next »

[jonesey]

What's the nonsense? And would you care to address the argument, if you understand it. You can buy a Hummer, but you can't buy a fully functional Abrams tank or F/A 18. According to your "argument," this is an infringement on your rights. I'm simply pointing out that government legitimately restricts our ability to spend money as we see fit and it legitimately takes money and spends it as it sees fit. We can argue about where to draw lines, but it is ludicrous to argue that no lines should be drawn.

I totally agree with you.  I'm not suggesting that people be allowed to purchase whatever they want without restrictions (that's why I put my remarks about your posting, above).  I'm just stating that I don't believe people think about the "effect on society" when they buy a new SUV, or a house, or put a pool in their backyard, or buy a grill, or take a vacation, or anything else.

This, however, is interesting: 

But what to expect from a nation that glorifies ignorance, selfishness, violence, and belief in horrible religious mythology.

So, by your moniker, your child served in the Navy, but you didn't?  I thought, from your name, that you had, and I've yet to hear anyone who bragged about his or her service bad mouth the country this way.  Curious.

[illuminata]

Navydad, you're new here, and are apparently unaware of some of the general guidelines of arguementation on the fora.

Please take care not to:
1) make sweeping generalizations,
2) insult other fora members intelligence, nationality, race, etc. etc.

Disagreeing is of course, fine, but please do so politely.

As for my original point about free market economies versus state controlled economies, I am not saying that anarchy should reign, we will always have zoning boards and regulatory authorities governing how land and other  resources can be used. However, the way in which an individual chooses to spend his/her/its salary is no one else's concern, so long as said expenditures are within legal limits. This is the bedrock of the US economic policy. If you prefer to be in a place that limits your personal choices and attempts to legislate morality in that way, you are most welcome to do so. I understand Cuba has lovely weather in winter.

[navydad]

"so long as said expenditures are within legal limits"

Thank you. That has been my point all along: there always have been and always will be legal limits on how we spend our money. This is like the old joke: Man asks woman if she will have sex with him for a million dollars. She thinks about it and says yes. The he asks if she will have sex with him for a hundred dollars. She says, do you think I'm a prostitute? He says, we've already established that, now we are negotiating the price.

Previous posts have made sweeping generalizations that government cannot limit our spending and they haven't included your important qualification that I quoted above. Once we accept the obvious point that there are legitimate legal limits to individual spending, then we can debate, negotiate, argue, or rant about where those limits should lie.

For example, I would like government to set some sort of limits on ownership of SUVs, the vast majority of which are completely unnecessary and demonstrably harm our planet and endanger our national security (dependence on oil, especially Middle East oil). We already impose "fleet" mileage standards on auto makers, so it is completely appropriate to discuss whether and how to include gas guzzling trucks masquerading as passenger cars within those standards. Of course others disagree.

By the way, I most definitely am not a first time poster here. And if you felt it necessary to remind me:

"Please take care not to:
1) make sweeping generalizations,
2) insult other fora members intelligence, nationality, race, etc. etc."

I have to wonder how many of these discussions you've read. My stuff is quite tame and to the point compared to much of the stuff that gets posted here. I usually stay out of these discussions, but sometimes someone posts something so silly that I can't resist. To reiterate, the silly thing that I objected to here was the stated opinion that government has no right to limit our individual spending and that people can spend their money as they see fit. I appreciate that you have recognized the silliness of this position.

And by the way, I'd still like to know if anyone has thoughts on how college and pro baseball eligibility rules might work if adapted to college basketball.

[spork]

I wish universities would stop subsidizing professional athletics.  Pro leagues should pay for their own farm team systems.

[philoctetes]

I am not sure that college is a good place for these young people, but then again it isn't necessarily a good place for many young people of college age whose middle class parents make them go.

Frankly I think this might be all about race.

Would this be an issue if it was a sport like hockey where the vast majority of the players were white? Would people really be talking the same way about "players who shirk their studies, simply biding their time while waiting to be recruited." 

Maybe, but I doubt it.

Last year the National Basketball Association said star high-school players could not turn pro until they were 19 and at least a year had passed since they graduated from high school. Critics say the rule creates a class of college players who shirk their studies, simply biding their time while waiting to be recruited. Others say the rule helps players focus on academics. What do you think? If the critics are right, what can colleges do about it?
Read more...

[bwolverton]

"And by the way, I'd still like to know if anyone has thoughts on how college and pro baseball eligibility rules might work if adapted to college basketball."

Navydad: I wrote the article about the NBA age rule, and here's my two cents' worth: I'd love to see a two- or three-year minimum stay for marquee college basketball players, as would a lot of folks I talked to. At the very least, a whole lot of athletes would have to stick around campus longer and would be a lot more likely to get a degree. But it won't work for one reason: the NBA relies too much on exploiting young talent, and would never go for it.

[invinoveritas]

As far as the question of the original post goes....its simple.  Colleges should do nothing about it.  It is the player's choice.  If a person has no interest in academia, then they have the option to avoid it.  Maybe it's a shame, but a person who simply wants to be an NBA player with no interest in learning anything should not be in college anyway....

Ask any professor....we deal with enough students who don't want to be students.  Quite frankly, I'm tired of them wasting mine and everyone else's time.

[princeton67]

Unless a person’s having – or not having – a college exposure directly influences his spending habits, I don’t see the relevance of the posts dealing with LBJ’s (or any professional's) spending habits.

I address the question from a unique perspective: I graduated from Princeton, went to graduate school at Chicago, and then taught high school English and SAT Prep in deep southern  (Douglas), then rural (Douglasville) Georgia for thirty years. So, on the one hand, I attended universities in which the athletes are humans, but taught in a state in which athletes are gods.  “au fait” says  “it’s a case-by-case call”: it’s a college-by-college, or maybe a conference-by-conference, call. For thirty years, I read about the state's athletic scandals in the Atlanta Journal (which, like most newspapers, has a dedicated sports section manned by six athletic reporters and columnists, but no academic section or columnists) : the UGA basketball coach who was allowed to hire his son as an assistant coach whose basketball skills class did not require attendance and whose final exam had questions like “How many points for a foul shot?” or “How many halves in a basketball game?”; the GaTech football team who had nine players ruled ineligible; the UGA players who spent years in remedial studies until their eligibility expired.

Until colleges make their athletes academically responsible, those who wish to study will, and those who do not, will not. From what I have seen, and personally know from my SAT classes, many colleges recruit students whose SAT’s are hundreds of points (and whose GPA’s range from 1 to 1.5 points)  below their own average freshman’s scores. Recently, the New York Times exposed bogus “prep schools” whose campuses had hoops at either end and whose classroom had benches, lockers, and showers. Yet, colleges admitted attendees of these mills.

The moderator asks, “what can colleges do about it?” One approach: anyone can be admitted, but cannot play until achieving an SAT score at least equal to his class’ average. Another (especially applicable to basketball which stretches over two semesters):  no average course load, no play. Another: no passing at mid-term, no play.

Having argued for strengthening academic demands, I must say that I feel that this forum is one-sidedly framed: every quote and reference in Mr. Wolverton’s  essay is from/by an academician, educator, administrator. How about some statements by Henry Willoughby or Darryl Dawkins (who jumped in the 60’s), Nascar drivers, Tennis pros, or any foreign born professionals, few of whom bothered with college.

[stagolee]

And not a single word on how the NCAA pimps Black athletes for millions of dollars because the NBA created a rule that flies in the face of "rugged individualism".

[jonesey]

And not a single word on how the NCAA pimps Black athletes for millions of dollars because the NBA created a rule that flies in the face of "rugged individualism".

Explain. 

[smart_e_pantz]

And not a single word on how the NCAA pimps Black athletes for millions of dollars because the NBA created a rule that flies in the face of "rugged individualism".

Explain. 

The NCAA gets to make millions off of freshman phenoms--while the phenoms don't get a cent--because they can't go directly to the NBA because of the NBA's new rule.

[navydad]

It's fascinating that a full scholarship (worth about $40,000/year at my institution) would be described as "not a cent." I still think that a system in which there are two routes to the NBA makes sense. Players could jump straight from high school to the NBA, assuming they are good enough to make it in the NBA. Or if players choose to play college hoops, they aren't eligible for the NBA for two or three years after graduating high school.

[wingbingwoo]

There should be a minor league system for football and basketball, paid for by the NFL and NBA respectively, for students who choose not to attend college but want to go pro.

[stagolee]

It's fascinating that a full scholarship (worth about $40,000/year at my institution) would be described as "not a cent." I still think that a system in which there are two routes to the NBA makes sense. Players could jump straight from high school to the NBA, assuming they are good enough to make it in the NBA. Or if players choose to play college hoops, they aren't eligible for the NBA for two or three years after graduating high school.

http://money.cnn.com/1999/11/18/news/ncaa/

Fascinating indeed.

[anonr]

It is certainly is peculair that a population of predominantly young African American men are essentially being required to go into higher education in order to advance their chosen careers. Why not have similar rules for tennis, golf, or stockbrokers. If they want to go straight to the NBA after high school, then more power to them. Indeed, we should cut out college sports in general and use the money for actual educational purposes. i can't believe the salaries coaches are paid.