Kansas Crimson

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 6:31 pm Where’s that 1.2% stat come from?

that would mean we only have someone go pro like once every 8 years or something

Do you assume the distribution of NBA players is equivalent across the 300 division 1 teams?

M. Basketball: 18,816 participants 4,181 Draft eligible (60) draft picks (52) NCAA drafted 1.2% go pro

https://www.sportskeeda.com/basketball/ ... oring-odds

Ohhhh

Go pro specifically in the NBA.

That makes more sense

TDub wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 5:08 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 2:46 pm

Back2Lawrence wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 2:08 pm I'll just be happy when they stop calling them student-athletes.

If I was a professor, and had in my class player(s) making 5-10-more times money than me, I'd be pissed. Just let them come and play their sports ball without the mockery of mixing in an academic experience. The men will still have their pick of the ladies, undoubtedly, so selling points remain the same, minus the financial incentives no longer hush-hush.

To me, we're decades late in creating a Professional Sports (or whatever) major.

Because I wholeheartedly agree with you that, especially when we're talking about major-level classes, the "student-athlete" fiction is a waste of lots of people's time (including the professors', not to mention the other students').

The educational experience would absolutely serve the players better were it directed toward, you know, their desired career paths.

All of that said - kids make (or simply have) more money than teachers all of the time; should Natalie Portman's professors at Harvard have been pissed at her choosing to take their classes?

That's why, to me, the issue is more the put-upon fiction of shoehorning athletes into courses of study that they really have no interest in pursuing.

this is insane


1.2% of DI basketball players, 2.8% of DI football players go pro.

thats it.

The theory of the approach is that these kids get free education to specifically try and give them skills Outside of their desired path so they can have something to fall back on when it, almost inevitably, fails.

As I see it, the major would be about careers in pro/college sports generally. I’ll bet we already put more people into that field than we do into many majors that are offered. It affects…absolutely no one except those who would want the major (which, of course, need not only be athletes - in fact I imagine athletes would be the minority).

Wait, so are you suggesting players major in ‘basketball’ or whatnot? And get paid for it directly by the university?

Slippery slippery slope here.

All the slopes here are relatively slimy, tbh.

if i were king. i would remove the education from the equation. and the housing. the children want to be paid like pros. ok. you can now afford to pay for your own education. and your own housing.

Back2Lawrence wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2023 10:14 am Wait, so are you suggesting players major in ‘basketball’ or whatnot? And get paid for it directly by the university?

Slippery slippery slope here.

All the slopes here are relatively slimy, tbh.

To me, the issues are only tangentially related.

I believe the players should have the same freedom to get paid for his labor that any other student has; to me, the fact that a player's labor is SO MUCH MORE valuable than mine only strengthens the case. But I recognize that you and others disagree.

The "major" question is directed at a very real issue that you identify: sham academics. My opinion is that there would be a lot less of that if we did not force players to pursue courses of study in which they have no interest. I am in favor of requiring college basketball players to go to college. I just think it would be better if they went to college in service of an actual career they might want (say, a career in/around major sports), as opposed to being forced to pick things for box-checking purposes.

It's basic psychology - if a guy's in a class because he has to be, not because he wants to be, he won't bring much to the class. That wastes everyone's time and money.

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2023 10:22 am if i were king. i would remove the education from the equation. and the housing. the children want to be paid like pros. ok. you can now afford to pay for your own education. and your own housing.

I would have ZERO issue with a school telling players that if they pursue outside money, they can't take school money.

Now, I would not want Kansas to do that, because I think it would hurt our ability to attract and retain talent.

But absolutely I think a school should be free to make its own choices, as well.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2023 10:26 am
It's basic psychology - if a guy's in a class because he has to be, not because he wants to be, he won't bring much to the class. That wastes everyone's time and money.

So if they decide to transfer, do they owe back any of the $$$ ‘earned’ from institution 1? Can institution 2 ‘buy’ the new player out through compensation to institution 1?

Do these kids have to go through two years of liberal arts nonsense like most of the general student population before getting to these classes they ‘want’ to take, or are they exempt from such tedious nonsense given the extra value added to the associated institutions?

Is there a cap across ‘member’ institutions to create some sort of ‘fair market’ where institutions with a lesser endowment or clearinghouse fund aren’t put at an economic and competitive disadvantage from schools with ‘unlimited’ resources, given this is a closed market open only to ‘academic’ institutions?

It’s fucking ugly. And it’s complicated. And get off my lawn.

you will have your power 4 confs conducting themselves like a pro league. the children will be like pros.

those outside the power 4 will be competing mostly as they are today. like student athletes.




i can stomach the $$$. it's the portal that is eroding the experience for me.

this all is gross. It has a large negative impact my interest in the game. THAT is the biggest tragedy in all of it. (strictly from my opinion)

I agree it’s complicated. I don’t find it any uglier than the system that’s finally being phased out.

My opinion is that there is fundamentally no justification to restricting athlete compensation in ways that do not apply to other workers. Correspondingly, my opinion is that there would fundamentally be no justification to restricting those who compensate athletes (schools, businesses, whatever) from conditioning that compensation however they’d like. Willing buyer, willing seller, etc. Obviously subject to laws, very much including tax laws.

In other words, if a school wants to require a player to pay back the scholarship/room/board/etc. if the player leaves before x number of seasons played, and the player agrees, mazel tov. Or if a company wants to withhold some/all of a NIL payment until the player goes y years without being arrested or whatever, and the player agrees, mazel tov.

Why is it anyone’s business besides the parties to the transaction?

I very much understand that many people, reasonably and in good faith, are disgusted by the transactionality of college sports, generally. I’m not telling anyone they’re wrong for matters of personal taste.

TDub wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2023 10:57 am this all is gross. It has a large negative impact my interest in the game. THAT is the biggest tragedy in all of it. (strictly from my opinion)

I hear you. I don’t feel that way, but nor am I telling you you’re wrong for feeling that way.

for sure. with every passing season. my interest level in what used to be collegiate athletics gets a little less.

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2023 10:55 am you will have your power 4 confs conducting themselves like a pro league. the children will be like pros.

those outside the power 4 will be competing mostly as they are today. like student athletes.




i can stomach the $$$. it's the portal that is eroding the experience for me.

I would have no issue with those paying money requiring those receiving money to stick around.

TDub wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2023 10:57 am this all is gross. It has a large negative impact my interest in the game. THAT is the biggest tragedy in all of it. (strictly from my opinion)

I've watched 2.5 games of KU basketball this year.
I'm not even sure what their record is.

my interest is taking a nose dive. The one and dones lowered it. The transfers are causing a nose dive. There is 20 years of data here showing my decline.

DrPepper wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2023 12:26 pm my interest is taking a nose dive. The one and dones lowered it. The transfers are causing a nose dive. There is 20 years of data here showing my decline.

I remain hopeful that we're still seeing a level of noise and churn that will not be permanent. I absolutely, 100% agree that roster turnover has reached levels that detract from the quality of the product.

Well the logical solve, $$$ wise, since everything is about $$$, would be for them to sign contracts.
That'll send my interest into a tailspin.

pdub wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2023 1:12 pm Well the logical solve, $$$ wise, since everything is about $$$, would be for them to sign contracts.
That'll send my interest into a tailspin.

I hear you. But contracts can also keep people in place. I would think someone who views this from your angle would rather have money and contracts, than just money. I fully understand, and respect, that you are disgusted and put off by the money in the first place.