Great Steve Kerr Article on NBA Age Minimum

It covers all the points we have been debating over the last couple months, specifically with reference to Moe.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7883540/steve-kerr-problems-age-limit-nba

Here is one great paragraph from it on why we should ignore the civil liberty argument:

"The arguments against raising the age requirement hinge on civil liberties, points like, "Who are we to deny a 19-year-old kid a chance to make a living when he can vote, drive, and fight in a war?" If this were about legality or fairness, you might have a case. But it's really about business.4 The National Basketball Association is a multi-billion-dollar industry that depends on ticket sales, sponsorships, corporate dollars, and media contracts to operate successfully. If the league believes one rule tweak — whatever it is — would improve its product and make it more efficient, then it should be allowed to make that business decision. If an 18-year-old basketball whiz wants to earn a living right away, he could play overseas or in the D-League for those two years. Regardless, it shouldn't be the NBA's responsibility to provide working opportunities for teenagers, just like it's not the NFL's responsibility to do so. The NBA should only care about running its operation the best it can. That's it."

That paragraph is all I need to read. Im in the stay at least two years corner

The paragraph is spot on but the kids and their associates don't care about the financial well being of the NBA nor the quality of the product.  Like so many of todays young employees they are not interested in paying their dues on the way up the ladder.  At least in other fields the kids enter with an education, if also with a highly inflated opinion of their worth to their employer. 

It covers all the points we have been debating over the last couple months, specifically with reference to Moe.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7883540/steve-kerr-problems-age-limit-nba

Here is one great paragraph from it on why we should ignore the civil liberty argument:

"The arguments against raising the age requirement hinge on civil liberties, points like, "Who are we to deny a 19-year-old kid a chance to make a living when he can vote, drive, and fight in a war?" If this were about legality or fairness, you might have a case. But it's really about business.4 The National Basketball Association is a multi-billion-dollar industry that depends on ticket sales, sponsorships, corporate dollars, and media contracts to operate successfully. If the league believes one rule tweak — whatever it is — would improve its product and make it more efficient, then it should be allowed to make that business decision. If an 18-year-old basketball whiz wants to earn a living right away, he could play overseas or in the D-League for those two years. Regardless, it shouldn't be the NBA's responsibility to provide working opportunities for teenagers, just like it's not the NFL's responsibility to do so. The NBA should only care about running its operation the best it can. That's it.

This echos my sentiments exactly.  He's 100% right. 

I agree with the statement the NBA has a right to put in the rule.  But I think most people question the reasoning.  Most people think it  was done to help the NCAA not an attempt to improve the NBA product.  If it was so bad for the league why were teams drafting them?

I agree with the statement the NBA has a right to put in the rule.  But I think most people question the reasoning.  Most people think it  was done to help the NCAA not an attempt to improve the NBA product.  If it was so bad for the league why were teams drafting them?

The teams dont want to miss out on the prospects. Doesn't mean they wouldnt rather have them wait a couple years to come out.

Here is one great paragraph from it on why we should ignore the civil liberty argument:

"If this were about legality or fairness, you might have a case. But it's really about business. The NBA should only care about running its operation the best it can. That's it."

So his implicit "great point" is that the age limit is both illegal and unfair, but it should be allowed because it benefits the NBA's bottom line.

Let's try this with other businesses. It's illegal and unfair for GE to dump PCBs into the Hudson, but GE should only care about cheaply disposing of its poisons, so dump away. It's illegal and unfair for Walmart to deny entrance to its stores to minorities, who commit a disproportionate amount of property crime, but Walmart should only care about reducing shoplifting, so racial profiling is swell. It's illegal and unfair for Nike to employ children in Chinese sweat shops, but Nike should only care about reducing labor costs, so get on with the indentured servitude.

Similarly great points I presume.

Foad, the NFL has been doing it for years.  If the NBA does it, it will stand. We've already gone through this.  You think it's potentially illegal, but that there's a legal out.  So end of story.

Hope I don't offend anybody with this but a college education just isn't what it used to be anymore. It's overpriced and dosent come with the guarantee of employment anymore like it used too. With the outsourcing of jobs and the increase of technology our generation has been subjected to a layoff epidemic and an all time high in owed student loans. Where living in an era of innovators, those who can create business and look to be self employed.

Foad, the NFL has been doing it for years.  If the NBA does it, it will stand. We've already gone through this.  You think it's potentially illegal, but that there's a legal out.  So end of story.

It's not potentially illegal. It's illegal but for the antitrust exemption. "Every contract ... in restraint of trade or commerce .... is declared to be illegal." That's the law of the United States. Kerr's argument is that the NBA should be free to run its business however it wants with the benefit of federal power enforcing its otherwise illegal behavior.

Quote from: Tha Kid on May 08, 2012, 03:38:27 PM

Foad, the NFL has been doing it for years.  If the NBA does it, it will stand. We've already gone through this.  You think it's potentially illegal, but that there's a legal out.  So end of story.

It's not potentially illegal. It's illegal but for the antitrust exemption. "Every contract ... in restraint of trade or commerce .... is declared to be illegal." That's the law of the United States. Kerr's argument is that the NBA should be free to run its business however it wants with the benefit of federal power enforcing its otherwise illegal behavior.

Unfortunately, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit did not agree with a similar argument raised by Maurice Clarret when it overturned Shira Scheindlin's decision in the Clarret V. NFL case and upheld the NFL's age restriction as part of the collective bargaining process with the players union.   Not saying I agree with the decision, but it's the law on the books (at least in the Second Circuit).

"Illegal but for the antitrust exemption" = legal.  Get over it.  Can't imagine that exemption disappearing anytime soon, can you?

Unfortunately, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit did not agree with a similar argument raised by Maurice Clarret when it overturned Shira Scheindlin's decision in the Clarret V. NFL case and upheld the NFL's age restriction as part of the collective bargaining process with the players union.   Not saying I agree with the decision, but it's the law on the books (at least in the Second Circuit).

But that conflates two arguments - the legal and the theoretical. Obviously the exemption - the non statutory exemption - is legal. From whence government coercion. But it's disingenuous to argue that on the one hand that the NBA should operate unfettered in the free market and on the other to have the government enforce its otherwise illegal operations, which in any other circumstance would put it outside the free market. In a free market Clarett could not have been bound by a contract to which he was not a party. Except here he is, by court order.

It's interesting that the original baseball case was decided on the ground that baseball was purely a state activity: baseball wasn't subject to Sherman because it didn't effect interstate commerce. Nowadays not buying something without crossing state lines effects interstate commerce to the point that the government can force you to enter a contract to purchase a product you don't want and may not need.

That thing there on the horizon, that's Treblinka.

"Illegal but for the antitrust exemption" = legal.

You didn't say "legal," you said "potentially illegal." Not a particularly subtle distinction but it managed to fly right over your head.

Can't imagine that exemption disappearing anytime soon, can you?

No I can't, because the world's full of clerks and petty fascists who think their personal morality and myopic view of "fairness" should set the boundaries of individual liberty. It's easier for me to imagine concentration camps in the desert than it is to imagine the greedy bloated corrupt corpse of the republic ceding one iota of its power or to even to imagine a citizenry that quails at the thought of it.

Potentially = with a possibility of becoming actual

Remove the exemption, and the possibility of being illegal becomes actual.

I stand by my original comment.  Just because you didn't understand it, doesn't mean it was wrong.  Thanks for playing.

Quote from: DFF6 on May 08, 2012, 04:13:06 PM

Unfortunately, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit did not agree with a similar argument raised by Maurice Clarret when it overturned Shira Scheindlin's decision in the Clarret V. NFL case and upheld the NFL's age restriction as part of the collective bargaining process with the players union.   Not saying I agree with the decision, but it's the law on the books (at least in the Second Circuit).

But that conflates two arguments - the legal and the theoretical. Obviously the exemption - the non statutory exemption - is legal. From whence government coercion. But it's disingenuous to argue that on the one hand that the NBA should operate unfettered in the free market and on the other to have the government enforce its otherwise illegal operations, which in any other circumstance would put it outside the free market. In a free market Clarett could not have been bound by a contract to which he was not a party. Except here he is, by court order.

It's interesting that the original baseball case was decided on the ground that baseball was purely a state activity: baseball wasn't subject to Sherman because it didn't effect interstate commerce. Nowadays not buying something without crossing state lines effects interstate commerce to the point that the government can force you to enter a contract to purchase a product you don't want and may not need.

That thing there on the horizon, that's Treblinka.

Treblinka???  That's a bit extreme!  Next thing you'll tell me, the Federal Government will try to require every American citizen to purchase health care insurance on the justification that the Interstate Commerce Clause empowers the Federal Government to do so.   Oh wait....

Allowing one-and-dones helps St. John's IMO.  Yeah, we lost Harkless this year, but the real big boys are going to see their insanely talented rosters gain experience if kids are forced to stay longer.  I like our chances putting up Dom, Amir, and D'Angelo as juniors up against any class dominated by even the best of the best freshmen.

Allowing one-and-dones helps St. John's IMO.  Yeah, we lost Harkless this year, but the real big boys are going to see their insanely talented rosters gain experience if kids are forced to stay longer.  I like our chances putting up Dom, Amir, and D'Angelo as juniors up against any class dominated by even the best of the best freshmen.

Yes but if people are staying more than one year than more rosters will be full thus meaning more recruits for other schools.

Potentially = with a possibility of becoming actual

Remove the exemption, and the possibility of being illegal becomes actual.

I stand by my original comment.  Just because you didn't understand it, doesn't mean it was wrong.  Thanks for playing.

Like many web dullards you rely on condescension, being devoid of critical thinking and rhetorical skills. Killing a human being is potentially a crime. Homicide,  a crime, is illegal. Justifiable homicide, not a crime, is both legal and not illegal. Justifiable homicide is not potentially illegal, homicide is not potentially legal, and neither is potentially the other. Killing a human is potentially both. This is not a terribly subtle but seemingly it eludes you. Write back when you've worked it out.

Building Boolean Basketball Bombast