Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 157
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    New York

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

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

    Mike DeCourcy of The Sporting News has Duke at #3

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, NC
    Seeing Virginia and the Cheaters ranked in the top twenty-five make me wonder about the writers predictions.

    GoDuke!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    not sure what the point is of these rankings (OK, I do, it's clicks) when so many rosters are not yet set.

  4. #4
    Michigan State will be a top 5 team

  5. #5
    I am confident UNC will find enough talent for a tournament team. Much less sure about UVA.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO
    Quote Originally Posted by budwom View Post
    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?

  7. #7
    It's interesting to read. I'm reading it. They've got me because I'm a sucker.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    The article is not up to DeCourcy’s usual standards. Flip is almost certain to go and Lively is only likely?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    New York
    https://heatcheckcbb.com/college-bas...023-24-season/

    Heatcheckcbb.com also has Duke at #3.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by TywinBlue View Post
    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?”

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Quote Originally Posted by simplyluvin View Post
    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.

  12. #12
    There are a lot of stones being thrown at other programs right now that I don't quite understand.

  13. #13
    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.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Mechanicsburg, PA
    Quote Originally Posted by Skydog View Post
    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.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by Skydog View Post
    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.
    concur.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Nigel Pack needs to get an NIL deal with ShoeWallet

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Skydog View Post
    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.
    No stomach or no framework?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO
    Quote Originally Posted by Skydog View Post
    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.
    Don't disagree with your opinions, but the facts are different. NIL's "rationale" was that it was shoved down the throat of the NCAA teams by state governments allowing college athletes to do endorsements.

    Second, another poster referred to a Supreme Court decision allowing athletes to unionize. Actually the Supreme Court decision allowed athletes to receive $6 thou or so in other reimbursements. It was the NLRB that allowed scholarship athletes to organize at, I believe, Northwestern. The catch here is that the Natl. Labor Relations Board has zero, zip, nada say about state employees, so the ruling could be applied only to private universities and not to Bama, Texas, Ohio State or Carolina.

    I am sure others will correct me, if necessary.

  19. #19
    The NCAA completely ignored this issue for decades. They could have put a reasonable system in place to allow for some level of compensation. Instead they sat on their hands and waited for court cases to move the needle.

    It's a result of incompetence and a lack of spine.

    Is it awkward? Sure. Is it fair? Who knows. Is it WAY overdue? Absolutely.

    The NCAA created this hot mess and now lacks the capacity to address it. Too bad, so sad.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    The NCAA completely ignored this issue for decades. They could have put a reasonable system in place to allow for some level of compensation. Instead they sat on their hands and waited for court cases to move the needle.

    It's a result of incompetence and a lack of spine.

    Is it awkward? Sure. Is it fair? Who knows. Is it WAY overdue? Absolutely.

    The NCAA created this hot mess and now lacks the capacity to address it. Too bad, so sad.
    The NCAA is an association of hundreds and hundreds of schools. Like the US Congress, it is hard to make changes but much easier to keep change from happening.

Similar Threads

  1. 2023-24 (too early) projected lineups
    By proelitedota in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 04-19-2023, 02:15 PM
  2. Get your 2023 Football Tix early
    By pokeresq in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-02-2023, 02:25 PM
  3. Way Too Early 2022-2023 Speculation
    By BigZ in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 359
    Last Post: 10-04-2022, 05:10 PM
  4. Way Too Early Top 25 Rankings
    By DavidBenAkiva in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 142
    Last Post: 10-12-2021, 03:35 PM
  5. Way too early ACC rankings for next year
    By gofurman in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-16-2012, 09:38 AM

Posting Permissions

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