Scholarship table
I always knew you cared about the haves.
I believe those in favor of this mostly care about the players having the freedom to go to their school of choice without sitting out a year. I wonder if more MU players would have transferred down a level if they didn’t have to sit a year. Maybe they didn’t want to stay in school more than 4 years, so thought being a role player was better than needing a 5th year.Is a likely result that it benefits the high majors more than mid-majors? I’d say most likely. However, that’s not the motivation to do it. It’s more about letting students make the best choice for themselves without a need to sit out a year.
Not quite sure what this gibberish means ... but if you want to believe that top programs are really going to re-stock their rosters annually with kids from the MAC and Southland, enjoy that delusion. It certainly won't be the first time one of your predictions of doom has been woefully wrong.By the way ... notice how one of the guys you frequently quote in your full-throated defenses of the status quo came out yesterday ranting about how badly college basketball needs to change the status quo? https://sports.yahoo.com/coach-k-on-college-hoops-i-wish-the-whole-thing-would-change-084051665.html
Except I think Coach K wants to limit players movement more than they are now. Thats how I read the article anyway. He wants kids to stop leaving for the NBA. I suspect he'd want something similar to baseball. Come to college, ineligible for the draft for three years, or something like that. Maybe 2. THat would build up JC basketball, anyway. Sad thing is, what's best for the players is not what's best for the coaches, the fans, etc. I think unfortunately the correct answer to that issue is "so what?"
I think he is also saying that there should be a path back to college for those who are undrafted, or even allowing a player to go back to college even if they are drafted. Back in the 90s, the NCAA allowed that. The Bucks drafted Voshawn Lenard back in 1994, but he opted to go back to college. The Bucks did not retain his rights, but perhaps the NBA could retain the rights and work with the player to continue at the college.The ridiculousness of the amateurism rule prevents a lot of good ideas from coming forward. What would have been the harm had a team chosen Markus in the second round last year, have him sign a contract with some compensation, but then had him go back to Marquette for a final season?I'm not saying that's a perfect idea, but the NCAA is shooting itself in the foot.
The Bucks drafted Voshawn Lenard back in 1994, but he opted to go back to college.
Yep. Personal freedom. Personal choice. Those used to be seen as good things. I guess they still are, but only when they fit each debater's chosen narrative.
Post them! Transparency!