My Response to Pat Forde's Article: Either Bill Self is an Idiot or Clean. You can't Have Both.
-
This conversation has gone ugly.
Everyone take a deep breath and look outside at the world. Do you see the spring flowers blossoming? Or do you see the neighbor’s fighting?
Our social climate has become ripe for giving people the opportunity to unload baggage on others. So much of this is politics, and the corruption from both sides to appear “superior” by painting the other side negatively. And that negativity is built through generalizations and distortions… anything to “win.”
Look… this forum is shared by many. And many people don’t appreciate this going negative, especially negative and personal. This should be the place where people of all colors and political ideas come together to talk Hawk ball. In that one area we all become equals… brothers and sisters of Lawrence!
I’m a person of color. And I can identify with racism and inequality. But I can also identify with putting those things behind me so I can strive and be happy in this world. I don’t feel like I’m a victim, because I have decided I’m not one. Have I been discriminated against? Heck yes. But I don’t harp on it because I’m too busy creating fruit for life and my family’s life.
I’ve recently been attacked for not being PC enough. Yikes! My goal is peace on this earth, meaning… I don’t want to offend anyone. Yet… a few of my old words don’t sound right today. What happened to being understood for intent?
The world is one big, dry batch of kindling and anything can be used as a match.
Time to bring out the hoses! Let’s all strive to be the best people we can. That usually means accepting imperfections in others first. Learn to laugh with others (and not at them)… start by accepting funny things about yourself! Smiles and positivity go along ways.
-
I don’t take the racist rantings of progressives very seriously. I understand they are clueless to their sordid history. They don’t realize their movement was founded on the blood of the Native Americans in what is known as the Trail of tears. They don’t know their founder was a slave owner, or that the entire confederate army was made up of democrats. They don’t know they fought a war in order to enslave the black man, and when that didn’t work out, then the democrats founded the KKK in order to terrorize blacks all over this country. They don’t know that every Jim Crow law was written by a democrat- that the “deep racist south” was really the deep racist democrats who controlled the south for well over 100 years, and set up a palatable racist state where blacks were scorned for everything, and anything to “keep them in their place”. They don’t know the US Military was segregated by color by democrats. They don’t know that US Japanese citizens were segregated by democrats. So, I realize that many lightweight progressives that are now spouting the same racist chants against whites today are using the same racist tactics used against blacks during and after the civil war. Hypocritical? Absolutely. The biggest racists in the history of this country are now mindlessly picking out another group to savage, demean, and run into the ground, as they did against Native Americans, and blacks. So, when you bring up “white privilege”… to me, the voice I am hearing is an echo of other racists of the past spewing hateful rhetoric as part of a hateful, demonic entity that has been an evil presence in America since the early 1800s. How dare you lecture us about racism. When will you ever adopt what MLK said about race…about the content of a man’s character instead of the color of his skin? You’d never do that though, would you, Lefty?You can’t morally preen around if you can’t look down your nose at somebody, right?
-
Until the late 1950’s, African Americans in this country primarily voted Republican because, as you correctly observe, Democrats had until that time historically been oppressive not just to African Americans, but all people of color.
If you had written your comment in 1956, I would be wholeheartedly applauding every word.
But something happened along the way. There was a civil rights movement. Nationally, Democrats largely supported this movement, and suddenly the Democratic party welcomed people of color, while the Republican party ended up implementing the Nixon Southern Strategy, which was basically strategic fearmongering in white areas in the south - opposing integration and the civil rights movement by preaching “law and order”, telling white citizens that integration and civil rights would threaten and in fact upend their way of life.
Almost overnight, African Americans went from voting about 90% Republican to about 90% Democrat.
Its no mistake that while the founding members of the KKK were Democrats, the members of today’s KKK, neo-Nazi and White Nationalist movement are almost exclusively Republican.
That is not to say that all Republicans are a part of those groups, or ascribe to the beliefs of those groups. That would be a foolishly overbroad generalization. But it is a fact that while those individuals were at one time aligned with the Democratic party, after the civil rights movement they left the party en masse and joined the Republican party.
Yes, the people that perpetrated the atrocities you noted were Democrats, but their descendants today are not. You cannot just ignore the last 50 years of American political history.
-
Holy crap. I came here to read about KU basketball. silly me.
-
When we read the stories of some of our own, Jamari and BMac come to mind right now, we can understand privilege better. Most of us, I’d suspect, didn’t have to go to practice in HS hungry as BMac did, leaving behind a freezing cold apartment. We didn’t spend a winter in Chicago living in a car as Jamari did.
I know some people get carried away and yell privilege to the point of making us feel guilty for being middle class, but when you think of what people who grew up in underserved communities have to overcome to make it, well, it’s just a lot tougher.
I tend to agree with @HighEliteMajor when he says the kids going to college and participating in NCAA sports are receiving a lot already including a stipend, so they are paid some. I scraped by in college paying for a dollars worth of gasoline at a time when that’s all I could buy. I also believe that even if we start paying these athletes in college that corruption will still happen because Nike will still want their kids to go to whatever school it is at the time. Agents will still want to influence players to sign on with them. Boosters will still try to find an inside position with their favorite teenagers. Corruption won’t end with a system of playing players.
-
@wissox The question is, would you rather see the “corruption” in front of your face? Or would you rather just know it is going on behind your back?
The next question, why could any other person at KU receive an endorsement deal based on their likeness EXCEPT the athletes. Does that not seem strange?
We are already clearly in a state of competitive imbalance. 13 of the top 25 players in the country went to Blue Blood schools this season. AFTER the FBI bust. Either paying them fixes nothing or it does in fact spread the wealth out. But it can’t get any worse than it already is.
I worked a full-time job all 4 years of school to pay for rent, gas, insurance, phone, and tuition. I can appreciate being poor in college as well as anyone. But they aren’t a normal student, so comparing them to one is useless. Either they are treated like every other student and can make money off of their likeness or they aren’t and they can’t. But you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say, “this is what college is like” on one hand and not give them the same rights as the rest of their “peers” on the other.
What is wrong with the Olympic model? Most of the Olympic athletes get peanuts. But the best and most famous ones make whatever the market is willing to pay them. It has only made more money for the IOC because it has allowed famous athletes to compete in the Olympics drawing more of a crowd and better TV ratings. I feel that a very similar thing would happen for the NCAA if they did this with football and basketball.
-
@Kcmatt The market is already paying them to go to college.
I don’t know what you mean by your first question.
I agree that there is a competitive imbalance. But KU is a part of that too. I wish it weren’t there. Coaches should be able to recruit a kid like Blakeny and not have him back out because Louisville isn’t a Nike school. And I say that even as i loathe Louisville for their corruption.
As for the Olympic model, you might receive some pushback from the college golfer or rower who says I’m an NCAA athlete too and I practice just as much as the football player. Where’s my share of the pie?
-
@BShark but not all players. Comes down to a few players do…and does that hold across sports and genders. Wow, I see Title IX attorneys eyes lighting up.
-
So dump tennis, women’s basketball, softball, and baseball and use the money to pay the basketball players? Have Bill give back 2 of his 5 mil per year to pay the players? A 2 million per year salary cap in the ncaa. Of course there won’t be 351 teams that can afford the couple million or so per season, so there will be attrition. Does it get to the point there aren’t more than 100 teams in D1? What’s that do to a 68 team tournament?
Does KU offer kids endorsements tired to a scholarship worth millions of dollars so no one else in the Big12 can possibly compete? Does Notre Dame with its Billions in its coffers buy the next 10 national championships? Does Quinn Snyder come back to Duke and coach the Abest team money can buy every year?
At which point I box up my KU crap and watch the only pure sport left. Worlds strongest man competition. Gotta love cars getting rolled over for no apparent reason. Makes me want a big tire for the front yard to flip over what I’m feeling up to it.
There is plenty of room for corruption in the current model. Once the NBA drops IT’S silly OAD rule NCAA sports will be better. Kids that want/need paid can go pro in the states instead of having to go overseas. Then the bulk of the athletes who will actually benefit from a degree can have that scholarship.
-
@wissox Why would you receive pushback from them for that? You don’t see that from Olympic athletes.
-
People keep responding to the idea of schools paying players but most of us are talking about endorsement or other outside contractual earnings, not paying players. None of the fears raised about Title 9, reduced staff salaries, or eliminated sports, applies to simply not controlling kids’ ability to earn something from outside sources.
Frankly, every time we saw Devonte’s face on an ad for KU games against OU (with Trae’s cute little mug, too), or for our tourney games, I thought it was pretty weird that they get to use him in ads and he gets nothing. No one else has to sign away those image and name rights. Why couldn’t kids sell T-shirts with “MVP Battle for Bahamas” on them? or “BIFM”?
-
@mayjay How do you possibly think there could be a level playing field if players are allowed endorsement money in college? There is absolutely no way any non-blue blood could compete. It would make the gap between the haves and the have nots too great.
I.e. Any player that signs at KU would instantly have endorsement deals, but that same player at Nevraska may not get any endorsement money.
-
dylans said:
@mayjay How do you possibly think there could be a level playing field if players are allowed endorsement money in college? There is absolutely no way any non-blue blood could compete. It would make the gap between the haves and the have nots too great.
Isn’t the NCAA tourney already that? What non P5 or high level program has won the tourney.
-
@dylans I guess I missed that level playing field…
But, honestly, you might find kids more willing to stay at home or nearby, where they already have a name. Zion might have gone to Clemson or SC if a local business had given him an incentive. Instead, he is at that symbol of ordinary recruiting, Duke.
-
@dylans What level playing field do you see right now?
13 of the top 25 players went to 4 of the Blue bloods. That isn’t a balanced level by any means.
I could argue that endorsements for players, through a regulated NCAA agency, could actually balance out college sports even more.
But it certainly can’t make them less competitive than they are now. Alabama has won half of the NCAA Championships the past 5 years.
I don’t see this level playing field.
-
And if you want to see it worsen allow openly paying players.
-
@BeddieKU23 uconn, utep, Loyola, lasalle, San Fran. But you’re correct nothing recent other than Uconn.
None shouldn’t be allowed in the tournament since mid majors have no chance of winning. It waters down a tournament with crapoy upsets like VCU over KU or Chamimade beating Duke. Too many crap teams in the tournament that don’t belong like KU in '88 denying the true champion a shot and us the chance to see a double elimination tournament.
-
@dylans I doubt it could get worse. I honestly don’t see how it could get worse than the same team winning half of the Football Championships and 3 or 4 other teams scooping up the entire top 25. It can’t get much worse if it didn’t actually get better.
And this would obviously have to be regulated. But I’d rather we have basketball players get paid and be more likely to stay and graduate and be productive members of society in the future than unpaid guys desperate to leave who could end up being a drain on society in 10-15 years.
-
The product this board would put together as the NCAA is something that would drive me completely away from sports. KU basketball is the only sport I genuinely care about, but this would absolutely ruin it.
Thank God everything written here is fan fiction and no one has any power! This time of year it’s just us overly bored with wild imaginations I guess.
-
@Kcmatt7 I take it back, you lack imagination if you can’t see how it could get worse.
-
@dylans Just me personally, it isn’t like I am saying just let them fetch endorsements with no rules.
There should be rules in place for this. And perhaps a cap that a player could take each year.
I am definitely not saying let’s turn this in to the Wild Wild West. I’m just saying that there is a way to do this where everyone wins.
-
Let’s be honest about something. Money already dictates who makes the NCAA tournament. It’s not about strength of schedule, wins or losses. It’s about money.
This article from the Ringer talks about how Loyola is one of a dying breed of Cinderella.
There’s also this glorious quote from the article:
The tournament is the NCAA’s only event that pays a cash reward. A team making a tournament appearance earns $1.67 million for its conference; each subsequent win in March Madness earns the league an additional $1.67 million. Every conference wants to add teams that have a higher potential for NCAA tournament wins because that success can boost the entire league’s finances. Every school wants to join leagues with more NCAA tournament–caliber teams because that prize money is evenly split throughout the conference.
Loyola, had they lost to Northern Iowa, wouldn’t have gone to the Final Four. They would have gone to the NIT, same as Middle Tennessee State and Vermont, two teams that dominated their league in the regular season, then lost in their conference tournament and missed the NCAA altogether.
The money is spilling out from all sides. The NCAA is pushing money which has dictated conference re-alignments (and is killing mid-sized conferences). Why not just put the money on top of the table for everyone. Make it transparent why certain teams are left out on Selection Sunday (Middle Tennessee) while others (Oklahoma) get in.
Corruption exists at the highest level of the organization.
To @dylans point, the reason that mid majors haven’t won the tournament in years is that the strongest mid majors are typically either underseeded or miss the tournament entirely if they don’t win their conference tournament.
Memphis, Cincinnati, Wichita State, UNLV, Butler, George Mason - all have made the Final Four from outside a P5 conference over the last 30 years. But look at that list again. Almost all of those schools have changed conferences since that Final Four appearance.
When players declare for non-P5 schools, how many on this board allege impropriety? The playing field is already severely slanted and this report does nothing to level it.
-
Imagine how fair that would be… Set the cap at $200k/year. Pretty much everyone in the country could come up with that kind of cash for a single player. If you knew you could only make $200k for the year, why wouldn’t you just pick the school you actually wanted to go to?
That right there, is far more fair than the current system.
-
@dylans Can you elaborate how this would ruin KU Basketball?
What draws you to it? That the corruption goes on in the background and you can pretend that it isn’t happening?
That is quite an imagination you have…
-
I actually think trae young is a good example. He is clearly extremely marketable as a college player but has questionable professional potential based on size. Yes, he chose a school in a power 5 conference but not a blue blood. Had he chosen KU he would have been far less valuable due to playing time, style of play, and in house competition (Graham).
With the opportunity to earn real money off his image which was sold all over college basketball all season long, he very likely could have chosen to stay another year or even all 4.
And it would have to be quiet the argument to convince me that Young on almost any team wouldn’t be somewhat marketable. Really the blue bloods are the only place he wouldn’t be because he might not be the star.
Him returning would be better for him, the school, the Norman community, the conference, and the sport in general.
And yes the gap between say 200k and how ever much a mid-late first round rookie contract is still wide, but no nearly so wide as from 0 to that number.
Smaller schools may not be able to offer the exposure to get the full 200k but I promise there are businesses in every community that would love to engage more with these athletes. Why do car dealerships hire ex athletes? Why did Barry Sanders sell siding for a company in Wichita? This could actually improve the relationship between these athletes and their community.
-
Athletes are also prevented from earning money from other pursuits while in college. There was a football player at Miami that is also a music producer. His music was set to be on a publicly released album, but the NCAA did an investigation that put his eligibility at risk. His music is entirely separate from his athletic career, but the release of the album was delayed so that he could earn his royalties, same as any other music producer.
Were he on a music scholarship at Miami, he could be gigging around town and selling his work for whatever the market would bear. But because he was a football player, the NCAA got involved.
-
@Kcmatt7 That I believe that Bill and Roy before him ran clean programs. That the cheating is out of KUs hands and should be cleaned up by enforcing the existing rules. That people that are fully ready to start their profession don’t belong in college unless they are selling dope. That if you ask even the wealthiest person how much money is enough the inevitable answer is always - a little bit more.
-
Interesting that this exact subject was discussed Tuesday afternoon on 810 AM the offcial KU station in the KC area.
A few of the takes include…
Do you know how much money College basketball spends on direct financial assistant to the 5,000 + Division I players? according to the numbers they researched $224M plus another $16M on walk-ons; this is $240M spend directly on athletes. The average Pell grant is about $4,400 so the money spent on college basketball players would provide Pell grants for 55,000 deserving students. So much for schools not using the money on athletes.
Colleges has always been and still are the place where people go to study and get a degree and college sports have always been and still are AMATEUR sports. People attending college know this before hand and choose to go there knowing full well what the rules are and what is and is not allowed.
Nobody is forced to go to college including elite athletes. College presents elite athletes a chance to improve their potential bycovering all their expenses and providing benefits such as a free education, room and board at often luxurious accommodations, facilities, elite coaching and training personnel, national exposure, providing tutors to help them with school work and even a stipend, all of this in order to maximize future value; none of this is available to the average student that just wants to get a degree.
If an elite athlete believes he is entitled to use his likeness to make money, then by all means he should take all this money that supposedly is available to them from all these alleged sources, be that agents or advertisers, use to live very comfortably for a year while waiting for the NBA to come calling and all the while making money from their likeness or whatever othre ways he can. What is wrong with this? Absolutely nothing, it is a valid option that elite, or any athlete for that matter, can avail himself without bothering with college. Attending college, knowing full well what the rules are and then complaining about them would seem disingenuous at best.
More importantly, why should the handful of elite athletes who think they should be making money while attending college (maybe 1%)change a system that works reasonably well and provides great and welcome benefits to the other 99% of players? Wouldn’t the better option be for these individuals to not bother with college at all and just become pros right after HS?
@mayjay , do you think athletes would prefer their image is not displayed at all on the KU website or on ticket stubs so their likeness is not exploited by the privileged people that are so often blamed for everything wrong under the sun? How much do you think Devonte’s cute mug would fetch in the open market? How much do you think Devonte’s mug would fetch, if instead of KU with its elite coaching facilities and staff and name recognition, he would have attended Appalachia State as originally planned? The answer is likely not much at all which would seem to indicate, as other have mentioned, that the name of the programs name provides the majority if not all the values rather than the individual himself.
In this great country of ours we have things called free market, competition and most of all freedom of choice. If an elite payer believes he is worth that much money in the open market fresh out of High School, then he should take that money, become a professional athlete and skip college altogether. The truth is that without the college affiliation and exposure, the values is just not there, otherwise we would see all the top players skipping college…and yet we don’t, right? Even with all its flaws, college still offers the elite athlete the best option to maximize his future income.
-
@JayHawkFanToo I think the point is that there is room for rule changes. Changes that would benefit some more than others and that could free schools from the ridiculous waste of time worrying about whether a kid’s mentor or guardian’s romantic relationship with a kid’s mother stemmed from long enough before he held a bb in his little hands to allow the purchase of a plane ticket for a family vacation when the kid grew up, or a lunch, or a suit, or a computer, or even some food or a car.
Constantly saying, “You know the rules so don’t go to college if you don’t like it” is a response that totally ignores whether the system could be improved by considering imaginative ideas and getting eveyone together to try to make it work for all parties, and to try to reduce the influence of hidden transactions.
Saying it works for 99% only means that you are ignoring the information coming out from numerous people saying that virtually everyone they knew playing college bb had accepted some type of impermissible benefits.
Back in the '90sI knew a guy who played at Marymount in Salina after that school went coed (1970s?)and when they rather quickly became a powerful team. Even he said he was slipped cash by boosters and businesses after a win or he had a good game. And he was not even a leading scorer.
The 99% you cite may include hundreds in the big sports who just aren’t getting caught. And if that is the case, cheating and lying are rife. So, open it up to more options to kids to be like anyone else and earn some money, and then, as the Commission recommends, hit the cheaters hard.
-
There are three “classes” of athletes in college that the rules affect in different ways.
-
The elite athletes - these are the ones that are going pro either way. Maybe they lose a little bit of money while in school, but they will generally make it up during their pro career later on.
-
The “college legends” - these are guys like Steve Woodberry, or more recently, Travis Releford. They had better than average college careers, but they are not going on to a lucrative payday after college. However, they help generate a lot of income for the university and they also are most marketable themselves during that time period from an athletic standpoint. This also includes the biggest stars in non-revenue sports (women’s hoops, volleyball, soccer, baseball, softball, etc).
-
The rest - Basically everyone else. Stars in non revenue sports. Every other rostered player in both revenue and non-revenue sports.
Paying players doesn’t matter to that top group all that much. If the system changes, they are going to get a piece of that pie because they are at the top. I think when people talk about paying players, they think of these types, but that’s really not it.
Paying players (or letting them profit off their likeness) means the most for the second group. Every non-revenue star, plus all of those local “heroes” in the revenue sports could benefit from at least being able to profit off their likeness. The university sells and auctions off their signed jerseys, balls, etc. They should be able to get a piece of that pie. I know the argument will be that the university gives them the forum, etc. Then why not just sell the ball or jersey as is, with no signature? What makes the autographed stuff special (rhetorical question)?
Honestly, I would rather the NCAA simply allow player’s to make money off their name and likeness rather than outright paying them. That way, the most marketable players get the most benefit. It puts the money on top of the table. It allows athletes that also have other marketable skills to utilize them while still in school (i.e., the music producer can make his music, or go out on paid gigs, the graphic designer can make money off their craft, as can the writer, etc.). And it makes all of this transparent, while allowing the athletes to do the same thing other scholarship students can do. The chemistry student isn’t prevented from profiting off their work while in school if there is a market for it.
-
-
I agree completely that college is strictly a place for academics and to get a degree. Which is why I think games should not be broadcast in the first place. Showing games on TV totally perverts the school as an institution of learning. Tickets should only be made available for students and alumni that want to show their support to the student athletes. Scholarships should only be made available to those that excel academically. Coaches shouldn’t even be able to recruit kids outside of the school; rosters should be filled through open tryouts available only to current students. Nor should coaches make more than professors, lest to confuse students what’s more important. Nor should student athletes get special treatment or live in special quarters. Players can get a random dorm room and lift weights at the rec center like any other student.
-
It’s pretty simple. There are people who don’t like change. And there are people who are open to it. You will never be able to convince those scared of change of anything. They like THEIR life with no regard for anyone else’s. They would rather someone else be poor, when they don’t have to be, because it will effect them in the tenny tiniest way.
It’s a sad, but fair, way of looking at things.
