F the NCAA

[pdub]

I am not bothered that Kj Adams can do a Raisin' Cane's commercial.

I am not bothered that people can transfer freely year to year. I don't see why them sitting out for a year makes it any more tolerable? Because they get what is viewed as "punished"?

I think the kids who are transferring non stop are making mistakes in many instances. I'm not a fan of it, personally. I think in some instances they'd be better served staying put. But that's their choice to make and they should be allowed to make it.

We aren't forced to recruit any of those types of players. Bill Self gets paid a ridiculous amount of money to make those decisions. He is paid to identify the players who are willing to play whatever role he ends up giving that player. If the roster turnover becomes a problem, which it has been recently, then I blame him.

I don't think these players should be handcuffed to the schools. The schools certainly aren't handcuffed to the players.

I'm not bothered by KJ doing a commercial if it wasn't a ( the? ) driving force for keeping a player or landing a player. It very much is now. And also that's pretending that $ is simply coming from straight forward one to one value sponsorship. NIL is a funnel.

All of it is shit right now but let's say it wasn't - I'd be open to a one time anytime transfer and then the second would cause a player to have to sit out a year - simply to prevent what is happening at the moment.

I don't doubt Self, and Kansas, have the ability ( and money ) to figure out this environment.
The environment just sucks.

[DeletedUser]

There are pros and cons, for sure.

[jfish26]

none of anything that has happened in the past 4 or 5 years is good for the college game.

The players disagree.

Not the players who now have a much higher chance of getting forced out.

But...now a player who is "forced out" does not have to sit out a year. That's too important to be left out of the discussion.

I also just strongly disagree that all of the negative connotations that come with "forced out" should apply to all situations where a coach brings in competition for minutes/shots/roles.

To me, anything short of pulling a scholarship without cause is simply reality.

If a player wants lower stakes, lower pressure, lower benefits and less competition, the player can choose a lower level of hoop.

[pdub]

If a player wants lower stakes, lower pressure, lower benefits and less competition, the player can choose a lower level of hoop.

An original argument on this thread about those who wanted to play college ball instead of pro.

[TDub]

If a player wants lower stakes, lower pressure, lower benefits and less competition, the player can choose a lower level of hoop.

An original argument on this thread about those who wanted to play college ball instead of pro.

I was just thinking that....

[KUTradition]

I am not bothered that Kj Adams can do a Raisin' Cane's commercial.

I am not bothered that people can transfer freely year to year. I don't see why them sitting out for a year makes it any more tolerable? Because they get what is viewed as "punished"?

I think the kids who are transferring non stop are making mistakes in many instances. I'm not a fan of it, personally. I think in some instances they'd be better served staying put. But that's their choice to make and they should be allowed to make it.

We aren't forced to recruit any of those types of players. Bill Self gets paid a ridiculous amount of money to make those decisions. He is paid to identify the players who are willing to play whatever role he ends up giving that player. If the roster turnover becomes a problem, which it has been recently, then I blame him.

I don't think these players should be handcuffed to the schools. The schools certainly aren't handcuffed to the players.

but why should they be allowed to make the choice to transfer every year?

playing college ball is a privilege, not a right. if changing the transfer rules led to more continuity and strength of rosters, which i think it would, i’d be all for it

[jfish26]

If a player wants lower stakes, lower pressure, lower benefits and less competition, the player can choose a lower level of hoop.

An original argument on this thread about those who wanted to play college ball instead of pro.

No one has guns to these players' heads, MAKING them choose programs at the top of the sport.

It makes no sense to shield players from internal competition while ALSO maintaining a program that is (or, at least always aspires to be) consistently better than all of its external competition.

Pulling a scholarship without cause is across the line for me. Bringing in competition for every spot, every year, is absolutely not.

[jfish26]

I am not bothered that Kj Adams can do a Raisin' Cane's commercial.

I am not bothered that people can transfer freely year to year. I don't see why them sitting out for a year makes it any more tolerable? Because they get what is viewed as "punished"?

I think the kids who are transferring non stop are making mistakes in many instances. I'm not a fan of it, personally. I think in some instances they'd be better served staying put. But that's their choice to make and they should be allowed to make it.

We aren't forced to recruit any of those types of players. Bill Self gets paid a ridiculous amount of money to make those decisions. He is paid to identify the players who are willing to play whatever role he ends up giving that player. If the roster turnover becomes a problem, which it has been recently, then I blame him.

I don't think these players should be handcuffed to the schools. The schools certainly aren't handcuffed to the players.

but why should they be allowed to make the choice to transfer every year?

playing college ball is a privilege, not a right. if changing the transfer rules led to more continuity and strength of rosters, which i think it would, i’d be all for it

I would like less player movement than we're seeing right now. There is a middle ground to be found between the two poles (being universal one-year sit-out, on one hand, and unlimited instant transfers, on the other).

[pdub]

No one had guns to these players' heads MAKING them play college basketball without making 500k a year either -- unless you were on team JFish and CnB where it sure felt like the poor college athlete had no other choice but to sadly become, how'd you put it, an indentured servant, and just get by on a free education, room/board, access to coaching, trainers, tutors, meal plans, travel, media coverage, stipends, gear etc.

[MICHHAWK]

the current landscape is absurd.

[DeletedUser]

but why should they be allowed to make the choice to transfer every year?

playing college ball is a privilege, not a right. if changing the transfer rules led to more continuity and strength of rosters, which i think it would, i’d be all for it

I guess for me, it starts with why shouldn't they be allowed to?

Playing CBB is a privilege. Totally agree. These other schools want these players and are affording them the privilege to play CBB on their team. Why shouldn't they be allowed to do so?

I don't get why a player should be punished by having to sit out a years worth of games if they go somewhere and don't like it and want to leave. Making them sit out doesn't make me feel better about any of it. It does nobody any good. Players shouldn't be forced to stay somewhere they don't want to be (or aren't wanted), just as coaches aren't forced to stay places and schools have the option to renew scholarships yearly.

I 1000% agree it makes college basketball weird and lose "what it was". I am right there on board with all of you on that.

I just think "strength of rosters" or "ease of roster building" should not take priority over what is best for the players and what they want.


Until the schools are paying them and signing contracts nobody should be forced to stay anywhere, imo.

And my preference is that the schools never pay the players (not directly, since it's donor dollars that otherwise would have gone to the mens basketball department, i get how some feel that's indirectly).

I don't care where donor dollars go. Couldn't care less if instead of remodeling players dorms every 2 years that money instead results in players driving nice cars and having whatever kids spend money on (clothes, jewelry, entertainment and drugs/alcohol I presume?).

Let the basketball bluechips rent mansions off campus and get rid of the ridiculous basketball living facility. Or let actual students who are also athletes who aren't making money live there.

[DeletedUser]

No one had guns to these players' heads MAKING them play college basketball

And nobody is forcing anyone to take transfers they don't want or pay NIL money to players that they don't want to.

[MICHHAWK]

at what other high level of competition, can the players come and go freely as they choose? i cannot think of one.

[pdub]

No one had guns to these players' heads MAKING them play college basketball

And nobody is forcing anyone to take transfers they don't want or pay NIL money to players that they don't want to.

No.
But now that this is a ( THE ) thing you either do or very likely fall out of competition.

[DeletedUser]

I would like less player movement than we're seeing right now. There is a middle ground to be found between the two poles (being universal one-year sit-out, on one hand, and unlimited instant transfers, on the other).

I agree.

And it's not instant. The portal has a time window of availability.

Walk ons have different rules. And should. I think Walk ons should be able to move freely regardless.

Also, as I understand the rules, you only get 1 free transfer without having to obtain a waiver. You sit on the 2nd transfer unless you go down or up a division I believe? To 2a or Naia.

[DeletedUser]

at what other high level of competition, can the players come and go freely as they choose? i cannot think of one.

Every single one where the athletes aren't under contracts I would guess?

[jfish26]

No one had guns to these players' heads MAKING them play college basketball without making 500k a year either -- unless you were on team JFish and CnB where it sure felt like the poor college athlete had no other choice but to sadly become, how'd you put it, an indentured servant, and just get by on a free education, room/board, access to coaching, trainers, tutors, meal plans, travel, media coverage, stipends, gear etc.

That's all fine, but (1) we've been over each other's opinions on that a million times and there's no need to rehash them, and (2) I would have expressed this EXACT same view on what we do and don't owe players even when the only above-the-table compensation was what you identify.

This is Kansas.

For at least the entirety of the approaching-40-years-old Brown-Williams-Self era, Kansas has aspired to be 1- or 2-seed good each and every year. Those aspirations do not support, and have never supported, shielding players from internal competition.

[pdub]

But with the environment as it is there is a MUCH greater chance you will find yourself at the end of a bench and wink, wink, nudge, nudged at a place like Kansas because of all the money we are now throwing around.

The transfer portal is immense and stocked with talented kids who want money.

[jfish26]

at what other high level of competition, can the players come and go freely as they choose? i cannot think of one.

Every single one where the athletes aren't under contracts I would guess?

Right.

Very much a thing most professional athletes are free to do if they want is to only play on one-year contracts.

The case where that tends to not be true is where there are rules in place between the league and the players' unions governing how early-career stuff works (and it is worth recognizing that that's kind of a fucked up case; prospective players are of course not represented by the union, and the union membership (being existing players) has every reason to make concessions that benefit owners and do not immediately hit existing players in the pocketbook).

[TDub]

but why should they be allowed to make the choice to transfer every year?

playing college ball is a privilege, not a right. if changing the transfer rules led to more continuity and strength of rosters, which i think it would, i’d be all for it

I guess for me, it starts with why shouldn't they be allowed to?

Playing CBB is a privilege. Totally agree. These other schools want these players and are affording them the privilege to play CBB on their team. Why shouldn't they be allowed to do so?

I don't get why a player should be punished by having to sit out a years worth of games if they go somewhere and don't like it and want to leave. Making them sit out doesn't make me feel better about any of it. It does nobody any good. Players shouldn't be forced to stay somewhere they don't want to be (or aren't wanted), just as coaches aren't forced to stay places and schools have the option to renew scholarships yearly.

I 1000% agree it makes college basketball weird and lose "what it was". I am right there on board with all of you on that.

I just think "strength of rosters" or "ease of roster building" should not take priority over what is best for the players and what they want.


Until the schools are paying them and signing contracts nobody should be forced to stay anywhere, imo.

And my preference is that the schools never pay the players (not directly, since it's donor dollars that otherwise would have gone to the mens basketball department, i get how some feel that's indirectly).

I don't care where donor dollars go. Couldn't care less if instead of remodeling players dorms every 2 years that money instead results in players driving nice cars and having whatever kids spend money on (clothes, jewelry, entertainment and drugs/alcohol I presume?).

Let the basketball bluechips rent mansions off campus and get rid of the ridiculous basketball living facility. Or let actual students who are also athletes who aren't making money live there.

you want NBA with college Mascots.



fortunately for you, that's what you got.