Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="billsin01, post: 2319918, member: 837"] Really interesting post and lots of good info in there. Seems like a good place to to offer a few of my opinions on this thing instead of starting yet another thread (even though some of these may not be related to the original post). So, some thoughts: [B]1) The fact that it took L'ville an entire day to fire Jurich and Pitino is insane.[/B] I'm not even saying that either or both are guilty, per se (even though I believe they are). But to have so many issues at one program that supposedly still calls itself an educational institution, I would think they would have had no choice but to jump on it and act immediately saying that -- fairly or unfairly -- all the rumored issues in addition to the issues we know have already been reported put the university in a bad light and we're going in a different direction. Amazing to me that it didn't happen basically immediately. [B]2) These players are professionals.[/B] I have a kid who's 8 and plays soccer and there is already pressure to join club/travel teams and pay $3k a year to have your kid play soccer. It's insane. So the point is, these guys who are in revenue-generating sports and are identified as elite talents are going to be identified very early and funneled into these elite AAU-type programs. At that point, you're essentially on a professional basketball track. It's just the way it is at least for the types of kids we're talking about at schools like SU but also at programs like MAC schools and others. My only reason for pointing this out is to say that it shouldn't come as a surprise that these kids are being paid by these programs, including SU, which brings me to point 3 ... [B]3) Glass houses.[/B] I will have fun laughing at L'ville and celebrate the fact that we now have a much better chance or landing Jalen Carey and I will hope to God that Arizona is out of the northeast for a while, BUT the likelihood of SU never being touched by this scandal feels pretty slim. [B] 4) This seems like a great opportunity to restructure the system.[/B] Recruiting doesn't go away and neither does the ultra-competitiveness that comes with competition, particularly competition that yields lots of revenue as many of these programs do. However, it certainly seems like creating a system closer to that of MLB makes sense. Get the D-League fired up, treat it as a developmental league for anyone who is talented enough to qualify and let all the rest of the kids go to college for 3 years. If you want to give them a stipend, fine. If not, fine. But either get drafted out of high school, or sign with a college team and commit for three years. Something along those lines would seem to make most of the money exchanging hands (most, not all, it probably never goes away) above board. [B]5) This bloodletting could actually be good for college basketball.[/B] I'm fine with a watered down talent pool if it means there is some sort of continuity for these programs. The level of basketball in terms of execution has been pretty brutal at times the past several years and I can't help but feel the massive amount of player movement (early defectors, grad transfers, general transfers) is ridiculous. If the kids are maybe a bit less talented but also a bit more aligned with the rest of the student-athletes on campus in terms of actually trying to take advantage of a scholarship to get some form of an education, it would seem less likely to have a constant stream of moving parts. [B]6) I don't see a system where you simply have kids on the open market but playing in college.[/B] Most of these universities (while sitting on huge endowments often) cry poverty and keep raising tuition costs. If they are paying, let's say $3M-$4M for a roster at a high level for a roster of hoops players, it's going to A -- essentially exclude a huge percentage of universities from fielding and even remotely competitive roster and B) set up a situation that looks really bad for the universities. If these kids are going to be paid market value -- whatever that is (and I'm dubious as to how much many of these kids are actually 'worth' on the open market) -- it should be a professional organization -- not 300+ random universities that are supposedly concerned first with education. [B]7) Can we now stop with the 'pay them a stipend' or 'these kids can't afford a pizza' talk?[/B] We know now they can afford many pizzas and the stipend has always been a weird idea b/c if everyone gets the same stipend it's no more fair to the kids who have a big market value. Not sure what the answer is, but these two lines of thinking make no sense to me. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?