Hubert Davis Catch-all

  • Thread starter Thread starter LeoBloom
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 20K
  • UNC Sports 
Heelsandeers said:
Those aren't resume (W/L) based metrics. Which are running ahead of predictive

This team was close to 21-2 and 20+ in KenPom
Click to expand...
Predictive analytics do the best at showing how good a team is rather than simply what it has accomplished.

Which do you think is closer to being "right" for Miami (Ohio) right now...22nd or 87th?
 
Bigs23 said:
Younger people aren't bothered by it. College sports will be fine.
Click to expand...
Younger people aren't going to be able to pay the freight. This whole things is perched on a precipice. The schools live and die by the money flowing from the legacy folks and those people are increasingly disconnected from the programs in many cases.
 
Bigs23 said:
Younger people aren't bothered by it. College sports will be filled me.
Click to expand...

wmheel1287 said:
Younger people aren't going to be able to pay the freight. This whole things is perched on a precipice. The schools live and die by the money flowing from the legacy folks and those people are increasingly disconnected from the programs in many cases.
Click to expand...
Sports are a cash cow in the US. College athletics is too big to fail.
 
wmheel1287 said:
Do you really think SMU is in any way analogous to most of the remainder of collegiate sports?
Click to expand...
They're special. They're the only D1 school to get the death penalty from the NCAA.

What can you say? It's Texas and there's a lot of crazy people and crazy money.
 
wmheel1287 said:
Do you really think SMU is in any way analogous to most of the remainder of collegiate sports?
Click to expand...
Do you want me to list all of the schools that have received ginormous contributions to NIL in the last 2 years? It is not just SMU. How do you think Miami was able to get Mensah away from Duke? There are lots and lots and lots of people out there willing to throw away their money on 18-23 year old athletes. That you or your contacts may not fall into that bucket does not mean that SMU is a one off.
 
Bigs23 said:
Sports are a cash cow in the US. College athletics is too big to fail.
Click to expand...
I think we're going to see a continued dividing of the haves and have nots with more and more schools soon to fall into the "have nots".

There will be those who get the huge media payouts from the next round of CFB realignment, but I'd imagine that a lot of schools who are P4 now are going to soon be "have nots" in the next 10 years.

So college sports, namely football, will continue to generate lots of revenue but the vast majority of that revenue will increasingly go to fewer teams and the gap between those teams and everyone will grow. And it will become increasingly tough for anyone outside the top football tier to make college athletics work financially.
 
Calheel said:
Do you want me to list all of the schools that have received ginormous contributions to NIL in the last 2 years? It is not just SMU. How do you think Miami was able to get Mensah away from Duke? There are lots and lots and lots of people out there willing to throw away their money on 18-23 year old athletes. That you or your contacts may not fall into that bucket does not mean that SMU is a one off.
Click to expand...
But how sustainable is it? People are spending more money on college athletics than they ever did before. I don’t know the answer, so I’m not really arguing, but it seems that it’s just not sustainable to pay college athletes what they are being paid year after year, especially considering they will likely demand more and more. And as some schools prosper under NIL, I imagine many others won’t. So what happens when there are a handful of schools that can field good really teams but many more that have no shot?

NIL is new, so there are people very willing and able to spend right now. But what happens 10-20 years from now? And what happens when the schools that can’t compete in the NIL market fall off the radar?
 
Calheel said:
Do you want me to list all of the schools that have received ginormous contributions to NIL in the last 2 years? It is not just SMU. How do you think Miami was able to get Mensah away from Duke? There are lots and lots and lots of people out there willing to throw away their money on 18-23 year old athletes. That you or your contacts may not fall into that bucket does not mean that SMU is a one off.
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with me or my contacts. I am simply making an observation and a prediction. You don't have to make it into a personal issue. I have seen plenty of golden goose slaughters before and thats what I believe I am watching now with collegiate athletics.

And what you see as proof of your point of view are precisely the things that I think lead to the death spiral of the enterprise. That Miami and SMU will simply buy whatever they want to the detriment of the rest of college athletics is not (in my opinion) a long term positive for college sports.

Hell, many on this thread have already posted why we cannot possibly be expected to keep up with the top tier of college basketball. If thats true for us, what does it mean for 95% of other schools?
 
finesse said:
They're special. They're the only D1 school to get the death penalty from the NCAA.

What can you say? It's Texas and there's a lot of crazy people and crazy money.
Click to expand...
SMU basketball has something in common with UNC and Kansas basketball. Those are the only three schools to have both Larry Brown and Matt Doherty on their basketball coaching staffs at various times.
 
Icky Mettle said:
But how sustainable is it? People are spending more money on college athletics than they ever did before. I don’t know the answer, so I’m not really arguing, but it seems that it’s just not sustainable to pay college athletes what they are being paid year after year, especially considering they will likely demand more and more. And as some schools prosper under NIL, I imagine many others won’t. So what happens when there are a handful of schools that can field good really teams but many more that have no shot?
Click to expand...
That is what they said in 1981 when Mitch Kupchak signed a 7 year/$6 million contract with the Lakers. Or when Peter Angelos bought the Orioles in 1993 for the unheard of sum of $173 million. People couldn't believe these prices were sustainable. And look where we are today. Professional athletes making $70 million a year and franchises going for $6 billion.
 
wmheel1287 said:
It has nothing to do with me or my contacts. I am simply making an observation and a prediction. You don't have to make it into a personal issue. I have seen plenty of golden goose slaughters before and thats what I believe I am watching now with collegiate athletics.

And what you see as proof of your point of view are precisely the things that I think lead to the death spiral of the enterprise. That Miami and SMU will simply buy whatever they want to the detriment of the rest of college athletics is not (in my opinion) a long term positive for college sports.

Hell, many on this thread have already posted why we cannot possibly be expected to keep up with the top tier of college basketball. If thats true for us, what does it mean for 95% of other schools?
Click to expand...
95% of other schools aren't going to compete. But that is true already. When the dust settles, there will be about 50-60 schools in the top echelon, and UNC will be one of them. We will pay lots and lots of money to players and the system will continue for the rest of our lives.
 
Calheel said:
95% of other schools aren't going to compete. But that is true already. When the dust settles, there will be about 50-60 schools in the top echelon, and UNC will be one of them. We will pay lots and lots of money to players and the system will continue for the rest of our lives.
Click to expand...
Your percentages seem off. I would say currently that at least 20-25% of D1 basketball teams have competitive programs that are worth watching. If indeed that drops to 5% (15-20 schools), then the sport is cooked.
 
Icky Mettle said:
But how sustainable is it? People are spending more money on college athletics than they ever did before. I don’t know the answer, so I’m not really arguing, but it seems that it’s just not sustainable to pay college athletes what they are being paid year after year, especially considering they will likely demand more and more. And as some schools prosper under NIL, I imagine many others won’t. So what happens when there are a handful of schools that can field good really teams but many more that have no shot?

NIL is new, so there are people very willing and able to spend right now. But what happens 10-20 years from now? And what happens when the schools that can’t compete in the NIL market fall off the radar?
Click to expand...
Why isn't it sustainable?

Not that many teams have ever had a real shot.
 
I don't think it will be sustainable for the majority of division one schools. For the ones in the Power 4 now it is more likely, but even some of them will probably drop to lower divisions just because they can't compete with the money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top