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

[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

[uh_no]

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

of course. program 2, or IDM. i think that's slightly different than a fixed track given institutional support, though.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I think this needs to be a separate thread. And that we should remind ourselves of the vast gulf between the realities of football and basketball players and other student athletes. It's becoming two separate universes.

[dlmzzz]

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.

The Supreme Court case NCAA vs. Alston found that anti-trust rules applied to collegiate athletics ("the NCAA and its member schools are commercial enterprises subject to the Sherman Act"), and that "rules limiting education-related compensation" are a violation of the act. The case didn't specifically address limits on non-education related compensation, but principles of anti-trust law as well as comments in the opinions some of the justices wrote imply that the court would be likely to view limitations as "price-fixing labor". It was also suggested that "the NCAA could protect itself from future judicial scrutiny by engaging in collective bargaining with student athletes".

So, my interpretation is that negotiating with a players union is one of the few ways the NCAA could limit compensation (NIL or other kinds) and feel confident it would hold up in court. The NCAA seems to keep hoping that Congress will act on their behalf instead, but that seems very unlikely at the present time.

For now, the NCAA appears to be acting like they have the authority to set rules around compensation, while desperately hoping no one challenges them. As long as they don't try to enforce rules, there's nothing to challenge.

https://harvardlawreview.org/2021/11/ncaa-v-alston/


To respond to points others have made in the thread, "the NCAA and its member schools are commercial enterprises" means that Duke Basketball is (legally) a professional team. I don't see how you have a professional team without having professional athletes.

[dukelifer]

of course. program 2, or IDM. i think that's slightly different than a fixed track given institutional support, though.

That depends. Pratt has some preapproved alternate programs that students can use as guides. The point is that it is possible to create a program within the construct of the current curriculum ( which is in a process of being revised anyway). Yes there would have to be faculty oversight and faculty could agree to not allow this - but some places may do this and so the concept of a student athlete will continue to evolve.

[johnb]

Organizing NIL could expose universities to actually hiring players, which is a different kettle of fish. It’s not an inspired group of administrative thinkers, and they seem content to allow a Wild West until forced to do something else.

I have a bigger problem with transfer rules that don’t seem to have graduation/education as an end goal. I don’t trust these universities to do what’s in the best interest of the athletes unless they are being forced to do so.

When forced, as they have increasingly been over the past few decades, the process has really improved. Football and basketball players are generally graduating, with 81% of FBS football players and 84% of Div I basketball players graduating within 6 years.

This is way better than when I first started following college sports back in the late 1960’s and 1970’s. I don’t give all the credit to colleges. Much has to do with ncaa recruitment legislation and with a reduction in the structural racism that led to segregation and really crummy schools for disenfranchised youth. That’s lefty language, but the proof is in the pudding: far more than in the 70’s, recruited athletes are prepared for college work (albeit with support not generally available to other students), and most elite basketball players appear to be recruitable by Duke, which wasn’t the case when I was in college.

Anyway, colleges are going to cut corners, and there needs to be a mandate for these colleges to demonstrate a pathway for graduation—and then publicize and enforce it. That’s true for anybody, but probably especially transfers. And while it’s probably most notable for the men, it’s also an issue for the women. For example, LSU’s best player became a media focus after the arguably poor sportsmanship in last night’s game. The child and sibling of great athletes, she spent 2 years at Maryland before transferring to LSU. An obviously great player, she wasn’t allowed to be a Wooden finalist because her LSU GPA was under 2.0. That seems to be below the NCAA eligibility limit, but I’m guessing they found some sort of eligibility loophole. Is LSU mandated to monitor her progress towards a degree? Do they care one way or the other as long as they can keep her eligible? Should we care as long as the process attracts eyeballs?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Organizing NIL could expose universities to actually hiring players, which is a different kettle of fish. It’s not an inspired group of administrative thinkers, and they seem content to allow a Wild West until forced to do something else.

I have a bigger problem with transfer rules that don’t seem to have graduation/education as an end goal. I don’t trust these universities to do what’s in the best interest of the athletes unless they are being forced to do so.

When forced, as they have increasingly been over the past few decades, the process has really improved. Football and basketball players are generally graduating, with 81% of FBS football players and 84% of Div I basketball players graduating within 6 years.

This is way better than when I first started following college sports back in the late 1960’s and 1970’s. I don’t give all the credit to colleges. Much has to do with ncaa recruitment legislation and with a reduction in the structural racism that led to segregation and really crummy schools for disenfranchised youth. That’s lefty language, but the proof is in the pudding: far more than in the 70’s, recruited athletes are prepared for college work (albeit with support not generally available to other students), and most elite basketball players appear to be recruitable by Duke, which wasn’t the case when I was in college.

Anyway, colleges are going to cut corners, and there needs to be a mandate for these colleges to demonstrate a pathway for graduation—and then publicize and enforce it. That’s true for anybody, but probably especially transfers. And while it’s probably most notable for the men, it’s also an issue for the women. For example, LSU’s best player became a media focus after the arguably poor sportsmanship in last night’s game. The child and sibling of great athletes, she spent 2 years at Maryland before transferring to LSU. An obviously great player, she wasn’t allowed to be a Wooden finalist because her LSU GPA was under 2.0. That seems to be below the NCAA eligibility limit, but I’m guessing they found some sort of eligibility loophole. Is LSU mandated to monitor her progress towards a degree? Do they care one way or the other as long as they can keep her eligible? Should we care as long as the process attracts eyeballs?

Anyone who starts talking about the academic rigors for revenue athletes, I always just have one question that sort of puts it all in perspective...

When's the last time you heard of a P5 revenue sports athlete being placed on academic suspension?

I guess all athletes at the highest level must just be much smarter than they were 30-40 years ago?

No. There are systems in place everywhere that allow players and schools to maintain compliance. And if you don't think there's a massive gap between "compliance" and "academics," I would love to hear that argument.

Basketball and football players are by and large employees, not scholarship academics.

Yes. Of course there are exceptions. But by and large this is a money making entertainment wing of a college.

[JasonEvans]

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 don't know why you brought academics into the discussion as I did not mention it at all. Why should things be any different than they are today when it comes to the classroom responsibilities of the athletes? I see no reason the NCAA or the schools would change any of that.

What I said was that "pay for play" should be allowed and should be open. I mean, we all know it functionally already exists, just hidden behind ludicrous NIL deals. I am not saying anything else needs to change as a result of this.

In fact, I think what would work best would be for the schools and the NCAA to devise a standard contract (with everything except the length and the dollar amount filled in) that would be used for players and boosters/consortiums. The contract could even incentivize academic performance if everyone thinks that would be a good thing.

All I am saying is take something shady and shine a light upon it so it is out in the open. The old days of unpaid athletes is a thing of the past. Let us now embrace the new system that is more fair to the student athletes who have toiled for far less than they are worth for far too long.

[scottdude8]

Whenever this conversation comes up, I'm reminded of the eerily prescient bit of Kurt Vonnegut's Player Piano that satirizes college athletics, 50+ years ahead of its time. Some of the juiciest morsels:

Roseberry groaned. "How the hell long they think a man can play college football?" he wanted to know. Six years before, Cornell had bought him from Wabash college, and asked him to list his idea of a dream team. Then, by God they'd bought it for him.

In the first two years the football team had paid for itself. In the next three, it had paid for a new chemistry building, a head and power laboratory, a new administration building for the Agricultural Engineering Department, and four new professiorial chairs.

"And I could study too? You'd give me time off for classes and study?"

Roseberry frowned. "Well, there's some pretty stiff rulings about that. You can't play college football, and go to school. They tried that once, and you know what a silly mess that was."

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Whenever this conversation comes up, I'm reminded of the eerily prescient bit of Kurt Vonnegut's Player Piano that satirizes college athletics, 50+ years ahead of its time. Some of the juiciest morsels:

Sporks for Vonnegut! And for relevance! And showing how very not new this situation is.

[jipops]

Anyone who starts talking about the academic rigors for revenue athletes, I always just have one question that sort of puts it all in perspective...

When's the last time you heard of a P5 revenue sports athlete being placed on academic suspension?

I guess all athletes at the highest level must just be much smarter than they were 30-40 years ago?

No. There are systems in place everywhere that allow players and schools to maintain compliance. And if you don't think there's a massive gap between "compliance" and "academics," I would love to hear that argument.

Basketball and football players are by and large employees, not scholarship academics.

Yes. Of course there are exceptions. But by and large this is a money making entertainment wing of a college.

Agreed. I have a hard time believing that an athlete (especially in a revenue producing sport) is supposed to perform the same as a regular student when there is a 9pm Monday night nationally televised game in Tallahassee and a 9am Physics exam the next day as well as a History paper due on Wednesday. Sure, there is academic support staff in place (largely for compliance stated above). But expecting these kids to take on arduous academic tasks while also focusing on the time and effort it takes to complete at an elite level of college athletics in order to satisfy television ratings and our own fan-based desires is pretty much absurd. Not every kid can be Shane Battier

[scottdude8]

Sporks for Vonnegut! And for relevance! And showing how very not new this situation is.

There's a Vonnegut quote for so many modern situations, which is incredible considering when he wrote. Heck, the entirety of Player Piano speaks to the very modern challenge we face of the automatization of so many jobs. What'll happen to us when the only jobs are those who manage the AI that does every other job for us?

But I digress. Anyways, if anyone is looking for some good reading, go read some Vonnegut. They're quick, easy, hilarious reads that are simultaneously some of the more thought provoking pieces of literature out there, IMHO. And if you like modern "meta" comedy, Vonnegut was doing it decades before it was cool (hi Killgore Trout!).

Now, back to your regularly scheduled thread digression.

[bshrader]

There's a Vonnegut quote for so many modern situations, which is incredible considering when he wrote. Heck, the entirety of Player Piano speaks to the very modern challenge we face of the automatization of so many jobs. What'll happen to us when the only jobs are those who manage the AI that does every other job for us?

But I digress. Anyways, if anyone is looking for some good reading, go read some Vonnegut. They're quick, easy, hilarious reads that are simultaneously some of the more thought provoking pieces of literature out there, IMHO. And if you like modern "meta" comedy, Vonnegut was doing it decades before it was cool (hi Killgore Trout!).

Now, back to your regularly scheduled thread digression.

My absolute favorite quote from Vonnegut comes as probably his most simplistic quote he ever wrote...from Slaughterhouse 5.

"So it goes."

[MChambers]

My absolute favorite quote from Vonnegut comes as probably his most simplistic quote he ever wrote...from Slaughterhouse 5.

"So it goes."

Turning this back to sports, did you know Vonnegut worked at SI, very briefly?

https://danwin.com/2012/05/kurt-vonn...g-an-employee/

[Phredd3]

Anyone who starts talking about the academic rigors for revenue athletes, I always just have one question that sort of puts it all in perspective...

When's the last time you heard of a P5 revenue sports athlete being placed on academic suspension?

I haven't been able to confirm it, but likely just this past season. DWBB had a player who mysteriously disappeared from the team during the early part of Christmas break...just about the time final grade should have come out. She didn't play another game for Duke despite having been a solid rotation player for the team earlier in the season, and she put her name in the portal pretty much on the first day it was open. Duke isn't going to announce an academic suspension, but the evidence seems to point to that conclusion.