the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,419
|
Post by the_way on Mar 30, 2021 8:55:42 GMT -5
Boeheim is a realist. Keeps it real. I always get a kick at how he deals with reporters who ask dumb questions (the question at the end).
This is nothing new for Ewing. He had to construct his roster on the fly for the past 2 years. Little did we know how much that experience will be vital going forward.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,835
|
Post by EtomicB on Mar 30, 2021 11:25:08 GMT -5
Hear Jay Wright talk about the transfer portal @ the 3:50 mark also a couple times after that a well...
I like the fact that he doesn't whine & make stuff up like Boehiem, easy to see why he gets the results he does...
I hope PE does a season wrap up interview as well....
|
|
hoopsmccan
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,419
|
Post by hoopsmccan on Mar 30, 2021 11:54:57 GMT -5
Hear Jay Wright talk about the transfer portal @ the 3:50 mark also a couple times after that a well... I like the fact that he doesn't whine & make stuff up like Boehiem, easy to see why he gets the results he does... I hope PE does a season wrap up interview as well....
I've done a 180 on this stuff to be on your side of things, but you know this is not happening. hm
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,835
|
Post by EtomicB on Mar 30, 2021 15:52:04 GMT -5
Hear Jay Wright talk about the transfer portal @ the 3:50 mark also a couple times after that a well... I like the fact that he doesn't whine & make stuff up like Boehiem, easy to see why he gets the results he does... I hope PE does a season wrap up interview as well....
I've done a 180 on this stuff to be on your side of things, but you know this is not happening. hm Unfortunately, I agree with you Hoops... Seems to me it'd be an easy decision to ride the wave of good publicity following the beautiful run to the BET title...
|
|
jwp91
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,990
|
Post by jwp91 on Mar 30, 2021 15:57:54 GMT -5
While I support player freedom, I also acknowledge that it will diminish fan interest over time. The free agency to the extreme, I think, will lead to less attachment. In the past we rooted for both players and the 'laundry' (Ewing, Iverson, etc). If it becomes just the 'laundry' because players become short-timers (either to pros or transfer) then I think the emotional connectivity is reduced.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,419
|
Post by the_way on Mar 30, 2021 15:58:06 GMT -5
Quite honestly, it is not necessary. Good for Jay I guess.
|
|
hoopsmccan
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,419
|
Post by hoopsmccan on Mar 30, 2021 16:11:48 GMT -5
Quite honestly, it is not necessary. Good for Jay I guess. So nothing is "necessary". Our coach is a celebrity and any time we do not maximize that fact we are losing an opportunity from recruiting and fundraising perspectives. Even if he wasn't a celebrity, we should have a messaging and communication plan, but Coach being who he is just makes the lack of a plan more frustrating. hm
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,730
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Mar 30, 2021 16:14:40 GMT -5
So nothing is "necessary". Our coach is a celebrity and any time we do not maximize that fact we are losing an opportunity from recruiting and fundraising perspectives. Even if he wasn't a celebrity, we should have a messaging and communication plan, but Coach being who he is just makes the lack of a plan more frustrating. Coach's decision.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,419
|
Post by the_way on Mar 30, 2021 16:14:47 GMT -5
Quite honestly, it is not necessary. Good for Jay I guess. So nothing is "necessary". Our coach is a celebrity and any time we do not maximize that fact we are losing an opportunity from recruiting and fundraising perspectives. Even if he wasn't a celebrity, we should have a messaging and communication plan, but Coach being who he is just makes the lack of a plan more frustrating. hm It is not that necessary. Not going to make or break the program. Kudos to Jay though, I guess. "I was gonna sign to G-town, but then I saw Jay Wright's end of the season interview. Coach Ewing didn't do that, so I signed with Nova".
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Mar 30, 2021 16:16:10 GMT -5
While I support player freedom, I also acknowledge that it will diminish fan interest over time. The free agency to the extreme, I think, will lead to less attachment. In the past we rooted for both players and the 'laundry' (Ewing, Ive"rson, etc). If it becomes just the 'laundry' because players become short-timers (either to pros or transfer) then I think the emotional connectivity is reduced. At the end of the day what really drives college basketball and football for that matter aren't the player (despite what they think) but the brand of the school and the attached alumni fan base. It's not the level of athlete because the pro's will always have superior athletes to college. As long as their is somewhat equal footing between the school's athletes, then it's the alumni fan base that drives the popularity of the sport or tournament and not the players. If all the players who wanted to get paid went to G league or some pro league, the NCAA would still be popular even with "amateur" players because the strength is in the school brand and the alumni fan base that loyally supports that brand. This is often overlooked but should not be underestimated.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,419
|
Post by the_way on Mar 30, 2021 16:23:50 GMT -5
While I support player freedom, I also acknowledge that it will diminish fan interest over time. The free agency to the extreme, I think, will lead to less attachment. In the past we rooted for both players and the 'laundry' (Ewing, Ive"rson, etc). If it becomes just the 'laundry' because players become short-timers (either to pros or transfer) then I think the emotional connectivity is reduced. At the end of the day what really drives college basketball and football for that matter aren't the player (despite what they think) but the brand of the school and the attached alumni fan base. It's not the level of athlete because the pro's will always have superior athletes to college. As long as their is somewhat equal footing between the school's athletes, then it's the alumni fan base that drives the popularity of the sport or tournament and not the players. If all the players who wanted to get paid went to G league or some pro league, the NCAA would still be popular even with "amateur" players because the strength is in the school brand and the alumni fan base that loyally supports that brand. This is often overlooked but should not be underestimated. Yep. The stars are long gone from college basketball. There are no more Ewings or Iversons. Unless it is for Kentucky or Duke and that is only for 1 year. Zion was a big deal for that one year for Duke. College Football still has a stronghold because the players have to remain 3 years out of high school before entering the draft. You got to see Trevor Lawrence for 3 years instead of 1 or done or going to Europe for year if a player of his caliber played basketball.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 30, 2021 17:09:35 GMT -5
It's not the level of athlete because the pro's will always have superior athletes to college. As long as their is somewhat equal footing between the school's athletes, then it's the alumni fan base that drives the popularity of the sport or tournament and not the players. If all the players who wanted to get paid went to G league or some pro league, the NCAA would still be popular even with "amateur" players because the strength is in the school brand and the alumni fan base that loyally supports that brand. This is often overlooked but should not be underestimated.Exactly. I think the "pay the players" crowd often misses this point. While the players are obviously a valuable piece of the puzzle (and I am not saying they shouldn't get "paid" in some fashion, though I think there are major practical problems in doing so that make it tough), the real driving force and money behind college basketball and college football, as revenue sports, is attachment to the universities. When players transfer, none of us suddenly become fans of Texas Tech, LSU, or Arizona because McClung, LeBlanc, or Akinjo went there. It's the team allegiance that keeps us in place, not the individual players. In that sense, the university branding and naming really brings a ton to the table, and it is an extremely valuable asset.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2021 17:20:14 GMT -5
It's not the level of athlete because the pro's will always have superior athletes to college. As long as their is somewhat equal footing between the school's athletes, then it's the alumni fan base that drives the popularity of the sport or tournament and not the players. If all the players who wanted to get paid went to G league or some pro league, the NCAA would still be popular even with "amateur" players because the strength is in the school brand and the alumni fan base that loyally supports that brand. This is often overlooked but should not be underestimated.Exactly. I think the "pay the players" crowd often misses this point. While the players are obviously a valuable piece of the puzzle (and I am not saying they shouldn't get "paid" in some fashion, though I think there are major practical problems in doing so that make it tough), the real driving force and money behind college basketball and college football, as revenue sports, is attachment to the universities. When players transfer, none of us suddenly become fans of Texas Tech, LSU, or Arizona because McClung, LeBlanc, or Akinjo went there. It's the team allegiance that keeps us in place, not the individual players. In that sense, the university branding and naming really brings a ton to the table, and it is an extremely valuable asset. It's not missed on us. What seems to be missed is the fact schools are compensated for that. Always have been and always will be. They will always get the largest share of the pie. It comes down to if you believe they should get the entire slice. You also can't dismiss the impact certain players have had on building brands. How many people buying Duke or Notre Dame jerseys do you think have an affiliation to those schools? I'd guess the non affiliated outnumbers alumni by a significant margin.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 30, 2021 17:31:50 GMT -5
It's not missed on us. What seems to be missed is the fact schools are compensated for that. Always have been and always will be. They will always get the largest share of the pie. It comes down to if you believe they should get the entire slice. Perhaps not on you, but I do think there are others who do miss this point. I think it's setting up a bit of a straw man to say "It comes down to if you believe they should get the entire slice," though. I don't think anybody advocates that. In fact, that's simply not the case now, as all athletes get scholarships and educations out of the deal, which "normal" people do not get, and they can now get the stipends, etc. I fully realize that many people do not consider the scholarships or education aspect to be "compensation," but the fact is that they're getting something free that regular students, not receiving financial aid, will end up paying $200,000+ for. If there is a practical way to pay athletes, I have no problem with that. My issue has always been that you have a small number of guys at the top who generate a ton of individual value (guys like Zion Williamson) who probably are worth millions, and then everybody else, whose value in monetary terms is not nearly the same. And we are talking about major conferences. When you look at mid-major conferences or lower, who don't even play many games on TV, the problem becomes even more compounded. I do think that greater stipends, etc. could work, or compensating guys for their likeness. But, practically (and economically) it's a tough issue. I think this is also a problem that is somewhat lessening because of the G league, and non-college paths being made available to more guys.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2021 17:34:21 GMT -5
It's not missed on us. What seems to be missed is the fact schools are compensated for that. Always have been and always will be. They will always get the largest share of the pie. It comes down to if you believe they should get the entire slice. Perhaps not on you, but I do think there are others who do miss this point. I think it's setting up a bit of a straw man to say "It comes down to if you believe they should get the entire slice," though. I don't think anybody advocates that. In fact, that's simply not the case now, as all athletes get scholarships and educations out of the deal, which "normal" people do not get, and they can now get the stipends, etc. I fully realize that many people do not consider the scholarships or education aspect to be "compensation," but the fact is that they're getting something free that regular students, not receiving financial aid, will end up paying $200,000+ for. If there is a practical way to pay athletes, I have no problem with that. My issue has always been that you have a small number of guys at the top who generate a ton of individual value (guys like Zion Williamson) who probably are worth millions, and then everybody else, whose value in monetary terms is not nearly the same. And we are talking about major conferences. When you look at mid-major conferences or lower, who don't even play many games on TV, the problem becomes even more compounded. I do think that greater stipends, etc. could work, or compensating guys for their likeness. But, practically (and economically) it's a tough issue. They're not letting these kids into their schools for their academic prowess my dude. Many of these kids are majoring in basketball/football and the schools treat them as such. I'll also point out that a degree at LSU would cost a kid far less than 200k and those players bring in tons of revenue for their school. Be fair, the majority aren't getting a top level education. They are being steered into easy majors so they can stay eligible to play ball and bring bucks into their schools. Evidence suggests that's not true at a school like Georgetown, but for the overwhelming majority of HM kids it is.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Mar 30, 2021 17:42:43 GMT -5
It's not missed on us. What seems to be missed is the fact schools are compensated for that. Always have been and always will be. They will always get the largest share of the pie. It comes down to if you believe they should get the entire slice. Perhaps not on you, but I do think there are others who do miss this point. I think it's setting up a bit of a straw man to say "It comes down to if you believe they should get the entire slice," though. I don't think anybody advocates that. In fact, that's simply not the case now, as all athletes get scholarships and educations out of the deal, which "normal" people do not get, and they can now get the stipends, etc. I fully realize that many people do not consider the scholarships or education aspect to be "compensation," but the fact is that they're getting something free that regular students, not receiving financial aid, will end up paying $200,000+ for. If there is a practical way to pay athletes, I have no problem with that. My issue has always been that you have a small number of guys at the top who generate a ton of individual value (guys like Zion Williamson) who probably are worth millions, and then everybody else, whose value in monetary terms is not nearly the same. And we are talking about major conferences. When you look at mid-major conferences or lower, who don't even play many games on TV, the problem becomes even more compounded. I do think that greater stipends, etc. could work, or compensating guys for their likeness. But, practically (and economically) it's a tough issue. I think this is also a problem that is somewhat lessening because of the G league, and non-college paths being made available to more guys. I think the perception for alot of the players or the kids from Northwestern is that they will get millions of dollars simply for playing or sitting on the bench. But what is likely to happen if you have the pay for play is that they won't be getting that much more than what they get now which is around $200K for 4 years. (plus inside track on jobs in the college basketball industry and school which has a economic value) And throw in title IX and the men's profits would have to be equally shared with the women players even though the men's game generates so much more revenue. And once again this all discounts the main driver which is the brand loyalty that the schools have among alumni. I would argue that the school loyalty is more powerful than any pro team fan base as the almuni are actually part of the school and will stay loyal for life whereas a pro fan is not a part of the pro organization and so is further removed (on top of the fact that pro teams often move cities). I would guess that that's 50% of what drives all this is the school loyalty and then the other 50% is split among the NCAA, players, universities, coaches and everything else.
|
|
hoopsmccan
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,419
|
Post by hoopsmccan on Mar 30, 2021 17:47:38 GMT -5
So nothing is "necessary". Our coach is a celebrity and any time we do not maximize that fact we are losing an opportunity from recruiting and fundraising perspectives. Even if he wasn't a celebrity, we should have a messaging and communication plan, but Coach being who he is just makes the lack of a plan more frustrating. hm It is not that necessary. Not going to make or break the program. Kudos to Jay though, I guess. "I was gonna sign to G-town, but then I saw Jay Wright's end of the season interview. Coach Ewing didn't do that, so I signed with Nova". "Since I moved from DC, this Hoya Hoops Club membership is kinda worthless. Oh, I'm getting exclusive videos from Coach that are helping keep me connected. Maybe I'll click the donation link on the bottom of the email". Not too far fetched and if it works a couple of times, it's worth it. And even your snarky example...its impossible for a recruit to connect with a coaches messaging and persona? And I'm talking more broadly, of course. The communication and messaging should be much better and leverage Ewing's status. Every ESPN show, radio appearance, Michael Jordan retrospective, NBA promotional interview, etc. should be used. "Joining us now is NBA great and current coach of the Big East Champion Georgetown Hoyas, Patrick Ewing". In order to go on the air, for the next year "current coach of the BE Champs..." should be part of his full name and he should have a sentence or two about Georgetown that fits the bigger messaging strategy. I don't care if the first question is about Michael Jordan, have a transition, even a clumsy one, to fit in your messaging before you answer the question. Every time. As DFW raised, some of that is on coach. And some has to be the communication person/department...and if there isn't one, that is the point. This is low hanging fruit and it helps...of course not just one video, but in the aggregate. Or just shrug, continue to not engage your fanbase in any meaningful way and not try to take advantage of the biggest attribute coach has. hm
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Mar 30, 2021 17:50:45 GMT -5
I think this is also a problem that is somewhat lessening because of the G league, and non-college paths being made available to more guys. I will also add that one can see how powerful the school brand loyalty and alumni loyalty is when one looks at CBA/G League, etc vs NCAA. G League in theory has superior players to NCAA. Both G league and NCAA have inferior players to the NBA. Yet very few people watch or are die hard fans of the G league where as NCAA fandom can rival NBA fandom. What's the difference in the product of the G League and the NCAA's? Pretty much it comes down to the inherent school/alumni fanbase that propels the NCAA's popularity.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Mar 30, 2021 17:53:51 GMT -5
is not that necessary. Not going to make or break the program. Kudos to Jay though, I guess. As DFW raised, some of that is on coach. And some has to be the communication person/department...and if there isn't one, that is the point. This is low hanging fruit and it helps...of course not just one video, but in the aggregate. Or just shrug, continue to not engage your fanbase in any meaningful way and not try to take advantage of the biggest attribute coach has. hm To be fair, Coach was all over the place in the media after the BET title. Seemed to be on every channel and every talk show. So don't think it's correct to say he isn't working it or aware of leveraging his NBA legend status.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 30, 2021 18:10:04 GMT -5
I think this is also a problem that is somewhat lessening because of the G league, and non-college paths being made available to more guys. I will also add that one can see how powerful the school brand loyalty and alumni loyalty is when one looks at CBA/G League, etc vs NCAA. G League in theory has superior players to NCAA. Both G league and NCAA have inferior players to the NBA. Yet very few people watch or are die hard fans of the G league where as NCAA fandom can rival NBA fandom. What's the difference in the product of the G League and the NCAA's? Pretty much it comes down to the inherent school/alumni fanbase that propels the NCAA's popularity. Absolutely, that is a great example. The G League easily has better players than the NCAA teams, and yet, they get much lower viewership and attendance (when people can actually go to games!). Literally the only difference is that people do not have allegiances to what amount to minor league franchises, versus universities they attended.
|
|