Bull94

lol coaches jump at the chance to improve their position financially just like anyone else in this world. where was CAAR's loyalty to KSU?

Players are on 1 year renewable scholarships. Players get asked to leave programs all the time. I'm not sure why people expect players to show loyalties to schools when schools don't reciprocate. Notice how we are complaining about the good players leaving and not the bad players that are "asked" to leave. BTW all these players that we are complaining about leaving left other programs to come here

it has absolutely always been that way. some people just have some idyllic vision of the past that didn't really exist.

again....what does this mean? just because the powers that be have been able to control the labor market in college athletics for so long doesn't mean it's right. you know what. I'm ok if lower level schools don't pay their players. in fact division 3 don't even get scholarships. there should be another division. There is a huge discrepancy with ohio state's revenues $250m compared to the 130th place d1 fbs school. they will never be on a level playing field. but when major college programs chase every last dollar(coaches, athletic directors, schools) than the players deserve a cut. the "innocence" of amateur sports is dead. it has been for quite awhile.

are you a marxist? USF will be fine. we may not end up at the top level but with a minimal donor base and not much demand for the product it's understandable. You think we should be "allowed" to compete with programs that bring in 5x our revenue by I guess spreading the wealth. That's not how the real world works. The rays have to compete with the yankees when they spend 3x what the rays do. sorry but the power is shifting to the labor(players) and away from the capital(schools). not much they can do about it and honestly with the ridiculous sums of money being thrown around the players deserve a chunk.

Not sure what you mean. You suggested coaches should sit a year if they take another job. Would you have to sit a year if you wanted to change jobs?

the solution will be multi year contracts. just like professional sports. Everyone has to deal with the issue of players leaving. Ohio State lost their starting QB

the conferences (and thereby the teams/players) need to get a cut of this. Just like professional sports leagues are doing.

so you just want to restrict free trade. got it. maybe capitalism isn't your thing. it may not be perfect but it's the best economic system we have. BTW our basketball team benefited greatly from the ability to get a coach and multiple transfers this year. The system worked in our favor and now that it has people are complaining that some players are moving on. Guess what? they left their last place to come here.

so you aren't in favor of us chasing the dollars? Don't you want the best coach money can buy? How about the nicest facilities we can possibly build? Maybe move up to a conference that pays more? I don't blame players one bit for wanting a cut. BTW I'd be perfectly fine breaking off from the money chasers. put reasonable rules in place.

if it's biting their customers then eventually it will bite them. I find it funny that everyone has a problem with the players trying to get a cut but nobody ever had a problem with coaches,schools or athletic directors etc chasing the dollars.

there has never been 4 year athletic scholarships to my knowledge. Just another way for the schools to take advantage of the athletes. they are 1 year contracts. Looks like that has come back to bite them.

we had 3 returning players this year. seems to have worked out ok. this is how college sports works now. every year is a rebuild until they come up with multi year contracts.

we out rebounded(38-33) them and scored more in the paint(32-28). they hit 6 more 3's while taking 6 more. That's +18 for them.

for the love of god people need to stop with this nonsense. a big who is one dimensional and can only score down low hurts an offense. it clogs the lanes. slows down ball movement and allows the defense to sag back and take away driving lanes for other players. youngblood scored plenty down low. you know who doesn't score down low if we have a one dimensional big man there? Youngblood because the opposing center could sag back and play help instead of having to guard Pryor at the arc. Now if you're talking about a big man who can play in and out then I agree but they are extremely rare BTW we out rebounded them and scored more in the paint than them which everybody has been saying we needed to do more of this year. we lost because they shot(6) and made(6) more 3 pointers than us. that was +18 points for them.

carriage fees are going away. tv money will turn into streaming money. only way they get an increase like that is if they charge a ridiculous amount for a big 12 streaming service which will of course reduce demand. isn't going to happen.

he signed 2 of our top 3 NBA players while here. pretty tough to transition from c-usa to big east after losing your 2nd leading scorer to cancer

We scored 83 points and shot 40% from 3. Their defense isn't why we lost. we had 14 offensive rebounds to their 13 so that wasn't it either.

I stand corrected. He does get a $50k bonus if their graduation rate is in the top half of the SEC. They really do care about academics..... of course he gets an $875k bonus for winning a natty it's crazy how much leverage these schools give these coaches.

lol like bama cares about academics.... the big 12 actually pays out less than the acc. sure the payout might drop some for the acc but not enough for some of the best academic schools in the country to join the likes of wvu and texas tech now maybe if the sec or big 10 came calling you'd have a point. no academic powerhouse is going to make a lateral move to join a conference full of 100+ rated schools we would be the highest rated academic school in the big 12....

disagree. I think academics still matter to the presidents of those schools. I think there are only 2 big 12 schools ranked in the top 100. That's tcu at 98 and baylor at 93. Duke, Stanford etc would not want to be associated with wvu, TTech, Kansas state, etc.

facility upgrades were something they could control unlike coaching hires which are more of a crapshoot. they certainly don't hurt as far as making us more attractive to a conference.

I just don't see it. even if they lose top few teams, The ACC is academically heads and shoulders above the big 12 or reconstituted pac 2. I think this still actually matters to some schools.

I'm sure he could take them with him and probably get them paid as well.

Cal and Stanford wanted nothing to do with big 12 for the academic reputation. they will not want anything to do with boise, sdsu and memphis