|
Post by Seattle Slough on Apr 24, 2009 14:49:35 GMT -4
Don't let 18 year old kids from Euro be allowed to play until their 21 either. Other than this entertainment profession, how many 18 year old kids you know jump into money that fast as their careers? People have to put in time in whatever you do. How are schools not exploiting regular students for making them take this bullshit GE classes that are just a more tough high school course that really has nothing to do with what you want to do in life or what your major is. We all have to pay for this bullshit, so whats the problem in making the kids mature into better adults and at least be almost done with education after three years in college.
Everything in the world is exploited in one way or another regardless if its sports or not, at least this exploitation is given them an education as well, compared to huge US corporations that have factories in other countries exploiting cheap ass labor on young kids that will never have an education.
And most of the kids that will end up going to the NBA get free fucking tuition, don't have to pay shit, seems like a pretty damn good deal to me for just playing a sport. If you think about that, that tuition per year is more then most college kids will make out of the first year graduating.
|
|
|
Post by kfilament on Apr 24, 2009 14:50:33 GMT -4
exactly Sims, the point is that the only reason it was put in place was to protect owners/gm's who were tired of having to take the risk of drafting high school players. They have no genuine concern for the young men. the rule is stupid, plain and simple, it benefits only the NCAA and the NBA owners who dont have to look like idiots after drafting johnathan benders. OR the 12 or so GM's that passed on Kobe.
|
|
|
Post by phdsims on Apr 24, 2009 15:06:21 GMT -4
These kids going to the NBA early don't get a college education.
Derrick rose was not a real student last year. He was not educated in any worthwhile fashion
Again, should actors be required to go to college first before becoming rich acting at a young age?
|
|
|
Post by phdsims on Apr 24, 2009 15:11:23 GMT -4
I might not like gen we classes, but being required to take them because the organization accrediting the university says so is not being exploited. It is creating a well rounded student. Go to ITT tech if you want 100% tech classes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2009 15:15:10 GMT -4
How's that fair to the kids? How can you let 18 year old euro players in but require Americans to be 21. Should all actors finish 3 years of college? Why use ncaabb as a minor league? Then exploit the kids in college as cheap labor for a billion dollar industry. Pay the kids in college.
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Slough on Apr 24, 2009 15:19:20 GMT -4
These kids going to the NBA early don't get a college education. Derrick rose was not a real student last year. He was not educated in any worthwhile fashion Again, should actors be required to go to college first before becoming rich acting at a young age? If they were made to stay there 3 years like in college football, then they would learn something, your not understanding that I am against one year as well, that is pointless. I say mirror that of the NFL and have them stay in college for 3 years. Full scholarships to the school with room and board is being paid, does that shit just come out of thin air? Is that free?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2009 15:21:28 GMT -4
Again, should actors be required to go to college first before becoming rich acting at a young age? Young actors going to college wouldn't improve their acting ability, but young athletes going to college improves their athletic ability. Young actors going to college wouldn't allow old actors to stick around longer and continue to be employed, but young athletes going to college allows aging talented NBA players to stay in the league as role players. Young actors don't have to physically compete in a contact sport against grown men, but young athletes do. Young actors going to college isn't going to drastically improve the quality of college plays, but young athletes in college will drastically improve the quality of college athletics.
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Slough on Apr 24, 2009 15:30:16 GMT -4
Plus ever realize that there are specific movies made for kids and shit that look for young actors to identify with. Like the actors on mickey mouse club or nickaloden and shit. There isn't a need for young athletes in the NBA, there are the few select that make an impact, other than that they don't become good for a good amount of years.
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Slough on Apr 24, 2009 15:34:32 GMT -4
I might not like gen we classes, but being required to take them because the organization accrediting the university says so is not being exploited. It is creating a well rounded student. Go to ITT tech if you want 100% tech classes. And when your talking about this, it is very vague. If they had specific colleges all around the country that just provided training in all sorts of careers you want to do, then I would have definitely done that. But there aren't, there are the few like you said for ITT tech and shit, but what about specific Journalism schools, broadcasting schools, and so on. But there is not those types of specific schools in the US, because I think those types of colleges would benefit people a lot more than just wasting half their money on education classes, then having to pursue a graduate degree to further their resume, when there could be a school, that has all of that in it starting with the basics of that career, seems you would have a lot better people ready for careers in that scenario, then in the regular college scenario and would probably be cheaper.
|
|
|
Post by phdsims on Apr 24, 2009 15:48:35 GMT -4
Again, should actors be required to go to college first before becoming rich acting at a young age? Young actors going to college wouldn't improve their acting ability, but young athletes going to college improves their athletic ability. Young actors going to college wouldn't allow old actors to stick around longer and continue to be employed, but young athletes going to college allows aging talented NBA players to stay in the league as role players. Young actors don't have to physically compete in a contact sport against grown men, but young athletes do. Young actors going to college isn't going to drastically improve the quality of college plays, but young athletes in college will drastically improve the quality of college athletics. actors going to college for drama would clearly improve their acting. And college isn't improving athletes physically, time is. And why is improving college basketball a priority? Espicially when it is done by forcing kids against their will to attend. A 3 year rule would kill ncaabb and help Europe. Denying kids right to earn money is not right.
|
|
|
Post by phdsims on Apr 24, 2009 15:52:00 GMT -4
These kids going to the NBA early don't get a college education. Derrick rose was not a real student last year. He was not educated in any worthwhile fashion Again, should actors be required to go to college first before becoming rich acting at a young age? If they were made to stay there 3 years like in college football, then they would learn something, your not understanding that I am against one year as well, that is pointless. I say mirror that of the NFL and have them stay in college for 3 years. Full scholarships to the school with room and board is being paid, does that shit just come out of thin air? Is that free? yes it does when compared to the money brought in by the sports. Drose got probably 15K worth of room, board and tuition. Maybe less. And made the U of M millions. He was exploited. He was forced to go to college and would have been the #1 pick the year before too if the rule didn't exist.
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Slough on Apr 24, 2009 16:03:32 GMT -4
But exploiting other industries and not even giving gets education is much better isn't it.
3 years in college wouldn't kill the NCAA anways, if anything euro is going to kill the NBA in the first place because there going to be able to offer more money for players after awhile. Pretty sure half the teams in the league already needed a bailout or borrow money or some shit.
and if you make the rule that your not allowed to come to the NBA by the time your 21 or what not, then most kids will likely stay in the US and get an education because hopefully they have parents that will tell them that is the right decision instead of going overseas to ride the pine for some years, when they would play a lot more and get intense competition right here in the states.
|
|
|
Post by phdsims on Apr 24, 2009 16:28:37 GMT -4
This idea of a 21 year old rule impacts their ability to make money. When they are 30, harvard will still be there.
But they may have an injury occur at 20 and lose out on the oppurtunity to play pro.
Forcing these kids to college to be fake students is asinine.
|
|
|
Post by kfilament on Apr 24, 2009 16:59:01 GMT -4
the NFL rule is different, the 18 year old kids comign out of high school are not mature enough physcially to play in the NFL, basketball isnt nearly as physical. 18 year old would literally be killed in the NFL, these are grown ass men.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2009 18:37:13 GMT -4
actors going to college for drama would clearly improve their acting. Young actors making millions would be helped by college acting classes as much as Mozart would be helped by college music classes. Time better spent in college, when they aren't watering down both the NBA game and costing a veteran player a roster spot. Why isn't it? Also, you keep acting as if all these players making the jump are making millions. For some that may be true - but for just as many if not more, another year or two in college will give them better seasoning and maturity that will enable them to make more millions down the line instead of getting a few hundred thousand and flaming out.
|
|