let's talk '17

[Beachcat97]

If you hate college, is playing basketball for money in Italy a bad thing?

Guess it just depends on what they pay these guys. If they make enough to live comfortably and enjoy themselves, then hell yes Italy would be appealing.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/34715 ... ll-player/" target="_blank

Depends, but with some teams, you can make over a million per year or more. Not bad work if you can get it.

Dated a bit, but European teams used to pay American players $100K and give them a free apartment and car.

100K would go pretty far in most parts of Italy.

[Merkin]

Most Athletic Departments lose money.

You going to drop soccer, baseball, softball and so on?

[Spaceman Spiff]

Most Athletic Departments lose money.

You going to drop soccer, baseball, softball and so on?

No, and it's no coincidence that the big revenue sports are the ones with the most issues with players leaving early. There's a reason AZ softball does not generate the revenue that AZ basketball does and it's why AZ softball players aren't leaving early for the pros.

[ChooChooCat]

Most Athletic Departments lose money.

You going to drop soccer, baseball, softball and so on?

No, and it's no coincidence that the big revenue sports are the ones with the most issues with players leaving early. There's a reason AZ softball does not generate the revenue that AZ basketball does and it's why AZ softball players aren't leaving early for the pros.

Well considering that Fastpitch Pro Softball only drafts College Seniors I'm sure that plays a reason into why AZ softball players don't leave early to go pro.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I don't boo hoo over how bad it is for colleges. Arizona turned a 10 million profit on their basketball program. Players got none of that, but they're the selfish ones of they leave early? Colleges are more than happy with what they get from this bargain.

Jay Bilas has been on this board the whole time and nobody told me? Big fan Jay, but I wish you'd lay off the "Whoa is me, I'm a poor college football/basketball player who has my full tuition paid for amongst other benefits and it's not enough, WAHHHHHH" schtick.

Before we get in a big discussion about this I completely back the NCAA doing the right thing and giving each player the ability to use their likeness for money while in school i.e. the Olympic model, but spare me the rest of it. It's not the NCAA's fault the NFL demands 3 years out of HS and the NBA demands 1.

That's really unfair. I have far less male pattern baldness than Bilas.

I agree on the likeness issue (which I'm sure is no surprise). If the pro leagues demand something, I do agree that is not the NCAA's fault. I would say that I do not think that the system is in any way set up to protect players interests.

The pros set rules to help their league. The one and done was a response to the Ndudi Ebi's of the world. The NCAA sets rules for school benefits, not players. I just don't get criticizing players when they act in their self interest like the pros, colleges, NCAA and coaches do.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Most Athletic Departments lose money.

You going to drop soccer, baseball, softball and so on?

No, and it's no coincidence that the big revenue sports are the ones with the most issues with players leaving early. There's a reason AZ softball does not generate the revenue that AZ basketball does and it's why AZ softball players aren't leaving early for the pros.

Well considering that Fastpitch Pro Softball only drafts College Seniors I'm sure that plays a reason into why AZ softball players don't leave early to go pro.

You sure no one tests that rule because it's a big risk for a $5-6,000 yearly salary? People (Clarett, Williams) tested the NFL rule because of the financial incentive. That isn't there for softball.

http://www.profastpitch.com/about/faqs/" target="_blank

[ChooChooCat]

That's really unfair. I have far less male pattern baldness than Bilas.

I agree on the likeness issue (which I'm sure is no surprise). If the pro leagues demand something, I do agree that is not the NCAA's fault. I would say that I do not think that the system is in any way set up to protect players interests.

The pros set rules to help their league. The one and done was a response to the Ndudi Ebi's of the world. The NCAA sets rules for school benefits, not players. I just don't get criticizing players when they act in their self interest like the pros, colleges, NCAA and coaches do.

Yeah the likeness issue is a no brainer to me. IMO it would end this debate entirely.

I mean if we can live in a world where it's ok for the pros set rules to benefit their league, why is it not ok for the NCAA to set rules to do the same? Either way I don't criticize players for acting in their self interests at all. I do criticize what I believe to be dumb short sighted decisions I.E. Comanche going pro as opposed to just transferring however.

[ChooChooCat]

Most Athletic Departments lose money.

You going to drop soccer, baseball, softball and so on?

No, and it's no coincidence that the big revenue sports are the ones with the most issues with players leaving early. There's a reason AZ softball does not generate the revenue that AZ basketball does and it's why AZ softball players aren't leaving early for the pros.

Well considering that Fastpitch Pro Softball only drafts College Seniors I'm sure that plays a reason into why AZ softball players don't leave early to go pro.

You sure no one tests that rule because it's a big risk for a $5-6,000 yearly salary? People (Clarett, Williams) tested the NFL rule because of the financial incentive. That isn't there for softball.

http://www.profastpitch.com/about/faqs/" target="_blank

Lol is that really the salary? Oy.

[Spaceman Spiff]

That's really unfair. I have far less male pattern baldness than Bilas.

I agree on the likeness issue (which I'm sure is no surprise). If the pro leagues demand something, I do agree that is not the NCAA's fault. I would say that I do not think that the system is in any way set up to protect players interests.

The pros set rules to help their league. The one and done was a response to the Ndudi Ebi's of the world. The NCAA sets rules for school benefits, not players. I just don't get criticizing players when they act in their self interest like the pros, colleges, NCAA and coaches do.

Yeah the likeness issue is a no brainer to me. IMO it would end this debate entirely.

I mean if we can live in a world where it's ok for the pros set rules to benefit their league, why is it not ok for the NCAA to set rules to do the same? Either way I don't criticize players for acting in their self interests at all. I do criticize what I believe to be dumb short sighted decisions I.E. Comanche going pro as opposed to just transferring however.

I do think it's fair for the NCAA to set some rules, I just don't think it can be done in a way that is functional. If the NCAA builds a penalty, the pro league can just pay it for a player they want and it's useless. That's why I say it's possible to build an entrance limit but not an exit limit. The entrance limit into the pros is enforceable. The exit limit only works if the pro league won't accept the player.

[Puerco]

A lot of us have to pay our dues doing shit we don't want to do till we get to where we want to go. Fake it till you make it.

Oh the poor jocks.

Most of us don't work in careers where we're washed up at the age of 35. There just isn't a comparison between sports and a normal career. You're not ready to be a doctor at 20, but you can easily be an NBA all star at that age. You can work into your 70's as a lawyer. You're almost certainly not hitting 40 in the NBA.

I also don't really get the clamor for age restrictions on the following level. Guys like Kobi and Chance clearly didn't want to be here next year. As a fan, I don't get wanting them to be forced to stay by an age restriction. I don't get rooting for a team comprised of guys who don't really have much interest in being here, even more so than one and done naturally creates.

College should insist on a three year minimum commitment or the player pays back all scholly money upon leaving. The NCAA should completely ignore the NBA and impose their own rules. If there's a gap where the one and done's can't play in either system, well that's the League's problem. They can change their rules to accomodate, or the kids can go out of the country.

The overall talent level will suffer in college, but the competition won't, and that's what's most important.

Functionally, the NCAA can't because the only way it works is as a restriction upon entry. If the NBA doesn't care, what will the NCAA do about it?

Also, sorry for the soapbox, but it would be the height of hypocrisy to allow schools to terminate scholarships at any time for any reason and lock players in to three years. The school can kick a player out at any time, a coach can bail at any time, but players need to be forced to play 3?

I don't boo hoo over how bad it is for colleges. Arizona turned a 10 million profit on their basketball program. Players got none of that, but they're the selfish ones of they leave early? Colleges are more than happy with what they get from this bargain.

The NCAA will do just as I suggested. I'm fine with the NCAA committing to 3+ year scholarships as long as certain conditions are maintained, just like the academic scholly I had and lost during my time at UA.

Look, the NBA employs about 350 players. For the sake of argument, let's say the average career is 10 years, so they employ on average 30 NCAA players per year. Let's double that to 60 just because.

The NCAA employs about 3500 players. Average career four years, so that makes a pool of about 850 playes per year.

My numbers are off because I can't research the real ones in the time I have just now, but you can easily and legitimately say that the NBA employs well under 10% of the number of players entering college annually. Just how badly would the NCAA suffer if their pool of incoming players excluded the top 10% of the freshman recruiting class every year? Not much, I'm thinking. And we wouldn't have to deal with Ballish theatrics polluting the college game. Hell, I'm liking this idea so much that I'm extending the commitment to four years.

The NBA could make it so the obvious talents wouldn't worry about repaying money to the schools, but the fringe guys that we're all complaining about would have to seriously consider their decisions if they were $50-100k in debt to a school if they left before fulfilling their obligation.

[CalStateTempe]

I mean if we can live in a world where it's ok for the pros set rules to benefit their league, why is it not ok for the NCAA to set rules to do the same? Either way I don't criticize players for acting in their self interests at all. I do criticize what I believe to be dumb short sighted decisions I.E. Comanche going pro as opposed to just transferring however.

Sums up my take on the matter perfectly.

[Beachcat97]

I do criticize what I believe to be dumb short sighted decisions I.E. Comanche going pro as opposed to just transferring however.

If he's choosing pro ball over transferring, it just seems pretty obvious the guy really doesn't want to be a student. That's fine. Not sure how hard it is for Miller to get a read on this during recruiting, though. So many moving pieces. Like, if Ayton goes elsewhere, maybe Chance makes a different decision. If that's the case, I'll take Ayton.

[EVCat]

[The NCAA will do just as I suggested. I'm fine with the NCAA committing to 3+ year scholarships as long as certain conditions are maintained, just like the academic scholly I had and lost during my time at UA.

Not to become too granular and pick small parts of a larger comment for discussion, but I am going to become too granular and pick a small part of this larger comment for discussion.

The academic scholarship you had was paid by organizations that had some interest, either altruistic or otherwise, to assist students who show ability and desire to work hard to pay for school. If the school is offering it, it is really part of a long play to hope you become affiliated with your home university if and when you cure cancer and solve global hunger and discover safe, pill form penis enlargement. They are trolling with the net hoping to catch one in a million, and the dollars you will donate and the prestige your being a WIldcat will offer the community as a whole, increasing our value. They are also hoping you might study through undergrad to your doctorate and do something that reflects well on the community in order to show prospective students the awesome smart student base, which leads to enrollment. And, there is a little bit of desire to create an environment on campus where scholars such as yourself make the experience of attending the University of Arizona a positive one. So private and public interests are giving you money to attend school because they maybe want to be associated with you, and you with them...so you get tuition. But it is tied to your GPA, because you are not of value to the school if you don't meet GPA requirements. You are just another student.

But you aren't actually earning that tuition/scholarship. You might be worth it someday. But you are providing no real service, other than being one of 36,000 grains of sand that make up the sellable Arizona experience. There is a much longer play going on there, and it may pay off down the road if you do something great. Your test score becomes part of our average test scores, and because you did well, they are paying for you to attend so we can show our student base is smaaahhht. But you aren't mopping floors in Louie's or collecting garbage for the facilities department, or painting the walls. That is "work-study". Your scholarship is way more based on you maaaybe being someone they want to affiliate with in the future. They pay for a lot of kids.

A basketball player is better compared to work-study. They are actively earning their scholarship (and in football and basketball, they are earning the tennis and swim team their scholarships, too). So, if we are asking them to come to work for us, and they never stop working for us, we should guarantee that we will pay for them for the entire period of time required to earn the degree. Or, at the very least, let them leave and go somewhere else if it isn't working out without penalty. If another school wants to pay for them to do their basketball work study, and we don't want them anymore because they aren't as good as we thought at their job, we shouldn't be restricting that.

And that is what it comes down to for me. We artificially inhibit the market for players with the transfer rules and sitting out (even though coaches can leave whenever they want to). And these student-athetes are being paid for work more than "on scholarship". They have a work program that pays for their school. To be anything but exploitative, you really, IMO have to either:

Guarantee a 4 year scholarship for players so they know they can focus on school and being a top athlete

or

Allow players who turn out to be an ill fit (not good enough) to transfer to a school willing to pay them to do the job we no longer want to pay them to do.

We bring the player into an environment, a 4 year school, where success academically comes in the form of a degree. There are no steps along the way, no certifications that come with completion of 1, 2 or 3 years. So we should really be contracting with these players to offer FOUR years of schooling, maybe 5 if asked to redshirt, as long as they do the job we brought them in to do (participate). If we misevaluated their ability, we should not be able to cut them off at the knees mid degree program. But.

BUT...if we do say "hey...in order to get the money, you have to do the job well. Or get fired", then we have to let them find another job without restrictions. If we are going to keep scholarships 1 year and allow coaches to say "sorry you moved here and took classes here, some of which won't transfer, and started a life here...your outside shot sucks so you are fired", then how the hell can we call it anything but unfair and unbalanced to then tell them "sorry...you can't find another work study program where you can do the work next year. You have to sit out."

This isn't an academic scholarship. This is work for tuition. Making it year to year, but giving all the power to a coach to end a player's scholarship and then telling that kid he isn't allowed to play next year even if someone wants to pay him is self-serving and unbalanced and, frankly, exploitative. Either they are one year contracts and that goes both ways, or they are 4 year contracts. Our current system gives way too much power to coaches and ADs.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Puerco, I'd be fine if players had to give back the money schools gave to them so long as schools also have to give back the money players give to them.

[Puerco]

EV I'm on board with all of that. In my f-ck the NBA plan, the kids would have guaranteed four year schollies unless they screwed up (as in not following team rules, etc.). I'm not averse to allowing them to profit in some way from their performance either, but that brings in an inherent inequality with athletes in non-revenue sports which becomes tricky.

Spiff, not many jobs give employees full on profit sharing. It just doesn't work that way, sorry. These kids are doing a job, and as a reward they get fours years tuition, room, and all the board they can eat. If they bail on that commitment, then they pay back what was given to them.

There must be a way you could make the benefits of staying so positive and the pain of bailing so painful that you would get a healthy pool of applicants applying. Maybe the top tier talent would go pro right away, and the kids who hated the idea of school would find some other career. But the ones who came in would be bought in for four years, and I bet only yhr purists would notice a change in the quality of play.

[Spaceman Spiff]

EV I'm on board with all of that. In my f-ck the NBA plan, the kids would have guaranteed four year schollies unless they screwed up (as in not following team rules, etc.). I'm not averse to allowing them to profit in some way from their performance either, but that brings in an inherent inequality with athletes in non-revenue sports which becomes tricky.

Spiff, not many jobs give employees full on profit sharing. It just doesn't work that way, sorry. These kids are doing a job, and as a reward they get fours years tuition, room, and all the board they can eat. If they bail on that commitment, then they pay back what was given to them.

There must be a way you could make the benefits of staying so positive and the pain of bailing so painful that you would get a healthy pool of applicants applying. Maybe the top tier talent would go pro right away, and the kids who hated the idea of school would find some other career. But the ones who came in would be bought in for four years, and I bet only yhr purists would notice a change in the quality of play.

I appreciate acknowledging that it's a job. It's a fair way of looking at college sports. My comeback would be asking if it's wrong to use one job as a stepping stone to another, higher paying job.

That's the way pretty much every job works, that you can move to better options. It's a fair way of looking at the NBA jump too, IMO.

[Puerco]

There are any number of developmental jobs out there where a company will take a young graduate in, and spend a couple of years rotating them around into different roles once every 6-9 months, even internationally, for a couple of years. As you might perceive, this costs said company an extraordinary amount of money. These roles often come with commitments to remain with the company for a period of time after the rotations are complete. If the employee chooses to depart, then they have to repay some portion of the training costs incurred by their employer.

Seems fair, doesn't it?

[rgdeuce]

I'm fine with collegiate athletes getting bread off someone using their likeness. That is where I draw the line though. In terms of revenue sharing, obviously it benefits people like us, but it would give an unfair advantage to the "haves." And then what, you have Arizona sharing revenue with football and basketball players, but baseball, women's sports, etc don't get anything? It would be stupid to give it to all athletes as well.

I don't know, I'm old school I guess. My sports scholarship put a free roof over my head, away from my parents, for multiple years. It gave me three free hot meals a day. It helped expose me to professional scouts on a regular basis and I had access to great facilities, trainers and coaches. I got a free education that others paid 10s of thousands for. As far as I am concerned, they don't owe me squat. Just add it up: Rent $4,000, Food $4,050 (at equivalent to $5 per meal), books $300, Tuition (back then) $5,000, supplemental insurance/full coverage for catastrophic stuff, access to top-level facilities $270 (what one would pay in gym fees). We are talking roughly $14,000 and that was quite some time ago. I'll roughly say I gave 600 hours per year to my sport between practice, games, travel and weights. That is the equivalent of getting paid $23 per hour to play a freakin game, and well above what most regular joes make in the real world. Yes, the NCAA and schools are making a killing. If they didn't, tens of thousands college athletes each year would not be able to essentially earn $20 plus per hour to play a sport. Not even factoring in the type of money you would have to spend showcasing your talent on your own, how much you would pay someone like a Sean Miller or Nick Saban for personal instruction, etc.

[Spaceman Spiff]

There are any number of developmental jobs out there where a company will take a young graduate in, and spend a couple of years rotating them around into different roles once every 6-9 months, even internationally, for a couple of years. As you might perceive, this costs said company an extraordinary amount of money. These roles often come with commitments to remain with the company for a period of time after the rotations are complete. If the employee chooses to depart, then they have to repay some portion of the training costs incurred by their employer.

Seems fair, doesn't it?

Yes and no. The analogy for this example is if certain schools built in those terms to their scholarship offers. I would not have an issue with that bc schools should choose their course.

The exact analogy would be a federal regulation requiring all businesses/employees in a field to follow that pattern, and that's pretty unprecedented.

I don't have an issue with the school doing it because it presents a clear choice. If the athlete doesn't like it, he/she can go to a school without those restrictions. If enough schools do it, the system changes.

The reason that won't happen is because schools are more dependent on players than the other way around. Louisville basketball is a cash cow that goes away with worse players and worse results. They need to maximize recruiting. Recruits have more options.

[Puerco]

You're obfuscating. You raised what appeared to be a concern about the palyers not getting a fair financial deal. I replied with an example of a real life similarity which I considered fair. You then responded by saying an entire system based on that is different and is unprecedented.

Look, you're right. It would be unprecedented. But exactly what about today's NCAA has precedent anywhere else?

Back to the fairness part, I have two points. 1) The system would pay fair value to those who chose to take the offer. A guaranteed full ride for 4-5 years as EV suggests is still more than most non-athletes could hope for. They would also be guaranteed appropriate time to complete a degree and would have four years of eligibility plus a redshirt. 2) The players opting into this type of system would likely have less future athletic value and potential name brand value than those going directly into professional ball. Therefore the NCAA would be 'depriving' them of less, as their value in the absence of the NCAA would be effectively nil. The presumption here is that the majority of NBA talent would opt out, leaving players who would otherwise be playing in Serbia or Turkey or Cedar Rapids.

[Spaceman Spiff]

You're obfuscating. You raised what appeared to be a concern about the palyers not getting a fair financial deal. I replied with an example of a real life similarity which I considered fair. You then responded by saying an entire system based on that is different and is unprecedented.

Look, you're right. It would be unprecedented. But exactly what about today's NCAA has precedent anywhere else?

Back to the fairness part, I have two points. 1) The system would pay fair value to those who chose to take the offer. A guaranteed full ride for 4-5 years as EV suggests is still more than most non-athletes could hope for. They would also be guaranteed appropriate time to complete a degree and would have four years of eligibility plus a redshirt. 2) The players opting into this type of system would likely have less future athletic value and potential name brand value than those going directly into professional ball. Therefore the NCAA would be 'depriving' them of less, as their value in the absence of the NCAA would be effectively nil. The presumption here is that the majority of NBA talent would opt out, leaving players who would otherwise be playing in Serbia or Turkey or Cedar Rapids.

No, I'm saying that individual competition among entities and their private policies is a very different thing compared to top down legislation.

If the system is based on fair value, I assume players will be allowed to receive any extra benefits that come with their status? If they get extra benefits, that is certainly indicative of the actual fair value of their work. If they don't, again, that's indicative of their true value.

That opens the door to the easy loophole with your system. Boosters can just agree to pay the "penalty" for the players to induce them to come to a particular school.

As a side note, I have a base problem with taking a basketball program that generates 20 million a year and completely ignoring the player's contribution to that in order to view the player as only sucking out resources. That's another huge issue I have with your company example. Those new employees aren't generating 20 million their first year in the company.

[Puerco]

I understand your base objection. I prefer to believe that NCAA sports provides a lot of value to a lot of student athletes, not the least the opportunity for a free education. Should the swimmer be punished because the sport is not a revenue generator? Should football players be given more than gymnasts? I choose to think not.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I understand your base objection. I prefer to believe that NCAA sports provides a lot of value to a lot of student athletes, not the least the opportunity for a free education. Should the swimmer be punished because the sport is not a revenue generator? Should football players be given more than gymnasts? I choose to think not.

So I have two answers. The first is in the context of leaving early. The system works much better for non-revenue athletes simply because the big money in pro leagues isn't there. They don't have the same incentive to jump prior to a full ride.

Saying football and basketball equal other sports really just is not true. They're apples and oranges. See the football facilities for Oregon, Bama and Clemson.

My second answer is why I feel that universities should do the same thing for all athletes in terms of scholarships, but allow athletes to earn from non-school sources (i.e., boosters). I am not offended by the idea a player will recognize his or her actual market value. You have the base of access to scholarships, then the market sets the rest. I like that.

[McKale Midwest]

I'm not the best with technology, but did you see Biancardi's tweet? In regards to Duvlas college decision:

Not sure... but the recruiting buzz is that it's coming down between Duke and Arizona.

https://twitter.com/paulbiancardi/statu ... 7922254853" target="_blank

ChooChooCat, I thought It was a foregone conclusion that Duval was a BlueDevil? Any idea what could have possibly changed the 18 year olds mind? It must have been the... ROMAR EFFECT?!?

[ChooChooCat]

I'm not the best with technology, but did you see Biancardi's tweet? In regards to Duvlas college decision:

Not sure... but the recruiting buzz is that it's coming down between Duke and Arizona.

https://twitter.com/paulbiancardi/statu ... 7922254853" target="_blank

ChooChooCat, I thought It was a foregone conclusion that Duval was a BlueDevil? Any idea what could have possibly changed the 18 year olds mind? It must have been the... ROMAR EFFECT?!?

Biancardi may be the only person in the business to say Arizona has any buzz. I haven't heard anything to suggest anything has changed with him. He's going to commit to Duke and it's still up in the air if he ever makes it to campus.

[rgdeuce]

Sean Miller needs to reach out to Drake and bring him on board. He's the last piece to the puzzle in terms of getting whoever we want.

[NYCat]

Sean Miller needs to reach out to Drake and bring him on board. He's the last piece to the puzzle in terms of getting whoever we want.

Worldwide Wes

[gumby]

Ranking update: Kentucky, UCLA, Arizona, Duke.

http://insider.espn.com/college-sports/ ... ssrankings" target="_blank

Oregon doing work.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Sean Miller needs to reach out to Drake and bring him on board. He's the last piece to the puzzle in terms of getting whoever we want.

Forget Drake. He's been ducking Kendrick Lamar for a while. We need Kendrick on our side to cement our LA pipeline. Plus, Drake is a bandwagoner. We start winning big, Drake will come.

[Beachcat97]

Ranking update: Kentucky, UCLA, Arizona, Duke.

http://insider.espn.com/college-sports/ ... ssrankings" target="_blank

Oregon doing work.

I think everyone ranked 2 thru 5 is about event. UK is off the charts, as usual.

But as we've seen again and again, having the highest rated class often means very little. We don't know what these guys can do until they actually get to campus and start playing.

[Puerco]

I understand your base objection. I prefer to believe that NCAA sports provides a lot of value to a lot of student athletes, not the least the opportunity for a free education. Should the swimmer be punished because the sport is not a revenue generator? Should football players be given more than gymnasts? I choose to think not.

So I have two answers. The first is in the context of leaving early. The system works much better for non-revenue athletes simply because the big money in pro leagues isn't there. They don't have the same incentive to jump prior to a full ride.

Saying football and basketball equal other sports really just is not true. They're apples and oranges. See the football facilities for Oregon, Bama and Clemson.

My second answer is why I feel that universities should do the same thing for all athletes in terms of scholarships, but allow athletes to earn from non-school sources (i.e., boosters). I am not offended by the idea a player will recognize his or her actual market value. You have the base of access to scholarships, then the market sets the rest. I like that.

I didn't say the sports were the same. I did say the athletes were. And oh my god, did you say you think it'd be okay for booster to pay athletes? We might as well turn Duke into the Yankees. Pay to play is not a good idea for college sports.

[CalStateTempe]

Ranking update: Kentucky, UCLA, Arizona, Duke.

http://insider.espn.com/college-sports/ ... ssrankings" target="_blank

Oregon doing work.

Oh silly gumby...Oregon has to pull together like 10 years of recruiting success before we can say that they are a power to contend with.

Or at least that is what some of the posters on here have told me when I mentioned that Oregon is going to capitalize huge on their last two seasons re: recruiting.

Nice post. Thanks.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I understand your base objection. I prefer to believe that NCAA sports provides a lot of value to a lot of student athletes, not the least the opportunity for a free education. Should the swimmer be punished because the sport is not a revenue generator? Should football players be given more than gymnasts? I choose to think not.

So I have two answers. The first is in the context of leaving early. The system works much better for non-revenue athletes simply because the big money in pro leagues isn't there. They don't have the same incentive to jump prior to a full ride.

Saying football and basketball equal other sports really just is not true. They're apples and oranges. See the football facilities for Oregon, Bama and Clemson.

My second answer is why I feel that universities should do the same thing for all athletes in terms of scholarships, but allow athletes to earn from non-school sources (i.e., boosters). I am not offended by the idea a player will recognize his or her actual market value. You have the base of access to scholarships, then the market sets the rest. I like that.

I didn't say the sports were the same. I did say the athletes were. And oh my god, did you say you think it'd be okay for booster to pay athletes? We might as well turn Duke into the Yankees. Pay to play is not a good idea for college sports.

I did say that. Right now, boosters buy players extravagant facilities as proxy. Look at Oregon's football facility. Players get tons of free stuff from AAU shoe sponsors, then magically choose Adidas schools.

There's a cottage industry built off the backdoor funneling of benefits to players because it can't happen legitimately. Yes, I think it's fine to distribute the money to players directly instead of routing it through the proxies.

I really do pooh-pooh the arguments about a slanted playing field. Those arguments exist in a world where Alabama and Kentucky don't generate huge booster money that allows for repeat #1 classes. The field is already tilted.

[rgdeuce]

Sean Miller needs to reach out to Drake and bring him on board. He's the last piece to the puzzle in terms of getting whoever we want.

Forget Drake. He's been ducking Kendrick Lamar for a while. We need Kendrick on our side to cement our LA pipeline. Plus, Drake is a bandwagoner. We start winning big, Drake will come.

Are we talking mixtape/Section80/Good Kid Maad City Kendrick, or everything after? May want to bring in J Cole too, so he can put everyone to sleep on team flights and the guys can get adequate rest.

[rgdeuce]

Ranking update: Kentucky, UCLA, Arizona, Duke.

http://insider.espn.com/college-sports/ ... ssrankings" target="_blank

Oregon doing work.

Oh silly gumby...Oregon has to pull together like 10 years of recruiting success before we can say that they are a power to contend with.

Or at least that is what some of the posters on here have told me when I mentioned that Oregon is going to capitalize huge on their last two seasons re: recruiting.

Nice post. Thanks.

Am I missing something here lol? They have #12 Troy Brown who they may only have for one year, and after that the #82, 125 and 136 rated prospects from 2017. Don't know if it is by design, but if not, Oregon should be doing a little better.

[Beachcat97]

Ranking update: Kentucky, UCLA, Arizona, Duke.

http://insider.espn.com/college-sports/ ... ssrankings" target="_blank

Oregon doing work.

Oh silly gumby...Oregon has to pull together like 10 years of recruiting success before we can say that they are a power to contend with.

Or at least that is what some of the posters on here have told me when I mentioned that Oregon is going to capitalize huge on their last two seasons re: recruiting.

Nice post. Thanks.

Am I missing something here lol? They have #12 Troy Brown who they may only have for one year, and after that the #82, 125 and 136 rated prospects from 2017. Don't know if it is by design, but if not, Oregon should be doing a little better.

They've been doing pretty damn well with guys not ranked in the top 25. Altman can coach.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Sean Miller needs to reach out to Drake and bring him on board. He's the last piece to the puzzle in terms of getting whoever we want.

Forget Drake. He's been ducking Kendrick Lamar for a while. We need Kendrick on our side to cement our LA pipeline. Plus, Drake is a bandwagoner. We start winning big, Drake will come.

Are we talking mixtape/Section80/Good Kid Maad City Kendrick, or everything after? May want to bring in J Cole too, so he can put everyone to sleep on team flights and the guys can get adequate rest.

Yeah, I agree that Kendrick has been more hit or miss lately. Why not just go for all of TDE and try to pull Vince Staples too? Unless you're a YG man, which I'm not, that does the trick. I will say, when Kendrick is on (Control, Humble, DNA) he really doesn't have many peers.

[gumby]

[ChooChooCat]

Ranking update: Kentucky, UCLA, Arizona, Duke.

http://insider.espn.com/college-sports/ ... ssrankings" target="_blank

Oregon doing work.

Oh silly gumby...Oregon has to pull together like 10 years of recruiting success before we can say that they are a power to contend with.

Or at least that is what some of the posters on here have told me when I mentioned that Oregon is going to capitalize huge on their last two seasons re: recruiting.

Nice post. Thanks.

Am I missing something here lol? They have #12 Troy Brown who they may only have for one year, and after that the #82, 125 and 136 rated prospects from 2017. Don't know if it is by design, but if not, Oregon should be doing a little better.

They've been doing pretty damn well with guys not ranked in the top 25. Altman can coach.

When your guys stay for 3 years, get steady playing time, and aren't recruited over they are going to develop and become players.

[TucsonClip]

Just make sure you get all of TDE or at the very least my man Schoolboy Q. He needs to be there.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Just make sure you get all of TDE or at the very least my man Schoolboy Q. He needs to be there.

My wife gets really mad at the chorus of "Man of the Year."

[gumby]

Ranking update: Kentucky, UCLA, Arizona, Duke.

http://insider.espn.com/college-sports/ ... ssrankings" target="_blank

Oregon doing work.

Oh silly gumby...Oregon has to pull together like 10 years of recruiting success before we can say that they are a power to contend with.

Or at least that is what some of the posters on here have told me when I mentioned that Oregon is going to capitalize huge on their last two seasons re: recruiting.

Nice post. Thanks.

Am I missing something here lol? They have #12 Troy Brown who they may only have for one year, and after that the #82, 125 and 136 rated prospects from 2017. Don't know if it is by design, but if not, Oregon should be doing a little better.

Miles Norris. No. 48.

[TucsonClip]

Just make sure you get all of TDE or at the very least my man Schoolboy Q. He needs to be there.

My wife gets really mad at the chorus of "Man of the Year."

But thats the best part. Also, ive seen it happen multiple times in real life at his shows... So gotta respect the man.

[rgdeuce]

Ranking update: Kentucky, UCLA, Arizona, Duke.

http://insider.espn.com/college-sports/ ... ssrankings" target="_blank

Oregon doing work.

Oh silly gumby...Oregon has to pull together like 10 years of recruiting success before we can say that they are a power to contend with.

Or at least that is what some of the posters on here have told me when I mentioned that Oregon is going to capitalize huge on their last two seasons re: recruiting.

Nice post. Thanks.

Am I missing something here lol? They have #12 Troy Brown who they may only have for one year, and after that the #82, 125 and 136 rated prospects from 2017. Don't know if it is by design, but if not, Oregon should be doing a little better.

They've been doing pretty damn well with guys not ranked in the top 25. Altman can coach.

I consider Altman one of, if not the most underrated coach in CBB. Not doubting him at all. We will see how 2017 shapes up for them, but this "boom" is not evident so far.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Just make sure you get all of TDE or at the very least my man Schoolboy Q. He needs to be there.

My wife gets really mad at the chorus of "Man of the Year."

But thats the best part. Also, ive seen it happen multiple times in real life at his shows... So gotta respect the man.

Her complaint is she hears him saying "t***y ass hands in the air" instead of "t***y, ass, hands in the air."

She asked me what "t***y ass hands" were, and I explained that he is discussing the three eeparate things and requesting ladies put them in the air (presumably not at the same time) and shake them. She was not convinced by that explanation.

[Beachcat97]

I consider Altman one of, if not the most underrated coach in CBB. Not doubting him at all. We will see how 2017 shapes up for them, but this "boom" is not evident so far.

I don't think he's underrated anymore, not after getting to the FF and winning back to back Pac titles.

One could make the argument that he's been the Pac's best coach over the last few seasons.

[rgdeuce]

Until he starts popping up in some respected top 10 lists, I think he's underrated.

[rgdeuce]

Sean Miller needs to reach out to Drake and bring him on board. He's the last piece to the puzzle in terms of getting whoever we want.

Forget Drake. He's been ducking Kendrick Lamar for a while. We need Kendrick on our side to cement our LA pipeline. Plus, Drake is a bandwagoner. We start winning big, Drake will come.

Are we talking mixtape/Section80/Good Kid Maad City Kendrick, or everything after? May want to bring in J Cole too, so he can put everyone to sleep on team flights and the guys can get adequate rest.

Yeah, I agree that Kendrick has been more hit or miss lately. Why not just go for all of TDE and try to pull Vince Staples too? Unless you're a YG man, which I'm not, that does the trick. I will say, when Kendrick is on (Control, Humble, DNA) he really doesn't have many peers.

Kendrick is the best in the game right now, if aren't involving geezers like Nas, Ghostface and a few others. I just favor his production decisions from years back, as well as him rhyming a more traditional 16 or 32, rather that this mish mash of singing, rapping, talking, moaning, etc. He tries just a tad "too hard" these days, which ends up as a mixture of garbage, meh, and hit it out the park. YZ is a guilty pleasure, as is Dom Kennedy and a few other guys. Cali has quite a few guys who are just making good music, and the east is mostly guys who are taking things or themselves too seriously

[TucsonClip]

She asked me what "t***y ass hands" were, and I explained that he is discussing the three eeparate things and requesting ladies put them in the air (presumably not at the same time) and shake them. She was not convinced by that explanation.

I had to explain that to my girlfriend as well. She didnt get it. It must be a....thing?

[Spaceman Spiff]

RG, I agree on Kendrick. Since GKMC, his beat selection is all over the place and his quality is inconsistent. It does give off the feel of a guy trying too hard to be different.

Control is a good example. It's a solid beat, but not a HOFer like Nuthin but a G Thang, Regulators, Gin and Juice, California Love and the other West greats. But he hops on it, gets fired up and delivers possibly the best rap verse of the 2000's. I downloaded only his part bc, even though I respect Big Sean and Jay Electronica's verses, they just pale.

That's all he needs, an album of solid beats that he could elevate into something special. I felt that way about GKMC. TPAB and beyond, they just have a lot of lulls and missteps. Heck, the "It's Alive" beat from the Dre Beats commercial was more compelling than anything on Damn or TPAB.

It makes me sound like an old person, but at least it isn't mumble rap, which I effing hate. Guys like Kendrick and J Cole are great lyrically, but need to cede some beat control.

And until the dominoes with Rawle, Bowen and Johnson start to fall, this is as good a topic as any. I have to take a long drive for work tomorrow. I think I'll bring The Chronic, Doggystyle, Aquemini and other classics it's been a minute since and try to enjoy it a bit.