- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 3/2/15 at 9:36 pm to geauxaces
quote:Yes, I disagree with the age requirements. And trust me, I'm in no danger of being ineligible.
. People throw this word around a lot. What part of the Constitution is being broken? The NFL, NBA, & MLB are all private organizations made up of private companies. It's not unconstitutional for a private company to establish hiring requirements. The constitution even has age requirements written into the articles for congress and president.
I truly believe age discrimination is the easiest inequity that is rarely addressed. Gender, race, sexuality, etc all have champions.
I believe there should be a legal age of adulthood - 18, 21, whatever - and it should include all rights including anti-discriminatory rights of private organizations. This would exclude exceptional cases such as the emancipation of minors.
The age laws are completely inconsistent. If you disagree, that's fine. But I signed up for the military voluntarily at age 18. The laws in my state also allowed me to consume alcohol at 18. That is no longer the case except on military bases.
IE, a "semi-adult" now can join the military at 18, sign an NSA contract of employment, get married, sign an MLB contract... but can't consume alcohol until 21 outside of military establishment, cannot sign an NFL or NBA contract.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 9:43 pm to Fratigerguy
quote:I'm not misguided on what they are ALLOWED to do. I am saying unequivocally that it's wrong. Just because the law allows discrimination doesn't mean it's not discrimination. I hope you are aware enough of some of the laws and discriminatory practices allowed by private entities in our nation's history. Laws have been specifically passed to address such issues.
I was just about to say this. People have a misguided view of what private businesses are and are not allowed to do.
The OT is about the NBA setting a 2-year requirement specifically in the OP's eyes as locking Simmons into 2 years at LSU. Think about that for a second.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 9:45 pm to drizztiger
But what your missing is "the law" and NFL or NBA participation have nothing to do with one another (or with drinking or the military for that matter). These are private organizations that can hire whomever they wish. Now, the law (not the constitution) does keep them from discriminating based on race, religion, etc and keeps them from firing anyone over 40 simply due to age. None of these things keep a private company from establishing a minimim age or experience requirement.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 9:56 pm to geauxaces
quote:Why does the law make such distinctions based on race, religion, etc?
Now, the law (not the constitution) does keep them from discriminating based on race, religion, etc
I assume this was always the case, right?
The 14th amendment offers equal protection and encompasses more than race.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 10:07 pm to drizztiger
What the hell happened in here?
Posted on 3/2/15 at 10:14 pm to TupeloTiger
quote:
What Kentucky does is horrible,to me. If they can get a 2 year stay,I would like it. It'll help LSU and hurt Kenntucky.
What UK does is the same thing LSU is doing by signing Simmons and Blakeney. Your comment is just ignorant. Duke has 3 starters that are one and done. Its not just UK. They just get most of them because Cal has mastered the egos of McDonald's all americans. If you want LSU to be competitive every year, we need to sign classes like we did this year.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 10:17 pm to geauxaces
quote:Just to touch on this point, minimum age and experience requirement are two completely different criteria. Minimum age - considering legal adult - is discrimination. Experience requirement is nothing but a red herring in your argument. Brian Banks (sad story) never played CFB, 2 games with the UFL and was signed by the Atlanta Falcons in 2013 (current FA).
None of these things keep a private company from establishing a minimim age or experience requirement.
That is no experience at all. But he did meet the discriminatory age requirement.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 10:22 pm to BillyBobfan24_7
quote:Someone asked if rule changes could infringe on Simmons rights and lock him into LSU for 2 years.
What the hell happened in here?
I commented on a subject many either ignore or are ignorant of and therefore inherently disagree with.
I decided to school them. They have disappeared because they're in over their heads.
My opinion is unpopular, but it's correct.
I can't wait to see Simmons play for LSU, but my furthest thought is rule changes to lock him into any longer of a stay he feels is warranted.
This post was edited on 3/2/15 at 10:24 pm
Posted on 3/2/15 at 10:34 pm to drizztiger
quote:
Someone asked if rule changes could infringe on Simmons rights and lock him into LSU for 2 years.
I commented on a subject many either ignore or are ignorant of and therefore inherently disagree with.
I decided to school them. They have disappeared because they're in over their heads.
My opinion is unpopular, but it's correct.
I can't wait to see Simmons play for LSU, but my furthest thought is rule changes to lock him into any longer of a stay he feels is warranted.
Huh? Nobody can make a guy stay in school, but there's no Constitutional provision guaranteeing his right to play in the NBA.
Posted on 3/3/15 at 7:25 am to VOR
quote:I believe that the general argument used is an unfair restriction of free trade.
Huh? Nobody can make a guy stay in school, but there's no Constitutional provision guaranteeing his right to play in the NBA.
Posted on 3/3/15 at 8:32 am to drizztiger
quote:
I decided to school them. They have disappeared because they're in over their heads.
Yeah. That, ooooorrrrrrrr, they went to bed.
Look. I get it. In your opinion it is unconstitutional for a company to say that a legal adult can't be hired. The problem that you are ignoring is that a company doesn't have to hire everyone who wants a job. Including someone who is an adult. "Hey, I want to play basketball for you". "Nope". Simple as that. The requirements for the job are not met.
You also say that age and experience are two different things. Life experience is also a viable criteria in selection of employees. In addition, there are a few, not many, accredited schools that offer life degree diplomas that are legal and able to be used in hiring in lieu of a "normal" degree. There are many, many more schools that offer credits toward degrees using life experience as a criteria. I say all that to say that life experience is quite the viable measuring stick for employment purposes. To imply that the NFL or the NBA can't say that they feel that a person isn't "ready" to play until they have been X amount of years removed from high school is ridiculous.
Put simply, you're wrong. You want to be able to throw the discrimination card around every time something doesn't go how you think it should. Truth be told, it probably works out more times than it doesn't. But I don't think you're gonna find many logical folks who agree with you on this.
Posted on 3/3/15 at 9:01 am to Fratigerguy
But never mind all this. This whole topic has an incorrect story line.
What has been discussed, not proposed, by a few conferences and coaches, is to make all college freshmen ineligible to play. So, if they did get this rule through, and guys like Simmons did actually go to college, he would be here for a year, be ineligible, and then leave the following year before he ever played a minute. This is, of course, assuming the NBA doesn't implement a 2 year removed policy.
College football players such as fournette would likely only play 2 years on the field, with the 1st being on the practice squad. All in the name of education...like, somehow, those half days on Saturday are what hampers a freshman's ability to excel in school.
What has been discussed, not proposed, by a few conferences and coaches, is to make all college freshmen ineligible to play. So, if they did get this rule through, and guys like Simmons did actually go to college, he would be here for a year, be ineligible, and then leave the following year before he ever played a minute. This is, of course, assuming the NBA doesn't implement a 2 year removed policy.
College football players such as fournette would likely only play 2 years on the field, with the 1st being on the practice squad. All in the name of education...like, somehow, those half days on Saturday are what hampers a freshman's ability to excel in school.
Posted on 3/3/15 at 9:04 am to evangelfan
Dumbest shite I've ever heard of.
Rather than have super talented players for just one year, this would turn so many good players into Brandon Jennings (overseas route)
Rather than have super talented players for just one year, this would turn so many good players into Brandon Jennings (overseas route)
This post was edited on 3/3/15 at 9:05 am
Posted on 3/3/15 at 9:59 am to dred24
quote:APR is already there. This would be a simple add-on to it. Some rule like any player who doesn't get a degree from an accredited institution within five years is an x. After so many x's you lose a scholarship. The Kentuckys who game the system the way that they do would be discouraged from doing so. Schools would have to recruit more smartly.
unless you punish the school if any of its players change their mind and decide to go pro early.
Posted on 3/3/15 at 10:04 am to Big Moe
quote:Or Patrick Ewing. Or Alonzo Mourning. Or Grant Hill. Or Christian Laettner. Or Larry Johnson.
Dumbest shite I've ever heard of. Rather than have super talented players for just one year, this would turn so many good players into Brandon Jennings (overseas route)
Posted on 3/3/15 at 10:11 am to drizztiger
quote:
3 years for NFL
You realize that the NFL doesn't want 18 year old kids in the NFL for safety reason right? They wouldn't draft them anyway. It doesn't matter if the kid is 6'3 245 coming out of high school, because a 18 year old kids body isn't fully developed yet. Then you take said kid and put him out there with 25-35 year old grown men and he would get seriously injured. Give them 3 years in college in strength and conditioning programs and that gets their body ready for that kind of thing. There's a serious difference between the strength of a 25 year old man who has lived in the weight room and an 18 year old kid.
Posted on 3/3/15 at 10:16 am to TheCaterpillar
quote:
So Kentucky having all that talent for more than 1 year is not good for them?
Actually...from a recruiting standpoint...it isn't. If this year's 5* blue chippers are forced to stay for a sophomore season, then next year's 5* blue chippers would recognize that they wouldn't get immediate starting time. Thus, since they likely also would want to be "2 and done", they would look elsewhere for immediate playing time. Really, it might level the playing field to some extent....
Posted on 3/3/15 at 11:03 am to Fratigerguy
This will be my last post on the subject, we've already gone overboard with this discussion.
I'll leave you with this, a restatement and more that you should read, comprehend and let sink in.
Age is not used as a factor to determine someone's "eligibility" to do the following once they are a legal adult age 18:
- Join the military
- Become a full time employee of the NSA
- Marry/divorce
- Become legal guardian for another person
Just think about the weight some of those decisions/responsibilites are.
Yet because of the inconsitency of the law, the same individual isn't of significant age to consume alcohol, play in the NFL or NBA. The central point is that it's exclusion based solely on age, nothing more. No different than any other exclusion that used to be rampant and was made illegal.
quote:I'm not ignorning that. It's completely irrelevant. No one said the NBA or any other entity should hire unqualified applicants. What I'm saying is that age (for an adult) isn't a qualification. Just like being male, white, protestant, heterosexual aren't qualifications on a resume.
The problem that you are ignoring is that a company doesn't have to hire everyone who wants a job.
quote:That's ridiculous. I don't throw "the discrimination card" around lightly. In fact, that's insulting. I've pointed to valid reasoning why I think this practice is age discrimination and should be protected against.
Put simply, you're wrong. You want to be able to throw the discrimination card around every time something doesn't go how you think it should.
I'll leave you with this, a restatement and more that you should read, comprehend and let sink in.
Age is not used as a factor to determine someone's "eligibility" to do the following once they are a legal adult age 18:
- Join the military
- Become a full time employee of the NSA
- Marry/divorce
- Become legal guardian for another person
Just think about the weight some of those decisions/responsibilites are.
Yet because of the inconsitency of the law, the same individual isn't of significant age to consume alcohol, play in the NFL or NBA. The central point is that it's exclusion based solely on age, nothing more. No different than any other exclusion that used to be rampant and was made illegal.
Posted on 3/3/15 at 11:25 am to drizztiger
quote:
Age is not used as a factor
You are absolutely correct.
Why don't you get this??? How will you use "age discrimination" as a basis, when there is NO age requirement. There is, however, an experience, a life experience requirement of being one year removed. That person, one year removed, could be 18 to 21. Again, there is NO AGE REQUIREMENT.
This post was edited on 3/3/15 at 11:26 am
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News