Guest Walter Posted February 2, 2006 Report Share Posted February 2, 2006 Anyone heard of or considered a challenge to the 20 new year old rule? Such things usually require a respectable candidate and Oden might represent just that. Any word? W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devon Posted February 2, 2006 Report Share Posted February 2, 2006 Oden's at OSU, no doubt he loses his eligibilty to challenge anewly ratified, highly publicized issue. He may stay 2 years, much like Thaddeus Young at Ga. Tech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lascar78 Posted February 2, 2006 Report Share Posted February 2, 2006 what is there to challenge? The nba and player's association came to an agreement. Anyone who challenges will just be throwing money away and giving it to lawyers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJlaysitup Posted February 2, 2006 Report Share Posted February 2, 2006 Well from a strictly "legalese" standpoint, I think there could easily be a challenge under unfair labor practices. But no quality player with any sense would do it (that sort of thing made a Curt Flood a great reputation, but not a lot of money). Plus, with the SCOTUS getting another conservative justice there may not be any guarrantee how the labor laws would be interpretted anyway.... Sincerely, DJLaysitup Partner, DJ, Bird, Bird, and DJ (ameteur attorneys) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators AHF Posted February 2, 2006 Moderators Report Share Posted February 2, 2006 Quote: Well from a strictly "legalese" standpoint, I think there could easily be a challenge under unfair labor practices. Doubtful because the rule is the result of a collective bargaining agreement signed by the player's union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lascar78 Posted February 2, 2006 Report Share Posted February 2, 2006 exactly. The trial would take a day. It would be challengable if the NBA had imposed it on its own. But with the players' union having signed off on it via the CBA, it's bulletproof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJlaysitup Posted February 2, 2006 Report Share Posted February 2, 2006 That's true...but the current agreement prevents a person of legal age (18-20) from making a living at his/her chosen profession strictly on the basis of age when it could easily be argued that somebody like Oden was definitely qualified to do so. Even full-fledged labor unions can't do that. Of course the owners would collude and screw the player who challenged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators AHF Posted February 2, 2006 Moderators Report Share Posted February 2, 2006 The nature of the challenge Oden would bring would be an anti-trust challenge. However, it is NOT illegal to have that type of agreement if it is the result of collective bargaining. This was the exact challenge that the NFL won and there is no reason to think it would come out differently with the NBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lascar78 Posted February 2, 2006 Report Share Posted February 2, 2006 Quote: That's true...but the current agreement prevents a person of legal age (18-20) from making a living at his/her chosen profession strictly on the basis of age when it could easily be argued that somebody like Oden was definitely qualified to do so. Even full-fledged labor unions can't do that. Of course the owners would collude and screw the player who challenged. no it prevents him from joining the NBA. It does not prevent him from going to the NBDL, the CBA etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packfill Posted February 2, 2006 Report Share Posted February 2, 2006 We might as well stop talking about Oden because the only way he becomes a Hawk is if the team tanks next season, which is unlikely to happen assuming some modest roster improvements this off-season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lascar78 Posted February 2, 2006 Report Share Posted February 2, 2006 is there no longer a lottery next year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJlaysitup Posted February 2, 2006 Report Share Posted February 2, 2006 Quote: is there no longer a lottery next year? Surely...would we have a pick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudderfudder77 Posted February 2, 2006 Report Share Posted February 2, 2006 Heard of Maurice Clarett? It was collectively bargained, there is nothing to challenge. And it is not denying employment to a 18yr old in thier chosen profession, they can always go play overseas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packfill Posted February 2, 2006 Report Share Posted February 2, 2006 I imagine there is but the chances are very slim given that the team should be significantly better next year because of (1) the experienced gained by the rookies and second year players and (2) further reinforcements brought in through the draft and free agency. I think it is reasonable to expect major improvements from the team given those factors. If they don't then Oden becomes a possibility, but that would mean three years of rebuilding would result in no improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lascar78 Posted February 2, 2006 Report Share Posted February 2, 2006 milwaukee won the top pick last year and they had 30+ wins. I also don't think we'll get it, but it's not an impossibility. I would hope that we're not bottom 3, but we probably won't be in the playoffs either. That's all it takes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Walter Posted February 2, 2006 Report Share Posted February 2, 2006 Maurice Clarett was a lousy representative to challenge the NFL rule. A lousy guy and marginal player. Oden appears to be quite the difference. A good guy and GREAT prospect. If you are going to challenge the rule, this is the guy you do it with. I think forcing someone to go overseas for employment is pretty much denying them that employment. Yes, I know it's a CBA thing, but it may read slightly different than the NFL law, may still be open to challenge, and may not have the support internally (all owners and player's union) to not allow for a reversal. W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudderfudder77 Posted February 3, 2006 Report Share Posted February 3, 2006 It was collectively bargained. It doesn't matter if he is a marginal prospect or not (the law doesn't care "how good you are"). Unions do this all the time with hiring quotas or freezes. Its a waste of time. He could play ball in the states too if he wanted. ABA, CBA, just because you don't like the alternatives doesn't mean you are being denied gainful employment. But none of that matters because, again, it was collectively bargained... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warcore Posted February 3, 2006 Report Share Posted February 3, 2006 speakin of 20 year olds-saw marvin williams at phipps plaza theatre tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators AHF Posted February 3, 2006 Moderators Report Share Posted February 3, 2006 Quote: Maurice Clarett was a lousy representative to challenge the NFL rule. A lousy guy and marginal player. Oden appears to be quite the difference. A good guy and GREAT prospect. If you are going to challenge the rule, this is the guy you do it with. As mudder pointed out, that is not relevant. Also, Clarett was a former heisman candidate and a third round pick so even if there was a threshold of ability he would have easily passed. Quote: I think forcing someone to go overseas for employment is pretty much denying them that employment. They can play in the NBDL, AND1 or other domestic leagues. Quote: Yes, I know it's a CBA thing, but it may read slightly different than the NFL law, There is no difference in the law for the NFL or NBA. Quote: may still be open to challenge, Its really not. Quote: and may not have the support internally (all owners and player's union) to not allow for a reversal. Legally that doesn't matter but it could lead to a reversal at the time they negotiate the next collective bargaining agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJlaysitup Posted February 3, 2006 Report Share Posted February 3, 2006 Well I know I'm not going to win this arguement but a couple points: - Something being "collectively bargained" doesn't mean they can just therefore adopt discriminatory practices like age, race, sex, religion, etc. restrictions. You can't collectively bargain something that's against federal law. I mean what if they collectively bargained that Asians couldn't play or Moslems were banned, or nobody under 20 or over 40. - Most folks I knew thought the Clarett case was basically a hit against him and not a real precedent setter. A quality person with quality legal representation might turn the thing around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now