|
|
Post by hoyasaxaphone on May 26, 2024 23:34:48 GMT -5
The ability to transfer without sitting out a year + NIL already killed it. This won't kill it any deader. If we're lucky what emerges from this all is something better. I'm probably in thr minority but I'd take being in a secondary league with actual 4 year student athletes playing other 4 year student athletes. Otherwise why not just be a Wizards fan? Not the Wizards (GO MAVS), but I 100% agree with the idea. Yes...I would much prefer this as a Georgetown fan than the pro league "associated" with a university....which is a complete farce and flies in the face of what an institution like Georgetown should be all about. There is no reason to attach this league to a university....other than that it would fail miserably without some sort of "captive fanbase". It would be a G League with lower quality players. No one would watch and there would be no revenues for the players. Which gets to the point that...........the VALUE PROPOSITION is attached to the UNIVERSITY and INTERCOLLEGIATE system - not with the players. So stop feeling sorry for the players. |
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,424
|
Post by EtomicB on May 27, 2024 9:40:02 GMT -5
Not the Wizards (GO MAVS), but I 100% agree with the idea. Yes...I would much prefer this as a Georgetown fan than the pro league "associated" with a university....which is a complete farce and flies in the face of what an institution like Georgetown should be all about. There is no reason to attach this league to a university....other than that it would fail miserably without some sort of "captive fanbase". It would be a G League with lower quality players. No one would watch and there would be no revenues for the players. Which gets to the point that...........the VALUE PROPOSITION is attached to the UNIVERSITY and INTERCOLLEGIATE system - not with the players. So stop feeling sorry for the players. if the value proposition is attached to the University then why are Gtown games so lightly attended? Wouldn’t fans show up for the Jersey not the players in them? Also why is so much of the energy on the board focused on recruiting? |
|
bills
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 272 
|
Post by bills on May 27, 2024 11:26:04 GMT -5
The on campus basketball facilities at Georgetown, St. Jofns, and other schools were built to hold 2-3,000 attendees who would have a 5 minute walk to get there. No convenient parking limited the alumni attendance. This was college basketball for many years, before big TV contracts moved games to large arenas.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,424
|
Post by EtomicB on May 27, 2024 11:51:52 GMT -5
The on campus basketball facilities at Georgetown, St. Jofns, and other schools were built to hold 2-3,000 attendees who would have a 5 minute walk to get there. No convenient parking limited the alumni attendance. This was college basketball for many years, before big TV contracts moved games to large arenas. Exactly right Bills. it wasn’t the “student athletes” who chose to play in pro arenas or sign big tv contracts or pay coaches millions of dollars & allow them to sign multi-million dollar deals with apparel companies but somehow players getting a piece of the pie now means it’s a professional game now is funny to me. |
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on May 27, 2024 12:30:33 GMT -5
The on campus basketball facilities at Georgetown, St. Jofns, and other schools were built to hold 2-3,000 attendees who would have a 5 minute walk to get there. No convenient parking limited the alumni attendance. This was college basketball for many years, before big TV contracts moved games to large arenas. Exactly right Bills. it wasn’t the “student athletes” who chose to play in pro arenas or sign big tv contracts or pay coaches millions of dollars & allow them to sign multi-million dollar deals with apparel companies but somehow players getting a piece of the pie now means it’s a professional game now is funny to me. It has been a business more than a sport for many years. And yes, that has meant that the (very) old concept of amateur college sports has long been mostly a fairy tale. And ignored the issue of compensation for the talent involved. The fact that attendance dwindles when losses mount is a natural factor at all levels of sport past youth sport. High school teams have more fans when they win. But it is more "professional" not just because the players can profit as well, but because they can sell to the highest bidder year after year, making them free agents who can even be "purchased" by the individual franchises (oops I meant schools,). It will affect the popularity of college sports in time. And maybe it should. |
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,424
|
Post by EtomicB on May 27, 2024 13:11:39 GMT -5
Exactly right Bills. it wasn’t the “student athletes” who chose to play in pro arenas or sign big tv contracts or pay coaches millions of dollars & allow them to sign multi-million dollar deals with apparel companies but somehow players getting a piece of the pie now means it’s a professional game now is funny to me. It has been a business more than a sport for many years. And yes, that has meant that the (very) old concept of amateur college sports has long been mostly a fairy tale. And ignored the issue of compensation for the talent involved. The fact that attendance dwindles when losses mount is a natural factor at all levels of sport past youth sport. High school teams have more fans when they win. But it is more "professional" not just because the players can profit as well, but because they can sell to the highest bidder year after year, making them free agents who can even be "purchased" by the individual franchises (oops I meant schools,). It will affect the popularity of college sports in time. And maybe it should. But you’re ignoring the fact that many programs can push kids out and have long before the new transfer rules went into effect. We’re now in June and there are hundreds of kids left in the portal who won’t have a scholarship next season, the majority of whom were “encouraged” to look around for a better fit. The truth is Gtown fans here are venting because the team is down and has been for awhile. If the team was rolling I doubt Doc Quigley would spend much time lamenting the loss of the “student athlete” |
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,441
|
Post by drquigley on May 27, 2024 16:13:47 GMT -5
It has been a business more than a sport for many years. And yes, that has meant that the (very) old concept of amateur college sports has long been mostly a fairy tale. And ignored the issue of compensation for the talent involved. The fact that attendance dwindles when losses mount is a natural factor at all levels of sport past youth sport. High school teams have more fans when they win. But it is more "professional" not just because the players can profit as well, but because they can sell to the highest bidder year after year, making them free agents who can even be "purchased" by the individual franchises (oops I meant schools,). It will affect the popularity of college sports in time. And maybe it should. But you’re ignoring the fact that many programs can push kids out and have long before the new transfer rules went into effect. We’re now in June and there are hundreds of kids left in the portal who won’t have a scholarship next season, the majority of whom were “encouraged” to look around for a better fit. The truth is Gtown fans here are venting because the team is down and has been for awhile. If the team was rolling I doubt Doc Quigley would spend much time lamenting the loss of the “student athlete” As I said in my last post I understand that the concept of student athlete was abandoned a long time ago. However, this geezer had hoped that even with NIL and free transfers we might, thanks to Cooley, be able to still develop and retain a core of recruits that we could relate to as GU student/athletes. But now that these recruits will be hired and I assume be fired (or their contract won't be renewed) if they don't produce then even if the Hoyas suddenly make the Final Four I will still lament the loss of the student athlete. |
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on May 27, 2024 17:06:59 GMT -5
if the value proposition is attached to the University then why are Gtown games so lightly attended? Wouldn’t fans show up for the Jersey not the players in them Because our team stinks and has for almost a decade. Even pretty dedicated fans of professional teams eventually stop showing up eventually when a team continually loses. |
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,424
|
Post by EtomicB on May 27, 2024 19:44:54 GMT -5
if the value proposition is attached to the University then why are Gtown games so lightly attended? Wouldn’t fans show up for the Jersey not the players in them Because our team stinks and has for almost a decade. Even pretty dedicated fans of professional teams eventually stop showing up eventually when a team continually loses. Exactly, so for Gtown at least the value proposition resides with the players or possibly team performance but definitely not with the University as the OP suggested. |
|
|
|
Post by reformation on May 27, 2024 21:20:46 GMT -5
I would think that Cooley & Univ admin will have to spk to this issue during some of the fundraising events in the summer
|
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on May 28, 2024 11:22:02 GMT -5
Because our team stinks and has for almost a decade. Even pretty dedicated fans of professional teams eventually stop showing up eventually when a team continually loses. Exactly, so for Gtown at least the value proposition resides with the players or possibly team performance but definitely not with the University as the OP suggested. I disagree. I still think much of the value resides with the university, even when we stink. Would any of us on here care about Malik Mack, Jaden Epps, etc. if they weren't affiliated with Georgetown's team? I wouldn't. I realize there are some folks here who became Georgetown fans during the glory days, or when we were better on the court, but most of the support for Georgetown basketball comes from alumni. Take away that, and you have very litle fandom for what amounts to a basketball minor league. This is why college basketball is so much more lucrative than the G league. If it was simply about talent levels of players, the G League would be in better shape than college...but it isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxaphone on May 28, 2024 11:24:26 GMT -5
Because our team stinks and has for almost a decade. Even pretty dedicated fans of professional teams eventually stop showing up eventually when a team continually loses. Exactly, so for Gtown at least the value proposition resides with the players or possibly team performance but definitely not with the University as the OP suggested. By value proposition, I merely meant that the players essentially have no value outside of their affiliation with a university and as part of intercollegiate athletics. Without the schools, there is no game for them that has any value whatsoever or would attract fans. Since there really is no professional basketball in the US below the NBA (and its limited affiliates), they would have to latch on to an overseas team (good luck) or expect some broad national or regional "pro league" to emerge that features 18 - 22 year olds that, almost to a one, will never play in the NBA with only a minority having a shot to play pro overseas. Who would watch that league? Who watches the G League? Sure, some schools make money in football and basketball from athletics. But that is much more about the school franchise than any individual players though, arguably, fielding successful teams is important for longer term relevance (and TV dollars). Let the kids get bona fide NIL. No problem with that. But being prepared to step up and offer bag money at levels way beyond what most of these players will ever earn as true professional athletes is complete idiocy. And then taking the next step and having universities "employ and pay" players directly is the death knell of college athletics. At some point (soon) for many schools, the net benefits of earning some TV dollars from operating a paid franchise of mercenaries loosely associated with a university wil not be worth it. How can Georgetown justify a program that benefits 11 - 13 student (?) / athletes and a bevy of coaches that is entirely inconsistent with the intellectual, philosophical and academic underpinnings of the University? If they do, Georgetown is just selling out (further). This argument is entirely separate from why no one attends Georgetown basketball games, though it is not unrelated. The team has been bad for a long time and there is student apathy around the program - in part because the program exists largely outside of the student experience and is increasingly inconcsistent with University values (most players are not true students who take real classes on campus or interact socially with the student body and games are played off campus in an entirely separate world). Georgetown's success in caring out a nice as "DC's team" has been largely unsuccessful. There was a time when the social justice merits of operating a John Thompson Jr. basketball program mitigated the negative impacts of having a basketball team somewhat inconsistent with the academic standards of the broader university, but those players were bona fide student athletes who stayed four years, took real Georgetown courses (for the most part, there were some consortium courses at other campuses), were supported and encouraged to succeed academically and graduate, and participated in non-basketball student life at Georgetown. And, to be fair, we have had a number of very bright and academically talented/oriented players over the years who truly succeeeded on the court, in the classroom and beyond after graduation. But we have strayed very far from that model/ideal. Personally, I think it is time for Georgetown to take the lead and exit big time basketball in favor of moving back to a student athlete model largely consistent with its other athletic programs and University values. Georgetown won't do this, because the administration lacks the ability to lead, preferring to cower in political correctness and follow the prevailing winds of social throught and appropriate behavior. Ultimately, this will be forced upon Georgetown, but it will have missed an opportunity to get out in front of these changes and get recognized for doing the right thing....early. Since Georgetown appears to aspire to be "Ivy like" in most respects, this seems like it would be an easy decision. |
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,424
|
Post by EtomicB on May 28, 2024 11:52:11 GMT -5
Exactly, so for Gtown at least the value proposition resides with the players or possibly team performance but definitely not with the University as the OP suggested. I disagree. I still think much of the value resides with the university, even when we stink. Would any of us on here care about Malik Mack, Jaden Epps, etc. if they weren't affiliated with Georgetown's team? I wouldn't. I realize there are some folks here who became Georgetown fans during the glory days, or when we were better on the court, but most of the support for Georgetown basketball comes from alumni. Take away that, and you have very litle fandom for what amounts to a basketball minor league. This is why college basketball is so much more lucrative than the G league. If it was simply about talent levels of players, the G League would be in better shape than college...but it isn't. You wouldn't have cared about PE, Sleepy, AI, Reggie, or Jeff Green either if you're being honest. However, folks cared deeply when Gtown was a top 10 or 15 program. The support the program gets dips greatly when they're not winning, that wouldn't happen if the fans including alumni were just supporting the jersey. The G-league isn't popular because of how transient the players are, it's never been a good comparison in my opinion. |
|
DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,659
|
Post by DallasHoya on May 28, 2024 12:16:20 GMT -5
Exactly, so for Gtown at least the value proposition resides with the players or possibly team performance but definitely not with the University as the OP suggested. By value proposition, I merely meant that the players essentially have no value outside of their affiliation with a university and as part of intercollegiate athletics. Without the schools, there is no game for them that has any value whatsoever or would attract fans. Since there really is no professional basketball in the US below the NBA (and its limited affiliates), they would have to latch on to an overseas team (good luck) or expect some broad national or regional "pro league" to emerge that features 18 - 22 year olds that, almost to a one, will never play in the NBA with only a minority having a shot to play pro overseas. Who would watch that league? Who watches the G League? Sure, some schools make money in football and basketball from athletics. But that is much more about the school franchise than any individual players though, arguably, fielding successful teams is important for longer term relevance (and TV dollars). Let the kids get bona fide NIL. No problem with that. But being prepared to step up and offer bag money at levels way beyond what most of these players will ever earn as true professional athletes is complete idiocy. And then taking the next step and having universities "employ and pay" players directly is the death knell of college athletics. At some point (soon) for many schools, the net benefits of earning some TV dollars from operating a paid franchise of mercenaries loosely associated with a university wil not be worth it. How can Georgetown justify a program that benefits 11 - 13 student (?) / athletes and a bevy of coaches that is entirely inconsistent with the intellectual, philosophical and academic underpinnings of the University? If they do, Georgetown is just selling out (further). This argument is entirely separate from why no one attends Georgetown basketball games, though it is not unrelated. The team has been bad for a long time and there is student apathy around the program - in part because the program exists largely outside of the student experience and is increasingly inconcsistent with University values (most players are not true students who take real classes on campus or interact socially with the student body and games are played off campus in an entirely separate world). Georgetown's success in caring out a nice as "DC's team" has been largely unsuccessful. There was a time when the social justice merits of operating a John Thompson Jr. basketball program mitigated the negative impacts of having a basketball team somewhat inconsistent with the academic standards of the broader university, but those players were bona fide student athletes who stayed four years, took real Georgetown courses (for the most part, there were some consortium courses at other campuses), were supported and encouraged to succeed academically and graduate, and participated in non-basketball student life at Georgetown. And, to be fair, we have had a number of very bright and academically talented/oriented players over the years who truly succeeeded on the court, in the classroom and beyond after graduation. But we have strayed very far from that model/ideal. Personally, I think it is time for Georgetown to take the lead and exit big time basketball in favor of moving back to a student athlete model largely consistent with its other athletic programs and University values. Georgetown won't do this, because the administration lacks the ability to lead, preferring to cower in political correctness and follow the prevailing winds of social throught and appropriate behavior. Ultimately, this will be forced upon Georgetown, but it will have missed an opportunity to get out in front of these changes and get recognized for doing the right thing....early. Since Georgetown appears to aspire to be "Ivy like" in most respects, this seems like it would be an easy decision. I agree 100% with the last paragraph. The logical conclusion to my post from 2021: hoyatalk2.proboards.com/post/942893 |
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,424
|
Post by EtomicB on May 28, 2024 12:55:42 GMT -5
Exactly, so for Gtown at least the value proposition resides with the players or possibly team performance but definitely not with the University as the OP suggested. By value proposition, I merely meant that the players essentially have no value outside of their affiliation with a university and as part of intercollegiate athletics. Without the schools, there is no game for them that has any value whatsoever or would attract fans. Since there really is no professional basketball in the US below the NBA (and its limited affiliates), they would have to latch on to an overseas team (good luck) or expect some broad national or regional "pro league" to emerge that features 18 - 22 year olds that, almost to a one, will never play in the NBA with only a minority having a shot to play pro overseas. Who would watch that league? Who watches the G League? Sure, some schools make money in football and basketball from athletics. But that is much more about the school franchise than any individual players though, arguably, fielding successful teams is important for longer term relevance (and TV dollars). Let the kids get bona fide NIL. No problem with that. But being prepared to step up and offer bag money at levels way beyond what most of these players will ever earn as true professional athletes is complete idiocy. And then taking the next step and having universities "employ and pay" players directly is the death knell of college athletics. At some point (soon) for many schools, the net benefits of earning some TV dollars from operating a paid franchise of mercenaries loosely associated with a university wil not be worth it. How can Georgetown justify a program that benefits 11 - 13 student (?) / athletes and a bevy of coaches that is entirely inconsistent with the intellectual, philosophical and academic underpinnings of the University? If they do, Georgetown is just selling out (further). This argument is entirely separate from why no one attends Georgetown basketball games, though it is not unrelated. The team has been bad for a long time and there is student apathy around the program - in part because the program exists largely outside of the student experience and is increasingly inconcsistent with University values (most players are not true students who take real classes on campus or interact socially with the student body and games are played off campus in an entirely separate world). Georgetown's success in caring out a nice as "DC's team" has been largely unsuccessful. There was a time when the social justice merits of operating a John Thompson Jr. basketball program mitigated the negative impacts of having a basketball team somewhat inconsistent with the academic standards of the broader university, but those players were bona fide student athletes who stayed four years, took real Georgetown courses (for the most part, there were some consortium courses at other campuses), were supported and encouraged to succeed academically and graduate, and participated in non-basketball student life at Georgetown. And, to be fair, we have had a number of very bright and academically talented/oriented players over the years who truly succeeeded on the court, in the classroom and beyond after graduation. But we have strayed very far from that model/ideal. Personally, I think it is time for Georgetown to take the lead and exit big time basketball in favor of moving back to a student athlete model largely consistent with its other athletic programs and University values. Georgetown won't do this, because the administration lacks the ability to lead, preferring to cower in political correctness and follow the prevailing winds of social throught and appropriate behavior. Ultimately, this will be forced upon Georgetown, but it will have missed an opportunity to get out in front of these changes and get recognized for doing the right thing....early. Since Georgetown appears to aspire to be "Ivy like" in most respects, this seems like it would be an easy decision. The universities aren't going to be paying, it'll be their boosters, TV revenues etc. My question is why do programs covet players so much if they have little worth as you & others keep pointing out? Why was Mack worth it for Gtown to have? |
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,959
|
Post by CTHoya08 on May 30, 2024 12:40:34 GMT -5
I disagree. I still think much of the value resides with the university, even when we stink. Would any of us on here care about Malik Mack, Jaden Epps, etc. if they weren't affiliated with Georgetown's team? I wouldn't. I realize there are some folks here who became Georgetown fans during the glory days, or when we were better on the court, but most of the support for Georgetown basketball comes from alumni. Take away that, and you have very litle fandom for what amounts to a basketball minor league. This is why college basketball is so much more lucrative than the G league. If it was simply about talent levels of players, the G League would be in better shape than college...but it isn't. However, folks cared deeply when Gtown was a top 10 or 15 program. The support the program gets dips greatly when they're not winning, that wouldn't happen if the fans including alumni were just supporting the jersey. The G-league isn't popular because of how transient the players are, it's never been a good comparison in my opinion. The first bolded part is kind of his point. As for the second, are the players in the G-league any more "transient" than in college, where there's a limited number of years of eligibility and (now) unrestricted player movement? |
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,424
|
Post by EtomicB on May 30, 2024 13:55:52 GMT -5
You wouldn't have cared about PE, Sleepy, AI, Reggie, or Jeff Green either if you're being honest. However, folks cared deeply when Gtown was a top 10 or 15 program. The support the program gets dips greatly when they're not winning, that wouldn't happen if the fans including alumni were just supporting the jersey. The G-league isn't popular because of how transient the players are, it's never been a good comparison in my opinion. The first bolded part is kind of his point. As for the second, are the players in the G-league any more "transient" than in college, where there's a limited number of years of eligibility and (now) unrestricted player movement? I agree, he doesn't care who plays for Gtown. However, he does care that they're good players who help bring in good results, so to me, the players have a higher value than the program. G-League players can get called up to any NBA team at any time during the season or get cut at any time, it can't get much more transient than that |
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,959
|
Post by CTHoya08 on May 30, 2024 14:43:10 GMT -5
The first bolded part is kind of his point. As for the second, are the players in the G-league any more "transient" than in college, where there's a limited number of years of eligibility and (now) unrestricted player movement? I agree, he doesn't care who plays for Gtown. However, he does care that they're good players who help bring in good results, so to me, the players have a higher value than the program. G-League players can get called up to any NBA team at any time during the season or get cut at any time, it can't get much more transient than that But good or bad, he doesn't care who the players are unless they're playing for his school. And I think that's true of the overwhelming majority of college basketball fans. Of course better players are worth more than average players--at the same school. But is the tenth man at Kentucky really worth more than the best player in the OVC? Because he's almost certainly being paid more. That's his point. |
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,424
|
Post by EtomicB on May 30, 2024 16:01:18 GMT -5
I agree, he doesn't care who plays for Gtown. However, he does care that they're good players who help bring in good results, so to me, the players have a higher value than the program. G-League players can get called up to any NBA team at any time during the season or get cut at any time, it can't get much more transient than that But good or bad, he doesn't care who the players are unless they're playing for his school. And I think that's true of the overwhelming majority of college basketball fans. Of course better players are worth more than average players--at the same school. But is the tenth man at Kentucky really worth more than the best player in the OVC? Because he's almost certainly being paid more. That's his point. Of course we care about the team more than the players but that doesn’t mean the players aren’t more important overall. I don’t think that’s his point at all, 2003 is saying that because the majority of CBB players aren’t going to be pros they would have little value if CBB didn’t exist therefore the value proposition lies with the programs not the players. 2003 says that if the players were more important then the G-League would be more popular because it has better players, that’s the point he’s making. |
|
drquigley
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,441
|
Post by drquigley on May 30, 2024 18:51:49 GMT -5
But good or bad, he doesn't care who the players are unless they're playing for his school. And I think that's true of the overwhelming majority of college basketball fans. Of course better players are worth more than average players--at the same school. But is the tenth man at Kentucky really worth more than the best player in the OVC? Because he's almost certainly being paid more. That's his point. Of course we care about the team more than the players but that doesn’t mean the players aren’t more important overall. I don’t think that’s his point at all, 2003 is saying that because the majority of CBB players aren’t going to be pros they would have little value if CBB didn’t exist therefore the value proposition lies with the programs not the players. 2003 says that if the players were more important then the G-League would be more popular because it has better players, that’s the point he’s making. 100% agree. The players identity with a University is what brings the fans and accordingly the TV revenue. If every guy on our squad this year were to form a "TEAM DC" I wouldn't drive 200 miles round trip 5 times a year to see them or watch 20+ of their games on TV. Gonna be fun to see how the NCAA and the TV networks try to maintain this facade while the college game professionalizes. |
|
