Way Way Way too early 2023-24 top 25 NCAA Men's Basketball rankings

[TywinBlue]

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/ncaa...38isgvw0j3eq0q

Mike DeCourcy of The Sporting News has Duke at #3

[jv001]

Seeing Virginia and the Cheaters ranked in the top twenty-five make me wonder about the writers predictions.

GoDuke!

[budwom]

not sure what the point is of these rankings (OK, I do, it's clicks) when so many rosters are not yet set.

[sagegrouse]

not sure what the point is of these rankings (OK, I do, it's clicks) when so many rosters are not yet set.

Because dopes like us will read the articles?

[DavidBenAkiva]

It's interesting to read. I'm reading it. They've got me because I'm a sucker.

[JGDUKE2008]

Michigan State will be a top 5 team

[HPDevil]

I am confident UNC will find enough talent for a tournament team. Much less sure about UVA.

[MChambers]

The article is not up to DeCourcy’s usual standards. Flip is almost certain to go and Lively is only likely?

[TywinBlue]

https://heatcheckcbb.com/college-bas...023-24-season/

Heatcheckcbb.com also has Duke at #3.

[simplyluvin]

https://heatcheckcbb.com/college-bas...023-24-season/

Heatcheckcbb.com also has Duke at #3.

Love this quotation on the Canes: “Among Miami’s returners, the future of Isaiah Wong is the most murky. Does he want to start his professional career? Or run it back and cash a few more LifeWallet checks?”

[tommy]

Love this quotation on the Canes: “Among Miami’s returners, the future of Isaiah Wong is the most murky. Does he want to start his professional career? Or run it back and cash a few more LifeWallet checks?”

Not sure why the hate on Miami and LifeWallet. Lots and lots of programs, including ours, include guys who are getting paid plenty in NIL. Miami's guy is just more open about it. To me, that's a good thing. I think everyone needs to get off their high horse about NIL. We're in it. Everyone is in it. It's the new reality, like it or not.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

There are a lot of stones being thrown at other programs right now that I don't quite understand.

[Skydog]

In theory NIL was allowed under the rationale that the players should be able to keep what they earned off their own N, I & L. That is not the same as players getting paid due to booster bidding wars. The former is based on the marketing value of the player while the latter is based on the wealth and generosity of team boosters.

Those are two very different routes of $ going to players. They differ in their rationales and justifications, they have different ethical issues and have different effects on the bball landscape. I think the differences are largely ignored because everone expects the reality will be the rich booster model dominating, even when it is sold as a “player getting to keep what he/she earned” model.

Also I think the difference is being swept under the rug because the NCAA has no stomach to return to policing the whole kit and caboodle.

[AGDukesky]

In theory NIL was allowed under the rationale that the players should be able to keep what they earned off their own N, I & L. That is not the same as players getting paid due to booster bidding wars. The former is based on the marketing value of the player while the latter is based on the wealth and generosity of team boosters.

Those are two very different routes of $ going to players. They differ in their rationales and justifications, they have different ethical issues and have different effects on the bball landscape. I think the differences are largely ignored because everone expects the reality will be the rich booster model dominating, even when it is sold as a “player getting to keep what he/she earned” model.

Also I think the difference is being swept under the rug because the NCAA has no stomach to return to policing the whole kit and caboodle.

Well said. I support players earning what they are worth in the endorsement market- not boosters buying players.

[JasonEvans]

In theory NIL was allowed under the rationale that the players should be able to keep what they earned off their own N, I & L. That is not the same as players getting paid due to booster bidding wars. The former is based on the marketing value of the player while the latter is based on the wealth and generosity of team boosters.

Those are two very different routes of $ going to players. They differ in their rationales and justifications, they have different ethical issues and have different effects on the bball landscape. I think the differences are largely ignored because everone expects the reality will be the rich booster model dominating, even when it is sold as a “player getting to keep what he/she earned” model.

Also I think the difference is being swept under the rug because the NCAA has no stomach to return to policing the whole kit and caboodle.

Well said. I support players earning what they are worth in the endorsement market- not boosters buying players.

So, I would argue the exact opposite -- that we need to let boosters bid on players more openly. What we need is a system that actually pays players to... wait for it... play basketball, not a system where we attempt to hide what is really happening here by pretending like Wong and Pack are "endorsing" LifeWallet or where Arkansas players are being paid absurd sums of money to make appearances at hospitals and other charitable organizations (allowing the Hunt trucking family to claim all of this as a tax deduction).

If programs and their boosters could actually make formal contracts with players then not only would this sketchy activity be happening out of the open, but there might be a bit more continuity to programs. Boosters could tie payments to players staying 2 or 3 or even all 4 years at a specific school. There is really no reason for college players and pros to be treated so dramatically different. In both cases, they are playing a sport on TV for huge audiences. Why in one instance are the negotiations and the contracts out in the open (a system that benefits the players as they can see what similar players are worth) while it is largely hidden in the other?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

So, I would argue the exact opposite -- that we need to let boosters bid on players more openly. What we need is a system that actually pays players to... wait for it... play basketball, not a system where we attempt to hide what is really happening here by pretending like Wong and Pack are "endorsing" LifeWallet or where Arkansas players are being paid absurd sums of money to make appearances at hospitals and other charitable organizations (allowing the Hunt trucking family to claim all of this as a tax deduction).

If programs and their boosters could actually make formal contracts with players then not only would this sketchy activity be happening out of the open, but there might be a bit more continuity to programs. Boosters could tie payments to players staying 2 or 3 or even all 4 years at a specific school. There is really no reason for college players and pros to be treated so dramatically different. In both cases, they are playing a sport on TV for huge audiences. Why in one instance are the negotiations and the contracts out in the open (a system that benefits the players as they can see what similar players are worth) while it is largely hidden in the other?

Agreed.

We need to stop pretending there's a high horse here to perch on for student athletes. If we want to roll back the clock and have student athletes, I'm actually fine with that, but it will mean some serious adjustments to revenue sports.

Our football and basketball players may do more than some other schools, that's nothing to sneeze at. But I don't think we are in rarified air in the academic realm for our basketball squad.

Please, if I am wrong, let me know, but only if you have actual data.

[1991 duke law]

So, I would argue the exact opposite -- that we need to let boosters bid on players more openly. What we need is a system that actually pays players to... wait for it... play basketball, not a system where we attempt to hide what is really happening here by pretending like Wong and Pack are "endorsing" LifeWallet or where Arkansas players are being paid absurd sums of money to make appearances at hospitals and other charitable organizations (allowing the Hunt trucking family to claim all of this as a tax deduction).

If programs and their boosters could actually make formal contracts with players then not only would this sketchy activity be happening out of the open, but there might be a bit more continuity to programs. Boosters could tie payments to players staying 2 or 3 or even all 4 years at a specific school. There is really no reason for college players and pros to be treated so dramatically different. In both cases, they are playing a sport on TV for huge audiences. Why in one instance are the negotiations and the contracts out in the open (a system that benefits the players as they can see what similar players are worth) while it is largely hidden in the other?

Jason - does the concept of student athlete really exist in the world that you are proposing?

I acknowledge that some of these athletes may be students - but it sounds like we will now have professional teams under the guise of being in college. I am not sure why we even require that they attend classes. Are we simply validating everything that Carolina did for decades - basketball players need not be educated.

I am not saying in way, shape or form that I am correct. I admit that my view may be antiquated. But personally, I do not like this. In fact I hate it. For college basketball to evolve so that Duke’s ability to have continuity of players - can only be achieved by boosters with sufficient wealth to deploy to athletes - is not the model of college athletics that I wish to support. That said, I have always largely been blind by my misbelief that kids playing basketball at Duke come because Duke is a great academic institution. This is clearly a new world and I recognize that I am but a dinosaur.

[dukelifer]

Jason - does the concept of student athlete really exist in the world that you are proposing?

I acknowledge that some of these athletes may be students - but it sounds like we will now have professional teams under the guise of being in college. I am not sure why we even require that they attend classes. Are we simply validating everything that Carolina did for decades - basketball players need not be educated.

I am not saying in way, shape or form that I am correct. I admit that my view may be antiquated. But personally, I do not like this. In fact I hate it. For college basketball to evolve so that Duke’s ability to have continuity of players - can only be achieved by boosters with sufficient wealth to deploy to athletes - is not the model of college athletics that I wish to support. That said, I have always largely been blind by my misbelief that kids playing basketball at Duke come because Duke is a great academic institution. This is clearly a new world and I recognize that I am but a dinosaur.

Universities may need to evolve. Students at Duke can now take courses on personal branding, social media, public speaking, nutrition and money management. Perhaps it is time to create a structure that allow some athletes to still take part of the college experience but tailor that experience to what the athletes may want for their pro careers.

[uh_no]

Universities may need to evolve. Students at Duke can now take courses on personal branding, social media, public speaking, nutrition and money management. Perhaps it is time to create a structure that allow some athletes to still take part of the college experience but tailor that experience to what the athletes may want for their pro careers.

there is zero chance the faculty at Duke changes the curriculum to enable athletes. they'd just as soon eliminate the athletics subsidy altogether.

[dukelifer]

there is zero chance the faculty at Duke changes the curriculum to enable athletes. they'd just as soon eliminate the athletics subsidy altogether.

Duke allows students to create their own major- so within that something could be crafted