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 (1 Viewer)

Who is worse?

  • Total voters
    278
SayWhat? said:
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.  
Click to expand...
When the big conferences play an unbalanced schedule like the Big Ten does, where you finished in conference can be offset by who you played.   Huskers only got one game each against Purdue, Sparty, Michigan, and Ohio State, and went 1-3 against them.  They’re 3-9 against the RPI 100.  

Huskers can fix a lot of that with a deep run in the Big Ten tournament.  But right now the problem isn’t that they lost by 1 to Kansas.  It’s that they lost to sub-.500 teams Illinois and St. John’s.  

Those three OOC games against RPI 300+ dragged down their SOS a bit compared to their peers, even though those games were wins.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll preface this by saying I don't care who lost this week, certainly things can change over next 10 days and apologies to Cincinnati but I think the following 8 teams should be seeded 1 and 2.

Virginia, Villanova, Xavier, Kansas, Michigan St, Purdue, Duke and UNC.  UVA probably has a #1 wrapped up already.  The Big East winner should.  Kansas will if they win the B12 Tournament and might have it anyway.  Michigan St should if they win the B1G tournament (saPume for Purdue).  Duke/UNC still have to play at least once and possibly two more times so still a lot of hoops left to sort them out.  I could see Duke getting to the 1-line but not UNC by winning out.

As of today, I would see them like this:

South - UVA & Purdue/Big East#2.  Cincinnati would be my #3 here.

East - Big East #1 & Duke/UNC loser

Midwest - Kansas & Purdue/Big East #2

West - Michigan St & Duke/UNC winner

 
nittanylion said:
B1G (!), OVC and NEC join the Dance Party tonight...
Click to expand...
Apologies if this was discussed earlier and I missed it - why are they doing this? It makes slightly more sense in the one-bid leagues because they want to added focus on them plus the team that goes to the tournament is guaranteed to be playing a bunch of games and go until the tournament ends, plus they have less reason to be worried about maximizing NCAA tournament performance. But a higher seed in the Big Ten could exit early and be forced to go two full weeks before playing again.  If Ohio State loses on Friday they could enter the tournament having played just that one game in the previous three weeks. That seems less than ideal.

I see it's at the Garden, was it a scheduling conflict or something? 

 
TobiasFunke said:
Apologies if this was discussed earlier and I missed it - why are they doing this? It makes slightly more sense in the one-bid leagues because they want to added focus on them plus the team that goes to the tournament is guaranteed to be playing a bunch of games and go until the tournament ends, plus they have less reason to be worried about maximizing NCAA tournament performance. But a higher seed in the Big Ten could exit early and be forced to go two full weeks before playing again.  If Ohio State loses on Friday they could enter the tournament having played just that one game in the previous three weeks. That seems less than ideal.

I see it's at the Garden, was it a scheduling conflict or something? 
Click to expand...
Yep. The Big East was already locked in for the traditional weekend. Delaney has already admitted this was mistake on the B1G's part

 
TobiasFunke said:
I see it's at the Garden, was it a scheduling conflict or something? 
Click to expand...
Yeah. The Big East will have the Garden at the normal time, so the Big Ten had to go a week early and make a complete mess of its regular season schedule in order to make sure the games are played a thousand miles away from where all its teams are.

 
TobiasFunke said:
That's OK, I'm sure it will be the only one he makes in his long and distinguished career.
Click to expand...
It's SO tone-deaf and stupid. Jesus.....

Play the damned thing in Philly on a normal week if you're trying to snag the Rutgers and Maryland fans. Or Brooklyn if it HAS to be NYC. Both options are silly, but better than this idiocy.

It's all tilting at windmills, though.

 
Uruk-Hai said:
It's SO tone-deaf and stupid. Jesus.....

Play the damned thing in Philly on a normal week if you're trying to snag the Rutgers and Maryland fans. Or Brooklyn if it HAS to be NYC. Both options are silly, but better than this idiocy.

It's all tilting at windmills, though.
Click to expand...
Or buy the Big East out of the Garden for a year with all that money the B1G is printing.  

Actually, I wonder if the extra week helps them in the tournament or turns out not to matter.

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Or buy the Big East out of the Garden for a year with all that money the B1G is printing.  

Actually, I wonder if the extra week helps them in the tournament or turns out not to matter.
Click to expand...
I thought I read the Big East was locked into that weekend at MSG for a few more years. They won't sell it. 

Be interesting to see on your 2nd point. I doubt the coaches like it.

 
Spartans Rule said:
Yeah. The Big East will have the Garden at the normal time, so the Big Ten had to go a week early and make a complete mess of its regular season schedule in order to make sure the games are played a thousand miles away from where all its teams are.
Click to expand...
Seriously.  If you’re going to travel like that for your conference tournament, have Vegas host it.  Or the Bahamas.  

 
Uruk-Hai said:
It's SO tone-deaf and stupid. Jesus.....

Play the damned thing in Philly on a normal week if you're trying to snag the Rutgers and Maryland fans. Or Brooklyn if it HAS to be NYC. Both options are silly, but better than this idiocy.

It's all tilting at windmills, though.
Click to expand...
The ACC already kicked the A-10 to Pittsburgh last season and DC this year so they could have Brooklyn.

 
Good Posting Judge said:
It's peanuts compared to the money it generates.
Click to expand...
Sure, but so is what I make compared to what my company brings in.  I realize my skills aren’t comparable to theirs and the demand for my skills is definitely less than that of the top athletes - maybe on par with the lowest level of football however.  

I’m still in favor of athletes getting something more just not sure what.  I am in the camp that agrees with Plasma that we shouldn’t ignore all the things they currently get.  The problem I have with it is my concern if we open it up to free enterprise that some of these kids will get hurt by the system - but it’s undeniable that colleges and the NCAA are getting rich of the work of these kids.

 
Capella said:
But that’s not going to happen because the nba and nfl like them to work out the kinks in college. 

Why do you not want colleges to pay players? What good reason could there possibly be for young talented athletes not getting paid for their work? And please don’t say scholarships and training. That’s as dumb as it gets. 
Click to expand...
I’m still catching up on the thread but while I’m in favor of them getting more than they get today my concern is the unknown - how does it impact the athletes (both financially and academically - as an aside I think the pro pay big bucks seem to focus on the top athletes and ignore the thousands that are just average Joes), the impact to professional leagues (seems minimal but what do I know).  

Maybe these things are clear cut and addressed somewhere in the 4 pages I still have to read.  But again, fun to head I would vote to do something, I’m just not smart enough to know what that is.

 
AAABatteries said:
Sure, but so is what I make compared to what my company brings in.  I realize my skills aren’t comparable to theirs and the demand for my skills is definitely less than that of the top athletes - maybe on par with the lowest level of football however.  

I’m still in favor of athletes getting something more just not sure what.  I am in the camp that agrees with Plasma that we shouldn’t ignore all the things they currently get.  The problem I have with it is my concern if we open it up to free enterprise that some of these kids will get hurt by the system - but it’s undeniable that colleges and the NCAA are getting rich of the work of these kids.
Click to expand...
Nobody ignores what they are getting now. It's just that it's irrelevant. The issue is the agreement by the schools to restrict earnings of a certain subset of students.

 
roadkill1292 said:
Nobody ignores what they are getting now. It's just that it's irrelevant. The issue is the agreement by the schools to restrict earnings of a certain subset of students.
Click to expand...
Well, its a bit more complicated than that. 

Setting aside the "education" which for many of these athletes is dubious, I think the biggest benefit these athletes get is no different than traditional students - they get the tools and facilities to prepare for a chosen career.  And, that is not an insignificant benefit - imo.

And, the current price for access to coaches and training facilities - is that you forego most monetary reimbursement for your efforts.

Is that a fair trade off?  :shrug:     It probably is.  The kids who go pro - they are the ones who are likely driving the revenue - and they got what they bargained for - a career pathway.  The kids that don't go pro - well, they are not the ones driving revenue to the schools, and probably should not be asking for more money....

Now, could some of these schools take money from the coaches, and pay the players a little bit?  sure.  But, are you going to pay the orchestra members?  What about the marching band?  Do the drama students get a cut of the house?  Do the science students get a portion of the grant fees?

From the student's perspective - I get that their argument is that the schools are making money off their efforts, and that the fans come to see the athletes.  But, I don't think that is really true.  Colleges really sell a brand.  People want to see "Duke" basketball, or "Alabama" football.  And the proof is when you look at attendances for minor league sports (or "D" league basketball) - (relatively) nobody goes to see those games - but those same athletes on a college team can be a big draw - and the only difference is the college brand.  So, I don't know how much revenue these individual athletes are actually generating.

The other option is to allow the players to get paid from outside sources.  Market value would determine who gets what - and it takes the issue of equality out of the schools hands.  Opens up a whole can of worms.  But, it lets a lot of people influence easily influenced young men and women

 
AAABatteries said:
I’m still catching up on the thread but while I’m in favor of them getting more than they get today my concern is the unknown - how does it impact the athletes (both financially and academically - as an aside I think the pro pay big bucks seem to focus on the top athletes and ignore the thousands that are just average Joes), the impact to professional leagues (seems minimal but what do I know).  

Maybe these things are clear cut and addressed somewhere in the 4 pages I still have to read.  But again, fun to head I would vote to do something, I’m just not smart enough to know what that is.
Click to expand...
Just remember in many cases the money is already flowing to these kids. So in a world where that's legal, maybe they end up with more money and I guess there's a small chance that could negatively impact them...less thirsty, or more easily distracted with even more money to do things away from the court. But it also means they aren't breaking laws, basically laundering money, or leaving that money in the hands of someone who could be ripping them off. 

From a professional league impact...again the negative could be, well this kid now has $100K in his bank account, he won't work hard enough to become a high pick and make millions more, I guess? Seems like a stretch. 

And there is the added bonus that a kid who maybe hasn't taken money because he simply doesn't want to break rules or risk his eligibility, or only took enough to basically live on or help his family, might be content to sticking around college and developing an extra year or two instead of leaving before he's ready just so he can maybe be a late pick or end up with a G-league/overseas contract. 

 
Sinn Fein said:
Well, its a bit more complicated than that. 

Setting aside the "education" which for many of these athletes is dubious, I think the biggest benefit these athletes get is no different than traditional students - they get the tools and facilities to prepare for a chosen career.  And, that is not an insignificant benefit - imo.

And, the current price for access to coaches and training facilities - is that you forego most monetary reimbursement for your efforts.

Is that a fair trade off?  :shrug:     It probably is.  The kids who go pro - they are the ones who are likely driving the revenue - and they got what they bargained for - a career pathway.  The kids that don't go pro - well, they are not the ones driving revenue to the schools, and probably should not be asking for more money....
Click to expand...
But what about the kids who don't actually need access to college coaches and college training facilities to prepare for their chosen career? The kids who would be high draft picks if there was no NBA rule restricting them from going directly from high school? Hard to argue that's a fair trade off for them and that's before even considering that most of them need to go through the charade of being a student just to maintain their eligibility, when they'd make better use of that time by either training more or maybe just sleeping to prepare for later workouts.

In a hypothetical world where the NBA didn't just use the NCAA as its free minor league system, you would see a group of players that would be ready to play immediately and earn millions, and another group where the league would give these young kids decent salaries to basically redshirt and spend their days training full time, and not pretend to be a student. This is the group you mentioned above who would need to make the decision whether it makes more sense to hang in college and develop for a quicker path to big money, using the access to coaches and training facilities, or go sooner. 

 
Sinn Fein said:
Well, its a bit more complicated than that. 

Setting aside the "education" which for many of these athletes is dubious, I think the biggest benefit these athletes get is no different than traditional students - they get the tools and facilities to prepare for a chosen career.  And, that is not an insignificant benefit - imo.

And, the current price for access to coaches and training facilities - is that you forego most monetary reimbursement for your efforts.

Is that a fair trade off?  :shrug:     It probably is.  The kids who go pro - they are the ones who are likely driving the revenue - and they got what they bargained for - a career pathway.  The kids that don't go pro - well, they are not the ones driving revenue to the schools, and probably should not be asking for more money....

Now, could some of these schools take money from the coaches, and pay the players a little bit?  sure.  But, are you going to pay the orchestra members?  What about the marching band?  Do the drama students get a cut of the house?  Do the science students get a portion of the grant fees?

From the student's perspective - I get that their argument is that the schools are making money off their efforts, and that the fans come to see the athletes.  But, I don't think that is really true.  Colleges really sell a brand.  People want to see "Duke" basketball, or "Alabama" football.  And the proof is when you look at attendances for minor league sports (or "D" league basketball) - (relatively) nobody goes to see those games - but those same athletes on a college team can be a big draw - and the only difference is the college brand.  So, I don't know how much revenue these individual athletes are actually generating.

The other option is to allow the players to get paid from outside sources.  Market value would determine who gets what - and it takes the issue of equality out of the schools hands.  Opens up a whole can of worms.  But, it lets a lot of people influence easily influenced young men and women
Click to expand...
The only reason that that is the "current price" is because the schools have all colluded to set it at that. Different schools might approach the situation differently if an agreement wasn't already in place. Insert usual Title IX disclaimer here.

And the college "brand" is a winning program. That's why talented players have market values in excess of what they're getting now and it really isn't a complicated idea. If it's too complicated to figure out what to pay them or if their talent is not really worth competing for, whether the money comes from the school or outside entities, then no one will pay them. And I'll be ok with that.

 
RUSF18 said:
But what about the kids who don't actually need access to college coaches and college training facilities to prepare for their chosen career? The kids who would be high draft picks if there was no NBA rule restricting them from going directly from high school? Hard to argue that's a fair trade off for them and that's before even considering that most of them need to go through the charade of being a student just to maintain their eligibility, when they'd make better use of that time by either training more or maybe just sleeping to prepare for later workouts.
Click to expand...
They all need that...but, lets assume you are correct - then the alternative is to go play in a development league, not affiliated with a college.

A college "career" even for a 1-and-done basketball player is an important part of the process - its like an apprenticeship, where they are auditioning for future employers, and the colleges are putting the players in a position to develop the skills they need to move on to that next level.

If you take all the 1-and-done type players out of college - and put them in the "G" League, college basketball is still a big draw, and the "G" league is playing in front of a few thousand people.   So, are people paying to see the athletes, or the brand?

 
Sinn Fein said:
They all need that...but, lets assume you are correct - then the alternative is to go play in a development league, not affiliated with a college.

A college "career" even for a 1-and-done basketball player is an important part of the process - its like an apprenticeship, where they are auditioning for future employers, and the colleges are putting the players in a position to develop the skills they need to move on to that next level.

If you take all the 1-and-done type players out of college - and put them in the "G" League, college basketball is still a big draw, and the "G" league is playing in front of a few thousand people.   So, are people paying to see the athletes, or the brand?
Click to expand...
No, they don't ALL need that. Just checking here...you're aware that kids used to be able to go directly to the NBA from high school, right? 

And you're not putting all of them in the G-league either. But to answer the hypothetical, which we've discussed in this thread already but sure, is that people are paying to see both. If Duke and UNC decided, just for ####s and giggles, they would only recruit 6'2" and under white kids who were good 2nd options on their high school teams, those match-ups would have pretty good crowds at first and then attendance and TV ratings would move down because the games would be horrible to watch. 

We don't know how big of a draw college basketball would be after 20 years of the NBA truly investing in a minor league system. 

 
We really need two threads...anybody and everybody who really, really loves the game of college basketball should, for the next week or so, be absoutely giddy over the idea of weekday, daytime, Tournament basketball. It should be enough of a narcotic to put aside most of this other 1st world problem discussion to bed until after the National Championship...but y'all just keep on, keepin' on, if that's what floats your boat...

...meanwhile, I'm gearing up for a 9v8 Badgers/Terps tilt at noon (9v8...really?), and speculating whether the #10 Longwood Lancers, after having upset #7 High Point on Tuesday, can continue play Cinderella vs #2 Radford, in the Big South at 1pm. Radford won both regular season matchups. Awfully tough to beat a Team 3x in a season...

 
nittanylion said:
We really need two threads...anybody and everybody who really, really loves the game of college basketball should, for the next week or so, be absoutely giddy over the idea of weekday, daytime, Tournament basketball. It should be enough of a narcotic to put aside most of this other 1st world problem discussion to bed until after the National Championship...but y'all just keep on, keepin' on, if that's what floats your boat...

...meanwhile, I'm gearing up for a 9v8 Badgers/Terps tilt at noon (9v8...really?), and speculating whether the #10 Longwood Lancers, after having upset #7 High Point on Tuesday, can continue play Cinderella vs #2 Radford, in the Big South at 1pm. Radford won both regular season matchups. Awfully tough to beat a Team 3x in a season...
Click to expand...
Just biding my time until Rutgers/Indiana tips around 9p GB. 

 
nittanylion said:
We really need two threads...anybody and everybody who really, really loves the game of college basketball should, for the next week or so, be absoutely giddy over the idea of weekday, daytime, Tournament basketball. It should be enough of a narcotic to put aside most of this other 1st world problem discussion to bed until after the National Championship...but y'all just keep on, keepin' on, if that's what floats your boat...

...meanwhile, I'm gearing up for a 9v8 Badgers/Terps tilt at noon (9v8...really?), and speculating whether the #10 Longwood Lancers, after having upset #7 High Point on Tuesday, can continue play Cinderella vs #2 Radford, in the Big South at 1pm. Radford won both regular season matchups. Awfully tough to beat a Team 3x in a season...
Click to expand...
Johnny, the sport you really, really love is seriously effed up in the way it runs itself. That doesn't mean I think those who really, really love it are, too but it also means that I'm not gonna stop pointing it out until the people who ignore the problem won't be able to.

Bilas said yesterday that he knows of one highly ranked team in the country which has had player discussions about delaying a tournament tip-off by one hour to send a message.

 
roadkill1292 said:
Johnny, the sport you really, really love is seriously effed up in the way it runs itself. That doesn't mean I think those who really, really love it are, too but it also means that I'm not gonna stop pointing it out until the people who ignore the problem won't be able to.

Bilas said yesterday that he knows of one highly ranked team in the country which has had player discussions about delaying a tournament tip-off by one hour to send a message.
Click to expand...
He didn't tell you to stop posting about it.  He said start another thread one for the games like this has often been and another for all the political mess.

 
Uruk-Hai said:
It's SO tone-deaf and stupid. Jesus.....

Play the damned thing in Philly on a normal week if you're trying to snag the Rutgers and Maryland fans. Or Brooklyn if it HAS to be NYC. Both options are silly, but better than this idiocy.

It's all tilting at windmills, though.
Click to expand...
ACC is in Brooklyn already.

 
Sinn Fein said:
They all need that...but, lets assume you are correct - then the alternative is to go play in a development league, not affiliated with a college.

A college "career" even for a 1-and-done basketball player is an important part of the process - its like an apprenticeship, where they are auditioning for future employers, and the colleges are putting the players in a position to develop the skills they need to move on to that next level.

If you take all the 1-and-done type players out of college - and put them in the "G" League, college basketball is still a big draw, and the "G" league is playing in front of a few thousand people.   So, are people paying to see the athletes, or the brand?
Click to expand...
I am really not sure this is true for basketball. If you got all of the top 18-20 year olds in a league people would watch. Not at the level of college basketball, but there would be interest.

 
What if the NFL were to setup some sort of summer "internship" program where they invited the top 200 or so returning college players for a three or four week program and taught them things that would be useful to them in the future (how to manage your money, how to spot a groupie, what to look for in an agent, etc) and allowed them to do light workouts or some bs like that? You could pay the kids 20 grand or something. No different than any other internship program.

 
Moe. said:
I am really not sure this is true for basketball. If you got all of the top 18-20 year olds in a league people would watch. Not at the level of college basketball, but there would be interest.
Click to expand...
There's not much difference in what you just described and an NBA summer league game, which no one cares about.  A few people might tune in to see the athlete play but college sports are popular because people care about their school, their team, and the rivalries  The NCAA Tournament is going to be a success whether it has Trae Young, Marvin Bagley and DeAndre Ayton or whether they were playing in a G-league.

 
Fair point. They filled up Thomas and Mack this past summer, but that was mostly just because people wanted to see how ugly Lonzo Ball is in person.

 
Moe. said:
I am really not sure this is true for basketball. If you got all of the top 18-20 year olds in a league people would watch. Not at the level of college basketball, but there would be interest.
Click to expand...
The interest in a league containing the best of the best 18-20 year olds would be a fraction of the interest in the college games containing everyone else.  No question about that.  I can't imagine games from such a "new league" drawing much more than 4-5,000 fans.  

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
There's not much difference in what you just described and an NBA summer league game, which no one cares about.  A few people might tune in to see the athlete play but college sports are popular because people care about their school, their team, and the rivalries  The NCAA Tournament is going to be a success whether it has Trae Young, Marvin Bagley and DeAndre Ayton or whether they were playing in a G-league.
Click to expand...
I assume you watch Georgia Tech basketball (I'll give you credit for both men's and women's) and football. Do you also watch Georgia Tech volleyball, lacrosse, swimming, etc? If not, how come? Isn't it your school, your team, and it's rivals competing? 

You're failing to note that college basketball has a 100 year head start on any potential competition. Of course the tournament would still be popular tomorrow if all the best players immediately went somewhere else. But what would it look like in 5, 10, 20 years?

If the monsters from Space Jam showed up today and stole all the basketball talent from our country, and teams got filled by guys who could barely dribble a basketball without the ability to ever get better, you'd be insane to claim that in 2028 the same number of people would be watching college basketball just because the jerseys are the same. 

 
RUSF18 said:
I assume you watch Georgia Tech basketball (I'll give you credit for both men's and women's) and football. Do you also watch Georgia Tech volleyball, lacrosse, swimming, etc? If not, how come? Isn't it your school, your team, and it's rivals competing? 

You're failing to note that college basketball has a 100 year head start on any potential competition. Of course the tournament would still be popular tomorrow if all the best players immediately went somewhere else. But what would it look like in 5, 10, 20 years?

If the monsters from Space Jam showed up today and stole all the basketball talent from our country, and teams got filled by guys who could barely dribble a basketball without the ability to ever get better, you'd be insane to claim that in 2028 the same number of people would be watching college basketball just because the jerseys are the same. 
Click to expand...
How many guys you think are going to start skipping college basketball and going pro?  College bb wouldn't miss the 15-20 one and dones hardly at all.  I don't think 100-200 guys are going to do that.  Do you?

 
Keerock said:
Uh, pretty sure this is Day 2...or did you mean Day 1 of March?
Click to expand...
Technically speaking, Day 2, but last night's games, for all intents and purposes, were play-ins. I'm a junkie, so I watch and follow along, but still can call a a spade, a spade. Silly 14-Team Conference blues, just like SEC.

Some Conferences, like 9-Team America East, don't allow the worst Team into their 8-Team field. I don't mind that SUNY-Binghamton has to sit out. I don't know why I don't mind. It's just how they do things in that Conference. SUNY-Binghamton doesn't seem to mind - they seem to be the odd man out every Season, and if it doesn't bother them...

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
How many guys you think are going to start skipping college basketball and going pro?  College bb wouldn't miss the 15-20 one and dones hardly at all.  I don't think 100-200 guys are going to do that.  Do you?
Click to expand...
If the move is just to take the age limit off the table, I think your first number is pretty close. Maybe a little low but in the ballpark. 

if it came with a real investment by the league in a minor league system where players earned decent salaries, yeah I think you could see 100+. Players think really highly of themselves.

Let me flip this around. If the NBA's rule changed in the opposite direction, do you think college basketball would be better if kids had to stay for a minimum of two years, or would it stay roughly the same?

 
Miller vohemently denies allegations and is backed by the university and the board of regents.  He is coaching tonight. 

ESPN not looking good here. 

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

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top