• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

WFU Hoops: '24-'25 Roster Construction Thread: (-) Carr, Monsanto, Ituka, Clark, Miller, Marsh, Keller, Canka / (+) Spillers, Biliew, Cosby

As a wake fan I expect this to drag out to the last second. The longer it goes without any word the more hope we get. Then sallis, Reid, cam and carr all announce departure. Like the GT game. Instead of quick death, it’s lingering misery that tricks us into hope when there was none all along. 😀
 
WakeForest Fan said:
As a wake fan I expect this to drag out to the last second. The longer it goes without any word the more hope we get. Then sallis, Reid, cam and carr all announce departure. Like the GT game. Instead of quick death, it’s lingering misery that tricks us into hope when there was none all along. 😀
Click to expand...
Your screen name is appropriate
 
Yeah, college coaches are basically GMs at this point and the collectives are the franchise owners/leaders. I'm sure some collectives are more involved in the strategy than others and some coaches just receive a pool of money and carte blanche to pay whoever/however much they want.

It's (unfortunately) just as reasonable to discuss NIL payment strategy as it is NFL/NBA salary cap or free agency strategy. Doesn't mean you have to contribute or be a big donor.
 
PhDeac said:
What's wrong with a player testing his value on the open market? I hope our staff isn't treating Boopie like our fans are.

The NCAA could have addressed this years ago by paying players. But people would have complained about paying players $30,000 a year, too. And that's why we have no rules today.
Click to expand...
Point of clarification.

Don't disagree that the schools could have agreed to pay "players" as the NCAA makes decisions by vote of the member schools; the NCAA does not decide to do anything; there is a convention every year and the schools vote by division (D1, D2, D3 to rule changes). FWIW, don't think there was ever enough momentum among the member institutions to pay players; there are too many schools that barely make their budget as it is. The first step to go this route would be for the power conferences to separate from all of the other schools, which would kill the NCAAT. FWIW, we are probably heading there anyway.

Even if schools decided to pay players (or even if happens subsequently), the NCAA can't stop players from getting paid via NIL. That is the law as ruled by the Supreme Court, and it will never change (the ruling would not have been different if players were getting paid, as schools were already giving stipends to football and basketball players at the time). The Supreme Court NIL ruling is that the NCAA cannot regulate the amount of money outside third parties want to pay athletes. Schools paying players would not disturb that ruling.

Further, courts have ruled that NIL includes pay for play. So, don't see how the NCAA could have stopped or addressed this by paying players to transfer or to outbid other schools during HS recruiting. Let's say the power conferences agreed to pay every football and basketball player $15K per semester (and because of Title IX pretty sure that would mean that women's field hockey and all other women's athletes would have to be paid too; among other things, tons of sports would have to be cut, while many schools would just drop out of D1). Schools paying players would not keep a Kentucky booster from paying $1 million to Hunter Sallis to transfer to Lexington. Schools' payment to players and NIL payments would be two seperate and unrelated revenue streams for players. So, there is no basis to conclude that this current wild west format would be drastically different if the NCAA paid some much smaller amount to its athletes.

The only way to change the current state would be: a) for congress to pass a law governing NIL (and even if that happened not clear it would survive a court challenge as courts have determined that college athletes have the right to take advantage of the open market); b) for college athletes to unionize and for their to be collective bargaining agreement between colleges and the players setting a salary structure and a cap (anything is possible, but this seems unlikely because SEC and Big 10 athletes who make huge bucks would have no incentive to agree to a system that limited their income).
 
Last edited:
myDeaconmyhand said:
As I see them, the arguments supporting Forbes are this:

1. Forbes has already accomplished enough

2. Forbes has improved the program such that people believe he will soon accomplish enough

3. Accomplishment aside, Wake is incapable
of hiring a superior replacement.


My opinion is that none of those are true.
Click to expand...

1. No.
2. Yes, I do believe this. He's come close enough, enough times, that it's reasonable to expect a breakthrough soon.
3. Right now, yes. Considering the depths the program came from, making a change now will make it harder to get a quality candidate. In another year or two if we continue to fall short? No.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top