Kory
.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2012
- Messages
- 28,608
- Reaction score
- 9,173
Blake Griffin took less money to join a contender.
explain that, marxists.
Blake Griffin took less money to join a contender.
The net effect may be even a greater widening of the resource and talent gap between the richest programs and the others trying to compete, although scholly limits will help with that.
Blake Griffin took less money to join a contender.
Expanding player rights and compensation could help save college basketball.
Anyways back to the NCAA. It's over. I give it 10 years max. The big schools will break away and try to create their own thing, but they will fail too. Maybe college football lives, but everything else is gone, at least in its current form. If I'm Wake I'm slowly cutting back on athletics. Their programs have been on a slow death spiral since 2005 and the beginning of conference realignment.
Anyways back to the NCAA. It's over. I give it 10 years max. The big schools will break away and try to create their own thing, but they will fail too. Maybe college football lives, but everything else is gone, at least in its current form.
In the history of Wake Forest athletics, teams and individuals have won 28 national championships. 13 of those national championships have come since 2005.
I see the opposite happening. The change has been driven by the idea that billions of dollars are being made/exchanged, and the student athletes are not seeing that money. So I think it will be much easier to keep the sports that currently do not generate money (everything except football and men's basketball). Football and men's basketball will be moved to a minor league system that eventually no one will care about, and the collegiate sports that are kept will rise in prominence (especially soccer and baseball). The interest in college sports is not because these are the best athletes (they're not), it's because of the the interscholastic competition.
In the history of Wake Forest athletics, teams and individuals have won 28 national championships. 13 of those national championships have come since 2005.
Lot of this NIL stuff I don't understand (or haven't taken the trouble to read up on), but I don't see how the WFU's of the world will be able to recruit when somebody like Sam Hartmann probably couldn't sell 10 autographs at a Dunkin' Donuts opening, while the 3rd string OT at Alabama can get a gig showing up at kids' b-day parties in Podunk, AA where he'd be treated like a celeb. And not a knock on Hartmann or any of our athletes, but our fanbase just doesn't roll with the WalMart, "Oh my God there's so-and-so" mentality.
I did put the opinion in the OP. Without straying too much away from sports, the part that gets quoted the most is based on a very idealistic version of this country. "The NCAA’s business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America." The examples he gives of what couldn't happen actually do in some respects.
I do agree that this is motivation for things to change. The question is who will change it. The NCAA has no desire to lead. This is a 50/50 ball for Congress but I doubt they'll do anything. Conferences are probably most likely but how big will they go?
And the NBA's special relationship with China, which is not at all about making money but about forming friendships, is simply so endearing.