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

[madmaxmedia]

The reason the NBA has an age limit is because for every Kobe, KG, and LeBron there are multiple Kwame Browns. Teams were consistently wasting lottery picks on high school kids with the hope that they had the potential of the aforementioned 3. When bad teams, draft bad, that make's it even harder to compete, which in turn **** up the parity which has been one of the biggest issues of the NBA for quite some time now.

The NBA was literally protecting the GM's from themselves. On top of that, I think the NBA was actually hoping and praying that the top high schoolers would pick the D-League over college. After-all you get paid in the D-League. However, culture is really a hard thing to change and most players still mindlessly choose to go to College because it's the easier path. Free meals, free housing, your a superstar on campus etc.

So in all this process, I wish someone could point out to me where race comes into play. On top of that I despise people who unnecessarily play the race card. It does nothing but
A) Fuel more racism
B) Take light away from ACTUALLY racist issues.

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.

Top high school players don't go to the D-League because the pay is crap and the league overall is probably not conducive to young player development/showcasing skills (maybe for borderline prospects but not for blue chippers.) Overseas seems like a better bet for that.

I also agree with your explanation above of why the NBA wants an age limit. Whether it is a sort of infringement of a young athlete's rights is a different issue. There is a benefit for the NBA, whether there is a benefit for the players (individually or collectively) is a different matter. Kwame Brown did alright in the NBA in terms of earnings, even if he didn't help his teams/employers much.

At the end of the day, the age limit in each sport is something negotiated by the league and the union. But I think all these other things are valid parts of the discussion.

[madmaxmedia]

Baseball players can get drafted, but that doesn't necessarily mean they go right out and play for their teams. They spend a couple of years in the minors before they even touch an MLB stadium. And the NHL itself has debated to have the age limit at 20 themselves...

Using the Race Card doesn't work here...

Baseball players get drafted and can get huge signing bonuses/contracts right out of high school. They also receive a salary as minor league players and are thus professional athletes.

[Albanian Damien]

The reason the NBA has an age limit is because for every Kobe, KG, and LeBron there are multiple Kwame Browns. Teams were consistently wasting lottery picks on high school kids with the hope that they had the potential of the aforementioned 3. When bad teams, draft bad, that make's it even harder to compete, which in turn **** up the parity which has been one of the biggest issues of the NBA for quite some time now.

The NBA was literally protecting the GM's from themselves. On top of that, I think the NBA was actually hoping and praying that the top high schoolers would pick the D-League over college. After-all you get paid in the D-League. However, culture is really a hard thing to change and most players still mindlessly choose to go to College because it's the easier path. Free meals, free housing, your a superstar on campus etc.

So in all this process, I wish someone could point out to me where race comes into play. On top of that I despise people who unnecessarily play the race card. It does nothing but
A) Fuel more racism
B) Take light away from ACTUALLY racist issues.

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.

Top high school players don't go to the D-League because the pay is crap and the league overall is probably not conducive to young player development/showcasing skills (maybe for borderline prospects but not for blue chippers.) Overseas seems like a better bet for that.

I also agree with your explanation above of why the NBA wants an age limit. Whether it is a sort of infringement of a young athlete's rights is a different issue. There is a benefit for the NBA, whether there is a benefit for the players (individually or collectively) is a different matter. Kwame Brown did alright in the NBA in terms of earnings, even if he didn't help his teams/employers much.

At the end of the day, the age limit in each sport is something negotiated by the league and the union. But I think all these other things are valid parts of the discussion.

I agree, there isn't enough incentive for the top prospects to go to D-Leagues. However, I truly believe that making the D-League the minor league is the true goal of the NBA having an age limit. Someone posted the David Stern barbershop interview and he immediately says "you don't have to go to college, you can go the D-League or Europe". Stern was too much of a businessman to reveal his true intentions but I have no doubt he was hoping kids would choose D-League over the other two options. After all, the D-League would be the moderate decision between playing for free (College) or being paid but also being uprooted to a totally unfamiliar place(Europe).

That is also why the GM's probably want to push the age limit even further. Because as is, players are simply going the traditional college one and done route. However, if you make the age limit like 2-3 years removed from high school. Players won't want to stay that long in school, and they probably wouldn't want to play in Europe either for that long. Oh but wait there's is a domestic minor league system you can play in that actually pays you a pretty good amount for someone fresh out of high school. On top of that, since all the teams are affiliated with NBA teams, NBA teams will begin to profit off the top prospects of the NBA. The D-League will actually draw some attention, fans will come which will lead to more revenue which if the NBA is smart would put some of that revenue back into raising the players salaries to get to the point where EVERY top prospect goes to the D-League. If that were to happen, I could easily see them making rule changes such as whoever drafted you to their D-League team has the rights to draft you when you are eligible for the big league as well.

Seriously, it's like people just forget the D-League exists. The NBA plans on making it the minor league system eventually. That is the REAL reason why they want to push this age limit up even further. The NBA has no incentive for the Kids to go to NCAA. Yes it promotes them but the NBA could do that themselves. They are just waiting for the players to start picking D-League over College. Raise the age limit, raise the salaries and it gives the prospects even more incentives to go whilst promoting their own minor league. These are the real issues at hand, and anyone who thinks it's simply racist is just not much of a critical thinker. So the fact that a paid professional lawyer is making this argument tells me:

A) the union has **** lawyers
B) were in for a loooong lockout

[madmaxmedia]

A good developmental system would help a lot. For whatever reason, the NBA D-League is not set up like the major leagues, I'm not sure why. If it was closer to MLB, teams would own and control their own d-league team, with 2 or more tiers of teams. The D-League has a ridiculously low salary cap, so you can't actually draft players with the intent of just signing them to a developmental league in the same way as in baseball.

Highly touted baseball prospects get drafted high, land good contracts, and then go through the team's farm system as an expected part of the process, with only the rare phenom that goes straight to the pro's. But in the NBA, careers go to die in the D-League. If you're a top draft pick and you have the misfortune of being sent to the D-League, it's only because something has gone really wrong.

Maybe overall revenues in baseball are higher such that it can support an extensive farm system. But in baseball you have AAA, AA, A, and rookie leagues, surely in basketball you could have something better than what they've come up with.

[Capn'O]

The NCAA system is absolutely exploitative. The NBA's age limit... meh. It's in the league's interest to get most of these guys a little more training before committing that kind of money. It's basic economics. But feeding the NCAA beast sucks.

I've been a proponent of expanding the D-League for awhile but the current major hurdles are twofold: talent and development. With rights only extending to drafted players and players under contract, teams can't really properly use the D-League to develop players because another team can poach them right as they're on the cusp of breaking out. Likewise, many of the best developmental coaches are currently housed in the NCAA. They're stable because the money for them is great in college ball and NBA D-Leagues won't look to pay out for them because of the same dynamic - why stockpile a great talent developer for somebody else? No team will do it.

It's chicken and egg really. How you you get the talent without talent development potential and how do you implement that talent development without talent? Maybe you get a more expanded draft. 7-8 rounds or something so that teams can hang onto/develop players. More kids declare at 18 for the marginal but still present $$$ and an outside shot. Teams can trade rights like in baseball. Then you pay the big time coaches to train a better talent pool. From a fan perspective - stop supporting the NCAA crap. I don't watch it.

[24istheLAW]

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.

[24istheLAW]

A good developmental system would help a lot. For whatever reason, the NBA D-League is not set up like the major leagues, I'm not sure why. If it was closer to MLB, teams would own and control their own d-league team, with 2 or more tiers of teams. The D-League has a ridiculously low salary cap, so you can't actually draft players with the intent of just signing them to a developmental league in the same way as in baseball.

Highly touted baseball prospects get drafted high, land good contracts, and then go through the team's farm system as an expected part of the process, with only the rare phenom that goes straight to the pro's. But in the NBA, careers go to die in the D-League. If you're a top draft pick and you have the misfortune of being sent to the D-League, it's only because something has gone really wrong.

Maybe overall revenues in baseball are higher such that it can support an extensive farm system. But in baseball you have AAA, AA, A, and rookie leagues, surely in basketball you could have something better than what they've come up with.

I sort of addressed this in my other post but I'll re-propose it. Perhaps the reason MLB teams have a more fleshed out developmental system is because there is more developing to be done?

I don't think the fact that careers go to die in the D-league because of the fault of the teams - I think that if you have not demonstrated the ability to stick in the NBA, it means you probably will never stick in the NBA.

Meanwhile, in MLB, you have to put the players through years of development to get them to the point where they can step onto a major league field, and find out if they have what it takes.

Same reason why a list of undrafted NBA starters would be so incredibly short. Conversely, look at a list of MLB starters who were 6th round, 7th round, 8 round picks... there is a longer period of development from when the player hits physical maturity until when you find out what they "really are". So the minors exist out of need.

[Capn'O]

A good developmental system would help a lot. For whatever reason, the NBA D-League is not set up like the major leagues, I'm not sure why. If it was closer to MLB, teams would own and control their own d-league team, with 2 or more tiers of teams. The D-League has a ridiculously low salary cap, so you can't actually draft players with the intent of just signing them to a developmental league in the same way as in baseball.

Highly touted baseball prospects get drafted high, land good contracts, and then go through the team's farm system as an expected part of the process, with only the rare phenom that goes straight to the pro's. But in the NBA, careers go to die in the D-League. If you're a top draft pick and you have the misfortune of being sent to the D-League, it's only because something has gone really wrong.

Maybe overall revenues in baseball are higher such that it can support an extensive farm system. But in baseball you have AAA, AA, A, and rookie leagues, surely in basketball you could have something better than what they've come up with.

I sort of addressed this in my other post but I'll re-propose it. Perhaps the reason MLB teams have a more fleshed out developmental system is because there is more developing to be done?

I don't think the fact that careers go to die in the D-league because of the fault of the teams - I think that if you have not demonstrated the ability to stick in the NBA, it means you probably will never stick in the NBA.

Meanwhile, in MLB, you have to put the players through years of development to get them to the point where they can step onto a major league field, and find out if they have what it takes.

Same reason why a list of undrafted NBA starters would be so incredibly short. Conversely, look at a list of MLB starters who were 6th round, 7th round, 8 round picks... there is a longer period of development from when the player hits physical maturity until when you find out what they "really are". So the minors exist out of need.

Yes and no. You see it in a lot of the 4 year college guys like Lillard, Duncan, and Curry - they come into the league with a really refined skillset that NBA coaches really don't have the time/incentive to teach. Form. Discretion on when to shoot. Understanding of different offenses and strategies for defending them. So sure, the guys come in ready to play at a younger age but how much better could they be with instruction? Stuff they're not really getting in AAU or even college anymore with the one and dones.

You get a more expanded draft in the NBA not really to find those unheralded gems - though there will be some whose skill develops in a 3-4 year span as in college - but to give the guys you want to develop some competition.

[Yoshun]

All this stuff about protecting GMs is nonsense. For every high school player that flopped I could name you at least one, 4 year college player that flopped just as hard. It's crap.

[Albanian Damien]

All this stuff about protecting GMs is nonsense. For every high school player that flopped I could name you at least one, 4 year college player that flopped just as hard. It's crap.

Well of course there's no definite science. However, when you draft a high schooler you're drafting based on potential. When you draft a senior you're drafting based on substance. If either pick flops it looks bad on a GM. However, if a high school pick flops then I think it looks much worse. If you pick a senior whose killing it in the NCAA but once he goes pro his game vanishes. That's on the player. Not the GM's fault really. However, if you pick a high schooler who clearly is not ready for the NBA game nor will ever be that falls heavily on the GM.

Besides, there's also no real way to protect GMs from picking guys who dominated NCAA only to suck in the Pros (Morrison, Laettner etc).

[Yoshun]

All this stuff about protecting GMs is nonsense. For every high school player that flopped I could name you at least one, 4 year college player that flopped just as hard. It's crap.

Well of course there's no definite science. However, when you draft a high schooler you're drafting based on potential. When you draft a senior you're drafting based on substance. If either pick flops it looks bad on a GM. However, if a high school pick flops then I think it looks much worse. If you pick a senior whose killing it in the NCAA but once he goes pro his game vanishes. That's on the player. Not the GM's fault really. However, if you pick a high schooler who clearly is not ready for the NBA game nor will ever be that falls heavily on the GM.

Besides, there's also no real way to protect GMs from picking guys who dominated NCAA only to suck in the Pros (Morrison, Laettner etc).

Im not sure this is true though. The college game is very different than NBA play. You're still drafting on potential. There are very, very few players you "know" are NBA ready, nevermind good.

[Albanian Damien]

All this stuff about protecting GMs is nonsense. For every high school player that flopped I could name you at least one, 4 year college player that flopped just as hard. It's crap.

Well of course there's no definite science. However, when you draft a high schooler you're drafting based on potential. When you draft a senior you're drafting based on substance. If either pick flops it looks bad on a GM. However, if a high school pick flops then I think it looks much worse. If you pick a senior whose killing it in the NCAA but once he goes pro his game vanishes. That's on the player. Not the GM's fault really. However, if you pick a high schooler who clearly is not ready for the NBA game nor will ever be that falls heavily on the GM.

Besides, there's also no real way to protect GMs from picking guys who dominated NCAA only to suck in the Pros (Morrison, Laettner etc).

Im not sure this is true though. The college game is very different than NBA play. You're still drafting on potential. There are very, very few players you "know" are NBA ready, nevermind good.

Yeah but my point is no one ever really critiques the guys who drafted Chrisitan Laettner or Adam Morrison and for good reason. Meanwhile Jordan got heavily criticized for picking Kwame Brown.

[Yoshun]

Well of course there's no definite science. However, when you draft a high schooler you're drafting based on potential. When you draft a senior you're drafting based on substance. If either pick flops it looks bad on a GM. However, if a high school pick flops then I think it looks much worse. If you pick a senior whose killing it in the NCAA but once he goes pro his game vanishes. That's on the player. Not the GM's fault really. However, if you pick a high schooler who clearly is not ready for the NBA game nor will ever be that falls heavily on the GM.

Besides, there's also no real way to protect GMs from picking guys who dominated NCAA only to suck in the Pros (Morrison, Laettner etc).

Im not sure this is true though. The college game is very different than NBA play. You're still drafting on potential. There are very, very few players you "know" are NBA ready, nevermind good.

Yeah but my point is no one ever really critiques the guys who drafted Chrisitan Laettner or Adam Morrison and for good reason. Meanwhile Jordan got heavily criticized for picking Kwame Brown.

This could be true. However I think that was more about MJ than it was drafting Kwame. Had he drafted Morrison, I think you would have seen much of the same criticism. It was the whole, "The GOAT can't pick talent" thing. Of course there's no way to know for sure. I just can't remember the names of any of the other GMs who picked high school flops.

[Capn'O]

Yeah but my point is no one ever really critiques the guys who drafted Chrisitan Laettner...

Why would anyone get criticized for drafting Laettner? He was a solid pro.

[itwasluck]

Adding to this discussion, its worth noting that players drafted out of high school are on the whole much more successful than players drafted out of college according to "every major statistical category compared to the average NBA pro." Here is a link to the academic paper, though you may need a University subscription to access it.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... _id=567745

IGMs only took risks on high schoolers when there was a good chance they were going to turn out.

In case anybody forgot the types of guys drafted out of high school, here is a list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_high_s ... ftees#List

Also, can we stop ripping on Kwame Brown? Yes, he was a disappointment for his draft position, but overall he is an extremely successful NBA pro. How many college players can play for over ten years in the NBA? You can't argue its bad for kids to be drafted out of high school because a ten year pro was drafted too high. That happens with all types of players.

Same with Bassy Telfair, dude played in the League for 9 years.

[CB-Blazer]

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

[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.

[CB-Blazer]

Baseball players can get drafted, but that doesn't necessarily mean they go right out and play for their teams. They spend a couple of years in the minors before they even touch an MLB stadium. And the NHL itself has debated to have the age limit at 20 themselves...

Using the Race Card doesn't work here...

Baseball players get drafted and can get huge signing bonuses/contracts right out of high school. They also receive a salary as minor league players and are thus professional athletes.

Maybe the solution is the NBA, to start some form of developmental league? The D-leauge is a joke. However, the baseball farm system is a complete joke, in terms of compensating players.

As to the pay, while some can receive big contracts, most do not. Most minor league players make between $3000-$7000 dollars a year.

The pay structure for D-leauge players is 13K/19K/25K.


http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/11123 ... n-magazine

http://www.baseballamerica.com/minors/p ... -salaries/

While there are a few lucky guys who make it (those that are drafted and given big contracts) there are many, many, many more who are working for sub federal minimum wage. There are 40 fricken rounds in the MLB draft…….

Both systems have their flaws. The MLB have a developmental league, that benefits a few while screwing majority. While the NBA doesn't offer much in terms of development, but offers a much better wage than those of the MLB.

[CB-Blazer]

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.

[NYKAL]

An attorney for the union representing NBA players strongly indicated Thursday that the association will want players to again have the age limit for go pro lowered in the next round of collective bargaining.

National Basketball Players Association general counsel Gary Kohlman said ''quite likely the union will be taking a radically different position'' than the NBA on the age issue, which will almost certainly be a contentious point between the sides when they sit down in the future.

''If they were white and hockey players they would be out there playing. If they were white and baseball players they would be out there playing,'' Kohlman said. ''Because most of them are actually African-American and are in a sport and precluded from doing it, they have to go into this absurd world of playing for one year.

''That's just total complete hypocrisy.''

Kohlman added that union head Michele Roberts ''believes in capitalism,'' and he essentially asked why talented young athletes and talented young entertainers aren't both able to maximize their financial potential.

''Capitalism means that if you're 17, 18 years old and you're a geek and you want to drop out of college and invent Apple or something else, you can do it,'' Kohlman said. ''In this country you can do that. And there's nothing stopping you from doing it. If you're an unbelievable blues singer at 17, 18, 19 years old, you can go out and make a fortune.''

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nbpa-attorney-union-anticipates-clash-age-limit-203001995--nba.html

I agree with Mr. Kohlman. The NBA age limit is inherently racist. You can even point to other sports like tennis and golf where there are teenagers playing on the professional tour and nobody bats an eye. But when talented black athletes want to turn pro after graduating from high school in basketball, everybody goes nuts. The age limit is completely ludicrous.

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.