Where Things Stand Now | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Where Things Stand Now

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chief00
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
DogMania said:
What are the programs in addition to UConn that have no shot at getting a qualifying 4 year APR?

What is the list, if any, of the programs that have received a waver for the 2013 tournament even though they have a non-qualifying APR?
Expand ...

I was referring to the schools that wouldn't have had an APR score if the rules were applied to this year rather than next.

"University of Connecticut and number one seed Syracuse University, as well as St. Louis, Florida State, Indiana, Southern Mississippi, Colorado State, Colorado, Mississippi Valley State, New Mexico State, Norfolk State, Ohio, and St. Bonaventure."

Those are the schools.

By the way, Kentucky's average is 974. Very impressive. Their GSR is beyond pitiful though. It's atrocious.
 
LOL, time will tell

a great example of why the internet is well, the internet
 
gars44 said:
You have to love when people launch off with the hoary phrase, "When I said . . . " Like when I said I was going to become a comedian, everyone laughed. Well, they're not laughing now.
Expand ...
Always love a post containing "hoary." Someting you don't see every day.
 
I always love the "my sources" reference. You should just stop reading right there
 
When I said in late August , after Drummond was already at Munson, that my source said he would be going to UConn for the upcoming season - I got the same cynical posts by the usual suspects. Then in a few days he announced he was going to UConn. The conventional wisdom of this same small group of characters has been proven wrong time and again - but give them credit - they keep on posting.

Now where is that six pack I left in the frig for breakfast?????
 
I always find it fascinating that some people are so adverse to the ugly side of reality that they label stuff like this as a conspiracy theory when they have no idea how true it is. It is like they fear being called crazy for even being open to a possible conspiracy. It reminds me of how people are afraid of saying anything bad about Israel because they are afraid of being called an anti-semite. I will admit that people with their head in the sand tend to be happier. I suppose that is reason enough to just believe all is peachy in the world. But, really, if you merely accepted what is, you wouldn't feel compelled to trash people for their beliefs, crazy or not. I hope chief is wrong but I also realize he may not be. There is evidence that says it is at least possible.
 
.-.
Huskymaniac said:
I always find it fascinating that some people are so adverse to the ugly side of reality that they label stuff like this as a conspiracy theory when they have no idea how true it is. It is like they fear being called crazy for even being open to a possible conspiracy. It reminds me of how people are afraid of saying anything bad about Israel because they are afraid of being called an anti-semite. I will admit that people with their head in the sand tend to be happier. I suppose that is reason enough to just believe all is peachy in the world. But, really, if you merely accepted what is, you wouldn't feel compelled to trash people for their beliefs, crazy or not. I hope chief is wrong but I also realize he may not be. There is evidence that says it is at least possible.
Expand ...

How would they get it by everyone else in the room? That's what I want to know. There are reps from other universities on all those committees. How does one guy's vendetta make unfair punishment possible?
 
I am not a big conspiracy guy but Chief has been right on before and there is a whole lot of things that connected together are either the once in a lifetime perfect storm or what he says it is. Its not like the NCAA hasn't already been nailed with doing this before in the Tarkanian case.

I tend to think there is something to his NCAA vendetta thing-how much I am not sure but it sure seems that they are screwing with Calhoun big time.
 
Huskymaniac said:
I always find it fascinating that some people are so adverse to the ugly side of reality that they label stuff like this as a conspiracy theory when they have no idea how true it is. It is like they fear being called crazy for even being open to a possible conspiracy. It reminds me of how people are afraid of saying anything bad about Israel because they are afraid of being called an anti-semite. I will admit that people with their head in the sand tend to be happier. I suppose that is reason enough to just believe all is peachy in the world. But, really, if you merely accepted what is, you wouldn't feel compelled to trash people for their beliefs, crazy or not. I hope chief is wrong but I also realize he may not be. There is evidence that says it is at least possible.
Expand ...

HM - this is a great post. Great insights! I'm not kidding. We all need to live within certain comfort norms. One of them is, as I believe it was Robert Browning who wrote, "God's in his heaven, and all's right with the world." Very Victorian, but we all need to believe in some level of goodness, however defined. Conspiracies, corruption, the death of Officer Friendly - none of that fits the script, and it becomes very hard to believe, without becoming a little crazy. Never mind merely being called crazy, but actually becoming crazy. Because that's what happens to these people. And just because you're paranoid doesn't mean people aren't following you around. I think they are targeting Calhoun. Not officially, but I do sense some animus in this, like it's personal. JC gets censured, he wins the NC. We take his scholarships, he gets Drummond. We investigate Boatright, twice, and immediately implement the APR ban. It's like fighting City Hall, except City Hall has to abide by the due process clause and they're so short on funds that they can't afford to hire any lawyers to fight the case. But this looks personal to me. Chief my be a little crazy, but that doesn't mean they're not targeting JC.
 
It's not a conspiracy - just pettiness and revenge by Emmert - and a staff that sucks up to him.
 
.-.
The NCAA is every bit as culpable in this as the NBA.

Early in my college days there were a few cases (three that I know about, Larry Bird, Kye Macy, Reggie Carter) of players who entered the draft, played the following season for their schools and signed with the team that drafted them shortly before the following draft (at that time the player would go back into the draft pool on the day of the draft if he did not sign).

For reasons beyond anything I can think of the NCAA altered their rules, making a player ineligible if he does enter the draft. This rule change benefited the NBA (as Larry Bird held out for an enormous contract knowing the Celtics had little leverage) while doing little to benefit college teams (beyond knowing if a player was or was not coming back) and absolutely nothing to benefit the players.

The NCAA also should have some mechanism to limit the frequency in which a school can bring in one and dones. Bobby Knight's suggestion of a scholarship being tied to a player for four years, regardless of whether he turns pro or remains is a bit excessive, two years however would not be unreasonable (unless of course you are a Kentucky fan).
 
I honestly don't understand what Stern was recommending, or Howard's take on the whole thing. She's easily one of the worst writers around.


"A college could always not have players who are one and done -- they could do that,"
Expand ...

The question again: how do you force a player to stay in school? Stern's ideas about repaying scholarships are ridiculous non-starters.

I think Knight's idea also wouldn't work. With 13 scholarships to give, you can easily make do with 11 or 12 if a player leaves after one year.

The only answer: raise admission standards.
 
Knight's idea is quite excessive but this is coming from someone who refuses to accepts many things that are reality. If however a scholarship needs to be utilized for two years, regardless of whether the recruit remains, it will cause many schools to limit the number of slam dunk one and dones they recruit in any one year.

Allowing a kid to enter the draft, not sign with an agent and then return to school for another year would not be beneficial to most NBA teams (who normally would want the services of a draft pick immediately) and would cause some difficulty for the head coach of a top program, capable of always replacing top recruits by not giving definition as to whether a roster spot will or will not be available but this would be a tremendous advantage for 'student athletes' who aren't fully convinced as to which direction to go.
 
FfldCntyFan said:
Knight's idea is quite excessive but this is coming from someone who refuses to accepts many things that are reality. If however a scholarship needs to be utilized for two years, regardless of whether the recruit remains, it will cause many schools to limit the number of slam dunk one and dones they recruit in any one year.

Allowing a kid to enter the draft, not sign with an agent and then return to school for another year would not be beneficial to most NBA teams (who normally would want the services of a draft pick immediately) and would cause some difficulty for the head coach of a top program, capable of always replacing top recruits by not giving definition as to whether a roster spot will or will not be available but this would be a tremendous advantage for 'student athletes' who aren't fully convinced as to which direction to go.
Expand ...

I asked this earlier. NCAA hockey players are allowed to be drafted, why not basketball players?
 
upstater said:
I asked this earlier. NCAA hockey players are allowed to be drafted, why not basketball players?
Expand ...
Is this an NBA thing, rather than an NCAA thing? Auerbach drafted Bird and he stayed in college the next year. I think the deal is you can draft them, but you don't own the rights to them, so they can go back to college and then come out again a year later and get redrafted.
 
tzznandrew said:
Is this an NBA thing, rather than an NCAA thing? Auerbach drafted Bird and he stayed in college the next year. I think the deal is you can draft them, but you don't own the rights to them, so they can go back to college and then come out again a year later and get redrafted.
Expand ...

It's a college thing. The players have to announce their intentions, right? They have April deadlines for doing so. Why bother with deadlines? If they're drafted, let them continue to play in college.
 
.-.
upstater said:
It's a college thing. The players have to announce their intentions, right? They have April deadlines for doing so. Why bother with deadlines? If they're drafted, let them continue to play in college.
Expand ...
But what would stop a team from drafting a player who did not declare? Like I said, it has been done before (with Bird) and a player kept playing. They could draft them and then tell them to stay in college another year or two.
 
I'm pretty sure after Bird they changed the rule so that you couldn't do that.
 
Tenspro2002 said:
I'm pretty sure after Bird they changed the rule so that you couldn't do that.
Expand ...
But my question is this: who changed the rules, the NBA or NCAA? I thought it was the NBA.
tzznandrew said:
Is this an NBA thing, rather than an NCAA thing? Auerbach drafted Bird and he stayed in college the next year. I think the deal is you can draft them, but you don't own the rights to them, so they can go back to college and then come out again a year later and get redrafted.
Expand ...
 
The only possible answer I have for why the rule is not the same for hockey is that college hockey would have a huge loss in players (who would play junior instead of NCAA) if they were not allowed to play after entering the draft.

It is an NCAA rule, not an NBA rule that ends a players eligibility once he enters the draft. I have no clue why the NCAA changed this (from Larry Bird's day) as this only seems to benefit the NBA.

I still believe that this comes down to the NCAA wanting to look as if they care about these kids when the reality is that they want to use them to make the money that TV contracts offer and ignore anything else.
 
Good point FF, after all, college hockey players can go to juniors or minors. Not so for basketball players.

The NBA should really get minor league basketball going. It's high time. 16 teams of 10 players is what they need. That's 160 players, probably room (if you assume a player can hang out in such a league for 3 or 4 years) for 40-50 players a year. Stick the teams in Seattle, Hartford, Buffalo, Baltimore, Brooklyn, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati or Columbus, Tampa, Kansas City, St. Louis, Vancouver, San Jose, Albuquerque, Las Vegas, San Diego, Vancouver.

Done.
 
.-.
Baseball has yet another system - you can drafted out of high school, but if you go to college, you have to wait three years before being draftable again. But baseball has a farm system in place, and there's very little a player can do for their marketability by playing college baseball.
 
upstater said:
Good point FF, after all, college hockey players can go to juniors or minors. Not so for basketball players.

The NBA should really get minor league basketball going. It's high time. 16 teams of 10 players is what they need. That's 160 players, probably room (if you assume a player can hang out in such a league for 3 or 4 years) for 40-50 players a year. Stick the teams in Seattle, Hartford, Buffalo, Baltimore, Brooklyn, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati or Columbus, Tampa, Kansas City, St. Louis, Vancouver, San Jose, Albuquerque, Las Vegas, San Diego, Vancouver.

Done.
Expand ...

It's called the D-League.

There are many good proposals the NBA players voted down (tabled). The big one was players could be drafted with a Lotto pick at 18 or 19 but couldn't play or get paid until 20 and the contract guarantee would be based on academic performance and voidable at the rookie pay scale (at the team's discretion) if the player didn't meet the Academic Progress for Sophs. In other words a player who turned out to be a dog but made the grades would get their guaranteed Lotto contract. OTOH a dog who didn't make the APR would cost themselves a huge chunk of moolah and play at the rookie minimum for 3 years.
 
FfldCntyFan said:
It is an NCAA rule, not an NBA rule that ends a players eligibility once he enters the draft. I have no clue why the NCAA changed this (from Larry Bird's day) as this only seems to benefit the NBA.
Expand ...
Bird didn't declare for the draft in 1978, but he didn't have to apply for "hardship" because his original class (before he dropped out of Indiana) was graduating that year. Despite the fact that he didn't declare for the draft, the Celtics drafted him.

The NBA made a rule after this, the "Bird Collegiate Rule," that stops teams from drafting players who aren't declared for the draft. That's why you didn't see a team draft LeBron James when he was 16, or why nobody swiped up Harrison Barnes or Jared Sullinger last year.

Now, because of the Bird rule, a player needs to declare, and if they stay in and either sign an agent or get drafted, your eligibility is gone. Randolph Morris a couple of years ago didn't sign an agent nor get drafted, and then was allowed to play at Kentucky again after sitting out. He was also then a free agent, eligible to be signed by any team at any time.
 
RS9999X said:
It's called the D-League.

There are many good proposals the NBA players voted down (tabled). The big one was players could be drafted with a Lotto pick at 18 or 19 but couldn't play or get paid until 20 and the contract guarantee would be based on academic performance and voidable at the rookie pay scale (at the team's discretion) if the player didn't meet the Academic Progress for Sophs. In other words a player who turned out to be a dog but made the grades would get their guaranteed Lotto contract. OTOH a dog who didn't make the APR would cost themselves a huge chunk of moolah and play at the rookie minimum for 3 years.
Expand ...

That's not a minor league. I'm talking about players entering at 18 and getting decent contracts, as in baseball and hockey. I'm talking about medium-sized professional markets. The developmental league caps pay and is in venues that would never garner much interest.
 
upstater said:
\
The NBA should really get minor league basketball going. It's high time. \.
Expand ...
They have one. Its called college basketball. Why spend the money to do anything else?
 
CAHUSKY said:
They have one. Its called college basketball. Why spend the money to do anything else?
Expand ...

Eh, force them into it. Just to shove it in Stern's smarmy face.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,326
Messages
4,564,155
Members
10,462
Latest member
Liam Rainst


Top Bottom