Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Sdog1981 t1_j94txjd wrote

I think it was a misguided way of protecting college basketball. In their view they could protect themselves by picking bad players if they spend more time playing college basketball before their first pro contract.

31

[deleted] t1_j94u6s8 wrote

It's still odd to me that the supreme Court would rule in favor of the player in this case. It would seem companies can make up pretty much any requirements for a position they want as long as it's not discriminatory by law. It's just rather interesting, I wonder if it was a matter of the franchise that drafted him having the ability to set their own requirements.

12

Sdog1981 t1_j94ub2w wrote

The NBA settled before it was argued. So I think they knew they were going to loose.

5

AssociateFlashy4216 t1_j98jd0x wrote

Its collusion when all the teams agree not to select high schoolers. To me its interesting that the Court now allows the NBA teams to collude and force one year of college or G-league on players.

1

UncommonHouseSpider t1_j98wtrc wrote

There is a lot of money and power tied to college basketball. It is big business and they were protecting their interests by keeping good players from skipping right into the big leagues. It's not right, but that's what people with money and power do.

1

Sdog1981 t1_j98x54i wrote

It’s funny to think of college basketball having more power than the NBA in the 60s and 70s but it was true

2