Salary Cap For College Basketball

[CallMeBruce]

Really, teams that have time to gel with core players dont make for a better game?

Having the 10 supreme talents that go to kentucky and Duke every year spread over 10 teams doesnt make for better quality basketball and better parity?

Except now a ton of schools are going to have to leave scholarships open, which means worse players.

 

[pepband99]

How is there a thread about a salary cap in college sports, and no mention of the $EC, or cheating schools like Miami?

You guys are slipping...

 

[Rico444]

So in this hypothetical situation, how do you account for transfers? If a kid wants to leave, the school has to be relieved of his scholarship. And if that's the case, then coaches will push kids out the door like crazy to make room for the next one.

 

[auror]

Yeah, I get that, I just have no idea how it improves the quality of the college basketball product.

I don't think reducing the pool of college basketball players by 10% (just guessing, don't know the actual percentage of players that don't use their 4 years of eligibility) would result in better college basketball.

It increases the parity in the major conferences. Teams with a few blank schollies would be unable to stockpile as much talent, so that talent would filter down to other schools.

It might also get a guy to come back if he cares about his school/coach, but probably not much more than what happens now.

Also, the 10% reduction would come from the bottom of the pool, so it would have almost no impact on quality.

 

[7774]

It increases the parity in the major conferences. Teams with a few blank schollies would be unable to stockpile as much talent, so that talent would filter down to other schools.

Yeah, it would probably increase the parity, but I don't know why people think more parity = better college basketball. College basketball has more parity than ever, so I don't know why we need more.

I'm not even sure that the teams that have this talent filter down to them would actually be better. Their rosters become worse because just like Duke and UK they can't replace anyone who leaves early, and that is offset by getting a freshman for 1 year that may or may not have a big impact on the team's record, and then his scholarship becomes useless for the next 3 years. All you're really doing is making every team average, which would be terrible to watch.

Also, the 10% reduction would come from the bottom of the pool, so it would have almost no impact on quality.

I don't agree with this. Practices will become worse at most schools because the population of players is reduced, and you start practicing against more walk ons rather than actual scholarship players. There are also very good college players every year that aren't highly ranked recruits, so you miss out on them.

 

[auror]

There are also very good college players every year that aren't highly ranked recruits, so you miss out on them.

Those guys are almost never "8th man on Canisius" though. They're "top 2 recruit for Oral Roberts". A RealGM piece found that in the NBA there were 3 starters in the whole league ranked as less than 3 star recruits (top 400 or so). If we're keeping that 10% number, that's the bottom 75 recruits out of 750 who are missing out. Guys ranked in the high 600s are still getting scholarships.

 

[August_West]

Yeah, it would probably increase the parity, but I don't know why people think more parity = better college basketball. College basketball has more parity than ever, so I don't know why we need more.

I'm not even sure that the teams that have this talent filter down to them would actually be better. Their rosters become worse because just like Duke and UK they can't replace anyone who leaves early, and that is offset by getting a freshman for 1 year that may or may not have a big impact on the team's record, and then his scholarship becomes useless for the next 3 years. All you're really doing is making every team average, which would be terrible to watch.


I don't agree with this. Practices will become worse at most schools because the population of players is reduced, and you start practicing against more walk ons rather than actual scholarship players. There are also very good college players every year that aren't highly ranked recruits, so you miss out on them.

Look at the national champions for the last 25 years.
You see parity?
I see an embarrassment of riches for the select few.

 

[navery12]

What?

I misinterpreted the 4 year scholarship talk as meaning they wanted to make all players stay 3/4 years, not that the players could leave but the scholarship would stay tied up

 

[7774]

Look at the national champions for the last 25 years.
You see parity?
I see an embarrassment of riches for the select few.

I'm not looking specifically at championships. There is not true parity, where every team is equal, but this is certainly the most parity we've seen in college basketball, and I think it has more parity than most other major sports.

When Villanova beat Georgetown for the title it was looked at like almost a Miracle on Ice level upset. It was crazy that a 9 seed even made it to the championship game. Even when we lost to GM ten years ago, it was looked at as a huge, huge upset. It's not really like that anymore. Mid major teams make deep runs in the tournament all the time now. Seeds basically don't even matter, you just want to be playing well when the tournament starts and get some favorable match ups.

 

[jibsey]

Look at the national champions for the last 25 years.
You see parity?
I see an embarrassment of riches for the select few.

I agree and it seems to be getting worse not better because the top cream of recruits are going to just a few select schools. Just don't know what could or should be done. BTW UCLA just signed a 280 mil contract with Nike, biggest deal ever.

 

[Uconn77Duke74]

i don't know, the men and women seem to be dominating in CBB under the present system I wouldn't change anything.

 

[Brochacho]

This assumes that recruits are emotionless basketball robots (all about the kids, right?) while also hurting both the players and the programs. Bad idea.

 

[CallMeBruce]

I agree and it seems to be getting worse not better because the top cream of recruits are going to just a few select schools. Just don't know what could or should be done. BTW UCLA just signed a 280 mil contract with Nike, biggest deal ever.

It was UA, but yeah, these are bananas numbers:

UCLA just signed a $280 million shoe and apparel deal, the biggest in NCAA history

 

[Paesano]

People are acting like this would send major shockwaves through college basketball. It wouldn't have a major impact on "quality". It wouldn't even have a minor impact. There just aren't that many (as a percentage of the whole) kids who leave early. For the 2015/2016 school year, there would have been 60 stranded scholarships if each scholarship was for a 4 year period and 34 stranded scholarships if each scholarship was for a 3 year period. There are a maximum of 4563 scholarships in D1 alone. I don't think pushing out the 34 worst D1 players will kill the quality of college basketball. If you assume that most of these scholarships would have gone to underprivileged kids and that makes you feel bad, the schools can take the money they would have spent on the athlete that left early and fund a need based academic scholarship at their university.

A system like Tom proposes, and I have always liked myself, would create a little more parity at the top. That is all. The top schools (Puke, Squid U, Kansas and North Carolina) would take a couple less one-and-done or two-and-done types. The next tier of schools will take one more. The schools in the tier below that will actually get one once in a while. Schools will build programs from a balance of one-and-dones, two-and-dones, three-and-dones and four year players. Coaches will have to be program builders, not hoarders/babysitters of talent. Mid-majors will get even more upsets in March. To make it easier on poor squidy, the NBA should lift this one year ban and let kids jump directly again. Then you will have fewer one-and-dones and fewer stranded scholarships. It will make the squid's life a little easier since he will won't have to say no to super talented kids as much. That actually might hurt the quality of the college game more but it would also make less of a mockery of COLLEGE athletics and STUDENT athletes.

 

[Paesano]

This assumes that recruits are emotionless basketball robots (all about the kids, right?) while also hurting both the players and the programs. Bad idea.

The game itself is bigger than any individual program and this would be good for the game.

How would this hurt the players? I want to make sure I understand your opinion before I comment on it.

 

[7774]

People are acting like this would send major shockwaves through college basketball. It wouldn't have a major impact on "quality". It wouldn't even have a minor impact. There just aren't that many (as a percentage of the whole) kids who leave early. For the 2015/2016 school year, there would have been 60 stranded scholarships if each scholarship was for a 4 year period and 34 stranded scholarships if each scholarship was for a 3 year period. There are a maximum of 4563 scholarships in D1 alone. I don't think pushing out the 34 worst D1 players will kill the quality of college basketball. If you assume that most of these scholarships would have gone to underprivileged kids and that makes you feel bad, the schools can take the money they would have spent on the athlete that left early and fund a need based academic scholarship at their university.

A system like Tom proposes, and I have always liked myself, would create a little more parity at the top. That is all. The top schools (Puke, Squid U, Kansas and North Carolina) would take a couple less one-and-done or two-and-done types. The next tier of schools will take one more. The schools in the tier below that will actually get one once in a while. Schools will build programs from a balance of one-and-dones, two-and-dones, three-and-dones and four year players. Coaches will have to be program builders, not hoarders/babysitters of talent. Mid-majors will get even more upsets in March. To make it easier on poor squidy, the NBA should lift this one year ban and let kids jump directly again. Then you will have fewer one-and-dones and fewer stranded scholarships. It will make the squid's life a little easier since he will won't have to say no to super talented kids as much. That actually might hurt the quality of the college game more but it would also make less of a mockery of COLLEGE athletics and STUDENT athletes.

What is the source of your numbers?

 

[7774]

I agree and it seems to be getting worse not better because the top cream of recruits are going to just a few select schools. Just don't know what could or should be done. BTW UCLA just signed a 280 mil contract with Nike, biggest deal ever.

Nothing really needs to be done, because the situation you're describing isn't actually true. Here is a chart that shows the average seed of the teams in the Final Four each year since the tournament expanded to 64 teams. You can see that in the 80's and 90's there was much less parity, and that lower seeds are much more successful in the tournament recently. The gap between the haves and have nots is probably the smallest it's ever been.

 

[Paesano]

What is the source of your numbers?

The last three drafts. Both rounds.

 

[Paesano]

Nothing really needs to be done, because the situation you're describing isn't actually true. Here is a chart that shows the average seed of the teams in the Final Four each year since the tournament expanded to 64 teams. You can see that in the 80's and 90's there was much less parity, and that lower seeds are much more successful in the tournament recently. The gap between the haves and have nots is probably the smallest it's ever been.

While that is interesting, and most people would agree that we have a little more parity, that is an increase of 1 seed spot, on average, over 30 years. That is better than a negative trend but it isn't exactly a blistering pace. If you plotted the number of 5 star recruits on the roster of the national champion, I bet that is slowly trending up as well. I definitely feel that the number of 5 star recruits on the team with the max number of them is trending up as well as is the number of 5 star recruits on the second highest team. Remember when the "Fab 5" was a major novelty? Well, you probably don't...but they were. Now Duke and Kentucky are amassing Fab 6, Fab 7, Fab 8 and Fab 9 teams. Sure, it isn't always in one class but, still, it is a little out of hand.

 

[7774]

While that is interesting, and most people would agree that we have a little more parity, that is an increase of 1 seed spot, on average, over 30 years. That is better than a negative trend but it isn't exactly a blistering pace. If you plotted the number of 5 star recruits on the roster of the national champion, I bet that is slowly trending up as well. I definitely feel that the number of 5 star recruits on the team with the max number of them is trending up as well as is the number of 5 star recruits on the second highest team. Remember when the "Fab 5" was a major novelty? Well, you probably don't...but they were. Now Duke and Kentucky are amassing Fab 6, Fab 7, Fab 8 and Fab 9 teams. Sure, it isn't always in one class but, still, it is a little out of hand.

You keep saying things are out of hand without providing a single piece of evidence that things are out of hand.

 

[jibsey]

We have 4 national championships and we are literally begging for 5 stars to play in Storrs. When it happens it is a huge deal. So Kentucky has 5 coming and Duke 4. Arizona 3. Kansas probably has no PT available so they have a 5 and 4 star. North Carolina is blocked by their scandal but they are getting 1 anyway. We had to get creative with Drummond so that we could fit a 5 star on our roster he arrived so late. There is a concentration of these top players in just a few schools year after year. While it doesn't mean they win a national championship every year, it means that those places control the media hype and TV time from the start to the end of the season perpetuating their allure and power. Who wouldn't want to get all of this talent year in and out?

 

[Huskyforlife]

We have 4 national championships and we are literally begging for 5 stars to play in Storrs. When it happens it is a huge deal. So Kentucky has 5 coming and Duke 4. Arizona 3. Kansas probably has no PT available so they have a 5 and 4 star. North Carolina is blocked by their scandal but they are getting 1 anyway. We had to get creative with Drummond so that we could fit a 5 star on our roster he arrived so late. There is a concentration of these top players in just a few schools year after year. While it doesn't mean they win a national championship every year, it means that those places control the media hype and TV time from the start to the end of the season perpetuating their allure and power. Who wouldn't want to get all of this talent year in and out?

You're ignoring the fact you can't tell kids with scholarship offers they can't commit to a school because ESPN ranked them with a star system.

 

[auror]

You're ignoring the fact you can't tell kids with scholarship offers they can't commit to a school because ESPN ranked them with a star system.

This is not the proposal?

 

[jibsey]

You're ignoring the fact you can't tell kids with scholarship offers that they can't commit to a school because ESPN ranked them with a star system.

Not ignoring it or telling anyone where to go. In about 3 months the ESPN hype for the Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina, Michigan State early challenge games will begin, followed by the next years bumper crop of 5 stars committing to them. It also doesn't mean they are the only talented players in the country but it is what it is. I guess I wish we were on the inside looking out rather than the other way around.

 

[CallMeBruce]

If we were on the inside where it's awesome, why would we look out at what sucks?