Book it! Jeremy Tyler is gonna be a beast!

[drzachary]

new lineup:

PG smith / teague / harris

SG stevenson / jenkins

SF korver / dahntay / tolliver

PF horford / ivan / scott

C tyler / zaza / petro

PG problem solved.

[DrReality]

Hopefully he won't turn out to be a Leon Smith. Playihg overseas at such a young age must have been a bitch.

[DrReality]

from ESPN:With the team looking to avoid the dreaded luxury tax, the Warriors dealt Tyler to the Hawks in exchange for draft considerations. After started 23 games in 2011-12, Tyler has appeared in just 20 games this season and is averaging 1.1 points per game.

[Gray Mule]

I'm excited to see this young man on the floor with the Hawks. Someone has said that

he's "dumb as a box of rocks" and, if this is so, that's terrible.

Being ignorant and unlearned is not being dumb. One means you simply haven't had

the opportunity to learn something. The other means you are not capable of learning.

There seems to be concern that he didn't finish high school. Why? We go to school

and send our kids and grandkids to school so that they are able to get a good job and

earn a lot of money. Right?

This young man has a great job. He earns a lot of money. He may not be capable of

taking care of what he earns in the NBA. Many pro players are not. We read where they

make millions then end up completely broke shortly after retiring.

I hope he makes it and makes it big. He's what we need, physically. Can he do it?

right now, it's wait and see.

GO HAWKS!!!

[Admin]

Amen Mr Gray! Btw I read something recently that there was a school test from the mid 1800s that was found and over 90% of the college seniors who took it couldn't pass it. Oh yeah forgot to mention the test was meant for 6th graders back in the 1800s. So that should tell you all about where the American education level is and how sad that is. Who needs a senior year of dumbed down learning or college tests that are as easy as high school ones were 50 years ago.

[Buzzard]

U missed the point I was making. I never said that an education wasn't important. I said what's the point of going to college if u are just going for one year and a college degree is not your goal. It's a waste of time.

The point to going to college vs overseas is the training room, coaching, and level of competition you get in the NCAA. Not to mention the exposure which if you play well is the difference between 3 to 5 million a year as a first round pick vs 600,000 to 800,000 as a second round pick.

Edited February 23, 2013 by Buzzard

[Admin]

The point to going to college vs overseas is the training room, coaching, and level of competition you get in the NCAA. Not to mention the exposure which if you play well is the difference between 3 to 5 million a year as a first round pick vs 600,000 to 800,000 as a second round pick.

I would argue that you get better fundamental teaching these days in Europe vs in the NCAA. The level of competition in Europe also favors pretty well vs NCAA too. Not that I'm advocating skipping out on high school and going to Europe, but I don't know how much of a difference it will make positively or negatively on a player and his career. I do think that going to Europe, where a talented American can play vs going straight to the pros and learning on the job or riding the bench, is better for a player and learning how to play the game the right way. Josh has really gotten a hell of a lot better since he came into the league but I can't help but wonder what he'd have been like with a year or two of college or European ball where'd he have been taught fundamentals of team play vs just being an athlete for Woody.

[DrReality]

Agree about fundamentals in Europe but I think it had to be a hell of a life lesson to go to another culture and cope. It's also critical whether he's teachable and not some primaddona

[Buzzard]

I would argue that you get better fundamental teaching these days in Europe vs in the NCAA. The level of competition in Europe also favors pretty well vs NCAA too. Not that I'm advocating skipping out on high school and going to Europe, but I don't know how much of a difference it will make positively or negatively on a player and his career. I do think that going to Europe, where a talented American can play vs going straight to the pros and learning on the job or riding the bench, is better for a player and learning how to play the game the right way. Josh has really gotten a hell of a lot better since he came into the league but I can't help but wonder what he'd have been like with a year or two of college or European ball where'd he have been taught fundamentals of team play vs just being an athlete for Woody.

If it is better to go overseas, 99% of the rsci 200 would be opting for a year or two overseas vs a year or two in the NCAA. Its really not even close; which is why players like Bismark go in the top ten vs players like Tyler who go in the 2nd round.

Most top overseas draft picks have been playing in their respective pro systems 3 to 4 years before they even think about entering the NBA draft. And its simple really. Overseas teams are in the business of winning also, so who you going to start? The 17 or 18 yr old kid or the 25 to 30 yr old vet.

Edited February 23, 2013 by Buzzard

[MaceCase]

Overseas is better competition but Buzz is right, they favor vets over any young guy and the young guys who are there have been in the system since they were 16. If you are 17/18 and just arriving then you are behind the 8 ball on two fronts. Ever since the Fab 5 though, if you are a top freshman recruit coming in then whatever seniors and juniors better find a comfy spot down on the bench because you are going to play and be treated like the man. Very few coaches can get away with their "merit" systems anymore unless they want recruiting nightmares.

Edited February 23, 2013 by MaceCase

[Guest]

Too much mice type.

[AHF]

Too much mice type.

?

[Guest]

?

I am not a trained lawyer, so reading through the selected opinion (really one needs to read through all of it to even understand the selected portion) is simply a large amount of mice type. I would need sufficient knowledge on the non-statutory labor exemption as well as the cited opinions within the Clarrett opinion to understand what was said. And through all of that, I would only get an understanding of how the NFL age restriction is legal under the charges that Clarrett brought up.Isn't it possible a non-antitrust lawsuit could be brought up to demonstrate that an age restriction may not be legal? Or what if we took the charges Clarrett brought up to different hypotheticals to see if the legality still goes through:1. If the NFL had a minimum weight requirement.2. If the NFL had a requirement that one must believe in a God.3. If the NFL had a minimum GPA requirement.4. If the NFL had a coursework requirement (Financial Management 101, Bitches and Hoes 101, etc.).To me, it sounds like based upon how Clarrett made his case all 4 of those would be legal under the charges filed. However, if one challenged the legality of those requirements based on something other than anti-trust issues (federal labor laws) then 1 and 2 could potentially be illegal.I am not a lawyer, so you will have to correct me. Or point me to some references that do not require large amounts of preexisting law knowledge. Edited February 25, 2013 by hawksfanatic

[Bahamut]

Never even heard of the dude, but this is pretty cool clip of him dunking in the D-League (If you have headphones on, take them off before watching!):

Isane Dunk here:

I like him already! So we got two guys with a library of highlight dunks before the trade deadline, but at least one of them isn't that kind of player anymore? I hope Tyler has one hell of an off-season and fights for that starting 5 spot in camp.

[Bahamut]

Hand-in-the-defender's-face-dunk at 3:05!!! WOW!

[Bahamut]

new lineup:

PG smith / teague / harris

SG stevenson / jenkins

SF korver / dahntay / tolliver

PF horford / ivan / scott

C tyler / zaza / petro

PG problem solved.

At least one person thinks this is the depth chart already.

[AHF]

I am not a trained lawyer, so reading through the selected opinion (really one needs to read through all of it to even understand the selected portion) is simply a large amount of mice type. I would need sufficient knowledge on the non-statutory labor exemption as well as the cited opinions within the Clarrett opinion to understand what was said. And through all of that, I would only get an understanding of how the NFL age restriction is legal under the charges that Clarrett brought up.

Gotcha. I'll try to address briefly below:

Isn't it possible a non-antitrust lawsuit could be brought up to demonstrate that an age restriction may not be legal?

There isn't another avenue on that. It is generally legal to discriminate against the young based on age. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act only protects people 40 years or older against age discrimination.

Or what if we took the charges Clarrett brought up to different hypotheticals to see if the legality still goes through:1. If the NFL had a minimum weight requirement.2. If the NFL had a requirement that one must believe in a God.3. If the NFL had a minimum GPA requirement.4. If the NFL had a coursework requirement (Financial Management 101, Bitches and Hoes 101, etc.).

For these hypotheticals, there would be a problem with the requirement that one must believe in God. That would violate Title VII and would raise constitutional issues to the extent the government was making this permissable through federal preemption. A minimum weight requirement would probably be OK, with the possibility of a challenge under the Americans with Disabilities Act if someone had a disability that prevented them from reaching that minimum but was still qualified to perform the essential functions of the job. A minimum GPA requirement would be subject to challenge if it had a disparate impact based on race or other protected characteristic and couldn't be justified based on business necessity but absent such a disparate impact would otherwise be perfectly legal whether or not collectively bargained. A coursework requirement is already part of the NFL and would be fine (all rookies have to go through certain training classes along the lines of what you are suggesting).

To me, it sounds like based upon how Clarrett made his case all 4 of those would be legal under the charges filed. However, if one challenged the legality of those requirements based on something other than anti-trust issues (federal labor laws) then 1 and 2 could potentially be illegal.I am not a lawyer, so you will have to correct me. Or point me to some references that do not require large amounts of preexisting law knowledge.

All these are moot because they aren't rules in the NFL but you would have to look at the rules one by one and see whether there is anything viable there under federal law.

If the NFL rule barred African-Americans from competing, then in addition to the anti-trust issue Clarret's lawyers would have raised the anti-discrimination issue (under federal laws like Title VII and Section 1981) and the rule would have been struck down. The laws that are out there that protect young people against discrimination in employment are local and non-federal laws that would be pre-empted (thus, you can ignore things like the District of Columbia Human Rights Act for purposes of this discussion). They also don't trip constitutional concerns because young people are not a protected group constitutionally like racial minorities. The reason Clarret's lawyers didn't rely on anything other than anti-trust arguments is because there aren't comparable federal anti-discrimination laws or constitutional protections protecting the young and thus there were no arguments that were worth raising.

The issue becomes one purely of anti-trust law and there the exception for collectively bargained terms exempts this from legal challenge under the current state of the law.

[Guest]

The issue becomes one purely of anti-trust law and there the exception for collectively bargained terms exempts this from legal challenge under the current state of the law.

Thanks for that AHF, your post clears up some of the confusion I had. The issue still seems like bullshit, Sotomayer simply took a previous court's decision and said "no you are wrong" even though that court had documented cases where the non-statutory labor exemption was applied (Mackey v. NFL). Also, the clearly diametrically opposed purposes of the Sherman Anti-trust Act (increase competition) and the Non-Statutory Labor Exemption (reduce competition in the labor market) just piss me off. Here naive little old me thought the original purpose of a Union was to ensure a safe working environment. Nope, safety is not brought up one time in the opinion I read but ensuring a high wage (for veterans) is. Argh.

I just read an 8 page article from the Harvard Law Review on this issue (Antitrust Law. Nonstatutory Labor Exemption. Second Circuit Exempts NFL Eligibility Rules from Antitrust Scrutiny. Clarett v. National Football League). Really, there was only 4 or 5 pages worth of material because there were 68 f***ing footnotes that send you down rabbit holes for other court case opinions and whatnot. How the hell do I know that they are interpreting their footnotes correctly? I don't, it is simply too big of a barrier for me to go through.

Edited February 25, 2013 by hawksfanatic

[AHF]

Unions today don't have that much of a connection with safety in the workplace. The valuable gains the original unions achieved are codified in laws like OSHA. Today they are about economic bargaining power (which has always been a big part of their mission) and politics.

For me on a personal level as an NBA fan, I want rules for the NBA that make the league more appealing to me as a consumer which is why I would like to see a two year out rule. I like that so that (a) lottery teams get rookies who make more of an impact (Kobe vs. Larry Bird; Jermaine O'Neal, etc.); (b) players aren't developing on the bench and then lost in FA (Tracy McGrady); ( c) players come in with more fan engagement (Laettner vs. Jermaine O'Neal); and (d) there is more scouting for better drafts. I think reasonable minds can disagree on this, and I recognize that some people view it as unfair to the HS players.

I don't try to pretend that this is for the benefit of the high school players who want to jump - in my mind it is for the benefit of the product (which in fairness, I think in turn collectively benefits all players, the league and the fans but hurts the pocket books of the elite stars who start their clock later and HS stars who would have been drafted (or drafted higher) if they weren't exposed against better competition before they could enter the draft).

[Guest]

If we continue on this topic it will probably need to be in the Politics Forum, but I think AHF knows what my position is and I certainly knew his position.

Thanks AHF for illustrating the opinion of the court on the age restrictions. I certainly did not expect to become more frustrated for knowing the legality of age restrictions, but that is because of general lawyers/legal system and not one particular lawyer.