The Way to Keep Good Players From Jumping to the NBA

[SUbear]

You're right, there is no profit from revenue when you give all the leftover money to coach salaries, unnecessary stadium improvements, and non-revenue sports.

Once we pay the players what they deserve, there will be no profit leftover either.

Then explain why colleges would keep playing sports at all. Ecnomic decision would become eliminate sports entirely. This thread is assinine.

 

[SUbear]

I don't understand why the NCAA can't copy the olympic model. The school only gives them a scholarship but they can make money off jersey sales, autographs, appear in commercials, shoes sales, and pretty much profit off of their like-ability. This is a win all for everyone because the school doesn't lose any money no title XI violations and the players still get to make money and it will go to the players that deserve it the most.

This actually makes some sense compared to the original premise of this thread. Ties in their performance to what they could potentially make and keeps the structure of college athletics relatively intact.

 

[triplethrea]

99% of Division 1 players won't get drafted. Most of these kids aren't getting millions to play basketball by anyone. The universities are not going to do it. The D League only pays between 12 and 24k per year. Europe pays between 65k and 100k or so. The reality is most schools are not bringing in revenue like Syracuse. If the kids are good enough to get someone to pay them to play, let them go and play pro ball. For 99% of of the kids, the opportunity to get a free education and room and board probably out weighs what they personally generate for the school they play for. Baye Moussa Keita got a degree from Syracuse worth probably 200k. What's the market rate for a role player that averaged 2 points per game for his entire career at SU? He might be making 12k per year in the D league. Mookie Jones didn't generate revenue for Syracuse Basketball and he got the opportunity for a free education and the opportunity to play for a elite basketball program to grow his game. What would he be doing if there was no college basketball? These kids don't have to go to college.

The difference is the D League is not generating billions of dollars in revenue. D league players get paid what they are worth TO the D league. College players should get paid what they are worth to the colleges. I don't know what the going rate for a steady 4 year center at a major conference school is. But we both just figured out that it is worth AT LEAST 200k (if your math is right, sounds too high). If it wasn't, Syracuse would not offer that scholarship.

Then explain why colleges would keep playing sports at all. Ecnomic decision would become eliminate sports entirely. This thread is assinine.

I think you're misunderstanding. Let's say I own Wal-Mart. We made $100 this year.
$50 goes to cost of goods
$25 goes to locations, maintenance, upkeep, etc.
$15 goes to employee wages
$10 goes to dividends for stakeholders

Technically, we profited $10 but it all went to stakeholders, thus no money into equity. Why should I continue running the business? Because we're not losing money, we're making money. Similar thing here.

Where does the extra money go? Right now it goes into sports that would never survive on their own, 7 figure coach salaries, high athletic director salaries, stadium renovations, etc. They throw a dollar in every possible direction except the players, when those players, particularly the STAR PLAYERS are directly responsible for increases in revenues to the tune of millions of dollars.

Look at the date the article was written, there was time for a player to sign after it was written before the season, I also don't believe it showed every players contract, think it showed the lottery and then a couple of weird contracts like Undrafted Pressey and some 42 overall pick who signed with and1 who doesn't have many signed players at all. Below is the numbers of players signed by company, the total amount of players signed is larger than say 13 players per 30 NBA teams. You lost the argument, I'm not sure why you're still arguing about it. You tried to say less than 20 guys had a shoe contract, you lost that one, then you bring up Alex Len acting confident enough that he wouldn't have one, you lost that one, and now you're continuing to pull at strings trying to be right about this but you're not going to be. 98% of NBA players have shoe contracts, it is what it is and you're just wrong. Deal with it.

Don't argue with him, he's an idiot.

 

[triplethrea]

99% of Division 1 players won't get drafted. Most of these kids aren't getting millions to play basketball by anyone. The universities are not going to do it. The D League only pays between 12 and 24k per year. Europe pays between 65k and 100k or so. The reality is most schools are not bringing in revenue like Syracuse. If the kids are good enough to get someone to pay them to play, let them go and play pro ball. For 99% of of the kids, the opportunity to get a free education and room and board probably out weighs what they personally generate for the school they play for. Baye Moussa Keita got a degree from Syracuse worth probably 200k. What's the market rate for a role player that averaged 2 points per game for his entire career at SU? He might be making 12k per year in the D league. Mookie Jones didn't generate revenue for Syracuse Basketball and he got the opportunity for a free education and the opportunity to play for a elite basketball program to grow his game. What would he be doing if there was no college basketball? These kids don't have to go to college.

Another question to ask is "What would Syracuse have done without Baye Moussa Keita"? Remember how important he was to the Final Four run last year? Do you think the fact we made the Final Four last year helped merchandise sales and led to increased attendance this year?

What's the market rate for that? I'd say Syracuse would have made less revenue in 2013-2014 if Keita didn't do what he did in 2012-2013. There will be a market price for players like Keita in the ACC like there is a market price for players like Pablo Prigioni in the NBA. If the team loses money by paying a player, then they will offer less money the next time around. Just like any other market.

Too much worry here.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

The difference is the D League is not generating billions of dollars in revenue. D league players get paid what they are worth TO the D league. College players should get paid what they are worth to the colleges. I don't know what the going rate for a steady 4 year center at a major conference school is. But we both just figured out that it is worth AT LEAST 200k (if your math is right, sounds too high). If it wasn't, Syracuse would not offer that scholarship."

Correct the D-League isn't generating billions of dollars in revenue. Everyone knows who Kentucky, Duke, Syracuse and Kansas is. Nobody knows or cares about the teams in the D League. Those schools have a brand name, with great coaches. They play in unique buildings that people know. Their alumni and fans supports those programs because they identify with the school/program and coaches, not necessarily any one player. Who determines a players worth? How much should Paul Harris have been paid? His tuition each year at Syracuse was worth more than he's making in the D-league. Should he have gone to the D-League right out of high school? Syracuse was a better choice, because they provide the platform for kids like him to make it to next level, get an education, and free room and board, for doing what he loves to do-play basketball. Syracuse Basketball generates the revenue, not any one player. So what the players are worth 99% of the time is their scholarship. The small percentage that can do better leave early and play professionally. Again, nobody is making these kids attend college. It's just the best option available for nearly all of them.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

Another question to ask is "What would Syracuse have done without Baye Moussa Keita"? Remember how important he was to the Final Four run last year? Do you think the fact we made the Final Four last year helped merchandise sales and led to increased attendance this year?

What's the market rate for that? I'd say Syracuse would have made less revenue in 2013-2014 if Keita didn't do what he did in 2012-2013. There will be a market price for players like Keita in the ACC like there is a market price for players like Pablo Prigioni in the NBA. If the team loses money by paying a player, then they will offer less money the next time around. Just like any other market.

Too much worry here.

Keita played 3 minutes in his last game and didn't register a single stat. Didn't help us at all. How much was he worth this year? I'd argue increased attendance was the result of a great home schedule that included Duke, Villanova, Indiana and North Carolina, and not Keita at all. Do you think attendance will drop now that Keita is gone? I doubt Syracuse's revenue was effected by what Keita did in 2012-13. I doubt he scored 20 points in the entire NCAA tourney last year. Keita did what his scholarship covered. Play basketball. Free education. What other option did he have coming out of high school? Was anyone willing to pay him more than $40-50k per year as an 18 year old, 190 pound kid?

 

[triplethrea]

Correct the D-League isn't generating billions of dollars in revenue. Everyone knows who Kentucky, Duke, Syracuse and Kansas is. Nobody knows or cares about the teams in the D League. Those schools have a brand name, with great coaches. They play in unique buildings that people know. Their alumni and fans supports those programs because they identify with the school/program and coaches, not necessarily any one player. Who determines a players worth? How much should Paul Harris have been paid? His tuition each year at Syracuse was worth more than he's making in the D-league. Should he have gone to the D-League right out of high school? Syracuse was a better choice, because they provide the platform for kids like him to make it to next level, get an education, and free room and board, for doing what he loves to do-play basketball. Syracuse Basketball generates the revenue, not any one player. So what the players are worth 99% is their scholarship. The small percentage that can do better leave early and play professionally. Again, nobody is making these kids attend college. It's just the best option available for nearly all of them.

So your argument, if I'm not mistaken, is the following:

1. 100% (and not 1% less) of all the revenue the schools make, is due solely to identification with the school/program and coaches, and absolutely nothing to do with any player. Thus, the players are not entitled to a penny more than their scholarship.
2. No player is worth more than their scholarship.
3. Tuition at Syracuse is worth more than salary in the D league, thus Syracuse is a better choice.

Nobody is saying that fan loyalty is not a factor in attendance and merchandise. However, do you deny that a player like Marcus Smart provides additional revenue to a team like Oklahoma State? What about the extra national media attention? Will Oklahoma State get as much media attention next year when Marcus Smart is in the NBA? Will Oklahoma State not benefit if Marcus Smart goes on to do well in the NBA?

If colleges are willing to give players anything more than their current scholarship, then it proves they are worth more than just their scholarship to the schools.

And again, your comment "It's just the best option available for nearly all of them". It's the only realistic option for them if they want a chance to make millions rather than live in rough neighborhoods. If you offer Door 1 and Door 2, you force them to jump through whatever hoops Door 1 has. The problem is those hoops are unethical.

I'm arguing that regardless of whether they have other choices (go 2000 miles away from home to Europe if you want! Don't play here!), the lack of market value given to the players is wrong. When you add the fact that they are technically forced to go to college, it's downright unlawful.

And doesn't anyone else think "Go play in Europe or get lost!" is a little harsh? Why the tough guy attitude? For what?

 

[triplethrea]

Keita played 3 minutes in his last game and didn't register a single stat. Didn't help us at all. How much was he worth this year? I'd argue increased attendance was the result of a great home schedule that included Duke, Villanova, Indiana and North Carolina, and not Keita at all. Do you think attendance will drop now that Keita is gone? I doubt Syracuse's revenue was effected by what Keita did in 2012-13. I doubt he scored 20 points in the entire NCAA tourney last year. Keita did what his scholarship covered. Play basketball. Free education. What other option did he have coming out of high school? Was anyone willing to pay him more than $40-50k per year as an 18 year old, 190 pound kid?

You're crapping on a very valuable player, just to prove a point. Maybe he wasn't worth much as a Freshman (he was), but he was certainly worth plenty as a Junior.

Attendance won't drop with Keita gone, but our wins might, and THAT will drop attendance. It will also drop media attention, which will drop merchandise sales. Every cog in the system that leads to wins, deserves a piece of the pie.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

You're crapping on a very valuable player, just to prove a point. Maybe he wasn't worth much as a Freshman (he was), but he was certainly worth plenty as a Junior.

Attendance won't drop with Keita gone, but our wins might, and THAT will drop attendance. It will also drop media attention, which will drop merchandise sales. Every cog in the system that leads to wins, deserves a piece of the pie.

I'm not crapping on Keita. He's a great kid, played hard and did his job. He was a role player for 4 years. Fans didn't show up at the Dome just to see him play. He was not a star player. Pick another player if you want. Michael Gbinije? How much should he have gotten paid? 3 points per game. Ron Patterson? BJ?

We lost 3 starters to the NBA/Europe and attendance went up dramatically this year, and spent a good stretch at #1.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

So your argument, if I'm not mistaken, is the following:

1. 100% (and not 1% less) of all the revenue the schools make, is due solely to identification with the school/program and coaches, and absolutely nothing to do with any player. Thus, the players are not entitled to a penny more than their scholarship.
2. No player is worth more than their scholarship.
3. Tuition at Syracuse is worth more than salary in the D league, thus Syracuse is a better choice.

Nobody is saying that fan loyalty is not a factor in attendance and merchandise. However, do you deny that a player like Marcus Smart provides additional revenue to a team like Oklahoma State? What about the extra national media attention? Will Oklahoma State get as much media attention next year when Marcus Smart is in the NBA? Will Oklahoma State not benefit if Marcus Smart goes on to do well in the NBA?

If colleges are willing to give players anything more than their current scholarship, then it proves they are worth more than just their scholarship to the schools.

And again, your comment "It's just the best option available for nearly all of them". It's the only realistic option for them if they want a chance to make millions rather than live in rough neighborhoods. If you offer Door 1 and Door 2, you force them to jump through whatever hoops Door 1 has. The problem is those hoops are unethical.

I'm arguing that regardless of whether they have other choices (go 2000 miles away from home to Europe if you want! Don't play here!), the lack of market value given to the players is wrong. When you add the fact that they are technically forced to go to college, it's downright unlawful.

And doesn't anyone else think "Go play in Europe or get lost!" is a little harsh? Why the tough guy attitude? For what?

I'm saying people pay to see Syracuse play, not Michael Gbinje or Baye Moussa Keita. Those players come and go. Syracuse has been playing basketball for 100 years. Was Syracuse making money on it's basketball program in 1970? Should we have paid those players? Schools like St. Johns don't make money. Should they pay their players?

Marcus Smart attacked a fan during a game. Is that good attention for Oklahoma State?

The NCAA isn't keeping these kids from playing pro basketball right out of high school. The NBA is. It sounds like you agree that college provides the best opportunity for these kids to make the NBA, or pro ball (Europe/South America) which 99% of them won't make. I agree. Great coaching, great facilities, great structure, free exposure, plus a free education, plus free room and board. Not bad for playing basketball, right? These kids don't have to go to Europe, do they? They have options. They are not technically forced to go to college at all. They choose to, because it's the best option for them. These kids sign on to play basketball at schools knowing they are getting this opportunity. If it was so terrible, they would choose something else. That's life.

I don't know where you're getting the tough guy stuff. I just think your argument is ridiculous.

 

[triplethrea]

I'm not crapping on Keita. He's a great kid, played hard and did his job. He was a role player for 4 years. Fans didn't show up at the Dome just to see him play. He was not a star player. Pick another player if you want. Michael Gbinije? How much should he have gotten paid? 3 points per game. Ron Patterson? BJ?

We lost 3 starters to the NBA/Europe and attendance went up dramatically this year, and spent a good stretch at #1.

Just because a system works, doesn't mean players should not be rewarded. Should the Spurs eliminate player wages since their system works so well?

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

Just because a system works, doesn't mean players should not be rewarded. Should the Spurs eliminate player wages since their system works so well?

The players were rewarded. Free education, basketball, room and board, trips to Canada and Hawaii, exposure on ESPN, great coaching

 

[triplethrea]

I'm saying people pay to see Syracuse play, not Michael Gbinje or Baye Moussa Keita. Those players come and go. Syracuse has been playing basketball for 100 years. Was Syracuse making money on it's basketball program in 1970? Should we have paid those players? Schools like St. Johns don't make money. Should they pay their players?

Marcus Smart attacked a fan during a game. Is that good attention for Oklahoma State?

The NCAA isn't keeping these kids from playing pro basketball right out of high school. The NBA is. It sounds like you agree that college provides the best opportunity for these kids to make the NBA, or pro ball (Europe/South America) which 99% of them won't make. I agree. Great coaching, great facilities, great structure, free exposure, plus a free education, plus free room and board. Not bad for playing basketball, right? These kids don't have to go to Europe, do they? They have options. They are not technically forced to go to college at all. They choose to, because it's the best option for them. These kids sign on to play basketball at schools knowing they are getting this opportunity. If it was so terrible, they would choose something else. That's life.

I don't know where you're getting the tough guy stuff. I just think your argument is ridiculous.

I think my argument is far from ridiculous. And I can't imagine how it can be seen as ridiculous by a rational person.

Players come and go, but that does not make them valueless. Syracuse maintains it's winning ways due to great recruiting. What is great recruiting? It is the attainment of good-great players. Syracuse does not have a winning tradition without great recruiting. Syracuse lures recruits with it's coach, stadium, and atmosphere. If they could pay money, that would be one more reason to join Syracuse over another team.

Ron Artest punched a fun in the NBA. He played for almost a decade afterwards. Why? Because he still had value for other teams. His value went down, sure. But that usually just means a decline in salary. Same with Marcus Smart. We're talking on both sides of a sliding scale here, but for some reason, you are pretending like my side of the scale doesn't exist.

The NBA is colluding with the NCAA here. They want players in the NCAA so the NBA has more pro-ready prospects to draft, don't need to pay them while they are developing, and come with pre-existing fame that comes from college. How much more famous is Jabari Parker after one year at Duke, than without? The NCAA profits by having the best players coming out of high school forced to play in college for at least a year. How much TV attendance do "The Best Freshman" get? It's one of the top storylines every year. Would not exist without the one year rule.

I meant "go to Europe or play for free" is tough guy stuff. "Go through hell or do things our way." THAT is ridiculous when held up to scrutiny.

 

[triplethrea]

The players were rewarded. Free education, basketball, room and board, trips to Canada and Hawaii, exposure on ESPN, great coaching

You can't seem to wrap your head around my point.

SURE, they were rewarded, but IF they would have been rewarded MORE if it was ALLOWED, they WOULD HAVE. Feel me?

People love to talk about PayPal Cal. Why would he pay $250k to Anthony Davis if all he was worth is a scholarship and few trips to Hawaii? Can you at least admit Anthony Davis was worth a lot of money to Kentucky that year? In which case you would have to admit, that maybe, it is possible, kinda, sometimes, sort of, that certain players are worth more than a scholarship?

 

[triplethrea]

Also, by having older players come out from college, the players are older when they are eligible for their 2nd contract in the NBA (which is where the max money comes in). This gives contract leverage to the GMs.

The foundation of "Go to Europe or don't get paid" is based not on the Beauty of Amateurism, but on collective bargaining leverage. It's a horrible violation of economic rights.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

You can't seem to wrap your head around my point.

SURE, they were rewarded, but IF they would have been rewarded MORE if it was ALLOWED, they WOULD HAVE. Feel me?

People love to talk about PayPal Cal. Why would he pay $250k to Anthony Davis if all he was worth is a scholarship and few trips to Hawaii? Can you at least admit Anthony Davis was worth a lot of money to Kentucky that year? In which case you would have to admit, that maybe, it is possible, kinda, sometimes, sort of, that certain players are worth more than a scholarship?

No, I just disagree with your point. The players are rewarded with a lot for playing a game. College basketball is not pro basketball. It's not the NBA. College provides them the opportunity to get there.

Anthony Davis was worth a lot to Kentucky in his only year in college, and Kentucky provided the platform Anthony Davis to be drafted #1, and to make a ton of money. It worked out well for both.

 

[triplethrea]

No, I just disagree with your point. The players are rewarded with a lot for playing a game. College basketball is not pro basketball. It's not the NBA. College provides them the opportunity to get there.

Anthony Davis was worth a lot to Kentucky in his only year in college, and Kentucky provided the platform Anthony Davis to be drafted #1, and to make a ton of money. It worked out well for both.

He was the top recruit coming out, and would have gone #1 regardless, if he wasn't forced to go to college. Since he was forced to choose a college team, that college team profits off his performance and likeness. I feel you are giving way too much credit to the universities and almost none to the player.

 

[SBU72]

Company I work for had $45B in sales last year. Think I got my fair share?

Before I retired last Oct, I worked for a company that hadn"t given its technical people a raise in 5 years while the CEO got literally millions a year in stock options EVERY YEAR as bonuses

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

I think my argument is far from ridiculous. And I can't imagine how it can be seen as ridiculous by a rational person.

Players come and go, but that does not make them valueless. Syracuse maintains it's winning ways due to great recruiting. What is great recruiting? It is the attainment of good-great players. Syracuse does not have a winning tradition without great recruiting. Syracuse lures recruits with it's coach, stadium, and atmosphere. If they could pay money, that would be one more reason to join Syracuse over another team.

Ron Artest punched a fun in the NBA. He played for almost a decade afterwards. Why? Because he still had value for other teams. His value went down, sure. But that usually just means a decline in salary. Same with Marcus Smart. We're talking on both sides of a sliding scale here, but for some reason, you are pretending like my side of the scale doesn't exist.

The NBA is colluding with the NCAA here. They want players in the NCAA so the NBA has more pro-ready prospects to draft, don't need to pay them while they are developing, and come with pre-existing fame that comes from college. How much more famous is Jabari Parker after one year at Duke, than without? The NCAA profits by having the best players coming out of high school forced to play in college for at least a year. How much TV attendance do "The Best Freshman" get? It's one of the top storylines every year. Would not exist without the one year rule.

I meant "go to Europe or play for free" is tough guy stuff. "Go through hell or do things our way." THAT is ridiculous when held up to scrutiny.

You think college teams paying kids millions of dollars is ridiculous. 99% of them can't make anything close to that playing professional ball.

Syracuse doesn't always recruit great players. They develop players a lot of the time, which leads to a lot of they success Syracuse has. Kids come to Syracuse to play in a great venue, be on TV, play other great teams, get great coaching, win and have a chance at the next level.

Sure the NBA doesn't want most of the college kids. Why would they? 18 year old kids that are not ready for that level of basketball. It hurts their game. Does Xerox take high school kids? And again, the kids are not forced to go to college at all. Going to Europe is an option. Brandon Jennings did. It's not the most attractive option, but it's still an option. Kids would rather to college for a year (6-7 kids per year) than go play in Europe because college ball is a fantastic alternative.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

Also, by having older players come out from college, the players are older when they are eligible for their 2nd contract in the NBA (which is where the max money comes in). This gives contract leverage to the GMs.

The foundation of "Go to Europe or don't get paid" is based not on the Beauty of Amateurism, but on collective bargaining leverage. It's a horrible violation of economic rights.

They don't have to go to Europe. They can not play for a year and work at McDonald's. Or they can go to Europe. College is not pro basketball. Take it up with the NBA.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

He was the top recruit coming out, and would have gone #1 regardless, if he wasn't forced to go to college. Since he was forced to choose a college team, that college team profits off his performance and likeness. I feel you are giving way too much credit to the universities and almost none to the player.

But he wasn't forced to go to college at all. And you can't say he would have been #1 for sure. Had he gone to Europe, there's no guarantee he comes back as the #1 pick.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

The difference is the D League is not generating billions of dollars in revenue. D league players get paid what they are worth TO the D league. College players should get paid what they are worth to the colleges. .

Why isn't the D League generating billions of dollars in revenue? Why is Paul Harris worth less playing for the Maine Red Claws than he is playing for Syracuse? He's still the same player. Fans are not showing up to see Paul Harris play. If that were true, he'd be making a lot more than $25k per year.

 

[triplethrea]

You think college teams paying kids millions of dollars is ridiculous. 99% of them can't make anything close to that playing professional ball.

Syracuse doesn't always recruit great players. They develop players a lot of the time, which leads to a lot of they success Syracuse has. Kids come to Syracuse to play in a great venue, be on TV, play other great teams, get great coaching, win and have a chance at the next level.

Sure the NBA doesn't want most of the college kids. Why would they? 18 year old kids that are not ready for that level of basketball. It hurts their game. Does Xerox take high school kids? And again, the kids are not forced to go to college at all. Going to Europe is an option. Brandon Jennings did. It's not the most attractive option, but it's still an option. Kids would rather to college for a year (6-7 kids per year) than go play in Europe because college ball is a fantastic alternative.

It doesn't matter if 99% of them can't make that much professionally. What matters is how much they are worth in college. How much a player is worth in the NBA does not need to have a relation to how much they are worth in college.

They may not "always" recruit great players. But they are still at least 4 star recruits (and once in a while 3 star recruits). They are still very desirable recruits. Ones that top schools would pay money for if they could.

The NBA drafted 42 kids out of high school when it was allowed (2 of which went #1 overall). I'd say they are still valuable to them even without the college experience.

You're naive if you think most kids go to college because it is a "fantastic alternative". They do it because that's what they have to do to go to the NBA. Going to Europe is absolutely extreme and has only been done twice I think. The fact that colleges are making millions off them and telling them to be happy with the "fantastic experience" is repulsive.

 

[triplethrea]

Why isn't the D League generating billions of dollars in revenue? Why is Paul Harris worth less playing for the Maine Red Claws than he is playing for Syracuse? He's still the same player. Fans are not showing up to see Paul Harris play. If that were true, he'd be making a lot more than $25k per year.

It's a developmental league with inferior players to the NBA. There are no fans of D leagues teams. They are purely there to develop, not to entertain fans.

 

[AZOrange]

That's not Tyler Roberson or Rakeem Christmas's problem. They earn what they're worth, not what they're worth minus the field hockey team. He's exploited if he's worth more than his scholarship. If New Mexico State would be paying him $75k if pay-for-pay were legal, then he is being exploited. The Rhode Scholar should get whatever cut that his college campus is willing to pay for him/her (usually nothing). I don't know what Tirico has to do with anything. Questionable. http://sportsgeekonomics.tumblr.com...-paying-players-will-mean-that-schools-cannot

That's the problem though. No one tunes into watch rakeem Christmas play. They tune in to watch Syracuse play. The value is in the Syracuse brand. The nba is different where Kobe is the brand.