My Response to Pat Forde's Article: Either Bill Self is an Idiot or Clean. You can't Have Both.
-
@HighEliteMajor and @JayHawkFanToo
Both of you are speaking from the perspective of alumni. But most of the “fan base” of college athletics is non-alumni.
There is loyalty to particular schools because it was your school. But for individuals that are not alums, that is not the draw. @Kcmatt7 makes a great point about reducing things to D2 levels. For most D2 schools, their “fan base” is basically limited to alumni and local fans in the community where the school is located. These schools are very regional in that respect. For big time college athletics, the draw is not limited to regional draws. If that were the case, KU is in trouble because Kansas is not a populous state.
Talent level matters because the quality of play is what makes things interesting and exciting to the non-alum fans.
-
People in positions of power, authority, or influence are rarely so naive to not know what muck might be around them, and how to distance themselves (legally) from the muck. This is probably more true with politicians than basketball coaches, but I would be surprised if Bell Self hadn’t at least heard rumors about improprietary benefits given to his team at least once in the last ten years. If there was something of legal implication, Self would deal with it appropriately, but not knowing anything seems too naive n’est ce pas?
-
To me, the issue isn’t about who drives the market or how much value the athletes have. The money is there. Clearly. A few are even getting that money now. Some are even getting money to try and push them to schools they don’t even go to. I think the argument is, do we want this money to be forced to traverse back channels and be under the table to avoid breaking rules and even maybe end up breaking LAWS, or would it be better for the athletes if some of the rules were opened up to allow the money that is ALREADY flowing to them, to do so on the up and up. If the kids don’t have value, they wouldn’t be getting paid. They ARE getting paid already. And now the FB freaking I is involved in college sports simply because the NCAA is trying to control the flow of money to its players. I’d much rather open up some opportunities for athletes to make a little money, than force them to take weird wire transfers or find envelopes in mailboxes or whatever.
-
OH, THE HORROR! THE ABSOLUTE HORROR! if we let kids appear at a car dealer and sign autographs…or if they can make a cd with their picture on it and promote it like anyone else…or get free tattoos…or if Devonte and Sherron or Nick could have gotten a portion of the money that has been rolling in due to the thousands of #4 jerseys KU has sold…or if the NCAA said, “Hey, why not clean up the sport by letting legal earnings also be ok by our rules?”
Yes, it would end college basketball. Just like it did the Olympics, where Suzy Chaffee had to wait until she became a pro (and no longer eligible for the Games) before endorsing Chapstick–although the Olympians now are allowed to make millions. Oh wait, I think the games have survived despite Avery & Co.'s decades long handwringing and predictions of doom, gloom, andvthe end of civilization as we know.
-
I’m afraid our Crimson and Blue tinted glasses are skewing the conversation. Yes most of the KU players can and eventually will get paid for play/ their likeness. However if that is allowed how does St. Mary’s School for the Blind compete? They obviously can’t offer the same exposure/compensation. As it is KU has a huge recruiting advantage because of the national exposure and expectations, but give the players pay for that exposure as well? Completely unfair. i.e. Marcus Garrett KU basketball player signs a $200K deal to exclusively advertise for Hill Billy Juice drinks, would he command the same money if he played for St. Mary’s School for the blind? He’s the same player.
KU football is bad now. Imagine if OU could openly pay players. They have 4 deep guys better than KU starters already. But it’s the same deal - be the 3 deep guy getting paid on OU’s bench or play for free for KU? It widens an already huge gap and competitiveness across the board will be hurt.
If you want paid forgo amature status and go pro- get paid, but lose the exposure and following that even a year in college will give you. I don’t watch much NBA, but I do follow all the old KU guys in the league. And as @KCmatt7 has pointed out some of these guys are picking up 100’s of thousands of followers due to their college exposure. Those 100’s of thousands of followers can be immediately turned into leverage when forming an advertising deal down the road as a pro.
-
What would happen if student athletes organized and walked out until they were given a fair compensation for entertaining the free world? What would the NCAA do if all student athletes started a movement? How much money would they lose before they made a decision? If I were in school I would get the latest 2019 mock draft for college basketball, football, and baseball. I would organize a shut down or walk out with about 500 of the best athletes in college sports and see how they like that? I am willing to bet the NCAA would cave! These kids should get paid if they are not allowed to enter the draft due to age requirements or restrictions from the NBA, MLB, or the NFL. The guys that are getting paid should not be on scholarship but should be allowed to use all 4 years of eligibility and pay their own way. Then if they chose to get their education before entering the draft they could. Kids like Vick could take care of his family and finish school. Its a win win for college sports and would keep most kids in school that were struggling to make ends meet. I believe it could improve the NCAA product and produce a higher graduation rate if it were executed properly. Just my opinion.
-
@Statmachine Replacement players are waiting in the wings. The NCAA is old, athletes are only effective while young. Who can wait longer? A rich organization or athletes that are yet to be paid?
-
@justanotherfan I agree on one piece … talent level matters. But the overall talent level is not as good, relatively speaking, as the 80s where you had the best players staying for four years. And CBB is booming. Talent level matters to a certain point. There is a point where D-1 would become less of a draw. But it isn’t near that now. Take the best 3 players off of every team, and you have the exact same draw and product (I believe).
Do you agree that competition is the best path?
@mayjay Your statement can be said for anything … meaning you can mock it with all caps, and then start a slide down a slippery slope. That slide down the slippery slope starts with simple things, ones that don’t seem to cause bigger issues. But the slide deepens.
Hey kid, come here. I’ll buy 1000 of your autographs for $20 each. Just go to Kentucky. Or I’ll pay you $200,000 if you’ll permit me to use your picture in selling my cars. It just so happens that I have a dealership in Columbia, so the deal is off if you don’t go to MU.
So, more and more rules, right? Rules that someone will always think is unreasonable and want to change.
It amazes me how little thought is given to this.
Why not permit a kid to wear Nike instead of Adidas? Why not permit a kid to advertise for the NRA? Or for Planned Parenthood? Where are the lines? Are the lines areas that will be polarizing? Why should schools be able to dictate what areas their preferences will have priority?
Of course, the Olympics has zero to do with CBB. Not the same business model. Not the same product. Not the same scope. Not near the same issues. An irrelevant comparison. Much like me suggesting that McDonalds should pay their entry level folks what Boeing pays their entry level folks. Totally different businesses, and with a much different focus and business model.
And you do know the Olympics are an abyss of irrelevance now, right? It is no longer an event. It is no longer near what it used to be. I’m not suggesting that there is one cause, there are many. But it ain’t near what it used to be. Just more an observation.
-
Kcmatt7 said:
Yes, by all means let’s break down your response a little bit.
Are you saying there would be no consequences if elite players quit coming to college? Let’s say the top 100 players each year quit coming to school. I would say that probably half of the Shoe company money goes with. That would reduce this sport down to near D2 levels. I agree, I don’t think it disappears. But it would lose a lot, a lot of money for the schools.
You are making two very far fetched assumption, one, that there is actually room for 100 players fresh out of HS to play pro basketball and two, that shoe companies would actually pay lots of money to all these kids who are largely unknown to the majority of the buying market. Believe it or not, the percentage of people with buying power do not follow HS or even college sports. The people like us that post in sports forums and follows college sports in detail is very small and no shoe company would really pay to a HS kid with no collevaffiliation large amounts of money for that small niche market.
Nope it sure wouldn’t. NFL players who these same companies endorse all wear Nike uniforms. Nike just paid a crap ton to be the official NFL and NBA jersey. So, no, these companies will still sponsor school AND sponsor athletes.
So, now you are equating proven NFL professional stars with HS or college kids?
Exactly! There are a ton of athletes, and not every one of them would get paid. Why? Because the market would set how much they made. That is the beauty of it. It wouldn’t effect 97% of athletes most likely.
…and yet you are willing to jeopardize the 97% of the athletes and the well being of the sport for the sake of 3% that cannot wait 9 months to get paid? Actually it would be much less than 3%. Realistically only the best of the best might be able to get some money and that is the top 20-30 players which is less than 1%. If these 20 or 30 top players skip college altogether, the change in college basketball would be nill and the level of play would actually be better since a quality senior (with very few exceptions) will usually outperform a OAD.
I said…
If I create a lineup of 20 individuals, how many of us would actually be able identify the 5 Villanova starters? How many KU fans could at this time correctly identify Grimes and Dotson?
And you answered…
33k followers for Grimes and 31k for Dotson. No chance those are all KU fans. So did KU build their following or did they? Haven’t even played a game here yet.
Cute but you did not answer my question. You have to consider that those 33,000 followers include fans from 20 or 30 schools that follow them with the unique objective of finding out where they will play college ball and once they decide on a school, 32,000 will lose interest and the rest will follow them primarily because of the association with KU.
I said…
Let’s be honest, how many members of this forum can correctly identify more than 5 players in the KU football team? Maybe a handful and I am not one of them. Let’s face it, without the college affiliation which they could obviously not use, the desirability and appeal would be extremely limited and mostly localized. The law of unintended consequences would destroy college sports and for what? A couple of dozen athletes that cannot wait a year to get paid?
And you answered…
This is a purely ignorant take and you are using it as support. If you don’t know how much money these guys could make, just don’t say anything or try to use it as support. Endorsers would be LINING UP to get these kids. College kids have more buying power than you think. Far more buying power than you think. Especially when you consider that the people following the players are the EXACT market for whoever would want to endorse the player. It would be almost impossible to find a better way to spend advertising dollars these days. I broke down above how much some players could fetch. $5K for one post isn’t chump change. One post a month and they are earning $60k. Some of them way more. Some way less. But to assume they have to have national level exposure just to make any money doing this means you have NO IDEA what you are talking about on this subject. None at all.
Which again did not answer my question and you are making projection with no basis in reality. Just because a kid has 50,000 followers it does not mean that if he endorses a product all 50,000 followers will buy the product and whatever audience they have is limited to KU fans in the same way that a Duke or Kentucky player would have zero appeal outside their own fan basis and the appeal is primarily due to school affiliation rather than the players themselves. If Davonte, arguably the most popular KU player last season makes a post endorsing, say 7-up, how many people are going to head to the store and buy 7-up because Devonte endorses it? Reality is that many college basketball fans know who Devonté is but a much smaller number (outside KU fans) could recognize him or care about what he says or sells any more than we KU fans would about something a Duke or Kentucky player has to say or sell. If Grimes and Dotson joined South West Iowa school of Fine Arts instead of KU would you follow them and more importantly would they have the exposure and visibility the will have at KU and would you buy something they endorse? I will guess the answer is no.
Under your scenario, we also start the slippery slope that @HighEliteMajor mentioned and the law of unintended consequences will follow. For example, what if Devonté (using him as an example, not saying that he would) decided to endorse a male enhancement product, a particular brand of condom, a porn website and also advocates for AIDS prevention by using protection, i.e. the brand he endorses…would this be acceptable while he is directly associated with KU? Who becomes the arbiter of what is acceptable or not acceptable? Remember the expression one man’s ceiling is another man’s floor. If one is and another not, would that be a restriction on the use of his likeness?
You and a handful of fans in this forum follow HS and college players at a very detailed level and are very familiar with them and you are part of a super small minority with that much knowledge (and I admire and respect that) and yet, you are assuming everybody has your level of knowledge or interest in the sport. Hate to break it out to you, most don’t.
This take always gets me because what we are proposing wouldn’t cost you, the university or the NCAA another dollar. And, according to you, it would only have minimal effect anyways as most athletes aren’t worth anything. So, if you let them fetch endorsements, and basically no student athlete could because there is no market for them, how would it effect a single thing?
I also want to say one more thing. You completely talked out of both sides of your mouth in your argument. In this same post, you argued that this could “end college sports as we know it,” College Sports are too big to go away, AND that this would effect such a small number that would even be able to fetch endorsements. Which is it? Is this so minimal of an impact that changing the rule wouldn’t even hardly be noticed, OR would it completely change college sports?
Silly me, all this time I thought you said that if the elite prospects skip college, Division I would be like Division 2. I simply posited the the two extremes, the one you though would happen and the one I did. My primary point, which in your haste to discredit my personal opinion, you obviously missed was…why change a system that has been working reasonably well for thousand of student athletes for the sake of of handful of athletes making a pit stop at a school? Why not have them skip college altogether and avoid the aggravation? The sport will not only survive but actually produce a better product.
-
I have a solution. If you accept an NCAA contract it’s good for four years. Each year you back out early is a finger off of your non-shooting hand. OAD bye-bye 3 fingers. He’s tough as nails, but I’m betting we’d have seen senior Paul Pierce under this mob model. Lol
-
dylans said:
@Statmachine Replacement players are waiting in the wings. The NCAA is old, athletes are only effective while young. Who can wait longer? A rich organization or athletes that are yet to be paid?
Its real simple the NCAA makes most of its money from a hand full of teams. These teams rely on the top recruits to preform. I will use Duke, UK, and Alabama as a reference. If you took those 3 schools top athletes off of their roster how much would these schools and the NCAA lose? UK and Duke for example. Their season depends on these kids suiting up next year. How much money do they lose if they have a really bad year? Not only the students but the Schools associated with these players would be putting pressure on the NCAA. Does the NCAA commissioner lose his job if they take a nose dive financially? The NCAA would have to take action.
-
@HighEliteMajor I’m surprised that someone who prides himself on crafting an argument and using logic is so quick to revert to slippery slope fallacies. Surely you know of the existence of the term but boldly use it in your own argument as if it’s a logical consequence instead of a well known fallacy. What ifs and slippery slopes are simplistic tactics to scare someone into inaction. You like the status quo, that’s fine. But if you are trying to make an argument for the status quo, do better.
Personally, if there are 100s of millions of dollars floating around, I’d rather distribute that money more evenly to the people I care about more, the players, instead of network execs, head coaches, and NCAA executives. Further, it appears, there is even MORE money out there the NCAA is trying to prevent others from making based on decades old rules based on decades older perceptions. I don’t have a perfect solution, but change is needed and can continue to be implemented to make the system better. If one change doesn’t work, or has unintended consequences, change it or close the loop hole or whatever. Progress and continual improvement is what sport is all about. Even the rules of basketball are in constant flux and rules are adjusted, abandoned, or changed nearly every year. The game survives and may even get better.
-
@JayHawkFanToo I’m sorry, but you know nothing about social media, much less advertising on it.
My numbers weren’t pulled out of the air.
“An Instagram user with 100,000 followers can command $5,000 for a post made in partnership with a company or brand.”
But continue to assume that nobody would pay thousands of these college athletes.
-
Here’s the thing, we don’t have to assume nobody would pay these athletes. They already are just secretly. We all knew it before, but it has been very loudly confirmed recently.
The real question isn’t about whether or not these athletes can or should be paid; it’s would you rather the payments be open and legal or hidden and possibly illegal? I say possibly because methods of payment seems to be part of how the feds have gotten involved.
-
I think that the power 5 should step up and make their own paid league!
-
If a kid has 100k followers on Instagram and wants to advertise bottled butt toots then he or she should be able to capitalize on that!
-
@Statmachine Right? People talk about how great capitalism is and how free markets are so great, but then only for SOME people. These other people shouldn’t be allowed to participate because they can make all the money they want after they wait 9 months. Athletes are held to a completely different standard than the rest of the student body.
-
@benshawks08 What difference does it make if Gatorade wants to pay Wiggins a million to advertise? So remove his scholarship but not his remaining eligibility and let him play. As long as he meets the minimum requirements to be considered full time student and meets the grade requirements who gives a cats banana?
-
@Statmachine You have to be careful giving young black men that kind of money at that age. They might do weed or eat crack. It’s a slippery slope.
-
@Kcmatt7 It will be the end of the privileged elite making all the rules, and then the earth will spiral into the sun.
-
We have a very tenuous system balanced carefully on the backs of certain individuals. To upend this system would be a catastrophe (for those currently benefiting from it financially).
Great point. Or they might turn that into something that benefits everyone in their community (the horror). I know your comment was tongue in cheek. It made me laugh at work.
One of the things I respect most about Lebron James is that he used his immense talent not just to help himself and his family, but also his friends. Maverick Carter, James’ best friend, is a millionaire now. He runs a lot of James’ businesses. While Lebron himself is probably going to be a billionaire, he has helped several of his friends become millionaires. Rich Paul runs a sports agency and is probably worth $20M. Randy Mims also runs some of Lebron’s business interests and is a millionaire himself. That’s four friends that all became extremely wealthy even though only one was actually an elite athlete. While all were good HS athletes, only Lebron was ever going to the pros. But because James was able to capitalize on his talent financially, the other three were able to start and build their own businesses as well. Instead of one kid making it out of a run down area of Akron, three did, and another kid from east Cleveland made it as well. They started a marketing agency in 2006, when James otherwise would have been just leaving college. But since he was already a pro, James was signing a big extension in the NBA.
Lebron James has completely flipped everything. He skipped college. He got rich. He stayed out of trouble. He got his friends rich. They have built their own business/sports/media empire. And he did it all outside the usual channels. That’s what it means when an athlete has a chance to capitalize on their marketability from the beginning. Not one life changed. Not one family changed. Several. Dozens. Maybe hundreds before its all said and done. And that’s just directly. Who knows how many will indirectly benefit.
-
Great post as usual
-
Kcmatt7 said:
@Statmachine You have to be careful giving young black men that kind of money at that age. They might do weed or eat crack. It’s a slippery slope.
You mean like Michael Phelps? Oh wait he is not black!
-
@justanotherfan Great point about Lebron. I don’t want to get into it much and stir things up but I very much agree with you.
A great movie I watched not too long ago from the 70s called Being There touched on these subjects somewhat. Basically if you are white, wear a nice suit and speak in platitudes you can succeed in American politics, almost no matter how dumb you are…
-
Statmachine said:
Kcmatt7 said:
@Statmachine You have to be careful giving young black men that kind of money at that age. They might do weed or eat crack. It’s a slippery slope.
You mean like Michael Phelps? Oh wait he is not black!
Just making sure you understand he was joking.
-
I caught that. I am just joking around.
-
Also LOL at Michael Phelps.
-
Interesting rumor going around here in TX. UT is not accepting college applications from the state of Colorado? Supposedly its because they are all high on the Devils Lettuce?
-
@justanotherfan Remember, unionization was going to result in the death of professional sports. Instead, players have earned millions while owners’ franchises have become valued as high as 2 billion.
Does anyone else remember the haberdashery sign at old Municipal Stadium where a player could win a free suit if he hit the sign with HR? Quaint! Now the Cavs show up to games in matching $5,000 ($10,000?) suits. It was to symbolize their team unity but in a larger sense also symbolizes players’ new power. Too bad the sport is dead, and all that other stuff.
-
@mayjay You are just crushing it today. Two great examples of how empowering athletes is only making sports get better.
-
@Kcmatt7 Ya ain’t doin’ so shabby yourself, young man!
-
Lots of good posts popping up today. I think I have upvoted more posts today than in any single day every. Tons of thought provoking stuff. Great to see, even when we don’t all agree on something that good points can be made here.
-
The NCAA commission released its findings today.
-
Lifting the OAD rule or making freshmen ineligible to play in college is a good start. Like I have said before it would stop most of the dirty dirty that is going down right now… Recruiting would change a lot! The top recruits would be signing really late! The “way too early top 25” would be hard to do until after NBA combine. UK and Duke would be sweating bullets all year wondering if their verbal commitments are going to go pro before ever stepping foot on campus? I like it a lot!
-
@BeddieKU23 Far better than any solutions I’ve read elsewhere. Hope they implement the harsher punishments and clean up the OAD junk. This should allow the college game to continue to be great. Another version of the NBA is just another league I wouldn’t watch.
-
This is a political discussion. That’s all this is. If one reads the commentary of @Kcmatt7 @mayjay and @justanotherfan, this is the leftist mantra.
Today, we see the reference to race by @Kcmatt7 and the “privileged elite” by @mayjay, and the 'benefit(ting) everyone in the community" from @justanotherfan – That’s what this is. The leftist dogma that overwhelms any real perspective on the college basketball discussion.
It is very simple. Leftists, in the big picture, want to redistribute wealth. They want to take what someone else owns and earns, and give it to others.
It’s the infamous social justice arguments. Everything is so unfair. Find someone, call them evil because they have more, and whatever follows is justified. It’s easy to join the arguments, it’s easy “feel” bad because something is “unfair.” It’s easy to say that someone is privileged to make you feel better because you (or others) are relative failures, or not as smart, or not as motivated, or not as hard working. It’s an ignorant pursuit. The “x” factors are ignored. That is all this is.
No one in the NCAA or CBB is stopping a college basketball player from making a living. All they are saying is that if you play under our umbrella, there are rules. Our rules. It’s really that simply. The crying and whining is about an organization’s rules – rules no one is forced to be a part of.
Ah, but that would invoke a phrase that leftists hate – personal responsibility.
It drives the leftists mad. How dare the NCAA and universities construct rules that the leftists see as unfair? They demand to change the rules.
Instead of making your own business, and earning your own money, the preference of the leftist is to take what another has made and earned, and give it someone else. Here, they want to take money that is not the players’ money to begin with, and give it to the players.
It doesn’t matter that the player coming into CBB doesn’t own the product, doesn’t own the facilities, doesn’t own the TV and shoe contracts, and did nothing to build the product. It doesn’t matter that the player enters CBB and the rules of CBB voluntarily. That is all ignored by the leftist.
And, again, that goes to the leftists core beliefs. Just let the player and parents off the hook for entering the contract. Abdicate personal responsibility. Blame others for your lot in life. Blame others for failures. Heck, blame inanimate objects. That’s the left.
Oh, I know. It’s tugs at the heart strings. These poor players. Many have nothing. Many have one parent. Many families have nothing. So, it’s easy, pay them. Oh, and it’s easy to pay them so they won’t cheat. Right.
It is a much greater intellectual exercise to resist the urge of “feelings” and what is “fair.”
As I referred to quite a ways up in this thread, it’s no different than stupidity of insisting on an artificial $15 an hour wage when the skill set and market won’t support it, and then bemoaning the evil business owner that trims his staff. To be an owner, it has to be worthwhile. The risk/reward has to be there. That is ignored.
Anytime there is money, the leftists will want to take it. Doesn’t matter whose money it is. That’s all this is, just in another package.
-
@HighEliteMajor That entire piece you just wrote would have been a great response to people saying that Universities and the NCAA should pay the players themselves. Great response.
Not what I or others have been saying though. There is free money on the table from outside sources, and legally, the NCAA or Universities can’t capitalize on that money ever since the O’Bannon case. But, they won’t let the players capitalize on it. The market WOULD support this. This IS NOT people saying the owners of the company should pay more. Simply that the owners of the company shouldn’t restrict their employees from other sources.
I don’t want to take money from the NCAA, or the schools, or anyone not willing to GIVE money to the players. And, if the NCAA didn’t want this to be an issue, they would have had the commission that released its findings this morning, a long, long time ago. The only reason they did this in the first place was because of the FBI findings. Nothing else. They would have continued to let players get paid under the table for forever if the FBI never got involved.
Again, I think you just can’t wrap your head around the endorsement piece of the argument. For some reason… Other than argue “its a slippery slope” with no ACTUAL reasoning behind your feelings.
-
BShark said:
All I’m really saying is the players have more value than what the NCAA provides.
The top 1% do, the rest do not. Go look at the G-league attendance.
-
@HighEliteMajor You define the voice of unreasoned privilege that has its own mantra, “I love things the way they are so long as I get to keep mine.”
I am sure you struggled hard and long to be white and middle class, and that you carefully chose your SM school district. You have no clue about the world that doesn’t look like you, talk like you, or think like you. Your response to people with opposing opinions is invariably to lump them into some group you see as inherently incapable of thought. It is an old, and pathetic, ritual of yours.
-
We are probably working pretty hard on locking this bad boy up. Good posts everyone.
-
Gosh… just look at the suggestions of that basketball panel. Basically, they advise for so much clean up… clean up the NCAA should have done decades ago. As @HighEliteMajor said… the real problem is in enforcement.
What we really need is a deep investigation into the NCAA. It isn’t enough to just say they lacked the ability to enforce. They have been exposed to all those lose shoeco dollars just like schools and athletes are.
Anyone in here think the NCAA is squeaky clean and not taking donations/kickbacks/freebies/kickbacks? It could be done on an institutional level and/or within individuals. I guess the NCAA only has saintly staff members… yeah, right!
-
@HighEliteMajor Ah yes, the ever leftist goal to deregulate a market. Clearly political.
Am I to understand that you are arguing that when discussing the financial dealings of college basketball we should “resist the urge” to do what “feels” right or what is “fair”?
It always strikes me as odd when people resist changing a system. Why not try to make it better? And if we are going to make it better, who should we make it better for? For me, my priorities would be the kids, then the schools, then the fans, and last the execs. I guess that could be construed as trying to redistribute wealth, but really I haven’t even been arguing in this scenario that anyone should make less or give up anything.
One intellectual exercise I like to engage in is thinking about who wrote the rules? Why did they write them? Can they be improved? Are there any unintended consequences the authors of the rules didn’t anticipate? If you are so inclined to care, you might even evaluate if the rules are equally enforced to all stake holders. Are actors at all levels of the system held accountable to the same degree? And remember during this process resist your OWN “feelings” and why not try to make it fair?
Now as a leftist by your definition I’m going to argue that instead of any money going to the players, instead all money that has been flowing their direction should instead be redirected to me. I’m stupid, unintelligent, and lazy and therefore need other people to do things for me. Please give me all of your money as well. I assume you are richer than me because you are smart enough to write so many words.
I also do not own the facility where I work around 50 hours a week, or any of the contracts, nor did I build it. Because of this I am paid no money and therefore need yours.
Thanks in advance for all the consideration and thought I’m sure you will give this post.
-
I have a bright idea…
I’ve always felt that the players should receive more $ in college basketball.
But I’m okay for keeping that part as it is… room, board and education. However… Why don’t we have a structure within college basketball to help promote/develop players? Make it attractive for the players to stay in college if they are sitting on the fence on whether to jump. Create an incentive system to help keep players in school. Money flows through college basketball like water… create NCAA developmental centers (with the best coaches) only for use by current student athletes. In off-seasons… summers… Christmas break… open the doors for players to hone their game. Obviously, not every college player could go… but something could be figured out that is fair.
In some ways, my idea almost sounds more like something for the pros… but so does so many of the ideas proposed for solving college basketball. The big bucks are there, so it is hard to keep it “amateur.” And it is pro basketball that is the enticement for players to leave school early.
All new solutions should put the student-athletes first. Put that at the top of the list and then there are great solutions everywhere.
-
@drgnslayr People have floated the idea of compensation to the kids that increases for each year they stay in school. You could couple it with increases for higher grades, or even make it dependent on a certain GPA. Incentivize staying in school.
-
@mayjay Privilege. What a joke. It’s the refrain of the loser. You are a deep blue leftist, aren’t you? Everyone has challenges. Height, weight, health, brains, looks, dexterity, eye sight, strength, coordination, finances, ability to articulate, etc. The one thing that is undeniable is that if you fixate on your challenges, you cannot achieve. It’s easy to hold on to that because it gives one a built in excuse for failure. There is nothing in this country that anyone is prohibited from achieving. Chew on that. The “privilege” whiners want to take, not earn. I challenge anyone to compete with me, and beat me. But when folks with your un-American mindset want to take what I have, uh, yea, I think I’ll challenge that.
What you and others clearly ignore is that my approach is what made this country great. It isn’t fair. But it created the greatest country on earth. Folks like you ignore history, ignore the rest of the world, and ignore the alternative. There is no better alternative anywhere on earth. I laugh when folks point to a few European countries – that wouldn’t exist (vs. Nazis or Soviets) if America didn’t step in, and continue through today to provide the free world safety.
Of course, everything I’ve ever said on this topic is encouraging of players earning whatever then can. Free market. Go do it. Someone mentioned Lebron. Terrific. Well earned. Not a jealous bone in my body. Do I wish I had his talent? Of course. I don’t. But I utilize my skills to make money, best I can.
But do I fixate on the physical “privilege” that God gave Lebron? Nope. Why did he deserve that? How did he earn his genetics? Anymore than why did Chelsea Clinton or George W. Bush deserve their place in life? Basketball is just a game. But our system puts value on what Lebron does. More value than on what Chelsea or George W. does/did. It’s not fair, though, right? Lebron, Chelsea, or George W.
Nothing in life is fair. Someone’s always got it better, and someone’s always got it worse. The best solution is to permit folks avenues to compete and achieve. And in America, everyone can do that.
@benshawks08 No, telling an organization how to run it’s business is what we’re discussing. You’re reference to “deregulation” is wildly misplaced. I’m for a free market that competes with the NCAA. And if the free market beats the NCAA, then that’s how it goes. It won’t. The product is too good, and the opportunity is too good. Top players play CBB. The total package is too good.
And fair? Fair is taking someone’s money and giving to someone else. Hmmm. Interesting. Your priority would be the kids. Sounds admirable. If that’s the case, I suggest you donate half your earnings to a charity supporting kids, I mean, since that’s your priority. You can live more frugally I assume, since kids are your priority. Is it easier to give away someone else’s money?
I want players to earn millions. But unlike @mayjay, I don’t begrudge rich people, or institutions, for being rich and wanting to keep their money.
-
The more I read, the more this really is like when the Olympics switched from pure amateurism to letting athletes get paid through endorsements. It only made the IOC more money because it drew better athletes.
In the NCAAs case, it would actually improve the product to let the players fetch endorsements as there would be no rush to try to go pro.
It didn’t ruin the Olympics or get out of control. Endorsements only go to those athletes with market value. The same would go for any of the NCAA athletes.
-
@HighEliteMajor I don’t begrudge rich people. I hope like you suggest they give as high a percentage of their income to charity as I do, maybe even more since they have more disposable income. I have a hard time begrudging institutions because they are generally set up for a specific purpose and generally do their best to achieve that purpose. I do however, begrudge systems that you say “permit folks avenues to compete and achieve” but don’t provide an even playing field for that competition. I imagine you might protest if certain teams started basketball games with more points because they were favored to win. Or even if certain players are allowed more steps between dribbles because it looks like they have talent.
Also, where have I or anyone else genuinely argued that anyone should take someone’s money and give it to someone else. I hope you weren’t reading my last “argument” literally.
I work every day with kids from underprivileged backgrounds. Kids that have only one parent and multiple siblings. Kids who will be the first in their family to go to college. Kids who are learning their second or sometimes third language. Kids with disabilities. Kids who care for their siblings all evening because their parents are working 2-3 jobs. If you want to see what privilege looks like, come talk to my kids. Realize just how much where they are born, who their parents are, how much money their parents make, how much education their parents have, put them at a disadvantage to kids with different circumstances. Privilege is anything but a joke.
You know what else is a joke? The guy who focuses on every negative aspect of every game then spouting that “the one thing that is undeniable is that if you fixate on your challenges, you cannot achieve.” Can more be accomplished by focusing on strengths? Sure. Scientific research says so. But we already know your opinion on “science.”
-
@HighEliteMajor Again, spoken from a position of privilege. Don’t get me wrong, I have the same privilege you do: white, middle class, parents who chose the SM school district, and parents who instilled a great set of values.
Unlike you, I don’t think I got to where I am solely due to competing more successfully on a level field. That field is tilted heavily in my direction. The difference is that I encourage efforts to recognize that tilt and to find ways for everyone to have my same advantages. You resent those efforts and decry people like me as unAmerican.
No, you are the one with unAmerican values. While you claim to be so patriotic, you ignore the true lesson of America: the constant striving for freedom and equality for everybody regardless of the circumstances of birth. I, the unAmerican, took an oath to defend the country and the constitution, and then spent my professional life working to help people obtain justice. I have not heard of any public service you have performed–other than your constant refrain whining about people who do not see the world through your warped eyes.
I am done with you, because you are just an endless recital of the same BS contributing nothing to civility, discourse, or community information. Unless, as you did before, you want to threaten me again and then we can arrange insults at 10 yards or something.
-
Offseason is off to a hot start.
-
This isn’t leftist mantra. What I talked about was straight up capitalism. The players have a skill. That skill has value. People are willing to pay for that value. The only issue is that the NCAA has decided to cut the players out of that deal. Not because players can’t make money. If they couldn’t, these companies wouldn’t be throwing money at them.
If the NCAA wants to clean things up, that’s perfectly fine. But they won’t. Why? Because the only way to clean up college hoops is to push the money out of the game. If the TV and apparel and sports drink contracts go away, the money to pay illegally goes away. The corruption goes away. You can’t have that much money and keep it out of the hands of the people generating the revenue (nobody’s paying to see Bill Self and Jay Wright shoot jump shots) without creating a situation that invites corruption.
Corruption. There’s something interesting about it. Places with the highest corruption tend to have very low paid public servants. Why? Because its worth the risk to take a little money on the side if you have the power to approve this permit or that license. Same thing applies here. It’s worth getting $100,000 for a kid, regardless of whether he plays NCAA hoops or not. That’s not leftist. That’s capitalism.
Your argument is that only certain people should be able to benefit from capitalism. Except that’s not how capitalism works. The NCAA system is draconian. The rules were written when the only money flowing into the system was from illegal gambling. Now the NCAA is taking money on top of the table from ShoeCos and others, and those same entities are paying players under the table. The only way the NCAA can fix this is to turn off the faucet. Stop the flow of money. They can’t accept the money on one hand and then make the players the villains for taking the same money.
Except that would end it all because if the NCAA turns off the faucet, somebody else will turn it on…
