These are free men. They must be treated as such. Especially since their labor is unpaid and used to support so many others.dimitrig said:helltopay1 said:
The transfer portal is ruining college sports..
I think it's pretty clear that an education is not on the mind of a lot of these players.
It leaves a bad taste in my mouth, to be honest.
Maybe it's time to clear the air about that.
Fyght4Cal said:These are free men. They must be treated as such. Especially since their labor is unpaid and used to support so many others.dimitrig said:helltopay1 said:
The transfer portal is ruining college sports..
I think it's pretty clear that an education is not on the mind of a lot of these players.
It leaves a bad taste in my mouth, to be honest.
Maybe it's time to clear the air about that.
Fyght4Cal said:These are free men. They must be treated as such. Especially since their labor is unpaid and used to support so many others.dimitrig said:helltopay1 said:
The transfer portal is ruining college sports..
I think it's pretty clear that an education is not on the mind of a lot of these players.
It leaves a bad taste in my mouth, to be honest.
Maybe it's time to clear the air about that.
Plus many. While Cal may be an outlier ;-) most D1 universities are run VERY much like a business. Your department not pulling its weight - get ready to get cut or eliminated.ClayK said:
As I've mentioned too often ...
Accountants can make the books sing whatever song they want ...
If athletic departments showed a profit, it would be almost impossible to keep from paying the players.
If athletic departments showed a profit, why would boosters donate millions for buyouts, etc.?
If athletic departments actually were a significant negative economically, why do universities keep them? (Free marketing, alumni engagement, increased enrollment ...)
If athletic departments actually were a significant negative economically, why do more schools move up to Division I each year? And why don't more schools move down to Division III?
FWIW the average GPA is 3.61 on the Cal women's team. That says a lot about our players and coaches and makes me proud of the program.dimitrig said:
I think it's pretty clear that an education is not on the mind of a lot of these players.
It leaves a bad taste in my mouth, to be honest.
Maybe it's time to clear the air about that.
calumnus said:
All the movement is confusing but it appears that after the transfers and incoming freshman classes, Cal will be the only team in the PAC-12 without a single player who was ranked in the top 100 in their recruiting class. (Bradley was our only one last year). This for the first time at Cal in many decades.
We battled UW for the cellar but they have four, current or former 4 star players coming in, including Langston Wilson the #1 Juco PF. Colorado, WSU and OSU all have highly rated (Top 100) talent coming in.
calumnus said:
All the movement is confusing but it appears that after the transfers and incoming freshman classes, Cal will be the only team in the PAC-12 without a single player who was ranked in the top 100 in their recruiting class. (Bradley was our only one last year). This for the first time at Cal in many decades.
We battled UW for the cellar but they have four, current or former 4 star players coming in, including Langston Wilson the #1 Juco PF. Colorado, WSU and OSU all have highly rated (Top 100) talent coming in.
HoopDreams said:calumnus said:
All the movement is confusing but it appears that after the transfers and incoming freshman classes, Cal will be the only team in the PAC-12 without a single player who was ranked in the top 100 in their recruiting class. (Bradley was our only one last year). This for the first time at Cal in many decades.
We battled UW for the cellar but they have four, current or former 4 star players coming in, including Langston Wilson the #1 Juco PF. Colorado, WSU and OSU all have highly rated (Top 100) talent coming in.
the only other team that did poorly in the offseason transfer/recruiting game was Utah
we have to count on player improvement and coaching to somehow get to improve our conference standings and W/L record
one thing that might help is fans at Haas. this year we lost some close ones at home. maybe with fans in the stands, it will make a difference between some of those close losses
we did poorly on the road anyway, so having opponents in the stands might not have the same impact on our W/L record
HoopDreams said:calumnus said:
All the movement is confusing but it appears that after the transfers and incoming freshman classes, Cal will be the only team in the PAC-12 without a single player who was ranked in the top 100 in their recruiting class. (Bradley was our only one last year). This for the first time at Cal in many decades.
We battled UW for the cellar but they have four, current or former 4 star players coming in, including Langston Wilson the #1 Juco PF. Colorado, WSU and OSU all have highly rated (Top 100) talent coming in.
the only other team that did poorly in the offseason transfer/recruiting game was Utah
we have to count on player improvement and coaching to somehow get to improve our conference standings and W/L record
one thing that might help is fans at Haas. this year we lost some close ones at home. maybe with fans in the stands, it will make a difference between some of those close losses
we did poorly on the road anyway, so having opponents in the stands might not have the same impact on our W/L record
Yes, we'll do it with exceptional coaching, growth and achievement, and that is the high line to success.fat_slice said:We are making history guys!calumnus said:
All the movement is confusing but it appears that after the transfers and incoming freshman classes, Cal will be the only team in the PAC-12 without a single player who was ranked in the top 100 in their recruiting class. (Bradley was our only one last year). This for the first time at Cal in many decades.
We battled UW for the cellar but they have four, current or former 4 star players coming in, including Langston Wilson the #1 Juco PF. Colorado, WSU and OSU all have highly rated (Top 100) talent coming in.
joe amos yaks said:Yes, we'll do it with exceptional coaching, growth and achievement, and that is the high line to success.fat_slice said:We are making history guys!calumnus said:
All the movement is confusing but it appears that after the transfers and incoming freshman classes, Cal will be the only team in the PAC-12 without a single player who was ranked in the top 100 in their recruiting class. (Bradley was our only one last year). This for the first time at Cal in many decades.
We battled UW for the cellar but they have four, current or former 4 star players coming in, including Langston Wilson the #1 Juco PF. Colorado, WSU and OSU all have highly rated (Top 100) talent coming in.
Sly like a Fox. Go Bears!calumnus said:joe amos yaks said:Yes, we'll do it with exceptional coaching, growth and achievement, and that is the high line to success.fat_slice said:We are making history guys!calumnus said:
All the movement is confusing but it appears that after the transfers and incoming freshman classes, Cal will be the only team in the PAC-12 without a single player who was ranked in the top 100 in their recruiting class. (Bradley was our only one last year). This for the first time at Cal in many decades.
We battled UW for the cellar but they have four, current or former 4 star players coming in, including Langston Wilson the #1 Juco PF. Colorado, WSU and OSU all have highly rated (Top 100) talent coming in.
Good one!
HoopDreams said:
oregon feeds off of high quality transfers
the new 100% free agency all the time plays right into their hands
another example of the rich get richer and how the change of rules favor the powerhouse teams
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/31478732/oregon-ducks-men-basketball-lands-all-acc-forward-quincy-guerrier-via-transfer
socaliganbear said:HoopDreams said:
oregon feeds off of high quality transfers
the new 100% free agency all the time plays right into their hands
another example of the rich get richer and how the change of rules favor the powerhouse teams
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/31478732/oregon-ducks-men-basketball-lands-all-acc-forward-quincy-guerrier-via-transfer
We also rely on transfers. Every year for the past few years. Our just aren't as good as theirs.
Well said.ClayK said:
Players will also transfer down the food chain as they realize they won't play at their first school.
And competitive balance has never existed, in any sport as far as I can tell. The rich and smart who care about success will find a way to succeed; those who lack resources (which would include Cal) will always struggle, especially if their decision-making is shaky.
The free agency era, and endorsement money, will change the landscape dramatically, but at the same time we will still have a few programs adapting and succeeding, while most others will flail about as they always have, no matter what system is in place.
I almost never agree with statements that we have crime now, so more crime won't matterClayK said:
Players will also transfer down the food chain as they realize they won't play at their first school.
And competitive balance has never existed, in any sport as far as I can tell. The rich and smart who care about success will find a way to succeed; those who lack resources (which would include Cal) will always struggle, especially if their decision-making is shaky.
The free agency era, and endorsement money, will change the landscape dramatically, but at the same time we will still have a few programs adapting and succeeding, while most others will flail about as they always have, no matter what system is in place.
Actually, the opposite has more truth to it. Much scientific research questioning or disproving the work of favored scientists is censored, as is any research or evidence of inaccuracy affecting the media's desired outcome of elections. And the richest of the rich white guys, the ones who control all of social media, are doing much of the censoring, or taking away freedom, especially that of free speech. What are these rich people so afraid of?AunBear89 said:Freedom is only for science deniers, GQP voters, and rich white guys.ClayK said:But it's giving students the same freedom as coaches, administrators, professors, drama majors and math majors.helltopay1 said:
The transfer portal is ruining college sports..
SFCityBear said:Actually, the opposite has more truth to it. Much scientific research questioning or disproving the work of favored scientists is censored, as is any research or evidence of inaccuracy affecting the media's desired outcome of elections. And the richest of the rich white guys, the ones who control all of social media, are doing much of the censoring, or taking away freedom, especially that of free speech. What are these rich people so afraid of?AunBear89 said:Freedom is only for science deniers, GQP voters, and rich white guys.ClayK said:But it's giving students the same freedom as coaches, administrators, professors, drama majors and math majors.helltopay1 said:
The transfer portal is ruining college sports..
ClayK said:
Players will also transfer down the food chain as they realize they won't play at their first school.
And competitive balance has never existed, in any sport as far as I can tell. The rich and smart who care about success will find a way to succeed; those who lack resources (which would include Cal) will always struggle, especially if their decision-making is shaky.
The free agency era, and endorsement money, will change the landscape dramatically, but at the same time we will still have a few programs adapting and succeeding, while most others will flail about as they always have, no matter what system is in place.
I posed the question before, what will college basketball due to maintain some level of competitive balance with 100% free agency all the time?calumnus said:ClayK said:
Players will also transfer down the food chain as they realize they won't play at their first school.
And competitive balance has never existed, in any sport as far as I can tell. The rich and smart who care about success will find a way to succeed; those who lack resources (which would include Cal) will always struggle, especially if their decision-making is shaky.
The free agency era, and endorsement money, will change the landscape dramatically, but at the same time we will still have a few programs adapting and succeeding, while most others will flail about as they always have, no matter what system is in place.
We saw the same thing in professional sports. For the most part, free agency broke up the old dynasties and has lead to a more competitive landscape. This is most true where there is free agency with revenue sharing and/or salary caps. That might be something to look at at the PAC-12 and/or NCAA level.
HoopDreams said:I posed the question before, what will college basketball due to maintain some level of competitive balance with 100% free agency all the time?calumnus said:ClayK said:
Players will also transfer down the food chain as they realize they won't play at their first school.
And competitive balance has never existed, in any sport as far as I can tell. The rich and smart who care about success will find a way to succeed; those who lack resources (which would include Cal) will always struggle, especially if their decision-making is shaky.
The free agency era, and endorsement money, will change the landscape dramatically, but at the same time we will still have a few programs adapting and succeeding, while most others will flail about as they always have, no matter what system is in place.
We saw the same thing in professional sports. For the most part, free agency broke up the old dynasties and has lead to a more competitive landscape. This is most true where there is free agency with revenue sharing and/or salary caps. That might be something to look at at the PAC-12 and/or NCAA level.
the NBA has free agency, but it's not all the time, and the NBA has some rules to maintain some level of competitive balance (e.g. salary caps and the lottery draft)
the NBA understands that competitive balance helps the sports, otherwise the smaller market teams will be at such a disadvantage that they would get less and less competitive, and either fans for those teams would lose interest as the deck is so stacked against them that it becomes pointless
So since college basketball has no salary cap, has not advantage to weaker teams in the 'draft', and free agency is all the time (not just at the end of contracts), what will they do?
I didn't hear any good solutions/answers when I asked before, and honestly can't think of any that doesn't break some thing else
I agree with the new transfer rules and NIL rules, but also think college basketball needs to figure out how not to destroy itself with all these changes. I'm not the only one wondering about this. ESPN radio has run a number of shows discussing this, and they say that coaches don't know either. They also mention an Athletic article this week (I don't subscribe, but maybe someone here who does can paraphrase)
I agree with your post that things will sort themselves out better with more info about players, and for coaches who do a poor job of managing their playerscalumnus said:HoopDreams said:I posed the question before, what will college basketball due to maintain some level of competitive balance with 100% free agency all the time?calumnus said:ClayK said:
Players will also transfer down the food chain as they realize they won't play at their first school.
And competitive balance has never existed, in any sport as far as I can tell. The rich and smart who care about success will find a way to succeed; those who lack resources (which would include Cal) will always struggle, especially if their decision-making is shaky.
The free agency era, and endorsement money, will change the landscape dramatically, but at the same time we will still have a few programs adapting and succeeding, while most others will flail about as they always have, no matter what system is in place.
We saw the same thing in professional sports. For the most part, free agency broke up the old dynasties and has lead to a more competitive landscape. This is most true where there is free agency with revenue sharing and/or salary caps. That might be something to look at at the PAC-12 and/or NCAA level.
the NBA has free agency, but it's not all the time, and the NBA has some rules to maintain some level of competitive balance (e.g. salary caps and the lottery draft)
the NBA understands that competitive balance helps the sports, otherwise the smaller market teams will be at such a disadvantage that they would get less and less competitive, and either fans for those teams would lose interest as the deck is so stacked against them that it becomes pointless
So since college basketball has no salary cap, has not advantage to weaker teams in the 'draft', and free agency is all the time (not just at the end of contracts), what will they do?
I didn't hear any good solutions/answers when I asked before, and honestly can't think of any that doesn't break some thing else
I agree with the new transfer rules and NIL rules, but also think college basketball needs to figure out how not to destroy itself with all these changes. I'm not the only one wondering about this. ESPN radio has run a number of shows discussing this, and they say that coaches don't know either. They also mention an Athletic article this week (I don't subscribe, but maybe someone here who does can paraphrase)
One way to think about this is it is like the prior NLI 4 year commitment but with more information and more freedom. Somewhat a continuation of what the internet recruiting services brought about.
Players who go to a big program dreaming of being stars but who wind up on the bench can go to the program they should have gone to start with.
Players who sign up with a smooth talking coach who claims to be their best friend but then turns out to be a sociopathic disciplinarian can leave.
Players who were overlooked in the recruiting process and ended up at smaller schools in lower divisions can still fullfill their dreams playing on the big stage and having a shot at the pros.
Basically, there will be more chances for things to sort themselves out. Players will have a better chance of winding up where they would have gone if there were perfect information on all sides.
Several types of coaches will be disadvantaged: 1) coaches that do a great job of scouting and finding overlooked gems (and developing them), 2) liars and 3) hard ass coaches that are not fun to play for.
Coaches that succeed will be ones that can create learning and winning in a fun environment and who earn the loyalty of the players. Those are the programs players will want to transfer to and/or stay and graduate from.
The strong programs will have great starters every year, but will not be able to stockpile talent. The best players will be more evenly distributed among teams that have a shot at the Tournament. More parity among the Top 50. However, the teams outside of the the Top 100 will get weaker, as their best players leave for teams that are contenders, which we are seeing at Cal.
HoopDreams said:I agree with your post that things will sort themselves out better with more info about players, and for coaches who do a poor job of managing their playerscalumnus said:HoopDreams said:I posed the question before, what will college basketball due to maintain some level of competitive balance with 100% free agency all the time?calumnus said:ClayK said:
Players will also transfer down the food chain as they realize they won't play at their first school.
And competitive balance has never existed, in any sport as far as I can tell. The rich and smart who care about success will find a way to succeed; those who lack resources (which would include Cal) will always struggle, especially if their decision-making is shaky.
The free agency era, and endorsement money, will change the landscape dramatically, but at the same time we will still have a few programs adapting and succeeding, while most others will flail about as they always have, no matter what system is in place.
We saw the same thing in professional sports. For the most part, free agency broke up the old dynasties and has lead to a more competitive landscape. This is most true where there is free agency with revenue sharing and/or salary caps. That might be something to look at at the PAC-12 and/or NCAA level.
the NBA has free agency, but it's not all the time, and the NBA has some rules to maintain some level of competitive balance (e.g. salary caps and the lottery draft)
the NBA understands that competitive balance helps the sports, otherwise the smaller market teams will be at such a disadvantage that they would get less and less competitive, and either fans for those teams would lose interest as the deck is so stacked against them that it becomes pointless
So since college basketball has no salary cap, has not advantage to weaker teams in the 'draft', and free agency is all the time (not just at the end of contracts), what will they do?
I didn't hear any good solutions/answers when I asked before, and honestly can't think of any that doesn't break some thing else
I agree with the new transfer rules and NIL rules, but also think college basketball needs to figure out how not to destroy itself with all these changes. I'm not the only one wondering about this. ESPN radio has run a number of shows discussing this, and they say that coaches don't know either. They also mention an Athletic article this week (I don't subscribe, but maybe someone here who does can paraphrase)
One way to think about this is it is like the prior NLI 4 year commitment but with more information and more freedom. Somewhat a continuation of what the internet recruiting services brought about.
Players who go to a big program dreaming of being stars but who wind up on the bench can go to the program they should have gone to start with.
Players who sign up with a smooth talking coach who claims to be their best friend but then turns out to be a sociopathic disciplinarian can leave.
Players who were overlooked in the recruiting process and ended up at smaller schools in lower divisions can still fullfill their dreams playing on the big stage and having a shot at the pros.
Basically, there will be more chances for things to sort themselves out. Players will have a better chance of winding up where they would have gone if there were perfect information on all sides.
Several types of coaches will be disadvantaged: 1) coaches that do a great job of scouting and finding overlooked gems (and developing them), 2) liars and 3) hard ass coaches that are not fun to play for.
Coaches that succeed will be ones that can create learning and winning in a fun environment and who earn the loyalty of the players. Those are the programs players will want to transfer to and/or stay and graduate from.
The strong programs will have great starters every year, but will not be able to stockpile talent. The best players will be more evenly distributed among teams that have a shot at the Tournament. More parity among the Top 50. However, the teams outside of the the Top 100 will get weaker, as their best players leave for teams that are contenders, which we are seeing at Cal.
But I disagree that the best players will be more evenly distributed among the top 50 teams
Probably more like top 20 teams with the top 5-10 becoming super teams
The top teams in the small conferences can still be successful because they only compete with their conference opponents and get an automatic bid to the ncaa. They can be the big fish in a small pond
But when you are in the P6 big pond, it's going to be tougher to beat the top 2-3 teams since they can instantly reload a top talent in a position of need
Before there were at least some holes or weaknesses in some of the top teams that teams like cal can exploit on occasion, especially because we often had one or two under the radar players like Crabbe, Anderson or Bradley
Will those players stay with cal as long as they did in the past?
I think some would for example Jorge and Randle, but not as many as before
Basically, without any new rules to check competitive balance, I just see another disadvantage for cal
We better recognize this and come up with an innovative strategy (I suggested a couple already)
I guess the flip side is that CFB proves that "competitive balance" may be overrated - I believe I saw that 78% of playoff bearths since the advent of the playofffs have gone to 4 teams. That isn't balance and yet football ratings have been, I believe, fine.HoopDreams said:I posed the question before, what will college basketball due to maintain some level of competitive balance with 100% free agency all the time?calumnus said:ClayK said:
Players will also transfer down the food chain as they realize they won't play at their first school.
And competitive balance has never existed, in any sport as far as I can tell. The rich and smart who care about success will find a way to succeed; those who lack resources (which would include Cal) will always struggle, especially if their decision-making is shaky.
The free agency era, and endorsement money, will change the landscape dramatically, but at the same time we will still have a few programs adapting and succeeding, while most others will flail about as they always have, no matter what system is in place.
We saw the same thing in professional sports. For the most part, free agency broke up the old dynasties and has lead to a more competitive landscape. This is most true where there is free agency with revenue sharing and/or salary caps. That might be something to look at at the PAC-12 and/or NCAA level.
the NBA has free agency, but it's not all the time, and the NBA has some rules to maintain some level of competitive balance (e.g. salary caps and the lottery draft)
the NBA understands that competitive balance helps the sports, otherwise the smaller market teams will be at such a disadvantage that they would get less and less competitive, and either fans for those teams would lose interest as the deck is so stacked against them that it becomes pointless
So since college basketball has no salary cap, has not advantage to weaker teams in the 'draft', and free agency is all the time (not just at the end of contracts), what will they do?
I didn't hear any good solutions/answers when I asked before, and honestly can't think of any that doesn't break some thing else
I agree with the new transfer rules and NIL rules, but also think college basketball needs to figure out how not to destroy itself with all these changes. I'm not the only one wondering about this. ESPN radio has run a number of shows discussing this, and they say that coaches don't know either. They also mention an Athletic article this week (I don't subscribe, but maybe someone here who does can paraphrase)
Has anyone ever seen a decently sourced data dive (or an undergrad want to take a shot? Would be a good paper/project in a lot of social science classes) on the number of P5 Baskeball players (you could dip into some mid major conference powerhouses like Zaga and SDSU and include conferences like the Big East) to see the percentage of BB players that make SOME money professionally? We would want to know those that are in the NBA, those that are in the D League (which isn't great money but dangles out hope) and those playing overseas and likely earning what they would make if they graduated with their Bachelors and entered the job market as a junior X.ClayK said:
The lack of salary cap is an issue, no question -- but there's never been one before. And boosters have always managed to get money to elite players as well.
For me, the biggest shift is the acknowledgement that D-1 teams are essentially professional, and have little to do with the student body at large or the college community. They have always been hired guns, and now no one can pretend otherwise.
Here is a list of the top 101 transfers....I didn't look real close but it sure looks like you may be right HD....https://watchstadium.com/college-basketballs-top-101-transfers-for-2021-05-19-2021/HoopDreams said:I agree with your post that things will sort themselves out better with more info about players, and for coaches who do a poor job of managing their playerscalumnus said:HoopDreams said:I posed the question before, what will college basketball due to maintain some level of competitive balance with 100% free agency all the time?calumnus said:ClayK said:
Players will also transfer down the food chain as they realize they won't play at their first school.
And competitive balance has never existed, in any sport as far as I can tell. The rich and smart who care about success will find a way to succeed; those who lack resources (which would include Cal) will always struggle, especially if their decision-making is shaky.
The free agency era, and endorsement money, will change the landscape dramatically, but at the same time we will still have a few programs adapting and succeeding, while most others will flail about as they always have, no matter what system is in place.
We saw the same thing in professional sports. For the most part, free agency broke up the old dynasties and has lead to a more competitive landscape. This is most true where there is free agency with revenue sharing and/or salary caps. That might be something to look at at the PAC-12 and/or NCAA level.
the NBA has free agency, but it's not all the time, and the NBA has some rules to maintain some level of competitive balance (e.g. salary caps and the lottery draft)
the NBA understands that competitive balance helps the sports, otherwise the smaller market teams will be at such a disadvantage that they would get less and less competitive, and either fans for those teams would lose interest as the deck is so stacked against them that it becomes pointless
So since college basketball has no salary cap, has not advantage to weaker teams in the 'draft', and free agency is all the time (not just at the end of contracts), what will they do?
I didn't hear any good solutions/answers when I asked before, and honestly can't think of any that doesn't break some thing else
I agree with the new transfer rules and NIL rules, but also think college basketball needs to figure out how not to destroy itself with all these changes. I'm not the only one wondering about this. ESPN radio has run a number of shows discussing this, and they say that coaches don't know either. They also mention an Athletic article this week (I don't subscribe, but maybe someone here who does can paraphrase)
One way to think about this is it is like the prior NLI 4 year commitment but with more information and more freedom. Somewhat a continuation of what the internet recruiting services brought about.
Players who go to a big program dreaming of being stars but who wind up on the bench can go to the program they should have gone to start with.
Players who sign up with a smooth talking coach who claims to be their best friend but then turns out to be a sociopathic disciplinarian can leave.
Players who were overlooked in the recruiting process and ended up at smaller schools in lower divisions can still fullfill their dreams playing on the big stage and having a shot at the pros.
Basically, there will be more chances for things to sort themselves out. Players will have a better chance of winding up where they would have gone if there were perfect information on all sides.
Several types of coaches will be disadvantaged: 1) coaches that do a great job of scouting and finding overlooked gems (and developing them), 2) liars and 3) hard ass coaches that are not fun to play for.
Coaches that succeed will be ones that can create learning and winning in a fun environment and who earn the loyalty of the players. Those are the programs players will want to transfer to and/or stay and graduate from.
The strong programs will have great starters every year, but will not be able to stockpile talent. The best players will be more evenly distributed among teams that have a shot at the Tournament. More parity among the Top 50. However, the teams outside of the the Top 100 will get weaker, as their best players leave for teams that are contenders, which we are seeing at Cal.
But I disagree that the best players will be more evenly distributed among the top 50 teams
Probably more like top 20 teams with the top 5-10 becoming super teams
The top teams in the small conferences can still be successful because they only compete with their conference opponents and get an automatic bid to the ncaa. They can be the big fish in a small pond
But when you are in the P6 big pond, it's going to be tougher to beat the top 2-3 teams since they can instantly reload a top talent in a position of need
Before there were at least some holes or weaknesses in some of the top teams that teams like cal can exploit on occasion, especially because we often had one or two under the radar players like Crabbe, Anderson or Bradley
Will those players stay with cal as long as they did in the past?
I think some would for example Jorge and Randle, but not as many as before
Basically, without any new rules to check competitive balance, I just see another disadvantage for cal
We better recognize this and come up with an innovative strategy (I suggested a couple already)
yes, there is currently poor competitive balance in football, and that makes me less and less interested in college football every year ... I never watch any of the 3 play off games and think the chances of Cal making it into the 4 team playoff is almost zerosocaltownie said:I guess the flip side is that CFB proves that "competitive balance" may be overrated - I believe I saw that 78% of playoff bearths since the advent of the playofffs have gone to 4 teams. That isn't balance and yet football ratings have been, I believe, fine.HoopDreams said:I posed the question before, what will college basketball due to maintain some level of competitive balance with 100% free agency all the time?calumnus said:ClayK said:
Players will also transfer down the food chain as they realize they won't play at their first school.
And competitive balance has never existed, in any sport as far as I can tell. The rich and smart who care about success will find a way to succeed; those who lack resources (which would include Cal) will always struggle, especially if their decision-making is shaky.
The free agency era, and endorsement money, will change the landscape dramatically, but at the same time we will still have a few programs adapting and succeeding, while most others will flail about as they always have, no matter what system is in place.
We saw the same thing in professional sports. For the most part, free agency broke up the old dynasties and has lead to a more competitive landscape. This is most true where there is free agency with revenue sharing and/or salary caps. That might be something to look at at the PAC-12 and/or NCAA level.
the NBA has free agency, but it's not all the time, and the NBA has some rules to maintain some level of competitive balance (e.g. salary caps and the lottery draft)
the NBA understands that competitive balance helps the sports, otherwise the smaller market teams will be at such a disadvantage that they would get less and less competitive, and either fans for those teams would lose interest as the deck is so stacked against them that it becomes pointless
So since college basketball has no salary cap, has not advantage to weaker teams in the 'draft', and free agency is all the time (not just at the end of contracts), what will they do?
I didn't hear any good solutions/answers when I asked before, and honestly can't think of any that doesn't break some thing else
I agree with the new transfer rules and NIL rules, but also think college basketball needs to figure out how not to destroy itself with all these changes. I'm not the only one wondering about this. ESPN radio has run a number of shows discussing this, and they say that coaches don't know either. They also mention an Athletic article this week (I don't subscribe, but maybe someone here who does can paraphrase)
