|
Post by 4aks on Oct 4, 2017 12:11:47 GMT -5
So, are we going to wait a month before hearing the further fallout? Or will the season get started, the Feds release more info, and then teams gotta forfeit the games played from the start?
|
|
njhoya78
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,803
|
Post by njhoya78 on Oct 4, 2017 12:15:28 GMT -5
Doubt we'll be seeing game forfeitures. That would be only as a result of NCAA investigation and action, which won't likely even start until the DOJ prosecution is done. Any immediate fallout will be solely as a result of individual university action.
|
|
|
Post by 4aks on Oct 4, 2017 12:32:59 GMT -5
So, would that mean that only individuals currently NCAA team involved, that file a plea (deal), can impact this season?
|
|
njhoya78
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,803
|
Post by njhoya78 on Oct 4, 2017 13:47:17 GMT -5
The DOJ investigation is entirely separate and apart from whatever the NCAA may do. There are different burdens of proof for criminal cases, such as DOJ, and administrative hearings, such as the NCAA. Programs that are named in the DOJ investigation may not face any criminal charges at all, but be sanctioned by the NCAA. The NCAA is likely to stay away from the DOJ investigation, much like the Senate and House investigative committees are not moving very quickly while the Mueller special prosecutor investigation of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 elections is underway.
The only program I see in jeopardy right now, as to the 2017-2018 season, is Louisville; they have a pending appeal of the sanctions previously imposed by the NCAA in the aftermath of Strippergate, and I expect that the university may proactively declare itself ineligible for the post-season to try to ameliorate the NCAA's potential imposition of the "death penalty" for the latest indiscretions (which occurred after probation was imposed by the NCAA).
|
|
lucky
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 576
|
Post by lucky on Oct 5, 2017 8:38:33 GMT -5
Slightly off topic, UNC report and possible penalties coming out tomorrow.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Oct 5, 2017 9:21:41 GMT -5
Amazing to me that in all of those 8 years, I have never once seen his guide dog while he is coaching...
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,477
|
Post by TC on Oct 5, 2017 9:26:12 GMT -5
So, are we going to wait a month before hearing the further fallout? Or will the season get started, the Feds release more info, and then teams gotta forfeit the games played from the start? I think the direct impact is going to be : - players being declared ineligible - coaches being put on suspension / fired not forfeits.
|
|
njhoya78
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,803
|
Post by njhoya78 on Oct 5, 2017 10:40:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ColumbiaHeightsHoya on Oct 5, 2017 13:36:00 GMT -5
www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/kentucky-coach-john-calipari-has-a-solution-for-college-basketballs-biggest-issues/Calipari kind of makes sense on this. Allow these kids to earn money but have it held in a trust until they complete their college education. If after sometime (20 years), they don't finish their degree, you could even get creative and have the money go to a spendthrift trust which wouldn't allow access until 65 or something. What also needs to be mentioned in all of this is coaches salaries need to be linked to academic success vs. simply oncourt success. So if Cal makes 10 million, he received half with the remainder deferred based on his graduating kids in some time frame. If not completed in some timeframe, money defaults to the schools general scholarship fund.
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Oct 5, 2017 13:55:51 GMT -5
www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/kentucky-coach-john-calipari-has-a-solution-for-college-basketballs-biggest-issues/Calipari kind of makes sense on this. Allow these kids to earn money but have it held in a trust until they complete their college education. If after sometime (20 years), they don't finish their degree, you could even get creative and have the money go to a spendthrift trust which wouldn't allow access until 65 or something. What also needs to be mentioned in all of this is coaches salaries need to be linked to academic success vs. simply oncourt success. So if Cal makes 10 million, he received half with the remainder deferred based on his graduating kids in some time frame. If not completed in some timeframe, money defaults to the schools general scholarship fund. Of course Calislimy favors this. The rabid fan base would buy thousands and thousands of a kid's jersey, just so future recruits would see how much money they could make at UK (same at Duke, UNC, Kansas etc.). The schools with rich boosters would get all the best players, the schools with smaller bases would get the leftovers. If players are going to be compensated, you have to figure out an equitable way to do it so you can maintain some type of balance. Might be prohibitively hard to do.
|
|
|
Post by 4aks on Oct 5, 2017 14:13:30 GMT -5
www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/kentucky-coach-john-calipari-has-a-solution-for-college-basketballs-biggest-issues/Calipari kind of makes sense on this. Allow these kids to earn money but have it held in a trust until they complete their college education. If after sometime (20 years), they don't finish their degree, you could even get creative and have the money go to a spendthrift trust which wouldn't allow access until 65 or something. What also needs to be mentioned in all of this is coaches salaries need to be linked to academic success vs. simply oncourt success. So if Cal makes 10 million, he received half with the remainder deferred based on his graduating kids in some time frame. If not completed in some timeframe, money defaults to the schools general scholarship fund. Of course Calislimy favors this. The rabid fan base would buy thousands and thousands of a kid's jersey, just so future recruits would see how much money they could make at UK (same at Duke, UNC, Kansas etc.). The schools with rich boosters would get all the best players, the schools with smaller bases would get the leftovers. If players are going to be compensated, you have to figure out an equitable way to do it so you can maintain some type of balance. Might be prohibitively hard to do. sounds like a job for the NCAA (?!) I do like the thought that skilled players can make something in college -- there should be a bonus scheme, so that some talent can be drawn to smaller schools -- e.g. NCAA tourney selection for a school that doesn't usually make it there, or maybe more typical, a scaled bonus for a team that jumped a lot on metrics like rankings, NCAA seed, NCAA tourney wins ...
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Oct 5, 2017 14:23:18 GMT -5
Maybe a bonus for staying 4 (or 5) years and/for actually taking real classes and graduating? Yeah, I know, fantasy.
|
|
|
Post by centercourt400s on Oct 5, 2017 15:07:07 GMT -5
Players should have a choice after graduating high school:
- Immediately sign with an agent and enter the NBA draft. If undrafted they can negotiate any pro contract if one is offered. If a pro contract is not chosen within a short time period then they still have four years of college eligibility.
or
- Commit to a minimum three year stay at a university. While there room, board, full tuition, and a small monthly stipend are all guaranteed. They will also receive expert coaching, exposure, and a comprehensive physical fitness plan.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Oct 5, 2017 15:23:49 GMT -5
If players are going to be compensated, you have to figure out an equitable way to do it so you can maintain some type of balance. Might be prohibitively hard to do. I think you are right. I think it is hard to do it equitably, if not impossible. There are a few problems I have with the knee-jerk "pay the players" attitude a lot of people adopt: 1. If the goal of paying players is to shed outside influences and things like the Adidas money, it won't work. Sure, if you created some sort of "marketplace" where stars could get their own agents, endorsements, etc. there would be some who made significant sums. But, this would mostly be the VERY top college players. So while Markelle Fultz might have real value in an open market, somebody like Reggie Cameron would have virtually zero value (not picking on him, the same is true for probably everybody on our roster this coming season). Thus, any market system is going to be unfair, with an extremely small set of players getting a ton of money, and everybody else getting nothing. 2. You could pool money into a general fund, and then pay all athletes equally. However, there is one big problem with this: any "equitable" distribution not based on school or talent is going to be pretty small. So small, in fact, that there would still be incentives for players to take Adidas-level payments of 100K to players. (This is actually a bigger problem in football where the rosters are huge.) 3. How many players are truly worth more than the value of their scholarship? At Georgetown, with all costs, tuition is nearly $200K over 4 years. It's cheaper at some state schools, but it's not cheap anywhere. Given what I wrote above, how many players are really worth more (in pure money terms) than the value of their scholarships? I would argue very few. I realize nobody cares about education, but it's expensive and they are getting it for free because of basketball (or football)! That should count for something, but it's often ignored. 4. You cannot have different universities paying different amounts because that basically creates an uneven recruiting field, which is not healthy. I suppose you could further divide Division I - for example, where the Big East, AAC, ACC, SEC, Pac 12, Big 12, and Big 10 give their players more than other conferences, but that's still pretty unfair and would kill mid-majors. I also do not trust that in such a situation that the Big East would be left out because it doesn't play football. These are difficult issues, and while sportscasters and sports radio hosts love to bloviate (it's simple, pay the players!) - it really is not an easy situation.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Oct 6, 2017 5:16:38 GMT -5
Paying players would lead to even more problems. Boosters and cheats would still try to outdo each other by paying as much as they could even with a salary cap.
And kids would just take out loans against the value of their worth of the money pooled for the future from agents and boosters.
Those who want to get paid should go to Europe, China, the NBDL or the NBA. At least basketball players have option. College football players really have no choice because there really are few pro leagues besides the NFL.
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,915
|
Post by CTHoya08 on Oct 6, 2017 7:23:31 GMT -5
If players are going to be compensated, you have to figure out an equitable way to do it so you can maintain some type of balance. Might be prohibitively hard to do. I think you are right. I think it is hard to do it equitably, if not impossible. There are a few problems I have with the knee-jerk "pay the players" attitude a lot of people adopt: 1. If the goal of paying players is to shed outside influences and things like the Adidas money, it won't work. Sure, if you created some sort of "marketplace" where stars could get their own agents, endorsements, etc. there would be some who made significant sums. But, this would mostly be the VERY top college players. So while Markelle Fultz might have real value in an open market, somebody like Reggie Cameron would have virtually zero value (not picking on him, the same is true for probably everybody on our roster this coming season). Thus, any market system is going to be unfair, with an extremely small set of players getting a ton of money, and everybody else getting nothing. 2. You could pool money into a general fund, and then pay all athletes equally. However, there is one big problem with this: any "equitable" distribution not based on school or talent is going to be pretty small. So small, in fact, that there would still be incentives for players to take Adidas-level payments of 100K to players. (This is actually a bigger problem in football where the rosters are huge.) 3. How many players are truly worth more than the value of their scholarship? At Georgetown, with all costs, tuition is nearly $200K over 4 years. It's cheaper at some state schools, but it's not cheap anywhere. Given what I wrote above, how many players are really worth more (in pure money terms) than the value of their scholarships? I would argue very few. I realize nobody cares about education, but it's expensive and they are getting it for free because of basketball (or football)! That should count for something, but it's often ignored. 4. You cannot have different universities paying different amounts because that basically creates an uneven recruiting field, which is not healthy. I suppose you could further divide Division I - for example, where the Big East, AAC, ACC, SEC, Pac 12, Big 12, and Big 10 give their players more than other conferences, but that's still pretty unfair and would kill mid-majors. I also do not trust that in such a situation that the Big East would be left out because it doesn't play football. These are difficult issues, and while sportscasters and sports radio hosts love to bloviate (it's simple, pay the players!) - it really is not an easy situation. I'd add an additional point to number three--the players get admissions preference. So the scholarship not only has the tangible value in dollars, but the additional value of giving the player the opportunity to attend a school like Georgetown, which he might not be able to do even if he could afford the tuition. Of course, this factor isn't the same for every school--there's a big difference between, say Duke (9% acceptance rate) and Kansas (93% acceptance rate).
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,147
|
Post by SSHoya on Oct 6, 2017 7:32:49 GMT -5
Surprised that this hasn't come up in the discussion. Power 5 conference schools already allow a stipend. (Small potatoes given the $$$$ in college athletics). Are there any lessons learned from this experiment? Much has been written about the stipend that will be granted by “Power Five” conference schools beginning in 2015-16 as part of radical NCAA reforms. David Jones of Pennlive.com put together an interesting story and graphic on the subject. btn.com/2015/03/03/stipend-figures-heres-a-look-at-potential-big-ten-numbers/So, in the 2015-16 school year, student-athletes will not just receive basic tuition, books and room-and-board but also an extra 4-figure cash amount to be used toward incidental living expenses. It is known in university fiscal circles as part of the "cost of attendance." www.pennlive.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/03/penn_state_cost_of_attendance_recruiting.html
|
|
calhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,381
|
Post by calhoya on Oct 6, 2017 9:49:21 GMT -5
I agree with the comments above from posters saying that the solution of "paying" the players is not without serious flaws and inequities. I also have no obvious solution notwithstanding my belief that the current system is horribly broken. The fact that there is no easy or obvious solution, however, does not diminish the magnitude of the problem. Nor do I agree that it is enough for players to simply gain a scholarship to a school that they would otherwise not be admitted too. Let's be honest about one fact--many recruits, stars and non-stars, could not care less about the academic quality of the school they are attending. Nor are many of the schools recruiting them with the goal of producing a future engineer, artist, accountant or lawyer. The major college schools are using their basketball/football programs as substantial revenue sources, as well as marketing tools to attract other students and support from boosters. It's a business and that cannot be ignored in this conversation. A more equitable system is needed.
College sports is not an easy life for the athletes. While some blow off the academics completely and do not belong in that environment, many others are trying to learn and maintain their GPAs and eligibility, after many hours of practice, on long mid-week road trips and in shared hotel rooms. While they enjoy many benefits of being an athlete, it is not the same unstructured lifestyle of their fellow students. To the contrary, their lives during the season are incredibly structured. Their scholarship is a very nice benefit, but they are earning it and more. I had two kids play college athletics--one in soccer and one in basketball. Both were admitted to schools they probably could not have attended otherwise. Both worked their tail off and graduated. Neither ever became a "star" except to their parents. The experience was very positive for each and yet each had teammates who struggled financially and did not have families with the means to provide them the extra money. Nor were they allowed by the schools to get jobs to provide the extra money. I know that many of the college athletes appear to be entitled divas, given special treatment by the schools and the fanbase. While this perception is accurate in some instances, these are a small minority. It should not mask the serious issues and inequities with the current system.
|
|
njhoya78
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,803
|
Post by njhoya78 on Oct 6, 2017 17:15:25 GMT -5
|
|
Hoyas4Ever
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
A Wise Man Once Told Me Don't Argue With Fools....
Posts: 5,448
|
Post by Hoyas4Ever on Oct 7, 2017 11:48:21 GMT -5
|
|