"The worst thing that's happened to college basketball since I've been coaching"

Gah. I really need to learn to write... At any rate, I am more than a bit disillusioned too- this is just icing on the cake. The Duke-Carolina women's game will be the highlight of my weekend as a result...

posted by tieguy at 04:46 PM - reply - flag:

The NCAA needs to drop the bull and admit that academics took a backseat to money a long time ago.

posted by igottheblues at 04:55 PM - reply - flag:

It's a good point, but I'm not sure I think it's the worst thing ever. Maybe some of these kids get a taste of school and after they leave they work on a degree that they wouldn't have gone after otherwise. I realize that may be apple-eyed, but just a counter-point. Also, "If you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'" has been around a lot longer than Jim Rome. Is that a joke crediting it to him?

posted by SummersEve at 05:03 PM - reply - flag:

The only real difference nowadays between the NCAA and the pros is the NCAA teams stay in one place forever.

posted by sickleguy at 05:04 PM - reply - flag:

and the college guys don't get a cut of all the money they bring in from "sponsorhips" etc. Academics means nothing, and when they do, we all know where those teams are. Not in the Top 25 every year. It's just become "all about the Benjamins."

posted by bavarianmotorworker at 05:18 PM - reply - flag:

SummersEve: I agree it isn't the worst thing ever (Knight has been around long enough to remember the various point shaving scandals of the early 50s, for example), but it does seem... a little fraudulent. As he points out, these guys basically have to study for one semester, and some of them are seriously good enough to alter the course of the season for all the kids who really have tried to play by the spirit of the educational rules.

posted by tieguy at 05:47 PM - reply - flag:

Well if the NCAA did drop the bull than at least they would be being honest. It stopped being about academics when the NCAA started receiving revenue from TV and other sponsors. You think they would ever want to share with the "student athletes" the 7 or 8 billion or whatever it is CBS gives them for MarchMadness rights? Hell no!!! It is all about the green, they front like its about the academics, they treat it like its some sort of religion that nobody should dare question. But everyone sees right through it. Like they have the student athletes best interests in mind...Give me a break, Bobby Knight knows its a bunch of BS, he went before Congress and basically told them that. He said that the Constitution of the USA had less rules and regulations than the NCAA(this is paraphrased of course, you should check out his disposition, it was definitely an NCAA diss) I might be a bit militant here but I think the NCAA organization, based right here in my honest, hard-working hometown of Indy is one of the most corrupt organizations in this country. Players are almost(not quite, just being dramatic) treated like slaves, they are given room and board and thats it! Do you think most players have the time to hold a job between 12-16 credit hours of class work and two-a-days? It breeds corruption esp. among poorer urban players who have no cash coming from the rents, just ask C-Webb and the countless others who've got caught. I've always thought they should get a decent allowance, but the greedy NCAA, a so-called bastion of higher learning, wont allow it! Now by making these superstars, Oden and Durant, go to school the NCAA can get a piece of them when before they couldnt cuz they would be in the NBA already

posted by dezznutz at 06:12 PM - reply - flag:

I see coach Knight's point,but you can't blame the NBA.it is up to the universities,and the NCAA to regulate education,or lack there of.instead of worrying so much about where every dime a student-athelete gets comes from,they should make sure they are holding there end up,and going to classes.

posted by mars1 at 06:26 PM - reply - flag:

I agree wholeheartedly with dezznutz. The worst thing about college sports is that the players do not get a piece of the action. It is absolute horse manure that these players do not get paid to play. Sure, a handful of players make it to the pros and get their just rewards. Most don't.

posted by DudeDykstra at 08:30 PM - reply - flag:

the players do get paid to play .. free tution, tutors, housing, food, girls, no attendence classes, girls

posted by water1 at 09:08 PM - reply - flag:

The worst thing about college sports is that the players do not get a piece of the action. It is absolute horse manure that these players do not get paid to play. Except for those who choose to actually attend class, and study, and graduate with a valid degree. Those players get paid with a university education. I'm not familiar with university tuitions in the U.S.A. but I would think that would possibly be worth about $200,000. In my book, thats pretty good pay for a young man or woman of 18-21 years of age.

posted by tommytrump at 09:17 PM - reply - flag:

posted by dezznutz at 09:20 PM - reply - flag:

or in the words of Elden Cambell when asked if he earned a college degree "No, but they gave me one anyway"

posted by water1 at 09:21 PM - reply - flag:

200,000 for a four year degree? Sheesh, 4-year grads from Harvard dont even get that coming str8 out, try 60K-70K, evryone esle get 30K-40K if they're lucky. Trump, where are you from? Plus, that doesnthave anything to do with having money while the "studnet athlete" is still IN college. word dykstradude... dezznutz, if you had taken the time to actually comprehend my post, you would have seen that what I said was, that the university education that they received was worth about $200,000, not that they would earn $200,000 in their first year out of university. I am from Canada, and the cost for attending a public university in Ontario (where I live) is around $18,000 per year, with all expenses included. That's about $72,000 for a four year program. I did a quick google on the first American university I thought of, The University of Southern California. The information I got there stated that in 2003( the most recent year I could find information on) tuition was around $26,000 per year. Assume appoximately a 10 % increase in tuition each year since then, and you're looking at around $38,000 per year. Add books, housing, food, and sundry other items and you're probably not far off $50,000 per year, therefore, $200,000 for four years is a pretty good guess for a dumb Canuck. You did stump me a couple of times in your post though, I have a few quick questions for you.... what is a 'studnet athlete', what does str8 mean?, what does esle mean? As far as having money while in university, you're not supposed to have money when you're in university. You're a student. If you need more benjamins in your jeans, take a year off between high school and college. Save every dime you can. Word indeed.

posted by tommytrump at 10:05 PM - reply - flag:

Is this exchange a deal with the devil? An NCAA Championship in exchange for a few negative articles and perhaps losing a 13th scholarship? Call me crazy but just because these "one year" players are at these schools doesn't mean shit as far as winning the tourney. So what school got the NCAA championship in exchange for the bad articles and the 13th scholarship already?

posted by jojomfd1 at 10:45 PM - reply - flag:

Tommy, Southern Cal is a private university. It's prices are going to be higher than other universities.

posted by igottheblues at 12:02 AM - reply - flag:

Good debate...found this forum from link to my blog. Couple things: 1) I did not mean to suggest that bringing in one-year players is cheating. The NCAA and its members put out feel-good PSAs that paint athletes as real students (among the 380k most are)...but many schools want to win far more than uphold any lofted stated educational ideals. 2) I don't buy the argument that athletes are getting a "free education." There's nothing free about a scholarship...not only must they stay eligible, avoid legal trouble, they also must perform athletically. Otherwise, they can be cut after one year. 3)I have largely stayed away from the pay-for-play argument, although I am beginning to think that the athletic demands placed on athletes by coaches is so great that athletes have little opportunity to work at all. I wrote something on this after I heard Dan Hawking's rant... moneyplayers.typepad.com 4)Re comment about one-year players...Oden and Durant are only in college because of an artificial barrier to entry to NBA. You don't think these players "mean shit" as far as making a deep tourny run? Lastly, the new NCAA reform that ties scholarships to grad rates goes into effect next academic year...if a player leaves after one year, it could impact the school's GSR score (it's too late to look up exactly what that stands for)...if the GSR score is too low, the programs will lose scholarships.

posted by MarcIsenberg at 02:28 AM - reply - flag:

Trumpster I was talkin' bout what people make coming straight (str8)out of college, cuz that was what I thought your post was about. 200,000 is a shit ton, maybe at a Harvard or Yale, but public colleges are around 10K-15K yearly room and board. But your taking this conversation of track. I'm talking about "student athletes" here. Why are you talkin bout average joes like me who attend university? A good program that gets alot of TV attention can bring hella bucks to a university,(IE: students like my Uncle who went to NC STATE in the early 70's cuz their B-Ball program was a winner) plus in my original post I lamb-basted the NCAA because it soaks these kids and gives very little back to them. A school may offer a scholarship but the NCAA doesnt pitch in anymonaey to the school, that is what I was talking about, this whole post is because of the NCAA puttin pressure on David Stern to implament this dumb-ass one year rule to get a piece of Oden or Durant and Bob Knight callin them out like he always does. BTW why would a student athlete want to take a year off before starting? 99% of them would lose there spot on the team and end up at a JC or worse. Think about it

posted by dezznutz at 03:07 AM - reply - flag:

Back to the one year rentals if we could... I guess I'm having trouble understanding why this is the fault of the college programs. Are coaches supposed to tell the Durant's and Oden's of the world that they're too good to come to college? I could be wrong, but I didn't think the NCAA had a hand in making the NBA's rule. I don't want to defend the NCAA or individual schools. Outside of Phialdelphia's Big Five I have little interest in college basketball anymore, thanks to the ass-monkey powers-that-be. But, in this case, I'm just not sure it's their fault. P.S. I thought the NCAA-athletes-paid thing was on the beat-to-death list.

posted by SummersEve at 06:32 AM - reply - flag:

I only have this to offer: My idea of a student in college, regardless of how silly it may sound, is to get an education. Nevermind the fact that these kids are playing a sport, the most important thing for these 'student/athletes' should be is their education, first and foremost, THEN sports. The NCAA gets billions of dollars to televise their sport and to also show off their star players (such as Kevin Durant and Greg Oden) but it goes further back then with these guys. IMO, I don't believe that any person in college playing a sport, and I don't care how good they are, should get paid while in school. At the same time, if students don't get paid, neither should the head coaches as well (Yes, I'm talking to you Coach K). It just doesn't seem fair to tell a kid that they can't benefit from playing while in college but for their coach to recieve some type of financial compensation, outside of what they're already recieving from the school. I guess it's just idiotic of me to think that anyone these days would take their education seriously considering that, if they're good enough, they can become an instant millionaire just for leaving school to play a game. What a country!

posted by BornIcon at 07:12 AM - reply - flag:

2) I don't buy the argument that athletes are getting a "free education." There's nothing free about a scholarship...not only must they stay eligible, avoid legal trouble, they also must perform athletically. Otherwise, they can be cut after one year. Someone correct me if my ideas are antiquated, but all college students are required to "stay eligible" -- that is, maintain a certain GPA or be invited to leave -- and avoid legal trouble. I do agree with what many people are saying about the reality of the NCAA today, but I also agree with BornIcon: even if no one else values the student-athlete's education, he/she ought to value it, because in almost every case that education will pay them back more than their prowess in sports. So what if there's one or two instant millionaires a year? The only smart way to play it is to assume that you're not gonna be one of 'em, and don't put all your eggs in one basket.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:01 AM - reply - flag:

Tommytrump is right. To suggest that NCAA student-athletes are "slaves" is ludicrous. A college education is NOT free (as I am reminded each month when I make my college loan payment), and whether it's a $200,000 value or a $50,000 value is not really the point, it has a substantial value. In addition, recent studies have shown that people with bachelor's degrees earn $1 million more over their lifetimes than those with high school diplomas. Since most D1 basketball players won't make the pros, this is definitely a major benefit that all student-athletes can take advantage of. Whether they use this benefit wisely is up to them -- but wouldn't that be equally true if the players WERE paid? Many would squander their earnings while others would wisely invest. Deeznuts, you assert that the NCAA is behind the 19-year-old age threshold for the NBA. Are you sure this is the case, and can you back it up with a reliable citation? It seems to me that the NBA has very good reasons to prevent teams from drafting players out of high school - they'll harvest fewer Kwame Browns and more Carmelo Anthonys. I agree that the NCAA has a lot of problems and that many D1 programs do not put an emphasis on academics, which is a shame. Is it a perfect system? Decidedly not. But I don't think there are any real victims here, except those who victimize themselves through lack of maturity and/or foresight. Coaches like Knight, who take education seriously, should look at the men who graduate from his program. Maybe they didn't win an NCAA title, but they have benefited from his tutelage and the free education they recieved, which in my opinion is of far greater value.

posted by Venicemenace at 08:08 AM - reply - flag:

Money isn't everything...in fact, it isn't much. So the NCAA starts paying college stars. They get the big bucks when they're 18 instead of 22. This improves their quality as human beings in what way? Don't forget they are getting paid. They're getting paid a full-ride college scholarship. That's nothing to sneeze at. My point is this: paying college players beyond their scholarships with the possible exception of modest stipend increases would not solve the problem, would not make their lives better, and would not turn them into decent people. An education helps more towards those goal than does money.

posted by ChiefsSuperFan at 09:16 AM - reply - flag:

There are 30 N.B.A. teams. There are 334 college/universities in the U.S.A. playing Division 1 basketball. Let's assume there are 8 scholarship atheletes on each team. That's 2672 scholarships. I don't have the statistics to back this up, but let's assume each N.B.A. team signs 2 rookies a year. That would be 60 jobs. This would mean your chance of an N.B.A. signing as a result of being an N.C.A.A. division one basketball player would be in the neighbourhood of .022455. This is assuming that the N.B.A. teams aquire no one from div. 2 or 3, or from Europe or Asia. It's just the opinion of one man, but I think that if you get offered a scholarship, you better study, because you're probably not going to get rich playing basketball. If you choose to waste your opportunity for an education, that is your choice. If the N.C.A.A. wanted to get serious about this, they could simply void results of any school who played a student who did not meet academic requirements. Review marks at the end of a season, and if Player 'A' did not meet minimum standards to stay in school, all results from any game that he/she played in would be voided. Schools would be far less likely to offer inducements to 'one and gone' players if they were going to embarrass the institution in this manner. Peer pressure would also come to bear, as I wouldn't want someone wasting my entire season by not going to class. The last I looked, the main purpose of universities and colleges is to educate.

posted by tommytrump at 09:20 AM - reply - flag:

This would mean your chance of an N.B.A. signing as a result of being an N.C.A.A. division one basketball player would be in the neighbourhood of .022455. I fundamentally disagree with Tommy's post for several reasons, but his above numbers strengthen the point I was making. This one-year hired-gun theory really isn't a big deal at all. How many first-year college players are a lock for the first round? Two?

posted by SummersEve at 09:39 AM - reply - flag:

SummersEve, Which reason? My belief that the main purpose of universities is to educate? Or, punishing schools that don't require satisfactory academic results in order to have the privilege of playing sports for the institution?

posted by tommytrump at 09:48 AM - reply - flag:

No, because it's based on a fundamentally flawed premise: that the list price of college tuition is an acceptable substitute for a piece of the revenue pie. What would a player at a major DI school be worth to the school in revenue? $100k? $500k?

posted by yerfatma at 10:07 AM - reply - flag:

How many first-year college players are a lock for the first round? Two? I believe it'll be more than that considering that either Greg Oden or Kevin Durant are the 1-2 picks and Joakim Noah from the Florida Gators will go soon after. I have to agree with Coach Knight in a sense because if it wasn't for the Commissioner of the NBA David Stern, guys like Greg Oden would have already been playing in the league since the 19 year old rule was only implemented this year alone. Most kids that are capable of playing in the league nowadays that came straight out of high school (Kevin Garnett & LeBron James come to mind) or after only a year of college are more or less playing for the money anyways. The question that I don't seem to hear is: How can a 18-19 year old kid that just came out of high school or after one year of college can be considered a 'role model' just because they 1.) play a professional sport and 2.) make millions of dollars from signing a pro sports contract or from a sneaker deal that they signed before they stepped one foot on the playing field? The values of this country has been so bass ackwards that it seems that athletes and television are the ones that are raising the youth of today and not the people who's advice and wisdom truly matters, like the parents.

posted by BornIcon at 10:21 AM - reply - flag:

On that note, I'm going outside to argue with the homeless guy in the "The End is Near" sign.

posted by SummersEve at 10:27 AM - reply - flag:

...therefore, $200,000 for four years is a pretty good guess for a dumb Canuck. Actually, tommy, you've come pretty close. I'm the father of a high school senior who has applied to 7 colleges, 4 of them 'public' (i.e., supported by a state government), and 3 private. Tuition at the private universities runs between $28,000 and $35,000 per year. The public universities he is eyeing (Penn State, Connecticut, Rhode Island and New Hampshire) run between about $19,000 and $25,000 per for out-of state students. (We are NH residents, so in-state is about $10,000 per year.) When you add room and board, books, fees, living expenses, and travel, you come up with a figure between $150,000 and $250,000 for a 4-year degree from an out-of-state institution. Of course, none of that matters to most of these guys that just "hire on" for a short ride. They are looking at a professional career, not an education. The down side of players like this is that they deprive of a possible scholarship, for at least a year, an athlete who really wants to get an education. Maybe the NCAA ought to treat basketball more like hockey. That is, players can be drafted by a professional team when they are 18, but can continue to play college hockey. In this way, a player who is serious about his studies can get a degree before turning pro, while one who might have academic or financial problems can turn pro early. With a little research, the coaches will know what they have before ever accepting one of these kids, and can select accordingly.

posted by Howard_T at 11:06 AM - reply - flag:

posted by Venicemenace at 11:06 AM - reply - flag:

Based on what? The amount a college degree changes earning power over the course of a lifetime? First off, that $1 million then has to be discounted over 30+ years. Second of all, that assumes every kid they are willing to bring in on a scholarship has or is given the academic where-with-all to turn that degree into a white-collar job.

posted by yerfatma at 11:37 AM - reply - flag:

Based on what? The amount a college degree changes earning power over the course of a lifetime? Yes. It's not an insignificant amount. First off, that $1 million then has to be discounted over 30+ years. And that somehow makes it less valuable? You can also discard the $1 million figure and state the fact another way: workers with college diplomas will make TWICE as much as workers with high school diplomas over the course of their working lives. It's a substantial upgrade. Second of all, that assumes every kid they are willing to bring in on a scholarship has or is given the academic where-with-all to turn that degree into a white-collar job. Right. This is where the colleges and NCAA in general need to do better. We all know that certain schools generally adhere to this ideal better than others. However, those of us who work white-collar jobs know that there are plenty of people in this environment that aren't geniuses or business tycoons, but ordinary folks given the right education and opportunities. I don't see any reason why the D1 student-athletes couldn't be given the same opportunities if the NCAA had the will to do so. I just completely fail to comprehend what justice is served by turning D1 sports into a professional league and abandoning the ideals of student-atheleticism. I am not arguing that the status quo is ideal, far from it.

posted by Venicemenace at 11:56 AM - reply - flag:

VM, I think we're on the same side here, but a lot of these kids get a chance they may not have gotten thanks to their abilities to play sports. So I'm not sure I follow you're argument. I believe it'll be more than that considering that either Greg Oden or Kevin Durant are the 1-2 picks and Joakim Noah from the Florida Gators will go soon after. Not to nitpick, but Joakim Noah's a junior.

posted by SummersEve at 01:26 PM - reply - flag:

To preface, I think douchey above is correct: we're probably not in violent disagreement here. And that somehow makes it less valuable? Yes. That's exactly what it does. One of the books I had to read in high school had a fantastic example of the power of compound interest (on page 47) about the ads in the '80s talking about how investing in your IRA would make you a millionaire:

"The banker explains that nearly $10 million plus a blender await the yuppie . . . The operator interrupts: 'Please deposit $400,000 for another minute."

So $1 million over the course of 30 years might not make the difference it sounds like. But my larger point is the one you and I agree on: making that college degree worth a million is something the schools do not currently do for players they sign. If they insist on compensating these athletes at below-market rates, they ought to make an effort to actually educate them. I realize some do. There's also the objection that some kids don't care about the degree. Ok. Then don't bring them onto campus. Ever. You're either a school or you're a business. I realize that's hopelessly idealistic, but I think it's hopelessly naive to think an institution can be both.

posted by yerfatma at 01:39 PM - reply - flag:

If they insist on compensating these athletes at below-market rates, they ought to make an effort to actually educate them. I realize some do. There's also the objection that some kids don't care about the degree. Ok. Then don't bring them onto campus. Ever. You're either a school or you're a business. I realize that's hopelessly idealistic, but I think it's hopelessly naive to think an institution can be both. I nominate we retire this discussion, put this up on the wiki page and march on Myles Brand's house. I think this is What we've all been saying in our own silly ways. Well said, yerfatma. I like your blog. Even if you did call me an assface.

posted by SummersEve at 02:40 PM - reply - flag:

First off, that $1 million then has to be discounted over 30+ years. I'd rather have $1,000,000 than not. That's an extra $33,000 and change per year. Yeah, I think I could find a use for that.

posted by tommytrump at 04:34 PM - reply - flag:

There are pendulums in life. Cheating wins for a season, then things come crashing down. It is a poor foundation for life. Ask Ken Lay. Piscator

posted by Fly_Piscator at 09:12 AM - reply - flag:

WOW, What a pool of opinions. First of all dezznutz, i am from Indy myself and played highschool ball in that great town. I was fortunate enough to receive one of those basketball scholarships to attend college for FREE, DID YOU? If you did not what do you really know. Next USC is a state school. Thirdly, The game of basketball is not really basketball anymore, it is a slam dunk and three point shooting contest.. Just watch ESPN Streetball and you will see something that looks nothing like basketball. By the way dezznutz where do you go to college, and what type of writing class are you taking, 3rd grade composition. I agree with tommytrump 100%. A college athlete is called an AMATEUR. THAT MEANS THEY PLAY FOR NO PAY! When a highschool player signs a letter of intent he agrees to be an AMATEUR athlete at the college or university of HIS choice. There is nothing in that letter that says he will get a percentage of sales on the jersey he wears. My point is that everything is up front and the prospective athlete knows what he or she is getting into. Another point I'd like to make. In most cases the student athlete is getting alot of perks that the everyday student does not. Such as, a trainng table to eat at which in most cases has much better food that the general population is eating at the dinner hall. Much better medical care for FREE, acadmeic assistance daily etc, etc..... I guess what I'm saying dezznutz unless you've been there don't TRY to express yourself about something you know nothing about.

posted by sportnut at 11:33 AM - reply - flag:

Even if you did call me an assface. Que? When did this happen? You're my favorite person from Philly other than anyone who tried to burn the city down.

posted by yerfatma at 05:59 PM - reply - flag:

By the way dezznutz where do you go to college, and what type of writing class are you taking, 3rd grade composition. I don't know about dezznutz, but at my small private university in Northeastern Kansas, not to mention my high school, junior high, and grade school, they taught me to end a question with a curly little mark that looks something like this (?). Pot, meet Kettle.

posted by hawkguy at 06:04 PM - reply - flag:

Que? When did this happen? Right here. Did I take it too personally?

posted by SummersEve at 10:39 AM - reply - flag:

? That wasn't directed at . . . well, anyone.

posted by yerfatma at 06:54 PM - reply - flag:

I know.

posted by SummersEve at 03:36 AM - reply - flag:

Assface.

posted by yerfatma at 05:34 AM - reply - flag:

hawkguy, SORRY, I GUESS I MISSED ONE QUESTION MARK. What have you got to say about the topic, if anything? I speak from experience, what about you? The last time Kansas had anything that was significant in regard to college basketball was when the STILT played in the state and that was in the dark ages. BY the way that would be Wilt Chamberlain. Make sure you check for all those "curly little marks" as you put it, because I don't hear anything from you that tells me you know anything about the topic. Lets see what you got in regard to college basketball knowledge. I supose you know allot about wheat.

posted by sportnut at 08:08 AM - reply - flag:

I supose you know allot about wheat. 0 of 15? sportnut, you should probably read the posting guidelines for this site.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:02 AM - reply - flag:

Sportnut, I guess the 1988 National Championship slipped right by you. Or how about any of the several final four appearances. Or maybe this year's team, with only four losses and a victory over Florida. Rational people might find that significant.

posted by hawkguy at 09:20 AM - reply - flag:

I'd like to know the college he attended so I can make sure my money is not wasted when my sons make their college choice.

posted by louisville_slugger at 09:45 AM - reply - flag:

Also, USC is not a state school. "Located in the heart of Los Angeles, the University of Southern California is one of the world's leading private research universities."

posted by Venicemenace at 01:51 PM - reply - flag:

sportnut deconstructed... First of all dezznutz, i am from Indy myself and played highschool ball in that great town. I was fortunate enough to receive one of those basketball scholarships to attend college for FREE, DID YOU? If you did not what do you really know. "i" should be capitalized; "highschool" is actually two words; just because somebody else didn't get a scholarship doesn't mean they know nothing about the business of college sports. In fact, most college athletes are blissfully unaware of the larger corporate machinations going on behind the scenes, while observers, usually a little more dispassionate, are able to pick up more knowledge. Next USC is a state school. Try again. Thirdly, The game of basketball is not really basketball anymore, it is a slam dunk and three point shooting contest.. Just watch ESPN Streetball and you will see something that looks nothing like basketball. "ESPN Streetball" isn't college basketball. For somebody who got a scholarship to attend college for FREE, I'd think you could tell the difference. As far as your abjectly ignorant statement that "the game of basketball is not really basketball anymore," how so? Assists, steals, blocks, and personal fouls are all still part of the score sheet. Your assertion that basketball now is "a slam dunk three point shooting contest" is probably a weak attempt at some sort of cleverness, and it fails miserably. What games are you watching that you're not seeing any mid-range jumpers or layups? Oh, yeah, you're watching "ESPN Streetball." Sorry. By the way dezznutz where do you go to college, and what type of writing class are you taking, 3rd grade composition. Pot, kettle; kettle, pot. You two should have lots to talk about. I agree with tommytrump 100%. That's tommy's problem. A college athlete is called an AMATEUR. THAT MEANS THEY PLAY FOR NO PAY! When a highschool player signs a letter of intent he agrees to be an AMATEUR athlete at the college or university of HIS choice. You might have missed this...we now allow women to play some college sports, including basketball, which we're discussing in this thread. There is nothing in that letter that says he will get a percentage of sales on the jersey he wears. My point is that everything is up front and the prospective athlete knows what he or she is getting into. Another point I'd like to make. In most cases the student athlete is getting alot of perks that the everyday student does not. Such as, a trainng table to eat at which in most cases has much better food that the general population is eating at the dinner hall. Much better medical care for FREE, acadmeic assistance daily etc, etc..... This, at least, makes some semblance of sense. For someone criticizing somebody else's style and composition, though, it's not as top-flight as I'd expect from such an obvious scholar-athlete. I guess what I'm saying dezznutz unless you've been there don't TRY to express yourself about something you know nothing about. According to your claim, you've been there yourself, but a careful reading of your posts reveals that you do know very little about the subject.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 03:23 PM - reply - flag:

The_Black_Hand, You are right, I apologize to hawkguy and dezznutz for being rude. I just get so out of wack when there is so little appreciation for a free education. Does any body play for the love of the game anymore? Is that just corny? I guess life is not as simple as it used to be, when money came after the degree, and an athletic scholarship meant something. I love money as much as the next guy, but money will be the downfall of college sports. I was refering to the lack of fundamentals in the game today, filling the lanes on a fast break, squaring your shoulders up to the backboard on an offensive rebound,basic free throw technique, cutting off the base line on defence, not forcing a shot, when palming the ball was a violation that was called, I could go on and on. I love the dunk and the 3 point shot but I think it has taken away from the basic game of basketball. Thanks for bringing me back down to earth. By the way I know a great deal about the game of basketball as it was meant to be played per John Wooden. I know very little about the organized alley ball that is played today. Bigger, stronger, faster, is a bunch of crap, ask Oscar, Bill Russell, Rick Barry, even MJ, those are true basketball players and there are very few left. I guess I'm dating myself. Enough said.

posted by sportnut at 08:09 PM - reply - flag:

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Comments