calumnus said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Addicted-to-TopDog said:

---

I always figured this was going to happen. The man is a mercenary. Look how we got him in the first place. My only surprise is that it took this long. All of that butt-kissing Madsen did all season amounted to nothing.

---

There's another truism that has to be heeded given the portal, and I think it applies in basketball even more strongly than in other sports: Good players want to play with other good players.

If you have a player on your team who is good enough to be wanted by other teams, you better fortify your roster with other good players. If he looks around and doesn't see teammates who are on his level, he's probably going to go someplace where he does.

---

But don't recruit players who play the same position as your current guy because that will take away PT and your guy might go into the portal because after all, his objective is to be the featured player, not to win games or actually compete for playing time.

---

Yeah, I was wondering where all the playing time for all these guards was going to come from.

In losing Andrej, we lose one of our better players, a guy with great upside potential, but last year he was just a slightly above average college player according to the advanced metrics. Exactly as valuable as Petrais. His 318 from three was not good for a shooting guard. His defense was average. Of course, our other guards were worse.

So if one of our many guards can step up and be an above average player, not just in potential, but in actual play, then we will not miss Andrej much at all. I'm really hoping it is Ruff. Moreover, It will be tough to replace Sissoko, but it is a low bar to ask for better production from the 1,3 and 4 spots. I definitely think we could see a better team this upcoming season, but right now, you have to squint real hard to see significant improvement from a team that went 14-19, 6-14 in ACC play. I'm not sure .500 play and a losing record in conference moves the needle.

We will see who Madsen gets with the open (?) scholarship. Hopefully a whale.

---

Based on all the chaos that has occurred in the last two weeks, two top portal incomers have to be another 4/5 guy, and a wing SF type with scoring ability. After AS, Omot, and JOJ all left suddenly a wing heavy team became basically wingless.

SFCityBear said:

---

pingpong2 said:

---

Portal giveth, portal taketh.

I've said on day 1 that the portal sucks. I still maintain that the portal sucks. Even when we're the "beneficiaries" of the portal, F the portal.

---

You wuz right. And dat's a fact.

I can't even count the hours and days of our lives we have wasted speculating over what players we might get or should get, each portal season (not even counting the hours speculating on who might leave). And for what? We never had a prayer of getting or keeping most of them anyway, did we? And we are not alone. A few coaches have quit or retired early due to this and NIL. It is our loss.

The only way fans are going to get out of this portal exercise is to stop going to games (en masse), and when the departments and schools start losing revenue, and donors stop funding this debacle. We need to get back to common sense. And the people who came up with the Portal idea need to show some respect for the game they are helping to wreck.

---

It was the US Supreme Court that ruled major college sports are a business and that the NCAA (or anyone else other than Congress) cannot restrict the rights of players to receive compensation or to restrict their movement to get better "work" conditions and/or compensation.

If anything, the Portal brings some order to the chaos. It is a central marketplace with opening and closing dates. Players and schools use it voluntarily.

What is needed is for Congress to give the NCAA antitrust immunity.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Based on all the chaos that has occurred in the last two weeks, two top portal incomers have to be another 4/5 guy, and a wing SF type with scoring ability. After AS, Omot, and JOJ all left suddenly a wing heavy team became basically wingless.

---

Can't fly without wings.

calumnus said:

---

What is needed is for Congress to give the NCAA antitrust immunity.

---

With some restrictions, so the athletes get something.

stu said:

---

calumnus said:

---

What is needed is for Congress to give the NCAA antitrust immunity.

---

With some restrictions, so the athletes get something.

---

Something worthwhile. Not some edumication, or other such worthless garbage!

SFCityBear said:

---

pingpong2 said:

---

Portal giveth, portal taketh.

I've said on day 1 that the portal sucks. I still maintain that the portal sucks. Even when we're the "beneficiaries" of the portal, F the portal.

---

You wuz right. And dat's a fact.

I can't even count the hours and days of our lives we have wasted speculating over what players we might get or should get, each portal season (not even counting the hours speculating on who might leave). And for what? We never had a prayer of getting or keeping most of them anyway, did we? And we are not alone. A few coaches have quit or retired early due to this and NIL. It is our loss.

The only way fans are going to get out of this portal exercise is to stop going to games (en masse), and when the departments and schools start losing revenue, and donors stop funding this debacle. We need to get back to common sense. And the people who came up with the Portal idea need to show some respect for the game they are helping to wreck.

---

Unfortunately, you will never get fans from the better SEC or Big 10 (or many ACC/ Big 12 schools like FSU) schools to go along with this for two reasons:

• Their teams benefit from the current chaos
• Their football-is-king culture is so ingrained that they can't imagine boycotting a game.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

stu said:

---

calumnus said:

---

What is needed is for Congress to give the NCAA antitrust immunity.

---

With some restrictions, so the athletes get something.

---

Something worthwhile. Not some edumication, or other such worthless garbage!

---

I don't think it's right for the athletic departments to keep so much of the revenue they play such a small part in generating. I'd favor giving a fraction to the athletes but allocating it in some manner more even than bidding for services.

I'd also like to see incentives for staying at one school, maybe a bonus at graduation.

Another thing I'd like to see changed is the time limit. I'd be fine with any number of years to play four years. Stuff happens to regular students as well as athletes, some just can't finish in five years.

stu said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

stu said:

---

calumnus said:

---

---

---

---

I'd also like to see incentives for staying at one school, maybe a bonus at graduation.

---

There should be an incentive for staying through the last game of the team's season, including playoffs, tournaments, bowls, or whatever. Schools and collectives can already negotiate that if they want; they could structure the payments so that the last one is made immediately after the last game.

calumnus said:

---

What is needed is for Congress to give the NCAA antitrust immunity.

---

Right, because what Congress is best known for is its tradition of practical bipartisanship on complex issues. And after all, the President is really focused on the Great Portal Dilemma based on all the public statements he's made about it.
This is about as practical as the previously mentioned en masse fan walkout. There are good minds on this Forum, we can do better than sci fi solutions.
F the portal.

barsad said:

---

calumnus said:

---

What is needed is for Congress to give the NCAA antitrust immunity.

---

Right, because what Congress is best known for is its tradition of practical bipartisanship on complex issues. And after all, the President is really focused on the Great Portal Dilemma based on all the public statements he's made about it.
This is about as practical as the previously mentioned en masse fan walkout. There are good minds on this Forum, we can do better than sci fi solutions.
F the portal.

---

I was only trying to pull some chains, get the discussion started.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

There should be multi year agreements. It might actually calm things down a bit.

---

Doesn't the athlete have to sign something contractual when they get NIL money...Leave early and level them.

Thanks for explaining those legal elements dictating how we got here and why the portal rules won't be changing for a while. Definitely gives me a better understanding of the current state of things.

calumnus said:

---

2. The players would need to form a union and all join it to collectively bargain with the NCAA and negotiate away their freedom of movement.

I think either scenario is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

---

I don't know why you keep saying this is an impossible tradeoff. Yes, they lose SOME freedom (not all). Yes, they GAIN widespread minimum NIL contract levels for every Div 1 players (probably tiered by quality of conference). benefiting thousands of players instead of just a handful of 18-year-old millionaires.
I agree that both these scenarios are long shots, but if I were forced to make a wager I would bet the house on a union, 10 times better odds than Congress.

I don't understand how colleges can have a rule that they can't go pro until after their junior year (or reach 22)

I know the WNBA wants this too, but how can these two organizations make this condition?

HoopDreams said:

---

I don't understand how colleges can have a rule that they can't go pro until after their junior year (or reach 22)

I know the WNBA wants this too, but how can these two organizations make this condition?

---

It's the pro leagues that have the minimum age rules. NBA is 19. The NFL is 3 years out of high school.

barsad said:

---

calumnus said:

---

2. The players would need to form a union and all join it to collectively bargain with the NCAA and negotiate away their freedom of movement.

I think either scenario is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

---

I don't know why you keep saying this is an impossible tradeoff. Yes, they lose SOME freedom (not all). Yes, they GAIN widespread minimum NIL contract levels for every Div 1 players (probably tiered by quality of conference). benefiting thousands of players instead of just a handful of 18-year-old millionaires.
I agree that both these scenarios are long shots, but if I were forced to make a wager I would bet the house on a union, 10 times better odds than Congress.

---

How many SEC universities, just to pick one example, would agree to collectively bargain with a college athletes' union? They would overwhelmingly prefer chaotic free agency to having their athletes unionized.

barsad said:

---

calumnus said:

---

2. The players would need to form a union and all join it to collectively bargain with the NCAA and negotiate away their freedom of movement.

I think either scenario is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

---

I don't know why you keep saying this is an impossible tradeoff. Yes, they lose SOME freedom (not all). Yes, they GAIN widespread minimum NIL contract levels for every Div 1 players (probably tiered by quality of conference). benefiting thousands of players instead of just a handful of 18-year-old millionaires.
I agree that both these scenarios are long shots, but if I were forced to make a wager I would bet the house on a union, 10 times better odds than Congress.

---

Yes, for the vast majority of players, who play at lower levels, a union could make sense. The question is, why would the "handful" ie the top 100-500 players, join the union if it would limit their own freedom and income? I think most of the top players would not join. and would retain their freedom of movement and ability to earn whatever boosters want to give them. Moreover, boosters would not all sign onto an agreement either.

A school like Kentucky, which is in a "right to work" state, could easily have a team of all non-union players.

Which hits on another problem you mentioned: the vast differential in income between conferences and programs. The top conferences don't want to share their revenues with other conferences and the players in those conferences probably don't want the money from their program or conference going to other conferences either.

So maybe each conference has its own union and a separate collective bargaining agreement? Each conference would have its own rules, minimum salaries, salary caps, etc. all negotiated with its individual union. This is essentially how it works in the NBA, NFL and MLB. But every conference having separate agreements with its own union would not be much different than the current situation. There would be more equality within conferences, but the disparity between conferences would remain. Players at Cal who are in the ACC union could still leave each season for more money in the SEC, B1G or B12. Nothing would really change in that regard.

Any attempt by the conferences to form uniform rules across all of college basketball would be an "antitrust conspiracy" subject to criminal and civil penalties.

I just don't see a clear path to a uniform system through unionization and colective bargaining. There are too many disparate actors with conflicting motives on both sides. However, if you see a way it could work, I'm all ears.

Ok, how can they make that rule? Seems arbitrary and those leagues probably decide these rules based on collective bargaining

How can they justify it?

Civil Bear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I don't understand how colleges can have a rule that they can't go pro until after their junior year (or reach 22)

I know the WNBA wants this too, but how can these two organizations make this condition?

---

It's the pro leagues that have the minimum age rules. NBA is 19. The NFL is 3 years out of high school.

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Ok, how can they make that rule? Seems arbitrary and those leagues probably decide these rules based on collective bargaining

How can they justify it?

Civil Bear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I don't understand how colleges can have a rule that they can't go pro until after their junior year (or reach 22)

I know the WNBA wants this too, but how can these two organizations make this condition?

---

It's the pro leagues that have the minimum age rules. NBA is 19. The NFL is 3 years out of high school.

---

---

Yes, I would assume it is through collective bargaining. The Owners of the pro leagues would rather not have to pay big salaries for unproven talent, and the pro players are fine with it because they are already getting paid and can use it as a bargaining chip. College has been a farm system for the NBA and NFL, and is even more so today with NIL.

Civil Bear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Ok, how can they make that rule? Seems arbitrary and those leagues probably decide these rules based on collective bargaining

How can they justify it?

Civil Bear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I don't understand how colleges can have a rule that they can't go pro until after their junior year (or reach 22)

I know the WNBA wants this too, but how can these two organizations make this condition?

---

It's the pro leagues that have the minimum age rules. NBA is 19. The NFL is 3 years out of high school.

---

---

Yes, I would assume it is through collective bargaining. The Owners of the pro leagues would rather not have to pay big salaries for unproven talent, and the pro players are fine with it because they are already getting paid and can use it as a bargaining chip. College has been a farm system for the NBA and NFL, and is even more so today with NIL.

---

The NBA's current age-19 rule is a compromise between HS players being draft eligible and requiring American players to play more college basketball. It replaced the former rule that permitted players to enter the draft out of high school, after several HS players who were drafted highly turned out to be busts.

There have been a few American players who chose to play pro ball overseas instead of playing a year of college ball, but it seems elite players now prefer to cash in on NIL for a year while waiting to be NBA draft eligible. The top of the NIL scale for one-and-done players is reportedly around $5 million.

calumnus said:

---

barsad said:

---

calumnus said:

---

2. The players would need to form a union and all join it to collectively bargain with the NCAA and negotiate away their freedom of movement.

I think either scenario is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

---

I don't know why you keep saying this is an impossible tradeoff. Yes, they lose SOME freedom (not all). Yes, they GAIN widespread minimum NIL contract levels for every Div 1 players (probably tiered by quality of conference). benefiting thousands of players instead of just a handful of 18-year-old millionaires.
I agree that both these scenarios are long shots, but if I were forced to make a wager I would bet the house on a union, 10 times better odds than Congress.

---

Yes, for the vast majority of players, who play at lower levels, a union could make sense. The question is, why would the "handful" ie the top 100-500 players, join the union if it would limit their own freedom and income? I think most of the top players would not join. and would retain their freedom of movement and ability to earn whatever boosters want to give them. Moreover, boosters would not all sign onto an agreement either.

A school like Kentucky, which is in a "right to work" state, could easily have a team of all non-union players.

Which hits on another problem you mentioned: the vast differential in income between conferences and programs. The top conferences don't want to share their revenues with other conferences and the players in those conferences probably don't want the money from their program or conference going to other conferences either.

So maybe each conference has its own union and a separate collective bargaining agreement? Each conference would have its own rules, minimum salaries, salary caps, etc. all negotiated with its individual union. This is essentially how it works in the NBA, NFL and MLB. But every conference having separate agreements with its own union would not be much different than the current situation. There would be more equality within conferences, but the disparity between conferences would remain. Players at Cal who are in the ACC union could still leave each season for more money in the SEC, B1G or B12. Nothing would really change in that regard.

Any attempt by the conferences to form uniform rules across all of college basketball would be an "antitrust conspiracy" subject to criminal and civil penalties.

I just don't see a clear path to a uniform system through unionization and colective bargaining. There are too many disparate actors with conflicting motives on both sides. However, if you see a way it could work, I'm all ears.

---

I'm not going to pretend to have any answers, but you seem to be on to something when you say every conference has its own union. Is it really so hard to imagine the top 5 conference unions and administration agreeing to a compact that limits annual roster churn? That's just 5 executives in a room making common sense rules that benefit the entire sport. Sure, it seems impossible, set up the meeting anyway and see what happens. If just three of the P4 fall in line, the rest will follow.

barsad said:

---

calumnus said:

---

barsad said:

---

calumnus said:

---

2. The players would need to form a union and all join it to collectively bargain with the NCAA and negotiate away their freedom of movement.

I think either scenario is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

---

I don't know why you keep saying this is an impossible tradeoff. Yes, they lose SOME freedom (not all). Yes, they GAIN widespread minimum NIL contract levels for every Div 1 players (probably tiered by quality of conference). benefiting thousands of players instead of just a handful of 18-year-old millionaires.
I agree that both these scenarios are long shots, but if I were forced to make a wager I would bet the house on a union, 10 times better odds than Congress.

---

Yes, for the vast majority of players, who play at lower levels, a union could make sense. The question is, why would the "handful" ie the top 100-500 players, join the union if it would limit their own freedom and income? I think most of the top players would not join. and would retain their freedom of movement and ability to earn whatever boosters want to give them. Moreover, boosters would not all sign onto an agreement either.

A school like Kentucky, which is in a "right to work" state, could easily have a team of all non-union players.

Which hits on another problem you mentioned: the vast differential in income between conferences and programs. The top conferences don't want to share their revenues with other conferences and the players in those conferences probably don't want the money from their program or conference going to other conferences either.

So maybe each conference has its own union and a separate collective bargaining agreement? Each conference would have its own rules, minimum salaries, salary caps, etc. all negotiated with its individual union. This is essentially how it works in the NBA, NFL and MLB. But every conference having separate agreements with its own union would not be much different than the current situation. There would be more equality within conferences, but the disparity between conferences would remain. Players at Cal who are in the ACC union could still leave each season for more money in the SEC, B1G or B12. Nothing would really change in that regard.

Any attempt by the conferences to form uniform rules across all of college basketball would be an "antitrust conspiracy" subject to criminal and civil penalties.

I just don't see a clear path to a uniform system through unionization and colective bargaining. There are too many disparate actors with conflicting motives on both sides. However, if you see a way it could work, I'm all ears.

---

I'm not going to pretend to have any answers, but you seem to be on to something when you say every conference has its own union. Is it really so hard to imagine the top 5 conference unions and administration agreeing to a compact that limits annual roster churn? That's just 5 executives in a room making common sense rules that benefit the entire sport. Sure, it seems impossible, set up the meeting anyway and see what happens. If just three of the P4 fall in line, the rest will follow.

---

Each conference would need to have separate negotiations with their respective unions. The conferences could not meet or even communicate with other conferences to agree on compensation or uniform restriction of movement, that would be collusion, a cartel or "trust" and have criminal liability.

The other problem is any school or union in a "right to work" state could not require players to join the union or enforce the bargaining agreement restrictions on them. The following are "right to work states":
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Nebraska
Nevada
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

That is the entire SEC, a chunk of the B1G, most of the ACC and most of the Big-12. So players can opt out to negotiate compensation outside any salary cap and can leave at any time. And North Carolina, the key state in the ACC has the lowest percentage of the workforce in a union in the country (2.4%). Even if a player is in the ACC union and their movement within the ACC was restricted, they could "quit" and go play for an SEC team. Restrictions would not be enforceable.

I do think the unions could achieve some other goals like minimum compensation, extended medical coverage, etc, which would be especially welcome at the lower levels, but those programs have less to revenue to share.

Lots of mlb, nfl, and NBA teams in right to work States. They make it work somehow.

socaltownie said:

---

Lots of mlb, nfl, and NBA teams in right to work States. They make it work somehow.

---

Huge difference here: In a college football or basketball collective bargaining agreement, most of the employers (or the members of what is collectively deemed the employer in the agreement) are public universities controlled directly or indirectly by elected officials who are extremely conservative and anti-union. It is absolutely unrealistic to think that the powers that be in Alabama or South Carolina or North Carolina would permit their states' public universities to be parties to a contract that makes their universities' athletes union members.

BearSD said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Lots of mlb, nfl, and NBA teams in right to work States. They make it work somehow.

---

Huge difference here: In a college football or basketball collective bargaining agreement, most of the employers (or the members of what is collectively deemed the employer in the agreement) are public universities controlled directly or indirectly by elected officials who are extremely conservative and anti-union. It is absolutely unrealistic to think that the powers that be in Alabama or South Carolina or North Carolina would permit their states' public universities to be parties to a contract that makes their universities' athletes union members.

---

I do not have time to research but I would be stunned if even in right to work states public safety employees are ununiozed. Bet a top dog most are.

socaltownie said:

---

Lots of mlb, nfl, and NBA teams in right to work States. They make it work somehow.

---

Each is a single league and the owners, even in right to work states, adhere to the collective bargaining agreement to remain in the league. If an NBA player opts out of the Union in a right to work state, the team is still going to adhere to the salary cap. They will not pay him more because he is not in the union. Other teams will not sign him unless his contract expires and he becomes a free agent. His only option if he doesn't like his contract or situation is to go play overseas, and make less money, and a rare few do.

The NBA, MLB and NFL collective bargaining agreements hold because they are each single leagues and they are each the highest paying league in each sport in the world.

College sports is very different. Multiple conferences with a huge disparity in revenues between conferences. Even if each conference had a union and set up rules for that conference, there would be nothing stopping players from jumping to a higher paying conference. Moreover, right now most of the pay to players comes from boosters, who are unlikely to be part of any collective bargaining agreement and could easily opt out and not be held to one in any case. The boosters want to pay the best players more and the best players want to be paid more. US law currently protects the right of the players to receive that additional income. That is why I say that the only way I see to restrict player mobility is through a change in the law and a granting of antitrust immunity by Congress to a single overseeing entity (presumably the NCAA). I also agree that it is unlikely Congress does that anytime soon.

So is Andre going to Illinois?