Kansas Crimson

twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 1:42 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:19 am

pdub wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 7:47 am

I want the uniforms, courts, chants, conferences, tournament format, announcers ( FRAN!!! ).
Give me fake players with the ability to create rosters.
( spare me the 'you can have all that if you just used common sense', it's not that simple )

Yes it is!

If 2K sports wants to make a game with names and likenesses, then they pay for that and the money is distributed among the players.

This took two seconds.

Take-Two Interactive, parent company of 2K Sports, just signed a 7 year, $1.1 billion licensing agreement with the NBA and NBAPA because they will sell 8-10 million copies of the game.

The old college hoops games produced less than $50 million in sales, not enough to cover royalties, development and marketing in the old system. Adding in additional royalties to players would lose a company even more money.

I don't know why this thread became a referendum on whether 2K should or should not make a game. Of course they won't if it doesn't make business sense. It is certainly true, though, that their NBA offering is leaps and bounds more popular today than it was the last time they were making a college basketball game.

pdub wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:34 am I knew you'd come calling JFish.

The videogame example is the easiest one to deal with. It should be controversial to absolutely nobody that it would be found money for the NCAA, the schools and, yes, the players. I don't know how you do it*, but however you figure it out, you license names/images/likenesses to 2K (or some other publisher who decides making a game is worth their time), and then you divide the money evenly among schools in the game. Literally nobody is hurt. Literally everyone wins.

* One of the highest-order bullshit methods of fighting against common-sense reform is the pearl-clutching and head-scratching over logistics. That shit gets figured out. Just because something requires a little bit of thoughtfulness does not make it not worthwhile.

for a second there, i thought you were talking about climate change

I should say - divide among schools for dividing among their players.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 2:26 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 1:42 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:19 am

Yes it is!

If 2K sports wants to make a game with names and likenesses, then they pay for that and the money is distributed among the players.

This took two seconds.

Take-Two Interactive, parent company of 2K Sports, just signed a 7 year, $1.1 billion licensing agreement with the NBA and NBAPA because they will sell 8-10 million copies of the game.

The old college hoops games produced less than $50 million in sales, not enough to cover royalties, development and marketing in the old system. Adding in additional royalties to players would lose a company even more money.

I don't know why this thread became a referendum on whether 2K should or should not make a game. Of course they won't if it doesn't make business sense. It is certainly true, though, that their NBA offering is leaps and bounds more popular today than it was the last time they were making a college basketball game.

Because people see it as an "easy" mechanism that could be leveraged to put money into college players pockets. Unfortunately there doesn't appear to be enough money in it to trickle down to the players.

Maybe the FBI can force Nike and Adidas to commit to buying 5 million copies of it and handing them out at all of their AAU events.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 2:30 pm

pdub wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:34 am I knew you'd come calling JFish.

The videogame example is the easiest one to deal with. It should be controversial to absolutely nobody that it would be found money for the NCAA, the schools and, yes, the players. I don't know how you do it*, but however you figure it out, you license names/images/likenesses to 2K (or some other publisher who decides making a game is worth their time), and then you divide the money evenly among schools in the game. Literally nobody is hurt. Literally everyone wins.

* One of the highest-order bullshit methods of fighting against common-sense reform is the pearl-clutching and head-scratching over logistics. That shit gets figured out. Just because something requires a little bit of thoughtfulness does not make it not worthwhile.

It is only "found money" if the games generate profits. You seem to be assuming that they did and they would. The reality of it that it really didn't.

All the hours spent by a development team working a project that barely makes any money is time could have been spent developing games that generate huge profits.

No, it’s “found money” for the NCAA and its schools and their players if a check is cut.

Again - of COURSE no one will make a game if they don’t intend to make a profit. Not sure why whether they succeed is relevant to this discussion.

Let's the kids that want to get paid, go to the NBA, G-League or Pro-Ball Europe/NBA Africa. Anyone else can get $40-60k+ per-year in-kind aid and stipend with a scholarship. Not a bad trade. Draft in May. NBA has until August to sign or cut without payment. Pay expenses. If kid get cuts, his choice are: turn pro in G-League/overseas or go (back) to college. Repeat each year for next 3 years. Make it easy to test the draft without losing eligibility.

Coaches will need better GM skills when selecting their team. Pick too many blue-chippers and may lose 3-4 of them before they step on campus.

Will coaches risk getting caught to get the 40th best player? Will it stop all cheating? No. But it will slow it down considerably.

Zion will be the level of player who skips college and go directly to the NBA from high school. No reason for Duke to pay him; the Knicks will.

God damn it I HATE when great players play college basketball. It’s just the worst.

Lonestarjayhawk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 8:44 am Zion will be the level of player who skips college and go directly to the NBA from high school. No reason for Duke to pay him; the Knicks will.

I don't want Duke paying him. I want Nike to be allowed to pay him....because they're going to pay him anyway 1 way or another to make sure they can sign him when he turns pro.

Lonestarjayhawk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 11:03 pm Let's the kids that want to get paid, go to the NBA, G-League or Pro-Ball Europe/NBA Africa. Anyone else can get $40-60k+ per-year in-kind aid and stipend with a scholarship. Not a bad trade. Draft in May. NBA has until August to sign or cut without payment. Pay expenses. If kid get cuts, his choice are: turn pro in G-League/overseas or go (back) to college. Repeat each year for next 3 years. Make it easy to test the draft without losing eligibility.

Coaches will need better GM skills when selecting their team. Pick too many blue-chippers and may lose 3-4 of them before they step on campus.

Will coaches risk getting caught to get the 40th best player? Will it stop all cheating? No. But it will slow it down considerably.

On board with a lot of this.

Current rules that getting drafted means you’re done with college ball just seek immoral. Hockey and baseball are a lot closer to being just.

Why not just let NBA teams draft players out of high school. If the team does not think the player is ready for the NBA, they can allow them to play college ball for 1-4 years but the NBA team still pays the players salary. Same rules apply to college players. Make the NBA pay the players they think will be good enough to help them in the future.

Cascadia wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 11:59 am Why not just let NBA teams draft players out of high school. If the team does not think the player is ready for the NBA, they can allow them to play college ball for 1-4 years but the NBA team still pays the players salary. Same rules apply to college players. Make the NBA pay the players they think will be good enough to help them in the future.

I like this. I think it would also stop nba teams from taking so many stupid flyers on 18 year old potential. That’s another positive for all parties.

has anyone ever provided justification for why athletes from different sports seem to play by different rules?

is it all about the pro associations’ rules?

Cascadia wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 11:59 am Why not just let NBA teams draft players out of high school. If the team does not think the player is ready for the NBA, they can allow them to play college ball for 1-4 years but the NBA team still pays the players salary. Same rules apply to college players. Make the NBA pay the players they think will be good enough to help them in the future.

To elaborate on this point a bit further.

Take for example the 2018 NBA Draft. DeAndre Ayton (#1 Overall Pick) received an NBA Contract that is as follows
$8.2M
$9.6M
$10M (Team Option)
$12.6M (Team Option)
$16.4M (Qualifying Offer)

In the future, say this is James Wiseman, #1 2019 recruit by 247 (or College FR/SO/JR) and the Phoenix Suns draft him #2 overall in the 2019 NBA Draft. However, the Sun do not this he is ready to help them for the 2019-2020 season. The contract is still valid but delayed until the player actually joins the NBA team. The NBA cannot bring the Wiseman up mid-year if he decides to play college ball, so if Wiseman decides to play college ball at Memphis, the Suns cannot put him on their NBA roster until the start of the 2020-2021 season. Wiseman could also decide to play in the G-League or sit out and practice every day. If Wiseman chooses the G-League or practice route than the Suns can put him on their NBA roster mid-year. However, while the full NBA contract is delayed until he joins an active NBA roster, the Suns are required to pay the player a certain percentage of his yearly salary. I'd argue at least 25%. So to play this out in raw numbers.

Wiseman gets the same contract that Ayton received last year.

FR College = $2.05M
SO College = $2.4M
JR College = $2.5M
SR College = $3.15M

He then joins the NBA team and the contract below becomes valid.

$8.2M
$9.6M
$10M (Team Option)
$12.6M (Team Option)
$16.4M (Qualifying Offer)

Sure - draft-and-stash is a reasonable way to move forward.

If you can solve a problem by throwing money at it and you have money...then you have NO problem. The NBA has tons of money to throw.

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:24 pm has anyone ever provided justification for why athletes from different sports seem to play by different rules?

is it all about the pro associations’ rules?

It’s rather hypocritical to let Kyler Murray, Chris Weinke, Bubba Starling (please!), play college football and then turn around and say all college athletes are forbidden from profiting from name, image, likeness.