hoopsmccan
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,408
|
Post by hoopsmccan on Mar 30, 2021 18:10:45 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. Agreed on post-BET title and that was a unique (hopefully not that unique) circumstance that we were able to capitalize on. I think the next step is on the messaging during these interviews. There should be a purpose, but as a first step, I'll take the purpose being exposure and linking him to an on-the-court success. hm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2021 18:13:24 GMT -5
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. Do you guys honestly believe that's the "only difference?" It's an apples to oranges comparison. I don't think Georgetown sold all those hats and jackets in the 80s and 90's because of their alumni base. At the end of the day though I think looking at this through a Georgetown lens isn't the correct way to view it. At a lot of these schools these kids are treated as commodities.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 30, 2021 18:18:52 GMT -5
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. Obviously, many (probably most) of these kids are going to their college to play football or basketball, and probably do not care about academics all that much. At the highest levels, and programs like LSU football or a similar basketball program, this is most certainly true. But, I still think the high-major aspect of football/basketball tends to obscure how different it is at mid/low major conferences. I have no doubt that the Patriot League, SWAC, NEC, etc. get a lot of players who come there mostly to play basketball or football (if it's a conference with scholarship football). But, the calculus is very different there. Do schools like Sacred Heart, Fairleigh Dickinson, Lehigh, Grambling, etc. "use" basketball players to bring bucks to their schools? Considering that most of these programs need the OOC schedule simply to stay afloat financially, I don't think so. Unless these schools go to the NCAA tournament, they're not making much, if any money. I cannot speak for these athletes, but I have a hunch that once you get past the high-majors, that a much higher percentage of the kids place real value on getting a college degree, particularly when they have no pro aspirations. Sure, for some kids it'll always be about basketball, and getting an "easy" degree on the side. But, I think over the decades, there have probably been a bunch of guys who have benefitted from these degrees, even if that wasn't their primary reason for enrolling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2021 18:21:41 GMT -5
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. Obviously, many (probably most) of these kids are going to their college to play football or basketball, and probably do not care about academics all that much. At the highest levels, and programs like LSU football or a similar basketball program, this is most certainly true. But, I still think the high-major aspect of football/basketball tends to obscure how different it is at mid/low major conferences. I have no doubt that the Patriot League, SWAC, NEC, etc. get a lot of players who come there mostly to play basketball or football (if it's a conference with scholarship football). But, the calculus is very different there. Do schools like Sacred Heart, Fairleigh Dickinson, Lehigh, Grambling, etc. "use" basketball players to bring bucks to their schools? Considering that most of these programs need the OOC schedule simply to stay afloat financially, I don't think so. Unless these schools go to the NCAA tournament, they're not making much, if any money. I cannot speak for these athletes, but I have a hunch that once you get past the high-majors, that a much higher percentage of the kids place real value on getting a college degree, particularly when they have no pro aspirations. Sure, for some kids it'll always be about basketball, and getting an "easy" degree on the side. But, I think over the decades, there have probably been a bunch of guys who have benefitted from these degrees, even if that wasn't their primary reason for enrolling. I agree, but that's why most of the paying players conversation is centered around athletes at power conference schools.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 30, 2021 18:21:58 GMT -5
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. Do you guys honestly believe that's the "only difference?" It's an apples to oranges comparison. When Georgetown was the number one jersey sold in college basketball in the 80s and 90's do you think that was driven by the alumni base or something else? Georgetown was a unique cultural phenomena in the 1980s, the likes of which has not been seen since (at the college level), and likely won't been seen again. That went way beyond Georgetown's student body and alumni. But, that was such a rare, unique occurrence, it's not really helpful to use it as an example. It's not the only difference (for example, colleges have been around much longer than the G league), but I do think that universities being connected with teams is the biggest difference/reason why college basketball garners a lot more interest than the G League, and will continue to do so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2021 18:26:44 GMT -5
Do you guys honestly believe that's the "only difference?" It's an apples to oranges comparison. When Georgetown was the number one jersey sold in college basketball in the 80s and 90's do you think that was driven by the alumni base or something else? Georgetown was a unique cultural phenomena in the 1980s, the likes of which has not been seen since (at the college level), and likely won't been seen again. That went way beyond Georgetown's student body and alumni. But, that was such a rare, unique occurrence, it's not really helpful to use it as an example. It's not the only difference, but I do think that universities being connected with teams is the biggest difference/reason why college basketball garners a lot more interest than the G League, and will continue to do so. It is because even today you see schools like Duke and Notre Dame selling tons of merchandise that far outweighs their alumni base.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,713
|
Post by EtomicB on Mar 30, 2021 18:53:38 GMT -5
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. You agree with this thought by the good Professor but also think it's not necessary for the head of the Gtown basketball to do anything outside of coaching the team to keep fans engaged about the program?
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,419
|
Post by the_way on Mar 30, 2021 19:11:26 GMT -5
Talking about 1 interview. No.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2021 10:01:26 GMT -5
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. The Supreme Court is hearing a case Wednesday that tests whether the NCAA's limits on compensation for student athletes violate the nation's antitrust laws. This is probably the wrong thread for this but I’ll drop it here since we were discussing this yesterday. I’ll also add that saying schools pay players by giving them a free education that in most cases is in no way similar to what a regular student gets is a bit of a stretch.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Mar 31, 2021 10:18:27 GMT -5
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. Do you guys honestly believe that's the "only difference?" It's an apples to oranges comparison. I don't think Georgetown sold all those hats and jackets in the 80s and 90's because of their alumni base. At the end of the day though I think looking at this through a Georgetown lens isn't the correct way to view it. At a lot of these schools these kids are treated as commodities. There are virtually no inferior leagues in sports (that do not have a relegation-promotion type system) that have as much popularity as NCAA basketball and football. Nobody cares about Triple A/Double A pro baseball. G League/CBA/Big 3 Minor league Hockey CFL, XFL, Arena football. The reason an inferior league with inferior players such as the NCAA is successful is because of the school brand and loyal alumni base. You take away the school connection and alumni from the league and the league would not be successful. This is pretty much ignored and not acknowledged even though it's the driving force.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,713
|
Post by EtomicB on Mar 31, 2021 10:24:14 GMT -5
Do you guys honestly believe that's the "only difference?" It's an apples to oranges comparison. I don't think Georgetown sold all those hats and jackets in the 80s and 90's because of their alumni base. At the end of the day though I think looking at this through a Georgetown lens isn't the correct way to view it. At a lot of these schools these kids are treated as commodities. There are virtually no inferior leagues in sports (that do not have a relegation-promotion type system) that have as much popularity as NCAA basketball and football. Nobody cares about Triple A/Double A pro baseball. G League/CBA/Big 3 Minor league Hockey CFL, XFL, Arena football. The reason an inferior league with inferior players such as the NCAA is successful is because of the school brand and loyal alumni base. You take away the school connection and alumni from the league and the league would not be successful. This is pretty much ignored and not acknowledged even though it's the driving force. What's your point here?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2021 10:24:24 GMT -5
Do you guys honestly believe that's the "only difference?" It's an apples to oranges comparison. I don't think Georgetown sold all those hats and jackets in the 80s and 90's because of their alumni base. At the end of the day though I think looking at this through a Georgetown lens isn't the correct way to view it. At a lot of these schools these kids are treated as commodities. There are virtually no inferior leagues in sports (that do not have a relegation-promotion type system) that have as much popularity as NCAA basketball and football. Nobody cares about Triple A/Double A pro baseball. G League/CBA/Big 3 Minor league Hockey CFL, XFL, Arena football. The reason an inferior league with inferior players such as the NCAA is successful is because of the school brand and loyal alumni base. You take away the school connection and alumni from the league and the league would not be successful. This is pretty much ignored and not acknowledged even though it's the driving force. Ehh it’s acknowledged but why is having a built in consumer base a reason to not compensate players who help raise revenue for the school?
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Mar 31, 2021 10:36:59 GMT -5
There are virtually no inferior leagues in sports (that do not have a relegation-promotion type system) that have as much popularity as NCAA basketball and football. Nobody cares about Triple A/Double A pro baseball. G League/CBA/Big 3 Minor league Hockey CFL, XFL, Arena football. The reason an inferior league with inferior players such as the NCAA is successful is because of the school brand and loyal alumni base. You take away the school connection and alumni from the league and the league would not be successful. This is pretty much ignored and not acknowledged even though it's the driving force. Ehh it’s acknowledged but why is having a built in consumer base a reason to not compensate players who help raise revenue? As mentioned in a previous post it's a big reason for the revenue and as a result the compensation pie for players, officials, coaches is from a much smaller pie. In pro sports ideally you want a 50/50 split between owners and players. But in an inferior league, where the driver is the school and alumni, I'd say the player as well as coaches are a much smaller share. NBA minimum salary is $800K G league average salary is 35K. At the end of the day when you include Title IX and the fact that the school/alumni are the main drivers of the popularity of the league, I think you are looking at a compensation of around $20K a year for each player. Now some will make alot more off likeness and popularity but for the average rotation player or bench warmer that's probably what they end up getting if there were a pay to play system. It appears to me that most of the Northwestern bench warmers, etc who are advocating for a pay system are under the mistaken belief that they will be getting alot more than that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2021 10:55:36 GMT -5
Ehh it’s acknowledged but why is having a built in consumer base a reason to not compensate players who help raise revenue? As mentioned in a previous post it's a big reason for the revenue and as a result the compensation pie for players, officials, coaches is from a much smaller pie. In pro sports ideally you want a 50/50 split between owners and players. But in an inferior league, where the driver is the school and alumni, I'd say the player as well as coaches are a much smaller share. NBA minimum salary is $800K G league average salary is 35K. At the end of the day when you include Title IX and the fact that the school/alumni are the main drivers of the popularity of the league, I think you are looking at a compensation of around $20K a year for each player. Now some will make alot more off likeness and popularity but for the average rotation player or bench warmer that's probably what they end up getting if there were a pay to play system. It appears to me that most of the Northwestern bench warmers, etc who are advocating for a pay system are under the mistaken belief that they will be getting alot more than that. I’m not really here to argue the amount of compensation that’s fair but I have to ask, why is this point only made when it comes to paying players but not when it comes to paying coaches millions? Imo just like with the leagues you mentioned, and with coaching salaries at the NCAA level, the market can set that value if it’s allowed to do so.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Mar 31, 2021 11:10:36 GMT -5
As mentioned in a previous post it's a big reason for the revenue and as a result the compensation pie for players, officials, coaches is from a much smaller pie. In pro sports ideally you want a 50/50 split between owners and players. But in an inferior league, where the driver is the school and alumni, I'd say the player as well as coaches are a much smaller share. NBA minimum salary is $800K G league average salary is 35K. At the end of the day when you include Title IX and the fact that the school/alumni are the main drivers of the popularity of the league, I think you are looking at a compensation of around $20K a year for each player. Now some will make alot more off likeness and popularity but for the average rotation player or bench warmer that's probably what they end up getting if there were a pay to play system. It appears to me that most of the Northwestern bench warmers, etc who are advocating for a pay system are under the mistaken belief that they will be getting alot more than that. I’m not really here to argue the amount of compensation that’s fair but I have to ask, why is this point only made when it comes to paying players but not when it comes to paying coaches millions? Simple the only place right now where a school has control is paying coaches since they can’t pay players. Another factor is that even at best in college you can only lock up a player for 4 years. In reality, it is one or two years for any good player. And now with free agency/transfers it actually may only be one year for the majority of players. The only constant you can have is a coach who in theory can coach 20+ years at the same school. The coach basically becomes the individual face of the brand, like a Michael Jordan was for the Bulls or Magic for the Lakers because of the player turnover. The coach is the one factor that has the least amount of variability in the college game assuming you can lock him up for a 6 plus year contract and have a huge buyout clause. That could well change if a player could play for a school for 10 years. 10th year senior. I have no problem with paying coaches less or having a cap on their salary and giving that money to the players. Furthermore, every college player has the inside track to a coaching career if they graduate or come back to graduate. So in theory has an opportunity to make those $$$ (although the reality is college coaching is one area where there is still a lot of discrimination and lack of diversity but that is a whole nother discussion) But take Juwon for example. He left school early but while his teams mates were having fun in the NBA, he was studying and working on the plane back from games to get his degree while with the Wizards. At the time it’s like why are you doing that but that gave him the prerequisite to become an NCAA head coach and now he’s making the $$$ at Michigan. So that economic opportunity is there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2021 11:12:20 GMT -5
I’m not really here to argue the amount of compensation that’s fair but I have to ask, why is this point only made when it comes to paying players but not when it comes to paying coaches millions? Simple the only place right now where a school has control is paying coaches since they can’t pay players. Another factor is that even at best in college you can only lock up a player for 4 years. In reality, it is one or two years for any good player. And now with free agency/transfers it actually may only be one year for the majority of players. The only constant you can have is a coach who in theory can coach 20+ years at the same school. The coach basically becomes the individual face of the brand, like a Michael Jordan was for the Bulls or Magic for the Lakers because of the player turnover. That could well change of a player could play for a school for 10 years. 10th year senior. I have no problem with paying coaches less or having a cap on their salary and giving that money to the players. Furthermore, every college player has the inside track to a coaching career if they graduate or come back to graduate. So in theory has an opportunity to make those $$$ (although the reality is college coaching is one area where there is still a lot of discrimination and lack of diversity but that is a whole nother discussion) But take Juwon for example. He left school early but while his teams mates were having fun in the NBA, he was studying and working on the plane back from games to get his degree while with the Wizards. At the time it’s like why are you doing that but that gave him the prerequisite to become an NCAA head coach and now he’s making the $$$ at Michigan. So that economic opportunity is there.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Mar 31, 2021 11:15:50 GMT -5
Simple the only place right now where a school has control is paying coaches since they can’t pay players. Another factor is that even at best in college you can only lock up a player for 4 years. In reality, it is one or two years for any good player. And now with free agency/transfers it actually may only be one year for the majority of players. The only constant you can have is a coach who in theory can coach 20+ years at the same school. The coach basically becomes the individual face of the brand, like a Michael Jordan was for the Bulls or Magic for the Lakers because of the player turnover. That could well change of a player could play for a school for 10 years. 10th year senior. I have no problem with paying coaches less or having a cap on their salary and giving that money to the players. Furthermore, every college player has the inside track to a coaching career if they graduate or come back to graduate. So in theory has an opportunity to make those $$$ (although the reality is college coaching is one area where there is still a lot of discrimination and lack of diversity but that is a whole nother discussion) But take Juwon for example. He left school early but while his teams mates were having fun in the NBA, he was studying and working on the plane back from games to get his degree while with the Wizards. At the time it’s like why are you doing that but that gave him the prerequisite to become an NCAA head coach and now he’s making the $$$ at Michigan. So that economic opportunity is there. Like we said that lady or whoever is completely ignoring the contribution of the school brand and alumni loyalty. And this is the main problem. They just see the pot of gold and want it without realizing where the success is coming from.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,713
|
Post by EtomicB on Mar 31, 2021 11:20:56 GMT -5
Like we said that lady or whoever is completely ignoring the contribution of the school brand and alumni loyalty. And this is the main problem. They just see the pot of gold and want it without realizing where the success is coming from. Where would his success be without the players though?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2021 11:23:43 GMT -5
Like we said that lady or whoever is completely ignoring the contribution of the school brand and alumni loyalty. And this is the main problem. They just see the pot of gold and want it without realizing where the success is coming from. Again, Coaches get a piece of said pot of gold. Are they ignoring the contributions of the school brand and alumni loyalty, or are they just profiting off it just like the schools are? I really don’t get why this point is only made when we talk about compensating players.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Mar 31, 2021 11:24:26 GMT -5
Like we said that lady or whoever is completely ignoring the contribution of the school brand and alumni loyalty. And this is the main problem. They just see the pot of gold and want it without realizing where the success is coming from. Where would his success be without the players though? We've already discussed this. Nobody cares about the G League. It's an inferior league to the NBA. same with Triple AAA baseball or minor league hockey or XFL. These are all pay pro leagues the big difference between these inferior leagues and the NCAA is the school/alumni loyalty. As long as there is some level of parity, you could have lesser players (which the NCAA has anyway since NBA players are miles better) and the NCAA game would still be popular because of that school/alumni loyalty and connection.
|
|