Kerb Hohl wrote:I don't get how you can enforce "with a straight face" the rule of not paying players, though. If some booster funnels the next Fab 5 to Wisconsin, is it really not in the NCAA's best interest to pretend it didn't notice they saw evidence of payments and let them play?
I mean Cam Newton's dad was on tape asking for money, and the NCAA allowed him to play the entire season en route to an NCAA Championship. That was the end for me. The justification was that CAM himself never asked for the money, even though the rule was clearly stated as any family member.
Not sure if you are agreeing or misread me, but I'm saying that the NCAA absolutely won't be enforcing this **** going forward and agree with you.
midranger wrote:What if the NCAA just passed a rule not allowing true freshmen to play on the varsity teams? I think it takes care of many of the issues. No more one and dones. Increase importance of development while diminishing importance of recruiting. Would need to maintain academic eligibility for at least 3 semesters. Would develop better players.The NBA would have to respond by doing away with their age requirement in all likelihood. Maybe force clubs to buy G league teams and expand the draft.
Win win.
I think the NCAA would be opposed to doing so, as it wouldn't be in their interest. You'd see a few consequences:
A. A subset of players would become HS-to-NBA leaps, as we saw prior to 2006. B. A second subset of players would go to to Europe to play for a season, rather than sticking on JV. C. A third subset would play for one year on JV on scholarship, and then bounce.
That third subset would be a real killer for an NCAA school, as there would be no ROI for the school. The talent pool would also be reduced. You'd also see schools attempt to induce their freshmen to return for a sophomore season through the same shady mechanisms that currently exist.
I think the number of kids falling into group C would be diminishingly small. We're talking about a redshirt year here. No exposure. No PT. Group A would be very high though.
Basically, the kids who want to go to college would. The rest wouldn't.
I think it would make the JV squads more popular than varsity. That is where nearly all of the best (NBA-bound) players would play and the JV games are what ESPN would cover. I know it worked in the past but it's a different era.
DingleJerry wrote:Of course, there is no way to clean up all levels of shadiness. Show me one industry where that is the case though? It's impossible.
At the very least it will massively reduce the problem and give a way where you can honestly enforce the rules.
How many high school players do you think will make the jump if the NBA eliminated its age requirement? The grand total of high schoolers who have gone pro in the history of the draft is 44. Even at its peak in the early 2000s, the most you ever had in a single draft was 9.
I don't think it will massively reduce the problem.
Obviously tough to know for sure. But things have changed big time in the last 10 years. And that number is skewed since just no one did it before KG, so you only had like a 10 year window for it and people were still apprehensive about it back then. In this years draft 10 of the first 11 picks were freshman and the outlier was an 18 yr old European. And 17 freshman in the first round unless I counted wrong. Generally speaking I don't see any reason that wouldn't just get moved down to HS kids a year earlier. I'd be surprised if at least 10 don't go every year, probably closer to 15. And that's just with the current setup. If the D league continues to develop and pay better and maybe another round gets added to the draft and/or 2nd rd picks get guaranteed $$ it will just go up.
...and explain to me how 10-15 players will massively reduce the problem of improper benefits being paid? Are you under the impression that those benefits - hell, even a majority of those benefits - are only being paid to one-and-done players?
humanrefutation wrote: How many high school players do you think will make the jump if the NBA eliminated its age requirement? The grand total of high schoolers who have gone pro in the history of the draft is 44. Even at its peak in the early 2000s, the most you ever had in a single draft was 9.
I don't think it will massively reduce the problem.
Obviously tough to know for sure. But things have changed big time in the last 10 years. And that number is skewed since just no one did it before KG, so you only had like a 10 year window for it and people were still apprehensive about it back then. In this years draft 10 of the first 11 picks were freshman and the outlier was an 18 yr old European. And 17 freshman in the first round unless I counted wrong. Generally speaking I don't see any reason that wouldn't just get moved down to HS kids a year earlier. I'd be surprised if at least 10 don't go every year, probably closer to 15. And that's just with the current setup. If the D league continues to develop and pay better and maybe another round gets added to the draft and/or 2nd rd picks get guaranteed $$ it will just go up.
...and explain to me how 10-15 players will massively reduce the problem of improper benefits being paid? Are you under the impression that those benefits - hell, even a majority of those benefits - are only being paid to one-and-done players?
I'd guess a lot of the straight up bribes to go to schools at the recruiting level is primarily around those types or the guys that might be 1 and doners. Tough to know for sure of course but that's alway been my assumption. The little perks and stuff guys get once on campus of course is way more widespread. But if we're talking numbers if say the 25-35 guys who could make a case as possible 1 and done out of HS and now 15 are out of the equation, then yea it was massively reduced. Plus like I said you can now try to enforce rules to limit what goes on with who's left. And I'd think that 15 number goes up into the 20s if they legitimize the D league training and pay.
ETA: I don't even know what we're talking about anymore. If you think it's possible to come up with a perfect clean pure system and won't accept anything else than just keep living in the clouds I guess. But I don't see how this doesn't make a great improvement.
Kerb Hohl wrote:I don't get how you can enforce "with a straight face" the rule of not paying players, though. If some booster funnels the next Fab 5 to Wisconsin, is it really not in the NCAA's best interest to pretend it didn't notice they saw evidence of payments and let them play?
I mean Cam Newton's dad was on tape asking for money, and the NCAA allowed him to play the entire season en route to an NCAA Championship. That was the end for me. The justification was that CAM himself never asked for the money, even though the rule was clearly stated as any family member.
Not sure if you are agreeing or misread me, but I'm saying that the NCAA absolutely won't be enforcing this **** going forward and agree with you.
Then the NCAA is at risk of the FBI blowing up their whole system they feed off now. I also don't see them losing their cash cow in the name of protecting this type of cheating. Just let the kids go pro and act as cleanly as possible and they're not at risk. As I've been trying to say, taking out 15-30 players from CBB is not going to reduce their income at all. Why risk the whole system for it?
College football is a lot more difficult, I have no ideas what to do about that. But chances are football will be dead in 20 years anyway so it'll solve itself.
DingleJerry wrote: Obviously tough to know for sure. But things have changed big time in the last 10 years. And that number is skewed since just no one did it before KG, so you only had like a 10 year window for it and people were still apprehensive about it back then. In this years draft 10 of the first 11 picks were freshman and the outlier was an 18 yr old European. And 17 freshman in the first round unless I counted wrong. Generally speaking I don't see any reason that wouldn't just get moved down to HS kids a year earlier. I'd be surprised if at least 10 don't go every year, probably closer to 15. And that's just with the current setup. If the D league continues to develop and pay better and maybe another round gets added to the draft and/or 2nd rd picks get guaranteed $$ it will just go up.
...and explain to me how 10-15 players will massively reduce the problem of improper benefits being paid? Are you under the impression that those benefits - hell, even a majority of those benefits - are only being paid to one-and-done players?
I'd guess a lot of the straight up bribes to go to schools at the recruiting level is primarily around those types or the guys that might be 1 and doners. Tough to know for sure of course but that's alway been my assumption. The little perks and stuff guys get once on campus of course is way more widespread. But if we're talking numbers if say the 25-35 guys who could make a case as possible 1 and done out of HS and now 15 are out of the equation, then yea it was massively reduced. Plus like I said you can now try to enforce rules to limit what goes on with who's left. And I'd think that 15 number goes up into the 20s if they legitimize the D league training and pay.
ETA: I don't even know what we're talking about anymore. If you think it's possible to come up with a perfect clean pure system and won't accept anything else than just keep living in the clouds I guess. But I don't see how this doesn't make a great improvement.
No, my issue is that your "solution" doesn't really solve the problem in any meaningful way. The kinds of improper benefits that we're talking about don't just go to one-and-doners - or even primarily to one-and-doners. When was the last Louisville player to be a one-and-doner? How about at Oklahoma State? How about at Auburn? How about at USC?
I'm absolutely in favor of eliminating the age rule. I agree there. I also understand, based on the empirical evidence, that your solution will not impact the problem in any significant way. That doesn't make my head in the clouds. That just makes me right.
I have suggested that the best solution is to divert athletes with professional prospects into youth academies, ala the European soccer model. The guys who don't have professional talent go to play in college, where the fans can still root for laundry. The rest can be compensated to go to a youth academy that is focused solely on their professional development. It's a win-win that requires investment from the NBA, and the willingness for the NCAA to sacrifice the tremendous profits they derive from using these young prospects.
Kerb Hohl wrote:I don't get how you can enforce "with a straight face" the rule of not paying players, though. If some booster funnels the next Fab 5 to Wisconsin, is it really not in the NCAA's best interest to pretend it didn't notice they saw evidence of payments and let them play?
I mean Cam Newton's dad was on tape asking for money, and the NCAA allowed him to play the entire season en route to an NCAA Championship. That was the end for me. The justification was that CAM himself never asked for the money, even though the rule was clearly stated as any family member.
Not sure if you are agreeing or misread me, but I'm saying that the NCAA absolutely won't be enforcing this **** going forward and agree with you.
I was furthering your point using an undeniable and public breaking of their rules by the Heisman trophy winning, National Championship winning superstar QB of college football. All without ANY recourse being taken on his way to becoming the #1 pick.
fishnc wrote:If I had a gun with two bullets and I was in a room with Hitler, Bin Laden, and LeBron, I would shoot LeBron twice.
humanrefutation wrote: ...and explain to me how 10-15 players will massively reduce the problem of improper benefits being paid? Are you under the impression that those benefits - hell, even a majority of those benefits - are only being paid to one-and-done players?
I'd guess a lot of the straight up bribes to go to schools at the recruiting level is primarily around those types or the guys that might be 1 and doners. Tough to know for sure of course but that's alway been my assumption. The little perks and stuff guys get once on campus of course is way more widespread. But if we're talking numbers if say the 25-35 guys who could make a case as possible 1 and done out of HS and now 15 are out of the equation, then yea it was massively reduced. Plus like I said you can now try to enforce rules to limit what goes on with who's left. And I'd think that 15 number goes up into the 20s if they legitimize the D league training and pay.
ETA: I don't even know what we're talking about anymore. If you think it's possible to come up with a perfect clean pure system and won't accept anything else than just keep living in the clouds I guess. But I don't see how this doesn't make a great improvement.
No, my issue is that your "solution" doesn't really solve the problem in any meaningful way. The kinds of improper benefits that we're talking about don't just go to one-and-doners - or even primarily to one-and-doners. When was the last Louisville player to be a one-and-doner? How about at Oklahoma State? How about at Auburn? How about at USC?
I'm absolutely in favor of eliminating the age rule. I agree there. I also understand, based on the empirical evidence, that your solution will not impact the problem in any significant way. That doesn't make my head in the clouds. That just makes me right.
I have suggested that the best solution is to divert athletes with professional prospects into youth academies, ala the European soccer model. The guys who don't have professional talent go to play in college, where the fans can still root for laundry. The rest can be compensated to go to a youth academy that is focused solely on their professional development. It's a win-win that requires investment from the NBA, and the willingness for the NCAA to sacrifice the tremendous profits they derive from using these young prospects.
I didn't say it solved it. I said it improved and would allow for real enforcement of rules going forward. I simply don't know how anyone can be against letting 18 yr olds go pro. For the schools you point out, we don't' know the details for sure. No one said they were succesful in this stuff for sure, they could have been doing all this and still not getting the kids. Alot more is going to come. I'm merely saying that I'd assume that his type of attention is primarily only go towards 5 star and the top 4 stars, guys ranked in the top 40ish area. Who knows, of course I could be wrong. But I don't think guys ranked 98th or 221st are getting big payments. So I'm saying that if you take out 50% of those kids right away that it's a large improvement and combine that with increased effort to enforce the rules and hopefully this is greatly improved. And if it is that guys ranked 155th are getting paid to commit right now, with increased legit enforcement hopefully it goes away as it's not worth it anymore with the repercussions and now even possible jail time. Whereas right now they all thought there was no repercussions, are they going to keep doing it now for a so so prospect with potential prison on the line?
Your response, yea but it doesn't 100% clean it up. yea, no ****, good luck finding something perfect. Your solution is to blow up the entire system and do something completely different? A system than hundreds of millions enjoy, 10s of thousands of athletes in all sports (not just CBB/CFB) benefit from, the Olympics are trained from, normal students benefit from the money athletics funnels back to the university. And the advertising dollars are paying for it all, you're now removing all that ad money and have to find it elsewhere. Yea, I'm not sure that's a great solution either. All just so the top top guys can get paid? Why not just let them go and get paid? I'd prefer that route and to do your best to make it above the board from here out.
HurricaneKid wrote: I mean Cam Newton's dad was on tape asking for money, and the NCAA allowed him to play the entire season en route to an NCAA Championship. That was the end for me. The justification was that CAM himself never asked for the money, even though the rule was clearly stated as any family member.
Not sure if you are agreeing or misread me, but I'm saying that the NCAA absolutely won't be enforcing this **** going forward and agree with you.
I was furthering your point using an undeniable and public breaking of their rules by the Heisman trophy winning, National Championship winning superstar QB of college football. All without ANY recourse being taken on his way to becoming the #1 pick.
I have no idea what to do about CFB. There is so many more kids and so much more money involved than in CBB. And the physical risk of going to the NFL so young. Generally I'd still say 18 yr olds should not be discriminated though and then it's capitalism on making decisions on if they're picked or not and if that pay is better than what they're getting college. I think this one will likely solve itself and football won't exist in 30 years anywhere near the game that is being played now.
I am reasonably confident that there is going to be a massive lawsuit regarding football that will risk the future of public education st some point over the next 20 years that will be the death knell of football. To take 18 year old kids and destroy their minds and bodies for our enjoyment while the Universities profit to the tune of BILLIONS while they are not able to legally participate in the windfall...
I can't bring myself to watch football anymore now that I am older and recognize that every one of those "dings" I took in my youth is now costing me enormously. I am 6'6" and didn't have an option not to play football. I have young a son now and I will NOT ALLOW football to enter his life.
That shot Davante took last night is the exact reason I find football so horrifying. That the defender thought that was a GOOD play is just indefensible to me.
fishnc wrote:If I had a gun with two bullets and I was in a room with Hitler, Bin Laden, and LeBron, I would shoot LeBron twice.
DingleJerry wrote: I'd guess a lot of the straight up bribes to go to schools at the recruiting level is primarily around those types or the guys that might be 1 and doners. Tough to know for sure of course but that's alway been my assumption. The little perks and stuff guys get once on campus of course is way more widespread. But if we're talking numbers if say the 25-35 guys who could make a case as possible 1 and done out of HS and now 15 are out of the equation, then yea it was massively reduced. Plus like I said you can now try to enforce rules to limit what goes on with who's left. And I'd think that 15 number goes up into the 20s if they legitimize the D league training and pay.
ETA: I don't even know what we're talking about anymore. If you think it's possible to come up with a perfect clean pure system and won't accept anything else than just keep living in the clouds I guess. But I don't see how this doesn't make a great improvement.
No, my issue is that your "solution" doesn't really solve the problem in any meaningful way. The kinds of improper benefits that we're talking about don't just go to one-and-doners - or even primarily to one-and-doners. When was the last Louisville player to be a one-and-doner? How about at Oklahoma State? How about at Auburn? How about at USC?
I'm absolutely in favor of eliminating the age rule. I agree there. I also understand, based on the empirical evidence, that your solution will not impact the problem in any significant way. That doesn't make my head in the clouds. That just makes me right.
I have suggested that the best solution is to divert athletes with professional prospects into youth academies, ala the European soccer model. The guys who don't have professional talent go to play in college, where the fans can still root for laundry. The rest can be compensated to go to a youth academy that is focused solely on their professional development. It's a win-win that requires investment from the NBA, and the willingness for the NCAA to sacrifice the tremendous profits they derive from using these young prospects.
I didn't say it solved it. I said it improved and would allow for real enforcement of rules going forward. I simply don't know how anyone can be against letting 18 yr olds go pro. For the schools you point out, we don't' know the details for sure. No one said they were succesful in this stuff for sure, they could have been doing all this and still not getting the kids. Alot more is going to come. I'm merely saying that I'd assume that his type of attention is primarily only go towards 5 star and the top 4 stars, guys ranked in the top 40ish area. Who knows, of course I could be wrong. But I don't think guys ranked 98th or 221st are getting big payments. So I'm saying that if you take out 50% of those kids right away that it's a large improvement and combine that with increased effort to enforce the rules and hopefully this is greatly improved. And if it is that guys ranked 155th are getting paid to commit right now, with increased legit enforcement hopefully it goes away as it's not worth it anymore with the repercussions and now even possible jail time. Whereas right now they all thought there was no repercussions, are they going to keep doing it now for a so so prospect with potential prison on the line?
Your response, yea but it doesn't 100% clean it up. yea, no ****, good luck finding something perfect. Your solution is to blow up the entire system and do something completely different? A system than hundreds of millions enjoy, 10s of thousands of athletes in all sports (not just CBB/CFB) benefit from, the Olympics are trained from, normal students benefit from the money athletics funnels back to the university. And the advertising dollars are paying for it all, you're now removing all that ad money and have to find it elsewhere. Yea, I'm not sure that's a great solution either. All just so the top top guys can get paid? Why not just let them go and get paid? I'd prefer that route and to do your best to make it above the board from here out.
Your solution doesn't just fail to clean it up 100%. Your solution doesn't clean up 95% of this problem. It's like putting a band-aid on an amputation and calling it a success. This isn't limited to recruiting the top 40 guys, or the 10-15 of those that might be one-and-doners. The top schools are competing for talent up and down the market, and any inducement they can provide can tip the balance. And if those one-and-doners go directly to the NBA instead, then that money will just trickle down to the players who don't. The evidence is clear on this front.
My solution doesn't blow up the NCAA. My solution creates separate tracks for athletes who are motivated primarily by the desire to go pro, and others who just want to play for the love of the game and don't have professional aspirations. The NCAA can focus on the latter. There was an interesting feature a few years ago on the European developmental model in the NY Times, which goes through the youth development model at Ajax. Additionally, Jonathan Tjarks had a nice article on the NBA moving towards this that I posted earlier in this thread, in which he cites that NYT piece. Check it out.
Don't take it personally. I don't mean to put you down. I'm just puzzled by your insistence that it will make a significant difference, when we have lots of evidence that it won't.
humanrefutation wrote: No, my issue is that your "solution" doesn't really solve the problem in any meaningful way. The kinds of improper benefits that we're talking about don't just go to one-and-doners - or even primarily to one-and-doners. When was the last Louisville player to be a one-and-doner? How about at Oklahoma State? How about at Auburn? How about at USC?
I'm absolutely in favor of eliminating the age rule. I agree there. I also understand, based on the empirical evidence, that your solution will not impact the problem in any significant way. That doesn't make my head in the clouds. That just makes me right.
I have suggested that the best solution is to divert athletes with professional prospects into youth academies, ala the European soccer model. The guys who don't have professional talent go to play in college, where the fans can still root for laundry. The rest can be compensated to go to a youth academy that is focused solely on their professional development. It's a win-win that requires investment from the NBA, and the willingness for the NCAA to sacrifice the tremendous profits they derive from using these young prospects.
I didn't say it solved it. I said it improved and would allow for real enforcement of rules going forward. I simply don't know how anyone can be against letting 18 yr olds go pro. For the schools you point out, we don't' know the details for sure. No one said they were succesful in this stuff for sure, they could have been doing all this and still not getting the kids. Alot more is going to come. I'm merely saying that I'd assume that his type of attention is primarily only go towards 5 star and the top 4 stars, guys ranked in the top 40ish area. Who knows, of course I could be wrong. But I don't think guys ranked 98th or 221st are getting big payments. So I'm saying that if you take out 50% of those kids right away that it's a large improvement and combine that with increased effort to enforce the rules and hopefully this is greatly improved. And if it is that guys ranked 155th are getting paid to commit right now, with increased legit enforcement hopefully it goes away as it's not worth it anymore with the repercussions and now even possible jail time. Whereas right now they all thought there was no repercussions, are they going to keep doing it now for a so so prospect with potential prison on the line?
Your response, yea but it doesn't 100% clean it up. yea, no ****, good luck finding something perfect. Your solution is to blow up the entire system and do something completely different? A system than hundreds of millions enjoy, 10s of thousands of athletes in all sports (not just CBB/CFB) benefit from, the Olympics are trained from, normal students benefit from the money athletics funnels back to the university. And the advertising dollars are paying for it all, you're now removing all that ad money and have to find it elsewhere. Yea, I'm not sure that's a great solution either. All just so the top top guys can get paid? Why not just let them go and get paid? I'd prefer that route and to do your best to make it above the board from here out.
Your solution doesn't just fail to clean it up 100%. Your solution doesn't clean up 95% of this problem. It's like putting a band-aid on an amputation and calling it a success. This isn't limited to recruiting the top 40 guys, or the 10-15 of those that might be one-and-doners. The top schools are competing for talent up and down the market, and any inducement they can provide can tip the balance. And if those one-and-doners go directly to the NBA instead, then that money will just trickle down to the players who don't. The evidence is clear on this front.
My solution doesn't blow up the NCAA. My solution creates separate tracks for athletes who are motivated primarily by the desire to go pro, and others who just want to play for the love of the game and don't have professional aspirations. The NCAA can focus on the latter. There was an interesting feature a few years ago on the European developmental model in the NY Times, which goes through the youth development model at Ajax. Additionally, Jonathan Tjarks had a nice article on the NBA moving towards this that I posted earlier in this thread, in which he cites that NYT piece. Check it out.
Don't take it personally. I don't mean to put you down. I'm just puzzled by your insistence that it will make a significant difference, when we have lots of evidence that it won't.
We're at agree to disagree point and overall I think we've had a good logical discussion without ridiculous hottakes or arguing, rare for the internet. And yes I certainly see your points and the logic. You very well could be correct for all I know.
You don't know those things anymore than I do on how bad it is or how far it goes down beyond just the top players. And there is no evidence to go from on this, we're purely speculating. Neither of us know if it would clean up 95% or 65% or only 5%. Moreover, you're completely ignoring the effects that could/should come from this FBI crackdown as a deterrent for the lower levels of this that you think are significant, I already think it's not too bad beyond the top guys(we don't really know yet) but even if it is deep as you say, throw in the risk of prison and subsequent increased enforcement and I'm hoping that cleans that up greatly as well. Maybe I'm being too optimistic on that, but that's something that cannot be known for sure until you try.
Clearly in the current model it's logical it'll just trickle down and go on when they've had literally no fear of repercussion, but with the big deterrent that could come from all this it's certainly possible that people aren't willing to risk their lives and programs over blah 3 star recruits. If the kid asks for money you'd hope teams just say if you want money go pro. I think this is the main point you're overlooking imo. Second would be that i would be expecting eventually more NBA involvement in D league pay, control, drafting etc which would lead to even more than 15-20 per year being taken out of the equation, thus an even bigger dent. Still overall we agree this would at least help, you just think it's much worse currently than I do so don't think this makes a dent in it. It's not like either of us are saying the other's points are wrong, it's just level of the effect it would be.
Again, good discussion and it's a very complicated problem that two jabronis on the internet aren't going to solve. Have a good weekend. This will all be very interesting to see how it plays out.
The thing the NCAA needs to do is make it impossible for the NFL and NBA to use them as a free minor league. Not worry about having the best 18-22 year old athletes. Rather worry about finding the best student athletes. People will still watch and pay money to root for their colleges. Sure, there will be less thunder dunks, but whatever. If that's what you care about, you probably prefer the NBA anyway.
HurricaneKid wrote:I am reasonably confident that there is going to be a massive lawsuit regarding football that will risk the future of public education st some point over the next 20 years that will be the death knell of football. To take 18 year old kids and destroy their minds and bodies for our enjoyment while the Universities profit to the tune of BILLIONS while they are not able to legally participate in the windfall...
I can't bring myself to watch football anymore now that I am older and recognize that every one of those "dings" I took in my youth is now costing me enormously. I am 6'6" and didn't have an option not to play football. I have young a son now and I will NOT ALLOW football to enter his life.
That shot Davante took last night is the exact reason I find football so horrifying. That the defender thought that was a GOOD play is just indefensible to me.
Same feelings, Im really glad I never took a big shot, even more glad I quit the last 3 years of high school. Most kids did though. Even 5th grade
HurricaneKid wrote:I am reasonably confident that there is going to be a massive lawsuit regarding football that will risk the future of public education st some point over the next 20 years that will be the death knell of football. To take 18 year old kids and destroy their minds and bodies for our enjoyment while the Universities profit to the tune of BILLIONS while they are not able to legally participate in the windfall...
I can't bring myself to watch football anymore now that I am older and recognize that every one of those "dings" I took in my youth is now costing me enormously. I am 6'6" and didn't have an option not to play football. I have young a son now and I will NOT ALLOW football to enter his life.
That shot Davante took last night is the exact reason I find football so horrifying. That the defender thought that was a GOOD play is just indefensible to me.
Same feelings, Im really glad I never took a big shot, even more glad I quit the last 3 years of high school. Most kids did though. Even 5th grade
I remember playing football in middle school. I was a defensive end who was stronger than a lot of the kids playing offensive line against me, so I often found myself in the backfield right after the snap. But a team I played decided to put their two biggest linemen across from me - these two gigantic kids who seemed like they were too big to be in middle school.
I knew I was in for some pain, but **** it. I tried to split them, and I found myself being launched into the air and what seemed like several feet back. I landed, my head hit the ground, and I saw stars.
I was fine - I laughed it off and got back to my feet. It was legitimately funny in many respects - like something you'd see in a comedy. But I was a bit woozy, and with what we know now, I'm glad I didn't stick with football when I got older.
M-C-G wrote:I always find this debate interesting. Not for nothing, but what does it cost to go to schools like Duke, North Carolina, USC a year? 30k, 40k, 50k? I think that scholarship has to be factored in, not everyone is Kentucky and a bunch of one and done players.
I think finding someway to let them earn revenue for their likeness is the most obvious solution. If someone wants to by a Brian Butch or Kirk Penney jersey, give the kid a cut. Then your big time players (likely your one and dones), the guys that are putting butts in seats are seeing something out of the deal. Also video game money, which I am just guessing is somewhat significant, could be allocated 50% to the school and 50% to the players paid out as increased stipends.
Oh, I also disagree that all this backdoor money is happening as a standard. I would guess your top 5% of talented kids are seeing that kind of thing, it is the exception not the rule IMO
So a kid who isn't CLOSE to being at par on ACT/SAT scoring is going to have a 50-80 hour time commitment in season for the sport, has booster obligations, PR obligations (Children's hospitals, etc) and is expected to compete academically? Do you really believe it is worth $200,000 for the average basketball/football player to go to school for 4 years?
I think more than 5% of DIII students get illegal benefits. LOL at 5% of D1 athletes getting improper benefits.
I may have misunderstood your first point there, are you saying that all college athletes are idiots?
As for the 5%, I'm glad I made you laugh, but I think it gets into what kind of benefits are we talking about. I'm not talking about a free lunch or free tattoo, discount on shows, I'm talking about getting paid meaningful cash under the table. I'm sure you will think I am naive, but I have a hard time looking at the Wisconsin Badgers team and seeing who is paying Frank Kaminsky a bunch of money under the table. That said, I'm sure some programs are more rotten than others, Kentucky for instance.
Pretty sure you take a pay cut if you dont go in the first round coming out of Kentucky early.
Khris Middleton - Beating up on Trash Can Teams since 1943. Invisible Man status otherwise.
HurricaneKid wrote: I mean Cam Newton's dad was on tape asking for money, and the NCAA allowed him to play the entire season en route to an NCAA Championship. That was the end for me. The justification was that CAM himself never asked for the money, even though the rule was clearly stated as any family member.
Not sure if you are agreeing or misread me, but I'm saying that the NCAA absolutely won't be enforcing this **** going forward and agree with you.
Then the NCAA is at risk of the FBI blowing up their whole system they feed off now. I also don't see them losing their cash cow in the name of protecting this type of cheating. Just let the kids go pro and act as cleanly as possible and they're not at risk. As I've been trying to say, taking out 15-30 players from CBB is not going to reduce their income at all. Why risk the whole system for it?
College football is a lot more difficult, I have no ideas what to do about that. But chances are football will be dead in 20 years anyway so it'll solve itself.
If it's still a cash cow after implementing your plan, the incentive structure hasn't been disrupted at all. The competition for players will just shift to the best players who don't go pro. This has been going on since before the age limit was imposed.
Kerb Hohl wrote: Not sure if you are agreeing or misread me, but I'm saying that the NCAA absolutely won't be enforcing this **** going forward and agree with you.
Then the NCAA is at risk of the FBI blowing up their whole system they feed off now. I also don't see them losing their cash cow in the name of protecting this type of cheating. Just let the kids go pro and act as cleanly as possible and they're not at risk. As I've been trying to say, taking out 15-30 players from CBB is not going to reduce their income at all. Why risk the whole system for it?
College football is a lot more difficult, I have no ideas what to do about that. But chances are football will be dead in 20 years anyway so it'll solve itself.
If it's still a cash cow after implementing your plan, the incentive structure hasn't been disrupted at all. The competition for players will just shift to the best players who don't go pro. This has been going on since before the age limit was imposed.
yea none of us can know for sure. But as I've said multiple times here to this point, it might be totally different going forward. You're mentioning things like how it's been up til now, I totally see your potential issue since til now everyone has been operating assuming like there is literraly no repercussion. But things might/should be way different from here on out with what the FBI is doing and everything I've mentioned with enforcement and a big chunk of kids now free to just be pro. It might change everything. Of course I see how we could just have some BS for a bit and go right back to status quo, certainly possible and I see how we all probably should be pessimistic on the chances but I'd like to at least think it's legit possible to create an honest system going forward. But yea maybe I should be more pessimistic.
Anyway, like I said before it's an impossible to problem to solve. no one is wrong and I'm glad to have intelligent discussion like adults. We'll see how the next few months go, stuff could get real weird and we all could learn more about how deep this all goes.
Kelvin Sampson wants to "throw the book" at those involved in the scandal, which is hilariously ironic. I loved Sampson when he was here, but his time in the NCAA prior was - very obviously - littered with NCAA recruiting violations.
