Kansas Crimson

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 11:10 am

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:56 am we’ll see what k and roi have to say

we know what cal thinks

Is it sad that I expect K to have a better grasp of the reality of the situation and a more genuine interest in seeing these things handled reasonably than I do Roy?

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 11:22 am

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 11:10 am

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:56 am we’ll see what k and roi have to say

we know what cal thinks

Is it sad that I expect K to have a better grasp of the reality of the situation and a more genuine interest in seeing these things handled reasonably than I do Roy?

Coach K? You mean Mr. "Blip"?

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 11:21 am

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:55 pm

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:27 pm 2. The Title IX argument never made sense to me when discussing N/I/L for the reasons cited above.

You say this as if you believe that Sherman's interpretation of Title IX will be accepted as the standard interpretation.

That would make sense, of course. But nothing about Title IX enforcement has ever made much sense.

Title IX reads, in its entirety: No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

From that, over the course of nearly five decades, we've had all sorts of judicial and regulatory interpretations, involving everything from shuttering men's wrestling teams because not enough women want to play softball to dictating to universities about who may to the bathroom where.

I hope you're right, but I have little faith in the process.

The wrestling scholarships at least makes some logical sense. The bathroom thing seems like they're using the wrong law.

But, how in the world can a public institution restrain a benefit that they are not providing?

In conversations with several college athletics administrators, all of which took place on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be viewed as publicly critical of the NCAA, there was both sharp criticism for the NCAAs inability to communicate effectively and also frustration that years of inaction on an obvious issue has backed college athletics into a corner without a clear path forward.

Everyone is waiting for a working group on name, image and likeness issues led by Big East commissioner Val Ackerman and Ohio State athletics director Gene Smith to issue recommendations by the end of October, but the bellicose tone of Smith’s recent public statements has led to some concern among administrators that any proposal won’t go far enough to satisfy California and a host of other states poised to adopt similar legislation.

[...]

Multiple administrators told USA TODAY Sports they believe Smith’s committee is focused on measures to address name, image and likeness from a group licensing standpoint — how money could be distributed from things like jersey sales or, for instance, a college sports video game where real player attributes and even names are used.

But that still leaves the issue of players being able to make marketing deals on their own, which would be allowed by the California law unless the NCAA defeats it in court.

Much of the rhetoric this week from high-ranking officials like Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany has been alarmist about a world in which players can trade on their own celebrity, mischaracterizing it as “pay for play” even though the schools themselves would not be part of those deals.

While there's a widespread concern that such an arrangement would devolve into recruiting done by proxy with boosters and businesses bidding on 17-year-olds, there’s also a belief that some of those issues could be regulated if there was a will among NCAA leadership to actually address them head-on.

[...]

Instead, the NCAA of course went into propaganda mode, trying to steer the discussion into worst-case scenarios and outdated buzzwords like “level playing field.”

[...]

As one official put it, it really shouldn’t be this difficult to find common ground and employ some realistic name, image and likeness rules that are fair to the athletes while preserving the basic tenets of the collegiate model. And many of the administrators who plan to work in college athletics 20 years from now are not only open to the idea of significant freedom on name, image and likeness rights, they see it as an inevitability they’d rather have a hand in shaping as opposed to having it dictated by Congress or the Supreme Court after millions of dollars in legal fees spent fighting it.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:23 pm As NCAA muddles name, image, likeness message, it loses leverage to shape rules

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/c ... 843790002/

In conversations with several college athletics administrators, all of which took place on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be viewed as publicly critical of the NCAA, there was both sharp criticism for the NCAAs inability to communicate effectively and also frustration that years of inaction on an obvious issue has backed college athletics into a corner without a clear path forward.

Everyone is waiting for a working group on name, image and likeness issues led by Big East commissioner Val Ackerman and Ohio State athletics director Gene Smith to issue recommendations by the end of October, but the bellicose tone of Smith’s recent public statements has led to some concern among administrators that any proposal won’t go far enough to satisfy California and a host of other states poised to adopt similar legislation.

[...]

Multiple administrators told USA TODAY Sports they believe Smith’s committee is focused on measures to address name, image and likeness from a group licensing standpoint — how money could be distributed from things like jersey sales or, for instance, a college sports video game where real player attributes and even names are used.

But that still leaves the issue of players being able to make marketing deals on their own, which would be allowed by the California law unless the NCAA defeats it in court.

Much of the rhetoric this week from high-ranking officials like Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany has been alarmist about a world in which players can trade on their own celebrity, mischaracterizing it as “pay for play” even though the schools themselves would not be part of those deals.

While there's a widespread concern that such an arrangement would devolve into recruiting done by proxy with boosters and businesses bidding on 17-year-olds, there’s also a belief that some of those issues could be regulated if there was a will among NCAA leadership to actually address them head-on.

[...]

Instead, the NCAA of course went into propaganda mode, trying to steer the discussion into worst-case scenarios and outdated buzzwords like “level playing field.”

[...]

As one official put it, it really shouldn’t be this difficult to find common ground and employ some realistic name, image and likeness rules that are fair to the athletes while preserving the basic tenets of the collegiate model. And many of the administrators who plan to work in college athletics 20 years from now are not only open to the idea of significant freedom on name, image and likeness rights, they see it as an inevitability they’d rather have a hand in shaping as opposed to having it dictated by Congress or the Supreme Court after millions of dollars in legal fees spent fighting it.

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 11:22 am

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 11:10 am

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:56 am we’ll see what k and roi have to say

we know what cal thinks

Is it sad that I expect K to have a better grasp of the reality of the situation and a more genuine interest in seeing these things handled reasonably than I do Roy?

Coach K? You mean Mr. "Blip"?

jfish26 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:23 pm As NCAA muddles name, image, likeness message, it loses leverage to shape rules

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/c ... 843790002/

In conversations with several college athletics administrators, all of which took place on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be viewed as publicly critical of the NCAA, there was both sharp criticism for the NCAAs inability to communicate effectively and also frustration that years of inaction on an obvious issue has backed college athletics into a corner without a clear path forward.

Everyone is waiting for a working group on name, image and likeness issues led by Big East commissioner Val Ackerman and Ohio State athletics director Gene Smith to issue recommendations by the end of October, but the bellicose tone of Smith’s recent public statements has led to some concern among administrators that any proposal won’t go far enough to satisfy California and a host of other states poised to adopt similar legislation.

[...]

Multiple administrators told USA TODAY Sports they believe Smith’s committee is focused on measures to address name, image and likeness from a group licensing standpoint — how money could be distributed from things like jersey sales or, for instance, a college sports video game where real player attributes and even names are used.

But that still leaves the issue of players being able to make marketing deals on their own, which would be allowed by the California law unless the NCAA defeats it in court.

Much of the rhetoric this week from high-ranking officials like Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany has been alarmist about a world in which players can trade on their own celebrity, mischaracterizing it as “pay for play” even though the schools themselves would not be part of those deals.

While there's a widespread concern that such an arrangement would devolve into recruiting done by proxy with boosters and businesses bidding on 17-year-olds, there’s also a belief that some of those issues could be regulated if there was a will among NCAA leadership to actually address them head-on.

[...]

Instead, the NCAA of course went into propaganda mode, trying to steer the discussion into worst-case scenarios and outdated buzzwords like “level playing field.”

[...]

As one official put it, it really shouldn’t be this difficult to find common ground and employ some realistic name, image and likeness rules that are fair to the athletes while preserving the basic tenets of the collegiate model. And many of the administrators who plan to work in college athletics 20 years from now are not only open to the idea of significant freedom on name, image and likeness rights, they see it as an inevitability they’d rather have a hand in shaping as opposed to having it dictated by Congress or the Supreme Court after millions of dollars in legal fees spent fighting it.

TDub wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 11:53 am He wants this changed and a moot point before they are forced to investigate his dirtiness and drag his name through the mud

In March, during the NCAA tournament’s Sweet 16, Mike Krzyzewski challenged the NCAA. Prompted by an innocuous question about the future of college basketball, Krzyzewski lit up the NCAA for not being ready for changes in the collegiate landscape: “The NCAA is not prepared right now,” he said.

The comments proved prophetic. In the wake of the passage of California Senate Bill 206 last week, and the flurry of similar bills being proposed across the country, Krzyzewski’s prediction is coming true in rapid-fire succession.

[...]

Coach K emerged Tuesday as the highest-profile college coach to throw his full-throated support behind significant change in the Name, Image and Likeness debate. Most of his peers, like Hall of Famers Jim Boeheim and Roy Williams, hid behind predictable party lines. Boeheim, who has always clung white knuckle to the status quo, said no one knew a “fair option.” Williams elicited eye-rolls by perpetuating his familiar hokey trope: “We are all talking about something that we don't know what the crap it is,” he said, according to the Associated Press. “I mean it's like putting me in charge of nuclear weapons.”

Krzyzewski rose well above that nonsense. This isn’t rocket science, Roy. The world is demanding change from college sports, significant and historic change. There’s no call to pay the players, just figuring out a way for athletes to profit off their own name, something that’s decades overdue. Krzyzewski is demanding that change come from within, as opposed to outside entities. He demanded it during his interactions with the media and reinforced his clear-eyed desire for change by doubling down with a statement after.

It would be disingenuous to hail Coach K as some great freedom fighter for athletes’ rights. While he should be complimented for not ducking the issues, Krzyzewski knows that the recruiting frontlines are about to change significantly. He’s savvy enough to be looking out for he and Duke’s self-interest.

If the NBA changes its draft rules in time for the 2022 draft as expected, Coach K isn’t just recruiting against Kentucky and North Carolina. He’s soon going to be recruiting against the NBA, G League and two-way deals as well. There’s already the new wave of competition that includes full-time workout gurus, the foreign option taken and a sense of uselessness for the sport that’s becoming alarmingly apparent.

For months, Krzyzewski has seen this coming. And on Tuesday, he issued a reminder of just how right he was back in March. Seven months later, the NCAA is still unprepared for seismic change coming to its most lucrative sport.

And instead of asking another committee to set up a subcommittee to issue a report, Coach K demanded more action, more accountability and less rhetoric. With the NCAA playing at a four-corners pace, Krzyzewski unleashed a full-court press.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 9:25 am