next »

[chronicle_moderator]

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...

[cnp1260]

I am all for the NBA, and every professional sport, requiring a college degree (not just one year of college).  Professional sports claim to be a business.  Most reputable businesses in our economy hire people only if they have an undergraduate degree at the very minimum.  Doing so would increase the respectability of sports and also allow them to support education in the United States. What an important message that would send.  Not only could professional athletes send their message of "Buy my shoes."  They could also send a message to kids regarding the significance of education.

[au_fait]

If a athlete is skilled enough to go pro right out of high school, then fine. If not, college is a great place for the athlete to improve as a player, mature, and even learn something.

LeBron James is an excellent example of someone who did the right thing! He can BUY his own college now! Why should he have taken an athletic scholarship from someone else? Furthermore, athletes can be seriously injured in college and never get the opportunity to go pro.

I think it's a case-by-case call.

[helpful]

LeBron James is an excellent example of someone who did the right thing! He can BUY his own college now! Why should he have taken an athletic scholarship from someone else? Furthermore, athletes can be seriously injured in college and never get the opportunity to go pro.

I think it's a case-by-case call.

And in his case, he blew it. I read he is building a gigantic house. In these times of climate change, he is engaging in  conspicuous consumption. Who needs a bowling alley in his house? or 35,000 sq. feet?

[illuminata]

{You *really* think King James cares about environmental issues??? The man can buy his own planet! Pro athletes generally, with some exceptions, of course, aren't usually the most green types.}

As for the original question....I like the baseball system of minor and major leagues. Being talented in sport and being book smart are not always related. There are a lot of very talented young athletes out there who do not want a college degree, nor are they really 'college material'. Let them play their sport. Save college sports scholarships for students who are students first, and athletes second.

[au_fait]

LeBron James is an excellent example of someone who did the right thing! He can BUY his own college now! Why should he have taken an athletic scholarship from someone else? Furthermore, athletes can be seriously injured in college and never get the opportunity to go pro.

I think it's a case-by-case call.

And in his case, he blew it. I read he is building a gigantic house. In these times of climate change, he is engaging in  conspicuous consumption. Who needs a bowling alley in his house? or 35,000 sq. feet?

I agree; however, my values aren't his. Apparently neither are yours.
I'm sure if we examined those folks w/ money to burn, some spend it on useless crap or waste it on "special" water to wash their faces (see some of the actresses' beauty habits), and others are philanthropic.

It's their money. I'm not going to tell anyone how to spend their own money. Morally, ethically, pragmatically, I think it's horrid, but hey, that's me. L. James also grew up in poverty. Not that that is an excuse, but...

[helpful]

LeBron James is an excellent example of someone who did the right thing! He can BUY his own college now! Why should he have taken an athletic scholarship from someone else? Furthermore, athletes can be seriously injured in college and never get the opportunity to go pro.

I think it's a case-by-case call.

And in his case, he blew it. I read he is building a gigantic house. In these times of climate change, he is engaging in  conspicuous consumption. Who needs a bowling alley in his house? or 35,000 sq. feet?

I agree; however, my values aren't his. Apparently neither are yours.
I'm sure if we examined those folks w/ money to burn, some spend it on useless crap or waste it on "special" water to wash their faces (see some of the actresses' beauty habits), and others are philanthropic.

It's their money. I'm not going to tell anyone how to spend their own money. Morally, ethically, pragmatically, I think it's horrid, but hey, that's me. L. James also grew up in poverty. Not that that is an excuse, but...

Sorry, you are wrong. If we buy products that LJ endorses and gets paid mega bucks for, then it's our money that is paying him. If we go to basketball games where he plays, it is our money that pays him. To say it is 'his money' is a fallacy.

[illuminata]

If you work for a state college, then your money isn't yours, either. It's all taxpayer dollars.

In a capitalistic economy, the source of the money is not the issue. Hu who owns the money controls it. If you prefer to have your expenditures controlled by the 'originators' of the money, try a communist economy.

Personally, the idea of anyone 'owning' my salary makes my blood run cold. I earned it, and should be able to spend it how I see fit, no matter how wrong headed others may percieve my decisions to be.

[helpful]

If you work for a state college, then your money isn't yours, either. It's all taxpayer dollars.

In a capitalistic economy, the source of the money is not the issue. Hu who owns the money controls it. If you prefer to have your expenditures controlled by the 'originators' of the money, try a communist economy.

Personally, the idea of anyone 'owning' my salary makes my blood run cold. I earned it, and should be able to spend it how I see fit, no matter how wrong headed others may percieve my decisions to be.

I wasn't saying we should control how he spends his money. I was saying that the earner of the money, because he earned it from others, has a social responsibility to consider how to spend his money. I am not saying there should be any rules about how it is spent, but that the earner should consider the effect of how they spend it on society and societal values.

[navydad]

"I earned it, and should be able to spend it how I see fit, no matter how wrong headed others may percieve my decisions to be."

Once again a discussion strays off topic, but so what. The above quote is a great example of a pernicious attitude held by many Americans, if not most Americans. It also is simplistic to the point of being ridiculous. Let's see, if I choose to spend my money to build a sewer line from my house directly into the ocean, I guess that's OK because it's my money. Or maybe I choose to buy up old tires and burn them in my back yard. Or I choose to buy some radioactive waste and dust your neighborhood with it. Or I choose to buy the dried leaves of a plant that make me feel good when I smoke them. Or I choose not to pay taxes with MY money. The point is that government limits our choices about how to spend money constantly, which is such an obvious point that I can't believe I had to make it. How's this for a basic moral principle: your right to spend your money as you see fit ends at the point that your spending harms me or the world we share. 

[helpful]

"I earned it, and should be able to spend it how I see fit, no matter how wrong headed others may percieve my decisions to be."

Once again a discussion strays off topic, but so what. The above quote is a great example of a pernicious attitude held by many Americans, if not most Americans. It also is simplistic to the point of being ridiculous. Let's see, if I choose to spend my money to build a sewer line from my house directly into the ocean, I guess that's OK because it's my money. Or maybe I choose to buy up old tires and burn them in my back yard. Or I choose to buy some radioactive waste and dust your neighborhood with it. Or I choose to buy the dried leaves of a plant that make me feel good when I smoke them. Or I choose not to pay taxes with MY money. The point is that government limits our choices about how to spend money constantly, which is such an obvious point that I can't believe I had to make it. How's this for a basic moral principle: your right to spend your money as you see fit ends at the point that your spending harms me or the world we share. 

Exactly!

By the way, we are not off topic. The thread was about, in some small part, allowing high school grads to go to the pros and make big money. Hence the (slight) diversion.

[jonesey]

...the earner of the money, because he earned it from others, has a social responsibility to consider how to spend his money. I am not saying there should be any rules about how it is spent, but that the earner should consider the effect of how they spend it on society and societal values.

You're kidding, right?  What planet do you live on?  Short of buying and storing nuclear waste, and other nonsense as posted by Navydad, above, your money is just that:  Your money.  You want to buy a Hummer, great.  You want to give it to Greenpeace, fantastic, but it's up to you, not me, and certainly not "society." 

[helpful]

...the earner of the money, because he earned it from others, has a social responsibility to consider how to spend his money. I am not saying there should be any rules about how it is spent, but that the earner should consider the effect of how they spend it on society and societal values.

You're kidding, right?  What planet do you live on?  Short of buying and storing nuclear waste, and other nonsense as posted by Navydad, above, your money is just that:  Your money.  You want to buy a Hummer, great.  You want to give it to Greenpeace, fantastic, but it's up to you, not me, and certainly not "society." 

You certainly are not on this planet. You didn't even read my posting! If you read it, you will see that I said, they should "consider" the effect of how they spend it on society and societal values. People "consider" these things all the time. Ok, maybe not consciously, but they certainly do consider these things. 

I didn't say it was "up to society". I said they should consider its effect on society. And if they consider the purchase of a Hummer in terms of its effect on society, then still bought it, fine. But at least they have weighed the options, eg. buying a big gas guzzling vehicle versus the cost of gas and, maybe, even the long term cost of climate change.

This is called critical thinking. That is all I was asking for. Go beyond considering your own individual needs and also consider the effect of these needs on society. Then make a decision.

[jonesey]

Helpful,

I get what you said, I just don't think that most people consider anything other than their own wants/needs/desires when buying things. 

To hope otherwise is nice.  It's wishful thinking, but it's nice.

[navydad]

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.

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

By the way, is anyone familiar with the rules regarding college baseball? As I understand it, there are two main routes into pro baseball: either you go right out of high school or you play college ball for a certain number of years (3?) before being eligible for the draft. This seems to have merit and I wonder how it works in practice.