I never said they receive millions in benefits. Mostly my point is that the amount of money any one college basketball player is going to add to an already established elite program is being grossly overstated. There isn't a bunch of mystery people at the school getting rich off of them (unless you work in the KU ticket department). The coach and the networks get the lion's share. The rest usually benefits the player in some way. Rose wasn't the only NBA player on that Memphis squad and other non-pros contributed too. When you factor in elite one on one instruction, nutritionists and on down the line, players are being pretty well taken care of. It's not better than being free to sign with the NBA, but it's not bad.greenback44 wrote:I won't argue if you want to maintain that colleges squander most of the revenue generated by a Derrick Rose-type player. But the notion that the great college players are receiving millions in benefits during their time in school is horribly false.cardsfansince82 wrote:When you add in education, room and board and every thing else college basketball players are compensated pretty fairly.
Derrick Rose
- cardsfansince82
- is shooing asian children away from his fridge.
- Posts: 27873
- Joined: May 17 06, 10:23 pm
- Location: at the gettin' place
Re: Derrick Rose
- cardsfansince82
- is shooing asian children away from his fridge.
- Posts: 27873
- Joined: May 17 06, 10:23 pm
- Location: at the gettin' place
Re: Derrick Rose
Not to completely discredit your argument (because it does play a small role) but something more relevant also happened in 2007. The economy went in the crapper. There are less jobs available for people straight out of high school than at any point in the last 60 years. College enrollment is skyrocketing across the board.longhornbaseball wrote: You are forgetting to factor in changes in student enrollment due to athletic success. That's where the big money is, IMO. A national spotlight on your football or basketball team greatly increases the prestige of the school, and that probably increases enrollment, which is highly profitable. Here is enrollment data for Mizzou over the last 10 years. Notice anything after 2007?This probably isn't isolated to football, either. I would guess schools like Gonzaga and Butler have experienced something similar with the success of their basketball programs. The positive externalities associated with being an athletic powerhouse are substantial.Code: Select all
Year Students % change y-o-y 2002 26,124 2003 26,805 2.6% 2004 27,003 0.7 2005 27,985 3.6 2006 28,253 1.0 2007 28,477 0.8 2008 30,200 6.1 2009 31,314 3.7 2010 32,415 3.5 2011 33,805 4.3
- cardsfansince82
- is shooing asian children away from his fridge.
- Posts: 27873
- Joined: May 17 06, 10:23 pm
- Location: at the gettin' place
Re: Derrick Rose
You must not be reading my posts. Players are still growing at 18. They often put on 20 pounds in that first year out of high school. The difference in physicality and competition in general is big between high school and college and massive between high school and the NBA. The only thing Derrick Rose had "proved" at age 18 was he was better than just about every other 16-18 year old. In my opinion that doesn't entitle you to a spot on an NBA roster. Guys in high school face vastly varied levels of competition. Even if they dominate the AAU circuit, that still doesn't mean they are ready to dominate college, let alone succeed in the pros. Other sports like baseball will draft an 18 year old, but he still has to prove himself over and over against his peers over a period of years before he gets a spot on a pro roster or access to really big money. The NBA doesn't have a viable minor league and not enough roster spots to go around.bobby bo wrote:I still haven't seen anyone defend the merits of the rule other than just saying, "Other professions have requirements, why shouldn't the NBA?"
Why is 19 so much more valid than 18?
Since we're all making bad analogies, does it make business sense to give every kid that made a 4.0 in high school a really good job? Or should you wait until they are surrounded by a lot of other smart people in college and see who stands out from that crowd?
- The Third Man
- It rubs the lotion on its skin.
- Posts: 8933
- Joined: July 17 06, 1:00 pm
Re: Derrick Rose
NBA vets agreed to it because they get more money. As if they care about the welfare of a class of faceless rookies.Socnorb11 wrote:jim wrote:No it doesn't. What do you have to support that? Why doesn't MLB institute this rule if it helps?Socnorb11 wrote:bobby bo wrote:I still haven't seen anyone defend the merits of the rule other than just saying, "Other professions have requirements, why shouldn't the NBA?"
Why is 19 so much more valid than 18?
I think the rules is there to benefit the NBA, the NCAA, and NBA veterans. It really helps more people than it hurts. By that standard, it seems like a reasonable idea to me.
The NBA and its players both agreed to the rule, so I assume it's helping them. Why would the NBA institute the rule, and why would the players agree to it, if it didn't help.
I think it's a no-brainer that it helps the NCAA.
-
- Red Lobster for the seafood lover in you
- Posts: 50608
- Joined: May 1 06, 2:41 pm
Re: Derrick Rose
Exactly, you have to draw *a* line distinguishing when someone is an adult or not, and that line here in the U.S. (and much of the world) is 18. I personally believe at 18 you should allowed to do whatever you want - including drinking a beer and finding the best job that your talents require. 19 and 21 etc.. are just more confusing.cards2468 wrote:legal ability to sign a contract without a guardian also signing?Popeye_Card wrote:Why is 18 more valid than 17 for MLB and the NHL?bobby bo wrote:I still haven't seen anyone defend the merits of the rule other than just saying, "Other professions have requirements, why shouldn't the NBA?"
Why is 19 so much more valid than 18?
- thrill
- bronoun enthusiast
- Posts: 30369
- Joined: April 14 06, 10:45 pm
- Location: barely online
Re: Derrick Rose
I'm reading your posts. I just don't understand why you're so concerned about the development of an athlete or the ways owners spend their money. If a team owner wants to spend his money on a risky, undeveloped prospect, they should be able to do so. Wayne Rooney was physically developed enough to be a Premier League star for Everton when he was 16. Lots of other players weren't, so Everton didn't sign them.cardsfansince82 wrote: You must not be reading my posts. Players are still growing at 18. They often put on 20 pounds in that first year out of high school. The difference in physicality and competition in general is big between high school and college and massive between high school and the NBA. The only thing Derrick Rose had "proved" at age 18 was he was better than just about every other 16-18 year old. In my opinion that doesn't entitle you to a spot on an NBA roster. Guys in high school face vastly varied levels of competition. Even if they dominate the AAU circuit, that still doesn't mean they are ready to dominate college, let alone succeed in the pros. Other sports like baseball will draft an 18 year old, but he still has to prove himself over and over against his peers over a period of years before he gets a spot on a pro roster or access to really big money. The NBA doesn't have a viable minor league and not enough roster spots to go around.
LeBron James would have been developed enough to play for the Cavs when he was 16. Lots of other players would not be.
If a team signs someone who isn't ready, then that was a bad investment and they'll just have to be patient and wait for the player to develop. There's no harm in that other than the player not getting the in-game minutes they would get playing at a lower-level, but at the same time they are training with better players, coaches, trainers etc and making a lot of money that could significantly improve their family's position in life.
If you run a business and you think you've found a high school student that is the best candidate to fill a position in your company, by all means, hire that person. If you're wrong, you failed because you made a bad evaluation of that person's value.cardsfansince82 wrote: Since we're all making bad analogies, does it make business sense to give every kid that made a 4.0 in high school a really good job? Or should you wait until they are surrounded by a lot of other smart people in college and see who stands out from that crowd?
-
- The Last Word
- Posts: 21588
- Joined: June 21 06, 8:45 am
Re: Derrick Rose
Of course. That's exactly my point.The Third Man wrote:NBA vets agreed to it because they get more money. As if they care about the welfare of a class of faceless rookies.Socnorb11 wrote:jim wrote:No it doesn't. What do you have to support that? Why doesn't MLB institute this rule if it helps?Socnorb11 wrote:bobby bo wrote:I still haven't seen anyone defend the merits of the rule other than just saying, "Other professions have requirements, why shouldn't the NBA?"
Why is 19 so much more valid than 18?
I think the rules is there to benefit the NBA, the NCAA, and NBA veterans. It really helps more people than it hurts. By that standard, it seems like a reasonable idea to me.
The NBA and its players both agreed to the rule, so I assume it's helping them. Why would the NBA institute the rule, and why would the players agree to it, if it didn't help.
I think it's a no-brainer that it helps the NCAA.
The NBA benefits from the rule.
The NBA players benefit from the rule.
The NCAA benefits from the rule.
The only guy that you could make a case for that doesn't benefit is the 18 year old kid. Cardsfansince82 makes a pretty strong case that he's benefitting, as well.
In other words, if more people are benefitting than not, then it seems like a reasonable rule.
-
- The Last Word
- Posts: 21588
- Joined: June 21 06, 8:45 am
Re: Derrick Rose
jim wrote:Exactly, you have to draw *a* line distinguishing when someone is an adult or not, and that line here in the U.S. (and much of the world) is 18. I personally believe at 18 you should allowed to do whatever you want - including drinking a beer and finding the best job that your talents require. 19 and 21 etc.. are just more confusing.cards2468 wrote:legal ability to sign a contract without a guardian also signing?Popeye_Card wrote:Why is 18 more valid than 17 for MLB and the NHL?bobby bo wrote:I still haven't seen anyone defend the merits of the rule other than just saying, "Other professions have requirements, why shouldn't the NBA?"
Why is 19 so much more valid than 18?
Likewise, if your a bazillionaire who has invested his money in an NBA team, you should be able to set the standard of who gets in and who doesn't....... especially if the Players Union agrees with you. The world isn't going to cater to you, just because you've turned 18.
By the way, I'm not picking on Rose here. I love the guy. I'm just debating the merits of the rule.
- TheoSqua
- Next Gen Wart
- Posts: 8897
- Joined: April 22 06, 6:53 pm
- Location: St. Louis
- Contact:
Re: Derrick Rose
I bet having that one year of extra education helps long-term for NBA vets as well. Maybe not for the 100m/career guys, but the role players that received a scholarship and play in the NBA for 5-6 years and aren't multi-millionaires.
After retirement they already have one year of schooling, so going back and finishing your degree in a place that you've already established yourself makes a lot more sense.
After retirement they already have one year of schooling, so going back and finishing your degree in a place that you've already established yourself makes a lot more sense.
- Popeye_Card
- GRB's most intelligent & humble poster
- Posts: 29877
- Joined: April 17 06, 11:25 am
Re: Derrick Rose
Well there is a good point to be made there, regarding legally being able to sign a contract yourself. But really only the NHL and MLB follow the 18 rule, and both have fairly established minor league systems and/or procedures to remain in juniors/college while rights are retained such that 18 year olds aren't rushed to the big time before they are ready, just because their talent dictated a high draft position.jim wrote:Exactly, you have to draw *a* line distinguishing when someone is an adult or not, and that line here in the U.S. (and much of the world) is 18. I personally believe at 18 you should allowed to do whatever you want - including drinking a beer and finding the best job that your talents require. 19 and 21 etc.. are just more confusing.cards2468 wrote:legal ability to sign a contract without a guardian also signing?Popeye_Card wrote:Why is 18 more valid than 17 for MLB and the NHL?bobby bo wrote:I still haven't seen anyone defend the merits of the rule other than just saying, "Other professions have requirements, why shouldn't the NBA?"
Why is 19 so much more valid than 18?
Following his poor analogy to other sports though, a golfer can participate in PGA/LPGA events prior to 18. Tennis players compete in grand slam tournaments before 18. On the other end of the age spectrum, NFL prospects have to wait until they're 3 years out of high school. You have the physical maturity argument there for most players/positions, but does a kid need to be 20/21 to punt or place kick at the NFL level?
My point is that every sport has a somewhat random cut-off point, all based on a day someone was born approximately 16-20 years prior. A few years ago there was a big argument as to whether John Tavarez, consensus top pick in the NHL draft, should be allowed to be drafted a year early because he turned 18 less than a month after the draft. An arbitrary line in the sand based on when he was born, and when the draft took place--he could have waited a month to legally sign a contract.
Honestly, I don't care enough about the NBA or NCAA bball anymore to even form a strong opinion on their age rule. I just thought the writer's analogies were off the mark and hyperbolic. I sincerely apologize for commenting upon them. Carry on.