Fanta quotes unnamed high major coach on the portal | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Fanta quotes unnamed high major coach on the portal

There obviously needs to be some changes made.
Every school needs to budget a GM to handle the non-sport issues and manage the coming and goings of players.
They also need to understand that this is now a professional environment and need to introduce contracts that protect both players and schools. The money gets guaranteed in exchange for commitments to stay at the school for the remainder of a player's eligibility.
 
Rico444 said:
This is the issue. Any suggested change just forces kids back into bad situations. Your suggestion would have that "diamond in the rough" not make any money and be forced to stay at his school or sit out a full season.

You don't have to like the portal, and there are certain parts about it that aren't ideal for sure, but it's 100% better for the kids overall. This coach doesn't have to be happy but based on Fanta's description of him he also makes millions of dollars every year. The only reason he makes those millions is because of the product the kids put out there.
Expand ...
You nailed the crux. That's the thing here:
It IS better for the players, but pretty much only the players.
Do millions watch cbb solely because they want to see talented kids succeed? Clearly not our motivation, or else we'd watch ivy league kids get recruited by major companies as a sport. We watch for the product. The portal waters down our beloved product. i don't want to see kids fail, but selfishly I don't watch cbb to see kids make money, neither does anybody else.
 
I am 100% all for players making money off their name, image, and likeness. I can’t get behind kids getting outright paid by programs. There’s no argument against players making money off jersey sales, selling autographed/personalized items, and signing contracts with companies to be partners. But when programs are just straight up offering $1 million that’s not good and this can’t go on the way it is.
 
Rico444 said:
This is the issue. Any suggested change just forces kids back into bad situations. Your suggestion would have that "diamond in the rough" not make any money and be forced to stay at his school or sit out a full season.

You don't have to like the portal, and there are certain parts about it that aren't ideal for sure, but it's 100% better for the kids overall. This coach doesn't have to be happy but based on Fanta's description of him he also makes millions of dollars every year. The only reason he makes those millions is because of the product the kids put out there.
Expand ...

I get it... It's definitely better for the players and deservedly so. They were $$-making entities for years and saw little to no profit. I guess I'd like to see the transfer year off return unless there's a coaching change or a major life-event circumstance return. But I also want the "old" CBB back so get off my lawn.
 
boog204 said:
Alabama is coming off their best season ever. They have one of the best coaches in the country. They have a large and rabid fan base. They were, by far, our toughest test. And they've had five enter the portal to get more $$ elsewhere. Three of those, I think, were freshmen. That absolutely sucks.
Expand ...
That's their culture so thats what they should expect. Uconn has a different culture built on excellence in basketball.
 
Jaydumo20 said:
You nailed the crux. That's the thing here:
It IS better for the players, but pretty much only the players.
Do millions watch cbb solely because they want to see talented kids succeed? Clearly not our motivation, or else we'd watch ivy league kids get recruited by major companies as a sport. We watch for the product. The portal waters down our beloved product. i don't want to see kids fail, but selfishly I don't watch cbb to see kids make money, neither does anybody else.
Expand ...

In what way is the product watered down? I get why it's more frustrating for coaches, and fans of mid-majors when their favorite players move on, but the product on the court has been fantastic.
 
Rico444 said:
In what way is the product watered down? I get why it's more frustrating for coaches, and fans of mid-majors when their favorite players move on, but the product on the court has been fantastic.
Expand ...
It waters down the mid-major ranks for sure because it consolidates talent at the high major level. For the average fan that watches only high major games until tourney time, it’s pretty clearly a better product.
 
ultimately you need to just pay the players (revenue sharing) and have a buyout if they choose to transfer. Buyout should be a multiple of their annual salary. You can forego the buyout if the player sits out a year so that no player is "trapped" at a certain school.
 
Rico444 said:
In what way is the product watered down? I get why it's more frustrating for coaches, and fans of mid-majors when their favorite players move on, but the product on the court has been fantastic.
Expand ...
Like @boog204 said, it gets rid of one of the best things about college sports: watching kids develop within a program and progress. I like when kids are identified with certain schools. It also makes HS recruiting less impactful. Of course the players don't lose ability and the games are played at a high level, but there's no identity.

- I imagine a baseball game where both teams decide to trade jerseys before the game: so now, the blue Jay's have the Yankees players and vice versa: you still get the same game and level of play.... but it ain't the same for a fan
 
I understand how the constant movement of players is exhausting for a coaching staff to stay on top of. And coaches at schools with low NIL budgets are getting shafted.

That said, it makes checking team message boards much more exciting. So there's that.

And I'm thankful we have a coaching staff that lives to work, and an NIL budget.
 
WhereistheDove? said:
It waters down the mid-major ranks for sure because it consolidates talent at the high major level. For the average fan that watches only high major games until tourney time, it’s pretty clearly a better product.
Expand ...

I understand the theory, but I don't necessarily buy it. Sure, it's easier for a really good player at a mid-major to transfer, but it's not like those players didn't transfer before. And there are also talented players that are getting recruited over at bigger schools that trickle down to those lower programs and end up developing into really good players.

Maybe it hurts them a little, but overall I don't think the impact is big enough to say the overall product is watered down.
 
Jaydumo20 said:
Like @boog204 said, it gets rid of one of the best things about college sports: watching kids develop within a program and progress. I like when kids are identified with certain schools. It also makes HS recruiting less impactful. Of course the players don't lose ability and the games are played at a high level, but there's no identity.

- I imagine a baseball game where both teams decide to trade jerseys before the game: so now, the blue Jay's have the Yankees players and vice versa: you still get the same game and level of play.... but it ain't the same for a fan
Expand ...

If that's what you're into, I get that it can be disappointing. That being said, it's not fair to wish it would go back to how it was just for your own enjoyment.

It's still a great product. And there are plenty of teams that don't bring in a bunch of kids every year and develop great players. The plan with our team is still to do that with Stewart, Solo, and Samson.
 
Rico444 said:
I understand the theory, but I don't necessarily buy it. Sure, it's easier for a really good player at a mid-major to transfer, but it's not like those players didn't transfer before. And there are also talented players that are getting recruited over at bigger schools that trickle down to those lower programs and end up developing into really good players.

Maybe it hurts them a little, but overall I don't think the impact is big enough to say the overall product is watered down.
Expand ...
There’s definitely a two-way flow of talent, but by and large the guys going from mid to high major are better than the guys going the other way. That’s why it’s happening that way.
 
It is just a reflection of the same issues that have destroyed college athletics and led to the P2 cartel.
 
The NCAA screws up virtually everything they touch.
One of the worst managed organizations on the planet.
Time to blow it up and find a better alternative that will consider all the schools at all levels rather than a handful.
 
The coach is right, but the NCAA is afraid that any action that has the potential impact of limiting NIL or access to NIL, will be subject to an immediate legal action under the Supreme Court precedent. This is why Charlie Baker asked Congress to act, because the NCAA can't do this otherwise.
 
businesslawyer said:
LOL. Yes, they do have options. When you run an important business you live with being sued and regulated. You have to focus on what you can win. And if you don’t think there is more that can be done than is being done, ask yourself why NBA players aren’t leaving their club after any year in which they got better.
Expand ...
upstater said:
NBA = professional employees.

The colleges are trying to avoid that.

You don't see the big difference?
Expand ...
Couldn't have said it better.

The NCAA has lost pretty much every suit thrown at them, and the concurrent opinion of the supreme court was pretty much "the ncaa is a restraint on trade. please sue them."

The NCAA cannot override California, and now Virginia law. Any restraint on this they try to make, they'll simply get sued and lose because of the supreme court precedent.
 
uh-no said:
I don't think the NCAA has any options. Any "rules" someone just sues them or passes a state law against it.
Expand ...
State law doesn't govern NCAA member rules absent it violating fundamental protections like discrimination against a protected class.

As I've posted on occasion, this entire thing could have gone away had the NCAA stepped up and formulated rules prior to the de facto agency that we have now.
 
At the end of the day, if a product can only exist the way you want it by exploiting the people who make it, then the product shouldn't exist. The fact that probably a few hundred million dollars are flowing to players per year across football and basketball shows how imbalanced the old way was. I think the flaws with the new system are obvious, but the good it does for the players outweighs them.

I think if there were basically any restrictions put in place (ability to commit to multi year contracts, etc) we would be able to land in a happy middle ground. Obviously the legality of any restrictions will be challenged and I have no idea what a realistic solution might look like, but hopefully we get something eventually.
 
If the NCAA had spent half the time on the NIL issue years ago, instead of penalizing schools for the most arcane things, while ignoring the larger issues, then perhaps it would be different. Emmett screwed everything up, went for the easy low hanging fruit, and left Baker fixing the messes as best as he can, with the DOJ hanging around.
 
Rico444 said:
This is the issue. Any suggested change just forces kids back into bad situations. Your suggestion would have that "diamond in the rough" not make any money and be forced to stay at his school or sit out a full season.
Expand ...

But the player is compensated in the form of a scholarship, coaching, facilities, travel, etc. you can't just take those things out of the equation. It's still college athletics. There needs to be a middle ground or an overall "salary" cap
 

Online statistics

Members online
153
Guests online
2,589
Total visitors
2,742
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
164,224
Messages
4,387,842
Members
10,196
Latest member
ArtTheFan


.
..
Top Bottom