Jim Boeheim on 1-and-done, grad transfers, paying players, more

[Cusefan0307]

The NCAA is a sham, no doubt but can’t these colleges do something to hold them accountable?

Or do we just say “screw it” and treat basketball and football recruitment like professional sports free agency?

You can say goodbye to Syracuse ever winning a championship in those two sports ever again.

We would have a better chance at getting talent than we do now.

Do people really think that Alabama, Kentucky, Duke and UNC are playing by the same rules we are?

 

[UnknownOrange]

The NCAA is a sham, no doubt, but can’t these colleges do something to hold them accountable?

Or do we just say “screw it” and treat basketball and football recruitment like professional sports free agency?

You can say goodbye to Syracuse ever winning a championship in those two sports ever again.

For basketball at least - Two teams played in the first final four this year. Two teams played in their first title game this year, and Virginia won it's first ever NCAA title.

 

[RF2044]

We would have a better chance at getting talent than we do now.

Do people really think that Alabama, Kentucky, Duke and UNC are playing by the same rules we are?

That's why we should have told the NCAA to pound salt when they hammered us with unprecedentedly harsh, arbitrary, and capricious penalties back in 2015 instead of cooperating.

The NCAA's enforcement of the rules have always been situational, and they follow now consistent precedent when it comes to doling out penalties.

They let some programs cheat indiscriminately, and then drop the hammer on infractions that are fairly minor by way of comparison.

They are a fraudulent sham of an enforcement agency / governing body with respect to the revenue generating sports.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

The NCAA is a sham, no doubt, but can’t these colleges do something to hold them accountable?

Or do we just say “screw it” and treat basketball and football recruitment like professional sports free agency?

You can say goodbye to Syracuse ever winning a championship in those two sports ever again.

That should have absolutely zero bearing on the discussion.

There are two big priorities, way I see it.

What is best for the institution of higher learning. Given already existing rising education costs, I feel having schools paying the players could significantly damage higher education in the US.

What benefits the player the most. Personally, I feel in the modern world, it needs to become a recognized right that people have ownership of their identity (name, likeness, however you want to define it). I realize that's an esoteric argument, but in an increasingly digital world I believe identity becomes more and more important.

 

[FrancoPizza]

Why was nobody complaining about this in the 80s and 90s when all the NBA talent stayed 4 years and you could argue that the systemic abuse was much worse?

 

[NateW]

That should have absolutely zero bearing on the discussion.

There are two big priorities, way I see it.

What is best for the institution of higher learning. Given already existing rising education costs, I feel having schools paying the players could significantly damage higher education in the US.

What benefits the player the most. Personally, I feel in the modern world, it needs to become a recognized right that people have ownership of their identity (name, likeness, however you want to define it). I realize that's an esoteric argument, but in an increasingly digital world I believe identity becomes more and more important.

If Syracuse has no chance at ever winning a championship then you’ll see an empty dome and no TV ratings. The thing that makes competitive sports fun and appealing is the chance to win.

“It may not be this year or the next or 10 years from now but some day we will win it all and it’s going to feel so good.”

Take that away and ppl will stop caring. If ppl stop watching - how will the players get paid?

You’re cutting off your nose to spite your face imo.

 

[Townie72]

When you keep stretching a rubber band, eventually it breaks.

Allowing players to profit from their images seems only fair. But everybody knows --- or should know --- it'll open the door to more abuse.

Colleges and Universities are addicted to the revenue, even thought many are embarrassed by how the sausage is actually being made. Big Time sports continues to morph into the schools having sports franchises as almost free-standing businesses instead of how sports started out.

Keep on stretching the limits and I think we'll start to see schools opting out, starting with the Ivies and more selective academic schools. The larger schools will dominate even more than they do today along with those schools that are without scruples.

The NCAA --- which is really the College President's --- has tried mightily to put a brake on it by limiting roster sizes to try and achieve more parity. But its failing.

What we will end up with is a system of de facto college owned-sports franchise that is less and less connected to the schools.

And these franchises ought to be taxed on 100% of the revenue. It's no different than if SU owned a grocery store in Camillus..

The golden goose can be killed. Boxing used to be a huge sport in the US, until it gained a reputation of being corrupt.

 

[Cusefan0307]

“There’s abuse now, but there will be more abuse if we change the rules” is a good argument NEVER.

 

[RandygoCuse]

I saw a quote the other day in which the guy said that in America we very frequently go for what sounds good over what we know works.

We already have a system that is difficult to manage.

Allowing players to "profit from their names and license" sounds fair, but it also sounds like it would be impossible to manage. It really is opening Pandora's Box. Who is to say what an athlete's name is worth or what is fair compensation for its use?

What's a college kid gonna do with $10,000 a month or $20,000 a month?

I don't think it works well now - at least not for the players. If others can profit off of them, they are old enough to receive a paycheck as well. At the very least, it should be put in a trust.

And as for who is to say what he's worth - the market will take care of that as players and agents will be free to negotiate endorsements.

 

[Col. Bleep]

Or do we just say “screw it” and treat basketball and football recruitment like professional sports free agency?

That is the overarching question: does the concept of "amateurism" still make sense in at least those sports?

There's a good argument that it doesn't.
And it boils down to why the people who actually play the games that create such gigantic TV revenue streams should be the only ones who don't directly profit from it?

 

[RandygoCuse]

I don’t think that’s the worry. I think the issue is that allowing players to profit from their name opens up a lot of ways to abuse that. Why couldn’t a UK booster pay a player $100k to come to UK and do one autograph signing for an hour? How would smaller schools/fan bases compete with that?

They probably couldn't but I'm much more concerned with a player getting what he is worth than I am with parity. I'm also in favor of a premier division for Football and Men's basketball. It wouldn't lead to complete parity but at least the smaller schools wouldn't be in too costly situation where they couldn't compete.

 

[RandygoCuse]

When you keep stretching a rubber band, eventually it breaks.

Allowing players to profit from their images seems only fair. But everybody knows --- or should know --- it'll open the door to more abuse.

Colleges and Universities are addicted to the revenue, even thought many are embarrassed by how the sausage is actually being made. Big Time sports continues to morph into the schools having sports franchises as almost free-standing businesses instead of how sports started out.

Keep on stretching the limits and I think we'll start to see schools opting out, starting with the Ivies and more selective academic schools. The larger schools will dominate even more than they do today along with those schools that are without scruples.

The NCAA --- which is really the College President's --- has tried mightily to put a brake on it by limiting roster sizes to try and achieve more parity. But its failing.

What we will end up with is a system of de facto college owned-sports franchise that is less and less connected to the schools.

And these franchises ought to be taxed on 100% of the revenue. It's no different than if SU owned a grocery store in Camillus..

The golden goose can be killed. Boxing used to be a huge sport in the US, until it gained a reputation of being corrupt.

I'm perfectly OK with them being their own business - I think they already are. And I think people will still feel a connection to the school. I don't think it will lead to more corruption as everything will be more transparent.

 

[Madbiker]

Whatever compensation to players is allowed must be the same across all schools. A set standard. Otherwise what it will turn into a bribery contest among competing boosters. And that will be very bad for most schools... including us.

 

[cuse10]

Whatever compensation to players is allowed must be the same across all schools. A set standard. Otherwise what it will turn into a bribery contest among competing boosters. And that will be very bad for most schools... including us.

All schools aren't created equal. The haves and the have lots will always be there.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

If Syracuse has no chance at ever winning a championship then you’ll see an empty dome and no TV ratings. The thing that makes competitive sports fun and appealing is the chance to win.

“It may not be this year or the next or 10 years from now but some day we will win it all and it’s going to feel so good.”

Take that away and ppl will stop caring. If ppl stop watching - how will the players get paid?

You’re cutting off your nose to spite your face imo.

I don't know, the NBA seems to be doing pretty well even though everybody believes it's been a foregone conclusion for a while now that the Warriors are winning.

 

[Gabjon]

The economics of paying the players is simple, the money first comes out of coaches salaries. Overall revenue won't change much neither will overall payroll. Take a million dollar out of coaches salaries and that's your budget for paying the players. If it's not professional sports why do the coaches get paid like professional coaches?

 

[ArtsJunk]

When you keep stretching a rubber band, eventually it breaks.

Allowing players to profit from their images seems only fair. But everybody knows --- or should know --- it'll open the door to more abuse.

Colleges and Universities are addicted to the revenue, even thought many are embarrassed by how the sausage is actually being made. Big Time sports continues to morph into the schools having sports franchises as almost free-standing businesses instead of how sports started out.

Keep on stretching the limits and I think we'll start to see schools opting out, starting with the Ivies and more selective academic schools. The larger schools will dominate even more than they do today along with those schools that are without scruples.

The NCAA --- which is really the College President's --- has tried mightily to put a brake on it by limiting roster sizes to try and achieve more parity. But its failing.

What we will end up with is a system of de facto college owned-sports franchise that is less and less connected to the schools.

And these franchises ought to be taxed on 100% of the revenue. It's no different than if SU owned a grocery store in Camillus..

The golden goose can be killed. Boxing used to be a huge sport in the US, until it gained a reputation of being corrupt.

Paying players or allowing players to benefit from their likeness will be fun to watch. These kids will get to focus on building a brand and watching it crumble (so say the odds) before they are even 18. I say bring on the pyramid schemes, bankruptcies and tournament games where a players out because he was just indicted for tax evasion. Bring on the harassment at an even younger age by friends, family, agents, as well as advisors.

Schools should either go all in by taking younger kids developing and educating them in a club system with profit share model that allows for the sale to NBA franchises, thus limiting the impact of AAU and other scrupulous people and ensuring they get a proper education or get the f’ out of the entertainment business and focus on education.

This conversation changes once the pie inevitably starts to shrink. Shoe contracts for most universities have peaked, attendance is down and once the impact of “cord cutters” is accounted for, TV contracts will get renegotiated downward. People are increasingly pushing back on the use of public funds for stadiums and coaches getting paid $5-$10M per year.

Lower my cable bill, lower ticket prices, lower coaches, salaries, cut Maui/ Italy and mostly lower my taxes...if there is money left, pay the kids.

 

[Townie72]

“There’s abuse now, but there will be more abuse if we change the rules” is a good argument NEVER.

So they have repealed the law of unintended consequences?

Giving the players a bigger slice of the pie may be "fairer", but it sure as hell isn't fix for anything. Once you start down this path, there's no stopping it.

Unlless you have an idea how their "value" can be measured.

PS - Where do you come up with this stuff? So changes never led to more abuse in anything?

You can't possible believe that. I guess the idea is that if you say it with enough conviction, people will roll over and accept it as some sort of universal truism?

 

[Townie72]

The economics of paying the players is simple, the money first comes out of coaches salaries. Overall revenue won't change much neither will overall payroll. Take a million dollar out of coaches salaries and that's your budget for paying the players. If it's not professional sports why do the coaches get paid like professional coaches?

I'm confused on how this works in the context of this conversation which is not about player salaries but rather about players profiting from their images (and endorsements".

 

[RandygoCuse]

I'm confused on how this works in the context of this conversation which is not about player salaries but rather about players profiting from their images (and endorsements".

I would have it work by having the player and their agent negotiate for the rights to use their image.

 

[Cusefan0307]

So they have repealed the law of unintended consequences?

Giving the players a bigger slice of the pie may be "fairer", but it sure as hell isn't fix for anything. Once you start down this path, there's no stopping it.

Unlless you have an idea how their "value" can be measured.

PS - Where do you come up with this stuff? So changes never led to more abuse in anything?

You can't possible believe that. I guess the idea is that if you say it with enough conviction, people will roll over and accept it as some sort of universal truism?

Just what the United States values! A controlled market!

 

[NateW]

I don't know, the NBA seems to be doing pretty well even though everybody believes it's been a foregone conclusion for a while now that the Warriors are winning.

But you watch because you have that glimmer of hope that your team, the Jazz, eventually could win it all.

Just like why I’ve watched the Bills for the past 20 years because I’m holding onto that glimmer of hope that things will eventually turn in my favor.

If you eliminate that glimmer of hope all together by changing the system up so much that you have zero chance at ever competing with the big boys then ppl are not going to care.

 

[RandygoCuse]

But you watch because you have that glimmer of hope that your team, the Jazz, eventually could win it all.

Just like why I’ve watched the Bills for the past 20 years because I’m holding onto that glimmer of hope that things will eventually turn in my favor.

If you eliminate that glimmer of hope all together by changing the system up so much that you have zero chance at ever competing with the big boys then ppl are not going to care.

Very few college teams have a legitimate shot at winning a championship. And yes, the better they are, the higher their attendance (usually) is. But Aren't there plenty of teams with no real shot that have a strong following?

 

[NateW]

Very few college teams have a legitimate shot at winning a championship. And yes, the better they are, the higher their attendance (usually) is. But Aren't there plenty of teams with no real shot that have a strong following?

Sure - but they long ago accepted their mediocrity.

And what we’re talking about is keeping the gravy train rolling financially.

I spent $75 a pop on seats in section 314 for the Duke game this season (and would have paid more if need be.) If a neutered Cuse team was playing a Duke team that could openly pay for prospects I wouldn’t spend a dime even to sit front row.

Would you?

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Sure - but they long ago accepted their mediocrity.

And what we’re talking about is keeping the gravy train rolling financially.

I spent $75 a pop on seats in section 314 for the Duke game this season (and would have paid more if need be.) If a neutered Cuse team was playing a Duke team that could openly pay for prospects I wouldn’t spend a dime even to sit front row.

Would you?