2024-25 College Basketball Thread

[BTExpress]

Maxwell played 130 games at UF over four years. So today's system is definitely "something new."

It's the constant player movement, not the money, that is turning fans off. We don't see the money and never did. The roster turnover, however, is highly visible --- not to mention frustrating when School A spends time and money recruiting a player, develops him, strengthens him . . . and then it's open season for poaching.

 

[BYH 2: Electric Boogaloo]

They were talking in my n

For me, it has nothing to do with the innocence of a bygone era, and everything to do with whether this model is viable in the long-term as a spectator sport. If not, too bad, so sad, I suppose. But it's going to cannibalize itself this way. I'm a big college basketball fan, but it can be difficult to basically learn all new rosters, every single season.

It's absolutely going to cannibalize itself but the big boys will be fine so that's all that matters. Sounds familiar.

 

[Bubbler]

It's not that there is big money, it's that there are no rules. It's worse than the wild, wild west. Yeah, whole new rosters for everyone every year is awesome. So good for the sport. I'm mean it's what every pro league does. Oh, it's not.

The House settlement is trying to create a solution. We'll see if it sticks. We'll see how these contracts are worded and what kind of outs it gives players. If I'm a university, I'm locking in players to the maximum degree I can. Binding contracts, buyouts to be released from said contracts, etc.

One thing that no one should lose sight of. None of these contracts prevent collectives from still existing. It will be interesting to see what role they play and how much it undermines the structure the House settlement is attempting to provide.

 

[DanOregon]

I am sorry for all of your lost memories of Good Ol' State U, but the cat is way out of the bag, and there is no turning back. Once big money came into play, all of the innocence that you guys remember so fondly, is wiped out. This is the new reality, gonna have to deal with it.

Well yes, of course. I just meant there was a sense that the players were playing for more than money - to me, that's what made college sports different. Kansas and Missouri have been rivals since before football was even invented. Penn State and WV and Pitt. Ohio State and Michigan. Cal and Stanford. These schools MEANT different things to people and now they are just laundry (as Seinfeld said so many years ago). They're all pretty much the same now.

 

[da man]

The money isn't as much the issue as the unrestricted transfers and guys playing for three or four schools.

 

[Jake from State Farm]

One thing I like about the new era is the players from mid majors and Division II on Power 5 teams showing they can play

 

[micropolitan guy]

One thing I like about the new era is the players from mid majors and Division II on Power 5 teams showing they can play

You wouldn't like it if your team was one of the 300-odd mid- or low-majors, now serving as farm teams for the top 40-50.

 

[dixiehack]

That isn't the only thing that is happening though. Plenty of guys are on their second or third school and none of their stops are from a power conference or make regular appearances on cable.

Go back to making transfers wait a year. You still get four years of eligibility and you can spread them out as long as necessary provided you don't go pro. But no more sign today, play tomorrow. Make them (and the coaches and NIL people) think about the longer term.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

That isn't the only thing that is happening though. Plenty of guys are on their second or third school and none of their stops are from a power conference or make regular appearances on cable.

Go back to making transfers wait a year. You still get four years of eligibility and you can spread them out as long as necessary provided you don't go pro. But no more sign today, play tomorrow. Make them (and the coaches and NIL people) think about the longer term.

Now that there's over the table money involved, limiting transfers like that would be instant lawsuit, and the NCAA would take yet another L before the Supremes. The only way such limits can be legally enforced is if college athletes get a union and there's a CBA.

 

[Della9250]

 

[tapintoamerica]

The UConn statement accuses the reporter of being in a place he was not entitled to occupy. I'd like to see them prove that. I'd also like to see somebody ask the university about that claim. And then ask the NCAA to weigh in on the topic.

 

[Roscablo]

That isn't the only thing that is happening though. Plenty of guys are on their second or third school and none of their stops are from a power conference or make regular appearances on cable.

Go back to making transfers wait a year. You still get four years of eligibility and you can spread them out as long as necessary provided you don't go pro. But no more sign today, play tomorrow. Make them (and the coaches and NIL people) think about the longer term.

I think you could do something like first transfer free, next on will cost you a year. Or even be super light and only allow three transfers period or something like that.