I Hate This Era
- Thread starter ABLCommenter
- Start date
communist, free market, etc- yea I'd heard it all
however old I am, college athletics were supposed to be about not being a pro,
being a pro means incentive based contracts, retention bonuses that are never meant to be paid and an up or out dynamic where if you tear an acl, or go into a slump, your benched, dumped and thrown to the curb while 5 other kids line up to take your cut.
Is that what you want Kentucky basketball to be about? is that what you want college athletics to be about?
maybe its good being old, because I still place value in loyalty and keeping your word.
and btw, a governing body at every institution determines who gets paid, They are called the Board of Trustees.
however old I am, college athletics were supposed to be about not being a pro,
being a pro means incentive based contracts, retention bonuses that are never meant to be paid and an up or out dynamic where if you tear an acl, or go into a slump, your benched, dumped and thrown to the curb while 5 other kids line up to take your cut.
Is that what you want Kentucky basketball to be about? is that what you want college athletics to be about?
maybe its good being old, because I still place value in loyalty and keeping your word.
and btw, a governing body at every institution determines who gets paid, They are called the Board of Trustees.
I'm sorry, but you are living in the past. College athletics have changed, and it's never going back. Schools, TV Networks, etc . are making billions off these kids. It didn't use to be like. But here we are, you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube
Exactly.
And the coaches that overpay for mediocre or lousy players won’t likely be around for very long.
You better be able to evaluate talent and find “bargains” if you want to survive in this climate as a coach.
How hot will the seat be for BYU’s coach next season, if let’s say they flame out in the first or second round with Dybantsa, Wright: and Saunders plus whoever else they manage to sign with all that big LDS money?
These big NIL donors are looking for a return on their investment. They won’t take it too well and keep investing big bucks if they don’t get what they want, which is ultimately a Final Four and title.
I didn't say it was going back
but there is a difference in understanding the downside of this and having someone who just took a econ 101 tell me I am a communist or don't understand capitalism because you point out how it started and why its bad for the sport.
here is the another thing no one is talking about - your program being held hostage by a major NIL donor.
As I understand it, Joe Craft pulled his funding after a fallout with Calipari. Now for most fans, no one cared because it contributed, probably significantly, to Cal's decision to go to Arkansas who promises him a huge NIL fund. If people recall, Kelly Craft ran for Governor and wanted Tshiebwe to appear in campaign ads which Cal balked at.
NIL funding can be fickle, and it may not always be about winning. We could have been in a situation where instead of getting a Mark Pope, we got a Joe Craft approved coach.
so I understand this is the world we live in now, but "ok boomer" isn't a valid answer when you think its just about old farts who don't like the idea of young kids getting paid millions.
Last edited:
Brutally honest statement but one deep down we all agree with, unless that small college knocks off Duke in NCAA Tourny, adapting to thread below we loved the Bowie Turpin era but I remember them getting knocked off by Middle Tennessee in Tournament, but agree we love the cupcakes.
Doesn't matter. What's right is right, and what's wrong is wrong. It may go on this way, but it is wrong.
Amateurism is a myth and always has been.
No one is making billions of college sports.
NIL aside, it costs a hell of a lot of money to put a team on the field/ court.
UK basketball makes a profit but look what they spend on basketball.
Most D1 basketball programs lose money or barely break even.
College football teams actually lose money traveling to minor bowls .
How much does UK spend annually putting the team up in a hotel the night before a home game?
Kentucky basketball made somewhere around 35 million dollars last year and cleared 13 million after expenses. Good for ninth place.
13 million is better than it has been in previous years.
Idk where that number goes post revenue sharing.
Universities bring in a lot of revenue because of sports teams not reflected in these profit/loss metrics.
For example, potential big dollar donors are brought to games while they are being wooed.
Students will choose one school over another based on strength of sports programs.
Deep postseason runs are essentially free advertising for colleges.
We also shouldn’t pretend that boosters having outsized influence over a school’s athletics department is anything new.
In 1895, after years of bemoaning how athletics (football in particular) were becoming far too important and commercialized, Harvard’s president succeeded in convincing the faculty to vote to ban football.
Wealthy alumni immediately intervened and convinced Harvard Corporation to overturn the faculty’s decision.
Boosters have had a significant role in calling the shots since the earliest stages of college athletics.
absolutely
but I"m not sure you can say its been this direct since the money from the donor goes straight to the player with no middleman.
That’s not true either. Boosters have been directly paying athletes since the beginning.
And when schools first started to recruit athletes, that work was largely handled by the alumni networks. Alumni would scout players, pass info to the head coach and handle much of the direct communication with prospective athletes.
One could legitimately argue that what’s happening today is simply college athletics getting back to its early roots.
No, you don't get a refund because someone shot poorly just like you don't get a refund because you don't like a movie.
You paid for the entertainment experience for good or for ill, not a guaranteed outcome.
Yeah, there are a number of well-researched books that dig into the history of college athletics that’s folks can read if they’re genuinely interested in learning about it. There are also contemporaneous writings (e.g., 1905 McClure’s Magazine expose on college athletics, 1929 Carnegie Foundation Report), folks could easily access through a library.
If people did learn more about the history of college sports, then they’d also understand pretty quickly that the things we see today have always been part of college athletics.
One example that always stuck with me (can’t remember which book discussed it), was the movie “Saturday’s Heroes,” which was released in 1937. The NY Times review included the following:
“College football pictures hardly ever vary by so much as one esthetic milligram in either plot or intellectual weight from year to year, and another thing which binds them together with a certain timelessness is the way all of them are tinged with a rather melancholy note of cynicism and disillusionment concerning college football. This probably means that there is some truth to the rumor that commercialism is rampant in the athletic departments of our higher educational institutions.”
Another synopsis of the film stated:
“Developing the thesis that professionalism in college football should be made legitimate, this film presents the argument that as long as colleges make money on their football teams, the players are justified in sharing in the profits.”
If I hadn’t mentioned the year that film came out, I suspect most casual fans would assume those excerpts were discussing something released within the past 10-15 years. But the fact that they were making movies about this back in 1937 highlights the fact that college athletics have never been the pure institution people want to believe it was.
Can’t argue with it. And I’ll never call you greedy.
If you go to a movie and do not like it, I agree, it just wasn't something you liked.
Now if you go to the movies and the sound is distorted so bad you can not hear the words, the picture itself is distorted and can not watch it, you are entitled to a refund. You did not get what you paid for.
You go out to eat at say, Malones, order the Wagu steak for $150 and it is tough as leather, you have a right to ask for the manger and not pay for it (of course this is if you did not eat it) because you did not get what you paid for.
Players getting millions to play and do not play up to their billing, NIL boosters have the right to say, "wait a minute, I am not paying for this crap".
At some point the fans will revolt.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the old way was wrong.
I don't understand why you guys are struggling so hard to accept and embrace the new era of college athletics.
The college system has always been a system of contradictions. It’s about education but also about ignoring educational standards. It’s not a pro league, but it’s about how much you can offer. The schools made millions, the players made nothing.
There’s really no great reason that education is intertwined with pro-sports. It just evolved that way as college sports became a big business.
Part of the reason we are in the place we are in today is due to denial about what college sports are. The other major reason is that the college programs don't want to let go of revenue.
I actually enjoy the transfer portal, personally. Keeps interest going after the season.
There’s really no great reason that education is intertwined with pro-sports. It just evolved that way as college sports became a big business.
Part of the reason we are in the place we are in today is due to denial about what college sports are. The other major reason is that the college programs don't want to let go of revenue.
I actually enjoy the transfer portal, personally. Keeps interest going after the season.
Because a couple million bucks to a multi-billionaire is like you and I spending $20.
I don’t think some folks grasp how much money a billion dollars is. You can buy a lot of ball players for 1 million x 1000.
These people have more money than they could spend in 10 lifetimes. Buying a shooting guard to them is like buying a burger to us.
There are still issues, but NIL isn't really one of them. Players deserve to get paid especially the ones who will never be in the NBA.
The product on the floor is as good as it has been in a long time.
The product on the floor is as good as it has been in a long time.
I agree but poor performance isn't a technical issue.
If you order Wagu and it us tough then it almost certainly is not Wagu or probably even choice, that is a scam not a perfectly cooked piece of very speciality meat but for ever reason isn't your cup of tea.
We need to get ahead and start donating for next year hey if my fifty dollars can give me this much fun I am all for it we spent 12 million this year let's make it 15 million next year we have to stay ahead and let the big time players know money is not a issue here at Kentucky also looking forward to that state of the art practice facility
Yeah, it's really tough being a fan right now, especially of the biggest college sports- football and men's basketball. You go from being all amateurs to all being pros. Then you go from getting a little money from name, image, and likeness to signing yearly contracts. Then you go from occasional transfers to everyone being a free agent multiple times a year.
There need to be some rules put into place. Need a salary cap. Need a limit on number of times a player can transfer. I just wonder how long it's going to take to sort all of the stuff out. I fear we're gonna have put up with all this junk for a while as they get all of it figured out. I am definitely glad we've got a coach like Mark Pope who puts the school first and teaches his guys the value of this program. I'm hoping we have a higher retention rate than many others.
There need to be some rules put into place. Need a salary cap. Need a limit on number of times a player can transfer. I just wonder how long it's going to take to sort all of the stuff out. I fear we're gonna have put up with all this junk for a while as they get all of it figured out. I am definitely glad we've got a coach like Mark Pope who puts the school first and teaches his guys the value of this program. I'm hoping we have a higher retention rate than many others.
These guys were never amateurs. It’s been about winning from the start. Schools have paying athletes from the beginning and the transfers today aren’t as bad as they were a 100+ years ago.
In 1903, John Tobin was enrolled at Nebraska and going through fall camp. Amos Stagg, the head coach at University of Chicago, wanted Tobin for that season. He had just hired a new assistant coach from Nebraska and told him to go get Tobin. The assistant jumped on a train, made Tobin an offer and Tobin played for Chicago that fall instead of Nebraska. Nebraska responded by stealing back Charles Borg. Coaches were frequently poaching players from other schools in a similar fashion.
Personally, I think it’s better to just be honest about the reality of what college athletics is and has always been. And if schools want to place limits on players, then the schools need to be willing to offer up something to the players in return.
What is unlikeable about it?
Is it the money? The ability to transfer over and over again? Just curious what you dislike.
For me, just think there should be a limit to transferring....simple as that. Shouldn't be able to leave a school more than once as a transfer.
I much prefer this era of basketball to the Calipari players we had to watch go to the NBA when they weren't ready and obviously needed more time in college.
Teague, Lamb, Goodwin, Harrison twins, Dakari, Skal, Ulis, Vanderbilt, Dialo, Boston, Tyty, Livingston, Edwards, Hagans, Gabriel, Briscoe, Montgomery, Whitney .......
Or how bout the players that transfered cause of Calipari: Wiltjer, Baker, Juzang, Matthews, Brooks, ware, Fletcher, Askew, Toppin, Allen
And the one player that used our facilities: Sharpe
Cal era was great til about 2019, cause we were winning
So if Pope wins here , I'm not sure what we would complain about. It can't be worst than the unnecessary exodus of players we had for the last 13 years
Teague, Lamb, Goodwin, Harrison twins, Dakari, Skal, Ulis, Vanderbilt, Dialo, Boston, Tyty, Livingston, Edwards, Hagans, Gabriel, Briscoe, Montgomery, Whitney .......
Or how bout the players that transfered cause of Calipari: Wiltjer, Baker, Juzang, Matthews, Brooks, ware, Fletcher, Askew, Toppin, Allen
And the one player that used our facilities: Sharpe
Cal era was great til about 2019, cause we were winning
So if Pope wins here , I'm not sure what we would complain about. It can't be worst than the unnecessary exodus of players we had for the last 13 years
Well, there were many who were amateurs, and all of them were "officially." The ones who weren't were getting paid under the table. How many were actually being paid though? Maybe I'm naive. I still think the vast majority weren't being paid, and none of them were able to publicly, so no public threats of hold outs in those days.
Anyway, I will grant you that it's better having things out in the open and paying the players what they're worth to some degree, but is there no limit? And what about the schools and teams who lack the money to buy the best players? They're just out of luck and can't compete. So, the high major schools just steal the top players from all the mid to low majors every single season, and you end up with March with no upsets and four 1-seeds in the Final Four.
I guess for me, I can see the positives with this and also the negative side. There are some things I like about it but some I don't like. And I will admit that some of that is about my dislike of change and my need to have some time to adjust to it.
Well, there were many who were amateurs, and all of them were "officially." The ones who weren't were getting paid under the table. How many were actually being paid though? Maybe I'm naive. I still think the vast majority weren't being paid, and none of them were able to publicly, so no public threats of hold outs in those days.
Anyway, I will grant you that it's better having things out in the open and paying the players what they're worth to some degree, but is there no limit? And what about the schools and teams who lack the money to buy the best players? They're just out of luck and can't compete. So, the high major schools just steal the top players from all the mid to low majors every single season, and you end up with March with no upsets and four 1-seeds in the Final Four.
I guess for me, I can see the positives with this and also the negative side. There are some things I like about it but some I don't like. And I will admit that some of that is about my dislike of change and my need to have some time to adjust to it.
I just hope it doesn't get to the point where teams start drafting players. Would kill the edge from the top programs.
However it would solve the money issue if it was set up like the NBA.
It’s awful. I have a couple friends who are mid major coaches. It’s nothing short of miserable.
In terms of hold outs, the first hold out that I’m aware of was the 1937 Pitt football team.Well, there were many who were amateurs, and all of them were "officially." The ones who weren't were getting paid under the table. How many were actually being paid though? Maybe I'm naive. I still think the vast majority weren't being paid, and none of them were able to publicly, so no public threats of hold outs in those days.
Anyway, I will grant you that it's better having things out in the open and paying the players what they're worth to some degree, but is there no limit? And what about the schools and teams who lack the money to buy the best players? They're just out of luck and can't compete. So, the high major schools just steal the top players from all the mid to low majors every single season, and you end up with March with no upsets and four 1-seeds in the Final Four.
I guess for me, I can see the positives with this and also the negative side. There are some things I like about it but some I don't like. And I will admit that some of that is about my dislike of change and my need to have some time to adjust to it.
They were undefeated and defending national champions. When they received an invite to the 1938 Rose Bowl, the players demanded that the university increase their pay to cover the additional practices/game and pay for everyone to take a two week vacation in California. Part of the issue is that the team was upset to find out during the 1937 Rose Bowl, that the University of Washington provided bonus pay to their athletes for the bowl game and the Pitt players didn’t receive any.
The University refused to increase their pay and the players voted to go on strike. Pitt ended up having to decline the Rose Bowl bid. Also notable was the fact that newspapers across the country and public opinion supported the players’ decision.
Hey, is it possible for you to expedite my posting privileges so my messages can be seen? I used to post a lot on my other account.Well, there were many who were amateurs, and all of them were "officially." The ones who weren't were getting paid under the table. How many were actually being paid though? Maybe I'm naive. I still think the vast majority weren't being paid, and none of them were able to publicly, so no public threats of hold outs in those days.
Anyway, I will grant you that it's better having things out in the open and paying the players what they're worth to some degree, but is there no limit? And what about the schools and teams who lack the money to buy the best players? They're just out of luck and can't compete. So, the high major schools just steal the top players from all the mid to low majors every single season, and you end up with March with no upsets and four 1-seeds in the Final Four.
I guess for me, I can see the positives with this and also the negative side. There are some things I like about it but some I don't like. And I will admit that some of that is about my dislike of change and my need to have some time to adjust to it.
Similar threads
