|
|
Schools cry about transfers? I don't care about them either. Of course an athlete can transfer if they want to, and it's nobody's business but that athlete's. There are already rules in place about having to sit out a year, so, it's not like athletes can simply jump around, program to program willy nilly.
That's an NCAA rule, about sitting out. The member institutions make up the NCAA and control what are rules and what are not. If an athlete wants to change schools...both of which are members of the NCAA...he'll have to play by their rules. Of course, there's always that option of getting a job at Mickey D's and paying for his college that way...like "just students."Originally Posted by inudesu
A significant portion of this thread is made up of lamenting the transfer rate for basketball players. And the responses have largely been arguments as to why it's either not a big deal or should be even easier to do.
What did you think we were talking about?
Because, as mentioned before, girls wouldn't make as much money and the Title IX harridans would never allow that.
Or conversely, the pretty ones *would* and that would open up a whole bunch of cans of worms.
excellent.
Title IX would not apply because I am not advocating that the school pay them. There are some valid reasons as to why universities should not pay players. But if a car dealership or real estate booster or coffee shop wants to pay them to wave at their customers...why should the NCAA stop them?
Regarding the pretty ones...if a modeling agency wants to pay a pretty one to be a spokesperson...what can of worms would that open? How is that any different than the world as it exists today?
You just answered your own question from your previous post to me. Specifically, you said "How would allowing players to earn money on their likeness or xfer without penalty hurt the game?" Then you turned right back around in the very next post and criticized coaches Pitino, Miller, Pearl, etc....for doing "shady sh1t". Well, THAT'S the problem!! Neither you or the NCAA can control the "shady sh1t".
And if you think there's a lot of "shady sh1t" going on now, just wait until there's millions of dollars being thrown at 18 to 20 yr old kids and all of their "hangers on". And believe me, when you start throwing millions of dollars at uneducated 18 to 20 year old kids to play basketball, there will be a lot of people --shady people-- hanging on to help them spend it.
At the end of the day, college (the NCAA) is still about educating students first, and not just running a "D" league basketball development program. In the NCAA, coach's are not allowed to buy an NCAA championship by simply outbidding the other coaches with more money to get the best players. At least, not yet. I have no problem with a "developmental" basketball minor league that will pay players to just play professionally. In fact, I think it's a good thing. But it doesn't belong in the NCAA.
That's a false positive and a non sequitur. The schools will always get players and generate revenue. The schools are offering many things a "D" league --or any professional league-- will never be able to compete with (e.g., an alumni base). If you disqualified every 2018 basketball starter in America next year from their college team and sent them to a "D" league to play professionally, the colleges they left behind would still put team's on the floor and still have "stars" on the court by NCAA Tournament time in 2019. That's a fact. Furthermore, Duke/Kentucky could and would still spend $20M on their programs to recruit replacement athletes, because their alumni base will still donate to the school, and the schools would still benefit from the previously mentioned TV, radio and media exposure, the great coaching, the strong conference rivalries, the great education and of course the NCAA Tournament, which is just about the GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH!
The defense rests, your honor.
You're flat wrong. You are far underestimating the power of these university brands and the depth of why they are so successful. Athletes are indeed a dime a dozen, for all the reasons I previously mentioned. The UNIVERSITY makes the millions, not the athletes. It's the UNIVERSITIES with the "built-in" fan bases year after year a/k/a school alumni, that sell out arenas, make millions from t-shirts, etc..The UNIVERSITIES makes millions because of alumni like you and me. People go watch Kentucky games to see their Wildcats, not just to see this years hot shot athlete. Oh sure, they want the best athletes, but those "built-in fans" will be right back in those same seats next year, whether that hot shot athlete is back or not.
You can't be this naive. I can't believe I'm having to explain this to you. But here goes.......
The problem with the outcome you described is the widespread potential for abuse. It's exactly why SMU was given the death penalty. In SMU's case, some players were being paid by a local car dealership to wash cars, and not even showing up. But the paychecks kept coming. And coming. And coming. Imagine telling your recruits, "you can come to our university and our local coffee shop owner (a loyal alumni) will pay you $10,000 every time you show up to just wave a people."
If you think it doesn't or wouldn't happen, you're sadly mistaken. SMU had alumni paying for apartments for football players, and separately, rent money for their parents. The list of potential abuses is a mile long, but I think you probably get the picture now.
HogDawg, what is wrong with a car dealership paying a player? Thats my point you are missing.
If a car dealership offered to give HogDawg the student 10k for no reason...would you take issue with that? Would you say no...I dont take free money? You would accept it and move on with your life....because who cares!? Why is it a problem when they give it to athletes? Other than the fact the NCAA has declared all gifts should be given only to the university and the institution.
The fact that athletes receiving GIFTS is illegal is absurd. Illegal to the point where people are going to prison. Thats ree-dick-you-luss.
HogDawg, here is where I agreed that the institution is responsible for the platform. Im not denying that. All I am saying is there is a direct correlation between winning and donations. And Marvin Bagleys makes fundraising a helluva lot easier, correct?
Here is a great example. Louisiana Tech Lady Techsters. A national powerhouse for decades. Comparable to todays Baylors, Notre Dames, Stanfords. Why dont they pack the stands like those schools? Why dont they get ESPN time? Why is fundraising a challenge? The institution is still the institution. Still providing a platform. But without a steady flow of PLAYERS...you find yourself competing tooth and nail with North Texas.
Comprende?
Y’all that are acting like all these top players could leave the NCAA and teams would find more stars to replace them are living in a dream land. You realize that if ten guys in the nba draft become good players, that’s a good draft!
These elite guys don’t grow on trees, and colleges that do dirty stuff to get them now will do even more if the player can go play a year elsewhere, get paid, and get film for the draft.
Poor leadership led to the decline of the Lady Techsters. It's always about leadership. Our fans love to make excuses about LA Tech's lack of money, and how "the big schools have taken over", blah, blah blah. But the fact is, every time the Lady Techsters made a coaching change, we got a little worse. We finally declined to the point that we had to hire a 23-yr old coach. How absurd was that?
And people wonder why the Lady Techsters program declined?
BTW, no one is saying you don't need good players. That would be silly to suggest. But there is no need to pay AMATEURS money to get them. There's plenty of good players to go around (e.g., Loyola-Chicago in recent Final Four). But we are talking about AMATEUR athletes here, not professionals. First and foremost, the NCAA is in the education business, not the professional basketball business. And there's a lot of very good reasons (too numerous to name here) for our colleges and universities to NOT get in the professional basketball business.
So, if a player doesn't like it, he can always take his business elsewhere.
Oh, but wait......the player doesn't have much of an alternative, does he? And there's the rub. You, and the players (especially those that don't want to be in school anyway) are just upset that there's no "minor league" system for basketball players. But, that's not the job of our colleges and universities. Besides, in a free market society, if there's a market for it, someone will likely fill it. But they haven't yet, have they? (At least not successfully.)
As you have already acknowledged, NCAA college basketball already offers the best platform for these young athletes, save for the lack of being paid a big salary. But why should the NCAA colleges and universities invest in paying players --and open themselves up to all that risk-- when they are going to get the players anyway? Why pay for what you can get for free?
The post above simply implies that you have no interest in fair play and competitive balance. In your world, whoever is willing to pay their players the most, wins. The trophy goes to the highest bidder.
That's absurd. Even the NBA is not that stupid. They have a salary cap.
So, in your world, if Ohio State has a basketball payroll of $20 million, and LA Tech has a payroll of $20 thousand, then you're fine with that imbalance? Hey, here's another idea while you are at it: Just change the rules so that Ohio State can play with 7 players on the court while LA Tech can only play with 5.
This is exactly why people like you are not in charge.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
