@dylans Bingo. Not one regular season game last year did I think Doke was the reason we lost a game other than the OU game. And that was at least 50% Self's fault.
Kcmatt7
11050 posts
@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.
Offseason is off to a hot start.
@jayballer73 I don't know that he is vouching for the specific player as much as the staffs ability to identify a piece that can in fact contribute at some point.
@BShark Still examples that Bill sure as hell isn't going to sit on a scholly.
The more I read, the more this really is like when the Olympics switched from pure amateurism to letting athletes get paid through endorsements. It only made the IOC more money because it drew better athletes.
In the NCAAs case, it would actually improve the product to let the players fetch endorsements as there would be no rush to try to go pro.
It didn't ruin the Olympics or get out of control. Endorsements only go to those athletes with market value. The same would go for any of the NCAA athletes.
@BShark Must really think he can play D and shoot well enough from 3. It is definitely a good thing if it happens... I'm skeptical too though.
Bill does not sit on scholarships. He has proven this over and over again. I agree, I would love to see him sit on scholarships. But he is a traditional guy and he would rather have another body than an empty chair. Just the way he is.
@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.
We are probably working pretty hard on locking this bad boy up. Good posts everyone.
And the mystery player most likely.
Well good to finally hear the staff is working. This makes it seem like it is 99.9% done to IU now.
@HighEliteMajor That entire piece you just wrote would have been a great response to people saying that Universities and the NCAA should pay the players themselves. Great response.
Not what I or others have been saying though. There is free money on the table from outside sources, and legally, the NCAA or Universities can't capitalize on that money ever since the O'Bannon case. But, they won't let the players capitalize on it. The market WOULD support this. This IS NOT people saying the owners of the company should pay more. Simply that the owners of the company shouldn't restrict their employees from other sources.
I don't want to take money from the NCAA, or the schools, or anyone not willing to GIVE money to the players. And, if the NCAA didn't want this to be an issue, they would have had the commission that released its findings this morning, a long, long time ago. The only reason they did this in the first place was because of the FBI findings. Nothing else. They would have continued to let players get paid under the table for forever if the FBI never got involved.
Again, I think you just can't wrap your head around the endorsement piece of the argument. For some reason... Other than argue "its a slippery slope" with no ACTUAL reasoning behind your feelings.
@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.
@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.
"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."
@Texas-Hawk-10 Please reference these games where KU struggled because we faced athletic 5s pulling Doke from the basket.
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.
@Buster-1926 Interested to see how they think that will work. Could only imagine the cost of it.
@Texas-Hawk-10 Again, you are basically holding one game against him. When he wasn't even 100% healthy.
What happens in the SHU game if Doke can't go?
Writing him off from one game is short-sighted. Do I think there are games that Doke basically shouldn't play? Absolutely. But those will be few and far between. Most teams don't have a Spellman and Paschall combo. And any team that does, he shouldn't play. I can agree to that.
But this completely writing off Doke because "the game has changed" is garbage. 99% of teams don't have the combo of size and skill to beat Doke.
Are you honestly saying, you do not want back the one consistent post player we had from a conference champion, 1-seed, and FF team?
He was our best +/- last season. Highest effective FG percentage. Highest win shares. Best defensive rating per 100 possessions. Best offensive rating per 100 possessions. Most points per 40. Etc. I mean the advanced stats say he was head and shoulders our best player.
Just can't buy, for one second, we are a better team all next season without Doke.
This probably deserves it's own thread since it could change rules so drastically.
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.
@Texas-Hawk-10 if Mitch can actually shoot. Yet to be seen.
I find it hard to believe not having a guy who shot 80%, in as many attempts as Doke took, not being a plus. This team doesn’t make a FF without him. Holding the Nova game against him seems short sighted to me. Who knows what he could accomplish in a full, healthy offseason. He seems to have the work ethic, motivation and athleticism to make tremendous strides by November.
@chriz Sure isn't looking good.
Can't be mad at a kid for staying home. Just always feels like we miss on that one piece that could push us over the top.
@mayjay You are just crushing it today. Two great examples of how empowering athletes is only making sports get better.
@Buster-1926 Hammel is pitching well right now and has shown he can have a Sub 4.00 ERA. That would be attractive at the deadline for a team without the prospect capital to fetch a big name guy. Someone to help them in that 4th or 5th spot but you know won't be apart of your playoff rotation.
Nevada should be top 10. Those brothers are studs.
@BeddieKU23 Agreed. I just think this is the most talented team Bill has had to work with in a while. And he has been seemingly overachieving lately. Probably not a great way to look at it, but I really do expect a lot this season.
@Statmachine You have to be careful giving young black men that kind of money at that age. They might do weed or eat crack. It's a slippery slope.
@Buster-1926 Exactly. Load up the farm system like it has never been before. Then, instead of trading it all away for a playoff push, keep it. And stay good for an extended period of time.
Honestly, I would eat Kennedy and Hammel's contracts if it meant that we could get decent prospects in return for it.
It is a realistic possibility that we could acquire a dozen or more GOOD new prospects in our minor league system by the end of this season.
All I want is to keep seeing Almonte play. Best hitting outfielder on the team right now.
@dylans lol I thought the same thing reading it. EVERYONE SUCKS.
@BeddieKU23 Parrish has us at #1 as well I think. If Doke comes back that is. But he left us at #1 even while assuming Newman and Vick left.
I think people are a little too high on our transfers. But I honestly expect us to be a top 3 team this season.
@Woodrow I think we realize how decimated it was. We just don't like the direction of the rebuild. It doesn't look promising.
And, as @Texas-Hawk-10 said, he completely abandoned he recruiting strategy. That or he couldn't fill those scholarships with HS kids.
Either way, I would have been more likely to give him a 5th season if he didn't take the JUCO guys.
@JayHawkFanToo I'm sorry, but you know nothing about social media, much less advertising on it.
My numbers weren't pulled out of the air.
"An Instagram user with 100,000 followers can command $5,000 for a post made in partnership with a company or brand."
But continue to assume that nobody would pay thousands of these college athletes.
Well we can't say that they are sleeping on us. Expectations are high for next season... Back to back FF trips would certainly be nice.
I guess I could make it 3 more years if I knew the light at the end of the tunnel was a respectable team for the long-term...
My only worry is that there would still be an exodus of players 3 years from now and so all we did was watch our program suck for 3 extra years instead of just making the switch now.
This draft determines his future. I, personally, want 4 position players drafted. Because we have nothing in our system right now. We might be able to piece together medial starters with a decent bullpen and get results. But if you can't score and defend you definitely can't win.
@BShark Lol oh I'm sure. I just thought it would be a really funny tweet to have to take down.
I'm actually surprised. I would be that still changes if somehow Maxey and Haggans end up in 18.
Let's break down this response a little bit.
JayHawkFanToo said:
I saw posts above that say that if we take the elite players from college basketball Division I it would collapse.
I will guess that the assumption is that every player in Division I is elite which really is absurd. There are over 5,000 players in Division I and there is not enough jobs for all of them to play professional basketball. The number of elite players is the ones that could make a career playing professionally and that is just a small percentage, about 30-40 that are drafted every year and another 50-70 that would play either in the G League or overseas; this is less than 2% of Division I players and yes, the sport would miss some of the more talented individual players but the overall level would actually be better since more teams would have experienced players rather than OADs, much like Villanova this past season.
Are you saying there would be no consequences if elite players quit coming to college? Let's say the top 100 players each year quit coming to school. I would say that probably half of the Shoe company money goes with. That would reduce this sport down to near D2 levels. I agree, I don't think it disappears. But it would lose a lot, a lot of money for the schools.
The premise that college players are not compensated is ridiculous. I have been doing research with my grandson on what scholarships at major/elite schools cover and even the best academic scholarships do not cover all expenses and even getting a full ride at a school like KU would require the student to come up with a few thousand $ every year. The only conference where a full ride means just that, i.e. covers everything, is the Ivy League which does not provide academic or athletics scholarships and financial aid is based uniquely on financial need.
A few years ago the Wall Street Journal did a story on the actual value of a major sport scholarship at at major conference and the cost was around $50K per year. I would suspect that now, the benefit at a program like KU, UK or Duke with their new luxurious accommodations, elite training facilities and staff, academics support and monthly stipend, the values is close to $70K per year...not bad. If you look at the 20,000 or so students at KU and look at the value of financial aid provide to them, the top 13 recipients would be the 13 basketball player on scholarship; it really does not get any better than this.
No argument they are compensated. It is Compensated FAIRLY that is the argument.
Now, if players would be allowed to endorse products like Bilas suggests, wouldn’t this create a conflict of interest with the schools? How about if various KU players get contracts with Nike, Adidas, Under Armour, Converse and Reebok, which uniform would they wear? Would a Nike endorser refuse to wear the school endorsed Adidas gear? Would athletic apparel companies tell schools...we will no longer contract with you because we can go directly to the athletes and end college sports as we know it?
Nope it sure wouldn't. NFL players who these same companies endorse all wear Nike uniforms. Nike just paid a crap ton to be the official NFL and NBA jersey. So, no, these companies will still sponsor school AND sponsor athletes.
How much would student endorsers would really fetch considering the supply of endorsers is now huge, over 20,000 if you include football and other sports, and the demand small? Other than die hard fans, how many people ouside KU fans would recognize, say Devonté, without his KU uniform and how many people would buy something he endorses considering that most of the so called Twittter followers have little purchase power and their total net worth is the cell phone they use to follow him?
Exactly! There are a ton of athletes, and not every one of them would get paid. Why? Because the market would set how much they made. That is the beauty of it. It wouldn't effect 97% of athletes most likely.
If I create a lineup of 20 individuals, how many of us would actually be able identify the 5 Villanova starters? How many KU fans could at this time correctly identify Grimes and Dotson?
33k followers for Grimes and 31k for Dotson. No chance those are all KU fans. So did KU build their following or did they? Haven't even played a game here yet.
Let’s be honest, how many members of this forum can correctly identify more than 5 players in the KU football team? Maybe a handful and I am not one of them. Let’s face it, without the college affiliation which they could obviously not use, the desirability and appeal would be extremely limited and mostly localized. The law of unintended consequences would destroy college sports and for what? A couple of dozen athletes that cannot wait a year to get paid?
This is a purely ignorant take and you are using it as support. If you don't know how much money these guys could make, just don't say anything or try to use it as support. Endorsers would be LINING UP to get these kids. College kids have more buying power than you think. Far more buying power than you think. Especially when you consider that the people following the players are the EXACT market for whoever would want to endorse the player. It would be almost impossible to find a better way to spend advertising dollars these days. I broke down above how much some players could fetch. $5K for one post isn't chump change. One post a month and they are earning $60k. Some of them way more. Some way less. But to assume they have to have national level exposure just to make any money doing this means you have NO IDEA what you are talking about on this subject. None at all.
I say let them go pro and leave college sports alone. When they choose to attend college they agree to follow the rules, if the arrangement is that bad the do not have to attend college, no one is forcing them to do it, they can always join the G League or one of the other pro or semi-pro leagues or play overseas...and they can take Bilas with them.
This take always gets me because what we are proposing wouldn't cost you, the university or the NCAA another dollar. And, according to you, it would only have minimal effect anyways as most athletes aren't worth anything. So, if you let them fetch endorsements, and basically no student athlete could because there is no market for them, how would it effect a single thing?
I also want to say one more thing. You completely talked out of both sides of your mouth in your argument. In this same post, you argued that this could "end college sports as we know it," College Sports are too big to go away, AND that this would effect such a small number that would even be able to fetch endorsements. Which is it? Is this so minimal of an impact that changing the rule wouldn't even hardly be noticed, OR would it completely change college sports?
20 years ago, a college players likeness wasn't worth what it is today. It was worth training facilities, room and board, food, and tuition.
Right now, we are at the cusp of it no longer being that. Both Alabama QBs have 190k followers and could easily earn $10k with a single post.
Lamar Jackson has over 500k followers and could demand $20k with a single post. The money is there. The market is there. And it simply wasn't there when the rule was written. It requires much more of a proactive approach than "if it ain't broke don't fix it."
Side note, if a Marine had the instagram following that these kids have, he could still earn endorsement deals on the side. No rules against that.
What I don't think people realize is that, because of social media, there is an entirely new market for advertising. It gives someone with D-level fame the ability to make a significant amount of money through their "likeness." This wasn't an issue when the rules were written because this avenue never existed. Rules need to change when they no longer make sense.
If Doke could make extra money from growing his instagram following by posting awesome dunks and while wearing Nike shoes, and get his mom out of Africa, AND still stay in college and develop like he needs to, that would be a win-win-win.
If Vick could get sponsored by a nose ring company and stay and make money to send to his child, that would be a great thing.
If Devonte could get sponsored by a bandana company (he wears a lot of them), and send money to his mother who had him at 14, I would consider that a win.
If a middle-class kid with no issues at home could get paid and start saving for retirement now, I would consider that a win.
The cons I see of this are the same cons that are happening right now in the black market that the NCAA themselves created. People will ALWAYS try to steer players to a program. So this would change absolutely nothing, other than it would put money in the pockets of athletes during some of the few years they have the potential and fame to earn this money.
@BShark Would be funny. His pinned tweet is "In case ANYONE is confused/Doubtful, I am 300% committed to Boise State"
@dylans I just want the hope. The 2nd wildcard gave small market teams an avenue to sneak in. Playing .500 ball gives you hope. And hope is all I want. Same for KU basketball and the Chiefs. All I want is hope we can win it all.
Yea I hope he gets the chance. I'm not sure he will though if he is an integral part of the team this year. I think he should after his senior football season is over though. If Bill lets him of course. And he wants to as well.
I would bet he has been throwing ladies back ever since he got on the basketball team... Would definitely be an incentive for me haha
@dylans I know I’m probably in the minority, but I’d rather watch .500 baseball the rest of my life than .300 baseball where we win a WS once every 30 years.
I watch sports to escape. It’s hard to escape when your team sucks 27 of every 30 years.
If the Royals make no trades and do not resign Gordon:
- C - Salvy - $8.5M
- 1B - Hosmer - $21M
- 2B - Whit - $600k
- 3B - Moose - $5.5m
- SS - Mondesi - $600k
- LF - Cain - $14M
- CF - Dyson - $3.5M
- RF - Myers - $2M
- DH - Bonifacio - $600K
Rotation:
- Duffy - $14M
- Finnegan $600K
- Manaea $600K
- Odorizzi - $6.3M
- Junis - $600K
That team is loaded. The MLB club would cost about $100M. Compared to this year, where we are at $130M. So there is room to pay some of these guys and continue to grow, all while developing your younger guys to replace them in the future. This is what the Cards do, and why they are successful and competitive nearly every season.
HighEliteMajor said:
@Kcmatt7 @BShark Ok, play along with me here. Seriously, how is it not working? Simply because there are violators doesn't mean a law or rule doesn't work, right?
Correct. But if the rule or law is, by and large, not being followed, it ISN'T working. This rule is not being followed by a majority of athletes that make you 99% of your income. That is a problem, and that means the rule isn't working. It is creating a competitive imbalance.
Nor does it mean that it isn't a net positive. So who is disaffected? Thousands of athletes get scholarships, and benefit, and get an education (including the thousands in the big 2 sports that don't "go pro.").
We have a distaste because of the underbelly of things, which we are largely unaffected by. And the athletes aren't mistreated. They're coddled.
Those who actually play by the rules are affected. Athletes who are taking sham classes because their entire life is built on making as much money playing sports as possible, are affected. Thousands of players who don't go pro, could still earn some side cash from endorsements. 3rd stringers from SEC football teams could legit make enough money taking pictures with fans at public events to pay for anything they needed. And, it is your opinion that the athletes are coddled. It isn't a fact or even a reasonable point for this discussion. They live in nice dorms and they get fed. They are also on the road all the time and miss tons of class and work more than most students do. And, more importantly, they bring in more money for the school than your average student. So they should get nicer things than the average student.
Further, the only real issue is enforcement and the effectiveness of that enforcement.
Where's the harm?
I would say that the 3 men that will be going to prison would tell you that there is harm. I would think you would agree with this, as your opinion is that the FBI should have no right to prosecute someone based on rules an organization created themselves. That is harm then, as you yourself have stated. There is harm for players who get injured in college when they could have made hundreds of thousands of dollars in endorsements during that span. There is harm for the families that really do live paycheck to paycheck and they have to choose between taking the fast cash and going pro now or letting a player develop over 4 years in school, while earning a degree.
Do you think KU has just been good because of tradition? NO. Other programs have great facilities, coaches and campuses and blah blah blah. Yet we have won 14 straight titles. That is a competitive imbalance, and the 9 other schools in our league are harmed by this.
There is plenty of harm.
The sport (CBB) makes millions, funds schools and other programs, educates millions over time -- the issue always comes back to the discussion point of wanting to change the rules to pay players.
So, what happens if everyone just leaves the NCAA alone?
The sport makes hundreds of millions, first of all. Let's not try to downplay this. If everyone were to leave the NCAA alone, we would still have players who could earn money at the expense of NO ONE other than the company endorsing them, not making that money. Or they will still do it behind closed doors and we will continue to have athletes with "surprise" commitments
What is the harm in letting players fetch endorsements? "It's a slippery slope" is poor argument. It isn't factually based whatsoever and is really just a lame way to dismiss the problem without actually giving it any kind of deep thought. Because once you start to think about it, you will realize that it would actually save the NCAA money to not have to investigate as many athletes, it would make their product better, and it would help them with their already poor PR. To top it off, and, this may blow your mind, MORE players might graduate leading to a better life for these guys down the road. MORE players will stay and develop and have longer pro careers. These are positives to letting players fetch endorsements. I'm looking for cons, but they are hard to find.
@BShark Oh I agree. I think you stay in contact. But yea he said he wasn't committing until the end of next season in that article, unless I'm going crazy. If that is the case, I think we can get back in on his recruitment pretty quickly if we strike out in the Fall.