Discussion in 'Around the League' started by Mark Shelvin, Feb 23, 2018.
Sounds nice, but there's no way this would ever get approved. Forget about mid-majors stopping this, there are plenty of major schools who wouldn't be able to compete under this system.
1. "no way it would ever get approved." A lot of things that are now approved were previously tagged as 'it would never get approved.' This doesn't address any of the merits or faults with the argument laid out (or the pros and cons of the current status quo).
2. "plenty of major schools who wouldn't be able to compete." I'm not so sure paying players market value makes it any harder to compete than the current system. The status quo already has major schools that don't compete. Sure, like the article acknowledges, the big schools will have monetary advantages (they already do), but smaller schools could pool resources to compete for those that aren't the Mcdonald's level talent.
Duke is already getting three of the top 4 recruits next year and aren't paying them. Not much would change if Duke and Kentucky wanted to bid for services. The Butler's would still get the three star recruits and the occasional four star every other year. The Cleveland States would still get the two stars.
1. Under this system, public schools would be able to use state funds to pay players. No way private schools in the P5 leagues would allow this to happen. Yes they're already using state funds for their facilities and coaching staffs in most cases, but my guess is using state funds to pay temporary employees (especially the 1 year variety) wouldn't go over so well. Even the P5 conferences would have to ratify putting this system in place, and I have a hard time believing the presidents would be okay with a completely open market.
2. Pooling resources, especially the example they gave (Ball State going after Kentucky's 5th recruit) is a bit "pie-in-the-sky" type of thinking. This is assuming that 1) Ball State would have enough money even then to pay them more than Kentucky could once they got down to their 5th recruit. 2) That player doesn't care about facilities, playing on TV, conference affiliation, who he's practicing against, etc. or 3) That Ball State is going to benefit from getting the type of player who's only interested in how much you're bidding for his services.
This isn't me arguing for or against paying players. I'm arguing that the people in place would never allow a completely open market (It's against people's general nature of wanting to give up control), or that this would in any way help mid-major programs. If the writer (and you) feel that way, it's fine. I just don't.
Great article that shows the true magnitude of the issues plaguing college and HS basketball.
Guess his family will be moving up to a bigger house now that he has one year of college education under his belt.
Still bummed Billy Preston got in a fender bender prior to the season bc it prevented KU from getting into further trouble...
Kansas got into a lot of trouble when they met Nova in Final 4.
Separate names with a comma.