Sean Miller

[Bangkok Wildcat]

He is absolutely the right coach for Arizona. I only hope and pray he never leaves.

I couldn't agree more Spiff and this is why I'm trying hard as hell not to take him for granted like I did a little with beloved Lute. IF he ever leaves (gulp, UNCheaters, ), I'll be devastated so I'm trying to appreciate him as much as possible.

Xavier loss was probably the only time I ever criticized him (constructively) and agreed with him that the loss was on him.....also on some bad luck with Rawle's injury.....In any case, CSM has surpassed my wildest expectations Recruiting-wise, Coaching, etc......the only thing left for me is getting that FF monkey of our backs.....still pissed that Nick was screwed with that charging call vs. Wiscy.....that was just soooo wrong and so frustrating.

Anyways, love, love, love Coach and really excited yet again for another year of Hoops......this could be a huge year for us on all fronts. BTFD and let's get it done Team!

[HiCat]

Sean Miller: Barcelona terror attack was 'very frightening' for Arizona Wildcats' traveling party
Aug 23, 2017 Updated 7 hrs ago

“It was very frightening,” Miller said. “When something like that happens, at first you worry about everybody. Hopefully you get through that first phase where everybody’s OK, and once you do

http://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildcat ... b7ed7.html" target="_blank

[HiCat]

'Nobody can do it alone,' but Arizona Wildcats stacked with basketball talent

By Bruce Pascoe Arizona Daily Star Aug 27, 2017 Updated 11 hrs ago

Arizona coach Sean Miller ran into one problem on the court during the Wildcats’ exhibition games in Spain earlier this month, but it was a good one to have.

He had to start figuring out who to get the ball to.

Does he go with the all-around scoring powers of Allonzo Trier and Rawle Alkins? The fast-rising skills of freshman guard Brandon Randolph? Pound it down low to the reliable Dusan Ristic? Have Parker Jackson-Cartwright or Dylan Smith fire up some opportunistic 3s?

Or just let DeAndre Ayton use his freakish 7-foot athleticism to spin and dunk around guys who won’t have a chance to stop him?

The answer, naturally, was a little bit of everything. Miller hopes to do the same in the upcoming season, too.

“Nobody can do it alone,” Miller said. “Especially if you’re trying to compete for the top prize, whether that top prize is when you go to the tournament in the Bahamas … (or) you go to the conference regular season championship. No one can do it alone.”

http://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildcat ... 549a0.html" target="_blank

[EOCT]

Thanks, Hi---great share.

"Alex and Brandon … those guys are two of our best but they’re able to do more than we anticipated. We recruited both to be more than just shooters but clearly they have a well-roundedness earlier in their career than maybe we anticipated."

Oh, yeah. Even more depth and diversity than we expected.

Also liked Coach's comments about Lo Romar and his plan to incorporate a lot of Lo's active-O into our game. Can't wait for Season to begin!

[YoDeFoe]

That's the best Miller article I've read in a while... or maybe I'm just super thirsty for more Arizona basketball.

But seriously the Romar comments were really excellent and more than I could expect from a coach bringing in a former conference rival.

“With Lorenzo, for me, it’s to allow him to truly be himself and think like a head coach, and to put his stamp on our program because his career speaks for itself, his career as a player and the fact that he won a national championship as an assistant at UCLA” in 1995, Miller said. “Not to mention just who he is as a person and his way of being able to connect with so many different people — parents, young players, seniors. The last thing I would ever want him to do is tippy toe around what he should and should not do. …

“From an offensive perspective, I think there’s lot of things we loved about the way his teams played. We have to be true to ourselves because there’s a lot of things we believe in, but to add some of his thoughts and allow him to make us better, it would be foolish for me or for anybody not to allow that to happen. To have Lorenzo here is a gift and I think it’ll impact us in a significant way.”

What a class act we have in Miller. Incredible leadership, not a scrap of ego here.

[Spaceman Spiff]

That's the best Miller article I've read in a while... or maybe I'm just super thirsty for more Arizona basketball.

But seriously the Romar comments were really excellent and more than I could expect from a coach bringing in a former conference rival.

“With Lorenzo, for me, it’s to allow him to truly be himself and think like a head coach, and to put his stamp on our program because his career speaks for itself, his career as a player and the fact that he won a national championship as an assistant at UCLA” in 1995, Miller said. “Not to mention just who he is as a person and his way of being able to connect with so many different people — parents, young players, seniors. The last thing I would ever want him to do is tippy toe around what he should and should not do. …

“From an offensive perspective, I think there’s lot of things we loved about the way his teams played. We have to be true to ourselves because there’s a lot of things we believe in, but to add some of his thoughts and allow him to make us better, it would be foolish for me or for anybody not to allow that to happen. To have Lorenzo here is a gift and I think it’ll impact us in a significant way.”

What a class act we have in Miller. Incredible leadership, not a scrap of ego here.

Miller's treatment of Romar has been one of the best parts of his tenure. The extent to which it shows his ability to see this as an opportunity instead of a threat to himself...well, I've posted about how awesome that is before, but it can't be said enough. Miller's willingness to put the program first has never been more evident.

[Beachcat97]

Maybe we've been saying this for a while now, but anyone else feel like we're on the brink of Miller's prime years at AZ? I mean, he's already won Pac titles, done well in the tourney, and distinguished himself in almost every possible way. But it sorta feels like his best is yet to come.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Maybe we've been saying this for a while now, but anyone else feel like we're on the brink of Miller's prime years at AZ? I mean, he's already won Pac titles, done well in the tourney, and distinguished himself in almost every possible way. But it sorta feels like his best is yet to come.

I feel like Miller is constantly improving. Recruiting, coaching, management of the program...it is all getting better. Last year was his best job (maybe rivaled only by 2011) of coaching.

The results are dependent on a lot of factors, but the man is an incredible asset to Arizona.

[zonagrad]

Great posts by so many of you regarding Miller's latest moves. It's clear that Sean Miller has tremendous self awareness to know he doesn't have all the answers and even coaches need to improve and keep re-inventing themselves. Miller is a perfect example of a leader who is out for the absolute best for his organization. As others have alluded, you get the feeling Arizona is about to go to a whole other level.

[Puerco]

Maybe we've been saying this for a while now, but anyone else feel like we're on the brink of Miller's prime years at AZ? I mean, he's already won Pac titles, done well in the tourney, and distinguished himself in almost every possible way. But it sorta feels like his best is yet to come.

Not until he plays a zone defense 97% of the time.

-- RiseandFire

[HiCat]

Sean Miller: College hoops will be 'unrecognizable' if new transfer rule passes



By Bruce Pascoe Arizona Daily Star Sep 8, 2017 Updated 10 hrs ago

Since the NCAA quietly announced this week it will consider giving transfers immediate eligibility, a chorus of concern has arisen from college basketball coaches.

Including Arizona’s Sean Miller.

“If that rule passed, college basketball and college sports would change in such a drastic way that the new model would be unrecognizable to fans, coaches, universities, student-athletes and eventually the TV networks,” Miller told the Star. “I hope it never happens for all those who care about college sports.”

While the NCAA’s study into relaxing transfer rules appears aimed at benefiting athletes, who would need to meet an as-yet-unspecified academic measure to qualify, coaches say there are consequences with current rosters and in a recruiting world that is already increasingly fluid.

“It would turn into one of the dirtiest recruiting periods that you’ve ever seen,” Indiana coach Archie Miller told Scout.com. “You’ll have guys talking to your players when they are in your gym. Coaches will recruit players right after games ... it would cripple teams and
programs.”

Over 700 players transferred from the 351 Division I schools already this year, and the count could climb higher with more liberal rules. Currently, only players who graduate and still have eligibility remaining can play at other schools the following season.

“I understand that people argue coaches can leave anytime, so why not players?” Oregon State coach Wayne Tinkle told the Star. “I’m not naïve about that but it’s causing a lot of issues. There’s people being
poached off other teams’ roster. But I know the discussion we’re having is healthy.”

College basketball analyst Jay Bilas has been vocal in support for the change, noting on ESPN.com that because the athletes are being considered unpaid students, not employees, they should be free to leave and be eligible the next season.

“If it is true, that we are talking about students being treated like any other students, the NCAA’s transfer policy should be quite simple,” Bilas wrote. “Any athlete
should be allowed to transfer at any time and accept all allowable aid from any school that will have him or her.”

Sean Miller has said over the past few years that having the required redshirt year can help a player learn the UA system, thus making him more prepared upon becoming. Boston College transfer Ryan Anderson redshirted at the UA before playing in 2015-16, and was one of the team’s best players.

http://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildcat ... 34c82.html" target="_blank

[rgdeuce]

The participation trophy/coddling/instant gratification trends are going to F up college sports. This would be a huge mistake, for fans and IMO, would be pumping even more "bail when the slightest thing goes wrong" young men into the real world when they are done with ball. I'm sure this would lead to numerous "super teams" as well, an issue that has ruined the NBA for a lot of people.

[Beachcat97]

CSM is 100% right.

[prh]

The participation trophy/coddling/instant gratification trends are going to F up college sports. This would be a huge mistake, for fans and IMO, would be pumping even more "bail when the slightest thing goes wrong" young men into the real world when they are done with ball. I'm sure this would lead to numerous "super teams" as well, an issue that has ruined the NBA for a lot of people.

Nailed it deuce. I really don't understand how so many people think this is a great idea. It's not surprising that Bilas likes it, because his hatred for the NCAA is so deep that I think he'd be ok ruining college sports for fans if it hurt the NCAA. I also don't understand why it's such a shock that you have to sit out a year if you transfer for sports. In many (most?) states, it's the same for HS sports. If you transfer you have to prove it was legitimately not for sports, or you sit a year. I also hate that players transferring is compared to coaches taking new jobs. I can't eloquently explain why it's different, but for people who can't see it, then they really shouldn't be discussing transfer rules.

[ASUHATER!]

Students can transfer whenever they want wherever they want. Teachers can. Coaches can. Administrators can. Why not athletes? There's no reason to not implement this change.

[ChooChooCat]

Students can transfer whenever they want wherever they want. Teachers can. Coaches can. Administrators can. Why not athletes? There's no reason to not implement this change.

Except the mass chaos that would ensue due to team's tampering with other team's rosters by actively recruiting their players. There's infinite reasons not to implement such a change and I'm far from shocked you can't figure it out.

If anything should change in this system for transfers it should be this and only this:

Transfers can play immediately IF the HEAD coach they committed to left to take another job or was fired.

That's it, any thing more than that would be absolutely ridiculous and we might as well fold any non-power conference Division I program otherwise (sans a few). Can I just say that Jay Bilas is beyond a fucking moron on this topic while we're at it?

[ASUHATER!]

I fully understand all the points you make. Still doesn't change the fact that it's a no brainer to allow kids to transfer. Shoulda happened decades ago.

[Chicat]

What's fair to student athletes is at odds with what's best for competitive balance and fan interest. I'm just not sure there's really a wrong or right side on this issue.

[prh]

Students can transfer whenever they want wherever they want. Teachers can. Coaches can. Administrators can. Why not athletes? There's no reason to not implement this change.

Except the mass chaos that would ensue due to team's tampering with other team's rosters by actively recruiting their players. There's infinite reasons not to implement such a change and I'm far from shocked you can't figure it out.

If anything should change in this system for transfers it should be this and only this:

Transfers can play immediately IF the HEAD coach they committed to left to take another job or was fired.

That's it, any thing more than that would be absolutely ridiculous and we might as well fold any non-power conference Division I program otherwise (sans a few). Can I just say that Jay Bilas is beyond a fucking moron on this topic while we're at it?

Seconded the bold. Choo, you're against paying players, correct? One big but never discussed (in the media) problem with paying players is the massive competitive balance it will create, which I think would be even worse than the one you mentioned here. I have a feeling that the transfer topic and pay to play topic almost go together. Most people either support both or hate both. Both will create competitive imbalance, and both just have huge issues and consequences that no one wants to talk about or sometimes even acknowledge.

[ChooChooCat]

I fully understand all the points you make. Still doesn't change the fact that it's a no brainer to allow kids to transfer. Shoulda happened decades ago.

It's never been a no brainer outside of the instances I named. If it was then more people would've been calling for it for a long time outside of the intellectual minds of ASUHATER and Jay Bilas. Most people with a functioning higher power and no agenda understand how it just can't work. I will concede one more inclusion to my list and that's no school should be able to prevent a player from transferring to any school of his choice, that practice needs to die a quick death.

[ChooChooCat]

Students can transfer whenever they want wherever they want. Teachers can. Coaches can. Administrators can. Why not athletes? There's no reason to not implement this change.

Except the mass chaos that would ensue due to team's tampering with other team's rosters by actively recruiting their players. There's infinite reasons not to implement such a change and I'm far from shocked you can't figure it out.

If anything should change in this system for transfers it should be this and only this:

Transfers can play immediately IF the HEAD coach they committed to left to take another job or was fired.

That's it, any thing more than that would be absolutely ridiculous and we might as well fold any non-power conference Division I program otherwise (sans a few). Can I just say that Jay Bilas is beyond a fucking moron on this topic while we're at it?

Seconded the bold. Choo, you're against paying players, correct? One big but never discussed (in the media) problem with paying players is the massive competitive balance it will create, which I think would be even worse than the one you mentioned here. I have a feeling that the transfer topic and pay to play topic almost go together. Most people either support both or hate both. Both will create competitive imbalance, and both just have huge issues and consequences that no one wants to talk about or sometimes even acknowledge.

The paying of players is a hard one for me. I definitely see your point, but it's also far from a no brainer. I'm all for letting these one and done kids go right to HS, that's where I'm at on solving this issue in regards to basketball. Football is much harder since there's no overseas league that would pay/develop these guys and in all honesty CFB is the minor league for the NFL. All the money these players make the university (sans marketing for getting regular students to enroll) is put right back into them with state of the art facilities and every thing else that comes with playing at these schools anyways. It's a slippery slope, but I will say fuck Jay Bilas once again.

[Puerco]

I fully understand all the points you make. Still doesn't change the fact that it's a no brainer to allow kids to transfer. Shoulda happened decades ago.

I must have no brain then. Nothing is stopping an athlete from transferring, immediately being put on scolarship, and making progress toward his or her degree. Therefore they are like any other student. Comparisons past that point are invalid.

[Longhorned]

All the money these players make the university (sans marketing for getting regular students to enroll) is put right back into them with state of the art facilities and every thing else that comes with playing at these schools anyways.

The bolded, in addition to be the main basis of alumni donations to the university (and not just to the athletics department), is huge, though. It's weird that student athletes play such a big role bringing in so much money in exchange for just tuition, the training table, and the facilities. And the "free education" doesn't remotely compare to the education that the other students have available to them, especially for basketball players. At least pay them enough to eat like a normal person.

[gumby]

I fully understand all the points you make. Still doesn't change the fact that it's a no brainer to allow kids to transfer. Shoulda happened decades ago.

I must have no brain then. Nothing is stopping an athlete from transferring, immediately being put on scolarship, and making progress toward his or her degree. Therefore they are like any other student. Comparisons past that point are invalid.

Herein lies the rub. Are they students or not? It they are, they can immediately pick up their studies -- just like any student.

If the answer is no, not primarily, then they should be paid and be able to change teams, even within the same season. The paid athletes elsewhere can do that. Why not the ones who happen to perform on a campus? Is it unfair if the Yankees add a key player late in the season? No. That option is open to all. Would have to dump a player, but, hey, that happens everywhere in life. Man up! Darwinism, no participation trophies, and all that.

I call the above the purist personal freedom position. I'd imagine even Bilas wouldn't even go there, but it takes his logic to its logical end. And that's the problem, taking all of these player-centered proposals to their logical end raises the question even the Bilases of the world don't want to face:

Why is this activity taking place at an institution of higher learning, as opposed to higher jumping? What is the connection?

Sever the connection (they're workers -- contracted or salaried -- not students) and you imperil the whole enchilada.

College sports didn't grow in popularity because of the opportunities it provided for gifted athletes. It grew because it was my school against your school, just like high school but on a higher scale. It was Wildcats against Sun Devils, not collection of athletes we don't know vs. another collection we don't know.

They were bound to the college by being students. Then the erosion began, which begat one-and-done, which begat "pay them," which begat new transfer rules -- all player-centered proposals.

So we either kinda end the fiction that they are students (the current situation) or completely do so. If it's the latter, it will hurt the sports themselves. But, hey, the players are transitory. For the current ones, no loss. For those, 10 years from now, big consequences (like fewer places to showcase now that college hoops has declined in popularity).

There is no answer that preserves both. So we choose sides. My view is if we keep going down the player-centered path, it will kill the golden goose. I know that each of these changes diminishes the appeal of college hoops for me.

[prh]

There is no answer that preserves both. So we choose sides. My view is if we keep going down the player-centered path, it will kill the golden goose. I know that each of these changes diminishes the appeal of college hoops for me.

I think the golden goose analogy is very apt, it's the exact same thing that happened with football and the EA Sports games. I hope all those players are happy they got $20 for their likenesses and killed it for 1) all the players who thought being in a game was cool and 2) everyone else who enjoyed playing the games.

[zonagrad]

One part of the equation that is overlooked is that a large majority of these players would never, ever sniff a college campus if it weren't for basketball. It's not just the cost of the scholarship, it's also the opportunities, networking and "favoritism" they enjoy that has absolutely nothing to do with their classroom performance. Let's face it, a player who otherwise had no shot at college based on grades and means can get a full ride and have a solid career. That career may still not translate to a paycheck for playing hoops. But the player is still way ahead of the game in the job market if he played his cards right and can have many opportunities that other regular students might not not be afforded even if they have the same degree. I think that's often overlooked.

[Longhorned]

I fully understand all the points you make. Still doesn't change the fact that it's a no brainer to allow kids to transfer. Shoulda happened decades ago.

I must have no brain then. Nothing is stopping an athlete from transferring, immediately being put on scolarship, and making progress toward his or her degree. Therefore they are like any other student. Comparisons past that point are invalid.

Herein lies the rub. Are they students or not? It they are, they can immediately pick up their studies -- just like any student.

If the answer is no, not primarily, then they should be paid and be able to change teams, even within the same season. The paid athletes elsewhere can do that. Why not the ones who happen to perform on a campus? Is it unfair if the Yankees add a key player late in the season? No. That option is open to all. Would have to dump a player, but, hey, that happens everywhere in life. Man up! Darwinism, no participation trophies, and all that.

I call the above the purist personal freedom position. I'd imagine even Bilas wouldn't even go there, but it takes his logic to its logical end. And that's the problem, taking all of these player-centered proposals to their logical end raises the question even the Bilases of the world don't want to face:

Why is this activity taking place at an institution of higher learning, as opposed to higher jumping? What is the connection?

Sever the connection (they're workers -- contracted or salaried -- not students) and you imperil the whole enchilada.

College sports didn't grow in popularity because of the opportunities it provided for gifted athletes. It grew because it was my school against your school, just like high school but on a higher scale. It was Wildcats against Sun Devils, not collection of athletes we don't know vs. another collection we don't know.

They were bound to the college by being students. Then the erosion began, which begat one-and-done, which begat "pay them," which begat new transfer rules -- all player-centered proposals.

So we either kinda end the fiction that they are students (the current situation) or completely do so. If it's the latter, it will hurt the sports themselves. But, hey, the players are transitory. For the current ones, no loss. For those, 10 years from now, big consequences (like fewer places to showcase now that college hoops has declined in popularity).

There is no answer that preserves both. So we choose sides. My view is if we keep going down the player-centered path, it will kill the golden goose. I know that each of these changes diminishes the appeal of college hoops for me.

This is a great post and elaborates what's so right about Chicat's post above.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I fully understand all the points you make. Still doesn't change the fact that it's a no brainer to allow kids to transfer. Shoulda happened decades ago.

I must have no brain then. Nothing is stopping an athlete from transferring, immediately being put on scolarship, and making progress toward his or her degree. Therefore they are like any other student. Comparisons past that point are invalid.

Herein lies the rub. Are they students or not? It they are, they can immediately pick up their studies -- just like any student.

If the answer is no, not primarily, then they should be paid and be able to change teams, even within the same season. The paid athletes elsewhere can do that. Why not the ones who happen to perform on a campus? Is it unfair if the Yankees add a key player late in the season? No. That option is open to all. Would have to dump a player, but, hey, that happens everywhere in life. Man up! Darwinism, no participation trophies, and all that.

I call the above the purist personal freedom position. I'd imagine even Bilas wouldn't even go there, but it takes his logic to its logical end. And that's the problem, taking all of these player-centered proposals to their logical end raises the question even the Bilases of the world don't want to face:

Why is this activity taking place at an institution of higher learning, as opposed to higher jumping? What is the connection?

Sever the connection (they're workers -- contracted or salaried -- not students) and you imperil the whole enchilada.

College sports didn't grow in popularity because of the opportunities it provided for gifted athletes. It grew because it was my school against your school, just like high school but on a higher scale. It was Wildcats against Sun Devils, not collection of athletes we don't know vs. another collection we don't know.

They were bound to the college by being students. Then the erosion began, which begat one-and-done, which begat "pay them," which begat new transfer rules -- all player-centered proposals.

So we either kinda end the fiction that they are students (the current situation) or completely do so. If it's the latter, it will hurt the sports themselves. But, hey, the players are transitory. For the current ones, no loss. For those, 10 years from now, big consequences (like fewer places to showcase now that college hoops has declined in popularity).

There is no answer that preserves both. So we choose sides. My view is if we keep going down the player-centered path, it will kill the golden goose. I know that each of these changes diminishes the appeal of college hoops for me.

I'd be more inclined to that perspective if colleges in the 70's and 80's weren't graduating players who were illiterate. From 1989:

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/28/sport ... s-run.html" target="_blank

I mean, it's been fiction for a long, long time. Forrest Gump was dramatized in some ways, but not that he'd have been eligible for the Crimson Tide.

[Longhorned]

I fully understand all the points you make. Still doesn't change the fact that it's a no brainer to allow kids to transfer. Shoulda happened decades ago.

I must have no brain then. Nothing is stopping an athlete from transferring, immediately being put on scolarship, and making progress toward his or her degree. Therefore they are like any other student. Comparisons past that point are invalid.

Herein lies the rub. Are they students or not? It they are, they can immediately pick up their studies -- just like any student.

If the answer is no, not primarily, then they should be paid and be able to change teams, even within the same season. The paid athletes elsewhere can do that. Why not the ones who happen to perform on a campus? Is it unfair if the Yankees add a key player late in the season? No. That option is open to all. Would have to dump a player, but, hey, that happens everywhere in life. Man up! Darwinism, no participation trophies, and all that.

I call the above the purist personal freedom position. I'd imagine even Bilas wouldn't even go there, but it takes his logic to its logical end. And that's the problem, taking all of these player-centered proposals to their logical end raises the question even the Bilases of the world don't want to face:

Why is this activity taking place at an institution of higher learning, as opposed to higher jumping? What is the connection?

Sever the connection (they're workers -- contracted or salaried -- not students) and you imperil the whole enchilada.

College sports didn't grow in popularity because of the opportunities it provided for gifted athletes. It grew because it was my school against your school, just like high school but on a higher scale. It was Wildcats against Sun Devils, not collection of athletes we don't know vs. another collection we don't know.

They were bound to the college by being students. Then the erosion began, which begat one-and-done, which begat "pay them," which begat new transfer rules -- all player-centered proposals.

So we either kinda end the fiction that they are students (the current situation) or completely do so. If it's the latter, it will hurt the sports themselves. But, hey, the players are transitory. For the current ones, no loss. For those, 10 years from now, big consequences (like fewer places to showcase now that college hoops has declined in popularity).

There is no answer that preserves both. So we choose sides. My view is if we keep going down the player-centered path, it will kill the golden goose. I know that each of these changes diminishes the appeal of college hoops for me.

I'd be more inclined to that perspective if colleges in the 70's and 80's weren't graduating players who were illiterate. From 1989:

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/28/sport ... s-run.html" target="_blank

I mean, it's been fiction for a long, long time. Forrest Gump was dramatized in some ways, but not that he'd have been eligible for the Crimson Tide.

I don't know how bad it used to be. And maybe there are hidden shelters of ignorance in places other than Chapel Hill. But football and basketball players who get a real college education are the rule, not the exception. It isn't a fiction.

[ASUHATER!]

I fully understand all the points you make. Still doesn't change the fact that it's a no brainer to allow kids to transfer. Shoulda happened decades ago.

I must have no brain then. Nothing is stopping an athlete from transferring, immediately being put on scolarship, and making progress toward his or her degree. Therefore they are like any other student. Comparisons past that point are invalid.

Best point you've ever made on this board

[Puerco]

You're on fire lately, even by your standards, Hater. All bombastic opinions with no logic or reasoning behind them. Then full of juvenile insults as response to any challenge to your position. Been having a bad month? Do you need a hug?

[Puerco]

I fully understand all the points you make. Still doesn't change the fact that it's a no brainer to allow kids to transfer. Shoulda happened decades ago.

I must have no brain then. Nothing is stopping an athlete from transferring, immediately being put on scolarship, and making progress toward his or her degree. Therefore they are like any other student. Comparisons past that point are invalid.

Herein lies the rub. Are they students or not? It they are, they can immediately pick up their studies -- just like any student.

If the answer is no, not primarily, then they should be paid and be able to change teams, even within the same season. The paid athletes elsewhere can do that. Why not the ones who happen to perform on a campus? Is it unfair if the Yankees add a key player late in the season? No. That option is open to all. Would have to dump a player, but, hey, that happens everywhere in life. Man up! Darwinism, no participation trophies, and all that.

I call the above the purist personal freedom position. I'd imagine even Bilas wouldn't even go there, but it takes his logic to its logical end. And that's the problem, taking all of these player-centered proposals to their logical end raises the question even the Bilases of the world don't want to face:

Why is this activity taking place at an institution of higher learning, as opposed to higher jumping? What is the connection?

Sever the connection (they're workers -- contracted or salaried -- not students) and you imperil the whole enchilada.

College sports didn't grow in popularity because of the opportunities it provided for gifted athletes. It grew because it was my school against your school, just like high school but on a higher scale. It was Wildcats against Sun Devils, not collection of athletes we don't know vs. another collection we don't know.

They were bound to the college by being students. Then the erosion began, which begat one-and-done, which begat "pay them," which begat new transfer rules -- all player-centered proposals.

So we either kinda end the fiction that they are students (the current situation) or completely do so. If it's the latter, it will hurt the sports themselves. But, hey, the players are transitory. For the current ones, no loss. For those, 10 years from now, big consequences (like fewer places to showcase now that college hoops has declined in popularity).

There is no answer that preserves both. So we choose sides. My view is if we keep going down the player-centered path, it will kill the golden goose. I know that each of these changes diminishes the appeal of college hoops for me.

This is a good take. I for one would be perfectly happy with university sports in which only students competed, even if the quality dropped a notch. And make no mistake, it would only drop a notch. The professional leagues can only absorb a certain number of players, and the best of the rest will remain. And we will benefit from no more one and dones, no more Big Baller Brands polluting the sports we love.

EDIT: oh, by the way, professional athletes are not free to come and go as they please. They are bound by contracts, and one could argue that those contracts are even more restrictive than scholarships. Oh the tragedy of being a student athlete!

[gumby]

I fully understand all the points you make. Still doesn't change the fact that it's a no brainer to allow kids to transfer. Shoulda happened decades ago.

I must have no brain then. Nothing is stopping an athlete from transferring, immediately being put on scolarship, and making progress toward his or her degree. Therefore they are like any other student. Comparisons past that point are invalid.

Herein lies the rub. Are they students or not? It they are, they can immediately pick up their studies -- just like any student.

If the answer is no, not primarily, then they should be paid and be able to change teams, even within the same season. The paid athletes elsewhere can do that. Why not the ones who happen to perform on a campus? Is it unfair if the Yankees add a key player late in the season? No. That option is open to all. Would have to dump a player, but, hey, that happens everywhere in life. Man up! Darwinism, no participation trophies, and all that.

I call the above the purist personal freedom position. I'd imagine even Bilas wouldn't even go there, but it takes his logic to its logical end. And that's the problem, taking all of these player-centered proposals to their logical end raises the question even the Bilases of the world don't want to face:

Why is this activity taking place at an institution of higher learning, as opposed to higher jumping? What is the connection?

Sever the connection (they're workers -- contracted or salaried -- not students) and you imperil the whole enchilada.

College sports didn't grow in popularity because of the opportunities it provided for gifted athletes. It grew because it was my school against your school, just like high school but on a higher scale. It was Wildcats against Sun Devils, not collection of athletes we don't know vs. another collection we don't know.

They were bound to the college by being students. Then the erosion began, which begat one-and-done, which begat "pay them," which begat new transfer rules -- all player-centered proposals.

So we either kinda end the fiction that they are students (the current situation) or completely do so. If it's the latter, it will hurt the sports themselves. But, hey, the players are transitory. For the current ones, no loss. For those, 10 years from now, big consequences (like fewer places to showcase now that college hoops has declined in popularity).

There is no answer that preserves both. So we choose sides. My view is if we keep going down the player-centered path, it will kill the golden goose. I know that each of these changes diminishes the appeal of college hoops for me.

This is a good take. I for one would be perfectly happy with university sports in which only students competed, even if the quality dropped a notch. And make no mistake, it would only drop a notch. The professional leagues can only absorb a certain number of players, and the best of the rest will remain. And we will benefit from no more one and dones, no more Big Baller Brands polluting the sports we love.

EDIT: oh, by the way, professional athletes are not free to come and go as they please. They are bound by contracts, and one could argue that those contracts are even more restrictive than scholarships. Oh the tragedy of being a student athlete!

Right. I originally mentioned the contracts, but felt I was getting wordy. So I took it out. Each "student" could have a contract, instead of a scholarship.. At some point, it would be up and they could theoretically transfer within the same season.

Agree that college sports would still be worth following. Only so many paid slots for those not wanting to be students.

[gumby]

I fully understand all the points you make. Still doesn't change the fact that it's a no brainer to allow kids to transfer. Shoulda happened decades ago.

I must have no brain then. Nothing is stopping an athlete from transferring, immediately being put on scolarship, and making progress toward his or her degree. Therefore they are like any other student. Comparisons past that point are invalid.

Herein lies the rub. Are they students or not? It they are, they can immediately pick up their studies -- just like any student.

If the answer is no, not primarily, then they should be paid and be able to change teams, even within the same season. The paid athletes elsewhere can do that. Why not the ones who happen to perform on a campus? Is it unfair if the Yankees add a key player late in the season? No. That option is open to all. Would have to dump a player, but, hey, that happens everywhere in life. Man up! Darwinism, no participation trophies, and all that.

I call the above the purist personal freedom position. I'd imagine even Bilas wouldn't even go there, but it takes his logic to its logical end. And that's the problem, taking all of these player-centered proposals to their logical end raises the question even the Bilases of the world don't want to face:

Why is this activity taking place at an institution of higher learning, as opposed to higher jumping? What is the connection?

Sever the connection (they're workers -- contracted or salaried -- not students) and you imperil the whole enchilada.

College sports didn't grow in popularity because of the opportunities it provided for gifted athletes. It grew because it was my school against your school, just like high school but on a higher scale. It was Wildcats against Sun Devils, not collection of athletes we don't know vs. another collection we don't know.

They were bound to the college by being students. Then the erosion began, which begat one-and-done, which begat "pay them," which begat new transfer rules -- all player-centered proposals.

So we either kinda end the fiction that they are students (the current situation) or completely do so. If it's the latter, it will hurt the sports themselves. But, hey, the players are transitory. For the current ones, no loss. For those, 10 years from now, big consequences (like fewer places to showcase now that college hoops has declined in popularity).

There is no answer that preserves both. So we choose sides. My view is if we keep going down the player-centered path, it will kill the golden goose. I know that each of these changes diminishes the appeal of college hoops for me.

I'd be more inclined to that perspective if colleges in the 70's and 80's weren't graduating players who were illiterate. From 1989:

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/28/sport ... s-run.html" target="_blank

I mean, it's been fiction for a long, long time. Forrest Gump was dramatized in some ways, but not that he'd have been eligible for the Crimson Tide.

Not following your position. Because some players left illiterate, we need to pay them all and let them transfer at will? What about the vast majority who didn't?

I'm lost. Why would this take place at college, if learning isn't a component?

[YoDeFoe]

Student-athletes are compensated in:

* their enrollment opportunity (lower enrollment standards, e.g. nearly every Duke and UCLA player),

* their room and board and tuition and meals (which collectively is worth $50k to $100k a year or more, depending on the school),

* their training (how much would it cost to work with Sean Miller or Izzo or the rest for 8 months, along with strength and conditioning),

* and marketing (getting in front of scouts, getting on national television, playing in the big dance - e.g. does Steph Curry exist without the NCAA?).

They're both students and athletes, and in order to maintain their amateurism there are certain rules (imperfect as they may be). Same goes for high school kids (so if you want colleges to pay athletes mustn't we walk that down to the high school level?). You can't pay them, you can't let them transfer like free agents for sports reasons.

The reason you can't should be obvious: it would ruin the sport entirely, poisoning the system that provides so much for so many players (as well as fans and schools). If you believe that an open transfer and payment market for college athletes would not result in an incredible imbalance of parity - please make that argument. I can't see an argument that outweighs "big bank take little bank" under those laissez faire rules, where we lose competitiveness and "gain" unending backroom dealing.

Guys like Frank Kaminsky complain about the unfairness of the college system, when Kaminsky is making millions playing ball because of the system. Coming out of HS he was a nobody. Wisconsin made him a millionaire. If there was an open market for athletes he'd have never seen a TV camera, he was so inconsequential his first two seasons. Likewise: would a mid-level recruit like Solomon Hill be making $50M without the coaching and publicity of Miller and Arizona?

That's the value of the training and marketing of NCAA programs and the NCAA tournament.

Some guys likely give more than they get. DeAndre Ayton and Marvin Bagely and Michael Porter probably give more than they get to the NCAA (though it's possible to argue that the coaching they receive may be instrumental in getting PT in the NBA - gaining sponsorship and gaining that second contract, worth an order of magnitude more than their first). Mudiay still got drafted as a lotto pick despite skipping the NCAA - though he was last seen riding the bench (as likely to be an anecdote as it is instructive). Still for a few it's a burden not an opportunity.

For that reason I prefer letting players either go out of HS or spend two years developing - NCAA, D-League (no two-way before their second year), or overseas. I'd also suggest that players retain their four year scholarship for life, so that they can return for their degree at a later time.

The system that has been so good to so many remains. The very few who could actually make an NBA roster as a 17/18 year old can go take that shot. Players who want money right now can go play overseas or in the D-League (arguably with worse coaching and publicity and lifestyle than the NCAA). Players who want to be in the NCAA and reap the rewards of the system that each player contributes to can do so.

Players get two years to develop without worrying as a freshman about draft worthy PT and shots. Coaches get better roster continuity so that they're not back to spending significant time teaching fundamentals each year, and can spend less time recruiting. Fans more enjoy the sport with players they can recognize and none of the sleazy "get money now, no loyalty" that we see in the professional league.

Student athletes are unique and shouldn't be slotted into a single category. Why must some attempt to do so? We have unique rules for them and they've produced for us an incredibly enjoyable and for the players, very rewarding, system. Those who argue "student or athlete" seem to do so for their own mental games rather than for the productivity and stability of the game that we love.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I must have no brain then. Nothing is stopping an athlete from transferring, immediately being put on scolarship, and making progress toward his or her degree. Therefore they are like any other student. Comparisons past that point are invalid.

Herein lies the rub. Are they students or not? It they are, they can immediately pick up their studies -- just like any student.

If the answer is no, not primarily, then they should be paid and be able to change teams, even within the same season. The paid athletes elsewhere can do that. Why not the ones who happen to perform on a campus? Is it unfair if the Yankees add a key player late in the season? No. That option is open to all. Would have to dump a player, but, hey, that happens everywhere in life. Man up! Darwinism, no participation trophies, and all that.

I call the above the purist personal freedom position. I'd imagine even Bilas wouldn't even go there, but it takes his logic to its logical end. And that's the problem, taking all of these player-centered proposals to their logical end raises the question even the Bilases of the world don't want to face:

Why is this activity taking place at an institution of higher learning, as opposed to higher jumping? What is the connection?

Sever the connection (they're workers -- contracted or salaried -- not students) and you imperil the whole enchilada.

College sports didn't grow in popularity because of the opportunities it provided for gifted athletes. It grew because it was my school against your school, just like high school but on a higher scale. It was Wildcats against Sun Devils, not collection of athletes we don't know vs. another collection we don't know.

They were bound to the college by being students. Then the erosion began, which begat one-and-done, which begat "pay them," which begat new transfer rules -- all player-centered proposals.

So we either kinda end the fiction that they are students (the current situation) or completely do so. If it's the latter, it will hurt the sports themselves. But, hey, the players are transitory. For the current ones, no loss. For those, 10 years from now, big consequences (like fewer places to showcase now that college hoops has declined in popularity).

There is no answer that preserves both. So we choose sides. My view is if we keep going down the player-centered path, it will kill the golden goose. I know that each of these changes diminishes the appeal of college hoops for me.

I'd be more inclined to that perspective if colleges in the 70's and 80's weren't graduating players who were illiterate. From 1989:

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/28/sport ... s-run.html" target="_blank

I mean, it's been fiction for a long, long time. Forrest Gump was dramatized in some ways, but not that he'd have been eligible for the Crimson Tide.

Not following your position. Because some players left illiterate, we need to pay them all and let them transfer at will? What about the vast majority who didn't?

I'm lost. Why would this take place at college, if learning isn't a component?

Colleges developed interscholastic athletics in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Cheating was there from the beginning, albeit without profit motive, because it was a bit until money became heavily tied. Some of the worst cheating and punishment was pre-1980:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012 ... ncaa-probe" target="_blank

My point wasn't to address immediate transfer or paying players. I've posted a lot on those topics, to the point I feel like I don't have a ton new to say.

My point was that college athletics has been about gaming the system so your college can be better. The idea that adjusting the current rules will trigger some great sea change is odd to me. This hasn't been about being a student system in 60+ years, it's been about success on the field/court.

The question of why boils down to the fact that it is how it has always been. Schools have sports teams. If your school has a sports team, you want it to be good. There are ways to make that happen.

[Spaceman Spiff]

The fire RR thread is a great example. No one quotes our APR in terms of why he should stay or go. His teams aren't producing on the field, so we are willing to endure a big time financial hit to try to win more.

It's not centered out of an educational institution because education is the primary factor.

[gumby]

I must have no brain then. Nothing is stopping an athlete from transferring, immediately being put on scolarship, and making progress toward his or her degree. Therefore they are like any other student. Comparisons past that point are invalid.

Herein lies the rub. Are they students or not? It they are, they can immediately pick up their studies -- just like any student.

If the answer is no, not primarily, then they should be paid and be able to change teams, even within the same season. The paid athletes elsewhere can do that. Why not the ones who happen to perform on a campus? Is it unfair if the Yankees add a key player late in the season? No. That option is open to all. Would have to dump a player, but, hey, that happens everywhere in life. Man up! Darwinism, no participation trophies, and all that.

I call the above the purist personal freedom position. I'd imagine even Bilas wouldn't even go there, but it takes his logic to its logical end. And that's the problem, taking all of these player-centered proposals to their logical end raises the question even the Bilases of the world don't want to face:

Why is this activity taking place at an institution of higher learning, as opposed to higher jumping? What is the connection?

Sever the connection (they're workers -- contracted or salaried -- not students) and you imperil the whole enchilada.

College sports didn't grow in popularity because of the opportunities it provided for gifted athletes. It grew because it was my school against your school, just like high school but on a higher scale. It was Wildcats against Sun Devils, not collection of athletes we don't know vs. another collection we don't know.

They were bound to the college by being students. Then the erosion began, which begat one-and-done, which begat "pay them," which begat new transfer rules -- all player-centered proposals.

So we either kinda end the fiction that they are students (the current situation) or completely do so. If it's the latter, it will hurt the sports themselves. But, hey, the players are transitory. For the current ones, no loss. For those, 10 years from now, big consequences (like fewer places to showcase now that college hoops has declined in popularity).

There is no answer that preserves both. So we choose sides. My view is if we keep going down the player-centered path, it will kill the golden goose. I know that each of these changes diminishes the appeal of college hoops for me.

I'd be more inclined to that perspective if colleges in the 70's and 80's weren't graduating players who were illiterate. From 1989:

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/28/sport ... s-run.html" target="_blank

I mean, it's been fiction for a long, long time. Forrest Gump was dramatized in some ways, but not that he'd have been eligible for the Crimson Tide.

Not following your position. Because some players left illiterate, we need to pay them all and let them transfer at will? What about the vast majority who didn't?

I'm lost. Why would this take place at college, if learning isn't a component?

Colleges developed interscholastic athletics in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Cheating was there from the beginning, albeit without profit motive, because it was a bit until money became heavily tied. Some of the worst cheating and punishment was pre-1980:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012 ... ncaa-probe" target="_blank

My point wasn't to address immediate transfer or paying players. I've posted a lot on those topics, to the point I feel like I don't have a ton new to say.

My point was that college athletics has been about gaming the system so your college can be better. The idea that adjusting the current rules will trigger some great sea change is odd to me. This hasn't been about being a student system in 60+ years, it's been about success on the field/court.

The question of why boils down to the fact that it is how it has always been. Schools have sports teams. If your school has a sports team, you want it to be good. There are ways to make that happen.

So then take it off campus? Club sports? Or go along with the joke?

[Spaceman Spiff]

Personally, I'm ok with centering in the university but am also ok with changes relative to player cemtric benefits. Examples:

-Schools can terminate scholarships at the end of every year. I have no issues with players making a transfer decision without the year penalty at the end of every year.
-I have no issue with dropping the prohibition on athletes profiting from their likeness.

Those are the two main things I would change. The rest, I'm ok with the idea that many players are in this for less than altruistic reasons...as are coaches and fans.

[YoDeFoe]

Personally, I'm ok with centering in the university but am also ok with changes relative to player cemtric benefits. Examples:

-Schools can terminate scholarships at the end of every year. I have no issues with players making a transfer decision without the year penalty at the end of every year.
-I have no issue with dropping the prohibition on athletes profiting from their likeness.

Those are the two main things I would change. The rest, I'm ok with the idea that many players are in this for less than altruistic reasons...as are coaches and fans.

A free market of paying players and unconstrained transfers. You must believe college basketball would survive those changes - why, how?

[Puerco]

Spiff's idea would be minor league sports, not university sports...

[gumby]

Right. Look at the passion of college fans vs. attendees at minor league games. What explains this? It isn't the thrill of opportunity for these young men. That's not the driver.

Fiction would be the continuing erosion of the foundation while thinking the structure won't fall. Fiction is thinking both sides can win. Ultimately, you have to choose. The academic side is already unhappy (not everyone lives for sports). College basketball fans will join them. If we continue to distance this endeavor from education, boards of regents will eventually turn.

And Bilas can score points all the way up to the time they remove his blazer and mike because the show's been canceled.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Personally, I'm ok with centering in the university but am also ok with changes relative to player cemtric benefits. Examples:

-Schools can terminate scholarships at the end of every year. I have no issues with players making a transfer decision without the year penalty at the end of every year.
-I have no issue with dropping the prohibition on athletes profiting from their likeness.

Those are the two main things I would change. The rest, I'm ok with the idea that many players are in this for less than altruistic reasons...as are coaches and fans.

A free market of paying players and unconstrained transfers. You must believe college basketball would survive those changes - why, how?

First, just in case my post was poorly written, the idea of profiting off likenesses is money from non-university sources. Players can receive shoe deals, money from hoosters, etc.

I don't see this as odd or off. If you haven't watched it, Pony Excess is a great documentary. It chronicles how much direct paying of players (straight cash, cars, houses for family) was going on in the 70's and 80's. Oddly, the heyday of direct benefits to players is also the one people look back on as the good old days before one and dones.

That part simply returns college sports to what it was without the stigma. This isn't offensive to me. A booster who sees something special in a physics student and pays their rent, gives them free meals, etc., gets a plaque for his mentorship of outstanding students.

I don't have any moral concern. Oh no, people are getting paid as the market dictates for their skill? That's pretty consistent with how things should be.

As for leaving immediately after the year, one intermediate option would be a negotiated length of scholarship that both sides have to honor. Right now, schools can terminate a player from scholarship after every year without loss. The player loses a year if he/she makes the same decision. Why not let them agree ahead of time that this scholarship is X years in length with no penalty for non-renewal after that point? If either party breaks the contract length early, the player has to sit for one year or the school honors an additional year to allow the player to make arrangements.

That's my issue there. Scholarships are a contract, and the school has all the power.

[YoDeFoe]

We disagree on how we each value "the purity of the market" against the stability and longevity of college sports. I'm not going to respond at greater length - I get frustrated in circling this topic and I'm not sure it's productive or healthy.

[Spaceman Spiff]

We disagree on how we each value "the purity of the market" against the stability and longevity of college sports. I'm not going to respond at greater length - I get frustrated in circling this topic and I'm not sure it's productive or healthy.

That's fair. I have my opinion, but I've never thought it's anything more or less than my opinion.

You are a good, informed poster, and I respect your takes. It's fine to disagree. I'm aware that many people do disagree with my perspective on college sports.

Edit: In fact, if there was a way to link the "Post Your Unpopular Opinions" thread to my posts here, it would be appropriate.

[YoDeFoe]

Back at you, Spiff.

And now: back to our regularly scheduled programming.

[NYCat]

Thinking daggum Roy does what Bob Stoops just did.

[YoDeFoe]

Thinking daggum Roy does what Bob Stoops just did.

He better not. I want Miller to get his first FF (and a title too pls) with us first.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Thinking daggum Roy does what Bob Stoops just did.

Why?

If so, here comes the fear.

[HiCat]

'No excuses': When it comes to Arizona Wildcats, national publications have great expectations

By Bruce Pascoe Arizona Daily Star Sep 16, 2017 Updated 10 hrs ago

Arizona may be entering this college basketball season as the most hyped team of the Sean Miller era.

The Wildcats were ranked No. 1 in preseason basketball annuals Athlon Sports and Street & Smith’s this month, while Lindy’s put them second behind only Michigan State.

That suggests a chance the Wildcats will be ranked No. 1 in the official AP and USA Today preseason polls that will be released next month, a spot they haven’t held in the preseason since 2002-03 (they were No. 2 in 2014-15).

Athlon also listed “Sean Miller’s Loaded Arizona Wildcats” as the No. 1 item in its “10 things to watch” category.

“Arizona appears to be the first college basketball program in modern history, and perhaps ever, to add a top-three recruiting class to a roster that’s returning three of its top four scorers from a team that won at least 32 games the previous season,” Athlon wrote. “In other words, no excuses. The pressure is on.”


As usual, Miller isn’t ducking from all the hype. Miller’s Wildcats were ranked No. 6 in the preseason Associated Press Top 25 in 2013, No. 2 in 2014, No. 12 in 2015 and No. 10 last season.

“You would rather have everybody say awesome things, positive things, about your team than the other side,” Miller said last month. “It’s also that at Arizona…with
the expectations we have, knowing the program that we’re all a part of, and the tradition we have, it’s really in my mind no less or more than it’s always been.

“We know what we’re expected to do and we hope to do those things.”


http://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildcat ... ace07.html" target="_blank