Kansas Crimson

pdub wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 11:20 am "...bad scenarios can be avoided..."

Emphasis on bad.
Subjective.

pdub wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 11:24 am "It is objectively true that if you open up a market, you reduce under-the-table behavior."

It is also objectively true that if you open up a market, you have players and the people around said players, focused more on money than before.

"It is objectively true that good players staying in college longer results in a better on-court and in-arena product."

Subjective. Certainly not objective.
G League pays the players who are right on the verge OR should be in the NBA and those players end up in the G League or ( if the 19 year old rule is eliminated ) the NBA, that might mean more players in college staying in college longer, which means teams can learn to play as a unit over years, rather than adapting one season to the next to a change over of OAD's.

"It is objectively true that a better on-court and in-arena product means greater visibility and a higher position on the sports totem pole."

Don't care about BWW Chad. Why do you so much?

pdub wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 11:29 am 1. Maybe.

What? It's not bad for money to be exchanged under the table? I'm lost here.

2. Subjective.

What? It is either (a) subjectively not bad for the rich, white dudes to accumulate the wealth?, or (b) "subjective" whether this is what happens? It's what happens! This is objective fact.

3. It will still be a viable product.

So you admit that driving talent away is a bad thing.

4. Subjective.

So you think, here on a college basketball message board, that whether college basketball is "less good" with less talent is a subjective matter. That's just weird!

pdub wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 11:24 am "It is objectively true that if you open up a market, you reduce under-the-table behavior."

It is also objectively true that if you open up a market, you have players and the people around said players, focused more on money than before.

"It is objectively true that good players staying in college longer results in a better on-court and in-arena product."

Subjective. Certainly not objective.
G League pays the players who are right on the verge OR should be in the NBA and those players end up in the G League or ( if the 19 year old rule is eliminated ) the NBA, that might mean more players in college staying in college longer, which means teams can learn to play as a unit over years, rather than adapting one season to the next to a change over of OAD's.

"It is objectively true that a better on-court and in-arena product means greater visibility and a higher position on the sports totem pole."

Don't care about BWW Chad. Why do you so much?

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 11:41 am

pdub wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 11:24 am "It is objectively true that if you open up a market, you reduce under-the-table behavior."

It is also objectively true that if you open up a market, you have players and the people around said players, focused more on money than before.

I think this can only be said to be objectively true if you already have a transparent understanding of just how focused on money players and people are in the first place. And, so long as it's confined to a black market, I dunno how you can.

"It is objectively true that good players staying in college longer results in a better on-court and in-arena product."

Subjective. Certainly not objective.
G League pays the players who are right on the verge OR should be in the NBA and those players end up in the G League or ( if the 19 year old rule is eliminated ) the NBA, that might mean more players in college staying in college longer, which means teams can learn to play as a unit over years, rather than adapting one season to the next to a change over of OAD's.

you really wanna argue there's no correlation between quality of on-court product and good players staying in college longer?

if you're a player on the verge/should bein the NBA and G league will pay you, where's the incentive to stay in college longer?

and the "play as a unit over the years" seems to hold less water considering there's roster turnover every year regardless.

"It is objectively true that a better on-court and in-arena product means greater visibility and a higher position on the sports totem pole."

Don't care about BWW Chad. Why do you so much?

at the very least, it's nice to be able to go to a BWW and have Chad take some casual interest in the game you're watching, instead of giving you a funny look why you're trying to find some live stream of what amounts to JuCo ball.

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 11:52 am You build stadiums, tv contracts, etc. on the backs of fairweather/casual fans.

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 12:01 pm There really needs to be at least some sort of brainstorming for a joint defense strategy between NC State, KU and Ville.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 11:41 am you really wanna argue there's no correlation between quality of on-court product and good players staying in college longer?

pdub wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 2:46 pm There are things that are subjective in life that some people agree with and others don't. There are rules in place - and rules are broken - but just because they are being broken doesn't mean that, if you agree with the rules, you just should give up on them.

If the rules are abandoned, just like if there was a law that changed and affected something else I enjoyed or my livelihood, i'd be bummed and try to separate myself from the situation.

The speed limit on my street is 25. It doesn't need to be 25, to me it's more a 35 mph street, it's open enough and not congested. I go over the speed limit on the street. Some people go way over the speed limit. I wouldn't want them to just say, well, fuck it, people are going over the speed limit, let's make this road 80 mph. If I got caught going 33 and was pulled over, i'd accept the ticket/fine, and maybe think about going 25 from then forward.