Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 59
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Atlanta, GA/Durham, NC
    You get a chance to do what you love and Nike is willing to give you a check so you can live comfortably? Just do it. Bags has not only been successful with his youth teams but also has been great locally in Durham with the surrounding communities and with a local basketball league. It's great to have him back in Durham. They've done giveaways, cookouts and all kinds of stuff. ANYONE can do it - but can you get the talent? Some folks just happen to have the talent.

    Because if they REALLY wanted to go there they could just write a whole article on IMG academy - which somehow is a school that's also owned by a sports agency. Probably not enough click bait for the writer though...

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Durham, NC

    I read the article...

    I read the article. This is the nature of capitalist systems. Money flows to value. Trying to stop every possible way top recruits can benefit from their talents is not only impossible but morally wrong. Marvin Bagley III has and will generate enormous amounts of revenue for some shoe company, Duke, Coach K and eventually himself and his family. So Nike decided to pay his dad to run a basketball team in the hope that the shoe company will eventually be them. Sounds about right to me.

    Howard

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Orange County, NC
    This doesn't read like a hit piece. Even if it did, I don't think there's anything to worry about. To me it's a moderately well-written article that supports the fact that the NCAA's amateurism rules are a joke. Nike and friends are finding legal ways to pay players while the NCAA and the schools it represents continue to exploit them. Kudos to Nike. And good luck to the NCAA if they ever try to vacate our wins from this year. If Mark Emmert values his $2 million salary then this is a can of worms he probably doesn't want to open.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by howardlander View Post
    I read the article. This is the nature of capitalist systems. Money flows to value. Trying to stop every possible way top recruits can benefit from their talents is not only impossible but morally wrong. Marvin Bagley III has and will generate enormous amounts of revenue for some shoe company, Duke, Coach K and eventually himself and his family. So Nike decided to pay his dad to run a basketball team in the hope that the shoe company will eventually be them. Sounds about right to me.

    Howard
    Yeah, what Nike did with Bagley Jr is essentially the same thing that Washington and later Missouri did with Michael Porter (father of Michael Porter Jr and Jontay Porter): essentially "hired" him with the hopes that it will lead to his talented son(s) joining them. In both cases, Porter Jr followed his dad in committing to said school (he was released from his commitment to Washington when his dad was fired). At Missouri, Porter is getting paid more than $1 million total over the next 3 years to be an assistant coach. Nike's deal is a bit less binding in that - unlike those colleges - there is no guarantee that Bagley signs with them down the road.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Yeah, what Nike did with Bagley Jr is essentially the same thing that Washington and later Missouri did with Michael Porter (father of Michael Porter Jr and Jontay Porter): essentially "hired" him with the hopes that it will lead to his talented son(s) joining them. In both cases, Porter Jr followed his dad in committing to said school (he was released from his commitment to Washington when his dad was fired). At Missouri, Porter is getting paid more than $1 million total over the next 3 years to be an assistant coach. Nike's deal is a bit less binding in that - unlike those colleges - there is no guarantee that Bagley signs with them down the road.
    I have to believe K and staff did pretty thorough due diligence on Marvin and family prior to making a scholarship offer. K seems to pretty knowledgeable around how the basketball "pipeline" works at all levels, so would be very surprised if Duke were caught flat footed on this.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by luvdahops View Post
    I have to believe K and staff did pretty thorough due diligence on Marvin and family prior to making a scholarship offer. K seems to pretty knowledgeable around how the basketball "pipeline" works at all levels, so would be very surprised if Duke were caught flat footed on this.
    Well said.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by luvdahops View Post
    I have to believe K and staff did pretty thorough due diligence on Marvin and family prior to making a scholarship offer. K seems to pretty knowledgeable around how the basketball "pipeline" works at all levels, so would be very surprised if Duke were caught flat footed on this.
    Yep, I'm sure we did an in-home visit with the Bagleys at some point, for example. We're not caught by surprise here.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA

    How is any of this surprising?

    Popular amateur sports is a complete oxymoron.

    For the love of God, just compensate the players/families. These loop holes are just #$%$ing crazy.
    Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things. - Winston Churchill

    President of the "Nolan Smith Should Have His Jersey in The Rafters" Club

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by flyingdutchdevil View Post
    Popular amateur sports is a complete oxymoron.

    For the love of God, just compensate the players/families. These loop holes are just #$%$ing crazy.
    No shoe company ever tossed me free schwag at my rec league games. That's TRUE amateur athletics.

    - amateurism died a slow death, once television contracts hit the billion dollar mark

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by flyingdutchdevil View Post
    For the love of God, just compensate the players/families. These loop holes are just #$%$ing crazy.
    And maybe don't create a system where talented young athletes who are good enough to earn a professional paycheck are barred from the most significant market for their talents and virtually forced to spend a meaningless year in college. (And yes, I believe that Duke does more than many programs to make sure its players, even the OAD guys, become part of the community. I say "meaningless," though, because even if they're model members of the Duke community, in any sane universe, they could just go straight to the pros without having a one-year layover at Duke.)

    As for the Oregonian article, it essentially boils down to "Grassroots basketball is shady." To which most people probably would respond, "Duh." And therein lies the problem for the Oregonian -- everyone already knows that grassroots basketball is shady, so that story won't sell. But add a few nuggets about a Duke star that are just suspicious-looking enough to support some innuendo about possible shadiness, and suddenly it's juicy.

    There's another undertone to the story that bothered me. So you've got a kid who's a star athlete, and his family's been hit hard by the recession -- lost jobs, foreclosure, etc. And along comes a shoe company and tells the kid's dad, "Hey, we'll pay you to run one of our grassroots programs." And they're supposed to do what? Say no to that lifeline? Remain poor and struggling to satisfy some antiquated notion of amateurism that was conceived by 19th century aristocrats who never had to worry about not being able to pay the mortgage? That's what the story seems to imply, and it's an implication that I'm not comfortable with.
    "I swear Roy must redeem extra timeouts at McDonald's the day after the game for free hamburgers." --Posted on InsideCarolina, 2/18/2015

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom B. View Post
    And maybe don't create a system where talented young athletes who are good enough to earn a professional paycheck are barred from the most significant market for their talents and virtually forced to spend a meaningless year in college. (And yes, I believe that Duke does more than many programs to make sure its players, even the OAD guys, become part of the community. I say "meaningless," though, because even if they're model members of the Duke community, in any sane universe, they could just go straight to the pros without having a one-year layover at Duke.)

    As for the Oregonian article, it essentially boils down to "Grassroots basketball is shady." To which most people probably would respond, "Duh." And therein lies the problem for the Oregonian -- everyone already knows that grassroots basketball is shady, so that story won't sell. But add a few nuggets about a Duke star that are just suspicious-looking enough to support some innuendo about possible shadiness, and suddenly it's juicy.

    There's another undertone to the story that bothered me. So you've got a kid who's a star athlete, and his family's been hit hard by the recession -- lost jobs, foreclosure, etc. And along comes a shoe company and tells the kid's dad, "Hey, we'll pay you to run one of our grassroots programs." And they're supposed to do what? Say no to that lifeline? Remain poor and struggling to satisfy some antiquated notion of amateurism that was conceived by 19th century aristocrats who never had to worry about not being able to pay the mortgage? That's what the story seems to imply, and it's an implication that I'm not comfortable with.
    You must spread some Comments around before commenting on Tom B. again.

    You sir, have nailed it. Unfortunately, the anti-Duke folk will focus on the "who" of this story instead of the substance.

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom B. View Post
    And maybe don't create a system where talented young athletes who are good enough to earn a professional paycheck are barred from the most significant market for their talents and virtually forced to spend a meaningless year in college. (And yes, I believe that Duke does more than many programs to make sure its players, even the OAD guys, become part of the community. I say "meaningless," though, because even if they're model members of the Duke community, in any sane universe, they could just go straight to the pros without having a one-year layover at Duke.)
    This is well-said and 100% true, but I also want to point out that even if every player were allowed to enter the *most* significant market for their talents, they should still be allowed to be compensated within the *second-most* significant market, too. (And the third-most, and the fourth-most, and so on.)

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    San Diego, California
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    No shoe company ever tossed me free schwag at my rec league games. That's TRUE amateur athletics.

    - amateurism died a slow death, once television contracts hit the billion dollar mark
    Seconded.

    My son left college ( a Nike school) with memories, a degree and an enormous amount of gear...

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    greater New Orleans area
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom B. View Post
    And maybe don't create a system where talented young athletes who are good enough to earn a professional paycheck are barred from the most significant market for their talents and virtually forced to spend a meaningless year in college. (And yes, I believe that Duke does more than many programs to make sure its players, even the OAD guys, become part of the community. I say "meaningless," though, because even if they're model members of the Duke community, in any sane universe, they could just go straight to the pros without having a one-year layover at Duke.)

    As for the Oregonian article, it essentially boils down to "Grassroots basketball is shady." To which most people probably would respond, "Duh." And therein lies the problem for the Oregonian -- everyone already knows that grassroots basketball is shady, so that story won't sell. But add a few nuggets about a Duke star that are just suspicious-looking enough to support some innuendo about possible shadiness, and suddenly it's juicy.

    There's another undertone to the story that bothered me. So you've got a kid who's a star athlete, and his family's been hit hard by the recession -- lost jobs, foreclosure, etc. And along comes a shoe company and tells the kid's dad, "Hey, we'll pay you to run one of our grassroots programs." And they're supposed to do what? Say no to that lifeline? Remain poor and struggling to satisfy some antiquated notion of amateurism that was conceived by 19th century aristocrats who never had to worry about not being able to pay the mortgage? That's what the story seems to imply, and it's an implication that I'm not comfortable with.
    Seriously. Shoe companies are buying parents to get their kids...hmmm.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    20 Minutes From The Heaven That Is Cameron Indoor
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    No shoe company ever tossed me free schwag at my rec league games. That's TRUE amateur athletics.

    - amateurism died a slow death, once television contracts hit the billion dollar mark
    "

    See, here's the thing though in my view. I will start by saying I know most people will read this post and think it is stupid and simple-minded. Maybe it is, but I am going to share it anyway and then I guess, duck and hope to not get hit with the rocks being thrown.

    The problem in my view is the definition of "amateur". Just hear me out here please. If this is stupid and simple-minded then so be it. Here is my definition of "amateur". To me, if a shoe company pays a kid while he is still in high school, that most definitely does not make the kid a pro or "Non-Amateur" in my opinion. A "Professional"/"Non-Amateur" to me, is a player that has played in a professional league drawing a salary. Dennis Smith was most definitely an amateur all of last year while playing for NC State. Smith had never played in the NBA or G League or European League, etc. You get the point.

    College Basketball Players are all amateurs. None of them have played in professional leagues. So a kid that right out of High School goes into a professional league be it the NBA/G League/Overseas, and plays a couple of years and decides he should have gone to college and wants to enroll at State U as a freshman. Well sorry dude, you can't because you are a former Pro and therefore not eligible to play in college because college is for amateurs (my definition) and you gave up your amateur status when you went Pro.

    A shoe company giving a kid money for whatever reason doesn't magically turn him into a professional player in my eyes. It is just plain ignorant to not let these kids get whatever endorsement money they can get be it Adidas wanting to "sponsor" Dennis Smith the High School/College Player or if say the local car dealership wants to give Javin $50k for allowing them to put him on their billboard to help them sell more cars.

    This is all insane. Not allowing each and every kid on the roster to get whatever they can get from companies (not boosters or fans). The own stipulation is the company cannot pay the kid to go to a specific school. I don't know how to police that aspect but I would hope smarter people than I could figure it out.

    Anyway that's my position and view on all this current madness.

    Mark "Putting on Kevlar and jumping into the ditch to take cover from the incoming bullets" Newton. 14.

  16. #36
    ... Good analysis parsing the definition of "amateur" cut for space...

    Quote Originally Posted by Newton_14 View Post

    This is all insane. Not allowing each and every kid on the roster to get whatever they can get from companies (not boosters or fans). The own stipulation is the company cannot pay the kid to go to a specific school. I don't know how to police that aspect but I would hope smarter people than I could figure it out.

    Anyway that's my position and view on all this current madness.

    Mark "Putting on Kevlar and jumping into the ditch to take cover from the incoming bullets" Newton. 14.
    Usually I am all for getting pedantic with words, as anyone trying to claim a "lock" in the bracketology thread will tell you. But this time, I don't care so much. You can call it "amateur," or "unpaid," or "anything outside the NBA" - college basketball is broken.

    The rest of your post, declaring insanity and asking for smarter minds to figure it out... Well, I agree one hundred percent.

    I am not a fan of "the team that can find the most loopholes wins," if that's built in an unfair system.

    Basketball and football need to be rebuilt with new ideas from the ground up. The amount of money circulating around these young men is positively absurd.

  17. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    No shoe company ever tossed me free schwag at my rec league games. That's TRUE amateur athletics.

    - amateurism died a slow death, once television contracts hit the billion dollar mark
    Sam Gilbert came along long before the big TV contracts. The thing that the ameteurism rules were written to prevent was the booster owned business paying players to attend a particular school. If companies can pay players then schools will buy rosters like UCLA did. I wish/hope that there is a way to allow players to receive money from legitimate sources like the shoe companies while preventing the corruption that festered under the wizard of westwood.

    (Note that I consider the shoe companies legit sources to the extent that they dont really care where the player goes to college, just that he will sign with them as an adult - ie they dont determine winners and losers of the college game.)

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Some really good ideas in this thread -- side note: is it just me or does it feel like all of our threads about scandal and the such end up being "here is how we should fix college basketball."

    I would merely add that the moment we make paying players (or allowing endorsements, which seems the most logical) legal and above board, the system becomes better. Right now, we have a situation where both the players and the folks who want to get money to them are forced to sneak around and hide their actions. When everything is out in the open, the system is bound to be more fair and safer.

    -Jason "I am sure this thread will now become pages and pages of ideas about how to fix college hoops... and that is fine. The Bagley stuff in the Oregonian story will gladly be pushed aside" Evans
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chesapeake, VA.
    Quote Originally Posted by Newton_14 View Post
    "

    ...

    The problem in my view is the definition of "amateur". Just hear me out here please. If this is stupid and simple-minded then so be it. Here is my definition of "amateur". To me, if a shoe company pays a kid while he is still in high school, that most definitely does not make the kid a pro or "Non-Amateur" in my opinion. A "Professional"/"Non-Amateur" to me, is a player that has played in a professional league drawing a salary. ....
    This isn't a rock, or anything close to it, but I don't think we can all just make up our own definition of what "amateur" means. There should be a definition that everybody can agree upon. Once upon a time, I played a lot of amateur golf. I was assured that if I took cash (any amount whatsoever) as a prize for winning a golf tournament, I would no longer be an amateur. I was allowed to take credits to the pro shop, but only up to a certain dollar amount that everybody had agreed upon. If I was offered anything beyond that and I accepted said offer, I would no longer be considered an amateur and would no longer be able to compete in amateur tournaments. I didn't have to join a professional tour to lose my amateur status. All I had to do was be PAID for playing the sport. I would not be a "pro," but I would also no longer be an "amateur."
    "We are not provided with wisdom, we must discover it for ourselves, after a journey through the wilderness which no one else can take for us, an effort which no one can spare us, for our wisdom is the point of view from which we come at last to regard the world." --M. Proust

  20. #40
    Since we're talking about paying the player's again, thought I'd share the clip of where Coach K is asked about it again (teed up to the time of the question):
    https://youtu.be/5IOvGlf34uI?t=10067

    One thing that stands out to me that isn't really mentioned anywhere is the fact that there HAVE been "DRAMATIC" changes in the last few years to give players a TON more once they're on campus than they used to be given. Nobody seems to acknowledge this. The fact that player's now get stipends above and beyond previous full rides wasn't a big new's story for whatever reason. Coach K's words:
    "Kids get a lot right now. In the last 3 to 4 years. I'm not sure how much research you've done in it. But, if you would compare what kids get today to 3 or 4 years ago, it's a dramatic improvement. Dramatic. Not small, dramatic. And, um, again, I'd like for them to take a look at before you get them, to make sure the kid and his family are afforded the oppportunity to max out, like anybody else in our country, what talent will give you."

    My take is that Coach K basically wants them to be able to get compensated prior to stepping foot on campus based on whomever wants to give them money (minus the schools), but that the school/NCAA provide sufficient benefits to them once they're on campus (perhaps those entities providing money beforehand would be able to continue to do so). And that, in general, the definition of amateurism needs to be re-worked. Obviously, Coach K also thinks there shouldn't be a requirement to be one year removed from high school before being drafted as well.

Similar Threads

  1. Bagley Out Tonight
    By happydays1949 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 02-11-2018, 06:22 PM
  2. Bagley named ACC ROW again
    By jimsumner in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-02-2018, 03:40 PM
  3. ACC honors Bagley again
    By jimsumner in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-27-2017, 03:53 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •