PDA

View Full Version : Bilas on Kanter



johnb
11-12-2010, 09:46 AM
I could put this in the Kanter thread, but it really relates to Jay's perspective on the situation. While defending Kanter on espn's premium service (http://insider.espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/blog?name=bilas_jay&id=5793957), Bilas says this:

"Does anyone believe former Duke star Trajan Langdon did not receive an education, and did not love the game? Well, while Langdon was in college, he earned hundreds of thousands of dollars playing professional baseball in the minor leagues, yet he still suited up for the Blue Devils as an amateur basketball player."

I thought it somewhat amusing that Duke is a consensus preseason #1 from everyone except him (he picked MSU), but it seems a low blow to toss Trajan into the mix without explanation of the differing circumstances. Yes, both got cash to play sports, but Trajan got clearance beforehand to play a different sport over the summer. They're somewhat similar situations, but very different to the rulemakers. My problem with Jay's assertion is that half the people who read his articles hate Duke, and such side comments not only fuel the general fire but also besmirch the good name of one of my favorite former players. I call foul.

flyingdutchdevil
11-12-2010, 10:21 AM
I could put this in the Kanter thread, but it really relates to Jay's perspective on the situation. While defending Kanter on espn's premium service (http://insider.espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/blog?name=bilas_jay&id=5793957), Bilas says this:

"Does anyone believe former Duke star Trajan Langdon did not receive an education, and did not love the game? Well, while Langdon was in college, he earned hundreds of thousands of dollars playing professional baseball in the minor leagues, yet he still suited up for the Blue Devils as an amateur basketball player."

I thought it somewhat amusing that Duke is a consensus preseason #1 from everyone except him (he picked MSU), but it seems a low blow to toss Trajan into the mix without explanation of the differing circumstances. Yes, both got cash to play sports, but Trajan got clearance beforehand to play a different sport over the summer. They're somewhat similar situations, but very different to the rulemakers. My problem with Jay's assertion is that half the people who read his articles hate Duke, and such side comments not only fuel the general fire but also besmirch the good name of one of my favorite former players. I call foul.

May I ask where you get that Bilas has MSU #1? The only Bilas-rankings I've seen are from Monday's CBB ESPN rankings, where Bilas, along with everyone else at ESPN, has Duke #1 (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/powerrankings/_/show/first).

Secondly, I don't think Bilas was taking a cheap shot at all at Duke or Trajan. He used Trajan as an example of how the NCAA's rationale behind not allowing students to make money is ridiculous, whether or not Trajan got cleared (and he was). Personally, I thought it was a legit example.

Thirdly, I've always been opposed to Bilas' 'anti-bias' perspective on Duke. He tries so hard to be objective and not bias that he ends up never considering Duke!

Bluedog
11-12-2010, 10:29 AM
May I ask where you get that Bilas has MSU #1? The only Bilas-rankings I've seen are from Monday's CBB ESPN rankings, where Bilas, along with everyone else at ESPN, has Duke #1 (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/powerrankings/_/show/first).

I think perhaps the confusion is that Bilas chose MSU to win the national championship, which some saw as ranking them #1. But it's a different question. Unless Bilas changed his mind recently and moved Duke to #1...

El_Diablo
11-12-2010, 10:37 AM
Having never received any money to play basketball, Langdon was an amateur basketball player. Having received money to play basketball, Kanter was a professional basketball player.

Amateur basketball players are NCAA-eligible. Professional basketball players are not. Bilas can try to blur the lines by describing Langdon in a higher level of abstraction (as making money for doing something "athletics-related"), but it ignores the distinction that exists at the fundamental level. An NCAA basketball player can use his other skills (intellectual, artistic, or athletic) to make money over the summer by trading stocks on Wall Street, by bagging groceries, or by playing another sport...but what he can't do is profit from the game of basketball if he wants to remain eligible. It's a pretty simple distinction to me, and I fully support the NCAA in deeming Kanter ineligible.

El_Diablo
11-12-2010, 10:40 AM
May I ask where you get that Bilas has MSU #1? The only Bilas-rankings I've seen are from Monday's CBB ESPN rankings, where Bilas, along with everyone else at ESPN, has Duke #1 (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/powerrankings/_/show/first).

Bilas ranked MSU #1 at some point over the summer, in one of those pre-pre-season polls.

COYS
11-12-2010, 10:47 AM
Having never received any money to play basketball, Langdon was an amateur basketball player. Having received money to play basketball, Kanter was a professional basketball player.

Amateur basketball players are NCAA-eligible. Professional basketball players are not. Bilas can try to blur the lines by describing Langdon in a higher level of abstraction (as making money for doing something "athletics-related"), but it ignores the distinction that exists at the fundamental level. An NCAA basketball player can use his other skills (intellectual, artistic, or athletic) to make money over the summer by trading stocks on Wall Street, by bagging groceries, or by playing another sport...but what he can't do is profit from the game of basketball if he wants to remain eligible. It's a pretty simple distinction to me, and I fully support the NCAA in deeming Kanter ineligible.

To be fair to the Bilas, though, Jay is arguing that such a distinction is arbitrary and outdated . . . especially given that the sum of money being disputed is $33,000, most of which it appears the Kanter family has not even spent. Jay's argument is that the decision is correct, but the rules are bad. It's fair to disagree with him, of course, but I believe that Bilas is well aware of the distinction between Langdon and Kanter.

Turtleboy
11-12-2010, 10:51 AM
To be fair to the Bilas, though, Jay is arguing that such a distinction is arbitrary and outdated . . . Do you really believe that Bilas is arguing that professional basketball players should be eligible for NCAA play?

Duvall
11-12-2010, 10:58 AM
Do you really believe that Bilas is arguing that professional basketball players should be eligible for NCAA play?

Bilas on amateurism (ESPN insider): (http://insider.espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/blog?name=bilas_jay&id=5734061)


Here is the solution: The NCAA should redefine its concept of amateurism to allow compensation outside of the institution and to bring the principle in line with reality. As with the Olympic model, an amateur should be defined as an athlete that accepts no salary or direct compensation from the institution or its representatives (beyond a scholarship, expenses and stipend to cover cost of attendance), and the athlete should be a full-time student in good-standing. That's it.

Outside income from marketing rights, endorsements, jobs attained because of one's athletic reputation, participation in sport for which compensation-beyond-expenses has been received (which would primarily encompass foreign athletes playing under a different system), and agreements with agents, advisors and other representatives should no longer be illegal or discouraged.

COYS
11-12-2010, 10:59 AM
Do you really believe that Bilas is arguing that professional basketball players should be eligible for NCAA play?

No, he is arguing that the black and white distinction between professional and amateur has been blurred so much that the rules need to be updated to allow players some profit from their basketball abilities without deeming them ineligible. As I said, I don't necessarily agree with Bilas, I just thought that some of the nuances of Bilas' position were being overlooked.

SCMatt33
11-12-2010, 11:02 AM
Do you really believe that Bilas is arguing that professional basketball players should be eligible for NCAA play?

Essentially he is. His article last month essentially thinks that players should be able to earn a living off of their talents (through endorsements, etc., not a salary from the school).

For Kanter, he has professed his belief that foreigners should not be punished for growing up in a system where you are immersed in basketball and receive benefits accordingly. Where I think that Jay is misguided is that he claims that the NCAA shouldn't prevent a player who wants to buck the trend in Europe and come play college basketball from doing so. I have a hard time believing that Kanter came here because he wants to play college ball, but that a year in college would be a better path to a higher draft pick and a better endorsement deal as opposed to staying in Turkey.

COYS
11-12-2010, 11:10 AM
I have a hard time believing that Kanter came here because he wants to play college ball, but that a year in college would be a better path to a higher draft pick and a better endorsement deal as opposed to staying in Turkey.

If there is an area where I disagree with Bilas the most, this is it. There is simply no way Kanter thinks that one year of undergraduate education at Kentucky is so valuable as to forfeit hundreds of thousands of dollars to play for free.

roywhite
11-12-2010, 11:13 AM
To be fair to the Bilas, though, Jay is arguing that such a distinction is arbitrary and outdated . . . especially given that the sum of money being disputed is $33,000, most of which it appears the Kanter family has not even spent. Jay's argument is that the decision is correct, but the rules are bad. It's fair to disagree with him, of course, but I believe that Bilas is well aware of the distinction between Langdon and Kanter.

Why Bilas feels the need to bring Duke into this discussion is unclear and a bit troubling. It's red meat for UK fans and objectionable to this Duke fan for sure.

COYS
11-12-2010, 11:19 AM
Why Bilas feels the need to bring Duke into this discussion is unclear and a bit troubling. It's red meat for UK fans and objectionable to this Duke fan for sure.

UK fans will find something to hate about Duke regardless. While I certainly don't fully agree with Bilas and I sympathize with your feeling that using Duke is objectionable here, I think that Bilas is actually using Langdon precisely because he was/is so well-regarded by most even-keeled college basketball fans. He's basically saying that an a great person who loved the game received money for playing minor league baseball which in no way corrupted the spirit of amateur athletics. While I understand where Bilas is coming from, I think the difference between Kanter and Langdon are immensely more substantial than their similarities. However, I don't feel that Bilas is dragging Langdon's name through the mud.

Duvall
11-12-2010, 11:19 AM
Why Bilas feels the need to bring Duke into this discussion is unclear and a bit troubling. It's red meat for UK fans and objectionable to this Duke fan for sure.

A fair point. Kyle Parker is playing college football right now with a million-dollar signing bonus from the Colorado Rockies in his bank account. Why reach back for an example from the 1990s?

johnb
11-12-2010, 11:36 AM
UK fans will find something to hate about Duke regardless. While I certainly don't fully agree with Bilas and I sympathize with your feeling that using Duke is objectionable here, I think that Bilas is actually using Langdon precisely because he was/is so well-regarded by most even-keeled college basketball fans. ... However, I don't feel that Bilas is dragging Langdon's name through the mud.

I basically agree all round and have never previously been irritated by Bilas's efforts to be even-handed, but it did seem to me that he was throwing Langdon (who most current non-Duke basketball fans probably don't remember) under the bus to make a point.

superdave
11-12-2010, 11:45 AM
Why Bilas feels the need to bring Duke into this discussion is unclear and a bit troubling. It's red meat for UK fans and objectionable to this Duke fan for sure.

Russell Wilson (http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/11830/rules-regarding-nc-states-wilsons-football-eligibility)

Josh Booty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Booty)

Chris Weinke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Weinke)

There are other examples, just not major college basketball ones.

COYS
11-12-2010, 11:46 AM
Russell Wilson (http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/11830/rules-regarding-nc-states-wilsons-football-eligibility)

Josh Booty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Booty)

Chris Weinke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Weinke)

There are other examples, just not major college basketball ones.

I will agree with you that it may have been shortsighted of Bilas not to include other examples of other amateur athletes held in high regard who were in the same situation as Langdon.

4decadedukie
11-12-2010, 12:25 PM
I respectfully take serious exception to Jay's contention that “Nothing is gained by forcing kids to sit out that (A) want to play in college and (B) are full-time students and academically qualified,” referring to Kentucky’s Enes Kanter. Potentially, something absolutely critical is reinforced by Kanter’s disqualification by the NCAA, due to his Turkish professional basketball credentials. Specifically, the integrity of amateurism in intercollegiate athletics is strengthened (not to mention, simple old-fashioned adherence to regulations and policies). I believe this is quite important, especially during an era when the ethics of college athletics are constantly criticized, as a result of the conduct of players, coaches, boosters, agents, administrators and so forth.

Either intercollegiate athletics (particularly, men’s football and basketball) evolve into pro/semi-pro sports, or they do not. If Jay – and others – advocates the former, I respectfully suggest that is the precise purpose of the NBA's Development League, not of college sports.

loran16
11-12-2010, 12:25 PM
"Does anyone believe former Duke star Trajan Langdon did not receive an education, and did not love the game? Well, while Langdon was in college, he earned hundreds of thousands of dollars playing professional baseball in the minor leagues, yet he still suited up for the Blue Devils as an amateur basketball player."

Minor Complaint. Langdon earned a $230,000 signing bonus and very little else in the minors (minor league salaries suck.) Saying it was hundreds of thousands, while technically true, makes it sound like more than that, like he was getting pretty rich off of it. Well, it was a nice amount of money for 3 years of minor league baseball, but he certainly wasn't getting rich.

whereinthehellami
11-12-2010, 01:12 PM
Jay is reaching here and there is no reason to bring Duke into the equation. There is only one reason Kanter is at UK and its not for the education, despite the lame UK press statement. If they let Kanter in, then the flood gates will start to open up. Cal would no doubht have a future lineup of well paid athlete scholars from all over the globe.

CinANC
11-12-2010, 01:56 PM
Minor Complaint. Langdon earned a $230,000 signing bonus and very little else in the minors (minor league salaries suck.) Saying it was hundreds of thousands, while technically true, makes it sound like more than that, like he was getting pretty rich off of it. Well, it was a nice amount of money for 3 years of minor league baseball, but he certainly wasn't getting rich.

Plus, IIRC, he forfeited his athletic scholarship and paid full tuition during five years at Duke. (One year of redshirt.) If so, his net after taxes and tuition/fee costs wouldn't have been much at all.

If I am wrong about losing his ride please correct me...

monkey
11-12-2010, 02:15 PM
Plus, IIRC, he forfeited his athletic scholarship and paid full tuition during five years at Duke. (One year of redshirt.) If so, his net after taxes and tuition/fee costs wouldn't have been much at all.

If I am wrong about losing his ride please correct me...

I was a freshman the same year as Langdon, Wojo and Price ... the story I remember at the time was that his Duke tuition was paid for by the Padres (along with whatever else he got) as a condition of his contract not that he paid it out of pocket.

This People magazine article from 1997 (http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20143705,00.html) says something along these lines: "Langdon is also pursuing a brain-draining dual major in math and history and spends his summer breaks playing minor league baseball for the San Diego Padres, who drafted him out of high school and now pay his Duke tuition. "

Dr. Rosenrosen
11-12-2010, 02:17 PM
Is he really advocating that there should be nothing wrong with athletes receiving compensation from agents, advisors and other representatives? What about boosters? Can you imagine the can of worms this opens? Talk about opportunities to funnel money to kids and influence recruiting. I didn't read the premium article so maybe there is important additional context I am missing, but if he is remotely suggesting this is okay, I am flabergasted.

1991 duke law
11-12-2010, 02:38 PM
If there is an area where I disagree with Bilas the most, this is it. There is simply no way Kanter thinks that one year of undergraduate education at Kentucky is so valuable as to forfeit hundreds of thousands of dollars to play for free.

Good point. I might feel sympathy for Kanter if he was truly interested in pursuing a degree. Somehow, I do not believe that his goal in attending Kentucky is to spend four years getting a valuable Kentucky bachelors degre. If Kanter is really hungry for an education, he can stay on at Kentucky and go to class notwithstanding his inability to play ball. If his real goal is to go to Kentucky for a year and then jump into the draft, his being ruled ineligible for playing professionally does not seem as great an injustice. And I most certainly do not feel any sympathy for John Calipari. By the way, has he ever had a kid that he coaches graduate?

I went to law school with Jay and like him. That being said, I do get the impression that he goes way out of his way to not appear to be supporting Duke.

SCMatt33
11-12-2010, 03:02 PM
I think a lot of people here are reaching to criticize Jay on using Trajan as an example. There are a couple reasons why I would expect Jay to use a Duke example here. First, I saw this point made, but it bears repeating, Trajan is a perfect example of a player who nobody thinks of as a guy who cheated the system, but earned money as an athlete. Second, Duke is the program Jay knows the best. He is still around the program much more than others, so it would make sense that he could easily use an example from Duke. Why would you spend a lot of your time researching another example when you know of a perfectly good one off the top of your head. Third, and most importantly, his point requires a major college basketball example. I can't think of one other basketball player who did this, mostly because spring training is immensely important for minor league baseball players, and it coincides with the NCAA's. Football has a much more compatible schedule, hence, more examples. The only basketball player at all in recent memory that I can think of that played minor league baseball is CJ Henry, but he never did both at the same time, and hasn't done anything of note in the basketball world.

I think everybody needs to strip the name of the front of the jersey and take the coaches out the evaluation when it comes to Kanter. Make no mistake, I am elated that Kanter is ineligible because I like to see UK and I like to see Calipari lose, but am more on the fence once you take UK out of it. While Langdon and Kanter are two different situations, neither one of them had any sinister intent. The one thing that I do agree with Jay about is that Kanter was trying to be an amateur, despite whatever ends to which that would lead. The question is whether getting 30 grand in over the top benefits should prevent that. Langdon is sort of the opposite, because he was trying to be a professional, just in a different sport. Is either one of them worse, not really, just different. You can make reasonable arguments for either one being worse, but I feel that both would split hairs.

Spam Filter
11-12-2010, 03:42 PM
It's not about being better or worse.

It's about one person maintained his amateur basketball player status and the other didn't. It really is just that simple.

1991 duke law
11-12-2010, 03:47 PM
I think a lot of people here are reaching to criticize Jay on using Trajan as an example. There are a couple reasons why I would expect Jay to use a Duke example here. First, I saw this point made, but it bears repeating, Trajan is a perfect example of a player who nobody thinks of as a guy who cheated the system, but earned money as an athlete. Second, Duke is the program Jay knows the best. He is still around the program much more than others, so it would make sense that he could easily use an example from Duke. Why would you spend a lot of your time researching another example when you know of a perfectly good one off the top of your head. Third, and most importantly, his point requires a major college basketball example. I can't think of one other basketball player who did this, mostly because spring training is immensely important for minor league baseball players, and it coincides with the NCAA's. Football has a much more compatible schedule, hence, more examples. The only basketball player at all in recent memory that I can think of that played minor league baseball is CJ Henry, but he never did both at the same time, and hasn't done anything of note in the basketball world.

I think everybody needs to strip the name of the front of the jersey and take the coaches out the evaluation when it comes to Kanter. Make no mistake, I am elated that Kanter is ineligible because I like to see UK and I like to see Calipari lose, but am more on the fence once you take UK out of it. While Langdon and Kanter are two different situations, neither one of them had any sinister intent. The one thing that I do agree with Jay about is that Kanter was trying to be an amateur, despite whatever ends to which that would lead. The question is whether getting 30 grand in over the top benefits should prevent that. Langdon is sort of the opposite, because he was trying to be a professional, just in a different sport. Is either one of them worse, not really, just different. You can make reasonable arguments for either one being worse, but I feel that both would split hairs.

All fair points and well articulated. I am not one that takes the view that Calipari is over the top inappropriate in his recruiting like many others espouse (although I am not going to defend him either). That being said, he certainly appears to have enough warts to make one wonder about his integrity in recruiting. I do wonder whether the Kanter decision by the NCAA was affected at all by the coach that was doing the recruiting. The Bledsoe situation smelled very bad and this didn't look great either. At some level, you wonder if the NCAA felt that they had to do something to demonstrate that they have some teeth.

SCMatt33
11-12-2010, 04:07 PM
All fair points and well articulated. I am not one that takes the view that Calipari is over the top inappropriate in his recruiting like many others espouse (although I am not going to defend him either). That being said, he certainly appears to have enough warts to make one wonder about his integrity in recruiting. I do wonder whether the Kanter decision by the NCAA was affected at all by the coach that was doing the recruiting. The Bledsoe situation smelled very bad and this didn't look great either. At some level, you wonder if the NCAA felt that they had to do something to demonstrate that they have some teeth.

I don't think that this was inappropriate on Cal's part, unlike Rose or allegedly Bledsoe, where he could have known that something wasn't right and took on the risk. Kanter's case was unique in that everyone knew upfront what the situation was up to the point that the NCAA and UK agreed on the facts without an appeal, which is rare. The only question was whether or not the NCAA would allow it, and given the talent pool available last spring, Cal took the shot. Kanter being eligible or ineligible has zero to do with his recruitment or UK. You can't say that Cal was trying to push an obviously ineligible player through the system since the rule had just changed and the was no precedent for a case like Kanter's.

1991 duke law
11-12-2010, 04:25 PM
I don't think that this was inappropriate on Cal's part, unlike Rose or allegedly Bledsoe, where he could have known that something wasn't right and took on the risk. Kanter's case was unique in that everyone knew upfront what the situation was up to the point that the NCAA and UK agreed on the facts without an appeal, which is rare. The only question was whether or not the NCAA would allow it, and given the talent pool available last spring, Cal took the shot. Kanter being eligible or ineligible has zero to do with his recruitment or UK. You can't say that Cal was trying to push an obviously ineligible player through the system since the rule had just changed and the was no precedent for a case like Kanter's.

I wasn't saying that Calipari was doing anything inappropriate but whether the decision would have been different if it was not Calipari that was involved. I do not know enough about this to say that Cal was pushing the envelope, but I do wonder how many other top tier coaches would have pursued Kanter considering his history. What seems clear is that Calipari is not worried about pushing the envelope and taking a chance on risky recruits. As for Calipari's reputation, lest we be too nice to him, he has left behind a sufficient number of fires that one would think that he might be wise to avoid taking risks (but that does not seem his way).

gep
11-13-2010, 12:13 AM
I think a lot of people here are reaching to criticize Jay on using Trajan as an example. There are a couple reasons why I would expect Jay to use a Duke example here. First, I saw this point made, but it bears repeating, Trajan is a perfect example of a player who nobody thinks of as a guy who cheated the system, but earned money as an athlete. Second, Duke is the program Jay knows the best. He is still around the program much more than others, so it would make sense that he could easily use an example from Duke. Why would you spend a lot of your time researching another example when you know of a perfectly good one off the top of your head. Third, and most importantly, his point requires a major college basketball example. I can't think of one other basketball player who did this, mostly because spring training is immensely important for minor league baseball players, and it coincides with the NCAA's. Football has a much more compatible schedule, hence, more examples. The only basketball player at all in recent memory that I can think of that played minor league baseball is CJ Henry, but he never did both at the same time, and hasn't done anything of note in the basketball world.


So... why couldn't Jay simply say that back in the late 90's, a basketball player played minor league baseball during the summer and got paid for it. Go on to say that NCAA rules apparently allow getting paid for other endeavors (sports), which is not clear and consistent. As others apparently feel, just the fact that Duke was involved is all they need to continue to feed fuel to the Duke-hate fire...:confused:

SCMatt33
11-13-2010, 12:27 AM
So... why couldn't Jay simply say that back in the late 90's, a basketball player played minor league baseball during the summer and got paid for it. Go on to say that NCAA rules apparently allow getting paid for other endeavors (sports), which is not clear and consistent. As others apparently feel, just the fact that Duke was involved is all they need to continue to feed fuel to the Duke-hate fire...:confused:

He couldn't do that, because without a name and school, the reference loses it's punch. He might as well just say "People have made money and played in college at the same time." I'm not a writer, but I'm sure that any writer will tell you that a specific citation is more powerful than a general one.

Also, do you really believe that this fuels Duke-hate fire. Show me one person who hates Duke more after reading that than they did beforehand. The only people reading that are serious college basketball fans. Many of them like Duke, many hate Duke. Those opinions won't change for anything, let alone Jay's remarks. If someone has managed to be a big college basketball fan without a strong opinion on Duke, then I'd imagine that Jay's use of Trajan as a reference won't change that. I guess it could technically add fuel to the fire, but only in the same way that dumping a bottle of water into the ocean causes sea level to rise.

loran16
11-13-2010, 12:34 AM
I don't think that this was inappropriate on Cal's part, unlike Rose or allegedly Bledsoe, where he could have known that something wasn't right and took on the risk. Kanter's case was unique in that everyone knew upfront what the situation was up to the point that the NCAA and UK agreed on the facts without an appeal, which is rare. The only question was whether or not the NCAA would allow it, and given the talent pool available last spring, Cal took the shot. Kanter being eligible or ineligible has zero to do with his recruitment or UK. You can't say that Cal was trying to push an obviously ineligible player through the system since the rule had just changed and the was no precedent for a case like Kanter's.

Agreed on this. Plus, It's not like anyone hid Kanter's situation. Calipari does some dirty things it seems, and I don't like him. But this was a smart move for a UK team that was going to be small inside and had a scholarship to burn. Let's recognize when he's dirty and when he's not....there's no need to be unfair when there's plenty to dislike about him.

Duke84
11-13-2010, 12:45 AM
I'd like to think a Duke undergrad, Duke player, Duke law grad, Duke coach, and national basketball commentator is entitled to his opinion. He chose an example which he was familiar with in Langdon - and I think he chose it on purpose. He wants players to go to college and stay in college, and that sometimes a few thousand dollars makes that difference. Not to put words in Jay's mouth, but his point seems to be that the NCAA is too restrictive.

oldnavy
11-13-2010, 06:58 AM
I disagree with Jay on this. Kanter got paid to play basketball, therefore he is by definition a professional basketball player. Professional basketball players cannot play for NCAA College basketball teams. He could go to UK and play baseball if he wanted too.... why is this confusing or unfair? I don't get it.

I also do not think it matters how much he got paid. If it was 3,000, 30,000 or 3 million. Bottom line is he got paid. If we let the amount be a factor, then how do you determine how much is acceptable? Is 30,000 ok, but 30,000.01 not? Slippery slope...

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
11-13-2010, 07:03 AM
I feel like we are veering away from discussing a very provocative article and reacting a bit emotionally to a few of the details.

To wit:

Most on this board would agree that Calipari is not a picture of innocence, but the Kanter situation seems to be totally above board. He knew he was taking a chance in recruiting this player and saw the risks to be worth the potential reward. Everything was in the public eye, and the future of this year's Kentucky team was known to rest in the NCAA's interpretation of the circumstances and the rules. Way different than other Calipari schemes in my book.

Everyone on this board (well, nearly everyone) will fight tooth and nail to defend Duke basketball, but it's Bilas's prerogative to use examples as he pleases. He chose a well-known, generally likable player from a clean program who's eligibility was never called into question to emphasize his point. I seriously doubt anyone's opinion of either Duke or Langdon will waver based on this article.


To me, the much more interesting part of this article is the suggestion that college athletes ought to be free to make money - basically without restriction - if it doesn't come from anyone directly affiliated with the university. Granted, the idea of successful major college athletes working grunt jobs for $7/hour is a bit absurd, but it is any less absurd to think that such a laissez-faire system would not radically alter the landscape of college sports? Also, how would it ever be policed? How would it not dramatically skew the chasm between the haves and the have nots? The quoted bits from the article mentioned on this thread specifically reference "endorsements." Think about that possibility and how it would differently effect programs such as Auburn football and Butler basketball.

I'd be interested to see if anyone on this board sees this as even a remote possibility and how it would possibly be feasible.

4decadedukie
11-13-2010, 07:45 AM
Everyone on this board (well, nearly everyone) will fight tooth and nail to defend Duke basketball, but it's Bilas's prerogative to use examples as he pleases. He chose a well-known, generally likable player from a clean program who's eligibility was never called into question to emphasize his point. I seriously doubt anyone's opinion of either Duke or Langdon will waver based on this article.

Yes, it clearly is Jay’s prerogative to use this example. However, is it not his peers – fellow Duke alumni – privilege to use his willingness to do so (in combination with other examples, over a lengthy period) to assert that he so labors to be perceived as unbiased that sometimes he is unnecessarily critical of and/or less publicly supportive of Duke?


but it is any less absurd to think that such a laissez-faire system would not radically alter the landscape of college sports? Also, how would it ever be policed? How would it not dramatically skew the chasm between the haves and the have nots?

You are certainly correct. Not only would this radically modify the fundamental foundations of amateur intercollegiate athletics, which has served this nation well for many generation – by creating “haves and have nots” athletes, both on individual teams (star versus third-stringer) and among college sports (football versus field hokey) – but it would also be impossible to oversee. How, for example, would one differentiate among the cash “gifts” provided by the pro agent, the illicit gambler seeking point-shaving and the sincere, honest fan or booster who only wants to assist the student-athlete? It is an impossible quagmire that – at best – only serves a VERY small segment (although a highly visible one) of all intercollegiate student-athletes (please remember all those non-Division I competitors, plus those in Division I who play other than football and basketball, and all the female student-athletes). The current situation certainly is not perfect; however, this idea would needlessly destroy a system – amateur intercollegiate athletics, played by individuals who are STUDENTS first – that has served undergraduates, universities and the general public very well for over a century.

sandinmyshoes
11-13-2010, 10:11 AM
I think Bilas is right, to a degree.

There is a lot of hypocrisy in the way NCAA handles "amateurs". I also think using Trajan as an example illustrates it. Trajan and Duke did things the right way, so it removes the bias of looking at this issue in the aura of the UK program.

Jderf
11-13-2010, 10:51 AM
You are certainly correct. Not only would this radically modify the fundamental foundations of amateur intercollegiate athletics, which has served this nation well for many generation – by creating “haves and have nots” athletes, both on individual teams (star versus third-stringer) and among college sports (football versus field hokey) – (1) but it would also be impossible to oversee. How, for example, would one differentiate among the cash “gifts” provided by the pro agent, the illicit gambler seeking point-shaving and the sincere, honest fan or booster who only wants to assist the student-athlete? It is an impossible quagmire that – at best – (2) only serves a VERY small segment (although a highly visible one) of all intercollegiate student-athletes (please remember all those non-Division I competitors, plus those in Division I who play other than football and basketball, and all the female student-athletes). The current situation certainly is not perfect; however, this idea would needlessly destroy a system – amateur intercollegiate athletics, played by individuals who are STUDENTS first – that has served undergraduates, universities and the general public very well for over a century.

I find myself agreeing with Jay in spirit, but not in practice. I've highlighted the two points you made 4DD, which I think make your post devastating for Jay's position. As for (1), the NCAA rulebook is already an unwieldy, monolithic tome. To implement these kinds of rules, they would essentially have to throw out the entire thing and start from scratch; and their unpromising track record makes it hard to predict whether the new version would be better or worse.

But (2) is what really makes your point strong. Though I haven't read the entire article, Jay seems to advocate, among other things, that we can keep the "high-profile players" in college basketball if we let them make money outside the university (i.e. endorsements). But every year, there are only, say, fifteen or twenty college basketball players who stand to profit substantially from this kind of rule change. That's 20 out of approximately 3000. And that's just Div-I NCAA basketball players, a very, very small cross-section of the NCAA: ignoring Div-II, Div-III, and ALL other sports.

Making wholesale changes to the NCAA rulebook for the sake of only a handful of players is just inordinately impractical.

(I do think the system is somewhat broken and unfair to certain players, but the necessary changes should be the NBA's responsibility, not the NCAA's.)

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
11-13-2010, 12:07 PM
You are certainly correct. Not only would this radically modify the fundamental foundations of amateur intercollegiate athletics, which has served this nation well for many generation – by creating “haves and have nots” athletes, both on individual teams (star versus third-stringer) and among college sports (football versus field hokey) – but it would also be impossible to oversee. How, for example, would one differentiate among the cash “gifts” provided by the pro agent, the illicit gambler seeking point-shaving and the sincere, honest fan or booster who only wants to assist the student-athlete? It is an impossible quagmire that – at best – only serves a VERY small segment (although a highly visible one) of all intercollegiate student-athletes (please remember all those non-Division I competitors, plus those in Division I who play other than football and basketball, and all the female student-athletes). The current situation certainly is not perfect; however, this idea would needlessly destroy a system – amateur intercollegiate athletics, played by individuals who are STUDENTS first – that has served undergraduates, universities and the general public very well for over a century.

This seems like another potential huge problem. I don't want the college game to go the way of the NBA - a league of superstars where the role players and coaches are nearly incidental. College teams are built on systems, coaching, and recruiting. Superstars can bring you one year of glory, but rarely sustained success.

Not to mention adding more complications to an already difficult process in determining when improper payments have taken place. How is "university affiliation" determined? What's deemed to be within the realm of reason and what is outside? Even with something like endorsements - can I have my company offer a high school senior a huge sum of money contingent on him playing at a big time university? I sure don't want to waste my marketing budget on a player that won't be on ESPN twice a week.

I normally am a big fan of Jay Bilas and his analysis. I don't see the overcompensation for a non-Duke bias that some here do. However, in this article I don't understand where he's coming from. Yes, the system is broken and unjust. But this isn't the answer.

Bringing it back to Kanter - it appears to me that the system worked to perfection. There was a known issue. Kentucky took a chance that he might be cleared. NCAA investigated before he logged any court time and found him ineligible. All NCAA investigation should be so straightforward.

Now then, let's watch those Blue Devils take the court tomorrow and be thankful that we don't have these issues to be worried about.

GO DUKE

dyedwab
11-13-2010, 11:44 PM
I'm generally sympathetic to Bilas's read of the situation - the NCAA rules re: amateurism need to be revamped especially given the continued influx of players who grew up sports systems that are different from those in the U.S.

I dislike his use of the Langdon example for a couple of reasons. 1) The rule that you can be an amateur in one sport and a pro in another has been on the NCAA books for YEARS - and their are many more prominent athletes who have benefited from in - Danny Ainge played in the Toronto Blue Jays system while playing hoops for BYU while John Elway was a Yankee minor leaguer while at Stanford which he used as leverage to force his trade from the Colts to the Broncos and 2) the Kanter situation isn't about being a pro in one sport and amateur in another.

The real question is the arbitrary way the NCAA deals with benefits and professionalism players who came out of systems in other countries - it still baffles me that Andrew Gaze was eligible as an amateur back in the late 80s.

Orange&BlackSheep
11-14-2010, 03:31 AM
The real question is the arbitrary way the NCAA deals with benefits and professionalism players who came out of systems in other countries - it still baffles me that Andrew Gaze was eligible as an amateur back in the late 80s.

Me too. And his behavior in the classroom (or should we say lack thereof) further underscored the complete ridiculousness of the NCAA's pass given to people in his situation.