Wendell Carter's mom is cuckoo for cocoa puffs

[HOFCeluck]

Very insightful, as usual.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

Another winner from Emoji Boy.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Another winner from Emoji Boy.

 

[Delmar]

Like all crazy arguments, there is just enough truth in what she is saying to be listened to. The problem is she has it upside down. She’s right that, (paraphrasing) if the compensation is education, why aren’t kids allowed to pursue their education more fully. I agree with that. There are too many games, too many commitments pulling kids away from their studies. Too many degrees that are legitimate in appearance only. Little to prepare these kids for life as a productive contributor to society with a legitimate shot at success. Unfortunately, this will always be true as long as (a) The schools are making tons of money, and (b) the players, their parents, their friends et
al all value the slim chance of playing professionally more than a quality education.

This is the best post I have read on this site in a long time. To work within the avarice of the NCAA has a downside for everyone involved. I don’t buy into the idea that athletes should be eternally grateful to the benevolence of schools making millions off of them. Slavery is a bad and inappropriate analogy, but players are still getting screwed.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

I noticed you’ve posted nothing other than emoji’s in this thread. Do you have an opinion on anything or do you just look to criticize other posts and stir the pot?

 

[HOFCeluck]

I noticed you’ve posted nothing other than emoji’s in this thread. Do you have an opinion on anything or do you just look to criticize other posts and stir the pot?

Yes.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

Yes.

You typed a word. Congrats! Let us know when you have something of substance to post.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

I don't think that's correct. SU is NFP. The costs and revenue each year add up to zero ... with the tuition at current levels. You may not place that value on an SU education .. that's a different issue. But the numbers are what they are.

2016 Revenues. $945M
2016 Expenses. $906M
From SU's annual report.

 

[Hoo's That]

I just don’t see how college basketball could survive having programs blowing hundreds of thousands of dollars on every Paul Harris that walks through the door. If he costs that much, what’s Melo worth? $2M? Imagine the bidding on football players!

Private Universities could not survive an open market model. State schools would get all the best players. And then everything that makes college sports profitable would be irreparably changed forever. Conferences, rivalries, nostalgia. IMO the business model that makes college sports profitable could never survive an open market as you describe. Is that fair to the Universities?

A free education is not fair? I’m not sure being a good basketball player at Niagara Falls HS should immediately garner you hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The only real advantage, IMO, of the state schools is the greater number of potential donors. I believe that every state requires that athletics be self-funded and not come out of state funds. Otherwise NC State would be able to sponsor as many sports as UNC does and VPI would sponsor as many as UVa does. All scholarships at UVa and VPI are funded through contributions. The only money that can come from the financial aid office is Pell Grant money, same as any other college. Each semester, the UVa bursar sends a bill to the Virginia Athletics Foundation for the tuition and other expenses of the athletes on scholarship. John Paul Jones Arena has that name because Paul Tudor Jones gave the most money to build it, earning the naming rights (he named it for his father). When UNC built the Dean Dome, there was a similar arrangement, but the high-money donor said that only name that deserved to be over the door was Dean Smith's. "Profits" from sales of UVa merchandise by the athletic department go toward paying for tutoring for the athletes.

The alleged "games" that some state schools play with in-state status have no effect on football and basketball since they require full scholarships for all players, so they don't pay anything, unlike the Olympic sport athletes on partials.

 

[HOFCeluck]

We make doctors go to school so we should make basketball players go to school.

Like, that’s a take people believe unironically.

 

[reedny]

There is something in here that I do agree with - that a lot of the value of college sports comes from the universities and, to some degree, the NCAA. Being a Syracuse University basketball player brings value - those "OVERRATED" shirts are referencing Gerry, but they're bright orange because of Syracuse. I do agree that this is something real, and something that should be accounted for. I am a little (maybe a lot) more cynical about how much, if any, of this actually has to do with the schools "reputations as educational institutions" but I do agree that college sports brings something unique and perhaps irreplaceable.

At the same time, flip the argument in your first paragraph: Separate Syracuse from GMAC and what's the value of a #3 jersey in 2006? Not much.

More generally, I would encourage you to look at how much your argument is based, in essence, on definitions. You say that GMAC "wasn't employable as a BB player." But he was, clearly, employable as a basketball player: Syracuse gave him a scholarship worth $50k, and a bunch of fringe benefits. He played basketball on national television probably 50 times over the course of his career. Tens of millions of dollars were made on games played by Gerry McNamara. You are saying he wasn't "employable" because he was playing for free. My argument is that he shouldn't have been playing for free. Saying that he was is pointing out a fact, but is not really engaging with the argument.

On your last point, I will say I am unconvinced there is a meaningful difference between college athletics at Syracuse and UK and leave it at that.

Sorry for multiple posts, but I wanted to respond directly to this. This is not at all what I'm saying. I'm not saying that Syracuse is unscrupulous, or that GMac was forced to do anything. I agree he made a choice within the confines of the world in which he existed. What I am saying is that those choices depend on the rules, and that the rules are unjust.

To take another example, professional baseball for years had a reserve clause that massively depressed player salaries. Each of the players who signed a contract were making a choice - they didn't have to play baseball, they could have played internationally instead, whatever. They were all, in a very real sense, making a choice. They didn't have to be professional baseball players! Much of what they earned came from being on the Yankees or the Dodgers, rather than from their own talent. But the system changed. And it was an unjust system then. Undoubtedly, many of the people supporting it were arguing that the players were making a choice, that they were free to leave whenever they wanted.

A couple of points. First and foremost, nothing you've posted convinces me that, at its core, the relationship between college athletes and host schools is occupational rather than educational. All D-1 colleges are NFP -- essentially untaxed charities that are allowed to exist because of the importance society places on education. Students - including student athletes - are there primarily to learn. This primary purpose isn't erased because a few NBA aspirants at a few schools claim they have greater "value" and don't like going to class.

Second, even at the "sham" schools, there's no shocking injustice, although the relationship admittedly has some occupational aspects. Sleazy programs like UK are nothing like SU because they operate like de facto semi-pro clubs. Education is secondary (if not entirely absent), and millions of dollars are earned by everyone connected with the program, except the athletes - most of whom who are too young for pro ball (that is a CBA, not a college rule). The problem is, even in these cases viewed only through a monetary lens, SA's still receive something equal to or greater than their "services". They get health care, room, board, training, high level coaching and tremendous TV exposure. If they have greater "value", I haven't seen it. Bazely opted out of school and there's no endorsement money. His "value" consists of an agent loan. GL players make $36k. So even in monetary terms, the suppressed value argument is weak and the system that most needs reform is the NBA CBA (the rule that prohibits kids from going directly from HS to the NBA/GL), not college.

But lets get away from the one-and-dones - the exceptions - and back to the vast majority of schools and SA's. For all of them, amateur competition is not a "job", it's an ancillary part of an educational experience. Just because people will pay to see them compete doesn't mean they're transformed into employees. I've paid to see a HS FB game, and a LL playoff game. Does that mean 10 year olds have "market value", that they're being exploited, or that they're under-compensated workers because they're only given a uniform for playing first base instead of a share of the gate revenue? Of course not. In the same way, the "value" of college sports is precisely that it's STUDENTS competing - amateur athletes who are happy to receive an education instead of a paycheck. It's a bargain with benefits to each party (compensation), but only in an abstract way. Paying players cash and turning the bargain into an employment relationship would contradict the whole purpose of the endeavor (education), and create a far more corrupt system by monetizing every aspect of it. That would be a disservice to Universities and SA's who chose amateur competition.

So the unfairness and injustice you perceive are illusory. And turning the amateur model on its head invites more corruption and sours the entire enterprise ... which is now more popular than ever. And btw, UK sucks and so does pay pal. The last thing I want to model college sports on is the cesspool he's running in Lexington.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

But some of these kids, like hers, use the schools to in order to get to the nba as fast as possible.

Don't kids primarily use their schools to get employed as well and as quickly as possible?

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I have been avoiding this thread and it. Did. Not. Disappoint.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

then why show up?

Because I'm the hero the board deserves but not the one it needs right now.

 

[Chip]

I have two thoughts on this.

1. I love the phrase cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.

2. I wish slavery would only be compared to actual slavery. It was bad enough and should stand alone as something terrible. Not be the metaphor for people to jump to when they find a flawed system.

 

[shantydaze]

I have two thoughts on this.

1. I love the phrase cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.

2. I wish slavery would only be compared to actual slavery. It was bad enough and should stand alone as something terrible. Not be the metaphor for people to jump to when they find a flawed system.

I agree, people who compare slavery to NCAA basketball players are as bad as Hitler.

 

[bozophobe]

I agree, people who compare slavery to NCAA basketball players are as bad as Hitler.

Carter's Law?

 

[Rage4CUSE]

Assume for a moment all her arguments are correct.

1. Feeling the way she feels, why did she allow him to go to Duke?
2. Why didn't she insist that he stay in whatever school he attended and not be a one and done? Did I miss something that said K was throwing him out or is he leaving of his own accord?
3. Why didn't she insist he take classes that were meaningful?

When it comes to elite players, both sides are using the other. We can have an endless debate about who gets more out of it.

It's not that endless. The school makes VASTLY more money from the top-tier kids. Between ticket sales too merchandise all the way even too increased college attendance. Its honestly not even close.

 

[Rage4CUSE]

Why? These kids have it to good. Free education free food. Free clothes and shoes what more can you ask for. I'm getting so tired of the complaining. If they don't like it go get a job at McDonald's.

Yeah. And if all of those kids decided to take your advice as quit bball to go too McDonald's. You'd be sobbing like a baby there wasn't anymore SU bball.

 

[alphaorange]

I think a lot of you are in error. If SU and others had rosters made up of non NBA bound players but managed to win at a similar pace than they have now, the stands would still be full and they would still sell merchandise. They sell jerseys with names because they are on the team and the better guys (usually), not because they are NBA material. I truly think if all the players destined for lottery picks as one/two and dones were never in college, the college game wouldn't change that much and might be better. They would still sell merchandise, still fill the stands, and still be on TV. March madness would still be the biggest deal around and a most of the players would be thrilled to have degrees. Would there still be all this crap about players being employees and being exploited? No, I don't think so and I also believe it would be obvious that the schools and the success they have make the players, not necessarily the other way around.

 

[721Comstock]

A couple of points. First and foremost, nothing you've posted convinces me that, at its core, the relationship between college athletes and host schools is occupational rather than educational. All D-1 colleges are NFP -- essentially untaxed charities that are allowed to exist because of the importance society places on education. Students - including student athletes - are there primarily to learn. That primary purpose isn't contradicted because a few NBA aspirants at a few schools claim they have greater "value" and don't like going to class.

Second, even if you look at those "sham" schools, there's no shocking injustice, although the relationship admittedly has some occupational aspects. Sleazy programs like UK are nothing like SU because they operate like de facto semi-pro clubs. Education is secondary (if not entirely absent), and millions of dollars are earned by everyone connected with the program, except the athletes - most of whom who are too young for pro ball (that is a CBA, not a college rule). The problem is, even in these cases viewed only through a monetary lens, SA's still receive something equal to or greater than their "services". They get health care, room, board, training, high level coaching and tremendous TV exposure. If they have greater "value", there are few, if any, examples. Bazely opted out of school and his "value" consists of an agent loan. GL players make $36k. So even in monetary terms, the "value" argument is weak and the system that most needs reform is the NBA CBA (the rule that prohibits kids from going directly from HS to the NBA/GL), not college.

But lets get away from the one-and-dones - the exceptions - and back to the vast majority of schools and SA's. For all of them, amateur competition is not a "job", it's an ancillary part of an educational experience. Just because people will pay to see them compete doesn't mean they're employees. I've paid to see a HS FB game, and a LL playoff game. Does that mean 10 year olds have "market value", that they're being exploited, or that they're under-compensated employees because they're only given a uniform instead of a share of the gate revenue? Of course not. In the same way, the "value" of college sports is precisely because it's STUDENTS competing - amateur athletes who are happy to receive an education instead of a paycheck. It's a form of compensation, but only in an abstract way. Paying them cash and applying rules of employment contradicts the basic purpose of the relationship (education), and creates a far more corrupt system by monetizing every aspect of it. And that is a disservice to Universities and SA's who enjoy amateur competition in an educational setting.

So the unfairness and injustice you perceive is the exception, not the rule. And turning the amateur model on its head invites far worse abuses and sours the entire enterprise ... which is now more popular than ever. And btw, UK sucks and so does pay pal. The last thing I want to model college sports on is the cesspool he's running in Lexington.

This is a stellar post. Well articulated, excellent points throughout.

 

[Briancuse]

Yeah. And if all of those kids decided to take your advice as quit bball to go too McDonald's. You'd be sobbing like a baby there wasn't anymore SU bball.

No because if they went to work at McDonald's no one would know who they were.

 

[reedny]

2016 Revenues. $945M
2016 Expenses. $906M
From SU's annual report.

So where did the $39M go? The maffia (COR?), Michael C0hen? Ooops, now I remember .. it went back to the endowment or into a capital project. You understand NFP's, right, Capt.?

 

[Briancuse]

We make doctors go to school so we should make basketball players go to school.

Like, that’s a take people believe unironically.

Different professions have a right to set the standards for potential employees. If the nba decides they want kids to go to school for 3 years that is their right.

 

[pfister1]

Different professions have a right to set the standards for potential employees. If the nba decides they want kids to go to school for 3 years that is their right.

It will be interesting to see if the requirement is challenged legally if it is in fact their right, because in reality going to school isn't what they are requiring.

What they are requiring is for players to be a particular age before they are eligible to play in the NBA. While age may theoretically correlate to readiness to play in the NBA in reality age doesn't determine how prepared someone is.