cgeldmacher

I agree that the argument that it would take away from the competition is ridiculous. College football and basketball is already a lesser product from a talent standpoint than the NFL or NBA. We still love watching it even though it is lesser talent. If we lowered the talent level further by making sure that it was only for those wanting to go to college, it would not lessen our passion or our level of enjoyment as long as parity and good competition remained.

I agree with Zac that Tate isn't really bringing in any high level St. Louis high school talent. However, I think he is a good retention, because: 1. He does seem to have JUCO connections that have helped us with local kids that other programs have missed (Perkins & Parker) 2. I feel like he is a good connection to have for local kids who sign elsewhere and then want to transfer a year or two later 3. He will help Schertz understand and be able to better navigate the local high school basketball scene

I think it is either going to be that, or the government will step in and finally divorce college sports from the big business it has become. I understand that universities have made millions on these kids for years (men's football and basketball only). I also understand the argument that the kids should benefit from the millions being made off of them. However, there is another argument that his just as logical as this argument and it is that universities are for students who want to receive an education. That's all. If you really take a step back and see the forest for the trees, it makes about as much sense for universities to be involved in professional sports as it does our national parks or trade unions to be involved in professional sports. By that, I mean it makes no sense. People in Europe can't comprehend why our universities are so involved in sports and, they are the ones that are right, not us. When college sports started, it was literally guys who agreed to go to the same university for purely academic reasons creating club teams for their spare time. That turned into organized teams. That turned into organized conferences. That turned into TV deal and national championships. That turned into schools creating sham classes so those kids can go to school and play for the school's team. That turned into kids getting paid now to pretend they are students so that they can represent the school's team. If it were up to me, I would have Congress pass a law that essentially accomplishes the following: If you want to be a professional athlete then go pro. If you want to go to college and play sports, you have to understand that you will not benefit from that situation other than having your tuition paid for and room and board. Then, you have to go to real classes, study, and stay academically eligible. You can't go pro for four years after agreeing to go to college. That will bring the talent level down in football and basketball. It will not lower the passion that fans have for their teams one bit. I know I sound like an old guy, probably because I sort of am, but that is what I would like to see. I'm not saying to go back to what it was when I was growing up in the 80's and 90's. I'm saying take it back further than that.

Why? What is the point of the restriction. Why shouldn't a kid be able to spend as much time "educating his or herself" and play sports while doing it. Why is there a six year restriction? That's my whole point. Everytime people say, "why is that rule in place, the NCAA can't restrict that," they never consider they ultimate end game of the argument they are spewing. I, personally, think that the NCAA should be able to put a limit on a college career, should be able to prevent unlimited transferring, should be able to limit pay for play, should be able to restrict NIL, but many out there disagree, and they are winning. The fact that those ideas are winning is killing college sports, or will lead to its demise. So, I will double down. If it is unlawful to restrict a player transferring whenever they want and making as much money as they want, then why would it be permissible to restrict how long they can play or whether they can transfer mid season?

Four years or five years doesn't matter. It is still a restriction. If restricting to four years is determined to not be allowed by the courts, five won't be any different. My point is that if that challenge is coming and wins in court, the NCAA won't be able to prevent it by making a five year rule. The same thing is true of the transfer rule. If someone thinks that restricting transferring is unlawful and should be allowed in college sports, then why is that concept restricted to year by year. Why not semester by semester, month by month, week by week, or day by day. You cannot say that transferring should not be restricted, but then arbitrarily apply a one year restrictions from transferring just because that meshes with the college sports season.

Here's a question. All of the arguments that were used to say that players shouldn't be saddle with transfer restrictions and shouldn't be prevented from profiting off of NIL could be used to challenge the four year limit. Why should poor little college athletes that are constantly being raped by the big bad NCAA be restricted to a four year college career? How long before that lawsuit gets filed?

I don't disagree, but his skills would have been highlighted as much in an offense that plays through the big men.

Walsh is an elite shooter. If Schertz can get him to buy into his system, I could see him working out. A guy who can get his own shot, like Parker or, maybe Zyree, are not as necessary in Schertz’s offense. You’ll always take them, but they have to be willing to not play hero ball and play the system.

We also need to remember that we just brought in a coach that has a certain system. In my mind, Yuri would not have fit in Schertz's offense. I'm not sure than anyone who's superskill is slashing to the rim fits Schertz's system if they cannot fill it up from three. Also, Schertz seems to be valuing size.

I think the reference was to handling the press. Majerus proved that you don't need an elite ball handler to break the press. He beat it with proper positioning and passing. When Majerus's guys executed his system to break the press, the ball didn't hit the floor until it was comfortably in our possession in the other team's half court.

James Cromwell, who played Logan Roy's crazy brother, is 6'7". Could be a rim protector if he has some hops.

It's also $20,000 more than thousands of college basketball players made from 1900 through a few years ago

Also, better than Bonner?