MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: WarriorDad on April 25, 2018, 08:54:18 AM
-
The Commission headed by Condoleeza Rice issued their 60 day report this morning.
Highlights
Do not turn college basketball into another professional league (don't pay players)
End one and done
Ban cheaters for life
Blamed the university presidents (who ultimately control the NCAA as members) for making NCAA toothless
NCAA to run recruiting event to minimize AAU events
Certification of agents available to basketball players at high school level and older
Greater transparency of financial involvement by apparel companies
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/apnewsbreak-hoops-panel-says-ban-cheats-end-1-and-done/2018/04/25/f8692a36-487e-11e8-8082-105a446d19b8_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c6e68a8dbc30
-
LOL.
So an NCAA commission is recommending that the NBA change a rule? I'm sure that will happen. Terrible report. Trying to keep things the way they are.
https://deadspin.com/condoleezza-rices-useless-commission-on-college-basketb-1825527239
"Rice stood at the podium and threatened to reinstitute freshman ineligibility if the one-and-done rule is not repealed, an arcane and utterly baffling idea that will help no one. Rice also pushed the idea of regionalized NCAA-run showcase tournaments as a way to combat the free reign of AAU and similar high school tourneys. This is another dumb, half-assed move which would only give the NCAA more power and jurisdiction when it can barely handle the responsibilities it has now. Rice also called for harsher NCAA-led punishments, saying they’d like to see the Level I violation penalties bumped up—as seen in every case ever that involves a ton of money exchanging hands, harsher penalties will serve as only an initial deterrent, before schools and shoe companies find new channels to subvert them. And, most egregiously, Rice and the commission unnatural carnal knowledgeing punted as fast as they could when it came to the topic of an athlete’s right to profit from their own name, image, and likeness—because of NCAA amateurism rules, athletes currently cannot use their athletic talents or achievements to earn money, in any way, or they will lose their eligibility.
It was clear early on that the team assembled by the NCAA to patch up the underside of college basketball would do just that, applying short-term fixes to problems that will simply manifest again the moment these supposed solutions put into place, in part because harsher punishment is almost never going to fix a systemic issue as plain as income inequality (or rather, income existence)."
-
LOL.
So an NCAA commission is recommending that the NBA change a rule? I'm sure that will happen. Terrible report. Trying to keep things the way they are.
https://deadspin.com/condoleezza-rices-useless-commission-on-college-basketb-1825527239
"Rice stood at the podium and threatened to reinstitute freshman ineligibility if the one-and-done rule is not repealed, an arcane and utterly baffling idea that will help no one. Rice also pushed the idea of regionalized NCAA-run showcase tournaments as a way to combat the free reign of AAU and similar high school tourneys. This is another dumb, half-assed move which would only give the NCAA more power and jurisdiction when it can barely handle the responsibilities it has now. Rice also called for harsher NCAA-led punishments, saying they’d like to see the Level I violation penalties bumped up—as seen in every case ever that involves a ton of money exchanging hands, harsher penalties will serve as only an initial deterrent, before schools and shoe companies find new channels to subvert them. And, most egregiously, Rice and the commission unnatural carnal knowledgeing punted as fast as they could when it came to the topic of an athlete’s right to profit from their own name, image, and likeness—because of NCAA amateurism rules, athletes currently cannot use their athletic talents or achievements to earn money, in any way, or they will lose their eligibility.
It was clear early on that the team assembled by the NCAA to patch up the underside of college basketball would do just that, applying short-term fixes to problems that will simply manifest again the moment these supposed solutions put into place, in part because harsher punishment is almost never going to fix a systemic issue as plain as income inequality (or rather, income existence)."
If memory serves, you are a pay the players guy so it doesn't surprise me that it may not touch on your priorities.
Ultimately this is a committee from various leadership areas asked to put a recommendation together. They acknowledge one and done cannot be changed by the NCAA. They are saying to improve college basketball, it needs to be changed. They advised between the NCAA and USA Basketball to pressure the NBA into changes for the betterment of the game. It is true that they cannot force that, which is why it is a recommendation. Some of the other recommendations can be done, others are reliant on other parties and even government enforcement.
-
If memory serves, you are a pay the players guy so it doesn't surprise me that it may not touch on your priorities.
No, I am a "let the players profit off their own likeness" guy.
Ultimately this is a committee from various leadership areas asked to put a recommendation together. They acknowledge one and done cannot be changed by the NCAA. They are saying to improve college basketball, it needs to be changed. They advised between the NCAA and USA Basketball to pressure the NBA into changes for the betterment of the game. It is true that they cannot force that, which is why it is a recommendation. Some of the other recommendations can be done, others are reliant on other parties and even government enforcement.
Some of their recommendations are smart. Like allowing undrafted players to return to school. Many of them are dumb.
-
Those interested in who are the members of the committee. Emmert and Peterson were not allowed to participate in executive meetings with the committee which occurred roughly 70% of the time, in part to keep them at arm's length in the process.
Dr. Condoleezza Rice (chair)
Former Provost, Stanford University
66th U.S. Secretary of State
Mary Sue Coleman
President
Association of American Universities (AAU)
General Martin E. Dempsey, U.S. Army, Retired
Chairman
USA Basketball
Mark Emmert (ex officio)
President
National Collegiate Athletic Association
Jeremy Foley
Athletics Director Emeritus
University of Florida Athletic Association
Jeffrey A. Hathaway
Vice President/Director of Athletics
Hofstra University
Grant Hill
Owner/Vice Chairman
Atlanta Hawks
Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.
President
University of Notre Dame
Mike Montgomery
Retired Basketball Coach
Analyst, Pac-12 Networks and Westwood One Sports
G.P. “Bud” Peterson (ex officio)
President, Georgia Institute of Technology
Chair, NCAA Board of Governors
David Robinson
Founder
Admiral Capital Group
Kathryn Ruemmler
Former White House Counsel
Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP
Gene Smith
Sr. Vice President and Wolfe Foundation Endowed Athletics Director
Ohio State University
John Thompson III
Board of Directors
National Association of Basketball Coaches
-
Here's a decent breakdown from Matt Norlander: https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/commission-on-college-basketball-proposes-major-changes-to-ncaa-to-fix-the-sports-problems/
On a related note, I listened to this podcast recently with Yahoo! Sports Dan Wetzel and one of his three fixes to college hoops was particularly interesting. Basically allow drafted players to return to school, much like the way the Spurs and others stock talent overseas (i.e., Popovich thinks it would be good for you to stay and get coached by Bill Self for another year) and retain rights to players. This is how it apparently works in Hockey.
https://omny.fm/shows/the-program/dan-wetzel-1
-
Some additional coverage, including video of the chair's remarks.
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/23311712/commission-college-basketball-shares-recommendations-ncaa
-
Those interested in who are the members of the committee. Emmert and Peterson were not allowed to participate in executive meetings with the committee which occurred roughly 70% of the time, in part to keep them at arm's length in the process.
Dr. Condoleezza Rice (chair)
Former Provost, Stanford University
66th U.S. Secretary of State
Mary Sue Coleman
President
Association of American Universities (AAU)
General Martin E. Dempsey, U.S. Army, Retired
Chairman
USA Basketball
Mark Emmert (ex officio)
President
National Collegiate Athletic Association
Jeremy Foley
Athletics Director Emeritus
University of Florida Athletic Association
Jeffrey A. Hathaway
Vice President/Director of Athletics
Hofstra University
Grant Hill
Owner/Vice Chairman
Atlanta Hawks
Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.
President
University of Notre Dame
Mike Montgomery
Retired Basketball Coach
Analyst, Pac-12 Networks and Westwood One Sports
G.P. “Bud” Peterson (ex officio)
President, Georgia Institute of Technology
Chair, NCAA Board of Governors
David Robinson
Founder
Admiral Capital Group
Kathryn Ruemmler
Former White House Counsel
Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP
Gene Smith
Sr. Vice President and Wolfe Foundation Endowed Athletics Director
Ohio State University
John Thompson III
Board of Directors
National Association of Basketball Coaches
Is this supposed to be impressive?
-
Is this supposed to be impressive?
It is an impressive list, but what do they really offer for the topic at hand other than JTIII.......
-
Directly from the report on pages 3-5
A. Separate The Collegiate Track From The Professional Track By
Ending One-And-Done.
The Commission calls on the National Basketball Association (NBA) and the National Basketball Players Association (NBPA) again to make 18-year-olds eligible for the NBA draft, so that high school players who are drafted may proceed to the NBA. The NCAA lacks the legal power to change one-and-done on its own; the power to make this change lies exclusively with the NBA and the
NBPA.
The one-and-done regime may have provided some benefits for the NBA and the NCAA in the past, but all stakeholders agree that the downsides now outweigh any benefits. One-and-done has played a significant role in corrupting and destabilizing college basketball, restricting the freedom of choice of players, and undermining the relationship of college basketball to the mission of higher education. Elite high school players with NBA prospects and no interest in a college degree should not be “forced” to attend college, often for less than a year.
These uniquely talented players are the focus of agents, apparel companies, investment advisors, college coaches and others seeking to profit from their skills and offering them cash and other benefits in hope of future gain. If they are allowed to turn professional, some of the pressure on the collegiate model will be reduced. Moreover, the recent commitment of the NBA to improve the G League may enhance its appeal as a professional option for elite players who are 18 and do not wish to attend college.
The Commission seriously considered, but is not recommending, the NBA’s and NBPA’s adoption of a version of the “baseball rule” which would make student-athletes who attend college ineligible for the draft or the G League for two or three years. By requiring students who choose the collegiate path to make a long-term commitment to their education, the baseball rule increases the number of student-athletes who ultimately earn degrees. However, it would also keep collegiate players ready for the NBA in school against their will, where they will be potentially disgruntled magnets for corrupt money and the undermining of the collegiate model. Players with professional earning power should be able to choose a professional path.
The Commission’s additional recommendations will make it easier for them to return and complete their degrees. The Commission is concerned about one unintended consequence of ending one-and-done, specifically the potential abuse of the NCAA’s current practice of granting immediate collegiate eligibility to high school players who “reclassify”— i.e., those who make themselves eligible to enter college prior to the graduation date of their high school class. We fear that, should the NBA and the NBPA make 18 the minimum age for entry into the NBA, the growing trend of reclassification will accelerate, creating a new generation of 17-year-old one-and-done players.
The Commission urges the NCAA to monitor this situation and to enact appropriate rule changes if that potential abuse occurs with the end of one-and done. We must emphasize that only the NBA and the NBPA can change the oneand-done rule. If they choose not to do so by the end of 2018, the NCAA must still find a way to address this situation. In that circumstance, the Commission will
reconvene and consider the other tools at its disposal. These could range from the baseball rule, to freshman ineligibility, to “locking up” scholarships for three or four years if the recipient leaves the program for the NBA after a single year. That would be a disincentive to recruit an athlete for a one-year run at the title. In short, the current situation is untenable.
-
Is this supposed to be impressive?
Chico's needed to be sure everyone knew Rice was the Chair.
-
No, I am a "let the players profit off their own likeness" guy.
Some of their recommendations are smart. Like allowing undrafted players to return to school. Many of them are dumb.
Profit which will be a back door for payment.
I guess this committee of experts in academia and basketball don't know what they are talking about or are just dumb. Feel free to ignore their recommendations I guess.
Not all of their suggestions do I agree with, but the most important principle to keep college basketball as an amateur endeavor is key for me. There are plenty of professional options out there, the NCAA isn't here to be a professional league nor should it. Commend the committee for that key point in my view.
-
On a related note, I listened to this podcast recently with Yahoo! Sports Dan Wetzel and one of his three fixes to college hoops was particularly interesting. Basically allow drafted players to return to school, much like the way the Spurs and others stock talent overseas (i.e., Popovich thinks it would be good for you to stay and get coached by Bill Self for another year) and retain rights to players. This is how it apparently works in Hockey.
The NBA had something similar years ago, although it was based on draft eligibility being triggered after 4 years out of high school.
The Celtics drafted Larry Bird 6th as a draft eligible after his junior season in 1978. He obviously returned to Indiana State for his senior season and the Celtics held his rights until the draft the following season. If he didn't sign before the next draft, he would be put back into the draft for any team to select. Baseball still does something similar.
The Pacers were one of the five teams that passed on Bird, going with the sure thing signing of Rick Robey. They weren't willing to risk not signing the hometown hero in Bird and wasting a first round pick.
I think Kyle Macy was also picked under this rule with Phoenix drafting him before his senior season in Kentucky.
-
It is an impressive list, but what do they really offer for the topic at hand other than JTIII.......
Well yeah that's what I mean. It looks like just a bunch of names to fill out the letterhead and not an actual working group that could solve the issues at hand.
-
Profit which will be a back door for payment.
Actually it would be a front door. And that's fine.
-
https://twitter.com/wojespn/status/989127862044299265
doot doot
The NBA and NBPA conversations on eliminating the one-and-done draft rule -- which would allow high school seniors to enter the NBA -- are centered on the 2020 Draft as the earliest possible date for change, league sources tell ESPN.
-
Wasn't Markus a committee member?
-
The NBA had something similar years ago, although it was based on draft eligibility being triggered after 4 years out of high school.
The Celtics drafted Larry Bird 6th as a draft eligible after his junior season in 1978. He obviously returned to Indiana State for his senior season and the Celtics held his rights until the draft the following season. If he didn't sign before the next draft, he would be put back into the draft for any team to select. Baseball still does something similar.
The Pacers were one of the five teams that passed on Bird, going with the sure thing signing of Rick Robey. They weren't willing to risk not signing the hometown hero in Bird and wasting a first round pick.
I think Kyle Macy was also picked under this rule with Phoenix drafting him before his senior season in Kentucky.
Not completely accurate. The window to sign is very short, something around 4-6 weeks.
But the mlb draft is a different scenario with set $ amounts teams can use which directly affects where guys are drafted.
-
LOL.
So an NCAA commission is recommending that the NBA change a rule? I'm sure that will happen. Terrible report. Trying to keep things the way they are.
Yes, it looks like it very well may happen.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2772448-report-nba-nbpa-targeting-2020-nba-draft-for-end-of-1-and-done-rule?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial
-
Yes, it looks like it very well may happen.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2772448-report-nba-nbpa-targeting-2020-nba-draft-for-end-of-1-and-done-rule?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial
Woj's report might have come on the heels of this commission's recommendations, but Silver has said numerous times over the last many months that he favors elimination of 1-and-done. Said it several times before the commission released one word.
We'll see if the league and the players can agree. I think they can because the NBA and NCAA, which once were in cahoots pushing for a two-year college requirement, now seem to be acknowledging that the only alternative to 1-and-done that the players will accept is immediate eligibility after HS.
There was just about 0% chance the union ever would have agreed to any rule that required players to stay in college for 2 years -- at least not without demanding a major financial kickback that the owners would never give.
-
Some thoughts:
1) If the Presidents really wanted to get tough, they would tell universities to award four-year scholarships. You recruit someone and the scholarship is gone for four years. If the student/athlete transfers to another university, the scholarship is "rested" for a year, just as transferring recruits have to sit out a year. This would end "one-and-dones" now.
2) The notion of cheaters being banned forever is absurd on its face. North Carolina cheated by offering sham courses. Does anyone really expect Roy Williams/Dean Smith or others to be gone forever? Look at Bruce Pearl. After a period of contrition and penance, he is back, at Auburn. Yeah, right. I'll believe this one when Penn State, Louisville etc., all get the Death Penalty.
3) The NCAA can't run college basketball. What makes them think they can run recruiting events. I can hardly wait for Nike, Addidas etc., to file anti-trust suits.
No, this committee is about reforming basketball to maximize NCAA and member institution power and economic return. I don't fault them for trying to do that, but geez, let's be honest about it.
-
So can a HS basketball player tryout for the NBA, not make it, still be eligible for a college scholarship?
-
Recommendations from Condoleezza Rice have not turned out well historically.
-
Let's ignore the glaring underlying issue and try to fix the amateur system that's already broken beyond repair.
-
Ban cheaters for life. Now that is an interesting idea.
-
Is this supposed to be impressive?
Isn't Condy one of the top basketball minds in the country?
-
Recommendations from Condoleezza Rice have not turned out well historically.
I literally laughed out loud.
Thanks for brightening my day!
-
Let's ignore the glaring underlying issue and try to fix the amateur system that's already broken beyond repair.
It’s how people in power typically make decisions. Self-preservation before actual solutions.
-
Mixed emotions: it's definitely the right thing to do, but I'm gonna miss watching those players.
-
Here's a decent breakdown from Matt Norlander: https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/commission-on-college-basketball-proposes-major-changes-to-ncaa-to-fix-the-sports-problems/
On a related note, I listened to this podcast recently with Yahoo! Sports Dan Wetzel and one of his three fixes to college hoops was particularly interesting. Basically allow drafted players to return to school, much like the way the Spurs and others stock talent overseas (i.e., Popovich thinks it would be good for you to stay and get coached by Bill Self for another year) and retain rights to players. This is how it apparently works in Hockey.
https://omny.fm/shows/the-program/dan-wetzel-1
Better yet, why not adopt the hockey rules? Allow players to be drafted out of high school, but let them maintain their college eligibility until they sign a professional contract.
This is a win for the players, who can develop at a pace of their own choosing and get an education, while also serving some long-term professional interests; and the NCAA, which will benefit by having drafted players in their ranks while not losing talented but unprepared players to NBA benches and the G League.
And, unless they're serious about making the G League a true developmental league, it benefits the NBA by allowing them to draft young players, but not be on the hook for paying them until they've had more time to develop and proven they're worth signing.
-
Profit which will be a back door for payment.
I guess this committee of experts in academia and basketball don't know what they are talking about or are just dumb. Feel free to ignore their recommendations I guess.
Not all of their suggestions do I agree with, but the most important principle to keep college basketball as an amateur endeavor is key for me. There are plenty of professional options out there, the NCAA isn't here to be a professional league nor should it. Commend the committee for that key point in my view.
Amateur endeavor? Okay, get rid of scholarships, pay coaches like faculty and don’t take TV money.
-
Profit which will be a back door for payment.
I guess this committee of experts in academia and basketball don't know what they are talking about or are just dumb. Feel free to ignore their recommendations I guess.
Not all of their suggestions do I agree with, but the most important principle to keep college basketball as an amateur endeavor is key for me. There are plenty of professional options out there, the NCAA isn't here to be a professional league nor should it. Commend the committee for that key point in my view.
Just to be clear, you only want it to be an amateur endeavor for the teenage/young adult laborers, right?
You're not advocating for amateur coaches, athletic directors, trainers, etc. You're OK with them profiting from their efforts. Just not the kids.
-
Chico's needed to be sure everyone knew Rice was the Chair.
we had condi speak at our dental convention in san francisco a number of years ago-absolutely apolitical-if you've ever heard her speak and knew her background, where she's come from, you would be impressed. but i see how many of you have trouble distinguishing between condi politics and condi as a person with impressive life experiences
and if you disagree with her position on this board, you're a racist-see, we can play that game too
-
we had condi speak at our dental convention in san francisco a number of years ago-absolutely apolitical-if you've ever heard her speak and knew her background, where she's come from, you would be impressed. but i see how many of you have trouble distinguishing between condi politics and condi as a person with impressive life experiences
and if you disagree with her position on this board, you're a racist-see, we can play that game too
That's all fine and good. I don't think she knows squat about the issues facing college basketball however.
-
That's all fine and good. I don't think she knows squat about the issues facing college basketball however.
She may not know squat about the issues facing college basketball.Or she may know a lot, quite possibly way more than you do.
But you don't like her politics and that's all that really matters.
-
She may not know squat about the issues facing college basketball.Or she may know a lot, quite possibly way more than you do.
But you don't like her politics and that's all that really matters.
No, I'm pretty sure what Sultan doesn't like is that she probably doesn't know a whole lot about the college basketball landscape, ya know like he did...Pretty sure he (and I) would say the same thing if Obama was head of the commission.
Here's a novel concept how about get a former player who has been a college athlete to head up the commission and fill the rest of the spots with fellow athletes and coaches who know what student athletes have been through.
-
Just to be clear, you only want it to be an amateur endeavor for the teenage/young adult laborers, right?
You're not advocating for amateur coaches, athletic directors, trainers, etc. You're OK with them profiting from their efforts. Just not the kids.
This.
Because anybody really for amateur endeavors can't possibly want everybody getting wildly wealthy except the competitors, right?
-
Isn't Condy one of the top basketball minds in the country?
this has more to do than basketball. this has to do, among other things, believe it or not, education of our utes
-
She may not know squat about the issues facing college basketball.Or she may know a lot, quite possibly way more than you do.
But you don't like her politics and that's all that really matters.
BINGO!
-
She may not know squat about the issues facing college basketball.Or she may know a lot, quite possibly way more than you do.
But you don't like her politics and that's all that really matters.
Whether she knows more or less than Sultan is an irrelevant cheap shot (and thanks for politicizing the thread!).
The question is whether a politician/academician with no background in college basketball - outside of, perhaps, being a fan - should be leading a panel purportedly created to improve college basketball.
It's a fair, apolitical question. She no doubt is an intelligent person. That does not make her well-suited to this role. My physician also is a very smart person. But I wouldn't put him in charge of rewiring my home.
More concerning to me than Rice's position, though, is the number of commission members who are well established as outspoken advocates for the status quo in college sports, i.e. Gene Smith, Mark Emmert, John Jenkins. I don't see how one can expect a serious examination of potential reforms with guys who are happy to change nothing in charge.
-
That's all fine and good. I don't think she knows squat about the issues facing college basketball however.
i guess she didn't know "squat" about football either, but she was one of a few always mentioned in the same sentence for NFL commish as well as many other leadership roles
-
this has more to do than basketball. this has to do, among other things, believe it or not, education of our utes
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/c4e982b4537dbc513b1181ce6c442f82/tenor.gif)
-
"(and thanks for politicizing the thread!)"
you can thank your buddy smith for this
-
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/c4e982b4537dbc513b1181ce6c442f82/tenor.gif)
so you don't think this has ANYTHING to do with giving these guys a chance at getting a better education? come on pak-man! you're better than that...there are so many of these guys all thinking they're NBA because that's what their parents, friends, AAU coaches, adidas reps tell them.
it may not appear to be an attempt to emphasize education, but in all reality, looking at the people in the commision, i'm sure it is on their top 2-3
someone has to start telling them otherwise
-
That's all fine and good. I don't think she knows squat about the issues facing college basketball however.
^^^ racists & sexist. Ban dis guy
#bansultan
-
She may not know squat about the issues facing college basketball.Or she may know a lot, quite possibly way more than you do.
But you don't like her politics and that's all that really matters.
No actually I think the report is rubbish. My thoughts on this topic have been pretty clear for awhile now - that this odd desire for amateaurism is the root of all the problems the NCAA is facing now. That the NCAA is an overly-regulated, overly-bureaucratic organization that needs a complete re-imaging to progress into the future.
So if you think that the only reason I am coming out against this report is because of Condi, you'd be wrong. Very wrong. I think she is the head of a group of people who don't want to fundamentally fix the problem. They just want to add another layer of regulation and bureaucracy to an organization that has way to much of it.
-
BINGO!
If by "BINGO!" you mean "completely inaccurate" then you are right.
But you don't and you're wrong. Again.
-
so you don't think this has ANYTHING to do with giving these guys a chance at getting a better education? come on pak-man! you're better than that...there are so many of these guys all thinking they're NBA because that's what their parents, friends, AAU coaches, adidas reps tell them.
it may not appear to be an attempt to emphasize education, but in all reality, looking at the people in the commision, i'm sure it is on their top 2-3
someone has to start telling them otherwise
Have you actually read the report? They're far more concerned with reining in the AAU circuit and agents.
I'll believe the NCAA is serious about education when it stops scheduling football games on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday nights.
-
^^^ racists & sexist. Ban dis guy
#bansultan
Look who's back
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/57308e83ca1c22f02325e85b52aae072/tenor.gif)
-
Have you actually read the report? They're far more concerned with reining in the AAU circuit and agents.
I'll believe the NCAA is serious about education when it stops scheduling football games on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday nights.
I mean, the idea that the NCAA is now going to run these tournament is foolhardy. Do they realize the size and scope of what they are talking about? I mean, there are a ton of these things going on all over the place, and most of them are just fine.
JB and others would know more than I do, but I just can't believe the NCAA is going to be able to pull this off.
-
Whether she knows more or less than Sultan is an irrelevant cheap shot (and thanks for politicizing the thread!).
1.Politicizing the thread had already been taken care of by Sultan and babybluejeans.
2.Sultan clearly insulted Rice saying she didn't know squat about the subject being addressed by the committee she was chairing. That is, plain and simple, a cheap shot. And Sultan has no way of knowing whether it's true or not. What's your best guess on why (without any basis in fact) he holds that opinion?
3.Since he unfairly and without any facts belittled Rice's knowledge on the subject, I brought up the FACT that Rice may or may not know more than him (or you or me or anyone) on the subject. Because he brought it up it's not irrelevant. It's a simple fact, not a cheap shot.
-
1.Politicizing the thread had already been taken care of by Sultan and babybluejeans.
Where did I politicize this? Are you having reading problems again?
-
So if you think that the only reason I am coming out against this report is because of Condi, you'd be wrong. Very wrong. I think she is the head of a group of people who don't want to fundamentally fix the problem. They just want to add another layer of regulation and bureaucracy to an organization that has way to much of it.
I have no objection to you disagreeing with her or the committee's conclusions. That's fair. Demonizing them with with "They don't know squat" because they disagree is what I have a problem with.
-
I have no objection to you disagreeing with her or the committee's conclusions. That's fair. Demonizing them with with "They don't know squat" because they disagree is what I have a problem with.
I'm sure Condi can handle it.
Regardless, are you still sticking with the allegation that I only said that because of politics?
-
The NCAA has already set aside $13 million to implement these changes. That leaves about $500 after the members of the college basketball commission are paid for their services.
-
I'm sure Condi can handle it.
Regardless, are you still sticking with the allegation that I only said that because of politics?
Well, I thought I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you fail safe to assuming anyone who doesn't agree with you "doesn't know squat". To me that's more dangerous than a knee jerk political comment, though.
-
1.Politicizing the thread had already been taken care of by Sultan and babybluejeans.
Babyblue made a joke. I don't see where Sultan said anything political.
2.Sultan clearly insulted Rice saying she didn't know squat about the subject being addressed by the committee she was chairing. That is, plain and simple, a cheap shot. And Sultan has no way of knowing whether it's true or not. What's your best guess on why (without any basis in fact) he holds that opinion?
He said he didn't think she knows about the issues facing college basketball. Is that an unreasonable opinion to have for someone who has zero background in college basketball? Of course he doesn't know whether it's true or not. That's why he stated it as an opinion.
But from now on I'm sure you'll voice your point of view only on matters you know for certain. Please don't address MU's defensive game plan until Wojo has met with you to discuss it.
3.Since he unfairly and without any facts belittled Rice's knowledge on the subject, I brought up the FACT that Rice may or may not know more than him (or you or me or anyone) on the subject. Because he brought it up it's not irrelevant. It's a simple fact, not a cheap shot.
It's not unfair, and it's not without facts. Again, it's not unreasonable to question the college basketball credentials of someone with zero college basketball experience.
Now please stop ruining the thread with your knee-jerk defense of a like-minded politician.
-
" Again, it's not unreasonable to question the college basketball credentials of someone with zero college basketball experience."
by that measure, there are about 4-5 others on that board with questionable basketball experience. but that is beside the point. that's why i believe this board was formed, and rightly so, to try to recapture the true meaning of the "student-athlete". we are losing too many good young people to a false narrative of success in sports after college. they are wasting an opportunity to get a pretty good post high school education due to their unique athletic abilities. that is why i don't think a prerequisite to be on this board is basketball experience
-
" Again, it's not unreasonable to question the college basketball credentials of someone with zero college basketball experience."
by that measure, there are about 4-5 others on that board with questionable basketball experience.
I agree.
but that is beside the point. that's why i believe this board was formed, and rightly so, to try to recapture the true meaning of the "student-athlete". we are losing too many good young people to a false narrative of success in sports after college. they are wasting an opportunity to get a pretty good post high school education due to their unique athletic abilities. that is why i don't think a prerequisite to be on this board is basketball experience
Way more non-athletes drop out of school early to pursue other avenues. Where's the concern - much less multi-million dollar study - for them?
And why the paternalistic attitudes toward college basketball players but not athletes in hockey, soccer, golf or baseball, all of whom also leave college early to pursue professional sports careers with mixed results?
-
Why do people keep going on about amateurism here? The ncaa is about as professional as possible except for paying the players. (which would cut into profits)
-
(http://media.giphy.com/media/ktgmHvWzCGD72/giphy.gif)
-
"(and thanks for politicizing the thread!)"
you can thank your buddy smith for this
Nope, you have me confused with your closest bud Chicos. Please don't confuse us again. Thank you.
-
Nope, you have me confused with your closest bud Chicos. Please don't confuse us again. Thank you.
"Chico's needed to be sure everyone knew Rice was the Chair."
this is where it went down hill-own it!
-
"Chico's needed to be sure everyone knew Rice was the Chair."
this is where it went down hill-own it!
You’ll note I did not opine on Rice, nor did I opine on her qualifications to head the panel, nor for that matter did I opine on the recommendations.
I only noted that Chico’s so wanted us to know that Rice chaired the effort that he mentioned it twice.
-
I agree.
Way more non-athletes drop out of school early to pursue other avenues. Where's the concern - much less multi-million dollar study - for them?
And why the paternalistic attitudes toward college basketball players but not athletes in hockey, soccer, golf or baseball, all of whom also leave college early to pursue professional sports careers with mixed results?
wait...this was about a college basketball commission formed to deal with "one and done's" within NCAA basketball, right?
i'm just saying it's a noble effort and kudos to all of them for doing this. now, if you want to help set up a committee to do the same for hockey, soccer, golf and baseball, i will stand by the same. yes, i realize some of this is met with a wink and some skepticism, but let's not demonize the commission, the people, and the mission before any results are realized or not.
-
You’ll note I did not opine on Rice, nor did I opine on her qualifications to head the panel, nor for that matter did I opine on the recommendations.
I only noted that Chico’s so wanted us to know that Rice chaired the effort that he mentioned it twice.
you know that was about as provocative as you can get without saying...
just own it buddy-have a good one!
-
Well, I thought I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you fail safe to assuming anyone who doesn't agree with you "doesn't know squat". To me that's more dangerous than a knee jerk political comment, though.
I think anyone who is the head of a committee that authors such a tone-deaf report clearly doesn't know squat.
Is she your mother or something?
-
you know that was about as provocative as you can get without saying...
just own it buddy-have a good one!
This makes as much sense as the guy who, when getting called out as intolerant, tries to then turn it around and say intolerant to call them out for their views.
-
If memory serves, you are a pay the players guy so it doesn't surprise me that it may not touch on your priorities.
Ultimately this is a committee from various leadership areas asked to put a recommendation together. They acknowledge one and done cannot be changed by the NCAA. They are saying to improve college basketball, it needs to be changed. They advised between the NCAA and USA Basketball to pressure the NBA into changes for the betterment of the game. It is true that they cannot force that, which is why it is a recommendation. Some of the other recommendations can be done, others are reliant on other parties and even government enforcement.
So the NCAA put together a committee that concluded that not only should players not be paid by the NCAA, but that the NBA should refuse to let players play professionally until the NCAA is done making money from them. Truly surprising.
-
wait...this was about a college basketball commission formed to deal with "one and done's" within NCAA basketball, right?
Wrong
i'm just saying it's a noble effort and kudos to all of them for doing this. now, if you want to help set up a committee to do the same for hockey, soccer, golf and baseball, i will stand by the same. yes, i realize some of this is met with a wink and some skepticism, but let's not demonize the commission, the people, and the mission before any results are realized or not.
I'm simply wondering why you and others feel basketball players must be protected from making a bad decision about when to turn pro, but no there's no such hand-wringing about athletes in other sports. Any thoughts?
-
I think anyone who is the head of a committee that authors such a tone-deaf report clearly doesn't know squat.
Is she your mother or something?
Classy as always. Thanks for making my point.
-
Classy as always. Thanks for making my point.
LOL. I'm classy with people who deserve class. You make accusations that you can't back up then change the argument entirely.
I mean, you've been arguing so much with Chicos over the years that you've actually become him. Congrats???
-
LOL. I'm classy with people who deserve class. You make accusations that you can't back up then change the argument entirely.
I mean, you've been arguing so much with Chicos over the years that you've actually become him. Congrats???
Total BS. No matter the topic (even the baseball thread, for godsakes) you can't wait to tell people you have no respect for them or their opinions.
Truth is I agree with your opinions more often than not (I think you're a smart guy), but that doesn't give you license to be a pr#ck.
-
Why does sultan hate successful black women?
Also, I had to drive through the booming metropolis of South Wayne this morning. Wow! You came from there?
-
Why does sultan hate successful black women?
Also, I had to drive through the booming metropolis of South Wayne this morning. Wow! You came from there?
No.
-
Apparently Grant Hill and David Robinson are also clueless and unqualified...........
-
Apparently Grant Hill and David Robinson are also clueless and unqualified...........
I guess so.
-
I'm simply wondering why you and others feel basketball players must be protected from making a bad decision about when to turn pro, but no there's no such hand-wringing about athletes in other sports.
Truth.
-
well when it comes to college basketball they are certainly more qualified then anyone on this board ......Can't disagree without insults.....America 2018.
-
Take it to Reddit
-
Apparently Grant Hill and David Robinson are also clueless and unqualified...........
That's two out of 14 members, if you're counting. Neither of whom have played college basketball in a quarter century. And neither of whom, it's safe to say, had a typical college athlete experience (one attended a service academy; the other grew up in an upper class suburb as the child of a professional athlete, thus never wanted for anything while at school and faced no pressure to provide for his family by turning pro as quickly as possible).
I'm sure they're both smart guys who added valuable insight, but if that's what this commission is taking as the athlete's perspective, I'm afraid they're woefully short of the mark.
Why no current players? Or at least players who've seen a college court in the last decade? Why no current coaches?
The commission is stacked with administrators who have a vested (read: fiduciary) interest in preserving the status quo when it comes to the phony amateurism of college athletics. It's hardly a surprise their recommendations do just that.
-
No.
I couldn't see someone of your intellectual and political stature coming from there.
-
That's two out of 14 members, if you're counting. Neither of whom have played college basketball in a quarter century. And neither of whom, it's safe to say, had a typical college athlete experience (one attended a service academy; the other grew up in an upper class suburb as the child of a professional athlete, thus never wanted for anything while at school and faced no pressure to provide for his family by turning pro as quickly as possible).
I'm sure they're both smart guys who added valuable insight, but if that's what this commission is taking as the athlete's perspective, I'm afraid they're woefully short of the mark.
Why no current players? Or at least players who've seen a college court in the last decade? Why no current coaches?
The commission is stacked with administrators who have a vested (read: fiduciary) interest in preserving the status quo when it comes to the phony amateurism of college athletics. It's hardly a surprise their recommendations do just that.
No agents, no "legitimate" AAU reps, no recent players, etc.
It was a panel set up to make incremental changes but keep the current framework in place. But the framework is actually the very basis of most of the problems.
-
I couldn't see someone of your intellectual and political stature coming from there.
It's a beautiful place. My mom grew up there.
-
well when it comes to college basketball they are certainly more qualified then anyone on this board ......Can't disagree without insults.....America 2018.
Well when someone accuses me of something that is flat out false, is called on it, then shifts the goalposts in response, they are going to be insulted.
As for Condi, she's heard worse. That being said, I humbly apologize to her, Grant Hill and David Robinson. You clearly know something about college basketball. But the recommendations and conclusions addressed in your report are short-sighted.
Better?
-
Well when someone accuses me of something that is flat out false, is called on it, then shifts the goalposts in response, they are going to be insulted.
As for Condi, she's heard worse. That being said, I humbly apologize to her, Grant Hill and David Robinson. You clearly know something about college basketball. But the recommendations and conclusions addressed in your report are short-sighted.
Better?
100% better.
And I will also apologize for misinterpreting your criticism of Ms Rice as political.
-
No agents, no "legitimate" AAU reps, no recent players, etc.
It was a panel set up to make incremental changes but keep the current framework in place. But the framework is actually the very basis of most of the problems.
to have those people with their respective backgrounds, you have already decided(it seems) as well as some others, that this isn't going to accomplish anything. my suggestion is to let them do their jobs and see what else they can come up with as i don't think they are done yet. until they institute change, it is hard to draw any conclusions yet, eyn'a? one other thing as pak-man is asking why i am not concerned about hockey, soccer and baseball experiencing the same-i don't believe those sports have been rife with corruption. if it is, it is "childs play" compared to basketball. football probably should be included within this framework as well
could there be some political connections? possibly. but what i want to know is-where in the gosh darn heck were you when this commission was put together??
-
Why no current players? Or at least players who've seen a college court in the last decade? Why no current coaches?
The commission is stacked with administrators who have a vested (read: fiduciary) interest in preserving the status quo when it comes to the phony amateurism of college athletics. It's hardly a surprise their recommendations do just that.
Yep.
We come up with better ideas here on Scoop.
-
to have those people with their respective backgrounds, you have already decided(it seems) as well as some others, that this isn't going to accomplish anything. my suggestion is to let them do their jobs and see what else they can come up with as i don't think they are done yet. until they institute change, it is hard to draw any conclusions yet, eyn'a? one other thing as pak-man is asking why i am not concerned about hockey, soccer and baseball experiencing the same-i don't believe those sports have been rife with corruption. if it is, it is "childs play" compared to basketball. football probably should be included within this framework as well
could there be some political connections? possibly. but what i want to know is-where in the gosh darn heck were you when this commission was put together??
Well I have no choice but to wait and see right? But I think the NCAA put together a "blue ribbon" panel that is more about image than results, then came up with recommendations that are like lipstick on a pig.
-
Well I have no choice but to wait and see right? But I think the NCAA put together a "blue ribbon" panel that is more about image than results, then came up with recommendations that are like lipstick on a pig.
Spot on. Passing any of these “reforms” won’t root out any nefarious characters. The idea the NCAA should take over camps and the such is ludicrous and another money grab on their part.
As long as they refuse to accept they are a de facto minor league for the NBA and how much money is being generated by the atheletes, they’re going to be doomed to corruption.
If they truly want to retain amateurism, adopt the Ivy League model. Watch the money dry up. It’s always about the money. Amateurism is a crutch.
-
If they really wanted to identify current issues, Crean would've been great. Modern coach who had one foot in and one out. I would say one high and one mid major coach no more than 2 years removed from coaching. Multiple recent players from all levels of conferences. At least 2 AAU coaches, 2 HS coaches, and at least one rep each from Nike, Adidas, and Under Armour. If you aren't talking to the people actually involved in the modern landscape, you won't get an understanding of how to make realistic positive change.
-
If they really wanted to identify current issues, Crean would've been great. Modern coach who had one foot in and one out. I would say one high and one mid major coach no more than 2 years removed from coaching. Multiple recent players from all levels of conferences. At least 2 AAU coaches, 2 HS coaches, and at least one rep each from Nike, Adidas, and Under Armour. If you aren't talking to the people actually involved in the modern landscape, you won't get an understanding of how to make realistic positive change.
Now your talking! I like this idea except you forgot one guy-pitino 🤷🏼♂️😂 🙉
-
If they really wanted to identify current issues, Crean would've been great. Modern coach who had one foot in and one out. I would say one high and one mid major coach no more than 2 years removed from coaching. Multiple recent players from all levels of conferences. At least 2 AAU coaches, 2 HS coaches, and at least one rep each from Nike, Adidas, and Under Armour. If you aren't talking to the people actually involved in the modern landscape, you won't get an understanding of how to make realistic positive change.
It’s very easy to demonize who isn’t in the room. And that’s exactly what they did.
-
Now your talking! I like this idea except you forgot one guy-pitino 🤷🏼♂️😂 🙉
Honestly, him or one of his assistants should be in the room. Coaches won't stop cheating, especially if the committee doesn't have people that fully understand the coaches' motivation.
Say I'm Coach Z making $2M per year. I know I may be fired, but if I can land a monster recruiting class, it will convince the AD to give me another year. The shoe companies pick up the tab, the next year my class arrives. Because they are great, I make the tournament and get a 4-year extension with a raise to $3M. So that class got me my extra year, my tourney year, and 4 extra years. Letting the shoe companies throw some cash around was worth $16M dollars to me personally.
And people seriously think they will get the money out? No one really wants that. Not the coaches, not the players, not the handlers, not the agents, not the shoe companies, and not even the schools that get millions in shoe sponsorship dollars & equipment while also profiting off the same players they are trying to prevent from making money themselves.
The schools don't want money out of the game, they just want to ensure it keeps flowing into their own pockets.
-
Right. People are living in La La land if they think that simply punishing people harder is going to turn back the clock.
-
Well said, Brew77!
-
The headline is click-baity but...
https://www.sbnation.com/college-basketball/2018/4/27/17284340/condoleeza-rice-ncaa-basketball-scandal-amateurism
For the NCAA and its head, Mark Emmert, the committee’s report and Rice’s presence would hopefully add gravitas, credibility, and a real seriousness to the NCAA’s attempts to “fix” college basketball. That they thought this in the first place is proof that suckers, dead bodies, and trash are all recession-proof industries on multiple levels of society. The committee’s report released yesterday flopped, doubled down on amateurism, and produced nothing much beyond Rice saying “We need to put the college back in college basketball.” (No really, that’s what she said, in public without laughing.)
The only real desirable change in amateurism will be its death. It will die—but exactly when is still a great question. Its time of death will depend on the steady hands of two forces that don’t always play well together: The free market, and the ability of workers to effectively demand what is theirs from their employers through the channels available to them.
The market is already tearing college basketball apart, and with reason. Labor is more valuable than in other team sports like football, meaning there are simply fewer people who can do the top-level work of playing basketball at an elite level, all playing on smaller rosters than, say, an 84 person college football roster. It is the lower case, black market version of the NBA’s labor market: Exclusive, expensive, and extremely competitive.
-
The only real desirable change in amateurism will be its death. It will die—but exactly when is still a great question.
I honestly believe that the NCAA's decision to allow Arike Ogunbowale to compete on Dancing with the Stars will be remembered as the beginning of end of amateurism in NCAA athletics. They cracked the door on endorsements/earnings based on an NCAA athletes' celebrity. I believe it's a only matter of time before someone kicks it fully open.
-
Amigos, chicos, chicas, amigas
It appears that this falls into two camps. If one prefers college basketball to be somewhat in its current form, but attempting to reform away some of the negatives then you are on one side. If you prefer compensation in some form, then you are on the other.
No system will be perfect. The need for agents on this committee? If 1 was asked, there would be a demand for 2. People are entrenched, so none of this will change.
Do I think the committee members were top notch? I made no such remark, but provided the list for people to decide. How long ago they played is a weird one to me. My speculation is if the committee had players from the last 5 years but they agreed with the commission's views, then those weren't the right kind of players to have on the committee.
Finally, Condoleeza Rice doesn't share my political views, but that doesn't make her a less intelligent person in the world of academics. My supposition is you don't become the Provost at Stanford without an impeccable academic pedigree.
-
That's two out of 14 members, if you're counting. Neither of whom have played college basketball in a quarter century. And neither of whom, it's safe to say, had a typical college athlete experience (one attended a service academy; the other grew up in an upper class suburb as the child of a professional athlete, thus never wanted for anything while at school and faced no pressure to provide for his family by turning pro as quickly as possible).
I'm sure they're both smart guys who added valuable insight, but if that's what this commission is taking as the athlete's perspective, I'm afraid they're woefully short of the mark.
Why no current players? Or at least players who've seen a college court in the last decade? Why no current coaches?
The commission is stacked with administrators who have a vested (read: fiduciary) interest in preserving the status quo when it comes to the phony amateurism of college athletics. It's hardly a surprise their recommendations do just that.
Well said.
Interesting that no current or recent players had any input. Or non-rich people either. As you said, they are simply protecting their own.
-
Commission reports what the entire committee can vote and agree upon. Some are shaping this to be the Chairperson as the only person, but that is not how commissions work. The chairperson ultimately is the singular head that answers the questions, but the report is the work of the body of the members of the committee.
This answer by the chairperson no doubt is endorsed by many of us and not endorsed by many here. It is clear to me where those dividing lines are drawn.
From the interview post release:
Chairperson Rice: First of all, let me call it the collegiate model, all right? That’s to distinguish it from the professional model. If you want to play professional sports, go play professional sports and get paid to do it. We wanted to open a pathway for the 18-year-old who’s good enough to be in the NBA to be able to do that. With the G League and maybe European ball, if you wish to be paid, go and play professional sports.
Now, this commission and the people on it are at a place in their careers and their lives that if they wanted to say pay the players, they would have said it. That’s not what we wanted to say. What we wanted to say is there is a value proposition at the heart of the collegiate model that is different from the professional model. That value proposition is, you get to play. You get to hone your sport. You get the best coaching. You get nutrition. You get all of those things and most importantly, you get a college degree, which by the way will give you earning potential a million dollars over a non-college graduate over your lifetime; will give you contacts and mentoring that will serve you well the rest of your life; and, oh by the way, you get it for free as opposed to the kid down the hall who’s taking down loans and working 20 hours a week to get what you can get.
But I just wanted to say one thing that is really important. The other half of the value proposition, though, is that that college degree really has to be a college degree, so no more fraudulent courses. No more fraudulent majors just to keep people eligible. It’s on universities to also make sure that collegiate model works.
-----
Well, if people are disappointed we didn’t decide to pay players, that’s fine. If people are disappointed that we wanted to end one-and-done, and I think we will; that we’re going to allow people to go to the draft and still be eligible for college; that we’re going to change the enforcement structure of the NCAA; that we’re going to make it possible for universities to be out of March Madness for five years and lose the revenue associated with that; that we’re going to make it possible for somebody who’s a show-cause coach to cost his university a ban on March Madness and the revenue associated with that. If you’re disappointed that we believe in the collegiate model, I can’t do anything about that. We do believe in the collegiate model, but we don’t think people are living up to the collegiate model. What we’ve done here is to call out university presidents, athletic directors, not just [at NCAA headquarters] in Indianapolis to re-establish it. I think it will make a difference for college basketball. That’s why we’re here.
-
Well said.
Interesting that no current or recent players had any input. Or non-rich people either. As you said, they are simply protecting their own.
How recent do they have to be? How good do they have to be? Would it be fair to have a middle of the road player, or only a star player? If you say star player, how is that fair when 99% of these guys aren't going to play in the NBA?
To a large degree they are protecting their own, which is the college model that provides tremendous value to kids of all walks of life to earn a degree along with all the perks that go with it.
Non rich people? How rich is Reverend John Jenkins of Notre Dame? General Martin Dempsey (US Army-Retired) is near 70 years old with a net worth of $1.5M, most of that earned in the last 10 years because of his rank and as 4 star general has a pension of $219K per year.
-
I think there is a failure of understanding, which is why this panel needed agents, HS & AAU coaches, current or very recent players & coaches, & shoe company execs.
Paying players honestly isn't the issue. Yes, through scholarship, living expenses, facility & training access, and other benefits there is a financial benefit. It's about the ability to profit off their likeness. The NCAA and universities do exactly that. That ability to monetize one's self should be allowed.
-
I think there is a failure of understanding, which is why this panel needed agents, HS & AAU coaches, current or very recent players & coaches, & shoe company execs.
Paying players honestly isn't the issue. Yes, through scholarship, living expenses, facility & training access, and other benefits there is a financial benefit. It's about the ability to profit off their likeness. The NCAA and universities do exactly that. That ability to monetize one's self should be allowed.
Shoe company execs? Isn't that like inviting the tobacco industry?
The NCAA is profiting (though really they don't because the funds are distributed to cover costs of scholarships at member schools) off of individuals or more around the competition itself? It would explain why Ben Simmons was allowed into the NCAA tournament so we could watch him play. Nerlen Noels, Klay Thompson, Paul George, Chris Bosch, so many others. It would explain why UCONN missed the tournament during their peak because of APR. I could go on.
The source of the NCAA money is from the NCAA tournament contract. People do not tune in to watch specific players. They tune in often not even knowing any of the players. 99.9% of Americans had no clue who the Loyola of Chicago players were when that tournament started. Their likeness meant nothing. Sister Jean? Sister who? They tune in to watch the competition, the upsets, the near upsets, the dominating teams. The names on the front, not the names on the back. You ask the same 99.9% of people today that knew nobody on Loyola Chicago and my hunch is 95% of them still can't name a single player. In three months time, that will climb to 98%. It is the schools that matter, with rare exceptions for the 1% that are off the charts gifted and will make plenty of money when they go pro.
-
Shoe company execs? Isn't that like inviting the tobacco industry?
No, don't be stupid. The universities take millions from the shoe companies, rely on their summer AAU events for scouting, and they are at the heart of the scandal. If you want to understand the first thing about what's going on, they have to be in the room.
-
The names on the front, not the names on the back.
DePaul seemed to have a lot more fan interest when the names on the back were Aguirre, Cummings, and Strickland. Wisconsin basketball sure garnered more interest when the names on the back got better.
The names on the front are nothing without the collection of names on the back.
How some people can't see the symbiotic relationship between the names on the front and the names on the back astounds me.
-
DePaul seemed to have a lot more fan interest when the names on the back were Aguirre, Cummings, and Strickland. Wisconsin basketball sure garnered more interest when the names on the back got better.
The names on the front are nothing without the collection of names on the back.
How some people can't see the symbiotic relationship between the names on the front and the names on the back astounds me.
Though, the names on the back have a say about whose names are on the front.... ;)
-
DePaul seemed to have a lot more fan interest when the names on the back were Aguirre, Cummings, and Strickland. Wisconsin basketball sure garnered more interest when the names on the back got better.
Wisconsin doesn't have names on the back of their jerseys because basketball is a TEAM sport...
...said some Badger fan on some message board somewhere.
-
Not completely accurate. The window to sign is very short, something around 4-6 weeks.
But the mlb draft is a different scenario with set $ amounts teams can use which directly affects where guys are drafted.
About a decade ago MLB allowed drafted players to return to college, enroll in JuCo, or return to JuCo for a year. They could then sign with the team until the day before the next draft. This was called the DFE (Draft, Follow, Evaluate) process. The Brewers were strong users of this with Manny Parra, Lorenzo Cain, and others. Current MLB rules allow high school grads, JuCo players, or college players that are finishing their junior seasons OR are 21 as of draft date to be drafted
-
Well one of the Rice-lead commission's recommendations looks to be universally disliked by the coaches.
https://collegebasketball.nbcsports.com/2018/07/12/college-basketball-coaches-universally-oppose-own-proposal-to-change-july-recruiting/
Surprise, surprise...