🏀 KuBuckets Archive

I can delete it. However, someone sent this to me and thought it was real. They only read the headline.

I took a look before I posted and thought it would be intriguing to this community.

This certainly illustrates the allure of misinformation and explains how false information can spread faster than the truth. The online business model for publishers is based on impressions or views. The more clicks and the more shares an article gets, the more views, ergo the more revenue. So, creating misinformation is actually a profitable business... to the tune of at least $235 million last year from content intentionally created to mislead news consumers and defraud advertisers.

That would not count this type of content which appears to be a mistake. So when you put all the mistakes and intentionally misleading content together with all the content that's biased, quasi-accurate, etc. etc. you have our current information ecosystem. A toxic cesspool of noise mixed with signal that is creating a more confused and more anxious society.

I'll step off the soapbox.

@BShark I can change the thread title.. what do you propose?

Yeah-- it is clearly bogus. But the reason/motivation is curious.

I think it might be Apple News that did this.. but it is attributed to NBC Sports... so this is a fairly interesting mistake.

!2019-10-31_12-00-12.png ↗

https://apple.news/A6WdpGYtrTsmXLlCYO-N-VQ ↗

Really, this is the epitome of fake news.

Is it an accident? Or is it a halloween trick?

Or maybe a mizzou journalism grad's overzealous push for a Pulitzer.

kjayhawks said:

@FarmerJayhawk Yep both have plenty of Corruption. The left and the right wing belong to the same bird.

Let's just hope the two wings don't kill the bird while fighting amongst each other.

Can't change the past. Gotta look forward to the opportunities in front of us.

Bowl or not, a win over any 2 of the next 4 would change perceptions of some of the most staunch skeptics.

HighEliteMajor said:

Don't blame the rules. Blame the folks that violate the rules.

Good grief.

I don't advocate breaking rules, but I'm also not going to sit around and accept -- or defend -- stupid rules.

There are such things as bad rules.

Other than the sake of devil's advocate, or unless you are their lawyer and you're testing some arguments, why on Earth would you defend the NCAA's definition of a booster?

Many of the NCAA's rules -- like this one -- are antiquated and overreaching. Even they know that.

Still, they deny deny deny --- for years and years.

But, we've learned this week that they will capitulate when threatened by -- not one, but several -- Acts of Congress.

They are so stubborn, it took a consortium of states threatening to change laws to get them to accept the obvious and well established fact that their rule was unfair, and change.

They finally changed the rule allowing student-athletes to profit from their likeness after the pressure became overwhelming and their position became very publicly, and undeniably, untenable.

This "Image and Likeness" rule is the tip of the iceberg. The NCAA needs to go through transformative change to become contemporary with its constituents.

HighEliteMajor said:

@bskeet @tundrahok The booster definition is wide, but remember that the programs suffer very limited penalties if there is someone that is "rogue." It is actually quite easy to enforce.

Personally, I think the NCAA's history of arbitrary enforcement is evidence that it is not easy to consistently enforce the rules.

But, I accept your assertion that another interpretation is that they are deliberately selective.

My problem with that explanation is that it means their practice is institutional bias.

Amazing series. Winning four road games (and weathering 3 losses at home) is about as incredible and unlikely way to win the WS as I can imagine.

When the Astros took out Greinke in the the 7th, I knew it was the crack that the Nationals needed. The home run was more of a fluke: 2 hits in 6 1/3 innings! And they took him out! The Astros' manager blinked.

I think if they leave Greinke in, he closes that inning with a 2-1 lead and most likely the Astros close out the game.

This team is playing above the individual talent level. That's a great thing to see because that is a property that doesn't tend to graduate. When Miles gets more uniform talent across all the positions, this program is going to seriously contend again. It's a different team right now -- different than any I've seen since 2008.

@wissox If I was a student, I would make a banner of Coleman Jr and put it up in the ring of legends.

That was an incredibly improbable ending.

@jayballer73 pretty awesome prediction!

@FarmerJayhawk Marinated crow! Good thinking! It does taste better!

This definition (especially the last line) is so broad that it is impossible to enforce consistently. Technically, the NCAA can correctly claim that KU and every other school is violating this rule at any time. The real question is why now and why us?

“ • A booster is an individual, independent agency, corporate entity (e.g. apparel or equipment manufacturer) or other organization that is known to:

• Hold, or have ever held, season tickets for any sport with Kansas Athletics;

• Have participated in or to be a member of an agency or organization promoting any Kansas Athletics program (e.g. University of Kansas Alumni Association, K Club, sport booster groups, etc.);

• Have made financial contributions to the athletics department or to an athletics booster organization of that institution (e.g. Hardwood Club, booster groups, etc.);

• Be assisting or to have assisted in providing benefits to enrolled student-athletes or their families, which would trigger booster status under NCAA rules. These benefits include, but are not limited to, financial assistance, use of a car, use of a cell phone, etc.;

• Provide allowable benefits (e.g. summer jobs, occasional meals, etc.) to enrolled student-athletes; or

• Promote Kansas Athletics in any way. ”

That's a long inning as I recall.. Might still be going...

where can we track the score?

I look forward to reviewing this thread in 6 years. Should be interesting to see how it plays out... and to see if which motivation for reviving the rivalry looks most likely in hindsight.

@approxinfinity I don't think the legislation would have much of an impact on the NCAAs claim against Self and KU. The legislation is aimed at allowing the players to profit from their name and likeness. To my knowledge, that's not the issue at the center of the NOA.

Others may know more --- correct me if I misunderstand the the NOA or the legislation's intent.

Also, I've read that the one-and-done rule is under review and at least some folks think it's days are numbered. Not sure if the California legislation is the impetus for that or not.

Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski backs California's Fair Pay to Play law

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/27799103/duke-coach-mike-krzyzewski-backs-california-fair-pay-play-law ↗

Reading the tea leaves a bit here. NCAA is going to have to acknowledge they are out of step with the times and have not sufficiently adapted or evolved, or they are going to get left in the dust.

pmann said:

I'm from Indiana and I'm currently doing an informative essay on Indianas history with basketball. A lot of interesting insight but after reading everyone's response, I think that you may argue that James was being a suck-up, but none of you have seem to find any information where James complimented another state or school (like Kansas). Now, I've stayed in Kansas City for a few months, and my take away from there was that no one really cared about basketball. So if you feel like you have a stake in the origins of Basketball, you don't. I don't think I've ever heard in my life that Kansas was anything significant in early process of developing basketball. I had never heard of Phog Allen until I read this post, and if we're being real here, who is he compared to John Wooden? Like come on. Don't lie to me. If you ever feel like watching a movie, dont forget to watch "Hoosiers". Reply once you find a movie about Kansas. (Glory Road features Kansas as the championship opponent, but is inaccurate. The oilers played against a team from utah). Have fun dealing with the fact that nobody considers Kansas as a significant piece of basketball history.

You don't do any favors to Indiana or its fans by posting something like this.

Fortunately, this community, which understands Kansas legacy in basketball, also appreciates Indiana's legacy in basketball.

I also suspect that the larger community who appreciate and understand Indiana basketball will have an appropriate understanding and appreciation for Kansas basketball.

Keep researching and good luck on your high school essay.

that was interference. the talking heads are wrong.

@kjayhawks Yep, that might also play into the call...

@Texas-Hawk-10 I agree.

If that was our QB and someone did that, we'd probably want some protection too.

I don't fault Lee though. It was a football play.

Probably had something to do with the fact that the runner was the QB

@Texas-Hawk-10 True, but that hit was not out of bounds.

Argh.

Not a Yankee fan. The epic Yankees v Royals showdowns in the mid-seventies made an indelible impression. That said, I agree Yankees vs Dodgers has some historic lure.

Raef was simply amazing. That 1997 team.. sigh.. I loved them. The polls loved them.

Arguably the best team ever.

@FarmerJayhawk Yep, good example of the archaic and overly-restrictive rules. Also, fair and consistent enforcement seems to be beyond their capacity. Perhaps this is why they tend to lean toward hardline, dogmatic responses.

The motivation to change the system just isn't there because the status quo is so lucrative — for them.

@HighEliteMajor When I tell you that it was not meant to be inflammatory and you retort that it was purposeful, then you are just picking a fight.

Presuming to know what I think or suggesting my mindset is also incendiary.

Simmer down. I can't find the signal amidst all the noise.

You seem to be arguing that "everyone is exploited" to one extent or another, so that somehow indemnifies the NCAA. If that's your argument, then I guess we're philosophically on different sides. If not, sorry I don't get it.

FWIW, I think it's possible for a more balanced, fair and symbiotic relationship between the institution and the athletes. I think the NCAA used to preserve such a relationship, but market forces have shifted and they have not sufficiently evolved their rules and policies with the times. The NCAA is not as fair as it needs to be. It's out of balance. They are making very small steps, but I think the market is telling them it is past due and not progressive enough.

The NCAA's ability to resist market forces is another indicator that there aren't adequate alternatives and they are monopolistic.

wissox said:

@dylans That school I work at, they don't pay me enough to be a booster!

Not really sure what the definition of a booster is.. you may be one already!

HighEliteMajor said:

@bskeet You equated college athletics to slavery. Again, unfathomable.

I also understand that your slavery comment was not the first dive into that arena and that others have made similar suggestions, such as the "indentured servitude" link you've provided.

Of course, purposefully inflammatory, just like the slavery comments, to make folks think "drug cartel."

When feelings enter the picture, folks throw out "slavery" in opinion. Something, again, inflammatory and plainly inapplicable.

I get that you are pretty bruised by the word slavery. Not meant to be inflammatory. Sorry you took offense.

There's a lesson in rhetoric here that I get loud and clear.

Beating the point over and over again (also a rhetorical device) has not convinced me that the NCAA is not taking advantage of the collective population of student-athletes.

...And, how does any of this lead to the conclusion that the entire American workforce is exploited? That was the question for which I invited elucidation.

@Gorilla72 When did that law go into effect? I thought Stanford played KU in Lawrence last season -- in Dec 2018.

Or maybe it applies only to the state schools -- UCLA, UC Berkeley, (but not USC or Stanford)

Kcmatt7 said:

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...

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

FWIW, the indentured servitude trope (or tripe) was not invented here.

NCAA must end its indentured servitude of college athletes

https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-spt-ncaa-athletes-transfer-rules-20190118-story.html ↗

JAN 18, 2019

"In the discussion of college athlete rights, the focus has shifted over the last decade to primarily compensation for the athletes, without recognizing that the cartel deprives all college athletes of fundamental rights, like right to interstate travel, right of publicity, right of privacy, forced waiver of educational privacy rights under federal law, right to counsel, right to due process, right to private property, and so on," said Richard Johnson, a lawyer who 10 years ago successfully sued the NCAA over its denial of college players' using lawyers...

HighEliteMajor said:

From your point of view, if this is the reply, then the entire American workforce is exploited.

That's certainly not what I meant.

I'm open to an explanation of how my argument leads to this conclusion.

@HighEliteMajor A bit too much heat thrown, in my opinion. I meant no disrespect, but feel pretty disrespected.

I don't think you are open to another point of view.

SO BE IT.

AMEN.

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.

By the way, I don't know about the argument that this all about black athletes.. I imagine that there are a lot of female athletes of all races that will have an opportunity to make money off their image and likeness.

Advertising likes healthy, attractive people for their products.

@HighEliteMajor

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.

With all the shifting sands -- it does make you realize the stakes are pretty high and that the Adidas deal is pretty strategic to us finding a landing chair when the music stops with the conference roulette.

If Kansas was progressive (been a long time since those words were in the same sentence), it could find a home in the Pac12, because the California law affect 1/3 (Stanford is the fourth one) of the P12 schools and I would expect Oregon and Washington to follow quickly that's 4 more (2/3 of the conference with just 3 states)

I would agree that KU is a better geographic and cultural fit with the B10, but I expect they will drag their heels on this. Maybe I'm wrong, but they are spread all over the place and have the Notre Dame challenge.

In any case, our status as the Adidas flagship has is valuable in a variety of ways, including making us attractive in conference realignment conversations. Just another reason KU is all in on fighting the NCAA.

I'm no expert on the pros and cons of allowing students to profit from their image and likeness, but one of the more compelling arguments I've heard is that every citizen has this right, and that the NCAA's rule is stripping a group of people from this basic right.

I've heard two very impassioned arguments about how this will 1) transform women athletes and bring much greater notoriety to them, and 2) destroy women's athletics and undo title IX.. Essentially completely opposite projections on the impact. My conclusion: No one can predict what the benefits and consequences of this will really be.

My other conclusion as to why the NCAA is really fighting this: Status quo and the ability to better control what is known.

mayjay said:

Just popping in to say, yes, college bb players ARE interchangeable over a period of years. But they are individuals well recognized by their fan bases in the one to four years they attend their schools. Those are the years available.

Whether another athlete comes along to replace or even exceed them after they leave, is irrelevant to the years in which they could earn a little money.

Right- I go with this definition of interchangeable... You captured my thinking better than I did...

HighEliteMajor said:

@dylans @bcjayhawk Bingo. This is what I've been focused on (among other things) for quite some time. It is the jersey, the uniform, the school, the program, and everything that goes with it that makes CBB and CFB what it is. Otherwise, they're A, AA and AAA baseball players (but for just a few). The colleges are the marketable product. THE PLAYERS ARE INTERCHANGEABLE AT THIS LEVEL.

But we know what will happen. If they do this "marketing of their image", it will be so unfair that the players can't use the colleges' images (logo, etc). They'll complain about that.

Of course, it creates yet another massive enforcement headache and will change the college sports, lurching college sports further away from what we love.

I'll buy in to the point that the college has a brand, but I have to disagree with suggestion that the players are interchangeable. If they were interchangeable, then why do we get so worked up about recruits? I don't think it's a common belief that Zion was interchangeable nor unrecognizable.

There are plenty of players that fans would recognize in plain clothes when they were playing at KU -- Frank Mason, Andrew Wiggins are the most obvious.. and I think Doke would be pretty easy to recognize in pretty much any crowded room.

Also, I think every Iowa State fan could have recognized Elijah Johnson during his senior year.

I'd like to think it will help KU, but probably only in the court of public opinion. I don't see any direct benefit to our specific case.

So the last touchdown was pretty unnecessary.

Seems like that would have been better sportsmanship. Wonder what the line on the game was.

um.. ok.

Just waiting to see how far off my prediction of 52-17 will be.