NBA Finally Listening to HighEliteMajor
-
@HighEliteMajor - Your words of wisdom are finally making it up the long vine of basketball’s social network… all the way up to the new NBA commissioner, Adam Silver.
Silver, and the entire league, doesn’t seem to like the OAD rule. One of Silver’s main priorities is to raise the entry age of players from 19 to 20. That may not be a gigantic leap forward in progress, but eliminating OADs in exchange for TADs (Two-And-Dones) is somewhat monumental (when you consider how much players improve between their freshman and sophomore years).
So now that we’ve recently all brushed up on our conversation concerning OADs (thanks to @HighEliteMajor 's enlightening thread)… let’s move into what may come as soon as 2016… the TAD rule!
How do we feel about TADs and the potential rule change that will end the OAD in favor of a TAD?
-
I like it for college basketball’s sake, but, it still makes a farce out of the idea of the student athlete. As much as I despise any kid leaving college early, I really, for the life of me can’t figure out why a kid has to go to college to play in the NBA.
So I go back to my proposal, let kids do like baseball does. Declare if you want when you leave high school, or go to college for a minimum of three years. Then you’ll see the college game improve overall.
Baseball lets a kid get drafted and negotiate with their team and he can then decide whether or not he likes the offer. I know a kid who was a phenomenal HS pitcher (he started and won four state championship games in a row in highly competitive Louisiana), was signed by LSU and drafted by the Pirates and held out until he got the deal he wanted and signed, 1,25 million bonus.
-
@wissoxfan83
The TAD Rule will probably prevail for the following reason: it gives nothing to college basketball players, and it increases the complexity and duration of decision making in which players are exposed to parasitic exploitation without compensation. In short, advisors, agents, agent runners, summer game coaches, summer game team sponsors, shoeco reps, shoeco lawyers, lawyers, accountants, etc. will all get to play the delayed compensation advisor game for two years, instead of one. This means they will all accumulate two years of delayed compensation, instead of one year’s worth, that can be snowballed forward as a larger percentage of the eventual NBA player contract, or the eventual off-shore contract. Bad for players.
The TAD helps the NCAA by forcing kids to stay even longer than they want to, and so increases the quality of the NCAA game and the NCAA revenues the players being forced to stay longer will still get no share in.
Now what I would really like to see is an NCAA revenue sharing plan for the NCAA players, but that is not going to happen.
So: I agree that for now baseball’s rule seems the way to go.
P.S.: Has anyone noticed the very vague similarity in appearance between the NBA Commish and F.W. Murnau’s Nosferatu?
Commissioner Adam Silver
http://www.wnc.edu/photos/pr/adam_silver_lg.jpg
Nosferatu
http://www.charlottesvilletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/nosferatu.jpg
Just kidding around, Commish.
-
@jaybate 1.0
“Just kidding around, Commish.”
Be careful. Look outside your window. See that white van parked across the street?
But seriously… you raise good points about these kids delaying payments for another year.
What I think stinks is the NBA’s snubbing attitude against euro ball. There should be a mechanism in place to better bring players from abroad into the NBA draft. So for adventurous kids that don’t feel like going 1 or 2 years without pay they can go abroad and make good money while they wait to turn 19 or 20 and do it without killing their draft potential.
That would be good for the game. Broaden it out again. It is a game that can be widely accepted the world over… There could be other markets developed beyond honey-hole America.
Imagine that… HS players getting approached by both college coaches and euro pro teams.
There just isn’t anything else in this country that matches this level of crime on a labor force. Even fruit pickers were recently given the decency from legislation forcing management to put porta-pots out in the fields. Of course, it was done not to legislate decency, it was done to protect the food supply from bacteria. And now, after Shabazz let the world know how often he went to bed hungry… the all-mighty Emmert waved his hand and increased the food allotment for student-athletes. He doesn’t want them to starve (and under-perform) while big business lavishes in the financial awards.
Many are now pushing for the “Olympic rule.” And if that passes… I’m not sure, but it seems like college athletes could negotiate paid contracts and either have that money stored away untouchable in a trust until leaving school… or maybe just borrow a predetermined amount against potential future earnings.
I’m staying glued to Northwestern football… will they decide to unionize?
Pity it has to come down to this. We (fans) will take a big hit from all this, you can count on that.
-
Well as the parent of two college students and two to come, I believe a 5 year scholarship is plenty of compensation. Unfortunately those kids of mine inherited my athletic ability, but fortunately they got my wifes brains, and the one is about to graduate and already has an accepted job offer!
-
I agree with JB, and he’s right that revenue sharing will never happen. The NCAA just wants to make as much money as they can, and won’t get rid of the amateurism label for student-athletes. There is a major conflict of interest for the NCAA in determining rulings for eligibility and punishment for violations. Their inconsistencies in applying these rulings have generally been self-serving.
The tax-exempt non-profit won’t allow universities to pay their athletes or provide a stipend either. And even if they did, there are way too many problems with trying to implement that. Namely, only a handful of athletic departments profit from their sports teams so it would create unfair advantages in recruiting. Also, it’s impossible to make paying athletes sport or gender-specific because of Title IX. You can’t just pay men’s football and basketball players, you would have to pay every sports team, and you would have to pay all of them about the same amount.
Edit: @wissoxfan - The kid doesn’t technically have to go to college, he just can’t go directly to the NBA.
-
Sorry… my post was vague. I didn’t mean universities would be paying athletes (more).
I’m talking about all the people @jaybate is talking about… from shoe contracts to whatever. The student-athlete could still be deemed an “amateur” under preset guidelines.
I like that idea. There are plenty of big corps and basketball entities that would like to pay these players, so why can’t they accept and still be a college athlete? Set the money away in a trust… and maybe let bits of it be used while in school (and bits to family members).
I don’t like the situation BMac was in… where he should have come back for another year but the financial pressure to help his family was just too much to keep him in school.
The goal is not only to have these guys develop more of their game in college, and help college basketball lift to higher levels… it is also to keep these guys in school longer. The longer they stay in school, the better chance they have of finishing.
I think it is tragic when any of these kids don’t finish school, regardless of the millions they rush off to earn.
-
I understand, to my knowledge it’s only happened once, right? Didn’t Brandon Jennings go play somewhere else for a year or am I mistaken?
-
@wissoxfan83 I have no idea, but be careful how you phrase things because nobody is forcing these kids to play 1 year in college. The rule is not that you have to play 1 year in college…
-
@wissoxfan83
The only current limitation is that the student athlete must be 19 years old and one year removed from his graduating class. There is no restriction on what he does or where he plays until the athlete meets those requirements.
An athlete can chose to play in Europe, as several have done, provided he finds a team that will hire him, or he can play in the Development League or he can sit out and do nothing, if he chooses to do so. There is absolutely no requirement to attend college, although most athletes believe it is the best way to not only improve their game but also get exposure that money can’t buy…and if they find out they are not ready or good enough to play in the NBA, they can stay in college until they are ready or get a degree, both good things.
-
@drgnslayr - thanks for the headline cite.
I fall squarely in the camp that a kid should be able to turn pro immediately after coming out of high school. And really, I think a kids should be able to turn pro anytime.
@wissoxfan83 's reference to the baseball rule is excellent. It is really the perfect rule. You can go if you’re ready. But if you commit to college, then three years is commitment. But that is the perfect rule for the college basketball fan.
There has to be some give and take. That gives, and takes.
Make no mistake, the transition to 20 years old is solely and completely for the NBA’s benefit. The NBA GMs would much rather harvest players from a free minor league system, closer to a finished product. It is NBA driven because they hold all the power. The NCAA should readily accept because it helps their product.
Theoretically, I would much rather see it go the other way – they could leave anytime they want. As a fan, I want them to stay and play college hoops.
I do, however, completely disagree with the conclusion of @jaybate 's comment – " … and it increases the complexity and duration of decision making in which players are exposed to parasitic exploitation without compensation."
The use of the term “parasitic exploitation” ignores the concept of human choice. It is common for those opposed to the NCAA, such as Jay Bilas, to create a narrative that is akin to slavery (I am not saying @jaybate has done this directly, but indirectly by the choice of wording). It is the ultimate victim card to play. It is the easiest way to engender sympathy.
That narrative conveniently ignores choice. Actually, in a few back and forths with Bilas on twitter, he just ignores those facts that don’t fit his narrative.
The letter of intent is a contract. It is a written agreement that has specific terms. Either you accept those terms, or you don’t.
And you can walk away. If you really, really want to work while going to school, you can. If you feel that you are being exploited, then don’t do it. There are thousands upon thousands of young ladies, I would presume, that were in difficult financial situations but did not resort to prostitution. Ultimately, it is a choice.
That choice destroys the counter-argument. Thus the Bilas crew like to argue that some kids really don’t have a choice. That, of course, is silly. The vast majority of impoverished young men and women don’t resort to a life of crime. Athletes are not “forced” to accept the terms of the contract. They could, ultimately, do whatever they want to do.
In fact – and we know this to be a fact – the terms of a full ride scholarship is very favorable to the athlete. Why? Because a very, very high percentage couldn’t get paid coming out of high school for doing what has brought to them the scholarship in the first place. Brannen Greene couldn’t have earned any real sort of living playing basketball. So he has taken an otherwise unmarketable skill and turned it into a pretty nice payday.
To receive free food, clothes, living arrangements, tutoring, books, tuition, etc. – for playing basketball – is an exquisite deal. Not to mention the opportunity to earn a degree.
If one cries “parasitic exploitation”, then I wonder if the alternative of said basketball player filling out an application for the local McDonald’s, earning $8 an hour, for a multi-billion dollar company, might be a tad bit worse on the “exploitation” scale?
But he is free, of course, to make that choice.
