DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,740
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Oct 17, 2019 8:08:56 GMT -5
I would tend to disagree that basketball "has never been as totally corrupt as it is now". There are different factors at play (AAU, ESPN, etc.) but I do not think it compares to the days when wise guys would be standing outside arenas offering money to players to fix games. And that was "pre national TV origins".
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Oct 17, 2019 9:02:51 GMT -5
I would tend to disagree that basketball "has never been as totally corrupt as it is now". There are different factors at play (AAU, ESPN, etc.) but I do not think it compares to the days when wise guys would be standing outside arenas offering money to players to fix games. And that was "pre national TV origins". Mo money, mo corruption. Game generates a lot more revenue than it did in the 50s, 70, , 80-90s thanks to globilization of the game.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,863
|
Post by EtomicB on Oct 17, 2019 9:25:35 GMT -5
I don't see how this can be a true statement in any way, there have been many scandals in college basketball going back decades... I believe the only difference between now & then is the 24-hour news cycle... Tell us what era of CBB was scandal-free? Show us a blue Blood program that's scandal-free, even the great UCLA run with John Wooden has skeletons... www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-jun-08-la-sp-0609-wooden-gilbert-20100609-story.htmlHe forged bonds with many Bruins who helped hang 10 national championship banners from 1964 to 1975, the year Wooden retired.
Gilbert held dinners at his home, provided UCLA players with advice, counsel and much, much more. He was “Papa Sam” to UCLA’s parade of All-Americans — he even negotiated contracts, usually taking only a dollar, when the NBA beckoned various Bruins.Wow. I assumed most posters were GU grads. If you guys can't tell the difference between some goombas bribing kids to point shave or a booster giving players walking around money and the wholesale corruption of college bball by corporate America I think the Jesuits need to work harder. Yes there have been scandals in college bball over the years but once the sport became a multi-million/billion dollar business corruption became endemic. Anything short of returning it to its pre national TV origins just allows the corrupted NCAA to prolong the charade. In my view making suggestions that have a less than zero chance of ever being considered doesn’t help the discussion at all. We all know the game will never “return to a pre national tv time” or “demand that the NBA create a minor league” Also it would seem to me a self proclaimed Democratic Socialist would be all for the players sharing in the enormous wealth in HM college sports...
|
|
njhoya78
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,769
|
Post by njhoya78 on Oct 17, 2019 10:12:49 GMT -5
We are all fooling ourselves if we think that the NCAA and Power 5 conferences want to recalibrate the intercollegiate athlete model that has evolved to this point. There is just too much money involved.
I'm not sure that Georgetown, as an institution of higher learning, has the stomach to try to successfully compete on this athletic playing field, as it is now constructed. And I think we'd better start getting used to a future in which the Hoyas are not at the intercollegiate level of basketball competition to which we have grown accustomed over the past forty years
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,863
|
Post by EtomicB on Oct 17, 2019 10:45:33 GMT -5
We are all fooling ourselves if we think that the NCAA and Power 5 conferences want to recalibrate the intercollegiate athlete model that has evolved to this point. There is just too much money involved. I'm not sure that Georgetown, as an institution of higher learning, has the stomach to try to successfully compete on this athletic playing field, as it is now constructed. And I think we'd better start getting used to a future in which the Hoyas are not at the intercollegiate level of basketball competition to which he have grown accustomed over the past forty years I’m not buying it NJ, any program that finds a way to pay its head coach 3 million plus per year more than likely has a stomach of steel... I doubt very much the NCAA is working on a way to “pay” players, I think they’re working on a way to “allow” players to get paid from their likeness and endorsements...
|
|
njhoya78
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,769
|
Post by njhoya78 on Oct 17, 2019 15:09:06 GMT -5
We are all fooling ourselves if we think that the NCAA and Power 5 conferences want to recalibrate the intercollegiate athlete model that has evolved to this point. There is just too much money involved. I'm not sure that Georgetown, as an institution of higher learning, has the stomach to try to successfully compete on this athletic playing field, as it is now constructed. And I think we'd better start getting used to a future in which the Hoyas are not at the intercollegiate level of basketball competition to which he have grown accustomed over the past forty years I’m not buying it NJ, any program that finds a way to pay its head coach 3 million plus per year more than likely has a stomach of steel... I doubt very much the NCAA is working on a way to “pay” players, I think they’re working on a way to “allow” players to get paid from their likeness and endorsements... Yes, we are paying Patrick Ewing those sums now, and for the duration of his contract. And I'm not saying that the landscape will change overnight. But do you think that this landscape will look the same in five years? I don't.
|
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,378
|
Post by drquigley on Oct 17, 2019 16:09:26 GMT -5
Wow. I assumed most posters were GU grads. If you guys can't tell the difference between some goombas bribing kids to point shave or a booster giving players walking around money and the wholesale corruption of college bball by corporate America I think the Jesuits need to work harder. Yes there have been scandals in college bball over the years but once the sport became a multi-million/billion dollar business corruption became endemic. Anything short of returning it to its pre national TV origins just allows the corrupted NCAA to prolong the charade. In my view making suggestions that have a less than zero chance of ever being considered doesn’t help the discussion at all. We all know the game will never “return to a pre national tv time” or “demand that the NBA create a minor league” Also it would seem to me a self proclaimed Democratic Socialist would be all for the players sharing in the enormous wealth in HM college sports... My point is that until we get the money out of college basketball this whole discussion is meaningless. In fact, accepting the status quo and expecting something good to come out of any "reforms" that involve paying players, or allowing them to receive sponsor payments, is really the path that has zero chance of saving the game. And as for my Democratic Socialist bona fides, adopting a system like that of MLB is the best way to preserve the college game and ensure that kids who want to be professional athletes get to share in the enormous wealth generated by pro basketball.
|
|
Bigs"R"Us
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,642
|
Post by Bigs"R"Us on Oct 17, 2019 16:33:03 GMT -5
I like our ability to compete with Pat and our practice facility. Pat gets how important recruiting is and how kids want to run. He’s going after athletic kids who compete hard.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,201
|
Post by hoya9797 on Oct 17, 2019 16:33:06 GMT -5
But, if college sports generate enormous wealth, why should the players be locked out of sharing in that? Why should they have to wait until (if) they are pros to get a pice of the pie? Everyone agrees that the money in these college sports is here to say, why can’t we agree that a different distribution of that money would be better?
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,480
|
Post by Elvado on Oct 17, 2019 16:55:14 GMT -5
But, if college sports generate enormous wealth, why should the players be locked out of sharing in that? Why should they have to wait until (if) they are pros to get a pice of the pie? Everyone agrees that the money in these college sports is here to say, why can’t we agree that a different distribution of that money would be better? 300K for four years at GU. They already share.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,863
|
Post by EtomicB on Oct 17, 2019 17:25:04 GMT -5
I’m not buying it NJ, any program that finds a way to pay its head coach 3 million plus per year more than likely has a stomach of steel... I doubt very much the NCAA is working on a way to “pay” players, I think they’re working on a way to “allow” players to get paid from their likeness and endorsements... Yes, we are paying Patrick Ewing those sums now, and for the duration of his contract. And I'm not saying that the landscape will change overnight. But do you think that this landscape will look the same in five years? I don't. The landscape of college basketball will definitely change over the next five years but I don't think it'll change so dramatically that Gtown will be thinking about downgrading the program...
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,740
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Oct 17, 2019 17:26:45 GMT -5
But, if college sports generate enormous wealth, why should the players be locked out of sharing in that? Why should they have to wait until (if) they are pros to get a pice of the pie? Everyone agrees that the money in these college sports is here to say, why can’t we agree that a different distribution of that money would be better? Because it doesn't generate enormous wealth unless you're one of about 20 schools. If you're Georgetown, it's a loss they're willing to absorb.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,863
|
Post by EtomicB on Oct 17, 2019 17:41:24 GMT -5
In my view making suggestions that have a less than zero chance of ever being considered doesn’t help the discussion at all. We all know the game will never “return to a pre national tv time” or “demand that the NBA create a minor league” Also it would seem to me a self proclaimed Democratic Socialist would be all for the players sharing in the enormous wealth in HM college sports... My point is that until we get the money out of college basketball this whole discussion is meaningless. In fact, accepting the status quo and expecting something good to come out of any "reforms" that involve paying players, or allowing them to receive sponsor payments, is really the path that has zero chance of saving the game. And as for my Democratic Socialist bona fides, adopting a system like that of MLB is the best way to preserve the college game and ensure that kids who want to be professional athletes get to share in the enormous wealth generated by pro basketball. Again, this will never happen so there's no need to talk about it in my opinion... Please stop with the dramatics, CBB does not need to be "saved" it's doing well but still needs to be better... As for your MLB reference, I checked the 1st round draft picks for 2017, 2018 & 2019. Out of the 96 players picked in the 1st round, 49 of them came from college programs... So it would seem that college baseball is a pretty good "minor" league system for the MLB...
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Oct 17, 2019 18:19:15 GMT -5
How much profit do schools and the NCAA really Net? I mean at most places the revenue from tickets and memorabilia just keeps places even. And the NCAA touts pouring most of their profits into hosting championships for the non-revenue sports. They probably pay executives too much so maybe the NCAA could share some profits with student athletes, but I'm not sure there's really all this profit to share. Most athletic departments run at a loss.
A NY proposed bill would require schools to give 15% of their revenue( not sure if it's revenue or profit) to the student athletes, but if it's profit then not sure players will get much if anything and if it's revenue then schools will run an even higher deficit and likely be forced to cut non revenue sports.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Oct 18, 2019 10:38:21 GMT -5
I’m not buying it NJ, any program that finds a way to pay its head coach 3 million plus per year more than likely has a stomach of steel... I doubt very much the NCAA is working on a way to “pay” players, I think they’re working on a way to “allow” players to get paid from their likeness and endorsements... Yes, we are paying Patrick Ewing those sums now, and for the duration of his contract. And I'm not saying that the landscape will change overnight. But do you think that this landscape will look the same in five years? I don't. It won't. Here's my concern long-term. It's to some degree a historical accident that Georgetown has a strong basketball tradition. Ignoring the pre-John Thompson era (sorry DFW), the main reason why Georgetown is where it is now is because of John Thompson Jr. and his success. And to some degree, that was luck. What would have happened if fate led John Thompson to coaching somewhere else (or not at all)? Part of the reason Georgetown has a stomach for basketball and the big business it is is because of Thompson. That waned a bit in the late 1990s/early 2000s (when I was at Georgetown from 1999-2003, there was very little enthusiasm for basketball and many of my fellow students thought the program was pointless), but had a nice resurgence in the mid-2000s with JT3, the Final Four, etc. The other big key is/was that DeGioia became the President of the university and has a strong commitment to basketball. For this reason, it's crucial for the program to have measurable success in the next 5-10 years. Once DeGioia is out of the picture, and Thompson's influence wanes, will there be the same institutional support for basketball? That's hard to predict because we do not know who will have power. That said, it's a lot easier for a university to give up on a failing program than a successful one that subsidies the many other sports Georgetown supports. So while I think everything will be fine for near-intermediate future, I think it's crucial for our program to have success in the next decade, otherwise, the long-term future could be troublesome.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Oct 18, 2019 10:56:12 GMT -5
But, if college sports generate enormous wealth, why should the players be locked out of sharing in that? Why should they have to wait until (if) they are pros to get a pice of the pie? Everyone agrees that the money in these college sports is here to say, why can’t we agree that a different distribution of that money would be better? 300K for four years at GU. They already share. But another instance of creating a victim, so typical of our left of center posters.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,863
|
Post by EtomicB on Oct 18, 2019 11:01:46 GMT -5
Yes, we are paying Patrick Ewing those sums now, and for the duration of his contract. And I'm not saying that the landscape will change overnight. But do you think that this landscape will look the same in five years? I don't. It won't. Here's my concern long-term. It's to some degree a historical accident that Georgetown has a strong basketball tradition. Ignoring the pre-John Thompson era (sorry DFW), the main reason why Georgetown is where it is now is because of John Thompson Jr. and his success. And to some degree, that was luck. What would have happened if fate led John Thompson to coaching somewhere else (or not at all)? Part of the reason Georgetown has a stomach for basketball and the big business it is is because of Thompson. That waned a bit in the late 1990s/early 2000s (when I was at Georgetown from 1999-2003, there was very little enthusiasm for basketball and many of my fellow students thought the program was pointless), but had a nice resurgence in the mid-2000s with JT3, the Final Four, etc. The other big key is/was that DeGioia became the President of the university and has a strong commitment to basketball. For this reason, it's crucial for the program to have measurable success in the next 5-10 years. Once DeGioia is out of the picture, and Thompson's influence wanes, will there be the same institutional support for basketball? That's hard to predict because we do not know who will have power. That said, it's a lot easier for a university to give up on a failing program than a successful one that subsidies the many other sports Georgetown supports. So while I think everything will be fine for near-intermediate future, I think it's crucial for our program to have success in the next decade, otherwise, the long-term future could be troublesome. I can't think of one HM basketball school that downgraded its program due to lack of institutional support, my guess is it'll never happen at Gtown. Also, it may be more likely the next guy after DeGioa will be an even bigger proponent of the basketball program than he is.. Let's be honest here the Gtown administration isn't exactly on the cutting edge when it comes to running a basketball program...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2019 11:06:13 GMT -5
300K for four years at GU. They already share. But another instance of creating a victim, so typical of our left of center posters. Unfair to use that number because It doesn't cost Georgetown 300k to educate a student. They're a business, they're trying to turn a profit. Let's also not pretend like a Georgetown education is the norm here. The majority of kids aren't getting anywhere close to that level of value. I wish folks would just be honest about this. The reason why most are against is they're scared that if they start compensating players their school won't be able to keep up. It's not about right or wrong it's about preserving your experience. I believe the fear in this particular instance is unwarranted. The make money of your likeness laws aren't really going to change that much imo. There are only a few kids that can do that, and the majority are going to be those 5 star kids that already go to the same handful of big time schools anyways.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,863
|
Post by EtomicB on Oct 18, 2019 11:23:33 GMT -5
But, if college sports generate enormous wealth, why should the players be locked out of sharing in that? Why should they have to wait until (if) they are pros to get a pice of the pie? Everyone agrees that the money in these college sports is here to say, why can’t we agree that a different distribution of that money would be better? 300K for four years at GU. They already share. www.bannersociety.com/2019/8/12/20704195/college-football-athletic-budgetsThis is true whether the department is called ‘communications’ or ‘athletics.’ If central school accounting says each full scholarship costs $50,000, then to the department head or Athletics Director (AD), it likely feels like a real cost. But to the school as a whole, unless forgoing that scholarship really increases total cash by $50,000, that’s not what it actually costs.
Currently, when athletic departments give a scholarship, they commonly get charged the full retail price (sometimes of an out-of-state student) regardless of the actual cost to the school of providing one more space at the school. The food and books provided probably costs half of what they charge. The real cost of tuition and dorm space is probably de minimis, unless by giving that space to an athlete, a paying customer is forced out. Except for very selective schools with tight space constraints, most of the expenses listed as part of an athletic scholarship are overstated and sometimes purely fictional transfer prices.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,319
|
Post by tashoya on Oct 18, 2019 11:33:01 GMT -5
300K for four years at GU. They already share. But another instance of creating a victim, so typical of our left of center posters. It takes a certain level of chutzpah to assert this as a quality of one side only when the victim-in-chief is in residence in the WH.
|
|