Kansas Crimson

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:29 pm

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.

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:30 pm

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

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

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

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).

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:36 pm

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:30 pm

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



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).

I agree with all of this except I don't see a good reason why a student athlete should have to wait to make money. We allow eSports ATHLETES to be sponsored and there are no issues. Every other student is allowed to do something that athletes are not. The definition of not treating them equally.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:31 pm

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.

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:44 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:31 pm

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.

Grimes could have been a Graham like story, but he wasn't patient enough to wait until his 3rd or 4th year to be the man.

PhDhawk wrote:

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:42 pmI think the strongest argument against sponsorship is it makes recruiting even more corrupt, especially in a sport where you have infrastructure in place to cheat, this makes it even worse. (save the it's already bad arguments -- they do nothing for me)

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:50 pm

PhDhawk wrote:

(Did that work?)

I guess - so what if the opportunity to make money while in school is used in recruiting?

Take my industry.

Law schools compete with each other, both for new students and in rankings/awards/etc.

It is not controversial or "bad" or whatever when law schools compete against each other, in recruiting, by pointing to how many of their students get high-paying internships while in school.

It is not controversial or "bad" or whatever, in law schools, that some students make like $3k/week during their summer internships, and some make $0.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:45 pm how can legitimizing a market make it "even more corrupt?"

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:50 pm
It is not controversial or "bad" or whatever when law schools compete against each other, in recruiting, by pointing to how many of their students get high-paying internships while in school.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:50 pmIt is not controversial or "bad" or whatever, in law schools, that some students make like $3k/week during their summer internships, and some make $0.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:23 pm
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?

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:57 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:50 pm
It is not controversial or "bad" or whatever when law schools compete against each other, in recruiting, by pointing to how many of their students get high-paying internships while in school.

If you can't see the difference between this and what will happen, I don't know how to explain it.

I mean, KU can already say look how many guys we put in the NBA or look how many guys have shoe deals. [1]

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:50 pmIt is not controversial or "bad" or whatever, in law schools, that some students make like $3k/week during their summer internships, and some make $0.

This, to me, is the argument FOR keeping the system how it is. Not the other way around. College ball is the unpaid internship with lots of cool fringe benefits. G-league is the paid internship, where you gotta find a cheap apartment and buy/cook your own food and travel coach.

You have that option.[2]

pdub wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:58 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:23 pm
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?

1. And my opinion is with the advancement of streaming services as niche as can be, college basketball has absolutely no threat of being irrelevant and that more people watch because of allegiance to school than they do for the product ( and I don't think the product will suffer nearly as much as is being suggested ). March Madness will still exist.

2. If you're making kids play in a summer G-League, just let them play in the actual G-League and not in college.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:05 pm
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!

pdub wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 3:05 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:05 pm
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!

Why do you care so much about what other people, i.e. BWW Chad, thinks?
Validation?
Moving up here speaks volumes about who gives a shit about college basketball...its PATS and SOX...and whatever, i'll go to a bar, ask them to put on KU, and they'll change it with a confused face.
No one here gives a shit about CBB until March Madness...I don't care.

I just want to watch KU win.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:50 pm

PhDhawk wrote:

(Did that work?)

I guess - so what if the opportunity to make money while in school is used in recruiting?

Take my industry.

Law schools compete with each other, both for new students and in rankings/awards/etc.

It is not controversial or "bad" or whatever when law schools compete against each other, in recruiting, by pointing to how many of their students get high-paying internships while in school.

It is not controversial or "bad" or whatever, in law schools, that some students make like $3k/week during their summer internships, and some make $0.