One and Done Rule

[sys]

I will say the current system does exploit student athletes.

how?  in 99% of cases their compensation is above their market value.  if they were all to suddenly quit, their "employers" would be able to fill every spot with an volunteer in about 10 minutes.

unless you consider market value to be exploitation, i don't see the argument.  if you do think that compensation should be based on something other than the supply and demand for labor, i'd personally start with jobs much less glamorous than college athlete.

[nicname]

This is all really in the hands of the NBA, and the differences between how a baseball player makes the MLB and a basketball player makes the NBA are vast.  Though I would sat that if pushed to a choice between going playing in the NBADL for 15-25k a year or devoting yourself for three years of college basketball most players would choose the latter.  Some players might go overseas, but the majority of players would play in college and many would graduate in three years which is also good. 

Both the NBA and the NCAA were at their respective peaks from around 85-95 when all but the best players played in college for at least 3 years.  The college game had incredible talent levels and the NBA was a league of men, not boys.  Plus, the players that came out of college were much more equipped to deal with a professional life than guys like Mike Beasley. 

What you have since is a watered down version of both the college and pro game.

It may not seem fair, but the NBA is a business and they can do what they want with regard to the players they deem eligible to play in their league. 

[jtksu]

I seriously doubt many of the future professional types graduate in 3 yrs, so that's a moot point.  The Vic's of the world are the ones that graduate in 3 and get some free grad school out of the deal.

[Clevey 2 Times]

I will say the current system does exploit student athletes.

how?  in 99% of cases their compensation is above their market value.  if they were all to suddenly quit, their "employers" would be able to fill every spot with an volunteer in about 10 minutes.

unless you consider market value to be exploitation, i don't see the argument.  if you do think that compensation should be based on something other than the supply and demand for labor, i'd personally start with jobs much less glamorous than college athlete.

Assuming they were allowed to hold other forms of employment, then I'd agree.  In the case of revenue producing sports, if you're not allowing them to earn money in any other form of paid labor then you're exploiting them.

As for "market value", if you consider the revenue generated across many occupations and the extreme inequality in pay at some of these places of employment I'd argue that many workers are not receiving fair market value for their labor. This is more of a broader critique on the idea that free markets for labor even exist.

I'm not arguing that student athletes on scholarship are getting screwed over, like many other less desirable occupations. I don't lose sleep over how they'll make ends meet. I am arguing that exploitation exists at some level due to the need for these athletes to enter into scholarship agreements that do not allow any other forms of paid labor and are the major way they seek upward mobility within their stated career (altho most won't make it, the goal of almost every player is to get paid to play somewhere). So, this is why I advocate letting them sell their skills in what would be more of a free market - minor league bball.

Anyways, my overall beef is mainly with the illusion that they are actually "student athletes".

 

[ew2x4]

I will say the current system does exploit student athletes.

how?  in 99% of cases their compensation is above their market value.  if they were all to suddenly quit, their "employers" would be able to fill every spot with an volunteer in about 10 minutes.

unless you consider market value to be exploitation, i don't see the argument.  if you do think that compensation should be based on something other than the supply and demand for labor, i'd personally start with jobs much less glamorous than college athlete.

The only thing I think student athletes are exploited from or cheated out of is royalties from video games. It's one thing to sell a jersey with a number on it, but when the NCAA lets EA sell a college football game with characters modeled on the athletes, even that the bigger name athlete's names are recorded by the announcers so that when you put in their real name they announce them, that is exploitation. I guess you can make the argument that the teams benefit, thereby the athletes benefit, but i still think the athletes should see some of it.

[Poster formerly known as jthutch]

I agree that most Basketball and football players pobably would not even go to college if it were not or their perspective sport.  Heck my room mate had a track/CC scholarship and now has a degree he probably never would have gotten because he could not afford it and or would not have felt like he was smart enough.  If you are telling me a free education for these kids is not enough forget that.  They are getting paid/compensated plenty.  Now if they have the ability to go and make a living at it then I don't care let them play where ever they can, but if the NBA is saying we don't think you are ready until you are age X, then that is their business.

[Clevey 2 Times]

I agree that most Basketball and football players pobably would not even go to college if it were not or their perspective sport.  Heck my room mate had a track/CC scholarship and now has a degree he probably never would have gotten because he could not afford it and or would not have felt like he was smart enough.  If you are telling me a free education for these kids is not enough forget that.  They are getting paid/compensated plenty.  Now if they have the ability to go and make a living at it then I don't care let them play where ever they can, but if the NBA is saying we don't think you are ready until you are age X, then that is their business.

I get where you're coming from on this, but my point is that it should not be the NBA's business to create unfair labor policy. Workers have rights too, regardless of what occupation we're discussing. If NBA team X doesn't want to sign an 18 yr old, then don't do it. From the perspective of labor law, IMO, it should be illegal to forbid an athlete from selling their labor to the highest bidder. Under the current system, it is. This is interference in the labor market that is unnecessary and inefficient. NBA teams would rather get these kids in their programs (Stern is the one that spearheaded the effort to create this rule) and college programs are stuck with athletes who have no interest in being students. Obviously we're talking about the best of the best here.

My other point remains, let the Will Spradling's of the world, guys who stick around for 4 yrs, to work other jobs if they so choose. Getting those athletes that realistically should be in the NBA (Beasley, Durant, etc.) there and letting other guys work (obviously this would happen in the offseason) will help to remove some of the outside money influencing major college programs. There will still be outside pressures from agents, but it would just be nice to see the NCAA gain some integrity, which it severely lacks now, partly due to not really having control over the system.

[jtksu]

The pro-prospect baseball kids often go the juco route if they're not drafted as highly as wanted.  The LaRoche bros from Ft. Scott did this.  You're eligible to be drafted while attending juco, regardles of class.  If a dude is a fringe first round dude, he could always play a year or 2 at a juco and get a better sense of his prospects, without having to stick around for 3 yrs at a D1 school.  Or, he could just play professionally overseas.  All sorts of options if they do in fact change the restrictions.  And saying that the NBA not wanting to allow kids to enter the draft until after 3 yrs isn't really any different than a company requiring a degree to be considered for a certain position.  Name a non-sports job that would may some 18 yr old kid CEO money.

[Clevey 2 Times]

The pro-prospect baseball kids often go the juco route if they're not drafted as highly as wanted.  The LaRoche bros from Ft. Scott did this.  You're eligible to be drafted while attending juco, regardles of class.  If a dude is a fringe first round dude, he could always play a year or 2 at a juco and get a better sense of his prospects, without having to stick around for 3 yrs at a D1 school.  Or, he could just play professionally overseas.  All sorts of options if they do in fact change the restrictions.  And saying that the NBA not wanting to allow kids to enter the draft until after 3 yrs isn't really any different than a company requiring a degree to be considered for a certain position.  Name a non-sports job that would may some 18 yr old kid CEO money.

No cac, no company is hiring an 18 yr old and giving him CEO money. Thanks for clearing that up. No one is arguing that 18 yr olds have the skill set to get those jobs.

The point with pro hoops, is that many of these kids do have the skills. Regardless, it is not illegal for a corporation to hire an 18 yr old CEO - this gets more to my point that the option to do so should be there whether it is stupid or not.

It was great for the Cats to get Beasley, but do you really think it is fair that he did not have the option to go make millions?

[kso_FAN]

winning rejuvenated our fan base.

...thanks to Michael Beasley.

yeah.  but they'd have been just as enthused about some guy who had no nba possibilities beating a big 12 filled with other players with no nba possibilities.

the idea that the popularity of college bball is dependent on having future nba players is false.

This is true, and Huggs had just as much to do with it as anything. But I will say part of the rejuvenation happened before Beasley even set foot on campus just b/c we signed a guy of his caliber that could've easily went to the NBA out of HS. The winning coming after helped a bunch, no doubt, but having a guy like Beasley helping us win didn't hurt and helped get the momentum started, at least at K-State. But I do agree with the jist of your argument completely.

[jtksu]

Illegal?  Who the eff said it's illegal?  What are the penelties?  Hefty fine and 6 months in prison?

[Clevey 2 Times]

Illegal?  Who the eff said it's illegal?  What are the penelties?  Hefty fine and 6 months in prison?

Not illegal with criminal sanctioning, but illegal based on federal labor laws - that is the agreement between NBA and NBAPA. Congressman from the district that U of Memphis resides in has questioned this recently:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=dw-agerule060309

I think a well funded set of lawyers, hired by some HS superstar has a decent chance in court if they argue that this agreement violates federal labor laws. I'm no lawyer, not the type of person to punish myself by attending law school, so not an expert opinion, just my two cents (didn't we used to have an icon for this?).

Let's be honest though, success in the court room requires $$$ more than a good argument and the HS superstars most likely to really want to go pro immediately are more cash strapped than not. Chances of seeing this play out in court are slim. More likely that Congress will waste their time with a hearing, rather than more important tasks.

[Doberman_CATS!!!]

What would happen if said HS bballer's declared for the NBA draft but didn't make it? Under the new rule would they have the opportunity to attend college and play ball?

Imo they should be able to..

[Poster formerly known as jthutch]

In my opinion the NBA (who is the company in question, not individual teams) has said that 18 year old kids out of high school do not have the needed skill/maturity to handle the NBA job load.  This is not saying that there are not exceptions, LaBron, Kobe etc... but for someone like Beasley another year or 2 in college may have been a benefit, he might have had a smoother transition to the pro level.  Of course it is all speculation but the NBA has a right to set what ever they want.  Yes the kids have a right to work and they can take there talents over seas if those teams will take them to to force the NBA to take someone they are not comfortable with and have to spent time and money to develope these kids that may or maynot pan out.  There have been plenty of kids that went pro out of hight school and did not pan out and may have benefitted from going to college for a couple of years.   

[bakerman]

I will say the current system does exploit student athletes.

how?  in 99% of cases their compensation is above their market value.  if they were all to suddenly quit, their "employers" would be able to fill every spot with an volunteer in about 10 minutes.

unless you consider market value to be exploitation, i don't see the argument.  if you do think that compensation should be based on something other than the supply and demand for labor, i'd personally start with jobs much less glamorous than college athlete.

Assuming they were allowed to hold other forms of employment, then I'd agree.  In the case of revenue producing sports, if you're not allowing them to earn money in any other form of paid labor then you're exploiting them.

As for "market value", if you consider the revenue generated across many occupations and the extreme inequality in pay at some of these places of employment I'd argue that many workers are not receiving fair market value for their labor. This is more of a broader critique on the idea that free markets for labor even exist.

I'm not arguing that student athletes on scholarship are getting screwed over, like many other less desirable occupations. I don't lose sleep over how they'll make ends meet. I am arguing that exploitation exists at some level due to the need for these athletes to enter into scholarship agreements that do not allow any other forms of paid labor and are the major way they seek upward mobility within their stated career (altho most won't make it, the goal of almost every player is to get paid to play somewhere). So, this is why I advocate letting them sell their skills in what would be more of a free market - minor league bball.

Anyways, my overall beef is mainly with the illusion that they are actually "student athletes".

 

You do realize that their scholarships cover more than just the cost of tuition and books, right?

[jtksu]

I will say the current system does exploit student athletes.

how?  in 99% of cases their compensation is above their market value.  if they were all to suddenly quit, their "employers" would be able to fill every spot with an volunteer in about 10 minutes.

unless you consider market value to be exploitation, i don't see the argument.  if you do think that compensation should be based on something other than the supply and demand for labor, i'd personally start with jobs much less glamorous than college athlete.

Assuming they were allowed to hold other forms of employment, then I'd agree.  In the case of revenue producing sports, if you're not allowing them to earn money in any other form of paid labor then you're exploiting them.

As for "market value", if you consider the revenue generated across many occupations and the extreme inequality in pay at some of these places of employment I'd argue that many workers are not receiving fair market value for their labor. This is more of a broader critique on the idea that free markets for labor even exist.

I'm not arguing that student athletes on scholarship are getting screwed over, like many other less desirable occupations. I don't lose sleep over how they'll make ends meet. I am arguing that exploitation exists at some level due to the need for these athletes to enter into scholarship agreements that do not allow any other forms of paid labor and are the major way they seek upward mobility within their stated career (altho most won't make it, the goal of almost every player is to get paid to play somewhere). So, this is why I advocate letting them sell their skills in what would be more of a free market - minor league bball.

Anyways, my overall beef is mainly with the illusion that they are actually "student athletes".

 

You do realize that their scholarships cover more than just the cost of tuition and books, right?

Especially when you think of the cost of out of state or even international tuition, plus the room and board, etc.  A dude like Freddy is going to end up receiving a crap ton of money during his illustrious career.  I could really give 2 shits if a dude like Selby has to put off his career in the D-league for one year because so many thousands of more kids are receiving more than adequate compensation.   Hell, if a kid redshirts and takes care of business in class, he could walk away with both an undergrad and a grad degree for free.  How nice would it be to enter the job market with a grad degree and zero student loan debt?  You're going to tell me that kid got screwed over?

[Clevey 2 Times]

What would happen if said HS bballer's declared for the NBA draft but didn't make it? Under the new rule would they have the opportunity to attend college and play ball?

Imo they should be able to..

I think once they declare, they may not return to college. D-league or somewhere else...although, I'm not 100% on this. Someone else may know.

I get the point comparing student athletes with other students. Yes, they are receiving much more than almost all members of the student body. That is bullshit, BUT this is not the relevant comparison in the context of the NBA's age restriction policy.