F the NCAA

[pdub]

"the love of the university and the love of the game being competed in the name of the university would survive without the services of the top, overpaid, prima donnas."

I've always argued that, even if you took the top 50-100 players out out college basketball annually, people would still love it and follow it because of their connection to the university. You're also looking for stories and connections with these players -- not 1 and done hires like Dickin$on.

This said, I also don't think the average person being marketed to for this cares.
BWW Chad will gobble it all up -- so I don't foresee 'college' athletics popularity waining -- even with schools paying players directly and signing them to contracts.

[TDub]

I think it will become a more superficial fandom. Which, is partially why professional sports suck

[TDub]

I'm still lost by the argument that the game will wither away if it becomes something other than playing for the name on the front of the jersey...

all while actively and very vocally arguing for every single stance which will guarantee to make that a reality by eroding all ties between the player and the school

[jfish26]

if it stops being about the name on the front of the jersey altogether, it will languish and die (relatively speaking)

100%.

? but that is exactly what you ate arguing in favor of.

I don't think so; I'm putting a lot of stock in the phrase "stops...altogether."

My whole thing here is that I strongly believe there's a way to not just preserve college basketball, but in fact enrich and enhance it, by riding the wave here.

I think it's indisputable that if you narrow the financial delta between college basketball and the NBA, fringe guys will come to and stay in college longer. In my opinion, that's better for the players, better for the coaches, better for the fans, better for the game.

My thinking is that the present level of roster upheaval is significantly worse for the game than moving money from admins/coaches to players, and moving player comp from below the table to above it.

I respect that many people feel otherwise. My opinion, though, is that a big, big part of the disgust is really more about how dislocating the roster movement problem is.

That can come off as patronizing and that's not my intent. I respect, even if I don't personally agree, that some feel that something more like pure amateurism is the ideal.

But I am optimistic that all of this will get better as it finds its level, not worse.

[twocoach]

great, nobody's ever heard of it.

So what's the difference? Whats actually drawing the fans. The branding of the university, the tie of the university to the alumni and fans? Or the athletes playing the game?

They had two players get drafted in the Top 5 of the last NBA Draft.

proves my point even more.

2 top 5 players and still nobody gave a shit.

It's about the University, not the player.

the love of the university and the love of the game being competed in the name of the university would survive without the services of the top, overpaid, prima donnas.

Without two? Yes. Without any of them? No.

I graduated from Nebraska-Omaha. Their arena is nice and less than 10 minutes from my house. It is by some nice bars and restaurants and tickets are cheap. I am sure their players compete for the love of the game and their university.

I have attended none of their games as it is just not appealing to me whatsoever. Do you go to a lot of local college games to enjoy those teams playing poorly for the love of the sport?

Take all the best players off of Kansas and NO ONE will attend.

[pdub]

The top 50-100 players in college basketball is different than all the best players.

[TDub]

very much so

[TDub]

also, in 2008 the UW football team was 0-12. The stands were still pretty damn full, the games were still attended, I went to several. One player, 50 players 100 players doesn't make the sport/experience what it is.

But, it does make it easy to see where the line is drawn for many

[TDub]

We'd still have Juan, KJ, Kevin. Probably Furphy, probably McDowell, Braun

I'll roll with that

[TDub]

Kentucky and Duke would suffer more than anyone.

Kansas already makes its name off of developing lower rated players.

[jfish26]

They had two players get drafted in the Top 5 of the last NBA Draft.

proves my point even more.

2 top 5 players and still nobody gave a shit.

It's about the University, not the player.

the love of the university and the love of the game being competed in the name of the university would survive without the services of the top, overpaid, prima donnas.

Without two? Yes. Without any of them? No.

I graduated from Nebraska-Omaha. Their arena is nice and less than 10 minutes from my house. It is by some nice bars and restaurants and tickets are cheap. I am sure their players compete for the love of the game and their university.

I have attended none of their games as it is just not appealing to me whatsoever. Do you go to a lot of local college games to enjoy those teams playing poorly for the love of the sport?

Take all the best players off of Kansas and NO ONE will attend.

Even setting aside the worst outcome - no one attending - ask 16,300 KU diehards who their favorite dudes are over Roy and Bill's years. I'm guessing you will find a handful of OADs with votes, almost no two-and-dones*, and a whole hell of a lot of three and four (or more!) year players.

Are you likely to keep the Embiids of the world here very long? No.

But aren't we better off for Och, Jalen and now Kevin having stayed? Aren't they better off?

I see SO freaking much win-win here...which is why I am very hopeful that the roster churn stuff will calm down and Bill can do what he does best: go to work making guys into dudes over multiple years in the program.

* If I'm right, think about what this means.

[DeletedUser]

Take all the best players off of Kansas and NO ONE will attend.

Wrong.

KU is different.

[twocoach]

Take all the best players off of Kansas and NO ONE will attend.

Wrong.

KU is different.

Everyone thinks they're special and different until they find out otherwise. When my parents went to KU, Dick Harp was head coach and NO ONE attended basketball games.

[pdub]

It’s largely a history of winning that will get people in seats. If the top 100 players in CBB were not there, KU would still get the better of the remaining HUGE pool of players who would want to play for things besides money like they used to ( yes I believe most of the players when they say they didn’t get paid ).

[twocoach]

proves my point even more.

2 top 5 players and still nobody gave a shit.

It's about the University, not the player.

the love of the university and the love of the game being competed in the name of the university would survive without the services of the top, overpaid, prima donnas.

Without two? Yes. Without any of them? No.

I graduated from Nebraska-Omaha. Their arena is nice and less than 10 minutes from my house. It is by some nice bars and restaurants and tickets are cheap. I am sure their players compete for the love of the game and their university.

I have attended none of their games as it is just not appealing to me whatsoever. Do you go to a lot of local college games to enjoy those teams playing poorly for the love of the sport?

Take all the best players off of Kansas and NO ONE will attend.

Even setting aside the worst outcome - no one attending - ask 16,300 KU diehards who their favorite dudes are over Roy and Bill's years. I'm guessing you will find a handful of OADs with votes, almost no two-and-dones*, and a whole hell of a lot of three and four (or more!) year players.

Are you likely to keep the Embiids of the world here very long? No.

But aren't we better off for Och, Jalen and now Kevin having stayed? Aren't they better off?

I see SO freaking much win-win here...which is why I am very hopeful that the roster churn stuff will calm down and Bill can do what he does best: go to work making guys into dudes over multiple years in the program.

* If I'm right, think about what this means.

Win-win with what? Who specifically are you tasking with creating this magical league? The NBA? Oh, they already have one. Someone outside of the NCAA/NBA? Oh, they already have one of those, too.


Who is going to come along a create this league that is going to strip away all of the athletes who want to get paid and leave nothing but those who want to play just for the old collegiate love of school and sport? Who is going to sink all that money into the infrastructure of this league and not make any money off of it? We already know that the G-League and Overtime Elite aren't making money.

The answer is "no one".

Oh, and once that mythical league is created, boosters for schools will pay the best of whoever is left to come play for them unless you create rules that ban it, which has already been deemed not legal by the highest courts in the country.

So good luck with all that.

[twocoach]

It’s largely a history of winning that will get people in seats. If the top 100 players in CBB were not there, KU would still get the better of the remaining HUGE pool of players who would want to play for things besides money like they used to ( yes I believe most of the players when they say they didn’t get paid ).

This is all just wishful thinking and not based in any sort of reality world at all.

[jfish26]

Without two? Yes. Without any of them? No.

I graduated from Nebraska-Omaha. Their arena is nice and less than 10 minutes from my house. It is by some nice bars and restaurants and tickets are cheap. I am sure their players compete for the love of the game and their university.

I have attended none of their games as it is just not appealing to me whatsoever. Do you go to a lot of local college games to enjoy those teams playing poorly for the love of the sport?

Take all the best players off of Kansas and NO ONE will attend.

Even setting aside the worst outcome - no one attending - ask 16,300 KU diehards who their favorite dudes are over Roy and Bill's years. I'm guessing you will find a handful of OADs with votes, almost no two-and-dones*, and a whole hell of a lot of three and four (or more!) year players.

Are you likely to keep the Embiids of the world here very long? No.

But aren't we better off for Och, Jalen and now Kevin having stayed? Aren't they better off?

I see SO freaking much win-win here...which is why I am very hopeful that the roster churn stuff will calm down and Bill can do what he does best: go to work making guys into dudes over multiple years in the program.

* If I'm right, think about what this means.

Win-win with what? Who specifically are you tasking with creating this magical league? The NBA? Oh, they already have one. Someone outside of the NCAA/NBA? Oh, they already have one of those, too.


Who is going to come along a create this league that is going to strip away all of the athletes who want to get paid and leave nothing but those who want to play just for the old collegiate love of school and sport? Who is going to sink all that money into the infrastructure of this league and not make any money off of it? We already know that the G-League and Overtime Elite aren't making money.

The answer is "no one".

Oh, and once that mythical league is created, boosters for schools will pay the best of whoever is left to come play for them unless you create rules that ban it, which has already been deemed not legal by the highest courts in the country.

So good luck with all that.

I mean that all of this is looking, to me, like a massive win-win for college basketball (and the coaches, players and fans). Assuming that the roster turnover calms down, which I strongly believe it will in a modest amount of time.

[twocoach]

Even setting aside the worst outcome - no one attending - ask 16,300 KU diehards who their favorite dudes are over Roy and Bill's years. I'm guessing you will find a handful of OADs with votes, almost no two-and-dones*, and a whole hell of a lot of three and four (or more!) year players.

Are you likely to keep the Embiids of the world here very long? No.

But aren't we better off for Och, Jalen and now Kevin having stayed? Aren't they better off?

I see SO freaking much win-win here...which is why I am very hopeful that the roster churn stuff will calm down and Bill can do what he does best: go to work making guys into dudes over multiple years in the program.

* If I'm right, think about what this means.

Win-win with what? Who specifically are you tasking with creating this magical league? The NBA? Oh, they already have one. Someone outside of the NCAA/NBA? Oh, they already have one of those, too.


Who is going to come along a create this league that is going to strip away all of the athletes who want to get paid and leave nothing but those who want to play just for the old collegiate love of school and sport? Who is going to sink all that money into the infrastructure of this league and not make any money off of it? We already know that the G-League and Overtime Elite aren't making money.

The answer is "no one".

Oh, and once that mythical league is created, boosters for schools will pay the best of whoever is left to come play for them unless you create rules that ban it, which has already been deemed not legal by the highest courts in the country.

So good luck with all that.

I mean that all of this is looking, to me, like a massive win-win for college basketball (and the coaches, players and fans). Assuming that the roster turnover calms down, which I strongly believe it will in a modest amount of time.

I don't know what "this" is to you. What looks like a massive win-win? I freely admit that I have lost track of your point over the back and forths.

[jfish26]

Win-win with what? Who specifically are you tasking with creating this magical league? The NBA? Oh, they already have one. Someone outside of the NCAA/NBA? Oh, they already have one of those, too.


Who is going to come along a create this league that is going to strip away all of the athletes who want to get paid and leave nothing but those who want to play just for the old collegiate love of school and sport? Who is going to sink all that money into the infrastructure of this league and not make any money off of it? We already know that the G-League and Overtime Elite aren't making money.

The answer is "no one".

Oh, and once that mythical league is created, boosters for schools will pay the best of whoever is left to come play for them unless you create rules that ban it, which has already been deemed not legal by the highest courts in the country.

So good luck with all that.

I mean that all of this is looking, to me, like a massive win-win for college basketball (and the coaches, players and fans). Assuming that the roster turnover calms down, which I strongly believe it will in a modest amount of time.

I don't know what "this" is to you. What looks like a massive win-win? I freely admit that I have lost track of your point over the back and forths.

I believe that, handled with some prudence and long-term thinking, this current period of massive change will result in an environment where good players both overwhelmingly continue to choose college basketball, AND stay longer than they have in decades.

[TDub]

I dont understand how anyone can look at college basketball over the last 2 or 3 years and think..."Man!, look how much better this is than before. THIS, is a massive win win".