Kansas Crimson

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 12:50 pm how do you pitch the value of an education to your mom when she has bills to pay yesterday?

It's a tough decision for any kid growing up, regardless of if they play basketball or not, to have a family struggling to pay bills.

Some mothers would press to have their kid take a step to getting something that might help them long term and help that kids potential family in the future.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 12:57 pm

pdub wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 12:53 pm It would represent full value for the services performed if fewer superstars played in college basketball and played in the NBA and G League, the NCAA found a responsible way of maintaining the organization without worrying so much about profit and took some of the money out of the sport.

"Generally, that group is going to look pretty Zach Petersy!"

And this in itself could be considered pretty racist as well.

What's funny is you're essentially describing a market. Yes, if you bring the quality of the product way the fuck down, maybe education and room/board would represent full value.

Of course, you do that and you've killed college basketball as something that matters enough to be broadcast, analyzed, talked about, followed, sponsored, etc.

Here's where you and I disagree to the extent of what would happen.
So maybe you listen/read to what i've said multiple times in this thread before tagging along with CnB.

The problem with all these conversations is that they always center around a very small percentage of the DI mens cbb scholarship athletes. We root for KU, we care about KU, the Big12 and a handful of national programs.

If you zoom out. For the VAST MAJORITY of players, literally thousands of them, getting a full scholarship to college in a largely merit-based way for playing a sport is AN INCREDIBLE opportunity.

pdub wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 12:59 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 12:57 pm

pdub wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 12:53 pm It would represent full value for the services performed if fewer superstars played in college basketball and played in the NBA and G League, the NCAA found a responsible way of maintaining the organization without worrying so much about profit and took some of the money out of the sport.

"Generally, that group is going to look pretty Zach Petersy!"

And this in itself could be considered pretty racist as well.

What's funny is you're essentially describing a market. Yes, if you bring the quality of the product way the fuck down, maybe education and room/board would represent full value.

Of course, you do that and you've killed college basketball as something that matters enough to be broadcast, analyzed, talked about, followed, sponsored, etc.

Here's where you and I disagree to the extent of what would happen.
So maybe you listen/read to what i've said multiple times in this thread before tagging along with CnB.

Ok. But there are already college basketball examples about what it looks like when there's next to no pro talent. They're not at the top of mind, of course, because they're not televised or covered regionally, let alone nationally.

Maybe the better example is baseball, where there's still quite a lot of pro talent. Outside of a couple schools, no one gives a shit about it until the College World Series. And then it's irrelevant again for a year.

I don't want that to happen to college basketball! #KCBBG!

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 12:50 pm how do you pitch the value of an education to your mom when she has bills to pay yesterday?

If you're the 95th ranked player nationally, and say living in Milwaukee. Getting a full-ride to the University of Wisconsin is a pretty easy sell.

Giving someone an opportunity to earn a free bachelor's degree, and possibly help them facilitate a professional basketball career in 4 years is a pretty amazing thing to give an 18 year old kid because he's good at basketball. There is a shitload of value in that.

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:05 pm The problem with all these conversations is that they always center around a very small percentage of the DI mens cbb scholarship athletes. We root for KU, we care about KU, the Big12 and a handful of national programs.

If you zoom out. For the VAST MAJORITY of players, literally thousands of them, getting a full scholarship to college in a largely merit-based way for playing a sport is AN INCREDIBLE opportunity.

I certainly agree. What, six college basketball programs run in the black?

As long as cbb, and more importantly KU games, are available for viewing consumption, I don't care how popular the sport is.

Stay above that threshold and I'm fine. I don't think losing 20 players a year to other options does much if anything to the popularity.

Straw man argument that there is value in a college scholarship. Of course there is.

There's been more money than that, though, for a long long time. It's gone to the circus director rather than the acrobats.

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:09 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 12:50 pm how do you pitch the value of an education to your mom when she has bills to pay yesterday?

If you're the 95th ranked player nationally, and say living in Milwaukee. Getting a full-ride to the University of Wisconsin is a pretty easy sell.

Giving someone an opportunity to earn a free bachelor's degree, and possibly help them facilitate a professional basketball career in 4 years is a pretty amazing thing to give an 18 year old kid because he's good at basketball. There is a shitload of value in that.

I agree with you. But if that guy ends up being representative of, I don't know, the 25th-ish best guy in any given class, then you're looking at a very significant talent and eyeball drain.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:09 pm

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:05 pm The problem with all these conversations is that they always center around a very small percentage of the DI mens cbb scholarship athletes. We root for KU, we care about KU, the Big12 and a handful of national programs.

If you zoom out. For the VAST MAJORITY of players, literally thousands of them, getting a full scholarship to college in a largely merit-based way for playing a sport is AN INCREDIBLE opportunity.

I certainly agree. What, six college basketball programs run in the black?

In 2016 Dayton was ranked 25th nationally in profits, they made over $12 million dollars.

I'd say it's significantly more than 5

And this is the problem with your argument. You only care about 3% of the players playing the sport. No where else do people make arguments based on this. You don't staff your restaurant with the same number of people on a Tuesday night in September as you do New Year's eve, you don't buy the same level of insurance for your 1997 chevy truck as you would for your new Mercedes.

You guys are all in a tizzy about what happens to 25 players in a sport of over 4,000 players. You're not seeing the forest for the trees.

A Kansas State player got suspended and missed the postseason because he borrowed lunch money.

CBB won't die without the top 20 guys, it went through a similar period like that in the late early 2000's before OAD rule went in. But, pure amateurism restricts a lot more than the top 20. 150 players sounds like a lot but compared to the 10's of 1000's of HS players across the country, it is the elite of the elite. These guys are getting benefits thrown in their face b/c that is their value.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:12 pm

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:09 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 12:50 pm how do you pitch the value of an education to your mom when she has bills to pay yesterday?

If you're the 95th ranked player nationally, and say living in Milwaukee. Getting a full-ride to the University of Wisconsin is a pretty easy sell.

Giving someone an opportunity to earn a free bachelor's degree, and possibly help them facilitate a professional basketball career in 4 years is a pretty amazing thing to give an 18 year old kid because he's good at basketball. There is a shitload of value in that.

I agree with you. But if that guy ends up being representative of, I don't know, the 25th-ish best guy in any given class, then you're looking at a very significant talent and eyeball drain.

Nah.

That 95th ranked player is going to be so much better as a Jr and or Sr. than the 25th ranked guy in his one year.

Give me Graham over Grimes every day of the week

In fact, I'd argue that of the ~25 guys you lose every year, the loss of that back end 20 hurts cbb zero. No argument that there would be a loss from losing the top 5 guys (Zion, Wiggins, Jackson, etc.) But man oh man there's not a lot that you get outta most one year guys (Diallo, Grimes, Troy Brown, etc.)

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:16 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:09 pm

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:05 pm The problem with all these conversations is that they always center around a very small percentage of the DI mens cbb scholarship athletes. We root for KU, we care about KU, the Big12 and a handful of national programs.

If you zoom out. For the VAST MAJORITY of players, literally thousands of them, getting a full scholarship to college in a largely merit-based way for playing a sport is AN INCREDIBLE opportunity.

I certainly agree. What, six college basketball programs run in the black?

In 2016 Dayton was ranked 25th nationally in profits, they made over $12 million dollars.

I'd say it's significantly more than 5

And this is the problem with your argument. You only care about 3% of the players playing the sport. No where else do people make arguments based on this. You don't staff your restaurant with the same number of people on a Tuesday night in September as you do New Year's eve, you don't buy the same level of insurance for your 1997 chevy truck as you would for your new Mercedes.

You guys are all in a tizzy about what happens to 25 players in a sport of over 4,000 players. You're not seeing the forest for the trees.

A couple things -

1 - My opinion is that the sport's relevance depends on maintaining some critical mass of elite talent. I think what that level is can certainly be argued, in good faith.

2 - BUT: There's no good-faith need to even have that argument or take the risk of losing the talent. Literally, the only thing you have to do is let the kids make money just like every other student is free to do. Put it this way: what would be your reaction to letting the kids play in like a Summer G-League, where they get a prorated equivalent of a rookie salary to play in games, for pro coaches?

Graham, at worst, was offered impermissible benefits.

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:09 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 12:50 pm how do you pitch the value of an education to your mom when she has bills to pay yesterday?

If you're the 95th ranked player nationally, and say living in Milwaukee. Getting a full-ride to the University of Wisconsin is a pretty easy sell.

Giving someone an opportunity to earn a free bachelor's degree, and possibly help them facilitate a professional basketball career in 4 years is a pretty amazing thing to give an 18 year old kid because he's good at basketball. There is a shitload of value in that.

pdub wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 12:57 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 12:50 pm how do you pitch the value of an education to your mom when she has bills to pay yesterday?

It's a tough decision for any kid growing up, regardless of if they play basketball or not, to have a family struggling to pay bills.

Some mothers would press to have their kid take a step to getting something that might help them long term and help that kids potential family in the future.

those are all good points, but I'm not sure they answer my question: how does that pay bills right now?

if you call home and mom says, "I'm late with rent again and the landlord's pounding on the door," is she supposed to tell the landlord to wait until you have your degree? (happy 1st of the month everyone, btw)

and if John Q. Booster gets wind of it and quietly hands you an unmarked envelope and tells you to make sure mom don't worry about rent this month, you really think a concerned kid is gonna say, "no bro I only play for the love of the game?"

so now let's debate whether that's a better or worse example than "something that might help them long term...in the future...possibly...in 4 years..."

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:18 pm A Kansas State player got suspended and missed the postseason because he borrowed lunch money.

CBB won't die without the top 20 guys, it went through a similar period like that in the late early 2000's before OAD rule went in. But, pure amateurism restricts a lot more than the top 20. 150 players sounds like a lot but compared to the 10's of 1000's of HS players across the country, it is the elite of the elite. These guys are getting benefits thrown in their face b/c that is their value.

The NCAA is incompetent and handles almost everything it touches poorly.

To me, that's a different argument than whether there should be limitations placed on how college athletes earn money.

I mean, lots of jobs, organizations, societies, etc. that people join voluntarily place restrictions/require approvals, etc. for how you earn money outside of them.

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:25 pm

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:18 pm A Kansas State player got suspended and missed the postseason because he borrowed lunch money.

CBB won't die without the top 20 guys, it went through a similar period like that in the late early 2000's before OAD rule went in. But, pure amateurism restricts a lot more than the top 20. 150 players sounds like a lot but compared to the 10's of 1000's of HS players across the country, it is the elite of the elite. These guys are getting benefits thrown in their face b/c that is their value.

The NCAA is incompetent and handles almost everything it touches poorly.

To me, that's a different argument than whether there should be limitations placed on how college athletes earn money.

I mean, lots of jobs, organizations, societies, etc. that people join voluntarily place restrictions/require approvals, etc. for how you earn money outside of them.

It's the limitations and the black letter bylaw that help create really stupid situations like Jamar Samuels--affects much more than the top 20.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:24 pm

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:09 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 12:50 pm how do you pitch the value of an education to your mom when she has bills to pay yesterday?

If you're the 95th ranked player nationally, and say living in Milwaukee. Getting a full-ride to the University of Wisconsin is a pretty easy sell.

Giving someone an opportunity to earn a free bachelor's degree, and possibly help them facilitate a professional basketball career in 4 years is a pretty amazing thing to give an 18 year old kid because he's good at basketball. There is a shitload of value in that.

pdub wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 12:57 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 12:50 pm how do you pitch the value of an education to your mom when she has bills to pay yesterday?

It's a tough decision for any kid growing up, regardless of if they play basketball or not, to have a family struggling to pay bills.

Some mothers would press to have their kid take a step to getting something that might help them long term and help that kids potential family in the future.

those are all good points, but I'm not sure they answer my question: how does that pay bills right now?

I switched jobs in August, and didn't get my first paycheck until October, no one cried for me.

If Zion Williamson has to wait 9 months to become a multi- multi millionaire, I'm not losing any sleep.

If you think there should be fewer limitations as to how a college athlete gets money on the side, I'd be in favor of it. But I don't have a problem with certain limitations.

Also, we all have to make tough decisions in life. Lots of people choose getting a job after HS over college.

Personally, I never felt an obligation to take care of my parents financially, maybe my own upbringing gives me biases, but I think the notion that an 18 year old kid has to take care of his parents is backwards to me (with certain notable obvious exceptions).

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:22 pm

That 95th ranked player is going to be so much better as a Jr and or Sr. than the 25th ranked guy in his one year.

Give me Graham over Grimes every day of the week

OK, consider it given...


...but that also means you gotta take Tharpe over Dotson.

Getting to go to a school for free is valuable...so allow the players the same opportunities as regular students. Regular students can appear in commercials and do whatever the fuck they want. At minimum afford athletes the same opportunities that the other students have.