danzig6767

Why should a player leaving after only one season have to pay back a single penny to the school he played for? That player will have provided more financial value to his university than the other way around, yet you want the player to be financially penalized. Hell, many of these schools don't care if these players go the class for the second semester. I don't get why you and others have such an issue with a small percentage of each freshman class who declare for the draft? Or why you feel it hurts college basketball more than if kids could enter the draft straight from high school instead? I'm very glad that i got to watch talents like Anthony Davis, Oden, Durant, Carmelo, Wall, Rose, Wiggins, Parker, Ball, and countless other guys like them on a college court and in the NCAA Tournament, even if it was only for one year instead of them going directly to the pros from high school. And i wish i could have seen others like LeBron, Kobe, and Garnett play a year in college instead of them going directly to the pros. I just fail to see any big problem with the current set up for anyone involved. 1. It helps the college game by the best high school talent playing at least a year in college for fans of the sport to watch vs never seeing that. 2. The players get a year of playing better competition. Mature physically and mentally. Experience a new culture of people as they live alone for the first time before having to do so as a pro. 3. The NBA gets to evaluate these high school raw talents against much better competition in college before drafting them and those players get a year of seasoning on the court before entering the league. So who exactly is losing out so much by this current set up? It's not perfect, but it's about as good as i can think of beyond wrongly forcing high talent college basketball players to stay in school longer at a fraction of their financial worth. FWIW, I get mandating one year via the age requirement is arbitrary in it's own right, but overall i think it's a pretty good compromise for everyone involved.

Increasing the stipend quite a bit would be reasonable. I wasn't saying the players should be getting say 250 thousand a year on top of their scholarship.

I thought the exact same thing as Gard was trying to instruct Trice where to go because he looked confused to me. Sure, if Gard calls a timeout it gives Florida a chance to set up what they wanted to do, but i think it was more important for Gard to be sure all of his players were on the right page for how things should be defended regardless whether Hayes made or missed the second free throw. Can't have any confusion among the players.

I think things are fine how they are. The vast majority of college basketball players stay 2-4 years in school. Only a small percentage leave after one year and for those one and done players, i think they benefit from a year in college instead of going directly to the pros from high school. That year in college gives them a chance to play against a higher level of play compared to high school, get coaching, and spend a year living on their own to ease that shift at least somewhat for when they become a pro. Sure, for fans of college basketball, they'd like to see the best talents play for more than a single season, but it shouldn't be about what fans want. Those high talent kids should be able to go into the draft and see where the NBA views their skillset. At least though college basketball fans do get to see them in that environment for a year vs never seeing them if they could go pro directly from high school. So I don't see a big reason to change things given the current system is good for everyone involved from the players to college basketball and the NBA.

Tens of millions of people write code for fun. Should college students not get paid for doing that? Tens of millions of people cook for fun, should college students not get paid for doing that? The basis of your argument is flawed. http://college.usatoday.com/2016/10/20/should-athletes-be-paid-to-play/ Yea, to me this comes down to a simple monetary question. You either believe believe that the college athletes/the actual product in multi-billion dollar businesses only deserve a sliver of the revenues generated, while the coaches, universities, and the NCAA deserve the rest or you feel they deserve a bigger share than that sliver. The fact that some want to drone on about that they had to pay back hefty student loans and these college athletes don't have to is irrelevant to me. People with an in demand gift or skill are always a higher placed commodity compared to the average person and thus rightly so receive benefits that others don't.

Explain to me how the players are "being scammed". They know exactly what they are getting into and they all go in more than willingly. As I've said time and time again if they don't like it they can walk away any time they want. But ask anyone here, hell ask yourself. If you could go to college, a college you probably couldn't afford to go to or qualify to get into, for four years and earn your degree while paying nothing for tuition, nothing for housing, nothing for your food plans, nothing for healthcare, nothing for books AND receive a monthly stipend of a few hundreds dollars in exchange for playing on the football or basketball team.....would you? I sure as hell would. Stop acting like these players aren't getting anything in return for their time and effort. Since you continue to keep misrepresenting what i've said, there probably is no point debating further with you. Never once have i said college athletes get nothing. Instead i've stated multiple times that a scholarship definitely has financial value, just nowhere close to the financial gains which universities and the NCAA makes off the money these athletes generate. They hide behind this bogus claim of major college football and basketball being amateur athletics so they can get away with just paying out a scholarship when in reality the two sports are multi-billion dollar businesses with packed stadiums/arenas, huge TV contracts, large merchandising deals, and numerous other revenue streams not much different at all than the NFL and NBA, except those two leagues have to actually share their money with the product/athletes bringing in that revenue. So just because college athletes in those sports get something for playing doesn't have to also mean they are getting their fare share. After all, if what they get is perfectly fair, why is the NCAA so against letting the athletes unionize and bargain for compensation?

How is the one and done rule ruining college basketball? You have maybe 30-40 kids a year leave after one season, the countless other players stay from 2-4 years. Of those one and done high level talents, at least college basketball fans get to see them play for one year vs going directly to the pros. Just think of all of the great college basketball games fans got to see of say Durant, Wall, Oden, Anthony Davis, etc etc which never would have taken place if they could go directly to the pros instead. College basketball would be a much duller game without the best talents ever stepping foot on a college basketball court, even if many only stay one year. So i just don't get why so many have a problem with this setup. As for the NBA, they are better off with the high end talents playing at least a year in college to get seasoning and experiencing living on their own for the first time vs those player going directly to the pros from high school.

But it' not a JOB. It's a game. Of course it's a job. Colleges are paying these kids to play basketball or football for them and in return instead of paying them money, they are giving a scholarship which is of significantly less financial value than the money the players talents provide the universities and the NCAA. Teams in both sports cut ties with players all of the time when they aren't as good as the coaches expected or newer recruits make other expendable. Or they pull scholarships at the last minute when a better recruit offers to come. Tom Crean was so famous for this a name for it was given called Creaning, but he is far from alone in this practice. Produce or we'll find someone who will, like employers do. I'm hard pressed to think of any other multi-billion dollar entertainment business or business in general like big time college football/basketball where the actual labor force generating those billions is so restricted in what they can ask for in return, along with what kind of money they are allowed to earn during their free time. What a racket the NCAA has devised, yet some want to rip on the players being scammed who speak out instead of universities and the NCAA who are making boatloads of cash simply because they can compensate the athletes pocket change in comparison to money they generate. Nigel Hayes has helped generate a hell of a lot more money for the University of Wisconsin than his four year scholarship cost them. He has every right to think that system is garbage, while at the same time acknowledging that he's very much enjoyed his time at Wisconsin. Both can be accurate.

Those same boosters can gives hundreds of thousands to millions to help pay coaches like Saban, Harbaugh, Calipari, etc more than many NBA or NFL coaches, but god forbid they slip some of the athletes a few hundred for autographs instead of 50 bucks. As for some of these kids not taking school seriously, no question that is the case. This is a prime example though of why major college basketball and football supposedly being amateur athletics is such nonsense. So many of these universities twist themselves in knots lowering academic standards to justify letting in high talent kids who aren't anywhere near prepared to handle a college curriculum and then stuff those kids in a number of sham classes simply to keep them eligible to play. They don't give a crap about anything except making sure their prized athletes perform well on the court/field to help keep stadiums and arenas full of paying customers. Those schools are flat out using those kids. Granted, not all universities are this way. Some actually have tougher academic standards and aren't willing to let kids be put it sham classes to keep them eligible. To many aren't though. They treat their players as employees, except they don't have to pay them.

That's a very interesting solution to curb the number of one-and-done basketball players and I'd entertain it. You'd essentially be forcing Kentucky or Duke to go without a scholarship for 3 years if they recruit a NBA lottery pick. Does that mean that the blue chip programs recruit fewer one-and-done players? Maybe that helps bring lottery picks to other schools and boost parity? However, I could see someone making the argument that temporarily eliminating a scholarship only limits opportunities for other would-be student athletes - and the NCAA is all about the student athletes (sarcasm). What is so bad about a player leaving college early that it should bring punishment? People attend college so as to advance their financial future. If say some math wiz on scholarship is recruited by multiple businesses and he leaves before graduating to take one of those jobs, would anyone fault that kid for doing so or think the university should face a scholarship reduction? For some bizarre reason though if a college athlete leaves early because the NFL/NBA/NHL will be offering him millions of dollars, it's bad of the kid to do this and/or the school should face a scholarship restriction. It's the universities and their conferences along with the NCAA who have turned college football and basketball into multi-billion dollar enterprises, not the athletes. If a small percentage of those kids happen to show to be talented enough to where a pro sport will pay them big money to leave college after only one or two years, good for those kids. Why do some have such a problem with that? Do you want to force those kids to stay in college longer and earn pennies on the dollar compared to their true worth just so the universities can make all of the money instead?

That's the last thing NCAA programs like Wisconsin and others would like if most of the better talents said screw the NCAA for making boatloads of cash off our talents. Good luck getting billion dollar TV deals to get people watching low talent athletes. What's the attendance and TV coverage for Division 2 and 3 basketball and football. Nonexistent. If hypothetically every college basketball player in the power conferences said we aren't playing unless we get a bigger cut of those billions, the NCAA would be screwed. It would be akin to when the NFL players went on strike years ago and the league tried hiring replacement players. The product sucked because the talent did and fans didn't want to watch or attend. It's not that these college athletes get nothing. A scholarship has financial value. That said, it's not close to equaling the financial value they bring their universities. That is the point. A kid gets caught say selling his autograph on a jersey for some spending money, he gets suspended, yet the school can sell that same jersey with the player's name on it for 120 bucks and he doesn't get a penny of it. This is a racket where everyone involved makes a ton of cash from coaches, universities, networks, etc, all except the athletes themselves who are the product.

The richer schools already do this. Take a look at the myriad of facilities of big time college athletics. A lot of them are as good or better facilities than pro teams have. Lower revenue schools can't afford practice and stadium facilities like that, so it's just another reason among others why they can't land the higher level recruits. The big conferences also have their own TV channels. The better recruits want to go to schools on TV all of the time, that have amazing facilities, and that win. Those end up being the high revenue universities and athletic departments. Top 100 recruits in basketball or football aren't picking mid-majors with inferior facilities and with no TV deals over power five conferences.

Calipari isn't taking advantage of anything. He simply recruits the higher level available recruits and many choose Kentucky, but a lot also go elsewhere and leave after a year whether it's Duke or other power 5 conference schools. Henry Ellenson chose Marquette and everyone knew he was only staying on year. I don't have a problem with the rule given high revenue college sports like basketball and football aren't anything close to amateur athletics which it was supposed to be. College basketball and football are multi-billion dollar businesses where the actual employees don't get paid beyond a scholarship and much of the revenue they generate instead goes to the coaches and to support the non-revenue generating sports. If say they changed the rule so kids had to spend two years in college, high talent guys would leave then after two years of often taking bogus classes just to keep them eligible. North Carolina had a "scandal" where it came out that for years they were doing all kinds of shady stuff to keep basketball and football players eligible so the university could keep raking in millions. Everyone knows that this goes on elsewhere, North Carolina just got caught is all. Low revenue sports seem like what amateur college athletics were designed for. Football and basketball though, they have billion dollar plus TV deals. High profile coaches make 5-10 million per, often as much or more than pro coaches. These are pro sports masquerading as amateur athletics, minus the ones on the court/football field getting paid like a pro athlete.

My guess is your medium case scenario. That Guerra pitches pretty well, not as good as last, but well enough that he's still attractive to a number of teams given starting pitching is always in demand and especially dirt cheap starting pitching. If that were to happen i think Stearns could easily get at least one top 100 prospect maybe in that 50-75 range along with an intriguing throw in or two. Try trading him now instead, other teams are still going to be able to low ball Stearns more because Guerra only has a track record of 20 starts last year against hitters who had never seen him before. On a risk/reward scale, i think keeping Guerra in hopes that he does well again this year to increase his value trumps selling him off right now for whatever is out these.

Couldn't agree more with this. The reality is the Brewers are likely going to fully open their window sometime in 2019 and Guerra will be 34 years old at that point. Granted Guerra will be a young 34 given the limited # of innings on his arm, but 34 nonetheless. If they can acquire something of value that can be ready in 2019, I am more than willing to throw Davies, Nelson, Peralta, Garza and Anderson in the rotation to begin 2017. I trust Stearns will make the move if his asking price is met. Guerra is going to have to pitch well again this season for at least a few months before any team is going to give up something of real value for him. So far Guerra has a very tiny track record vs big league hitters. If i'm a team looking for a starter, i'd want to see Guerra prove again that he can be productive. Taylor Jungmann had a 2.87 ERA after 18 starts in 2018. Guerra only made 20 starts last year. Hopefully he pitches well until around the trade deadline and if so, he might fetch a quality return given he also gets paid spare change currently and for years to come.

That game left me sick to my stomach. So many chances to end that game for Wisconsin. Had to be such a gut punch to those players to dominate like that, but not see one of those pucks not find the net.

That's why i DVR pretty much all Brewers games and start watching say a 7PM game about an hour later. That way i can fast forward through most to all commercials, especially late in games with all of the pitching changes. It makes the game so much more enjoyable to watch by not having to sit through the endless and commercials, pitching changes, mound visits, replay challenges, etc. I mostly just watch the game and that's it because i usually catch up right around the 8th-9th innings. When here and there i watch a game live with a friend and and not on the DVR where i have to sit through all of the commercials and various stoppages in play, man it seems so much more tedious and at times find myself reaching for the remote to fast forward, but then remember i can't and i get annoyed.

Analytics has done wonders for understanding the game better and for what stats to value more than others. That said, just from a viewing perspective, i think it has hurt the game some. More advanced stats has pushed hitters to walk more and care less about striking out. It's also pushed teams to value strikeout pitchers more, whether as starters or relievers. Stealing bases devalued. While that all makes sound baseball sense, the end result is less at bats with the ball put in play and less action on the bases. There is also the bullpen factor. As quality starting pitching became both so expensive and hard to get, teams smartly over the last 8-10 years or so have put increased importance on building really good and deep bullpens. They convert mediocre or failed starters with a power arm into deadly one inning specialists where they only need a good fastball and a quality second pitch. Just look at the stats of so many of these guys in bullpens today. Tons of relievers with a better WHIP, K/BB ratio, HR ratio, etc than all starters except for the upper tier ones. Lefty specialists. So managers today are much quicker to remove a starter in some trouble and use their bevy of solid to really good relievers. In the past offenses would try to work counts to get starters out of the game and into weaker bullpens. Today it's often worse for an offense to see a non-elite starter exit the game because waiting in that bullpen are multiple low ERA/WHIP/K to BB hard throwing one inning specialists who in most cases will be harder to score off of than the starter leaving the game. This does remove some of the drama for comebacks after say the 6th/7th inning, but it is what it is. Teams prioritizing bullpens more is here to stay. Not enough quality starting pitching to go around, so building deep bullpens can cover for that within reason and especially in the playoffs where a good pen is pretty much essential.

Yea there are some small things baseball can do to lessen some of the dead time, but in the grand scheme of things, shaving off say 7-15 minutes on the average MLB game isn't going to turn a non-baseball fan into a baseball fan. I like all sports from football, baseball, hockey, basketball, and MMA. Each has their own strategy and flow, which i appreciate, but baseball does have a youth problem which i don't think small rules tweaks can address. Getting more kids to play little league baseball could do more for that than how intentional walks are handed out or the number of relief pitchers used per inning.

Cameron was like a 4-5 WAR player for most of his career. If either Broxton or Brinson copies his career, that would be great. No kidding. Cameron in his prime was an elite defensive CF and an .800 OPS hitter. Yea he struck out a lot, but he also walked a lot. Besides that, he was very consistent. Over an 11 year stretch, his worst OPS was .759.

Those are the kind of moves that put them where they are now. Snell and Beas aren't going to get huge offers from anyone, and if they do- goodbye. You just can't invest much cap space in role players. Cap space needs to be preserved for 3 big contracts, and you better get those right. I'd actually be ok with resigning Beasely and Snell as solid role players going forward had the team not already wasted so much cap space on Delladova, Teletović, and Henson especially. They are just so lucky that the Hornets bailed them out by trading for Plumlee and his horrific contract. Hammond is such a frustrating GM. Overall i think he's done a good job when it comes to identifying talent in the draft, but when it has come to deciding which role player types are deserving of multi-year deals be it guys already on the team or in free agency, he's mostly been awful.

I highly doubt that he views himself that way, even if maybe it would be the best role for him. So much rides on how he recovers from a second torn ACL in the same knee. That basically ended Michael Redd's effectiveness and a huge part of what makes Parker a great talent on offense is his explosiveness for a guy his size.

I've watched every game but two this year, and his deficiencies are not being overstated. He can score, but he cannot do ANYTHING on defense, he consistently completely loses his man ball watching, gets stuck in no-mans-land (not helping and not guarding anyone). Yea, there were games where i'd focus close on Parker defensively and often be at a total loss to figure out what he's thinking in regards to his off ball defense. Just as you say, he consistently seems to float around in no mans land especially on the weak side where he leaves his man to half help on penetration, but ends up not really providing help, at the same time he's to far off his man where a pass gets kicked to that guy for say a wide open three. Or he gets caught staring at the ball and loses his man for easy buckets. His on ball defense is tolerable, but other than that, it's a trainwreck which i struggle to see getting better. Mix in a second ACL injury, if his offense takes a dip because some of his incredible explosion for his size goes a way, Jabari can't be given a big extension for the good of the team.

Jabari is super skilled offensively, but really is also horrible defensively, not just kinda bad. It's not overstating to say that. The stats bear this out and many times i'd focus closely on him during games defensively and he really is clueless on that side of the ball. It's not so much him trying say to stay in front of a guy with the ball, but instead his god awful off ball awareness and when in pick and roll situations. It's the same reason Coach K at Duke would sometimes pull Parker out of close games even though he was such a great offensive player. His defense would be so bad that Krzyzewski just couldn't trust having him out there. FWIW, I don't think Jabari a lazy defender like Big Dog was, he simply can't seem to grasp what he should be doing in the team concepts of defensive play and it's hard to see how that gets better. It's somewhat akin to a hitter with a history of terrible plate discipline or bad instincts on the bases. Those guys rarely improve much on that. It's ingrained in them.

Yea i meant just for hockey. That said, i understand why it wouldn't be likely. It was mainly just a personal desire of mine because i miss the N. Dakota/Wisconsin hockey matchup four games a year. I spent so many years watching Wisconsin play teams like N. Dakota, Colorado College, Denver, Minnesota-Duluth, etc that i'm still not fully adjusted to the Big Ten schedule vs WCHA. It's weird because i'm used to having strong feelings against schools like Michigan, OSU, and Michigan St in basketball/football, but when Wisconsin plays them in hockey it's not there yet for me. It just doesn't have that same big game vibe for me like when say N. Dakota or a good Colorado College team rolled into Madison with Paul Brown and Bill Howard calling the games.