The Portal, good or bad?

[BBallF]

As I watch the depressing, commercialized free for all that Women’s Basketball has become, I can’t help but wonder where the game will be five to fifteen years from now. While “parity” has been given a lot of lip service over the past fifteen to twenty years, the game is still largely made up of the haves and the have nots. To be fair, the number of “haves” has increased to some degree but the vast majority of teams still reside firmly in the “have nots” neighborhood!

When the portal idea came along, many hailed it as a giant step toward finally achieving (or at least boosting) more parity in the game! Unfortunately for those (imo) misguided optimists, NIL came along with it and now parity seems further away than ever. It seems to me that the portal and NIL have basically nuked the (imo) naive dreams of parity by consolidating a permanent upper class made up of a group of schools with either vastly superior (and wealthy) NIL programs and a very select few schools whose pedigrees can attract kids without the added incentive of huge NIL endowments.

It seems like the college game is now a giant “free agent” bidding war and we are seeing more and more “super teams” a la LeBron, Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh; (“not three, not four, not five….“). My question is; how long before (probably already happening) coaches or more likely, go- betweens start contacting players who have no intention of transferring and offering them large amounts of money to change teams? Anyway, it seems to me that right at a time when the game has exploded with popularity, it has simultaneously sowed the seeds of it’s own potential destruction! I don’t mean to be a downer especially a a time when our Huskies look to be gearing up for another dominant run, but I do find it difficult to be optimistic in terms of where the game is headed. Thoughts?

I've been thinking and saying the same thing all along. "Parity" was the great untruth of NIL and the portal, a public relations cover for a system that the NCAA resisted, lost control of, and can't manage, supervise or police. It will impact every sport and hurt the so called mid majors. All you need is dollars to have a great program. The wealthy football schools have and will have a distinct advantage and those schools will now have an entree into sports they were never good at, never encouraged, never strenuously recruited for and simply were second fiddle at. When the Miami women's basketball team makes the Elite 8 after a hefty donation, it's a sign of things to come. The opportunities for misadventure, to put it very mildly, are limitless. It's not that the fox is now in the hen house, he's been given the keys, a deed to the land it's on and a welcome wagon for his arrival.

 

[cohenzone]

Why? Coaches come and go whenever they want for more money or a better situation.

The original push for liberal transfers was because coaches can just leave for greener pastures and players had to sit a year if transferring. I think it is getting a bit too far in the direction of basically unrestricted free agency. Pro sports always ultimately wind up with free agents signing a fixed term. They could do something like a free transfer when the coach who recruited you is gone for any reason, but I don’t believe that will happen


It’s not like the players are being oppressed. The coaches spend time and money in recruiting at all levels of the college game. They also spend time coaching and improving (hopefully) the skills of the players. The free ride depending on the school is basically worth somewhere between 25 and 70 thou a year depending on the school. And now they can get compensation on top of that. They are no longer just making money for the school. In the meantime the whole idea of being committed to something is not a value being promoted. If the player is being compensated in some fashion, I see nothing wrong with a minimum 2 year contract up to 4 years or say age 23. Pro sports would collapse with unrestricted free agency. The players now at D1 are getting a pretty decent deal in return for the time and money spent on getting them to commit. I think the lesser programs have it worse. They can get an under recruited player become a star and then jump after getting recognition to an upper level program or even at more competitive schools bounce around looking for an obvious contender. I don’t think it is unfair at all for a player to have to be committed for a minimum period, maybe with an out to be released with permission from the school.

 

[LuvBball]

The original push for liberal transfers was because coaches can just leave for greener pastures and players had to sit a year if transferring. I think it is getting a bit too far in the direction of basically unrestricted free agency. Pro sports always ultimately wind up with free agents signing a fixed term. They could do something like a free transfer when the coach who recruited you is gone for any reason, but I don’t believe that will happen


It’s not like the players are being oppressed. The coaches spend time and money in recruiting at all levels of the college game. They also spend time coaching and improving (hopefully) the skills of the players. The free ride depending on the school is basically worth somewhere between 25 and 70 thou a year depending on the school. And now they can get compensation on top of that. They are no longer just making money for the school. In the meantime the whole idea of being committed to something is not a value being promoted. If the player is being compensated in some fashion, I see nothing wrong with a minimum 2 year contract up to 4 years or say age 23. Pro sports would collapse with unrestricted free agency. The players now at D1 are getting a pretty decent deal in return for the time and money spent on getting them to commit. I think the lesser programs have it worse. They can get an under recruited player become a star and then jump after getting recognition to an upper level program or even at more competitive schools bounce around looking for an obvious contender. I don’t think it is unfair at all for a player to have to be committed for a minimum period, maybe with an out to be released with permission from the school.

I definitely think working for free counts as oppression

 

[cancontent]

The original push for liberal transfers was because coaches can just leave for greener pastures and players had to sit a year if transferring. I think it is getting a bit too far in the direction of basically unrestricted free agency. Pro sports always ultimately wind up with free agents signing a fixed term. They could do something like a free transfer when the coach who recruited you is gone for any reason, but I don’t believe that will happen


It’s not like the players are being oppressed. The coaches spend time and money in recruiting at all levels of the college game. They also spend time coaching and improving (hopefully) the skills of the players. The free ride depending on the school is basically worth somewhere between 25 and 70 thou a year depending on the school. And now they can get compensation on top of that. They are no longer just making money for the school. In the meantime the whole idea of being committed to something is not a value being promoted. If the player is being compensated in some fashion, I see nothing wrong with a minimum 2 year contract up to 4 years or say age 23. Pro sports would collapse with unrestricted free agency. The players now at D1 are getting a pretty decent deal in return for the time and money spent on getting them to commit. I think the lesser programs have it worse. They can get an under recruited player become a star and then jump after getting recognition to an upper level program or even at more competitive schools bounce around looking for an obvious contender. I don’t think it is unfair at all for a player to have to be committed for a minimum period, maybe with an out to be released with permission from the school.

The 2 year commitment should have to go both ways. Look at the Idaho coach who just took another job after several players committed to transferring there, let alone incoming recruits. The onus can't be solely on the athlete.

 

[cohenzone]

I definitely think working for free counts as oppression

You have an interesting definition of free and an equally interesting idea of oppression. In reverse order, playing hoops is not only not oppression it is also totally voluntary. As far as working for free goes, I don’t know what your life situation is, but if you ever had to help pay for a kid to go to college, getting a free college education is a value mostly way over $100,000. And the whole idea of NIL is that a player CAN make money off of their name. If you understand the concept of unrestricted free agency, the player winds of with a very big share of control of the fate of a program. I guarantee you that most coaches have no problem with NIL and a load of problems with unrestricted transfer. A two year contact would not be the end of the world for a 19 year old.

 

[cohenzone]

The 2 year commitment should have to go both ways. Look at the Idaho coach who just took another job after several players committed to transferring there, let alone incoming recruits. The onus can't be solely on the athlete.

I think I said I see nothing wrong with immediate eligibility if the coach who recruited you is gone for any reason - new job, fired, retired, dropped dead. So I agree with you.

 

[Puppy Love]

I think every student deserves the right to transfer without impediments. Students don’t owe ‘loyalty’ to coaches who can recruit over them, abuse them or yank their scholarships for whatever reason. It’s a fallacy to think that all coaches are honest in the recruiting process or always have every athletes best interests at heart. Yes, there are a lot of great coaches who try to do everything straight up and ethically. There are also the Quentin Hillsmans of the world. Giving students the right to transfer without impairment gives them the right to leave situations that do not work for them. It’s been shown time and time again that athletes are not believed when they report abusive situations.

I am aware that most transfers are for reasons other than what I listed above. However, if you sign a one-year scholarship agreement, you aren’t agreeing to anything other than that year. Schools that want to do well in this new environment would serve their own best interest by hiring the best coaches that they can get and making sure that those coaches, operate, ethically and transparently.

 

[cancontent]

I think I said I see nothing wrong with immediate eligibility if the coach who recruited you is gone for any reason - new job, fired, retired, dropped dead. So I agree with you.

Not what I mean. If the player is expected to stick around when they commit, the coach should be expected to do the same when offering the scholarship.

The coach shouldn't be able to take a new job if this is the expectation of the athlete. Firing or untimely demise are definitely exceptions.

 

[cohenzone]

Not w they hat I mean. If the player is expected to stick around when they commit, the coach should be expected to do the same when offering the scholarship.

The coach shouldn't be able to take a new job if this is the expectation of the athlete. Firing or untimely demise are definitely exceptions.

I know what you meant. I think my suggestion amounts to the same thing. The coach leaves, the players can leave, no matter if they have a contract. Geno signs a 6 year deal, player signs a 2-4 year deal with the escape clause that lets them out if the coach is gone the next day. Coaches who leave early for greener pastures often have to pay a penalty but don’t care because, well, they left for greener pastures

 

[NycUcWbbFan]

On NIL, I think it is a net positive:

• Sue, DT and maybe Plum? were talking recently talking about the NIL opportunities of current players. Sue and DT had a pregnant pause at one point when they probably thought of their early pro careers of having to go to Russia to maximize their earnings potential.
• NIL opportunities help raise the attractiveness of basketball careers by being less tainted by existing market-imposed gender pay disparity. This increases interest and elevates the talent pool entering the sport and the intensity of quality skills development.
• NIL adds an informal incentive to prevent otherwise next-level-eligible player from leaving for the next level, thereby avoiding the resulting bumps in the quality of programs due to that specific reason.

On the Portal, I think it is a net positive with a downside disproportionately borne by players who overestimated their market worth, who run the risk of losing their scholarships.

• The Portal simulates the harsher realities of the free market professional talent system, except with a greater pool of places/teams interested in one’s specific skills. Having to face these types of risks early in life may have net educational benefits, albeit with a possible cost.
• The Portal provides four bites of the proverbial next-level aspirations Apple. There maybe a psychological cost in the futility of having such four bites for those with failed aspirations. This may even frustrate mere observers more than the transfers.

Portal positive effects for Players:

• Players can transfer for any reason — a lifeline in untenable situations — and for personal reasons due to changed circumstances or preferences.
• Players can transfer for basketball reasons, such as enhancing their draft stock or for better basketball training and playing conditions, with or without next-level aspirations.
• The Portal gives players with next-level aspirations who were not recruited by their desired schools another track by training and excelling in basketball in one school to raise their profile to be recruited in the Portal by a school that improves their draft stock.
• The Portal also gives players with next-level aspirations who also have serious academic/traditional career goals an opportunity to matriculate first in a school to pursue those goals, excel in their program and finish school in 3 years and then enter the Portal to pursue their next-level basketball aspirations at a different launching pad school.

Portal positive effects for Coaches / Programs:

• For established programs like UConn with a great coach like Geno who are also successful at recruiting, the Portal can be used in contingencies for strategic-fit high-quality transfers that also fit the culture at the programs.
• Not-established or de-established programs with promising young coaches, just-hired great coaches or great coaches who are mediocre at recruiting can more quickly become established programs by having a quick succession of noticeably successful seasons that make such programs attractive destinations for top transfers.
• Programs with underperforming coaches will more quickly be less tolerant of underperforming coaches.
• A cumulative effect of the Portal is elevated mobility, pay, quantity and quality in the coaching market and an increase in established programs.
• The increased number and parity in super-team formation, the higher quantity of higher quality players and the higher quantity of higher quality coaching will raise visibility of the sport even by casual fans and traditionally disinterested parties.
• The raised visibility of the sport will increase desirability of university investment in its program which attracts at-large donations to the University and boosters to the University and its program.

The cumulative effect of the Portal and NIL will be increased visibility of the sport at large which may help lessen the gender disparity in and spur franchise formation in the professional version of the sport which then becomes a self-propelling mechanism for all levels in the sport.

There is the inevitable downside whereby the resulting transformation of the college sport may turn off some existing fans.

Finally, a nuanced benefit of the portal is the elimination of charges of seeming favoritism inherent in the prior transfer rules with a 1-year wait on transfer play that can be seemingly inconsistently lifted. Recall the debates on Evina, Jessica Shepard, ….

In short, choice is good, free market is good, pay incentives are good. But like everything, there are downsides.

 

[Boreifs]

In my opinion, major college athletics is no longer about "students." In the case of major college football and men's basketball (and women's basketball will follow suit if the current swell in popularity is sustained) you are now looking at a money making proposition for the universities in the power conferences and a "minor" league for professional sports. Sorry to see things go this way.

Competing with and keeping the best players will be out of reach for at least 75% of current Division I sports programs who will not be able to field competitive teams. They will still have good players because there are a lot of kids that want to play and the games will be fun to attend and watch, but they won't have any chance of competing with the power conference (minor league) teams. Unless UConn can somehow worm their way into a power four conference they will be in this boat once Geno retires.

You keep using the word “now”. Please tell us when you think it wasn’t like that. I was a student at IU in the 1960s; college athletics then certainly wasn’t about the students. When was it?

 

[Cuango]

I definitely think working for free counts as oppression

I guess the whole full ride scholarship doesn’t count for anything?

 

[MSGRET]

I definitely think working for free counts as oppression

So a four year degree at an Ivy League school is estimated to be $340,000 or more. I do not consider it working for free. Even at the smaller conferences a four year degree is over $150,000.

 

[cohenzone]

So a four year degree at an Ivy League school is estimated to be $340,000 or more. I do not consider it working for free. Even at the smaller conferences a four year degree is over $150,000.

I agree except the Ivies technically don’t give athletic scholarships. They find money they give a different name so they can feel above it all. Dartmouth football got a regional NLRB office to declare the football team to be employees of the college who could unionize. Personally I mostly support labor unions but if you are going to be an employee seems to me you take the bad with the good, meaning you can be terminated for bad performance.

Major college athletes now have it pretty darn good. Free ride to school, get compensated for who they are and can go to greener pastures every year. The transfers run the gamut from end of benchers like Amari and Ines who had playing time issues to multiple program jumpers like Van Lith who saw plenty of time. I think a 2 year contract isn’t exactly living hell for an 18 year old. As I said, include an escape clause if the coach leaves. Learning a little bit about making a commitment to something is not the worst thing on the planet. I just find the complete professionalization of major college sports might lead to nothing very good with even fewer restrictions on free agency than pro sports.

 

[Shenandoah]

Imagine pro sports with everyone being able to "opt out" of their contract every year, with no salary cap. That is what college sports has become with the portal and NIL. Players are up front about looking for the best deal, not looking for a solid education. If the NCAA would reinstate the rule that transfers must sit out a year, this might alleviate some of this foolishness. At the height of popularity, college basketball is about to lose a lot of fans.

 

[WiseWillie]

You have admirably described 2 of the 3 major factors contributing to the inequity in women's (and men's) college basketball, NIL and the Portal. The 3rd and arguably most significant factor is the past few years of realignment of conferences - starting with college football, now filtering down to college basketball and soon affecting all college sports. Look to the Pac12 as an example...what a shame, I feel so sorry for those on the west coast trying to follow their schools. As those who have said 'It's all about the money' were right and now we (mostly of the older generation) now have lost local and regional allegiances to our local schools and alma maters. Pretty soon there will be no delineation between the professional leagues and the college divisions. And, if we were to point fingers in the direction of those responsible, we need to look no further than the NCAA leadership.

You have hit on the rapid changes that affect all college sports - big conferences and big $ are the new identities of college sports that was led by college football but now has infiltrated its way into all college sports. But who benefits from the changes? Players? Yes, but mostly the better ones. Colleges? Yes, but mostly the bigger ones. So what has resulted is not parity across the entire landscape but a changed landscape of the haves with NIL deals and have nots who lack any NIL endorsements. It's still inequity but at a higher level, that's all. Better players make $ but the majority of the others a few crumbs. Bigger schools and bigger conferences make more tv deals and more $.Small schools? Forgetaboutit. The new college sports landscape has nothing to do with parity, fairness, competitiveness or any of the other fancy words used. It all comes down to one thing - $, plain and simple. The best players and biggest schools make the most $. So we must ask ourself this: what exactly has been solved? Not much. Things have changed but its still inequity.

 

[BobbyJ]

I guess the whole full ride scholarship doesn’t count for anything?

Athletic scholarships are renewable by the school each year. They are basically a one year contract for BB services. The player completes the year with full participation in all BB activities and being in good academic standing. The contract has been fulfilled and both sides are now free to agree to another year or move on. The player can go to a better situation for themselves and the school can bring in a different player and the cost to the school is the same. Just a different player. Before the transfer rules changed, the school's held all the cards. Now both sides are able to dictate whether to renew or not.

 

[BobbyJ]

Imagine pro sports with everyone being able to "opt out" of their contract every year, with no salary cap. That is what college sports has become with the portal and NIL. Players are up front about looking for the best deal, not looking for a solid education. If the NCAA would reinstate the rule that transfers must sit out a year, this might alleviate some of this foolishness. At the height of popularity, college basketball is about to lose a lot of fans.

Then shouldn't there be a rule that coaches and ADs have to sit out a year before they can go to another NCAA school for a better situation or more money?

 

[LuvBball]

I guess the whole full ride scholarship doesn’t count for anything?

It surely does not. They're not giving them a degree in exchange for playing basketball.

And the idea that the opportunity to study for the opportunity to get a degree for the opportunity to earn a wage is equivalent in value to pay is nonsensical

Win, lose, or otherwise the coach, ad, and refs get paid. While the people we actually want to see get told they don't deserve anything for their work. It's insane

 

[WiseWillie]

I definitely think working for free counts as oppression

"Working for free"? Since when is getting a full ride for college tuition, R&B, getting attention from some of the best strength and exercise trainers and use of excellent facilities and more "working for free"? Put NIL on top of that and now "oppression" may no longer exist but disparity nonetheless. It's just moved up a notch to a higher level of "talented haves' with a lot and the "not-so-talented" have nots who end up with "nil" (as in nothing) but just a measly full scholarship. Oh, woe. Where's my violin.