College Basketball Commission issues their report. End one and done.

[MuMark]

Apparently Grant Hill and David Robinson are also clueless and unqualified...........

[GGGG]

Apparently Grant Hill and David Robinson are also clueless and unqualified...........

I guess so.

[MU82]

I'm simply wondering why you and others feel basketball players must be protected from making a bad decision about when to turn pro, but no there's no such hand-wringing about athletes in other sports.

Truth.

[MuMark]

well when it comes to college basketball they are certainly more qualified then anyone on this board ......Can't disagree without insults.....America 2018.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Take it to Reddit

[Pakuni]

Apparently Grant Hill and David Robinson are also clueless and unqualified...........

That's two out of 14 members, if you're counting. Neither of whom have played college basketball in a quarter century. And neither of whom, it's safe to say, had a typical college athlete experience (one attended a service academy; the other grew up in an upper class suburb as the child of a professional athlete, thus never wanted for anything while at school and faced no pressure to provide for his family by turning pro as quickly as possible).
I'm sure they're both smart guys who added valuable insight, but if that's what this commission is taking as the athlete's perspective, I'm afraid they're woefully short of the mark.

Why no current players? Or at least players who've seen a college court in the last decade? Why no current coaches?
The commission is stacked with administrators who have a vested (read: fiduciary) interest in preserving the status quo when it comes to the phony amateurism of college athletics. It's hardly a surprise their recommendations do just that.

[🏀]

No.

I couldn't see someone of your intellectual and political stature coming from there.

[GGGG]

That's two out of 14 members, if you're counting. Neither of whom have played college basketball in a quarter century. And neither of whom, it's safe to say, had a typical college athlete experience (one attended a service academy; the other grew up in an upper class suburb as the child of a professional athlete, thus never wanted for anything while at school and faced no pressure to provide for his family by turning pro as quickly as possible).
I'm sure they're both smart guys who added valuable insight, but if that's what this commission is taking as the athlete's perspective, I'm afraid they're woefully short of the mark.

Why no current players? Or at least players who've seen a college court in the last decade? Why no current coaches?
The commission is stacked with administrators who have a vested (read: fiduciary) interest in preserving the status quo when it comes to the phony amateurism of college athletics. It's hardly a surprise their recommendations do just that.

No agents, no "legitimate" AAU reps, no recent players, etc.

It was a panel set up to make incremental changes but keep the current framework in place.  But the framework is actually the very basis of most of the problems.

[GGGG]

I couldn't see someone of your intellectual and political stature coming from there.

It's a beautiful place.  My mom grew up there.

[GGGG]

well when it comes to college basketball they are certainly more qualified then anyone on this board ......Can't disagree without insults.....America 2018.

Well when someone accuses me of something that is flat out false, is called on it, then shifts the goalposts in response, they are going to be insulted.

As for Condi, she's heard worse.  That being said, I humbly apologize to her, Grant Hill and David Robinson.  You clearly know something about college basketball.  But the recommendations and conclusions addressed in your report are short-sighted.

Better?

[Lennys Tap]

Well when someone accuses me of something that is flat out false, is called on it, then shifts the goalposts in response, they are going to be insulted.

As for Condi, she's heard worse.  That being said, I humbly apologize to her, Grant Hill and David Robinson.  You clearly know something about college basketball.  But the recommendations and conclusions addressed in your report are short-sighted.

Better?

100% better.

And I will also apologize for misinterpreting your criticism of Ms Rice as political.

[rocket surgeon]

No agents, no "legitimate" AAU reps, no recent players, etc.

It was a panel set up to make incremental changes but keep the current framework in place.  But the framework is actually the very basis of most of the problems.

 to have those people with their respective backgrounds, you have already decided(it seems) as well as some others, that this isn't going to accomplish anything.  my suggestion is to let them do their jobs and see what else they can come up with as i don't think they are done yet. until they institute change, it is hard to draw any conclusions yet, eyn'a?  one other thing as pak-man is asking why i am not concerned about hockey, soccer and baseball experiencing the same-i don't believe those sports have been rife with corruption.  if it is, it is "childs play" compared to basketball.  football probably should be included within this framework as well


  could there be some political connections?  possibly.  but what i want to know is-where in the gosh darn heck were you when this commission was put together??

[MU82]

Why no current players? Or at least players who've seen a college court in the last decade? Why no current coaches?
The commission is stacked with administrators who have a vested (read: fiduciary) interest in preserving the status quo when it comes to the phony amateurism of college athletics. It's hardly a surprise their recommendations do just that.

Yep.

We come up with better ideas here on Scoop.

[GGGG]

to have those people with their respective backgrounds, you have already decided(it seems) as well as some others, that this isn't going to accomplish anything.  my suggestion is to let them do their jobs and see what else they can come up with as i don't think they are done yet. until they institute change, it is hard to draw any conclusions yet, eyn'a?  one other thing as pak-man is asking why i am not concerned about hockey, soccer and baseball experiencing the same-i don't believe those sports have been rife with corruption.  if it is, it is "childs play" compared to basketball.  football probably should be included within this framework as well


  could there be some political connections?  possibly.  but what i want to know is-where in the gosh darn heck were you when this commission was put together??

Well I have no choice but to wait and see right?  But I think the NCAA put together a "blue ribbon" panel that is more about image than results, then came up with recommendations that are like lipstick on a pig. 

[Uncle Rico]

Well I have no choice but to wait and see right?  But I think the NCAA put together a "blue ribbon" panel that is more about image than results, then came up with recommendations that are like lipstick on a pig.

Spot on.  Passing any of these “reforms” won’t root out any nefarious characters.  The idea the NCAA should take over camps and the such is ludicrous and another money grab on their part.

As long as they refuse to accept they are a de facto minor league for the NBA and how much money is being generated by the atheletes, they’re going to be doomed to corruption.

If they truly want to retain amateurism, adopt the Ivy League model.  Watch the money dry up.  It’s always about the money.  Amateurism is a crutch.

[brewcity77]

If they really wanted to identify current issues, Crean would've been great. Modern coach who had one foot in and one out. I would say one high and one mid major coach no more than 2 years removed from coaching. Multiple recent players from all levels of conferences. At least 2 AAU coaches, 2 HS coaches, and at least one rep each from Nike, Adidas, and Under Armour. If you aren't talking to the people actually involved in the modern landscape, you won't get an understanding of how to make realistic positive change.

[rocket surgeon]

If they really wanted to identify current issues, Crean would've been great. Modern coach who had one foot in and one out. I would say one high and one mid major coach no more than 2 years removed from coaching. Multiple recent players from all levels of conferences. At least 2 AAU coaches, 2 HS coaches, and at least one rep each from Nike, Adidas, and Under Armour. If you aren't talking to the people actually involved in the modern landscape, you won't get an understanding of how to make realistic positive change.

Now your talking!  I like this idea except you forgot one guy-pitino 🤷🏼‍♂️😂 🙉

[GGGG]

If they really wanted to identify current issues, Crean would've been great. Modern coach who had one foot in and one out. I would say one high and one mid major coach no more than 2 years removed from coaching. Multiple recent players from all levels of conferences. At least 2 AAU coaches, 2 HS coaches, and at least one rep each from Nike, Adidas, and Under Armour. If you aren't talking to the people actually involved in the modern landscape, you won't get an understanding of how to make realistic positive change.

It’s very easy to demonize who isn’t in the room. And that’s exactly what they did.

[brewcity77]

Now your talking!  I like this idea except you forgot one guy-pitino 🤷🏼‍♂️😂 🙉

Honestly, him or one of his assistants should be in the room. Coaches won't stop cheating, especially if the committee doesn't have people that fully understand the coaches' motivation.

Say I'm Coach Z making $2M per year. I know I may be fired, but if I can land a monster recruiting class, it will convince the AD to give me another year. The shoe companies pick up the tab, the next year my class arrives. Because they are great, I make the tournament and get a 4-year extension with a raise to $3M. So that class got me my extra year, my tourney year, and 4 extra years. Letting the shoe companies throw some cash around was worth $16M dollars to me personally.

And people seriously think they will get the money out? No one really wants that. Not the coaches, not the players, not the handlers, not the agents, not the shoe companies, and not even the schools that get millions in shoe sponsorship dollars & equipment while also profiting off the same players they are trying to prevent from making money themselves.

The schools don't want money out of the game, they just want to ensure it keeps flowing into their own pockets.

[GGGG]

Right.  People are living in La La land if they think that simply punishing people harder is going to turn back the clock.

[wojoswarrior]

Well said, Brew77!

[GGGG]

The headline is click-baity but...

https://www.sbnation.com/college-basketball/2018/4/27/17284340/condoleeza-rice-ncaa-basketball-scandal-amateurism

For the NCAA and its head, Mark Emmert, the committee’s report and Rice’s presence would hopefully add gravitas, credibility, and a real seriousness to the NCAA’s attempts to “fix” college basketball. That they thought this in the first place is proof that suckers, dead bodies, and trash are all recession-proof industries on multiple levels of society. The committee’s report released yesterday flopped, doubled down on amateurism, and produced nothing much beyond Rice saying “We need to put the college back in college basketball.” (No really, that’s what she said, in public without laughing.)

The only real desirable change in amateurism will be its death. It will die—but exactly when is still a great question. Its time of death will depend on the steady hands of two forces that don’t always play well together: The free market, and the ability of workers to effectively demand what is theirs from their employers through the channels available to them.

The market is already tearing college basketball apart, and with reason. Labor is more valuable than in other team sports like football, meaning there are simply fewer people who can do the top-level work of playing basketball at an elite level, all playing on smaller rosters than, say, an 84 person college football roster. It is the lower case, black market version of the NBA’s labor market: Exclusive, expensive, and extremely competitive.

[StillAWarrior]

The only real desirable change in amateurism will be its death. It will die—but exactly when is still a great question.

I honestly believe that the NCAA's decision to allow Arike Ogunbowale to compete on Dancing with the Stars will be remembered as the beginning of end of amateurism in NCAA athletics.  They cracked the door on endorsements/earnings based on an NCAA athletes' celebrity.  I believe it's a only matter of time before someone kicks it fully open.

[WarriorDad]

Amigos, chicos, chicas, amigas

It appears that this falls into two camps.  If one prefers college basketball to be somewhat in its current form, but attempting to reform away some of the negatives then you are on one side.  If you prefer compensation in some form, then you are on the other.

No system will be perfect.  The need for agents on this committee?  If 1 was asked, there would be a demand for 2.  People are entrenched, so none of this will change.

Do I think the committee members were top notch?  I made no such remark, but provided the list for people to decide.  How long ago they played is a weird one to me.  My speculation is if the committee had players from the last 5 years but they agreed with the commission's views, then those weren't the right kind of players to have on the committee.

Finally, Condoleeza Rice doesn't share my political views, but that doesn't make her a less intelligent person in the world of academics.  My supposition is you don't become the Provost at Stanford without an impeccable academic pedigree. 

[Jockey]

That's two out of 14 members, if you're counting. Neither of whom have played college basketball in a quarter century. And neither of whom, it's safe to say, had a typical college athlete experience (one attended a service academy; the other grew up in an upper class suburb as the child of a professional athlete, thus never wanted for anything while at school and faced no pressure to provide for his family by turning pro as quickly as possible).
I'm sure they're both smart guys who added valuable insight, but if that's what this commission is taking as the athlete's perspective, I'm afraid they're woefully short of the mark.

Why no current players? Or at least players who've seen a college court in the last decade? Why no current coaches?
The commission is stacked with administrators who have a vested (read: fiduciary) interest in preserving the status quo when it comes to the phony amateurism of college athletics. It's hardly a surprise their recommendations do just that.

Well said.

Interesting that no current or recent players had any input. Or non-rich people either. As you said, they are simply protecting their own.