F the NCAA

[jfish26]

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".

Setting aside my opinion that college basketball is better today than it was a few years ago, if only because it’s fairer to the players - I don’t think it IS yet better otherwise.

It’s a goddamn mess. I used to be able to eyeball our team photo and name every guy pretty quickly, even the Juenemanns of the world.

I believe it WILL be better than ever, though, when the roster churn calms down. Which I do expect to happen.

[Back2Lawrence]

It may have spiraled out if control like every other well-intentioned scheme.

Because in the end the free market is bullshit. Particularly in a closed system, such as sports leagues.

[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 ).

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

Wut?
It’s far more logical than thinking college basketball would collapse or that KU would stop being good.

And I know you think players are lying when interviewed but I don’t. I don’t see the reason for it at this point. We are talking now, in this hypothetical, players like Frank Mason or Mitch Lightfoot not Josh Selby or Andrew Wiggins.

Top talent might go down but multiple year players would be more of a thing so I don’t think basketball quality would suffer all that much. BWW chads would still tune into March Madness. You’d just have a lot fewer players making the NBA draft.

[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.

Wut?
It’s far more logical than thinking college basketball would collapse or that KU would stop being good.

And I know you think players are lying when interviewed but I don’t. I don’t see the reason for it at this point. We are talking now, in this hypothetical, players like Frank Mason or Mitch Lightfoot not Josh Selby or Andrew Wiggins.

Top talent might go down but multiple year players would be more of a thing so I don’t think basketball quality would suffer all that much. BWW chads would still tune into March Madness. You’d just have a lot fewer players making the NBA draft.

I believe that NIL is already resulting in more multi year players. You think Zack Edey returns to school for his senior season pre-NIL? McCullar would have done a Wayne Selden and left to get started on his pro journey since there was zero $ reason to stay if it wasn't for NIL.

Guys like Frank Mason and Lightfoot exist every year. We had a weird year where everyone bolted and we had a ton of spots to fill on top of a self imposed scholly reduction. I do not expect that to be the norm.

[DeletedUser]

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.

Wut?
It’s far more logical than thinking college basketball would collapse or that KU would stop being good.

And I know you think players are lying when interviewed but I don’t. I don’t see the reason for it at this point. We are talking now, in this hypothetical, players like Frank Mason or Mitch Lightfoot not Josh Selby or Andrew Wiggins.

Top talent might go down but multiple year players would be more of a thing so I don’t think basketball quality would suffer all that much. BWW chads would still tune into March Madness. You’d just have a lot fewer players making the NBA draft.

Nah, twocoach's parents didn't go to games in the Harp era, so NO ONE will go to games without the top players 60+ years later.

KU isn't special. No different than Nebraska-Omaha.

Weird. My dad said games were packed when he went to school there a decade or so later. He must remember wrong. I am sure twocoach's parents know what's up.

[DeletedUser]

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

Wut?
It’s far more logical than thinking college basketball would collapse or that KU would stop being good.

And I know you think players are lying when interviewed but I don’t. I don’t see the reason for it at this point. We are talking now, in this hypothetical, players like Frank Mason or Mitch Lightfoot not Josh Selby or Andrew Wiggins.

Top talent might go down but multiple year players would be more of a thing so I don’t think basketball quality would suffer all that much. BWW chads would still tune into March Madness. You’d just have a lot fewer players making the NBA draft.

I believe that NIL is already resulting in more multi year players. You think Zack Edey returns to school for his senior season pre-NIL? McCullar would have done a Wayne Selden and left to get started on his pro journey since there was zero $ reason to stay if it wasn't for NIL.

Guys like Frank Mason and Lightfoot exist every year. We had a weird year where everyone bolted and we had a ton of spots to fill on top of a self imposed scholly reduction. I do not expect that to be the norm.

You're all over the place.

Have you forgotten what you are "arguing" about? Seems so. You didn't even know Fishes position (you admitted as much) when you jumped in this.

You seem to have entered the incoherent rambling stage of this discussion.

[twocoach]

Wut?
It’s far more logical than thinking college basketball would collapse or that KU would stop being good.

And I know you think players are lying when interviewed but I don’t. I don’t see the reason for it at this point. We are talking now, in this hypothetical, players like Frank Mason or Mitch Lightfoot not Josh Selby or Andrew Wiggins.

Top talent might go down but multiple year players would be more of a thing so I don’t think basketball quality would suffer all that much. BWW chads would still tune into March Madness. You’d just have a lot fewer players making the NBA draft.

I believe that NIL is already resulting in more multi year players. You think Zack Edey returns to school for his senior season pre-NIL? McCullar would have done a Wayne Selden and left to get started on his pro journey since there was zero $ reason to stay if it wasn't for NIL.

Guys like Frank Mason and Lightfoot exist every year. We had a weird year where everyone bolted and we had a ton of spots to fill on top of a self imposed scholly reduction. I do not expect that to be the norm.

You're all over the place.

Have you forgotten what you are "arguing" about? Seems so. You didn't even know Fishes position (you admitted as much) when you jumped in this.

You seem to have entered the incoherent rambling stage of this discussion.

He wants to strip all the players worthy of NIL out of college hoops so that we're left with nothing but a bunch of guys with zero pro prospects that will stay longer. My counter to that is that NIL is resulting players who can actually play better and be more fun to watch sticking around longer than pre-NIL. I didn't think that was hard to track.

Mitch Lightfoot is a nice story. Mitch Lightfoot as the starting center for KU would not be fun to watch.

[Sparko]

The real issue is money. Kansas is okay so long as the better financed leagues obsess on football. But I think basketball will become better supported by media

[twocoach]

The real issue is money. Kansas is okay so long as the better financed leagues obsess on football. But I think basketball will become better supported by media

Kansas basketball is fine so long as they keep winning and are a top team in the sport with a HoF head coach. KU football shows what KU fans will do to support a program that isn't winning.

[TDub]

I believe that NIL is already resulting in more multi year players. You think Zack Edey returns to school for his senior season pre-NIL? McCullar would have done a Wayne Selden and left to get started on his pro journey since there was zero $ reason to stay if it wasn't for NIL.

Guys like Frank Mason and Lightfoot exist every year. We had a weird year where everyone bolted and we had a ton of spots to fill on top of a self imposed scholly reduction. I do not expect that to be the norm.

You're all over the place.

Have you forgotten what you are "arguing" about? Seems so. You didn't even know Fishes position (you admitted as much) when you jumped in this.

You seem to have entered the incoherent rambling stage of this discussion.

He wants to strip all the players worthy of NIL out of college hoops so that we're left with nothing but a bunch of guys with zero pro prospects that will stay longer. My counter to that is that NIL is resulting players who can actually play better and be more fun to watch sticking around longer than pre-NIL. I didn't think that was hard to track.

Mitch Lightfoot is a nice story. Mitch Lightfoot as the starting center for KU would not be fun to watch.

who does?

wtf are you talking about

nobody has said that, ever, not once. good lord. Take a nap and come back later when you're headed isnt clouded by nonsense.

[pdub]

I believe that NIL is already resulting in more multi year players. You think Zack Edey returns to school for his senior season pre-NIL? McCullar would have done a Wayne Selden and left to get started on his pro journey since there was zero $ reason to stay if it wasn't for NIL.

Guys like Frank Mason and Lightfoot exist every year. We had a weird year where everyone bolted and we had a ton of spots to fill on top of a self imposed scholly reduction. I do not expect that to be the norm.

You're all over the place.

Have you forgotten what you are "arguing" about? Seems so. You didn't even know Fishes position (you admitted as much) when you jumped in this.

You seem to have entered the incoherent rambling stage of this discussion.

He wants to strip all the players worthy of NIL out of college hoops so that we're left with nothing but a bunch of guys with zero pro prospects that will stay longer. My counter to that is that NIL is resulting players who can actually play better and be more fun to watch sticking around longer than pre-NIL. I didn't think that was hard to track.

Mitch Lightfoot is a nice story. Mitch Lightfoot as the starting center for KU would not be fun to watch.

The top 100 players out of CBB would not mean 'zero pro prospects'.

I think Lightfoot's numbers would increase because the opposing defenses might generally be a touch worse ( but maybe not ) and his usage would go up ( definitely ). General ball movement would be better because teams will have played with each other longer. I understand you would loose guys like McCullar but I think you'd have more 4 year players because the 1 and done's wouldn't really be a thing anymore.

People would still watch and love it if KU kept winning.
I've been to regular season high school football games with over 10,000 people in attendance.
KU would be fine.

[twocoach]

You're all over the place.

Have you forgotten what you are "arguing" about? Seems so. You didn't even know Fishes position (you admitted as much) when you jumped in this.

You seem to have entered the incoherent rambling stage of this discussion.

He wants to strip all the players worthy of NIL out of college hoops so that we're left with nothing but a bunch of guys with zero pro prospects that will stay longer. My counter to that is that NIL is resulting players who can actually play better and be more fun to watch sticking around longer than pre-NIL. I didn't think that was hard to track.

Mitch Lightfoot is a nice story. Mitch Lightfoot as the starting center for KU would not be fun to watch.

who does?

wtf are you talking about

nobody has said that, ever, not once. good lord. Take a nap and come back later when you're headed isnt clouded by nonsense.

"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. "

"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 )."

[jfish26]

You're all over the place.

Have you forgotten what you are "arguing" about? Seems so. You didn't even know Fishes position (you admitted as much) when you jumped in this.

You seem to have entered the incoherent rambling stage of this discussion.

He wants to strip all the players worthy of NIL out of college hoops so that we're left with nothing but a bunch of guys with zero pro prospects that will stay longer. My counter to that is that NIL is resulting players who can actually play better and be more fun to watch sticking around longer than pre-NIL. I didn't think that was hard to track.

Mitch Lightfoot is a nice story. Mitch Lightfoot as the starting center for KU would not be fun to watch.

The top 100 players out of CBB would not mean 'zero pro prospects'.

I think Lightfoot's numbers would increase because the opposing defenses might generally be a touch worse ( but maybe not ) and his usage would go up ( definitely ). General ball movement would be better because teams will have played with each other longer. I understand you would loose guys like McCullar but I think you'd have more 4 year players because the 1 and done's wouldn't really be a thing anymore.

People would still watch and love it if KU kept winning.
I've been to regular season high school football games with over 10,000 people in attendance.
KU would be fine.

What I'd worry about is that KU is exceptional - would the rest of college basketball be fine?

Because ratings are pretty poor already. Five Big 12 programs averaged under 10k fans/night last year.

There remain passionate boxing and horseracing fans, too. The issue is that those passionate fans got marooned on an island that everyone else left.

[pdub]

Yes.
It would.
We might ( definitely ) have a different idea of what 'fine' means.

High school sports exist and they generally don't make a ton of money.
And I can catch my local teams on TV now -- so I think ( I know ) there'd be a way to pay for a stream to watch KU basketball.

Again, I know this is just so very hard for you to grasp, but the point of college athletics shouldn't be about making money.

[TDub]

He wants to strip all the players worthy of NIL out of college hoops so that we're left with nothing but a bunch of guys with zero pro prospects that will stay longer. My counter to that is that NIL is resulting players who can actually play better and be more fun to watch sticking around longer than pre-NIL. I didn't think that was hard to track.

Mitch Lightfoot is a nice story. Mitch Lightfoot as the starting center for KU would not be fun to watch.

who does?

wtf are you talking about

nobody has said that, ever, not once. good lord. Take a nap and come back later when you're headed isnt clouded by nonsense.

"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. "

"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 )."

none of that = wants to strip all the prospects out of college basketball.

You're argument is so extreme.

So let's say top 50 are gone, for ease of argument 2 top prospects off each top 25 team.

So, Hunter and Elmarko are gone.....twocoach and nobody else is gonna watch now. ?? serious?

[pdub]

Hell, let's say McCullar doesn't stay either bc he wants to jump to go pro.
Fine.
You likely still have Zuby and Pettiford and Clemence doesn't redshirt.

People would still follow that team and it'd still be a top team because other teams wouldn't have your Jakobe Walters or Stephon Castle's.

[jfish26]

Yes.
It would.
We might ( definitely ) have a different idea of what 'fine' means.

High school sports exist and they generally don't make a ton of money.
And I can catch my local teams on TV now -- so I think ( I know ) there'd be a way to pay for a stream to watch KU basketball.

Again, I know this is just so very hard for you to grasp, but the point of college athletics shouldn't be about making money.

You're seeing ghosts here. I wasn't talking at all about making money, or not making money. Just about the health and outlook of the sport generally.

ESPN averaged under 1mm viewers for regular season hoop last year. That's about on par with series that run on CW (whatever that is).

Average viewership hasn't been above 1mm since 2018-19.

Giving your view the greatest benefit of the doubt - I really think college basketball would be playing with fire by accepting greater talent drain than already occurs. Interest in flagship programs like KU might stay strong...but flagship programs need opponents, too, and even a somewhat-competent streaming option requires someone to do it. And that isn't coming if no one is watching.

[pdub]

"ESPN averaged under 1mm viewers for regular season hoop last year. That's about on par with series that run on CW (whatever that is)."

What does it matter the viewership numbers?
I am fully confident college basketball would continue to exist without big TV viewership numbers.
Why, other than money, does the health and outlook suffer if ESPN's viewership goes down?

[jfish26]

"ESPN averaged under 1mm viewers for regular season hoop last year. That's about on par with series that run on CW (whatever that is)."

What does it matter the viewership numbers?
I am fully confident college basketball would continue to exist without big TV viewership numbers.
Why, other than money, does the health and outlook suffer if ESPN's viewership goes down?

Because ESPN will stop carrying/streaming the games.

You have said many times that you feel like - and I'm paraphrasing, but tell me if I'm wrong - money has sucked the soul, the enjoyment for you, out of college basketball.

I don't know what you think of in your head when you think of KU Basketball, but my guess is that whatever that is would simply cease to exist in recognizable form if nobody wants to invest time and money into carrying/streaming the games.

[pdub]

"Because ESPN will stop carrying/streaming the games."

No they wouldn't.
Not in todays age.
They are streaming the Grambling State's vs Bethune Cookman's on ESPN+.
My nephews club hockey games are broadcast over Twitch.

And holy Overly Alarmist ( oh no, the top 100 players aren't in CBB it's all over ) Batman.

All you think about is growth over time and Q1-Q4 profits.