EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,410
|
Post by EtomicB on May 5, 2022 10:32:40 GMT -5
Again you’re making excuses for the coaches, more to the point you’re making excuses for the adults in the room… If a college player is receiving NIL money, he’s a professional athlete. The basketball players on our team are receiving a free ride because they can dribble a ball. If it turns out they can’t dribble well, I’m happy to see them leave for a better fit. Like failing out academically. It's a very big stretch to try & bring the NIL into this discussion. Once again your focus is more on the players than the coaches |
|
Bigs"R"Us
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,656
Member is Online
|
Post by Bigs"R"Us on May 5, 2022 10:50:07 GMT -5
If a college player is receiving NIL money, he’s a professional athlete. The basketball players on our team are receiving a free ride because they can dribble a ball. If it turns out they can’t dribble well, I’m happy to see them leave for a better fit. Like failing out academically. It's a very big stretch to try & bring the NIL into this discussion. Once again your focus is more on the players than the coaches I guess what I’m saying is not to get attached to players as they’re under 1-year contracts. Not blaming coaches, the system, NCAA and greed have gotten us here. |
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on May 5, 2022 11:20:11 GMT -5
Again you’re making excuses for the coaches, more to the point you’re making excuses for the adults in the room… If a college player is receiving NIL money, he’s a professional athlete. The basketball players on our team are receiving a free ride because they can dribble a ball. If it turns out they can’t dribble well, I’m happy to see them leave for a better fit. Like failing out academically. There are valid points being raised on all sides of these issues. But, I do think there is a tendency to focus a lot on the players and the benefit/harm to the players, while ignoring everything else because for a long time the power was mostly with the universities and coaching. While I think some freedoms for players are good, I think one cannot ignore: 1. The main driver of value in college athletics are the universities themselves, their brand, and their alumni. This is why, for decades, people have watched college basketball (and football), even when there are leagues like the G league that feature better players. Schools definitely profit, but again, this is largely because viewers/attendees are fans of the university, not because they are fans of the specific players. Of course, the players do have a role here too, but the main driver is their affiliation with the university. In a vacuum, their performance has less value. 2. For a long time, the balance was against the players. But, now, players can (1) sign NIL deals to make a lot of money, even while they are getting scholarships that are often worth $60,000 or more, (2) transfer at will without any commitment to the university, and as a result, (3) players can basically waste the time and resources of a university. 3. In theory, I agree that if a coach brings a player onto a team, it should be, in principle a four year commitment. But, the problem is that it's a one-sided commitment. With the current transfer rules, there is absolutely no commitment on the side of the player. This is why I think the rules should be changed to give the "free" transfer after sophomore year, so that at least when a kid enrolls, you know you are likely getting 2 years, at least. 4. All that said, I do not like the idea of running off a kid. If a kid wants to stay, I generally think they should have the option to get their degree for free, even if they aren't playing the sport. I think 99% of kids would not take that deal, since they want to play, but in the event they do not, I think they should have that option. It's a tough landscape out there. "Student-athletes" are now quasi-professional athletes, and yet we are still largely operating in a system with rules and regulations that act as if it is not (other than NIL). |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on May 5, 2022 11:47:09 GMT -5
2. For a long time, the balance was against the players. But, now, players can (1) sign NIL deals to make a lot of money, even while they are getting scholarships that are often worth $60,000 or more, (2) transfer at will without any commitment to the university, and as a result, (3) players can basically waste the time and resources of a university. I think that's sort of true - 5* high school players, or the top players in a conference can get those deals. What if you are a 2* player, 3* player, or a borderline 4* player? At this point, 3* high school players aren't even getting recruited because the portal is seen as a more attractive source of talent. Their only path to a D1 scholarship is through low majors, or through a program that misses on its targets - and then that program will probably jettison you after that year. I think things have improved a great deal for older players in the transfer portal and 5* talent, I'm not so sure things have improved at all for anyone with a bench role. |
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on May 5, 2022 11:59:04 GMT -5
2. For a long time, the balance was against the players. But, now, players can (1) sign NIL deals to make a lot of money, even while they are getting scholarships that are often worth $60,000 or more, (2) transfer at will without any commitment to the university, and as a result, (3) players can basically waste the time and resources of a university. I think that's sort of true - 5* high school players, or the top players in a conference can get those deals. What if you are a 2* player, 3* player, or a borderline 4* player? At this point, 3* high school players aren't even getting recruited because the portal is seen as a more attractive source of talent. Their only path do a D1 scholarship is through low majors, or through a program that misses on its targets - and then that program will probably jettison you after that year. I think things have improved a great deal for older players in the transfer portal and 5* talent, I'm not so sure things have improved at all for anyone with a bench role. Fair enough. Many would argue that the transfer rules are beneficial to everyone, as nobody is stuck in their university or college anymore, and can transfer (once) without sitting. This is true of all schools, though obviously transfers from high major schools can always go a step in competition down (as many of our transfers have done), but that's not possible when you are already at a low major (unless you go to D-2 or D-3). But lets look at the numbers. As of this past season, there are 358 D-1 schools. That means, theoretically, 4,654 scholarship slots (I realize because of sanctions, etc. it may be less). Let's call the high major conferences the P5+Big East+AAC. That's 87 programs, or 1,131 of the total scholarship slots. So, only 24.3% of players are even playing in a "high major" conference each year. And, even if you added the Mountain West, or took out the AAC, you're still left with a similar relatively small slice of the entirety of Division 1. With some small exceptions (such as Gonzaga), most of the programs outside those 87 (in other words, the other 271 programs) will never have big time money through NIL. So, for the most part, 75% of college basketball players are living an existence that is very different from what we talk about day in and day out on HoyaTalk, and what the media talks about generally. For the most part, those guys ARE student-athletes, likely will never be professionals, and likely will never make a much, if any money, off the game. These are the guys who will graduate, and likely benefit from their degrees. If anything, the transfer rules are hugely disruptive of the lower 75% much more so than the high majors, which can recruit the better players from high school and from the portal. And, to make it worse now, if a diamond in the rough or lower level player happens to blow up now at a mid major, they can easily transfer to a high major, get NIL money, and then the mid major or low major program is decimated. Again, it's great for those individuals, less great for the sport as a whole, though. |
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,410
|
Post by EtomicB on May 5, 2022 12:12:35 GMT -5
If a college player is receiving NIL money, he’s a professional athlete. The basketball players on our team are receiving a free ride because they can dribble a ball. If it turns out they can’t dribble well, I’m happy to see them leave for a better fit. Like failing out academically. There are valid points being raised on all sides of these issues. But, I do think there is a tendency to focus a lot on the players and the benefit/harm to the players, while ignoring everything else because for a long time the power was mostly with the universities and coaching. While I think some freedoms for players are good, I think one cannot ignore: 1. The main driver of value in college athletics are the universities themselves, their brand, and their alumni. This is why, for decades, people have watched college basketball (and football), even when there are leagues like the G league that feature better players. Schools definitely profit, but again, this is largely because viewers/attendees are fans of the university, not because they are fans of the specific players. Of course, the players do have a role here too, but the main driver is their affiliation with the university. In a vacuum, their performance has less value. 2. For a long time, the balance was against the players. But, now, players can (1) sign NIL deals to make a lot of money, even while they are getting scholarships that are often worth $60,000 or more, (2) transfer at will without any commitment to the university, and as a result, (3) players can basically waste the time and resources of a university. 3. In theory, I agree that if a coach brings a player onto a team, it should be, in principle a four year commitment. But, the problem is that it's a one-sided commitment. With the current transfer rules, there is absolutely no commitment on the side of the player. This is why I think the rules should be changed to give the "free" transfer after sophomore year, so that at least when a kid enrolls, you know you are likely getting 2 years, at least. 4. All that said, I do not like the idea of running off a kid. If a kid wants to stay, I generally think they should have the option to get their degree for free, even if they aren't playing the sport. I think 99% of kids would not take that deal, since they want to play, but in the event they do not, I think they should have that option. It's a tough landscape out there. "Student-athletes" are now quasi-professional athletes, and yet we are still largely operating in a system with rules and regulations that act as if it is not (other than NIL). The scholarships aren't free in any way, these kids have to put in 30+ hours per week for the scholarship.. More importantly, #4 happens more often on the HM level than 2 & 3 The bottom line to me is the fact that it's the adults who set the rules, the players just abide by whatever is dictated to them. This is why I think there's very little to blame them for. |
|
DanMcQ
Moderator 
Posts: 32,952
|
Post by DanMcQ on Mar 14, 2024 7:23:44 GMT -5
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,410
|
Post by EtomicB on Apr 15, 2024 18:23:15 GMT -5
I agree with this thought or idea 1000%. The 5th year has been very good for CBB.
|
|
Massholya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,050
|
Post by Massholya on Apr 15, 2024 18:30:42 GMT -5
I agree with this thought or idea 1000%. The 5th year has been very good for CBB. Why has it been great? Seems like just more free agency to me but would be happy to hear the counter arguments. I’m not sure the freer agency free for all will be sustainable long-term and will likely crush mid and low major programs out of existence. |
|
traversb
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 461
|
Post by traversb on Apr 15, 2024 19:12:59 GMT -5
I agree with this thought or idea 1000%. The 5th year has been very good for CBB. Why has it been great? Seems like just more free agency to me but would be happy to hear the counter arguments. I’m not sure the freer agency free for all will be sustainable long-term and will likely crush mid and low major programs out of existence. It's good for the players especially the ones making more in NIL than they would overseas. As for the game itself it has just made the older teams even better than the younger teams which I am not sure is a good thing. I think the lack of star quality in this year's NBA Draft kind of shows that. I know other factors are at play but these 5th year guys are in college for 5 years for a reason. Of course they are going to be better than player 3-4 years younger. Those younger players will eventually be better and the ones we care about in the NBA but don't seem like it when playing against much older guys. Maybe the quality of play is better but I am not sure the excitement is. I guess that could be argued though. It adds another year of free agency which I don't think is a good thing in the long run as fans for the most part seem over not being able to invest in a player as they don't even know if they will be on the team next year. |
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,410
|
Post by EtomicB on Apr 15, 2024 22:33:29 GMT -5
I agree with this thought or idea 1000%. The 5th year has been very good for CBB. Why has it been great? Seems like just more free agency to me but would be happy to hear the counter arguments. I’m not sure the freer agency free for all will be sustainable long-term and will likely crush mid and low major programs out of existence. In my view, it's better because it deepens the talent pool and it also gives more kids chances to get their degrees. MM's & LM's will be fine because there are plenty of HS kids deserving of scholarships |
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,604
|
Post by MCIGuy on Apr 15, 2024 23:32:11 GMT -5
I agree with this thought or idea 1000%. The 5th year has been very good for CBB. Why has it been great? Seems like just more free agency to me but would be happy to hear the counter arguments. I’m not sure the freer agency free for all will be sustainable long-term and will likely crush mid and low major programs out of existence. I agree. It’s adding more chaos to a game that is increasingly chaotic and unstable. |
|
|
|
Post by daytonahoya31 on Apr 16, 2024 3:05:44 GMT -5
I agree with this thought or idea 1000%. The 5th year has been very good for CBB. I agree. I think we saw a noticable leap in quality of play during the tournament this year and that's because so many teams were older and more mature |
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Apr 16, 2024 9:42:22 GMT -5
In my view, it's better because it deepens the talent pool and it also gives more kids chances to get their degrees. I am not so sure about this. The amount of scholarships available is fixed at 13 per team. If you have 5 years of guys competing for the same scholarships (instead of 4 years of guys), it essentially creates more competition for the same spots. So somewhere, guys are getting squeezed out (likely the lower level guys on the edge of getting scholarships). It does deepen the talent pool though, because some lower level guys just never get to play in college to begin with. Also, by the time a guy has been in school for 4 years, if he doesn't have his degree, the odds of getting it in a 5th year seem low considering that most of these 5th year players are on their 2nd, 3rd, or 4th school. I haven't seen stats on it, but I think the number of guys graduating after 4 or 5 years recently has to be lower than it used to be. |
|
NCHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,927
|
Post by NCHoya on Apr 16, 2024 10:16:30 GMT -5
In my view, it's better because it deepens the talent pool and it also gives more kids chances to get their degrees. I am not so sure about this. The amount of scholarships available is fixed at 13 per team. If you have 5 years of guys competing for the same scholarships (instead of 4 years of guys), it essentially creates more competition for the same spots. So somewhere, guys are getting squeezed out (likely the lower level guys on the edge of getting scholarships). It does deepen the talent pool though, because some lower level guys just never get to play in college to begin with. Also, by the time a guy has been in school for 4 years, if he doesn't have his degree, the odds of getting it in a 5th year seem low considering that most of these 5th year players are on their 2nd, 3rd, or 4th school. I haven't seen stats on it, but I think the number of guys graduating after 4 or 5 years recently has to be lower than it used to be. No question the 5th year rule is making high level D1 basketball more exclusive, which results in a higher quality of play. However, it also limits the number of student athletes that benefit from a basketball scholarship. The NCAA needs to figure out what it wants to be. Is it an enabler of a select number of big colleges and players earning as much as they can? or does it exist to provide deserving high school students access to a college education through athletics that otherwise could be out of reach? Those two goals are at odds with each other and until a decision is reached, instability will remain. |
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,423
|
Post by drquigley on Apr 16, 2024 10:27:39 GMT -5
I am not so sure about this. The amount of scholarships available is fixed at 13 per team. If you have 5 years of guys competing for the same scholarships (instead of 4 years of guys), it essentially creates more competition for the same spots. So somewhere, guys are getting squeezed out (likely the lower level guys on the edge of getting scholarships). It does deepen the talent pool though, because some lower level guys just never get to play in college to begin with. Also, by the time a guy has been in school for 4 years, if he doesn't have his degree, the odds of getting it in a 5th year seem low considering that most of these 5th year players are on their 2nd, 3rd, or 4th school. I haven't seen stats on it, but I think the number of guys graduating after 4 or 5 years recently has to be lower than it used to be. No question the 5th year rule is making high level D1 basketball more exclusive, which results in a higher quality of play. However, it also limits the number of student athletes that benefit from a basketball scholarship. The NCAA needs to figure out what it wants to be. Is it an enabler of a select number of big colleges and players earning as much as they can? or does it exist to provide deserving high school students access to a college education through athletics that otherwise could be out of reach? Those two goals are at odds with each other and until a decision is reached, instability will remain. GEEZER ALERT!! Sure why not give these "student athletes" 5 years to compete - er I mean go to school. How much more ridiculous does this have to get before we just end this charade of college athletics and just separate the sport from the schools. Geez I'll really miss Akinjo, Maclung, Styles, Brumbaugh etc. etc at my class reunions. |
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,410
|
Post by EtomicB on Apr 16, 2024 10:34:04 GMT -5
In my view, it's better because it deepens the talent pool and it also gives more kids chances to get their degrees. I am not so sure about this. The amount of scholarships available is fixed at 13 per team. If you have 5 years of guys competing for the same scholarships (instead of 4 years of guys), it essentially creates more competition for the same spots. So somewhere, guys are getting squeezed out (likely the lower level guys on the edge of getting scholarships). It does deepen the talent pool though, because some lower level guys just never get to play in college to begin with. Also, by the time a guy has been in school for 4 years, if he doesn't have his degree, the odds of getting it in a 5th year seem low considering that most of these 5th year players are on their 2nd, 3rd, or 4th school. I haven't seen stats on it, but I think the number of guys graduating after 4 or 5 years recently has to be lower than it used to be. Many programs never carry the full 13 scholarships so I don't see this squeeze out you're alluding to being a problem. But aren't many of the 5th year players graduates? |
|
saxagael
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,962 
|
Post by saxagael on Apr 16, 2024 10:59:36 GMT -5
I agree with this thought or idea 1000%. The 5th year has been very good for CBB. The largest problem this caused is it created a backlog and fewer scholarship spots and the first couple years really put a lot of players deeply out of playing time. I chatted with a couple players in the portal and they went into it because they were not getting minutes in their first two years. The first year was expected to not see much time, but the fifth year players kept limited minutes and programs picking up 4th and 5th year players from the portal pushed back their time. Both said all of the players they knew in the portal who are 2nd and 3rd year players are all mostly looking for minutes. It could be a lot of the portal churn is directly related to the 5th year. Many programs that weren't regular teams that would red shirt players and had solid plans for how to train and grow a player in a red shirt year had players red shirting and not only not improving them, but not helping them keep their skills up. Teams that have normally had a couple players red shirt and are good at keeping them involved and work hard to help them keep and grow their skills have been the few that didn't really hit these issues. Those that sort of benefitted are the 3rd, 4th, and 5th year players who got minutes. But, the oddity is the NBA draft isn't better and with this year's rather thin draft at the top end I don't think the extra year helped players move on to the next level (thin drafts are a cycle and happen) The other problem it caused is fewer slots for freshman coming in as the same number of scholarships exiist (extep the first year the 5th year was added game schools the option to bring 5th year players and not have them count toward the cap. This really hurt a lot of players the last two to three years coming into D1 as there were fewer slots. I know a few players that were in long recruiting discussions about scholarships and got to the end and the schools were keeping one to three 5th years and there weren't usual scholarships available. I'm really looking forward to the 5th year going away and in a two or three years getting back to the full usual cycle being back for the player's sake who are coming in. |
|
saxagael
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,962
|
Post by saxagael on Apr 16, 2024 11:01:24 GMT -5
I am not so sure about this. The amount of scholarships available is fixed at 13 per team. If you have 5 years of guys competing for the same scholarships (instead of 4 years of guys), it essentially creates more competition for the same spots. So somewhere, guys are getting squeezed out (likely the lower level guys on the edge of getting scholarships). It does deepen the talent pool though, because some lower level guys just never get to play in college to begin with. Also, by the time a guy has been in school for 4 years, if he doesn't have his degree, the odds of getting it in a 5th year seem low considering that most of these 5th year players are on their 2nd, 3rd, or 4th school. I haven't seen stats on it, but I think the number of guys graduating after 4 or 5 years recently has to be lower than it used to be. Many programs never carry the full 13 scholarships so I don't see this squeeze out you're alluding to being a problem. But aren't many of the 5th year players graduates? Most 5th year players don't seem to be graduates. There are some grad transfers, but looking at the portal a majority of those headed for 5th year are still undergrad. |
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,410
|
Post by EtomicB on Apr 16, 2024 11:53:03 GMT -5
I agree with this thought or idea 1000%. The 5th year has been very good for CBB. The largest problem this caused is it created a backlog and fewer scholarship spots and the first couple years really put a lot of players deeply out of playing time. I chatted with a couple players in the portal and they went into it because they were not getting minutes in their first two years. The first year was expected to not see much time, but the fifth year players kept limited minutes and programs picking up 4th and 5th year players from the portal pushed back their time. Both said all of the players they knew in the portal who are 2nd and 3rd year players are all mostly looking for minutes. It could be a lot of the portal churn is directly related to the 5th year. Many programs that weren't regular teams that would red shirt players and had solid plans for how to train and grow a player in a red shirt year had players red shirting and not only not improving them, but not helping them keep their skills up. Teams that have normally had a couple players red shirt and are good at keeping them involved and work hard to help them keep and grow their skills have been the few that didn't really hit these issues. Those that sort of benefitted are the 3rd, 4th, and 5th year players who got minutes. But, the oddity is the NBA draft isn't better and with this year's rather thin draft at the top end I don't think the extra year helped players move on to the next level (thin drafts are a cycle and happen) The other problem it caused is fewer slots for freshman coming in as the same number of scholarships exiist (extep the first year the 5th year was added game schools the option to bring 5th year players and not have them count toward the cap. This really hurt a lot of players the last two to three years coming into D1 as there were fewer slots. I know a few players that were in long recruiting discussions about scholarships and got to the end and the schools were keeping one to three 5th years and there weren't usual scholarships available. I'm really looking forward to the 5th year going away and in a two or three years getting back to the full usual cycle being back for the player's sake who are coming in. I'd bet the players you're speaking with are on HM teams right? If so we already know how cut throat it is, I have news for them it wasn't the availability of 5th year players that kept them on the bench. Folks on the board advise players to drop down a level all the time, there are plenty of spots & time available there. The portal rage will continue after this year and because of it a lot of kids will get lost in the slog and the game will be worse off due to the fact that the elite kids still won't go to college like they used to. |
|
