BShark said:
Bill needs to start recruiting bigs that can shoot.
He did. One plays for the other team. And Wilson just isn’t ready.
Kcmatt7
11050 posts
Hard to believe we looked this bad not starting a single freshman.
Have to be smarter and shoot 3s better. It is that simple. Athleticism isn’t the issue.
We’re to veteran of a team to look this shitty against a team this young
At the game.
The turnovers are just absurd. Should be winning by double digits
Woodrow said:
Why is everyone so against that Matheny hire? I do not really follow baseball nearly as close as other sports so I am just curious why the uproar over this... He did really well in STL winning .555 % of his games and went to a WS the year they lost Pujos. I was listening to Soren earlier today and his take was "what did you expect"??
@Kcmatt7 I agree on the pricing. I used to go to a lot of games and they were fun. I was lucky enough to go to a couple WS games in 2015, but after that run they raised prices on everything and its absurd what it cost to go and have a night out especially now with the product they are putting on the field.
Here is a quote from a Ringer article about him:
"Matheny won despite being widely regarded as the league’s worst tactician."
To top it off, he's very "old school." He wants a team that's all gritty players. Which, typically aren't going to be your 20-something-year old rookies who are trying to develop and are a bit in over their heads. He's the type of guy manager that is going to mentally break some guys because he's just an asshole.
Matheny could manage the Yankees to a WS and bring some toughness and an edge to a group like that. I think he's probably great for a ball club right on the cusp that needs an identity. I do not think he is the right hire to develop a group of young players that will be mentally fragile during their first season or two.
But that's my opinion. I really liked Grifol though too, so I'm probably biased just from that. He would have been my first choice by far.
But also Matheny was not a good hire. And Dayton pretending to have gone into this with an open mind is also funny.
I expect neither Matheny nor Dayton to be with the Royals after this season anyways though, so I could care less honestly.
justanotherfan said:
The Cardinals ran Matheny out of town because he was not having success developing their young players. What do the Royals have? A bunch of young up and coming players. This was not well thought out.
This was the first year in almost fifteen years that I had not attended a Royals game. Next year may be the second in a row.
They're starting to price themselves out of Kansas City.
I like to go to 5 or 6 games a year.
I went to one game this year where I bought tickets for me and the future wifey. We spent $60. We got the cheapest parking (sometimes online you can get parking for like $8-10), the cheapest seats ($12 each) and each got a beer ($12 each).
We didn't go to another game until I got free tickets with free parking toward the end of the season.
HighEliteMajor said:
@bskeet Right, "Trump attacks media, rants about claimed bias" OR "Trump champions impartial, fact based reporting"
We get 95% the former in the mainstream media, and 5% the latter.
This fake news is no different. Except that we all recognize this as "fake."
Snorts from laughter*
Yes, Trump is the champion of honesty and transparency.
BShark said:
mayjay said:
But, but....socialism and stuff!
It's so ridiculous that these peasants don't want to have to spend all they have for medical care. RIDICULOUS I SAY!!!
Signed, big pharma billionaires
If you were to draw a venn diagram of the people who believe that a Purple Heart recipient was a Ukranian Double Agent and the people who think this will ruin CBB, you'd just have a circle.
Imagine a Netflix for American Sports. $50-75/mo, all the sports you could watch. NFL, NHL, MLB, MLS, NCAA, UFC, NBA.
YES (Yankess network) Has 14M subscribers.
Longhorn Network has 7M subscribers.
SEC Network claims to reach 69M homes.
So it's not out of the question to think that an all sports streaming package could fetch 100M subscribers world-wide. And that it would be worth anywhere from $50-$75 a month. Which would generate something between $60-90B of revenue in total.
Let's go high end. $90B. Say you give NFL $25B of the 90B. And then you give $15B to the NBA, NHL and MLB each. UFC can take 1.5B. MLS can have $3B. The rest goes to the NCAA schools. At 15B remaining, that would be like $30M+ a school AND the NCAA could still keep like a Billion for DII and DIII competitions.
Low end still has significant revenue growth for all sports.
So I don't really worry about sports ever losing income really. People will pay to watch live sports.
I actually think that streaming will make sports leagues even more money long after cable is out of business. Either from starting their own platform or bidding things out to HULU/Netflix/Prime/Apple/Disney/Sling.
I do not expect live sports to ever have an issue fetching absurd amounts of money for their broadcasting rights.
wissox said:
@jayballer73 Didn't look like a decent crowd to me. Box score says 31,000. Exciting though none the less.
Compared to previous years, a much better crowd. It’s not full, no. But it’s slowly growing.
There were games a few years ago that you’d be lucky to see 10k.
I’d say there were legitimately 20k or more yesterday.
kjayhawks said:
@Kcmatt7 I'm not sure why you would say we didnt deserve it. The first block kick should've been a penalty be the guy was clearly on someone's back. The announcers pointed it out plain as day in the replay on TV. The defense rose up to the challenge and got big stops. We had more yards in less plays. I hate to be a dick but why didnt we deserve that one?
Outside of the long TDs, it took until late in the game to actually move the ball. 1st half offense was a joke outside of the two big plays.
Top it off with the lucky recover fumble...
I could get into it more, but I thought the win had more to do with a terrible game plan with no adjustments by Techs D than I did us executing. They were predictable and refused to make adjustments. Good job by Dearmon and Stanley to pick them apart though.
Unreal win. Went to the game. Last week we deserved it. This week we didn’t.
But proof the program absolutely is legit. Competing like this two weeks in a row has been a treat.
FarmerJayhawk said:
And then there’s this. Why do we associate ourselves with this trash? 🐦 View Tweet
This made me die laughing.
BShark said:
Dave isn't going to rs because he isn't a five year guy. Fact of the matter is we have 3 centers on d and Mitch is a center on offense.
This.
And Silvio is athletic enough to guard a stretch 4 if he is engaged. I personally think the reason we can't guard the 3 is our system is just too help-oriented. It's a Bill philosophy thing more than being incapable of doing it.
BeddieKU23 said:
Enaruna has to play this yr you cant teach that length
Try to get him minutes and see if he can get going. But I think he needs a year. (I love basing all of this off of one game lol).
Yep. He’s gonna be the guy everyone hates...
“It’s pronounced BROWN not BRON.”
Woodrow said:
I saw a couple college basketball writers that said if a transfer can get the school they are leaving to help with the transfer as in they are saying it’s in good faith kids are getting cleared to play.
Seems fair. No reason a player should have to sit out if they were basically kicked off of a team, imo.
Snoop apparently didn't bother the Thompson family...
I'd imagine landing Bryce would send a message to the rest of the College Basketball World that Bill isn't leaving.
Woodrow said:
@Kcmatt7 as has been said by multiple people KU basketball doesn’t need national exposure. They don’t need to play Mizzou. This game is going to do far more for Mizzou basketball then it does for Ku basketball. It will get ESPN game day talking about them giving them exposure that they would not have had without this game.
What does KU the program gain from this??
Mizzou sucks at basketball. So everyone saying it is better than playing XYZ school is it really? This isn’t going to bolster KU resume for the tournament.
I watch every single KU game so I am not going to circle this game. I look forward to playing Duke, UK, Villanova, Sparty, etc... will I watch the game sure like I said I watch all of them.
But what is the downside for KU?
The argument against this game from everyone is that it helps Mizzou.
How does it hurt KU?
BShark said:
Money is something to gain. If BMDs hated it they could have donated a lot to prevent it.
I'm all for it honestly.
I'd imagine significant amounts of money for just one game too...
Between Williams Fund donations increasing, season ticket price increases, TV rights, and whatever else they can sneak in, we're talking probably over $1M for just one game for each team.
Woodrow said:
Kcmatt7 said:
Woodrow said:
@Kcmatt7 What does KU gain from this? Sure it is great for some of the fanbase that want to see the game played, but there are a lot of fans that do not.
Mizzou is irrelevant in the KC Metro area now that they are in the SEC. This game changes that. Also, there program is never talked about nationally and very rarely on national TV. This game changes that. I just fail to see how this game does anything for the KU program. It is not even arguable that this game does FAR more for Mizzou than it does for KU.
Mizzou being "irrelevant in the "Metro Area" is laughable and one of the weirdest false claims people seem to be making. It's like they don't even venture East of state line. Mizzou is still well represented in KC...
One game a season is not going to change Mizzou's national status in basketball. Even if it is nationally televised.
Not playing our biggest rival every single season is stupid. It's what makes college sports more fun.
Who cares if someone gets more gain than the other? Are we actually so petty that we're going to hold a grudge for forever and ruin one of the best sports rivalries that exist?
Do you listen to sports talk Radio? How often do you hear Mizzou discussed compared to KU and KSU. It is not even close. It is not a false claim at all. I am out and about all the time in KC and I don't hardly ever see or hear people talking about Mizzou.
It is plain and simple really. KU as a program gains literally nothing from playing this game. You as a KU fan might, but not the program.
Mizzou is always going to be apart of the city. It is the premier college in Missouri far and away. To think otherwise is silly. They will ALWAYS have a base of alumni in KC because of this.
If tons of money and extra exposure are literally nothing, than sure, KU gains literally nothing.
But I think you (and others) are blowing this WAY out of proportion. It is a single game a season against a program we have notoriously dominated.
Can you tell me what you see as the downside of this? Because I guess that's what I'm not seeing... KU is a program built on tradition. Nothing about 1 game a season is going to change that.
Woodrow said:
@Kcmatt7 What does KU gain from this? Sure it is great for some of the fanbase that want to see the game played, but there are a lot of fans that do not.
Mizzou is irrelevant in the KC Metro area now that they are in the SEC. This game changes that. Also, there program is never talked about nationally and very rarely on national TV. This game changes that. I just fail to see how this game does anything for the KU program. It is not even arguable that this game does FAR more for Mizzou than it does for KU.
Mizzou being "irrelevant in the "Metro Area" is laughable and one of the weirdest false claims people seem to be making. It's like they don't even venture East of state line. Mizzou is still well represented in KC...
One game a season is not going to change Mizzou's national status in basketball. Even if it is nationally televised.
Not playing our biggest rival every single season is stupid. It's what makes college sports more fun.
Who cares if someone gets more gain than the other? Are we actually so petty that we're going to hold a grudge for forever and ruin one of the best sports rivalries that exist?
I do think this may be a ploy to increase demand for season tickets which ultimately ends up increasing donations for better tickets.
I know demand is down because they were selling them this year without even a Williams Fund Membership at all.
There is a reason they did this now.
I mean we have to fill a schedule and you can’t recreate this type of atmosphere. “Nothing to gain” doesn’t make sense to me.
This game preps our guys for the tournament as much as any.0
I’m so pumped. I can’t wait for people to lose their minds. People got pissed about a charity game that raised over $1M lol.
Bill didn't have much of a choice but to play Q and hope he figured it out. That team wasn't going to a FF unless Grimes had a Newman like finish to the season.
I don't think Garrett is a PG either.
Many times people have brought it up. But if he showed any inclination of being an actual PG, he'd have played it at some point. It's not like we haven't had a shortage at that position since he's been here. DG didn't have a backup and neither did Dotson.
Now, if we have to go that route because Harris isn't ready, that's a good question as to how that changes things. Likely, I think it means we would end up speeding up the tempo and try and get as many baskets in transition as possible. This way you don't have to get into a halfcourt game.
I don't see Bill leaving.
But if he did, Tony Bennett and it isn't even close in my book.
His buyout is only $750,000 I believe. He's proven he can win a NC and did it at a 2nd tier ACC school. He appears to be able to recruit. He seems charismatic. He seems like a great human. He's only 50, so it's likely you'd get him for 10-15 years. Which is all you can really expect. He doesn't have an Alma-Mater that would be in competition.
He might not take the job, but he's easily the number one candidate without question. His wife is from North Carolina (I think), so I could see them not wanting to move.
I do not see Chris Beard leaving the state of Texas, but he's 1B and I could understand anyone arguing for him as well.
After watching what Indiana and UCLA have been through in coaching searches, I just don't know how anyone could be advocating for Bill to leave. I know we are KU, but I fear a coaching search, especially one that would come while we could be sitting out of the tournament for a year or two. It seems like that would be a very poor decision. We know Bill will get the ship back on course. And we should allow him to do that and pass this program over to someone when it's in good standing.
He is going to be our Matt McQuaid. Everyone else wants to punch him in the face, but we're going to love him.
If these are the only two choices, it's option 1 all day every day. Banners fly forever.
If you change option 2 to Self gets to stay, then the decision becomes a lot more difficult.
approxinfinity said:
Fought their ass off to win the wildcard. Scrapping with the Dodgers now. Match up well. Feel free to root for them with me!
I have money on the dodgers. Sorry approx
justanotherfan said:
Rotating home dates would be a nightmare logistically. You could end up with a situation where you would go literally a month or two without having games in a certain "home" base. It would be more expensive in the long run because you would need two or three sets of staffing infrastructure instead of just one.
On top of that, I doubt many players would want to do that. Most at least have apartments in their "home" city, even if they don't live there year round. If you had two or three "home" cities, You're basically living in hotels through the entire season.
Well most parks are actually ran by 3rd party vendors. So I don't see that as an issue. Especially if you did it in places that already had the infrastructure in place. Security and concessions are for sure contracted out.
The issue is definitely the Player's Association being okay with it. I think they would be if it meant significantly more revenue for small market teams. It would mean higher contracts across the board.
Even if it was somewhat more expensive to run, I'd imagine the additional attendance, merchandise sales and TV revenue would far exceed any additional costs.
BShark said:
Probably part of why McBride left.
love the new avatar
HighEliteMajor said:
As I've pointed out, the NCAA does nothing significant to restrict competition. I mentioned yesterday that they don't engage in monopolistic activity like acquiring other sports entities (or one that could be directly applicable, using threats that they won't rent arena space if arenas rent to other leagues). And they don't have the purpose of "high prices." In fact, their events are very reasonably priced in most every instance. Some even free like lower level events.
They own a monopoly over the schools themselves. They have basically already acquired every single public 4-year university in the country.
The only competition that the NCAA has in the world of College Athletics is the NAIA, and that's made entirely of private institutions. That is it. And the NCAA could buy them tomorrow if they wanted to.
Schools are no longer voluntarily NCAA members. In order to leave, a public institution would have to get approval from their board of regents. Which they never would get.
So the schools have no where to go, and the NCAA can make up whatever rules it wants, fines it wants, strip whatever wins, and the schools have nothing they can do about it.
Their business is derived completely from fans of member institutions, institutions that have nowhere to go. That is exactly what a monopoly is.
HighEliteMajor said:
@FarmerJayhawk Should be paid based on a poll is in a different universe vs. exerting one's leverage, walking out. Funny, really. A poll to ask if someone should be paid. "Question - do you want free money? Yes or no?" I say yes. Heck, how do 29% say no? Sounds like some campaigns right now -- free money. But the deal the athletes get is too good. The players can demand whatever they want. But a "work stoppage" makes no sense economically for the masses of athletes. So it hasn't. All to my points.
But great point on federal legislation. If Congress sees this as important, federally, I support that approach. I may disagree with the legislation, but as far as process, I think you've ID'd the much better approach than piece-meal state-by-state. Normally, I like state's deciding their own issues but this is a national deal.
@bskeet @Kcmatt7 Ok, well it's clearly not a monopoly. You do see the NBA, MLB, and NFL. You've seen the d-league, the g-league, AAF, XFL, USFL, minor league baseball, independent league ball. There are thousands of stadiums and arenas in the country. The NCAA does NOTHING to stamp out competition. They don't acquire businesses. I'm sorry, again, it might sound good when it's said, but when you examine it, not so much.
I actually think you're looking at this from the wrong perspective. That isn't how the NCAA has a monopoly. Not from a players standpoint. It's from a school standpoint.
Let's say the Top 50 most profitable schools in the country wanted to get together and start a league.
If KU were invited to this and wanted to leave (correct me if I'm wrong) they'd have to get approval from the Kansas Board of Regents. However, it would be almost impossible to get approval because it would mean that KSU, WSU, ESU, and Washburn would all be left out to dry because the NCAA's income would drastically decrease with the formation of this new league. Therefore, at this point, there really is no way for KU to leave the NCAA even if they wanted to. Same for basically every other State and Public Institution.
This inability to leave is how they have a monopoly. The NCAA can create their own rules and they face no competition because the schools have nowhere to go if they don't like a rule. KU can't become an NFL or MLB or XFL or NBA franchise. KU couldn't even get approval to join the NAIA from the Board of Regents, the only other governing body for college athletics at the moment. There is nowhere for KU to go. There is no competition for the NCAA.
That is how the NCAA has a monopoly.
Gorilla72 said:
I’ve been pondering this and think it gives a major benefit to schools in big markets who can well afford to pay athletes for advertising their products, for signings, for camps , for appearing in TV ads or endorsements. The list is long.
Is there any reason “Big Money” wouldn’t change the dynamics of recruiting? Would schools in smaller towns be outbid by schools in bigger towns simply due more $$$ resources? Will this turn into a bidding war for 4 and 5 talent? If the better players get more money in LA, Houston, New York, etc, I’d think they may want to go there (coaching ability be dam#ed).
Or vice versa. There is overkill in Big Markets and you're competing for advertising dollars with pro athletes.
It could make you flock to Aimes, Iowa because you'd be a big fish in a small pond.
bskeet said:
HighEliteMajor said:
@FarmerJayhawk Who's asking for the raise? That question really defines this discussion. I see no protests, I see no mass of athletes asking for a raise, I see nothing like that. What I hear and see is a politically driven agenda that is based on the false narrative of the inner city black athlete being exploited. That's what's driving this entire thing.
And don't mistake the market. The "market" is not internal, or inside the NCAA. It's outside the NCAA. It's an entirely free market outside the NCAA. Anyone can compete for the players' services. You, me, anyone. When you intrude inside the NCAA, telling a business association what they can and can't do, it's more Marx.
HEM, with all due respect, I don't see an "entirely free market" with regard to amateur athletes. To the contrary, the NCAA appears to be a monopoly to me.
It's not a monopoly... They are just a harmless ole non-profit organization that controls the athletics department of every single major college in the country and have the power to literally make up their own rules with no repercussions or competition whatsoever.
But they're not a monopoly...
bskeet said:
Slavery was a good business model too.
A business model that exploits human beings would be unconstitutional.
I think that may be the case with the NCAA. That's a good reason to change the rules.
Of course, it could take a very long time for this to run through the courts and for the courts to determine for or against that fact.
Don't forget the early 1900s. Imagine where this country would be without all of that "Social Justice Garbage."
I mean, what a bunch of f-ing p*ssies. Didn't they know retirement is for the dead? Which, conveniently, came earlier back then because of all of the health care that didn't exist and the sick days you didn't get. At least 16 hour days led to major profits. Well, until the 1930s. But that obviously wasn't because they let businesses do whatever they want and the economy collapsed under it's own weight and the majority of the workforce was left unprotected and literally out on the streets.
We only had to enact major worker's rights, pass enormous oversight legislation, develop the largest social program to date and partake in a war that saw 80M fatalities to come out of it. Really not a big deal. Certainly no lesson to be learned in any of that. No siree.
HighEliteMajor said:
@Kcmatt7 You said, "Players add value, and I cannot find one major reason why we should keep them from capturing it."
One MAJOR reason - The players don't own the NCAA or the colleges. That's about as major as it gets. The same reason I can't come and sleep in your house -- you OWN it. But that doesn't matter to you or others. You ignore the obvious, most important consideration in our economy. OWNERS MAKE RULES ON PRODUCTS THEY OWN. It doesn't matter that the players don't OWN the product to you. Your mindset continues to be, take what others have created. It's the same mindset of those wanting to pay McDonald's employees $15 an hour when anyone can do the job (ignoring the market value of the services). But more importantly, you and others (on a certain side of the political isle) devalue ownership of business, risk, investment, creation of product, etc. It's as if because it has been created, it should be shared. Why is this continually ignored by posters? Because it is an undeniable yet inconvenient truth. Or, more easy, because life is unfair.
The school owns the brand and infrastructure and provide an amazing platform. Conceded.
They do not own the player.
I have NEVER argued that the school should share their profit. Ever. Not once. The schools own their brands and their infrastructure.
But the players are not products. They are participants just like anyone else who goes to work. Once you do your job, your time is then yours.
So, in their own free time, they should not be prevented from earning other income providing it is legal (not throwing games, or that sort of criminal behavior). Any other job on the planet would allow you to do this so long as you are performing your duties, there is no clear conflict of interest, and you don't negatively effect the company's image (Doing an advertisement for a Porn Company. Illicit Tweets. Etc).
There is very little risk here for the brands. If anything, it increases their exposure. It helps them grow the brand. It's the same reason that Pro contracts have forced Media Time in all of them. The more access available the more it helps the brand. Do you think the Chiefs are worried about what commercial Pat Mahomes is going to do? No. they're pumped he's on TV in a Chiefs uniform 5 commercials in a row.
If the NCAA wasn't against this, the schools would not care. I guarantee it. You know how I know? Because the other 30,000 kids that go to school there are free to do what they want. Because they don't have academic scholarship winners sign anything that says they can't make any money on the side without the school's consent.
dylans said:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but if I worked as a college intern on a project that made a company billions I’d still be paid under our internship arrangement even if I made the key breakthrough. I’d just be compensated down the road with sweet job offers! 🤔
Say you were an intern for NASA and got them to the moon. Say that information was leaked publicly, and you became famous in your hometown. Just a Kansas boy that got us to the moon. The local diner offers you $1,000 to come shake hands and launch the new "Dylans Moon Pie" recently added to the menu.
NASA wouldn't be preventing you from doing this.
Players are not interchangeable.
They do add value.
What they should be compensated is a scholarship that offers them the tools and platform to succeed. That is payment enough from the schools. I can agree to that.
I also believe they should have the ability to go profit off of their likeness.
Yes, the schools brand means a ton. But the brand is also effected by the players playing for that school. It is silly to think otherwise. How much goodwill did the VCU brand gain from going to the Final Four? How about George Mason? Wichita State? Wichita State is now in a new conference making significantly more money because of Baker, VanVleet and Early. Those guys were freaking rockstars in Wichita, KS. They would have made a pretty penny, and it would have only been a fraction of what they gifted to the university.
The 2007 Orange Bowl team, how much extra value did they create over a what used to be a somewhat typical 5-7 KU team? Millions I'd guess.
What happens to the endowment after KU makes a FF? What happens to the attendance? They increase. Which is adding value to the university.
The flip side of that is the cost of having a crappy team. Look how hard it was for KU to raise money for the football program. Look at Arkansas University attendance numbers now that they've sucked for so many years at football. What is the brand damage to Arkansas right now? KU Football's brand has been demolished. Making it harder to get good players, players who would add value. How you can say players are interchangeable knowing the cost vs the gain of a good team?
Of course the players would not be marketable without the school's brand giving them the platform to become marketable. I do understand this. But the school's brand suffers as well without having quality players. It does work both ways. This is very, very evident.
This is why I believe that players should be allowed to profit off of their likeness. Those who would make money are the ones who add value over those who truly are "interchangeable." Would you want their autograph if they played for the Kansas City Jay Birds? No. But you also wouldn't be wasting your time watching if KU was consistently terrible. You wouldn't be paying for Matt Kleinman's autograph, but I literally have paid for a signed Brandon Rush basketball that is sitting right next to me as I type this.
Players simply are not interchangeable. I do agree that Coaches are very important. But Nick Saban is not going to a National Championship with KU's roster. And Les Miles could probably get to the playoffs with a roster like Alabama's. That gap in talent is player added value. That gap is worth tens of millions of dollars a season. That gap is what helps to create or destroy brand value.
Realizing this, I find it to be very, very clear that players are worth far more than just what their current "earnings" are. Allowing them to go cash in on some of that value, while they have it (and yes that is partially due to using the school's brand), seems like the right thing to do in my eyes. Limiting their income in the name of "fairness" does not appear to be working, considering the results of Basketball, Baseball, Football, Soccer, Volleyball, Hockey, Track, Wrestling and basically all NCAA sports. There just simply are schools that have advantages already. Period. Whether it be geography, amenities, population, donors wealth etc.I look at how in almost every sport, 5-10 programs essentially dominate, and I just think that there is no way it can get any worse than it is now. We will see Bama and Clemson in the playoffs again against either OU, OSU, Notre Dame, Georgia, or Texas. Just like we basically have the past 20 years. The favorites to win the NCAA basketball Championship are KU, MSU, UK and Duke. Just like every other season.
If there was tangible proof that limiting players to just their scholarship created a level playing field, you could convince me. But there is absolutely no evidence of that being the case. Bigger or more prestigious schools just simply are more attractive than smaller ones. It has always been the case and it will continue to be the case. Even if you limited athletic department budgets and coach salaries, you'd still have schools that have an advantage.
Players add value, and I cannot find one major reason why we should keep them from capturing it.
If this doesn't make you want to blow your brains out... Literally the only schools with notices so far are Adidas schools. With, and you can't make this shit up, Auburn, Arizona and Oklahoma State (schools who had coaches convicted in this probe) not expected to see any allegations until 2020 at the earliest.
FarmerJayhawk said:
Cry me a river, Emmert. Apparently just allowing student atheltes to profit off their likeness is a bigger threat to college sports than systematic coverups of sexual assault (even against kids), academic fraud, coaches going to prison for bribery, etc. etc. etc. https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/ncaa-prez-calls-name-image-and-likeness-rights-an-existential-threat-to-college-sports/ ↗
Too complex to manage? Give me a break. If it's that difficult, maybe let someone else run the show.
Also though, according to his own words, only like one or two players each year would make any money.
This sort of feels like a last stand for the NCAA.
Who takes them seriously anymore?
California, under threat that their schools could be banned from post-season play, all but unanimously passed their law that allows players to take money and not lose their scholarship. 20+ more states in the process of drafting a similar bill now.
The NBAPA agents all refused to follow the NCAAs rules for agents.
Will Wade literally talked about how much he paid for a player on the phone. Wade was reinstated and that player played the rest of the season.
Sean Miller has an assistant convicted in the scheme. There is as much evidence against him as anyone, somehow not fired.
Duke conducted an internal investigation, when we all know what got Bagley to North Carolina. We have evidence of Zion being offered by several schools. But they found nothing...
Miami paid Nassir Little. Jim Larrañaga still the coach. And Little played all season at UNC.
Avenatti is singing like a bird with a former AAU coach from California. Says Bol Bol went to Oregon for cash with documentation. Says Ayton went to Arizona for cash with documentation. Says Bagley went to Duke for cash with documentation. Not a peep from those schools.
Wendell Carter Jr. a player for Duke - Parents went to lunch with an agent. That agent, alone, somehow wracked up a $100+ tab on his own. Carter's parents didn't even eat... Must have been a hell of a steak.
KU landed two guys who were paid, and went for a third. And we're denying the hell out of it being our responsibility.
Maryland paid De Sousa and not a word has been spoken about Turgeon in the national media. Much less Maryland coming out and making an official statement.
Collin Sexton only got a 4 game suspension and Avery Johnson finished the season.
Personally, I think KU will and should fight this to the death. I think they SHOULD take it to court. And, on top of the obviously circumstantial evidence presented in the NOA, my argument would be that the NCAA is unable to fairly and broadly enforce the rules and is unable to monitor their member institutions. There were 30+ programs named at the trials. Unless all of them were investigated with the same thoroughness as KU was, they are unable to fairly apply the rules across the board. The NCAA themselves, lack institutional control. I'd argue that they should have known that Apparel sponsors were offering impermissible benefits as much as KU should have known. I'd argue that the NCAA didn't take control of recruiting until 2018, when they set up rules for AAU events. I'd argue that the commission they put together themselves realized how widespread this was, and that it's a failure of duty on their part that it took this long to investigate. If they were unwilling to investigate the underbelly of College Basketball until recently, how on Earth is one single member institution supposed to combat it?
The issue is widespread, and that is largely due to the fact that the NCAA has been unwilling to use their resources, which consist of a billion dollars of revenue, to combat impermissible benefits from 3rd parties and protect the "NCAA Collegiate Model." If they are unwilling to do it, why should KU be? If they cared, there would be 30+ schools under investigation right now. There would be an official NCAA employee working in the compliance department at every single NCAA institution in the country. But there isn't. Because the NCAA arbitrarily applies the rules when they feel like applying the rules. And they do that after taking no steps to prevent rules from being broken.
I'd love to see the NCAA rules enforcement process get audited by a major accounting firm. They have no controls and no prevention process. They, as the parent company over 300+ institutions, knew that those institutions were essentially "under attack" and prone to corruption with a 3rd party. Yet, their "prevention process" is to simply ask that people who have millions of dollars at stake turn themselves in. And institutions who have tens of millions of dollars at stake to also turn themselves in. It may be the right thing to do. And acting with integrity should be expected from us fans. But the NCAA has a duty to it's other member institutions to enforce the rules and put in processes that create as even of a playing field as possible. Yet, they don't, haven't and won't.
The NCAA created this issue when they allowed 3rd party money to infiltrate college athletics. And it's the NCAA's fault they did nothing to prevent the wide-spread corruption since. They can't all of a sudden decide they don't like it when they are the ones who created it...
I'll be more than happy to be proven wrong here.
@FarmerJayhawk I thought he was the better PG on tape. McBride was a 5’10 SG who was going to have to learn to play point
HighEliteMajor said:
FarmerJayhawk said:
Posted this in another thread but bears repeating. Harris is better
Reminds me of the dude from Chicago, Milton Doyle. Got here and received a rude awakening. Doyle’s brother got on kusports.com and threatened to pop a cap in me or something like that after some back and forth. They have strict gun control laws in Chicago so I was not worried.
On fire lately
Per Matt Tait