Only one Freshman per year should enter the NBA

[Moranis]

 And if you were running Microsoft and you decided you would hire one 19 year old prodigy every year for one million dollars per year, is there a problem with that?

 Of course not but cause its your private business and you can do Whatever you darn well please.
 It's not any different with the NBA. Private Business if you don't like it go play And 1 basketball.

Except sports leagues are legal monopolies, microsoft is not.

[manl_lui]

 And if you were running Microsoft and you decided you would hire one 19 year old prodigy every year for one million dollars per year, is there a problem with that?

 Of course not but cause its your private business and you can do Whatever you darn well please.
 It's not any different with the NBA. Private Business if you don't like it go play And 1 basketball.

Except sports leagues are legal monopolies, microsoft is not.

but teams can choose whoever they want? The NBA isn't telling teams who they are supposed to choose?

and if they chose a freshmen that sucks, or not putting him in a position to succeed then it the team's fault, and poor management. It has NOTHING to do with freshmens declaring for the draft too early

[KG Living Legend]

 Certainly a lot of passion about this topic though which is good.

[CelticSince83]

It's a free country and these young men, largely from very poor backgrounds, should be free to maximize their income as soon as they would like.

Yet training in some form or another is required for most high paying jobs.  Why should athletics be any different?

Because athletics is talent-driven. Tech companies are similar, they don't let the lack of a degree stop them from hiring someone if they're a genius coder. "Oh wait, I notice that you didn't finish college. Mmmm, I'm sorry, we can't hire you then."

The only reason it's possible is because professional sports leagues are a government-supported monopoly in the USA.

Let's say there are two basketball leagues. One has no age limit and one does. Which league would get the best players and how fast would the league with the age limit change their policy?

You have to be a liberal, right?  Don't agree with a rule or policy because it "isn't fair."  I would hope the league is more concerned with protecting the quality of its product than what people think is fair.  Also, there are plenty of pro basketball leagues that don't have an age rule, and aren't as successful as the NBA, so no I disagree with your hypothetical which clearly wasn't very well thought out.

Wow, that makes no sense at all. Conservative dogma is that the markets should be free. However, American sports leagues have protection from the government which is why there used to be competing leagues within one sport but were then all consolidated into one. At this point the leagues are so powerful and established that starting a competing league would be unfeasible. The pro sports league owners enjoy publicly funded stadiums which they then get to own and collude with their fellow owners to lockout players and force them to accept their terms. Since there is no other comparable league the players have very little leverage.

Yes, it's true that every company is different and has different hiring standards. However, the point is that DIFFERENT COMPANIES EXIST to offer competition. It would be illegal for tech companies to collude and artificially decrease all starting salaries for their hires. However, this is normal practice in the NBA. There is no other legitimate option for these athletes' services because the owners have banded together precisely to prevent it.

The owners do not have a gun to their head when they give out a guaranteed deal. The reason they do it is because there isn't enough talent to go around and they have to overpay even for average players. However, this is balanced out by the unfair, below-market deals rookies are forced to sign and the max contract limit on superstars. If you're going to complain that the money isn't going to players who deserve it, you have to also argue that LeBron James should probably make 150 million dollars a year not just for his on-court contributions but for selling the league worldwide.

The owners can't have it both ways. They limit what stars and rookies can make, then complain that mediocre players are soaking up all the excess money? This is the system they agreed to! If the cap is 70 million and you only have to pay your superstar 20, of course that extra 50 is going to be going to some overrated players by comparison. They kept expanding the league in the pursuit of money, then found out it meant there would be less and less of the truly elite talent to go around. That's when mediocre players get overpaid.

Finally, I don't understand how anybody can say the rookie contracts are risky and need to be limited when they already are so! Draft picks are a great way to fill your roster with cheap, controllable players. If you do get a bust you don't have to pick up their option, but how often does that happen? A player has to be a total, incontrovertible bust these days to not play out their rookie deal to completion. Isn't that the ultimate proof that GMs recognize what a bargain these deals are?

I love these ideas to modify and improve the system and the game. However, the age limit is a bad one that penalizes the players unfairly. It's just a convenient workaround to try and hide problems that exist with the draft, wage scale, the NCAA, the NBDL, etc.

The players who end up making it in the league are compensated on the back end when they stay in the league a year longer.  Overall what the rule does is plainly increase the average age of the players in the league which hopefully results in an increase in maturity, which benefits the overall product. Simply regulating the age a player must be to enter the draft doesn't have any free market implications.  If the league was patently or latently racist and unfair guys like Brandon Jennings would be staying over seas and not running back here the second they are eligible. 

[BDeCosta26]

It's a free country and these young men, largely from very poor backgrounds, should be free to maximize their income as soon as they would like.

Yet training in some form or another is required for most high paying jobs.  Why should athletics be any different?

Because athletics is talent-driven. Tech companies are similar, they don't let the lack of a degree stop them from hiring someone if they're a genius coder. "Oh wait, I notice that you didn't finish college. Mmmm, I'm sorry, we can't hire you then."

The only reason it's possible is because professional sports leagues are a government-supported monopoly in the USA.

Let's say there are two basketball leagues. One has no age limit and one does. Which league would get the best players and how fast would the league with the age limit change their policy?

You have to be a liberal, right?  Don't agree with a rule or policy because it "isn't fair."  I would hope the league is more concerned with protecting the quality of its product than what people think is fair.  Also, there are plenty of pro basketball leagues that don't have an age rule, and aren't as successful as the NBA, so no I disagree with your hypothetical which clearly wasn't very well thought out.

Why does that mean he's a liberal? And what does being a liberal have to do with what this conversation is about. Plenty of conservatives agree with this point simply because they believe in the "free market"'s ability to choose and that people shouldn't be hindered from maximizing their earning potential to support an unpaid labor system.

Keep the politics out of it. Calling someone a liberal shouldn't be some type of derogatory comment. Plenty of reasonable, smart people lean both liberally and conservatively on a whole host of issues. People shouldn't be judged on the basis of their political beliefs. America's broad range of political viewpoints has been a strength of this country throughout it's history and should be embraced.

[Jon]

I really don't understand why the NBA hasn't developed the D-League more. If every team had their own minor league affiliate, it'd be much better for the sport. Nobody bats an eye when baseball and hockey players skip college and go to the pros to play in the minors a for a few years. There's no reason for the NBA not to do it. College basketball is a huge racket and it'd actually benefit NBA teams to get players used to their systems rather than learning some college coach's way and then having to adjust.

[BballTim]

It's a free country and these young men, largely from very poor backgrounds, should be free to maximize their income as soon as they would like.

Yet training in some form or another is required for most high paying jobs.  Why should athletics be any different?

  Most of the kids have been training to play high level competitive basketball since they were in grade school.

[CelticSince83]

It's a free country and these young men, largely from very poor backgrounds, should be free to maximize their income as soon as they would like.

Yet training in some form or another is required for most high paying jobs.  Why should athletics be any different?

Because athletics is talent-driven. Tech companies are similar, they don't let the lack of a degree stop them from hiring someone if they're a genius coder. "Oh wait, I notice that you didn't finish college. Mmmm, I'm sorry, we can't hire you then."

The only reason it's possible is because professional sports leagues are a government-supported monopoly in the USA.

Let's say there are two basketball leagues. One has no age limit and one does. Which league would get the best players and how fast would the league with the age limit change their policy?

You have to be a liberal, right?  Don't agree with a rule or policy because it "isn't fair."  I would hope the league is more concerned with protecting the quality of its product than what people think is fair.  Also, there are plenty of pro basketball leagues that don't have an age rule, and aren't as successful as the NBA, so no I disagree with your hypothetical which clearly wasn't very well thought out.

Why does that mean he's a liberal? And what does being a liberal have to do with what this conversation is about. Plenty of conservatives agree with this point simply because they believe in the "free market"'s ability to choose and that people shouldn't be hindered from maximizing their earning potential to support an unpaid labor system.

Keep the politics out of it. Calling someone a liberal shouldn't be some type of derogatory comment. Plenty of reasonable, smart people lean both liberally and conservatively on a whole host of issues. People shouldn't be judged on the basis of their political beliefs. America's broad range of political viewpoints has been a strength of this country throughout it's history and should be embraced.

He injected race.  Hence the liberal comment.  It has everything to do with it. 

Also no one is forcing anyone to play college basketball. So not sure how you can claim they are being forced to participate in an unpaid labor system.  An 18 year old kid with a high school diploma doesn't really have their pick of the litter so a 30-40k a year scholarship seems like a pretty good deal to me.  They also have the opportunity to go over seas, but we will ignore that as well. 

[obnoxiousmime]

I really don't understand why the NBA hasn't developed the D-League more. If every team had their own minor league affiliate, it'd be much better for the sport. Nobody bats an eye when baseball and hockey players skip college and go to the pros to play in the minors a for a few years. There's no reason for the NBA not to do it. College basketball is a huge racket and it'd actually benefit NBA teams to get players used to their systems rather than learning some college coach's way and then having to adjust.

The reason is simple. Investing in the D-League costs money. To expand it to the point where some posters are proposing would cost even more money. There already exists a league that is entirely free and with a developed infrastructure called the NCAA, where there are established fan bases, arenas, training facilities, instructional staff, and marketing programs already in place. Again, this is FREE. The league benefits because they get more established and marketable players early on. The NCAA benefits because they still get the top talents to play for at least a year. The players benefit because... erm... a scholarship?

Think of how costly it would actually be to maintain 30 NBDL teams. It's not just the drafted players, you've got to also pay the other 10-12 scrubs that fill up the rest of the roster. You have to build a fan base from scratch, somehow convincing fans that this team with only a few players with actual NBA potential is worth following, especially since the good players will leave in a year or two anyway. College sports fans don't need attachment to specific players because they already have affiliation with the school.

The NBA would also like to maintain the historical relevance of the draft. High school players besides LeBron James are virtual unknowns. The draft is a big part of their publicity efforts and fans pay more attention when they actually know who the players are. They don't want the NBA draft to be like the MLB draft, which even knowledgeable baseball fans don't follow.

[saltlover]

And then there are stories like this why kids should have the opportunity to enter a professional sports draft when the time is right for them.

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/miami-cb-artie-burns--citing-family--declaring-for-nfl-draft-204556837.html

[BDeCosta26]

It's a free country and these young men, largely from very poor backgrounds, should be free to maximize their income as soon as they would like.

Yet training in some form or another is required for most high paying jobs.  Why should athletics be any different?

Because athletics is talent-driven. Tech companies are similar, they don't let the lack of a degree stop them from hiring someone if they're a genius coder. "Oh wait, I notice that you didn't finish college. Mmmm, I'm sorry, we can't hire you then."

The only reason it's possible is because professional sports leagues are a government-supported monopoly in the USA.

Let's say there are two basketball leagues. One has no age limit and one does. Which league would get the best players and how fast would the league with the age limit change their policy?

You have to be a liberal, right?  Don't agree with a rule or policy because it "isn't fair."  I would hope the league is more concerned with protecting the quality of its product than what people think is fair.  Also, there are plenty of pro basketball leagues that don't have an age rule, and aren't as successful as the NBA, so no I disagree with your hypothetical which clearly wasn't very well thought out.

Why does that mean he's a liberal? And what does being a liberal have to do with what this conversation is about. Plenty of conservatives agree with this point simply because they believe in the "free market"'s ability to choose and that people shouldn't be hindered from maximizing their earning potential to support an unpaid labor system.

Keep the politics out of it. Calling someone a liberal shouldn't be some type of derogatory comment. Plenty of reasonable, smart people lean both liberally and conservatively on a whole host of issues. People shouldn't be judged on the basis of their political beliefs. America's broad range of political viewpoints has been a strength of this country throughout it's history and should be embraced.

He injected race.  Hence the liberal comment.  It has everything to do with it. 

Also no one is forcing anyone to play college basketball. So not sure how you can claim they are being forced to participate in an unpaid labor system.  An 18 year old kid with a high school diploma doesn't really have their pick of the litter so a 30-40k a year scholarship seems like a pretty good deal to me.  They also have the opportunity to go over seas, but we will ignore that as well.

It had nothing to do with it. You don't have to be a liberal to think the one and done rule forces primarily poor, young, African-American males to lose out on maximizing their earning potential. That's just a fact. I wouldn't say the rule is racist, but it primarily effects the young, poor black kids in a negative way, so it's not exactly a stretch.

Sure, you could sign overseas or in the NBDL, but not only will that likely hurt your draft stock but will also hinder development in the same way this question was posed to avoid. How much do you think Mudiay gained from a half-season in the Chinese league? Or PJ Hairston in the D-League? How much do you think that helped their development? Probably not as much as an age-18 or 19 season in the big leagues would do.

As I said before, I hate the rule purely for it's hypocrisy. Sure, I think 18 year olds should be able to play right away (as they do in almost every other sport sans American Football) but if your not gonna allow that what the heck is the point of 1-and-done? So a kid can screw around on a campus for 6 months and then go to the league anyways? That's stupid. If your gonna make them go, make them actually go and stay long enough to get the education out of it. Make the colleges give a dam about how many of their guys graduate. If were gonna tout the value of an insanely overpriced education as compensation for being the driving force behind a multi-million dollar business, then the guys should/have to be able to see the full benefit of it.

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with being a liberal or a conservative. Many conservatives are against the very premise of the one-and-done rule. There's nothing worse when someone pulls the "oh, you must be a liberal" like it's some kind of derogatory thing. Or "you must be a republican" in the same way. People are not A or B. Most intelligent, good folks lean left on some issues and to the right on others. "The Liberals" aren't some kind of ideological enemy out to undermine democracy. It takes strong voices from all viewpoints to work together to find a good middle ground, which is generally the best solution to any problem.  America has completely lost this ability in the past 20-odd years, and it has everything to do with how so many Americans have taken to this idea that if someone disagrees with your political views, they should be admonished. Its ridiculous and has made Washington a bogged down mess of stalemates, partisan bickering, extremism, and brinksmanship.

[BballTim]

It's a free country and these young men, largely from very poor backgrounds, should be free to maximize their income as soon as they would like.

Yet training in some form or another is required for most high paying jobs.  Why should athletics be any different?

Because athletics is talent-driven. Tech companies are similar, they don't let the lack of a degree stop them from hiring someone if they're a genius coder. "Oh wait, I notice that you didn't finish college. Mmmm, I'm sorry, we can't hire you then."

The only reason it's possible is because professional sports leagues are a government-supported monopoly in the USA.

Let's say there are two basketball leagues. One has no age limit and one does. Which league would get the best players and how fast would the league with the age limit change their policy?

You have to be a liberal, right?  Don't agree with a rule or policy because it "isn't fair."  I would hope the league is more concerned with protecting the quality of its product than what people think is fair.  Also, there are plenty of pro basketball leagues that don't have an age rule, and aren't as successful as the NBA, so no I disagree with your hypothetical which clearly wasn't very well thought out.

Why does that mean he's a liberal? And what does being a liberal have to do with what this conversation is about. Plenty of conservatives agree with this point simply because they believe in the "free market"'s ability to choose and that people shouldn't be hindered from maximizing their earning potential to support an unpaid labor system.

Keep the politics out of it. Calling someone a liberal shouldn't be some type of derogatory comment. Plenty of reasonable, smart people lean both liberally and conservatively on a whole host of issues. People shouldn't be judged on the basis of their political beliefs. America's broad range of political viewpoints has been a strength of this country throughout it's history and should be embraced.

He injected race.  Hence the liberal comment.  It has everything to do with it. 

Also no one is forcing anyone to play college basketball. So not sure how you can claim they are being forced to participate in an unpaid labor system.  An 18 year old kid with a high school diploma doesn't really have their pick of the litter so a 30-40k a year scholarship seems like a pretty good deal to me.  They also have the opportunity to go over seas, but we will ignore that as well.

It had nothing to do with it. You don't have to be a liberal to think the one and done rule forces primarily poor, young, African-American males to lose out on maximizing their earning potential. That's just a fact. I wouldn't say the rule is racist, but it primarily effects the young, poor black kids in a negative way, so it's not exactly a stretch.

  Mainly racist in the lack of diversity in the work force I suppose.

[obnoxiousmime]

It's a free country and these young men, largely from very poor backgrounds, should be free to maximize their income as soon as they would like.

Yet training in some form or another is required for most high paying jobs.  Why should athletics be any different?

Because athletics is talent-driven. Tech companies are similar, they don't let the lack of a degree stop them from hiring someone if they're a genius coder. "Oh wait, I notice that you didn't finish college. Mmmm, I'm sorry, we can't hire you then."

The only reason it's possible is because professional sports leagues are a government-supported monopoly in the USA.

Let's say there are two basketball leagues. One has no age limit and one does. Which league would get the best players and how fast would the league with the age limit change their policy?

You have to be a liberal, right?  Don't agree with a rule or policy because it "isn't fair."  I would hope the league is more concerned with protecting the quality of its product than what people think is fair.  Also, there are plenty of pro basketball leagues that don't have an age rule, and aren't as successful as the NBA, so no I disagree with your hypothetical which clearly wasn't very well thought out.

Why does that mean he's a liberal? And what does being a liberal have to do with what this conversation is about. Plenty of conservatives agree with this point simply because they believe in the "free market"'s ability to choose and that people shouldn't be hindered from maximizing their earning potential to support an unpaid labor system.

Keep the politics out of it. Calling someone a liberal shouldn't be some type of derogatory comment. Plenty of reasonable, smart people lean both liberally and conservatively on a whole host of issues. People shouldn't be judged on the basis of their political beliefs. America's broad range of political viewpoints has been a strength of this country throughout it's history and should be embraced.

He injected race.  Hence the liberal comment.  It has everything to do with it. 

Also no one is forcing anyone to play college basketball. So not sure how you can claim they are being forced to participate in an unpaid labor system.  An 18 year old kid with a high school diploma doesn't really have their pick of the litter so a 30-40k a year scholarship seems like a pretty good deal to me.  They also have the opportunity to go over seas, but we will ignore that as well.

I mentioned race because it is historically relevant to this debate, though I also admitted that it wasn't as big a factor as it used to be in the 90s. I never said the league itself was racist. The league has one concern, and that is money. If the environment is racist and their league consists of mostly blacks, then that affects their bottom line. What the league is is cynical.

For example, if the predominately white fan base is having problems "relating" to young black men from urban environments, then what's the solution? A dress code! Do you really think that policy would exist if the league were mostly white? No, because there never would have been any need for it in the first place.

They ARE essentially being forced to participate in an unpaid labor system. Mudiay decided to play in China and his draft stock dropped. He was penalized because he was playing in a foreign league that teams do not trust as much as the NCAA. He was also penalized because the CBA is geographically farther away and harder to scout, and because the NCAA publicity system wasn't there to keep his name in the headlines to increase his buzz among fans and journalists. There is intense pressure for prospects to fall in line and go to college or risk hurting their draft stock.

Not to mention there is the risk of injury in college. You are not getting paid, and yet you are risking injury that could lower your stock or worse, have longstanding effects on your career. If you are going to risk injury, you should at least be getting paid.

Scholarships? Really? The cost of a scholarship could easily be paid for by a minimum salary in the NBA. How much education do you really think these one-and-done candidates are getting?

[CelticSince83]

It's a free country and these young men, largely from very poor backgrounds, should be free to maximize their income as soon as they would like.

Yet training in some form or another is required for most high paying jobs.  Why should athletics be any different?

Because athletics is talent-driven. Tech companies are similar, they don't let the lack of a degree stop them from hiring someone if they're a genius coder. "Oh wait, I notice that you didn't finish college. Mmmm, I'm sorry, we can't hire you then."

The only reason it's possible is because professional sports leagues are a government-supported monopoly in the USA.

Let's say there are two basketball leagues. One has no age limit and one does. Which league would get the best players and how fast would the league with the age limit change their policy?

You have to be a liberal, right?  Don't agree with a rule or policy because it "isn't fair."  I would hope the league is more concerned with protecting the quality of its product than what people think is fair.  Also, there are plenty of pro basketball leagues that don't have an age rule, and aren't as successful as the NBA, so no I disagree with your hypothetical which clearly wasn't very well thought out.

Why does that mean he's a liberal? And what does being a liberal have to do with what this conversation is about. Plenty of conservatives agree with this point simply because they believe in the "free market"'s ability to choose and that people shouldn't be hindered from maximizing their earning potential to support an unpaid labor system.

Keep the politics out of it. Calling someone a liberal shouldn't be some type of derogatory comment. Plenty of reasonable, smart people lean both liberally and conservatively on a whole host of issues. People shouldn't be judged on the basis of their political beliefs. America's broad range of political viewpoints has been a strength of this country throughout it's history and should be embraced.

He injected race.  Hence the liberal comment.  It has everything to do with it. 

Also no one is forcing anyone to play college basketball. So not sure how you can claim they are being forced to participate in an unpaid labor system.  An 18 year old kid with a high school diploma doesn't really have their pick of the litter so a 30-40k a year scholarship seems like a pretty good deal to me.  They also have the opportunity to go over seas, but we will ignore that as well.

I mentioned race because it is historically relevant to this debate, though I also admitted that it wasn't as big a factor as it used to be in the 90s. I never said the league itself was racist. The league has one concern, and that is money. If the environment is racist and their league consists of mostly blacks, then that affects their bottom line. What the league is is cynical.

For example, if the predominately white fan base is having problems "relating" to young black men from urban environments, then what's the solution? A dress code! Do you really think that policy would exist if the league were mostly white? No, because there never would have been any need for it in the first place.

They ARE essentially being forced to participate in an unpaid labor system. Mudiay decided to play in China and his draft stock dropped. He was penalized because he was playing in a foreign league that teams do not trust as much as the NCAA. He was also penalized because the CBA is geographically farther away and harder to scout, and because the NCAA publicity system wasn't there to keep his name in the headlines to increase his buzz among fans and journalists. There is intense pressure for prospects to fall in line and go to college or risk hurting their draft stock.

Not to mention there is the risk of injury in college. You are not getting paid, and yet you are risking injury that could lower your stock or worse, have longstanding effects on your career. If you are going to risk injury, you should at least be getting paid.

Scholarships? Really? The cost of a scholarship could easily be paid for by a minimum salary in the NBA. How much education do you really think these one-and-done candidates are getting?

I went to school at a Blue Blood and have seen plenty of NBA players come and go so I don't really need to speculate as to what kind of education they are getting.  Even one year is an eternity when we are talking about the maturation or development of an 18 or 19 year old.

Basically you are upset that employment as a player in the NBA works te same way as employment in essentially every other field.  Could I have made more money shoveling rocks than I did while I was in college?  Sure.  You mock a 30k-50k scholarship as if it is nothing but it happens to be the best deal on the table for an 18 year old with a high school education.  They also benefit from the exposure while at these schools.  So I don't understand how what is seemingly the best opportunity available is an unfair deal. 

Anyway it is pointless debating this.  Anything that seems "unfair" to you and doesn't fit into your utopia is either patently wrong or a prima facie case of racism.  The owners own the teams and as far as I'm concerned if they want to impose a simple age restriction in the best interest of the league that's good enough for me.

[KG Living Legend]

It's a free country and these young men, largely from very poor backgrounds, should be free to maximize their income as soon as they would like.

Yet training in some form or another is required for most high paying jobs.  Why should athletics be any different?

Because athletics is talent-driven. Tech companies are similar, they don't let the lack of a degree stop them from hiring someone if they're a genius coder. "Oh wait, I notice that you didn't finish college. Mmmm, I'm sorry, we can't hire you then."

The only reason it's possible is because professional sports leagues are a government-supported monopoly in the USA.

Let's say there are two basketball leagues. One has no age limit and one does. Which league would get the best players and how fast would the league with the age limit change their policy?

You have to be a liberal, right?  Don't agree with a rule or policy because it "isn't fair."  I would hope the league is more concerned with protecting the quality of its product than what people think is fair.  Also, there are plenty of pro basketball leagues that don't have an age rule, and aren't as successful as the NBA, so no I disagree with your hypothetical which clearly wasn't very well thought out.

Why does that mean he's a liberal? And what does being a liberal have to do with what this conversation is about. Plenty of conservatives agree with this point simply because they believe in the "free market"'s ability to choose and that people shouldn't be hindered from maximizing their earning potential to support an unpaid labor system.

Keep the politics out of it. Calling someone a liberal shouldn't be some type of derogatory comment. Plenty of reasonable, smart people lean both liberally and conservatively on a whole host of issues. People shouldn't be judged on the basis of their political beliefs. America's broad range of political viewpoints has been a strength of this country throughout it's history and should be embraced.

He injected race.  Hence the liberal comment.  It has everything to do with it. 

Also no one is forcing anyone to play college basketball. So not sure how you can claim they are being forced to participate in an unpaid labor system.  An 18 year old kid with a high school diploma doesn't really have their pick of the litter so a 30-40k a year scholarship seems like a pretty good deal to me.  They also have the opportunity to go over seas, but we will ignore that as well.

I mentioned race because it is historically relevant to this debate, though I also admitted that it wasn't as big a factor as it used to be in the 90s. I never said the league itself was racist. The league has one concern, and that is money. If the environment is racist and their league consists of mostly blacks, then that affects their bottom line. What the league is is cynical.

For example, if the predominately white fan base is having problems "relating" to young black men from urban environments, then what's the solution? A dress code! Do you really think that policy would exist if the league were mostly white? No, because there never would have been any need for it in the first place.

They ARE essentially being forced to participate in an unpaid labor system. Mudiay decided to play in China and his draft stock dropped. He was penalized because he was playing in a foreign league that teams do not trust as much as the NCAA. He was also penalized because the CBA is geographically farther away and harder to scout, and because the NCAA publicity system wasn't there to keep his name in the headlines to increase his buzz among fans and journalists. There is intense pressure for prospects to fall in line and go to college or risk hurting their draft stock.

Not to mention there is the risk of injury in college. You are not getting paid, and yet you are risking injury that could lower your stock or worse, have longstanding effects on your career. If you are going to risk injury, you should at least be getting paid.

Scholarships? Really? The cost of a scholarship could easily be paid for by a minimum salary in the NBA. How much education do you really think these one-and-done candidates are getting?

I went to school at a Blue Blood and have seen plenty of NBA players come and go so I don't really need to speculate as to what kind of education they are getting.  Even one year is an eternity when we are talking about the maturation or development of an 18 or 19 year old.

Basically you are upset that employment as a player in the NBA works te same way as employment in essentially every other field.  Could I have made more money shoveling rocks than I did while I was in college?  Sure.  You mock a 30k-50k scholarship as if it is nothing but it happens to be the best deal on the table for an 18 year old with a high school education.  They also benefit from the exposure while at these schools.  So I don't understand how what is seemingly the best opportunity available is an unfair deal. 

Anyway it is pointless debating this.  Anything that seems "unfair" to you and doesn't fit into your utopia is either patently wrong or a prima facie case of racism.  The owners own the teams and as far as I'm concerned if they want to impose a simple age restriction in the best interest of the league that's good enough for me.

 Tp Celtics 83, Good post.