In football, our own Luc Bequette transferred to Boston College, played there a year, then came back to Cal for his final (7th?) season. To be fair, the reason he didn't stay at Cal all along was that it was the COVID year and it wasn't certain that we were even going to play. No question where Luc's heart lies, as he is a regular BI poster.
Andrej Stojakovic is in the portal
15,580 Views |
160 Replies |
Last: 1 mo ago by HearstMining
In football, our own Luc Bequette transferred to Boston College, played there a year, then came back to Cal for his final (7th?) season. To be fair, the reason he didn't stay at Cal all along was that it was the COVID year and it wasn't certain that we were even going to play. No question where Luc's heart lies, as he is a regular BI poster.
I thought about that. I just didn't want to be the first one to say it.HearstMining said:Better coaching under Kyle Smith?SFCityBear said:
Has any player who went through the Portal for greener pastures ever gone back through the portal to return to the school to which he originally committed?
The level of maturity of some of these children who demand lots of money for playing college ball is really appalling.
A far cry from the Cal of my youth, where Cal gave out plenty of basketball scholarships - a full roster, along with a JV roster, and a new frosh roster of 17 bodies every year. And any player who received a scholarship, was required to work 20 hours a week to keep it. There is a reason why Pete Newell required kids to work to earn a scholarship, and it was to introduce them to work, which in turn can help them mature.
BTW, how does this reflect on the program run by Mark Madsen, if a player leaves Madsen's Cal program to return to his former school? He realizes he made the wrong decision to come to Cal. Of course he could be going back to Stanford for other reasons, like being closer to a girlfriend who might be attending Stanford. Who knows? It is another reason to be very careful when we invest in any young athlete who might be an immature one.
The other side of being a coach is his recruiting. I think a star player might want to go to a school and a team that has other good players who might help him be more successful than he could be if he was just the best or the only good player on a team.
SFCityBear said:
Has any player who went through the Portal for greener pastures ever gone back through the portal to return to the school to which he originally committed?
The level of maturity of some of these children who demand lots of money for playing college ball is really appalling.
A far cry from the Cal of my youth, where Cal gave out plenty of basketball scholarships - a full roster, along with a JV roster, and a new frosh roster of 17 bodies every year. And any player who received a scholarship, was required to work 20 hours a week to keep it. There is a reason why Pete Newell required kids to work to earn a scholarship, and it was to introduce them to work, which in turn can help them mature.
BTW, how does this reflect on the program run by Mark Madsen, if a player leaves Madsen's Cal program to return to his former school? He realizes he made the wrong decision to come to Cal. Of course he could be going back to Stanford for other reasons, like being closer to a girlfriend who might be attending Stanford. Who knows? It is another reason to be very careful when we invest in any young athlete who might be an immature one.
Good post SFCB. But based on current conditions why make a judgment on Madsen whether AS goes back to Furd or not? To some extent this is happening to every coach in America. When Love went from North Carolina to Arizona did it really have anything to do Davis' ability as a coach? I would think not.
Maybe Furd got more serious about the money they were offering? I think in the NIL era, the obvious answers are far and few between...RedlessWardrobe said:SFCityBear said:
Has any player who went through the Portal for greener pastures ever gone back through the portal to return to the school to which he originally committed?
The level of maturity of some of these children who demand lots of money for playing college ball is really appalling.
A far cry from the Cal of my youth, where Cal gave out plenty of basketball scholarships - a full roster, along with a JV roster, and a new frosh roster of 17 bodies every year. And any player who received a scholarship, was required to work 20 hours a week to keep it. There is a reason why Pete Newell required kids to work to earn a scholarship, and it was to introduce them to work, which in turn can help them mature.
BTW, how does this reflect on the program run by Mark Madsen, if a player leaves Madsen's Cal program to return to his former school? He realizes he made the wrong decision to come to Cal. Of course he could be going back to Stanford for other reasons, like being closer to a girlfriend who might be attending Stanford. Who knows? It is another reason to be very careful when we invest in any young athlete who might be an immature one.
Good post SFCB. But based on current conditions why make a judgment on Madsen whether AS goes back to Furd or not? To some extent this is happening to every coach in America. When Love went from North Carolina to Arizona did it really have anything to do Davis' ability as a coach? I would think not.
— Andrej Stojaković (@AndrejSto2) April 28, 2025
It is not the level of maturity of the adult men who play basketball for colleges that is appalling. It is the level of maturity of much older adults who have co-opted the spirit of amateur sport so they can puff up their chests and claim some glory because a team that wears the logo of their college or a college they root for succeeds while such success has zero to do with them except that they wrote checks to buy a player. They are the ones that ruined college sports.SFCityBear said:
Has any player who went through the Portal for greener pastures ever gone back through the portal to return to the school to which he originally committed?
The level of maturity of some of these children who demand lots of money for playing college ball is really appalling.
A far cry from the Cal of my youth, where Cal gave out plenty of basketball scholarships - a full roster, along with a JV roster, and a new frosh roster of 17 bodies every year. And any player who received a scholarship, was required to work 20 hours a week to keep it. There is a reason why Pete Newell required kids to work to earn a scholarship, and it was to introduce them to work, which in turn can help them mature.
BTW, how does this reflect on the program run by Mark Madsen, if a player leaves Madsen's Cal program to return to his former school? He realizes he made the wrong decision to come to Cal. Of course he could be going back to Stanford for other reasons, like being closer to a girlfriend who might be attending Stanford. Who knows? It is another reason to be very careful when we invest in any young athlete who might be an immature one.
In a non-dysfunctional world, students at a school would play sports because they love to play sports and their family, fellow students, and alums would attend games, root them on, take pride in their EFFORT, take a healthy pride in their achievements, and realize that their achievements are largely their own and not the fans. Take the kind of pride you take when an American is on the medal stand, not because it brings you glory but because one of your own worked their ass off to excel at something and reached the pinnacle of success and you are proud OF THEM.
College sports was not ruined by players. It was ruined by the "adults" and it was done early and over a long period of time. Starting with very early on paying ringers to play and bringing people in who had zero intention to be students. (For a humorous, culturally relevant portrayal, I would recommend the Rocky and Bullwinkle episodes where they are recruited to play football at Wossamatta U. This had been a known issue for a long time). Money has increased and increased by people trying to buy glory. It has become less and less about anything collegiate and more and more about laundry.
I have always argued that student (LOL) athletes got a good bargain in revenue sports getting top flight training and facilities and coaches that would be a dream to most equivalent minor league baseball players. That equivalent levels in sports like tennis pay gobs of money for the same thing. And the reason they got such a good deal is because strangers were willing to chuck money at minor league football and minor league basketball precisely because their jersey said "Wossamatta U" instead of "Modesto Nuts". I stand by that. But the fact is the money is going to these colleges and in the past millions and millions of dollars were going to the adults who played a supporting role rather than young adults who did the primary work.
The pretense is gone now. Bottom line, college football player and college basketball player is a J-O-B, job. That is all it is. Unlike days gone by, there isn't even a pretense that this is a multi year commitment. It is a one year commitment. At triple zero on the last game they have fulfilled that commitment both legally and ethically. And the mature thing to do, the adult thing to do, is the thing that the vast majority of adults do in their own job. Take the job with the best offer however they define that, money, people, working conditions, chance at advancement, training, personal relationships, whatever. And if someone offers you a substantially better job, you take that one. That is the mature thing to do. A person who is offered $500K more a year, better exposure, better facilities, better coaching, whatever it is they want, who does not take that out of "loyalty" or "be true to your school" is being childish. That is not how you make life decisions.
And I do not want to hear about loyalty. If a player gets a million dollars this year and he has a bad year, he won't get a million dollars next year. If the coach decides he isn't the best player for the job, he goes to the bench. If the fans decide he is not the best player for the job, they clamor for him to be replaced (Blacksher anyone?) So why should it be perfectly acceptable for the school to trade a player in for a better player, but it is not acceptable for the player to trade the school in for a better program?
I come from a Cal family. I was at football games from the age of 5. It was a dream of mine to go to Cal. I knew all the fight songs. My parents were massively proud when I got in and massively proud when I graduated. If for some reason a reasonably comparable school offered me $1M to go study there instead, I would have taken it while wistfully looking back. And my parents would have kicked my ass if I didn't. As I said for each of the myriad of football and basketball players that left early for the pros, if you don't have $1M and someone offers you $1M, you take the $1M dollars. That is the mature decision.
If we want to compete for players, including the ones on our own team, we need to offer them a JOB that is as good or better than what anyone else is offering. This is the pros now. They are jobs. Many of us, including me, don't like it. But that is the system we have and these athletes didn't build that system.
And the bottom line is that if you want to have kids that care less about money and have teams that don't turn over half to all their roster every year, you can have that. It means dropping down. If it's all about school spirit and loyalty and rooting for fellow student athletes, and not about chasing bags, you can root for Cal while they play UC Davis and Sac State. If you want to be in this world, to chase national glory with the big boys, this is the system. There are a growing number who have decided they would like the former, but they are still dwarfed by the number who want the brass ring. But the system is corrupt and you can't participate in a corrupt system and yell at everyone for being corrupt.
The players are frankly just now getting a fair slice of the pie. You can't blame them for playing by the rules of a system that they didn't build.
Team #drop-down. There is a far better way
Me too,socaltownie said:
Team #drop-down. There is a far better way
BearlyCareAnymore said:It is not the level of maturity of the adult men who play basketball for colleges that is appalling. It is the level of maturity of much older adults who have co-opted the spirit of amateur sport so they can puff up their chests and claim some glory because a team that wears the logo of their college or a college they root for succeeds while such success has zero to do with them except that they wrote checks to buy a player. They are the ones that ruined college sports.SFCityBear said:
Has any player who went through the Portal for greener pastures ever gone back through the portal to return to the school to which he originally committed?
The level of maturity of some of these children who demand lots of money for playing college ball is really appalling.
A far cry from the Cal of my youth, where Cal gave out plenty of basketball scholarships - a full roster, along with a JV roster, and a new frosh roster of 17 bodies every year. And any player who received a scholarship, was required to work 20 hours a week to keep it. There is a reason why Pete Newell required kids to work to earn a scholarship, and it was to introduce them to work, which in turn can help them mature.
BTW, how does this reflect on the program run by Mark Madsen, if a player leaves Madsen's Cal program to return to his former school? He realizes he made the wrong decision to come to Cal. Of course he could be going back to Stanford for other reasons, like being closer to a girlfriend who might be attending Stanford. Who knows? It is another reason to be very careful when we invest in any young athlete who might be an immature one.
In a non-dysfunctional world, students at a school would play sports because they love to play sports and their family, fellow students, and alums would attend games, root them on, take pride in their EFFORT, take a healthy pride in their achievements, and realize that their achievements are largely their own and not the fans. Take the kind of pride you take when an American is on the medal stand, not because it brings you glory but because one of your own worked their ass off to excel at something and reached the pinnacle of success and you are proud OF THEM.
College sports was not ruined by players. It was ruined by the "adults" and it was done early and over a long period of time. Starting with very early on paying ringers to play and bringing people in who had zero intention to be students. (For a humorous, culturally relevant portrayal, I would recommend the Rocky and Bullwinkle episodes where they are recruited to play football at Wossamatta U. This had been a known issue for a long time). Money has increased and increased by people trying to buy glory. It has become less and less about anything collegiate and more and more about laundry.
I have always argued that student (LOL) athletes got a good bargain in revenue sports getting top flight training and facilities and coaches that would be a dream to most equivalent minor league baseball players. That equivalent levels in sports like tennis pay gobs of money for the same thing. And the reason they got such a good deal is because strangers were willing to chuck money at minor league football and minor league basketball precisely because their jersey said "Wossamatta U" instead of "Modesto Nuts". I stand by that. But the fact is the money is going to these colleges and in the past millions and millions of dollars were going to the adults who played a supporting role rather than young adults who did the primary work.
The pretense is gone now. Bottom line, college football player and college basketball player is a J-O-B, job. That is all it is. Unlike days gone by, there isn't even a pretense that this is a multi year commitment. It is a one year commitment. At triple zero on the last game they have fulfilled that commitment both legally and ethically. And the mature thing to do, the adult thing to do, is the thing that the vast majority of adults do in their own job. Take the job with the best offer however they define that, money, people, working conditions, chance at advancement, training, personal relationships, whatever. And if someone offers you a substantially better job, you take that one. That is the mature thing to do. A person who is offered $500K more a year, better exposure, better facilities, better coaching, whatever it is they want, who does not take that out of "loyalty" or "be true to your school" is being childish. That is not how you make life decisions.
And I do not want to hear about loyalty. If a player gets a million dollars this year and he has a bad year, he won't get a million dollars next year. If the coach decides he isn't the best player for the job, he goes to the bench. If the fans decide he is not the best player for the job, they clamor for him to be replaced (Blacksher anyone?) So why should it be perfectly acceptable for the school to trade a player in for a better player, but it is not acceptable for the player to trade the school in for a better program?
I come from a Cal family. I was at football games from the age of 5. It was a dream of mine to go to Cal. I knew all the fight songs. My parents were massively proud when I got in and massively proud when I graduated. If for some reason a reasonably comparable school offered me $1M to go study there instead, I would have taken it while wistfully looking back. And my parents would have kicked my ass if I didn't. As I said for each of the myriad of football and basketball players that left early for the pros, if you don't have $1M and someone offers you $1M, you take the $1M dollars. That is the mature decision.
If we want to compete for players, including the ones on our own team, we need to offer them a JOB that is as good or better than what anyone else is offering. This is the pros now. They are jobs. Many of us, including me, don't like it. But that is the system we have and these athletes didn't build that system.
And the bottom line is that if you want to have kids that care less about money and have teams that don't turn over half to all their roster every year, you can have that. It means dropping down. If it's all about school spirit and loyalty and rooting for fellow student athletes, and not about chasing bags, you can root for Cal while they play UC Davis and Sac State. If you want to be in this world, to chase national glory with the big boys, this is the system. There are a growing number who have decided they would like the former, but they are still dwarfed by the number who want the brass ring. But the system is corrupt and you can't participate in a corrupt system and yell at everyone for being corrupt.
The players are frankly just now getting a fair slice of the pie. You can't blame them for playing by the rules of a system that they didn't build.
Great post, though I disagree with the final conclusion. I doubt dropping down keeps the roster intact year to year. Your best players will still jump for more money at a higher level. That is the reality. The path to roster stability is being an employer that pays market and offers a good quality of life. Otherwise, no matter what level, get used to "employee churn."
Not true forcalumnus said:BearlyCareAnymore said:It is not the level of maturity of the adult men who play basketball for colleges that is appalling. It is the level of maturity of much older adults who have co-opted the spirit of amateur sport so they can puff up their chests and claim some glory because a team that wears the logo of their college or a college they root for succeeds while such success has zero to do with them except that they wrote checks to buy a player. They are the ones that ruined college sports.SFCityBear said:
Has any player who went through the Portal for greener pastures ever gone back through the portal to return to the school to which he originally committed?
The level of maturity of some of these children who demand lots of money for playing college ball is really appalling.
A far cry from the Cal of my youth, where Cal gave out plenty of basketball scholarships - a full roster, along with a JV roster, and a new frosh roster of 17 bodies every year. And any player who received a scholarship, was required to work 20 hours a week to keep it. There is a reason why Pete Newell required kids to work to earn a scholarship, and it was to introduce them to work, which in turn can help them mature.
BTW, how does this reflect on the program run by Mark Madsen, if a player leaves Madsen's Cal program to return to his former school? He realizes he made the wrong decision to come to Cal. Of course he could be going back to Stanford for other reasons, like being closer to a girlfriend who might be attending Stanford. Who knows? It is another reason to be very careful when we invest in any young athlete who might be an immature one.
In a non-dysfunctional world, students at a school would play sports because they love to play sports and their family, fellow students, and alums would attend games, root them on, take pride in their EFFORT, take a healthy pride in their achievements, and realize that their achievements are largely their own and not the fans. Take the kind of pride you take when an American is on the medal stand, not because it brings you glory but because one of your own worked their ass off to excel at something and reached the pinnacle of success and you are proud OF THEM.
College sports was not ruined by players. It was ruined by the "adults" and it was done early and over a long period of time. Starting with very early on paying ringers to play and bringing people in who had zero intention to be students. (For a humorous, culturally relevant portrayal, I would recommend the Rocky and Bullwinkle episodes where they are recruited to play football at Wossamatta U. This had been a known issue for a long time). Money has increased and increased by people trying to buy glory. It has become less and less about anything collegiate and more and more about laundry.
I have always argued that student (LOL) athletes got a good bargain in revenue sports getting top flight training and facilities and coaches that would be a dream to most equivalent minor league baseball players. That equivalent levels in sports like tennis pay gobs of money for the same thing. And the reason they got such a good deal is because strangers were willing to chuck money at minor league football and minor league basketball precisely because their jersey said "Wossamatta U" instead of "Modesto Nuts". I stand by that. But the fact is the money is going to these colleges and in the past millions and millions of dollars were going to the adults who played a supporting role rather than young adults who did the primary work.
The pretense is gone now. Bottom line, college football player and college basketball player is a J-O-B, job. That is all it is. Unlike days gone by, there isn't even a pretense that this is a multi year commitment. It is a one year commitment. At triple zero on the last game they have fulfilled that commitment both legally and ethically. And the mature thing to do, the adult thing to do, is the thing that the vast majority of adults do in their own job. Take the job with the best offer however they define that, money, people, working conditions, chance at advancement, training, personal relationships, whatever. And if someone offers you a substantially better job, you take that one. That is the mature thing to do. A person who is offered $500K more a year, better exposure, better facilities, better coaching, whatever it is they want, who does not take that out of "loyalty" or "be true to your school" is being childish. That is not how you make life decisions.
And I do not want to hear about loyalty. If a player gets a million dollars this year and he has a bad year, he won't get a million dollars next year. If the coach decides he isn't the best player for the job, he goes to the bench. If the fans decide he is not the best player for the job, they clamor for him to be replaced (Blacksher anyone?) So why should it be perfectly acceptable for the school to trade a player in for a better player, but it is not acceptable for the player to trade the school in for a better program?
I come from a Cal family. I was at football games from the age of 5. It was a dream of mine to go to Cal. I knew all the fight songs. My parents were massively proud when I got in and massively proud when I graduated. If for some reason a reasonably comparable school offered me $1M to go study there instead, I would have taken it while wistfully looking back. And my parents would have kicked my ass if I didn't. As I said for each of the myriad of football and basketball players that left early for the pros, if you don't have $1M and someone offers you $1M, you take the $1M dollars. That is the mature decision.
If we want to compete for players, including the ones on our own team, we need to offer them a JOB that is as good or better than what anyone else is offering. This is the pros now. They are jobs. Many of us, including me, don't like it. But that is the system we have and these athletes didn't build that system.
And the bottom line is that if you want to have kids that care less about money and have teams that don't turn over half to all their roster every year, you can have that. It means dropping down. If it's all about school spirit and loyalty and rooting for fellow student athletes, and not about chasing bags, you can root for Cal while they play UC Davis and Sac State. If you want to be in this world, to chase national glory with the big boys, this is the system. There are a growing number who have decided they would like the former, but they are still dwarfed by the number who want the brass ring. But the system is corrupt and you can't participate in a corrupt system and yell at everyone for being corrupt.
The players are frankly just now getting a fair slice of the pie. You can't blame them for playing by the rules of a system that they didn't build.
Great post, though I disagree with the final conclusion. I doubt dropping down keeps the roster intact year to year. Your best players will still jump for more money at a higher level. That is the reality. The path to roster stability is being an employer that pays market and offers a good quality of life. Otherwise, no matter what level, get used to "employee churn."
the Tritons #1 scorer - a 4 year senior
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/player/_/id/4711203/aniwaniwa-tait-jones....a kid from New Zealand
Or there #2 - a senior who was there all four years
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/player/news/_/id/4703883/tyler-mcghie
Flip side is that their coach left, he took a few kids with him, and they are going to be rebuilding. But I can tell you that the Triton kids 1) Could not compete over 30+ games in the ACC but 2) probably put their school (and especially getting to US on a student visa) as a top priority.
Also unless their is a fix a key this is that NIL is limited for foreign kids. The market for them to transfer is different and potentially they are LESS likely to leave since kids getting NIL bag are going to demand playing time as well as $$$.
BCA. I know we've had some battles recently, but your observation and review of what has evolved is spot on. As far as your options of how to address the issue, it really doesn't matter because either solution chosen is far from satisfactory.BearlyCareAnymore said:It is not the level of maturity of the adult men who play basketball for colleges that is appalling. It is the level of maturity of much older adults who have co-opted the spirit of amateur sport so they can puff up their chests and claim some glory because a team that wears the logo of their college or a college they root for succeeds while such success has zero to do with them except that they wrote checks to buy a player. They are the ones that ruined college sports.SFCityBear said:
Has any player who went through the Portal for greener pastures ever gone back through the portal to return to the school to which he originally committed?
The level of maturity of some of these children who demand lots of money for playing college ball is really appalling.
A far cry from the Cal of my youth, where Cal gave out plenty of basketball scholarships - a full roster, along with a JV roster, and a new frosh roster of 17 bodies every year. And any player who received a scholarship, was required to work 20 hours a week to keep it. There is a reason why Pete Newell required kids to work to earn a scholarship, and it was to introduce them to work, which in turn can help them mature.
BTW, how does this reflect on the program run by Mark Madsen, if a player leaves Madsen's Cal program to return to his former school? He realizes he made the wrong decision to come to Cal. Of course he could be going back to Stanford for other reasons, like being closer to a girlfriend who might be attending Stanford. Who knows? It is another reason to be very careful when we invest in any young athlete who might be an immature one.
In a non-dysfunctional world, students at a school would play sports because they love to play sports and their family, fellow students, and alums would attend games, root them on, take pride in their EFFORT, take a healthy pride in their achievements, and realize that their achievements are largely their own and not the fans. Take the kind of pride you take when an American is on the medal stand, not because it brings you glory but because one of your own worked their ass off to excel at something and reached the pinnacle of success and you are proud OF THEM.
College sports was not ruined by players. It was ruined by the "adults" and it was done early and over a long period of time. Starting with very early on paying ringers to play and bringing people in who had zero intention to be students. (For a humorous, culturally relevant portrayal, I would recommend the Rocky and Bullwinkle episodes where they are recruited to play football at Wossamatta U. This had been a known issue for a long time). Money has increased and increased by people trying to buy glory. It has become less and less about anything collegiate and more and more about laundry.
I have always argued that student (LOL) athletes got a good bargain in revenue sports getting top flight training and facilities and coaches that would be a dream to most equivalent minor league baseball players. That equivalent levels in sports like tennis pay gobs of money for the same thing. And the reason they got such a good deal is because strangers were willing to chuck money at minor league football and minor league basketball precisely because their jersey said "Wossamatta U" instead of "Modesto Nuts". I stand by that. But the fact is the money is going to these colleges and in the past millions and millions of dollars were going to the adults who played a supporting role rather than young adults who did the primary work.
The pretense is gone now. Bottom line, college football player and college basketball player is a J-O-B, job. That is all it is. Unlike days gone by, there isn't even a pretense that this is a multi year commitment. It is a one year commitment. At triple zero on the last game they have fulfilled that commitment both legally and ethically. And the mature thing to do, the adult thing to do, is the thing that the vast majority of adults do in their own job. Take the job with the best offer however they define that, money, people, working conditions, chance at advancement, training, personal relationships, whatever. And if someone offers you a substantially better job, you take that one. That is the mature thing to do. A person who is offered $500K more a year, better exposure, better facilities, better coaching, whatever it is they want, who does not take that out of "loyalty" or "be true to your school" is being childish. That is not how you make life decisions.
And I do not want to hear about loyalty. If a player gets a million dollars this year and he has a bad year, he won't get a million dollars next year. If the coach decides he isn't the best player for the job, he goes to the bench. If the fans decide he is not the best player for the job, they clamor for him to be replaced (Blacksher anyone?) So why should it be perfectly acceptable for the school to trade a player in for a better player, but it is not acceptable for the player to trade the school in for a better program?
I come from a Cal family. I was at football games from the age of 5. It was a dream of mine to go to Cal. I knew all the fight songs. My parents were massively proud when I got in and massively proud when I graduated. If for some reason a reasonably comparable school offered me $1M to go study there instead, I would have taken it while wistfully looking back. And my parents would have kicked my ass if I didn't. As I said for each of the myriad of football and basketball players that left early for the pros, if you don't have $1M and someone offers you $1M, you take the $1M dollars. That is the mature decision.
If we want to compete for players, including the ones on our own team, we need to offer them a JOB that is as good or better than what anyone else is offering. This is the pros now. They are jobs. Many of us, including me, don't like it. But that is the system we have and these athletes didn't build that system.
And the bottom line is that if you want to have kids that care less about money and have teams that don't turn over half to all their roster every year, you can have that. It means dropping down. If it's all about school spirit and loyalty and rooting for fellow student athletes, and not about chasing bags, you can root for Cal while they play UC Davis and Sac State. If you want to be in this world, to chase national glory with the big boys, this is the system. There are a growing number who have decided they would like the former, but they are still dwarfed by the number who want the brass ring. But the system is corrupt and you can't participate in a corrupt system and yell at everyone for being corrupt.
The players are frankly just now getting a fair slice of the pie. You can't blame them for playing by the rules of a system that they didn't build.
socaltownie said:Not true forcalumnus said:BearlyCareAnymore said:It is not the level of maturity of the adult men who play basketball for colleges that is appalling. It is the level of maturity of much older adults who have co-opted the spirit of amateur sport so they can puff up their chests and claim some glory because a team that wears the logo of their college or a college they root for succeeds while such success has zero to do with them except that they wrote checks to buy a player. They are the ones that ruined college sports.SFCityBear said:
Has any player who went through the Portal for greener pastures ever gone back through the portal to return to the school to which he originally committed?
The level of maturity of some of these children who demand lots of money for playing college ball is really appalling.
A far cry from the Cal of my youth, where Cal gave out plenty of basketball scholarships - a full roster, along with a JV roster, and a new frosh roster of 17 bodies every year. And any player who received a scholarship, was required to work 20 hours a week to keep it. There is a reason why Pete Newell required kids to work to earn a scholarship, and it was to introduce them to work, which in turn can help them mature.
BTW, how does this reflect on the program run by Mark Madsen, if a player leaves Madsen's Cal program to return to his former school? He realizes he made the wrong decision to come to Cal. Of course he could be going back to Stanford for other reasons, like being closer to a girlfriend who might be attending Stanford. Who knows? It is another reason to be very careful when we invest in any young athlete who might be an immature one.
In a non-dysfunctional world, students at a school would play sports because they love to play sports and their family, fellow students, and alums would attend games, root them on, take pride in their EFFORT, take a healthy pride in their achievements, and realize that their achievements are largely their own and not the fans. Take the kind of pride you take when an American is on the medal stand, not because it brings you glory but because one of your own worked their ass off to excel at something and reached the pinnacle of success and you are proud OF THEM.
College sports was not ruined by players. It was ruined by the "adults" and it was done early and over a long period of time. Starting with very early on paying ringers to play and bringing people in who had zero intention to be students. (For a humorous, culturally relevant portrayal, I would recommend the Rocky and Bullwinkle episodes where they are recruited to play football at Wossamatta U. This had been a known issue for a long time). Money has increased and increased by people trying to buy glory. It has become less and less about anything collegiate and more and more about laundry.
I have always argued that student (LOL) athletes got a good bargain in revenue sports getting top flight training and facilities and coaches that would be a dream to most equivalent minor league baseball players. That equivalent levels in sports like tennis pay gobs of money for the same thing. And the reason they got such a good deal is because strangers were willing to chuck money at minor league football and minor league basketball precisely because their jersey said "Wossamatta U" instead of "Modesto Nuts". I stand by that. But the fact is the money is going to these colleges and in the past millions and millions of dollars were going to the adults who played a supporting role rather than young adults who did the primary work.
The pretense is gone now. Bottom line, college football player and college basketball player is a J-O-B, job. That is all it is. Unlike days gone by, there isn't even a pretense that this is a multi year commitment. It is a one year commitment. At triple zero on the last game they have fulfilled that commitment both legally and ethically. And the mature thing to do, the adult thing to do, is the thing that the vast majority of adults do in their own job. Take the job with the best offer however they define that, money, people, working conditions, chance at advancement, training, personal relationships, whatever. And if someone offers you a substantially better job, you take that one. That is the mature thing to do. A person who is offered $500K more a year, better exposure, better facilities, better coaching, whatever it is they want, who does not take that out of "loyalty" or "be true to your school" is being childish. That is not how you make life decisions.
And I do not want to hear about loyalty. If a player gets a million dollars this year and he has a bad year, he won't get a million dollars next year. If the coach decides he isn't the best player for the job, he goes to the bench. If the fans decide he is not the best player for the job, they clamor for him to be replaced (Blacksher anyone?) So why should it be perfectly acceptable for the school to trade a player in for a better player, but it is not acceptable for the player to trade the school in for a better program?
I come from a Cal family. I was at football games from the age of 5. It was a dream of mine to go to Cal. I knew all the fight songs. My parents were massively proud when I got in and massively proud when I graduated. If for some reason a reasonably comparable school offered me $1M to go study there instead, I would have taken it while wistfully looking back. And my parents would have kicked my ass if I didn't. As I said for each of the myriad of football and basketball players that left early for the pros, if you don't have $1M and someone offers you $1M, you take the $1M dollars. That is the mature decision.
If we want to compete for players, including the ones on our own team, we need to offer them a JOB that is as good or better than what anyone else is offering. This is the pros now. They are jobs. Many of us, including me, don't like it. But that is the system we have and these athletes didn't build that system.
And the bottom line is that if you want to have kids that care less about money and have teams that don't turn over half to all their roster every year, you can have that. It means dropping down. If it's all about school spirit and loyalty and rooting for fellow student athletes, and not about chasing bags, you can root for Cal while they play UC Davis and Sac State. If you want to be in this world, to chase national glory with the big boys, this is the system. There are a growing number who have decided they would like the former, but they are still dwarfed by the number who want the brass ring. But the system is corrupt and you can't participate in a corrupt system and yell at everyone for being corrupt.
The players are frankly just now getting a fair slice of the pie. You can't blame them for playing by the rules of a system that they didn't build.
Great post, though I disagree with the final conclusion. I doubt dropping down keeps the roster intact year to year. Your best players will still jump for more money at a higher level. That is the reality. The path to roster stability is being an employer that pays market and offers a good quality of life. Otherwise, no matter what level, get used to "employee churn."
the Tritons #1 scorer - a 4 year senior
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/player/_/id/4711203/aniwaniwa-tait-jones....a kid from New Zealand
Or there #2 - a senior who was there all four years
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/player/news/_/id/4703883/tyler-mcghie
Flip side is that their coach left, he took a few kids with him, and they are going to be rebuilding. But I can tell you that the Triton kids 1) Could not compete over 30+ games in the ACC but 2) probably put their school (and especially getting to US on a student visa) as a top priority.
Also unless their is a fix a key this is that NIL is limited for foreign kids. The market for them to transfer is different and potentially they are LESS likely to leave since kids getting NIL bag are going to demand playing time as well as $$$.
This is incorrect. The first player, Tait-Jones, is a transfer from Hawaii-Hilo. The second player, McGhie, is a transfer from Western Carolina. You can verify that by clicking on their bios on the links above.
BCA - Love this, but I might expand your "adults" beyond simply the ego driven donors. Big money from broadcasting and gambling have probably played a larger role in terms of overall $$$ influence as well as impact beyond a single University. They are driving the bus. The rest is just consumer behavior.BearlyCareAnymore said:It is not the level of maturity of the adult men who play basketball for colleges that is appalling. It is the level of maturity of much older adults who have co-opted the spirit of amateur sport so they can puff up their chests and claim some glory because a team that wears the logo of their college or a college they root for succeeds while such success has zero to do with them except that they wrote checks to buy a player. They are the ones that ruined college sports.SFCityBear said:
Has any player who went through the Portal for greener pastures ever gone back through the portal to return to the school to which he originally committed?
The level of maturity of some of these children who demand lots of money for playing college ball is really appalling.
A far cry from the Cal of my youth, where Cal gave out plenty of basketball scholarships - a full roster, along with a JV roster, and a new frosh roster of 17 bodies every year. And any player who received a scholarship, was required to work 20 hours a week to keep it. There is a reason why Pete Newell required kids to work to earn a scholarship, and it was to introduce them to work, which in turn can help them mature.
BTW, how does this reflect on the program run by Mark Madsen, if a player leaves Madsen's Cal program to return to his former school? He realizes he made the wrong decision to come to Cal. Of course he could be going back to Stanford for other reasons, like being closer to a girlfriend who might be attending Stanford. Who knows? It is another reason to be very careful when we invest in any young athlete who might be an immature one.
In a non-dysfunctional world, students at a school would play sports because they love to play sports and their family, fellow students, and alums would attend games, root them on, take pride in their EFFORT, take a healthy pride in their achievements, and realize that their achievements are largely their own and not the fans. Take the kind of pride you take when an American is on the medal stand, not because it brings you glory but because one of your own worked their ass off to excel at something and reached the pinnacle of success and you are proud OF THEM.
College sports was not ruined by players. It was ruined by the "adults" and it was done early and over a long period of time. Starting with very early on paying ringers to play and bringing people in who had zero intention to be students. (For a humorous, culturally relevant portrayal, I would recommend the Rocky and Bullwinkle episodes where they are recruited to play football at Wossamatta U. This had been a known issue for a long time). Money has increased and increased by people trying to buy glory. It has become less and less about anything collegiate and more and more about laundry.
I have always argued that student (LOL) athletes got a good bargain in revenue sports getting top flight training and facilities and coaches that would be a dream to most equivalent minor league baseball players. That equivalent levels in sports like tennis pay gobs of money for the same thing. And the reason they got such a good deal is because strangers were willing to chuck money at minor league football and minor league basketball precisely because their jersey said "Wossamatta U" instead of "Modesto Nuts". I stand by that. But the fact is the money is going to these colleges and in the past millions and millions of dollars were going to the adults who played a supporting role rather than young adults who did the primary work.
The pretense is gone now. Bottom line, college football player and college basketball player is a J-O-B, job. That is all it is. Unlike days gone by, there isn't even a pretense that this is a multi year commitment. It is a one year commitment. At triple zero on the last game they have fulfilled that commitment both legally and ethically. And the mature thing to do, the adult thing to do, is the thing that the vast majority of adults do in their own job. Take the job with the best offer however they define that, money, people, working conditions, chance at advancement, training, personal relationships, whatever. And if someone offers you a substantially better job, you take that one. That is the mature thing to do. A person who is offered $500K more a year, better exposure, better facilities, better coaching, whatever it is they want, who does not take that out of "loyalty" or "be true to your school" is being childish. That is not how you make life decisions.
And I do not want to hear about loyalty. If a player gets a million dollars this year and he has a bad year, he won't get a million dollars next year. If the coach decides he isn't the best player for the job, he goes to the bench. If the fans decide he is not the best player for the job, they clamor for him to be replaced (Blacksher anyone?) So why should it be perfectly acceptable for the school to trade a player in for a better player, but it is not acceptable for the player to trade the school in for a better program?
I come from a Cal family. I was at football games from the age of 5. It was a dream of mine to go to Cal. I knew all the fight songs. My parents were massively proud when I got in and massively proud when I graduated. If for some reason a reasonably comparable school offered me $1M to go study there instead, I would have taken it while wistfully looking back. And my parents would have kicked my ass if I didn't. As I said for each of the myriad of football and basketball players that left early for the pros, if you don't have $1M and someone offers you $1M, you take the $1M dollars. That is the mature decision.
If we want to compete for players, including the ones on our own team, we need to offer them a JOB that is as good or better than what anyone else is offering. This is the pros now. They are jobs. Many of us, including me, don't like it. But that is the system we have and these athletes didn't build that system.
And the bottom line is that if you want to have kids that care less about money and have teams that don't turn over half to all their roster every year, you can have that. It means dropping down. If it's all about school spirit and loyalty and rooting for fellow student athletes, and not about chasing bags, you can root for Cal while they play UC Davis and Sac State. If you want to be in this world, to chase national glory with the big boys, this is the system. There are a growing number who have decided they would like the former, but they are still dwarfed by the number who want the brass ring. But the system is corrupt and you can't participate in a corrupt system and yell at everyone for being corrupt.
The players are frankly just now getting a fair slice of the pie. You can't blame them for playing by the rules of a system that they didn't build.
BeachedBear said:BCA - Love this, but I might expand your "adults" beyond simply the ego driven donors. Big money from broadcasting and gambling have probably played a larger role in terms of overall $$$ influence as well as impact beyond a single University. They are driving the bus. The rest is just consumer behavior.BearlyCareAnymore said:It is not the level of maturity of the adult men who play basketball for colleges that is appalling. It is the level of maturity of much older adults who have co-opted the spirit of amateur sport so they can puff up their chests and claim some glory because a team that wears the logo of their college or a college they root for succeeds while such success has zero to do with them except that they wrote checks to buy a player. They are the ones that ruined college sports.SFCityBear said:
Has any player who went through the Portal for greener pastures ever gone back through the portal to return to the school to which he originally committed?
The level of maturity of some of these children who demand lots of money for playing college ball is really appalling.
A far cry from the Cal of my youth, where Cal gave out plenty of basketball scholarships - a full roster, along with a JV roster, and a new frosh roster of 17 bodies every year. And any player who received a scholarship, was required to work 20 hours a week to keep it. There is a reason why Pete Newell required kids to work to earn a scholarship, and it was to introduce them to work, which in turn can help them mature.
BTW, how does this reflect on the program run by Mark Madsen, if a player leaves Madsen's Cal program to return to his former school? He realizes he made the wrong decision to come to Cal. Of course he could be going back to Stanford for other reasons, like being closer to a girlfriend who might be attending Stanford. Who knows? It is another reason to be very careful when we invest in any young athlete who might be an immature one.
In a non-dysfunctional world, students at a school would play sports because they love to play sports and their family, fellow students, and alums would attend games, root them on, take pride in their EFFORT, take a healthy pride in their achievements, and realize that their achievements are largely their own and not the fans. Take the kind of pride you take when an American is on the medal stand, not because it brings you glory but because one of your own worked their ass off to excel at something and reached the pinnacle of success and you are proud OF THEM.
College sports was not ruined by players. It was ruined by the "adults" and it was done early and over a long period of time. Starting with very early on paying ringers to play and bringing people in who had zero intention to be students. (For a humorous, culturally relevant portrayal, I would recommend the Rocky and Bullwinkle episodes where they are recruited to play football at Wossamatta U. This had been a known issue for a long time). Money has increased and increased by people trying to buy glory. It has become less and less about anything collegiate and more and more about laundry.
I have always argued that student (LOL) athletes got a good bargain in revenue sports getting top flight training and facilities and coaches that would be a dream to most equivalent minor league baseball players. That equivalent levels in sports like tennis pay gobs of money for the same thing. And the reason they got such a good deal is because strangers were willing to chuck money at minor league football and minor league basketball precisely because their jersey said "Wossamatta U" instead of "Modesto Nuts". I stand by that. But the fact is the money is going to these colleges and in the past millions and millions of dollars were going to the adults who played a supporting role rather than young adults who did the primary work.
The pretense is gone now. Bottom line, college football player and college basketball player is a J-O-B, job. That is all it is. Unlike days gone by, there isn't even a pretense that this is a multi year commitment. It is a one year commitment. At triple zero on the last game they have fulfilled that commitment both legally and ethically. And the mature thing to do, the adult thing to do, is the thing that the vast majority of adults do in their own job. Take the job with the best offer however they define that, money, people, working conditions, chance at advancement, training, personal relationships, whatever. And if someone offers you a substantially better job, you take that one. That is the mature thing to do. A person who is offered $500K more a year, better exposure, better facilities, better coaching, whatever it is they want, who does not take that out of "loyalty" or "be true to your school" is being childish. That is not how you make life decisions.
And I do not want to hear about loyalty. If a player gets a million dollars this year and he has a bad year, he won't get a million dollars next year. If the coach decides he isn't the best player for the job, he goes to the bench. If the fans decide he is not the best player for the job, they clamor for him to be replaced (Blacksher anyone?) So why should it be perfectly acceptable for the school to trade a player in for a better player, but it is not acceptable for the player to trade the school in for a better program?
I come from a Cal family. I was at football games from the age of 5. It was a dream of mine to go to Cal. I knew all the fight songs. My parents were massively proud when I got in and massively proud when I graduated. If for some reason a reasonably comparable school offered me $1M to go study there instead, I would have taken it while wistfully looking back. And my parents would have kicked my ass if I didn't. As I said for each of the myriad of football and basketball players that left early for the pros, if you don't have $1M and someone offers you $1M, you take the $1M dollars. That is the mature decision.
If we want to compete for players, including the ones on our own team, we need to offer them a JOB that is as good or better than what anyone else is offering. This is the pros now. They are jobs. Many of us, including me, don't like it. But that is the system we have and these athletes didn't build that system.
And the bottom line is that if you want to have kids that care less about money and have teams that don't turn over half to all their roster every year, you can have that. It means dropping down. If it's all about school spirit and loyalty and rooting for fellow student athletes, and not about chasing bags, you can root for Cal while they play UC Davis and Sac State. If you want to be in this world, to chase national glory with the big boys, this is the system. There are a growing number who have decided they would like the former, but they are still dwarfed by the number who want the brass ring. But the system is corrupt and you can't participate in a corrupt system and yell at everyone for being corrupt.
The players are frankly just now getting a fair slice of the pie. You can't blame them for playing by the rules of a system that they didn't build.
Trying to unpack this is hard. I absolutely agree that gambling/TV exploded the $$ flowing in to conferences but I think what is creating massive imbalances is the non random distribution of oligarch money flowing to individual players to dri e egos.
Agree on the short term perturbations (and the NIL bidding shenanigans of this year and last). The longer term changes in BCA's post, however, extend beyond single Universities and deals with conferences and networks and casinos. That level of money is what made NCAA irrelevant, not the Oligarchs, IMHO. It seemed the NCAA was more than happy with the old system and the Oligarchs and the Blue Bloods. No judgment on which system is better or worse. The new one is just different. LOLsocaltownie said:BeachedBear said:BCA - Love this, but I might expand your "adults" beyond simply the ego driven donors. Big money from broadcasting and gambling have probably played a larger role in terms of overall $$$ influence as well as impact beyond a single University. They are driving the bus. The rest is just consumer behavior.BearlyCareAnymore said:It is not the level of maturity of the adult men who play basketball for colleges that is appalling. It is the level of maturity of much older adults who have co-opted the spirit of amateur sport so they can puff up their chests and claim some glory because a team that wears the logo of their college or a college they root for succeeds while such success has zero to do with them except that they wrote checks to buy a player. They are the ones that ruined college sports.SFCityBear said:
Has any player who went through the Portal for greener pastures ever gone back through the portal to return to the school to which he originally committed?
The level of maturity of some of these children who demand lots of money for playing college ball is really appalling.
A far cry from the Cal of my youth, where Cal gave out plenty of basketball scholarships - a full roster, along with a JV roster, and a new frosh roster of 17 bodies every year. And any player who received a scholarship, was required to work 20 hours a week to keep it. There is a reason why Pete Newell required kids to work to earn a scholarship, and it was to introduce them to work, which in turn can help them mature.
BTW, how does this reflect on the program run by Mark Madsen, if a player leaves Madsen's Cal program to return to his former school? He realizes he made the wrong decision to come to Cal. Of course he could be going back to Stanford for other reasons, like being closer to a girlfriend who might be attending Stanford. Who knows? It is another reason to be very careful when we invest in any young athlete who might be an immature one.
In a non-dysfunctional world, students at a school would play sports because they love to play sports and their family, fellow students, and alums would attend games, root them on, take pride in their EFFORT, take a healthy pride in their achievements, and realize that their achievements are largely their own and not the fans. Take the kind of pride you take when an American is on the medal stand, not because it brings you glory but because one of your own worked their ass off to excel at something and reached the pinnacle of success and you are proud OF THEM.
College sports was not ruined by players. It was ruined by the "adults" and it was done early and over a long period of time. Starting with very early on paying ringers to play and bringing people in who had zero intention to be students. (For a humorous, culturally relevant portrayal, I would recommend the Rocky and Bullwinkle episodes where they are recruited to play football at Wossamatta U. This had been a known issue for a long time). Money has increased and increased by people trying to buy glory. It has become less and less about anything collegiate and more and more about laundry.
I have always argued that student (LOL) athletes got a good bargain in revenue sports getting top flight training and facilities and coaches that would be a dream to most equivalent minor league baseball players. That equivalent levels in sports like tennis pay gobs of money for the same thing. And the reason they got such a good deal is because strangers were willing to chuck money at minor league football and minor league basketball precisely because their jersey said "Wossamatta U" instead of "Modesto Nuts". I stand by that. But the fact is the money is going to these colleges and in the past millions and millions of dollars were going to the adults who played a supporting role rather than young adults who did the primary work.
The pretense is gone now. Bottom line, college football player and college basketball player is a J-O-B, job. That is all it is. Unlike days gone by, there isn't even a pretense that this is a multi year commitment. It is a one year commitment. At triple zero on the last game they have fulfilled that commitment both legally and ethically. And the mature thing to do, the adult thing to do, is the thing that the vast majority of adults do in their own job. Take the job with the best offer however they define that, money, people, working conditions, chance at advancement, training, personal relationships, whatever. And if someone offers you a substantially better job, you take that one. That is the mature thing to do. A person who is offered $500K more a year, better exposure, better facilities, better coaching, whatever it is they want, who does not take that out of "loyalty" or "be true to your school" is being childish. That is not how you make life decisions.
And I do not want to hear about loyalty. If a player gets a million dollars this year and he has a bad year, he won't get a million dollars next year. If the coach decides he isn't the best player for the job, he goes to the bench. If the fans decide he is not the best player for the job, they clamor for him to be replaced (Blacksher anyone?) So why should it be perfectly acceptable for the school to trade a player in for a better player, but it is not acceptable for the player to trade the school in for a better program?
I come from a Cal family. I was at football games from the age of 5. It was a dream of mine to go to Cal. I knew all the fight songs. My parents were massively proud when I got in and massively proud when I graduated. If for some reason a reasonably comparable school offered me $1M to go study there instead, I would have taken it while wistfully looking back. And my parents would have kicked my ass if I didn't. As I said for each of the myriad of football and basketball players that left early for the pros, if you don't have $1M and someone offers you $1M, you take the $1M dollars. That is the mature decision.
If we want to compete for players, including the ones on our own team, we need to offer them a JOB that is as good or better than what anyone else is offering. This is the pros now. They are jobs. Many of us, including me, don't like it. But that is the system we have and these athletes didn't build that system.
And the bottom line is that if you want to have kids that care less about money and have teams that don't turn over half to all their roster every year, you can have that. It means dropping down. If it's all about school spirit and loyalty and rooting for fellow student athletes, and not about chasing bags, you can root for Cal while they play UC Davis and Sac State. If you want to be in this world, to chase national glory with the big boys, this is the system. There are a growing number who have decided they would like the former, but they are still dwarfed by the number who want the brass ring. But the system is corrupt and you can't participate in a corrupt system and yell at everyone for being corrupt.
The players are frankly just now getting a fair slice of the pie. You can't blame them for playing by the rules of a system that they didn't build.
Trying to unpack this is hard. I absolutely agree that gambling/TV exploded the $$ flowing in to conferences but I think what is creating massive imbalances is the non random distribution of oligarch money flowing to individual players to dri e egos.
BeachedBear said:BCA - Love this, but I might expand your "adults" beyond simply the ego driven donors. Big money from broadcasting and gambling have probably played a larger role in terms of overall $$$ influence as well as impact beyond a single University. They are driving the bus. The rest is just consumer behavior.BearlyCareAnymore said:It is not the level of maturity of the adult men who play basketball for colleges that is appalling. It is the level of maturity of much older adults who have co-opted the spirit of amateur sport so they can puff up their chests and claim some glory because a team that wears the logo of their college or a college they root for succeeds while such success has zero to do with them except that they wrote checks to buy a player. They are the ones that ruined college sports.SFCityBear said:
Has any player who went through the Portal for greener pastures ever gone back through the portal to return to the school to which he originally committed?
The level of maturity of some of these children who demand lots of money for playing college ball is really appalling.
A far cry from the Cal of my youth, where Cal gave out plenty of basketball scholarships - a full roster, along with a JV roster, and a new frosh roster of 17 bodies every year. And any player who received a scholarship, was required to work 20 hours a week to keep it. There is a reason why Pete Newell required kids to work to earn a scholarship, and it was to introduce them to work, which in turn can help them mature.
BTW, how does this reflect on the program run by Mark Madsen, if a player leaves Madsen's Cal program to return to his former school? He realizes he made the wrong decision to come to Cal. Of course he could be going back to Stanford for other reasons, like being closer to a girlfriend who might be attending Stanford. Who knows? It is another reason to be very careful when we invest in any young athlete who might be an immature one.
In a non-dysfunctional world, students at a school would play sports because they love to play sports and their family, fellow students, and alums would attend games, root them on, take pride in their EFFORT, take a healthy pride in their achievements, and realize that their achievements are largely their own and not the fans. Take the kind of pride you take when an American is on the medal stand, not because it brings you glory but because one of your own worked their ass off to excel at something and reached the pinnacle of success and you are proud OF THEM.
College sports was not ruined by players. It was ruined by the "adults" and it was done early and over a long period of time. Starting with very early on paying ringers to play and bringing people in who had zero intention to be students. (For a humorous, culturally relevant portrayal, I would recommend the Rocky and Bullwinkle episodes where they are recruited to play football at Wossamatta U. This had been a known issue for a long time). Money has increased and increased by people trying to buy glory. It has become less and less about anything collegiate and more and more about laundry.
I have always argued that student (LOL) athletes got a good bargain in revenue sports getting top flight training and facilities and coaches that would be a dream to most equivalent minor league baseball players. That equivalent levels in sports like tennis pay gobs of money for the same thing. And the reason they got such a good deal is because strangers were willing to chuck money at minor league football and minor league basketball precisely because their jersey said "Wossamatta U" instead of "Modesto Nuts". I stand by that. But the fact is the money is going to these colleges and in the past millions and millions of dollars were going to the adults who played a supporting role rather than young adults who did the primary work.
The pretense is gone now. Bottom line, college football player and college basketball player is a J-O-B, job. That is all it is. Unlike days gone by, there isn't even a pretense that this is a multi year commitment. It is a one year commitment. At triple zero on the last game they have fulfilled that commitment both legally and ethically. And the mature thing to do, the adult thing to do, is the thing that the vast majority of adults do in their own job. Take the job with the best offer however they define that, money, people, working conditions, chance at advancement, training, personal relationships, whatever. And if someone offers you a substantially better job, you take that one. That is the mature thing to do. A person who is offered $500K more a year, better exposure, better facilities, better coaching, whatever it is they want, who does not take that out of "loyalty" or "be true to your school" is being childish. That is not how you make life decisions.
And I do not want to hear about loyalty. If a player gets a million dollars this year and he has a bad year, he won't get a million dollars next year. If the coach decides he isn't the best player for the job, he goes to the bench. If the fans decide he is not the best player for the job, they clamor for him to be replaced (Blacksher anyone?) So why should it be perfectly acceptable for the school to trade a player in for a better player, but it is not acceptable for the player to trade the school in for a better program?
I come from a Cal family. I was at football games from the age of 5. It was a dream of mine to go to Cal. I knew all the fight songs. My parents were massively proud when I got in and massively proud when I graduated. If for some reason a reasonably comparable school offered me $1M to go study there instead, I would have taken it while wistfully looking back. And my parents would have kicked my ass if I didn't. As I said for each of the myriad of football and basketball players that left early for the pros, if you don't have $1M and someone offers you $1M, you take the $1M dollars. That is the mature decision.
If we want to compete for players, including the ones on our own team, we need to offer them a JOB that is as good or better than what anyone else is offering. This is the pros now. They are jobs. Many of us, including me, don't like it. But that is the system we have and these athletes didn't build that system.
And the bottom line is that if you want to have kids that care less about money and have teams that don't turn over half to all their roster every year, you can have that. It means dropping down. If it's all about school spirit and loyalty and rooting for fellow student athletes, and not about chasing bags, you can root for Cal while they play UC Davis and Sac State. If you want to be in this world, to chase national glory with the big boys, this is the system. There are a growing number who have decided they would like the former, but they are still dwarfed by the number who want the brass ring. But the system is corrupt and you can't participate in a corrupt system and yell at everyone for being corrupt.
The players are frankly just now getting a fair slice of the pie. You can't blame them for playing by the rules of a system that they didn't build.
To be clear, Beached, I didn't mean to limit that to big time donors buying players. It's all the money and frankly it is "all of us" who contribute to it, constantly making concessions to revenue athletics until we have been lead down a garden path to the point that you can't even pretend anymore that college revenue sports have anything to do with college.
I wasn't talking about Madsen's coaching, I was talking about his difficulties so far in bringing really good players to Cal, and keeping them for more than one season. Madsen has been much better than Fox was at this, but one of the reason a star player might leave Cal could be that a lot of his teammates are leaving too. He may have been friends with them, and he may never play with them again. I have tried to be fair to Fox, in that many of his recruits had suffered previous injury or got injured and did not play much for Cal. On the other hand, evaluating a player's physical condition and propensity for injury should be a factor in deciding whether to try and recruit him or not. Madsen's recruiting has been way better than Fox's, but obviously not good enough yet to get us performing at a high level.RedlessWardrobe said:SFCityBear said:
Has any player who went through the Portal for greener pastures ever gone back through the portal to return to the school to which he originally committed?
The level of maturity of some of these children who demand lots of money for playing college ball is really appalling.
A far cry from the Cal of my youth, where Cal gave out plenty of basketball scholarships - a full roster, along with a JV roster, and a new frosh roster of 17 bodies every year. And any player who received a scholarship, was required to work 20 hours a week to keep it. There is a reason why Pete Newell required kids to work to earn a scholarship, and it was to introduce them to work, which in turn can help them mature.
BTW, how does this reflect on the program run by Mark Madsen, if a player leaves Madsen's Cal program to return to his former school? He realizes he made the wrong decision to come to Cal. Of course he could be going back to Stanford for other reasons, like being closer to a girlfriend who might be attending Stanford. Who knows? It is another reason to be very careful when we invest in any young athlete who might be an immature one.
Good post SFCB. But based on current conditions why make a judgment on Madsen whether AS goes back to Furd or not? To some extent this is happening to every coach in America. When Love went from North Carolina to Arizona did it really have anything to do Davis' ability as a coach? I would think not.
Rocky and Bullwinkle references can only enhance Bear Insider!
Yes this is fan mail!
Signed,
Some Flounder
I was always a big Sherman and Pe@body fan because of the history angle.
*The BI sniffing software thought the name of the dog described Trump's foul act in Moscow.
*The BI sniffing software thought the name of the dog described Trump's foul act in Moscow.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
bearister said:
I was always a big Sherman and Pe@body fan because of the history angle.
*The BI sniffing software thought the name of the dog described Trump's foul act in Moscow.
And the creator of Rocky, Bullwinkle, P*****y and Sherman, Super Chicken…. Jay Ward (Cohen), was a Cal grad, class of 47. Grew up in Berkeley too. His original idea for Frostbite Falls Follies was to have Rocky, Bullwinkle and newsman Oski Bear.
Excellent Cal/Berkeley knowledge!calumnus said:bearister said:
I was always a big Sherman and Pe@body fan because of the history angle.
*The BI sniffing software thought the name of the dog described Trump's foul act in Moscow.
And the creator of Rocky, Bullwinkle, P*****y and Sherman, Super Chicken…. Jay Ward (Cohen), was a Cal grad, class of 47. Grew up in Berkeley too. His original idea for Frostbite Falls Follies was to have Rocky, Bullwinkle and newsman Oski Bear.
"Fred, if you're afraid, you'll have to overlook it. Besides, you knew the job was dangerous when you took it."
Featured Stories
See All
2nd Official Visit Weekend Another Success for the Bears
by Jim McGill
Bears Pick Up NFL Academy Tight End Luca Wolf
by Jim McGill
Bears Gear Up For 3rd Official Visits Weekend
by Jim McGill