This probably deserves it's own thread since it could change rules so drastically.

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/23311712/commission-college-basketball-shares-recommendations-ncaa ↗

Summary of it:
- Longer Bans and Harsher Penalties
- Possibility of no Freshmen getting playing time OR if a freshmen leaves after one season the school loses that scholarship for the next 3 years.
- Asks the NBA to create more avenues for top recruits.
- Want undrafted players to have the option to return to college.
- NCAA needs to take a more active role in the recruiting process
- Want Presidents of Universities to conduct a findings mission every season to make sure that coaches are all following rules.
- NCAA Certified Agents should be able to be in contact with the kids all through college.

@Buster-1926 Interested to see how they think that will work. Could only imagine the cost of it.

Moved my post to this new thread:

@BeddieKU23 In another leap by ESPN, they say the recent indictments included allegations about assistant coaches (true) including KU (not so fast, there, Bub).

I don't like the losing a scholarship for 3 years if your player goes after one season. Zaire Smith and Gilgeous-Alexander are examples of players who nobody could have guessed would be OAD players to start the season.

Not allowing Freshmen to play seems like it would hurt far too many teams. How could you even fill a roster if you had 5 seniors?

I do think the post season bans and coach penalties should all be much harsher.

I do like the undrafted players returning.

I do like certified agents being able to help the players figure out their decisions.

I do like presidents making sure the coaches are following rules.

I do agree players should not be paid a salary by the NCAA.

mayjay said:

Moved my post to this new thread:

@BeddieKU23 In another leap by ESPN, they say the recent indictments included allegations about assistant coaches (true) including KU (not so fast, there, Bub).

Saw that as well. Apparently the victim card isn't working too well for us

@Kcmatt7 Where are you seeing that Freshman would not be allowed to play? I have not seen that anywhere...

@Woodrow

"If a change is not made to one-and-done, Rice said the commission will look into options, such as making freshmen ineligible or locking a scholarship for three or four years if the recipient leaves a program after one year."

@Kcmatt7 Oh well that is pretty much irrelevant. There is going to be a change to the one and done. Most likely for the 2020 class.

@Kcmatt7 I agree with you on where if the kid leaves after his freshman season, the school could lose that schlorship for three years? I don't agree with that at all. Why should THE SCHOOL be penalized for this kid leaving after one year. - - They aren't the one that is telling the kid to leave- -he is making that decision - I'm sure if the schools had their way they would want the kid to stay longer - that just seems messed up to me.

The kid gets to leave after a year go to the NBA and start making money and the school gets penalized for him leaving - -what's wrong with that picture. - -ROCK CHALK ALL DAY LONG BABY

@Kcmatt7 Do you remember when Freshman weren't eligible long ago?- - - -ROCK CHALK ALL DAY LONG BABY

@jayballer73 I'm too young to remember that. BUT, I do know it existed.

I just don't know how you could do it to just men's basketball and not every other sport across the board.

@Woodrow Yea I do hope it is. Glad they are finally voicing that they would like to work with the NBA. Felt like they have been two organizations competing instead of two organizations helping each other.

https://theathletic.com/329073/2018/04/25/davis-the-commission-on-college-basketball-has-some-good-ideas-bold-not-so-much/ ↗

Here is a good article from Seth Davis on today's report.

The top 1% of college basketball needs all these people to solve a non problem. Typical of where our country is headed.....Tyranny of the Minority.

If you have "market value" in basketball, then go pro and test your skills in that market. Otherwise take advantage of an ACADEMIC scholarship and STFU.

@Kcmatt7 Well if they are trying to do away with the one and done , and if they don't comply or adapt the rule and talking about making Freshman ineligible? - Even if they do away with the one and done what if a kid that is right there on that one and done line is - -he still wants to attend school and then plays a year and then at the end of the year he still declares - -I mean in that scenario Freshman would be eligible - but kid comes to school even with the so called one and done no longer in play.

This kid comes a year for school and decides he wants to leave - and we still get screwed by losing the spot for 3 years

@jayballer73 Zhaire Smith and Shae Gilgious Alexander come to mind this season for sure.

I don't think Trae Young was looked at as a OAD to start the season.

Really seems like a raw deal for the school. I don't know that it would work.

And I don't know that you could really sit freshmen AND have today's transfer market both exist side by side. It may actually mean that fewer players would transfer.

I will admit, they are intriguing ideas to explore.

@Kcmatt7 It would be a raw deal for sure. I mean like you point out there are going to be those type of players -pretty good players - -they have a awesome Freshman year and then they decide to commit for the NBA. - Now tell me why a School should be penalized for that, as for when you recruited them the school not even thinking of them being a one and done - yet the kid goes to the NBA after one year and the school get's penalized for THREE ? -that just doesn't make any sense

I mean sure they want to do away with the one and done - - -great - - I have no problem with that. A kid wants to go straight to the NBA - - that's fine they feel like they got what it takes - -good for them. - -Yet to penalize a school for three years if a kid comes to that school and decides to leave after one year - - - COME ON

Kind of pointless as it turns out. The biggest idiocy was talking about regional camps, that would be a disaster.

The NCAA is corrupt.

I define "corruption" probably broader than most. It's more than just some guy taking bribe money in a dark alley.

The commission report exposed some of the obvious things to clean up college basketball. Why didn't the NCAA do some of those things earlier? That is corruption right there (in my book). Corruption is also the failure to execute the right path correctly.

So, by my definition, without any other info it seems obvious the NCAA is corrupt. And did they really have incentive to correct college basketball with lots of changes? Or... is it possible that they have received publicly-unknown mega benefits from various sources.... shoecos.... sports media... universities... ?

The only one I like is letting undrafted kids return. The glaring omission is letting kids make money on their own.

@Buster-1926 they don't get parking passes🛂

The best part of the report was the one about letting College Players enter the draft and come back to school if they go undrafted, retaining eligibility. This idea needs some work behind it- like deadlines for returning but I do think this was one of the best recommendations made for the kids.

I was a fan of harsher penalties for coaches and cheaters. This seemed to be aimed at the Rick Pitino's, Jim Boeheim's and others of the world as well as the assistant coaches that were caught up in the FBI sweep. Nothing will hit harder to coaches and administrations if the penalties are severe enough to make them think twice. As it was, there was no fear for them to do the right thing. This entire system revolved around good faith. The doors have fallen off that train. They will be unable to hop-skip-and-jump to their next payday somewhere else and keep this corruption going. I hope this is enforced and put in.

Other things in this report were a hot pile of garbage. The OAD rule is not the issue, it seems more of a headline piece to distract from other bigger issues. Kids should absolutely have the right to go to the NBA out of HS. There seems to be movement from the NBA according to league sources. 2020 draft could be the end as is being discussed. If the OAD rule is eliminated see ya later to the Top 20 or so prospects every year in the College Game.

Where in this report was their anything about Shoe Companies. Transparency? Oh that sounds so big. Wow give me a break. This report just slid right on by that big Pandora's Box. Of course the money tied to the NCAA with Shoe Companies and Universities is just too much to ruffle up.

At least the report called out the NCAA enforcement for being incompetent.

@Buster-1926 I'd be interested in that, but then what happens if a player transfers?

Or like Vick, by all appearances he was forced out by Self.

Your job doesn't make you pay for the temp they have to hire or the overtime someone else has to work when you quit.

Doesn't necessarily seem fair.

Well, since a free and open discussion is such a threat to humanity, that a thread gets locked, we better watch our step. We can't have lively debate?Too offensive. Too threatening. I wholeheartedly disagree with a number of the comments on the other thread, but in the entire discussion I never saw a "shut up" or "your opinion is worthless" or cursing. Further, I didn't see any name calling. Just good, hearty debate. We should not be scared or offended by that. It was directly related to CBB topic, and just because points or issues stray, I personally don't believe a thread should get shut down. But, @Bshark says "nope" so it's shut down. I guess those that don't want to participate can not simply click on other threads.

@HighEliteMajor I always miss the good ones.

Keep political talk on the political board. It's simple.

Or in some cases, the actual racist while dumping out old lies talk...

@BShark No, it's not that simple. Sometimes sports and politics mix. Meaning, issues that relate to a topic overlap. What is so offensive? Sometimes debate and discussion is uncomfortable. This is a topic with a lot of depth and a lot of implications. We should embrace the discussion. If a topic bleeds into the political end, then folks can avoid that thread. While discussions will stray, this was related to the CBB rules and it was being discussed in a much broader context. That shouldn't be shut down because it's uncomfortable.

For full disclosure: I am white.

If you don't think there are still general barriers in place I don't know what to tell you. You'll never see it otherwise. I'm not for anything like title 9 either. Everything should be based on merit but that may never happen, certainly not as long as old racists are in power. White people completely controlled America for the longest time and it still has an impact today. Only when all the old racist aholes have died off will there be more meaningful change, and we are getting there. In fact things are slowly headed in the right direction for homosexuality and transgenders, FINALLY.

@justanotherfan Brought up a great point about Lebron's friends. They now have successful businesses on their own merit. They however likely never would have had a real shot without Lebron's NBA/shoeco money to help get them going.

There is also so much delusion about the NCAA. People say it works, you say test the free market. The market is out there, it's just shady and underground with the shoe companies. So it's quite obvious kids have more value than a scholarship, regardless of what anyone thinks about it. Most kids or moreover someone related to them get paid, even though it won't come out in the report. If you are on scholarship on the KU hoops team you aren't hurting for money. Giving parents jobs, walk-ons with rich parents, guaranteed jobs after college... There are plenty of legal ways around not paying players directly.

@HighEliteMajor we should have moved it over to the political area once we got to that point. Out of respect for the board and those that come here to just talk hoops and get recruiting updates.

I didn't want the conversation to stop either, but I also didn't want it to continue where it was at.

Now we have tried to move it to another thread it doesn't belong instead of just starting a new thread to continue the conversation in the correct spot.

If you want to continue the conversation, feel free to start your own thread in the politics section. But please don't derail this thread. This one still has some talking points and others won't want to participate if it is full of political feelings.

Serious question: If kids are allowed to retain eligibility should they not get drafted, how is that going to affect recruiting new kids? Coaches already over-recruit to some degree anticipating departures. Seems like allowing a kid to come back will create more "force out" decisions to make room. So, is that really a better scenario? I suppose if logical deadlines are put in place it may not affect much, but I'd hate to see guys like Mitch forced out because a potential NBA-bound player didn't get drafted and decided to come back putting the roster over the limit.

@tis4tim It does seem like a tough problem. But I'm sure the coaches and players are honest with each other as the year goes on, there shouldn't be much of an issue.

If you lock scholarships for players that leave, you have to make scholarships a four year contract. Coaches can't push players out anymore. You can't pull scholarships unless a player becomes academically ineligible, though that also introduces oversight issues.

The findings of this commission will be incredibly difficult to implement without some significant changes to the NCAA structure. If the AAU structure goes away, you will see more players flowing to Prep schools because it is incredibly difficult to evaluate players against mediocre competition (that's why coaches go to AAU tournaments instead of lots of HS games - also easier because you can see six or seven guys in one day rather than just one).

The entire rulebook needs to be re-written to implement these recommendations. Basically this commission recommends a total re-set.

I am actually against letting the kids come back if they declare and do not get drafted. If they listen to the wrong people and and make a bad decision then that is on them. Guess what... That's life. This is just going to cause a cluster F when it comes to orchestrating rosters.

If you declare for the draft and do not get invited to the combine but still stay in then you are making a dumb decision. Not sure why they should be able to come back.

@Woodrow I really don't see how it is a cluster in that case. If the player is 99% to not get drafted and knows it but just leaves their name in because they can, I don't see the negative.

Especially if their camp and the coach are communicating throughout the process.

People in the "real world" don't have to quit their job everytime they take an interview. This is essentially the same thing. The applied and interviewed, just didn't get the job. Doesn't mean they should be forced to quit their current one.

@Kcmatt7 except they are getting information that is telling them if it is a good or bad decision to stay in the draft. Some guys don't listen or listen to the wrong people and that is on them.

I guarantee you there will be numerous players that are not invited to the combine and have no business staying in the draft, but will keep there name in it.

@justanotherfan I would be interested to hear how they think the logistics will work behind hosting their own tournaments.

Basically, they think if they don't let the coaches go to the AAU tournaments, that will end them.

I just think that is an oversimplification of it. They can just put in a little bit of extra money and broadcast these games to the coaches instead.

The Shoe Companies won't be fast to give up control of players they have invested money in already.

@Woodrow So what?

Again, if all the signs point to them not getting drafted, and the player and coach talked about how if he doesn't get drafted he will return, what is the issue?

Along tangential lines, here is a fairly simple proposal from the fairly simple mind of an avid fan. If a scholarship player transfers or departs for professional play prior to competing two years at a collegiate institution, he is legally bound to reimburse that institution the cost of his tuition, room, board and monthly personal stipends. That said, my dukes are down; lace em up and have at me.

@Woodrow How on earth is a 17 or 18 year old kid supposed to know who the right person to listen to is? Alleged "experts" miss on draft picks all the time. Why make a player's decision to trust someone who "misses" in a prediction so absolutely determinative of a kid's prospects? It is as if people deserve to be punished for not controlling what people around them are advising them. And obviously punishes the wrong people.

A better idea, in my view: If you declare but return because you are undrafted, you lose eligibilty for that calendar year and have to sit out until January. Coaches would have an incentive to keep a kid who could contribute, or get a potentially draftable recruit, and kids could still be a part of and benefit from their college experience. But while there would still be a consequence from declaring unwisely, enough to cause second thoughts by the player and any school considering him, it eliminates the stark harshness of losing all eligibility.

The declaring and returning with eligibility needs some work.

It could be as simple as a deadline that is implemented after the combine ends. Say kids have a 1-2 week interval to decide on staying in the draft or going back to College. Not all kids get accepted to the combine but you see others getting NBA workouts on the side. They could also put a hard date in around the time summer school starts as well to coincide with schools off-season priorities.

That way your not leaving coaches completely out to dry. We are seeing record transfers, HS kids reclassifying late into the summer etc that recruiting and adding players seems like a never ending cycle. Didn't Whitman come to KU on a Tuesday and leave by a Friday? Kidding of course but we see programs adding players at what used to be dead periods.

Things have changed, I don't think this particular change would be that difficult.

@REHawk The only problem I see is a player leaving for not one of the reasons you mentioned. Academics. Legal issues. Just quits and decides he doesn't want to play basketball. All kinds of things.

justanotherfan said:

If you lock scholarships for players that leave, you have to make scholarships a four year contract. Coaches can't push players out anymore. You can't pull scholarships unless a player becomes academically ineligible, though that also introduces oversight issues.

The findings of this commission will be incredibly difficult to implement without some significant changes to the NCAA structure. If the AAU structure goes away, you will see more players flowing to Prep schools because it is incredibly difficult to evaluate players against mediocre competition (that's why coaches go to AAU tournaments instead of lots of HS games - also easier because you can see six or seven guys in one day rather than just one).

The entire rulebook needs to be re-written to implement these recommendations. Basically this commission recommends a total re-set.

Locking scholarships seems like a bad idea for everyone involved.

I think many of the suggestions from the committee are basically impossible.

What if we converted scholarships to loans that get written off if a kid stays, say, 3 years? Kids going pro early get to pay them back through earnings.

And then athletes could have the extra special modern college normal experience of leaving school with crushing debt.

Ok, this needs refinement....

@BShark Well coming up with ideas that could actually be implemented would make it look like they were actually trying to change something.

They aren't going to risk driving money out of CBB. The NCAA makes 81% of their revenue from the March Carney. Ratings have only gone up since the OAD rule was put in place. I just don't believe that they ACTUALLY want to get rid of players who give them tons of hype year after year.

Kcmatt7 said:

@BShark Well coming up with ideas that could actually be implemented would make it look like they were actually trying to change something.

They aren't going to risk driving money out of CBB. The NCAA makes 81% of their revenue from the March Carney. Ratings have only gone up since the OAD rule was put in place. I just don't believe that they ACTUALLY want to get rid of players who give them tons of hype year after year.

Agree.

The most absurd idea to me was trying to do regional camps over the summer instead of AAU ball. It's already hard enough for coaches to see and evaluate everyone they want to. Something like that would lead to MORE transfers imo.

@BShark And I honestly wonder where they think they will get the money to do it.

@mayjay Kids should only listen to people with the NBAPA, their college coach, and NBA personnel. It is not anyone else's fault or problem if kids listen to people in their "circle" who tell them they are this and that and make a poor decision.

@Woodrow And if the coach is wrong?

@mayjay Who do you think coaches talk too? Do you not think coaches want what is best for the player? Self isn't out here giving players poor information. If coaches do that then they get burned in recruiting. This is not that difficult.

@Kcmatt7 After some deliberation on how these issues got so heated here, something I read in recently came to mind that makes our discussion kind of ironic:

One thing about the Commission that was criticized from its inception is that it was not charged with figuring out anything regarding the amateurism rules, or compensation to players. The image/likeness litigation is still being considered by courts, so the NCAA tied the Commission's hands on these issues.

So, we probably should not get too excited about the potential changes regarding $ we have been discussing because the NCAA won't be doing anything for years if ever.

@Woodrow But if the coach talks to the right people and a team which wants to hedge its bets says the guy is draft-worthy, certain in the 2nd round, and the kid declares, he should pay a penalty of forfeiting his college prospects because he listened to the right people and still got screwed? That makes no sense.

@Buster-1926 I’m not going to argue about this. There are far more things to be concerned with from waste of taxpayer funds from Universities than athletic scholarships. Or crushing 18 year olds for a major commitment. Much more of one than the average student.

I’m ok with making them pay it back I guess, but only if you take out at least $8.00/hr of the time they spent playing basketball.

I played baseball in college for a semester. Hated it. Hate the coach. Hated my teammates. Hated the school. Hated everything about it. It was completely different than what I was told it would be like by the coaches and players while I was being recruited. And unless you have ever been in that environment, you would never understand. Class is hard enough, putting a job that you absolutely hate on top of it kills you.

It isn’t the same as paying a car loan. It just isn’t.

Screw it. Make the players pay to play. Nope. Not far enough.

I say we enslave any kid that projects to be over 6’3 at birth and force them to play for our pleasure for free until they are worthless to us. In which case, we freeze their sperm to procreate more basketball slaves. Afterwards, we euthanize them, so we do not burden the tax payers.

hmmmm, seemed like pretty obvious hyperbole to me

@Buster-1926

An athletic scholarship is only a one year deal. That's why you see student athletes getting "squeezed out" all the time. Scholarships are not for four years. So if a student athlete honors their commitment for one year, they are not obligated to return the next year just like the school is not obligated to renew the scholarship for the following year. That is why I recommend that if some of these changes are adopted, the school is locked into that commitment as well.

So, is the "banned" thing with @Kcmatt7 real?

@Buster-1926 I'm confused as to what paying the school back for a scholarship solves? If anything, it furthur incentives someone to take money from an agent as they would have and immidiate debt of $30,000 at the end of their first year if they end up going to the draft. Maaaaaaaaybe it incentiveses them to stay in school a year longer, but then they are another year out of making money (even further incentivation to take money upfront from an agent).

Your rant about responsibility is a little extreeme as well. These kids have given their word that they will play for a school for a year. Not 4, a year. And 99% of them stay for the full season. If we had an issue where players were getting called up to play for an NBA team in the middle of the season and leaving their school, I could maybe get on board with you.

Also, taxpayer money has nothing to do with this situtuation so I don't know why that is being brought up. College basketball programs fund themselves.

HighEliteMajor said:

So, is the "banned" thing with @Kcmatt7 real?

He asked for a one month ban so he could take a breather. If he contacts any of the staff members before then and wants back it's a non-issue.

So...it's not really a real ban kinda.

@Buster-1926

I understand what you are saying, but the fact is that athletic scholarships (and the athletic department) are funded by donors, not taxes at the big schools. Perhaps for smaller schools it is different, but at the big schools, scholarships are funded by donations and the revenue from the athletic department itself.

The student athletes in revenue sports help pay back their scholarship value and then some over the course of their first season. The revenue generated by KU basketball is much more than the $390,000 (13 x $30,000) in scholarships for the team. In Fiscal Year 2014 basketball generated over $18M at KU. Basketball expenses were $8M. That figure includes scholarships and coaches salaries. The athletic department as a whole had a profit of roughly $7M. Football, as bad as KU football is, had a surplus of a shade over $8M as well.

So those two sports brought in over $16.5M above what it cost for FY14 and this proposal would ask any student athlete leaving early to pay back $30,000? If this were asked of a non-revenue student athlete who quit their team, I could maybe understand the financial reasoning. I can't here. Student athlete X comes to University Y and the basketball team rakes in over $8M above what is spent for that program. In KU's case, every player on the basketball team generated over 320% of what it cost to fund the entire basketball team's scholarships.

A payback program makes zero financial sense to recover any funds from revenue sports because every scholarship athlete in basketball, at least at KU, generates enough money to pay for the whole program's scholarships three times over. Every football player is worth about 9 athletic scholarships from a revenue generation standpoint.

And that's EVERY. SINGLE. YEAR. The athletic department isn't losing any money if a student athlete leaves after a year from a revenue sport because they have already made their investment back several times over.

Taking it to the business world, there was some debate a few weeks back about the frustration of bringing someone in, training them for a year and then having them leave.

I guarantee you this right now - every businessman here would absolutely hire and train a new person every year if they brought in 9 times their cost in revenue in a single year like KU football does, or 46 (forty-six) times their cost in revenue in a single year like KU basketball.

Businessmen would be falling over themselves to recruit these one year wonders. They would be wooing them year 'round. They would be flying them around the country to talk to these incredible people, meeting them in their homes, at their schools, calling them on the phone, sending text messages, following their social media, etc. You would probably need rules about some of that, though...

They would want to talk to their parents, their girlfriends, anybody that knew them. You would probably need rules about some of that, too, though...

They would be taking them to dinner at the finest restaurants, sending them all sorts of gifts. You would probably need rules against some of that so the gifts and dinners wouldn't get out of hand...

Even better if they only had to pay them room and board, and for their training. That would be quite a business model. I wonder why no one has thought of it yet. You could make a ton of money doing something like that... hmmm...

@Buster-1926

The University of Kansas is a public university, so this information actually is public record. Just google it and you should be able to find the information.

LMAO , oh our old dear sweet close boozing buddies from Kentucky just wettin themselves - moaning - -whining - -blubbering - -crying - -holler foul over the NCAA Commission Committee they formed lol. Here is what is being said after they found out that COACH SELF was going to be one of two active Coaches' on this 15 person that will work to create legislative change the other Coach being Phil Martelli - -here is what was being said - -you gotta love it:

1 : - - - Talk about the inmates running the asylum - - # 2 : - - - There goes any chance he or KU will be hit for the Adidas thing - - lmao - - # 3 : - -I'm moving Kansas in with UNCheat & Duke on the trinity of the untouchable those three have been dirty most of our lifetime - - Nothing will change - - & then # 4 :- - Maybe Sewlf is beyond reproach ( LMAO

made for some funny reading while having breakfast - -don't you just love these guys - - they're so cut lol.- -

Oh then if that didn't quinch your thirst for laughter for the day - you could always read their thread titled : what are we going to do about these refs that officiate our games roflmao - - -These guys need to stop - -my ribs can't take much more from laughing so hard. - - ROCK CHALK ALL DAY LONG BABY

@jayballer73 Don't hurt yourself laughing too hard. When you sue them for intentional infliction of emotional distress, they will just send a jug of bad-batch moonshine.

@justanotherfan

Even better if they only had to pay them room and board, and for their training. That would be quite a business model. I wonder why no one has thought of it yet. You could make a ton of money doing something like that… hmmm…

The reason no one uses that model is because it exist in fantasy-land. Your numbers and assumptions are so far off reality that indicate you have never run a business yourself and really have no idea how income is generated or the concept of overhead. You remind me of this professor...

https://m. ↗

@JayHawkFanToo

I guess I should have indicated those paragraphs were written sarcastically.

@justanotherfan On internet boards, the ability to recognize satirical, sarcastic, and sardonic comments is inversely proportional to the urgent need to insult.

@justanotherfan

Are you saying your entire post was sarcasm? It sure does not read that way.

HighEliteMajor said:

@BShark No, it's not that simple. Sometimes sports and politics mix. Meaning, issues that relate to a topic overlap. What is so offensive? Sometimes debate and discussion is uncomfortable. This is a topic with a lot of depth and a lot of implications. We should embrace the discussion. If a topic bleeds into the political end, then folks can avoid that thread. While discussions will stray, this was related to the CBB rules and it was being discussed in a much broader context. That shouldn't be shut down because it's uncomfortable.

PHOF

I would even go farther: sports and politics are as inseparable as business and politics and war and politics.

Organized amateur sport largely exists to condition and order society to service of the oligarchy that has ordered our country, since the 1890s, and that President Carter has identified as having finally replaced our republic with an oligarchy.

Amateur sport is both sport and a political policy of social engineering a free and independent and self-governing nation to accept authoritarian organizational activities.

I disagree. I have absolutely no problem keeping politics, war, religion, or anything of significanct meaning completely seperate from my sports entertainment. Politics don’t even cross my mind until someone else brings it up during sporting events. I believe many people are the same way, it’s an escape - declining viewership numbers in the NFL support the - leave politics out of sports model.

Furthermore there is a politics section of this very site for that explicit reason. If you feel the need to politicize your sports post please do it there, where people will appreciate your efforts. Putting such posts in the general sports section irritates 1/2 the people, makes 1/4 of the people ashamed to be in the same political party, 1/4 of the people grab pitchforks to join in and it devolves from there.

Did you see that Democrat destroy the rim on the Republican trying to hold down the paint?

The flying liberal dunked all over the fundamentally sound conservative.

The raging righty tomahawked on the limp lefty.

Just silly satire.

Okay, so I guess I need to clear up one of my previous posts.

First, you can find the Financial statements for the KU Athletic Department Online ↗. It's required reporting. These financial statements are audited, so any funny business would be unethical and potentially illegal.

Second, the first part of my post was serious. I was laying out the case for why paying back scholarships made no financial sense for revenue sports (football and mens hoops). The first five paragraphs address that.

The last six paragraphs (starting with "Taking it to the business world") were me being sarcastic by basically comparing college hoops and recruiting to a business. Basically saying that businesses would recruit OAD's if they were that valuable, similar to how college basketball coaches recruit these highly talented players even knowing that they will not be around long because they are so valuable.

It's a market argument. The market says the best players are valuable to the university even if they stay only one year because they improve the on court product. And their value is so high that even if they leave, they are worth more than their scholarship.

Remember, each conference receives money based on each win ↗. So if an OAD helps a team make the tournament (oh, hi there Trae Young) he's worth his scholarship right there.

Getting to the tournament and winning even one game (shout out to Collin Sexton)? Probably pays for the entire roster's scholarships. Trae Young nets the Big 12 $273,00 each year for the next six years for getting OU into the dance. Sexton gets the SEC twice that (two units, since Bama made the tourney and won a game).

Young was worth a full scholarship to OU this year (money in the Big 12 gets split up among the schools), plus a full scholarship every year for the next five years after that just because he got OU into the tourney. Sexton was worth twice that.

Why should those guys pay a penny back to those universities? We know that neither OU or Bama makes the tournament without Young or Sexton. And that ignores the additional ticket sale revenue those guys brought in.

@dylans

I think people want to keep politics they disagree with out of sports. That's from both sides.

@dylans That is applicable to 95% of the threads. The CBB rules thread was a different animal. Heck, it even inspired a "black power" avatar. Which at least makes me chuckle.

@HighEliteMajor That thread took a wild swing after a certain post that ended up in polical name calling that I'm not in the least bit proud of. Personally I wouldn't have locked it, but certainly would've moved it to the politics section and ignored the heck out of it.

@dylans The reality is that the CBB rules issue is a distinctly political one. It simply cannot be avoided. It brings out the political perspectives because it is one's political perspective that colors one's view on the business, ownership, capitalism, athlete (pro and amateur), fairness, laws, rules, enforcement, justice, etc. I don't know how we avoid it on the CBB rules topic.

dylans said:

I disagree. I have absolutely no problem keeping politics, war, religion, or anything of significanct meaning completely seperate from my sports entertainment. Politics don’t even cross my mind until someone else brings it up during sporting events. I believe many people are the same way, it’s an escape - declining viewership numbers in the NFL support the - leave politics out of sports model.

Furthermore there is a politics section of this very site for that explicit reason. If you feel the need to politicize your sports post please do it there, where people will appreciate your efforts. Putting such posts in the general sports section irritates 1/2 the people, makes 1/4 of the people ashamed to be in the same political party, 1/4 of the people grab pitchforks to join in and it devolves from there.

————————

I don’t have a philosophical problem with separating them, or with keeping them together. I just cannot figure out how to separate them without implying endorsement of the status quo, which appears in need of cleaning up and reinstitution based on more sensible principles.

You are the one with the technical and feasibility problem. How do you separate them in a way that does not endorse the status quo of their implied legacy of togetherness. Its up to you to figure out how to separate them the way you like them with out endorsing the implied status quo. I don’t know how you can do it. I haven’t seen you do it yet, but maybe you will figure out how someday and share it with us.

Until then, your separation is endorsement of the implied status quo unity of sport and politics. And that’s a most troubling endorsement IMHO.

@dylans

P.S.: I still don’t grasp red-blooded Americans fears about political discourse related to any subject. All activities have political dimensions, whether we speak of them, or not. Why ghettoize free speech about the political dimension of any field.? Why exempt the implied political status quo in any field from discourse? Don’t get this fear at all.

@jaybate-1.0 not fear, I just find it distasteful and disrespect to bring up politics in a place it’s been requested not to, while technicially being a politician. I also do not like having religion shoved down my throat, but go to church. And yes, I can tie God to everything just as easily as politics.

Every political thread I’ve read on here has devolved to name calling and we lose members. I’m sick of losing KU fans to polarized politics.

Furthermore, I’ve never banned a poster, deleted a post, or kicked a thread over politics. I may not care for it, but unless it gets personal all I’ll do is move the thread to where it belongs, in the politics thread. Pretty simple.

@jaybate-1.0 As long as we’re airing things out I’ve despised all the shoe co talk for years. It’s not against the forum rules, so I don’t take offense. I just skim and skip.

@dylans

Based on your post, I reckon you will probably just skim over the following and not really take it in, but I will throw it out there just the same, as it may be read and taken in by some others.

FYI, I'm not airing things here, but its okay with me if you are in "airing" mode. While you are airing, I am just opining on sports, politics of sports, and making a few fan comments in response to a thread I did not start. I've been away for awhile.

Next, I find (and have found) it a little distasteful and disrespectful that you have appeared to endorse the status quo the FBI is reputedly investigating by the discourse you have apparently chosen to engage in and apparently chosen NOT to engage in. The portion that you have refrained from; i.e., the portion that you find distasteful and disrespectful, seems to imply a tolerance of at least some of the current politics of sports; this seems distasteful and disrespectful on your part.

Next, congratulations on not banning someone; that's what the country has come to--I feel obligated to praise someone for tolerance of allowing others to write about what matters to them. Regardless, kudos to you for resisting the temptation to ban discourse.

Next, I guess there's no accounting for taste. To reiterate, I find it somewhat distasteful and disrespectful, and maybe even a little disingenuous of some others (not you in particular), generally, to ignore the political dimensions of sport affiliated with public universities and involving the exploitation/education of young men and women--especially in regards to distributions of certain kinds of players reputedly based on reputed petroshoeco-agency complex dynamics.

I notice you couch the politics of sport in Democratic and Republican terms, which may be sufficient for you to feel distaste and disrespect, but seems reductive to me. FWIW I view the politics (maybe Legal-Political dimensions would be a better term) of sport in broader terms than Democrats and Republicans. To me, sport has a politics all its own that may be discussed. And then on top of that, or rather, insinuated into that politics of sports, appear to be the politics of Democrat and Republican, right and left, neocon/neolib vs. traditional Republicans and Democrats, bureaucratic politics of public education at Federal and State levels, grant politics, foundation politics, political economy involving infrastructure and research pork, racial politics, and politics of militarism, etc. I notice some or all of these aspects of politics impacting on sport and from time to time pushing college sports this way, or that, and impacting not only the game of basketball that I love, but also college sports more broadly, the university that I respect, and the young men and women student-athletes that I feel require not only cheering, but also some vigilant protection and advocacy for about what they are reputedly being subjected to based on the peculiarities of the institution of amateurism; an institution that is, I believe, fraught with potential for improper exploitation of these young men and women. I came to believe this way after reading a number of books on the subject, and after reading former director of the NCAA, Walter Byers, damning criticism of amateurism after he retired. I am not a sworn enemy of amateurism, but I believe it needs reform and vastly more oversight in order to protect the student-athletes from what has reputedly been going on apparently for a long, long time.

Since 1990, at least, when the late Indiana University Professor Murray Sperber published "College Sports, Inc.: the Athletic Department vs. The University," it has likely been clear to some of those that read the book that sports was either already engulfed (or in imminent danger of being so) not only by the traditional corruption that had long plagued it, but by a risk of back door access offered by private not for profit athletic departments capable of being exploited by oligarchs, and would be oligarchs, seeking to gain influence in the university, the regents, and the state government in agenda driven pursuit of benefits from playing the political economy game, among other things. This was not my insight. This was Professor Sperber's apparent concern. He was doing some anticipating and forecasting of where the existing problems he had documented at length might lead. In retrospect, the good professor appears to have had a serviceable crystal ball and some Windex.

Regardless, I suspect where we can agree on this stuff is this: we would both have preferred to have been fans over the years of a Division 1, where apparent petroshoeco-agency complexes did not apparently influence distributions of certain kinds of players with cash payments, as reputedly alleged by the FBI, to say nothing of other long reputed phenomena.

To you, to discuss the apparent existence of this political dimensions of sport reputedly being investigated by the FBI, and likely others beyond the scope of the FBI investigation, apparently seems distasteful and disrespectful.

To me, failure to discuss the apparent existence of this political dimension of sport reputedly being investigated by the FBI, and likely other dimensions beyond the scope of the FBI investigation, seems distasteful and disrespectful.

Again, I guess there is no accounting for taste.

But I am glad you took the time to respond.

I always enjoy hearing from you.

@jaybate-1.0 You can feel free to discuss it all you’d like in the appropriate section. I don’t find politics distasteful or disrespectful in the least bit, where it’s welcome. I find people’s inability to follow the very simple forum rules that are in place to insure polite discourse to be the issue and frankly quiet rude.

I’m not for censorship, but things have their place.

To be clear I completely read and usually enjoy all of your posts that relate to basketball on the court. I simply skip the more creative posts on shoe co stuff, politics, poems, and war. Many enjoy the posts so I hope they keep coming in the appropriate sections.

@HighEliteMajor http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/23434636/former-duke-basketball-star-wendell-carter-mother-likens-ncaa-system-slavery ↗

Goodness. Everything is racist and akin to slavery. Barf.

@BShark So, I saw that article today but given the back and forth, the “politics” vs “basketball”, I didn’t post it. But man, that’s some good stuff.

chriz said:

Goodness. Everything is racist and akin to slavery. Barf.

Agree it's stupid to draw that parallel. Just a charged word for no reason tbh.