PDA

View Full Version : Bud Withers comments on this weeks events:



sittingon50
09-28-2017, 08:41 PM
http://en.bloguru.com/GloryHounds/307572/musing-on-the-mess-in-college-hoops

CDC84
09-29-2017, 12:21 AM
My favorite quote:


-- Gee, that show-cause penalty incurred by Bruce Pearl at Tennessee really turned him around, didn’t it?

BoZarth
09-29-2017, 08:09 AM
And this I agree with:


I don’t see how paying players would prevent such abuses. All it would do is bump up the black market.

WallaWallaZag
09-29-2017, 09:57 AM
the "go pro or stay 2" idea would definitely reduce incentive...roi timeframe is a big deal

CDC84
09-29-2017, 10:42 AM
The FBI still has plenty of work to do. I am curious if any BCS coaches get caught for their handling of non-5 star type recruits. Imagine a really good, consistent program like Belmont, who is always threatening to make the NCAA's. Their coach is doing really well recruiting a small forward in the local area who is ranked at #87 at 247Sports. Good prospect, but not a NBA'er by any means. I wonder if some coaches like that have had the rug pulled out beneath them by some coach at a run of the mill BCS school who likes to use cash to entice recruits? I'd like to see a few of those cases come out to prove this just isn't a thing involving NBA type talents....because in many cases, the #87 kid would be better off playing at Belmont than for some BCS team that's lucky if it makes the dance once every 4 years.

hooter73
09-29-2017, 11:04 AM
(legally) paying players wouldnt do a thing. Neither would allowing highschoolers to go pro right away. Say the per year subsidy numbers are on average $10k / year. I'm hearing numbers in excess of $100k going to a player's family in this scandal. 10K a year wont stop that and with letting them go pro right away all that does is skip a step. You'll now have colleges vying for the services of the now second best high school kids, but they are now technically the best that are available.

zagfan24
09-29-2017, 12:05 PM
(legally) paying players wouldnt do a thing. Neither would allowing highschoolers to go pro right away. Say the per year subsidy numbers are on average $10k / year. I'm hearing numbers in excess of $100k going to a player's family in this scandal. 10K a year wont stop that and with letting them go pro right away all that does is skip a step. You'll now have colleges vying for the services of the now second best high school kids, but they are now technically the best that are available.

Agreed to some extent, though one significant difference is that the 10th-25th rated guys aren't nearly as attractive to shoe companies. While letting players go pro right away won't change the pressure on coaches to win, or stop boosters from trying to influence decisions, it would limit the money that Nike/Adidas/Under Armour would be willing to invest. Ultimately it's going to take a multi-faceted approach to help limit what we have been seeing, there is clearly no panacea. But I think getting rid of the age limit is one good step.

Zagceo
09-29-2017, 12:36 PM
Agreed to some extent, though one significant difference is that the 10th-25th rated guys aren't nearly as attractive to shoe companies. While letting players go pro right away won't change the pressure on coaches to win, or stop boosters from trying to influence decisions, it would limit the money that Nike/Adidas/Under Armour would be willing to invest. Ultimately it's going to take a multi-faceted approach to help limit what we have been seeing, there is clearly no panacea. But I think getting rid of the age limit is one good step.

get to go back to the Lebron days......driving a hummer to high school....one option

zagfan24
09-29-2017, 01:05 PM
get to go back to the Lebron days......driving a hummer to high school....one option

Honest question...is there something harmful about that? A lot of kids from wealthy families drive expensive cars to school. LeBron was going to be a superstar and everybody knew it from the time he was 14. Child actors, musicians, and math prodigies can make money off of their talents as teens. Why not basketball?

Zagceo
09-29-2017, 01:19 PM
Honest question...is there something harmful about that? A lot of kids from wealthy families drive expensive cars to school. LeBron was going to be a superstar and everybody knew it from the time he was 14. Child actors, musicians, and math prodigies can make money off of their talents as teens. Why not basketball?

time reveals the answer....NBA made the rule for a reason....selfish as it is

CDC84
09-29-2017, 01:23 PM
get to go back to the Lebron days......driving a hummer to high school....one option

That was just because he didn't want to do a press conference to announce he was going to skip college and go directly into the NBA draft :)

zagfan24
09-29-2017, 01:24 PM
time reveals the answer....NBA made the rule for a reason....selfish as it is

Seems like there could be a better way. The NBA wanted to protect their product, yes, but Garnett, Kobe, LeBron are at the top of the greatest stars of the past two decades.

The list of kids who threw their names in the NBA ring only to be left in the cold is also sobering, but you could argue that this is still happening...they just happen to go to one year (or one semester) of school first. And I don't think that a given 19-year-old is significantly more mature and ready to handle fame and fortune than an 18-year-old. One year being the big man on campus probably only serves to inflate the ego and embolden any pre-existing sense of self-importance.

My dad attended several Billings Mustangs rookie-league baseball games this year where Hunter Greene took his 7 million dollar signing bonus to forgo a UCLA scholarship and play alongside teammates that will never make even six figures. I realize that baseball is a different animal, but it seems like a more honest system.

Zagceo
09-29-2017, 01:34 PM
agree baseball model works better....its just not one size fits all