College Hoops Coaching Carousel

Status
Not open for further replies.
#27      

sbillini

sbillini
st petersburg, fl
sbillini
sacraig said:
This is exactly the sort of reason I am a fan of NIL (if not necessarily it's implementation). There was such a double standard. Most people don't voluntarily quit their job without some ideas where they're landing the next one.

Having said that, coaches have big buyouts. If it's not happening already, I suspect we will see buyouts in NIL deals before long because it's the Wild West right now.
Click to expand...

I always find it interesting when the argument made out to be as two sided and no other scenarios are ever considered. I'm of the, probably unpopular, opinion that the economic system of how college athletics is set up is screwed up, but less so in the way most people think it is (though that way is screwed up somewhat too, but not as much as the big picture i discuss below). Because of this screwy-ness is why coaches are paid so much. Ultimately, i think both coaches and players should be paid less.

as we're discussing in this thread, why do all follow college athletics? it's not cuz of the coaches or players - they're all just tangentially linked to the real reason - because we identify with the university itself. If you took UofI affiiliation away from the teams, i would stop following them on day 1.

But how are the economics set up? The universities don't directly see a dime of the revenues that the DIA generates (at least in P5 schools) and, in most cases, have to put money in. yea yea, there's probably indirect benefits (alumni engagement, application numbers blah blah blah), but why aren't they seeing any of the direct revenues when they're the main reason people are watching in the first place. Instead, the money sloshes around in the DIA and, after paying some money to support non-rev sports, the rest is pocketed by the AD/coaches. Screwy screwy system, imo. I have an MBA (not from UofI), and i was talking to the dean of the program about this very topic. he said the MBA program at this school is actually profitable and actually has to send $ to the university's endowment every year (vs most other depts receiving money from it). I don't see why athletics needs to be any different. The economics don't align with the value proposition.
 
#28      

SeattleSlim

S
SeattleSlim
sbillini said:
I always find it interesting when the argument made out to be as two sided and no other scenarios are ever considered. I'm of the, probably unpopular, opinion that the economic system of how college athletics is set up is screwed up, but less so in the way most people think it is (though that way is screwed up somewhat too, but not as much as the big picture i discuss below). Because of this screwy-ness is why coaches are paid so much. Ultimately, i think both coaches and players should be paid less.

as we're discussing in this thread, why do all follow college athletics? it's not cuz of the coaches or players - they're all just tangentially linked to the real reason - because we identify with the university itself. If you took UofI affiiliation away from the teams, i would stop following them on day 1.

But how are the economics set up? The universities don't directly see a dime of the revenues that the DIA generates (at least in P5 schools) and, in most cases, have to put money in. yea yea, there's probably indirect benefits (alumni engagement, application numbers blah blah blah), but why aren't they seeing any of the direct revenues when they're the main reason people are watching in the first place. Instead, the money sloshes around in the DIA and, after paying some money to support non-rev sports, the rest is pocketed by the AD/coaches. Screwy screwy system, imo. I have an MBA (not from UofI), and i was talking to the dean of the program about this very topic. he said the MBA program at this school is actually profitable and actually has to send $ to the university's endowment every year (vs most other depts receiving money from it). I don't see why athletics needs to be any different. The economics don't align with the value proposition.
Click to expand...
Yep. The value of the brand (along with the value of the scholarship) has been missing from many of the arguments in favor of NIL.

Many (most?) fans would probably opt to follow a scholarship-only (no other payment) level of sport as long as it was the only level affiliated with their beloved school.
 
Last edited:
#29      

Kendall Gill’s Uncle

K
Kendall Gill’s Uncle
sbillini said:
I always find it interesting when the argument made out to be as two sided and no other scenarios are ever considered. I'm of the, probably unpopular, opinion that the economic system of how college athletics is set up is screwed up, but less so in the way most people think it is (though that way is screwed up somewhat too, but not as much as the big picture i discuss below). Because of this screwy-ness is why coaches are paid so much. Ultimately, i think both coaches and players should be paid less.

as we're discussing in this thread, why do all follow college athletics? it's not cuz of the coaches or players - they're all just tangentially linked to the real reason - because we identify with the university itself. If you took UofI affiiliation away from the teams, i would stop following them on day 1.

But how are the economics set up? The universities don't directly see a dime of the revenues that the DIA generates (at least in P5 schools) and, in most cases, have to put money in. yea yea, there's probably indirect benefits (alumni engagement, application numbers blah blah blah), but why aren't they seeing any of the direct revenues when they're the main reason people are watching in the first place. Instead, the money sloshes around in the DIA and, after paying some money to support non-rev sports, the rest is pocketed by the AD/coaches. Screwy screwy system, imo. I have an MBA (not from UofI), and i was talking to the dean of the program about this very topic. he said the MBA program at this school is actually profitable and actually has to send $ to the university's endowment every year (vs most other depts receiving money from it). I don't see why athletics needs to be any different. The economics don't align with the value proposition.
Click to expand...
Solid points and perspective. Thanks for sharing this info. Very interesting.
 
#31      

Illini in Italy

Illini in Italy
Illini in Italy
sbillini said:
I always find it interesting when the argument made out to be as two sided and no other scenarios are ever considered. I'm of the, probably unpopular, opinion that the economic system of how college athletics is set up is screwed up, but less so in the way most people think it is (though that way is screwed up somewhat too, but not as much as the big picture i discuss below). Because of this screwy-ness is why coaches are paid so much. Ultimately, i think both coaches and players should be paid less.

as we're discussing in this thread, why do all follow college athletics? it's not cuz of the coaches or players - they're all just tangentially linked to the real reason - because we identify with the university itself. If you took UofI affiiliation away from the teams, i would stop following them on day 1.

But how are the economics set up? The universities don't directly see a dime of the revenues that the DIA generates (at least in P5 schools) and, in most cases, have to put money in. yea yea, there's probably indirect benefits (alumni engagement, application numbers blah blah blah), but why aren't they seeing any of the direct revenues when they're the main reason people are watching in the first place. Instead, the money sloshes around in the DIA and, after paying some money to support non-rev sports, the rest is pocketed by the AD/coaches. Screwy screwy system, imo. I have an MBA (not from UofI), and i was talking to the dean of the program about this very topic. he said the MBA program at this school is actually profitable and actually has to send $ to the university's endowment every year (vs most other depts receiving money from it). I don't see why athletics needs to be any different. The economics don't align with the value proposition.
Click to expand...
This +100000000000

I'd wager my beach house (in Tuscany ;)) that most of the posters on Loyalty love Illini sports because of their love for the university. We always viewed the players and coaches as representatives of the university. That's gone, likely never to return.
 
#32      

grue2

G
grue2
Illini in Italy said:
This +100000000000

I'd wager my beach house (in Tuscany ;)) that most of the posters on Loyalty love Illini sports because of their love for the university. We always viewed the players and coaches as representatives of the university. That's gone, likely never to return.
Click to expand...
Care to create a poll for this?
 
#36      

sacraig

sacraig
The desert
sacraig
Illini in Italy said:
This +100000000000

I'd wager my beach house (in Tuscany ;)) that most of the posters on Loyalty love Illini sports because of their love for the university. We always viewed the players and coaches as representatives of the university. That's gone, likely never to return.
Click to expand...
As an alumnus, I always loved the sports as entertainment and as a way to talk trash and feel superior to friends at other universities.
 
#39      

BretMyBeachHouse

B
BretMyBeachHouse
Illini in Italy said:
Your wish is my command. Survey available at this link:

www.surveymonkey.com

Illini Loyalty Survey

Take this survey powered by surveymonkey.com. Create your own surveys for free.
www.surveymonkey.com www.surveymonkey.com

I'll publish the results after a couple of days.
Click to expand...
Thanks. But I think the larger point is being missed. It's about passion.

Someone made the dumb argument that free agency killed baseball. It didn't. But I think the steroid scandal really hurt it. I still follow and root for the Cubs but not with the same passion I once had.

I'll always root for the Illini. But the rent a player method will definitely reduce my passion.
 
#40      

sacraig

sacraig
The desert
sacraig
BretMyBeachHouse said:
Thanks. But I think the larger point is being missed. It's about passion.

Someone made the dumb argument that free agency killed baseball. It didn't. But I think the steroid scandal really hurt it. I still follow and root for the Cubs but not with the same passion I once had.

I'll always root for the Illini. But the rent a player method will definitely reduce my passion.
Click to expand...
Baseball's bigger problem, in my opinion, is twofold:
  1. The game has become all about home runs, strikeouts, and walks (thanks in part to advanced analytics) and it makes games take longer, feature less strategy, and have less action.
  2. Simultaneously, TV viewership has transitioned to streaming. MLB blackout rules basically mean most people switching to streaming within a team's own market cannot watch their own teams' games. I know a lot of people who want to follow baseball like they used to but literally can't (legally).

I don't know what to do about #1 (lower the mound again to overcome the advantage analytics gives to pitchers?) but I think #2 will be solved shortly after the Diamond bankruptcy situation plays out.

I don't expect the "rent-a-player" situation will reduce my passion as long as I can continue watching games and the product is exciting. I also don't think the rent-a-player situation will continue forever. It's not sustainable.
 
#41      

ChiefGritty

ChiefGritty
Chicago, IL
ChiefGritty
sacraig said:
The game has become all about home runs, strikeouts, and walks (thanks in part to advanced analytics) and it makes games take longer, feature less strategy, and have less action.
Click to expand...
The new rules have taken a huge bite out of the length of the game and it moves much more briskly now, it's a big success.

So far they're pretty much playing the same game faster, with more stolen bases (also good) but you would imagine the same analytics that drove the refinement of the game under one set of rules will come to adapt something different to a different set of rules over time.

Analytics breeding sameness is definitely a challenge for the entertainment value of sports.
 
#42      

STL Illini

S
STL Illini
sacraig said:
Baseball's bigger problem, in my opinion, is twofold:
  1. The game has become all about home runs, strikeouts, and walks (thanks in part to advanced analytics) and it makes games take longer, feature less strategy, and have less action.
  2. Simultaneously, TV viewership has transitioned to streaming. MLB blackout rules basically mean most people switching to streaming within a team's own market cannot watch their own teams' games. I know a lot of people who want to follow baseball like they used to but literally can't (legally).

I don't know what to do about #1 (lower the mound again to overcome the advantage analytics gives to pitchers?) but I think #2 will be solved shortly after the Diamond bankruptcy situation plays out.

I don't expect the "rent-a-player" situation will reduce my passion as long as I can continue watching games and the product is exciting. I also don't think the rent-a-player situation will continue forever. It's not sustainable.
Click to expand...
Agree 100%.
To expand on that a bit (in reverse order):
1. You are absolutely right and the Diamond financial situation is making a mess of things at the moment. However, MLB is salivating for it to spiral out of control at this very moment, and they are poised to take ownership of all 20+ markets that are reliant (under contract) with the regional TV contracts, and MLB is ready to roll out their own streaming option. Owners and MLB know that this opens these markets to a much larger base that will allow many more fans to follow, view, and support their team of choice thus creating a much stronger following, hence more money. The immediate growing pains may be challenging for some teams and fans, but the long term outlook will funnel greater revenue into all these markets. A year from now MLB will be streaming in many markets. Eventually (a couple years at most) and MLB will have a streaming option that will create a massive influx of baseball revenue and improved access to any team, anywhere, for everyone.
2. The advanced analytics have indeed lengthened games and taken away much of the action due to the three outcome mentality: home runs, strike outs, and walks. Games are long and can be tortuous to watch. However, with the advent of the new rules and changes this year, the outcomes have been incredibly positive. The shift restrictions have worked and resulted in significantly higher batting averages. The bases are 3” bigger, thus shortening the distances (minimally for sure) and stolen bases are way up. Additionally, the restrictions regarding pick off attempts (limited to 2 per batter) have also resulted in more running, thus bringing back the running game. Lastly, the “pitch/batter” clocks have sped up play tremendously. Games last year averaged 3 hours and 8 minutes. Thus far this year, as well as in the minor leagues last year, games are being played a full 30 minutes quicker. Two and a half hours (approximately) with more base hits, stolen bases, and improved pace of play.

Baseball, for all the ways they crap the bed finally made some impovements and the product on the field is much better IMO.

Sorry for the long post. Now back to scouring Loyalty hoping one of the insiders provides a hint of something, anything occurring that will keep me checking for news regarding a PG or a Big transfer.

(Edit: Just saw Gritty’s reply and also agree there….and he was much more succinct.)
 
#43      

Battle89

Battle89
Battle89
BretMyBeachHouse said:
Thanks. But I think the larger point is being missed. It's about passion.

Someone made the dumb argument that free agency killed baseball. It didn't. But I think the steroid scandal really hurt it. I still follow and root for the Cubs but not with the same passion I once had.

I'll always root for the Illini. But the rent a player method will definitely reduce my passion.
Click to expand...
Agree. With sincere gratitude to @Illini in Italy for putting that together, I think the last question needs more nuance. I answered yes because I can't imagine not rooting for the Illini, but part of that is ingrained. Semi-pro players will make that interest wane (not disappear) for me, and I'm not sure the younger generations will develop the same passion / nostalgia.
 
#44      

BashCtIllini

BashCtIllini
BashCtIllini
sacraig said:
This is exactly the sort of reason I am a fan of NIL (if not necessarily it's implementation). There was such a double standard. Most people don't voluntarily quit their job without some ideas where they're landing the next one.

Having said that, coaches have big buyouts. If it's not happening already, I suspect we will see buyouts in NIL deals before long because it's the Wild West right now.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I agree with any of this.

There is a big difference between a college coach and a college player. For the coach it is their career. It is how they support their families, hopefully for their entire life. People only tend to look at coaches leaving for better opportunities but not when they get fired (in the pro ranks coach firings are absurd, not as much in the college ranks). So there is a double standard right there for sure. But the athletes are supposed to be students playing an extracurricular activity. We of course knew it was a free minor league system for a long time, but reality is that is actually only for a small minority of players. So yes, few people would allow themselves to be completely tied down in their careers, not allowed to accept better opportunities. Why then do we expect coaches to do that?

Now when we bring NIL into the equation, you're making the "amateur students" 100% paid professionals. When you add in the free transfers you created a mess. We now see players moving FAR more frequently that coaches ever did, and the volume of players leaving every year is MUCH greater than the volume of coaches. I think if we got rid of the free transfers, the NIL wouldn't be as big of a deal. It wouldn't be open free agency from year to year if you had to sit a year. Would donors be willing to straight up burn money on NIL for a kid that can't play a year?

We really have the worst of all worlds right now. No contracts with years attached like pro athletes. No salary cap to create some degree of a level playing field. No similar levels of pay infrastructure amongst teams. No stipulations on how money can be provided. And minimal to no limitations on player movement. Contracts would help, but the problem is, the contract would be with the money provider, which is not the school. If they try to limit your ability to move, you just don't sign that contract, you'd go to a school that didn't limit you. Also, what's to really stop you from just breaking the contract? You don't earn the rest of the money, but since you had no contract with the school, you just get money from somewhere else?

I'm very interested in seeing how college basketball looks in 5-10 years. If Kanon Catchings decommits from Purdue, that to me is very telling. It would be a straight up money thing. Clearly illustrating the non-level playing field where some teams just don't have the money to compete. It doesn't matter what their facilities are like, their coach, their system, geographic or family connections, if college basketball just becomes for the highest bidder, you will start to see fans of A LOT of teams quickly lose interest.
 
#45      

2qtslow

2qtslow
2qtslow
Battle89 said:
Agree. With sincere gratitude to @Illini in Italy for putting that together, I think the last question needs more nuance. I answered yes because I can't imagine not rooting for the Illini, but part of that is ingrained. Semi-pro players will make that interest wane (not disappear) for me, and I'm not sure the younger generations will develop the same passion / nostalgia.
Click to expand...
Agree. I answered Yes to the 4th Q because I could not imagine not supporting the Iliini. However, I have watched almost every Illini game for the last ten plus years. I can very much imagine watching far fewer future Illini games.
 
#46      

Tunafish

Tunafish
Tunafish
Mr. Tibbs said:
it’s just different now .
the older I become , the more I loathe change .

in my mind , it was way better when we had guys for 2-3-4 years or so.
Click to expand...
I am with you on this. However, every once in a while there is a player who I can’t wait to see graduate.
 
#47      

sacraig

sacraig
The desert
sacraig
BashCtIllini said:
I'm not sure I agree with any of this.

There is a big difference between a college coach and a college player. For the coach it is their career. It is how they support their families, hopefully for their entire life. People only tend to look at coaches leaving for better opportunities but not when they get fired (in the pro ranks coach firings are absurd, not as much in the college ranks). So there is a double standard right there for sure. But the athletes are supposed to be students playing an extracurricular activity. We of course knew it was a free minor league system for a long time, but reality is that is actually only for a small minority of players. So yes, few people would allow themselves to be completely tied down in their careers, not allowed to accept better opportunities. Why then do we expect coaches to do that?

Now when we bring NIL into the equation, you're making the "amateur students" 100% paid professionals. When you add in the free transfers you created a mess. We now see players moving FAR more frequently that coaches ever did, and the volume of players leaving every year is MUCH greater than the volume of coaches. I think if we got rid of the free transfers, the NIL wouldn't be as big of a deal. It wouldn't be open free agency from year to year if you had to sit a year. Would donors be willing to straight up burn money on NIL for a kid that can't play a year?

We really have the worst of all worlds right now. No contracts with years attached like pro athletes. No salary cap to create some degree of a level playing field. No similar levels of pay infrastructure amongst teams. No stipulations on how money can be provided. And minimal to no limitations on player movement. Contracts would help, but the problem is, the contract would be with the money provider, which is not the school. If they try to limit your ability to move, you just don't sign that contract, you'd go to a school that didn't limit you. Also, what's to really stop you from just breaking the contract? You don't earn the rest of the money, but since you had no contract with the school, you just get money from somewhere else?

I'm very interested in seeing how college basketball looks in 5-10 years. If Kanon Catchings decommits from Purdue, that to me is very telling. It would be a straight up money thing. Clearly illustrating the non-level playing field where some teams just don't have the money to compete. It doesn't matter what their facilities are like, their coach, their system, geographic or family connections, if college basketball just becomes for the highest bidder, you will start to see fans of A LOT of teams quickly lose interest.
Click to expand...
Who says the athletes are supposed to be students doing an extracurricular activitiy? You? The NCAA? Who decides that? Maybe that made sense in 1960, but we live in an era of billion dollar TV contracts tied to college football and coaches making millions (Saban is slated to make $11M next year). All that money is generated by the athletes and coaches yet only the coaches really benefited according to their merit. This long ago ceased being a simple extracurricular activity.

Further, it's still a double standard even compared to other students. Cheerleaders could always use their position to generate social media followers and profit, but NCAA-sanctioned athletes couldn't. If a computer science major decides to join the ACM robotics club as an extracurricular activity, they are perfectly allowed to use those skills to spin off a company and make money; an NCAA athlete could not.

NIL restrictions were ridiculous and exploitative and athletes should always have had the ability to profit off of their own name, image, and likeness. The problem is that, now that the floodgates are open, the market (both on the player and the donor sides) hasn't figured out how to become stable. Ultimately, I think it will look like brands and donors who work incentives for staying with a team into the NIL contracts and penalties for early termination.
 
Last edited:
#48      

BashCtIllini

BashCtIllini
BashCtIllini
sacraig said:
Who says the athletes are supposed to be students doing an extracurricular activitiy? You? The NCAA? Who decides that? Maybe that made sense in 1960, but we live in an era of billion dollar TV contracts tied to college football and coaches making millions (Saban is slated to make $11M next year). All that money is generated by the athletes and coaches yet only the coaches really benefited according to their merit. This long ago ceased being a simple extracurricular activity.

Further, it's still a double standard even compared to other students. Cheerleaders could always use their position to generate social media followers and profit, but NCAA-sanctioned athletes couldn't. If a computer science major decides to join the ACM robotics club as an extracurricular activity, they are perfectly allowed to use those skills to spin off a company and make money; an NCAA athlete could not.

NIL restrictions were ridiculous and exploitative and athletes should always have had the ability to profit off of their own name, image, and likeness. The problem is that, now that the floodgates are open, the market (both on the player and the donor sides) hasn't figured out how to become stable. Ultimately, I think it will look like brands and donors who work incentives for staying with a team into the NIL contracts and penalties for early termination.
Click to expand...
The entire history of college athletics?

I really don't care about the fairness. If you show me 1 single thing in the world that is fair, then I'd start to listen. The kids have always been paid with free tuition, room and board, stipends, tutors, trainers, coaches, and the platform to display their talents for pro scouts.

If you wanted to roll the players out there with a student coach and not a paid professional, it would be a terrible product and no one would watch. If it wasn't for the colleges and their built in fan bases, no one would care about these kids. In fact that is on display currently as roster turnover is insane and the fans remain. One could argue, why go to school, just have a minor league organization? That is extremely unlikely to happen because those leagues can't compete with the money college sports fans will just give away, not because they are a fan of any given recruit or watching 18-22 year olds play basketball, but because they are a fan of the school. So without colleges, these kids don't have much. Do you think any league would have over 350 teams? Or even over 70 which would be just the P6 schools? Not happening.

Now, do I think players should be paid at all? Yes, but not this way. This whole thing was started over video games. I agree if they're going to put you in a video game, you deserve a piece of the profits. If your jersey is sold, you deserve a piece of the profits. Aside from that, I'd give everyone a standard pay in addition to what they already receive. But even doing this will eliminate A LOT of programs, because they couldn't afford it. The way it is now, someone else pay these players for me, is quite frankly stupid. It is legalizing what has been considered cheating for all of history until about 2 minutes ago and provides no control or ability to create a level playing field at all.
 
#49      

sacraig

sacraig
The desert
sacraig
BashCtIllini said:
The entire history of college athletics?

I really don't care about the fairness. If you show me 1 single thing in the world that is fair, then I'd start to listen. The kids have always been paid with free tuition, room and board, stipends, tutors, trainers, coaches, and the platform to display their talents for pro scouts.

If you wanted to roll the players out there with a student coach and not a paid professional, it would be a terrible product and no one would watch. If it wasn't for the colleges and their built in fan bases, no one would care about these kids. In fact that is on display currently as roster turnover is insane and the fans remain. One could argue, why go to school, just have a minor league organization? That is extremely unlikely to happen because those leagues can't compete with the money college sports fans will just give away, not because they are a fan of any given recruit or watching 18-22 year olds play basketball, but because they are a fan of the school. So without colleges, these kids don't have much. Do you think any league would have over 350 teams? Or even over 70 which would be just the P6 schools? Not happening.

Now, do I think players should be paid at all? Yes, but not this way. This whole thing was started over video games. I agree if they're going to put you in a video game, you deserve a piece of the profits. If your jersey is sold, you deserve a piece of the profits. Aside from that, I'd give everyone a standard pay in addition to what they already receive. But even doing this will eliminate A LOT of programs, because they couldn't afford it. The way it is now, someone else pay these players for me, is quite frankly stupid. It is legalizing what has been considered cheating for all of history until about 2 minutes ago and provides no control or ability to create a level playing field at all.
Click to expand...
If this is your baseline we simply won't agree.
 
#50      

ChiefGritty

ChiefGritty
Chicago, IL
ChiefGritty
BashCtIllini said:
I really don't care about the fairness.
Click to expand...
I get it. Honestly, I don't really care about the fairness per se either.

The problem is that the NCAA had lost the ability and institutional legitimacy to enforce amateurism on the game any longer. They couldn't meaningfully police it, the legal challenges were mounting and probably fatal, and player agitation was growing and had room to get much worse.

The system could no longer function as it was. It barely functioned before, as we all know.

This is the NCAA we're talking about of course, so the choices made to keep the system functioning were stupid, shortsighted and nonsensical. They continue to be right up to the present day.

The system needs to work. That is the highest good here, that's the north star.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.