Unofficial Official 2012-13 College Basketball Thread

[tarcone]

I have 2 of the 4 in my brackets. Which is pretty good since I doubt many in my local pool picked UM, WSU or SYR.

I was watching the LOU?Duke game and saw the players on the court crumble. I covered my eyes when they were showing replays. I have no stomach for leg injuries. Cant stand watching ankle rolls let a lone a leg snapping in 2.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Agreed. UCLA fans are rather unimpressed at the moment. I'll have more to comment on later when I'm not posting from my phone, about this hire and about how UCLA's awful AD handled the search and the PR for it.

Until then, I would love to hear opinions from tarcone, Kodos, Johnny and any other Iowa, Indiana, and B1G fans on Alford and his abilities as a coach, and also on why he failed at Iowa.

Bump? Pretty interested in the backstory.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Pay the damn kids already. Jesus.

This comment seems really out of context.

What difference would it make if they paid the kid? It's not like it would be enough for him to live off of if that injury is career ending.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Lathum

This comment seems really out of context.

What difference would it make if they paid the kid? It's not like it would be enough for him to live off of if that injury is career ending.

Because the level of risk he's taking, and the idea that the kids have to back out there and continue playing for 5M people after that is not "amateur" in any sense of the word - that's a professional level of focus we're demanding from them. And because the poor guy didn't get to benefit from the billions of dollars being made off him (and others like him)>.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cougarfreak

What a win for the Cards!

It may actually pale in comparison to the one their women are on the verge of, at least in terms of what it means to a program. (They've had a double-digit lead on Baylor and their she-male throughout, shooting 3's like it's 2k or something)

[tarcone]

I liked Alford when he was hired. I drank the Kool-Aid. But he really struggled at Iowa. He is not a great Xs and Os guy. His personality lacks. He is a heck of guy for a short period of time. But over a long period he will wear you out. Many Iowa fans really grew to dislike him.
Here is what a poster on Hawkeyennation said about him:
"There are certain traits that turn people off...almost universally.

Arrogance
Stubbornness
Self-righteousness
Hypocrisy
Narcissism

It's not rocket science why people have such disdain for Alford. He's managed to harness some of Bob Knight's worst traits, combine them with his own...and develop his own smarmy brand."

He regularly loses in the early rounds of postseason tourneys. He is the only coach in history to lose 2 games to a #14 seed in the NCAAs.

We had more player defections then at any other time in history.

Iowa fans blame Alford for ruining the program. We were a regular NCAA participant when he got here. With the distractions (i.e. working hard to keep a rapist on the team), the defections and the personality.

Blames players for losses as this qoute was head in Iowa City a lot:
“We can’t shoot for them,” Alford said. “It’s all part of the game. … That’s an obviously glaring weakness on this basketball team, and we’ve got to do a lot of work in the offseason with our shooting.”
That was after the NM loss in this years NCAA tourney.

Struggled getting players qualified. Only 10 freshmen he recruited qualified to enter Iowa. And Iowa isnt that tough a school to get into..

Alford just signed a 10 year deal with UNM and saying it is the place he wants to be, he bolts for UCLA.

And to end my take on what you are getting, here is an article for you.

Bernstein: UCLA Hired A Scumbag « CBS Chicago

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Because the level of risk he's taking, and the idea that the kids have to back out there and continue playing for 5M people after that is not "amateur" in any sense of the word - that's a professional level of focus we're demanding from them. And because the poor guy didn't get to benefit from the billions of dollars being made off him (and others like him)>.

I have student loans to pay back, he wont.

Now don't get me wrong, I realize everyone makes money off these kids, but I just don't think we need to pay them. The reality is very few of them will ever have the chance to play professionally and likely know that going into college. They get free room, board, and tuition for 5 years and a chance to get an education that will open doors for them and give them a chance to make a living. It is up to them to take advantage.

Do I think the NCAA is a joke and more could be done for the athletes, I do, but seems like many of them choose to not take advantage of the opportunity given to them.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Because the level of risk he's taking, and the idea that the kids have to back out there and continue playing for 5M people after that is not "amateur" in any sense of the word - that's a professional level of focus we're demanding from them. And because the poor guy didn't get to benefit from the billions of dollars being made off him (and others like him)>.

So how much is a backup player making then?

[tarcone]

Im going to be watching UCLA basketball now. I want to see Alford flame out in LA.

[cougarfreak]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It may actually pale in comparison to the one their women are on the verge of, at least in terms of what it means to a program. (They've had a double-digit lead on Baylor and their she-male throughout, shooting 3's like it's 2k or something)

I played high school ball against their women's coach. He was a heck of a player.

[cuervo72]

I still think they should be able to negotiate what they can get. At a bare minimum, they still get a scholarship. If there is more of a demand for them - like guys who are obvious one-and-dones/lottery picks - let them negotiate with the school to get as much compensation as they can. This isn't a one-size-fits-all solution, but hey - not all college athletes are of equal worth to these programs.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It may actually pale in comparison to the one their women are on the verge of, at least in terms of what it means to a program. (They've had a double-digit lead on Baylor and their she-male throughout, shooting 3's like it's 2k or something)

Hell of a win.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Matthean

Hell of a win.

About as ugly as it could get at the end, but I'll take it.

Anything to put an end to Baylor's run. As completely unlikable a team as I can recall in basketball - men or women - in my lifetime.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I still think they should be able to negotiate what they can get. At a bare minimum, they still get a scholarship. If there is more of a demand for them - like guys who are obvious one-and-dones/lottery picks - let them negotiate with the school to get as much compensation as they can. This isn't a one-size-fits-all solution, but hey - not all college athletes are of equal worth to these programs.

Then just do away with the college side of it and create a minor league system. That would really screw the athletes who have no shot of making it in the league. The thing is we all look at the Anthony Davis' of the world and say they should be compensated, etc...but for every Davis there are 1000 kids who are compensated with the chance to get a degree and a better life for themselves.

Any compensation we give them pales in comparison to hat they can make in the real world if they take advantages of the chances given to them.

[cuervo72]

What part of "At a bare minimum, they still get a scholarship" didn't register there? Is the idea that to pay the high-end players, schools are going to cut other things (which given what has been going on at Maryland I suppose that's a possibility, but hey - that's already happening anyway) or are going to decrease the overall number of scholarships?

The lower-level schools wouldn't be able to afford these guys, so I doubt they'd even be affected. But you think Kentucky couldn't come up with some scratch for a stud they really want?

I'm thinking of a system where a scholarship is essentially a league-minimum compensation. If a player can extract more than that from a school, more power to them.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

What part of "At a bare minimum, they still get a scholarship" didn't register there? Is the idea that to pay the high-end players, schools are going to cut other things (which given what has been going on at Maryland I suppose that's a possibility, but hey - that's already happening anyway) or are going to decrease the overall number of scholarships?

The lower-level schools wouldn't be able to afford these guys, so I doubt they'd even be affected. But you think Kentucky couldn't come up with some scratch for a stud they really want?

I'm thinking of a system where a scholarship is essentially a league-minimum compensation. If a player can extract more than that from a school, more power to them.

I guess I wasn't clear, or more likely you didn't understand what I meant.I said it would screw kids if you did away with the college side of it and created a minor league system.

[RedKingGold]

I would have no problem with college players not getting paid...if they had the opportunity to skip college altogether and go pro once 18 years old.

That's the part of the system that's broken, IMO. I really don't want to hear that the NCAA has no power over it because its collectively bargained. The NCAA is funded partly by the government, get the legislature involved and threaten the leagues' antitrust exemption(s).

[cuervo72]

I'm not suggesting doing away with the college side of it though. Really I'm just advocating putting everything that (allegedly) goes on now out in the open - legitimize it. If Cam Newton's father can get $100k out of Auburn and that's better than the $80k or $50k the other schools can do - fine. The guy who's the 5th string LB? He still gets the same scholly, and if he's smart decides to go to class.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

I would have no problem with college players not getting paid...if they had the opportunity to skip college altogether and go pro once 18 years old.

That's the part of the system that's broken, IMO. I really don't want to hear that the NCAA has no power over it because its collectively bargained. The NCAA is funded partly by the government, get the legislature involved and threaten the leagues' antitrust exemption(s).

agree completely.

[Buccaneer]

I and most people I know had not only had to pay for going to college (plus working as a TA/RA in grad school) but we also had to qualify academically (and get accepted into our chose major). It would've been nice not to been able to do any of those things.

[Lathum]

The thing is even if you compensate them, unless they value their education and are willing to try and do something with it they will be no better off.

If you paid players most of them would likely buy jewelry, cars, and tattoos and still be unprepared for the real world.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I and most people I know had not only had to pay for going to college (plus working as a TA/RA in grad school) but we also had to qualify academically (and get accepted into our chose major). It would've been nice not to been able to do any of those things.

Don't forget room, board, tutors,and playing a game you love.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Lathum

The thing is even if you compensate them, unless they value their education and are willing to try and do something with it they will be no better off.

If you paid players most of them would likely buy jewelry, cars, and tattoos and still be unprepared for the real world.

I don't think it's the school's duty to ensure these kids are better off. You give them the opportunity, and it's up to them to figure it out. Colleges aren't holding the hands of undergrads who pay to go to their institutions - and there are plenty of these that fuck up too - they shouldn't need to here.

[JPhillips]

From 2006 to 2011 only 11 Division One athletic departments got less than one million in subsidies from the general fund of their institution. Where will the money come from if players are paid?

Now I think players should be paid, but the pro leagues should pay for developmental leagues the way baseball and hockey do. Colleges shouldn't be siphoning millions out of tuition and fees for athletics.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I don't think it's the school's duty to ensure these kids are better off. You give them the opportunity, and it's up to them to figure it out. Colleges aren't holding the hands of undergrads who pay to go to their institutions - and there are plenty of these that fuck up too - they shouldn't need to here.

If it isn't the schools duty to ensure the kids are better off then surely they should be required to pay them?

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Lathum

If it isn't the schools duty to ensure the kids are better off then surely they should be required to pay them?

The two aren't related. They should be allowed to be paid because they are providing a valuable service for what is by any other name a business. A business that hides behind academics to collude to keep the cost of their labor down.

Schools that don't make gobs of money? Well, don't pay players then. They'll still get athletes, just like they do now.

[tarcone]

Why not offer a major for these kids? A football major, or a basketball major.
The thought being, these athletes think they have what it takes to go pro. So let them major in that sport to better their chances.

Pay them for their service in college but have them sign a contract that makes them pay back the institution, plus interest, when they sign their pro contract.

If they fail to make it as a pro, you still made millions off their service (TV contracts, bowls, postseason tourneys). Release them from their contract to pay the university back.

This is off the top of my head. But it seems like a a possible way to help these guys who are using college as a minor league.

[JPhillips]

The single biggest change you could make to NCAA Div 1 athletics is have a rule that says no more than 20% of the budget can come from subsidies. That would decimate a lot of athletic programs, but it would also reorient our priorities for college. If the change in athletics isn't liked by the NFL and NBA, let them form real minor leagues and they can pay the players.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I and most people I know had not only had to pay for going to college (plus working as a TA/RA in grad school) but we also had to qualify academically (and get accepted into our chose major). It would've been nice not to been able to do any of those things.

Plenty of people get academic scholarships, and all of those people can also work on the side, even start a business...unless you're an athlete of course, in which case the school owns you.

I don't get the "they get enough" argument. Sure, they get plenty, but who else faces a value cap? Pro athletes make "enough", maybe we should cap their earnings at $100,000 and free community college classes. Maybe teachers should only earn graduate school credit instead of money. It can be up to them to take advantage of the opportunity.

[Buccaneer]

JPhillips and I have long agreed on this. There is way too much emphasis placed on athletic programs, esp. at major universities. I have frequently advocated the creation of a professional minor leagues for football and basketball and if universities want to sponsor a team, that's fine. Colleges are for students, not athletes pretending to be students. If you want to do both (as a lot of students having to balance studies and a job), then you have to qualify like the rest of us.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

JPhillips and I have long agreed on this. There is way too much emphasis placed on athletic programs, esp. at major universities. I have frequently advocated the creation of a professional minor leagues for football and basketball and if universities want to sponsor a team, that's fine. Colleges are for students, not athletes pretending to be students. If you want to do both (as a lot of students having to balance studies and a job), then you have to qualify like the rest of us.

Doesn't applying specific rules and regulations to athletes promote the over-emphasis of athletics?

Edit: our sick sports culture is a cultural problem. I don't think its something you can fix with a rule. Its up to the masses how important sports is.

[JPhillips]

I'm all for athletes making whatever they can get, it just shouldn't come from the general funds of colleges. If the NFL needs a minor league, let them build it. It's ridiculous how many institutions that are cutting instruction are subsidizing their athletic programs with millions of dollars.

[EagleFan]

Holy ****, just saw a video of that. What surprised me the most was the player himself. He seemed much more calm than I would be if that happened to me.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's ridiculous how many institutions that are cutting instruction are subsidizing their athletic programs with millions of dollars.

If they don't, I truly believe you'd be shocked at how many wouldn't be major institutions much longer. You take away that connection for the "sidewalk alumni", you take away a hell of a lot of the motivation for pouring tax dollars into those institutions.

Maybe a different deal for the private schools (anybody know the percentage of public vs private for D1 off hand?) but for state schools, that's a factor that should not be underestimated.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm all for athletes making whatever they can get, it just shouldn't come from the general funds of colleges. .

Boosters would be more than happy to pay every cent for the players who have value. They do anyway, except the more honest kids lose out, and everyone else has to hide their money so everyone can pretend these are student athletes. Edit: maybe if that part of it was more transparent, we'd see some of the broader changes you guys are talking about, if the fake cloak of "student athletes" at the biggest programs went away.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Just got reminded of something that annoyed the hell outta me during the Baylor-Louisville women's game.

They interviewed the Baylor coach DURING a timeout. (my wife noted that the same thing happened during the Tennessee game). I'm sorry, but that's just bullshit.

[Scoobz0202]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Holy ****, just saw a video of that. What surprised me the most was the player himself. He seemed much more calm than I would be if that happened to me.

I'm sure he was in shock. Body can do some crazy shit. I had a compound fracture and had really no severe pain.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Didn't see the Ware injury til now. Damn...

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm all for athletes making whatever they can get, it just shouldn't come from the general funds of colleges. If the NFL needs a minor league, let them build it. It's ridiculous how many institutions that are cutting instruction are subsidizing their athletic programs with millions of dollars.

It's just not accurate. It might be creative accounting that makes it seem as though they're cutting instruction to pay for athletics, but it's just not actually true. No more than it's true that they're cutting revenue-losing programs to pay another professor salary or the President's salary.

With subsidies from students at most schools, coupled with all of the other kickbacks, there's enough money flowing to pay expenses. It's like everything else in higher ed, though -- the arms race to keep up with peer institutions -- is what drives poor schools to want to compete with the billion dollar endowment programs or the ones with huge deep pocketed boosters.

None of these arguments I've seen against paying players are especially compelling. The bottom line is, how is it fair that you EVERY PERSON connected with college sports is receiving some kind of financial remuneration and the only ones who can't receive extra benefits are the players themselves.

It just makes no sense. If it's good enough for the dude in the pep band, the kid who is student manager or the goofball Director of Basketball Operations graduate student making $20k a year for free graduate tuition and no health insurance, why not the players?

The stipends are a pittance relative to their value and enables top coaches to make NBA money on the backs of guys who'll never get that.

The logistics aren't a good enough reason to say "this is untenable." If it means conferences like the Big Ten choose to drop down to D3, I'm perfectly fine with this. I prefer that over a system where everyone just turns a blind eye and says "oh, but they get a free education that's refundable every year based on the whim of the coach."

It'd be fine if the scholarships were conditional based on a particular GPA requirement, but right now all of the power is in the hands of everyone but the most vulnerable.

[Young Drachma]

2013 CBI Tournament: George Mason to Host Finals Twice, Once in Smallest Gym Ever - Mid-Major Madness

So I guess George Mason is hosting one of the first games of the CBI championship series in their practice gym, because a college fair is being held in their normal one. Ooops. At least it'll be a sellout.

[Buccaneer]

DC, are you talking about non-scholarship athletes? I would say those athletes getting free tuition, room, meals, health care and a stipend are compensated more than most of the real students attending the same university.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

DC, are you talking about non-scholarship athletes? I would say those athletes getting free tuition, room, meals, health care and a stipend are compensated more than most of the real students attending the same university.

It's about providing real value to the university. In that way, athletes are more akin to graduate student TAs who teach classes and so forth (not that all do) than say, ordinary folks who might be hanging out playing intramurals, going to frat parties or just going to class and not doing anything spectacular.

I think they do get benefits later, as in, being able to translate their successes into roles into the institution later on, being regaled by the community for life and all that. But, I'm just saying that none of that is really actual compensation.

It's not that we can't have a conversation about what it all is truly worth. It's just that, right now, we ignore that conversation by simply saying "but they get scholarships."

I think at the very least, the Olympic model seems the most fair way to preserve the facade of amateurism in college sports without blowing up the whole thing. Might have the side effect of keeping more of them in school longer and keeping them honest.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

What part of "At a bare minimum, they still get a scholarship" didn't register there? Is the idea that to pay the high-end players, schools are going to cut other things (which given what has been going on at Maryland I suppose that's a possibility, but hey - that's already happening anyway) or are going to decrease the overall number of scholarships?

The lower-level schools wouldn't be able to afford these guys, so I doubt they'd even be affected. But you think Kentucky couldn't come up with some scratch for a stud they really want?

I'm thinking of a system where a scholarship is essentially a league-minimum compensation. If a player can extract more than that from a school, more power to them.

"". This. March Madness is covered by a Multi-billion $ contract - why on earth should some kid be able to extract more value from it as opposed to EVERYONE else getting rich from it?

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I and most people I know had not only had to pay for going to college (plus working as a TA/RA in grad school) but we also had to qualify academically (and get accepted into our chose major). It would've been nice not to been able to do any of those things.

So what? You're not in any way comparable to these guys - no one gives a shit about you playng basketball. That's like suggesting that I acted in my middle school production of Annie, so no actor should be allowed to make money from it.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Lathum

The thing is even if you compensate them, unless they value their education and are willing to try and do something with it they will be no better off.

If you paid players most of them would likely buy jewelry, cars, and tattoos and still be unprepared for the real world.

Firstly, this is remarkably insulting (jewelry, cars, tattoos? Seriously? There are very strong connotations here). Secondly, why on earth shouldn't they get to decide just like anyone else in a profession? You and I can do whatever we want with the money we earn, why not them?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Curious about something, figured I'd throw it out here.

A discussion elsewhere came down pretty hard on Deadspin for having the video of the injury up on Sunday (I assume it's still there). Since then, I've found a version on AJC.com (via WPIX-TV) that's got the injury itself blurred out & from a wide angle replay.

My question is whether in your normal surfing you've come across the unedited video being shown anywhere else online.

In case it isn't clear, I'm not looking for the video (less than zero interest in seeing it, I'll stick with TWD if I want to see something gruesome), I'm interested in whether Deadspin was pretty much alone in showing it in full or if it was at least somewhat common.

[Crapshoot]

JIMGA, I thought it was just Deadspin - most of the usual sources have avoided GIF'ing it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

JIMGA, I thought it was just Deadspin - most of the usual sources have avoided GIF'ing it.

While looking for the primary hashtag being used on Twitter, I just -- very unfortunately for me -- ran across a still that basically zoomed in on the leg. Fair warning: turn off images if you try to read the latest Tweets about him via searching.

I don't know whether to be or or

[stevew]

Baylor "women" lost...holy shit. I'm shocked, I figured they were a mortal lock.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Anything to put an end to Baylor's run. As completely unlikable a team as I can recall in basketball - men or women - in my lifetime.

For someone who doesn't follow women's basketball closely, what makes them unlikable? Is there a men's team comparison? (Based on the little bit of context here, I'm thinking something like 1991 UNLV?)