Shabazz Muhammed has been lying about his age [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

imdaman99

03-22-2013, 09:50 PM

i dont agree with the NBA forcing kids to go to college for a year. it's not up to them to decide whether or not the kid is ready (they never are nowadays), but im sure the ncaa is blowing them off for doing it (by blowing them off, i mean they are in bed with each other).

im sure corporations are allowed to hire a HS graduate for an illustrious position if they choose it. sure, the person who hires the kid might get fired for it...but its allowed.

i seen a UCLA game this year, this kid has no allegiance to the school. he has checked out on many occasions. forcing him to take a few classes will not make him any more ready. and his pops seems like a total a-hole as well.

daily

03-22-2013, 09:53 PM

I'm not seeing what the big deal is. Somebody enlighten me as to why this is news

NoGunzJustSkillz

03-22-2013, 09:59 PM

I'm not seeing what the big deal is. Somebody enlighten me as to why this is news

It's theorized in the article that older athletes playing against younger competition can be a "huge edge."
....

daily

03-22-2013, 10:05 PM

.... thanks.

And that's a bad thing because?

It has no effect on his being in the NBA where there are players from 19 to 35+

If they're thinking physical development everyone's different at that age anyways Some guys look like full grown men when they come into the league some don't

this is a non story in the end, if you can play the last thing the pros will care about is one year in his age

millwad

03-23-2013, 01:07 AM

Wow, that's one extreme father.
It's one thing to do your best as a parent so your kids can achieve something in life but pushing this much for a basketball dream is not a good case of parenting. Now luckily Shabazz became a damn good baller, but if he would have failed he would have considered himself to be a failure.

I've played plenty of basketball and when I played for the youth national team in Sweden we had Jeff Taylor on our squad, the same Jeff Taylor who now plays for Charlotte Bobcats. Jeff's father played in the NBA for a short while and he really was there for his son when it came to basketball and he helped him to play HS basketball in New Mexico but it was never extreme, he saw that his kid was the best in the nation and gave him the right tools to work with. His other kids are normal kids doing what they want in life, one is a singer and the other one is playing basketball for fun and their dad really loves basketball, he coach youth teams in the city they live in.

Patrick Chewing

03-23-2013, 01:24 AM

Since when was Kareem marketable?

He would've been just as marketable if he was still Lew Alcindor.

I highly doubt the name change was for marketability reasons, just like Muhammad Ali.

Lew Alcindor sounds much more menacing to me.

NoGunzJustSkillz

03-23-2013, 01:26 AM

Lew Alcindor sounds much more menacing to me.
:lol

Qwyjibo

03-23-2013, 01:36 AM

If they're thinking physical development everyone's different at that age anyways Some guys look like full grown men when they come into the league some don't

I think that is the big thing. You expect a 19 year old to have more room to develop physically than a 20 year old. Sure there are exceptions but generally, that's the case. It's probably not as big of a deal as it would be in baseball but it does limit his projected ceiling a little bit.

devin112

03-23-2013, 02:51 AM

I think that is the big thing. You expect a 19 year old to have more room to develop physically than a 20 year old. Sure there are exceptions but generally, that's the case. It's probably not as big of a deal as it would be in baseball but it does limit his projected ceiling a little bit.

guess it's some magical year of something

Shepseskaf

03-23-2013, 06:25 AM

i dont agree with the NBA forcing kids to go to college for a year. it's not up to them to decide whether or not the kid is ready (they never are nowadays), but im sure the ncaa is blowing them off for doing it (by blowing them off, i mean they are in bed with each other).

im sure corporations are allowed to hire a HS graduate for an illustrious position if they choose it. sure, the person who hires the kid might get fired for it...but its allowed.
:applause:

In virtually every other sport, except the NFL, a kid can go pro as soon as a team is willing to employ him.

There is no reason to require one year in college, and it leads to all kinds of OJ Mayo-type corruption because the players don't need (or want) to be there.

The 'one and done' was mandated to keep top level players in college for at least a single year to prop up the NCAA. Obviously, that hasn't helped, so it might as well be scrapped.

Real Men Wear Green

03-23-2013, 07:20 AM

I'm not seeing what the big deal is. Somebody enlighten me as to why this is news
Because it's a lie. Won't be as big as big as the Te'o thing to the general public but every team that thinks about drafting him is going to demand in-depth answers about what's been going on. And these questions will dog him in interviews throughout his rookie year. Combine that with
guy is a fukking asshole too.......remember this ? :
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RuZv7snezwand you have serious character questions. Still a lottery pick with undeniable talent but teams don't want to deal with personality problems.

Real Men Wear Green

03-23-2013, 07:38 AM

:applause:

In virtually every other sport, except the NFL, a kid can go pro as soon as a team is willing to employ him.

There is no reason to require one year in college, and it leads to all kinds of OJ Mayo-type corruption because the players don't need (or want) to be there.

The 'one and done' was mandated to keep top level players in college for at least a single year to prop up the NCAA. Obviously, that hasn't helped, so it might as well be scrapped.
The NBA and NBPA negotiated it. NBA owners care a little bit about using the NCAA as a free farm system while the players don't care at all. So the useless year of schooling got negotiated in and will continue to get negotiated in so long as the NBPA can continue to get a few more dollars on their side for pretending to care about the right of 18 year-olds to work. It's a useful rule for NBA GMs and scouts because it lets them see potential picks play vs a higher level of competition and the pressure of the tournament.

I don't think it's about helping the NCAA, we saw Davis and MKG lead Kentucky to a Championship last year but normally teams do better with the lower level talents that will stay a few years and mature before going to the NBA. If the NBA wanted to boost the NCAA they'd give up another percent of BRI and make kids stay for 3 years like the NFL. Then you'd see star match-ups on the level of Magic vs. Bird in the NCAA Champ game occur. Casual fans aren't introduced to NCAA stars until the tournament so with one-and-done by the time people know who the best talents are they've already gone.

Shepseskaf

03-23-2013, 08:07 AM

The NBA and NBPA negotiated it. NBA owners care a little bit about using the NCAA as a free farm system while the players don't care at all. So the useless year of schooling got negotiated in and will continue to get negotiated in so long as the NBPA can continue to get a few more dollars on their side for pretending to care about the right of 18 year-olds to work. It's a useful rule for NBA GMs and scouts because it lets them see potential picks play vs a higher level of competition and the pressure of the tournament.
I'm aware that it was negotiated, but that doesn't make it legal. Plenty of negotiated agreements have been struck down because they were judged to have discriminated against a given group.

It has been legally argued that the forced 'one and done' acts as an illegal restraint on trade for the high school players because they're being prohibited from participating in a marketplace where an employer would hire them, but for the unfair restriction. Its a valid argument.

I don't think it's about helping the NCAA, we saw Davis and MKG lead Kentucky to a Championship last year but normally teams do better with the lower level talents that will stay a few years and mature before going to the NBA. If the NBA wanted to boost the NCAA they'd give up another percent of BRI and make kids stay for 3 years like the NFL. Then you'd see star match-ups on the level of Magic vs. Bird in the NCAA Champ game occur. Casual fans aren't introduced to NCAA stars until the tournament so with one-and-done by the time people know who the best talents are they've already gone.
Its not all about helping the NCAA, but that's definitely a big part of the rule. Mainly, in my view, the NBA vets want to keep the best rookies in college for at least a season to protect their spots.

Stars sell college basketball. That's why this year's tournament was viewed to be lackluster by so many, because notable names are absent. If the 'one and done' was abolished, even fewer top talents would stay in college.

I do understand the reasoning behind the rule, but it does more harm than good. Top-tier talent can opt to go to college if they want to, but shouldn't be forced to.

Real Men Wear Green

03-23-2013, 08:25 AM

I'm aware that it was negotiated, but that doesn't make it legal. Plenty of negotiated agreements have been struck down because they were judged to have discriminated against a given group.

It has been legally argued that the forced 'one and done' acts as an illegal restraint on trade for the high school players because they're being prohibited from participating in a marketplace where an employer would hire them, but for the unfair restriction. Its a valid argument.Collectively bargained agreements between a union and the business that employs it's members are tough to break through. Do you know the Maurice Clarett story? After he lead Ohio State to the Championship as a freshman he tried to sue his way into the draft and lost. If such a ruling happens for the NFL I don't see how it will be different with the NBA. I'm not saying that the rule is right or fair, but it appears to be legal.

Its not all about helping the NCAA, but that's definitely a big part of the rule. Mainly, in my view, the NBA vets want to keep the best rookies in college for at least a season to protect their spots.The NBPA is who argues against the rule. If the owners had their way no rookie would be younger than 22. The vets probably don't want kids taking their jobs individually but that's not the side that they argue ideologically.

Stars sell college basketball. That's why this year's tournament was viewed to be lackluster by so many, because notable names are absent. If the 'one and done' was abolished, even fewer top talents would stay in college.A freshman is almost never a national star (talking popularity here). There would be even fewer star talents without the rule, true, but it makes little difference when Derrick Rose or Anthony Davis show out in one awesome tournament and then leave. Remember, we are talking exposure and popularity here, not just talent level. The casual fan doesn't care who the top 10 high schoolers are. Heck, I don't think I'm a casual fan and I don't even care.

STATUTORY

03-23-2013, 09:01 AM

I do understand the reasoning behind the rule, but it does more harm than good. Top-tier talent can opt to go to college if they want to, but shouldn't be forced to.

I agree. Look what happened to the player at kentucky this year. it's a huge risk. They should at least provide the players with some sort of insurance against career threatening injury if they are forced to play a year without compensation of any sort.

Shepseskaf

03-23-2013, 09:03 AM

Collectively bargained agreements between a union and the business that employs it's members are tough to break through. Do you know the Maurice Clarett story? After he lead Ohio State to the Championship as a freshman he tried to sue his way into the draft and lost. If such a ruling happens for the NFL I don't see how it will be different with the NBA. I'm not saying that the rule is right or fair, but it appears to be legal.
I absolutely agree that such a negotiated agreement would be tough to break, but it could be done. The NFL has a bit more of a case to be made for mandatory college time, due to the physical nature of the game. Plus, Clarett was a bit of a loose cannon.

I think it would get real interesting if a prime HS prospect, on an LBJ level, challenged the one-and-done rule while in his junior year. LeBron proved that he was very capable of playing in the big league fresh out of high schooler. The only reasoning that the NBA and players union could bring out in such a case would be to point at the negotiated agreement. That might not be enough.

The NBPA is who argues against the rule. If the owners had their way no rookie would be younger than 22. The vets probably don't want kids taking their jobs individually but that's not the side that they argue ideologically.
I didn't realize this was the case. I wonder if the Billy Hunter ouster will cause the union to take a different stance.

A freshman is almost never a national star (talking popularity here). There would be even fewer star talents without the rule, true, but it makes little difference when Derrick Rose or Anthony Davis show out in one awesome tournament and then leave. Remember, we are talking exposure and popularity here, not just talent level. The casual fan doesn't care who the top 10 high schoolers are. Heck, I don't think I'm a casual fan and I don't even care.
I'm in agreement with your view, in most cases. But in the exceptional instance, like Kentucky last year, there was tremendous interest among the general public in the freshmen class, as many wondered if they could take it all the way to win the title. That was the story of the tournament.

So, it doesn't often happen like that, but if the one-and-done was abolished, it would never occur.

Real Men Wear Green

03-23-2013, 09:34 AM

I agree. Look what happened to the player at kentucky this year. it's a huge risk. They should at least provide the players with some sort of insurance against career threatening injury if they are forced to play a year without compensation of any sort.
1: College players' compensation is their scholarship.

2: Players can get insurance if they want to. It happens all the time.
I absolutely agree that such a negotiated agreement would be tough to break, but it could be done. The NFL has a bit more of a case to be made for mandatory college time, due to the physical nature of the game. Plus, Clarett was a bit of a loose cannon.

I think it would get real interesting if a prime HS prospect, on an LBJ level, challenged the one-and-done rule while in his junior year. LeBron proved that he was very capable of playing in the big league fresh out of high schooler. The only reasoning that the NBA and players union could bring out in such a case would be to point at the negotiated agreement. That might not be enough.Clarett being a "loose cannon" had nothing to do with the ruling. The NFL's lawyers merely pointed at the CBA and that was it. The whole argument over whether or not a guy is physically ready is of secondary importance. Our system allows unions to negotiate on behalf of it's potential future membership.

I didn't realize this was the case. I wonder if the Billy Hunter ouster will cause the union to take a different stance.Not likely. The problem with Hunter is that he may have been abusing his position to his and his family's benefit instead of the players'. In terms of what they want when negotiating the goals remain the same whether or not Hunter is giving his kids big-salary jobs. Hunter may have misled the players regarding what was possible in negotiation but he didn't tell them what they wanted the rules to be regarding early entry.

FireDavidKahn

03-23-2013, 10:01 AM

:oldlol: The funniest part is how his dad mated with another good athlete to make good athletes. Shabazz was bred for basketball.:roll:

After reading this Shabazz sort of drops his stock IMO. The lying about his age isn't a big deal but having a father his loony and insane is just asking for problems.

Shepseskaf

03-23-2013, 10:36 AM

1: College players' compensation is their scholarship.
So a $50,000 college scholarship is somehow fair compensation for being forced to forgo a multi-million dollar NBA contract? Get real.

I don't agree with college-level monetary compensation from any source when it comes to the select group of athletes under discussion. Just let them go directly to the pros where the top tier players belong. Preventing them from doing so leads to all kinds of corruption and under the table deals.

Clarett being a "loose cannon" had nothing to do with the ruling. The NFL's lawyers merely pointed at the CBA and that was it. The whole argument over whether or not a guy is physically ready is of secondary importance. Our system allows unions to negotiate on behalf of it's potential future membership.
You're incorrect on both counts. Clarett being a 'loose cannon' isn't the strongest point I could have made, but a plaintiff's standing in the community certainly plays a part in how court canes are viewed, and decided.

As to your second point, you completely mis-characterized the Clarett case. It wasn't a situation where the NFL just "pointed at the CBA and that was it". The NFL actually lost in the U.S. District Court, as Judge Scheindlin of the Southern District of NY ordered that Clarett be eligible to enter the draft earlier than the CBA allowed for, on the ground that the NFL's eligibility rules requiring Clarett to wait at least three full football seasons after his high school graduation before entering the draft violated antitrust laws

The district court held that the eligibility rules are not immune from antitrust scrutiny under the non-statutory labor exemption.

The case was reversed upon appeal, but I disagree with the Appellate Court's reasoning. Not that my legal opinion carries any weight at all, but the case history shows that promulgating an eligibility requirement through a CBA is not the last word, and courts can interpret the requirement to be illegal.

ralph_i_el

03-23-2013, 10:39 AM

1: College players' compensation is their scholarship.

2: Players can get insurance if they want to. It happens all the time.Clarett being a "loose cannon" had nothing to do with the ruling. The NFL's lawyers merely pointed at the CBA and that was it. The whole argument over whether or not a guy is physically ready is of secondary importance. Our system allows unions to negotiate on behalf of it's potential future membership.

Not likely. The problem with Hunter is that he may have been abusing his position to his and his family's benefit instead of the players'. In terms of what they want when negotiating the goals remain the same whether or not Hunter is giving his kids big-salary jobs. Hunter may have misled the players regarding what was possible in negotiation but he didn't tell them what they wanted the rules to be regarding early entry.

You think guys who would be picked out of high school give a rats ass about a scholarship? Just getting drafted guarantees big money compared to what you would be earning coming out of school with a 4 year degree.

Prospects don't really have anyone looking out for them when they make a CBA. They're being forced to play a season of free audition for the NBA. More of them should go get paid in Europe.

Someone should start a team in Europe that just signs freshmen from the US and pays them for this audition. They'd probably lose a ton of games because they're so young though.

Or how about letting players go to the D league out of highschool?

Real Men Wear Green

03-23-2013, 10:51 AM

So a $50,000 college scholarship is somehow fair compensation for being forced to forgo a multi-million dollar NBA contract? Get real.You're arguing points I never made. Nowhere in this thread do you see me talking about what's "fair." You need to read more carefully. I merely pointed out that they were in fact being compensated.

You're incorrect on both counts. Clarett being a 'loose cannon' isn't the strongest point I could have made, but a plaintiff's standing in the community certainly plays a part in how court canes are viewed, and decided.You aren't making a "point" at all. Did you know that another player, Mike Williams, was also trying to sue his way in? He didn't make it either. Was he a "loose cannon?"

As to your second point, you completely mis-characterized the Clarett case. It wasn't a situation where the NFL just "pointed at the CBA and that was it". The NFL actually lost in the U.S. District Court, as Judge Scheindlin of the Southern District of NY ordered that Clarett be eligible to enter the draft earlier than the CBA allowed for, on the ground that the NFL's eligibility rules requiring Clarett to wait at least three full football seasons after his high school graduation before entering the draft violated antitrust laws

The district court held that the eligibility rules are not immune from antitrust scrutiny under the non-statutory labor exemption.

The case was reversed upon appeal, but I disagree with the Appellate Court's reasoning. Not that my legal opinion carries any weight at all, but the case history shows that promulgating an eligibility requirement through a CBA is not the last word, and courts can interpret the requirement to be illegal.By Sonia Sotomayor. Who is now in the Supreme Court. The end.
You think guys who would be picked out of high school give a rats ass about a scholarship? Just getting drafted guarantees big money compared to what you would be earning coming out of school with a 4 year degree.Again, you missed the point. I'm not saying it's what they want, is fair, etc. Just correcting a fallacy: They do get compensation.

daily

03-23-2013, 11:05 AM

I'm aware that it was negotiated, but that doesn't make it legal. Yes it does.

Shepseskaf

03-23-2013, 11:08 AM

You're arguing points I never made. Nowhere in this thread do you see me talking about what's "fair." You need to read more carefully. I merely pointed out that they were in fact being compensated.
Sure, they're 'compensated' so well that corruption and illicit payments are rife. I understand what you're saying, but in the context of this discussion just stating that they're 'compensated' is a moot point. The rejoinder is "so what"? It isn't enough, and they shouldn't be forced to accept a situation that in many cases in untenable.

You aren't making a "point" at all. Did you know that another player, Mike Williams, was also trying to sue his way in? He didn't make it either. Was he a "loose cannon?"
I know about Mike Williams. I conceded that my 'loose cannon' point wasn't strong, but stated that, in general, a plaintiff's standing in the community can influence the public perception of a case, and ultimately the way its decided. That is truth.

By Sonia Sotomayor. Who is now in the Supreme Court.
And that means what? Because she's on the Supreme Court, she doesn't make mistakes in court rulings? I suppose you agree with the highest court's reasoning in Dred Scott? SC justices can make misjudgments just like anyone else.

You agree with the ruling in the Clarett case, and I don't. That's probably where we should leave it.

Real Men Wear Green

03-23-2013, 11:35 AM

Sure, they're 'compensated' so well that corruption and illicit payments are rife. I understand what you're saying, but in the context of this discussion just stating that they're 'compensated' is a moot point. The rejoinder is "so what"? It isn't enough, and they shouldn't be forced to accept a situation that in many cases in untenable.Players that will never sniff the NBA get paid on the side. That has nothing to do with early entry, that's about people wanting money and boosters, gamblers, agents and others not caring about rules. If you understand what I said then you know that they are being compensated, which is all I said. That you don't think it's enough doesn't mean it's untrue.

I know about Mike Williams. I conceded that my 'loose cannon' point wasn't strong, but stated that, in general, a plaintiff's standing in the community can influence the public perception of a case, and ultimately the way its decided. That is truth.
Agreed.

And that means what? Because she's on the Supreme Court, she doesn't make mistakes in court rulings? I suppose you agree with the highest court's reasoning in Dred Scott? SC justices can make misjudgments just like anyone else.For starters, her being on the Supreme court means there's even less of a chance that such a case would win if it went to the highest level. And no, ridiculous comparisons to the Dred Scott case don't change reality. There is a reason that players almost never challenge these rules. If a good lawyer thought they could win such a lawsuit you'd see one step forward with some kid's case. Reality is that Sotomayor's ruling sets a precedent that stands beside the law regarding collectively bargained agreements to make such a case a waste of time.

STATUTORY

03-23-2013, 02:38 PM

1: College players' compensation is their scholarship.

2: Players can get insurance if they want to. It happens all the time.

a scholarship for an education that most of them will never be able to use? and no that's not entirely the players fault, college athletes in programs like basketball and football are structurally disadvantaged when it comes to education because of the heavy practices, travel, and special accomodations by schools that basically disincentivize studying.

more players should get insurance. but a lot of the kids come from impoversihed backgrounds and don't have the financial advisors to make those kind of recommendations.

bagelred

03-23-2013, 02:42 PM

Who cares....All I know is he'll have the greatest first name in NBA history....SHABAZZ!!!!!

Real Men Wear Green

03-23-2013, 03:14 PM

a scholarship for an education that most of them will never be able to use? and no that's not entirely the players fault, college athletes in programs like basketball and football are structurally disadvantaged when it comes to education because of the heavy practices, travel, and special accomodations by schools that basically disincentivize studying.You have it completely backwards. There are something like a thousand NCAA athletes that will never sniff the NBA to every one that will make a career out of it. Schools don't want players to study...is that why they have a mandatory GPA? You have no idea what you're talking about. Go troll someone else or at least get better at it.

more players should get insurance. but a lot of the kids come from impoversihed backgrounds and don't have the financial advisors to make those kind of recommendations.
You think no one tells these kids about insurance? The kid you brought up from Kentucky, Nerlens Noel, has a policy. Every major pro prospect gets a policy. It's offered by the NCAA (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/02/13/ncaa-makes-5-million-in-insurance-availabl/) as well as private providers. Think the NCAA doesn't let a kid know when they can make 40K off of him once he turns pro? Well, to be fair, you couldn't have had an opinion because you don't know about any of these things. The problem is that you voice your opinion anyway.

STATUTORY

03-23-2013, 04:00 PM

You have it completely backwards. There are something like a thousand NCAA athletes that will never sniff the NBA to every one that will make a career out of it. Schools don't want players to study...is that why they have a mandatory GPA? You have no idea what you're talking about. Go troll someone else or at least get better at it.

You think no one tells these kids about insurance? The kid you brought up from Kentucky, Nerlens Noel, has a policy. Every major pro prospect gets a policy. It's offered by the NCAA (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/02/13/ncaa-makes-5-million-in-insurance-availabl/) as well as private providers. Think the NCAA doesn't let a kid know when they can make 40K off of him once he turns pro? Well, to be fair, you couldn't have had an opinion because you don't know about any of these things. The problem is that you voice your opinion anyway.

you are a f@cking moron if you think a mandatory GPA policy is at all an indication of some commitment to educating student athletes. you are absolutely clueless. the amount of literature on this is great that you would post something so ignorant is rather astounding.

your second point is asinine as well only less than a dozen athletes are insured under the program discussed in that article across all NCAA sports. this is because the premium is so high and athletes are more or less barred from borrowing to pay for the cost that it's not available for the students.

always chirping in with your tired ass ignorant 2 cents.

calm your belligerent behind down and learn something.

Shade8780

03-23-2013, 04:05 PM

What kind of father is that?

Real Men Wear Green

03-23-2013, 04:08 PM

you are a f@cking moron if you think a mandatory GPA policy is at all an indication of some commitment to educating student athletes. you are absolutely clueless. the amount of literature on this is great that you would post something so ignorant is rather astounding. What about the tutors they get and other special considerations? The amount of literature you don't read is incalculable.

your second point is asinine as well only less than a dozen athletes are insured under the program discussed in that article across all NCAA sports. this is because the premium is so high and athletes are more or less barred from borrowing to pay for the cost that it's not available for the students.
You're either lying or just didn't read. From the article I posted:[QUOTE]Per the source, the premium is roughly $40,000 for a year, and the NCAA will finance the amount at a low interest rate. Lower amounts of insurance are available at smaller premiums, based on a player

Real Men Wear Green

03-23-2013, 04:12 PM

What kind of father is that?
He took it too far, clearly. But in a year? He's the father of an NBA player. The only thing I would hold against him was lying about his kid's age and involving his kid in that lie. That's messed up. But a parent's primary responsibility to their children is preparing them for adulthood and having to provide for themselves. Kid will be in the NBA, that should mean a pretty good living. There are a lot worse fathers out there.

thesage

03-23-2013, 04:25 PM

I played at Bishop Gorman high school with Shabazz and his dad was one of the nicest and most supportive parents of any player on the team. He just knows what it takes to win - his daughter is also a professional tennis player.

STATUTORY

03-23-2013, 04:33 PM

What about the tutors they get and other special considerations? The amount of literature you don't read is incalculable.

You're either lying or just didn't read. From the article I posted:Which means it doesn't matter whether or not the player has the money for the policy in the bank or not. Tip: If you research first, you will at least post harder to detect bullshit.

the tutoring programs are just another apparatus in the "preferential" treatment given the athletes that basically allow them to pass classes without studying, ultimately not taking advantage of the education. I'm talking about commitment to educating the athletes at the same standards as others on campus. Again there has been so much discussion on this in the press and educational policy that you cannot be so willfully ignorant.

I misremembered the Clowney situation I thought he was trying to get insurance independently outside of the sponsored program by the NCAA which covers only career ending injuries.

many players can't get insurance "if they want to" for injuries that damage them but aren't career ending because there is no loan proces for those. and some players can't even get insurance for career ending injuries "if they want to" because they have to be deemed eligible by NCAA based on their potential.

you are always quick to attack with over reaching bull shit statements.

Real Men Wear Green

03-23-2013, 04:52 PM

So we've gone from
a scholarship for an education that most of them will never be able to use? and no that's not entirely the players fault, college athletes in programs like basketball and football are structurally disadvantaged when it comes to education because of the heavy practices, travel, and special accomodations by schools that basically disincentivize studying.

more players should get insurance. but a lot of the kids come from impoversihed backgrounds and don't have the financial advisors to make those kind of recommendations.
to
the tutoring programs are just another apparatus in the "preferential" treatment given the athletes that basically allow them to pass classes without studying, ultimately not taking advantage of the education. I'm talking about commitment to educating the athletes at the same standards as others on campus, not providing an easy road to graduation. Again there has been so much discussion on this in the press and educational policy that you cannot be so willfully ignorant.Attention jackass: The NCAA gives athletes access to tutors to make up for all the time they spend on their sport. It's a support system that exists to help them learn. The fact you don't understand this doesn't mean it isn't true.
I misremembered the Clowney situation I thought he was trying to get insurance independently outside of the sponsored program by the NCAA which covers only career ending injuries. I posted a link that you should have read instead of posting "misremembered" bs. And FYI, Clowney did go to a private insurer.
many players can't get insurance "if they want to" for injuries that damage them but aren't career ending because there is no loan proces for those. and some players can't even get insurance for career ending injuries "if they want to" because they have to be deemed eligible by NCAA based on their potential. It is not the NCAA's responsibility to pay a guy a million dollars because he twisted his ankle and got drafted 10th when he thinks he should have been drafted 5th. And of course coverage is based on draft projections. What would you say if the NCAA gave any kid a policy, watched him go pro as a freshman, he doesn't get drafted, and then they say, "you owe us $40,000 plus interest, now go get it with your half-year of education." You don't lend money to someone that can't pay it back. If the kid is a solid pro prospect they will know.

9512

03-24-2013, 03:01 AM

Didn't read the whole thread but shabazz's dad should knew what he was doing.

That,s a cold calculated man . truly an American entrepreneur.

O.J A 6'4Mamba

03-24-2013, 05:06 AM

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2008/0511/ncb_i_mayo_floyd_inline_600.jpg

Shepseskaf

03-24-2013, 10:18 AM

you are always quick to attack with over reaching bull shit statements.
That's because "real men wear green" is on the wrong side of the college-to-pro argument, but just keeps on blathering about mostly inconsequential matters that aren't really germane to the main issue to make himself look smart.

It isn't working.

For starters, her being on the Supreme court means there's even less of a chance that such a case would win if it went to the highest level. And no, ridiculous comparisons to the Dred Scott case don't change reality. There is a reason that players almost never challenge these rules. If a good lawyer thought they could win such a lawsuit you'd see one step forward with some kid's case. Reality is that Sotomayor's ruling sets a precedent that stands beside the law regarding collectively bargained agreements to make such a case a waste of time.
The real reason that future NBA players don't legally challenge the age requirement rule is that they understand punitive measures would certainly ensue once they joined the league.

Dictator Stern, or the flunky commissioner-in-waiting, would make it a top priority to make it clear to all, in an unspoken way, that to challenge the league in such a manner is unacceptable.

So, top-tier prospects have to weigh the risks of being targeted by the league hierarchy to that of either playing a year in college or going overseas. Naturally, all of them - thus far - have chosen to follow the paths of least resistance.

The days when one player was willing to sacrifice himself for principle, a la Curt Flood, are long gone. Modern athletes don't want anything to interfere with making the the maximum amount of monetary flow, no matter the long-term consequences.

In short, although the age requirement is certainly challengeable on a legal basis, top draft prospects do not consider it a burden they want to take on. Instead, they merely wait a year to collect their paychecks.

The most obvious and compelling argument against the rule are the burgeoning career successes of the many HS-to-pro players who joined the league before the requirement was in place. Not going to college, or being forced to wait a year, certainly didn't impede KG, Kobe, LBJ, Amar'e, TMac, DHo, Tyson, and many others.

Next issue:

Contrary to your inference that a ruling by a justice who reaches the SC carries some degree of infallibility, the Dred Scott case, among others, permanently lays that argument to rest.

Finally, collective bargaining agreements will always be subject to state and federal labor laws. Such agreements have been struck down by courts for provisions that involve age, gender, race, and other such factors.

Justice Sotomayer may have ruled in favor of the NFL's collective bargaining agreement, but in a hypothetical where women were somehow discriminated against by a CBA, she would swoop down to argue against it like an avenging angel.

To wrap up: you seem to be intent on making the collective bargaining agreement debate into a black and white issue, where it actually contains many shades of gray. The age requirement is an unfair, discriminatory rule, and should be declared illegal. Whether that will happen remains to be seen.

Real Men Wear Green

03-24-2013, 11:10 AM

That's because "real men wear green" is on the wrong side of the college-to-pro argument, but just keeps on blathering about mostly inconsequential matters that aren't really germane to the main issue to make himself look smart.I don't need your validation, thanks.

The real reason that future NBA players don't legally challenge the age requirement rule is that they understand punitive measures would certainly ensue once they joined the league.

Dictator Stern, or the flunky commissioner-in-waiting, would make it a top priority to make it clear to all, in an unspoken way, that to challenge the league in such a manner is unacceptable.And here we have baseless conspiracy theory. Thanks for nothing.

Next issue:

Contrary to your inference that a ruling by a justice who reaches the SC carries some degree of infallibility, the Dred Scott case, among others, permanently lays that argument to rest.Please stop trivializing the true horror of slavery by brining up Dred Scot in this discussion. Completely seperate. I'll take the weight of a Justice's opinion over yours, thanks.

Finally, collective bargaining agreements will always be subject to state and federal labor laws. Such agreements have been struck down by courts for provisions that involve age, gender, race, and other such factors.

Justice Sotomayer may have ruled in favor of the NFL's collective bargaining agreement, but in a hypothetical where women were somehow discriminated against by a CBA, she would swoop down to argue against it like an avenging angel.:rolleyes: Yeah, let's wait and see when the WNBA has that problem. Another unprovable, irrelevant "point."

sommervilleCdn

03-24-2013, 01:33 PM

a scholarship for an education that most of them will never be able to use? and no that's not entirely the players fault, college athletes in programs like basketball and football are structurally disadvantaged when it comes to education because of the heavy practices, travel, and special accomodations by schools that basically disincentivize studying.

more players should get insurance. but a lot of the kids come from impoversihed backgrounds and don't have the financial advisors to make those kind of recommendations.

Very educational discussioln today, I learned alot :banana:

I only want to argue the points made in bold, look at the academic center, and tutoring programs they have in place now, for student athletes to take advantage of: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/04/sports/ncaafootball/04ncaa.html?pagewanted=all

/maybe this is just one shiny example, and some students athletes have fell through the "crack"...I don't know. but the responsibility here soley lies on them.

PS, didn't realize how old article is, but point still stands