Two And Done New Law Of The Land?


    Agree, but…

    Don’t see how this will survive US Supreme Court challenge unless USSC Ducks it, because of Gorsuch majority.


    Well, on reflection, there is one slight downside for KU.

    Nike/Wes/Cal will have 10 stacks again…every season.

    But adidas Self could have 2-4 stacks with the TAD.

  • @jaybate-1.0

    Why would it go to the Supreme Court? It didn’t when it changed the requirements to one year out of HS and being 19.

  • @JayHawkFanToo

    “You misunderstand me.”

    Time is money.

    Double the time players are exposed to amateur constraint Ex NCAA director Walter Byers said in paraphrase was a phony contrivance to lower overhead for universities and you’ve got greater damages more worth litigating.

    As arguable damages rise, temptation to litigate appears to rise.

    This at least doubles OADs/agents forgone revenues and raises risk by spiking injury risk.

    Plus two full years of not going to class will make a joke of academics, thus further exposing amateurism as a dodge.

    Lots of money and fame too be made by lawyers freeing players on this.

    Players and agents likely already hated OAD.

    This will make them double their loathing.

    It fixes nothing and makes many things worse.

    Otherwise no big deal.

    Free the players.

  • @jaybate-1.0 The 10 stacks will need to sit half the time. The max minutes for KY players will be 20 minutes in that case.

  • if football and baseball can dictate that the student must have finished 3 years of college, then I see no logical or legal reason why hoops should be different. It is nonsensical. But this is a big improvement for sure.

  • @jaybate-1-0 I’m not entirely sold on the logic about education being a sham for an additional year if they stay 2. Maybe schools could all develop a sports business program with a 2 year core curriculum and the pros could require completion of that before consideration of a candidate.

    Also I believe having to navigate the transition to an establishment between high school and NBA gives high school some leverage with these kids to keep it together and graduate. While sometimes it might be pulling teeth, successfully managing that transition seems like a positive learning experience.

  • No chance this goes to the SC. Maurice Clarett challenged the NFL’s age restriction rule in court and lost. That set a legal precedent for professional leagues in the US setting age restrictions for their leagues.

    As long as a new age requirement is collectively bargained and installed in a way that follows the NBA’s rules for changing rules like that, there’s no reason for courts to get involved.

  • @Texas-Hawk-10 While I believe there is little chance it gets to the Supreme Court, saying there is “no chance” is flat wrong. There are many, many cases that get to the SC when there is prior legal “precedent.” In fact, you need only look an many of the rulings in the 60s and early 70s on major social issues where the SC changed the law. Same stuff now. And on other issues, many cases are decided on the specific facts of the case. Further, the respect for precedent relies solely on the folks wearing the robes and their judicial integrity. Remember, plaintiffs (and the politically motivated folks behind the plaintiffs) in these cases shop for the right judges. Just like regarding the “travel ban” issue we’ve recently seen. And in the sports context, think about why many labor issues are in Minnesota. Because of one judge, David Doty, who was a major labor sympathizer. That’s why the plaintiffs sued there.

    So there is certainly a chance, and given how politics bleeds now deeply into the judiciary, I actually wouldn’t be surprised at anything these days. In fact, we would be wise to expect it.

  • @HighEliteMajor The SC won’t waste their time on this when there are more important issues for them to deal with.

  • @Texas-Hawk-10 Right – because you know it to be true.

    Words like “may” and “likely” and “probably”, while sometimes noncommittal, most of the time denote reasonableness.

  • @HighEliteMajor As long as any change like this is collectively bargained by the league and the player’s union, no court will overturn the rule because of the implications that ruling would have elsewhere in labor rulings.

    No court will go after a sports league on this issue and the players that have tried, have failed.


    Playing only 20 mpg halves wear and tear from games and lowers injury risk.

    If I had to play for no pay and avoid injury for two years, and I were a sure OAD in the former system, I would only consider playing for a 10 stack program.

    If I were Cal, I might event offer to redshirt the three best OAD CUM TAD frosh and give them the year off to “study abroad” to eliminate injury risk and practice wear and tear. Then they start with 3 new TAD the next season and 2 redshirt.

    6-7 TADs would be enough for a ring, especially with the three best given a year of extra maturity with no wear and tear.

  • @Texas-Hawk-10

    The issue is that football also had physical safety issues to stand behind. The NBA doesn’t have that because its been proven that younger players can play and succeed in the league. This would just be an arbitrary change.

    Of course, its tough to predict, but there are arguments here that weren’t available to Clarett.

  • @jaybate-1.0 Man, if you’ve already figured out how to poke holes in the TAD future land, you can bet the house that Slimy Cal has too, oh and “Rat face” him too.
    So, they just rotate years then, taking each top 10 recruit and doing the whole grab and stash routine!?
    Jeezus crotch I hope your wrong about that. But, your probly dead on.

  • @justanotherfan If the NBA and NBPA collectively bargain a two and done rule or whatever they end up changing it to and the SC gets involved and overturns it, that ruling would go far beyond sports and into labor law by invalidating the collective bargaining process.

    People may not agree with the NBA raising their age minimum, but there is nothing illegal about an organization setting requirements to gain entry intro their profession.

  • Don’t other jobs require a college degree? I’m not sure how it could be a constitutionally protected right to play professional basketball at age 18 or 19 or 20?

  • @dylans Not over seas it isn’t. SMU recruit Mudiay…didn’t he go play pro ball in China or something when he didn’t qualify for SMU? I swear it was something like that. Anyways, I could see more elite level players doing that…opting to play pro ball over seas for a year or two rather than go to college.

  • @dylans It’s not, companies are allowed to set whatever requirements they want (as long as they’re legal) for employment. With regards to pro sports leagues, whatever is in their CBA is what the requirements are. As long as whatever age requirement the NBA comes up with is put in their CBA the way changes are made within their previously defined method for changing rules, there’s no legal reason for a court to overturn that without opening Pandora’s Box of labor laws and collective bargaining between a union and an employer.

  • @jaybate-1.0 Other ways around it. Not likely the athletes would win. Baseball has the best system currently. I see basketball following those steps soon enough.

    Essentially, if you aren’t good enough to go right out of high school than you need to go to College for 2 or 3 seasons. Drafted players should be allowed to go to college if they don’t like where they were drafted and believe they can improve their draft stock in school.

  • @Kcmatt7 Yes, I remember Self proposing something similar some years back: a kid can either go pro out of high school, or go to college and stay at least two years.

  • @HighEliteMajor

    While not technically impossible, the chances of a potential 2 and done rule ending up at the Supreme Court are highly improbable, wouldn’t you agree?

    The NFL and MLB have longer waits, although baseball allows prospect to go directly after HS. If these two sports rules which are currently in effect have not ended up at the SCOTUS, the proposed basketball rule will likely not end up there either.

  • @HighEliteMajor Best not to expect this Texas guy to tune into the term “reasonableness.” He might bear the chromonemata of an Eric or Don, Jr.

  • Texas Hawk 10 said:


    People may not agree with the NBA raising their age minimum, but there is nothing illegal about an organization setting requirements to gain entry intro their profession.

    Actually, there can be something illegal about an industry-enacted barrier or qualification if it violates antitrust and monopoly laws (restraint of trade), or involves a major impediment to entry into field not rationally related to the qualifications for a position, or (much less often) if a collective bargaining unit is determined to be acting as an agent of or colluding illegally with the industry rather than repping the employees. These are very fluid concepts, with lots of technical considerations I am not currently well-versed in, and these rules get reinterpreted constantly. I have no firm idea where the NFL and NBA parameters are. But baseball has a specific court-recognized exemption from antitrust laws. Other sports leagues have been challenged, or threatened, with antitrust suits. Originally, the NBA prohibited entry until a HS senior’s graduating class was 4 years out, which is why Wilt spent a year with the Globetrotters after leaving KU as junior. That rule fell after legal challenges because the NBA has no exemption like baseball. (I believe I have read that Lebron was seen as a test case back in the early 00’s because he was clearly ready for the NBA, and I believe the league waited until he was a pro to enact the OAD rule so they wouldn’t lose a high-profile challenge. I cannot guarantee the accuracy of this recollection.)

    Bottom line, a TAD rule will likely face legal challenges that will examine whether it irrationally restricts entry into pro basketball.

    I have no idea how such a rule would fare, but the courts historically tend to be leery of barriers that exist for one class of entrants (here, US high school students) while allowing another group (foreign players). Few players coming out of high school can afford the cost, delays, or bad reputation to undertake a years long challenge to the current OAD rule. A TAD rule might be more prone to objection.

  • @mayjay Pro sports leagues are exempt from anti-trust laws. Kind of hard to enforce even if they weren’t because of the Raptors.

    If a HS player was going to challenge the legality of a proposed TAD rule, they would’ve already successfully challenged the OAD rule. As long as the NBA and NBPA change to a TAD rule according to their bylaws, no court is overturning that rule.

    The NBA didn’t specifically wait until LeBron entered the NBA to enact a OAD rule. The 2007 draft with Durant and Oden was the first year OAD was in place and that was 4 years after LeBron entered the NBA in 2003.

  • @Texas-Hawk-10 Some good points. I remembered the James thing wrong: he actually thought about entering the draft as a junior in HS, and that was what would have required a challenge to the NBA draft rule of waiting until a player graduated HS. Stern wanted to impose an age limit (20 yrs old) in the late 90’s after the half season debacle, but got nowhere.

    As for antitrust, it is not the same for all sports. MLB has a unique exemption created by the Sup Ct in 1922, where the court ludicrously exempted baseball from antitrust on the grounds that it is an exhibition or entertainment, not a monopoly. Basketball and football are exempt, according to the courts that have considered challenges, primarily because all the issues that have been raised have been deemed to be subject to collective bargaining. The unions by agreeing to CBAs perpetuate their members inability to raise antitrust issues. That is why the unions have both decertified at times–to take disputes out of labor law and into antitrust, which would apply were there no CBA. They always cave, though, when the owners cough up something they want, especially stuff like free agency.

    The baseball exemption is the iffy one for owners and that is why they don’t want to ever let the issue go back for review of that 1922 ruling. That is also, I think, why the players union in mlb is the strongest union in sports–its existence preserves the owners “exhibitions”.

Log in to reply