collapse

* Stud of Colorado Game

Tyler Kolek

21 points, 5 rebounds,
11 assists, 1 steal,
40 minutes

2023-24 Season SoG Tally
Kolek11
Ighodaro6
Jones, K.6
Mitchell2
Jones, S.1
Joplin1

'22-23
'21-22 * '20-21 * '19-20
'18-19 * '17-18 * '16-17
'15-16 * '14-15 * '13-14
'12-13 * '11-12 * '10-11

* Big East Standings

* Recent Posts

2024 Coaching Carousel by willie warrior
[Today at 03:50:16 AM]


2024 NCAA Tournament Thread by Plaque Lives Matter!
[Today at 01:02:54 AM]


45 minutes ago at the Dallas Westin by MuggsyB
[Today at 12:19:24 AM]


2024 Transfer Portal by CountryRoads
[Today at 12:05:42 AM]


Are we still recruiting anyone for the 24-25 season. by Don_Kojis
[Today at 12:04:21 AM]


Where is Marquette? by marqfan22
[March 28, 2024, 09:29:52 PM]


Chicago bars for Fri game by Daniel
[March 28, 2024, 08:47:22 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!

* Next up: NC State

Marquette
81
Marquette vs

NC State

Date/Time: Mar 29, 2024, 6:09 pm
TV: CBS
Schedule for 2023-24
Colorado
77

Author Topic: Transfer rule changes  (Read 29808 times)

StillAWarrior

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4205
Re: Transfer rule changes
« Reply #150 on: September 07, 2017, 10:55:17 AM »
Well, if that's a straw man, so is the assertion that teams "cheer for the name on the front" regardless of who fills the uniform.

Except that I never said that.  Another straw man.  You referenced the "unspoken promise" and my point is that as long as the team honors that unspoken promise, people will cheer for that team.  If they simply give up -- and I'll concede that sometimes it looks like DePaul has -- then it all falls apart.

Are you sure about that 25 percent figure?
Anyhow, DePaul men's basketball raked in a whopping $5.5 million in revenue, according to the most recent figures I could find.
The Fox contract is worth $4.16 million a year per team. So, it's actually pretty pathetic that the program can only generate a little more than $1.3 million from all its revenues outside of TV (i.e. sponsorships, ticket sales, merchandise, etc.) and it doesn't speak highly of their brand value.
DePauls fortunate inclusion in the Big East is because of the league's desire to be in the Chicago market. It has nothing to do with the value of its brand or brand loyalty.

Some more facts on DePaul's brand loyalty:
"14 Blue Demons home games this year have drawn an average of 1,824 people. That's down 24 percent from last season's final average and on pace to mark the first attendance dip for the program in three years. This year saw more sparsely-attended games than normal, according to Allstate Arena ticket records obtained by Crain's. Seven DePaul games saw attendance of less than 1,000 people, including two games attended by fewer than 600 people."

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20170303/BLOGS04/170309946/basketball-attendance-sinking-as-depaul-heads-downtown

This is a program that 30 years ago was averaging 12,000 at its home games. Now it's lucky to get 1/10th of that, and you think there's still brand loyalty, and that the players matter less than the uniform?

Yes, I'm sure about that figure (at least for they year I looked at).  They were 88th out of 340-some.

I've conceded some of other points you've raised.  But it is still the DePaul brand that enables that Big East money.  I haven't seen any talk of replacing DePaul with Loyola.  Granted, this is a different idea from "rooting for the name on the front of the jersey", but it's related.
Never wrestle with a pig.  You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.

Spotcheck Billy

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2229
Re: Transfer rule changes
« Reply #151 on: September 07, 2017, 11:13:14 AM »
Well, if that's a straw man, so is the assertion that teams "cheer for the name on the front" regardless of who fills the uniform.
Are you sure about that 25 percent figure?
Anyhow, DePaul men's basketball raked in a whopping $5.5 million in revenue, according to the most recent figures I could find.
The Fox contract is worth $4.16 million a year per team. So, it's actually pretty pathetic that the program can only generate a little more than $1.3 million from all its revenues outside of TV (i.e. sponsorships, ticket sales, merchandise, etc.) and it doesn't speak highly of their brand value.
DePauls fortunate inclusion in the Big East is because of the league's desire to be in the Chicago market. It has nothing to do with the value of its brand or brand loyalty.

Some more facts on DePaul's brand loyalty:
"14 Blue Demons home games this year have drawn an average of 1,824 people. That's down 24 percent from last season's final average and on pace to mark the first attendance dip for the program in three years. This year saw more sparsely-attended games than normal, according to Allstate Arena ticket records obtained by Crain's. Seven DePaul games saw attendance of less than 1,000 people, including two games attended by fewer than 600 people."

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20170303/BLOGS04/170309946/basketball-attendance-sinking-as-depaul-heads-downtown

This is a program that 30 years ago was averaging 12,000 at its home games. Now it's lucky to get 1/10th of that, and you think there's still brand loyalty, and that the players matter less than the uniform?


Even worse because a chunk of that is from tourney shares from the Big East.

forgetful

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4728
Re: Transfer rule changes
« Reply #152 on: September 07, 2017, 11:47:55 AM »

Actually schools don't *need* to enter these arms races.  They generally choose to do so because athletic departments are normally run by paranoid administrators who look at every shiny new object that another school has and think they have to incorporate it immediately.

On top of that, they have the fiscal discipline of a crackhead in a drug house.

You are right, they don't *need* to enter these arms races.  They could choose to just be at a competitive disadvantage and field lower quality teams. 

Here is the crux of it, where do the funds for the "arms races" come from?  That answer is simple, donations.  Donors are willing to donate large sums of money for fancier facilities, and new stadiums, locker rooms.  They will not pony up the same type of dollars for an athletes salary.  They want big shiny tangible objects that they can boast about to their friends.  That is why administrators look at those object, that is what they can get donations for, and through the donations boast their profile and ranking.

The problem is that they need to still pay coaches salaries, scholarships, infrastructure costs, travel expenses and many others.  Those cost as much, and often more than the actual revenue generated by the sports.  So they get creative.  Let's say all apparel sold with the university name is solely because of athletics...that will make our athletic loses more palatable.  Let's assign the tutors, educational facilities, and substantial infrastructure costs to the university to make the loses appear less. 

If you pay athletes the costs will be incurred by the general University budget and will take funds away from education.

Also, the athletes would most definitely be employees then, and would incur many other problems that they don't currently have to deal with.

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9878
Re: Transfer rule changes
« Reply #153 on: September 07, 2017, 12:21:45 PM »
You are right, they don't *need* to enter these arms races.  They could choose to just be at a competitive disadvantage and field lower quality teams. 

Here is the crux of it, where do the funds for the "arms races" come from?  That answer is simple, donations.  Donors are willing to donate large sums of money for fancier facilities, and new stadiums, locker rooms.  They will not pony up the same type of dollars for an athletes salary.  They want big shiny tangible objects that they can boast about to their friends.  That is why administrators look at those object, that is what they can get donations for, and through the donations boast their profile and ranking.

The problem is that they need to still pay coaches salaries, scholarships, infrastructure costs, travel expenses and many others.  Those cost as much, and often more than the actual revenue generated by the sports.  So they get creative.  Let's say all apparel sold with the university name is solely because of athletics...that will make our athletic loses more palatable.  Let's assign the tutors, educational facilities, and substantial infrastructure costs to the university to make the loses appear less. 

If you pay athletes the costs will be incurred by the general University budget and will take funds away from education.

Also, the athletes would most definitely be employees then, and would incur many other problems that they don't currently have to deal with.

I think you're making tons of assumptions here that not only are unsupported, but often contradicted.
NCAA history is rife with examples of donors paying athletes in violation of the rules. Why do you believe donors now would be unwilling to make such contributions within the rules? What makes you certain that a donor would rather shell out $10,000 for a locker room stall, but not a 5-star power forward? My guess is that one might prefer boasting about how his contribution helped land  that kid who just put up 22 and 10, more so than the place that kid changes his socks.

I remain unconvinced that the revenues to pay kids aren't there. Again, FBS raked in $3.4 billion last year. Paying every FBS scholarship athlete a $10K salary would cost about 3 percent of that revenue. Are you really suggesting the average FBS athletic department couldn't find 3 percent in their budgets?

Whata re some of the problems athletes would incur if paid, and how do they outweigh the benefits (i.e. salaries, workers comp, labor protections, etc.)?

forgetful

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4728
Re: Transfer rule changes
« Reply #154 on: September 07, 2017, 12:36:24 PM »
I think you're making tons of assumptions here that not only are unsupported, but often contradicted.
NCAA history is rife with examples of donors paying athletes in violation of the rules. Why do you believe donors now would be unwilling to make such contributions within the rules? What makes you certain that a donor would rather shell out $10,000 for a locker room stall, but not a 5-star power forward? My guess is that one might prefer boasting about how his contribution helped land  that kid who just put up 22 and 10, more so than the place that kid changes his socks.

I remain unconvinced that the revenues to pay kids aren't there. Again, FBS raked in $3.4 billion last year. Paying every FBS scholarship athlete a $10K salary would cost about 3 percent of that revenue. Are you really suggesting the average FBS athletic department couldn't find 3 percent in their budgets?

Whata re some of the problems athletes would incur if paid, and how do they outweigh the benefits (i.e. salaries, workers comp, labor protections, etc.)?

My statement was in regards to large scale numbers.  Yes there will always be some that are willing to directly pay the athletes, but those numbers are low in comparison to people that want their name on a building, or a plaque/brick in fancy facilities.  I know this, because I see many of these budgets and spreadsheets and converse with the fundraisers/administrators. 

It is often harder to raise money for a scholarship fund (unless your name is on it) than to raise money for a fountain. 

As for the revenues not being there.  There is a reason UCONN is losing $30M a year, and Houston is losing $30M a year, and why Texas Tech is losing money and over $100M in debt just for athletics.  So yes, they can't find 3%, since they are already underwater. 

And remember that $3.4B includes all donations to Universities that get earmarked for athletics, all sales of any apparel whether it has anything to do with sports or not, student fees that are slapped on (sometimes in the thousands of dollars) and required from all students, monetary transfers from the University to the athletic programs and many more accounting tricks.

If you think the money is there, go to FSU or UCONN and tell each student that they need to pony up another $1k+ in student fees so that the athletes can get paid.

Lennys Tap

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 12221
Re: Transfer rule changes
« Reply #155 on: September 07, 2017, 01:10:55 PM »
In a nutshell, this is where I'm coming from (although, I suppose I'd end with "unnecessary" instead of "unfair").  Even though the players, as a group, are essential to drive revenue, it's the brand that keeps the money flowing in.  Most players are essentially fungible, with a few transcendent players able to really move the needle.  What I see is that the players, as a group, are more than happy with what they're getting for their efforts and it's even pretty rare to see the superstars complain.  My concern is that if they open things up and allow it to be a negotiation, a fairly limited number of players will receive a lot more money, but most of the players will receive less.  College recruiting -- even in low profile, non-revenue sports -- is a bit like dealing with used car salesmen where they're trying to pitch you.  It's already slimy when everyone is offering pretty much the same thing.  I just really don't like the idea of professional recruiters/salesmen negotiating with tens of thousands of children and seeing how cheaply they can buy the commitment (in order to save enough money to pay for the superstars).  I envision a situation where the top few players on a basketball team and maybe the top 10-20 players on the football roster get paid more (and even then, only in big conferences) and everyone else gets the best partial scholarship he can negotiate.  Even though it's slimy now, at least the athlete -- generally speaking a child (in some sports often as young as 15-16 years old) with limited bargaining power -- knows what he or she is getting.  At the end of the day, I just think they'd be changing a system under which tens of thousands of kids obtain a free education in order to increase the compensation of a handful of players who are going to be playing as professionals anyway.

I honestly bristle at the claim that I'm siding with the huge schools in taking this position.  I think that no matter the system, the big schools are going to come out fine.  I genuinely feel like I'm taking the side of the little guys -- the athletes who are benefiting from the current system who I believe will lose under a pay-for-play system.  If people think it's unfair to have the Dwyane Wades of the world to subsidize the rest, I can appreciate that argument even if I generally disagree.  But I think it's misguided to characterize moving to pay-for-play as looking out for the little guy.  To me, it kind of feels like fighting for higher pay for up and coming mid-level executives in Fortune 100 companies.

I think there are two better solutions.  First, as mentioned above, let those transcendent players capitalize on their name and make money.  Second, allow those players to go directly to the professional leagues and avoid the issue entirely.

I agree with this analysis.

MomofMUltiples

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1041
Re: Transfer rule changes
« Reply #156 on: September 07, 2017, 03:55:12 PM »
It seems we've gone far afield of the original transfer rule topic in this thread, but the discussion has nonetheless been interesting.  I'm not convinced that there is a role for academic institutions to run "professional" sports teams, where players are considered employees and get paid for their services.  Nor do I care for the NBA to force kids who are good enough to be paid for their work to spend a year playing unpaid before they are eligible to join the league.  I think eventually we will see changes here for the very elite - either they will be allowed to go directly to the draft, or the draft could expand to include a number of players that the NBA wants to have on their G-League teams; kind of like baseball, with a fully developed farm system where players get paid for their work and advance as their talents allow.  We may see more kids going to Europe for a year instead of bothering with classes and all that stuff in order to play ball.

Realistically, only a small percentage of players in D-1 basketball ever get any time in the NBA.  Why disrupt the whole system for that privileged few when there are other solutions for how to deal with the few?  Would college basketball become less interesting without those "superstars"  in the game?  I doubt it.  There will still be a high level of play, competitive teams and the best single elimination tournament in the US every March.  We will still look for our coaches to put together a talented group of individuals and mold them into a team.  There will be the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat.  I'd argue that it would be a better approach than paying the players.

I believe in college athletics and student athletes.  It is a privilege to compete for your university and in exchange, receive a higher education that so many other young adults and families are struggling to pay for.  An April 3, 2017 study by the NCAA notes that 99.2% of student athletes "go pro" in something other than sports.  That includes not just the swimmers and runners and lacrosse players, it also includes the large majority of football and basketball players.  Yes, MBB and football bring in the large share of revenues, and those can be very large with the TV contracts offered by too many sports outlets looking to fill airtime.  But it's not as though those dollars are being stuffed in the pockets by greedy administrators (that we know of); they are being spread throughout the non-profit institutions to support other student athletics and even general institutional needs.  If you want to spend a large part of that on a top-notch coach that will enhance your chances of recruiting better talent and winning, thus potentially increasing student and alumni pride and increasing donations, nothing wrong with that as long as it is self-supported by the program.  Shame on any university that forces the general student population to fund a multi-million dollar coach's salary.  But there is so much more to college athletics, and being a student athlete, than we see on our screens at home.

I think that there needs to be a relaxation of eligibility requirements.  Why shouldn't high school seniors be allowed to enter the NBA draft, and attend college if they aren't drafted?  Foreign players sometimes start playing professionally at a very young age - should they be allowed to join college teams in a certain age range? Should NBA teams be allowed to draft kids out of high school and then allow the kid to go to college for a couple (no less than two) years, like the NHL does?  Seems to me that a lot of the requirements, except for the minimum grades and test scores, are a little silly for some of these athletes.

And finally, while I don't support paying players, I do believe that they should receive a reasonable stipend as part of their room and board.  It seems there are too many players who arrive with a full scholarship but don't have enough money in their pocket to order a pizza or buy a movie ticket.  That's part of college, too, and it would go a long way toward keeping players focused on their many other responsibilities if they are not concerned about that.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2017, 05:37:16 PM by MomofMUltiples »
I mean, OK, maybe he's secretly a serial killer who's pulled the wool over our eyes with his good deeds and smooth jumper - Pakuni (on Markus Howard)

real chili 83

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8654
Re: Transfer rule changes
« Reply #157 on: September 07, 2017, 07:44:13 PM »
Damn, you go girl.

Newsdreams

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9565
  • Goal - Win BE
Re: Transfer rule changes
« Reply #158 on: September 07, 2017, 08:28:41 PM »
I'm getting dizzy reading El Quijote was easier  :P
Goal is National Championship

B. McBannerson

  • Team Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
Re: Transfer rule changes
« Reply #159 on: September 08, 2017, 05:24:39 AM »
Fans buy tickets based on the perceived/expected value of that purchase. That perceived value is based on an unspoken promise that Marquette will do its best year in and year out to field a competitive, entertaining team. Fielding a competitive, entertaining team requires recruiting and developing talented, in-demand players.
So, yes, fans do buy their tickets based on who's playing for the team. Not any specific individual, but on a group of talented players.
The notion that fans are spending money simply to "cheer for the name on the front" is simply not accurate. They're spending money with an expectation of that the players wearing the name on the front will produce at a certain level. Stop meeting those expectations, and the fans will go away (again, see: DePaul).

I'm fairly certain I said some.  There are all kinds of reasons people buy season tickets, but one of them is to support the school win or lose.  Others are going to tie in performance, while others do not.  This is why you have some people buying season tickets for 50 straight years, even for teams that may be on a 20 year losing streak.  Could be the environment, the experience, or simply to support the school or team.   I don't pretend to suggest that accomplishment, success, doesn't matter.  It does for some fans, but is not the only reason or in some cases even a reason for buying.


MarquetteDano

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3230
Re: Transfer rule changes
« Reply #160 on: September 08, 2017, 07:47:56 AM »
It seems we've gone far afield of the original transfer rule topic in this thread, but the discussion has nonetheless been interesting.  I'm not convinced that there is a role for academic institutions to run "professional" sports teams, where players are considered employees and get paid for their services.  Nor do I care for the NBA to force kids who are good enough to be paid for their work to spend a year playing unpaid before they are eligible to join the league.  I think eventually we will see changes here for the very elite - either they will be allowed to go directly to the draft, or the draft could expand to include a number of players that the NBA wants to have on their G-League teams; kind of like baseball, with a fully developed farm system where players get paid for their work and advance as their talents allow.  We may see more kids going to Europe for a year instead of bothering with classes and all that stuff in order to play ball.

Realistically, only a small percentage of players in D-1 basketball ever get any time in the NBA.  Why disrupt the whole system for that privileged few when there are other solutions for how to deal with the few?  Would college basketball become less interesting without those "superstars"  in the game?  I doubt it.  There will still be a high level of play, competitive teams and the best single elimination tournament in the US every March.  We will still look for our coaches to put together a talented group of individuals and mold them into a team.  There will be the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat.  I'd argue that it would be a better approach than paying the players.

I believe in college athletics and student athletes.  It is a privilege to compete for your university and in exchange, receive a higher education that so many other young adults and families are struggling to pay for.  An April 3, 2017 study by the NCAA notes that 99.2% of student athletes "go pro" in something other than sports.  That includes not just the swimmers and runners and lacrosse players, it also includes the large majority of football and basketball players.  Yes, MBB and football bring in the large share of revenues, and those can be very large with the TV contracts offered by too many sports outlets looking to fill airtime.  But it's not as though those dollars are being stuffed in the pockets by greedy administrators (that we know of); they are being spread throughout the non-profit institutions to support other student athletics and even general institutional needs.  If you want to spend a large part of that on a top-notch coach that will enhance your chances of recruiting better talent and winning, thus potentially increasing student and alumni pride and increasing donations, nothing wrong with that as long as it is self-supported by the program.  Shame on any university that forces the general student population to fund a multi-million dollar coach's salary.  But there is so much more to college athletics, and being a student athlete, than we see on our screens at home.

I think that there needs to be a relaxation of eligibility requirements.  Why shouldn't high school seniors be allowed to enter the NBA draft, and attend college if they aren't drafted?  Foreign players sometimes start playing professionally at a very young age - should they be allowed to join college teams in a certain age range? Should NBA teams be allowed to draft kids out of high school and then allow the kid to go to college for a couple (no less than two) years, like the NHL does?  Seems to me that a lot of the requirements, except for the minimum grades and test scores, are a little silly for some of these athletes.

And finally, while I don't support paying players, I do believe that they should receive a reasonable stipend as part of their room and board.  It seems there are too many players who arrive with a full scholarship but don't have enough money in their pocket to order a pizza or buy a movie ticket.  That's part of college, too, and it would go a long way toward keeping players focused on their many other responsibilities if they are not concerned about that.

Great post. A reasonable stipend for profit making sports seems the best route.  If one doesnt like it the D league or Europe is an option. Football does not have other options but that is not the NCAAs responsibility.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2017, 07:49:50 AM by MarquetteDano »

B. McBannerson

  • Team Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
Re: Transfer rule changes
« Reply #161 on: September 09, 2017, 09:45:51 AM »

I honestly bristle at the claim that I'm siding with the huge schools in taking this position.  I think that no matter the system, the big schools are going to come out fine.  I genuinely feel like I'm taking the side of the little guys -- the athletes who are benefiting from the current system who I believe will lose under a pay-for-play system.  If people think it's unfair to have the Dwyane Wades of the world to subsidize the rest, I can appreciate that argument even if I generally disagree.  But I think it's misguided to characterize moving to pay-for-play as looking out for the little guy.  To me, it kind of feels like fighting for higher pay for up and coming mid-level executives in Fortune 100 companies.


You should bristle because you are right.  What so many people don't realize in making the argument that the Dwyane Wades of the world should get some because they are being exploited (which is a horrible argument), is 100s of thousands of men, women, minorities are getting an education and competing based on the model.  These people are often arguing for a solution that would throw away opportunities for the other 99%.  The Dwyane Wades of the world are still going to get their compensation because they are so good and having a platform (provided by the school / scholarship / coaching) to earn those dollars after school  The exceptions being career ending injuries while in school.

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22730
Re: Transfer rule changes
« Reply #162 on: September 09, 2017, 10:25:22 AM »
Well, if that's a straw man, so is the assertion that teams "cheer for the name on the front" regardless of who fills the uniform.
Are you sure about that 25 percent figure?
Anyhow, DePaul men's basketball raked in a whopping $5.5 million in revenue, according to the most recent figures I could find.
The Fox contract is worth $4.16 million a year per team. So, it's actually pretty pathetic that the program can only generate a little more than $1.3 million from all its revenues outside of TV (i.e. sponsorships, ticket sales, merchandise, etc.) and it doesn't speak highly of their brand value.
DePauls fortunate inclusion in the Big East is because of the league's desire to be in the Chicago market. It has nothing to do with the value of its brand or brand loyalty.

Some more facts on DePaul's brand loyalty:
"14 Blue Demons home games this year have drawn an average of 1,824 people. That's down 24 percent from last season's final average and on pace to mark the first attendance dip for the program in three years. This year saw more sparsely-attended games than normal, according to Allstate Arena ticket records obtained by Crain's. Seven DePaul games saw attendance of less than 1,000 people, including two games attended by fewer than 600 people."

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20170303/BLOGS04/170309946/basketball-attendance-sinking-as-depaul-heads-downtown

This is a program that 30 years ago was averaging 12,000 at its home games. Now it's lucky to get 1/10th of that, and you think there's still brand loyalty, and that the players matter less than the uniform?

This.
“It’s not how white men fight.” - Tucker Carlson

StillAWarrior

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4205
Re: Transfer rule changes
« Reply #163 on: September 09, 2017, 03:04:28 PM »
This.

Personally, I find it absolutely remarkable that after two decades of being a dumpster fire, DePaul can still generate enough revenue to rank in the top 25% of basketball programs. I understand that the fans have abandoned the program, but the brand still manages to hold onto a spot in the Big East and generate millions.  While it has certainly deteriorated, its the DePaul name that is bringing in that money, not the players.  There are other schools in Chicago, but the Big East doesn't send them checks. If you think the Big East is sending checks because of those players, I guess we just disagree.
Never wrestle with a pig.  You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.

Lennys Tap

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 12221
Re: Transfer rule changes
« Reply #164 on: September 10, 2017, 09:02:15 AM »
Personally, I find it absolutely remarkable that after two decades of being a dumpster fire, DePaul can still generate enough revenue to rank in the top 25% of basketball programs. I understand that the fans have abandoned the program, but the brand still manages to hold onto a spot in the Big East and generate millions.  While it has certainly deteriorated, its the DePaul name that is bringing in that money, not the players.  There are other schools in Chicago, but the Big East doesn't send them checks. If you think the Big East is sending checks because of those players, I guess we just disagree.

This.

GGGG

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
Re: Transfer rule changes
« Reply #165 on: September 10, 2017, 09:24:39 AM »
Personally, I find it absolutely remarkable that after two decades of being a dumpster fire, DePaul can still generate enough revenue to rank in the top 25% of basketball programs. I understand that the fans have abandoned the program, but the brand still manages to hold onto a spot in the Big East and generate millions.  While it has certainly deteriorated, its the DePaul name that is bringing in that money, not the players.  There are other schools in Chicago, but the Big East doesn't send them checks. If you think the Big East is sending checks because of those players, I guess we just disagree.


The Big East is sending them checks because they are a member of the conference.  The Big East wanted a Chicago presence and DePaul was the best of mostly poor options.  If DePaul and their history were in Dayton, and the University of Dayton with its history was in Chicago, UD would be a member of the BE.

Marcus92

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2513
Re: Transfer rule changes
« Reply #166 on: September 10, 2017, 12:23:07 PM »
DePaul is considered the anchor tenant of Wintrust Arena. But the Chicago Sky of the WNBA also signed a deal to relocate from Allstate Arena and play at the new arena. The Sky set a franchise attendance record last season, averaging more than 7,000 fans a game.

Authorities are counting on a dramatic attendance boost for DePaul in the arena's inaugural season. Even tripling last year's attendance would still leave about half the seats empty. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/ct-sky-home-games-wintrust-arena-20170725-story.html

http://www.wnba.com/news/record-breaking-attendance-five-years-digital-social-retail/
"Let's get a green drink!" Famous last words

cheebs09

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4522
Re: Transfer rule changes
« Reply #167 on: September 10, 2017, 12:38:35 PM »
DePaul is considered the anchor tenant of Wintrust Arena. But the Chicago Sky of the WNBA also signed a deal to relocate from Allstate Arena and play at the new arena. The Sky set a franchise attendance record last season, averaging more than 7,000 fans a game.

Authorities are counting on a dramatic attendance boost for DePaul in the arena's inaugural season. Even tripling last year's attendance would still leave about half the seats empty. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/ct-sky-home-games-wintrust-arena-20170725-story.html

http://www.wnba.com/news/record-breaking-attendance-five-years-digital-social-retail/

Are they playing more home games against Marquette this year?

Marcus92

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2513
Re: Transfer rule changes
« Reply #168 on: September 10, 2017, 01:28:03 PM »
Are they playing more home games against Marquette this year?

The new arena is about 30 miles closer to Indianapolis — less than a 3-hour drive. So maybe Wintrust can become a home-away-from-home game for Butler fans, as well.
"Let's get a green drink!" Famous last words

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22730
Re: Transfer rule changes
« Reply #169 on: September 10, 2017, 11:07:44 PM »

The Big East is sending them checks because they are a member of the conference.  The Big East wanted a Chicago presence and DePaul was the best of mostly poor options.  If DePaul and their history were in Dayton, and the University of Dayton with its history was in Chicago, UD would be a member of the BE.

This.

DePaul's basketball brand is broken. Maybe not irreparably so; we'll have to see about that. But it is broken.
“It’s not how white men fight.” - Tucker Carlson

StillAWarrior

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4205
Re: Transfer rule changes
« Reply #170 on: September 11, 2017, 08:18:23 AM »
This.

DePaul's basketball brand is broken. Maybe not irreparably so; we'll have to see about that. But it is broken.

It may surprise some here, given the positions that I've taken in this thread, but I think that this is undeniably true.  However, I don't think that's inconsistent with anything that I've said.
Never wrestle with a pig.  You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.

B. McBannerson

  • Team Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
Re: Transfer rule changes
« Reply #171 on: September 11, 2017, 08:40:56 AM »
This.

DePaul's basketball brand is broken. Maybe not irreparably so; we'll have to see about that. But it is broken.

All it takes is a few good players, a new arena, and they can start their way back.  The chances of coming all the way back are near zero, but this is not surprising as MU hasn't come all the way back either.  For that matter, neither has UCLA or UNLV or any number of dozens of other programs.  Basketball is a sport that doesn't take much to turn the corner to respectability.

GooooMarquette

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9489
  • We got this.
Re: Transfer rule changes
« Reply #172 on: September 11, 2017, 08:45:23 AM »
This.

DePaul's basketball brand is broken. Maybe not irreparably so; we'll have to see about that. But it is broken.

Yep. If a school like Loyola could resurrect its program, DePaul would be totally expendable. Unfortunately - and remarkably - DePaul is the best Chicago has...

warriorchick

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8067
Re: Transfer rule changes
« Reply #173 on: September 11, 2017, 10:38:44 AM »
All it takes is a few good players, a new arena, and they can start their way back.  The chances of coming all the way back are near zero, but this is not surprising as MU hasn't come all the way back either.  For that matter, neither has UCLA or UNLV or any number of dozens of other programs.  Basketball is a sport that doesn't take much to turn the corner to respectability.

I think this part is completely overblown.

Does anyone have an example of a situation where a team got a new arena and the program as a whole measurably improved? 
Have some patience, FFS.

brewcity77

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 26360
  • Warning-This poster may trigger thin skinned users
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: Transfer rule changes
« Reply #174 on: September 11, 2017, 11:08:28 AM »
Yep. If a school like Loyola could resurrect its program, DePaul would be totally expendable. Unfortunately - and remarkably - DePaul is the best Chicago has...

I suppose it depends if you consider Northwestern in Chicago or not (northeast suburbs?). As far as the city proper, probably DePaul, but Northwestern isn't far away and I'd put them miles ahead of the Demons right now.
This space reserved for a 2024 National Championship celebration banner.