|
Post by Prince Hal on Oct 27, 2017 10:08:45 GMT -5
I don't follow college sports and won't until they stop pretending to be amateur sports and compensate the players fairly for their time those scholarships are supposed to represent. Other students who get scholarships also get paid for the jobs they do for the university via work study or college employment, yet these athletes put in more work hours and do more for the school's bottom line than most of those student employees yet receive no compensation for it beyond the "scholarships" they receive. And as along as the schools make their own schedules for games, the outcomes and post-season eligibility is a joke. What school is not going to schedule enough weak out of conference teams to ensure they are bowl eligible in football? The ones that don't are the ones that aren't getting lots of resources from TV and boosters to recruit and bolster their rosters and are on the wrong side of a competitive disadvantage already. Again it' about manufactured drama of rivalries, cheating and getting away with it, and making money hand over fist that the players never see rather than about the games and outcomes themselves. College basketball has a little better competitive dynamic at least with the tournament and the occasional Cinderella team, but it suffers form more corruption, cheating and recruiting violations than football and the whole done in one and on to the NBA makes it all a big joke in terms of anything in the games themselves mattering and only highlights the exploitation of the players at the college level in terms of why they want to move along as fast as they can, which in terms puts recruiters behind the eight ball and willing to cheat to keep their teams competitive and in the money spotlight. -M I agree with most of what you wrote except for the point about the "one and done" players in college hoops. They do it not because of the conditions in the college situation, but because of the NBA age limit of 19. The NBA, under pressure by the players' union, instituted that to protect the older players who were getting pushed out or having to take lesser contracts because of the HS kids entering the league. It's a BS rule, but unless a kid is willing to go to overseas for a year to keep playing, his only option is to go to college, stay eligible long enough to get through the season, and then go pro. The NBA needs to set up its own minor-league system, like MLB and NHL, so that the kids who have no business being in college (and wasting valuable and limited scholarship money) have an avenue to develop their skills. Instead, they waylay these kids in an environment they shouldn't be in, forcing them to apprentice without pay, then allow them to enter the draft. Blame college basketball for its faults all you want, but the blame for this issue falls squarely on the NBA. If the NFL and the NBA had their own minor leagues instead of using the NCAA to provide them, college sports might regain a bit of the luster they used to have. As it is, the price the current system has exacted includes not only the quality of boh professional games, but the complete inversion of what college is meant to be. Not that things were oh so pure in whatever Golden Age you prefer, but at least MLB and the NHL have skin in the "amateur" game.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2017 10:08:47 GMT -5
And if there were incentive to stay in college ball and not go onto the NBA, the NBA wouldn't need to have made the BS rule, but as long as colleges exploit young atheletes they will look to go elsewhere creating a need for such a rule by the NBA...
-M
|
|
|
Post by BigPapaJoe on Oct 27, 2017 10:10:20 GMT -5
I do think that the NBA is the one major sport where you can pretty much determine who is going to be in the Finals from the beginning of the season. And if your star player goes down, your team instantly becomes lackluster if not terrible. Depends on depth of course, but it's isn't that black and white in the NFL. There are times when a star QB has went down and a team has still had a good season. Also, the NBA is also the one league where it's all about being a diva. Players are not at all afraid to open their mouth, demand a trade in the middle of the season, or maybe after they just signed a new contract. Paul George even said before he left Indiana that he wanted to go to LA. You don't see this kind of bravado at all in the NFL really. It's rare. In the NBA it happens almost every week. When Terrell Owens opened his mouth countless times he was seen as a cancer. If he played in the NBA I think it would just be business as usual.
The NFL has it's problems, but I don't think it's nearly as superstar oriented at all. Every single year any team can win the Super Bowl. There are tons of examples where a team comes out of nowhere and just makes a quality run. There are only 16 games in the regular season so any team can truly catch fire. There are also no best of 7 series or whatever. I think that adds drama. The favorite isn't always going to advance. Or else the Patriots would have a lot more rings. Yeah it has gotten way too advantageous for the offense with the rules changes circa 2003. I think the NFL was at it's best during the 80's up until the early 2000's. Still, it is an exciting game with a nice mix of scoring results. It's a business and money is going going to take a leak on the integrity of the game. I think that is the deal with any major sport.
Still, the NFL product is WAAAAAAYYYYYYY better than college football in my opinion. It's really hard for me to get excited when most guys that are playing in college that even make it to the pros will never be heard of again, because they just aren't good enough. If I were to watch Vince Young's effort in the Rose Bowl, I would just keep thinking about how he failed to do anything noteworthy in the pros. And you can just see why certain guys will just never make it moving forward. It's just an inferior level of competition, and sloppier product. Also, you won't see teams favored by 40 points against another team. That's just ridiculous. Or scores like 60 for one team and 70 for another. Again, ridiculous. There are 128 FBS schools, but really only 15 of them have a chance of winning the championship. It's just not an even playing field because of recruiting, and schools with more firepower. But any one of the 32 teams can win a title.
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Oct 27, 2017 10:16:11 GMT -5
And if there were incentive to stay in college ball and not go onto the NBA, the NBA wouldn't need to have made the BS rule, but as long as colleges exploit young atheletes they will look to go elsewhere creating a need for such a rule by the NBA... -M But colleges should not be serving as a minor league for the NBA. If the players want to get paid for their efforts, then the NBA needs to own the system. Let the colleges take the kids who actually want to be "student-athletes", give them an education in exchange for the opportunity to continue playing basketball, and everyone wins. This would work because with the top HS kids going into the NBA minor league system, the big money will no longer go from ESPN to the NCAA schools. The college basketball "product" would be lessened, to be sure, but there would also be less scandal because the colleges would know that the best of the best would be going pro and they wouldn't be competing with other schools for top talent by making illegal payments, hiring strippers and escorts, etc.
|
|
|
Post by BigPapaJoe on Oct 27, 2017 10:19:48 GMT -5
Also, love the SF Giants. However, baseball is just way to slow of a game 90% of the time. Which is why I think the average NBA game or NFL is always going to beat an average baseball game in the ratings department. People want to see stuff happening. They don't want to see games that end up 2 scores to zero, which could be a normal day at the office for a game. Hitting the ball 30% of the time is considered a good thing. So 70% of the time a dude isn't going to connect? How is that fun? Then there are 160 plus games a year. What? Unless you really have a lot of time on your hands, you won't be able to watch every game. Or even half of those games. And I just don't want to be invested in something where I don't know what's happening. Sure you can check stats online, watch highlights I guess. With the NFL it's only 16 games plus at max four playoff games if you start as a wild card and make it to the Super Bowl. And a game won't randomly be on a Wednesday at 2pm.
Also, baseball is terrible at marketing it's sport to new fans. Terrible. Everyone knows who Curry or James are in the NBA. Or Brady or Rodgers are in the NFL. Who has that kind of bravado in baseball? Jeter was probably the last one.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2017 10:20:12 GMT -5
If the NFL isn't superstar oriented it's QB oriented. QBs take up a disproportionate percentage of team's salary caps, sometimes ot the detriment of talent at other positions. A mediocre QB in a thin draft can become a first rounder or even a first overall pick whereas any other position it has o be a superior talent to get drafted that high. The rules protect the QB and not any other position player, and pretty much all the other offensive players are there to make the QB look better. When teams are marketed, it;s the QB;s face and name more often than any other position that gets included. If a position player gets hurt, it's a next man up mentality. If a QB get shurt it;s all is this the end of the season for the team, etc. etc. Other players occasionally get the spotlight, but the league is about quarterbacks, they are the superstars that drive the NFL these days and the rules, marketing, draft, and focus of the game and fans all show that.
-M
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Oct 27, 2017 10:31:48 GMT -5
And if there were incentive to stay in college ball and not go onto the NBA, the NBA wouldn't need to have made the BS rule, but as long as colleges exploit young atheletes they will look to go elsewhere creating a need for such a rule by the NBA... -M But colleges should not be serving as a minor league for the NBA. If the players want to get paid for their efforts, then the NBA needs to own the system. Let the colleges take the kids who actually want to be "student-athletes", give them an education in exchange for the opportunity to continue playing basketball, and everyone wins. This would work because with the top HS kids going into the NBA minor league system, the big money will no longer go from ESPN to the NCAA schools. The college basketball "product" would be lessened, to be sure, but there would also be less scandal because the colleges would know that the best of the best would be going pro and they wouldn't be competing with other schools for top talent by making illegal payments, hiring strippers and escorts, etc. This would be nice, but the colleges would go bankrupt. Not that some contraction there would be bad -- It would be great! -- but we're long past the days of people watching student-athletes on TV or colleges commited to educating them. Plus nobody bets on a Hobart-Johns Hopkins game. Unless it's wagering dinner at the club on Saturday night.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2017 10:39:12 GMT -5
And if there were incentive to stay in college ball and not go onto the NBA, the NBA wouldn't need to have made the BS rule, but as long as colleges exploit young atheletes they will look to go elsewhere creating a need for such a rule by the NBA... -M But colleges should not be serving as a minor league for the NBA. If the players want to get paid for their efforts, then the NBA needs to own the system. Let the colleges take the kids who actually want to be "student-athletes", give them an education in exchange for the opportunity to continue playing basketball, and everyone wins. This would work because with the top HS kids going into the NBA minor league system, the big money will no longer go from ESPN to the NCAA schools. The college basketball "product" would be lessened, to be sure, but there would also be less scandal because the colleges would know that the best of the best would be going pro and they wouldn't be competing with other schools for top talent by making illegal payments, hiring strippers and escorts, etc. College is all about getting the bonafides in place to get a job in the real world no matter what your major is. Colleges and universities are the minor leagues for many businesses across many industries, prepping people to perform at the next level and providing the necessary skills. That's the purpose of college for 99% of the population. The incentive for most students is they need the degree to move on to the next level (but if you look at successful college drop outs especially in the tech field, you see once that incentive is gone there's no reason to stay in school). Since the degree is not necessary for athletes to move on to the next level, there needs to be another incentive for them to stay or they will move on, just like any other college student who has the opportunity to move on of the degree is no longer necessary for them to make the jump to the next level of their career. Colleges do not provide any incentive to stay for anyone whose career field is professional athletics. College isn't about being a student for most, it's about getting prepped for the next level of your career path. And how many of the students, frat boys, sorority sisters, dorm-dwelling non-student athletes are actually serious about being students? How many of them get scholarships too? They're just there to put the time in, get the paper so they can get the first job in their career field. If there were an out, they'd be gone just as fast as the college athlete. Yet all those non-serious students get paid by the university when they work for the university and create resources for the university by their work efforts even if they are already receiving a scholarship from the university, yet athletes, who work more hours for the university and generate more resources for the university than most students, don;t get paid for their efforts at all. Why are college athletes allowed to work for the university for no pay when every other scholarship student there gets paid a salary when they work for the university in addition to their scholarships? It's pure exploitation by the university and the NCAA. Saying student-athletes aren't serious about being students as a reason not to compensate them for their efforts holds no water when there are vast swaths of enrolled students at universities who aren't serious about being students who do get compensated by the university when they put in time and effort above and beyond their studies for the university. It's a double standard. If that's the standard for athletes, then every student who gets a scholarship from the university should be required to put in as many hours each week above and beyond their studies for no pay as athletes do. They should be required to miss as much class time for university functions as athletes do. Then see how many of them manage to graduate and be perceived as serious students. Let the universities exploit all there scholarship student and not just the athletes then. Or let them exploit none of them and provide compensation to athletes commiserate with the work they do for the university above and beyond their studies. -M
|
|
|
Post by BigPapaJoe on Oct 27, 2017 10:57:48 GMT -5
If the NFL isn't superstar oriented it's QB oriented. QBs take up a disproportionate percentage of team's salary caps, sometimes ot the detriment of talent at other positions. A mediocre QB in a thin draft can become a first rounder or even a first overall pick whereas any other position it has o be a superior talent to get drafted that high. The rules protect the QB and not any other position player, and pretty much all the other offensive players are there to make the QB look better. When teams are marketed, it;s the QB;s face and name more often than any other position that gets included. If a position player gets hurt, it's a next man up mentality. If a QB get shurt it;s all is this the end of the season for the team, etc. etc. Other players occasionally get the spotlight, but the league is about quarterbacks, they are the superstars that drive the NFL these days and the rules, marketing, draft, and focus of the game and fans all show that. -M Even with the rule changing benefiting quarterbacks in recent years, defenses have still found a way to showcase dominant play. The Broncos and Seahawks are good examples. Their 2015 and 2013 squads were some of the best in NFL history. Quarterbacks do take a large amount of the salary cap, but so do superstars in other sports. I mean, I don't get this criticism. Every sport has superstars that get paid. Regardless if the position has an advantage rules wise, a superstar is a superstar. Someone that helps you win the game. And those are the guys that are getting shoe deals and on video game covers. But really who cares? I mean, I still enjoyed Joe Staley all his years on the 49ers even though he played left tackle. Just because someone isn't getting the limelight due to their position, doesn't mean you can't appreciate them play. Or that they don't matter. Even teams with good quarterbacks suck too. New Orleans and San Diego in recent years have been bad.
|
|
|
Post by BigPapaJoe on Oct 27, 2017 11:01:16 GMT -5
With most sports at the pro level, I think it's important to always keep in mind that money is king of the hill, and integrity is always secondary. There will always be scandals and controversies. You kind have to deal with this if you're going to get the best product that is available. And I'd rather keep my head down to a degree and be surrounded with contract talks and ownership squabbles, than watch an inferior product like college ball.
Speaking of integrity, when is the last time baseball didn't have a steroid abuse/cheating problem? Like I said, every sport has skeletons in their closet.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Oct 29, 2017 14:13:55 GMT -5
Tonight my hometown Stillers play the first of five night games they have scheduled this season. In November and December they play four consecutive night games four weeks in a row. I don't think I've ever seen that before.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Oct 30, 2017 13:20:52 GMT -5
I don't believe that the NBA is scripted. With all the scrutiny the league gets, it would be the most elaborate secret conspiracy in history. In the end, the players have to make the ball go in the basket; you can't script that.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 13:26:29 GMT -5
I don't believe that the NBA is scripted. With all the scrutiny the league gets, it would be the most elaborate secret conspiracy in history. In the end, the players have to make the ball go in the basket; you can't script that. But you can instruct the referees how to call the game and who can get away with fouls, carries, doble dribbles, travelling, etc. and who can't to keep the stars on the floor and asses in the seats. For some players the rules are rules and for superstars the rules are guidelines that can be broken when it makes the game more palatable to the audiences plunking down their money. And make no mistake, officials who do not call the game the way the league offices want them too don't last for long in the NBA. Those instructions to officials are essentially an unseen hand scripting the outcomes of games. There is one set of rules from the league offices for players who are box office draws and another for roster fillers, and that in and of itself is enough to destroy any competitive integrity the league has. -M
|
|
|
Post by BigPapaJoe on Oct 30, 2017 20:02:59 GMT -5
Patriots just traded Jimmy Garoppolo to my 49ers for our second round pick. Not sure how to feel about this now. So strange. Especially during the middle of the season.
I'm guessing that Shanahan and Lynch didn't like the upcoming QB class in addition to not wanting to take a chance with losing out on the Kirk Cousins sweepstakes. Got a leg up on Garoppolo before he hit the free agency market himself.
Small spark of excitement in a very forgettable season.
|
|
|
Post by Warmonger on Oct 30, 2017 22:00:49 GMT -5
Patriots just traded Jimmy Garoppolo to my 49ers for our second round pick. Not sure how to feel about this now. So strange. Especially during the middle of the season. I'm guessing that Shanahan and Lynch didn't like the upcoming QB class in addition to not wanting to take a chance with losing out on the Kirk Cousins sweepstakes. Got a leg up on Garoppolo before he hit the free agency market himself. Small spark of excitement in a very forgettable season. I really don’t understand it from the Pats side if they were indeed offered the 12th overall pick in the draft from Cleveland 6 months ago.
|
|