Kansas Crimson

TDub wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 9:09 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 8:59 am

TDub wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 8:49 am

who does?

wtf are you talking about

nobody has said that, ever, not once. good lord. Take a nap and come back later when you're headed isnt clouded by nonsense.

"I've always argued that, even if you took the top 50-100 players out out college basketball annually, people would still love it and follow it because of their connection to the university. "

"If the top 100 players in CBB were not there, KU would still get the better of the remaining HUGE pool of players who would want to play for things besides money like they used to ( yes I believe most of the players when they say they didn’t get paid )."

none of that = wants to strip all the prospects out of college basketball.

You're argument is so extreme.

So let's say top 50 are gone, for ease of argument 2 top prospects off each top 25 team.

So, Hunter and Elmarko are gone.....twocoach and nobody else is gonna watch now. ?? serious?

The whole discussion is absurd because it would never happen. So how exactly do you see that working? Is the ncaa going to say "anyone ranked in the Top 100 is ineligible to play for an ncaa program? Good luck with that. See you in court.

I get his point but it's a purely hypothetical rant due solely to the fact that he hates the current model and in no way is a solution that should be treated with any sort of seriousness as it is not based in reality at all.

But if you're bored and want to keep arguing about what would happen if this impossible scenario magically happened then go for it.

"The whole discussion is absurd because it would never happen. So how exactly do you see that working? Is the ncaa going to say "anyone ranked in the Top 100 is ineligible to play for an ncaa program? Good luck with that. See you in court."

Jesus.
Where's that Picard face palm?

Found it.

pdub wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 9:56 am "The whole discussion is absurd because it would never happen. So how exactly do you see that working? Is the ncaa going to say "anyone ranked in the Top 100 is ineligible to play for an ncaa program? Good luck with that. See you in court."

Jesus.
Where's that Picard face palm?

It's your proposal. How specifically would it work?

NIL would not be legal ( in this very thread, people who were in support of it doubted it would actually be big money and that it wouldn't make much of a difference in attracting athletes -- those people were obviously very wrong ).
The NCAA would get their shit together and be a functioning non profit.
The point of college athletics would return closer to what is was created for -- so you're going to take a good amount of money out of it.
That said, a % of the profits would be fed back into the athletic programs to be certain that no player would have any issues at all living a good life while participating in college athletics ( a stipend on top of all other benefits makes sense - as you need more than just room/board to get by ).
The courts would understand that college sports is a unique institution that is focused on athletics AND academics.

Players not interested in that could and would pursue other alternate ways to make money playing sports.

The top 100 players was a guess of the above players you would loose every season in this hypothetical not a specific number.

"The courts would understand that college sports is a unique institution that is focused on athletics AND academics."

Yeah, the ncaa tried that already and got summarily slapped upside the head. That isn't happening.

And if you take a good amount of money out of it then bye bye TV contracts. I hope you out of town KU fans like watching 5 games a year like the good old days.

Again, my nephews club hockey games are all broadcast on Twitch in full HD.
I think Kansas games would be alright.

And this is my ideal scenario so yes, I know that people in charge tend to be about big profit, so this ain't happening, it's just what I'd like to happen and what I think would work.

"people in charge tend to be about big profit" might be the understatement of the year.

I hope that the sport is able to find some sort of equilibrium that brings you more enjoyment.

Thanks.
I doubt it but we'll see.

pdub wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 9:52 am "Because ESPN will stop carrying/streaming the games."

No they wouldn't.
Not in todays age.
They are streaming the Grambling State's vs Bethune Cookman's on ESPN+.

And holy Overly Alarmist ( oh no, the top 100 players aren't in CBB it's all over ) Batman.

All you think about is growth over time and Q1-Q4 profits.

You can keep putting words in my mouth, but it does not make them mine.*

I do not think it's helpful to look at what ESPN presently does with undercard games...because the flagship games are what presently makes it such that ESPN has the infrastructure in place to stream those undercard games.

My opinion is that a world without a majority of the top 100 players is a world where the entire curve shifts to the left. And in that world, I would absolutely NOT count on there being enough interest in the game to support even what is presently undercard treatment.

I think that, for probably a number of reasons, you are being wildly overconfident in what a post-NBA-level-talent college basketball world looks like.

* Dozens if not over a hundred times, from the start of this, I have said that my primary concerns are (1) college basketball staying at least as relevant as it is, and (2) for KU to remain awesome at it. My opinion has always been that you need NBA-prospect-type talent to support this outcome. My opinion has always been that you need to narrow the financial gap between college and G League/Europe (or, ideally for some guys, college and the low end of the NBA) to keep and retain that type of talent.

In other words, I think money is a necessary TOOL for achieving the desired result. I have never said that profit is, in and of itself, the desired result. All I want is college basketball not to wither and die.

It is not accurate to characterize my position the way you do.

I enjoy talking about the gray areas of all of this (like the notion of what happens if/when talent leaves), and I recognize and respect that you disagree with me on most of it. I don't think it's fair to keep getting called out for taking positions I haven't. I do not misrepresent your positions.

"I do not misrepresent your positions."

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh boy.
Should we check the notes?

pdub wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 9:52 am "Because ESPN will stop carrying/streaming the games."

No they wouldn't.
Not in todays age.
They are streaming the Grambling State's vs Bethune Cookman's on ESPN+.
My nephews club hockey games are broadcast over Twitch.

And holy Overly Alarmist ( oh no, the top 100 players aren't in CBB it's all over ) Batman.

All you think about is growth over time and Q1-Q4 profits.

ESPN only has the ability to stream crap games because they make so much money on the big games. When the money stops flowing, so does the content available.

My nephews club hockey games are broadcast in HD over Twitch.
I think they'd be able to do something similar ( i'm gonna guess better - like, way better ) than that for KU basketball if you still had very high talent just not as high of talent ( people who want to get paid 100k a year - again just a random number ) in the sport.

pdub wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 10:35 am "I do not misrepresent your positions."

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh boy.
Should we check the notes?

I'd personally rather not, because we both have a good idea where it goes, and it's a spiral that does no one any good. All bitterness and retrenchment, and nothing new or interesting.

You will find me saying something that identified an effect or aspect of your position that you do not want to acknowledge and call that "misrepresentation." I will say that what I identified is an essential part of what you said, whether or not you acknowledge it. We won't agree, and there's nowhere to go.

On we spin.

I don't want that, and I won't engage in it. We both had a hand in getting into the spiral in the first place, but I'm going to stay out of it (and try to stay on aspects of this topic where there are new and interesting things to discuss, especially around player movement).

Suffice it to say that I do not believe that profit is the desired end result. I do believe that keeping NBA prospect-level talent in college basketball is absolutely essential to the sport maintaining even the bare, shaky foothold it presently has, and that there is simply not a path to doing that unless players are satisfied in the compensation - cash and otherwise - they're getting.

this thread stopped being interesting about 205 pages ago.

for the last 205 pages you are just regurgitating the same blather and blubber that you barfed out of your keyboard 5+ years ago. wake us when you make up a position that differs from 2018.

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 10:56 am this thread stopped being interesting about 205 pages ago.

Yet, here you are.

it's like watching the same trainwreck in slow motion. over. and over. and over. and over.

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 9:55 am

TDub wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 9:09 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 8:59 am

"I've always argued that, even if you took the top 50-100 players out out college basketball annually, people would still love it and follow it because of their connection to the university. "

"If the top 100 players in CBB were not there, KU would still get the better of the remaining HUGE pool of players who would want to play for things besides money like they used to ( yes I believe most of the players when they say they didn’t get paid )."

none of that = wants to strip all the prospects out of college basketball.

You're argument is so extreme.

So let's say top 50 are gone, for ease of argument 2 top prospects off each top 25 team.

So, Hunter and Elmarko are gone.....twocoach and nobody else is gonna watch now. ?? serious?

The whole discussion is absurd because it would never happen. So how exactly do you see that working? Is the ncaa going to say "anyone ranked in the Top 100 is ineligible to play for an ncaa program? Good luck with that. See you in court.

I get his point but it's a purely hypothetical rant due solely to the fact that he hates the current model and in no way is a solution that should be treated with any sort of seriousness as it is not based in reality at all.

But if you're bored and want to keep arguing about what would happen if this impossible scenario magically happened then go for it.

what....the fuck? Thats your understanding of the argument? My god.

"You will find me saying something that identified an effect or aspect of your position that you do not want to acknowledge and call that "misrepresentation." I will say that what I identified is an essential part of what you said, whether or not you acknowledge it."

Just SOME of the essential parts in this thread:

"If you want to make a different point, of course feel free, but all I'm really hearing is that you have the warm-and-fuzzies over the 50s."

"In any case, I have a very hard time taking seriously anyone who thinks there is really anything even remotely bad about awesome basketball players choosing to play college basketball."

"One of the weirdest hangups people have over the "going to class" thing is the bizarre expectation that athletes' KU experiences are supposed to be exactly like theirs. And it's especially icky when olds (like most of us) do it."

"Again, a silly and confused way of thinking about things."

"Again, you - you - are choosing - choosing - to take NIL so personally.
You are choosing to like something less because the labor is now getting paid.
Disgusting."

"You've been clear on it, sure, but being consistently silly doesn't make you less silly.

The changes will only ruin college sports for those who let them ruin college sports.

And I can't think of why someone would do that, unless they're (1) pouting for the sake of attention, or (2) truly in favor of a system that is obviously and undeniably exploitative, and disproportionately so."

"Doesn't seem like it! College basketball has been this, at the time of both of our NCAA championships, and of course now. That's a long fucking time to stick with something you don't like."

"Seems like there's some sort of historical precedent for this system, vis a vis passage to America, or payment of debts."

"I know it's not especially comfortable, but our country has a nasty history with labor exploitation, particularly of vulnerable/desperate groups.

"Amateurism," as applied in the modern economy, really does echo indentured servitude from the 1600s:"

"And borders on racist"

"If that's not the intent, it would certainly be (already certainly is?) the result."

TDub wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 11:14 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 9:55 am

TDub wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 9:09 am

none of that = wants to strip all the prospects out of college basketball.

You're argument is so extreme.

So let's say top 50 are gone, for ease of argument 2 top prospects off each top 25 team.

So, Hunter and Elmarko are gone.....twocoach and nobody else is gonna watch now. ?? serious?

The whole discussion is absurd because it would never happen. So how exactly do you see that working? Is the ncaa going to say "anyone ranked in the Top 100 is ineligible to play for an ncaa program? Good luck with that. See you in court.

I get his point but it's a purely hypothetical rant due solely to the fact that he hates the current model and in no way is a solution that should be treated with any sort of seriousness as it is not based in reality at all.

But if you're bored and want to keep arguing about what would happen if this impossible scenario magically happened then go for it.

what....the fuck? Thats your understanding of the argument? My god.

PDub clarified his ideal scenario. It is one that the courts have already stated will not be allowed. So we're just left to discuss a hypothetical what-if at this point.

The reality is that the system will continue to be tweaked over time but will never get back to what he liked. I liked a world without social media. We'll never go back to that time, either.