paul253

They have value because of their contract but their greater value comes from how they actually play. If a prospect has three below average years in the minors then has one great season are you going to value him the same as you value a prospect who had four good to great seasons? Of course not. So how is Junior Guerra any different? His team friendly contract doesn't erase the fact that he had hardly any success, even in the minors, until he turned 31 years old. One season of success doesn't necessarily make him a valuable trade piece, no matter how team friendly his contract is. There are one year wonders all the time. Hell Taylor Jungmann was one. Teams generally want to see more than that one year before they give up anything significant. That's why if anyone was willing to give up anything significant for Guerra the Brewers should have jumped in it. It's all a moot point now as Guerra is out for up to 6 weeks and will have to rebuild whatever trade value he had.

All they do is replace them with more one and done players. Kansas, UNC, Kentucky and Duke are hardly being hurt from this rule. To go along with one other championship game appearance, four final four appearances and six elite 8s in 9 seasons. Not exactly struggling to find success with his new freshmen each year. This is an entirely different conversation. All this happens because he NCAA is powerless to stop it. But encouraging to happen more often doesn't seem likely the best idea to me. So instead we just go in the complete opposite direction and basically hire these specific kids to play basketball for a year? Why even keep up the facade of being student athletes then? Why not just make them all professional basketball players? You're right they could. And I think they should. It doesn't seem like you agree. As far as the NCAA goes their ability to enforce their own rules is a joke. Players have flat out come out and said "yes I took benefits" and the NCAA still can't complete a proper investigation. Without subpoena power they can't mandate anyone to testify and without that power their only real shot is to find someone who is bitter and looking to take down an entire school (think of what's happening at Ole Miss right now) but that rarely happens.

I think it hurts college basketball in a sense that certain players are there not becuase they want to be but because they have to be. And I think the rule pretty much assures the best kids are going to the same 8-10 schools every year (Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, North Carolina, Michigan St, UCLA, etc) becuase there is such a high turnover at those schools each year and they are basically NBA factories. I also think it's kinda of a joke to force kids who clearly don't want to be there to do it. They don't take school seriously, if they even bother to show up at all, which completely dumps on the fact that they are supposed to be students. To me the whole idea of college sports is for college students to play sports, not for colleges to serve as a minor league for the NBA and NFL, which is essentially what they have become. Maybe maybe not. Do you think Sacar Anim brings in $50,000 in financial value to Marquette each year? I sure don't. So now you get into which players are more valuable then others. How do you do that? And whats next? Each school gets to decide how valuable a player is and offer him that amount of money to go there? And the "penalty" would be for essentially breaking a contract. It's not a new concept. The contract requires you to go to school for two years. If you choose not to do that you face the penalty. That's only a suggestion as to how to get kids to stay longer. Which is precisely the problem. These are still schools. If the kids are not even made to go to class what's the point of having them go to school in the first place? I don't disagree. But I honestly don't really care if the really good ones would go straight to the NBA. There are more than enough talented players to play in college. And I get annoyed seeing players like Ben Simmons and Lonzo Ball who couldn't care less about their college career. I admit they are the exception but they shouldn't be in college. Again I don't disagree. But shouldn't that be their choice? If they feel as though they are physically and mentally able to play in the NBA then shouldn't they have the right to make that decision? Then the NBA can create their own minor league rather than having the NCAA serve that role for them. A kid shouldn't be in college for the sole purpose of becoming a more seasoned basketball player. That's not what college is for.

You're missing the point then. This isn't about me being jealous that I have student loan debt and they don't. It's about people completely discounting the $200,000 or so in benefits they already receive over the course of their career. It is relevant because it's part of compensation package. Just becuase they don't see the money in terms of a monthly check doesn't mean it isn't there. Benefits like full scholarships and priority in getting into schools they couldn't normally get into? This isn't about them not being rewarded for their talent. It's about whether or not the rewards they already receive are enough. Do you also get free food, free rent to include cable and Internet , and free healthcare? Then I'd say yes. I'm just curious but what do you think a good and fair number is? Also, whatever they decide, the number should be the same throughout the NCAA. I realize the cost of living is different in California then it is in Norman Oklahoma but it's already being used as a recruiting tool and any greater disparity will only cause it to be used more as a tool for recruiting than as a basic lifeline, which is seems like it's supposed to be considered it's referred to as a cost of living payment. Regarding the one and done. I realize it's an NBA rule causing it so the NCAA is pretty powerless to stop it. One thing they could do is mandate scholarships to be two (or three, whichever they prefer) years and if the player doesn't stay that long as is part of the scholarship agreement they are required to repay the school the full costs of the scholarship. I realize when the really good players sign huge contracts repayment will be a drop in the hat to them but I think it'll deter those borderline first round second guys who may not receive a guaranteed contract. I personally would like to see elite talent remain in college three to four years but I don't think it'll kill the game if they aren't. Some of the best teams have nobody that'll end up in the NBA. And some of the best players are in teams that are horrible so clearly that aren't that much of a help. I personally don't really care if they let high schoolers enter the draft or make kids start at least three years but either is better than the current system.

Of course there are differences between high school and college athletes. I was speaking specifically in terms of how playing affects their status. If you are saying signing a contract that gives free tuition and other stuff in exchange for playing basketball makes them an employee of the university then does that mean people on music or academic scholarships are also employees? After all they receive scholarships and other perks which are contingent on certain things, usually grades. How are they different, other than the fact that they don't bring in as much money? And what about students who participate in research that brings in millions of dollars of grants? Are they employees too? Should they be getting paid? As I said this all comes down to money. You can't legitimately argue these players are employees for no other reason then the fact that the school makes money off of the team they play for. They are not employees. Period.

It's not. My argument is they are not employees so therefore they shouldn't be paid like they are or be able to organize like they are. I don't see how college basketball is any different than high school basketball in that it's essentially an extracurricular activity. They are students on the basketball team, not employees of the university. The school and the conference making money off the basketball team doesn't change that. And if you argue it does then you'd have to argue athletes on teams that make money are employees and athletes on teams that don't make money aren't, which makes zero sense. This all emotional argument on your behalf. It doesn't make sense. They aren't in any way employees, no matter how much the basketball team makes. As for Nigel Hayes. As I said, good for him for raising money for charity. But to claim he didn't portray himself as a poor college student with that sign is a joke. He clearly portrayed himself as someone who was being taken advantage of him. He gets credit for making it more than about him, but this was also about him. And while he was able to raise money for charity the goal is not to raise money for charity. The goal is to raise money for college athletes. It doesn't matter because I don't believe they are workers. As I said they are students on the basketball team, not employees.

Its kinda sad that the NBAs developmental league is such a dud becuase it could really be something good. A ton of these guys who are drafted have no business being in the NBA right now and could benefit from playing in a minor league. And I'm sure you could get more major cities (Kansas City, St Louis, San Francisco, San Jose, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Hartford, etc) to vie for franchises. The NBA could increase their draft to four or five rounds, each franchise gets a minor league team and elimate the rule barring HS kids from being drafted. Minor league teams could be filled in from draftees, free agents and international players. Salaries maybe ranging from $100,000-$250,000. This is something I think a good, wealthy businessman could start on his own. Six franchises in larger cities hat already have capable arenas. Get a tv deal with ESPN or Fox and court High School players who can't enter the draft yet, international players and college seniors who graduate but aren't drafted.

Yes.....when they hold a job. Playing basketball isn't a job. It's an activity. It's a playing a game. It's something tens of millions of people do around the country for fun. Where did this whole debate come from? It came about because of money. Because men's basketball and football and maybe a few other sports at a few schools (women's basketball, hockey, baseball) are money makers. But let's face it. This is about men's basketball and football. Those athletes feel as though they are being mistreated. Forget for a second that if they stayed four years they receive benefits that can top $200,000 depending on where they go. Apparently that no longer matters. So are we arguing that ALL student athletes are employees, and they all deserve to be paid? Or only the student athletes in sports that make a profit? Is life harder for a football player at Alabama than it is for a women's soccer player at Alabama? The football player deserves to get paid but the soccer player doesn't? Or they both deserve to get paid? So now you're not only running a deficit in almost every sport but you're increasing that deficit by paying athletes who participate in those sports? The problem with the whole "pay them their fair market value" is that you're only going to end up paying players from certain sports, which quite honestly is crap, because athletes in other sports work just as hard as basketball and football players, maybe even harder. But if you do it the other way, you're paying athletes in sports that, quite honestly, very few people care about. No offense to all the swimmers and field hockey players out there but those sports just don't draw the same amount of viewers as football and they don't bring in huge amounts of revenue. Then there's the argument that schools like Texas and Ohio St and Alabama have much more valuable football programs than schools like SMU and UMass or Iowa St. So do players from Ohio St get paid more then players from Iowa St? How is Iowa St ever supposed to compete if Ohio Sts players (let's stop calling them students) get paid more? I'm sorry but this isn't MLB free agency where these kids can go off to the highest bidder.. They can do that when they make it to be pros. This is college. They can play for the scholarships and exposure and all the other perks that come with it. And.....you know.....education. It's more valuable than a high school or associates degree, which is what many of these kids would top off with without the athletic scholarship. And even if they'd still have gotten a four year degree they'd likely have thousands dollars of student loan debt to go with it. .

I think Peralta is the perfect bulllen candidate. Normally I hate moving starters to the pen when their future is in the rotation but I think his time is past. He grows hard and I bet he could bring it in the 96-97 range if he only had to go one inning. Plus he only really needs to focus on two pitches. Given that market for relievers last year and the glut of starting options I think he is best in the bullpen in a 7th inning role and if he succeeds he can move into more late innings roles.

Becuase they are students, not employees. It's the same reason high school players aren't being paid even though more and more of them are bringing money and attention to their schools. I know the absolute last thing anyone cares about is schools, but these are still schools. And they are still students. Do you think they should even have to go to class or should they just be able to play their sports and collect a paycheck? If they are going to be paid "fair value", to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars a year, why would even care about going to school? Talk about a scam. How is this a "claim"? They ARE amateurs. The only people trying to change that are the players themselves who are demanding they be paid for playing the game. They are the ones trying to change their status to make them, by definition, professionals. The real issue, though, is the lack of minor leagues for the NBA and NFL. These kids should not be paid while in college, but they should have another route to go if they so choose. But the NFL and NBA have no incentive to form these leagues becuase the NCAA is basically doing it for them.

No my attitude is you know what you signed up for so stopping acting like you're some poor unsuspecting victim. I mean serioulsly, walking around with these "broke athlete" signs? I'm so sorry that he gets a four year degree without paying a dime AND gets a monthly stipend on top of that just for being an athlete. Please, allow me to throw some money his way. Perhaps someone should send him a bill showing him what he would have paid for college if he wasn't good at basketball. And perhaps he should have gone to Turkey or Greece to play professionally three years ago if playing NCAA basketball is causing him to go broke.

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. Nigel Hayes can quit anytime he wants. He could have left three years ago to go play professionally if life was to tough. He didn't even need to go to college to play professionally in Europe. He wants the best of both worlds. He wants to go to college and enjoy his time and enjoy being a local celebrity and all that AND he wants to be paid substantially for all that, even though he knew that's not how it works. Exactly. These kids need the NCAA just as much as the NCAA needs them. Without the NCAA most wouldn't get anywhere near the exposure they get now, particularly in football. The problem I see with this is players will have to much control over where they play. Say I go after HS and get drafted by the Bucks but don't want to play for the Bucks then they can simply go back to school and try again next year. I think a player should only be allowed to be drafted once. I know the NFL lets them enter multiple times but I don't like that. I like how NCAA hockey does it where a play can play in college until the team that drafted him signs him to a contract. But he remains property of the team for a certain number of years.

But it' not a JOB. It's a game. And it's a school. And yes they do see a dime. For out of state students who stay all four years they see about two million dimes when it's all said and done. And I'm not saying anything about Hayes personally, just what he represents. Good for him if he raises money for charity. I didn't give any sold out lectures or sell tshirts because I'm not a campus celebrity like him, which he is because he plays basketball. I don't think people care much for what I have to say. But do you really expect me to feel sorry for him? Because he can't afford to go home (how much is a bus ticket from Madison to Toledo anyway?) Well if it weren't for his scholarship he'd probably never have been able to go to Wisconsin in the first place, considering it costs about $47,000 a year for out of state students. So likely the only reason he is even at Wisconsin is because he's good at basketball. Then there's a fact that not only does he not have pay for anything while there he also gets about $4900 a year just for being an athlete. Like I said if life is so tough for him he can quit, move back home and go from there. Look I understand the argument for paying athletes. The NCAA brings in ALOT of money. But I am a little tired of these athletes acting like they are some poor, taken advantage of people who can't even afford the clothes they wear and the food they eat. They are given an opportunity that pretty much everyone wants. They go to school for free and they play a game that they love. When they leave school with their degree, which most do, they don't have any student debt. And while on campus they are looked upon as local celebrities and given all sorts of break academically.

And let's be honest. They get academic breaks too. Look at all the students in all the sports at all these schools. How many of them are ever suspended for academic reasons? Some, but not many at all, and certainly not the really good ones. I'd also argue they get breaks in the criminal justice system too. Just last year I believe that OT from Bama got arrested for drug possession and possession of a stolen firearm. His case got no processed and he was suspended for like the first two plays in their game against Northwest Charleston Southern Tech university or whatever patsy they played that day. And don't even get me started about Baylor players got away with. These players are basically celebrities on campus.

I'm pretty sure college athletes now, in addition to free tuition free food plans free housing and free books now get stipends as well, at least in the major conferences. Unfortunately as pretty much everything is with the NCAA it's not a uniform stipend so some schools are paying more than others, which of course is becoming just another recruiting tactic. True. But without a scholarship not only could they still not afford to go on a date because they have no money but they'd also not be able to afford to go to school. The best thing someone can do to get themselves out of poverty is to get a college degree and start a career. The college degree is the "teach a man to fish" in that "give a man a fish he eats for a day...." saying. Unfortunately many athletes don't understand this and many universities don't care about that either because for the player it's all about making it to the pros and for the school it's all about the winning. It's an interesting idea but I'm not sure it would curb the problem. I think schools would still recruit one and dones but the players would be more spread out amongst the schools. Kentucky couldn't recruit 6 of them every year but a school like Marquette, who rarely gets any, could afford to take one or two a year. I think the only real solution to this is the NBA changing their policy. Either let HS players enter the draft or make them stay 3 years like the NFL (or both like baseball). On a side note this is becoming more and more a problem in college hockey as well. The best college players often stay two seasons at most.

It's a slippery slope. You need to make sure boosters aren't handing players $100 bills for a $10 autograph and telling them keep the change. I think maybe what i could get on board with is the NCAA taking their percentage of earnings, pooling it all together, then handing it out equally amongst every scholarship athlete. But again, these players are already getting a benefit. Some just don't see it as a benefit because they don't care about school.

I doubt this would ever happen because the majority of the kids realize how lucky they are to be given the scholarships and to play a game they love and receive the exposure they do. Most of them realize they have it pretty good. Plus, while NCAA may be screwed the schools sure as hell wouldn't be. Becuase they are schools. The people who would be hurt most by this would probably be athletes in non profit sports becuase the schools might not be able to afford the costs of travel and equipment costs for those sports. If they did that the schools could simply yank these guys scholarships and most of them wouldn't be able to afford to go to school there anymore. Send them a bill for a semesters worth of tuition and room and board and we'll see how long that strike lasts. So what. That's life. Name one company in America where the average employees gets an equivalent potion of their company's profits. If they don't feel this is fair, that they are being taken advantage of, then quit. Do what Brandon Jennings did and go play in Europe. Nobody is forcing them to go to school. College atheletes are amateurs. Meaning they do not get paid. They know this going in. If they don't like it then don't participate. Of course this would be much easier if the NBA changed their stupid one year rule. Just for clarity's sake I don't think stores are allowed to sell jerseys with players names on them. I think the NCAA prohibits that. I get your point, but again I go back to the argument that if you don't like it then you don't have to participate. If Nigel Hayes wants to sell his autographs then he can quit the team and he is free to do so. Except that the athletes get a scholarship worth tens of thousands of dollars and the opportunity to get an education from a school many of them would never ever be able to afford to or qualiify to get into. Again, people are so quick to discount the scholarship but anyone who is stuck paying hundreds of dollars a month for years and years can tell you how valuable a free college degree really is.

I absolutely positively disagree that college athletes, even basketball and football players, should be paid. For one, they already receive full scholarships which include tuition, room and board, books, and food. For a 4 year student, which most athletes are, you're talking probably close to or even over $100,000. If they choose not to value their education that's their problem. As someone who will be paying $800 a month for ten years to lay off my wife's students loans it just irritates the crap out of me when people act as though these scholarships aren't anything. Additionally, even though these schools are making oodles of money off of the basketball and football programs, it's not like the athletes aren't benefitting either. Try making it to the NFL without an NCAA team giving you the opportunity to play. Good luck. The schools provide them with the exposure they need to showcase and improve their skills enough to make it to the NFL, where in turn they will make more money in one lousy year of playing a game then you or I will make in our entire lifetime. For those who don't make it to the pros, again, they receive tens of thousands of dollars in scholarship money to get heir degree. If they choose not to take advantage of that that's their problem And many of them are admitted into schools that they'd never in a million years have been able to go to if they weren't good at a sport. I like Nigel Hayes as a player but I can't stand his little act. If he is such a "poor student athlete" who can't even afford his lunch.....if the NCAA is taking advantage of him and not giving him what he "deserves".....if being a college athlete is such a difficult and unfair thing.....then quit. Go do what 99.9% of us do and pay for school yourself. Do what I did and work a third shift job and go class afterwards and then tell us all how hard being an athlete is. Go pay student loans for the next ten or fifteen years of your life like the rest of us do. Im sorry but I don't think these players realize how much of a break they've gotten for being good at a sport. And don't get me wrong, I get how difficult the travel and the practice can be. But they signed up for it. They knew what to expect going into this thing. If it's too hard or too unfair then walk away.

"The problem is when people try to think of NCAA D1 football or basketball players as student athletes because they are not. They are athletes first and students only when it becomes clear they won't be going pro." That's true. But the fact is it's still a school. And the vast, vast majority of players in basketball and football aren't going to turn pro. It just bothers me that these kids and their supporters feel they should be entitled to all this money and stuff becuase they are good at a particular sport while completely discounting all the advantages they are being handed on a silver platter. Hell half of these kids couldn't even get into these schools if it weren't for their ability, let alone afford it. I am a huge fan of college football and basketball and I get it. At all about winning. But there are enough kids out there who want to both play and take school seriously becuase they aren't unrealistic morons who think they can make it to the pros just because they were good in high school. Plus, if I'm a college coach (thisnreally appies only to basketball) is much rather have a senior-laden team of good players, maybe one or two of which will get drafted (think Wisconsin), then a team full of one and dones who are generally in it for themselves. I wouldn't even recruit obviousone and dones because as guys like Henrey Ellenson, Ben Simmons and Markelle Fultz have proven they certainly don't guarantee success As Dhonks said a rule similar to baseball would be ideal. Let them enter the draft after HS if they think they are that good. But if not make them stay at least three years in college. If all they care about js basketball then keep them the hell away from colleges, where many of them have no business being in the first place.

It is definitely a case by case basis and those Kentucky guys seemed leaps and bounds more talented than Ball last night. It's just a shame to me that so many of these players enter college with no interest in it whatsoever. These kids are usually the best in their area growing up and continually told how great they are and are often surrounded by greedy family members and coaches who give out terrible advice. Changing the rule won't fix that but at least it'll help keep it off the college campus. I hoped the year in college would help the kids grow up a bit but all it doesn't appear to be working much. Just let them go to the NBA and sign their big contract and leave school for the kids who want to be there.

I didn't want to hijack the Bucks thread or the College Basketball thread because I wanted to talk specifically about this rule. Back when high school players were allowed to declare for the NBA draft I thought they needed a rule preventing that because I thought it was really watering down the NBA. Lots of players being drafted just to sit on the bench and "develop". The one year rule wasn't what I preferred but I liked it and thought it was better than nothing. Boy was I wrong. The one and done rule is a joke. People like John Calipari have been taking advantage of it and basically telling recruits yeah if you only want to spend one year in college then go on to the NBA then come here. Schools (yes they are still schools) like Kentucky have basically brand new rosters each season because so many players come just to play basketball for a year. Meanwhile I still don't think the NBA quality has improved all that much because the games are played so differently and in only one year players don't really have time to improve their all around game. I think the NBA needs to eliminate their one and done rule. It'd be really nice if they actually used their minor league system like MLBs where they draft players and stash them in the minors for a year or two rather them going to Kansas or Duke as "student athletes" who don't give two you know what's about college. They can even increase the number of rounds in their drafts to help fill in rosters. I just hate seeing people like Lonzo Ball give interviews like he did last night. He could not have cared less that they lost. His mind was on the NBA from the day he enrolled in UCLA. I used to think it was best for everyone involved to have these kids go to college. Now I admit I was wrong and believe the rule has really hurt the NCAA. Anyway, was wondering what others thoughts were on this topic.

If we get a good offer for Guerra we have to move him. I don't expect a season like last and without a track record of success if he struggles his value doesn't just drop, it goes to zero. Granted I'm an overly cautious person but given his age I don't view him as a part of the long term future. When you're in full rebuild mode I don't think you hang onto anyone who doesn't look to be a long term part of the team.

The problem with a move to San Antonio is you'd figure they'd dump us ASAP in favor of either Houston or Texas and we'd get the shaft again. A move to Madison would be ideal and I don't see why the PCL would be against it. Nobody wants to be in Colorado Springs and thats not really fair to the franchise. Plus, they could remain in the same division and while trips to Omaha and OKC may be a bit longer the trip to Iowa would be much shorter. Trips from San Antonio to Omaha and Iowa would be a haul. That being said I've always believed Mark A is looking first and foremost at this whole thing financially. That's why it took him so long to give into this obvious need to rebuild. If it doesn't make sense financially for him to buy the Sky Sox and move them to Madison then he's not going to do it.

I disagree. I think it's the opposite actually. I think we have a lot of depth but lack the elite top level guys, especially pitchers. We have a lot of top 100 guys but only one, maybe two, in the top 30 or so. We get a top ten pick this year and probably next year. Hopefully we can draft two elite talents. We still have a glaring hole in top of the rotation pitching and could still use a big bopper a.l.a. Fielder Braun or even Laporta, but are pretty much out of assets that we can trade that will bring major returns. Overall, we have to draft better. Clark and Ray still have a good chance to succeed but look at our first round picks from 2009-2014. Yikes.

Option 1 is what got us into this mess to begin with. Not necessarily trading for half season guys but believing you are better than you really are. It's why we signed Garza rather than giving Thornburg his much deserved spot in the rotation. It's why we signed Suppan. It's why we've made a lot of dumb moves that cost us a lot of money and got us very little in return. The organization FINALLY made the right decision and stated tearing it down. Don't abandon that due to a half season on unexpected success. Baseball organizations take way too long to build to dump everything for a one game playoff appearance. Whatever we have of value at the deadline that isn't part of the next playoff run (Guerra, Gennett, Braun, anything in the bullpen) should be traded and pitching should be the focus of the return.