Battle89
- Cary-Grove, the better Trojan team
Sounds like you are keeping abreast of @ChiefGritty's posts, @RabidDawgClassic
College Sports (Basketball)
How did we all love it? You may be trying to put words in our mouths.
Renn is a joke ,,24 played in nba summer league and wants to play against kids because he's been shown he won't cut it in the NBA
“Wish I could play little league now. I’d kick some ****ing ***. I’d be way better than before.”
~Mitch Hedberg
Low 6 figures vs mid 7 to come back? This is a hate the game situation
He was a cancer on Purdue last year. He made less than Cluff, and was not happy about it.
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
Oh I don't mean stop paying the players, within reason. I mean put the old conferences back together and cut the CFP down to size. Not to mention public floggings for all responsible for NCAA tournament expansion.
Reasonable people can disagree on the ideal form. But nobody thinks the current situation is the ideal form, and the Protect College Sports Act enshrines it forever.
So the Big 8, the Pac 8, the Southwest Conference, the Big Ten and the SEC?
RabidDawgClassic
- Los Angeles, CA
The protect college sports act is flawed from the get go. If passed, it’ll be challenged in court on multiple levels and those challengers will win, if only from the stand point that one of the two major parties involved — the players — had no input.
one quote I liked>>>
College basketball's NIL arms race, from $5M to $25M+: Breaking down roster values, spending tiers for 2026-27
CBS Sports contacted more than 100-plus sources to discover how much each power-conference hoops program invested this seasonwww.cbssports.com
Illini playing with the big boys.
The Hoosiers are one of only two teams that comfortably rank in the top 15 in spending but are not ranked in the preseason AP Top 25. (North Carolina, under a first-year coach, is the other.)
I agree it's deeply flawed but I'm skeptical it would be overturned. It would have to be a constitutional challenge, and I'm not sure there's a strong constitutional basis for overturning it. Likeliest seems to be a 1st Amendment challenge for the NIL cap (restricting commercial speech as it restricts endorsements), but the government will argue a compelling government interest and narrowly tailored restriction makes this OK under the Commerce Clause.
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
If I were in charge I literally would reinstate the competitive structure of 1994. I have the courage of my convictions on this.
But to take the moderate view, what say you to this proposal:
64 team NCAA tournament, permanently (duh)
Pac 10/12 reassembled (Utah and Colorado can choose)
TV revenue sharing between the Power Five capping how large the revenue gulf can be between conferences
Permanent moratorium on Power Five teams changing conferences
Power Five games can only be played on Saturday (excluding Week 1 and Thanksgiving weekend)
An 8 team CFP in which the first round is the Orange, Sugar, Cotton and Rose, all played on Jan 1.
No more than 3 teams from any conference can make the CFP
The full re-institution of the sit-out year for transfers, with no exceptions, within a 5-for-5 framework (so you're burning 1 of your 5 to transfer)
The NIL issue is and would be tricky. Subject to negotiation.
But the point is the permanent destruction of the revenue competition framework within the structure of the sport. If college sports is going to be exempt from antitrust law on the basis of its public value, it is going to be forced to serve that public value first.
I hesitate to speak in absolutes against the forces of litigation creativity and judicial irresponsibility, but I think you're misreading this. The NCAA is getting brutalized in court because its rules are restraints on trade in violation of antitrust laws, which are acts of Congress. An act of Congress granting them an exemption from those laws means they no longer apply, there's no more litigation hook there.
When it comes to basketball the one thing the NCAA has complete autonomy over is the tournament- why not just say that any school that uses players that don’t meet their eligibility requirements can’t participate in the tournament- court ruling or not
That would stop these schools from taking kids that aren’t eligible per NCAA rules
That would stop these schools from taking kids that aren’t eligible per NCAA rules
Curbelo Fanboy
BERTBALL IS LIFE
It depends on which school they go to as to whether the NCAA would enforce it tho. They don't want a hard and fast rule cause then they'd have to enforce equally against say Cleveland State & Kansas. The want (& have always wanted) wiggle room in their rules so they can throw the book at the lesser likes & mildly big programs but let the blue bloods (Kansas, Kentucky, Duke, UNC, UCLA in the old days, etc, etc) do whatever they hell they want.
The only real blue blood to get the book thrown at them in my lifetime was Kentucky when the bag of cash sent to Sean Mills (IIRC) popped open in the airport & got the feds involved.
You know what they say - You gotta spend money to lose money!
Some of these are ok but this is just unreasonably harsh. Player gets recruited over or has bad experience at School A, burns a year or or two of his eligibility there, then has to either burn another year going elsewhere or has to stay and hope thing get better. I think there should be some transfer rules, but this is an even harsher transfer restriction than what existed previously and in my opinion allowing more room for transfers has been, overall, good for college athletics, not bad.
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
I am willing to negotiate. But I would say three things.
1. Playing for one school and one school only being the normal and most common career path of a revenue sport athlete is maybe the single most important bedrock principle of the whole operation. That's the invisible thread tying fans to this minor league sport in such an unusual and hard-to-explain way. They are ours and we are theirs forever in a way pro sports can't imitate. That doesn't mean NO transfers, but it means rare transfers.
2. Transfer liberalization was brought to the sport INSTEAD of paying the players, in hopes of killing the momentum toward paying the players. That's historical fact. In a world in which the players are being adequately compensated for their labor, the ethical and moral justification for them to have total freedom of where to play every year is much lesser and there would have been no reason for those expectations to get baked in.
3. I have never thought the sit-out year was harsh or really even a punishment at all in the first place, and in a world in which the players are paid there's even less support for that viewpoint. Practicing, traveling, being a part of the team, being handsomely paid, and just not being able to impact results competitively for a year is a price to be paid, no question, but a small price to be paid relative to the enormous impact it has on #1.
(I like this version less, but another way you could pursue similar objectives would be to just ban Power Five-to-Power-Five transfers full stop, but have no restrictions on transfers into our out of the Power Five)
Is it really?
How many people, outside of the clownpants crowd, bemoan the fact that Larry Bird didn't stick it out at IU? Would the world be a better place if Randy Moss had never had the second chance that Marshall offered him? And more selfishly, would we want to live in a world where guys like Kenny Battle, Jeff George, Marcus Domask, and TSJ (and so many others) never end up playing for the Illini?
Also, this would pretty much destroy the graduate transfer which is actually a part of the historical landscape of college athletics.
The long list of guys who transferred before the portal era includes, in addition to those mentioned above, guys like Roger Staubach, OJ Simpson, Troy Aikman, Russell Wilson, JJ Watt, Joe Burrow, amd Duncan Robinson. I can't think of a reason why any of those transfers shouldn't have happened. Transfers have never resulted in a loss of a year of eligibility, and the idea that a player only playing for one team is the bedrock upon which college athletics is built is not actually supported by anything.
On a moral level, it's also just kinda messed up to coerce young men and women to stay in a situation that is not working out for them just because the masses demand so for their entertainment purposes.
lstewart53x3
- Scottsdale, Arizona
I like one free transfer. You choose the wrong college as a 17 year old high school student, sure, you get a do-over. Transferring a second time requires a sit out year. And as long as NIL is a part of the game, I'm also not mad at schools having a larger retention bucket to further incentivize staying.
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
Okay, what if we brought back redshirts and 5 to play 4?
That's what I would do anyway if I had total control, I think that's a better model and obviously the traditional one.
There is necessarily going to have to be some sort of resolution of the tension between a player's ability to PLAY for X number of years versus their ability to EARN for X number of years (transfers, injuries, etc).
For me, in a world where the financial returns to an individual player-season are seven figures, the interests of fairness say everybody should have the same number of years to earn. But again, it's negotiable.
They sat a year and became legends and icons at their new schools regardless. The idea that the sit out year is an unsurmountable barrier to a player finding the right place for them is misguidedly strong in this discourse. Leave everything else the same (i.e. an unfettered pay-for-play market and the House settlement revenue sharing) and bring back no-exceptions sit out years and there would still be a very robust portal market every offseason. It just wouldn't swallow the sport the way it has.
The old transfer rules with the new player compensation rules would give guys way MORE freedom and options than Kenny Battle or Larry Bird had, not less.
Former LSU coach Dale Brown dies at 90. Memorable two-game series that started with the Flying Illini beating them 127-100 (with only eight threes!) down there. We ran over them so badly, at one point Brown asked, "Which damn one of them was that dunking on us now?!" When we won two years later in Champaign, the answer was "Rennie Clemons" (kidding).
In the December '88 game, we shot 68 PERCENT from the field. Take out the 2-6 from non-rotation guys put in at the end, we were over 70.
www.tigerrag.com
In the December '88 game, we shot 68 PERCENT from the field. Take out the 2-6 from non-rotation guys put in at the end, we were over 70.
TODD HORNE: Remembering LSU’s Dale Brown and the Kindness That Changed My Family | TigerRag.com
Todd Horne remembers LSU basketball legend Dale Brown, whose kindness to his dying grandfather in 1991 left a lasting lesson in compassion and dignity.
www.tigerrag.com
Last edited:
Doesn't seem very sencire to me
IMO there was too much arbitrariness in who got the redshirts, and the time it took for schools to get answers. I like think the 5/5 with no exceptions is an improvement. I'd rather see 4/4, no exceptions.
I'm okay with the first transfer is free, and a 1 year sit out for additional transfers. This effectively limits players to 2 transfers max -- they run out of eligibility.
If the laws change so that schools can sign/enforce multi-year contracts, I think a lot of this gets easier. e.g. We will pay you 1M (frosh), 2M, 2M, 3M 4M (super senior). There are kickers each year for being named 1st (1M) / 2nd team (500k) all conference, and 1st (2M) /2nd team (1M) All American. There are additional kickers for making the E8, FF, etc. Adjust the numbers to taste.