Scholarship table
LOL. So in 50+ years the population went up by a third...and attendance went up nearly 400%.
You're going to keep trying this one no matter how many times you are gently reminded that coaches never pay any penalty. They are free agents every single day. Shaka could sign a 100-year contract tomorrow but if he left for Kentucky the next day, Kentucky would pay whatever penalty.But if one of Shaka's players wants to transfer to Kentucky for a better opportunity, he is punished to the full extent of "the law."And you know it, so stop being silly.
I guess suburbs and population growth didn’t exist? 1960 Chicago metro area population 6,794,4611980 Chicago metro area population 7,869,5422000 Chicago metro area population 9,098,3162017 Chicago metro area population 9,900,000 estimated
Is the metro including Racine and Kenosha? Or say the entire south side? Those are probably things that should be subtracted from the population growth
I am not sure why this is an argument. Again, I said population growth was ONE of the reasons, not the only one.
It is the area described by the Cubs where there fans typically drive from. The team draws fans consistently from those areas and rightly so. The Royals draw fans from Kansas City, KS even though they play in Missouri. Reds draw from Kentucky, Dodgers from Orange County, Giants from the east bay, Yankees from New Jersey, etc.Kenosha to Wrigley is what, 55 miles or so? About what Sheboygan to Miller Park is if I had to guess. Population centers have sprawled from the central city areas over the years and teams have appealed to fans as they pop up in within a radius they are willing to drive.
It is still an expense that someone had to pay to make the other entity whole. Dollars were paid. Dollars that could be used to do something else. Kentucky or any other program doesn’t have their own US printing press to create currency. I am for Shaka’s players being able to transfer free and clear if Shaka were to leave. That is a rule that should be put into place.
However, they should not be able to follow Shaka. How would you like it, if your coach brought in a top 5 class and then got a job at another school, because he could brings his recruits with him? MU gives Wojo a big recruiting budget. Wojo should not be able to run off with the recruits. I can live with the recruits leaving without penalty, but they should not be able to follow their coach.
Oh bullsh*t. Some ole Chicos. Tries to pass off an argument, then when shown it is insignificant, just backpedals. The fact is that free agency didn't ruin baseball. Baseball is more popular now than it was during its heyday based on per game attendance, which has also been insignificantly affected by population growth.
It was also much harder to get to the WS back in the day because you had to win your league outright. The Yankees back in the day at the resources to scout and sign players throughout the country, then via the reserve clause, the ability to hold onto those players indefinitely. Free agency has leveled out the talent level of teams considerably. Maybe not when it was first introduced, but mid and small market teams have gotten better at finding talent and incorporating it into their talent pool. Your excuses are at least 20 years out of date and don't reflect the reality of today's MLB.
Chicos,Where did I say free agency ruined baseball? I did not. https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=56500.msg1038137#msg1038137To the contrary, I said for some teams it wasn’t good, but free agency had many positive impacts. There are clubs that competed more consistently prior to free agency that struggle now and occasionally do well. There are others that did little prior to free agency that have done well since. And there are those like the Yankees and Dodgers that had success in both eras. It hasn’t been universally great for everyone as MU82 said, nor has it ruined baseball as you erroneously stated I said.
I am for nearly unfettered free agency for athletes -- in other words, I think a scholarship basketball player should have the exact same freedom (with lack of penalty) that a scholarship acting student, scholarship trombone student or a student on an academic scholarship has.
Making McEwen sit out this season, on the other hand, is unreasonable.
I go back and forth on where I stand on this, Mike, but I do tend to prefer "unfettered". That said, though, I don't think comparing revenue producing scholarship athletes with trombone players is apples to apples. Schools spend much more money recruiting the former, and once they're in school the investment really explodes. Tutors, trainers, weight rooms, training tables, coaches, etc., make on court/field success necessary to pay the bills - and that makes continuity important. With the trombone player, nobody cares because it has zero impact on the bottom line.
I fail to see how it is unreasonable. McEwen is still able to receive a full athletic scholarship. He does not lose any athletic eligibility. He just has to wait a year to play in games. Minimal, if any, harm is done to the athlete.
Yeah I'm not for "unfettered" transfers either. I think every player should simply get one transfer per career without spending a year in residence. That way there are no waivers, no grad transfer exceptions, etc. And a player can only play for one school per competitive season, so mid-year transfers have to wait until the start of the next season. In a nod to bilsu, I am also comfortable with saying that no player can play immediately if he follows a coach from a school where he played. He must wait a year. In the case of a signed NLI, the original school must let him out of his commitment.I don't think this is unreasonable. I don't think it's Pandora's Box. It's granting players more freedom without making it unlimited.
I understand, Lenny, but it is the school's choice to spend like this on the athletes. Obviously, we're in so deep now that no school can afford not to do this stuff because it would place it at a competitive disadvantage, but the reason the spending has gotten out of hand is because the schools LET it get out of hand. It sure as heck isn't the athletes' fault that it got out of hand.I'm a big proponent of freedom.
It's unreasonable if McEwen wants to play 4 years of basketball in a 4-year span and then get on with his life. It's unreasonable if McEwen didn't want to spend his 20th birthday year sitting and watching instead of playing.Frankly, I don't know if that applies to McEwen, but that's not the point. I was just using him as an example. I could have named any athlete who transferred and then was forced to spend a year of college not playing college basketball.Your opinion is Minimal, if any, harm is done to the athlete, and I respect your opinion, but I wonder how many athletes you believe are "harmed minimally" would choose to sit out a year vs. playing right away if they were given the choice.I'm for giving them the choice.
He does have a choice — he can in fact move on with his life any time he chooses.
Actually, I said: "Baseball experienced none of the 'horrors' that were predicted," and "Free agency has been a good thing for every sport; more importantly, free agency is a condition every free human being should enjoy in his or her work."There is a big difference between saying free agency has been good for sports and that it has been "universally great for everyone."So don't misrepresent what I said, c2.Meanwhile, on Aug. 22 you said this:Time to move on.I guess you changed your mind, given that since then you've had dozens of posts on this subject -- many of them filled with erroneous or misleading information in your desperate attempts to be "right."
If that's the standard you use, you can justify putting all sorts of additional limits on athletes. In other words, it's a ridiculous standard.