MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: Newsdreams on August 16, 2019, 09:09:25 AM
-
https://twitter.com/muathletics/status/1162101583171215360?s=21
Six former student-athletes set to be inducted into the Marquette M Club Hall of Fame this winter.
🏐 Danielle Carlson
🏀 Jae Crowder
🏀 Lazar Hayward
⚽ Maegan Kelly
🏐 Elizabeth Koberstein
⚽ Jim Welch
-
Shocking to see the exploitation of Crowder's success for university gain as it is hypocritical to ride his coat tails and then deny similar student athletes a chance to represent and succeed at Marquette, aina?
-
Shocking to see the exploitation of Crowder's success for university gain as it is hypocritical to ride his coat tails and then deny similar student athletes a chance to represent and succeed at Marquette, aina?
You beat me to it. Considering Crowder’s eligibility status was anathema to the BOT, isn’t it a bit disingenuous to put him in the HOF? Hell, the guy represents everything the current regime is trying to get away from.
-
Shocking to see the exploitation of Crowder's success for university gain as it is hypocritical to ride his coat tails and then deny similar student athletes a chance to represent and succeed at Marquette, aina?
Reasonable point, Doc.
-
You beat me to it. Considering Crowder’s eligibility status was anathema to the BOT, isn’t it a bit disingenuous to put him in the HOF? Hell, the guy represents everything the current regime is trying to get away from.
No, he doesn’t.
Shocking to see the exploitation of Crowder's success for university gain as it is hypocritical to ride his coat tails and then deny similar student athletes a chance to represent and succeed at Marquette, aina?
What does the M Club HOF bring to Marquette University’s gain?
-
Shocking to see the exploitation of Crowder's success for university gain as it is hypocritical to ride his coat tails and then deny similar student athletes a chance to represent and succeed at Marquette, aina?
So what is the other option? Erase him from memory and no longer acknowledge his impact on Marquette basketball? Is that really an example of Cura Personalis?
It’s not hypocritical to acknowledge his importance to the program while understanding that he wouldn’t be admitted now. I’m sure many alumni award recipients fall in the same boat.
And that’s not “exploitation.” Jae is likely fully on board with his induction.
-
Shouldn’t someone have to graduate from MU to be put in the HOF? Very disappointed by this decision. So many other worthy candidates who are graduates.
-
So what is the other option? Erase him from memory and no longer acknowledge his impact on Marquette basketball? Is that really an example of Cura Personalis?
It’s not hypocritical to acknowledge his importance to the program while understanding that he wouldn’t be admitted now. I’m sure many alumni award recipients fall in the same boat.
And that’s not “exploitation.” Jae is likely fully on board with his induction.
That he is
https://twitter.com/cjc9boss/status/1162154343338008579?s=21
HONORED & THANKFUL TO BE INDUCTED INTO THE @muathletics
@MUHoops HALL OF FAME.! HARDWORK & DEDICATION PAYS OFF.! 🙏🏾 #MU4LIFE
-
Shouldn’t someone have to graduate from MU to be put in the HOF? Very disappointed by this decision. So many other worthy candidates who are graduates.
Wasn't this "rule" kinda shelved when Wade got his banner?
-
Shouldn’t someone have to graduate from MU to be put in the HOF? Very disappointed by this decision. So many other worthy candidates who are graduates.
Wade wouldn't be either
-
Wade wouldn't be either
Nor Lazar.
-
Can’t people just be happy about this kind of stuff? Everyone has to be so critical and cynical.
-
Can’t people just be happy about this kind of stuff? Everyone has to be so critical and cynical.
No unfortunately they can't..........
-
Shocking to see the exploitation of Crowder's success for university gain as it is hypocritical to ride his coat tails and then deny similar student athletes a chance to represent and succeed at Marquette, aina?
100% right, Doc. MU doesn't want his "kind" around here anymore. But if MU can use his fame to help the brand...
-
100% right, Doc. MU doesn't want his "kind" around here anymore. But if MU can use his fame to help the brand...
Jae doesn’t see to think he’s being exploited or used. Maybe you should direct your criticisms in a way that’s more accurate.
-
Jae doesn’t see to think he’s being exploited or used. Maybe you should direct your criticisms in a way that’s more accurate.
Right. Maybe people should give Jae an email or even a Tweet letting them know that he's "everything this administration stands against" and that Marquette is just "exploiting his success for the university gain."
Because I'm sure the M Club Hall of Fame inductees are all over the national news, ESPN is probably all over this breaking news, etc. ::)
-
Many of you wouldn't get in nowadays either so ponder that. Jae's a wonderful representative for Marquette and a genuinely very nice guy from a great family.
-
Many of you wouldn't get in nowadays either so ponder that. Jae's a wonderful representative for Marquette and a genuinely very nice guy from a great family.
Exactly. Maybe Marquette should stop calling all of the alumni who scored under the current ACT and GPA requirements and to ask them for donations because their grades from 40 years ago no longer satisfy what current students are asked to achieve to get into Marquette. That’d be a hell of a way for colleges to run things.
-
Many of you wouldn't get in nowadays either so ponder that. Jae's a wonderful representative for Marquette and a genuinely very nice guy from a great family.
I might add that I am pretty sure they are the top income earners from their class to date as well.
-
Sorry to take this off-topic, but congrats to Jae and Lazar.
-
I think the Midget year and the 2 Step season were two of my most favorite teams. Zar and Jae were both undersized for their roles but were as tough as nails. Such fun. Truly MU greats.
-
I think the Midget year and the 2 Step season were two of my most favorite teams. Zar and Jae were both undersized for their roles but were as tough as nails. Such fun. Truly MU greats.
LOVED the midget year. The whole world expected a huge dropoff when the Amigos were gone, but 'Zar was a great team leader, JFB and DJO stepped up big-time, and Mo and David were far better at running the show than expected. It was a stressful season - so many close games - but a memorable one. The three straight OT wins on the road is a tough act to follow....
-
LOVED the midget year. The whole world expected a huge dropoff when the Amigos were gone, but 'Zar was a great team leader, JFB and DJO stepped up big-time, and Mo and David were far better at running the show than expected. It was a stressful season - so many close games - but a memorable one. The three straight OT wins on the road is a tough act to follow....
The worst part of that year was the overwhelming sense of deja vu in the Washington game. After FSU, NC State, West Virginia, Nova (twice), and DePaul all ended up being games where we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, the three OT wins gave the impression that the team finally had the ability to hold together at the end and secure wins. Then we play Washington, build the massive lead that looked certain to propel us to the Sweet 16 (we all knew New Mexico was a paper tiger), and it all unraveled thanks to Pondexter and Thomas.
That NCAA game still haunts me as the whole "season ending with a thud" moment.
-
The worst part of that year was the overwhelming sense of deja vu in the Washington game. After FSU, NC State, West Virginia, Nova (twice), and DePaul all ended up being games where we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, the three OT wins gave the impression that the team finally had the ability to hold together at the end and secure wins. Then we play Washington, build the massive lead that looked certain to propel us to the Sweet 16 (we all knew New Mexico was a paper tiger), and it all unraveled thanks to Pondexter and Thomas.
That NCAA game still haunts me as the whole "season ending with a thud" moment.
This
-
Zar and Jae were both undersized for their roles but were as tough as nails. Such fun. Truly MU greats.
This. Congrats to two who really follow in the Warrior tradition.
-
The worst part of that year was the overwhelming sense of deja vu in the Washington game. After FSU, NC State, West Virginia, Nova (twice), and DePaul all ended up being games where we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, the three OT wins gave the impression that the team finally had the ability to hold together at the end and secure wins. Then we play Washington, build the massive lead that looked certain to propel us to the Sweet 16 (we all knew New Mexico was a paper tiger), and it all unraveled thanks to Pondexter and Thomas.
That NCAA game still haunts me as the whole "season ending with a thud" moment.
"The Endline Game"
-
"The Endline Game"
That was 2009 against Missouri. The game Brew is mentioning is when we choked a 16 or more lead in like 5minutes against Washington in 2010
-
Well to deserved to both. Congrats Jae and Lazar!
-
Some guys complain about anything. The proper response to this news is...'Awesome. Congratulations.'
-
The proper response to this news is...'Awesome. Congratulations.'
Hear, hear!
-
That was 2009 against Missouri. The game Brew is mentioning is when we choked a 16 or more lead in like 5minutes against Washington in 2010
Ah yes. All the heartbreaks are blending together with age. At least the Kansas and MSU exits were over quickly.
-
Some guys complain about anything. The proper response to this news is...'Awesome. Congratulations.'
Correct. Congratulations to Jae and Lazar!
-
Some guys complain about anything. The proper response to this news is...'Awesome. Congratulations.'
Or excellent / outstanding
-
Or excellent / outstanding
C'mon, Newsy - gotta include terrific and tremendous....
-
Some guys complain about anything. The proper response to this news is...'Awesome. Congratulations.'
Yup
-
Some guys complain about anything. The proper response to this news is...'Awesome. Congratulations.'
Both were great, but Jae was my favorite Marquette player to watch since Wade. He was a ferocious competitor who treated every possession like his life depended on it. I don't know if anyone in my lifetime has been more deserving of the title Warrior.
-
Both were great, but Jae was my favorite Marquette player to watch since Wade. He was a ferocious competitor who treated every possession like his life depended on it. I don't know if anyone in my lifetime has been more deserving of the title Warrior.
Maybe Travis Diener or Chris Otule?
But I agree that Jae was also a Warrior.
-
The worst part of that year was the overwhelming sense of deja vu in the Washington game. After FSU, NC State, West Virginia, Nova (twice), and DePaul all ended up being games where we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, the three OT wins gave the impression that the team finally had the ability to hold together at the end and secure wins. Then we play Washington, build the massive lead that looked certain to propel us to the Sweet 16 (we all knew New Mexico was a paper tiger), and it all unraveled thanks to Pondexter and Thomas.
That NCAA game still haunts me as the whole "season ending with a thud" moment.
That was my senior year and there were about 60 of us watching it at a bar in Cancun. The highest of highs and the lowest of lows all within an hour
-
Maybe Travis Diener or Chris Otule?
But I agree that Jae was also a Warrior.
I enjoyed both of them. But as far as playing with raw energy and a controlled reckless abandon, Jae takes the cake. Not sure anyone went to the floor or threw more balls off opposing players while going out of bounds than Jae did. There have been a lot of fun players to watch, but for me, he is at the top of that list.
-
100% right, Doc. MU doesn't want his "kind" around here anymore. But if MU can use his fame to help the brand...
Is MU running a huge marketing campaign behind this? Let’s not overvalue the induction into MU’s HOF as suddenly going to lure kids to campus. There is no exploitation going on here at all. Crowder got a great deal, used that to help get him into the Association.
A former coach of ours now down in Texas couldn’t keep his staff and players out of some bad publicity and the university clamped down. Want to blame someone, blame the CEO of the team then.
As for Jae, congratulations on the induction.
-
Standards change. Is someone really going to say we haven’t accepted students that went on to become dentists (good ones) that wouldn’t be accepted today? Or lawyers at MU. Or general student body? Of course the answer is true to all of these cases.
And standards will change again. Things tend to swing back and forth.
-
The worst part of that year was the overwhelming sense of deja vu in the Washington game. After FSU, NC State, West Virginia, Nova (twice), and DePaul all ended up being games where we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, the three OT wins gave the impression that the team finally had the ability to hold together at the end and secure wins. Then we play Washington, build the massive lead that looked certain to propel us to the Sweet 16 (we all knew New Mexico was a paper tiger), and it all unraveled thanks to Pondexter and Thomas.
That NCAA game still haunts me as the whole "season ending with a thud" moment.
I was there, and yes it felt inevitable, but we all hoped it wouldn’t be.
-
Sorry to take this off-topic, but congrats to Jae and Lazar.
Well done. I laughed.
Congrats to Zar and Jae. Two guys who embodied the Warrior brand perfectly
-
C'mon, Newsy - gotta include terrific and tremendous....
Leaving some for everyone
-
Is MU running a huge marketing campaign behind this? Let’s not overvalue the induction into MU’s HOF as suddenly going to lure kids to campus. There is no exploitation going on here at all. Crowder got a great deal, used that to help get him into the Association.
A former coach of ours now down in Texas couldn’t keep his staff and players out of some bad publicity and the university clamped down. Want to blame someone, blame the CEO of the team then.
Did anybody say "huge marketing campaign"? I didn't think so.
As for the rest, blah, blah, blah...same old same old broken record musings from the lying "more shoes to drop" promiser who never delivered. A normal guy would be ashamed and STFU. A normal guy.
-
Did anybody say "huge marketing campaign"? I didn't think so.
No but the idea that MU is somehow using Jae is wrong-headed and misguided. Jae is, and always has been, a wonderful representative of the University. And I'm glad that he feels good about his association with MU.
-
No but the idea that MU is somehow using Jae is wrong-headed and misguided. Jae is, and always has been, a wonderful representative of the University. And I'm glad that he feels good about his association with MU.
Actually, the idea that Jae used MU and MU used Jae is 100% correct. Nothing wrong with that, should be a win, win. And it was.
Now, though, MU has decided that the Jae Crowder's of the world are no longer welcome. If I were Jae, that would stick in my craw. He's evidently a better man than me, though, and for that I salute him.
-
Actually, the idea that Jae used MU and MU used Jae is 100% correct. Nothing wrong with that, should be a win, win. And it was.
Now, though, MU has decided that the Jae Crowder's of the world are no longer welcome. If I were Jae, that would stick in my craw. He's evidently a better man than me, though, and for that I salute him.
Lenny,
You are great poster with a ton of insight into MU basketball, especially the AL era. But you and several other 70s poster are extremely negative and have an axe to grind. There are elements to your posts that are correct (jucos should be allowed at MU) but my God this is a good thing. There is no negative too it. You are just being ornery and your 70s bunch is as well.
-
Lenny,
You are great poster with a ton of insight into MU basketball, especially the AL era. But you and several other 70s poster are extremely negative and have an axe to grind. There are elements to your posts that are correct (jucos should be allowed at MU) but my God this is a good thing. There is no negative too it. You are just being ornery and your 70s bunch is as well.
Thanks for the kind words, Shooter. Don't mean to be ornery, but I think the "Crowder Rule" (which is not a Juco ban) is an insult to Jae and a mistake for the program. Glad Jae doesn't take it personally - maybe he doesn't even know it exists. If he does, as I said, he's a better man than I am.
-
Fair enough. Love the insight and the history you provide.
-
Thanks for the kind words, Shooter. Don't mean to be ornery, but I think the "Crowder Rule" (which is not a Juco ban) is an insult to Jae and a mistake for the program. Glad Jae doesn't take it personally - maybe he doesn't even know it exists. If he does, as I said, he's a better man than I am.
I don't know about you personally, but many of our alumni would "no longer be welcome" if they applied today. Maybe most aren't aware but I'd also like to believe that most of them understand that admissions standards change as time goes on and that fact doesn't bother them.
-
I don't know about you personally, but many of our alumni would "no longer be welcome" if they applied today. Maybe most aren't aware but I'd also like to believe that most of them understand that admissions standards change as time goes on and that fact doesn't bother them.
This is pretty much a false narrative. Taking the ACT or SAT entrance exams numerous times wasn’t a thing. Testing prep consisted of a PSAT sophomore year so high school counselors could direct you to the right school for your level. Out of 8th grade, my high school tested me and placed me into the appropriate college prep level. Your high school rank versus super weighted GPA was in place. AP courses barely existed (English and Math...maybe history and science). Marquette was slightly better than Loyola and DePaul, but worse than Notre Dame, Nova and Georgetown. Same as today. But, MU was a commuter school well into the 80s versus a resident school today...that much has changed as MU was more hard scrabble.
Dentistry, Engineering, Nursing and Law were strong just like today. Business had a higher reputation back then, but PT didn’t exist. Financial aid was not as available. UW-Milwaukee was weak but became vastly improved for the commuters which caused MU to shift gradually to the Chicago Catholic schools and out East. The FFP students were more legacy type students who greatly transitioned to successful MU careers and beyond. Because MU was a commuter school, many more JUCOs were accepted both academically and athletically (versus none in the athletics program today and at most 0.4% today by the link Chick shared).
In the end, MU is roughly at the same place over the decades as it was back then, with the changes I noted. We just think we are more elite which is the false narrative. Btw, Lenny and I would have been safely in even by today’s “standards”.
Just because Scoopers downplay their academics and pump up their drinking and dating skills, this doesn’t mean these are true narratives in today’s world. MU grads have been and are very successful. Marquette is who we thought they were and are: Pretty much at the same place give or take but Milwaukee is a much nicer city. Oh, and Lenny owned the CBOT.
The elitism crept in with the Pilarz regime...and has lingered although not as overtly. But the odor still stinks.
-
Where’s the dude that made those Crowder Warriors shirts? Those were nice.
-
That was my senior year and there were about 60 of us watching it at a bar in Cancun. The highest of highs and the lowest of lows all within an hour
I was in Arizona for spring training ... and was watching with an effen Washington alum. The ending of that game was brutal. Thankfully, my buddy wasn't a jerk about it -- actually almost felt sorry for me. But he was giddy for himself and his team, and deservedly so.
I've seen interviews of Jimmy in which he said that ending still haunted him.
-
Where’s the dude that made those Crowder Warriors shirts? Those were nice.
As I remember it, the designer lived in San Diego, and the shirts were printed in Chula Vista. Not sure if the print shop would still have the screens, but will try to find out.
-
I think something lost amidst the "Crowder rule" is that right around the time Jae came was when the NCAA was cracking down on APR scores. UConn got a postseason ban for their APR. I think revising JUCO restrictions to make sure they would be on track to graduate was likely more about making sure the program didn't suffer tangible consequences.
At the same time, it appeared to the outside that it was a JUCO ban, and as that JUCO identity was already debated amongst alumni and fans, it looked like a shot at those players.
I really think it was just about insuring sustained NCAA eligibility and the existing debate that had already begun in the fanbase made it look more divisive than it was. Get kids that can graduate to stay tournament eligible.
-
This is pretty much a false narrative.
Affirmative.
My GPA and resume from the late 70s (no AP courses, took ACT once with no prep, no volunteer work) likely wouldn't have gotten me in today. But if I was in HS today, I would be taking AP courses (and taking my grades more seriously); I would be doing volunteer work to puff up my resume; I would take an ACT prep course and likely take it at least twice. And in all likelihood, I would create a resume that would get me into MU.
Our resumes didn't look as good back in the 70s because we knew they didn't need to look as good....
-
Affirmative.
My GPA and resume from the late 70s (no AP courses, took ACT once with no prep, no volunteer work) likely wouldn't have gotten me in today. But if I was in HS today, I would be taking AP courses (and taking my grades more seriously); I would be doing volunteer work to puff up my resume; I would take an ACT prep course and likely take it at least twice. And in all likelihood, I would create a resume that would get me into MU.
Our resumes didn't look as good back in the 70s because we knew they didn't need to look as good....
I agree—It’s all relative and MU is getting a similar slice of America’s high school students as it always has. Maybe it’s changed around the margins but not dramatically.
-
I think something lost amidst the "Crowder rule" is that right around the time Jae came was when the NCAA was cracking down on APR scores. UConn got a postseason ban for their APR. I think revising JUCO restrictions to make sure they would be on track to graduate was likely more about making sure the program didn't suffer tangible consequences.
At the same time, it appeared to the outside that it was a JUCO ban, and as that JUCO identity was already debated amongst alumni and fans, it looked like a shot at those players.
I really think it was just about insuring sustained NCAA eligibility and the existing debate that had already begun in the fanbase made it look more divisive than it was. Get kids that can graduate to stay tournament eligible.
Marquette APR score since its inception:
Crean: 2004-05 918
2005-06 927
2006 -07 954
2007-08 970
average 942.5
Buzz: 2008-09 975
2009-10 980
2010-11 970
2011-12 960
2012-13 959
2013-14 949
average 965.3
Wojo: 2014-15 962
2015-16 966
2016-17 950
2017-18 955
average 958.25
-
I don't know about you personally, but many of our alumni would "no longer be welcome" if they applied today. Maybe most aren't aware but I'd also like to believe that most of them understand that admissions standards change as time goes on and that fact doesn't bother them.
I applied to 4 schools - Marquette, Holy Cross, Georgetown and Notre Dame (Jesuit HS). Eliminated HC and ND (all boys, just like HS) Picked MU over GT because of a girlfriend in Chicago. Was broken up with her before the leaves fell but never regretted my decision.
-
This is pretty much a false narrative. Taking the ACT or SAT entrance exams numerous times wasn’t a thing. Testing prep consisted of a PSAT sophomore year so high school counselors could direct you to the right school for your level. Out of 8th grade, my high school tested me and placed me into the appropriate college prep level. Your high school rank versus super weighted GPA was in place. AP courses barely existed (English and Math...maybe history and science). Marquette was slightly better than Loyola and DePaul, but worse than Notre Dame, Nova and Georgetown. Same as today. But, MU was a commuter school well into the 80s versus a resident school today...that much has changed as MU was more hard scrabble.
So what I'm reading hear is that standards have changed over time and students now have to do different things in order to get admittance. That's the point that I was making. Marquette may not have gotten more elite, but nationwide the requirements for getting into college have gone up.
-
So what I'm reading hear is that standards have changed over time and students now have to do different things in order to get admittance. That's the point that I was making. Marquette may not have gotten more elite, but nationwide the requirements for getting into college have gone up.
But grades have inflated over time as well. C used to be defined as "average." Now, you are well into the bottom portion of the class if you are awarded a C. I couldn't find stats going back before 1990, but the US Department of Education has shown that the "average" GPA of high school students increased steadily from 1990-2009.
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/04/19/average-high-school-gpas-increased-since-1990
-
I don't know about you personally, but many of our alumni would "no longer be welcome" if they applied today. Maybe most aren't aware but I'd also like to believe that most of them understand that admissions standards change as time goes on and that fact doesn't bother them.
Agree
I would wager 80% of the UCLA, UCSD, UC Irvine, and UCSB alum at work could not get in today, but did 25 years ago. They all know it, they don’t care. Things change. They got in when they did, those schools are all world class now and they are proud to have been a part of it at one time, but they realize that schools change positions. Marquette is no different.
-
Marquette APR score since its inception:
And? None of that indicates the administration didn't have long term concerns about the negative implications of athletes not being able to graduate.
-
Marquette APR score since its inception:
Crean: 2004-05 918
2005-06 927
2006 -07 954
2007-08 970
average 942.5
Buzz: 2008-09 975
2009-10 980
2010-11 970
2011-12 960
2012-13 959
2013-14 949
average 965.3
Wojo: 2014-15 962
2015-16 966
2016-17 950
2017-18 955
average 958.25
Notice any trending with Buzz’s scores.........
-
Agree
I would wager 80% of the UCLA, UCSD, UC Irvine, and UCSB alum at work could not get in today, but did 25 years ago. They all know it, they don’t care. Things change. They got in when they did, those schools are all world class now and they are proud to have been a part of it at one time, but they realize that schools change positions. Marquette is no different.
I hope those schools aren’t calling those coworkers asking them for money. Exploiting the success of its alumni for the gain of the school even though those types of students would no longer be welcome at the school? What a sham.
-
Notice any trending with Buzz’s scores.........
I notice that that Crean has the lowest two seasons and the lowest average.
-
I think something lost amidst the "Crowder rule" is that right around the time Jae came was when the NCAA was cracking down on APR scores. UConn got a postseason ban for their APR. I think revising JUCO restrictions to make sure they would be on track to graduate was likely more about making sure the program didn't suffer tangible consequences.
At the same time, it appeared to the outside that it was a JUCO ban, and as that JUCO identity was already debated amongst alumni and fans, it looked like a shot at those players.
I really think it was just about insuring sustained NCAA eligibility and the existing debate that had already begun in the fanbase made it look more divisive than it was. Get kids that can graduate to stay tournament eligible.
And part of the reason for the change in policy is that it doesn't do the student athlete much good to come to campus with no chance of graduating before their grant in aid runs out. It's a good thing that Jae has been able to make a living at basketball and isn't living a Vander-like existance.
And yeah Marquette would cover a degree completion, but that's not always an easy thing for someone to do.
And finally, about the "exploitation" narrative. Who exploited Jae more? The previous administration who brought him to campus with no chance of graduating since he was a good basketball player? Or the current administration for appreciating what he brought to MU? (I'm being hyperbolic for emphasis here.)
-
This is pretty much a false narrative. Taking the ACT or SAT entrance exams numerous times wasn’t a thing. Testing prep consisted of a PSAT sophomore year so high school counselors could direct you to the right school for your level. Out of 8th grade, my high school tested me and placed me into the appropriate college prep level. Your high school rank versus super weighted GPA was in place. AP courses barely existed (English and Math...maybe history and science). Marquette was slightly better than Loyola and DePaul, but worse than Notre Dame, Nova and Georgetown. Same as today. But, MU was a commuter school well into the 80s versus a resident school today...that much has changed as MU was more hard scrabble.
Dentistry, Engineering, Nursing and Law were strong just like today. Business had a higher reputation back then, but PT didn’t exist. Financial aid was not as available. UW-Milwaukee was weak but became vastly improved for the commuters which caused MU to shift gradually to the Chicago Catholic schools and out East. The FFP students were more legacy type students who greatly transitioned to successful MU careers and beyond. Because MU was a commuter school, many more JUCOs were accepted both academically and athletically (versus none in the athletics program today and at most 0.4% today by the link Chick shared).
In the end, MU is roughly at the same place over the decades as it was back then, with the changes I noted. We just think we are more elite which is the false narrative. Btw, Lenny and I would have been safely in even by today’s “standards”.
Just because Scoopers downplay their academics and pump up their drinking and dating skills, this doesn’t mean these are true narratives in today’s world. MU grads have been and are very successful. Marquette is who we thought they were and are: Pretty much at the same place give or take but Milwaukee is a much nicer city. Oh, and Lenny owned the CBOT.
The elitism crept in with the Pilarz regime...and has lingered although not as overtly. But the odor still stinks.
It's not a false narrative. Marquette has been changing as an institution for 30 years. Long before Pilarz was President. It's harder for the average student to get into Marquette than it used to be.
-
I hope those schools aren’t calling those coworkers asking them for money. Exploiting the success of its alumni for the gain of the school even though those types of students would no longer be welcome at the school? What a sham.
Ha ha, yup
-
Lenny,
You are great poster with a ton of insight into MU basketball, especially the AL era. But you and several other 70s poster are extremely negative and have an axe to grind. There are elements to your posts that are correct (jucos should be allowed at MU) but my God this is a good thing. There is no negative too it. You are just being ornery and your 70s bunch is as well.
This really is it. The anti-Wojo people are projecting THAT issue onto this announcement. And they really shouldn't be related at all.
-
And finally, about the "exploitation" narrative. Who exploited Jae more? The previous administration who brought him to campus with no chance of graduating since he was a good basketball player? Or the current administration for appreciating what he brought to MU? (I'm being hyperbolic for emphasis here.)
IMO neither. I think caring about this is about as important as caring about whether an NBA agent has a college degree.
-
I notice that that Crean has the lowest two seasons and the lowest average.
Yup, and put a plan together that greatly improved it, proper trajectory, that continued into into Buzz’s first year, and then it went only in one direction from there.
Someone can correct me on this, but I believe the years stated are not for the students entering that year, but rather graduating that year. If that is correct, then the first few years of a new coach is also benefitting or hurting based on the previous coach’s progress / culture. Again, not sure if accurate, Billy or someone that knows this stuff can opine.
-
But grades have inflated over time as well. C used to be defined as "average." Now, you are well into the bottom portion of the class if you are awarded a C. I couldn't find stats going back before 1990, but the US Department of Education has shown that the "average" GPA of high school students increased steadily from 1990-2009.
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/04/19/average-high-school-gpas-increased-since-1990
All true, but have courses and loads also become more difficult? I am amazed at what is required of high school students now. They have way more tools then I did, but nevertheless the demands of productivity from them is high
-
This really is it. The anti-Wojo people are projecting THAT issue onto this announcement. And they really shouldn't be related at all.
Yup yup
-
So what I'm reading hear is that standards have changed over time and students now have to do different things in order to get admittance. That's the point that I was making. Marquette may not have gotten more elite, but nationwide the requirements for getting into college have gone up.
I think we agree then that, accounting for the times, MU is in about the same place.
What they are not is elite and I think MU likes to overly espouse this, which irritates many alums.
-
Notice any trending with Buzz’s scores.........
Projecting (if you may) on Crean's trends to pre-Final 4, what I see in all three coaches is that the APRs were lower when the NCAA success was higher.
Mike Deane would have had great APRs.
-
Yup yup
Wait. Billy brought this topic up. Is he anti-Wojo?
Btw, I am not anti-Wojo. I am dinging the MU Admin.
-
Notice any trending with Buzz’s scores.........
Notice that they're vastly superior to Crean's and better than Wojo's....
BTW, here are Buzz's scores at VPI:
2014-15 952
2015-16 963
2016-17 970
2017-18 970
avg 963.8
So, also higher than Crean's or Wojo's at MU
-
I notice that that Crean has the lowest two seasons and the lowest average.
Calculation of the APR has been altered since implementation. You can get points back for transfers and for players going pro. Crean didn’t have ineligibility issues. The rate was hurt by Niv (0 for 2 regardless) and Mason. Depending on his GPA, now they would have gotten the retention point back.
It also doesn’t take into account graduation. The issue with Crowder was how far he was from graduation upon leaving. Also, a change in the rules allowed players to stay around in the summer and have classes paid for. Buzz’s teams annually needed summer classes to get eligible.
-
I think we agree then that, accounting for the times, MU is in about the same place.
What they are not is elite and I think MU likes to overly espouse this, which irritates many alums.
Top 100-200 out of 4500ish 4 year institutions. We can squabble on definitions but I don't think ellie is too much of a stretch.
And while some alum get irritated about being elite, there are just as many (I would guess more) that want MU to be more elite.
-
I think we agree then that, accounting for the times, MU is in about the same place.
What they are not is elite and I think MU likes to overly espouse this, which irritates many alums.
Tell that to the PT students. Yes MU as a whole is not elite but there are aspects that are elite
-
All true, but have courses and loads also become more difficult? I am amazed at what is required of high school students now. They have way more tools then I did, but nevertheless the demands of productivity from them is high
Maybe. But I am also amazed how little many young people know about basic grammar and punctuation, not to mention simple math without the aid of a calculator.
It also seems to vary by school. My daughters were fortunate that they went to very high-quality public schools. In college, classmates used to assume they were valedictorians of some elite private HS...which makes me wonder where some of their college classmates went to high school....
-
Tell that to the PT students. Yes MU as a whole is not elite but there are aspects that are elite
This is true of a great many schools. My younger daughter was a Journalism major at Mizzou, which is recognized by many as the top J-school in the country. They also have a decent nursing program, but the rest is so-so at best.
-
Top 100-200 out of 4500ish 4 year institutions. We can squabble on definitions but I don't think ellie is too much of a stretch.
And while some alum get irritated about being elite, there are just as many (I would guess more) that want MU to be more elite.
Alums aren't frustrated with the "pursuit of elite", it's the sense that MU feels they have achieved it (which strays from its historical mission, IMO) that bothers many. That's the rub and the low alumni donation contribution rate is a sign of this, perhaps?
Btw, to become elite, MU needs a medical school and all the research funds and endowment that go with it. But, we all have rehashed that here a million times. Not gonna happen.
Any way, interesting digression. Congrats to Jae and Lazar! Their journeys have inspired many.
-
Btw, to become elite, MU needs a medical school and all the research funds and endowment that go with it. But, we all have rehashed that here a million times. Not gonna happen.
Agree that tossing the medical school cost MU a ton of prestige, but a medical school isn't absolutely necessary to reach elite status. Princeton is #1 this year in US News, and doesn't have one.
-
Alums aren't frustrated with the "pursuit of elite", it's the sense that MU feels they have achieved it (which strays from its historical mission, IMO) that bothers many. That's the rub and the low alumni donation contribution rate is a sign of this, perhaps?
Btw, to become elite, MU needs a medical school and all the research funds and endowment that go with it. But, we all have rehashed that here a million times. Not gonna happen.
Any way, interesting digression. Congrats to Jae and Lazar! Their journeys have inspired many.
Giving up the medical school was one of the three great mistakes in Marquette history.
-
Giving up the medical school was one of the three great mistakes in Marquette history.
Not joining the original BE, and giving up Warriors?
-
Not joining the original BE, and giving up Warriors?
Not recruiting Kostas and Jeenathan
-
Not signing Kostas and letting Brett Nelson get away.
-
Projecting (if you may) on Crean's trends to pre-Final 4, what I see in all three coaches is that the APRs were lower when the NCAA success was higher.
Mike Deane would have had great APRs.
Crapshoot in the tournament. 2008-09 may have been one of our most talented teams, APR was good, we were injured and lost early in tournament. Davidson gagged hard for one of our runs when the APR was sliding...our APR didn’t make them throw the ball away, shoot terrible free throws, etc....etc, etc
The APR is about academic progress and has nothing to do with success in a one game tournament structure.
-
Giving up the medical school was one of the three great mistakes in Marquette history.
Yep Jumping' and Biting'
-
Not joining the original BE, and giving up Warriors?
Excellent
-
Not recruiting Kostas and Jeenathan
Outstanding
-
Not signing Kostas and letting Brett Nelson get away.
Tremendous
-
Middle of da rode, aina?
-
Davidson gagged hard for one of our runs when the APR was sliding...our APR didn’t make them throw the ball away, shoot terrible free throws, etc....etc, etc
Repeating the "Davidson gagged" lie for the 10th (20th, 30th, 40th?) time doesn't make it less a lie. One turnover, one missed free throw down the stretch, their points per possession during our miraculous comeback was actually BETTER than their season average.
Does repeating lies over and over and over again work for you in "real life"?
-
Marquette shooting out of their backside for the final :40 was what made the difference, not Davidson gagging.
Repeating the "Davidson gagged" lie for the 10th (20th, 30th, 40th?) time doesn't make it less a lie. One turnover, one missed free throw down the stretch, their points per possession during our miraculous comeback was actually BETTER than their season average.
Does repeating lies over and over and over again work for you in "real life"?
-
Marquette shooting out of their backside for the final :40 was what made the difference, not Davidson gagging.
Of course - we took that game, one of MU's best comebacks ever.
-
Notice that they're vastly superior to Crean's and better than Wojo's....
BTW, here are Buzz's scores at VPI:
2014-15 952
2015-16 963
2016-17 970
2017-18 970
avg 963.8
So, also higher than Crean's or Wojo's at MU
I don’t particularly care what VPI does with their student athletes or sluff courses to make it easier for their kids to graduate. I’m talking apples to apples at the same school, not different schools, different courses, different standards.
-
Maybe. But I am also amazed how little many young people know about basic grammar and punctuation, not to mention simple math without the aid of a calculator.
It also seems to vary by school. My daughters were fortunate that they went to very high-quality public schools. In college, classmates used to assume they were valedictorians of some elite private HS...which makes me wonder where some of their college classmates went to high school....
Fair points
-
Alums aren't frustrated with the "pursuit of elite", it's the sense that MU feels they have achieved it (which strays from its historical mission, IMO) that bothers many. That's the rub and the low alumni donation contribution rate is a sign of this, perhaps?
Btw, to become elite, MU needs a medical school and all the research funds and endowment that go with it. But, we all have rehashed that here a million times. Not gonna happen.
It would be nice, but not needed to have a med school. There are too 50 schools today that do not have medical schools just as there are schools barely in the top 200 that do. It definitely would be nice, but not a must have.
-
Marquette shooting out of their backside for the final :40 was what made the difference, not Davidson gagging.
Great comeback, tremendous gag or as Buzz charitably said...we got lucky. Top free throw shooting team in the nation shoots terribly that game, horrific play at the end....many media articles and their fans....”we choked”. The simple way to answer this, if Crean, Wojo, Deane, Majerus, etc were the coach and we had same lead and lost, our fans would say we choked. And to deny this is 100% bullshat....you know damn well that would be the case. If good for the goose in a definition, then good for the gander.
-
Davidson gagged hard for one of our runs when the APR was sliding...our APR didn’t make them throw the ball away, shoot terrible free throws, etc....etc, etc
This is not true. Davidson played well down the stretch of that game. They didn't throw it away, Marquette seized it aggressively.
-
This is not true. Davidson played well down the stretch of that game. They didn't throw it away, Marquette seized it aggressively.
Correct
-
This is not true. Davidson played well down the stretch of that game. They didn't throw it away, Marquette seized it aggressively.
Absolutely
-
When I sat in Houston in that stadium with Patriots down 28-3 and watched them win, what do you think Falcons fans were saying? Hell, half the Pats fans were saying it, too. Only way to win is if Falcons screw this up. No different with Pats and Seahawks. And 1000’s of other examples. Great comebacks happen almost always because the other side fails to keep it going, chokes, makes mental or physical errors, etc. And there is no way people are telling the truth if the script was flipped and we lost, our fans would absolutely say it was a choke. They are lying if they say otherwise, especially true depending on who the coach is. We made a great comeback and Davidson pissed their pants to make it happen. What that has to do with an APR score is beyond me.
-
We made a great comeback and Davidson pissed their pants to make it happen.
Excluding the Hail Mary pass that ended the game with 1 second left, Davidson scored 1.200 ppp in their final four possessions. This includes 75% from the line and 100 eFG% with just one turnover. That's not choking. Marquette scored an insane 2.750 ppp in the same period with a 175 eFG%.
The bolded is correct. The rest is not. Including all the meaningless NFL drivel.
-
Of course - we took that game, one of MU's best comebacks ever.
And why any true MU fan would want to discredit our Warriors for that incredible effort and focus is beyond me
-
Excluding the Hail Mary pass that ended the game with 1 second left, Davidson scored 1.200 ppp in their final four possessions. This includes 75% from the line and 100 eFG% with just one turnover. That's not choking. Marquette scored an insane 2.750 ppp in the same period with a 175 eFG%.
The bolded is correct. The rest is not. Including all the meaningless NFL drivel.
Boom!
-
Excluding the Hail Mary pass that ended the game with 1 second left, Davidson scored 1.200 ppp in their final four possessions. This includes 75% from the line and 100 eFG% with just one turnover. That's not choking. Marquette scored an insane 2.750 ppp in the same period with a 175 eFG%.
The bolded is correct. The rest is not. Including all the meaningless NFL drivel.
Yes, it was a good comeback. Though, Davidson did give Jamil and Vander some very good open shots (which, to their credit, they made) that were not there earlier. Takes a bit of everything.
-
Yes, it was a good comeback. Though, Davidson did give Jamil and Vander some very good open shots (which, to their credit, they made) that were not there earlier. Takes a bit of everything.
I don't know if I would call those shots "open." I would say they weren't rigorously contested, but the defenders had their hands up and stayed on the ground. Which is likely what they were coached to do as to not foul.
https://deadspin.com/heres-how-marquette-erased-a-six-point-davidson-lead-i-458283539
-
So a thread announcing Jae and Lazar being inducted into the MU HOF leads to a multi-page debate about MU's comeback in a game in which neither played?
Classic Scoop.
-
So a thread announcing Jae and Lazar being inducted into the MU HOF leads to a multi-page debate about MU's comeback in a game in which neither played?
Classic Scoop.
Kelly and Koberstein were still students, though.
-
This thread is worse than reading Buckyville ::)
Congrats to Jae and Lazar, and all those who seize opportunities and make the most of them!!
-
I don't know if I would call those shots "open." I would say they weren't rigorously contested, but the defenders had their hands up and stayed on the ground. Which is likely what they were coached to do as to not foul.
https://deadspin.com/heres-how-marquette-erased-a-six-point-davidson-lead-i-458283539
Classic Sultan.
-
Notice that they're vastly superior to Crean's and better than Wojo's....
BTW, here are Buzz's scores at VPI:
2014-15 952
2015-16 963
2016-17 970
2017-18 970
avg 963.8
So, also higher than Crean's or Wojo's at MU
Eh... this analysis doesn't really make sense. The issue is that you're quoting multi-year scores. So, for example, you're giving Buzz a 952 in 2014-15... when only approximately 25% of the score relates to players he coached.
The APR is stupid imo... and can be gamed. To look at multi-year APR scores and conclude re: academics isn't reasonable. Gotta look at the specifics.
-
I don’t particularly care what VPI does with their student athletes or sluff courses to make it easier for their kids to graduate. I’m talking apples to apples at the same school, not different schools, different courses, different standards.
Whatever. Apples to apples, Buzz's numbers are better than Crean's or Wojo's. Apples to oranges (VPI is ranked 13 spot above MU by US News), his numbers are better too. Those are facts. You making stuff up about "sluff courses" without any evidence is what's meaningless.
-
This is not true. Davidson played well down the stretch of that game. They didn't throw it away, Marquette seized it aggressively.
They literally thew it away with that pass....literally. You're not being truthful if MU was up like Davidson was up and we lost, everyone and I mean EVERYONE here would have said we choked. As I have said before, great comeback by us, we made shots, but none of it matters if Davidson doesn't massively help and piss themselves.
Nickeldimer, I'm just calling it like it is and absolutely being truthful in how everyone here would have reacted if the shoe on the other foot. Great comeback, and thankfully Davidson choked. Both can happen, and they did. Ask Patriots / Falcons. Ask Patriots / Seahawks. Countless other examples. Sorry that some of you don't want to except the truth on this.
-
And there is no way people are telling the truth if the script was flipped and we lost, our fans would absolutely say it was a choke. They are lying if they say otherwise, especially true depending on who the coach is. We made a great comeback and Davidson pissed their pants to make it happen. What that has to do with an APR score is beyond me.
[/quote
What does what some "people" would say or what some of our own "fans" would say have to do with facts? The facts say Davidson did not "piss their pants". Thank you Brew (and others) for pointing out those clear, stubborn and immutable facts. You're correct that it depends who the coach is. You were a hater, and you would do everything in your power to minimize the greatest NCAA tournament comeback in Marquette history. So you ignored the facts and stuck with a lie.
Of course it has nothing to do with an APR score (or Jae or Lazar) but why is the fact that we're discussing it "beyond" you? You're the one who brought it up. Fact.
-
They literally thew it away with that pass....literally. You're not being truthful if MU was up like Davidson was up and we lost, everyone and I mean EVERYONE here would have said we choked. As I have said before, great comeback by us, we made shots, but none of it matters if Davidson doesn't massively help and piss themselves.
Nickeldimer, I'm just calling it like it is and absolutely being truthful in how everyone here would have reacted if the shoe on the other foot. Great comeback, and thankfully Davidson choked. Both can happen, and they did. Ask Patriots / Falcons. Ask Patriots / Seahawks. Countless other examples. Sorry that some of you don't want to except the truth on this.
Keep digging, keep lying. Davidson played well during our comeback. One (1) turnover or one (1) missed free throw doesn't change that - and coupled with all their good plays/made shots down the stretch any assertion that they choked or massively pissed themselves is simply not borne out by the facts. The numbers don't lie. You do. Constantly.
-
Eh... this analysis doesn't really make sense. The issue is that you're quoting multi-year scores. So, for example, you're giving Buzz a 952 in 2014-15... when only approximately 25% of the score relates to players he coached.
The APR is stupid imo... and can be gamed. To look at multi-year APR scores and conclude re: academics isn't reasonable. Gotta look at the specifics.
A couple of questions:
1.Does anyone know if Henry Ellenson left in Good Standing as defined by APR? As I remember he stopped going to classes after the season was to focus on workouts for the NBA.
2. How do Graduate Transfers calculate into the APR if at all ? They don't mention the topic in the NCAA FAQ.
-
A couple of questions:
1.Does anyone know if Henry Ellenson left in Good Standing as defined by APR? As I remember he stopped going to classes after the season was to focus on workouts for the NBA.
2. How do Graduate Transfers calculate into the APR if at all ? They don't mention the topic in the NCAA FAQ.
1. I doubt it.
2. They’ve already graduated.
-
They literally thew it away with that pass....literally.
You're full of it. One turnover in a 60 possession game is not throwing the game away. You're full of crap. This is just more proof that even SIX YEARS LATER you can't let it go when you're wrong. Especially when everyone who's been around long enough knows this is still a weak mea culpa attempt for your "Choking Dogs" headline on Cracked Sidewalks. Give it a rest.
-
A couple of questions:
1.Does anyone know if Henry Ellenson left in Good Standing as defined by APR? As I remember he stopped going to classes after the season was to focus on workouts for the NBA.
2. How do Graduate Transfers calculate into the APR if at all ? They don't mention the topic in the NCAA FAQ.
1) I believe we got dinged for Henry
2) They are included. If they finish in good standing in the spring semester (don’t need to get grad degree), they’d be all good for that semester
-
You're full of it. One turnover in a 60 possession game is not throwing the game away. You're full of crap. This is just more proof that even SIX YEARS LATER you can't let it go when you're wrong. Especially when everyone who's been around long enough knows this is still a weak mea culpa attempt for your "Choking Dogs" headline on Cracked Sidewalks. Give it a rest.
the season can't come soon enough
-
Whatever. Apples to apples, Buzz's numbers are better than Crean's or Wojo's. Apples to oranges (VPI is ranked 13 spot above MU by US News), his numbers are better too. Those are facts. You making stuff up about "sluff courses" without any evidence is what's meaningless.
But the issue is that the numbers you cited aren't Buzz's numbers, or Crean's, or Wojo's... they include other coaches/players/seasons
BTW, it's sometimes interesting to go through a team's roster and try to figure out what caused the APR score in a given year. Not always that obvious... let's do MU in 2017-18. Our score was 936 -- bad. How 'awful' must things be for such a weak score?...
I'm *guessing* here, but there are only so many options... so it's an educated guess.
I think we can safely figure out that our score was 44 out of 47... yes?
So, 9 guys including Ike at 4/4... so that's 36 of 36.
Then, the unique ones... I would guess are:
Joey Hauser 2 of 2 (second semester enrollee)
Harry Froling 3 of 3 (no retention point in 2nd semester, but not an 0/1 on retention because he went pro)
Haanif Cheatham 1 of 2 (mid-semester transfer in good standing)
Andrew Rowsey 2 of 4 (GUESSING here... but, there are only so many possibilities... if he didn't finish up classes in the second semester, we get hit for 0/2)
That brings you to 44 out of 47. So, our only 0 for x's may have been Haani who transferred and Rowsey, who has a college degree... am I overly troubled by either of these? No. Does it scream 'awful academics' under Wojo? Nah. The specifics matter.
The Rowsey thing would become asking the kid to finish up for compliance-only purposes... if he indeed is a 2 of 4, I'm not overly upset by it.. can't let that become a habit for players, because you'll run into potential APR issues, but... it's not some ugly indictment of Wojo or the program.
PS - just did these calcs quickly, so if there are any other facts that people know of, please post.
We were at 935 the prior year.. hopefully all went / goes well here with the 2018-19 year... can't think of any issues that I know about. May be a perfect score, hey?
-
But the issue is that the numbers you cited aren't Buzz's numbers, or Crean's, or Wojo's... they include other coaches/players/seasons
BTW, it's sometimes interesting to go through a team's roster and try to figure out what caused the APR score in a given year. Not always that obvious... let's do MU in 2017-18. Our score was 936 -- bad. How 'awful' must things be for such a weak score?...
I'm *guessing* here, but there are only so many options... so it's an educated guess.
I think we can safely figure out that our score was 44 out of 47... yes?
So, 9 guys including Ike at 4/4... so that's 36 of 36.
Then, the unique ones... I would guess are:
Joey Hauser 2 of 2 (second semester enrollee)
Harry Froling 3 of 3 (no retention point in 2nd semester, but not an 0/1 on retention because he went pro)
Haanif Cheatham 1 of 2 (mid-semester transfer in good standing)
Andrew Rowsey 2 of 4 (GUESSING here... but, there are only so many possibilities... if he didn't finish up classes in the second semester, we get hit for 0/2)
That brings you to 44 out of 47. So, our only 0 for x's may have been Haani who transferred and Rowsey, who has a college degree... am I overly troubled by either of these? No. Does it scream 'awful academics' under Wojo? Nah. The specifics matter.
The Rowsey thing would become asking the kid to finish up for compliance-only purposes... if he indeed is a 2 of 4, I'm not overly upset by it.. can't let that become a habit for players, because you'll run into potential APR issues, but... it's not some ugly indictment of Wojo or the program.
PS - just did these calcs quickly, so if there are any other facts that people know of, please post.
We were at 935 the prior year.. hopefully all went / goes well here with the 2018-19 year... can't think of any issues that I know about. May be a perfect score, hey?
So when Rowsey graduated this spring, what year APR does that go into?
-
So when Rowsey graduated this spring, what year APR does that go into?
Rowsey graduated a year after he left? 6years to complete a degree seems ridiculous.
-
So when Rowsey graduated this spring, what year APR does that go into?
I believe you can get 1/0’s in later years. For example, if you had a guy in the 90’s - when the rules were diff btw - come back and graduate in 2019-20, the 2019-20 year gets a 1/0 score for that graduation
The APR is wacko
-
An old article on APR
http://latenighthoops.com/minnesota-apr-concern/#.XVmyhiROmEc
-
You're full of it. One turnover in a 60 possession game is not throwing the game away. You're full of crap. This is just more proof that even SIX YEARS LATER you can't let it go when you're wrong. Especially when everyone who's been around long enough knows this is still a weak mea culpa attempt for your "Choking Dogs" headline on Cracked Sidewalks. Give it a rest.
I second the motion.
-
You're full of it. One turnover in a 60 possession game is not throwing the game away. You're full of crap. This is just more proof that even SIX YEARS LATER you can't let it go when you're wrong. Especially when everyone who's been around long enough knows this is still a weak mea culpa attempt for your "Choking Dogs" headline on Cracked Sidewalks. Give it a rest.
+1,567,821,999.
-
Btw, to become elite, MU needs a medical school and all the research funds and endowment that go with it. But, we all have rehashed that here a million times. Not gonna happen.
Any way, interesting digression. Congrats to Jae and Lazar! Their journeys have inspired many.
SLU and Loyola Chicago have medical schools and they’re below us. ND, BC and Fordham don’t have med schools and they’re above us. And no, it isn’t because they have football!
Lower admission rates, higher alumni giving, more emphasis on research.
-
SLU and Loyola Chicago have medical schools and they’re below us. ND, BC and Fordham don’t have med schools and they’re above us. And no, it isn’t because they have football!
Lower admission rates, higher alumni giving, more emphasis on research.
I am sure there are schools on either side of the issue Billy as Gooo pointed out. But MU hasn't really changed much in 50 years other than the notoriety basketball has brought (a swoon for student recruitment). However, over the next ten years when today's minorities become tomorrow's majorities, MU needs to adapt today for the future. Elitism isn't the answer.
Maybe one of MU's wealthiest alumni, Jae Crowder, will lead the way in this transition with a major scholarship donation?
-
You're full of it. One turnover in a 60 possession game is not throwing the game away. You're full of crap. This is just more proof that even SIX YEARS LATER you can't let it go when you're wrong. Especially when everyone who's been around long enough knows this is still a weak mea culpa attempt for your "Choking Dogs" headline on Cracked Sidewalks. Give it a rest.
LOL. You know damn well what you and everyone else would say if MU has done, or Wisconsin, or Notre Dame. You would say it was a choke and so would every other person here. MU up 7 with less than 2 minutes to play and the ball and lose, especially on the play when all you have to do is stand there and make MU foul you in the final seconds ..you and every one here would say it was a choke.
When Green Bay lost to the Seahawks, was it because the Seahawks had a great comeback or because Green Bay choked? Or, because both? I’m going for both as my answer, the same thing for...Davidson game, great comeback but cannot happen if Davidson doesn’t crap themselves.
-
LOL. You know damn well what you and everyone else would say if MU has done, or Wisconsin, or Notre Dame. You would say it was a choke and so would every other person here. MU up 7 with less than 2 minutes to play and the ball and lose, especially on the play when all you have to do is stand there and make MU foul you in the final seconds ..you and every one here would say it was a choke.
When Green Bay lost to the Seahawks, was it because the Seahawks had a great comeback or because Green Bay choked? Or, because both? I’m going for both as my answer, the same thing for...Davidson game, great comeback but cannot happen if Davidson doesn’t crap themselves.
The difference of course is that Green Bay played horrendously down the stretch while Davidson played great down the stretch.
-
The difference of course is that Green Bay played horrendously down the stretch while Davidson played great down the stretch.
"Because some teams choke, Davidson choked."
-
LOL. You know damn well what you and everyone else would say if MU has done, or Wisconsin, or Notre Dame. You would say it was a choke and so would every other person here.
At the time, everyone called BS on Choking Dogs because it was BS. And we call BS here because it's BS. You can try to both sides it all you want, not we all know it's a fraud. More importantly, no matter how much the lady doth protest, you know it too.
-
My dad the basketball fan is rolling in his grave over this discussion.
Congrats Jae and Lazar. Two warriors who made some amazing Marquette memories.
-
Whatever. Apples to apples, Buzz's numbers are better than Crean's or Wojo's. Apples to oranges (VPI is ranked 13 spot above MU by US News), his numbers are better too. Those are facts. You making stuff up about "sluff courses" without any evidence is what's meaningless.
No, in fact they aren’t facts. You couldn’t be more wrong on this subject if you tried. You don’t seem to get the idea that previous coaches bring in players, and they may graduate or not later under a different coach, and different schools also have different sham majors, classes, etc.....you literally have no idea what you are talking about with this comparison, but I will let others take you apart on it.
-
No, in fact they aren’t facts. You couldn’t be more wrong on this subject if you tried. You don’t seem to get the idea that previous coaches bring in players, and they may graduate or not later under a different coach, and different schools also have different sham majors, classes, etc.....you literally have no idea what you are talking about with this comparison, but I will let others take you apart on it.
Crean's numbers are Crean's numbers since he had been at MU for 3 years before APR calculations began. I guess he gets some of Buzz's numbers and Buzz get some of Wojo's. I bow to JB on details neither you nor I knew.
Returning to "Choking dogs peeing down their legs" part II, you look even worse on this one than on the original. Asserting that all MU fans would dismiss the facts and agree with an obviously biased anti Marquette/Buzz sentiments if the shoe were on the other foot is an insult to everyone with a brain who posts here. We should be used to it. It's what you do.
-
Rowsey graduated a year after he left? 6years to complete a degree seems ridiculous.
Happens quite often with non student athletes.
-
Happens quite often with non student athletes.
"Lots of people go to college for 7 years"
"Yeah they're called doctors"
-
as the great philosopher Bluto said "Seven years of college down the drain"
-
The difference of course is that Green Bay played horrendously down the stretch while Davidson played great down the stretch.
Davidson didn’t play great down the stretch, including a horrific turnover, missed free throw ( they shot well below their average for the game, a team that was believe led the nation or was very high chose that day to piss themselves) , and not defending the only thing that can beat you...the 3 point line. Other than that, they were great. LOL.
Which comes back to the part you guys keep missing. I said it was a great comeback, it was also a choke by Davidson. Both can happen, in fact they often do. I was ecstatic we won, went crazy with delight, also thanked Davidson for melting down or it would not have happened.
-
Crean's numbers are Crean's numbers since he had been at MU for 3 years before APR calculations began. I guess he gets some of Buzz's numbers and Buzz get some of Wojo's. I bow to JB on details neither you nor I knew.
Returning to "Choking dogs peeing down their legs" part II, you look even worse on this one than on the original. Asserting that all MU fans would dismiss the facts and agree with an obviously biased anti Marquette/Buzz sentiments if the shoe were on the other foot is an insult to everyone with a brain who posts here. We should be used to it. It's what you do.
Correct, Crean’s are and he improved them greatly. Buzz’s are not, which is why you were patently wrong in your “facts” and now you keep getting called out on them. Just accept it, you were wrong. You don’t get to ride in day one and suddenly the graduation rates for that year are because of you when you had nothing to do with it. Look a few years out when you have been there, that’s when YOUR guys start to count and the trends were undeniable.
As for the Crowder Rule, it absolutely needed to be put in place. Are we really at a point we would keep taking someone that literally has no possible way to graduate...mathematically impossible without adding years? Somewhere we need some integrity as an academic institution of higher learning....glad they changed the rule for purely common sense reasons. To Jae, congratulations. Loopholes exist and loopholes get closed, this one rightly so.
-
Davidson didn’t play great down the stretch, including a horrific turnover, missed free throw ( they shot well below their average for the game, a team that was believe led the nation or was very high chose that day to piss themselves) , and not defending the only thing that can beat you...the 3 point line. Other than that, they were great. LOL.
Which comes back to the part you guys keep missing. I said it was a great comeback, it was also a choke by Davidson. Both can happen, in fact they often do. I was ecstatic we won, went crazy with delight, also thanked Davidson for melting down or it would not have happened.
ONE turnover and ONE missed free throws.
Damn. I stand corrected. They choked. Pissed down their leg, even.
Not to mention, not defending the 3 point line? We were watching a different game. Marquette hit very well contested, tough 3 pointers. The only thing more Davidson could have done to prevent the made 3 pointers was to foul, which of course you don't do.
-
As for the Crowder Rule, it absolutely needed to be put in place. Are we really at a point we would keep taking someone that literally has no possible way to graduate...mathematically impossible without adding years? Somewhere we need some integrity as an academic institution of higher learning....glad they changed the rule for purely common sense reasons. To Jae, congratulations. Loopholes exist and loopholes get closed, this one rightly so.
Did you have these same discussions under Crean? Maybe it should be called the Wade Rule? The Lazar Rule? Or the Trend Rule? I seem to remember MUAD being taken out of the SA acceptance decision process somewhere under the Crean Era. Crean created a lot of animosity by going around academics to Wild on Wade.
Stop glossing it over as a Buzz issue. It is inherent in the history of MUBB started by Al. Pat Smith, Bob Lackey, Walton, Whitehead, Johnson, Worthen, Green, etc. We'll see how these new absolute elite rules play out.
As I have said numerous times, I don't agree with it and I strongly believe it goes against the historical mission of the university. When you are dealing with first generation college kids, there are always cracks that need judgment. It's called the Cracked Sidewalks Rule.
-
Correct, Crean’s are and he improved them greatly. Buzz’s are not, which is why you were patently wrong in your “facts” and now you keep getting called out on them. Just accept it, you were wrong. You don’t get to ride in day one and suddenly the graduation rates for that year are because of you when you had nothing to do with it. Look a few years out when you have been there, that’s when YOUR guys start to count and the trends were undeniable.
As for the Crowder Rule, it absolutely needed to be put in place. Are we really at a point we would keep taking someone that literally has no possible way to graduate...mathematically impossible without adding years? Somewhere we need some integrity as an academic institution of higher learning....glad they changed the rule for purely common sense reasons. To Jae, congratulations. Loopholes exist and loopholes get closed, this one rightly so.
Crean "improved them", yes - from by far the 2 worst years in Marquette's APR history (years 4 and 5 of his tenure, when all of the players were his. If you want to give him credit for Buzz's first two years and make Buzz responsible for Wojo's first two, fine. Guess what? Buzz's numbers still beat the other two.
Saying you love the Crowder Rule is the equivalent of saying you wish Jae had never been admitted to MU, you don't think he belonged here. And of course we could say the same for D Wade. I would say it for neither, and hope the university look at each recruit's circumstances individually, not with a "one size fits all, no exceptions rule".
-
Did you have these same discussions under Crean? Maybe it should be called the Wade Rule? The Lazar Rule? Or the Trend Rule? I seem to remember MUAD being taken out of the SA acceptance decision process somewhere under the Crean Era. Crean created a lot of animosity by going around academics to Wild on Wade.
Stop glossing it over as a Buzz issue. It is inherent in the history of MUBB history started by Al. Pat Smith, Bob Lackey, Walton, Whitehead, Johnson, Worthen, Green, etc. We'll see how these new absolute elite rules play out.
As I have said numerous times, I don't agree with it and I strongly believe it goes against the historical mission of the university. When you are dealing first generation college kids, there are always cracks that need judgment. It's called the Cracked Sidewalks Rule.
This says it much better than I did/could. Thanks, Doc.
-
Stop glossing it over as a Buzz issue. It is inherent in the history of MUBB started by Al. Pat Smith, Bob Lackey, Walton, Whitehead, Johnson, Worthen, Green, etc. We'll see how these new absolute elite rules play out.
As I have said numerous times, I don't agree with it and I strongly believe it goes against the historical mission of the university. When you are dealing with first generation college kids, there are always cracks that need judgment. It's called the Cracked Sidewalks Rule.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/xThtar0e9kO3WkwQ1O/giphy.gif)
-
It would seem MU believes that if they are using a player for basketball then that player should be using MU for a degree and if a player cannot graduate during their eligibility they don't feel comfortable with that admittance. If said player red shirted, maybe it'd be otherwise? I don't think it's wrong for MU to say they don't want to use people who they don't feel they can give a degree to at the end of their scholarship.
-
It would seem MU believes that if they are using a player for basketball then that player should be using MU for a degree and if a player cannot graduate during their eligibility they don't feel comfortable with that admittance. If said player red shirted, maybe it'd be otherwise? I don't think it's wrong for MU to say they don't want to use people who they don't feel they can give a degree to at the end of their scholarship.
Yet Henry Ellenson was admitted.
-
Yet Henry Ellenson was admitted.
Why wouldn't they have admitted Henry?
-
Yet Henry Ellenson was admitted.
False equivalency
If Henry wanted to play four years, heck if he wanted to have 5 years he would've been more than able to graduate. There was no way Jae could have graduated.
You need to see the difference between "cannot graduate" vs "chose not to graduate"
-
False equivalency
If Henry wanted to play four years, heck if he wanted to have 5 years he would've been more than able to graduate. There was no way Jae could have graduated.
You need to see the difference between "cannot graduate" vs "chose not to graduate"
Jae could have redshirted and played 2 years. Three academic years plus one JUCO year= graduation.
Jae also could have redshirted, played one year and turned pro.
-
False equivalency
If Henry wanted to play four years, heck if he wanted to have 5 years he would've been more than able to graduate. There was no way Jae could have graduated.
You need to see the difference between "cannot graduate" vs "chose not to graduate"
Hair splitting. Everyone knew (Wojo and the MU administration included) that Henry was just passing through. And everyone also knew that Jae Crowder would be a hell of a lot closer to an MU degree when he left than Henry would be when he took a powder. Would = reality, could (in this case) = a phony rationalization.
-
Jae could have redshirted and played 2 years. Three academic years plus one JUCO year= graduation.
Jae also could have redshirted, played one year and turned pro.
Do we know this for sure? Because his first school wasn't accredited which put him at one year of school as a PE major, not sure how many of those credits would've transferred to an MU major. I'd be a skeptic that he could've done it in 3 even.
-
Hair splitting. Everyone knew (Wojo and the MU administration included) that Henry was just passing through. And everyone also knew that Jae Crowder would be a hell of a lot closer to an MU degree when he left than Henry would be when he took a powder. Would = reality, could (in this case) = a phony rationalization.
Apparently enough people thought he'd play two so that Kyle Washington wouldn't come to MU and Gabe Levin left.
I just view it as a policy MU is enforcing as all or nothing. You can either get admitted with potential to graduate or not at all.
-
Hair splitting. Everyone knew (Wojo and the MU administration included) that Henry was just passing through. And everyone also knew that Jae Crowder would be a hell of a lot closer to an MU degree when he left than Henry would be when he took a powder. Would = reality, could (in this case) = a phony rationalization.
It's a policy that was applied consistently. Henry could have sucked...or got injured. Look at Alex Poythress at Kentucky. He went there to be one-and-done but due to not living up to his billing and injuries, ended up a four year player, graduating and getting a start on his graduate degree.
To my understanding the policy is simple - can the player graduate by the time his eligibility is completed.
-
Do we know this for sure? Because his first school wasn't accredited which put him at one year of school as a PE major, not sure how many of those credits would've transferred to an MU major. I'd be a skeptic that he could've done it in 3 even.
Well, Jae was admitted and eligible to play. I assumed there was something of merit on his academic transcript.
-
Hair splitting. Everyone knew (Wojo and the MU administration included) that Henry was just passing through. And everyone also knew that Jae Crowder would be a hell of a lot closer to an MU degree when he left than Henry would be when he took a powder. Would = reality, could (in this case) = a phony rationalization.
Well said Lenny.
-
I am sure there are schools on either side of the issue Billy as Gooo pointed out. But MU hasn't really changed much in 50 years other than the notoriety basketball has brought (a swoon for student recruitment). However, over the next ten years when today's minorities become tomorrow's majorities, MU needs to adapt today for the future. Elitism isn't the answer.
MU, in my view, has changed in the 40 plus years since attending. Some of the programs are mainstays, but others have been added or improved with the technological demands of the world.
The quality of student appears better today and the programs reflect that. In the 1970’s it felt as though the entire school was from maybe 6 or 7 states. My daughter has roommates from New Jersey, California, Texas and Colorado. We are a national brand now.
-
Jae could have redshirted and played 2 years. Three academic years plus one JUCO year= graduation.
Jae also could have redshirted, played one year and turned pro.
My understanding is that even if Jae did redshirt, and took max classes every semester it was still mathematically impossible for him to graduate. He basically came in as an academic freshman with only 2 years to complete 4 years of work.
-
Well, Jae was admitted and eligible to play. I assumed there was something of merit on his academic transcript.
I mean he was admitted at a era of time we also admitted Todd Mayo...
What TAMU said was the last thing I really heard. And I tried to break it down as to why he basically had no credits.
-
So when Rowsey graduated this spring, what year APR does that go into?
Where were the 'Crowder rule' mathematicians in Jan-18? The shame this brought to our university is unending.
-
Where were the 'Crowder rule' mathematicians in Jan-18? The shame this brought to our university is unending.
I think the policy made some sense at the time. With "lifetime scholarships" now being a thing, I think the policy can be adjusted - or eliminated. Or maybe it already has but Wojo just isn't into Jucos.
-
Hair splitting. Everyone knew (Wojo and the MU administration included) that Henry was just passing through. And everyone also knew that Jae Crowder would be a hell of a lot closer to an MU degree when he left than Henry would be when he took a powder. Would = reality, could (in this case) = a phony rationalization.
If Henry tore his ACL and came back to play multiple years, does that change your perception? Our guys should be tracking on a yearly basis to graduate within the required time.
-
I think the policy made some sense at the time. With "lifetime scholarships" now being a thing, I think the policy can be adjusted - or eliminated. Or maybe it already has but Wojo just isn't into Jucos.
This.
-
I think the policy made some sense at the time. With "lifetime scholarships" now being a thing, I think the policy can be adjusted - or eliminated. Or maybe it already has but Wojo just isn't into Jucos.
Applying a linear rules based system to address an organization problem only makes sense to bureaucrats and the passive aggressive.
Judgement, thought, dialog and educated risk taking make sense...thats what people in power get paid for.
As an aside, I am pretty sure MU isn't new to the lifetime scholarship business...but i am sure someone more in the know can vouch for older players, trend and others.
-
MU, in my view, has changed in the 40 plus years since attending. Some of the programs are mainstays, but others have been added or improved with the technological demands of the world.
The quality of student appears better today and the programs reflect that. In the 1970’s it felt as though the entire school was from maybe 6 or 7 states. My daughter has roommates from New Jersey, California, Texas and Colorado. We are a national brand now.
First, you didn't go to MU in the 70s.
Second, I was there from 1966-70. Only anecdotal, (as is your daughter's experience) but on my wing of my dorm (40 guys) we had folks from New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Oklahoma, Michigan, Indiana and Ohio in addition to the kids from Illinois and Wisconsin.
-
Thanks for the info TAMU. Guess we'll never see another Jae Crowder situation. Too bad we'll be vacating all those wins.
-
there are people from all over the country but more now than there used to be.
Most my wing floor in the mid 90's in McCormick was from WI. I remember some Nebraska, Illinois, Minnesota, Kansas and one from Colorado and one from Georgia (eventually roommate). Had two from California, one from Washington State, one from Louisiana and one from New Mexico as a sophomore but again, WI and IL dominated. My roommate junior year from Arizona was there because his dad was a big donor and he transferred in from ASU. It was rare to find anyone not from WI, IL, MN or another midwestern state. That is something MU is doing better with now.
-
Applying a linear rules based system to address an organization problem only makes sense to bureaucrats and the passive aggressive.
Judgement, thought, dialog and educated risk taking make sense...thats what people in power get paid for.
As an aside, I am pretty sure MU isn't new to the lifetime scholarship business...but i am sure someone more in the know can vouch for older players, trend and others.
I think we can just ask Wally. He was cut but was allowed to graduate.
-
I think we can just ask Wally. He was cut but was allowed to graduate.
Not by the track team. He was welcome to stay on for a team he actually deserved to play on.
-
I think we can just ask Wally. He was cut but was allowed to graduate.
He was allowed to be on the track team, too.
-
First, you didn't go to MU in the 70s.
Second, I was there from 1966-70. Only anecdotal, (as is your daughter's experience) but on my wing of my dorm (40 guys) we had folks from New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Oklahoma, Michigan, Indiana and Ohio in addition to the kids from Illinois and Wisconsin.
Don’t forget to call him Billy while you are at it. Amazing, simply amazing.
-
Did you have these same discussions under Crean? Maybe it should be called the Wade Rule? The Lazar Rule? Or the Trend Rule? I seem to remember MUAD being taken out of the SA acceptance decision process somewhere under the Crean Era. Crean created a lot of animosity by going around academics to Wild on Wade.
Stop glossing it over as a Buzz issue. It is inherent in the history of MUBB started by Al. Pat Smith, Bob Lackey, Walton, Whitehead, Johnson, Worthen, Green, etc. We'll see how these new absolute elite rules play out.
As I have said numerous times, I don't agree with it and I strongly believe it goes against the historical mission of the university. When you are dealing with first generation college kids, there are always cracks that need judgment. It's called the Cracked Sidewalks Rule.
Wade has enough credits tracking to graduate in the time period allotted if he would have kept going. Jae did not and mathematically could not. I cannot answer for Lazar as I don’t know his situation.
Yes, we are all aware of the Dwyane getting in and what a great man he turned out to be....good for Crean in going to bat for him. Remember, he had good enough grades, he did not have the test scores....the irony is that starting next year he could apply to MU and not even submit those test scores. Same is true at other schools that no longer require standardized tests.
I’m for opportunities, but let’s at least tie them into what is potentially possible....earning a degree is at least statistically POSSIBLE.
-
Not by the track team. He was welcome to stay on for a team he actually deserved to play on.
So Wally finished on a track scholarship? I thought he was allowed to finish on a academic scholarship. Who knew?
In any regard, his lifetime scholarship was honored.
-
Wade has enough credits tracking to graduate in the time period allotted if he would have kept going. Jae did not and mathematically could not. I cannot answer for Lazar as I don’t know his situation.
Yes, we are all aware of the Dwyane getting in and what a great man he turned out to be....good for Crean in going to bat for him. Remember, he had good enough grades, he did not have the test scores....the irony is that starting next year he could apply to MU and not even submit those test scores. Same is true at other schools that no longer require standardized tests.
I’m for opportunities, but let’s at least tie them into what is potentially possible....earning a degree is at least statistically POSSIBLE.
Goal post shift alert. The thread is on admittance not progression. Good try.
-
Applying a linear rules based system to address an organization problem only makes sense to bureaucrats and the passive aggressive.
What a perfect summation, right down to the passive aggressive ex MU minor bureaucrat. Kudos, Frenn!
-
Quick question to those in the know that stuck out in this thread...does MU really administratively (or even in the hallways) refer to this as the "Crowder Rule"?
I am really hoping that is just a Scoop meme.
Good back and forth on both sides in this discussion (mostly). I am a bit surprised about how the sides are aligning, I must say.
-
Well, Jae was admitted and eligible to play. I assumed there was something of merit on his academic transcript.
High school
-
So Wally finished on a track scholarship? I thought he was allowed to finish on a academic scholarship. Who knew?
In any regard, his lifetime scholarship was honored.
I didn't think he finished? That's news to me
-
So it was or it wasn’t a commuter school in the 70s?
-
Quick question to those in the know that stuck out in this thread...does MU really administratively (or even in the hallways) refer to this as the "Crowder Rule"?
I am really hoping that is just a Scoop meme.
Good back and forth on both sides in this discussion (mostly). I am a bit surprised about how the sides are aligning, I must say.
I understand has nothing to do with Juco's and everything to be able to have a chance graduate.
That's it and stop it, get off my effing lawn. My thread
Just feel happy for these guys. So many vile people on Scoop as the Hon Kong thread showed....
-
Am I in Hong Kong?
-
Not by the track team. He was welcome to stay on for a team he actually deserved to play on.
Yeah, once his brother skedaddled he didn't deserve that scholly anymore.
And we're worried about giving a great kid (and player) who is totally NCAA eligible a scholarship - lifetime or otherwise? Really?
-
Yeah, once his brother skedaddled he didn't deserve that scholly anymore.
And we're worried about giving a great kid (and player) who is totally NCAA eligible a scholarship - lifetime or otherwise? Really?
If Jae has not made the NBA then MU literally just used a kid for his basketball talents without any chance of reciprocating the transaction. I don't feel strongly either way but if MU's belief is that they should only give scholarships to people who can realistically graduate so they feel less like they're using a player then I get it.
-
Am I in Hong Kong?
You know fake news Jon posted about the Libyan raid and he had a lot of it wrong per his normal bragging BS. Appreciate his service, but love my 81 year old father's service that he has never bragged about. First only one body was recovered and it was misidentified as Capt. Paul F Laurence, but instead that body was of the pilot Fernando Rivas-Dominicci. How do I know this? He is from here and his family is basically the equivalent of the Rockefellers. Point is he did not need to be a pilot but it was his dream to be a combat pilot. 2nd BS on the story it was not the French's fault, because at the time Gorbachev was President of Russia and the US trusted them a 30 minute warning was given to a Russian navy battle group stationed off Libya, unfortunately a rogue official of one of the ships tipped off the Libyans, by the time Riva's plane did his bombing run they were the target.
-
Some how double posted previous attachment couldn't edit
-
If Jae has not made the NBA then MU literally just used a kid for his basketball talents without any chance of reciprocating the transaction. I don't feel strongly either way but if MU's belief is that they should only give scholarships to people who can realistically graduate so they feel less like they're using a player then I get it.
Galway,
Marquette has a long and storied history of giving scholarships to basketball players who had little to no chance of graduating during their eligibility. If the player was interested, he stayed on scholarship until he did. I guess these are now called "lifetime scholarships". So rejecting a Jae Crowder because he has 2 years of eligibility and needs 3 years to get a degree (again, if he even wants one), goes against what has always been MU's mission.
Giving an altruistic motive (we don't want to "use" a fully NCAA qualified athlete) seems reeks of elitist hypocrisy.
-
Sorry to take this off-topic again...but Congratulations to Jae and Lazar!
-
Galway,
Marquette has a long and storied history of giving scholarships to basketball players who had little to no chance of graduating during their eligibility. If the player was interested, he stayed on scholarship until he did. I guess these are now called "lifetime scholarships". So rejecting a Jae Crowder because he has 2 years of eligibility and needs 3 years to get a degree (again, if he even wants one), goes against what has always been MU's mission.
Giving an altruistic motive (we don't want to "use" a fully NCAA qualified athlete) seems reeks of elitist hypocrisy.
Why is it "elitist hypocrisy" for a school to consider a recruit's academics when deciding who to offer a scholarship to?
-
Why is it "elitist hypocrisy" for a school to consider a recruit's academics when deciding who to offer a scholarship to?
Because it fits a narrative tgat is not true.
-
Galway,
Marquette has a long and storied history of giving scholarships to basketball players who had little to no chance of graduating during their eligibility. If the player was interested, he stayed on scholarship until he did. I guess these are now called "lifetime scholarships". So rejecting a Jae Crowder because he has 2 years of eligibility and needs 3 years to get a degree (again, if he even wants one), goes against what has always been MU's mission.
Giving an altruistic motive (we don't want to "use" a fully NCAA qualified athlete) seems reeks of elitist hypocrisy.
Big difference between didn’t because they chose to leave and couldn’t because it was mathematically impossible. And as usual, your numbers are wrong. It wasn’t three....try again.
-
Goal post shift alert. The thread is on admittance not progression. Good try.
No, actually the thread is on both...can one be admitted and have the possibility of graduation within the limits of counting set by the NCAA. No goalpost shifting at all....it is both and how can you claim otherwise?
-
Big difference between didn’t because they chose to leave and couldn’t because it was mathematically impossible. And as usual, your numbers are wrong. It wasn’t three....try again.
Wasn't three? With summer school, can't anyone graduate graduate in 3 years? Even if they enter with zero credits? Did Jae start out with minus 20?
-
Marquette has a long and storied history of giving scholarships to basketball players who had little to no chance of graduating during their eligibility.
It does???
-
No, actually the thread is on both...can one be admitted and have the possibility of graduation within the limits of counting set by the NCAA. No goalpost shifting at all....it is both and how can you claim otherwise?
I thought the thread was on congratulating two former MU stars on getting into our Hall of Fame.
My bad....
-
Wasn't three? With summer school, can't anyone graduate graduate in 3 years? Even if they enter with zero credits? Did Jae start out with minus 20?
Are basketball players allowed both summer school sessions? Maybe only allowed 12 credits in the spring (at least under Buzz)? Those would be the only two caveats that I can think of where the math wouldn't quite work but yeah my understanding after looking at credit requirements is anyone could graduate if they passed all classes, took 15 credits both semesters and full 12 credit allotment during summer school.
-
Stop glossing it over as a Buzz issue. It is inherent in the history of MUBB started by Al. Pat Smith, Bob Lackey, Walton, Whitehead, Johnson, Worthen, Green, etc. We'll see how these new absolute elite rules play out.
As I have said numerous times, I don't agree with it and I strongly believe it goes against the historical mission of the university. When you are dealing with first generation college kids, there are always cracks that need judgment. It's called the Cracked Sidewalks Rule.
These are quite possibly the truest and only words that need to be spoken on this issue.
Well done, Dr.
-
It does???
Ironic, especially all the guys that stuck around to earn their degree like Bo, Gates, etc. It’s almost lost on these guys what a UNIVERSITY is. Basketball, also historically at MU, was a vehicle of opportunity for these guys to earn a degree from a quality school they likely would not have without b-ball skills. Thankfully many of them earned a degree and took advantage of that opportunity. There are far more of those guys historically at MU then the ones Lenny is trumpeting that had little or no chance. Quite frankly, it is rather insulting to those guys that he would even make that statement about them. I hope he is not saying they were not intellectually capable, or didn’t have the drive to finish school (yes, there are examples like Vander), but maybe he can articulate what the hell he meant by that statement.
Your “it does?” is the appropriate response.
-
It’s almost lost on these guys what a UNIVERSITY is.
Just like how it's lost on the NCAA what a UNIVERSITY is. They just treat universities like billion dollar revenue machines while preventing the workers in that machine from enjoying the same opportunities the other students receive, such as a job or the ability to profit off one's own likeness.
-
Just like how it's lost on the NCAA what a UNIVERSITY is. They just treat universities like billion dollar revenue machines while preventing the workers in that machine from enjoying the same opportunities the other students receive, such as a job or the ability to profit off one's own likeness.
Lol. The NCAA is made up of all those universities. So when you say they, you should say WE.
Other students don’t get to travel on the university’s dime, get free clothes, free training, free room and board, access to media, a chance to perform in front of thousands each year. The NCAA doesn’t just administer men’s basketball, but for some reason some of you just cannot process this. So when you keep saying they don’t get to do what other students do, why do you and others forget to mention that no other every day students get to do what they do? Funny how one sided your street is. And yes, they can get a job as has been stated and proven here many times over...why does that falsehood continue to be spread? There are ncaa athletes that have jobs.
-
Lol. The NCAA is made up of all those universities. So when you say they, you should say WE.
Other students don’t get to travel on the university’s dime, get free clothes, free training, free room and board, access to media, a chance to perform in front of thousands each year. The NCAA doesn’t just administer men’s basketball, but for some reason some of you just cannot process this. So when you keep saying they don’t get to do what other students do, why do you and others forget to mention that no other every day students get to do what they do? Funny how one sided your street is. And yes, they can get a job as has been stated and proven here many times over...why does that falsehood continue to be spread? There are ncaa athletes that have jobs.
Doubt the BBall players could still do it with their schedules but I know Steve Novak or Travis Deiner worked at Mo's for the valet way back when as my sister was the bar manager. Just an example of the fact that they can get jobs.
-
Doubt the BBall players could still do it with their schedules but I know Steve Novak or Travis Deiner worked at Mo's for the valet way back when as my sister was the bar manager. Just an example of the fact that they can get jobs.
Coastal Carolina Cheerleaders has some creativity in their job selection.
https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/details-coastal-carolina-cheerleaders-escort-prostitution/
-
Doesn’t the university pay for students to travel for case competitions at different schools? Honestly asking, as I don’t know, but seems to be a similar scenario of a student getting free travel and food for having a specialized skill set.
-
Lol. The NCAA is made up of all those universities. So when you say they, you should say WE.
It's almost like it'd be a good idea to compensate their largest revenue earners fairly. 🤯
-
It's almost like it'd be a good idea to compensate their largest revenue earners fairly. 🤯
They are except the top .01%. Room and board alone costs approximately $240,000. If you throw in training, marketing and advertising their personal brands on national TV twice a week by the time they leave that may be hard to monetize but it’s at least a half million. Add in the nice trip to Spain and France, Maui, Orlando, etc. on a yearly basis you can throw on another $50,000. Add in the practice facilities and the Fiserv forum that they train in to hone their skills it’s even more. These guys are being compensated extremely well.
The top .01 % need to go pro if it’s not enough. But some understand the difference that one year at Duke (on national TV and in the NCAA tournament ) and signing a massive shoe contract is better than signing one out of high school for exponentially less money.
-
They are except the top .01%. Room and board alone costs approximately $240,000. If you throw in training, marketing and advertising their personal brands on national TV twice a week by the time they leave that may be hard to monetize but it’s at least a half million. Add in the nice trip to Spain and France, Maui, Orlando, etc. on a yearly basis you can throw on another $50,000. Add in the practice facilities and the Fiserv forum that they train in to hone their skills it’s even more. These guys are being compensated extremely well.
The top .01 % need to go pro if it’s not enough. But some understand the difference that one year at Duke (on national TV and in the NCAA tournament ) and signing a massive shoe contract is better than signing one out of high school for exponentially less money.
They shouldn’t waste their times in college. Or traditional high schools. Time to adopt the European model. Our fascination with maintaining amateurism is baffling
-
They are except the top .01%. Room and board alone costs approximately $240,000. If you throw in training, marketing and advertising their personal brands on national TV twice a week by the time they leave that may be hard to monetize but it’s at least a half million. Add in the nice trip to Spain and France, Maui, Orlando, etc. on a yearly basis you can throw on another $50,000. Add in the practice facilities and the Fiserv forum that they train in to hone their skills it’s even more. These guys are being compensated extremely well.
The top .01 % need to go pro if it’s not enough. But some understand the difference that one year at Duke (on national TV and in the NCAA tournament ) and signing a massive shoe contract is better than signing one out of high school for exponentially less money.
Allowing players to profit off their likeness would create zero expenditures for programs.
It would, however, lessen the NCAA's ability to profit off their likenesses.
-
Are basketball players allowed both summer school sessions? Maybe only allowed 12 credits in the spring (at least under Buzz)? Those would be the only two caveats that I can think of where the math wouldn't quite work but yeah my understanding after looking at credit requirements is anyone could graduate if they passed all classes, took 15 credits both semesters and full 12 credit allotment during summer school.
So for Chicos to be correct Jae would have had to arrive at MU several credits short of zero.
-
As I have said numerous times, I don't agree with it and I strongly believe it goes against the historical mission of the university.
This is where I think you have it backwards. The mission of the university is to graduate students. Taking a student who mathematically could not graduate before their grant in aid ran out, goes against that mission.
For every Jae Crowder, there are literally hundreds of basketball recruits, many of whom are from just as disadvantaged backrounds as Jae, who have put in the work and earned a better academic standing. Why is it wrong for a university to consider a recurit's academics when selecting who to extend an offer to? Why does it "go against the historical mission of the university" to offer a scholarship to a student athlete from a disadvantaged background who can graduate over one who can't?
-
Other students don’t get to travel on the university’s dime, get free clothes, free training, free room and board, access to media, a chance to perform in front of thousands each year.
Change thousands to hundreds and scratch the access to media and I got all those things as an "other student"
-
They shouldn’t waste their times in college. Or traditional high schools. Time to adopt the European model. Our fascination with maintaining amateurism is baffling
I don’t think there is a fascination. They should do what you are saying. Those that want an education could still use the current model. Those that want to take a chance of winning the lottery (being NBA draft pick) should go to the European model and then the majority can go back to school after their dream dies a slow and painful death.
-
I don’t think there is a fascination. They should do what you are saying. Those that want an education could still use the current model. Those that want to take a chance of winning the lottery (being NBA draft pick) should go to the European model and then the majority can go back to school after their dream dies a slow and painful death.
It would be better for all sports and development of young athletes than varsity high school sports or college.
-
Change thousands to hundreds and scratch the access to media and I got all those things as an "other student"
Come on man even if you included all the clothes you got from band, RA, and just being a student it's not nearly the quality or quantity that they get.
Also not everybody can get the free room and board as an RA sortve like athletes, it was a measure of compensation for your duties.
I'm also not sure if the band was flown on the private jet, or regular class but even every ncaa tournament site you went to isn't nearly the compensation they get to travel to major cities all over the Midwest and north east plus the Europe trips, thanksgiving tournaments etc.
I also don't know how much media you had access to but I doubt it was enough so that if you failed At your profession you were already set up to monetize your Instagram/Twitter as an "influencer".
I'm not saying I entirely agree with Chico's but I think it's disingenuous to say you were "compensated" to the degree they are.
-
So for Chicos to be correct Jae would have had to arrive at MU several credits short of zero.
not true. He had to have graduated from his JUCO but many of those credits likely didn't count towards whatever degree program MU put him in, meaning that he had much more than the 128 or whatever MU requires for a degree these days. He then probably then earned the minimum number of credits to get eligible each season. He only had to be 60% of the way towards his degree entering his senior year and let's face it, most students aren't going to complete 40% of their degree in one year (52 credits if it's still 128 to graduate at MU), let alone a hoops player not focused on a degree.
-
Doubt the BBall players could still do it with their schedules but I know Steve Novak or Travis Deiner worked at Mo's for the valet way back when as my sister was the bar manager. Just an example of the fact that they can get jobs.
They can and some still do. This outright lie that keeps being perpetuated that the NCAA doesn’t allow students to get jobs is crazy. Not only can they, but they are also allowed to be self employed and start their own business if they so desire.
Furthermore, why again is this only a basketball thing...the NCAA administers many more sports than that but the anti NCAA crowd apparently is incapable of recognizing this, all while saying the “NCAA” each time in their protest and broad generalization.
It’s amazing what NCAA athletes are able to do that the normal student can only dream of, but that is something not to be discussed apparently.
-
It's almost like it'd be a good idea to compensate their largest revenue earners fairly. 🤯
Really, let them go to all the non revenue sports and tell them they are cut, their opportunities gone. Oh, and make sure to start with women athletes and the minorities, I’ll be it is a huge hit to those that will be decimated. Finally, let us know how only the “largest” revenue generators will be compensated and the others won’t...Title IX is going to be great....and then let us know how the star player is compensated the same as the guy that only plays 2 minutes a game.
Fly on a wall......
-
So for Chicos to be correct Jae would have had to arrive at MU several credits short of zero.
Incorrect. Here’s an example, guy has 20 credits of physical education and transfers to MU who has no Phys Ed major and thus all or nearly all of the credits do not transfer. Now do the same calculus with any number of majors we do not carry and the credits are essentially of no transferable value to an MU degree.
-
This is where I think you have it backwards. The mission of the university is to graduate students. Taking a student who mathematically could not graduate before their grant in aid ran out, goes against that mission.
For every Jae Crowder, there are literally hundreds of basketball recruits, many of whom are from just as disadvantaged backrounds as Jae, who have put in the work and earned a better academic standing. Why is it wrong for a university to consider a recurit's academics when selecting who to extend an offer to? Why does it "go against the historical mission of the university" to offer a scholarship to a student athlete from a disadvantaged background who can graduate over one who can't?
Amen
-
Change thousands to hundreds and scratch the access to media and I got all those things as an "other student"
Not Amen. Would love to hear the equivalency argument here.
-
I didn't think Lazar had a ghost of a chance.
-
I didn't think Lazar had a ghost of a chance.
Hah!
And way to bring this back to the topic :-)
-
Incorrect. Here’s an example, guy has 20 credits of physical education and transfers to MU who has no Phys Ed major and thus all or nearly all of the credits do not transfer. Now do the same calculus with any number of majors we do not carry and the credits are essentially of no transferable value to an MU degree.
Though he does need to transfer 48 degree applicable credits (only 3 that are PE) and be 40% of the way towards a degree in his declared major by the start of junior year to be eligible. So, can’t come in with nothing like the past but coming in at the minimum and earning the minimum puts him way behind for graduation by the time he exhaust ps eligibility.
-
Incorrect. Here’s an example, guy has 20 credits of physical education and transfers to MU who has no Phys Ed major and thus all or nearly all of the credits do not transfer. Now do the same calculus with any number of majors we do not carry and the credits are essentially of no transferable value to an MU degree.
What's the maximum number of credits a student at MU can take per semester (without paying extra)? In my day it was 18. 3 years = 6 semesters. 18x6 = 108. What is the maximum amount of credits an MU student can earn in summer school per year? 12? 12x3 = 36. 108 + 36 = 144 possible credits in 3 years including summer school. Don't know how many credits one needs to graduate from MU today - in my era it was 128. If that still holds a student could enter MU with negative 16 credits (impossible, I know) and still graduate in 3 years.
-
Here are my thoughts on the MU JUCO discussion:
1. As pointed out by other, The pool of quality JUCO talent is actually very limited.
2. If there were kids who actually made sense from a Big East caliber playing perspective, MU would be out there recruiting them.
3. Current MU coaching staff is putting its resources and relationships to work in high school and transfers. There are a limited number of hours in the day. The traditional transfer market, with sitting out one year , is a good risk reward from both and academic and athletic perspective .
4. It would not surprise me if MU eventually went back into the JUCO market and put its focus on kids who originally started in D1 and then went to JUCO for non academic reasons.
-
They are except the top .01%.
Top 0.01%? No. Just no.
Strictly from a "good enough to play professionally" level it's probably 30-40%. Marquette's 2017 team had 9 guys play 30% of the minutes. 5 are now playing professionally, 2 certainly will (Howard & Hauser), 1 probably will (Cheatham did test the waters), and only 1 likely won't (Heldt going to law school). If 75% of high majors will play professionally, that's about 20% of all players. And there are significant numbers from mid majors that also play professionally, just look at the TBT teams from places like Bradley, UMBC, etc.
But more important, for many of these kids this is absolutely the MOST marketable time of their lives. EA or Visual Concepts would cut checks to even walk-ons to get their likeness into a NCAA Basketball game that will make them millions. For some it might be only a couple hundred bucks, but if their likeness is worth that, let them earn it. They will make millions off the game, they would definitely pony up hundreds to even the bit players.
-
If those others you are talking about can make money overseas before they graduate from college they should go and forgo the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of free education, room, board, training, facilities and travel they receive as skinny unprepared basketball novices.
If there was a market for grade school and high school players playing professionally I would agree they should go as well. I not against a professional model for everyone.
-
Top 0.01%? No. Just no.
Strictly from a "good enough to play professionally" level it's probably 30-40%. Marquette's 2017 team had 9 guys play 30% of the minutes. 5 are now playing professionally, 2 certainly will (Howard & Hauser), 1 probably will (Cheatham did test the waters), and only 1 likely won't (Heldt going to law school). If 75% of high majors will play professionally, that's about 20% of all players. And there are significant numbers from mid majors that also play professionally, just look at the TBT teams from places like Bradley, UMBC, etc.
But more important, for many of these kids this is absolutely the MOST marketable time of their lives. EA or Visual Concepts would cut checks to even walk-ons to get their likeness into a NCAA Basketball game that will make them millions. For some it might be only a couple hundred bucks, but if their likeness is worth that, let them earn it. They will make millions off the game, they would definitely pony up hundreds to even the bit players.
Wait, you are literally contradicting yourself. The fact that these guys get to go overseas and make a living is BECAUSE of how they played in college. That 4 year audition in which they had training, free room and board, etc, led to a paying gig for them overseas. Their marketability and payoff happens when they leave the school to become professionals. If they were good enough to make money without proving their worth in college, they should...go for it....join a professional league and get paid. But let’s not pretend college isn’t doing wonders for them and literally paving the wave for their future employment as it does for many students. But again, the pay the players crowd doesn’t want to acknowledge this part....for some odd reason.
-
What's the maximum number of credits a student at MU can take per semester (without paying extra)? In my day it was 18. 3 years = 6 semesters. 18x6 = 108. What is the maximum amount of credits an MU student can earn in summer school per year? 12? 12x3 = 36. 108 + 36 = 144 possible credits in 3 years including summer school. Don't know how many credits one needs to graduate from MU today - in my era it was 128. If that still holds a student could enter MU with negative 16 credits (impossible, I know) and still graduate in 3 years.
I took 19 one semester and do not recall being charged extra.
Now, let’s get real, there are few if any men’s basketball players taking 18 credits a semester for any number of reasons I am sure you know well. Second, some classes in majors require prerequisites are finished first before you can take the next level class, so it isn’t nearly as tidy as you lay out because the timeline doesn’t setup so easily....depends on the major, of course. Third, Summer School credits are often limited in what class opportunities you have....the curriculum of offerings is reduced...so though there may be credits out there to obtain, it doesn’t mean the right classes are there to count for your degree....some will, but all 36 credits....extremely unlikely. I could go on...the rule is in place for a reason.
-
I took 19 one semester and do not recall being charged extra.
IiRC 19 was the max when I was there. Took a semester of 21 and had to pour in extra $$$$
3.5 years of tuition plus a little extra was much betta than 4 full years tho
-
Wait, you are literally contradicting yourself. The fact that these guys get to go overseas and make a living is BECAUSE of how they played in college. That 4 year audition in which they had training, free room and board, etc, led to a paying gig for them overseas. Their marketability and payoff happens when they leave the school to become professionals. If they were good enough to make money without proving their worth in college, they should...go for it....join a professional league and get paid. But let’s not pretend college isn’t doing wonders for them and literally paving the wave for their future employment as it does for many students. But again, the pay the players crowd doesn’t want to acknowledge this part....for some odd reason.
This is untrue. Just like undrafted players make the NBA, guys who don't play in college still play professionally overseas.
And their marketability for the most part goes down when they leave college. For every Zion, there are dozens of Luke Fischer types who will be bigger names in a higher demand sport in college than they ever will be overseas. And guys like Heldt & walk-ons like Cam will never be more marketable than they are in college.
Do they get noticed during their four year unpaid internship? Sure. That doesn't change the reality that unpaid internships are literally unpaid labor and should wholly be eliminated from our society.
-
What's the maximum number of credits a student at MU can take per semester (without paying extra)? In my day it was 18. 3 years = 6 semesters. 18x6 = 108. What is the maximum amount of credits an MU student can earn in summer school per year? 12? 12x3 = 36. 108 + 36 = 144 possible credits in 3 years including summer school. Don't know how many credits one needs to graduate from MU today - in my era it was 128. If that still holds a student could enter MU with negative 16 credits (impossible, I know) and still graduate in 3 years.
Basketball players are taking 12 per semester, maybe 15 in case they need to drop a class. Then usually 6 in the summer. They only need to pass 6 during the summer, 18 during the year to be eligible, so that gives them a chance to withdraw after the season or just fail classes.
-
I took 19 one semester and do not recall being charged extra.
Now, let’s get real, there are few if any men’s basketball players taking 18 credits a semester for any number of reasons I am sure you know well. Second, some classes in majors require prerequisites are finished first before you can take the next level class, so it isn’t nearly as tidy as you lay out because the timeline doesn’t setup so easily....depends on the major, of course. Third, Summer School credits are often limited in what class opportunities you have....the curriculum of offerings is reduced...so though there may be credits out there to obtain, it doesn’t mean the right classes are there to count for your degree....some will, but all 36 credits....extremely unlikely. I could go on...the rule is in place for a reason.
Assuming 128 credits to graduate (correct me if I'm wrong), if Jae enrolled at MU with zero (0) transferable credits, three summers (36 hours) and 6 semesters at 15, 15, 15,15, 15, 17 would equal 128. So not impossible under the worst possible scenario. Neither you nor I know how many transferrable credits Jae had but I'd wager it's wasn't zero. If it was, for example, 14, he could have graduated in 3 years taking full loads in summer school and 13 hours per semester.
But whatever the numbers were your assertion that it wasn't possible is false.
-
This is untrue. Just like undrafted players make the NBA, guys who don't play in college still play professionally overseas.
And their marketability for the most part goes down when they leave college. For every Zion, there are dozens of Luke Fischer types who will be bigger names in a higher demand sport in college than they ever will be overseas. And guys like Heldt & walk-ons like Cam will never be more marketable than they are in college.
Do they get noticed during their four year unpaid internship? Sure. That doesn't change the reality that unpaid internships are literally unpaid labor and should wholly be eliminated from our society.
Please call me in about 17 years when you have to start paying the tuition bills for your beautiful bouncy Brewlette . I think you will have a different perspective as to the value of a full ride athletic scholarship which includes tuition room board and books.
-
Please call me in about 17 years when you have to start paying the tuition bills for your beautiful bouncy Brewlette . I think you will have a different perspective as to the value of a full ride athletic scholarship which includes tuition room board and books.
I'm not saying there isn't value, but it isn't remotely fair value. And if there is a market for their likenesses, they should be able to profit off that, as any other student could. Especially as the universities use their likenesses for profit repeatedly, constantly, and for years after they depart the program.
-
I'm not saying there isn't value, but it isn't remotely fair value.
Why do kids go the college route, then?
-
Why do kids go the college route, then?
Because it's a monopoly market if they want to stay in the country they know and because it's the most visible route to the NBA, and everyone playing college ball is dreaming of the NBA.
-
Assuming 128 credits to graduate (correct me if I'm wrong), if Jae enrolled at MU with zero (0) transferable credits, three summers (36 hours) and 6 semesters at 15, 15, 15,15, 15, 17 would equal 128. So not impossible under the worst possible scenario. Neither you nor I know how many transferrable credits Jae had but I'd wager it's wasn't zero. If it was, for example, 14, he could have graduated in 3 years taking full loads in summer school and 13 hours per semester.
But whatever the numbers were your assertion that it wasn't possible is false.
Crowder played 2 years, not 3.
-
Because it's a monopoly market if they want to stay in the country they know and because it's the most visible route to the NBA, and everyone playing college ball is dreaming of the NBA.
The overwhelming majority are not prepared to play professional basketball out of high school (NBA or any other professional league). You are assuming a market for their services that isn’t there. The value the vast majority receive going to a division 1 school is way more than the value they would get professionally at the same age and it’s not even close (the .01 percent aside, they should be allowed to play professionally out of grade school if they are good enough).
-
Crowder played 2 years, not 3.
I'm well aware, but Chico said that Crowder couldn't have graduated even if given a 3rd year.
-
The overwhelming majority are not prepared to play professional basketball out of high school (NBA or any other professional league). You are assuming a market for their services that isn’t there. The value the vast majority receive going to a division 1 school is way more than the value they would get professionally at the same age and it’s not even close (the .01 percent aside, they should be allowed to play professionally out of grade school if they are good enough).
And thus, for that "vast majority" they will never be more marketable than they are in college, which is why they should be able to profit off their likenesses.
The NCAA member institutions all profit off the likenesses of these players. They all use these players in advertising. Marquette still uses the likenesses of players that have been gone for years, decades. They repeatedly use the likenesses of the current players to profit from. There is no reason, no reason whatsoever, that the players themselves should not be able to do the same. None.
-
Anyone else getting dizzy from all these circles we're running around?
-
And thus, for that "vast majority" they will never be more marketable than they are in college, which is why they should be able to profit off their likenesses.
The NCAA member institutions all profit off the likenesses of these players. They all use these players in advertising. Marquette still uses the likenesses of players that have been gone for years, decades. They repeatedly use the likenesses of the current players to profit from. There is no reason, no reason whatsoever, that the players themselves should not be able to do the same. None.
[/quote
How would this be set up? I guess I need to know more about how this would be done before responding to the profit from their likeness argument more than they already are.
-
It's sad that 95% of this thread has been devoted to anything besides how great Lazar and Jae were as players (and have continued to be as MU ambassadors).
-
How would it be set up? They would be able to profit from their likeness. If a local business wants to pay players to endorse their service or product, they can do that. If local news wants to pay them to film an ad for the sports segment, they can do that. If EA Sports or Visual Concepts wants to pay them to use their likeness in a video game, they can do that.
If the universities are able to use the players' likenesses for marketing and free advertising content, the players should be able to use their own likenesses to do the same for outside entities. Of course, the criticism is always "this will allow boosters to buy players," but as that's already happening through boosters, agents, and shoe companies, what is the difference? Better to get it out in the open. Besides, it's Markus Howard's face Marquette is advertising with, it's his performance that sells jerseys and memorabilia, shouldn't he be able to use his own face to make money?
And again, for someone like Cam Marotta or Matt Heldt who may never earn a penny of professional basketball dollars, why not let them make money on their likeness when they are in the most marketable time of their lives? Cam Marotta won't get paid to do commercials in 10 years, but during his time at Marquette it's entirely possible a local business or international video game company would give him a little money to endorse a product or appear in a game.
Further, you allow it universally. So if basketball players are able to profit off their likeness, so be it. Football players, volleyball players, baseball players, go for it. If an outside entity believes the student-athlete has value to them, go ahead and pay them for marketing purposes. And if they don't and some players get nothing, so be it. Your likeness is worth what you can sell it for.
-
So I really don't have a dog in this fight but... What's to stop the big boosters from letting it be known to any and all top recruits that they're willing to pay 100K to a player to make one appearance in a local car commercial? The player would be marketing off their own likeness, but I wouldn't exactly call it ethical. Is doing that legally really better than the shoe companies illegally dropping bags?
-
Nothing, which is what the shoe companies are already doing and why the top recruits generally congregate at the same 4-5 schools. But then the money goes to the kid instead of the handler. And recruits will still have to base decisions off playing time and opportunity, because if you're taking six figures to be the 13th man at Duke or Kentucky, you aren't getting the exposure needed to be a NBA draft pick anyway.
-
Say Kansas is filled up, all 13 scholies used. Top 5 recruit decommits from AZ because Miller finally gets busted. Self goes to the guy and says "Can't offer you a scholarship, but if you walk-on, day one you do a car commercial you get enough money to pay for your one year of school, plus afford a car, plus very extravagant living expenses". Kansas is still only at 13 scholarship players and they also get a lottery pick next year. legal? Yes. Ethical? No.
Is it so bad to say that student athletes are getting a poor deal, but at the same time there is no good solution? Given the loopholes that are already out there, wouldn't being able to legally pay players just open up exponentially more of them? I just came up with 2 in what? 5 minutes. I feel bad for the 1% of student athletes that could be making more money than their degree is worth, but I also think that fixing it for the 1% would provide many more problems for the 99%.
-
Say Kansas is filled up, all 13 scholies used. Top 5 recruit decommits from AZ because Miller finally gets busted. Self goes to the guy and says "Can't offer you a scholarship, but if you walk-on, day one you do a car commercial you get enough money to pay for your one year of school, plus afford a car, plus very extravagant living expenses". Kansas is still only at 13 scholarship players and they also get a lottery pick next year. legal? Yes. Ethical? No.
Is it so bad to say that student athletes are getting a poor deal, but at the same time there is no good solution? Given the loopholes that are already out there, wouldn't being able to legally pay players just open up exponentially more of them? I just came up with 2 in what? 5 minutes. I feel bad for the 1% of student athletes that could be making more money than their degree is worth, but I also think that fixing it for the 1% would provide many more problems for the 99%.
What's to stop Adidas from doing the same now? Or Kansas forcing someone to transfer? Let's not forget that player will have to pay their tuition, which will reduce the value of their endorsements. And if you think that won't piss off the guys who are now lining up behind a walk on for minutes that saw themselves as lottery picks, you're crazy.
You're coming up with Chicken Little scenarios that are no more offensive than Louisville hosting hooker parties, Duke & Kansas in a bidding war for Zion, or any of the other things that are already actually occurring. And one system says "oh, your OWN FACE, you can't profit from that, but the school you play for can use those images in perpetuity."
And I'd be willing to bet more like 99% of the current student athletes in revenue sports, scholarship & walk on alike, would benefit.
-
What's to stop Adidas from doing the same now? Or Kansas forcing someone to transfer? Let's not forget that player will have to pay their tuition, which will reduce the value of their endorsements. And if you think that won't piss off the guys who are now lining up behind a walk on for minutes that saw themselves as lottery picks, you're crazy.
You're coming up with Chicken Little scenarios that are no more offensive than Louisville hosting hooker parties, Duke & Kansas in a bidding war for Zion, or any of the other things that are already actually occurring. And one system says "oh, your OWN FACE, you can't profit from that, but the school you play for can use those images in perpetuity."
And I'd be willing to bet more like 99% of the current student athletes in revenue sports, scholarship & walk on alike, would benefit.
The point is that no matter how bad it is now, there is always room for it to get worse.
There are problems with the current system, but I have yet to see a proposal that fixes them without creating a plethora of new bigger problems. It sounds like you're proposing that recruiting should mirror a cattle auction.
-
No, I'm proposing that a student's face and the rights to it belong to the student, just like it does for every other student. That's it.
-
Recruting is already a cattle auction. It just has "rules" that many routinely ignore.
-
No, I'm proposing that a student's face and the rights to it belong to the student, just like it does for every other student. That's it.
But it will never be that simple, and you know it. You're saying that all the money that Adidas and Nike are throwing at these high schooler's is bad. I agree. However, I do not think that the solution is to add more money to the equation.
-
Recruting is already a cattle auction. It just has "rules" that many routinely ignore.
How much did Markus cost?
What's the going rate for Suggs?
If you really believe that, why haven't you started a gofundme to get Baldwin?
-
How much did Markus cost?
What's the going rate for Suggs?
If you really believe that, why haven't you started a gofundme to get Baldwin?
No idea.
No idea.
Why would I do that?
If the local car dealership wants to pay Markus $5,000 to hang out for an afternoon, they should be able to do that. If Nike wants to pay someone $10,000 to come to school at Marquette, they should be able to do that.
-
Disagree, but that's fine. As I said, i'm trying not to have a dog in this fight. I've stated my case on why I think paying players is too slippery of a slope, and I'll leave it at that.
-
But it will never be that simple, and you know it. You're saying that all the money that Adidas and Nike are throwing at these high schooler's is bad. I agree. However, I do not think that the solution is to add more money to the equation.
It literally is exactly that simple. Let them earn the value the market dictates they are worth. That's already happening, but it's benefiting handlers instead of the student athletes much of the time. I would rather the SAs benefit from their worth than their uncles, cousins, high school coaches, neighbors, and whatever other handlers are out there.
And the money in the equation is already there. That genie is never going back in the bottle. We're probably 50 years past that point.
-
The point is that no matter how bad it is now, there is always room for it to get worse.
There are problems with the current system, but I have yet to see a proposal that fixes them without creating a plethora of new bigger problems. It sounds like you're proposing that recruiting should mirror a cattle auction.
It's worth noting that your overriding concern here is the system possibly becoming more complicated for the schools, not whether the system is fair for their labor, aka the players.
-
It literally is exactly that simple. Let them earn the value the market dictates they are worth.
Agree to disagree. Nothing is that simple.
It's worth noting that your overriding concern here is the system possibly becoming more complicated for the schools, not whether the system is fair for their labor, aka the players.
Not sure where you're getting this from
I feel bad for the 1% of student athletes that could be making more money than their degree is worth, but I also think that fixing it for the 1% would provide many more problems for the 99%.
-
Stop making the ncaa fulfill a wet dream for some of you. The sooner they allow freshmen to go to the pros and more guys go...the better. Then this nonsense will stop. You want to get paid...go pro. Period.
-
It literally is exactly that simple. Let them earn the value the market dictates they are worth. That's already happening, but it's benefiting handlers instead of the student athletes much of the time. I would rather the SAs benefit from their worth than their uncles, cousins, high school coaches, neighbors, and whatever other handlers are out there.
And the money in the equation is already there. That genie is never going back in the bottle. We're probably 50 years past that point.
I get what you are saying. I guess I’m concerned that it would be more than simply shoe companies and car dealerships paying players for their likeness. I believe it would effect the rest of the University's student athletes and students in general. In a free market with no cap on what could be spent, University and athletic department officials would ultimately have to spend a great deal of their time talking to donors who own businesses to pay b-ball and football players for their likeness rather than donating to the general scholarship fund.
-
No, I'm proposing that a student's face and the rights to it belong to the student, just like it does for every other student. That's it.
Yep.
-
Yep.
That’s fine....go pro and use your likeness all you want. Again the irony....the “other student” no one wants their photo. I propose the student athlete pay the school for giving them a platform where someone cares enough to want their likeness, for without that platform they wouldn’t care. Let’s have the players reimburse for all the value add being given by the conference, the fact that the school has to sell tickets, give them a safe environment to play, sets up media interviews for them, pushes media relations matters to benefit them, etc.
It’s truly amazing how much the schools, conferences, etc do for the student athletes, but to hear the arguments here it is only the players.....the super exploited players. ::). At the end of the day the student athletes make out way ahead of the game then when they went in.
-
That’s fine....go pro and use your likeness all you want. Again the irony....the “other student” no one wants their photo. I propose the student athlete pay the school for giving them a platform where someone cares enough to want their likeness, for without that platform they wouldn’t care. Let’s have the players reimburse for all the value add being given by the conference, the fact that the school has to sell tickets, give them a safe environment to play, sets up media interviews for them, pushes media relations matters to benefit them, etc.
It’s truly amazing how much the schools, conferences, etc do for the student athletes, but to hear the arguments here it is only the players.....the super exploited players. ::). At the end of the day the student athletes make out way ahead of the game then when they went in.
Ignoring
-
MU82,
I understand you may not like Cheeks as a poster. But he makes very good points in his post above. The fact that these benefits are ignored is dumb founding to me. I wish all my kids could get the benefits these non professionals are getting.
I can at least acknowledge the merits of the other side of the argument. I don’t feel that many here can do the same for the current model.
In my opinion, the first sentence of this discussion from the other side should be “I understand the vast majority of these players are getting hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of goods and services for their skills already but I don’t feel they are.......”
-
The next part of the sentence I’m sure will be “paid enough”. But we’ll have to agree to disagree on that point.
I am officially letting it go now. I appreciate all you guys.
-
I understand you may not like Cheeks as a poster. But he makes very good points in his post above.
If amateurism wasn't a total sham, that might be true. But we aren't talking about a local league that only a few people care about, we're talking about a multi-billion dollar business. And we're talking about the members of that business already profiting off those same likenesses.
Frankly, when he says "the other student...no one wants their photo," he is reinforcing my point. The ONLY time students are restricted is when it would cut into the bottom line of the universities.
And if the problem is the the universities will have to work harder to get donations, how is that the problem of the players? If they have to work harder, then do it. The only arguments against players profiting from their likeness is university greed & laziness. If that's the entire crux of the argument, that's a bad argument.
And the argument the players aren't exploited is basically saying "we give them SOMETHING, why should we have to let them earn what they're ACTUALLY worth?" Not wanting the players to earn what they are worth is basically not tipping in a restaurant because the server is earning $2.33/hour and saying they should be happy with that.
-
Stop making the ncaa fulfill a wet dream for some of you. The sooner they allow freshmen to go to the pros and more guys go...the better. Then this nonsense will stop. You want to get paid...go pro. Period.
Try to be less triggered.
-
MU82,
I understand you may not like Cheeks as a poster. But he makes very good points in his post above. The fact that these benefits are ignored is dumb founding to me. I wish all my kids could get the benefits these non professionals are getting.
I can at least acknowledge the merits of the other side of the argument. I don’t feel that many here can do the same for the current model.
In my opinion, the first sentence of this discussion from the other side should be “I understand the vast majority of these players are getting hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of goods and services for their skills already but I don’t feel they are.......”
Shooter:
I happen to agree with brewcity (and some others) on this issue. I almost always will side with the athlete/student getting a bigger piece of the pie and the corporation/university and coach/opportunist getting somewhat smaller pieces. I have never gotten why it is OK for the coach to accept millions from Nike or Adidas while the athletes get $0.00 for wearing and showcasing the product.
Like you, I will let it go for now. We all have made our statements, some of us multiple times over the years. The next iteration of this discussion almost surely is only days away, probably in a thread about something totally unrelated.
As for the individual you named in your opening sentence, I am trying really hard not to be sucked into his game of arguing for the sake of arguing. A couple weeks ago, I promised to stop bogging down threads with our little personality clashes. I, for one, have stuck to that promise.
Have a great weekend.
-
MU82,
I understand you may not like Cheeks as a poster. But he makes very good points in his post above. The fact that these benefits are ignored is dumb founding to me. I wish all my kids could get the benefits these non professionals are getting.
Really no one is arguing they aren't getting a benefit. What people are arguing is that many high level D1 players are worth MORE than the scholarship they are receiving. Otherwise the under the table payments wouldn't exist. It's an artificial cap on compensation that exists for very little legitimate reason. The NCAA is usually amateurism as a virtue, which is complete rubbish, to make sure that they collect the revenue.
Don't pretend it's due to fairness. Because if it were about fairness, there are dozens of things they could do to address the income inequities that exists in D1 sports today. It's about making sure they get theirs by putting an artificial ceiling on compensation - which is really "Un-American" if you want to call it that.
-
That’s fine....go pro and use your likeness all you want. Again the irony....the “other student” no one wants their photo. I propose the student athlete pay the school for giving them a platform where someone cares enough to want their likeness, for without that platform they wouldn’t care. Let’s have the players reimburse for all the value add being given by the conference, the fact that the school has to sell tickets, give them a safe environment to play, sets up media interviews for them, pushes media relations matters to benefit them, etc.
It’s truly amazing how much the schools, conferences, etc do for the student athletes, but to hear the arguments here it is only the players.....the super exploited players. ::). At the end of the day the student athletes make out way ahead of the game then when they went in.
Actually there's loads of students that other would want their photo. At one point during my tenure we had a pro boxer and two Olympic speed skaters I know I'd want their photo more than 75% of the basketball players that came through during that same period. Some schools have celebrity children (USC), porn stars (Duke, ASU), Instagram influencers, etc. and they are all profiting off their likeness. For someone that is usually very pro free market it's strange to me to see you arguing against any aspect of it.
-
Actually there's loads of students that other would want their photo. At one point during my tenure we had a pro boxer and two Olympic speed skaters I know I'd want their photo more than 75% of the basketball players that came through during that same period. Some schools have celebrity children (USC), porn stars (Duke, ASU), Instagram influencers, etc. and they are all profiting off their likeness. For someone that is usually very pro free market it's strange to me to see you arguing against any aspect of it.
This is exactly what came to my mind. You wouldn't think "social media influencers" would be a thing. Yet there's people out there earning money simply based on having followers.
-
This is exactly what came to my mind. You wouldn't think "social media influencers" would be a thing. Yet there's people out there earning money simply based on having followers.
I know someone who went from a month to month existence as a freelance photographer to being an "influencer" who has pulled in seven figures the last three years. She has two employees to handle her social media, web presense, etc., got her new house furnished for almost nothing last year, and spent all of January in Hawaii with free lodging. All from over a million Instagram and Facebook followers.
It's really weird, but she puts herself out there quite a bit and hawks stuff like there's no tomorrow. It all started with an Instagram post that "went viral" and eventually ended up on Good Morning America.
-
Really no one is arguing they aren't getting a benefit. What people are arguing is that many high level D1 players are worth MORE than the scholarship they are receiving. Otherwise the under the table payments wouldn't exist. It's an artificial cap on compensation that exists for very little legitimate reason. The NCAA is usually amateurism as a virtue, which is complete rubbish, to make sure that they collect the revenue.
Don't pretend it's due to fairness. Because if it were about fairness, there are dozens of things they could do to address the income inequities that exists in D1 sports today. It's about making sure they get theirs by putting an artificial ceiling on compensation - which is really "Un-American" if you want to call it that.
The vast majority are not worth it, especially because so many of you don’t factor in the training, etc they receive and what it yields after they leave.
We wouldn’t do that for another educational approach, so why do we here? Does a MU nursing student receive training that allows him or her to make money as a trained future nurse? How much is that training worth in FUTURE dollars? How about the law school student, dental school student, dental hygienists, etc, etc? Accounting major....finance major. All go to school, are trained and benefit long term for it.
Are the student athletes not receiving training that allows them to earn more dollars when they leave, especially the small percentage some claim are worth more than their scholarship? Why is that not factored in? Conveniently....ignored.
-
The vast majority are not worth it, especially because so many of you don’t factor in the training, etc they receive and what it yields after they leave.
We wouldn’t do that for another educational approach, so why do we here? Does a MU nursing student receive training that allows him or her to make money as a trained future nurse? How much is that training worth in FUTURE dollars? How about the law school student, dental school student, dental hygienists, etc, etc? Accounting major....finance major. All go to school, are trained and benefit long term for it.
Are the student athletes not receiving training that allows them to earn more dollars when they leave, especially the small percentage some claim are worth more than their scholarship? Why is that not factored in? Conveniently....ignored.
I am 100% taking that into account.
But I also see a nursing student, receiving nursing training, can earn money on Instagram for being an influencer or for a comedy station on YouTube.
Why not athletes?
-
The vast majority are not worth it, especially because so many of you don’t factor in the training, etc they receive and what it yields after they leave.
We wouldn’t do that for another educational approach, so why do we here? Does a MU nursing student receive training that allows him or her to make money as a trained future nurse? How much is that training worth in FUTURE dollars? How about the law school student, dental school student, dental hygienists, etc, etc? Accounting major....finance major. All go to school, are trained and benefit long term for it.
Are the student athletes not receiving training that allows them to earn more dollars when they leave, especially the small percentage some claim are worth more than their scholarship? Why is that not factored in? Conveniently....ignored.
I'm not ignoring it in the least. Let the market decide.
-
I'm not ignoring it in the least. Let the market decide.
The market for students w/o a degree is....?
-
“Fairness” is the most overused, waeponized word in the English language.
-
I am 100% taking that into account.
But I also see a nursing student, receiving nursing training, can earn money on Instagram for being an influencer or for a comedy station on YouTube.
Why not athletes?
Fair question.
Also, if a trombone company would pay a music student $$$ to use their brand of trombone, the trombonist could take the money without a problem. The money wouldn't go to the music professor or the music department instead.
-
So, if someone signs a contract, and gets consideration for the contract, and it’s a legally enforceable able contact, what’s the issue?
Shouldn’t you either not sign, the contract, negotiate better terms, or find a better deal?
I’m curious why other markets (Europe, etc) haven’t stepped up to offer big bucks to our amateur athletes. My guess is that any too 10 kid could go overseas and make huge $’s, BUT. CHOOSE NOT TO.
-
I am 100% taking that into account.
But I also see a nursing student, receiving nursing training, can earn money on Instagram for being an influencer or for a comedy station on YouTube.
Why not athletes?
For many reasons, including the nurse is not competing as an amateur or in athletic competition With a governing body trying fend off the massive abuses that boosters, fans, etc will do to get a competitive edge.
Why not flip the script and ask why cannot the nurses get to perform at the Fiserv and be on tv, travel to Spain and France, etc? Yes, life isn’t always fair, the student athletes are getting an insanely great deal that 99% of the student body doesn’t get.
-
Actually there's loads of students that other would want their photo. At one point during my tenure we had a pro boxer and two Olympic speed skaters I know I'd want their photo more than 75% of the basketball players that came through during that same period. Some schools have celebrity children (USC), porn stars (Duke, ASU), Instagram influencers, etc. and they are all profiting off their likeness. For someone that is usually very pro free market it's strange to me to see you arguing against any aspect of it.
Loads would still be a very small percentage
-
I'm not ignoring it in the least. Let the market decide.
Should we have regulations and rules in business or just let the market decide?
-
Fair question.
Also, if a trombone company would pay a music student $$$ to use their brand of trombone, the trombonist could take the money without a problem. The money wouldn't go to the music professor or the music department instead.
Every student should get to go on an all expenses paid trip to Spain and France and bring their Trombones to play at small gyms......isn’t also a fair question? Why does the basketball team get so much?
-
Every student should get to go on an all expenses paid trip to Spain and France and bring their Trombones to play at small gyms......isn’t also a fair question? Why does the basketball team get so much?
Ignoring
-
For many reasons, including the nurse is not competing as an amateur or in athletic competition With a governing body trying fend off the massive abuses that boosters, fans, etc will do to get a competitive edge.
A system which is clearly not working. The recent trials, the scandals, the money changing hands from agents, shoe companies, assistant and head coaches, all that is clearly undermining the system. If you want to fix the system, the only way to do so is by getting rid of the sham that is amateurism.
The NCAA and the institutions that make it up are either not interested or not capable of fixing the system. Why is that the case? Is it incompetence, or because they don't want to change a system that financially benefits them to keep the labor force from partaking in the billions of dollars in profits? If it's incompetence, it's time to change the system. If it's because they don't want to share money with the people that earn them that money, it's time to change the system.
-
A system which is clearly not working. The recent trials, the scandals, the money changing hands from agents, shoe companies, assistant and head coaches, all that is clearly undermining the system. If you want to fix the system, the only way to do so is by getting rid of the sham that is amateurism.
The NCAA and the institutions that make it up are either not interested or not capable of fixing the system. Why is that the case? Is it incompetence, or because they don't want to change a system that financially benefits them to keep the labor force from partaking in the billions of dollars in profits? If it's incompetence, it's time to change the system. If it's because they don't want to share money with the people that earn them that money, it's time to change the system.
Agreed
-
For many reasons, including the nurse is not competing as an amateur or in athletic competition With a governing body trying fend off the massive abuses that boosters, fans, etc will do to get a competitive edge.
Why not flip the script and ask why cannot the nurses get to perform at the Fiserv and be on tv, travel to Spain and France, etc? Yes, life isn’t always fair, the student athletes are getting an insanely great deal that 99% of the student body doesn’t get.
But earlier you said athletes are allowed to get jobs. Those are also types of jobs. Why are those not allowed?
-
Should we have regulations and rules in business or just let the market decide?
Of course we should have regulations and rules. The NCAA's are unreasonable.
-
“Fairness” is the most overused, waeponized word in the English language.
Yep. Life never has been fair, and it never will be. We live in a world where a chance encounter or a random social media post can make people rich, while people with years of training and experience live in cardboard boxes.
We The People need to provide basic human rights, treat each other with dignity and respect, and hopefully give everybody a fighting chance to better themselves. But still, life will always be inherently unfair. And in the great scheme of the world as a whole, scholarship athletes in the US have far less to complain about than billions of others.
-
Yep. Life never has been fair, and it never will be. We live in a world where a chance encounter or a random social media post can make people rich, while people with years of training and experience live in cardboard boxes.
We The People need to provide basic human rights, treat each other with dignity and respect, and hopefully give everybody a fighting chance to better themselves. But still, life will always be inherently unfair. And in the great scheme of the world as a whole, scholarship athletes in the US have far less to complain about than billions of others.
Life is fair.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make it as fair as possible
-
Life is fair.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make it as fair as possible
How do you define that?
-
And in the great scheme of the world as a whole, scholarship athletes in the US have far less to complain about than billions of others.
Well sure. But one can say this about lots of American minimum-wage workers, too.
-
Well sure. But one can say this about lots of American minimum-wage workers, too.
Umm, that’s a huge huge stretch..... >:(
-
Well sure. But one can say this about lots of American minimum-wage workers, too.
I seriously doubt a minimum wage worker could come anywhere close to funding the four-year cost of a full scholarship.
-
Of course we should have regulations and rules. The NCAA's are unreasonable.
The membership disagrees because they know the rampant cheating that will happen.
-
Umm, that’s a huge huge stretch..... >:(
MU82 isn’t wrong when one thinks about the quote in context of the world which is what he was responding to.
-
The membership disagrees because they know the rampant cheating that will happen.
The membership disagrees because they want the $$. It’s painfully obvious they don’t care all that much about cheating.
-
The membership disagrees because they want the $$. It’s painfully obvious they don’t care all that much about cheating.
I think if you were to ask some people here that do that for a living, Billy being one, he would disagree. That is my guess anyway.
-
The membership disagrees because they want the $$. It’s painfully obvious they don’t care all that much about cheating.
This times a thousand. If they cared about cheating, players being paid wouldn't be a tradition that stretched back to the days of Al. The NCAA members just don't want to actually allow the people that make them money to earn any of that money, because it would have to come out of their cut.
-
This times a thousand. If they cared about cheating, players being paid wouldn't be a tradition that stretched back to the days of Al. The NCAA members just don't want to actually allow the people that make them money to earn any of that money, because it would have to come out of their cut.
Left wing Billy disagrees, and he's in the mix.
Easy to be a blowhard that whines about the 'big bag NCAA'...
-
Every student should get to go on an all expenses paid trip to Spain and France and bring their Trombones to play at small gyms......isn’t also a fair question? Why does the basketball team get so much?
Because the basketball team generates more revenue than most (probably all) students. They should be entitled to more compensation.
This has nothing to do with the question of athletes profiting off their likenesses.
-
Because the basketball team generates more revenue than most (probably all) students. They should be entitled to more compensation.
This has nothing to do with the question of athletes profiting off their likenesses.
BUT IT ISN’T FAIR!!!!
The women’s soccer team works just as hard. The women’s cross country team. The men’s lacrosse team.
Life isn’t fair, and yes the revenue sports carry the weight for the others which is also why the whole thing implodes with this continued unicorn thinking of taking care of the 1%’ers.
-
BUT IT ISN’T FAIR!!!!
The women’s soccer team works just as hard. The women’s cross country team. The men’s lacrosse team.
Life isn’t fair, and yes the revenue sports carry the weight for the others which is also why the whole thing implodes with this continued unicorn thinking of taking care of the 1%’ers.
That's why all of them would also be able to profit off their likenesses. Frankly, anyone who remotely supports capitalism as even a marginally good idea should support this.
-
That's why all of them would also be able to profit off their likenesses. Frankly, anyone who remotely supports capitalism as even a marginally good idea should support this.
Nah. I support a person's ability to chose to skip college and get paid, if the market will pay them.
That's the current model. It's great.
-
Nah. I support a person's ability to chose to skip college and get paid, if the market will pay them.
That's the current model. It's great.
The current model also allows 98% of students to go to college and get paid. No reason to discriminate against those that are involved in certain extracurriculars.
-
That's why all of them would also be able to profit off their likenesses. Frankly, anyone who remotely supports capitalism as even a marginally good idea should support this.
I worked for years with the student athletes that are supported by the current system, most of them women, minorities. I support their ability to get an education and perform for their school with their athletic talents. You haven't worked with those people and the opportunities that would be extinguished in your quest to help the 1%.
-
Nah. I support a person's ability to chose to skip college and get paid, if the market will pay them.
That's the current model. It's great.
Exactly, the options are already there, but these guys want to force an option that already exists into a different construct all the while destroying massive opportunities that currently exist for 100's of thousands of student athletes. Not the least of which is the legal, Title IX issue they seem to always want to duck.
-
Umm, that’s a huge huge stretch..... >:(
I seriously doubt a minimum wage worker could come anywhere close to funding the four-year cost of a full scholarship.
Y'all really don't think that, "in the great scheme of the world as a whole," an American minimum wage worker has "far less to complain about than billions of others"?
-
I worked for years with the student athletes that are supported by the current system, most of them women, minorities. I support their ability to get an education and perform for their school with their athletic talents. You haven't worked with those people and the opportunities that would be extinguished in your quest to help the 1%.
Oh yes, the current system is perfect and should never be changed or improved because of what you used to do years and years and years ago. Whoopty freaking doo.
I'm not one to cry for executives worried that their billion dollar business model might be dented, and think it's fair to afford everyone the same opportunities. Shocking that you support a system that takes away the economic self-determination from the labor force and puts it in the pocket of the entities taking in billions of dollars in donations and endowments.
-
BUT IT ISN’T FAIR!!!!
The women’s soccer team works just as hard. The women’s cross country team. The men’s lacrosse team.
Life isn’t fair, and yes the revenue sports carry the weight for the others which is also why the whole thing implodes with this continued unicorn thinking of taking care of the 1%’ers.
You quoted me but I have no idea how this relates to my post. Basketball players generate more revenue, they get more compensation. That's 100% fair.
That has nothing to do with students profitting off their likeness.
-
You quoted me but I have no idea how this relates to my post. Basketball players generate more revenue, they get more compensation. That's 100% fair.
That has nothing to do with students profitting off their likeness.
Basketball players are already getting MORE than the other student athletes.....playing in front of thousands, auditioning each day for a job that will pay them in their careers after college (99% of other student athletes don't get to be paid to play sports overseas or at home after they are done), foreign trips, first class locker rooms and training, etc, etc, etc, etc. That's what they get for generating more revenue....better digs, better circumstances, better end results after school.
If they don't like it, go pro....there are other alternatives. Don't destroy the entire thing to appease the 1%.
-
The NCAA is trash. Let the players earn every penny they can get. Amateurism is a sham
-
Players being able to profit off their likenesses won't stop the NCAA Tournament from bringing in billions that can fund other sports. Stop with the Chicken Little fear mongering.
-
Oh yes, the current system is perfect and should never be changed or improved because of what you used to do years and years and years ago. Whoopty freaking doo.
I'm not one to cry for executives worried that their billion dollar business model might be dented, and think it's fair to afford everyone the same opportunities. Shocking that you support a system that takes away the economic self-determination from the labor force and puts it in the pocket of the entities taking in billions of dollars in donations and endowments.
I guess I’ll chime in one more time because the “billion dollar” business argument is a little disingenuous. Because it is a billion dollars divided by x number of years divided by X number of teams/schools divided by X number of scholarship athletes and the hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent on them already divided by the millions spent on non basketball and football athletes. If you are assuming this then your not feeling sorry for a “billion dollar business” can continue.
-
I guess I’ll chime in one more time because the “billion dollar” business argument is a little disingenuous. Because it is a billion dollars divided by x number of years divided by X number of teams/schools divided by X number of scholarship athletes and the hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent on them already divided by the millions spent on non basketball and football athletes. If you are assuming this then your not feeling sorry for a “billion dollar business” can continue.
Yup, it so massively disingenuous to suggest people are getting rich off this. Oh sure, coaches can make a ton of money, and of course the vast majority do not....but people focus only on the coaches from two sports and only the elite coaches....they aren’t asking how much the coaches at Prairie View are making because it doesn’t serve their argument.
And you are also correct, the money coming is in redistributed (some of these guys normally get stimulated by that word) to schools in D1, D2, etc....lots of schools, lots of scholarships, lots of championships....but again they don’t want to mention the women’s field hockey beneficiary or the men’s water polo championships, etc, etc....let alone Howard University, Fordham, Cal State Los Angeles, and hundreds of other schools. It is the the 1%, which already those guys are getting a massively great deal and a decent chunk of them get a lot of money when they leave.
If those guys think it is so bad, then these athletes can enroll in school like most normal people. They can pay for their room and board, pay for their books, practice their “craft” at the rec center. Or just go pro and get paid to play in front of 10’s of people but avoid the “exploitation” they are encountering in the current system which sets many of them up after school is done.
-
Yup, it so massively disingenuous to suggest people are getting rich off this. Oh sure, coaches can make a ton of money, and of course the vast majority do not....but people focus only on the coaches from two sports and only the elite coaches....they aren’t asking how much the coaches at Prairie View are making because it doesn’t serve their argument.
And you are also correct, the money coming is in redistributed (some of these guys normally get stimulated by that word) to schools in D1, D2, etc....lots of schools, lots of scholarships, lots of championships....but again they don’t want to mention the women’s field hockey beneficiary or the men’s water polo championships, etc, etc....let alone Howard University, Fordham, Cal State Los Angeles, and hundreds of other schools. It is the the 1%, which already those guys are getting a massively great deal and a decent chunk of them get a lot of money when they leave.
If those guys think it is so bad, then these athletes can enroll in school like most normal people. They can pay for their room and board, pay for their books, practice their “craft” at the rec center. Or just go pro and get paid to play in front of 10’s of people but avoid the “exploitation” they are encountering in the current system which sets many of them up after school is done.
Agreed. So much fuss and ado about a tiny minority of elite athletes and high paid coaches who are obviously are/have been/will be doing rather well. Just more eyes on college basketball than track and field or whatever.
-
Basketball players are already getting MORE than the other student athletes.....playing in front of thousands, auditioning each day for a job that will pay them in their careers after college (99% of other student athletes don't get to be paid to play sports overseas or at home after they are done), foreign trips, first class locker rooms and training, etc, etc, etc, etc. That's what they get for generating more revenue....better digs, better circumstances, better end results after school.
If they don't like it, go pro....there are other alternatives. Don't destroy the entire thing to appease the 1%.
Again, what does this have to do who players profiting off their likenesses? You keep saying words without connecting them to the topic.
-
I’m all for capitalism.....school isn’t where that happens....post school it does. Or don’t go to school at all and earn as much money as you can get...knock your socks off. School is about learning, training, preparing.
-
I’m all for capitalism.....school isn’t where that happens....post school it does. Or don’t go to school at all and earn as much money as you can get...knock your socks off. School is about learning, training, preparing.
What does that has to do with players profiting off their likeness?
-
What does that has to do with players profiting off their likeness?
What does players profiting off their likenesses have to do with attending college (whether in a sport or not). ;)
-
What does players profiting off their likenesses have to do with attending college (whether in a sport or not). ;)
It has to do with it because it's a restriction placed on them that is not placed on any other student. That seems wrong to me.
-
It has to do with it because it's a restriction placed on them that is not placed on any other student. That seems wrong to me.
Did you read the parenthetical there.... ;)
-
It has to do with it because it's a restriction placed on them that is not placed on any other student. That seems wrong to me.
Can all the other kids go on foreign trips paid for by the athletic dept?
I think we can all acknowledge some people get to do some things that others don’t and vice versa. I’m going to bet if you put a poll out to MU students if they could get room and board paid, travel around country and sometimes abroad, play in front of adoring fans, set your self up for your future earnings, access to well heeled alumni, be on tv, have tutors paid for, etc as one option or the other option is to be able to cash in on their likeness what do you think they would choose?
But let’s keep playing this game that the student athletes cannot do what Johnny regular student can, but ignore everything that the student athlete does get to do that Johnny regular can only dream about.
-
Personally allowing another way for a minority of players to make gains will not be good for the game of college b-ball. It will cause more steering of players by large corporations to a set of schools (ie shoe companies).
If I were a true commissioner of the ncaa (ie actually had power and not undermined by the blue bloods) — I would:
1. Setup a system that requires two year commitment (get the 1 and dones out)
2. Tax institutions based on revenue generation, including all revenue including shoe deals
3. Setup lifetime scholarships for one bachelors degree and pay some amount for the min two year commitment.
I think this could level the playing field and create more parity by getting the one and dones out of the system (moves some of the sneaker/agent money elsewhere). Ensuring that everyone is receiving a base level of comp reduces the desire to go to Arizona for $50k.
-
Personally allowing another way for a minority of players to make gains will not be good for the game of college b-ball. It will cause more steering of players by large corporations to a set of schools (ie shoe companies).
If I were a true commissioner of the ncaa (ie actually had power and not undermined by the blue bloods) — I would:
1. Setup a system that requires two year commitment (get the 1 and dones out)
2. Tax institutions based on revenue generation, including all revenue including shoe deals
3. Setup lifetime scholarships for one bachelors degree and pay some amount for the min two year commitment.
I think this could level the playing field and create more parity by getting the one and dones out of the system (moves some of the sneaker/agent money elsewhere). Ensuring that everyone is receiving a base level of comp reduces the desire to go to Arizona for $50k.
The one and dones will probably be gone when the new NBA players agreement comes out in the near future along with the NBAs increased continuing commitment to the G-league. That’s the biggest root issue. Establishing a 2 or whatever year commitment is a non-starter as it would be unenforceable without a tie in to the NBAPA. #3 is already much on the table following the Rice Commission report. As for #2, that ain’t gonna happen.
-
The one and dones will probably be gone when the new NBA players agreement comes out in the near future along with the NBAs increased continuing commitment to the G-league. That’s the biggest root issue.
Ah... so the biggest root issue is the big dog in the free market.
-
Ah... so the biggest root issue is the big dog in the free market.
Well, those biggest dogs will soon be in the NBA draft out of HS. More power to them as they need not go to college (though, they did not have to in the first place).
-
Can all the other kids go on foreign trips paid for by the athletic dept?
I think we can all acknowledge some people get to do some things that others don’t and vice versa. I’m going to bet if you put a poll out to MU students if they could get room and board paid, travel around country and sometimes abroad, play in front of adoring fans, set your self up for your future earnings, access to well heeled alumni, be on tv, have tutors paid for, etc as one option or the other option is to be able to cash in on their likeness what do you think they would choose?
But let’s keep playing this game that the student athletes cannot do what Johnny regular student can, but ignore everything that the student athlete does get to do that Johnny regular can only dream about.
????
The basketball players generate more revenue so they are entitled to more compensation than other students. That's why they get to go on things like foreign tours. That has nothing to do with whether or not players should be able to profit off their likeness.
The argument made is "players should be able to profit of their likeness." Your counterargument is "other students don't get to go on foreign tours". How are the two connected?
-
Did you read the parenthetical there.... ;)
I did. How was my response wrong?
-
????
The basketball players generate more revenue so they are entitled to more compensation than other students. That's why they get to go on things like foreign tours. That has nothing to do with whether or not players should be able to profit off their likeness.
The argument made is "players should be able to profit of their likeness." Your counterargument is "other students don't get to go on foreign tours". How are the two connected?
The basketball players are very lucky that, for whatever reasons over the years, more eyes watch basketball. They really are not any different than guys or gals on the volleyball or whatever teams. Teams that are sponsored by the school. One happens to make money (hopefully, as some schools obviously do better in that respect) that helps finance the others. The cast of individual basketball players constantly changes while the school is still there. Sure, one guy may prop the team up in a given year, but he is gone soon. The institution is still there and there are new players. Just my take.
-
The basketball players are very lucky that, for whatever reasons over the years, more eyes watch basketball. They really are not any different than guys or gals on the volleyball or whatever teams. Teams that are sponsored by the school. One happens to make money (hopefully, as some schools obviously do better in that respect) that helps finance the others. The cast of individual basketball players constantly changes while the school is still there. Sure, one guy may prop the team up in a given year, but he is gone soon. The institution is still there and there are new players. Just my take.
Okay....but why is that reason that the players shouldn't be able to profit off their likeness? Are you saying that if they profit off their likeness, than some of that money is owed to their association with the school? Sure, I can get on board with that and I'm certain that the schools would get their cut. But that's not a reason to restrict the players from profitting off their likeness.
-
A friend of mine asked for a raise not long ago. He told me his boss said something like, "You get to go on business trips that others don't. And you get to work overtime, so you already make more money than most of your co-workers."
My friend said he told his boss: "I get to go on business trips? It's my job to go on business trips, and I am willing to spend time away from my family to help this company. I get to work overtime? The fact is I need to work overtime, again to help this company, and I earn every penny of that OT pay. Neither of those things should have anything to do with whether my salary is raised. I deserve a raise, and you know it."
Post-script: He said he didn't get the full raise he was hoping for, but he did get a decent raise, and he's reasonably happy about it.
College basketball players "get" to play a sport they love ... and they are required to put an incredible number of hours into being part of the team. Many of those hours are spent doing less fun stuff -- film study, injury rehab, game-planning, etc.
They "get" to go on trips -- as part of their job -- and it is a job, requiring more hours of work than many full-time employees.
They "get" to wear nice sneakers and clothing -- which the coach and school get paid handsomely for (but they don't receive a dime for, at least not legally).
They "get" scholarships -- as do many other athletes, some theater majors, some college newspaper editors, etc.
They get exposure, again for doing their job.
None of which means they should be prohibited from profiting from their likenesses.
-
Personally allowing another way for a minority of players to make gains will not be good for the game of college b-ball.
Are you saying a minority of college basketball players will be able to profit off their likeness? I would vociferously and wholeheartedly disagree. I would put the low end number closer to 95% at minimum. I believe the last EA Sports NCAA game had 325 teams. Today they would probably aim for 350 or more and would offer some level of compensation to everyone from the stars to the walk-ons. Those games thrive off rosters and reality. And the member institutions will still get their billions.
And yes, billions is 100% accurate. Just because they divide the pie and it's spread out over years doesn't change that we are talking about a multi-billion dollar business, and that's just for the tournament and not including the regular season and conference tournies.
-
Are you saying a minority of college basketball players will be able to profit off their likeness? I would vociferously and wholeheartedly disagree. I would put the low end number closer to 95% at minimum. I believe the last EA Sports NCAA game had 325 teams. Today they would probably aim for 350 or more and would offer some level of compensation to everyone from the stars to the walk-ons. Those games thrive off rosters and reality. And the member institutions will still get their billions.
And yes, billions is 100% accurate. Just because they divide the pie and it's spread out over years doesn't change that we are talking about a multi-billion dollar business, and that's just for the tournament and not including the regular season and conference tournies.
I am saying that in the current system this will be exploited to channel a ton of money to a small number of players. It will create a legal way to sign players one year early and as such will create a scenario where corporations will steer said player to a place where that investment pays off the best. Likely would further reduce the competitiveness of college b-ball. And yes on a value basis a minority will capture a vast majority of the value. Will some walk-on get a few bucks to promote the local restaurant — sure. But that is chump change to the year early bidding war that Nike and UA will put on the table for Zion.
So in my mind if you want to flow value to players it has to be equal. Look I don’t have a problem with paying kids. I just think if changes are made, the implications to the competitiveness of the game needs to be front and center.
-
A friend of mine asked for a raise not long ago. He told me his boss said something like, "You get to go on business trips that others don't. And you get to work overtime, so you already make more money than most of your co-workers."
My friend said he told his boss: "I get to go on business trips? It's my job to go on business trips, and I am willing to spend time away from my family to help this company. I get to work overtime? The fact is I need to work overtime, again to help this company, and I earn every penny of that OT pay. Neither of those things should have anything to do with whether my salary is raised. I deserve a raise, and you know it."
Post-script: He said he didn't get the full raise he was hoping for, but he did get a decent raise, and he's reasonably happy about it.
College basketball players "get" to play a sport they love ... and they are required to put an incredible number of hours into being part of the team. Many of those hours are spent doing less fun stuff -- film study, injury rehab, game-planning, etc.
They "get" to go on trips -- as part of their job -- and it is a job, requiring more hours of work than many full-time employees.
They "get" to wear nice sneakers and clothing -- which the coach and school get paid handsomely for (but they don't receive a dime for, at least not legally).
They "get" scholarships -- as do many other athletes, some theater majors, some college newspaper editors, etc.
They get exposure, again for doing their job.
None of which means they should be prohibited from profiting from their likenesses.
Well, they”got” what they wanted. Could have chosen something else.
-
But that is chump change to the year early bidding war that Nike and UA will put on the table for Zion.
The early bidding war starts years before they get to college.
-
Well, they”got” what they wanted. Could have chosen something else.
Sure, any employee -- which is what scholarship athletes are -- could always "choose something else." But is that really the answer we're always gonna go with on such issues?
Coal miners are dying ... could have chosen something else. It's true, but is it really the right point to make?
-
The early bidding war starts years before they get to college.
Yes that’s my point. Any effort to legitimize it will make it worse and would be bad for the college game in my opinion.
-
Yes that’s my point. Any effort to legitimize it will make it worse and would be bad for the college game in my opinion.
But what about the student athletes? Right now that bidding war is lining the pockets of handlers and family members rather than the kids that actually have the value. I'd rather the kids get the money they are worth than the system that's already bad for the college game and is seldom benefiting the kids earning the money.
-
But what about the student athletes? Right now that bidding war is lining the pockets of handlers and family members rather than the kids that actually have the value. I'd rather the kids get the money they are worth than the system that's already bad for the college game and is seldom benefiting the kids earning the money.
IMO it doesn’t solve legacy problem and exasperates/creates new ones. I don’t think the handlers go away, it just rearranges itself. You don’t and that’s fine.
-
Sure, any employee -- which is what scholarship athletes are -- could always "choose something else." But is that really the answer we're always gonna go with on such issues?
Coal miners are dying ... could have chosen something else. It's true, but is it really the right point to make?
Mike,
Are you equating college sports with coal mining? I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that the families of deceased miners “might” not see it the same way.
After all, playing a sport in exchange for a free college education is the same as having to work in a coal mine for 40 years, or until it kills you.
-
A friend of mine asked for a raise not long ago. He told me his boss said something like, "You get to go on business trips that others don't. And you get to work overtime, so you already make more money than most of your co-workers."
My friend said he told his boss: "I get to go on business trips? It's my job to go on business trips, and I am willing to spend time away from my family to help this company. I get to work overtime? The fact is I need to work overtime, again to help this company, and I earn every penny of that OT pay. Neither of those things should have anything to do with whether my salary is raised. I deserve a raise, and you know it."
Post-script: He said he didn't get the full raise he was hoping for, but he did get a decent raise, and he's reasonably happy about it.
College basketball players "get" to play a sport they love ... and they are required to put an incredible number of hours into being part of the team. Many of those hours are spent doing less fun stuff -- film study, injury rehab, game-planning, etc.
They "get" to go on trips -- as part of their job -- and it is a job, requiring more hours of work than many full-time employees.
They "get" to wear nice sneakers and clothing -- which the coach and school get paid handsomely for (but they don't receive a dime for, at least not legally).
They "get" scholarships -- as do many other athletes, some theater majors, some college newspaper editors, etc.
They get exposure, again for doing their job.
None of which means they should be prohibited from profiting from their likenesses.
The less fun stuff we all have to do, it is part of honing one’s craft. Learning to break down an opponent and watching film is paramount to future success in the same way a normal Joe stays ups to speed on certifications and less fun stuff.
The business trip analogy was odd. Whomever that boss was, really missed the mark. That said, a business trip and going on the road to play a game are not the same thing having gone on 100’s of business trips in my life and more than a dozen road trips with sports teams. No comparison.
-
Sure, any employee -- which is what scholarship athletes are -- could always "choose something else." But is that really the answer we're always gonna go with on such issues?
Coal miners are dying ... could have chosen something else. It's true, but is it really the right point to make?
You state this as if it were fact, something your rail on others for. A scholarship athlete is not an employee, not by a legal standard or an ethical one. I don’t think you are equating coal miners to college athletes, though I have seen a few folks here (you???) use plantation when describing college athletes so who knows what you are trying to say there.
-
But what about the student athletes? Right now that bidding war is lining the pockets of handlers and family members rather than the kids that actually have the value. I'd rather the kids get the money they are worth than the system that's already bad for the college game and is seldom benefiting the kids earning the money.
Family members aren’t tied to the kids? And again, how often is this happening, to the 1%.
Get rid of the one and done, let these 1%’ers go directly to the show, force these NBA GMs to actually evaluate talent and watch how many of them strike out. Others can go to the G League, and some will. I suspect a lot of families will talk to their kids and say life is about choices, no different than high school baseball players do now. Some go into the draft and some go to college. I would much prefer it go this way to clean up the nonsense.
-
Family members aren’t tied to the kids? And again, how often is this happening, to the 1%.
Get rid of the one and done, let these 1%’ers go directly to the show, force these NBA GMs to actually evaluate talent and watch how many of them strike out. Others can go to the G League, and some will. I suspect a lot of families will talk to their kids and say life is about choices, no different than high school baseball players do now. Some go into the draft and some go to college. I would much prefer it go this way to clean up the nonsense.
Yup. All this stuff about likenesses is just gobbledygook. College BB is really no different than than Baseball or FB if the NBA gets its act together. No one is talking about likenesses for those two sports.
-
Yup. All this stuff about likenesses is just gobbledygook. College BB is really no different than than Baseball or FB if the NBA gets its act together. No one is talking about likenesses for those two sports.
They most certainly are in football.
-
They most certainly are in football.
Yeah, that 84th guy on the roster might get a free popsicle...
-
Mike,
Are you equating college sports with coal mining? I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that the families of deceased miners “might” not see it the same way.
After all, playing a sport in exchange for a free college education is the same as having to work in a coal mine for 40 years, or until it kills you.
I was just spitballing, chili, and most certainly was not equating college sports with coal mining.
I just am not a fan of, "Well, if you don't like the NCAA's rules, you could choose to do something else." It seems like a very weak argument to me.
So if you don't like something, rather than try to advocate for change, you should quit and do something else? Love it or leave it?
Maybe I'm not articulating my point well, but I agree with most of the stuff TAMU and brew have said. To me, it simply seems strange that quite a few people here are against Americans -- any Americans -- being able to be in charge of their own likeness.
-
Yup. All this stuff about likenesses is just gobbledygook. College BB is really no different than than Baseball or FB if the NBA gets its act together. No one is talking about likenesses for those two sports.
So what's the problem with allowing it?
-
Yeah, that 84th guy on the roster might get a free popsicle...
??? That's not even the point you brought up. You said "no one is talking about likenesses" in baseball or football. It most certainly is the case with football. Much of this debate was started when EA Sports stopped producing its college football video game ue to licensing concerns.
-
I was just spitballing, chili, and most certainly was not equating college sports with coal mining.
I just am not a fan of, "Well, if you don't like the NCAA's rules, you could choose to do something else." It seems like a very weak argument to me.
So if you don't like something, rather than try to advocate for change, you should quit and do something else? Love it or leave it?
Maybe I'm not articulating my point well, but I agree with most of the stuff TAMU and brew have said. To me, it simply seems strange that quite a few people here are against Americans -- any Americans -- being able to be in charge of their own likeness.
Isn’t that what some of us are asking you to do? Advocate for change starting with your alma mater, a member of the NCAA. You have time on your hands, start advocating.
-
Isn’t that what some of us are asking you to do? Advocate for change starting with your alma mater, a member of the NCAA. You have time on your hands, start advocating.
Ignoring.
-
I think it's great that Crowder and Hayward got into the MU HOF.
-
They can control their likeness all they want, but not sell it while student athletes. If that is most important to them, quit and they can sell their likeness all they want. Meanwhile, they have Instagram, Facebook, Snap, etc, and control their likeness as any other kid their age....putting it out there for all to see.
Yup, rules exist for certain people and not for others. I pay more taxes then others...life isn’t fair. My mom is not allowed to drive because she has Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s...life isn’t fair. A 40 year old can run for President, a 23 year old cannot....life is unfair. The list is endless. A majority regular students would kill for the unfair opportunities student athletes are given....life is unfair.
-
I think it's great that Crowder and Hayward got into the MU HOF.
I think it’s great your political statements below your name are allowed despite no politics on this board.
-
Ignoring.
But in reality it should read "drawing attention to."
"Ignoring" would be...well, ignoring the post.
-
Yup, rules exist for certain people and not for others. I pay more taxes then others...life isn’t fair. My mom is not allowed to drive because she has Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s...life isn’t fair. A 40 year old can run for President, a 23 year old cannot....life is unfair. The list is endless.
You keep trotting out logical fallacies. You have yet to offer one reason why student athletes shouldn't be able to profit off their likeness. You just keep repeating logical fallacies and saying life isn't fair. That isn't a reason, that is a justification. I can think of reasons all those other examples are rules. What is your reason for banning athletes from profiting off their likeness?
A majority regular students would kill for the unfair opportunities student athletes are given....life is unfair.
But the opportunities aren't unfair. They are earned. Except in Lori Laughlin situations, student athletes have worked hard to put themselves in a position to earn athletic scholarships and all the benefits that come along. The majority of "regular students" had the same opportunity to earn those scholarships, but they didn't put in the work.
And again, this has nothing to do with students profiting off their likeness.
-
I think it’s great your political statements below your name are allowed despite no politics on this board.
It’s actually an economic statement, but do you disagree with it?
-
It’s actually an economic statement, but do you disagree with it?
I can see how someone viewing it would interpret it as having political implications. Just like the person who pointed out your statement has a statement below his own name that is purely there for political purposes. Isn't hypocrisy great?
-
My mom is not allowed to drive because she has Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s...life isn’t fair.
Your position is when life is unfair, tough shyte. Others say, when life is unfair, to the extent you can, fix it.
I would rather have us seek cures/preventions for things like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's - so that we might eliminate those (and other) examples of "unfairness".
I think your "tough shyte, life is unfair" attitude is cruel and stupid.
-
You keep trotting out logical fallacies. You have yet to offer one reason why student athletes shouldn't be able to profit off their likeness. You just keep repeating logical fallacies and saying life isn't fair. That isn't a reason, that is a justification. I can think of reasons all those other examples are rules. What is your reason for banning athletes from profiting off their likeness?
Here are a few ideas why permitting student athletes to sell their likeness might be a bad idea:
1. You wind up giving schools built-in advantages based on area population or national following to include pitches like "The typical Tar Heel student-athlete generates $1.2 million in personal appearance fees, compared to $800 at Duke, $500K at Clemson, or $250K at South Carolina. Why would you go to any of those schools?" Or, "The metro population of Chicago is more than 7 million, versus 1.5 million in Milwaukee. Think of the expanded personal likeness income opportunity you'll have at DePaul."
2. You wind up legalizing de-facto booster payments to attend the favored school. Do you really want Phil Knight to buy an all-star team for Oregon via buying the likeness of certain players for Nike?
3. The ego issues that will arise will make our off-season issues with the Hausers look like nothing. You think the player egos and complaints about usage are bad now? Wait until there's a player revenue stream at risk. You'll get players suing their coach for loss of income if their reputation suffers and their likeness is devalued due to lack of playing time, discipline, etc.
The only way I could see this working is if all the revenue is pooled, and every player gets an equal cut, regardless of school.
-
Here are a few ideas why permitting student athletes to sell their likeness might be a bad idea:
1. You wind up giving schools built-in advantages based on area population or national following to include pitches like "The typical Tar Heel student-athlete generates $1.2 million in personal appearance fees, compared to $800 at Duke, $500K at Clemson, or $250K at South Carolina. Why would you go to any of those schools?" Or, "The metro population of Chicago is more than 7 million, versus 1.5 million in Milwaukee. Think of the expanded personal likeness income opportunity you'll have at DePaul."
2. You wind up legalizing de-facto booster payments to attend the favored school. Do you really want Phil Knight to buy an all-star team for Oregon via buying the likeness of certain players for Nike?
3. The ego issues that will arise will make our off-season issues with the Hausers look like nothing. You think the player egos and complaints about usage are bad now? Wait until there's a player revenue stream at risk. You'll get players suing their coach for loss of income if their reputation suffers and their likeness is devalued due to lack of playing time, discipline, etc.
The only way I could see this working is if all the revenue is pooled, and every player gets an equal cut, regardless of school.
Yep. The inequities and the possibilities are real issues. Pandora’s Box......
-
Yep.
And for those who think that all the money will go to the “kids” are fooling themselves. Much of the money will still go to handlers. And they will steer the kids to the schools they (the handlers) will make the most money at. The playing field will be much more uneven for recruiting.
Your solution is theoretically good but will have the same amount or more of the slime it has now.
-
Theoretical "legal" conversation that could have happened last year if the rules were changed;
"Mr. Oats, Steve Wojciechowski. How's it going? Really looking forward to our match-up this year, you got a helluva team, and ya know what, in watching film of you guys it appears that CJ Massinburg is a real star in the making. It's because of his ability that I've decided to offer him 50K and he's going to transfer to Marquette, you should be hearing from him shortly about it. You did a great job finding him and developing him, so keep up the good work, and maybe we can have this conversation again some day. Neither you or the school will receive any compensation for this by the way, because we want the kids to keep everything. Hope this doesn't screw up your upcoming year. Thanks. Steve."
If you think the grad transfer poaching low/mid major players is bad, this would absolutely break it. And don't think that we would be sitting at the top of the food chain either, because I can all but guarantee that Sean Miller would have had Markus on speed dial upping the offer after every otherworldly performance. Recruiting would turn into an auction (both at the high school level and on the transfer market) and a LOI would mean nothing.
-
Here are a few ideas why permitting student athletes to sell their likeness might be a bad idea:
1. You wind up giving schools built-in advantages based on area population or national following to include pitches like "The typical Tar Heel student-athlete generates $1.2 million in personal appearance fees, compared to $800 at Duke, $500K at Clemson, or $250K at South Carolina. Why would you go to any of those schools?" Or, "The metro population of Chicago is more than 7 million, versus 1.5 million in Milwaukee. Think of the expanded personal likeness income opportunity you'll have at DePaul."
2. You wind up legalizing de-facto booster payments to attend the favored school. Do you really want Phil Knight to buy an all-star team for Oregon via buying the likeness of certain players for Nike?
3. The ego issues that will arise will make our off-season issues with the Hausers look like nothing. You think the player egos and complaints about usage are bad now? Wait until there's a player revenue stream at risk. You'll get players suing their coach for loss of income if their reputation suffers and their likeness is devalued due to lack of playing time, discipline, etc.
The only way I could see this working is if all the revenue is pooled, and every player gets an equal cut, regardless of school.
This is all already going on through the shoe companies. Different companies pay different amounts. They steer recruits to their prestige schools. And as far as the last point, that's never happened in the NBA. Seems like one more chicken little worst case scenario.
-
This is all already going on through the shoe companies. Different companies pay different amounts. They steer recruits to their prestige schools. And as far as the last point, that's never happened in the NBA. Seems like one more chicken little worst case scenario.
Will get boosters in on the action now under the guise of corporate veils. More than Chicken Little.
-
Will get boosters in on the action now under the guise of corporate veils. More than Chicken Little.
Good
-
This is all already going on through the shoe companies. Different companies pay different amounts. They steer recruits to their prestige schools. And as far as the last point, that's never happened in the NBA. Seems like one more chicken little worst case scenario.
There's a Nike Air Markus shoe?
-
There's a Nike Air Markus shoe?
Have you paid any attention to current events in college basketball the past couple years?
-
Yep.
And for those who think that all the money will go to the “kids” are fooling themselves. Much of the money will still go to handlers. And they will steer the kids to the schools they (the handlers) will make the most money at. The playing field will be much more uneven for recruiting.
Your solution is theoretically good but will have the same amount or more of the slime it has now.
Posts like this entirely miss the point.
First, it's framing the question around what's best for the schools and the NCAA, which is the problem with college athletics.
Second, very few people see allowing players to profit off their likeness as a cure for all that ails of college athletics. That isn't and never was the point (again, you're viewing this as what's in the best interests of the schools and NCAA). The point is to allow the players whose labors allow the schools to collectively rake in billions of dollars to more equitably benefit from it.
For the "it only helps 1 percent" crowd ... who cares? Then nothing changes for the other 99 percent. And since you all seem to think they have it so great already, that's OK, right?
-
I agree with you. My view is very much slanted that way. I admit it. I don’t want to ruin a good thing and I may be wrong and this Pandora’s box if opened may have very little impact on the status quo. I also believe the players have a great situation currently and that it is beneficial to them and the university. I hope that if pay for likeness occurs it works as smoothly as people espouse.
But some of the specific arguments I am rebutting the last couple days, “billion dollar industry”, “money from their likeness will go to the kids not the handlers” are also highly slanted as well. I agree revenue is in the billion dollar range but expenses take this away. The US government takes in trillions of dollars in taxes and yet our country is still in debt. So billions and trillions of dollars sounds good when you are trying to slant an argument until you do the accounting. Then it doesn’t sound so good.
-
Posts like this entirely miss the point.
First, it's framing the question around what's best for the schools and the NCAA, which is the problem with college athletics.
Second, very few people see allowing players to profit off their likeness as a cure for all that ails of college athletics. That isn't and never was the point (again, you're viewing this as what's in the best interests of the schools and NCAA). The point is to allow the players whose labors allow the schools to collectively rake in billions of dollars to more equitably benefit from it.
For the "it only helps 1 percent" crowd ... who cares? Then nothing changes for the other 99 percent. And since you all seem to think they have it so great already, that's OK, right?
Most of the other 99% are not going to benefit from their likenesses. Just reality.
-
Posts like this entirely miss the point.
First, it's framing the question around what's best for the schools and the NCAA, which is the problem with college athletics.
Second, very few people see allowing players to profit off their likeness as a cure for all that ails of college athletics. That isn't and never was the point (again, you're viewing this as what's in the best interests of the schools and NCAA). The point is to allow the players whose labors allow the schools to collectively rake in billions of dollars to more equitably benefit from it.
For the "it only helps 1 percent" crowd ... who cares? Then nothing changes for the other 99 percent. And since you all seem to think they have it so great already, that's OK, right?
Personally I look at it through the lens of the college game holistically. I don’t think it would be a bad thing to give players money. I do think it would be bad to give it to them in that manner.
-
Most of the other 99% are not going to benefit from their likenesses. Just reality.
It's not. This whole thing literally started over video games and the O'Bannon case. And at least 95% of players in NCAA football and basketball would be able to benefit from those games once again existing coupled with their ability to market their likenesses.
The constant insistence of the 1% is obviously, blatantly a lie. Anyone continuing to use it in this discussion is choosing to ignore reality and perpetuate that lie.
-
Yeah, much better that coaches get all the millions for making their players wear certain shoes.
The person who owns the feet that are in the shoes ... what do they ever do to merit any money?
-
Your position is when life is unfair, tough shyte. Others say, when life is unfair, to the extent you can, fix it.
I would rather have us seek cures/preventions for things like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's - so that we might eliminate those (and other) examples of "unfairness".
I think your "tough shyte, life is unfair" attitude is cruel and stupid.
I would also like cures and to fix things, are you really suggesting I wouldn’t want cures? Come on dude. I wouldn’t put the time, money and resources behind those afflicted (my mom, my daughter, etc) with some of these diseases if that weren’t the case.
My view isn’t tough shyte approach, it instead was to illustrate there are different rules for different people all the time. Someone, somewhere will always complain about something. There is no perfect system, but there are rules for reasons and yes, if it makes sense, rules can change. Sometimes those changes make things even worse, sometimes better, but I would hope you understand that your analogy up top isn’t called for and way out of bounds.
-
Yeah, much better that coaches get all the millions for making their players wear certain shoes.
The person who owns the feet that are in the shoes ... what do they ever do to merit any money?
Most coaches don’t get millions, you are again focusing on the extreme minority. What are coaches making from school 200 to 350? What are women’s basketball coaches making? Lacrosse coach? Track coach? Why the only focus on a small sliver?
-
It's not. This whole thing literally started over video games and the O'Bannon case. And at least 95% of players in NCAA football and basketball would be able to benefit from those games once again existing coupled with their ability to market their likenesses.
The constant insistence of the 1% is obviously, blatantly a lie. Anyone continuing to use it in this discussion is choosing to ignore reality and perpetuate that lie.
How is it a blatant lie? Please describe to us all how it is a blatant lie in details and will be happy to respond politely to you.
-
How is it a blatant lie? Please describe to us all how it is a blatant lie in details and will be happy to respond politely to you.
95% of men's FBS college football and D1 basketball players would be able to sell likeness rights to EA Sports, Visual Concepts, or any other company making a college sports video game. Not 1%, but virtually everyone involved in the sports. Not just Zion, RJ Barrett, Markus, and other high profile players, pretty much everyone down to Tommy Gardiner would have those opportunities.
-
https://johngasaway.com/2018/10/26/from-the-archives-the-trouble-with-amateurism/
-
Most of the other 99% are not going to benefit from their likenesses. Just reality.
And that's fine, if true.
-
95% of men's FBS college football and D1 basketball players would be able to sell likeness rights to EA Sports, Visual Concepts, or any other company making a college sports video game. Not 1%, but virtually everyone involved in the sports. Not just Zion, RJ Barrett, Markus, and other high profile players, pretty much everyone down to Tommy Gardiner would have those opportunities.
Ok, but the 1% is based on all student athletes, not just football. That has been the point, you are tailoring this argument to the 1% of student athletes. That isn’t a lie. It might be 100% of football players, but it most certainly isn’t 100% of student athletes. And then how are you going to handle all the legal and other questions that stem from you only allowing this for one tiny sliver to benefit, while all other student athletes cannot. Let alone the “chicken little” (strongly disagree with you) other arguments about how boosters will absolutely abuse this. You can argue about the shoe companies driving players to certain schools, but your answer seems to be just allow even more of the schenanigans. It’s the Bobby is doing it, I should be able to also defense.
-
It's a consensual relationship. No one is forcing these players to go to college and play basketball in exchange for a free education and other benefits. They are welcome to choose any other path in life. They could pay for an education. They could go to trade school. They could work at a restaurant. They could play video games in their parent's basement. That's the wonderful thing about the USA. So much freedom to make choices. If they don't like this compensation for putting a ball in a hoop, terrific...they can do something else.
The argument of, "well the shoe companies are already paying people so we should just make it legal" is horrible. So let's make heroin legal. People are already doing it. How about leaving dogs in hot cars. People do it. Let's just make it legal.
If you want something to change, why not focus on the NBA and the one and done rule? Do away with that. Let the Zions of the world go straight to profit mode, and leave college basketball alone. The second you introduce outside pay schemes you introduce a ton of new issues, and you will have even less parity in the sport. I would rather see change in this world based on creative ideas and not by imposing new rules. If enough people are mad about the way college basketball operates, why not create a new league to compete with it where everyone gets paid right out of high school? Oh yeah, because no one would care nearly as much, and alternatives already exist, and no one cares about those either. This whole argument is silly and would destroy the sport. Make tougher, actually enforceable penalties, fix the game, and keep it as it is.
-
Ok, but the 1% is based on all student athletes, not just football. That has been the point, you are tailoring this argument to the 1% of student athletes. That isn’t a lie. It might be 100% of football players, but it most certainly isn’t 100% of student athletes. And then how are you going to handle all the legal and other questions that stem from you only allowing this for one tiny sliver to benefit, while all other student athletes cannot. Let alone the “chicken little” (strongly disagree with you) other arguments about how boosters will absolutely abuse this. You can argue about the shoe companies driving players to certain schools, but your answer seems to be just allow even more of the schenanigans. It’s the Bobby is doing it, I should be able to also defense.
Other student athletes certainly can. If they can market their likeness, they would be free to do so.
The Chicken Little aspect is the paranoia that somehow the college athletics sky would fall. Would boosters take advantage? Sure. So would video game companies, shoe companies, local businesses, plenty would. And that's fine. It won't be the end of the world. The sky won't fall.
The point is there should be no shenanigans. It's not shenanigans when it's legal, and the only reason it isn't "legal" is to take autonomy away from working adults who produce a billion dollar product. Nothing about this is amateur. The hours practiced aren't amateur. The television production isn't amateur. The contracts aren't amateur. The coaching salaries aren't amateur. Amateurism is a sham.
Accepting that simple reality won't be the end of the world, nor will it end college athletics, no matter how much you profess otherwise.
-
I would hope you understand that your analogy up top isn’t called for and way out of bounds.
Breaking my pledge to not talk to you only hours after making it and I apologize to the board. Can't let this lie go, though.
Read what you wrote. It is not my analogy, it is your analogy. You were the one who lumped the NCAA, your taxes and your Mother's illness into one big "it's not fair" bag. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Over and out.
-
Breaking my pledge to not talk to you only hours after making it and I apologize to the board. Can't let this lie go, though.
Read what you wrote. It is not my analogy, it is your analogy. You were the one who lumped the NCAA, your taxes and your Mother's illness into one big "it's not fair" bag. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Over and out.
I'm pretty sure based on your continued ill usage you do not understand what a lie is. I have nothing to be ashamed of myself for, because I know what the intent was and the consistent message.
Now, what I wrote are examples of different rules for different things and plenty of sarcasm....and some (because someone, somewhere always complains about something) will say it is unfair. I'm sorry you didn't get the connection, but I can see why. That said, so it is clear, I would hope you would grant a fellow human being the benefit of the doubt that I also want cures, for my daughter, my mom, your family / friends afflicted, etc. If that wasn't clear, then hopefully it is now.
-
Other student athletes certainly can. If they can market their likeness, they would be free to do so.
The Chicken Little aspect is the paranoia that somehow the college athletics sky would fall. Would boosters take advantage? Sure. So would video game companies, shoe companies, local businesses, plenty would. And that's fine. It won't be the end of the world. The sky won't fall.
The point is there should be no shenanigans. It's not shenanigans when it's legal, and the only reason it isn't "legal" is to take autonomy away from working adults who produce a billion dollar product. Nothing about this is amateur. The hours practiced aren't amateur. The television production isn't amateur. The contracts aren't amateur. The coaching salaries aren't amateur. Amateurism is a sham.
Accepting that simple reality won't be the end of the world, nor will it end college athletics, no matter how much you profess otherwise.
This is, with all due respect, the same argument of legalizing drugs was. If you just legalize, it will make it all go away and keep it above board. In fact, that is not what happened at all. People being what they are, give an inch and they will take a foot, a yard, a 100 yards, a mile. It just opens up more avenues.
And honestly, I don't know how you and others, with all due respect, can make the "billions" claim know it is revenue and not profit, for which there is nearly none, and not acknowledge what the money is being used for that comes in. I sometimes think that there are people out there that think there are 15 white guys sitting on piles of gold just laughing. Tremendous opportunities come from the money that many young people benefit from.
-
It's a consensual relationship. No one is forcing these players to go to college and play basketball in exchange for a free education and other benefits. They are welcome to choose any other path in life. They could pay for an education. They could go to trade school. They could work at a restaurant. They could play video games in their parent's basement. That's the wonderful thing about the USA. So much freedom to make choices. If they don't like this compensation for putting a ball in a hoop, terrific...they can do something else.
The argument of, "well the shoe companies are already paying people so we should just make it legal" is horrible. So let's make heroin legal. People are already doing it. How about leaving dogs in hot cars. People do it. Let's just make it legal.
If you want something to change, why not focus on the NBA and the one and done rule? Do away with that. Let the Zions of the world go straight to profit mode, and leave college basketball alone. The second you introduce outside pay schemes you introduce a ton of new issues, and you will have even less parity in the sport. I would rather see change in this world based on creative ideas and not by imposing new rules. If enough people are mad about the way college basketball operates, why not create a new league to compete with it where everyone gets paid right out of high school? Oh yeah, because no one would care nearly as much, and alternatives already exist, and no one cares about those either. This whole argument is silly and would destroy the sport. Make tougher, actually enforceable penalties, fix the game, and keep it as it is.
More of this.
-
Can all the other kids go on foreign trips paid for by the athletic dept?
Well, in '94 as a band member I got sent to St Pete's Beach for a few days for free, with stipend (all spent on alcohol while I was under age), and still had a paying job on campus! I suspect you were in a similar situation at one point, no? I mean, not foreign, but got a similar travel benefit as athletes and had a job. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
-
It's a consensual relationship. No one is forcing these players to go to college and play basketball in exchange for a free education and other benefits. They are welcome to choose any other path in life. They could pay for an education. They could go to trade school. They could work at a restaurant. They could play video games in their parent's basement. That's the wonderful thing about the USA. So much freedom to make choices. If they don't like this compensation for putting a ball in a hoop, terrific...they can do something else.
The argument of, "well the shoe companies are already paying people so we should just make it legal" is horrible. So let's make heroin legal. People are already doing it. How about leaving dogs in hot cars. People do it. Let's just make it legal.
1. While the relationship is consensual, it is also one that benefits from a set market without great alternatives. If an organization was mandating the compensation level for a labor market, it would be illegal. For instance, if the NCAA mandated that no coach could be paid more than $250k a year, they would be rightfully sued. The exception to this is if labor agrees to such limits within the bounds of a collective bargaining agreement, but of course NCAA athletes aren't unionized because that effort was supressed as well.
2. Yeah when you have to "YEAH BUT HEROIN," your analogy sucks. There are significant societal damages with the use of heroin. There are very little, if any, damages to letting student athletes earn compensation.
-
Well, in '94 as a band member I got sent to St Pete's Beach for a few days for free, with stipend (all spent on alcohol while I was under age), and still had a paying job on campus! I suspect you were in a similar situation at one point, no? I mean, not foreign, but got a similar travel benefit as athletes and had a job. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
We discussed this earlier, I said all the kids. You were fortunate to be in a situation to go, but most do not. There are always going to be groups that don’t get the same treatment or benefits, which is why most students would trade what they get for what the basketball players get in a heartbeat....yet we aren’t clamoring or outraged by the 99% not getting what isn’t coming to them......instead we are outraged for the 1% that aren’t allowed to do something.
-
This is, with all due respect, the same argument of legalizing drugs was. If you just legalize, it will make it all go away and keep it above board. In fact, that is not what happened at all. People being what they are, give an inch and they will take a foot, a yard, a 100 yards, a mile. It just opens up more avenues.
And honestly, I don't know how you and others, with all due respect, can make the "billions" claim know it is revenue and not profit, for which there is nearly none, and not acknowledge what the money is being used for that comes in. I sometimes think that there are people out there that think there are 15 white guys sitting on piles of gold just laughing. Tremendous opportunities come from the money that many young people benefit from.
Widespread decriminalization of drugs has not happened, so that's a strawman argument.
And frankly, the latter doesn't have anything to do with the simple reality that universities are able to make money off the likenesses of their athletes while the athletes cannot do the same. There is no logical place for the argument that Markus Howard's face should not belong to him.
-
We discussed this earlier, I said all the kids. You were fortunate to be in a situation to go, but most do not.
Fortunate? For the opportunity, sure. I had just gotten back to campus after going home for spring break because I didn't have enough money to go anywhere "cool". The athletes didn't get to take that same spring break off. Maybe others should try harder, no?
-
Can all the other kids go on foreign trips paid for by the athletic dept?
Who did the work that generated the revenue to pay for that foreign trip?
-
Who did the work that generated the revenue to pay for that foreign trip?
The donors that paid for it. Understand foreign trip funding.
-
The donors that paid for it. Understand foreign trip funding.
Why do the donors care?
-
Just my $.02, profiting off their own likeness is OK, as long as it does not damage the school brand or intellectual property. Giving the athletes a % from video games=good. Allowing Sacar to do an advertisement for a cannabis dispensary, or even a rival school=bad
-
Just my $.02, profiting off their own likeness is OK, as long as it does not damage the school brand or intellectual property. Giving the athletes a % from video games=good. Allowing Sacar to do an advertisement for a cannabis dispensary, or even a rival school=bad
That's a reasonable place to start, lawdog.
Any change in this realm will be incremental, so starting by giving the athletes a percentage of video games or advertisements that use their likenesses to directly profit seems extremely fair ... as well as very American.
-
Why do the donors care?
Do you understand how foreign tours are funded?
-
Do you understand how foreign tours are funded?
Do you understand my question?
-
Why do the donors care?
the same reason donors give huge dollar donations to the basketball program: to make it better and for their own edification.
-
That's a reasonable place to start, lawdog.
Any change in this realm will be incremental, so starting by giving the athletes a percentage of video games or advertisements that use their likenesses to directly profit seems extremely fair ... as well as very American.
With all due respect, that is your opinion and you do not speak for every American.
Question, does the QB get more for his likeness in video games then the punter? What if the player is kicked off the team for raping someone, does he owe the money back? Does an OHio State player get more than App State player or Prairie View?
Pandora’s box is going to explode....give an inch take a 100 miles.
-
Widespread decriminalization of drugs has not happened, so that's a strawman argument.
And frankly, the latter doesn't have anything to do with the simple reality that universities are able to make money off the likenesses of their athletes while the athletes cannot do the same. There is no logical place for the argument that Markus Howard's face should not belong to him.
It does belong to him. I’m guessing that Fireman Andy cannot put his face out there publicly in an advertising situation with your fireman gear or sitting on an engine without the permission of the county, city or other body. Rules exist. Now if Andy by himself wants to do that, ok....but your aren’t a public figure, no celebrity at all (no offense meant).
In college athletics they also exist not only to control athletes from hawking products that are harmful, derogatory, etc, but also to keep competitive balance in recruiting. When you graduate from college knows your socks off, do what you want. Markus value BY GOING to school and appearing in a MU uniform is far greater than if he just went overseas, etc. Should he be required to split that revenue with the school for giving him the platform or is this a case where he built it all by himself?
-
the same reason donors give huge dollar donations to the basketball program: to make it better and for their own edification.
You mean the efforts and results produced by the players leads to income for the athletic department?
Well I'll be.
-
It does belong to him. I’m guessing that Fireman Andy cannot put his face out there publicly in an advertising situation with your fireman gear or sitting on an engine without the permission of the county, city or other body. Rules exist. Now if Andy by himself wants to do that, ok....but your aren’t a public figure, no celebrity at all (no offense meant).
In college athletics they also exist not only to control athletes from hawking products that are harmful, derogatory, etc, but also to keep competitive balance in recruiting. When you graduate from college knows your socks off, do what you want. Markus value BY GOING to school and appearing in a MU uniform is far greater than if he just went overseas, etc. Should he be required to split that revenue with the school for giving him the platform or is this a case where he built it all by himself?
As a fireman? Yes, that's allowed. As a member of a department, you do have to ask. But this is a false equivalency because Markus can't do it as an unaffiliated basketball player or with permission. So the argument you're trying to make is still hollow.
Could the school request a cut if he's in uniform? Could there be a revenue sharing model between the universities and athletes or all athletes in a program or an even larger union be negotiated? Sure, and I'm glad you're open to those considerations. Those are all things that should be discussed.
But to get there, you have to be willing to have the discussion.
-
In college athletics they also exist not only to control athletes from hawking products that are harmful, derogatory, etc, but also to keep competitive balance in recruiting.
1. Are we really worried about college athletes endorsing porn sites, Marlboro and OxyContin? This is the reddest of red herrings.
2. There's already no competitive balance in recruiting. You're defending a non-existent principle.
-
You're defending a non-existent principle.
I think you've pretty much summed up his entire ethos.
-
With all due respect, that is your opinion and you do not speak for every American.
Question, does the QB get more for his likeness in video games then the punter? What if the player is kicked off the team for raping someone, does he owe the money back? Does an OHio State player get more than App State player or Prairie View?
Pandora’s box is going to explode....give an inch take a 100 miles.
Ridiculous. Ignoring.
-
So again, there are already places and avenues that exist for people who want to profit off their own likeness right now. Why do we have to force an organization that's not interested in that (since it comes with a lot of other consequences) to change? Why can't the players just go to one of those other avenues?
-
So again, there are already places and avenues that exist for people who want to profit off their own likeness right now. Why do we have to force an organization that's not interested in that (since it comes with a lot of other consequences) to change? Why can't the players just go to one of those other avenues?
Who's forcing them to change?
-
So again, there are already places and avenues that exist for people who want to profit off their own likeness right now. Why do we have to force an organization that's not interested in that (since it comes with a lot of other consequences) to change? Why can't the players just go to one of those other avenues?
Which places do college athletes get to go to profit off their own likeness? I fully allow that I might have missed that list, as I have not read every post in this thread.
-
So again, there are already places and avenues that exist for people who want to profit off their own likeness right now. Why do we have to force an organization that's not interested in that (since it comes with a lot of other consequences) to change? Why can't the players just go to one of those other avenues?
I agree. That’s why I hope the NCAA ceases to exist in my lifetime. It boggles my mind in 2019 we haven’t developed a better system for developing athletes than AAU, travel teams, high school and college. And for what? Amateurism that’s a sham. If we cared about student athletes across the board, nobody would care about wins and losses but about GPA and post-graduate success. But high graduation rates and molding quality individuals is secondary to winning tournament games
-
1. Are we really worried about college athletes endorsing porn sites, Marlboro and OxyContin? This is the reddest of red herrings.
2. There's already no competitive balance in recruiting. You're defending a non-existent principle.
Really...you don’t think Liberty or BYU might have a problem with an athlete pushing Trojans or porn sites? You are kidding, right.
Or pushing Gambling sites. Come on, you are better than that and it is no red herring. Hell, in today’s climate what if one of them decided to support a political candidate or cause as a paid endorser....oh I can see the division already erupting here.
Your second argument...that is a red herring. The NCAA is trying to prevent the extreme Wild West, if you go with your logic why have any rules at all...I mean what’s the point? Fortunately the powers that be have said there will be some rules and people can whine all they wish about them, but they will exist to at least attempt some form of balance perceived or otherwise
-
As a fireman? Yes, that's allowed. As a member of a department, you do have to ask. But this is a false equivalency because Markus can't do it as an unaffiliated basketball player or with permission. So the argument you're trying to make is still hollow.
Could the school request a cut if he's in uniform? Could there be a revenue sharing model between the universities and athletes or all athletes in a program or an even larger union be negotiated? Sure, and I'm glad you're open to those considerations. Those are all things that should be discussed.
But to get there, you have to be willing to have the discussion.
Not comparing the two directly. I’m trying to show that there are rules for a lot of things. You have rules around your likeness despite “owning it”...you really cannot use in any way you wish...there are rules or repercussions. They may not be the same rules, but they do exist. Lots of places have rules about all kinds of things, including your face, what you can say, where or how you can say it. The ncaa is no different, doesn’t mean the rules are the same...which wasn’t the point....but rules exist all over.
Why enter into a negotiation when there is no need to? What are the players giving up? A negotiation is a two way street, what are they forfeiting as a result of this negotiation?
-
Which places do college athletes get to go to profit off their own likeness? I fully allow that I might have missed that list, as I have not read every post in this thread.
Which place are normal college students treated with the benefits of college student athletes?
In the meantime, how many regular students get to INCREASE their value sometimes to the tune of millions of dollars by going to college? Not many.
College provides incredible upside for most of these guys with nowhere near the upside for the lion’s share of regular students.
-
I agree. That’s why I hope the NCAA ceases to exist in my lifetime. It boggles my mind in 2019 we haven’t developed a better system for developing athletes than AAU, travel teams, high school and college. And for what? Amateurism that’s a sham. If we cared about student athletes across the board, nobody would care about wins and losses but about GPA and post-graduate success. But high graduation rates and molding quality individuals is secondary to winning tournament games
Those models exist or are developing, but this far haven’t proven to be better. If a kid wants to not play college basketball, he can do that today. The trade off
Play in front of nobody
Education not paid for
Get paid to play
Don’t have to go to school
If it fully goes the way you hope in your lifetime, it will cease to exist at Marquette which would be a shame...but some people love that idea, I guess. Schools will get out of athletic endeavor in droves.
-
Not comparing the two directly. I’m trying to show that there are rules for a lot of things. You have rules around your likeness despite “owning it”...you really cannot use in any way you wish...there are rules or repercussions.
No, this is not true. I can do what I choose with my likeness, the entity I work for can do what they choose with their trademark.
If the players are not allowed to do what they choose with their likeness, it's an apples to toasters comparison.
-
Those models exist or are developing, but this far haven’t proven to be better. If a kid wants to not play college basketball, he can do that today. The trade off
Play in front of nobody
Education not paid for
Get paid to play
Don’t have to go to school
If it fully goes the way you hope in your lifetime, it will cease to exist at Marquette which would be a shame...but some people love that idea, I guess. Schools will get out of athletic endeavor in droves.
Schools can remain involved with athletics if they so choose. If they get out, then it simply proves amateurism is a sham.
-
Which places do college athletes get to go to profit off their own likeness? I fully allow that I might have missed that list, as I have not read every post in this thread.
"People" can do that overseas or anywhere else outside of college basketball. You added "college athlete." This is such a big government approach. If you don't like something, force organizations to change instead of let the market speak for itself or have other entrepreneurial enterprises compete. If there's is such a market, go ahead, let's see the g-league or whatever else become the Netflix to the NCAA as Blockbuster.
To be honest, my biggest complaint with this whole conversation is the often extreme omission or exaggerated downplaying of the compensation that IS received. The compensation they get is both consensual and overall hugely beneficial for a plethora of reasons. If there was a way to make profiting off of likeness easy without destroying the sport and having shoe companies owning college basketball, I don't think I'd care all that much. But I don't see that as reality. I think it would totally mess up the game. I would rather see a stricter enforcement of the current rules. Obviously this is a touchy, controversial subject and many of us will likely need to agree to disagree. But at a minimum I really hope people can agree that they get very good compensation as it is today and that ultimately they don't HAVE to play college sports.
-
"People" can do that overseas or anywhere else outside of college basketball. You added "college athlete." This is such a big government approach. If you don't like something, force organizations to change instead of let the market speak for itself or have other entrepreneurial enterprises compete. If there's is such a market, go ahead, let's see the g-league or whatever else become the Netflix to the NCAA as Blockbuster.
To be honest, my biggest complaint with this whole conversation is the often extreme omission or exaggerated downplaying of the compensation that IS received. The compensation they get is both consensual and overall hugely beneficial for a plethora of reasons. If there was a way to make profiting off of likeness easy without destroying the sport and having shoe companies owning college basketball, I don't think I'd care all that much. But I don't see that as reality. I think it would totally mess up the game. I would rather see a stricter enforcement of the current rules. Obviously this is a touchy, controversial subject and many of us will likely need to agree to disagree. But at a minimum I really hope people can agree that they get very good compensation as it is today and that ultimately they don't HAVE to play college sports.
For the record, I would rather the rules change in the NBA so people can choose to go straight there and skip college altogether if they want.
-
"People" can do that overseas or anywhere else outside of college basketball. You added "college athlete." This is such a big government approach. If you don't like something, force organizations to change instead of let the market speak for itself or have other entrepreneurial enterprises compete. If there's is such a market, go ahead, let's see the g-league or whatever else become the Netflix to the NCAA as Blockbuster.
To be honest, my biggest complaint with this whole conversation is the often extreme omission or exaggerated downplaying of the compensation that IS received. The compensation they get is both consensual and overall hugely beneficial for a plethora of reasons. If there was a way to make profiting off of likeness easy without destroying the sport and having shoe companies owning college basketball, I don't think I'd care all that much. But I don't see that as reality. I think it would totally mess up the game. I would rather see a stricter enforcement of the current rules. Obviously this is a touchy, controversial subject and many of us will likely need to agree to disagree. But at a minimum I really hope people can agree that they get very good compensation as it is today and that ultimately they don't HAVE to play college sports.
LOL.
Only on Scoop would the idea of breaking up a system where the cost of labor is fixed and allowing people to receive additional compensation be considered “big government” and non-entrepreneurial.
-
If there's is such a market, go ahead, let's see the g-league or whatever else become the Netflix to the NCAA as Blockbuster.
This, of course, is the other elephant in the room. Generally, the 1980s into the 1990s is remembered as a heyday of college basketball. Why? Because all the best talent was there and generally stayed four years. Schools and players were identified together.
Then we went to the direct to NBA era. The best players never came, the talent level decreased, and the sport suffered. One-and-done has helped, but as more opportunities have opened up, from the G League to overseas, we are seeing some of the best skip college or go pro even when they won't be drafted.
We're in the beginning of this phase, but allowing players to go direct to the NBA again, while the right thing to do, will decrease the talent level and the quality of the game. Undrafted players are leaving to get money because the NCAA gives them no alternative. How much better would the Big East be with Shamorie Ponds & Martin Krampelj back? How much better would the national landscape be with Jared Harper & Dedric Lawson? Or RJ Hampton and Makur Maker?
If the NCAA doesn't find some way to compensate players beyond tuition and cost of attendance, the talent level will decline, and the interest along with it. The value of the sport, the tournament, all that will be lessened if they are unable to attract and retain players. The loss of players to other options is in its infancy. It will get worse if they don't stem that tide.
Likeness rights could change that, or at least help it. The lack of tangible compensation is having an effect. It may be relatively small now, but it's growing.
-
Here are a few ideas why permitting student athletes to sell their likeness might be a bad idea:
1. You wind up giving schools built-in advantages based on area population or national following to include pitches like "The typical Tar Heel student-athlete generates $1.2 million in personal appearance fees, compared to $800 at Duke, $500K at Clemson, or $250K at South Carolina. Why would you go to any of those schools?" Or, "The metro population of Chicago is more than 7 million, versus 1.5 million in Milwaukee. Think of the expanded personal likeness income opportunity you'll have at DePaul."
2. You wind up legalizing de-facto booster payments to attend the favored school. Do you really want Phil Knight to buy an all-star team for Oregon via buying the likeness of certain players for Nike?
3. The ego issues that will arise will make our off-season issues with the Hausers look like nothing. You think the player egos and complaints about usage are bad now? Wait until there's a player revenue stream at risk. You'll get players suing their coach for loss of income if their reputation suffers and their likeness is devalued due to lack of playing time, discipline, etc.
The only way I could see this working is if all the revenue is pooled, and every player gets an equal cut, regardless of school.
Thank you. This is what I've been getting at it for the last few pages. These are actual reasons against athletes profiting off their likeness instead of repeated logical fallacies.
1 and 2 I see happening but personally don't see them as problems. The game would adjust and schools would figure out how to navigate it.
3 I don't see happening often. Sure there'd be a few hotheads but I think they would be few and far between.
The sharing revenue equally idea is an interesting one that I haven't heard before. On one hand, it allows players to profit off their likeness which takes care of the ethical problem I have with the restriction. It doesn't take care of the top athletes not making what they are worth problem, but I see the former as more important than the latter.
-
"People" can do that overseas or anywhere else outside of college basketball. You added "college athlete." This is such a big government approach. If you don't like something, force organizations to change instead of let the market speak for itself or have other entrepreneurial enterprises compete. If there's is such a market, go ahead, let's see the g-league or whatever else become the Netflix to the NCAA as Blockbuster.
To be honest, my biggest complaint with this whole conversation is the often extreme omission or exaggerated downplaying of the compensation that IS received. The compensation they get is both consensual and overall hugely beneficial for a plethora of reasons. If there was a way to make profiting off of likeness easy without destroying the sport and having shoe companies owning college basketball, I don't think I'd care all that much. But I don't see that as reality. I think it would totally mess up the game. I would rather see a stricter enforcement of the current rules. Obviously this is a touchy, controversial subject and many of us will likely need to agree to disagree. But at a minimum I really hope people can agree that they get very good compensation as it is today and that ultimately they don't HAVE to play college sports.
I do not agree with your big-government analogy. I would argue that you have it backward -- big government is imposing its will on the individual. But that's neither here nor there.
The editor of the Marquette Tribune gets a full ride. It would also be 100% OK if she or he profited from her or his likeness, if the opportunity presented itself. She or he wouldn't told: "If you want to own your likeness and profit off it, tough, go to the Wisconsin State Journal.
IMHO, a Marquette basketball guard, soccer goalkeeper or long jumper should have the same opportunities. For me, it's that simple. I really don't understand why others seem so adamant about not letting a fellow human being have even an iota of control over his or her own likeness.
You apparently disagree, so we'll respectfully agree to disagree.
-
This, of course, is the other elephant in the room. Generally, the 1980s into the 1990s is remembered as a heyday of college basketball. Why? Because all the best talent was there and generally stayed four years. Schools and players were identified together.
Then we went to the direct to NBA era. The best players never came, the talent level decreased, and the sport suffered. One-and-done has helped, but as more opportunities have opened up, from the G League to overseas, we are seeing some of the best skip college or go pro even when they won't be drafted.
We're in the beginning of this phase, but allowing players to go direct to the NBA again, while the right thing to do, will decrease the talent level and the quality of the game. Undrafted players are leaving to get money because the NCAA gives them no alternative. How much better would the Big East be with Shamorie Ponds & Martin Krampelj back? How much better would the national landscape be with Jared Harper & Dedric Lawson? Or RJ Hampton and Makur Maker?
If the NCAA doesn't find some way to compensate players beyond tuition and cost of attendance, the talent level will decline, and the interest along with it. The value of the sport, the tournament, all that will be lessened if they are unable to attract and retain players. The loss of players to other options is in its infancy. It will get worse if they don't stem that tide.
Likeness rights could change that, or at least help it. The lack of tangible compensation is having an effect. It may be relatively small now, but it's growing.
Fine by me. Go to the baseball system. Either you go pro or you stay three years. College basketball will be fine. Most of these guys don’t play in the NBA so I don’t see it as the sport suffering in that respect. Where it suffers is a guy coming for one year, really only going to school for one semester. If you go to the baseball rule kids are truly committed to playing and attending college. If that means a bunch go to the G league, so be it.
-
I do not agree with your big-government analogy. I would argue that you have it backward -- big government is imposing its will on the individual. But that's neither here nor there.
The editor of the Marquette Tribune gets a full ride. It would also be 100% OK if she or he profited from her or his likeness, if the opportunity presented itself. She or he wouldn't told: "If you want to own your likeness and profit off it, tough, go to the Wisconsin State Journal.
IMHO, a Marquette basketball guard, soccer goalkeeper or long jumper should have the same opportunities. For me, it's that simple. I really don't understand why others seem so adamant about not letting a fellow human being have even an iota of control over his or her own likeness.
You apparently disagree, so we'll respectfully agree to disagree.
Why doesn’t the entire MU Tribune staff have the same benefits of the editor?
Is there a large pursuit of recruiting efforts put out to junior and senior high school yearbook writers to come to their school to be editor of the paper? The editor of the Tribune tends to be editor for only a year, correct?
IMHO, that isn’t a very good analogy to try and make your argument. I’d also add that the Tribune editor cannot control his or her likeness as you state. There are absolutely things the editor could do with their likeness that would means grounds for removal of their position, potentially their scholarship and removal from the school.
-
How about:
first year (or redshirt) in a program=$3 K a month
Second year- $5K
Third Year $7500
Fourth year-10K
If you transfer you are back to $3K
That is their base. They are then compensated on a % of jersey sales (with their name on the back), video games, tourney shares, etc...The school controls their likeness to keep their brand image.
Smarter people than me can figure out the details.
-
How about:
first year (or redshirt) in a program=$3 K a month
Second year- $5K
Third Year $7500
Fourth year-10K
If you transfer you are back to $3K
That is their base. They are then compensated on a % of jersey sales (with their name on the back), video games, tourney shares, etc...The school controls their likeness to keep their brand image.
Smarter people than me can figure out the details.
There's a number of things they could do. The schools could request a portion of any income be donated to an athletic scholarship fund. Maybe have all or a percentage of revenue shared among members of that sport or have a revenue sharing model that spreads across all the sports, throughout the conference, or throughout the NCAA. Like you said, they can figure out the details, but there are ways to improve upon the system as it exists without leading to some Chicken Little "oh my god all college athletics are gonna DIE" scenario like some are painting.
-
Really...you don’t think Liberty or BYU might have a problem with an athlete pushing Trojans or porn sites? You are kidding, right.
The only "kidding" here is by someone who actually believes porn sites and condom manufacturers have a shred of interest in paying no-name athletes from Liberty and BYU as their celebrity endorsers. Or that any athlete worth an endorsement deal is going to risk his reputation score by endorsing porn.
This is a very dumb argument you're pushing here.
As for gambling, seen any European sports lately? Welcome to the present.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/jul/19/half-of-premier-league-clubs-to-have-gambling-sponsors-for-201920
Your second argument...that is a red herring. The NCAA is trying to prevent the extreme Wild West, if you go with your logic why have any rules at all...I mean what’s the point? Fortunately the powers that be have said there will be some rules and people can whine all they wish about them, but they will exist to at least attempt some form of balance perceived or otherwise
You clearly are missing the point.
Do away with any and all improper benefits. Assume everyone is following the NCAA's rules to a 'T'.' There is still no such thing as competitive balance in recruiting.
Does anyone believe that there's a recruiting balance between Alabama football and UAB football? Or Kentucky basketball and Morehead State basketball? Or, heck, Marquette basketball and UW-Milwaukee basketball?
The NCAA already allows a huge competetive imbalance in recruiting, and a big part of that is the money that flows into programs from sponsors and boosters. Allowing players to profit off their likeness does nothing to change this.
The truth is the NCAA doesn't give a rip about the competitive imbalances created by companies and boosters pouring money into programs. In fact, they love it.
Their only fear is what happens when some of that money goes directly to the players instead lining their pockets and filling athletic department coffers.
-
Why doesn’t the entire MU Tribune staff have the same benefits of the editor?
Because the editor earned extra benefits.
Is there a large pursuit of recruiting efforts put out to junior and senior high school yearbook writers to come to their school to be editor of the paper? The editor of the Tribune tends to be editor for only a year, correct?
This has nothing to do with athletes profiting off their likeness.
There are absolutely things the editor could do with their likeness that would means grounds for removal of their position, potentially their scholarship and removal from the school.
That's true. It would also be true for student athletes if they were allowed the same ability to profit off their likeness.
-
How about:
first year (or redshirt) in a program=$3 K a month
Second year- $5K
Third Year $7500
Fourth year-10K
If you transfer you are back to $3K
That is their base. They are then compensated on a % of jersey sales (with their name on the back), video games, tourney shares, etc...The school controls their likeness to keep their brand image.
Smarter people than me can figure out the details.
you screw mid and low majors by doing that and basically break up the NCAA. What Horizon League or Valley schools could afford to do that?
-
Because the editor earned extra benefits.
This has nothing to do with athletes profiting off their likeness.
That's true. It would also be true for student athletes if they were allowed the same ability to profit off their likeness.
Thanks, TAMU.
-
you screw mid and low majors by doing that and basically break up the NCAA. What Horizon League or Valley schools could afford to do that?
it comes out to about a million a year. If a school cannot afford that, they should drop to D2. Horizon league teams can afford that
-
As an example of a Horizon league school, UW-Green Bay presents an annual athletics report to the UW Board of Regents. According to last spring's report, UWGB posted net operating margins of $408,800 in FY 2016-17 (on $9.4 million in revenue) and $260,876 in FY 2015-16.
That $9.4 million in revenue includes $1.8 million in tuition remissions provided by the university and used for athletic scholarships. In other words, it's money coming from Wisconsin taxpayers and UWGB student tuition -- not ticket sales, sponsorships, NCAA distributions, etc.
The vast majority of athletic department expenses (almost 70%) go toward additional financial aid for student athletes, team travel, equipment and other costs. Salaries and benefits for coaches and administrators take up the rest.
I'm no financial expert, so feel free to correct me if I'm reading any of this wrong. But there are a lot more universities like UWGB in D1 than there are schools like Marquette. And they don't have millions of dollars just sitting around.
https://www.wisconsin.edu/regents/download/meeting_materials/2018/april_5-6,_2018/Friday-Board-Agenda-and-Materials-(April-6,-2018).pdf (https://www.wisconsin.edu/regents/download/meeting_materials/2018/april_5-6,_2018/Friday-Board-Agenda-and-Materials-(April-6,-2018).pdf)
-
For comparison, Marquette men's basketball generated $19.3 million in revenue in 2016-17 against $11.8 million in costs. But that margin of $7.5 million goes to support other athletic programs -- and MU athletics still draws funds from the university itself.
AD Mike Broeker states "there's only 24 of 356 programs that are self-funded," meaning that the athletics department supports itself entirely on things like fundraising, ticket sales, merchandising, broadcast rights deals, NCAA distributions, etc.
Even a very successful program like Marquette doesn't have millions of dollars just lying around. Athletics is an investment in sustaining the university.
https://marquettewire.org/3992372/tv/increased-mens-basketball-spending-a-product-of-travel-lease-agreements/ (https://marquettewire.org/3992372/tv/increased-mens-basketball-spending-a-product-of-travel-lease-agreements/)
-
All of which is why you allow likeness rights rather than set salaries. Market dictates value, market pays the costs.
-
My posts above have nothing to do with allowing student-athletes to profit from their own likeness. Frankly, I'm undecided on that issue. I like it in principle. But I think it also has the potential to impact scholarships for non-revenue sports and create other unintended consequences.
Another point of comparison:
Based on Marquette's 2016-17 tuition of $38,470, the cost of providing scholarships for 80+ student-athletes in the other varsity sports outside of men's basketball is more than $3 million. According to the university's latest financial report, leasing "athletic and other facilities and equipment" will account for $1.3 million in 2019. And those figures don't include student housing, salaries for other coaches and administrators, team travel, etc.
If Markus were free to sign his own endorsement deals with Cyganiak Planning and Richard Gruber, that could mean lost revenue for the MU athletic department -- and less money to support women's basketball, men's golf, women's volleyball, men's and women's lacrosse and soccer, etc.
-
The only "kidding" here is by someone who actually believes porn sites and condom manufacturers have a shred of interest in paying no-name athletes from Liberty and BYU as their celebrity endorsers. Or that any athlete worth an endorsement deal is going to risk his reputation score by endorsing porn.
This is a very dumb argument you're pushing here.
As for gambling, seen any European sports lately? Welcome to the present.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/jul/19/half-of-premier-league-clubs-to-have-gambling-sponsors-for-201920
You clearly are missing the point.
Do away with any and all improper benefits. Assume everyone is following the NCAA's rules to a 'T'.' There is still no such thing as competitive balance in recruiting.
Does anyone believe that there's a recruiting balance between Alabama football and UAB football? Or Kentucky basketball and Morehead State basketball? Or, heck, Marquette basketball and UW-Milwaukee basketball?
The NCAA already allows a huge competetive imbalance in recruiting, and a big part of that is the money that flows into programs from sponsors and boosters. Allowing players to profit off their likeness does nothing to change this.
The truth is the NCAA doesn't give a rip about the competitive imbalances created by companies and boosters pouring money into programs. In fact, they love it.
Their only fear is what happens when some of that money goes directly to the players instead lining their pockets and filling athletic department coffers.
I think you don’t know what the NCAA cares about or doesn’t, especially when the NCAA isn’t a single entity.
Yes, very familiar with European sports and betting, I do a ton of work with SportRadar who is the firm of record to validate all bets in Europe...but as you satiate that is Europe, not the USA.
I think you vastly understate why brands and companies try and protect those brands, and having a single entity that could destroy or hurt that brand is why companies, etc don’t allow employees or firemen or others do things in their name with that brand attached to it.
I already acknowledged there is a recruiting imbalance, what you are suggesting is make it worse....much worse.
-
Because the editor earned extra benefits.
This has nothing to do with athletes profiting off their likeness.
That's true. It would also be true for student athletes if they were allowed the same ability to profit off their likeness.
So you are admitting that some people get things others don’t...correct? Life isn’t fair. The editor gets something the other staff members do not. Basketball players get a lot of things other students don’t, and some students get a few things basketball players don’t.
-
All of which is why you allow likeness rights rather than set salaries. Market dictates value, market pays the costs.
And the market will be driven by large schools, with deep pockets that will further the imbalance even more. So in this new world Brew, what team are you going to follow since Marquette and schools like it will slowly disappear from the landscape...purely a numbers game.
-
I think you don’t know what the NCAA cares about or doesn’t, especially when the NCAA isn’t a single entity.
Yes, very familiar with European sports and betting, I do a ton of work with SportRadar who is the firm of record to validate all bets in Europe...but as you satiate that is Europe, not the USA.
I think you vastly understate why brands and companies try and protect those brands, and having a single entity that could destroy or hurt that brand is why companies, etc don’t allow employees or firemen or others do things in their name with that brand attached to it.
I already acknowledged there is a recruiting imbalance, what you are suggesting is make it worse....much worse.
I was envisioning a situation where a football player had a comedy YouTube channel or a swimmer had a personal Instagram account. Nothing to do with their sport, jersey, school, etc.
Much like Brew mentioned his co-workers can do what they want on their own time in making money off their likeness. But would be restricted when it comes to doing anything in uniform/representing his firehouse.
-
So you are admitting that some people get things others don’t...correct? Life isn’t fair. The editor gets something the other staff members do not. Basketball players get a lot of things other students don’t, and some students get a few things basketball players don’t.
No. I'm saying the editor earned extra compensation. The basketball players earned extra compensation. Restricting athletes from profiting off their likeness is not an example of earning extra compensation. You are making an apples to echidnas comparison.
Also, for the fifth time, "Life isn't fair" isn't an argument for or against players profiting off their likeness. It's a logical fallacy.
-
I already acknowledged there is a recruiting imbalance, what you are suggesting is make it worse....much worse.
This is my biggest concern. Greater opportunity for the few could mean less opportunity for everyone else -- whether it's big schools versus small schools or revenue-generating sports versus all other varsity sports.
Yes, the NCAA generates a ton of money -- about $1.1 billion a year. That's a gigantic number. But it doesn't account for expenses. The NCAA is a big organization, and part of that revenue goes toward legislation, cabinets and committees, research, marketing, legal fees, etc. The majority, however (about $560 million) is distributed back to Division I schools to support other athletic programs.
Still a really big number. But that averages out to roughly $1.5 million per Division I school, supporting nearly a half million student athletes.
If the NCAA's financial model shifts toward favoring the stars of college football and men's college basketball, what will that mean for everyone else?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2018/03/07/ncaa-reports-revenues-more-than-1-billion-2017/402486002/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2018/03/07/ncaa-reports-revenues-more-than-1-billion-2017/402486002/)
-
I was envisioning a situation where a football player had a comedy YouTube channel or a swimmer had a personal Instagram account. Nothing to do with their sport, jersey, school, etc.
Much like Brew mentioned his co-workers can do what they want on their own time in making money off their likeness. But would be restricted when it comes to doing anything in uniform/representing his firehouse.
That’s because no one knows who the firemen are or the Joe blow student. That is quite different when it comes to college athletes...just because they aren’t in uniform doesn’t mean they won’t be associated with that brand. This is the case with many public figures which is another reason the rules are different.
-
Here's a hot take from a recent article by the Courier Journal, and several areas I have issues with this argument:
"The NCAA is profiting on the backs of unpaid labor, and I've felt like maybe it's time where we've reached a place to right this wrong," said Congressman Mark Walker of North Carolina, author of the Student-Athlete Equity Act.
"Student-athletes are the only ones on a college campus who have to sign over their rights to their image. And 99 percent of these student-athletes will never receive any kind of compensation from a professional sports organization, so you're basically stymying any type of growth and networking. It just doesn't make any sense."
That's the best case this guy can make? And he's a professional lawmaker? Let's try to unpack this "logic" a bit at a time.
"The NCAA is profiting on the backs of unpaid labor"
For one, the NCAA doesn't profit off of anything. The NCAA is not a public or private business. It doesn't have an owner or shareholders. It's a nonprofit organization that regulates student-athletes from more than 1,000 colleges and universities.
The NCAA exists for the benefit of its members -- which includes the nearly 500,000 students who compete in intercollegiate athletics. It's mission is "to govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount."
The "unpaid labor" argument has already been covered in depth. But to recap -- while athletes are not directly compensated financially for what they contribute to member institutions, this statement implies that athletes receive nothing of value in return.
USA Today estimates that a men's basketball scholarship is worth $120,000 a year (see link below). This includes: tuition, additional financial assistance, coaching, private basketball training facilities, shoes, uniforms and equipment, academic counseling, media relations and publicity, medical insurance premiums, complimentary game tickets, plus the value of a college degree toward future earnings.
The term "labor" also implies that men's college basketball is a job. It's not. It's a game. One so popular that people pay a lot of money to watch it. But it's still a game. That's why they're called "players," not "workers" or "employees."
"Student-athletes are the only ones on a college campus who have to sign over their rights to their image"
This one sounds kind of persuasive at first. But so what? A men's basketball scholarship is a legal contract. Do all legal contracts have the same exact terms? Of course not.
The expectations for an athletic scholarship and other scholarships are simply different. Some scholarships, for example, may require the recipient to work for a particular employer for a specified period of time (such as the Army or Navy) -- signing over their rights to pursue other employment opportunities.
As long as both parties are aware of the terms beforehand and enter into the contract willingly, I'm okay with that. And nothing is stopping players from leaving their scholarship (breaking the contract) at any point.
"99 percent of these student-athletes will never receive any kind of compensation from a professional sports organization, so you're basically stymying any kind of growth and networking"
This sounds like complete BS to me. Men's basketball players receive tremendous exposure within the business and local community -- through fundraisers, booster clubs, events, service opportunities, not to mention hours of national exposure before, during and after games. Plus, those interested in pursuing a career in sports other than playing (such as sports broadcasting or coaching) have a clear leg up.
I'm glad the NCAA is looking at the issue. Fairness and looking out for players' interests are worthwhile goals. Perhaps there's a middle ground. Maybe the market will win out.
Already, players have more opportunities than they used to -- as seen by the growing number jumping directly from high school to the G League or overseas. I just wish there were a lot less hyperbole and more real discussion.
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/2019/05/15/college-athletes-could-get-paid-but-not-ncaa/3670564002/ (https://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/2019/05/15/college-athletes-could-get-paid-but-not-ncaa/3670564002/)
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/2011-03-29-scholarship-worth-final-four_N.htm (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/2011-03-29-scholarship-worth-final-four_N.htm)
-
Here's a hot take from a recent article by the Courier Journal, and several areas I have issues with this argument:
"The NCAA is profiting on the backs of unpaid labor, and I've felt like maybe it's time where we've reached a place to right this wrong," said Congressman Mark Walker of North Carolina, author of the Student-Athlete Equity Act.
"Student-athletes are the only ones on a college campus who have to sign over their rights to their image. And 99 percent of these student-athletes will never receive any kind of compensation from a professional sports organization, so you're basically stymying any type of growth and networking. It just doesn't make any sense."
Let's try to unpack this "logic" a bit at a time.
"Profiting on the backs of unpaid labor"
For one, the NCAA doesn't profit off of anything. The NCAA is not a public or private business. It doesn't have an owner or shareholders. It's a nonprofit organization that regulates student-athletes from more than 1,000 colleges and universities.
The NCAA exists for the benefit of its members -- which includes the nearly 500,000 students who compete in intercollegiate athletics. It's mission to "to govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount."
The "unpaid labor" argument has already been covered in depth. But to recap -- while athletes are not directly compensated financially for what they contribute to member institutions, this statement implies that athletes receive nothing of value in return.
USA Today estimates that a men's basketball scholarship is worth $120,000 a year (see link below). This includes: tuition, additional financial assistance, coaching, private basketball training facilities, shoes, uniforms and equipment, academic counseling, media relations and publicity, medical insurance premiums, complimentary game tickets, plus the value of a college degree toward future earnings.
The term "labor" also implies that men's college basketball is a job. It's not. It's a game. One so popular that people pay a lot of money to watch it. But it's still a game. That's why they're called "players," not "workers" or "employees."
"Student-athletes are the only ones on a college campus who have to sign over their rights to their image"
This one sounds kind of persuasive at first. But so what? A men's basketball scholarship is a legal contract. Do all legal contracts have the same exact terms? Of course not.
The expectations for an athletic scholarship and other scholarships are simply different. Some scholarships, for example, may require the recipient to work for a particular employer for a specified period of time (such as the Army or Navy) -- signing over their rights to pursue other employment opportunities.
As long as both parties are aware of the terms beforehand and enter into the contract willingly, I'm okay with that. And nothing is stopping players from leaving their scholarship (breaking the contract) at any point.
"99 percent of these student-athletes will never receive any kind of compensation from a professional sports organization, so you're basically stymying any kind of growth and networking"
This sounds like complete BS to me. Men's basketball players receive tremendous exposure within the business and local community -- through fundraisers, booster clubs, events, service opportunities, not to mention hours of national exposure before, during and after games. Plus, those interested in pursuing a career in sports other than playing (such as sports broadcasting or coaching) have a clear leg up.
I'm glad the NCAA is looking at the issue. Fairness and looking out for players' interest are worthwhile goals. Perhaps there's a middle ground. Maybe the market will win out.
Already, players have more opportunities than they used to -- as seen by the growing number jumping directly from high school to the G League or overseas. I just wish there were a lot less hyperbole and more real discussion.
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/2019/05/15/college-athletes-could-get-paid-but-not-ncaa/3670564002/ (https://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/2019/05/15/college-athletes-could-get-paid-but-not-ncaa/3670564002/)
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/2011-03-29-scholarship-worth-final-four_N.htm (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/2011-03-29-scholarship-worth-final-four_N.htm)
Thank you for taking the time to unpack this. I completely agree. I keep saying it's a consensual relationship. No one is forcing them to agree to the terms. They can pursue literally anything else in life and even other basketball avenues if they don't like it. Just like I entered into a consensual relationship with my employer which comes with tons of rules as well. Have you ever read the fine print of the employee contract you signed? You aren't free to do anything you want outside of work. But you agree to it because it's worth it. If it's not, do something else.
-
I do not agree with your big-government analogy. I would argue that you have it backward -- big government is imposing its will on the individual. But that's neither here nor there.
How is big government imposing its will? It's one organization that has specific rules that each athlete willingly agrees to when they sign up. Big government is when people don't like something, so instead of creating compelling competition and taking market share, people demand more rules and regulations be made.
Let's take Uber. I can't tell you how much I hated taking cabs before Uber. Should we have made more rules against cabs? Force them to accept credit cards? Force their drivers to act like they give a crap about the passenger in the least? Force the cabs to smell like something better than dirty laundry? No. Because eventually in a free market, competition will spawn to address the issue. Enter Uber and Lyft. Now I get to laugh at how the typical cab companies keep trying to demand more rules against those companies instead of actually evolve.
So, do I want more rules placed upon an individual organization? No. If the free market dictates that enough people are ticked off at the way the NCAA runs, we'll start to see serious competition to college basketball for the best players out of high school, and if that happens, then the NCAA will have to decide what to do about it. I would much rather the decision be made that way, willingly by the organization in an attempt to remain competitive, rather than to have it shoved down their throats forcefully. If nothing ever rises up and seriously competes, then perhaps it really isn't so bad the way it is, and just maybe, most people find a lot of advantages to the current setup. Either way, let the free market decide.
-
And the market will be driven by large schools, with deep pockets that will further the imbalance even more. So in this new world Brew, what team are you going to follow since Marquette and schools like it will slowly disappear from the landscape...purely a numbers game.
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/j2VaKAKPvKJ2M/giphy.gif?cid=19f5b51a98b0692cea29ab296f08a2a11ead013231b88af8&rid=giphy.gif)
WHATEVER WILL HAPPEN WHEN SCHOOLS LIKE KENTUCKY, NORTH CAROLINA, UCLA, KANSAS, AND DUKE DOMINATE THE RECRUITING LANDSCAPE?!?!? WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!
Stop with the ridiculous doomsday scenarios.
-
Thank you for taking the time to unpack this. I completely agree. I keep saying it's a consensual relationship. No one is forcing them to agree to the terms. They can pursue literally anything else in life and even other basketball avenues if they don't like it. Just like I entered into a consensual relationship with my employer which comes with tons of rules as well. Have you ever read the fine print of the employee contract you signed? You aren't free to do anything you want outside of work. But you agree to it because it's worth it. If it's not, do something else.
And I keep saying, and you keep ignoring, there are significant differences between an employee contract and an NCAA scholarship agreement. Your employer would be sued if they collaborated with other employers to keep the level of your compensation set at a specific amount. This is exactly what an athletic scholarship is. It is a set level of compensation that doesn't allow the recipient to bargain against other offers. So while they do have other options, their best option comes with a price ceiling - which is why the under the table payments exist in the first place.
So please stop with the poor analogies.
-
WHATEVER WILL HAPPEN WHEN SCHOOLS LIKE KENTUCKY, NORTH CAROLINA, UCLA, KANSAS, AND DUKE DOMINATE THE RECRUITING LANDSCAPE?!?!? WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!
Stop with the ridiculous doomsday scenarios.
I actually think entrepreneurial schools and boosters could use this to their advantage. It may even out the landscape more than people think.
-
I actually think entrepreneurial schools and boosters could use this to their advantage. It may even out the landscape more than people think.
Agreed. Anyone acting like Marquette doesn't have a billionaire booster who has stated one of his goals is to help MU win another national championship is either wrong or ill informed.
-
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/j2VaKAKPvKJ2M/giphy.gif?cid=19f5b51a98b0692cea29ab296f08a2a11ead013231b88af8&rid=giphy.gif)
WHATEVER WILL HAPPEN WHEN SCHOOLS LIKE KENTUCKY, NORTH CAROLINA, UCLA, KANSAS, AND DUKE DOMINATE THE RECRUITING LANDSCAPE?!?!? WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!
Stop with the ridiculous doomsday scenarios.
All you are doing is making a problem even worse. No one is going to die, the consolidation of power will become even greater with those with the most resources...the 1% that you champion in life will become even stronger.
-
I actually think entrepreneurial schools and boosters could use this to their advantage. It may even out the landscape more than people think.
It's a pure numbers game. Scale.
-
It is a set level of compensation that doesn't allow the recipient to bargain against other offers. So while they do have other options, their best option comes with a price ceiling - which is why the under the table payments exist in the first place.
Umm...you literally make a statement and then contradict yourself in the next sentence. "While they do have other options..." Exactly, they have other options. If this option is so terrible, especially against all other available options, why do so many do it? What part about no one is forcing anyone to do any of this don't you get?
-
How is big government imposing its will? It's one organization that has specific rules that each athlete willingly agrees to when they sign up. Big government is when people don't like something, so instead of creating compelling competition and taking market share, people demand more rules and regulations be made.
Let's take Uber. I can't tell you how much I hated taking cabs before Uber. Should we have made more rules against cabs? Force them to accept credit cards? Force their drivers to act like they give a crap about the passenger in the least? Force the cabs to smell like something better than dirty laundry? No. Because eventually in a free market, competition will spawn to address the issue. Enter Uber and Lyft. Now I get to laugh at how the typical cab companies keep trying to demand more rules against those companies instead of actually evolve.
So, do I want more rules placed upon an individual organization? No. If the free market dictates that enough people are ticked off at the way the NCAA runs, we'll start to see serious competition to college basketball for the best players out of high school, and if that happens, then the NCAA will have to decide what to do about it. I would much rather the decision be made that way, willingly by the organization in an attempt to remain competitive, rather than to have it shoved down their throats forcefully. If nothing ever rises up and seriously competes, then perhaps it really isn't so bad the way it is, and just maybe, most people find a lot of advantages to the current setup. Either way, let the free market decide.
Cones
Superbly stated.
-
Umm...you literally make a statement and then contradict yourself in the next sentence. "While they do have other options..." Exactly, they have other options. If this option is so terrible, especially against all other available options, why do so many do it? What part about no one is forcing anyone to do any of this don't you get?
No. My point is that a cartel of universities have established set levels of compensation. You may think that's fine, but your comparisons to the labor market are nonsensical because such an arrangement in the labor market would be illegal.
-
How is big government imposing its will? It's one organization that has specific rules that each athlete willingly agrees to when they sign up. Big government is when people don't like something, so instead of creating compelling competition and taking market share, people demand more rules and regulations be made.
Actually we are advocating for less rules and regulations.
Let's take Uber. I can't tell you how much I hated taking cabs before Uber. Should we have made more rules against cabs? Force them to accept credit cards? Force their drivers to act like they give a crap about the passenger in the least? Force the cabs to smell like something better than dirty laundry? No. Because eventually in a free market, competition will spawn to address the issue. Enter Uber and Lyft. Now I get to laugh at how the typical cab companies keep trying to demand more rules against those companies instead of actually evolve.
So, do I want more rules placed upon an individual organization? No. If the free market dictates that enough people are ticked off at the way the NCAA runs, we'll start to see serious competition to college basketball for the best players out of high school, and if that happens, then the NCAA will have to decide what to do about it. I would much rather the decision be made that way, willingly by the organization in an attempt to remain competitive, rather than to have it shoved down their throats forcefully. If nothing ever rises up and seriously competes, then perhaps it really isn't so bad the way it is, and just maybe, most people find a lot of advantages to the current setup. Either way, let the free market decide.
The market isn't "free" at all. The problem is that you are viewing "the NCAA" as one entity and one option. It shouldn't be viewed that way. If schools could be competitive with what they offer, you would see student athletes getting way more than the value of their scholarship.
-
No. My point is that a cartel of universities have established set levels of compensation.
I think you forgot the word illegal? Why not advocate for better enforcement of the rules in place?
-
Actually we are advocating for less rules and regulations.
The market isn't "free" at all. The problem is that you are viewing "the NCAA" as one entity and one option. It shouldn't be viewed that way. If schools could be competitive with what they offer, you would see student athletes getting way more than the value of their scholarship.
Ok, let me rephrase. You are advocating to force an organization to change its rules. If it's so bad the way it is, I'd rather see other forms of competition for the talent.
How is it not a free market? Who is forcing anyone to receive 6-figure annual compensation to play college basketball?
-
Ok, let me rephrase. You are advocating to force an organization to change its rules.
I am not advocating for anything of the sort. I think they should change their rules, but I don't believe they should have be forced to change by the government. PR pressure? Sure. If a court judgement goes against them? Fine.
How is it not a free market? Who is forcing anyone to receive 6-figure annual compensation to play college basketball?
I have explained this. Prospects can't go from one school to another to shop for the best offer. Like you can when you participate in the workforce.
I think you forgot the word illegal? Why not advocate for better enforcement of the rules in place?
Because I don't like their rules.
-
The market isn't "free" at all. The problem is that you are viewing "the NCAA" as one entity and one option. It shouldn't be viewed that way. If schools could be competitive with what they offer, you would see student athletes getting way more than the value of their scholarship.
Exactly right.
It's fun how people here are (with no apparent irony) using "free market" talking points in defense of a cartel.
-
Exactly right.
It's fun how people here are (with no apparent irony) using "free market" talking points in defense of a cartel.
"It's like the labor market."
Except if you are a widget maker, and all the major widget makers across the country got together to set your salary level, and your only other option was to get a job overseas, that would be illegal.
How free market minded people can use these principals to defend the NCAA is bizarre to me.
-
It's fun how people here are (with no apparent irony) using "free market" talking points in defense of a cartel.
This.
I respect the way Cones is trying to make his point, and I understand what he's saying. I just disagree that it is valid in this application
-
Let’s all agree to disagree. Back to Hayward and Crowder.
-
Exactly right.
It's fun how people here are (with no apparent irony) using "free market" talking points in defense of a cartel.
It is from a broad perspective one entity. They are “free” to go play wherever they want. They want to play in college because they are well compensated.
-
Have they re-opened the kitchen at Nicky’s Lionhead yet after the fire?
-
Let’s all agree to disagree. Back to Hayward and Crowder.
+1. Most of the opinions on the topic have been well thought out and presented. No new ground to plow. Probably no minds to change (except maybe mine - I've found arguments from both sides compelling).
-
I have explained this. Prospects can't go from one school to another to shop for the best offer. Like you can when you participate in the workforce.
I'll agree with the recent posts that this thread has been pretty much exhausted. So I will try really hard to make this my last post about this. What is said above is 100% incorrect. That's EXACTLY what prospects do. Hello? We have an entire recruiting thread that talks about what MU has to offer recruits compared to everyone else. Recruits get 5 official visits. What for if they can't go to each school to figure out what the best offer is? You may be only focusing on one aspect of the "offer." You can't be serious that every school is offering the same exact vanilla ice cream, or else Kentucky would get the same caliber of recruits as Hampton. Do you think a degree from Stanford is worth the same as a degree from Montana? Each student athlete gets to consider the education, facilities, coaching, teammates, opportunities for visibility, alumni connections, accessories (shoes, etc.), geography, probability for success, playing time, etc. etc.
So here we come full circle again where I get really annoyed how people act like there is no choice or compensation involved in any of this. Like the NCAA runs some monopoly on basketball. They don't own the basketball market. They rule college basketball, just like Pringles rules the market on Pringles. You want Doritos? Go play overseas. You want Cheetos? Go to the g-league. On top of that, there are over 350 flavors of Pringles to choose from in D1 alone.
In closing, I believe we should all acknowledge that each player is receiving roughly a 6-figure compensation annually in tuition and incentives (yes, it varies but I'm saying on average). I believe that if they don't want to play college ball and by those rules, then they don't have to. I believe that the NBA should not limit players from trying to go pro immediately. I believe that adding the ability for a tiny percentage of college players to essentially profit significantly more than everyone else would decrease parity and turn college basketball into a less talented version of the NBA. I like it the way it is. I'd welcome competition to its model, and if that competition succeeds, then the market will have spoken. I am not a fan of anyone interested in forcing college basketball to change the current model.
At least for the most part this has been civil, so that's good (and refreshing). There are people on both sides who will have to agree to disagree. Cheers.
-
So while they do have other options, their best option comes with a price ceiling - which is why the under the table payments exist in the first place.
Then why is it the best option? Why wouldn't every single other option that exists where the "likeness" price ceiling restriction isn't in place be a better option if it's so lucrative? It would seem madness that these players would sign up to play college basketball, throwing away all that money that they could get otherwise.
For example, why didn't Zion go and play in Italy for a year? He could have been playing basketball full time, not worrying about schoolwork, making a salary, and profiting off his likeness. He must be nuts.
Sorry. I said I was done. Now I'm hopefully done.
-
"The athletes get compensated enough" isn't a good argument for the likeness conversation. So because something is good enough, that doesn't mean we should try to make it better?
I think 99% of D1 student athletes are fairly to over compensated for the work they do. I also think they should be allowed to profit off their likeness. How much the athletes are compensated is irrelevant to whether or not a player should be allowed to profit of his/her likeness.
-
I pretty much agree with TAMU and think most people who against really use poor logic to justify why they just like things the way they are.
-
I pretty much agree with TAMU and think most people who against really use poor logic to justify why they just like things the way they are.
It’s largely an American thing. Our fascination with amateurism and the purity of it is one of the weirdest quirks of our nation. It goes back to early 20th Century thinking of being a professional in sports as something of ill-repute outside baseball and boxing. And even then, baseball players couldn’t make a real living simply playing a sport.
There is nothing remotely amateur about college basketball except the officiating. Coaches are paid millions of dollars, TV pays exorbitant rights fees and universities are in a constant arms race to build bigger and better facilities and we’re concerned athletes getting likeness compensation might open a Pandora’s Box to what? A few heavyweights might have an advantage? They already have that.
I watch grown adults verbally assault college athletes, attack them online all in the name of winning and giving fans a chance to puff their chests out. It’s laughable to me we’re offended they want to earn off their skills.
-
I pretty much agree with TAMU and think most people who against really use poor logic to justify why they just like things the way they are.
How u feel bout english? No Matta way north of Milwaukee ainer
-
It’s largely an American thing. Our fascination with amateurism and the purity of it is one of the weirdest quirks of our nation. It goes back to early 20th Century thinking of being a professional in sports as something of ill-repute outside baseball and boxing. And even then, baseball players couldn’t make a real living simply playing a sport.
There is nothing remotely amateur about college basketball except the officiating. Coaches are paid millions of dollars, TV pays exorbitant rights fees and universities are in a constant arms race to build bigger and better facilities and we’re concerned athletes getting likeness compensation might open a Pandora’s Box to what? A few heavyweights might have an advantage? They already have that.
I watch grown adults verbally assault college athletes, attack them online all in the name of winning and giving fans a chance to puff their chests out. It’s laughable to me we’re offended they want to earn off their skills.
Superb comment.
-
It’s largely an American thing. Our fascination with amateurism and the purity of it is one of the weirdest quirks of our nation. It goes back to early 20th Century thinking of being a professional in sports as something of ill-repute outside baseball and boxing. And even then, baseball players couldn’t make a real living simply playing a sport.
There is nothing remotely amateur about college basketball except the officiating. Coaches are paid millions of dollars, TV pays exorbitant rights fees and universities are in a constant arms race to build bigger and better facilities and we’re concerned athletes getting likeness compensation might open a Pandora’s Box to what? A few heavyweights might have an advantage? They already have that.
I watch grown adults verbally assault college athletes, attack them online all in the name of winning and giving fans a chance to puff their chests out. It’s laughable to me we’re offended they want to earn off their skills.
Again you are lumping all college basketball together. What happens at the top 50 programs doesn’t mean the same is happening for the other 300, let alone D2 or D3.
Most coaches are not paid millions of dollars.
Most schools are not in an arms race.
The high tv rights paid are for some conferences and many do not even have a tv deal at all.
We keep trying to find a solution to a “problem” that not only doesn’t exist, but where it is perceived to exist only happens to a small number. Broad brush strokes trying to assess the small sliver that are also going to do just fine when they get out.
You want to make a virtuous argument, your likeness can be marketed if you get a 3.0GPA and got to class.
-
Again you are lumping all college basketball together. What happens at the top 50 programs doesn’t mean the same is happening for the other 300, let alone D2 or D3.
Most coaches are not paid millions of dollars.
Most schools are not in an arms race.
The high tv rights paid are for some conferences and many do not even have a tv deal at all.
We keep trying to find a solution to a “problem” that not only doesn’t exist, but where it is perceived to exist only happens to a small number. Broad brush strokes trying to assess the small sliver that are also going to do just fine when they get out.
You want to make a virtuous argument, your likeness can be marketed if you get a 3.0GPA and got to class.
Then those schools you claim aren’t in an arms race shouldn’t be participating at the same level as the major conferences. They happily take every dollar they can get from TV and the tournament.
Amateurism is a sham meant to line the pockets of the few, not the many.
-
Then those schools you claim aren’t in an arms race shouldn’t be participating at the same level as the major conferences. They happily take every dollar they can get from TV and the tournament.
Amateurism is a sham meant to line the pockets of the few, not the many.
RICO to the hoop with authority!
-
Then those schools you claim aren’t in an arms race shouldn’t be participating at the same level as the major conferences. They happily take every dollar they can get from TV and the tournament.
Amateurism is a sham meant to line the pockets of the few, not the many.
I could not agree more. If your school cannot raise the money to pay the players a base salary, move down a division
-
Again you are lumping all college basketball together. What happens at the top 50 programs doesn’t mean the same is happening for the other 300, let alone D2 or D3.
Most coaches are not paid millions of dollars.
Most schools are not in an arms race.
The high tv rights paid are for some conferences and many do not even have a tv deal at all.
We keep trying to find a solution to a “problem” that not only doesn’t exist, but where it is perceived to exist only happens to a small number. Broad brush strokes trying to assess the small sliver that are also going to do just fine when they get out.
You want to make a virtuous argument, your likeness can be marketed if you get a 3.0GPA and got to class.
I’m trying to figure out what this has to do with profiting off your likeness? Is the argument the TV rights would be lower for the NCAA tourney, so it hurts smaller schools? Otherwise, why would it matter?
I think people are thinking there’s this endless supply of money from boosters that are going to pay every player a million dollars a year. Some might shell out big bucks, but after the top few players, I doubt it will be a ton. The bust rate of the top 100 is high enough that the ROI doesn’t really make sense.
If people are getting paid 100k to shoot a commercial at a car dealership in Kentucky, so be it. They’d probably get some form of that under the table now.
-
Then those schools you claim aren’t in an arms race shouldn’t be participating at the same level as the major conferences. They happily take every dollar they can get from TV and the tournament.
Amateurism is a sham meant to line the pockets of the few, not the many.
Yep.
And Division 1 is too large anyway. They could drop 1/3 of its members and it would have no real impact on the game.
-
Then those schools you claim aren’t in an arms race shouldn’t be participating at the same level as the major conferences. They happily take every dollar they can get from TV and the tournament.
Amateurism is a sham meant to line the pockets of the few, not the many.
And again, Unk, you have nailed it.
-
I’m trying to figure out what this has to do with profiting off your likeness? Is the argument the TV rights would be lower for the NCAA tourney, so it hurts smaller schools? Otherwise, why would it matter?
I suspect the fear is that if corporate sponsors are giving players endorsement deals, that will come from the came pool of money that today is going to the schools. Money for players = less money for the schools.
And Uncle Rico is right. Why are we insisting that the schools that have built successful programs subsidize their unsuccessful competitors?
-
U guys are complete losers. Take it to the superbar
-
And Uncle Rico is right. Why are we insisting that the schools that have built successful programs subsidize their unsuccessful competitors?
Ahhh, surely you’re against Title IX!
-
Ahhh, surely you’re against Title IX!
Title IX wouldn’t be an issue. Female athletes could get compensated for their likeness as well
-
But if the money goes to the players and not the schools in order to fund the other non revenue sports those sports will disappear. This is a circular argument going nowhere.
-
But if the money goes to the players and not the schools in order to fund the other non revenue sports those sports will disappear. This is a circular argument going nowhere.
Schools aren’t going to get TV money? Why be in a conference then? Let’s not act like there isn’t enough money being spread around in major college sports that the women’s soccer team would somehow be in jeopardy if athletes got likeness compensation.
Universities will have to ask themselves what is their purpose then if the doomsday scenarios of athletes getting compensated for their name and likeness come true like some fear.
-
Ahhh, surely you’re against Title IX!
Irrelevant.
-
But if the money goes to the players and not the schools in order to fund the other non revenue sports those sports will disappear. This is a circular argument going nowhere.
What money would stop going to schools and start going to the players if the players were allowed to profit off their likeness? Honest question, I've never heard this argument before.
-
Then those schools you claim aren’t in an arms race shouldn’t be participating at the same level as the major conferences. They happily take every dollar they can get from TV and the tournament.
Amateurism is a sham meant to line the pockets of the few, not the many.
There is some truth to that, but it also means you should stop implying that all these coaches are making millions, that programs are all doing these things you don’t agree with. They simply aren’t.
As for the money, all the membership receives some dollars. They provide the competition and as long as that is the case, they will be entitled to some of it. We can say lop off 100 or 150 schools, good luck with scheduling when that happens.
-
Yep.
And Division 1 is too large anyway. They could drop 1/3 of its members and it would have no real impact on the game.
Patently untrue. Aside from massive schedule disruption, it would also take away opportunities for thousands of student athletes as well.
-
I suspect the fear is that if corporate sponsors are giving players endorsement deals, that will come from the came pool of money that today is going to the schools. Money for players = less money for the schools.
And Uncle Rico is right. Why are we insisting that the schools that have built successful programs subsidize their unsuccessful competitors?
Why do we insist on successful people subsidizing other citizens....think of it as a tax then you can get your head around it and like it.
-
I’m trying to figure out what this has to do with profiting off your likeness? Is the argument the TV rights would be lower for the NCAA tourney, so it hurts smaller schools? Otherwise, why would it matter?
I think people are thinking there’s this endless supply of money from boosters that are going to pay every player a million dollars a year. Some might shell out big bucks, but after the top few players, I doubt it will be a ton. The bust rate of the top 100 is high enough that the ROI doesn’t really make sense.
If people are getting paid 100k to shoot a commercial at a car dealership in Kentucky, so be it. They’d probably get some form of that under the table now.
I’m merely pointing out the argument continues to be Johnny Studmuffin could make more money if he wasn’t being put on the NCAA plantation (those exact words have been used by some, I am not exaggerating). Or coaches make millions. TV money everywhere.
Broad brushes that impact not that many programs....a solution in search of a problem.
Then of course there is the typical, “well it is happening anyway” so shine some light on it and it makes it all better somehow....which isn’t the case. How about we work harder on punishing those that do it underhanded rather than opening up the flood gates. More importantly. It creates even further competitive imbalance. Bigger schools have more alums, more alums means more rich alums, more businesses, etc...it is all about scale...some of you are literally saying let the rich get richer or the big get bigger. Scale is a great thing if you have it.
-
Why do we insist on successful people subsidizing other citizens....think of it as a tax then you can get your head around it and like it.
1. Politics
2. Bad analogy. It would be more like insisting that McDonald's subsidize Hardee's.
-
Patently untrue. Aside from massive schedule disruption, it would also take away opportunities for thousands of student athletes as well.
??? They have scholarship athletics at other levels.
-
1. Politics
2. Bad analogy. It would be more like insisting that McDonald's subsidize Hardee's.
Not a bad analogy, a perfect analogy. Corporations have personhood legal status. Sure, your analogy works, too, but so does mine. We have subsidization going on all the time, I guess it all depends when it is ok and just and when it isn’t.
Apparently when it is to support mostly minorities and women to get a degree through athletics, that subsidization isn’t fair.
-
"The athletes get compensated enough" isn't a good argument for the likeness conversation. So because something is good enough, that doesn't mean we should try to make it better?
I think 99% of D1 student athletes are fairly to over compensated for the work they do. I also think they should be allowed to profit off their likeness. How much the athletes are compensated is irrelevant to whether or not a player should be allowed to profit of his/her likeness.
In my opinion (there are going to be a lot of "I think" statements in this post) the vast majority of an athlete's value comes from their association with the university. As an example, let's say Markus Howard could sell his likeness to local businesses while playing for Marquette. I don't think it is outside the realm of possibility to think that he could make in the realm of $50-75,000 per year. I think if you put him on the Wisconsin Herd that number drops to $0. So, you are talking, in the G League, a salary of $35,000 with $0 in likeness value, $0 in future connections with alumni value, worse facilities, pay your own rent and food costs, etc. At Marquette you have top notch facilities, great connections, no expenses, and with FCOA a little spending money. Yes, you are missing out on those endorsement $s, but you would not be able to get those without your association with the school. If that's the case, then I have a little trouble rationalizing that an athlete is entitled to those dollars.
A player like Zion, on the other hand, has more value. If he played in the G League for a year he could probably still have signed a huge shoe deal and received the nominal salary for a year while he waited to join the NBA. Why did he play college ball? Because the exposure and experience are worth more than the additional year of shoe deal money plus $35,000. If it weren't, Zion would have gone the G League route. With that in mind, you knowingly signed up and gave away the right to your likeness for that year. I don't think you are entitled to that money under those circumstances.
As I stated initially, this is my opinion. It is no more valid than anyone else's and I am sure there are holes in my logic that can be pointed out. I don't doubt someone will point them out and thank you in advance for broadening my knowledge on the subject.
-
Although I think players should.get.paid, I am not sold on the likeness angle. What if a wealthy Kentucky business man told.Markus, transfer here and 8 will get you TV ads for 500K. I can see that happen8ng.quite a bit
-
Again you are lumping all college basketball together. What happens at the top 50 programs doesn’t mean the same is happening for the other 300, let alone D2 or D3.
Most coaches are not paid millions of dollars.
Most schools are not in an arms race.
The high tv rights paid are for some conferences and many do not even have a tv deal at all.
We keep trying to find a solution to a “problem” that not only doesn’t exist, but where it is perceived to exist only happens to a small number. Broad brush strokes trying to assess the small sliver that are also going to do just fine when they get out.
You want to make a virtuous argument, your likeness can be marketed if you get a 3.0GPA and got to class.
Wait.
Are you open to this idea?
-
??? They have scholarship athletics at other levels.
D2 has scholarships, if that is what you mean....just not as many. D3 has none.
So less opportunities as I stated, in some cases dramatically less.
Let’s use basketball as an example. There are 13 men’s and 15 women’s per school at D1. In D2, that number is reduced to 10 and 10, plus they can be divided so the per student athlete award is dilutive. In other sports like track, the reduction is even greater. Many lost opportunities for young women and men
On the scheduling side, if you lopped off the bottom 33% you would have quite a scheduling problem purely from a mathematical perspective.
-
What money would stop going to schools and start going to the players if the players were allowed to profit off their likeness? Honest question, I've never heard this argument before.
The money from local businesses like Cyganiak planning is an example that I believe someone brought up on this thread. The possibility exists that they and others could decide that paying a player would be better for their business than donating to the blue and gold fund. If this happened with multiple sponsors of the program and the athletic department as a whole, it would adversely affect not only non-revenue athletes but may adversely affect other players on the men’s basketball team.