satisfy their needs? As stated many times in this thread, profits are at an all-time high, especially from the High School kids. It's not like the black players are taken out of the game anyway. They just have to remain out of it for two more years.</div> I don't think the popularity is necessarily at an all time high. Obviously, they are making more money than ever before, but that's not the best way to guage popularity. David Stern is concerned with the image of the league or how it's perceived by consumers. Maybe its not completely a business consideration, but he definitely cares about it. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I was talking about players coming from bad educational backgrounds. Not once did I say players were coming from "black backgrounds". To assume that I implied that is to assume that the only players who come from poor educational backgrounds out of High School are blacks. I'm not talking about just the blacks. I'm talking about all the schools out there like Laurinberg Prep and Oak Hill Academy which are basically basketball gyms with schools on the side. </div> Ok. Did I mention anything about "black backgrounds?" Is there a reason why the sport of basketball would attract people with poor educational backgrounds? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">As far as the perception of the NBA, perception is reality most of the time. I'm not implying anything about race by saying that. I'm saying that when you're perceived as a league full of immature kids and/or criminals, then you likely are a league full of immature kids and criminals. College could help this out. You say that the NBA wants them to be wiser and more mature like it's a bad thing, why? Either way, I doubt the NBA is trying to make this move to improve their image so much as they are trying to improve the overall quality of the game.</div> I think you're mistaking the tone of what I said. I wasn't implying anything other than what I said. I was just trying to reiterate what I thought you meant, just so I know I'm understanding you correctly. I disagree with your last point, mainly because I don't think there's a clear connection at all between the quality of the game of age of players. Is your typical NBA rookie in the year 2004 less productive than a typical rookie in 1994 or 1987? I think the more prevailing concern is dealing with the NBA's image (that is, the perception of the NBA by fans). And this is the part where racial stereotypes can possibly make a difference. I'm not looking for conspiracy theories or anything like that. It's strange that some people on here are so quick to dismiss any discussion of racism as some retarded "liberal" garbage. I believe it's healthy to be proactive in identifying racism whereever it exists and trying to eliminate it. It's better to consider racism as a factor in decision-making than to ignore the possibility of it. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">It's not so much that kids don't learn proper values growing up as it is kids just not being mentally mature <u>yet</u>. Going to college will prepare a lot of these kids mentally for the NBA on many different mental levels. </div> You could say the same about any professional sport, right? Does college help NBA players more than players in other sports for some reason?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting CourtVision:</div><div class="quote_post">^If you read what Jermaine O'neal said you will see that he does have a good point. Baseball and Hockey teams (hockey teams especially) are able to draft players at the age of 18. He is saying because the NBA is primarily black and because the 4 out of the 5 top players in today's game are from highschool that the move is plain racist. He has a point but he is flawed in his judgement. Hockey and baseball teams have minor leagues set in place where they can move players and allow them to develope. The whole reason why an age limit is being imposed is because David Stern wants to raise the level of play in the NBA. IF the league had a minor league system in place then I can't see a reason why they would still want an age limit but then that would seriously dilute the competition in college. All in all the NBA is in a rock and a hard spot. I'm planning on getting a Matt Bonner jersey so more power to me</div> I disagree, he has no point whatsoever calling the decision racist. Using the word racist is a strong term someone shouldn't throw around without any evidence or substance. Let's define the term racism. 1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. 2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race. In no way does age relate to the definition of racism. Maybe he meant age discrimination, but that's a far different term than racism. By holding a player back 2 years from the NBA, it does not mean there will be less African American players in the NBA. Having an age limit doesn't equate to less African American players in the NBA.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting shapecity:</div><div class="quote_post">I disagree, he has no point whatsoever calling the decision racist. Using the word racist is a strong term someone shouldn't throw around without any evidence or substance.</div> Where did he call the decision racist. This is what he said: "As a black guy, you kind of think (race is) the reason why it's coming up," O'Neal said. "You don't hear about it in baseball or hockey. To say you have to be 20, 21 to get in the league, it's unconstitutional. If I can go to the U.S. Army and fight the war at 18, why can't you play basketball for 48 minutes and then go home?" He makes a brief, passing comment suggesting race could be involved (note his words, "kind of"). He didn't accuse anyone of being racist. discrimination, but that's a far different term than racism. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">By holding a player back 2 years from the NBA, it does not mean there will be less African American players in the NBA. Having an age limit doesn't equate to less African American players in the NBA.</div> Actually, if the ratio of black/white athletes under 20 is higher than that ratio for players over 20, that would mean that the age limit would result in less black athletes overall. Specifically, if we only consider American players, than I think the difference in the ratios is very significant. In that case the rule would have a much greater impact on black Americans versus white Americans.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting shapecity:</div><div class="quote_post">I disagree, he has no point whatsoever calling the decision racist. Using the word racist is a strong term someone shouldn't throw around without any evidence or substance. Let's define the term racism. 1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. 2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race. In no way does age relate to the definition of racism. Maybe he meant age discrimination, but that's a far different term than racism. By holding a player back 2 years from the NBA, it does not mean there will be less African American players in the NBA. Having an age limit doesn't equate to less African American players in the NBA.</div>I don't think he ever accused anyone of being racist but that the decision may have some implications of race involved. I can't blame him for saying what he did. It's a known fact that the NBA is pretty much the only sport that is dominated by black atheletes. By comparing the NBA to other sports such as hockey and baseball (leagues which are not dominated by blacks, especially hockey) as flawed as it is he does make a valid point. I never said that I agreed with his statement because I even stated in my original post that he doesn't see the whole picture. But I can't blame him taking a stand for what he believes is right.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting durvasa:</div><div class="quote_post">Where did he call the decision racist. This is what he said: </div> <u>"As a black guy, you kind of think (race is) the reason why it's coming up," </u> O'Neal said. Doesn't that imply racism? Every writer covering this interview has said JO called it racist. I'm basing my debate off those sources. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Actually, if the ratio of black/white athletes under 20 is higher than that ratio for players over 20, that would mean that the age limit would result in less black athletes overall. Specifically, if we only consider American players, than I think the difference in the ratios is very significant. In that case the rule would have a much greater impact on black Americans versus white Americans.</div> Please provide the facts for that I think you'd be completely wrong again with those ratios. Only a small percentage of players under 20 represent the NBA. On the Pacers roster alone you have. Dale Davis, Reggie Miller, Jamaal Tinsley, Stephen Jackson, Eddie Gill, Jermaine O'neal, Fred Jones, James Jones, David Harrison, Jonathan Bender, and Anthony Johson All are over the age of 20 and all are African American. That's 12 out of their 15 man roster or 75% who you feel is in the minority. A player has a long tenure in the league because of their skills, not because of their color. Durvasa I respect your post about looking for racial undertones. And you bring up some interesting view points. I just don't happen to agree with them and when a person throws out racism, without much support, it weakens the implications of the word. It's like the boy who cried wolf, after a while no one is listening. If Jermaine O'neal can say an age limit is holding back African American athletes, then conversely couldn't a Caucasian athlete say by not having an age limit the NBA is being racist towards Caucasians?
"If I can go to war at the age of 18, then why can't I play basketball for 48 minutes?"-JERMAINE O'NEAL Does he have a point? To some, yes. But what JO is blabbing about doesn't apply to each and every high school punks in the country who wants to trade books with Sprite/Nike ads. There is so much more into the NBA than playing basketball for 48 minutes. (In Darko's case-2 minutes max). Several issues are being encountered by a high school rookie when gets his first official day rolling in the L. Yup you can go to war even at the age of 18, because WAR is different from playing BALL. Its a necessity if you're picked to go to Iraq or some **** like that. JO should have used a different analogy. Something more specific.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting CourtVision:</div><div class="quote_post">I don't think he ever accused anyone of being racist but that the decision may have some implications of race involved. I can't blame him for saying what he did. It's a known fact that the NBA is pretty much the only sport that is dominated by black atheletes. By comparing the NBA to other sports such as hockey and baseball (leagues which are not dominated by blacks, especially hockey) as flawed as it is he does make a valid point. I never said that I agreed with his statement because I even stated in my original post that he doesn't see the whole picture. But I can't blame him taking a stand for what he believes is right.</div> I was just disagreeing more with his analogy than your post. Especially the part about 4 out 5 players in the NBA come from highschool straight to the pros. 80% of the league is does not consist of those players. Then comparing two completely separate leagues (MLB & MLS) to the NBA. Even the NFL has an age limit of two years after graduating High School. I know he didn't call anyone racist, but he's using race in his grievance, and I disagree completely. One point no one has brought up, but I'd like to throw out is the NBPA, headed by an African American, Billy Hunter. The decision is not Stern's alone, the NBPA can oppose it, but they will likely agree to the age limit. They want to protect the veterans in the league. Don't you think if the NBPA felt race was involved in implementing an age limit it would fight against it?
I'm a fan of the age limit idea. Its for the players own good really. The NBA will be missing out on a valuable source of athletic thus entertaining talent, the josh smiths that come into the league young and full of energy. I think the players have alot to gain from it, but some will have a bit to loose. The lebrons will suffer, by that i mean the highschool players that get in has a lottary pick. Gaurentee'd contract guys will suffer, but all the others will gain. How many highschool players, or first year college players have entered the draft, only to slip out of the draft and/or out of the league in the first few years? They skiped school to go to the draft and make some money, and they end up with nothing. No money, no schooling, no chance to escape the poverty that so many of them face. Whats so wrong with making up thier mind for them, when you know its the best choice overall. Its free education just for playing a game.
Lets make the assumption that most of the players who went to the NBA out of high school would have dominated in the NCAA. Instead they entered the league and it took them a few years to develop (guys like Lebron being an exception). Even though they were on the bench they are still making money, so what's they point of college? In college they are exploited, bringing fame and profit to their university, while receiving a free degree in something like communications (ha!) that they didn't really earn, and wont use anyway. For all of you who are calling JO stupid (he is actually quite articulate). Look at all the people like AI, JR Rider, Ricky Davis, Kemp, Vin Baker, etc. College didn't help their intelligence, or choices. A year of college didn't improve Melo's decision making skills did it? If you really believe that (star) athletes would attend class (guys like Emeka are exceptions).....you're sadly mistaken.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">For all of you who are calling JO stupid (he is actually quite articulate). Look at all the people like AI, JR Rider, Ricky Davis, Kemp, Vin Baker, etc. College didn't help their intelligence, or choices. A year of college didn't improve Melo's decision making skills did it? If you really believe that (star) athletes would attend class (guys like Emeka are exceptions).....you're sadly mistaken.</div>I called JO stupid but it has nothing to do with the fact that he didn't attend school. I'm not going to throw stereotypes around. That's for him to do and for me to criticize. You're dead on that star athletes don't have an ideal college experience, but that's beside the point. Making guys wait an extra 2 years is not going to stop anybody from anything here. They still have just as much an opportunity to enjoy a long and lucrative career. It's really simple. An NBA roster is smaller than any of the other 3 major sports, yet it's the only one that's used to develop players. It's not fair to both the 18 year old kid that isn't playing nor the 10 year vet that can't make a roster. In all honesty, the best way to deal with the situation would be to create a minor league system and have a 4-5 round draft, but if that's not going to happen then an age limit is the next best option. This has been happening in the NFL for years. The NFL is about 70% black, which is almost equal to the NBA's ratio. The NFL players union is run by a black man, who supports the age limit wholeheartedly. It's the only league that's comparable to the NBA in black-to-white ration, and the only one that's comparable because it doesn't have a minor league system. In fact, the NFL has more roster room for players to develop because each team has a practice squad. So I guess my question is: If this has worked in football for years than isn't the NBA behind the times? Shouldn't this have been done years ago?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting shapecity:</div><div class="quote_post"><u>"As a black guy, you kind of think (race is) the reason why it's coming up," </u> O'Neal said. Doesn't that imply racism? Every writer covering this interview has said JO called it racist. I'm basing my debate off those sources. </div> "Imply racism." Sure, for reporters looking for a hot story and something to write about. But he didn't use that word, and everybody is making way too big a deal about what they think he said versus what he actually said. And when we're talking about how this rule will effect people, look specifically at the American players in the league who are under 20 years old. If in the NBA as a whole the ratio of black to white Americans is around X:Y, then do you think it's about the same for American players under 20 as well? From my own observation, it appears that the ratio is much greater for that age group. Therefore, the ruling would disproportionately effect black Americans over white Americans. Now, that in itself doesn't make it "racist" or anything like that. But it gives reason to at least consider race as a component in this issue (which is pretty much all Jermaine O'neal said). On another point, I also believe you may be considering only a very narrow definition of racism. Racism comes in a variety forms, some much more subtle than others. If one's views are about a group of people are formed more from racial stereotypes versus actual observations of their behavior, then that is a form of racism. It isn't as powerful a form as overt discrimination or violence against them, but it's still something which should be sought out and dealt with. It is, at the very least, worthy of conversation. I'll say right now that I believe many people's negative views of NBA players are motivated to some degree by racial stereotypes. A lot of people dislike the NBA because of the "hip-hop" culture as well, and I believe to some degree that's also related to race. In the end, we need to ask WHY the NBA feels the need to impose the age limit. Two reasons come to my mind: (a) improve the quality of the game, ( improve the off-court maturity level of the players. If its (, we should consider why is the maturity-level of young basketball players such a problem whereas in other sports people rarely talk about it? This is where considerations for race come in. We should, at least, ask the question: "Is the difference that young basketball players are more likely to be black than in other sports, and because of the racial stereotypes that exist in our society there's a tendency to believe they must also be less mature?" Another question worth asking, by the way, is "Is there a subconscious hostility towards young black kids from inner cities with relatively little education who get lots of money versus the reaction to white suburban kids getting the same money, and if so is that race related?" Perhaps upon considering it, we find that it's a preposterous idea and in fact there's quite a lot of concrete evidence to support the idea that young basketball players are less mature than young baseball/hockey players and we don't need to rely on racial stereotypes to come to that belief.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting 44Thrilla:</div><div class="quote_post">I called JO stupid but it has nothing to do with the fact that he didn't attend school. I'm not going to throw stereotypes around. That's for him to do and for me to criticize. </div> Never singled anyone out, but someone did say something along the lines of "Now I can see why JO couldn't get into college". Going to college isn't going to stop someone from throwing stereotypes around. I'm sure that both John Rocker and Bobby Fisher went to college... <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">You're dead on that star athletes don't have an ideal college experience, but that's beside the point. Making guys wait an extra 2 years is not going to stop anybody from anything here. They still have just as much an opportunity to enjoy a long and lucrative career. </div> Actually that is the point. Part of Stern's argument is that the maturity level on and off the court could be increased by college attendence. Doesn't make much sense to me. Even though Tmac complains about the zone, he's still one of the most volatile scorers in the league. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">It's really simple. An NBA roster is smaller than any of the other 3 major sports, yet it's the only one that's used to develop players. It's not fair to both the 18 year old kid that isn't playing nor the 10 year vet that can't make a roster. </div> The average 10 year vet is bringing less profit to the league than the average 18 year old in the league. Besides, for every 10 year vet who is getting 20 mins/game there is a guy like Darko on the bench simply because his coach is stubborn (or scared of getting fired if he takes a risk on a young guy and it fails). Ideally kids out of high school are exceptional enough that they go in the early first round. This means that they are given a guaranteed contract and will be the focal point on a team that needs help. Lebron, Amare, and Dwight Howard are all examples of players that didn't take 5+ years to develop. Besides, this decreases the temptation of schools who want to pay their athletes.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting 44Thrilla:</div><div class="quote_post">I called JO stupid but it has nothing to do with the fact that he didn't attend school. I'm not going to throw stereotypes around. That's for him to do and for me to criticize. You're dead on that star athletes don't have an ideal college experience, but that's beside the point. Making guys wait an extra 2 years is not going to stop anybody from anything here. They still have just as much an opportunity to enjoy a long and lucrative career. It's really simple. An NBA roster is smaller than any of the other 3 major sports, yet it's the only one that's used to develop players. It's not fair to both the 18 year old kid that isn't playing nor the 10 year vet that can't make a roster. In all honesty, the best way to deal with the situation would be to create a minor league system and have a 4-5 round draft, but if that's not going to happen then an age limit is the next best option. This has been happening in the NFL for years. The NFL is about 70% black, which is almost equal to the NBA's ratio. The NFL players union is run by a black man, who supports the age limit wholeheartedly. It's the only league that's comparable to the NBA in black-to-white ration, and the only one that's comparable because it doesn't have a minor league system. In fact, the NFL has more roster room for players to develop because each team has a practice squad. So I guess my question is: If this has worked in football for years than isn't the NBA behind the times? Shouldn't this have been done years ago?</div> Those are very good points you make. I honestly think the NBA is trying to address the issue backwards. In baseball, young players can be drafted by teams, and then they just take some time to develop either in a minor league. Why not put something similar in place in the NBA, instead of flatly disallowing young players from getting drafted? Is it that the NFL and NBA are more physical than other sports (and it just so happens that the more physical sports tend to have more black players), so they require more physical maturity? That's another way to look at the issue.
Durvasa I'd like to read your responses to questions I've posed to you in this debate. Your initial stance was the NBA wants to get rid of younger African American players because the NBA is losing the key demographic of fans because they don't like seeing young, thug types make millions of dollars. However, I showed you the NBA has never been more lucrative and the top 5 out 7 jerseys sold are from players who entered the league before they turned 20. I also asked you, if the key demographics are being turned off, why are the major sponsors of the NBA using LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony to endorse their products? Why is David Stern using these same players to endorse the NBA brand? On post #53 you brought in people dislike the "hip hop" culture. Who are these people and how are they relevent if the NBA is at an all time high in revenue? Why is the NBA embracing the "hip hop" culture if it's detrimental to it's image? How is holding back a player 2 years going to impede the "hip hop" culture from still being popular in the NBA? You don't think people at colleges listen and participate in the "hip hop" culture? Let me paint a picture for you. A white male 40 year old dad and his 8 year son from the suburbs want to go to an NBA game. The dad is not a fan of the young, flashy high school to the pros players. However, his son is a big-time LeBron James fan and has LJ23 gear from head to toe. If LeBron James is in town to play, guess what, the 40 year old dad is going to swallow his dislike and take his 8 year old son to see his NBA idol. His dad is spending money on LJ23 gear and Sprite because his son likes LeBron. Those people you keep refering to say they don't like the NBA because of this or that, but they still watch, they still go to the games, and they still follow the NBA don't they?
Most rules are made because someone benefits more than others. Following the money usually leads to the people who benefit the most. So who stands to make the most money from the age limit? THE OWNERS. Hopefully this explains the answer to your question of WHY the NBA is pushing for the age limit. Here's a nice excerpt from the "Hidden Costs of the NBA Age Limit" <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Make no mistake. The driving force behind the NBA's proposed age limit for the draft is money. Hidden underneath the rhetoric of improving the game and looking out for the players is the fact that delaying players' entry into the league an extra two years would save NBA owners hundreds of millions of dollars. Here's why. Under the terms of the NBA's Collective Bargaining Agreement, the length of every first round draft pick's contract is strictly governed by the "rookie scale." A rookie contract is guaranteed for three years, with the team holding an option for a fourth. Once a player's rookie contract is up, he may sign a contract of no more than six (if he signs with a new team) or seven (if he re-signs with his current team) years. Once that contract expires, its dollar amount and the length of time a player has been in the league both play key roles in determining the value of that player's next deal. Essentially, the longer he's been playing, the more he can make. That last provision is why NBA owners want an age limit. On the surface, an age limit appears to impact players' earning capacity only by delaying the start of their careers. In actuality, it would do players the greatest disservice at the end of their careers by lopping off the most lucrative years of their third NBA contract. A player who is 18 when he signs his rookie deal gets his first extension at 22. If it's a max-length contract, he gets another deal at age 28 or 29. A player entering the league at 20 signs his first extension at 24 and is eligible again at either 30 or 31. Two years difference may not seem like much, and in terms of basketball skill it really isn't. But an obscure provision in the Collective Bargaining Agreement makes the difference between signing a deal at 28 and signing a deal at 30 an astronomical one. Article VII, section 3 of the CBA contains what's known as the "over 36" rule. This rule imposes a heavy financial penalty on any team that signs a player younger than 33 to a contract that extends past that player's 36th birthday. Its exact provision are somewhat convoluted. But the net result is that players with "over 36" contracts are the most expensive to have on the roster. Their salaries count against the cap at rates as high as 140% of their actual dollar amount.</div> Source
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Jurassic:</div><div class="quote_post">Never singled anyone out, but someone did say something along the lines of "Now I can see why JO couldn't get into college". Going to college isn't going to stop someone from throwing stereotypes around. I'm sure that both John Rocker and Bobby Fisher went to college...</div> I know that. My point was I wasn't stereotyping JO as an idiot because he didnt go to school, but because his words make him out to be one.<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Actually that is the point. Part of Stern's argument is that the maturity level on and off the court could be increased by college attendence. Doesn't make much sense to me. Even though Tmac complains about the zone, he's still one of the most volatile scorers in the league. </div>It's your point, but barely relevant in this argument. I think these guys have to at least come out with something from school. Besides, there's a lot of maturing that is normally done in between the ages of 18 and 20. That's just one reason Stern gave, it's not the whole part. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">The average 10 year vet is bringing less profit to the league than the average 18 year old in the league.</div> Which proves that the NBA and Stern are doing this for reasons other than money.<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Besides, for every 10 year vet who is getting 20 mins/game there is a guy like Darko on the bench simply because his coach is stubborn (or scared of getting fired if he takes a risk on a young guy and it fails). </div>Had the rule been in place Darko would probably still be in Europe, or at best a rookie. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Ideally kids out of high school are exceptional enough that they go in the early first round. This means that they are given a guaranteed contract and will be the focal point on a team that needs help. Lebron, Amare, and Dwight Howard are all examples of players that didn't take 5+ years to develop. </div>You come up with 3 of the 25 total HS players that have been drafted in the past 29 years? I think that's proof in it self that 18 year olds in the NBA is a bad thing.
I could probably write a term paper on this topic but I'm going to keep try to keep this relevant and concise. Jermaine O'Neal had some valid points but he didn't articulate them well. The NBA player's union voting to have an age limit isn't racist. The players union is supporting this so that veteran players won't lose their jobs to unproven high school and European athletes. There has been a trend of teams drafting on potential lately. When these high school/European athletes get drafted in the first round, they are guaranteed at least three seasons of pay. To offset these acquisitions, many veteran players are sent packing. The players union would prefer to have rookies come into the league and earn their stripes immediately so that they can justify why some of the veteran players are getting low balled financially or released. This has nothing to do with race. That is why the player's union wants an age limit. On the other hand, many high school athletes and one year college players have proven more than capable of producing at the NBA level. Like Jermaine O'Neal said, many of the top players in the league didn't spend a day in college. I understand why he and other players are upset that this is even an issue. In most other sports in almost all other countries, teenagers with extreme talents are almost encouraged to go directly to the professional ranks. Why is this an issue only in basketball and football? One could argue that in football a player out of high school or one year in college isn't physically prepared to play against grown men. That may be true of those players who aren't playing skilled position, but there are plenty of cornerbacks and receivers who are capable of having an impact in the NFL with limited (or no) college experience. You can't make that same argument in basketball. There is a proven track record of high school success at the NBA level. Those same athletes have (for the most part) done a great job of staying out of trouble with their teams and the law. Yes there have been some high school disappointments, but there have been a ton of college disappointments as well. Why are we advocating a player going to college for one, two, or three years if they are still leaving school without a degree? If a team is willing to draft him high, how does he benefit from staying in school? All the NBA has to do to stop all of these high school athletes from declaring for the draft is to stop drafting them in the first round. High school athletes really weren't considering declaring for the draft until Kevin Garnett was drafted with the 5th pick. Kobe and J.O. followed the next year, then McGrady, and then Al Harrington and Rashard Lewis. These guys all had success which prompted NBA GM's to decide to strongly consider high school athletes with their first round draft picks. Race does play a large part in this argument. If the NBA didn't have such a negative image, would David Stern be as adament about this issue? Why aren't people up in arms about the Europeans that come into this league at an early age and do not contribute? Why isn't there an age restriction is sports where blacks don't dominate? There is no reason why a capable high school athlete shouldn't be given the opportunity to earn an income playing basketball after he graduates from high school. If there was a white player in America that came out of high school with the same hype of LeBron James, there would be a lot of back talking done by a lot of age limit advocates. If the age limit does come into effect I wouldn't call it racist, but I will agree that race played a role in its implimentation. I do think that there is a strong contigent of people who are disturbed by the fact that there are increasing number of multi million dollar black teenagers in the entertainment industry. People who don't believe that race plays a large part in the decisions of upper management are naive. Unless you have been a victim of racism it is hard to empathize with someone who feels that they have. I firmly believe that people in this country rooted against the 2004 USA Men's basketball team b/c of the make up of our roster. I also find it very perplexing when I hear someone say that they like high school and college basketball but hate the NBA. What other sport do fans constantly say that they prefer the college/minor leagues over the top professional league? Jermaine O'Neal is entitled to his opinion. You don't have to agree with him, but to attack his character b/c he is voicing an opinion about a subject of extreme relevance to him is not only unjustified but also unnecessary.
