What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

NCAA HOOPS THREAD! -- K petitions to get Maui Jim Maui Invitational moved to Transylvania (2 Viewers)

Who is worse?

  • Total voters
    278
roadkill1292 said:
I wish them good luck proving that Booster Bob owes one of them a car commercial because he filmed one with the star forward on the men's team.
Click to expand...
Yep. It would be difficult for the schools to pay players directly for the reasons mentioned, but the NCAA can just stop over-policing everything and let the market run its course.

 
RUSF18 said:
If those women want to go and sue Nike, Adidas, and UA for not giving them equal endorsement pay as the men, they are free to.

I'm assuming WNBA players have already filed many similar suits looking for comparative pay to their male professional counterparts?
Click to expand...
We're not talking about endorsement money. We're talking about the schools paying them a cut of the revenue. 

 
TLEF316 said:
We're not talking about endorsement money. We're talking about the schools paying them a cut of the revenue. 
Click to expand...
No, you (and Nipsey) are. Most of us realize that's a non-starter and have been discussing something else entirely (while also trying to address the actual "problem"). 

 
RUSF18 said:
No, you (and Nipsey) are. Most of us realize that's a non-starter and have been discussing something else entirely (while also trying to address the actual "problem"). 
Click to expand...
I didn't bring up the sharing of tv revenues as a possible means of compensation. Someone else did. I'm just giving my opinion about why it won't work.

Im mostly ok with agents loaning money to kids who are out the door at the end of the year anyway. It's not ideal, but it's happening no matter what so id be ok with bringing it above board (assuming that agent doesn't have connections to the school where the kid is playing)

I hate the idea of boosters publicly bidding on and paying players. Again, I know it's happening anyway but I don't want to see it playing out right in the open.  I don't really have a great reason for that, I just think it would kinda suck. 

 
TLEF316 said:
I didn't bring up the sharing of tv revenues as a possible means of compensation. Someone else did. I'm just giving my opinion about why it won't work.

Im mostly ok with agents loaning money to kids who are out the door at the end of the year anyway. It's not ideal, but it's happening no matter what so id be ok with bringing it above board (assuming that agent doesn't have connections to the school where the kid is playing)

I hate the idea of boosters publicly bidding on and paying players. Again, I know it's happening anyway but I don't want to see it playing out right in the open.  I don't really have a great reason for that, I just think it would kinda suck. 
Click to expand...
Yeah, it does "kinda suck" for you when you think about it. And then you'll go about your day and be pretty much okay. 

Where on the "kinda sucks" scale is the current system for those talented kids who have people who willfully want to give them hundreds of thousands of dollars, but can't legally accept that money? Probably a bit higher up. 

 
TLEF316 said:
I didn't bring up the sharing of tv revenues as a possible means of compensation. Someone else did. I'm just giving my opinion about why it won't work.

Im mostly ok with agents loaning money to kids who are out the door at the end of the year anyway. It's not ideal, but it's happening no matter what so id be ok with bringing it above board (assuming that agent doesn't have connections to the school where the kid is playing)

I hate the idea of boosters publicly bidding on and paying players. Again, I know it's happening anyway but I don't want to see it playing out right in the open.  I don't really have a great reason for that, I just think it would kinda suck. 
Click to expand...
I think it was Idiot Boxer in a much earlier debate about this subject confessed that he understood the underlying arguments perfectly well (kudos to Yankee23, who was in his amateur-busting prime lo those many years ago) but that he "needed the fiction," the story he could tell himself about all the players at his school being there because of the same emotional ties he felt when Alma Mater ran onto the field. 

I always thought about that statement whenever we have these debates but I gotta confess that I don't understand them at all.

Back to the topic, maybe I don't know enough about Title IX. Why is any non-school entity, like a tv network, bound by its obligations? 

 
roadkill1292 said:
I think it was Idiot Boxer in a much earlier debate about this subject confessed that he understood the underlying arguments perfectly well (kudos to Yankee23, who was in his amateur-busting prime lo those many years ago) but that he "needed the fiction," the story he could tell himself about all the players at his school being there because of the same emotional ties he felt when Alma Mater ran onto the field. 

I always thought about that statement whenever we have these debates but I gotta confess that I don't understand them at all.

Back to the topic, maybe I don't know enough about Title IX. Why is any non-school entity, like a tv network, bound by its obligations? 
Click to expand...
The TV network pays the conferences.  The conferences distribute to the schools.  The schools would in turn pay the players with that money.  Title IV is going to force schools to pay women in addition to the men.

If you're suggesting the TV network pay the players directly then good lord man the NFL, MLB, and NBA don't even do that for many reasons. 

 
RUSF18 said:
Yeah, it does "kinda suck" for you when you think about it. And then you'll go about your day and be pretty much okay. 

Where on the "kinda sucks" scale is the current system for those talented kids who have people who willfully want to give them hundreds of thousands of dollars, but can't legally accept that money? Probably a bit higher up. 
Click to expand...
For the sophomore running back whose only option is another 2 years of pounding and injury risk before he can cash a check? I feel really bad.

For the 1 and done basketball player whose other options are A) a year abroad making high 6 figures or B) sitting out a year while his agent pays for him to draft prep? I feel sort of bad, but he made that decision.

For the guys that come from poor backgrounds and get greased through the system (where they're basically just kept eligible rather than given a proper education that they can use) I feel bad for sure. Something needs to be done to help those guys. MAYBE just cutting them a check would help. But I'm not sure. It could be a lottery winner blowing it all in 5 years type of scenario

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
The TV network pays the conferences.  The conferences distribute to the schools.  The schools would in turn pay the players with that money.  Title IV is going to force schools to pay women in addition to the men.

If you're suggesting the TV network pay the players directly then good lord man the NFL, MLB, and NBA don't even do that for many reasons. 
Click to expand...
Our fellow posters have already suggested a reason for networks paying the players directly in some manner. As a means of attracting better players than competing networks would be getting. What are the reasons the networks don't pay players directly?

 
roadkill1292 said:
I think it was Idiot Boxer in a much earlier debate about this subject confessed that he understood the underlying arguments perfectly well (kudos to Yankee23, who was in his amateur-busting prime lo those many years ago) but that he "needed the fiction," the story he could tell himself about all the players at his school being there because of the same emotional ties he felt when Alma Mater ran onto the field. 

I always thought about that statement whenever we have these debates but I gotta confess that I don't understand them at all.

Back to the topic, maybe I don't know enough about Title IX. Why is any non-school entity, like a tv network, bound by its obligations? 
Click to expand...
They're not, which is why I'm trying to wrap some far fairer distribution of the TV revenue into the solution.  Title IX is a section of the United States Code pertaining to education added via the Education Amendments of 1972.  It applies only to any school receiving federal funding, because otherwise Congress would have no jurisdiction, but effectively every school does.  So you cut out the schools as pursers (and pocketliners) and just pay the players, or you invest in a Title IX compliant solution.  The problem is that involves many stakeholders, including some who have proven themselves quite greedy and stupid.  

 
roadkill1292 said:
Our fellow posters have already suggested a reason for networks paying the players directly in some manner. As a means of attracting better players than competing networks would be getting. What are the reasons the networks don't pay players directly?
Click to expand...
Wait, you really want TV executives in the business of paying players and deciding who plays for what school?  Sorry, that's a level of crazy beyond what I can get behind and isn't going to happen soon anyway.  I'm not saying it's right or wrong either but that just eliminates conferences and you would have 120 something independent FBS football schools and 300 something independent basketball schools.  My guess is at least 50-70% of each stop offering the sport the second that happens.

I'm down with finding a way to divide up the pie much more fairly though, which I don't even think professional sports get right.  But I don't think we're going to see total free agency in pro sports or college sports any time soon.

 
TLEF316 said:
If you guys think that women's basketball players are just gonna sit back and smile while men's basketball players are getting paid, you're really not paying attention.

There will be equal pay lawsuits. The US women's soccer (and I believe hockey) team did so and there will be lawyers lined up around the block trying to get money for the women, despite the fact that nobody watches
Click to expand...
Explain to me why the WNBA players haven't filed suit against the NBA?

The US national teams are a different animal (soccer and hockey). They're employees of the USA in those cases. Further, there are lots of team USA players getting other endorsements from outside sources. Red Bull has several USA athletes on their payroll.  LINK

 
TLEF316 said:
Of course I don't have a problem with a company paying signing bonuses to entice young talent. That's how the professional world works.

But that doesn't work for college sports. Title 9 won't allow schools to pay football players 100k a year in cash while the women's field hockey team gets nothing (or just much less)
Click to expand...
Just don't pay them directly then Title IX doesn't apply.

 
Hooper31 said:
Explain to me why the WNBA players haven't filed suit against the NBA?

The US national teams are a different animal (soccer and hockey). They're employees of the USA in those cases. Further, there are lots of team USA players getting other endorsements from outside sources. Red Bull has several USA athletes on their payroll.  LINK
Click to expand...
But isn't the whole reason for the FBI investigation that many of the universities involved have federal funding?

I'm not gonna pretend to understand the legal aspect of all of that, but this seems closer US Soccer/Hockey than NBA/WNBA (which are privately owned entities with no government affiliation whatsoever)

I guess I'd just find it very surprising in this day and age if an organization consisting of mostly public-funded state universities would get away with paying male players X and paying female players significantly less than X (if anything at all). I mean, we're talking about a society where one of those universities (Purdue)  just put out a "writing guideline" to eliminate the use of "Male Words" 

 
TLEF316 said:
But isn't the whole reason for the FBI investigation that many of the universities involved have federal funding?

I'm not gonna pretend to understand the legal aspect of all of that, but this seems closer US Soccer/Hockey than NBA/WNBA (which are privately owned entities with no government affiliation whatsoever)

I guess I'd just find it very surprising in this day and age if an organization consisting of mostly public-funded state universities would get away with paying male players X and paying female players significantly less than X (if anything at all). I mean, we're talking about a society where one of those universities (Purdue)  just put out a "writing guideline" to eliminate the use of "Male Words" 
Click to expand...
You and a few others are the only ones hung up on paying them thru the university.  That's not how it is going to work for the very reasons you point out.  Time to let that ship sail.

 
Short Corner said:
You and a few others are the only ones hung up on paying them thru the university.  That's not how it is going to work for the very reasons you point out.  Time to let that ship sail.
Click to expand...
Again, I didn't bring that up. I just pointed  out some of the reasons why I feel it wont work.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
...and the silver lining to this nasty black cloud: March Madness is underway...and it's not even March yet!!!

Atlantic Sun Tournament kicks off tonight!!! Campus sites of higher seeds!

...and so it begins. WHOO-HOO!!!  :excited:

 
Puke picks up another bigtime quality loss vs. VaTech.

Blew a 9 point lead and had zero FGs in the last 7 minutes.

That's how you do it.

With all these teams picking up quality losses the NCAA might have to go to 6 regions and 6 No. 1 seeds to fit everyone in on that one-line.

TxTech also once again showing everyone why they are a basketball powerhouse. This could be 4 losses in a row.

:lmao:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Man just saw the end of the Duke game and I am not a Duke fan, but wow, the Va Tech coach might be the biggest adult crybaby I've seen.   He blew a gasket about nonexistent fouls and they got a huge break on the non call on the hold at the end. :shrug:

 
RUSF18 said:
No one is watching it because there is already a de facto minor league basketball and football league playing games that everyone is already watching. But strip that away, shift the talent to an actual minor league, and of course people would watch.

To argue otherwise means that these networks are paying billions of dollars a year for people to watch jerseys compete. It has nothing to do with who is in those jerseys, it's all about the schools and their history and their fight songs and their rivalries. And as soon as you swap those uniforms for nothing but a solid colored jersey, viewership would plummet.

Of course that is ridiculous. As it would be for me to claim that it is entirely about the players and nothing about the schools. We can have a pretty good argument about what piece of the pie each contributes, but I can guarantee any agreed upon number would still be wildly different than how the revenue pie is shared. 
Click to expand...
They are. Oh, it has something to do with the players. But it has more to do with the schools, history, and rivalries. Viewership would plummet.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If college football went away and the players who play for OU and OSU started playing for the Oklahoma City Roughnecks semipro football team, I doubt I'd ever watch a game.

I hardly watch OU basketball as it is. Only doing it this year to see Trae Young before he disappears into the black hole that's the NBA.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Did viewershio change during the era where the top 10 HS players all went pro? I have no idea, but I doubt it. Duke, UK, Kansas, etc. would get the best of whoever was coming to college and old white dudes like me would watch them play. 

But I'll throw $10 in the "pay the kids" hat if it means never having to hear this dumb debate again. Pay the kids above board or pay them under the table. I don't really give a #### as long as bad things happen to Coach K. 

 
Mad Cow said:
Man just saw the end of the Duke game and I am not a Duke fan, but wow, the Va Tech coach might be the biggest adult crybaby I've seen.   He blew a gasket about nonexistent fouls and they got a huge break on the non call on the hold at the end. :shrug:
Click to expand...
That's how he acts on pretty much every possession. Blowing a gasket is kind of his thing.

 
Congrats, people, there was some good work done in here yesterday. Crowdfunding, tv money pools, shoe companies, those were all good ideas for getting money to the players and end-running Title IX.

 
roadkill1292 said:
Congrats, people, there was some good work done in here yesterday. Crowdfunding, tv money pools, shoe companies, those were all good ideas for getting money to the players and end-running Title IX.
Click to expand...
My problem with the end-run around Title IX is that if the money only comes from outside the university, the university can avoid treating the athletes as employees. That allows them to duck worker's comp for things like football players whose brains are turned to mush by concussive and sub-concussive hits. IIRC that's the whole reason the student-athlete shtick was created in the first place.

 
TobiasFunke said:
My problem with the end-run around Title IX is that if the money only comes from outside the university, the university can avoid treating the athletes as employees. That allows them to duck worker's comp for things like football players whose brains are turned to mush by concussive and sub-concussive hits. IIRC that's the whole reason the student-athlete shtick was created in the first place.
Click to expand...
Understandable to a point but they seem like separate issues to me. As long as schools sponsor the activity, the argument about liability will center on them regardless of from whom the players are receiving money.

 
TLEF316 said:
But isn't the whole reason for the FBI investigation that many of the universities involved have federal funding?

I'm not gonna pretend to understand the legal aspect of all of that, but this seems closer US Soccer/Hockey than NBA/WNBA (which are privately owned entities with no government affiliation whatsoever)

I guess I'd just find it very surprising in this day and age if an organization consisting of mostly public-funded state universities would get away with paying male players X and paying female players significantly less than X (if anything at all). I mean, we're talking about a society where one of those universities (Purdue)  just put out a "writing guideline" to eliminate the use of "Male Words" 
Click to expand...
Why the hangup on the bold section here? Money doesn't have to come from the Universities. Money coming to players from private businesses outside of the schools is the way to go IMO. 

 
roadkill1292 said:
Congrats, people, there was some good work done in here yesterday. Crowdfunding, tv money pools, shoe companies, those were all good ideas for getting money to the players and end-running Title IX.
Click to expand...
End running? Makes me think you don't really understand what Title 9 is all about. It was intended to make sure that everyone had equal access and opportunity to the same education. 

 
Logged our first upset last night, albeit a small one: #5 North Florida over #4 NJIT (-6), 80-76 in Atlantic Sun play...

For Tournament junkies, this was a helluva way to kick things off, because not only was it an upset (albeit small), the 2nd half was as exciting a watch as you could have hoped for, and is hopefully a harbinger of great things to come...UNF scored the first 6 points of the 2nd half to stretch a 20-point halftime margin  to 26 two minutes in, before they lost track of the basket, as home team NJIT stormed back and hit a 3 that cut the lead to one, with 19 seconds remaining! Of course they foul, and UNF hits one...and misses 2nd! NJIT has possession down 2!!! Home crowd, what there was left of it, going absolutely comeback crazy...and UNF  star of the game Garrett Sams (28 pts, including 8 of a 13-0 UNF run to start the game), stole the ball, was fouled, hit both to get lead to 4, and that was that. Wow!

UNF should get absolutely smoked Thursday night by #1 Florida-Gulf Coast, the overwhelming favorite to win the Bid.

Big South and Patriot League tonight. Campus sites of higher Seeds.

...and we're off!!!

 
Sweet High Quality, Tier 4, Quadrant 7, loss at home by Rhode Island tonight.

#8 in the RPI, getting housed by 30 at home to a 13-15 team. Should definitely get them into the 3 seed.

:lmao:

 
BroncoFreak_2K3 said:
Sweet High Quality, Tier 4, Quadrant 7, loss at home by Rhode Island tonight.

#8 in the RPI, getting housed by 30 at home to a 13-15 team. Should definitely get them into the 3 seed.

:lmao:
Click to expand...
I was at the game, what an egg they laid. Shot like 22% for game, around 4 for 37 on 3-pointers and might have been worse. On Senior night no less, first home loss of the season. RPI is going to tank and I would imagine they fall out of the Top 25. Probably looking at a 6 or 7 seed now...oof.

Onky silver lining is that this serves them a giant piece of humble pie and they rebound with vengeance. Still in shock about how bad they looked tonight.

 
Tar Heels fall to Miami Hurricanes at Dean Dome, 91-88, on last second 3-pointer.

Duke or UNC will lose twice this week. One could move up to a 1 seed with these quadrant 1 losses.

Auburn moves up to a sure 3 now as well. and Rhode Island is obviously a contender for a 3 or a 4 with that 30 point loss to a .500 team

 
I see Alabama is projected to make the tourney at 17-13?  Wow.  Lunardi must really like the SEC.  How is Arizona State an 8 or 10 seed?  They are 7-9 in the Pac and are really not very good.

 
Crazy that the #4 seed in the Big Ten tourney, at 13-5 in conference play, by all accounts appears to be viewed as sitting on the outside looking in.  If that's the case, that 1 point loss to Kansas really stings right now for the Huskers.  

 
Don't Noonan said:
I see Alabama is projected to make the tourney at 17-13?  Wow.  Lunardi must really like the SEC.  How is Arizona State an 8 or 10 seed?  They are 7-9 in the Pac and are really not very good.
Click to expand...
Met Lunardi last night at the URI game, real nice guy. Took a picture with my 8-year old son who was telling him Rhody should be a 4 seed (this was obviously before that abortion of a game started).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top