Wikipedia:Ain't no rules says a dog can't play basketball

Even though dogs are not explicitly forbidden from playing basketball, this dog would still probably not be allowed to play in the NBA

Air Bud

In the 1997 sports comedy film Air Bud, the film's climax rests upon the titular dog character helping the Timberwolves win a basketball game. It's discovered that there's no rule explicitly banning a dog from playing basketball, so Buddy joins the team and wins the game. While it is true that dogs are not banned from playing basketball, there are rules that disqualify most dogs for other reasons.

In public schools, players must sign up, tryout, and be accepted into the school basketball teams before they can play. As Buddy did none of these things, he still wasn't allowed to play basketball. In professional sports there are even more requirements. In the NBA, for example, players must be at least 19 years old, and most dogs that reach that age are in no shape to play sports. This isn't even mentioning the fact that a dog would never get past tryouts because they are physically incapable of dribbling.

The Dog Year Argument

In recent years there has been a significant amount of discussion among Airbud scholars about if the NBA minimum age applies to dog or human years. For the sake of furthering the discussion, scholars often operate under the assumption that a dog year argument would generally be accepted by the NBA.

Categories

If we are operating under the assumption that dog years do count for the NBA minimum age, the general argument can be split into two main categories which then can be categorized into several sub-subcategories.

Category 1: Age of the actor.

An argument falls under Category 1 if it is assumed that we are arguing for the legitimacy of specifically Buddy's position as an NBA player, and that his actual age trumps his age portrayed in the film. This has become an increasingly unpopular argument, as it does not generalize well and can only be applied in very specific situations.

Category 2: Stated age.

Category 2 arguments are those which accept the stated age (including the portrayed age by an actor) of the dog as the starting age assumption. Category 2 arguments are usually attempts to generalize the debate and make it apply to a broader range of subjects than just if Buddy specifically is allowed to play Basketball.

Subcategories

The only non-fringe subcategories that are worth noting in this stupid article are the ones about dog year system being used. They are the following:

Subcategory 1: The popular system.

Arguments under subcategory 1 assume one year is equal to seven dog years. This would mean if Buddy were a 3 year old, he'd be allowed to play in the NBA. The usage of this system has been discouraged by Airbud scholars as an outdated inaccurate system.

Subcategory 2: The newer system.

As newer systems to define dog years came along, the discussion around the dog basketball loophole also evolved. The second subcategory assumes the first year of a dog is equivalent to 15 years, the second dog year is equivalent to 9 years and every subsequent year is equivalent to about 5 years. This would mean Buddy would have to be two years old to join the NBA. This system is still widely in practice in debates around this topic, although arguments under the system specified in Subcategory 3 are preferred.

Subcategory 3: The breed-accurate system.

Subcategory 3 arguments are arguments which use the breed-specific age system, which is the most accurate system to date. The standard system determines the age in dog years in relative to the average life expectancy of the specified dog breed. Under this system, as Buddy is a golden retriever, Buddy would have to be 1.5 years old to fit the minimum age requirement of the NBA.

Debates

There is a scholarly consensus about dogs being allowed to play basketball, in the NBA or any other basketball league that does not explicitly say otherwise. Most modern day scholarly debates around the topic only allow for Category 2, Subcategory 3 arguments in favor of dog basketball players, as they have been accepted as the most generalized and accurate. Most debates happen not to arrive at new conclusions, but to refine and bulletproof the argument.

Applicability to Wikipedia

All of this is to say, be careful. While you may be able to skirt some rules on a technicality, you'll probably get caught up in other rules. Don't try to be a Wikilawyer, don't try to game the system, and don't be a stupid fucking dog that thinks it can play basketball.

See also

• WP:RATATOUILLE
• On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog