Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,480
Member is Online
|
Post by Elvado on Oct 18, 2019 17:13:39 GMT -5
Ok, you are in the “fine if it happens but not going to advocate for it” camp. Fair enough. Exactly right.
|
|
|
Post by bicentennial on Oct 18, 2019 19:39:05 GMT -5
300K for four years at GU. They already share. 1) If you believe that to be true then surely you have to think that would be a major selling point for future prospects. 2) The Ivy League schools don't offer scholarships and they still manage to compete at a high level. Saying the Ivy League does not offer scholarships is very disingenuous. The Ivy League offers both athletes and other students they want to attract to their campus far more in grant aid than most other schools. If a student athlete attends Harvard and plays basketball and graduates with no student loan debt and has had room and board covered but did not get an "athletic scholarship" how is it substantially different?
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,318
|
Post by tashoya on Oct 18, 2019 21:00:07 GMT -5
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. I think it takes a certain amount of chutzpah to let your hatred of President Trump color so many of the posts you make. No, it doesn't. My disgust with President Trump is reflected in my posts about my disgust with President Trump. You're the one that brought that into this forum. With regard to the actual discussion, I think there are very intelligent, knowledgeable people that can find an equitable compromise to this. I just have next to no faith that any of them work with or for the NCAA.
|
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,377
|
Post by drquigley on Oct 19, 2019 21:21:08 GMT -5
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... Thanks for mining the data. I think you made my point for me. According to your data 47 of the 96 players drafted in the first round went directly into the MLB minor league system. They had the chance to make money right away (signing bonus) and earn a living while pursuing their dream. Contrast that with CBB. Kid has to pretend he wants to go to college. If he is a stud he attends classes for one semester and leaves. If that doesn't disgust you then you have bought into the win at all cost mentality of college alumni. If the kid is merely good he has to work for free for 2-3 years while earning millions for his school. All I'm saying is give the kid a choice. Those 49 kids who went from college to MLB had that choice and more power to them. I had a nephew who did that. But my nephew's family weren't poor. They could afford to delay that signing bonus and MLB money for 4 years. But the kid whose family is living on welfare or just scraping by shouldn't be denied that same opportunity. He shouldn't be required to participate in the charade of becoming a "student athlete".
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,846
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Oct 20, 2019 11:22:59 GMT -5
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... Thanks for mining the data. I think you made my point for me. According to your data 47 of the 96 players drafted in the first round went directly into the MLB minor league system. They had the chance to make money right away (signing bonus) and earn a living while pursuing their dream. Contrast that with CBB. Kid has to pretend he wants to go to college. If he is a stud he attends classes for one semester and leaves. If that doesn't disgust you then you have bought into the win at all cost mentality of college alumni. If the kid is merely good he has to work for free for 2-3 years while earning millions for his school. All I'm saying is give the kid a choice. Those 49 kids who went from college to MLB had that choice and more power to them. I had a nephew who did that. But my nephew's family weren't poor. They could afford to delay that signing bonus and MLB money for 4 years. But the kid whose family is living on welfare or just scraping by shouldn't be denied that same opportunity. He shouldn't be required to participate in the charade of becoming a "student athlete". The point I was trying to make is the fact that even with MLB's minor league many very talented players still choose to go to college to play baseball. Chances are crazy high the same will be true for CBB even if the NBA had a minor league system right? In my view choosing to play college ball shouldn't automatically exempt players from their rights to their likeness, it also shouldn't allow the NCAA to cut players out of the enormous revenues their talent helps to produce which is what you seem to be suggesting It has to be noted that HS basketball players do have choices, it's just that the choices don't include the NBA right now. Look at RJ Hampton or Lonzo Ball playing overseas this year. Remember Darius Bazely skipped college last season, he also signed a million-dollar endorsement deal with New balance while he sat out the year training for the draft. He was picked 23rd in this year's draft, folks can't pretend that there aren't options for players... Btw this excuse will take a big hit starting with the NBA draft of 2022, that draft will allow HS kids in it... To me you and others are missing the big picture though, this isn't just about CBB, the California law plus whatever the NCAA is working on will affect all NCAA athletes not just the ones in popular or money-making sports... Why shouldn't a popular college hockey player be able to benefit from his own likeness? The same goes for the track & field star or gymnast etc...
|
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,377
|
Post by drquigley on Oct 20, 2019 11:49:33 GMT -5
Thanks for mining the data. I think you made my point for me. According to your data 47 of the 96 players drafted in the first round went directly into the MLB minor league system. They had the chance to make money right away (signing bonus) and earn a living while pursuing their dream. Contrast that with CBB. Kid has to pretend he wants to go to college. If he is a stud he attends classes for one semester and leaves. If that doesn't disgust you then you have bought into the win at all cost mentality of college alumni. If the kid is merely good he has to work for free for 2-3 years while earning millions for his school. All I'm saying is give the kid a choice. Those 49 kids who went from college to MLB had that choice and more power to them. I had a nephew who did that. But my nephew's family weren't poor. They could afford to delay that signing bonus and MLB money for 4 years. But the kid whose family is living on welfare or just scraping by shouldn't be denied that same opportunity. He shouldn't be required to participate in the charade of becoming a "student athlete". The point I was trying to make is the fact that even with MLB's minor league many very talented players still choose to go to college to play baseball. Chances are crazy high the same will be true for CBB even if the NBA had a minor league system right? In my view choosing to play college ball shouldn't automatically exempt players from their rights to their likeness, it also shouldn't allow the NCAA to cut players out of the enormous revenues their talent helps to produce which is what you seem to be suggesting It has to be noted that HS basketball players do have choices, it's just that the choices don't include the NBA right now. Look at RJ Hampton or Lonzo Ball playing overseas this year. Remember Darius Bazely skipped college last season, he also signed a million-dollar endorsement deal with New balance while he sat out the year training for the draft. He was picked 23rd in this year's draft, folks can't pretend that there aren't options for players... Btw this excuse will take a big hit starting with the NBA draft of 2022, that draft will allow HS kids in it... To me you and others are missing the big picture though, this isn't just about CBB, the California law plus whatever the NCAA is working on will affect all NCAA athletes not just the ones in popular or money-making sports... Why shouldn't a popular college hockey player be able to benefit from his own likeness? The same goes for the track & field star or gymnast etc... I think we are close to agreeing. The only thing I would add is the requirement for the "student athlete" to sit out his freshman year (no freshman/JV ball) and require the "student athlete" to complete two years of college before becoming draft eligible. This at least makes the choice between being a college "student athlete" and a NBA prospect in waiting more pronounced.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,846
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Oct 20, 2019 16:48:28 GMT -5
The point I was trying to make is the fact that even with MLB's minor league many very talented players still choose to go to college to play baseball. Chances are crazy high the same will be true for CBB even if the NBA had a minor league system right? In my view choosing to play college ball shouldn't automatically exempt players from their rights to their likeness, it also shouldn't allow the NCAA to cut players out of the enormous revenues their talent helps to produce which is what you seem to be suggesting It has to be noted that HS basketball players do have choices, it's just that the choices don't include the NBA right now. Look at RJ Hampton or Lonzo Ball playing overseas this year. Remember Darius Bazely skipped college last season, he also signed a million-dollar endorsement deal with New balance while he sat out the year training for the draft. He was picked 23rd in this year's draft, folks can't pretend that there aren't options for players... Btw this excuse will take a big hit starting with the NBA draft of 2022, that draft will allow HS kids in it... To me you and others are missing the big picture though, this isn't just about CBB, the California law plus whatever the NCAA is working on will affect all NCAA athletes not just the ones in popular or money-making sports... Why shouldn't a popular college hockey player be able to benefit from his own likeness? The same goes for the track & field star or gymnast etc... I think we are close to agreeing. The only thing I would add is the requirement for the "student-athlete" to sit out his freshman year (no freshman/JV ball) and require the "student athlete" to complete two years of college before becoming draft eligible. This at least makes the choice between being a college "student athlete" and a NBA prospect in waiting more pronounced. I'm not a fan of having kids sit their 1st year at all, in order for it to work the NCAA would have to increase roster limits by 3 or 4 players, doing that will give a big advantage to the bigger program's ability to hoard the top talent... Plus if you're willing to give them the option to leave after two years, why make them sit out one of them? The term "student-athlete" is a made-up wording the NCAA has hid behind for years to avoid sharing profits & benefits with players... deadspin.com/how-the-myth-of-the-ncaa-student-athlete-was-born-1524282374"We crafted the term student-athlete," Walter Byers himself wrote, "and soon it was embedded in all NCAA rules and interpretations." The term came into play in the 1950s, when the widow of Ray Dennison, who had died from a head injury received while playing football in Colorado for the Fort Lewis A&M Aggies, filed for workers'-compensation death benefits. Did his football scholarship make the fatal collision a "work-related" accident? Was he a school employee, like his peers who worked part-time as teaching assistants and bookstore cashiers? Or was he a fluke victim of extracurricular pursuits? Given the hundreds of incapacitating injuries to college athletes each year, the answers to these questions had enormous consequences. Critically, the NCAA position was determined only by its member institutions—the colleges and universities, plus their athletic conferences—as students themselves have never possessed NCAA representation or a vote. Practical interest turned the NCAA vigorously against Dennison, and the Supreme Court of Colorado ultimately agreed with the school's contention that he was not eligible for benefits since the college was "not in the football business."
The term student-athlete was deliberately ambiguous. College players were not students at play (which might understate their athletic obligations), nor were they just athletes in college (which might imply they were professionals). That they were high-performance athletes meant they could be forgiven for not meeting the academic standards of their peers; that they were students meant they did not have to be compensated, ever, for anything more than the cost of their studies. Student-athlete became the NCAA's signature term, repeated constantly in and out of courtrooms.
|
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,377
|
Post by drquigley on Oct 20, 2019 21:17:10 GMT -5
I have two reasons for having them sit out the first year. First, it would give them a taste of what college is really like and a chance to get grounded academically before getting caught up in all the work and travel associated with big time college basketball. Second it would discourage those who don't want to attend college and are only doing so because it is the surest way to the NBA. Given a choice between sitting in a classroom and actually going to college and playing minor league ball and getting paid would provide a clear choice for the recruit between being a student and becoming a pro athlete.
|
|
Bigs"R"Us
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,641
|
Post by Bigs"R"Us on Oct 20, 2019 22:25:13 GMT -5
There are many kids who want a college education, but have NBA aspirations. You would be forcing them all to go to a minor league system, as no legit player who is healthy is going to opt to sit out a year of competition.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,731
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Oct 20, 2019 22:52:49 GMT -5
I have two reasons for having them sit out the first year. First, it would give them a taste of what college is really like and a chance to get grounded academically before getting caught up in all the work and travel associated with big time college basketball. Second it would discourage those who don't want to attend college and are only doing so because it is the surest way to the NBA. Given a choice between sitting in a classroom and actually going to college and playing minor league ball and getting paid would provide a clear choice for the recruit between being a student and becoming a pro athlete. It's not practical in today's litigious climate. Why should a men's basketball player have to sit and not a woman's basketball player? What about a soccer player? What about a rower? What about a kid in the the Corp or M&B or The HOYA?
|
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,377
|
Post by drquigley on Oct 21, 2019 10:01:25 GMT -5
I'm suggesting the freshman year ineligibility for all college athletes. And yes it is impractical and will never happen. But if the choice is between coming up with some sort "pay for play" and making a serious effort to save college athletics from itself I don't see any alternative. Face it, the NBA and NFL figured out they could use colleges as their minor league feeder system. Colleges figured out they could make big bucks accommodating them. The system worked out great for everyone. Suddenly the kids want some of the loot and we have this ridiculous conversation about how to accommodate THEM. I agree that my ideal solution sounds ridiculous NOW but wait a few years and see what the NCAA comes up with.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Oct 21, 2019 10:16:21 GMT -5
I'm suggesting the freshman year ineligibility for all college athletes. And yes it is impractical and will never happen. But if the choice is between coming up with some sort "pay for play" and making a serious effort to save college athletics from itself I don't see any alternative. Face it, the NBA and NFL figured out they could use colleges as their minor league feeder system. Colleges figured out they could make big bucks accommodating them. The system worked out great for everyone. Suddenly the kids want some of the loot and we have this ridiculous conversation about how to accommodate THEM. I agree that my ideal solution sounds ridiculous NOW but wait a few years and see what the NCAA comes up with. As you say, this is unrealistic. That said, I think that something like the MLB rule, which requires anybody going to college to stay for 3 years would be a compromise. Players can play immediately, but you cannot just leave. Would this force the very best players out of college? Yes, which I am fine with. Would it cause some guys who aren't really that good to forego college? Probably. But, it would be a compromise that could work.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,846
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Oct 21, 2019 11:19:57 GMT -5
I'm suggesting the freshman year ineligibility for all college athletes. And yes it is impractical and will never happen. But if the choice is between coming up with some sort "pay for play" and making a serious effort to save college athletics from itself I don't see any alternative. Face it, the NBA and NFL figured out they could use colleges as their minor league feeder system. Colleges figured out they could make big bucks accommodating them. The system worked out great for everyone. Suddenly the kids want some of the loot and we have this ridiculous conversation about how to accommodate THEM. I agree that my ideal solution sounds ridiculous NOW but wait a few years and see what the NCAA comes up with. As you say, this is unrealistic. That said, I think that something like the MLB rule, which requires anybody going to college to stay for 3 years would be a compromise. Players can play immediately, but you cannot just leave. Would this force the very best players out of college? Yes, which I am fine with. Would it cause some guys who aren't really that good to forego college? Probably. But, it would be a compromise that could work. I would go for two years for kids who don't enter the draft & 3 years for kids who do but aren't drafted or don't like their draft position. To me, that will really force marginal kids to think long & hard about declaring for the draft... Even with these changes, we're still ignoring the elephant in the room though...
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,846
Member is Online
|
Post by EtomicB on Oct 24, 2019 9:25:49 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2019 11:23:40 GMT -5
1) If you believe that to be true then surely you have to think that would be a major selling point for future prospects. 2) The Ivy League schools don't offer scholarships and they still manage to compete at a high level. Saying the Ivy League does not offer scholarships is very disingenuous. The Ivy League offers both athletes and other students they want to attract to their campus far more in grant aid than most other schools. If a student athlete attends Harvard and plays basketball and graduates with no student loan debt and has had room and board covered but did not get an "athletic scholarship" how is it substantially different? Because aside from admission standards the rules at those schools are the same for the regular student population as they are for the athletes, need based grants and scholarships. If a kid decided to quit basketball altogether he would receive the same financial aid package. That package based on his familial income may or may not cover his/her complete cost. The point is if the Ivy's are able to sell athletes on the value of getting a degree from their institution then Georgetown should be able to as well.. A Georgetown education is held in high regard. It's a response to folks saying the school is already sharing profits with student athletes because the value of an athletic scholarship to Georgetown is 300k worth of free education. If you believe that then you would have to believe they would be able to sell kids on that fact. The Ivy's offer less (in some cases) and are able to do it successfully and remain competitive.
|
|
njhoya78
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,765
|
Post by njhoya78 on Oct 24, 2019 12:06:28 GMT -5
Your theory, YaBoyNyP, that prospective basketball student/athletes being recruited by Georgetown care about the reputation of the academic institution on an equivalent level with the Ivies is, in my opinion, a bit off base.
GU is not losing recruited student/athletes to the Ivies because of their academic reputation. GU is losing recruited student/athletes to institutions whose academic reputations (with a few exceptions) are significantly worse that Georgetown's. Where those institutions have bettered GU, over the last generation, is on the basketball court. The only place where the Ivies are viewed as a pathway to a professional sports contract is in men's ice hockey, which is certainly a niche outside of our purview.
In my opinion, GU is not viewed, at this time, as a pathway to the NBA (only two Hoyas are on Opening Night NBA rosters), and the type of 5-star or 4-star student/athlete that we are trying to recruit, without great success to date, pays lip service to academics because they aren't intending to stay for matriculation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2019 12:39:45 GMT -5
Your theory, YaBoyNyP, that prospective basketball student/athletes being recruited by Georgetown care about the reputation of the academic institution on an equivalent level with the Ivies is, in my opinion, a bit off base. GU is not losing recruited student/athletes to the Ivies because of their academic reputation. GU is losing recruited student/athletes to institutions whose academic reputations (with a few exceptions) are significantly worse that Georgetown's. Where those institutions have bettered GU, over the last generation, is on the basketball court. The only place where the Ivies are viewed as a pathway to a professional sports contract is in men's ice hockey, which is certainly a niche outside of our purview. In my opinion, GU is not viewed, at this time, as a pathway to the NBA (only two Hoyas are on Opening Night NBA rosters), and the type of 5-star or 4-star student/athlete that we are trying to recruit, without great success to date, pays lip service to academics because they aren't intending to stay for matriculation. Just so we’re clear that’s not my theory. That being said some kids and parents do care about those things. Georgetown can offer b-ball at the highest level and a world class education. They should definitely play up their alumni network similar to what Duke does also. But I agree with you. I don’t think the majority of these kids care about that at all. Most of these kids are majoring in basketball.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Oct 24, 2019 12:41:23 GMT -5
The point is if the Ivy's are able to sell athletes on the value of getting a degree from their institution then Georgetown should be able to as well.. A Georgetown education is held in high regard. It's a response to folks saying the school is already sharing profits with student athletes because the value of an athletic scholarship to Georgetown is 300k worth of free education. If you believe that then you would have to believe they would be able to sell kids on that fact. The Ivy's offer less (in some cases) and are able to do it successfully. One major difference is that Harvard and the other Ivies operate in a different competitive space, namely the Ivy League (not considered high-major basketball) and the Big East (definitely high major). There are a very high percentage of basketball recruits that will never consider an Ivy (even the better ones) because they want to compete on a bigger stage. If that's what you want, the Ivy League is not it. In that sense, the Ivy's are sort of self-sorting when it comes to recruiting. Some players who will consider Georgetown will never consider Harvard simply because Georgetown is a high-major program, and Harvard is not. This has nothing to do with academics, but rather what they are looking for in basketball. In either case, I still think a recruit is getting a lot of value academically at Georgetown, even if that's not their primary focus when picking a university. If Georgetown was in the Ivy League, could Georgetown "sell" recruits on academics, etc., as the Ivy's do? Probably so, but I also think we wouldn't be nearly as competitive a program because we'd lose out on a lot of recruits that want to play in a major conference. Georgetown does not compete in a conference like the Ivy League, so it's an apples-to-oranges comparison. Clearly, all players get some value from their education, though, and regardless of what number you ascribe to it, be it $300,000 or a much smaller number, for most players in D1 that value exceeds their "market" value as basketball players in monetary terms.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2019 12:48:54 GMT -5
The point is if the Ivy's are able to sell athletes on the value of getting a degree from their institution then Georgetown should be able to as well.. A Georgetown education is held in high regard. It's a response to folks saying the school is already sharing profits with student athletes because the value of an athletic scholarship to Georgetown is 300k worth of free education. If you believe that then you would have to believe they would be able to sell kids on that fact. The Ivy's offer less (in some cases) and are able to do it successfully. One major difference is that Harvard and the other Ivies operate in a different competitive space, namely the Ivy League (not considered high-major basketball) and the Big East (definitely high major). There are a very high percentage of basketball recruits that will never consider an Ivy (even the better ones) because they want to compete on a bigger stage. If that's what you want, the Ivy League is not it. In that sense, the Ivy's are sort of self-sorting when it comes to recruiting. Some players who will consider Georgetown will never consider Harvard simply because Georgetown is a high-major program, and Harvard is not. This has nothing to do with academics, but rather what they are looking for in basketball. In either case, I still think a recruit is getting a lot of value academically at Georgetown, even if that's not their primary focus when picking a university. If Georgetown was in the Ivy League, could Georgetown "sell" recruits on academics, etc., as the Ivy's do? Probably so, but I also think we wouldn't be nearly as competitive a program because we'd lose out on a lot of recruits that want to play in a major conference. Georgetown does not compete in a conference like the Ivy League, so it's an apples-to-oranges comparison. Clearly, all players get some value from their education, though, and regardless of what number you ascribe to it, be it $300,000 or a much smaller number, for most players in D1 that value exceeds their "market" value as basketball players in monetary terms. I don't understand this point because regardless of what league they play in Harvard has been the better program over the last few years. They land 3-4 star kids at a reasonable rate as well. They have 7 on their current roster. We just lost a 4 star to them last year, Chris Ledum. The fact that Georgetown offers big time b-ball, and big time academics should make them more attractive, not less, than an IL schools. So while a Georgetown recruit might not consider Harvard, nearly every Harvard recruit would likely consider Georgetown. TBF you guys are the ones pointing to the fact that they receive 300k in free education and that ='s compensating the players. If you believe that then that would have to be a major selling point to prospective athletes since as you say it exceeds their market value.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Oct 24, 2019 15:21:26 GMT -5
I don't understand this point because regardless of what league they play in Harvard has been the better program over the last few years. They land 3-4 star kids at a reasonable rate as well. They have 7 on their current roster. We just lost a 4 star to them last year, Chris Ledum. The fact that Georgetown offers big time b-ball, and big time academics should make them more attractive, not less, than an IL schools. So while a Georgetown recruit might not consider Harvard, nearly every Harvard recruit would likely consider Georgetown. TBF you guys are the ones pointing to the fact that they receive 300k in free education and that ='s compensating the players. If you believe that then that would have to be a major selling point to prospective athletes since as you say it exceeds their market value. I think you're giving Harvard too much credit here. Harvard had a nice run from 2012-2015, but they have fallen a lot since then, and (like us) have not made the NCAA tournament since then. On Ken Pom, since 2016 they've been ranked 171, 112, 141, and 114, whereas even as poor as we have been certain years, we have been ranked 62, 69, 94, and 100. Yes, they beat us last year, but overall at best we were break-even with them. Harvard simply isn't in the same category when it comes to basketball. I agree that compared to Harvard, Georgetown should be more attractive because of big time basketball and big time academics. A few factors are at play. The Harvard name/brand is unmatched. So for anybody who does enjoy academics, it is incredibly hard to turn that down. Further, Georgetown attracts guys who have professional aspirations. Granted, these aspirations may be entirely unrealistic, but they are there nonetheless. Maybe some at Harvard envision being in the NBA (Jeremy Lin!) but my guess is that most guys who want to play professionally would never go there. I also agree that getting a scholarship is probably not a big selling point to anybody. That's in part because anywhere they go will give them a scholarship (except the Ivies, but as others have said, it's mostly free anyway), and if you don't care about academics (and I doubt most care that much), what difference does it make? A scholarship is a scholarship is a scholarship. I really do think Georgetown should be uniquely positioned to offer basketball plus academics. We really should not be losing out to recruits choosing Harvard over us. Part of the issue is that without post-season success, it's hard to make that argument in a compelling manner.
|
|