Skipping HS senior year to go pro

[CapitalCityCat]

And the NCAA needs to drop their silly "amateur" rules and just let anyone accept a scholarship, regardless of whether they tried to go pro in the past or not (in any sport). That way, these kids aren't throwing away a chance to get a college education if they try to go pro and don't make it.

If his pro career doesn't pan out, he can always go back and get schooling to train for a different career (and pay for it with the money he already made in his first career)

So, should the athlete be allowed to get a scholarship or should he be forced to pay for it with his (presumably) multimillion dollar contract?

In my ideal world (meaning all of the rules would be changed), there would be no "amatuer" requirements for the NCAA. So in that world, the kid would possibly have the option of getting a scholarship to play basketball if the pro route didn't work out. Of course, if he blew out his knee (which was the scenario laid out in the post I was responding to) or didn't even want to play basketball, he could just pay for it himself.

Under all current rules, he would have to pay for it himself, and wouldn't be allowed to play college basketball.

I'm a little confused as to why you quoted those two different blurbs together and then asked me that question ... I thought both of those blurbs was quite self-explanatory independently (and only independently, as they obviously don't speak to the same issue/scenario).

I disagree... I thought they were contradictory statements because you didn't really clarify each scenario. in your second scenario, you didn't mention "blowing out his knee", you simply said, "if it didn't work out". Which to me could mean he plays a couple years pro, gets into legal trouble or something, gets banned from the NBA, but is still considered eligible for a schollie. That's why I asked.

[SonomaCat]

Capital: I'm just happy I had the opportunity to explain what those two quotes were speaking to, as apparently you were struggling to grasp the meaning of each statement from the context of the entire post and thread as I first posted them. Despite the fact that even after you stripped them of their context, the statements STILL don't contradict each other as you quoted them, I am happy to invest additional time to clarify this for you.

Likewise, I was happy to explain to you that my post noting that I wouldn't mind if a 5 year old signed an NBA contract meant that I also wouldn't mind if a Freshman in high school signed an NBA contract.

I must advise, though, that I'm probably just about done "investing" my time clarifying things that were actually quite clear the first time I wrote them.

[whitetrashgriz]

i don't understand why some of you treat basketball differently than any other sport. I noticed this on that thread where people were claiming that high school games on tv are solely giving these kids egos. some of you need to understand that as time goes on, the sports world is changing. these aren't the athletes of our grandparents generation, or even our parents generation. these kids are simply getting too big, too strong, and too athletic. some know they will be in the nba when they are 10. and you know what, i'll probably be alive to see a kid in 8th grade who has nba talent. why is basketball different than golf, tennis, soccer, etc.? it doesn't make sense. and who made the rule that if a kid does forgo high school to try to play pro sports that he can't finish school? i think, as many things on this board, it's pretty short-sighted to speculate that this kid won't get his diploma. everything that i have read about this kid says that he is very smart, and has a good plan for what he wants to do. he's a lock as the number one pick in the draft. it's just good sense to go play with grown men who will actually help him progress as a player than simply facing outmatched opponents every game. some of you guys are acting like if you don't go to college you are an idiot. not true. i know several people, some rather successful too who never finished college. you need to remember that you go to college to graduate and begin a career. but if your career is basketball, then college for some might be pointless. it would be the same thing if a student was so gifted, that he had all of the skills needed to be an architect, and a firm contacted him and offered him 100,000 a year right out of high school. why would he go to college? i'm confused how this concept is lost on some. you go to school to help get a job. if you are good enough to do that job without college...good for you. and if you think that carmelo anthony, o.j mayo, and michael beasly all gained valuable educations in their one year on campus you may not be able to be helped on this topic.

[CapitalCityCat]

Capital: I'm just happy I had the opportunity to explain what those two quotes were speaking to, as apparently you were struggling to grasp the meaning of each statement from the context of the entire post and thread as I first posted them. Despite the fact that even after you stripped them of their context, the statements STILL don't contradict each other as you quoted them, I am happy to invest additional time to clarify this for you.

Likewise, I was happy to explain to you that my post noting that I wouldn't mind if a 5 year old signed an NBA contract meant that I also wouldn't mind if a Freshman in high school signed an NBA contract.

I must advise, though, that I'm probably just about done "investing" my time clarifying things that were actually quite clear the first time I wrote them.

I'm just happy that the entire post is there for everybody to read and they can clearly see that there's no difference if I post a portion of your statments or the whole thing. You're contradicting yourself which you always point out when anybody else does it.

Likewise, I'm happy to explain to you that you didn't answer all the questions in my original post, rather, you dodged them quite nicely... which is something else you ALWAYS point out to other posters.

I, too, must advise that I'm done "investing" my time pointing out that you contradict yourself. Good day sir.

[SonomaCat]

Hmmm ... I dodged your questions in your first post? Are you sure? Okay, let's review. You asked:

What age limits would you impose on an NBA either a)recruiting and signing a kid to a future pro contract; b)allowing a kid to actually play in the NBA? Would you be opposed to a 6'8", 250 lb middle school kid going pro? How about a 5th grader signing an exclusive contract and being allowed to quit school because he's already guaranteed a signing bonus? Are all pro sports or careers equal in terms of physical and mental ability? If a 5 year old musical prodigy can play professionally with a symphony orchestra should a 5 year old t-ball player be able to sign a MLB contract? That seems to be the argument you're making. You can say it's limited to Seniors in high school this year, but what about next year and the next? Do we just gradually lower the acceptable age to become pro? Do we just eventually start farming out kids before they're even born? These scenarios may sound ridiculous, but I can assure you that the thought of a high school kid forgoing his senior season for the NBA was just as ridiculous 20-30 years ago. My point is..... at what point do we say "enough is enough"?

To which, I replied:

If a five year old was signed by an NBA team, I would have no problem with that. I find that scenario to be highly unlikely, however, as I am not aware of any 5 year old that is capable of competing at the NBA level. But if an NBA team decided that it was worth it to them to use a draft choice and put out the money to sign a 5 year old to a contact, I would not have any problem with that at all. If the 5 year old happened to be my son, I would be very, very, very proud and excited ... and more than happy to use some of his millions to hire him an entourage of tutors.

But apparently that was a little too cryptic for you, so you wrote:

I find it very unlikely as well and I said the scenario was ridiculous. But you never really answered any of my questions, did you? Do you think a big, athletic high school freshman should be allowed to play in the NBA? At what age/physical/mental level would you say "you know what? That's just way too young". I'm really interested in hearing your answers. If a high school senior is capable of competing in the NBA, then why not a junior, sophomore, freshman? But then if you let a 15-year old freshman play, how can you deny an equally talented 14-, 13-, 12- year old?

NCAA schools are already recruiting 7th graders and I have a problem with that. Do you also think this is ok? Then, if it's allowed for 7th graders, why shouldn't we include all "middle schoolers"? I mean, there's really no difference between a 7th grader and a 5th grader, is there? Where would you draw the line, BAC? I'm curious...

To which I responded:

I kind of assumed that you would gather from my post that if I was okay with a five year old going pro in the NBA, that I would also be fine with a Freshman in high school going pro. I thought that did answer your question.

But to be explicit ... I have no problem any pro sporting league signing any person between the ages of 1 day to 2,000,000 years old.

So ... where exactly is the dodge? What, exactly, would a guy need to do to be any more clear as to their position? Would it require a form of communication beyond the written word? Because as far as the written word goes, I couldn't have been any more clear (outside of not having a typo that left out the word "with," but that certainly wasn't something that made the sentence any less explicit to any intelligent reader).

And there is no contradiction at all in my posts (including the blurbs you posted) ... you are making no sense at all on that argument, either. I've already explained that to you a couple times now as well (despite the fact that the statements made perfect sense to any reasonable reader the first time around), so unless we are once again looking for a form of communication extending beyond the written word, I guess we're at a dead end on this one as well.

[CapitalCityCat]

Hmmm ... I dodged your questions in your first post? Are you sure? Okay, let's review. You asked:

What age limits would you impose on an NBA either a)recruiting and signing a kid to a future pro contract; b)allowing a kid to actually play in the NBA? Would you be opposed to a 6'8", 250 lb middle school kid going pro? How about a 5th grader signing an exclusive contract and being allowed to quit school because he's already guaranteed a signing bonus? Are all pro sports or careers equal in terms of physical and mental ability? If a 5 year old musical prodigy can play professionally with a symphony orchestra should a 5 year old t-ball player be able to sign a MLB contract? That seems to be the argument you're making. You can say it's limited to Seniors in high school this year, but what about next year and the next? Do we just gradually lower the acceptable age to become pro? Do we just eventually start farming out kids before they're even born? These scenarios may sound ridiculous, but I can assure you that the thought of a high school kid forgoing his senior season for the NBA was just as ridiculous 20-30 years ago. My point is..... at what point do we say "enough is enough"?

To which, I replied:

If a five year old was signed by an NBA team, I would have no problem with that. I find that scenario to be highly unlikely, however, as I am not aware of any 5 year old that is capable of competing at the NBA level. But if an NBA team decided that it was worth it to them to use a draft choice and put out the money to sign a 5 year old to a contact, I would not have any problem with that at all. If the 5 year old happened to be my son, I would be very, very, very proud and excited ... and more than happy to use some of his millions to hire him an entourage of tutors.

But apparently that was a little too cryptic for you, so you wrote:

I find it very unlikely as well and I said the scenario was ridiculous. But you never really answered any of my questions, did you? Do you think a big, athletic high school freshman should be allowed to play in the NBA? At what age/physical/mental level would you say "you know what? That's just way too young". I'm really interested in hearing your answers. If a high school senior is capable of competing in the NBA, then why not a junior, sophomore, freshman? But then if you let a 15-year old freshman play, how can you deny an equally talented 14-, 13-, 12- year old?

NCAA schools are already recruiting 7th graders and I have a problem with that. Do you also think this is ok? Then, if it's allowed for 7th graders, why shouldn't we include all "middle schoolers"? I mean, there's really no difference between a 7th grader and a 5th grader, is there? Where would you draw the line, BAC? I'm curious...

To which I responded:

I kind of assumed that you would gather from my post that if I was okay with a five year old going pro in the NBA, that I would also be fine with a Freshman in high school going pro. I thought that did answer your question.

But to be explicit ... I have no problem any pro sporting league signing any person between the ages of 1 day to 2,000,000 years old.

So ... where exactly is the dodge? What, exactly, would a guy need to do to be any more clear as to their position? Would it require a form of communication beyond the written word? Because as far as the written word goes, I couldn't have been any more clear (outside of not having a typo that left out the word "with," but that certainly wasn't something that made the sentence any less explicit to any intelligent reader).

And there is no contradiction at all in my posts (including the blurbs you posted) ... you are making no sense at all on that argument, either. I've already explained that to you a couple times now as well (despite the fact that the statements made perfect sense to any reasonable reader the first time around), so unless we are once again looking for a form of communication extending beyond the written word, I guess we're at a dead end on this one as well.

Where do I start? Ok, so you technically answered

What age limits would you impose on an NBA either a)recruiting and signing a kid to a future pro contract; b)allowing a kid to actually play in the NBA? Would you be opposed to a 6'8", 250 lb middle school kid going pro? How about a 5th grader signing an exclusive contract and being allowed to quit school because he's already guaranteed a signing bonus?

But you didn't answer

Are all pro sports or careers equal in terms of physical and mental ability? (Because you seem to think so)

You also didn't answer

Do we just gradually lower the acceptable age to become pro? (I UNDERSTAND that YOU are ok with it, but is society?) Do we just eventually start farming out kids before they're even born? (Do you want recruiters picking out your sperm and egg so they can have the Chutes & Ladders champ?) My point is..... at what point do we say "enough is enough"?

And yes, those were all serious questions. And you failed to answer them with one generic statement.

[SonomaCat]

Are all pro sports or careers equal in terms of physical and mental ability?

My answer: No.

Would any remotely informed person on the face of the earth say yes in a serious tone? No.

Was this a question I "dodged?" No. I just didn't realize you had such a passion to hear my answer to a pointless throwaway question with an obvious answer.

Do we just gradually lower the acceptable age to become pro? (I UNDERSTAND that YOU are ok with it, but is society?) Do we just eventually start farming out kids before they're even born? (Do you want recruiters picking out your sperm and egg so they can have the Chutes & Ladders champ?) My point is..... at what point do we say "enough is enough"?

I guess I didn't realize that I was supposed to answer on behalf of society (especially since you didn't ask me to do so) ... I answered on my own behalf (and since I don't have society's proxy, and as my discussion was never suggesting I was representing society but was only speaking my own opinions on the subject, I will stand pat). I answered these questions as explicitly and bluntly and clearly as was humanly possible ... a couple times.

Not only did I answer it, but despite my INCREDIBLY clear answer, you still managed to miss it. So, one more time:

But to be explicit ... I have no problem any pro sporting league signing any person between the ages of 1 day to 2,000,000 years old.

So, no not before they are born. I thought I was pretty clear about that. We are clear that a person 1 day old has already been born, right? And since a person who isn't born yet can't enter into a legal contract (even with a parent acting in a custodial position), I explicitly picked the age I did to speak to your absurdist question. And even after I do that, you still say I didn't answer your question.

At what point here will you acknowledge that it's your reading comprehension that is lacking, and not my answers? You might want to slow down and understand what I have written before responding (especially if you are going to respond in a bizarre accusatory manner). It would have saved us both a whole lot of time.

[BDizzle]

Best thread ever!!! I bet Ryan Kessman could've played any professional sport while still in his mothers womb.

[CapitalCityCat]

Are all pro sports or careers equal in terms of physical and mental ability?

My answer: No.

Would any remotely informed person on the face of the earth say yes in a serious tone? No.

Was this a question I "dodged?" No. I just didn't realize you had such a passion to hear my answer to a pointless throwaway question with an obvious answer.

Do we just gradually lower the acceptable age to become pro? (I UNDERSTAND that YOU are ok with it, but is society?) Do we just eventually start farming out kids before they're even born? (Do you want recruiters picking out your sperm and egg so they can have the Chutes & Ladders champ?) My point is..... at what point do we say "enough is enough"?

I guess I didn't realize that I was supposed to answer on behalf of society (especially since you didn't ask me to do so) ... I answered on my own behalf (and since I don't have society's proxy, and as my discussion was never suggesting I was representing society but was only speaking my own opinions on the subject, I will stand pat). I answered these questions as explicitly and bluntly and clearly as was humanly possible ... a couple times.

Not only did I answer it, but despite my INCREDIBLY clear answer, you still managed to miss it. So, one more time:

But to be explicit ... I have no problem any pro sporting league signing any person between the ages of 1 day to 2,000,000 years old.

So, no not before they are born. I thought I was pretty clear about that. We are clear that a person 1 day old has already been born, right? And since a person who isn't born yet can't enter into a legal contract (even with a parent acting in a custodial position), I explicitly picked the age I did to speak to your absurdist question. And even after I do that, you still say I didn't answer your question.

At what point here will you acknowledge that it's your reading comprehension that is lacking, and not my answers? You might want to slow down and understand what I have written before responding (especially if you are going to respond in a bizarre accusatory manner). It would have saved us both a whole lot of time.

Thanks for answering the questions. Thanks also for being such a smart ass about it. I'm beginning to see what others have seen in you for years. If people disagree with them, you belittle them, which coincidentally is something else you scorn others about doing.

[SonomaCat]

One question for you, Capital. Were you just trying to waste my time by being argumentative and playing dumb for the sole purpose of being annoying, or did you sincerely not understand my positions on the issues brought up in this thread from what I wrote in my posts?

I got the distinct impression that you were intentionally being argumentative and intentionally wasting my time for the sake of being annoying (mainly because you don't strike me as someone whose reading comprehension would be such that you would make so many bizarre mispresentations about what I wrote if not doing so knowingly). If that was not the case, and if you sincerely were confused by my seemingly straight-forward posts, I apologize for my impatience.

If, however, you were just trying to waste my time, and if you are now just licking your wounds from being called out for wasting my time by trying to play the victim and take the "BAC is such a meanie for using sarcasm as he explains his straight-forward statements for the 4th time with a heavy dose of frustration" approach and making bogus "hypocrite" assertions to cover your tail, then I have nothing to apologize for and will instead dismiss your last post as such.

So I put this in your court ... were you sincerely not able to understand my positions on anything relating to this thread based on what I wrote in my posts?

If yes, then I apologize for my impatience (but not my sarcasm ... you deserved that regardless) and simply urge you to do a better job of reading other people's posts before responding in accusatory ways to avoid these misunderstandings.

By the way, I didn't apply the sarcasm because you disagreed with me, and you know full well that's not why I did. I was obviously being a smartass (if that's the "belittling" you are complaining about) out of frustration for being asked to explain the same point over and over and over and over (to the point that it certainly seemed like you were doing so intentionally to be annoying).

I don't care if you disagree with me, but I do care when you make bizarre accusations that misrepresent what I wrote ... especially when you do it repeatedly and in a way that leads me to believe you are just being annoying for the sake of being annoying.

[CapitalCityCat]

One question for you, Capital. Were you just trying to waste my time by being argumentative and playing dumb for the sole purpose of being annoying, or did you sincerely not understand my positions on the issues brought up in this thread from what I wrote in my posts?

Listen, I thought I asked more specific questions that you failed to address. Yes, you answered a large portion of them with one generic answer that you think it's ok for anybody from 1 to 2,000,000 to go pro. I asked varying forms of the same questions that I thought you might elaborate on. I tried getting a definitive answer on if there is a low age limit that you would consider taboo for recruiters and the like to come calling. I guess I'll be more careful and more explicit when I write my questions so they can't be answered by one generic statement. God forbid the NBA (or any other pro organization) comes knocking on your door trying to pimp out your grade schooler. Because quite honestly at that age, your child should be focusing on being a child and getting an education (which apparently isn't as good as worldly travels).

I don't care if you disagree with me, but I do care when you make bizarre accusations that misrepresent what I wrote ... especially when you do it repeatedly and in a way that leads me to believe you are just being annoying for the sake of being annoying.

I have no idea where I "misrepresented" you. I posted portions of quotes that absolutely did not change the meaning of what you said. Anybody can go back and read those for reference to see who's right.

[whitetrashgriz]

God forbid the NBA (or any other pro organization) comes knocking on your door trying to pimp out your grade schooler. Because quite honestly at that age, your child should be focusing on being a child and getting an education (which apparently isn't as good as worldly travels).

not trying to get in the middle of your and bacs argument but i'm still curious why you think basketball is different than any other career choice one might make as a kid. what about every child actor? people come "calling" for them before they can talk sometimes. child models? how about golfers that are qualifying for tournaments when they are 12? tennis? and musicians? what about shows like american idol who every year seems to have kids as young as 16 competing, and sometimes winning? baseball? every year pro clubs are signing these kids out of high school at the age of 17 or 18. i'm just not gathering why this guy making a decision to better his game against adults seems so crazy to some of you. people are acting like the kid is a moron, and he's just gonna be this big dumb basketball player who couldn't recite the alphabet! he's going to be the number one pick in the draft in a couple years. this year one of the top 5-10 picks is a guy named jennings. he made the same move a couple years ago to play overseas rather than go to college. sure he finished his senior year, but it's basically the same thing. and i think you're going to see a lot more of this as long as the ncaa keeps this stupid rule that kids have to attend at least one year of college.

[SonomaCat]

I asked varying forms of the same questions that I thought you might elaborate on. I tried getting a definitive answer on if there is a low age limit that you would consider taboo for recruiters and the like to come calling.

When I've already explicitly stated that my low age limit is "one day old," asking varying forms of the same questions over and over and over (and accusing me of "dodging" them) is not a way to get me to elaborate more. The questions were already answered in very, very, very clear terms. When you continue to ask the same questions over and over and over that I have already graciously answered for you (while accusing me of "dodging" your questions), you are merely being annoying.

If you were to ask questions that pertained to something I had NOT already answered, I would have been happy to do so. I think I bent over backwards to provide specific answers to your questions. There was nothing more I could do. That's why I got really annoyed when you then accused me of dodging your questions (especially when it was obvious that you hadn't even read my answers, seeing as how you couldn't have possibly read what I wrote and not realized that it explicitly answered your questions already).

But I learned a lot from this conversation. I will be better prepared to know when to hit the "eject" button on future discussions. That's perhaps the most important lesson one can learn on these boards.

[SonomaCat]

God forbid the NBA (or any other pro organization) comes knocking on your door trying to pimp out your grade schooler. Because quite honestly at that age, your child should be focusing on being a child and getting an education (which apparently isn't as good as worldly travels).

Ah, so you are trying to apply what I said about this specific 17 year old player to a theoretical grade schooler that has the physical skills of an NBA player (whic would be a freak of nature that wouldn't exactly enjoy playing basketball with kids his own age). That might be annoying on its face (in exactly the same way it was when you compared two statements about two completely different scenarios earlier in this thread and made the bizarre claim that they contradicted each other), but it's actually just funny when one has read what I wrote and knows that I proactively addressed this specific point long, long ago in the thread when I said:

But if an NBA team decided that it was worth it to them to use a draft choice and put out the money to sign a 5 year old to a contact, I would not have any problem with that at all. If the 5 year old happened to be my son, I would be very, very, very proud and excited ... and more than happy to use some of his millions to hire him an entourage of tutors.

So, now that you've read what I wrote long ago, what do you think my views are on his education?

It kind of sounds like the way people treat child actors and child musicians, right?

So now that you have read what I actually wrote, considering that the whole scenario is completely absurd, it turns out that what I said actually made perfect sense and PROACTIVELY spoke to his education.

[CapitalCityCat]

God forbid the NBA (or any other pro organization) comes knocking on your door trying to pimp out your grade schooler. Because quite honestly at that age, your child should be focusing on being a child and getting an education (which apparently isn't as good as worldly travels).

Ah, so you are trying to apply what I said about this specific 17 year old player to a theoretical grade schooler that has the physical skills of an NBA player (whic would be a freak of nature that wouldn't exactly enjoy playing basketball with kids his own age). That might be annoying on its face (in exactly the same way it was when you compared two statements about two completely different scenarios earlier in this thread and made the bizarre claim that they contradicted each other), but it's actually just funny when one has read what I wrote and knows that I proactively addressed this specific point long, long ago in the thread when I said:

But if an NBA team decided that it was worth it to them to use a draft choice and put out the money to sign a 5 year old to a contact, I would not have any problem with that at all. If the 5 year old happened to be my son, I would be very, very, very proud and excited ... and more than happy to use some of his millions to hire him an entourage of tutors.

So, now that you've read what I wrote long ago, what do you think my views are on his education?

It kind of sounds like the way people treat child actors and child musicians, right?

So now that you have read what I actually wrote, considering that the whole scenario is completely absurd, it turns out that what I said actually made perfect sense and PROACTIVELY spoke to his education.

How long do you want to drag this on? You're right. You're always right. Nobody else will ever win an argument with you, no matter the circumstances, no matter the amount of evidence they provide, no matter that you're equally good as twisting words as I apparently did. I'm obviously an idiot when it comes to having opinions, expressing them in a forum such as this, and I plan on brushing up on my reading/comprehension skills as well. You've enlightened me on all those things.

As a matter of fact, I've also decided that because my twin boys are of freakish size for their age, I'm going to start contacting agents for the NFL, NBA, UFC, and any other profession I feel they have a shot at even though I don't know their physical capabilities at this young age. After all, you've convinced me it's the right thing to do.

[CapitalCityCat]

God forbid the NBA (or any other pro organization) comes knocking on your door trying to pimp out your grade schooler. Because quite honestly at that age, your child should be focusing on being a child and getting an education (which apparently isn't as good as worldly travels).

not trying to get in the middle of your and bacs argument but i'm still curious why you think basketball is different than any other career choice one might make as a kid. what about every child actor? people come "calling" for them before they can talk sometimes. child models? how about golfers that are qualifying for tournaments when they are 12? tennis? and musicians? what about shows like american idol who every year seems to have kids as young as 16 competing, and sometimes winning? baseball? every year pro clubs are signing these kids out of high school at the age of 17 or 18. i'm just not gathering why this guy making a decision to better his game against adults seems so crazy to some of you. people are acting like the kid is a moron, and he's just gonna be this big dumb basketball player who couldn't recite the alphabet! he's going to be the number one pick in the draft in a couple years. this year one of the top 5-10 picks is a guy named jennings. he made the same move a couple years ago to play overseas rather than go to college. sure he finished his senior year, but it's basically the same thing. and i think you're going to see a lot more of this as long as the ncaa keeps this stupid rule that kids have to attend at least one year of college.

I answered those issues a while back..... at least I think I did as well answering them as my questions of BAC were answered. I made a very general statement that I thought it was ok for tennis, golf, etc. because those are "individual" type professions. It was just my opinion and, no, I'm not going to elaborate on it anymore. (sorry, not trying to be a smartass to you or dodge ALL your questions, I'm just done with this subject). Good day!

[BDizzle]

As a matter of fact, I've also decided that because my twin boys are of freakish size for their age, I'm going to start contacting agents for the NFL, NBA, UFC, and any other profession I feel they have a shot at even though I don't know their physical capabilities at this young age. After all, you've convinced me it's the right thing to do.

Good luck with that!

[SonomaCat]

How long do you want to drag this on? You're right. You're always right. Nobody else will ever win an argument with you, no matter the circumstances, no matter the amount of evidence they provide, no matter that you're equally good as twisting words as I apparently did. I'm obviously an idiot when it comes to having opinions, expressing them in a forum such as this, and I plan on brushing up on my reading/comprehension skills as well. You've enlightened me on all those things.

As a matter of fact, I've also decided that because my twin boys are of freakish size for their age, I'm going to start contacting agents for the NFL, NBA, UFC, and any other profession I feel they have a shot at even though I don't know their physical capabilities at this young age. After all, you've convinced me it's the right thing to do.

You're not an idiot when it comes to having opinions (at least, I don't hold that opinion of you ... when you are making arguments on a topic to express your opinion, you seem pretty good at it) ... but you obviously aren't very good at all at representing MY opinions, or the representing what has been written in this thread by me with a reasonable level of accuracy.

And yes, when it comes to knowing what MY opinions are, I am ALWAYS right. In fact, I am not too humble to admit that I am the world's greatest expert on the subject of my own opinions.

[SonomaCat]

God forbid the NBA (or any other pro organization) comes knocking on your door trying to pimp out your grade schooler. Because quite honestly at that age, your child should be focusing on being a child and getting an education (which apparently isn't as good as worldly travels).

not trying to get in the middle of your and bacs argument but i'm still curious why you think basketball is different than any other career choice one might make as a kid. what about every child actor? people come "calling" for them before they can talk sometimes. child models? how about golfers that are qualifying for tournaments when they are 12? tennis? and musicians? what about shows like american idol who every year seems to have kids as young as 16 competing, and sometimes winning? baseball? every year pro clubs are signing these kids out of high school at the age of 17 or 18. i'm just not gathering why this guy making a decision to better his game against adults seems so crazy to some of you. people are acting like the kid is a moron, and he's just gonna be this big dumb basketball player who couldn't recite the alphabet! he's going to be the number one pick in the draft in a couple years. this year one of the top 5-10 picks is a guy named jennings. he made the same move a couple years ago to play overseas rather than go to college. sure he finished his senior year, but it's basically the same thing. and i think you're going to see a lot more of this as long as the ncaa keeps this stupid rule that kids have to attend at least one year of college.

I answered those issues a while back..... at least I think I did as well answering them as my questions of BAC were answered. I made a very general statement that I thought it was ok for tennis, golf, etc. because those are "individual" type professions. It was just my opinion and, no, I'm not going to elaborate on it anymore. (sorry, not trying to be a smartass to you or dodge ALL your questions, I'm just done with this subject). Good day!

To point out the obvious difference ... you used a qualification ("individual sports are different than team sports") to explain why you aren't consistent on an argument, and you are now refusing to elaborate/explain/manufacture a rationale to justify that qualification.

My answer was absolute and unqualified -- and therefore 100% consistent in all circumstances ... so it was IMPOSSIBLE for me to elaborate any further.

So please don't equate your scenario with mine ... they are completely opposite situations.

[SonomaCat]

As a matter of fact, I've also decided that because my twin boys are of freakish size for their age, I'm going to start contacting agents for the NFL, NBA, UFC, and any other profession I feel they have a shot at even though I don't know their physical capabilities at this young age. After all, you've convinced me it's the right thing to do.

Good luck with that!

Indeed. I would never recommend contacting agents if I wasn't sure my child was incredibly talented in the field in which the agent specializes, but that's just my opinion.