Kansas Crimson

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:27 am

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:23 am On one hand there’s this argument for some sort of aesthetic beauty of it or whatever. Who needs money involved when we can all play basketball for the love of the game!

On the other hand, other posters have told me on the pols bored that humans can’t be expected to do a single thing in this world unless there’s some monetary incentive. Why would anyone play basketball unless they’re getting paid?

The money's already there. Always has been.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:29 am

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:27 am

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:23 am On one hand there’s this argument for some sort of aesthetic beauty of it or whatever. Who needs money involved when we can all play basketball for the love of the game!

On the other hand, other posters have told me on the pols bored that humans can’t be expected to do a single thing in this world unless there’s some monetary incentive. Why would anyone play basketball unless they’re getting paid?

The money's already there. Always has been.

Right; those "highest paid state employees" graphic has been around for 20 years.

If anything, NIL democratizes college sports, and pushes money down the ladder, from haves to have-nots.

pdub wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:33 am Ad nauseam response to money down ladders - i want money off the ladder, in this particular case, not down it.

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:42 am So much of the excitement of college sports is essentially tribalism. (Whether that in and of itself is a good thing is for another thread). But when a HS student chooses a school based on what car he gets, and not the school, the coach, the location...some of that is lost.

Save me the "this has always been going on" speech, it wasn't how college athletics were presented by the media, but now it is. It's on espn, it's part of the telecasts, etc.

It does make me less interested. It's eroding what makes college sports special, for me. The connection between the students/alumni and the players is weakened.

And, like I predicted, it isn't about a Jr or Sr who played great getting some money to be in a commercial, it immediately became just a recruiting mechanism. The very thing people said wouldn't happen. This only furthers the gap between the haves and the have nots. The money isn't going to be awarded to the players who generate the most excitement, or increase ticket sales, or result in the most wins. It's just a recruiting tool to lure unproven players to a school. It's not a fair market, the players who will get the most money are the ones who play for one year and leave. It will be the Diallos and Alexanders getting paid, not Grahams and Masons.

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:42 am So much of the excitement of college sports is essentially tribalism. (Whether that in and of itself is a good thing is for another thread). But when a HS student chooses a school based on what car he gets, and not the school, the coach, the location...some of that is lost.

Save me the "this has always been going on" speech, it wasn't how college athletics were presented by the media, but now it is. It's on espn, it's part of the telecasts, etc.

It does make me less interested. It's eroding what makes college sports special, for me. The connection between the students/alumni and the players is weakened.

And, like I predicted, it isn't about a Jr or Sr who played great getting some money to be in a commercial, it immediately became just a recruiting mechanism. The very thing people said wouldn't happen. This only furthers the gap between the haves and the have nots. The money isn't going to be awarded to the players who generate the most excitement, or increase ticket sales, or result in the most wins. It's just a recruiting tool to lure unproven players to a school. It's not a fair market, the players who will get the most money are the ones who play for one year and leave. It will be the Diallos and Alexanders getting paid, not Grahams and Masons.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:44 am

pdub wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:33 am Ad nauseam response to money down ladders - i want money off the ladder, in this particular case, not down it.

Where’s this line drawn?

Should coaches not get paid either?

Should athletic departments not cut deals with sneaker companies?

Should schools not sign lucrative media contracts?

Genuinely asking.

And don’t get me wrong, I’m here for it quite intrigued by the idea of just getting money out of everything.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:44 am

pdub wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:33 am Ad nauseam response to money down ladders - i want money off the ladder, in this particular case, not down it.

Where’s this line drawn?

Should coaches not get paid either? They should be paid less than they are. I'd like to see more of that revenue going to scholarships, to programs to helps student athletes who don't go pro, to taking care of student athletes who lose scholarships becuase of injuries, etc.

Should athletic departments not cut deals with sneaker companies?I would rather see it done at the NCAA level, or at least conference level, rather than each school having their own contracts

Should conferences not sign lucrative media contracts? I've mentioned this before, but the balloon of tv contracts was largely a funded by non-sports fans. Grandma payes $90 a month for cable to watch DIY and the food network, but those are $.75 of her monthley bill while the sports networks are $10 worth.

Genuinely asking.

And don’t get me wrong, I’m here for it quite intrigued by the idea of just getting money out of everything.

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:47 am

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:42 am So much of the excitement of college sports is essentially tribalism. (Whether that in and of itself is a good thing is for another thread). But when a HS student chooses a school based on what car he gets, and not the school, the coach, the location...some of that is lost.

Save me the "this has always been going on" speech, it wasn't how college athletics were presented by the media, but now it is. It's on espn, it's part of the telecasts, etc.

It does make me less interested. It's eroding what makes college sports special, for me. The connection between the students/alumni and the players is weakened.

And, like I predicted, it isn't about a Jr or Sr who played great getting some money to be in a commercial, it immediately became just a recruiting mechanism. The very thing people said wouldn't happen. This only furthers the gap between the haves and the have nots. The money isn't going to be awarded to the players who generate the most excitement, or increase ticket sales, or result in the most wins. It's just a recruiting tool to lure unproven players to a school. It's not a fair market, the players who will get the most money are the ones who play for one year and leave. It will be the Diallos and Alexanders getting paid, not Grahams and Masons.

The Grahams and Masons were getting paid.

Right now the highest NIL value is Paige Bueckers.

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:47 am

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:42 am So much of the excitement of college sports is essentially tribalism. (Whether that in and of itself is a good thing is for another thread). But when a HS student chooses a school based on what car he gets, and not the school, the coach, the location...some of that is lost.

Save me the "this has always been going on" speech, it wasn't how college athletics were presented by the media, but now it is. It's on espn, it's part of the telecasts, etc.

It does make me less interested. It's eroding what makes college sports special, for me. The connection between the students/alumni and the players is weakened.

And, like I predicted, it isn't about a Jr or Sr who played great getting some money to be in a commercial, it immediately became just a recruiting mechanism. The very thing people said wouldn't happen. This only furthers the gap between the haves and the have nots. The money isn't going to be awarded to the players who generate the most excitement, or increase ticket sales, or result in the most wins. It's just a recruiting tool to lure unproven players to a school. It's not a fair market, the players who will get the most money are the ones who play for one year and leave. It will be the Diallos and Alexanders getting paid, not Grahams and Masons.

The Grahams and Masons were getting paid.

Right now the highest NIL value is Paige Bueckers.

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:54 am We can talk about pie in the sky all day, but the environment is what it is.

NCAA was finally put in hot fucking water letting hogs line their pockets with millions in cash.

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:53 amNo one is getting a bonus for making all conference, or for being the leading scorer on a F4 team. They get paid according to their RSCI ranking.

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:56 am

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:54 am We can talk about pie in the sky all day, but the environment is what it is.

NCAA was finally put in hot fucking water letting hogs line their pockets with millions in cash.

I think the arguments you and Fish are making are just as pie in the sky as pdub's.