Olddude has opened one very interesting thread on the Brave New World in WBB on “position-less” basketball until it got into an extended discussion of the unwatchable NBA and gold2323 on the Wild Wild West of free one-time transfers. These are just a couple of the changes are transforming the game.
The past season saw the pandemic, practicing in pods, games postponed and cancelled, and games played in empty gyms. Presumably we will not be faced with such disruptions in the future, but as we speak, the basketball landscape is rapidly changing and whether or not for the better remains to be seen. Two changes have already occurred and a third on the horizon are likely to make the sport a much different one than we have known and loved. These merit serious discussion. The turmoil of the post-season with transfers and coaching changes seem to be a reflection in no small part to these transformations.
The first major upheaval is no cost transfers that have resulted in a vast increase in players doing so. UConn in less than a month has seen two leaving and one arriving. Unfortunately, many of those seeking a change in basketball address may not come out ahead and will regret the dream of greener pastures. One can expect a lot more rent-a-key-player squads similar to that of Baylor in recent years. The new transfer regulations could well have been a major factor in Kim Mulkey’s decision to leave Baylor and go to LSU. Teams will be able to reload immediately and this should help ensure that the traditional powers remain dominant as quality players from lesser conferences migrate to bigger ones. To be sure, the inconsistent policies of the NCAA caused a great many headaches and immediate transfer benefits players, but I don’t believe that a Wild West atmosphere in which players move seemingly at will helps the game, but I am old fashioned. I still do not like the designated hitter.
The second major change is the decision of the NCAA to grant all those who suited up this past season another year of eligibility. This makes sense when one considers all the disruptions that have occurred due to postponements, cancellations, and a season in quarantine. It will, however, change the game with a good many players taking advantage of this benefit. Ali Patberg will return to Indiana for her 7th season of college basketball and a number of other teams will be stronger by having 5th year players on their teams. Those like Dorka Juhasz will have two years more of eligibility. This effect will last for 4 years.
The third major change expected relatively soon is to allow athletes to gain economic advantage from their celebrity without losing their amateur status. Considering the greed of the NCAA and its vast wealth being built upon the backs of athletes, such a policy change is not undeserved. However, if one examines the packages players with a full scholarship receive and one adds what they get with transportation, meals, travel, etc., the average Division 1 basketball and football player receives benefits that are worth more than the average salary of American workers. My rough guesstimate is that for many the package is worth close to $75,000 and with no college loans to repay. This is not chicken feed and for the vast majority that never have a pro career, the advantages accrued by a free college degree last a lifetime. Statistics show that those with college degrees earn on average hundreds of thousands more than those without one and college athletes have additional advantages of having played on a team sport and the recognition that goes with it. The economic benefits of a new policy will, however, likely be limited to the few like a Paige Bueckers and for every Bueckers there will be scores who do not receive a dime. And, what forms will this new policy take? For example, one sees Geno Auriemma on TV but, as a state employee, he cannot mention UConn or wear any university gear. Can a player tout a new car or the latest nutritional supplement, wear gear like race drivers and golfers, or be limited to ads on one’s social media? Will athletes take on behaviors that will increase their marketability and what effect might this have on team performance? Will those who do not receive any of these benefits resent those who do and what effects might this have? Pay for play for college athletes is probably the future, but not one that this lifelong fan looks forward to seeing.
The past season saw the pandemic, practicing in pods, games postponed and cancelled, and games played in empty gyms. Presumably we will not be faced with such disruptions in the future, but as we speak, the basketball landscape is rapidly changing and whether or not for the better remains to be seen. Two changes have already occurred and a third on the horizon are likely to make the sport a much different one than we have known and loved. These merit serious discussion. The turmoil of the post-season with transfers and coaching changes seem to be a reflection in no small part to these transformations.
The first major upheaval is no cost transfers that have resulted in a vast increase in players doing so. UConn in less than a month has seen two leaving and one arriving. Unfortunately, many of those seeking a change in basketball address may not come out ahead and will regret the dream of greener pastures. One can expect a lot more rent-a-key-player squads similar to that of Baylor in recent years. The new transfer regulations could well have been a major factor in Kim Mulkey’s decision to leave Baylor and go to LSU. Teams will be able to reload immediately and this should help ensure that the traditional powers remain dominant as quality players from lesser conferences migrate to bigger ones. To be sure, the inconsistent policies of the NCAA caused a great many headaches and immediate transfer benefits players, but I don’t believe that a Wild West atmosphere in which players move seemingly at will helps the game, but I am old fashioned. I still do not like the designated hitter.
The second major change is the decision of the NCAA to grant all those who suited up this past season another year of eligibility. This makes sense when one considers all the disruptions that have occurred due to postponements, cancellations, and a season in quarantine. It will, however, change the game with a good many players taking advantage of this benefit. Ali Patberg will return to Indiana for her 7th season of college basketball and a number of other teams will be stronger by having 5th year players on their teams. Those like Dorka Juhasz will have two years more of eligibility. This effect will last for 4 years.
The third major change expected relatively soon is to allow athletes to gain economic advantage from their celebrity without losing their amateur status. Considering the greed of the NCAA and its vast wealth being built upon the backs of athletes, such a policy change is not undeserved. However, if one examines the packages players with a full scholarship receive and one adds what they get with transportation, meals, travel, etc., the average Division 1 basketball and football player receives benefits that are worth more than the average salary of American workers. My rough guesstimate is that for many the package is worth close to $75,000 and with no college loans to repay. This is not chicken feed and for the vast majority that never have a pro career, the advantages accrued by a free college degree last a lifetime. Statistics show that those with college degrees earn on average hundreds of thousands more than those without one and college athletes have additional advantages of having played on a team sport and the recognition that goes with it. The economic benefits of a new policy will, however, likely be limited to the few like a Paige Bueckers and for every Bueckers there will be scores who do not receive a dime. And, what forms will this new policy take? For example, one sees Geno Auriemma on TV but, as a state employee, he cannot mention UConn or wear any university gear. Can a player tout a new car or the latest nutritional supplement, wear gear like race drivers and golfers, or be limited to ads on one’s social media? Will athletes take on behaviors that will increase their marketability and what effect might this have on team performance? Will those who do not receive any of these benefits resent those who do and what effects might this have? Pay for play for college athletes is probably the future, but not one that this lifelong fan looks forward to seeing.
