PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics]

[eminence]

Seems likely we'll see continued consolidation towards the top.

Could quickly wind up in a landscape where only universities with the best football programs can afford all the other teams (and maybe a few 'basketball schools'). Already true to some degree, but seems likely to accelerate.

The athletic departments of the Dartmouths of the world are going to quickly wind up deep in the red if they're expected to be compensating all their athletes (and band members etc) to any meaningful degree. My guess, they'll wind up cut at a lot of locations.

Title IX sports stuff is probably going to be a big battleground.

Personally I'm a bit of a fan, as I would like to see universities and lower league sports separated here in the States.

[penbeast0]

The whole idea of college athletics programs being a more popular version of minor league baseball or the G league was always very iffy. The reason this is such a question is because (a) so many of the supposed student-athletes are not people who are there to be students and (b) because the money involved in such ventures is so huge.

I wouldn't mind if this proposal caused first a consolidation, then a destruction of the NCAA big time sports programs leaving only true pro leagues and the equivalent of division 2 sports.

Then we can work on getting high school sports under control as well as I've been in a high school where we had regular recruiting violations, playing ineligible players, and the sports program changing incoming students transcripts or giving them multiple class credits for summer classes they didn't play. It wasn't a good environment.

[penbeast0]

Seems likely we'll see continued consolidation towards the top.

Could quickly wind up in a landscape where only universities with the best football programs can afford all the other teams (and maybe a few 'basketball schools'). Already true to some degree, but seems likely to accelerate.

The athletic departments of the Dartmouths of the world are going to quickly wind up deep in the red if they're expected to be compensating all their athletes (and band members etc) to any meaningful degree. My guess, they'll wind up cut at a lot of locations.

Title IX sports stuff is probably going to be a big battleground.

Personally I'm a bit of a fan, as I would like to see universities and lower league sports separated here in the States.

Not as worried about Dartmouth and its $7.9 billion dollar endowment as I am about schools like Howard or Coppin State where they don't have huge bank accounts and might actually hurt their academics.

[eminence]

Seems likely we'll see continued consolidation towards the top.

Could quickly wind up in a landscape where only universities with the best football programs can afford all the other teams (and maybe a few 'basketball schools'). Already true to some degree, but seems likely to accelerate.

The athletic departments of the Dartmouths of the world are going to quickly wind up deep in the red if they're expected to be compensating all their athletes (and band members etc) to any meaningful degree. My guess, they'll wind up cut at a lot of locations.

Title IX sports stuff is probably going to be a big battleground.

Personally I'm a bit of a fan, as I would like to see universities and lower league sports separated here in the States.

Not as worried about Dartmouth and its $7.9 billion dollar endowment as I am about schools like Howard or Coppin State where they don't have huge bank accounts and might actually hurt their academics.

Broadly I think it'll be good for US academics long-term. Short-term certain universities will certainly feel it (Dartmouth won't be one of them).

[trex_8063]

Does anyone know of a free app or site or other means of creating your own ELO ranking database? One where you can enter in all the "contestants" to be ranked, and the app will pose you the comparisons one-by-one which you can answer (e.g. "Who was better? James Harden or Hakeem Olajuwon?"), so on into infinity?

[eminence]

Does anyone know of a free app or site or other means of creating your own ELO ranking database? One where you can enter in all the "contestants" to be ranked, and the app will pose you the comparisons one-by-one which you can answer (e.g. "Who was better? James Harden or Hakeem Olajuwon?"), so on into infinity?

I want to say user EvanZ (active on the draft boards) had made something like that, could try reaching out to him.

[Jaivl]

Does anyone know of a free app or site or other means of creating your own ELO ranking database? One where you can enter in all the "contestants" to be ranked, and the app will pose you the comparisons one-by-one which you can answer (e.g. "Who was better? James Harden or Hakeem Olajuwon?"), so on into infinity?

That's a fairly trivial coding exercise -- I did that for songs a way back.

I'd bet there's numerous github repos with that, although I can't search right now.

[HeartBreakKid]

The whole idea of college athletics programs being a more popular version of minor league baseball or the G league was always very iffy. The reason this is such a question is because (a) so many of the supposed student-athletes are not people who are there to be students and (b) because the money involved in such ventures is so huge.

I wouldn't mind if this proposal caused first a consolidation, then a destruction of the NCAA big time sports programs leaving only true pro leagues and the equivalent of division 2 sports.

Then we can work on getting high school sports under control as well as I've been in a high school where we had regular recruiting violations, playing ineligible players, and the sports program changing incoming students transcripts or giving them multiple class credits for summer classes they didn't play. It wasn't a good environment.

Nearly every athlete in the NCAA are there to be students. A fraction of a fraction of a fraction divided by a few thousand are the guys who are there as stepping stones to the NBA and NFL.

It is even a tiny minority with in basketball and football, much less the rest of college athletics. Unless you are saying that someone who is on the track and field team, wrestling, gymnastics etc are not real students.

[penbeast0]

No, I'm only talking about the one and done types, almost all in Division 1 basketball and football.

The programs you are bringing up don't act like pro teams either on the part of the athletes or on the part of the schools. At least not commonly, there are isolated incidents of course.

[Doctor MJ]

The whole idea of college athletics programs being a more popular version of minor league baseball or the G league was always very iffy. The reason this is such a question is because (a) so many of the supposed student-athletes are not people who are there to be students and (b) because the money involved in such ventures is so huge.

I wouldn't mind if this proposal caused first a consolidation, then a destruction of the NCAA big time sports programs leaving only true pro leagues and the equivalent of division 2 sports.

Then we can work on getting high school sports under control as well as I've been in a high school where we had regular recruiting violations, playing ineligible players, and the sports program changing incoming students transcripts or giving them multiple class credits for summer classes they didn't play. It wasn't a good environment.

I agree with you that there was an inherent fragility in college football and basketball being a big deal relative to other minor leagues for the reasons you say, but I'd note that it's clear why this happened:

Because college football made football popular, which eventually allowed for the NFL to become popular and usurp it.
and college basketball made basketball popular, which eventually allowed for the NBA to become popular and usurp it.

Sports like baseball, hockey, and soccer in other countries became popular through pro leagues, and thus there was never a time where college play could come in and occupy the same type of major niche.

Why the difference? I'd say it's about the era when popularity occurred. Baseball, hockey & soccer are older sports. For younger sports, the college athletic system tends to build up the infrastructure which can - if the sport is popular enough - spawn lucrative pro leagues. And once said pro leagues are sufficiently lucrative, they cannibalize and/or pollute the amateur league.

So, if we ever get to a point where a lacrosse player gets paid millions of dollars, the same corruption will happen to college lacrosse. The only thing that saves most college sports from these issues is their failure to succeed like football and basketball.

[trex_8063]

Does anyone know of a free app or site or other means of creating your own ELO ranking database? One where you can enter in all the "contestants" to be ranked, and the app will pose you the comparisons one-by-one which you can answer (e.g. "Who was better? James Harden or Hakeem Olajuwon?"), so on into infinity?

That's a fairly trivial coding exercise -- I did that for songs a way back.

I'd bet there's numerous github repos with that, although I can't search right now.

You were correct, I found one. Thank you.

I figured out the hard way that if you create the entries and begin voting.......and then add some more entries to be voted on, it resets EVERYTHING back to parity (i.e. erases results of all the voting you did prior). Doh!

[sp6r=underrated]

Austin is 80 miles from San Antonio. The median household income in Austin is 27k more than San Antonio. Austin has 3 companies in the top 100.

Nashville is 200 miles from Memphis. The median household income is 23k more in Nashville than in Memphis. The metro population of Nashville is 40% larger than Memphis, and the gap is getting bigger.

I'm not saying this to rub salt in Memphis or San Antonio residents but I think the future of both teams may be in the far richer, faster growing city.

In a strange way I think Memphis is the more risky one. San Antonio is close enough to Austin that San Antonio owners may deem a move not worth it. Memphis may be concerned that Nashville could get a team and feel the incentive to get their first.

[Dr Positivity]

Spurs are too iconic a franchise

Austin deserves a sports team but NBA already has 3 in Texas and NHL would go to Houston first. So it would have to be an NFL team where the stadium is like halfway between it and San Antonio. But Jerry Jones probably blocks.

[Doctor MJ]

Austin is 80 miles from San Antonio. The median household income in Austin is 27k more than San Antonio. Austin has 3 companies in the top 100.

Nashville is 200 miles from Memphis. The median household income is 23k more in Nashville than in Memphis. The metro population of Nashville is 40% larger than Memphis, and the gap is getting bigger.

I'm not saying this to rub salt in Memphis or San Antonio residents but I think the future of both teams may be in the far richer, faster growing city.

In a strange way I think Memphis is the more risky one. San Antonio is close enough to Austin that San Antonio owners may deem a move not worth it. Memphis may be concerned that Nashville could get a team and feel the incentive to get their first.

Re: Austin. I believe the freeway system is built around a Houston-Dallas-SA triangle so I think it's unlikely Austin surpasses San Antonio as a metro area so much as the two of them merging. I could absolutely see the Spurs playing a chunk of home games in Austin, but nothing more significant than that really makes sense to me. All the more given the great success the Spurs have had for the civic pride of San Antonio.

Re: Nashville. Yeah this is just true and it's awkward. In theory Memphis is still big enough to have 1 major franchise to Nashville's 2...in practice Nashville is lapping Memphis economically. Moving from one city to the other would bring about major ill-will now, but I'm not sure how many pro teams exist that represent such a clear 2nd banana for a state where the top dog doesn't have a team.

Looking at a list:

Missouri: St. Louis has MLB & NHL while the now larger Kansas City has MLB & NFL.
North Carolina: Charlotte has NFL & NBA, while apparently the Carolina Hurricanes of the NHL are in Raleigh.
Ohio: Cleveland has MLB, NFL & NBA while the now larger Columbus has the NHL.
Wisconsin: Milwaukee has MLB & NBA while the legendary Packers of the NFL reside in the tiny Green Bay.


I think that's it really. (Note that I would not consider San Francisco & San Jose to be different metros for these purposes.)

[sp6r=underrated]

Re: Nashville. Yeah this is just true and it's awkward. In theory Memphis is still big enough to have 1 major franchise to Nashville's 2...in practice Nashville is lapping Memphis economically. Moving from one city to the other would bring about major ill-will now, but I'm not sure how many pro teams exist that represent such a clear 2nd banana for a state where the top dog doesn't have a team.

In 2010 Metro Nashville had 330,100 more people per the census.In 2020 it had 624,539 more people. In 2022 it had 732,428 more people per the census.

And the population undersells how much more important metro Nashville is than Memphis. GDP is nearly twice as large in Nashville than Memphis. I just can't see Nashville not getting an NBA team. And I question whether Memphis's ownership will feel comfortable with a team in Nashville rather than just move their themselves.

Missouri: St. Louis has MLB & NHL while the now larger Kansas City has MLB & NFL.
North Carolina: Charlotte has NFL & NBA, while apparently the Carolina Hurricanes of the NHL are in Raleigh.
Ohio: Cleveland has MLB, NFL & NBA while the now larger Columbus has the NHL.
Wisconsin: Milwaukee has MLB & NBA while the legendary Packers of the NFL reside in the tiny Green Bay.

You hit some good examples here.

St Louis/KC: St Louis population is in free fall but the metro area is still nearly 20% larger.
Raleigh is probably the situation most similar to Nashville-Memphis. Charlotte is way larger than Raleigh. I'd say the dynamic is slightly different in that the NHL is clearly a smaller league than the NBA. The NHL's thinking, and I'm purely spitballing here, is to go to smaller market without the NBA so they could be the big fish in the small pond.

Columbus/Cleveland are going in different directions. The metro gap isn't nearly as big yet as Memphis/Nashville but it will be. And this will create much more headaches for the NFL/MLB. Leaving Cleveland for Columbus will generate a ton of bad press given how old the franchises are. When the Browns left the first time it caused a huge headache. Leaving for good will cause tons of bad press.

[Texas Chuck]

Yeah Austin is kinda like Fort Worth is to Dallas in relation to San Antonio only Dallas also has Arlington and a bunch of other really significant suburbs that San Antonio doesn't have. But while Austin is its own major city with its own very unique culture, from a market standpoint its really part of San Antonio just as Fort Worth is part of Dallas.

Hard to see Austin ever getting one of the big 4 leagues. San Antonio has only even managed the one. And of course Dallas and Houston don't want more Texas teams especially not in central Texas because they benefit as it sits.

I think if another city in Texas gets a major team, it might well be El Paso. Dallas and Houston will feel less threatened and it allows them to draw on both Mexico and New Mexico as well.

[sp6r=underrated]

Yeah Austin is kinda like Fort Worth is to Dallas in relation to San Antonio only Dallas also has Arlington and a bunch of other really significant suburbs that San Antonio doesn't have. But while Austin is its own major city with its own very unique culture, from a market standpoint its really part of San Antonio just as Fort Worth is part of Dallas.

Hard to see Austin ever getting one of the big 4 leagues. San Antonio has only even managed the one. And of course Dallas and Houston don't want more Texas teams especially not in central Texas because they benefit as it sits.

I think if another city in Texas gets a major team, it might well be El Paso. Dallas and Houston will feel less threatened and it allows them to draw on both Mexico and New Mexico as well.

Texas is probably going to be the most populated US state in 20 yrs so four NBA teams isn't outlandish. El Paso is an interesting call.

Thanks for pointing out that Austin is close enough to TX that a move wouldn't make sense. A similar thing happens in NYC with a lot of major teams being in Jersey so it isn't that weird to have a team outside the core of the metro.

[Texas Chuck]

Thanks for pointing out that Austin is close enough to TX that a move wouldn't make sense. A similar thing happens in NYC with a lot of major teams being in Jersey so it isn't that weird to have a team outside the core of the metro.

Yeah Dallas proper refuses to build a downtown stadium and the Cotton Bowl is just too old, so Arlington has managed to steal two teams. Frisco has the MLS team.

I don't know enough about San Antonio politics to know if they would ever make similar mistakes as Dallas, but I doubt it.

[sp6r=underrated]

You see clips like this and you understand why it was a good thing the NBA eliminated crap like this.

Read on Twitter

[Dr Positivity]

Some very random 50s/60s NBA thoughts right now as I'm doing a little research project

Spoiler:

- While I still think they came out ahead, St. Louis pays back a bit of their Russell injury luck in 58. Slater is injured the next two playoffs, leading to 1959 upset by Lakers and in 1960 it hurts as they lose in 7 games in the finals. In 1961 Lovellette misses last two games of CF (which they manage to win) and first 2 games of Finals and plays half minutes the rest contributing to their worst performance against the Celtics losing 4-1.

- My favorite Russell series so far (up to 62): In 61 CF against Syracuse not only does he put up 21, 30 and 5 which is one of his best statlines on his own, but the circumstantial evidence for his D looks compelling. The Costello and Greer backcourt is like the two fastest guards in the league, and seems like the Warriors can't handle the matchup as Costello averages 24ppg on 53% FG and Greer 23ppg on 47% in shocking sweep. Against the Celtics Costello averages 12ppg on 31% and Greer 9ppg on 29% (minutes collapse by the end)... YIKES. Unfortunately I can't find any contemporary articles saying they got eaten up by Russell, but it would make all the sense in the world if speed demon backcourt was vulnerable to elite shotblocking and center transition D. If true when added to the 21/30/5... that's a hella dominant series.

- It looks to me like Dick Barnett (who was on the above Syracuse team and the one actually playing well against the Celtics) may be an underrated player. When rating SGs in 61 season I was surprised that his year looked almost as good as Sam Jones, putting up 23 pts per 36 but playing a little less minutes due to being on Greer's team, then he goes on to play for Lakers and Knicks contenders, being the second highest scorer on 1970 playoff run. He is also known as a good/great defender (was the one guarding West most of the series despite being older) and high IQ, glue guy style that fit in great with the Knicks. For that reason I nominate 1963 as the best West/Baylor team before Wilt, as Barnett overlaps with the pre surgery version of Baylor for one year.

- Al Attles career seems like if KC Jones was on a non dynasty and therefore not as famous. Sick defense for a PG earning him the nickname THE DESTROYER, ok offense overall. I like 62 Wilt's supporting cast the most for his Warriors teams. They still have Arizin and Gola while getting Attles and Meschery who while nothing special is at least a starter talent I guess and puts up 20pts in 62 playoffs. It seems like Attles is a good candidate for 2nd most valuable on 64 Warriors as well.

- The Knicks may as well be owned by Dolan in this era. They have some great scoring guys like Guerin, Naulls and the hyper efficient Sears, and yet they always seem to be not just mediocre, but flat out suck (they do have one decent 40-32 season in 59). We give guys like Bellamy, Dantley and Maravich a hard time but Guerin is definitely up there for the all time good stats bad team runs, they are sub 30 Ws in all four of his best seasons.

Pt 2 of this

Spoiler:

- I think I’m going to take a Bellamy defending stance. His early years he dropped onto an expansion team so what are you supposed to do wins wise. First year - 18 Ws, 2nd year - 25 Ws with Dischinger (rookie and offensive numbers guy like him), 3rd year 31 Ws with rookie Gus, 4th year - 37 Ws and they actually come within 2 games of the finals with him, Gus, Howell and Ohl, although probably should've beat a Lakers team without Baylor if they could play any D on West at all (46ppg lol). Then he gets traded to the Knicks where you can blame both the lack of fit with Reed and maybe his game organically declining, like McAdoo's short prime, they're also more 1st round fodder than completely embarrasing. You can claim his early year stats were inflated, but overall it seems like the sample of bad years for him is relatively small considering the situation he came into and short prime.

- Tough year for the Wilt case in 65. Especially coming off "figured it out" 64 year. How does any team go 10-28 with Wilt in this era and lose 11 games in a row (17 overall)? The Sixers actually end the reg season tailspinning with a 3-12 as well. I would forgive it if his attitude after the trade was great, but then in the middle of the playoffs he goes to SI to complain about NBA owners and totally throws his new coach Schayes under the bus with "My Life in a Bush League" article. You can say almost winning the title (they would've won the finals) redeems it but maybe if the team vibes were a bit better they could've gotten over the hump.

- The Celtics in 66 seem more vulnerable than the previous years. They actually have to play Rd 1 for once and they have a hard time with the Royals trailing a lot of the deciding game 5 (I didn't know the Royals actually started 31-14 this year, for ending up at a modest 45 Ws, although as seasons like the recent first year DeRozan Bulls showed it doesn't always mean everything). Then needing a 2 pt win in G7 against the Lakers is also a bit weak, who I don't think this is their best version as they trade Barnett for Bob Boozer and he only plays 8th man minutes. I think the simple logic would say Russell impact just went down a bit starting this year. With that in mind the Sixers losing in 5 after topping them in regular season and their 65 series and considering the other Celtics series is pretty bad choke performance.

- I would call 62 and 63 Russell's peak seasons, it feels right to be me with the good scoring numbers at over 20 pts both playoff runs on good % for the time and his passing being in his prime years in that area. 62 especially since it has GOAT game contender in G7 finals. I think 64 is the best defensive team of all time including the playoff performance (Royals offense got WRECKED), but it's a team accomplishment with KC, Havlicek and Sanders being a stacked combination with Russell on that end.

- If Philadelphia waited a year to move to San Fran, the 64 finals is probably Celtics vs Hawks again. Would have been cool to get more Pettit footage. I like Guerin's addition to the Hawks in post prime (though probably still top 3-4 SG). He has to be on the shortlist of bad situation guys with the Knicks since his team results as the franchise guy are putrid, but his rep at the time on defense seems pretty solid (good West defender apparently), good passer, translated to winning Hawks teams, and enough intangibles that he became their player coach.

- Lenny Wilkens and Chet Walker are taking a bit longer to pop for me as star level players statistically than I expected, Wilkens takes until his 5th year to seem like a real all-star, and Walker 4. I think they’d make up for it later (I'm impressed by how the Hawks in 68 randomly win 56 games when there's only so many non Celtics/Sixers/Lakers wins), but it'd probably make me a bit more bearish on them on ATL.