3 on 3 Tourney at Final Four

  • I put this here because of the number of times we have had seniors who could have played in this. Teams made up of seniors (from non-FF4 teams) who have exhausted college eligibility, all star teams from each conference, 12 second shot clock, games to 21 pts or 10 minutes, 2 pts beyond arc, 1 pt inside arc, 4 players on each team, $100,000 prize. I hope Devonte and Svi don’t get to participate!


  • “… because of the number of times we have had seniors who could have played in this. Teams made up of seniors (from non-FF4 teams).”

    Pretty funny. We definitely do not want our seniors to be eligible for this.

  • @mayjay

    So, a shot from outside the arc now counts twice as much as a shot inside? I can see teams with two outside shooters and one big to rebound.

    What happens if a senior decides it would be more advantageous to play for $100K in this tournament instead of a trophy in the NCAA? Makes you think.

  • @JayHawkFanToo They won’t be eligible because players from FF4 teams not allowed to play.

  • @JayHawkFanToo Also makes you wonder if a sponsor could set up tournaments much like the PGA tour where there would be weekend events with cash payouts. It’s of course been explored I’m sure – and I’m sure that college and all that brings is a better deal for the players.

    Of course it is – which is another strong argument against the pay the players, anti-NCAA, players are slaves, Jay Bilas lapdog crowd.

  • @mayjay

    I think you missed my point or more likely I did not stated it clearly. Say the potential team from a conference that would be playin in this tournament is a favorite to win and one or more of the would be players are in teams that made it to the Elite 8. Now, the player or players decide it is financially more advantageous to loose in the Elite 8 and play in the for pay tournament…see where I am going?

    The obvious answer is either take the money out or wait until the tournament is over.

  • @JayHawkFanToo With only one team made up of all stars from each conference, the likely profitability of that scenario seems low. I also think it likely there would be only one or two players at most from any given team, so the risk seems lower than if the field or rosters were bigger. All-stars are more likely to make big bucks real soon afterwords, and if they tank in the Tourney early by throwing a game they would be jeopardizing hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, for $25K. Not likely.

  • I doubt there’s any incentive to lose in the Elite Eight. Rosters for most of these teams would probably be set prior to the Sweet 16 based on players already eliminated. Since it has to be seniors with no remaining eligibility, there’s a limited number of players to choose from. For example, the Big 12 team is likely to have guys from KSU, TCU or Texas Tech pretty well locked in as the core of the team, with maybe one spot remaining for a guy from one of the top teams (likely whoever gets eliminated earlier).

    For example, here is my guess for last year’s Big 12 team:

    Wesley Iwundu (K-State)

    Phil Forte (Oklahoma State)

    either Ishmail Wainwright (Baylor), Nathan Adrian (West Virginia) or Shaq Cleare (Texas)

    either Frank Mason or Monte Morris (Iowa State).

    Looking at the seedings going into the tournament, it’s likely that Iwundu and Ford will be available after the Round of 32. If West Virginia and Baylor both get to the Elite Eight, you fall back to Shaq Cleare as your big man, and then you take the loser of the Iowa State-KU game (should they meet) as your fourth guy.

    In this case, the team probably would have been Iwundu, Ford, Adrian and Morris, with Wainwright as the alternate if one of those four weren’t available.

  • Here is another angle. Remember when KU was penalized by the NCAA because a booster gave seniors with no eligibility left and after school was over a couple of hundred $ to get suits for graduation after the Tournament? What do you think the NCAA is going to say/do about$25K? Playing for money makes the player a de facto professional while still at school and a member of the program which could land a program in trouble with no consequences to the players involved.

    I think paying college players, even those with no eiligibility left, sets a bad precedent and starts the proverbial slippery slope.

  • @JayHawkFanToo You beat me to this punch. That was my immediate thought, the Simien and Co. graduation suit thing. Times they keep a’changing, but look at the ironical hypocrisy inherent in these situations.

  • @JayHawkFanToo That was from the school, and was seen as a deferred benefit. The organization doing the 3 on 3 is the same group that does the slam dunk contest at the F4 and has no NCAA issues. The Norlander article on CBS site has a bit more. https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/new-3-on-3-tournament-will-have-college-seniors-playing-for-100k-during-final-four/

  • @mayjay That Norlander article also explains that interest in 3 on 3 is high because it has been added to the 2020 Olympics. I had no idea.

  • Hmmm … let’s say a guy like Forte, who has no prospects for a big time pro career is irritated with his coach (who was new) and the school (for firing his old coach). And he needs the money. Folks in certain depraved, cultural hell holes kill people and risk life in prison over a few hundred dollars. Why is it a stretch to think that an immature college kid might stick it to his old school for a chance at some money?

    @JayHawkFanToo I agree with you on any manner of payment to athletes. It’s always a slippery slope. Someone always wants more, or claims injustice.

  • @mayjay

    This is not correct; the money was given by boosters and not the school and Coach Williams issued a statement at the time indicating that he approved the gifts and it was a mistake.

    As far as the 3-point shooting and dunk competition, neither offers a cash prize…huge difference.

  • I honestly don’t think this would be a problem because the teams would be picked well in advance in large part based on teams that weren’t expected to advance (or were already eliminated). In the scenario I put together, the tournament would have identified seven potential players at the start of the tournament - Cleare (not playing), Iwundu (low seed), Forte (low seed), Wainwright (high seed), Adrian (high seed), Morris (good seed), and Mason (high seed). By the time the round of 32 was over, Cleare, Iwundu, Forte and Morris were all available. That’s the team right there if you want.

    Most of the players that would be picked would be from middling teams that aren’t going deep in the tournament, although every now and then a top player on a top team that got upset early would play (think Simien from his senior year). But for the most part, this would be guys from teams that aren’t generally in the spotlight, same as the dunk contest and three point contest.

  • @justanotherfan

    And now, the $64,000 question, who pick the players? What are the chances a player feels he should be on the team and someone else gets selected with $25K at stake…lawsuit?

    Like I said, take the prize money out and now you have something.

  • @JayHawkFanToo That is absurd. When was the last lawsuit over a slam dunk or 3 pt contest?

  • @JayHawkFanToo Once the school approved the payments it was seen as the school’s responsibility.

  • @mayjay

    Please re-read my post. The slam dunk and 3 point competition do not have a monetary award, right? Like I said, take the prize money out and it’s all good…just like the 3 point and slam dunk contests.

    The school did not approve the gifts from boosters, Coach Williams unofficially indicated it would “probably be ok provided the gifts were not large;” they were not. The school got penalized for "allowing"gifts from boosters since the players themselves could no longer be penalized…like Darnell Jackson.

  • So…, we’re in the running for the Final Four, but we have a senior who wants to win 25k in the 3 on 3. I don’t like it, unless they pay the national champs 50k.

  • @KUSTEVE All picks by the organization running it along with conference officials. I wonder if that will happen, though, since I suspect conference officials don’t want to p.o. anybody. Unless they do it anonymously.

    @JayHawkFanToo When it involves boosters, it is considered to be the school. I just think these “OMG! Someone could cheat to try to get that money!” scenarios are very far-fetched.

    @HighEliteMajor I have always worried about players declaring early for the draft and blowing off their second semester classes like Simmons did, screwing up a school’s academic progress rating the next year. Thankfully Self has always had good results with our players who left.

    On your scenario, I think any player doing that is less likely to get picked. Only 4 players from each conference doesn’t leave lots of room for intentional screw-ups to slide in.

  • @mayjay I’m totally fine with it, as LONG AS IT IS AT LEAST ONE WEEK AFTER THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP GAME. Other than that, I am totally against it.


    I agree. I believe I suggested this before or removing the prize money.

Log in to reply