Illinois Hoops Recruiting Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
#576      
I will venture a guess that in 2-3 years the NCAA will have no say whatsoever with the payment of players. They will simply go to the highest bidder unless there is some type of school loyalty factored into the equation. Recruiting will stop around the high school players & center around the transfer portal. I am sure y'all will bury me for this, but I truly believe it is the future.
 
#577      
I'm assuming we beat some blue bloods for Epps, miller and kofi?

With Epps, yes, we beat out Kansas. Not sure if Kofi had any blueblood offers, but if I recall, I think the main competition was UConn. Miller had a Kansas offer, but I think the main competition there was Arizona, and maybe also Arizona St.
 
#578      
I will venture a guess that in 2-3 years the NCAA will have no say whatsoever with the payment of players. They will simply go to the highest bidder unless there is some type of school loyalty factored into the equation. Recruiting will stop around the high school players & center around the transfer portal. I am sure y'all will bury me for this, but I truly believe it is the future.

and this is bad? these kids should get paid for the amount of revenue they generate. i don't know about anyone "burying" you, but this is an outdated viewpoint that thankfully doesn't hold any water anymore.
 
#580      
I don't know if it is "bad" but it will change college basketball as we know it today.
FIFY

I don't think anyone can say yet whether this is "good" or "bad" for college basketball as far as the fan's experience. A lot of people think this would ruin the competitiveness of non-blue blood schools. I think an argument can be made that allowing student athletes to be paid for their services can actually promote more parity in the sport. If Illinois wants to compete for a top prospect with Kentucky, right now the odds of landing that recruit are minimal at best. But if we could pay, then its simply a question of which team wants to pay more. And when you get to the point where these players are allowed to be paid as employees of the university, then you could see creative, parity focused solutions such as salary caps or luxury taxes we see in other professional sports.

Then you look at what happened with Kofi. He came back when he wasn't expected to, and I think that's in large part because he can actually earn some money this year. A lot of the same people who gripe about only having players for a year or two because they go pro or they transfer are the same people griping about the one thing that might actually keep a guy like Kofi on campus for more than a year or two.

The only thing I think we know for sure is that being compensated for the value they bring in is a very good thing for the athletes.
 
#581      
The desert
FIFY

I don't think anyone can say yet whether this is "good" or "bad" for college basketball as far as the fan's experience. A lot of people think this would ruin the competitiveness of non-blue blood schools. I think an argument can be made that allowing student athletes to be paid for their services can actually promote more parity in the sport. If Illinois wants to compete for a top prospect with Kentucky, right now the odds of landing that recruit are minimal at best. But if we could pay, then its simply a question of which team wants to pay more. And when you get to the point where these players are allowed to be paid as employees of the university, then you could see creative, parity focused solutions such as salary caps or luxury taxes we see in other professional sports.

Then you look at what happened with Kofi. He came back when he wasn't expected to, and I think that's in large part because he can actually earn some money this year. A lot of the same people who gripe about only having players for a year or two because they go pro or they transfer are the same people griping about the one thing that might actually keep a guy like Kofi on campus for more than a year or two.

The only thing I think we know for sure is that being compensated for the value they bring in is a very good thing for the athletes.

Are you really me in disguise?

C-658VsXoAo3ovC.jpg
 
#584      
Poor ol' Archie Miller advocated paying his players all along and lost his job. He must be p*ssed! I bet that coach from LSU is breathing much easier.
 
#586      
We're out on Whitmore unless something drastically changes. Corhen and Oweh loved their visits, and can expect decisions in the next couple weeks. We sit very well with both as of now.

Whitmore was given the white glove treatment and really enjoyed the visit. Coaches nailed it, but he's liked Nova from the start.

I think we prioritize Casey a bit now, but we've been ramping that back up in recent weeks anyways.
 
#587      
FIFY

I don't think anyone can say yet whether this is "good" or "bad" for college basketball as far as the fan's experience.

And yet, if we look at the CFP, you'd have to conclude it's bad. A handful of the same names out-recruit everyone else BY FAR, and have been returning to the play-off year after year.

I think the saving grace for college basketball is the fact that you don't need a team of 5 star players to have a shot on any given night, and the expanded tournament with a one and out format allows for some shocking upsets and excitement. Everyone who's remotely decent gets a shot. I think there's also more chance that a lower ranked player out-performs a higher one in bball, but with transfers becoming the norm, that plays into the hands of the powerhouse schools who can pick off players who committed to lower tier programs initially.

On the whole, I'm not sure it really changes much, since bidding for talent has been going on for several decades, just not in plain site.
 
#589      
And yet, if we look at the CFP, you'd have to conclude it's bad. A handful of the same names out-recruit everyone else BY FAR, and have been returning to the play-off year after year.

I think the saving grace for college basketball is the fact that you don't need a team of 5 star players to have a shot on any given night, and the expanded tournament with a one and out format allows for some shocking upsets and excitement. Everyone who's remotely decent gets a shot. I think there's also more chance that a lower ranked player out-performs a higher one in bball, but with transfers becoming the norm, that plays into the hands of the powerhouse schools who can pick off players who committed to lower tier programs initially.

On the whole, I'm not sure it really changes much, since bidding for talent has been going on for several decades, just not in plain site.
How can college football provide evidence that allowing players to be paid directly for their services leads to bad results, when college football is not currently allowed to pay players directly for their services? The lack of parity in college football exists with the current rules, and existed pre-NIL. If anything, you can argue that paying players probably couldn't make it any worse, as the talent is already very concentrated.
 
#591      
I think it remains to be seen wh
And yet, if we look at the CFP, you'd have to conclude it's bad. A handful of the same names out-recruit everyone else BY FAR, and have been returning to the play-off year after year.

I think the saving grace for college basketball is the fact that you don't need a team of 5 star players to have a shot on any given night, and the expanded tournament with a one and out format allows for some shocking upsets and excitement. Everyone who's remotely decent gets a shot. I think there's also more chance that a lower ranked player out-performs a higher one in bball, but with transfers becoming the norm, that plays into the hands of the powerhouse schools who can pick off players who committed to lower tier programs initially.

On the whole, I'm not sure it really changes much, since bidding for talent has been going on for several decades, just not in plain site.
I think it remains to be seen whether or not transferring will be a net positive for a student-Athlete's bottom line under the NIL rules. Building a brand and being BMOC at State U. may be more profitable in the long run than transferring to become a supplementary piece at Blue Blood College.
 
#593      
The desert
These kids are already getting paid. Have been for years. If you think otherwise you have blinders on.

Exactly, and different universities have different levels of tolerance for playing below board like that. They also have different levels of clout that make them de fact immune from NCAA enforcement (the NCAA won't destroy Alabama football over recruiting violations but will happily do it to lesser names). By allowing NIL, it legitimizes at least some of this behavior, allowing the little guys to play at least a little more evenly with the big guys without fear of massive penalties. In theory.

Of course, the big guys also have more money, but it's not clear that will move the needle much since this isn't about directly paying players.
 
#594      
A question about this future of which we speak: If schools and players negotiate directly on what and how players are paid, can players negotiate a contract clause that excuses them from attending any classes? Or will flunking out still be a thing?
 
#595      
A question about this future of which we speak: If schools and players negotiate directly on what and how players are paid, can players negotiate a contract clause that excuses them from attending any classes? Or will flunking out still be a thing?
Honestly - my biggest concern is the animosity that can come out of this when suddenly someone signs a big contract and doesn’t pan out - fans would surely have more anger.

Also - would schools be allowed to “cut” players that don’t grow to their potential?

If we shift to paying the players behind a standard wage for everyone, creating a bidding war, then may as well just remove the attachment to schools.

If you thought the NCAA generated a lot of money before, imagine the NCAA with the power of the NBA and NFL combined.
 
#596      
A question about this future of which we speak: If schools and players negotiate directly on what and how players are paid, can players negotiate a contract clause that excuses them from attending any classes? Or will flunking out still be a thing?
NIL does not allow the school to pay players. It only puts an end to disallowing students to profit from their celebrity. If they stopped requiring classes, they might as well just disband and start a minor league. (there are a couple entities trying to do this right now)
 
#598      
the juiceman cometh: “The only thing I think we know for sure is that being compensated for the value they bring in is a very good thing for the athletes.”

What were we told the purpose of ‘college ‘is? To get a job and find a way to earn money. So... college roundballers have found a way to earn money ahead of graduation day which was to be the entry point for what again? Learning how to earn money.

When everybody else and their brother was making money off college ball for a very long time and the players were the only ones cut out of the money tree... that was a picture of gross inequity. Now there is some balance restored to the process.

All anybody wants is that these guys play good ball while they’re around and then they have good lives either inside or outside of pro ball. It’s still a game with a ball and two hoops on either end of the floor. Nobody should ever be thinking about money (or not) when teams are on the floor, the fans are ready, and everybody finds out who the best team is that day.

It’s all about playing a beautiful game and the health and welfare of those who play it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.