Hurley said that there comes a point in your life when you make so much money that you don't really have to worry about it anymore. He implied that UK offering him more than UConn offering him no longer made a difference. He was already filthy rich, already happy, and was not willing to compromise that happiness for a bigger pay day.
Pitino likewise said, retrospectively, that you can't "put a price tag on happiness." He said that in regards to regretting his leaving Kentucky.
So when grown men say things like this, we all get it and understand, but when it comes to a very unique situation like Reed Sheppard's, suddenly we ignore that same logic and reroute it to fit a narrative that denies Reed the same mentality that Hurley is stating.
Hurley: I'm already rich. I'm already happy. What's a few more million going to do to that happiness?
Sheppard: will be a millionaire at UK, and beyond. He's also happy playing for Kentucky and literally making millions of others happy. So why does the logic of "stay where you're happy and rich" apply to Hurley but not Sheppard?
The counterarguments go like this (and yes, they're weak):
Argument #1: Sheppard could get injured and it could all be lost.
Name a player in college basketball who had a career-ending injury in college that dramatically altered his draft status? Can you name three of them in the entire history of the sport?
Argument #2: It's a weak draft, and Sheppard's draft status will never be higher.
While this is true, do any of you actually believe Sheppard will suddenly forget how to play if he returns to UK? Even if his percentages decrease a bit, he's still going to be a lottery pick in 2024 or 2025 or whenever he chooses to leave Kentucky.
So then you're left with the same argument you guys made for Hurley that you refuse to make for Sheppard: we're talking about the difference in a millions of dollars over a career, but just like Hurley who will make over $100 million in his career, Sheppard will likewise make that type of money.
Bottom line: if Hurley could be happier and more beloved for taking less money, why can't Sheppard?
If Sheppard comes back, he still becomes an instant millionaire and will be set for life, even if he only plays basketball for one more year and decided to never play again. You make $2.5 million post tax, and you can live off the interest alone. So financially, the NIL mitigates a ton of risk, and the risk was already minimal anyway.
But if he came back, he'd be Pope's first "real guy" (like Mashburn was to Pitino), and Reed would have the opportunity to go down as possibly the most beloved Wildcat of all time.
How do you put a price on that? Is it possible, and if you could, how is that different than what Hurley is arguing from Storrs, that you can be rich, legendary, and happy for the rest of your life all at the same time, even if it means you're just a bit less rich than you would have been otherwise?
Bro. Come on. We’d all like to see reed come back but this makes no sense.Hurley said that there comes a point in your life when you make so much money that you don't really have to worry about it anymore. He implied that UK offering him more than UConn offering him no longer made a difference. He was already filthy rich, already happy, and was not willing to compromise that happiness for a bigger pay day.
Pitino likewise said, retrospectively, that you can't "put a price tag on happiness." He said that in regards to regretting his leaving Kentucky.
So when grown men say things like this, we all get it and understand, but when it comes to a very unique situation like Reed Sheppard's, suddenly we ignore that same logic and reroute it to fit a narrative that denies Reed the same mentality that Hurley is stating.
Hurley: I'm already rich. I'm already happy. What's a few more million going to do to that happiness?
Sheppard: will be a millionaire at UK, and beyond. He's also happy playing for Kentucky and literally making millions of others happy. So why does the logic of "stay where you're happy and rich" apply to Hurley but not Sheppard?
The counterarguments go like this (and yes, they're weak):
Argument #1: Sheppard could get injured and it could all be lost.
Name a player in college basketball who had a career-ending injury in college that dramatically altered his draft status? Can you name three of them in the entire history of the sport?
Argument #2: It's a weak draft, and Sheppard's draft status will never be higher.
While this is true, do any of you actually believe Sheppard will suddenly forget how to play if he returns to UK? Even if his percentages decrease a bit, he's still going to be a lottery pick in 2024 or 2025 or whenever he chooses to leave Kentucky.
So then you're left with the same argument you guys made for Hurley that you refuse to make for Sheppard: we're talking about the difference in a millions of dollars over a career, but just like Hurley who will make over $100 million in his career, Sheppard will likewise make that type of money.
Bottom line: if Hurley could be happier and more beloved for taking less money, why can't Sheppard?
If Sheppard comes back, he still becomes an instant millionaire and will be set for life, even if he only plays basketball for one more year and decided to never play again. You make $2.5 million post tax, and you can live off the interest alone. So financially, the NIL mitigates a ton of risk, and the risk was already minimal anyway.
But if he came back, he'd be Pope's first "real guy" (like Mashburn was to Pitino), and Reed would have the opportunity to go down as possibly the most beloved Wildcat of all time.
How do you put a price on that? Is it possible, and if you could, how is that different than what Hurley is arguing from Storrs, that you can be rich, legendary, and happy for the rest of your life all at the same time, even if it means you're just a bit less rich than you would have been otherwise?