RealGM

Why would a coach want to deal with this on a year to year basis?

It’s truly a no win situation.

tski1972 wrote:Why would a coach want to deal with this on a year to year basis?

It’s truly a no win situation.

The ones at Duke, Kansas, and whichever NIL schools are at the top absolutely **** love this.

College athletics is broken.

Mags FTW wrote:College athletics is broken.

Hot take: This is actually going to work out well nationally for the 2 main sports.

Kerb Hohl wrote:

tski1972 wrote:Why would a coach want to deal with this on a year to year basis?

It’s truly a no win situation.

The ones at Duke, Kansas, and whichever NIL schools are at the top absolutely **** love this.

Obviously. But this will be a total regression of the parity that had evolved quite a bit over the years.

Once a coach unearths a hidden gem they’ll be rewarded with nothing but a thank you note on social media.

Kerb Hohl wrote:

Mags FTW wrote:College athletics is broken.

Hot take: This is actually going to work out well nationally for the 2 main sports.

Football and women's basketball?

Yea NCAA should have gotten ahead of this years ago rather than fighting it the whole time until the courts forced this on them with no time to set up a system. Total mess now.

An interesting thing to note going forward will be what happens with coaches salaries. Say for UW rather than paying Gard or whoever the replacement is 4 mil, you're better off paying like 2 mil and spending the other 2 on players.

Also, lol for calling to fire the coach for HIM not paying the players. I mean, I guess if you want to say he should literally take his own money and funnel it to Storr/Chucky which of course is still highly against the rules but other than that there's no way to blame the coach when the other teams offers more than double the money. Think of it like an auction for whatever, livestock/art/etc, and you tell your representative to go buy XYZ with this 50K, he goes there and attempts to do it but XYZ sold for 200K. Is the representative at fault? Would have firing him and having someone else do the same have changed anything?

But really if we insist on blaming/firing which of course that's what every hottake person always demands. The person to blame would be the AD for not making or having their NIL system ready or have enough money coming into it to keep up with competition. Reality is UW just doesn't have the donors to match the crazies. So I guess fire the rich people for not donating more money!!!!

Side note, hey its people's money and they can blow it on whatever they want if they have so much. But is there really worse money spent than 1-2 mil for one year of a good but not great cbb player to get your team to be like 2nd in the B1G instead of like 6th and virtually change nothing about their odds at a TITLE!!! come tourney time when its a bunch of random one game samples. Keep in mind the donor will likely make no money back on this investment. If you're giving you money to Duke/UNC etc sure, your legit pounding on the door of the TITLE!!!! over and over, but for everyone else its a big waste of money

ReasonablySober wrote:

Kerb Hohl wrote:

Mags FTW wrote:College athletics is broken.

Hot take: This is actually going to work out well nationally for the 2 main sports.

Football and women's basketball?

Har har har...yeah, I know that's growing in popularity...I haven't ever gotten into it but could be included as the big 3 at some point if they keep drawing out great storylines.

Kerb Hohl wrote:

ReasonablySober wrote:

Kerb Hohl wrote:
Hot take: This is actually going to work out well nationally for the 2 main sports.

Football and women's basketball?

Har har har...yeah, I know that's growing in popularity...I haven't ever gotten into it but could be included as the big 3 at some point if they keep drawing out great storylines.

They've got such a massive advantage over the men in that the WNBA doesn't have an early entry rule. Kids basically have to play at least three seasons and with NIL, almost all of them will play four. The public is going to continue to get to know the women playing college basketball.

It was one thing with the men and there were 15 one and done players every year. At least you could still count on your team having some continuity year in and year out. But now? Where you're not sure anyone is going to be around from one season to the next? Why should I pay attention to a sport where I'm never going to have a clue who's playing for my team? Even casually it's not worth keeping up with the game.

Kerb Hohl wrote:

ReasonablySober wrote:

Kerb Hohl wrote:
Hot take: This is actually going to work out well nationally for the 2 main sports.

Football and women's basketball?

Har har har...yeah, I know that's growing in popularity...I haven't ever gotten into it but could be included as the big 3 at some point if they keep drawing out great storylines.

I'd guess womens college ball goes back to an afterthought now that clark is gone. Though I'd assume at least a slight uptick. Unless of course another freak emerges. The viewers/attention are going to follow her and the WNBA is gonna benefit now. Volleyball otoh I think could have some real staying power if pushed better.

But, lets say it did. The same problems would happen in women's CBB. The good big that UW has now on a blah team would be getting poached.

ETA: just saw sober's follow up. I see what he means now, there's def some logic to that as the players will be there longer. But if there is a big 'boom' and money coming in the same structural issues would apply. But yea, probably won't be the sums of money like in men's so there should be more stability. I see the point.

ReasonablySober wrote:

Kerb Hohl wrote:

ReasonablySober wrote:
Football and women's basketball?

Har har har...yeah, I know that's growing in popularity...I haven't ever gotten into it but could be included as the big 3 at some point if they keep drawing out great storylines.

They've got such a massive advantage over the men in that the WNBA doesn't have an early entry rule. Kids basically have to play at least three seasons and with NIL, almost all of them will play four. The public is going to continue to get to know the women playing college basketball.

It was one thing with the men and there were 15 one and done players every year. At least you could still count on your team having some continuity year in and year out. But now? Where you're not sure anyone is going to be around from one season to the next? Why should I pay attention to a sport where I'm never going to have a clue who's playing for my team? Even casually it's not worth keeping up with the game.

If these rules stay and the women's game gets/remains popular, it would just be the same thing of movement of the best players.

Kerb Hohl wrote:

ReasonablySober wrote:

Kerb Hohl wrote:
Har har har...yeah, I know that's growing in popularity...I haven't ever gotten into it but could be included as the big 3 at some point if they keep drawing out great storylines.

They've got such a massive advantage over the men in that the WNBA doesn't have an early entry rule. Kids basically have to play at least three seasons and with NIL, almost all of them will play four. The public is going to continue to get to know the women playing college basketball.

It was one thing with the men and there were 15 one and done players every year. At least you could still count on your team having some continuity year in and year out. But now? Where you're not sure anyone is going to be around from one season to the next? Why should I pay attention to a sport where I'm never going to have a clue who's playing for my team? Even casually it's not worth keeping up with the game.

If these rules stay and the women's game gets/remains popular, it would just be the same thing of movement of the best players.

Maybe, but it's not the case right now.

ReasonablySober wrote:

Kerb Hohl wrote:

ReasonablySober wrote:
They've got such a massive advantage over the men in that the WNBA doesn't have an early entry rule. Kids basically have to play at least three seasons and with NIL, almost all of them will play four. The public is going to continue to get to know the women playing college basketball.

It was one thing with the men and there were 15 one and done players every year. At least you could still count on your team having some continuity year in and year out. But now? Where you're not sure anyone is going to be around from one season to the next? Why should I pay attention to a sport where I'm never going to have a clue who's playing for my team? Even casually it's not worth keeping up with the game.

If these rules stay and the women's game gets/remains popular, it would just be the same thing of movement of the best players.

Maybe, but it's not the case right now.

HVL will be at her third school next year. Reese played at Maryland before transferring to LSU. Morrow played at DePaul before transferring to LSU. UCLA’s center transferred from Stanford.

It’s already happening in the women’s game.

BroncoBuck wrote:

ReasonablySober wrote:

Kerb Hohl wrote:
If these rules stay and the women's game gets/remains popular, it would just be the same thing of movement of the best players.

Maybe, but it's not the case right now.

HVL will be at her third school next year. Reese played at Maryland before transferring to LSU. Morrow played at DePaul before transferring to LSU. UCLA’s center transferred from Stanford.

It’s already happening in the women’s game.

But it didn't affect the popularity of the game. The stars are still around. If anything it's grown the popularity of the sport. I had no rooting interest in WBB but I tuned in to watch Clark, Reese, Watkins, and the Cavinders (who I see are back).

In the men's game the best players go to the NBA after one season and everyone else just shuffles around.

ReasonablySober wrote:

BroncoBuck wrote:

ReasonablySober wrote:
Maybe, but it's not the case right now.

HVL will be at her third school next year. Reese played at Maryland before transferring to LSU. Morrow played at DePaul before transferring to LSU. UCLA’s center transferred from Stanford.

It’s already happening in the women’s game.

But it didn't affect the popularity of the game. The stars are still around. If anything it's grown the popularity of the sport. I had no rooting interest in WBB but I tuned in to watch Clark, Reese, Watkins, and the Cavinders (who I see are back).

In the men's game the best players go to the NBA after one season and everyone else just shuffles around.

Honestly, NIL has kinda flipped that in the men's game. I don't follow the NBA as much as I used to and obviously I may know the top 5-10 or whatever freshman/sophomores that hop to the NBA, but now there is a vast tier of guys that stay in college for the bag.

We'll see how the women's ratings are next year without Clark around. Maybe it will continue it's momentum and upward climb. I'm dubious.

Kerb Hohl wrote:

ReasonablySober wrote:

BroncoBuck wrote:
HVL will be at her third school next year. Reese played at Maryland before transferring to LSU. Morrow played at DePaul before transferring to LSU. UCLA’s center transferred from Stanford.

It’s already happening in the women’s game.

But it didn't affect the popularity of the game. The stars are still around. If anything it's grown the popularity of the sport. I had no rooting interest in WBB but I tuned in to watch Clark, Reese, Watkins, and the Cavinders (who I see are back).

In the men's game the best players go to the NBA after one season and everyone else just shuffles around.

Honestly, NIL has kinda flipped that in the men's game. I don't follow the NBA as much as I used to and obviously I may know the top 5-10 or whatever freshman/sophomores that hop to the NBA, but now there is a vast tier of guys that stay in college for the bag.

Yeah. I see your point DB, but I think the current college landscape is going to keep a lot of non-lottery guys in college now. There's little incentive for someone like Storr to go now; five years ago, I get the sense a guy like him (and Storr specifically) would have jumped pro even if he was a second rounder. And then some of those guys didn't even get drafted.

Now we just have to worry about guys like him switching teams every year instead

Yup, I used to chuckle years ago when some 2nd or 3rd tier 'star' in college declared pro and everyone mocked him for being an idiot "he's not gonna get drafted". Yea, they knew that, they were just going to get paid wherever they could, mostly in Europe. In general, people this good at hoops like this s are obsessed with bball and don't care about the fake bs of going to class. All while playing for free. Or, cut the class bs and get 100K or more from wherever you can.

MickeyDavis wrote:We'll see how the women's ratings are next year without Clark around. Maybe it will continue it's momentum and upward climb. I'm dubious.

I think it's only going to get bigger. Clark and Reece are leaving, but Bueckers returns and Watkins is going to break every Clark scoring record.