NBAPA Lawyer: Double standard exists regarding age limit for black basketball players and white athletes in other sports

[CJ_18]

Either make the rule 1) you may declare straight out of highschool or 2) You must complete 3-4 years (your degree) of University (which is pretty much what happens in football, a sport where career-altering injuries are even more likely to occur during college).

Having them spend 1 year in college when they already know they are going to declare after 1 year is useless. They'll give 2 **** about the 1 year of courses they must 'partake' in. They are not appreciating/getting anything from 1 year of education and it won't benefit them when they retire to have 1/4 of a degree and (most of them go broke) and they must find another way to provide for themselves. The ONLY party this is benefiting from making them play 1 year of college is the NCAA, who is just piling on the revenue.

[Higga]

Yeah the 1 year in college rule is pointless. If you're skilled enough that employers are willing to pay you millions for your services right out of High School, then why shouldn't you be allowed to go pro? One year in college accomplishes nothing. In football you actually need the three years for your body to continue developing.

[DrCoach]

I disagree. Just because "other sports" don't feel like they need and age limit doesn't mean the NBA should follow their lead. Also, the writer is forgetting that even though the league has a majority of black players, it isn't entirely black. The White players ALSO will have to wait as well. As such, there is no discrepancy between how ethnic groups are treated in the NBA.

How many white HS kids have gone straight to the NBA?

[ALL HAIL]

From the NBA's business standpoint, it's beneficial for young guys to stay in school. When fans intimately know the players that are being drafted out of college, it increases the relevancy of the draft and increases overall ratings. Just reference Magic and Bird if you have any doubt about that.

However, from a moral standpoint, the age limit is wrong. I can admit that, even though I am reticently in favor of it--it's just not fair.

Is it "racist"?

That really depends on your definition.

Would the NBA have ever instituted the age limit if Kevin Garnett, Jermaine O'Neal, Tracy McGrady, Kobe Bryant, or LeBron James were white?i

Probably not. Generally speaking, the general population goes a little bonkers when really young black boys usurp a system, any system (reference the reaction to LeBron James' decision).

There's a general "how dare them" attitude to young blacks advancing through iconoclastic means.

On another note, the whole idea that something CANNOT be unfair toward a particular race when other races are involved, is curious.

I'm 40, and, by and large, the most "blatantly" unfair acts I've seen toward Black people were the actions that followed Hurricane Katrina.

I've always felt that if the dead bodies of babies and the elderly floating around in the water following Katrina were predominantly of white people, and that if the lines of people waiting outside the Superdome were mostly white, that problem would have either been fixed faster or have ceased to ever exist.

I have these very strong feelings toward the response to Katrina even though, clearly, there were white people involved in the tragedy as well.

It doesn't matter to me though. I still view those acts as being unfair toward Black people. The overwhelming proportion of people involved in those atrocious inactions of Katrina were Black, the rest, to me, were collateral damage.

The same can be said of the white players involved in the age limit discussion.

[itwasluck]

From the NBA's business standpoint, it's beneficial for young guys to stay in school. When fans intimately know the players that are being drafted out of college, it increases the relevancy of the draft and increases overall ratings. Just reference Magic and Bird if you have any doubt about that.

However, from a moral standpoint, the age limit is wrong. I can admit that, even though I am reticently in favor of it--it's just not fair.

Is it "racist"?

That really depends on your definition.

Would the NBA have ever instituted the age limit if Kevin Garnett, Jermaine O'Neal, Tracy McGrady, Kobe Bryant, or LeBron James were white?i

Probably not. Generally speaking, the general population goes a little bonkers when really young black boys usurp a system, any system (reference the reaction to LeBron James' decision).

There's a general "how dare them" attitude to young blacks advancing through iconoclastic means.

On another note, the whole idea that something CANNOT be unfair toward a particular race when other races are involved, is curious.

I'm 40, and, by and large, the most "blatantly" unfair acts I've seen toward Black people were the actions that followed Hurricane Katrina.

I've always felt that if the dead bodies of babies and the elderly floating around in the water following Katrina were predominantly of white people, and that if the lines of people waiting outside the Superdome were mostly white, that problem would have either been fixed faster or have ceased to ever exist.

I have these very strong feelings toward the response to Katrina even though, clearly, there were white people involved in the tragedy as well.

It doesn't matter to me though. I still view those acts as being unfair toward Black people. The overwhelming proportion of people involved in those atrocious inactions of Katrina were Black, the rest, to me, were collateral damage.

The same can be said of the white players involved in the age limit discussion.

Good post. I vividly remember pictures of blacks and whites trying to survive after Katrina and the mainstream media describing blacks as "looting" and whites as "scavenging." Subtle biases exist and it is not productive to pretend that we live in anything resembling a post-racial society. It is naive to think that the NBA possessing this rule of 1-year removed from high school has nothing to do with race when none of the predominantly white sports have any rule like this.

To address the posts that point out that white basketball players who want to be drafted out of high school are affected by this rule as well, it is silly to evaluate the consequences of a rule based on absolute cases of all or nothing. For example, the Department of Justice just released a report damning the Ferguson police department for discriminatory practices after it was discovered that 94% of their tickets and citations were doled out to the Ferguson minority population. One could look at that and say "No it isn't racist because 6% of tickets were still given to whites" but this flies in the face of common sense and pragmatism. Facilities were supposed to be separate BUT EQUAL in the 1950's. Obviously, this was proven false. Just because the letter of the rule may not seem racist (Blacks were supposedly getting equal treatment!) does not mean that the consequences of the rule are not racist.

There are many good posters here with analytical minds. Racism is not just a vile chant by a white fraternity of idiots. There are far more subtle and insidious instances of discrimination in the world.

[Johnlac1]

I agree it's not racist. I think it's noteworthy however that the 2 sports with age limits (basketball and football) are mostly composed of black athletes. It might be coincidental, but still.

1) Basketball and football are the sports in which NCAA competition is by far the most profitable.

2) Basketball and football are the sports in which athleticism is most predictive of success. You can look at a man who looks like Paul George, or even Big Baby, and say, you should try basketball. You can't look at a man who looks like Kevin Youkilis and say, you could have a future in baseball.

3) Basketball and football are the sports in which the least skill development is required. Which is why you have stories like Ezekiel Ansah (NFL) or Joel Embiid (NBA), players who were ushered into the sport based on obvious physical potential and who were ready to be top 5 picks within 3 or 4 years.

So the question you really want to ask is this - is it a coincidence that black athletes predominate the sports which feature the least development and are the most commercially profitable at the college level?

I don't think so. Baseball and hockey are expensive - both in terms of time and money. You have to sink huge amounts of time into them without any guarantee of success, to ever find out if you are any good. Those sports have a high barrier to entry. So players are generally from more affluent backgrounds. Even when you get to the pros they have a high barrier to entry. Non-stars take 4-6 years to make it to the big club. Meanwhile NFL or NBA teams can play a rookie right out of college. They can afford to loan out their people to a profitable NCAA enterprise because they get them more or less ready to play anyway.

Affluent children can afford to invest their childhood into a game that requires constant equipment, instruction, practice with expensive facilities, being on travel teams... without having any idea if they'll be a success. They can afford to spend half a decade in the minor leagues bumming around in Best Westerns. Children from poor backgrounds can't afford to find out if baseball or hockey is right for them, like they can football or hoops. So among other reasons, they generally don't.

Its not a stretch to suggest that the predominance of African Americans choosing basketball and football is a symptom of the same underlying reasons why the process of becoming a professional is quicker in those sports.

Firstly, there are few American parents, except in a few hockey states, who have their kids in hockey programs. Hockey is by far down the list as far as sports played by the great majority of American kids.
Secondly, not every white family is wealthy. Many white kids come from modest circumstances.
Thirdly, and chiefly, blacks dominate basketball and football because they're simply better athletes for those sports than white kids. Baseball used to be extremely popular with black kids....even in the days when blacks were not allowed in the majors. And if a black kid shows great promise at an early age or in high school, believe me there will be pro baseball scouts who would be more than willing to help them.
But black American kids have mostly lost interest in baseball. There's no lack of funds or opportunity for millions of black kids...they just prefer basketball and football.

[Johnlac1]

This is an issue that I completely flip-flop on.

I whole heartily believe in the impacts of a quality education. What was it, 60% of NBA players file bankruptcy or are in dire financial stress within 5 years of leaving the game, while their career will last on average, about 5 years? Meaning, majority of players who enter the game will be broke, early in their life, left without an applicable career, training, or education? A degree offers a good fall-back option, should you not make it in the NBA, or have issues managing your finances. From this standpoint, an age limit certainly makes sense to me. Majority of jobs require a certain level of experience, education, or on-the-job training before reaping the full financial benefits of the trade. Honestly, sometimes I think a 4 year limit would more good, than it would harm, but then again, who am I to decide what is best for a person. I believe in freedom and if a person feels something is best for them, who am I to try and force something else upon them? They are the ones who will have to deal with the repercussions, not myself.

On the flip side, the 1 year rule does nothing to alleviate the real issues surrounding professional athletes, which is the short shelf life and financial training. Hell, I can see how rookies making 6-7-8 figures, can go broke. It seems like a lot of money, but most young people I met don't have the foresight. Hell, I was making $39/hr coming out of HS, thinking I was rich and I blew ALOT (most) of it on **** that didn't really matter.

I'd love to see the NBAPA push for some sort of formal retirement, being set aside from those who might not have the foresight to plan for the future. I'm not saying for lower wages, but maybe require owners to pay into a system, where the equivalent of 10% of their salary is put into a pension, or a college savings plan, should their careers not pan out, however, I've always gotten the feeling that the NFLPA is looking out for the superstars, not those that are struggling to remain in the league.

Should a player decide to pursuer the NCAA avenue, I also believe that they should be compensated for their time. The public university system is a sham. They take advantage of those, that they say they are trying to help. Universities can make millions of dollars off of athletes, they can make millions of dollars of of undergrad/graduate work, because part of the conditions of employment is that university owns your patent. There is a reason why they can pay students minimum wage, for doing jobs that classified and faculty get paid an abundance more, for doing the same thing. Universities do this, because we know they need them. As long as they know we need them to meet our goals, they will continue to oppress those that they proclaim they are liberating. **** it, no age limit!

See, I flip flop

Any kid coming out of high school is free to go play in Europe, Asia, or go get a factory job somewhere. Nobody is twisting their arms to go to college. If they get a degree in a reputable subject, they can make a lot of money for a long time. If they're really good, the pros call and they can make a lot of money. If they squandered their education and then can't make the pros...too bad. What they are is not oppressed. Unless they're oppressing themselves.

I'm sure if this was your profession, and you were qualified but couldn't start because of some ambiguous age limit, you would be singing a different tune.

My position is against the NBA proposal. I think if a kid is good enough to play in the NBA right out of high school, he should be allowed to do so.
My objection is against the idea that the NBA proposal is somehow racist. Racism has nothing to do with it. The NBA is in a damned if they do-damned if they don't situation.
The whole idea of delaying young player's entrance was because so many of them couldn't hack life after failing at pro ball. Before that the NBA was accused of racism because it let players in the league right out of high school supposedly retarding their education.
However wrong or right this proposal, the NBA is simply reacting against charges of not caring about these players.

[ALL HAIL]

From the NBA's business standpoint, it's beneficial for young guys to stay in school. When fans intimately know the players that are being drafted out of college, it increases the relevancy of the draft and increases overall ratings. Just reference Magic and Bird if you have any doubt about that.

However, from a moral standpoint, the age limit is wrong. I can admit that, even though I am reticently in favor of it--it's just not fair.

Is it "racist"?

That really depends on your definition.

Would the NBA have ever instituted the age limit if Kevin Garnett, Jermaine O'Neal, Tracy McGrady, Kobe Bryant, or LeBron James were white?i

Probably not. Generally speaking, the general population goes a little bonkers when really young black boys usurp a system, any system (reference the reaction to LeBron James' decision).

There's a general "how dare them" attitude to young blacks advancing through iconoclastic means.

On another note, the whole idea that something CANNOT be unfair toward a particular race when other races are involved, is curious.

I'm 40, and, by and large, the most "blatantly" unfair acts I've seen toward Black people were the actions that followed Hurricane Katrina.

I've always felt that if the dead bodies of babies and the elderly floating around in the water following Katrina were predominantly of white people, and that if the lines of people waiting outside the Superdome were mostly white, that problem would have either been fixed faster or have ceased to ever exist.

I have these very strong feelings toward the response to Katrina even though, clearly, there were white people involved in the tragedy as well.

It doesn't matter to me though. I still view those acts as being unfair toward Black people. The overwhelming proportion of people involved in those atrocious inactions of Katrina were Black, the rest, to me, were collateral damage.

The same can be said of the white players involved in the age limit discussion.

Good post. I vividly remember pictures of blacks and whites trying to survive after Katrina and the mainstream media describing blacks as "looting" and whites as "scavenging." Subtle biases exist and it is not productive to pretend that we live in anything resembling a post-racial society. It is naive to think that the NBA possessing this rule of 1-year removed from high school has nothing to do with race when none of the predominantly white sports have any rule like this.

To address the posts that point out that white basketball players who want to be drafted out of high school are affected by this rule as well, it is silly to evaluate the consequences of a rule based on absolute cases of all or nothing. For example, the Department of Justice just released a report damning the Ferguson police department for discriminatory practices after it was discovered that 94% of their tickets and citations were doled out to the Ferguson minority population. One could look at that and say "No it isn't racist because 6% of tickets were still given to whites" but this flies in the face of common sense and pragmatism. Facilities were supposed to be separate BUT EQUAL in the 1950's. Obviously, this was proven false. Just because the letter of the rule may not seem racist (Blacks were supposedly getting equal treatment!) does not mean that the consequences of the rule are not racist.

There are many good posters here with analytical minds. Racism is not just a vile chant by a white fraternity of idiots. There are far more subtle and insidious instances of discrimination in the world.

Very well said.

What's funny is that there have been nearly a hundred posts here that have emphatically shot down the idea of unfair practices based on the theory in which you speak, the whole idea of things being possibly unfair has been wrecklessly cast aside as if it were an afterthought.

You articulate quite well why the casting aside of this idea of unfair practices is remarkably silly based on an equally silly idea that this cannot be unfair toward Blacks because whites are involved too.

When will we learn to strip ourselves of bias and subjectivity, to fight for truth, not blind loyalty to ideals that support a pseudo-reality?

... on every side of the coin.

[madmaxmedia]

Either make the rule 1) you may declare straight out of highschool or 2) You must complete 3-4 years (your degree) of University (which is pretty much what happens in football, a sport where career-altering injuries are even more likely to occur during college).

Having them spend 1 year in college when they already know they are going to declare after 1 year is useless. They'll give 2 **** about the 1 year of courses they must 'partake' in. They are not appreciating/getting anything from 1 year of education and it won't benefit them when they retire to have 1/4 of a degree and (most of them go broke) and they must find another way to provide for themselves. The ONLY party this is benefiting from making them play 1 year of college is the NCAA, who is just piling on the revenue.

What's the point of these arbitrary limits on a young athlete's freedom (black or white)? You can do this, you can't do that, you must do it this way....what other 18 year-old would you tell them, "make a good decision now if you want to go to college, because if you decide yes then you cannot leave for 3-4 years"?

The reason why basketball players go to college for 1 year and then leave, is that college basketball is the de facto farm/developmental system for pro basketball. All things considered, it's the best place to develop your skills and gain exposure to NBA scouts.

[ChosunX]

From the NBA's business standpoint, it's beneficial for young guys to stay in school. When fans intimately know the players that are being drafted out of college, it increases the relevancy of the draft and increases overall ratings. Just reference Magic and Bird if you have any doubt about that.

However, from a moral standpoint, the age limit is wrong. I can admit that, even though I am reticently in favor of it--it's just not fair.

Is it "racist"?

That really depends on your definition.

Would the NBA have ever instituted the age limit if Kevin Garnett, Jermaine O'Neal, Tracy McGrady, Kobe Bryant, or LeBron James were white?i

Probably not. Generally speaking, the general population goes a little bonkers when really young black boys usurp a system, any system (reference the reaction to LeBron James' decision).

There's a general "how dare them" attitude to young blacks advancing through iconoclastic means.

Based on what?

[cl2117]

I still don't see how this is about race rather than money. That's the driving factor for the rule. The comparisons to the other sports is inappropriate because those sports have a much different developmental process for their athletes as compared to the NBA.

It's totally unfair that these kids are precluded from joining their chosen profession by an age limit when they are legal adults with the ability to perform said job. It's BS, especially considering how quickly such an amazing opportunity could be taken away by a freak injury and thereby ruin any chance of those players from making millions when they were perfectly capable if not for said rule.

But the mere fact that this unfair rule affects black athletes in a much larger way than other races does not make it racist.

I'm not one who can't acknowledge that racism doesn't need intent, nor do I think that institutionalized racism isn't still a major issue in America. But in this instance it seems to me to come down to one factor above all others and that is money. The NBA can generate more revenue by reducing the number of busts in the draft because kids weren't ready for the association, not to mention the exponential increases in marketability and recognition that results from having such high profile college athletes entering the draft.

If the MLB or NHL could make more money by instituting such a rule it would either be in place or have people vigorously campaigning for it. But it can't and thus won't (although the NHL has discussed it). I don't doubt for a second that if the athletes coming out of high school with the skills to go straight to the NBA were white there would still be that rule. Why? Because it makes the NBA lots and lots of money. I have yet to see a poster present a position that provides a more convincing argument that racism is the root cause for this rule rather than monetary gain.

[GameTime_3]

So let me guess this right...Because Basketball is played by mainly African Americans and hockey is why Canada and they have different rules, the first thing we think about is the race card? Racism will also live as well as crime, poverty and those who are out to no good...But it just seems as of LATE we are throwing this RACE CARD at almost EVERY SINGLE thing because its such a hot topic. Instead of throwing water at this topic and trying to make things better, we throw it at everything and creating more gas to the flame.

Each league has rules. Don't like it. Don't play. If the worst thing that happened to you was that it got u a free year of education, then well...that not so bad...and to the the 5-10 players that can't jump to the NBA! Sucks! But those 5-10 are saving another 100 who try every year and because they go to early get out of the league. I personally believe it should be 2 yrs in college or straight to NBA. If your dumb enough to think you can go to NBA as a under developed player(Yes there are exception) go for it but if you don't then go to 2 years and create yourself a long term future with a degree.

[Neutral 123]

From the NBA's business standpoint, it's beneficial for young guys to stay in school. When fans intimately know the players that are being drafted out of college, it increases the relevancy of the draft and increases overall ratings. Just reference Magic and Bird if you have any doubt about that.

However, from a moral standpoint, the age limit is wrong. I can admit that, even though I am reticently in favor of it--it's just not fair.

Is it "racist"?

That really depends on your definition.

Would the NBA have ever instituted the age limit if Kevin Garnett, Jermaine O'Neal, Tracy McGrady, Kobe Bryant, or LeBron James were white?i

Probably not. Generally speaking, the general population goes a little bonkers when really young black boys usurp a system, any system (reference the reaction to LeBron James' decision).

There's a general "how dare them" attitude to young blacks advancing through iconoclastic means.

On another note, the whole idea that something CANNOT be unfair toward a particular race when other races are involved, is curious.

I'm 40, and, by and large, the most "blatantly" unfair acts I've seen toward Black people were the actions that followed Hurricane Katrina.

I've always felt that if the dead bodies of babies and the elderly floating around in the water following Katrina were predominantly of white people, and that if the lines of people waiting outside the Superdome were mostly white, that problem would have either been fixed faster or have ceased to ever exist.

I have these very strong feelings toward the response to Katrina even though, clearly, there were white people involved in the tragedy as well.

It doesn't matter to me though. I still view those acts as being unfair toward Black people. The overwhelming proportion of people involved in those atrocious inactions of Katrina were Black, the rest, to me, were collateral damage.

The same can be said of the white players involved in the age limit discussion.

Good post. I vividly remember pictures of blacks and whites trying to survive after Katrina and the mainstream media describing blacks as "looting" and whites as "scavenging." Subtle biases exist and it is not productive to pretend that we live in anything resembling a post-racial society. It is naive to think that the NBA possessing this rule of 1-year removed from high school has nothing to do with race when none of the predominantly white sports have any rule like this.

To address the posts that point out that white basketball players who want to be drafted out of high school are affected by this rule as well, it is silly to evaluate the consequences of a rule based on absolute cases of all or nothing. For example, the Department of Justice just released a report damning the Ferguson police department for discriminatory practices after it was discovered that 94% of their tickets and citations were doled out to the Ferguson minority population. One could look at that and say "No it isn't racist because 6% of tickets were still given to whites" but this flies in the face of common sense and pragmatism. Facilities were supposed to be separate BUT EQUAL in the 1950's. Obviously, this was proven false. Just because the letter of the rule may not seem racist (Blacks were supposedly getting equal treatment!) does not mean that the consequences of the rule are not racist.

There are many good posters here with analytical minds. Racism is not just a vile chant by a white fraternity of idiots. There are far more subtle and insidious instances of discrimination in the world.

Very well said.

What's funny is that there have been nearly a hundred posts here that have emphatically shot down the idea of unfair practices based on the theory in which you speak, the whole idea of things being possibly unfair has been wrecklessly cast aside as if it were an afterthought.

You articulate quite well why the casting aside of this idea of unfair practices is remarkably silly based on an equally silly idea that this cannot be unfair toward Blacks because whites are involved too.

When will we learn to strip ourselves of bias and subjectivity, to fight for truth, not blind loyalty to ideals that support a pseudo-reality?

... on every side of the coin.

First, let me say, I really enjoyed reading your back and forth. I'd like to add my own point of view. One, I'd say part of the problem is there is a culture of denial with all issues involving race. Racism is better hidden, harder to prove and point out, and that seems to be the culture of today. Simply deny, deny, deny, and conceal it as much as possible.

Part of the problem here is that society moves towards more acceptance of 'others' we've done it for the wrong reasons. We accept others because we've been told that they are just like us. True acceptance means accepting differences. When we have accept differences, we move away from a stringent idea of equality, and towards a view of fairness.

Its completely equal to force black and white players to wait several years after high school to be eligible for the draft, but when you know the vast majority of those affected will be black, its hardly fair.

The whole idea that blacks must be kept away from financial success for their own good, is and has been a common tactic to steal from blacks. This is just another form of that theft. Forcing guys who are good enough to earn a living playing in the NBA to play as amateurs to enrich the NCAA, colleges, coaches etcetera. Its legalized theft.

[Neutral 123]

I still don't see how this is about race rather than money. That's the driving factor for the rule. The comparisons to the other sports is inappropriate because those sports have a much different developmental process for their athletes as compared to the NBA.

It's totally unfair that these kids are precluded from joining their chosen profession by an age limit when they are legal adults with the ability to perform said job. It's BS, especially considering how quickly such an amazing opportunity could be taken away by a freak injury and thereby ruin any chance of those players from making millions when they were perfectly capable if not for said rule.

But the mere fact that this unfair rule affects black athletes in a much larger way than other races does not make it racist.

I'm not one who can't acknowledge that racism doesn't need intent, nor do I think that institutionalized racism isn't still a major issue in America. But in this instance it seems to me to come down to one factor above all others and that is money. The NBA can generate more revenue by reducing the number of busts in the draft because kids weren't ready for the association, not to mention the exponential increases in marketability and recognition that results from having such high profile college athletes entering the draft.

If the MLB or NHL could make more money by instituting such a rule it would either be in place or have people vigorously campaigning for it. But it can't and thus won't (although the NHL has discussed it). I don't doubt for a second that if the athletes coming out of high school with the skills to go straight to the NBA were white there would still be that rule. Why? Because it makes the NBA lots and lots of money. I have yet to see a poster present a position that provides a more convincing argument that racism is the root cause for this rule rather than monetary gain.

I hear that a lot, that the same would apply to whites, yet over and over, majority time it is blacks getting the short end of the stick. There is virtually no stat, no measure, that demonstrates that racism doesn't exist, or still isn't a major factor in society. When there's a Travis Martin, walking home with candy, minding his own business, and some black guy, chases, guns him down and claims self defense and acquitted, then maybe it race will truly be less of an issue.

[Jadoogar]

I disagree. Just because "other sports" don't feel like they need and age limit doesn't mean the NBA should follow their lead. Also, the writer is forgetting that even though the league has a majority of black players, it isn't entirely black. The White players ALSO will have to wait as well. As such, there is no discrepancy between how ethnic groups are treated in the NBA.

How many white HS kids have gone straight to the NBA?

Ricky Rubio was extremely hyped but he wouldn't have been able to come into the league until he met the age requirement. The point it is, it's not just targeting black players

[cl2117]

I still don't see how this is about race rather than money. That's the driving factor for the rule. The comparisons to the other sports is inappropriate because those sports have a much different developmental process for their athletes as compared to the NBA.

It's totally unfair that these kids are precluded from joining their chosen profession by an age limit when they are legal adults with the ability to perform said job. It's BS, especially considering how quickly such an amazing opportunity could be taken away by a freak injury and thereby ruin any chance of those players from making millions when they were perfectly capable if not for said rule.

But the mere fact that this unfair rule affects black athletes in a much larger way than other races does not make it racist.

I'm not one who can't acknowledge that racism doesn't need intent, nor do I think that institutionalized racism isn't still a major issue in America. But in this instance it seems to me to come down to one factor above all others and that is money. The NBA can generate more revenue by reducing the number of busts in the draft because kids weren't ready for the association, not to mention the exponential increases in marketability and recognition that results from having such high profile college athletes entering the draft.

If the MLB or NHL could make more money by instituting such a rule it would either be in place or have people vigorously campaigning for it. But it can't and thus won't (although the NHL has discussed it). I don't doubt for a second that if the athletes coming out of high school with the skills to go straight to the NBA were white there would still be that rule. Why? Because it makes the NBA lots and lots of money. I have yet to see a poster present a position that provides a more convincing argument that racism is the root cause for this rule rather than monetary gain.

I hear that a lot, that the same would apply to whites, yet over and over, majority time it is blacks getting the short end of the stick. There is virtually no stat, no measure, that demonstrates that racism doesn't exist, or still isn't a major factor in society. When there's a Travis Martin, walking home with candy, minding his own business, and some black guy, chases, guns him down and claims self defense and acquitted, then maybe it race will truly be less of an issue.

I'm talking about this particular instance. I'm not saying that in other cases if you reverse the races there would be drastically different outcomes, I think Travon Martin is a perfect example of an instance where race definitely played a facor. But in this case I don't think the NBA would change their stance and that's because I don't think they are trying to do anything more than maximize their revenues. And until someone can put forth an argument that can support the position that the NBA's rule is more about race than money, I'm standing by my position. Race is a big issue in many facets of life in America right now, I just don't think this is one of them and no one here has put forth an argument that has been nearly sufficient to sway me. I'm open to listening and changing my opinion, but I've yet to see a convincing argument.

[Capn'O]

From the NBA's business standpoint, it's beneficial for young guys to stay in school. When fans intimately know the players that are being drafted out of college, it increases the relevancy of the draft and increases overall ratings. Just reference Magic and Bird if you have any doubt about that.

It's not only fan recognition. LeBron, Garnett, and Kobe got plenty of that.

The argument about "getting an education for their own good" with one year of "college" is nonsense and inherently racist. But the argument about the players needing (and getting) proper basketball training isn't. The NBA is between a rock and a hard place on this matter. The best talent developers are locked into a corrupt, archaic, and yes racist system. But the players do develop better skills from it, imo, and it's to the benefit of the league that they do.

One example I always look at is how the Lakers dealt with Andrew Bynum. They basically stuck him with Kareem for a year as a personal trainer and barely let him on the court. When he did see time, he looked like a deer in the headlights. Through the second year, they let him play more and more and by the third year he was one of the better Cs in the league.

Bynum was big but not nearly as athletic as a guy like Howard. But he benefitted immensely by spending that time with Kareem early on to better learn the game. Footwork. Post defense. Proper post moves. He became much smarter player and more efficient In his unfortunately short lived prime. Even LeBron could have expanded his game much quicker with more of a development based first few years but the Cavs are not the Lakers and LeBron was much more ready than Bynum. I see it even with the one and dones. They're more _skilled_ entering the league than even the best HS'ers were.



Now, there are are other "Kareems" out there that you can use to help train your kids but the guys that run the big college programs... how do you poach them out of there and into a system like the D-League? Coach Ks and Boeheims and John Thompsons. The guys that are best in the world at molding these kids skills and understanding of the game. They're not coming for the Kareem role because if they do their job well they're out of one in a few years. The prospect grows up and the team is good enough not to get new ones. They need some stability, team setting, and a high enough profile to stick around

[DemoleDemolezan]

Of course you will get the standard ignorant white guy response that it has nothing to do with race. When you're white, it's a lot easier to not see race. But this is clearly a racist policy- one that disproportionately affects black athletes and lines the NCAA's pockets.

Complaining about racism while being racist makes you look like an idiot. I wasn't aware hundreds of millions of people possessed a standard response.
Do we have standard responses for a variety of topics or only ones regarding American-based race matters?

Edit: I have also reported your post for racism. There is no need for attitudes like yours here.

[Yoshun]

First, let me say, I really enjoyed reading your back and forth. I'd like to add my own point of view. One, I'd say part of the problem is there is a culture of denial with all issues involving race. Racism is better hidden, harder to prove and point out, and that seems to be the culture of today. Simply deny, deny, deny, and conceal it as much as possible.

Part of the problem here is that society moves towards more acceptance of 'others' we've done it for the wrong reasons. We accept others because we've been told that they are just like us. True acceptance means accepting differences. When we have accept differences, we move away from a stringent idea of equality, and towards a view of fairness.

Its completely equal to force black and white players to wait several years after high school to be eligible for the draft, but when you know the vast majority of those affected will be black, its hardly fair.

The whole idea that blacks must be kept away from financial success for their own good, is and has been a common tactic to steal from blacks. This is just another form of that theft. Forcing guys who are good enough to earn a living playing in the NBA to play as amateurs to enrich the NCAA, colleges, coaches etcetera. Its legalized theft.

Big And 1.

I remember having this exact argument with a bunch of people back in a class in grad school. One of the people there actually used that classic line, "When I look at people, I don't see color, I just see people." I almost laughed. True acceptance is about seeing individuals in their entirety, similarities and differences. Some people are black and if we fail to acknowledge that fact, we're not accepting those people for who they are.

In addition, racism has become almost taboo to discuss, it's kind of disappointing.

[Peja Stojakovic]

the only places where racism is taboo to discuss are where people are benefiting from it