Men’s College Basketball Catch-All

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 92
  • Views: 2K
  • Sports 
ChileG said:
Couldn’t the mass exodus be curtailed greatly by going back to having to sit a year if you transfer?
I guess there is no going back to that?
Click to expand...
I don't have a problem with a player transferring once and being able to play right away. But they should make players sit out a season if they want to transfer again.
 
Calheel said:
College basketball “as we knew it” changed way more from 1965 to 1975 than from 2015 to 2025.
Click to expand...
That's an interesting thought.

What changes do you think happened from 1965-75 that outweigh those which have happened in the last 10 years? (Although, to be fair, I think the real time period that we'd discuss in 2050 would be ~2020-30.)
 
SnoopRob said:
That's an interesting thought.

What changes do you think happened from 1965-75 that outweigh those which have happened in the last 10 years? (Although, to be fair, I think the real time period that we'd discuss in 2050 would be ~2020-30.)
Click to expand...
Black players
Freshman eligibility
Dunking (1976, and I guess technically, it wasn't outlawed till 67).
 
Calheel said:
Black players
Freshman eligibility
Dunking (1976, and I guess technically, it wasn't outlawed till 67).
Click to expand...
I would argue that...

Free agency
(Legal) payments to players
*Insert Any Rule Change Here*

...outstrips the changes you listed.

Adding black players and freshmen expanded the pool of available players within an otherwise stable system, but free agency + legal payments have absolutely changed how players are not only acquired but what it takes to retain them on a yearly basis.
 
SnoopRob said:
I would argue that...

Free agency
(Legal) payments to players
*Insert Any Rule Change Here*

...outstrips the changes you listed.

Adding black players and freshmen expanded the pool of available players within an otherwise stable system, but free agency + legal payments have absolutely changed how players are not only acquired but what it takes to retain them on a yearly basis.
Click to expand...
It is easy to say that in the moment, with as much up in the air as there is now, but allowing African American players athletic eligibility absolutely changed the collegiate landscape to a much greater - and more far reaching - extent than anything since.
 
I thought all along that the transfer rule was supposed to be a one time no-sit transfer, which is totally reasonable. Guys playing at 4 schools in 4 years is just so dumb.

The college bb regular season kinda sucks now, and I watch way less than ever before. Pretty much only watch UNC games now.
 
HeelInTheOzarks said:
I thought all along that the transfer rule was supposed to be a one time no-sit transfer, which is totally reasonable. Guys playing at 4 schools in 4 years is just so dumb.

The college bb regular season kinda sucks now, and I watch way less than ever before. Pretty much only watch UNC games now.
Click to expand...
Why is it dumb? There are professional athletes that play for four teams (or more) in four years.
 
Calheel said:
Why is it dumb? There are professional athletes that play for four teams (or more) in four years.
Click to expand...
It’s just my opinion. Just let them have contracts. If the players want to be completely professional, should they be able to be cut midseason and left without a job?
 
SnoopRob said:
I would argue that...

Free agency
(Legal) payments to players
*Insert Any Rule Change Here*

...outstrips the changes you listed.

Adding black players and freshmen expanded the pool of available players within an otherwise stable system, but free agency + legal payments have absolutely changed how players are not only acquired but what it takes to retain them on a yearly basis.
Click to expand...
Maybe its changed the player personnel function behind the scenes, but it has a relatively minimal change on the game you watch on TV.

And we've had one-and-done for 20 years (albeit mainly at a few schools). So, there is nothing new with players playing for just one year. And if you look at UNC's roster, there is a lot of continuity from year to year. It is not as though we are trotting out four-five new starters every year like Duke has been doing for the last 10 years.
 
superrific said:
Well, this gets back to our previous discussion about how much latitude is afforded to sports leagues. I still say that NCAA v. Regents hasn't been overturned and if the NCAA doesn't pull out the stupidest possible justification for its eligibility rules, competition stability could justify mild restrictions (which is what they would be ATM, given that the athletes are getting paid and in many cases quite a lot).

We don't need a tangent about a purely hypothetical idea, so I don't really have anything else to say about antitrust.

As to the product: my parents used to be rabid Duke fans who lost interest in the team because of all the one-and-dones over there. The lack of year-to-year continuity really impacts spectators' ability to engage with the team. Part of the joy of the game has always been watching a team mature, as freshmen develop into upperclassmen, and adjust to holes in the roster. Do you remember that Illinois team in the late 80s or early 90s where basically everyone on the team was like 6'5". IIRC they spanked us in one game. That was a really fun team, and it only came about out of necessity. Today, they would just go splurge on a center and a point guard and play like every other team.
Click to expand...
But ironically, the ability to pay players has actually helped keep players in college and build familiarity. We have a fifth year!!! RJ and a third year Seth Trimble. And we'd have a 6th year Armando if we could get the NCAA to play ball. NIL is actually quite helpful on that issue.
 
superrific said:
The product might be fine, but it's not college basketball any more. And I don't mean just the payments, though that is obviously a departure. It's the fact that teams are basically reloading with talent every year. It used to be that a team making a big championship push would struggle the next year, as their talent would depart and the remaining talent would be inexperienced (since the championship team played its starters heavily). After '98, the next season we finished third IIRC, and that was considered an overachievement. After '05, we finished third in '06 which was definitely an overachievement. And then after '09 . . . well anyway,

UConn, by contrast, says goodbye to its seniors and then gets a whole bunch of new experienced players to take over. To some extent, so did we -- and to the extent we didn't, it's not for lack of trying.

I've said that college basketball is now more like European soccer (without contracts!). It's still basketball, but it's not "college basketball" as we knew it.
Click to expand...
So the way it used to be is over.
 
Calheel said:
Maybe its changed the player personnel function behind the scenes, but it has a relatively minimal change on the game you watch on TV.

And we've had one-and-done for 20 years (albeit mainly at a few schools). So, there is nothing new with players playing for just one year. And if you look at UNC's roster, there is a lot of continuity from year to year. It is not as though we are trotting out four-five new starters every year like Duke has been doing for the last 10 years.
Click to expand...
UNC only had 4 guys on the team this past year who were on the squad for the disaster of a year we had in 2022-2023. Davis, Bacot, Trimble and Washington. And the latter 2 of those hardly played the year before.
 
superrific said:
Well, this gets back to our previous discussion about how much latitude is afforded to sports leagues. I still say that NCAA v. Regents hasn't been overturned and if the NCAA doesn't pull out the stupidest possible justification for its eligibility rules, competition stability could justify mild restrictions (which is what they would be ATM, given that the athletes are getting paid and in many cases quite a lot).

We don't need a tangent about a purely hypothetical idea, so I don't really have anything else to say about antitrust.

As to the product: my parents used to be rabid Duke fans who lost interest in the team because of all the one-and-dones over there. The lack of year-to-year continuity really impacts spectators' ability to engage with the team. Part of the joy of the game has always been watching a team mature, as freshmen develop into upperclassmen, and adjust to holes in the roster. Do you remember that Illinois team in the late 80s or early 90s where basically everyone on the team was like 6'5". IIRC they spanked us in one game. That was a really fun team, and it only came about out of necessity. Today, they would just go splurge on a center and a point guard and play like every other team.
Click to expand...
That likely was the ‘89 Illini team; they made the Final Four. Nick Anderson and Kendall Gill were on that team; Marcus Liberty was the tallest player at 6’8”.

They didn’t play the Heels.
 
HeelYeah2012 said:
UNC only had 4 guys on the team this past year who were on the squad for the disaster of a year we had in 2022-2023. Davis, Bacot, Trimble and Washington. And the latter 2 of those hardly played the year before.
Click to expand...
That's a 100 minutes a game from returners -- 50% of the available minutes.

This year, our returners will likely get closer to 120 minutes a game.

That is a lot of returning minutes.
 
Yeah, given that without IC, this forum doesn't exist, just be mindful of posting information that's behind the IC paywall. Appreciate sharing information, but if it's "insider" kind of stuff from them, best to err on the side of caution and wait until you see it disseminated on social media or wherever. I'm not the ultimate authority on this concept, but not copying stuff verbatim is probably an easy line to keep set in stone.
 
Bigs23 said:
Neither is close to dead. Both are thriving. You just don’t like the changes.
Click to expand...
Wellllllll.....


Oooooo....this should be fun.

Tell me what changes I don't like.

Also, you have to be able to answer follow up questions...and understand I'm not here for emotional funsies nor will i lie.

So... that being said, what changes do I not like?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top