BeachedBear said:

---

Big C said:

---

northbay said:

---

Will be a total bummer if we lose TT but it makes sense to at least put his name in the portal since today is the deadline if he felt like his position on the team today isn't where it stood during pre-portal commitment period.

And he can always return if he doesn't find a spot to his liking.

But I think he'll need to drop down to a mid major if he's looking for guaranteed starter mins since his counting stats and inconsistent shooting means we are probably his best shot at playing significant P4 mins next year.

---

Once a player enters the portal, his most recent team can let him come back, or not. Their choice. That said, I'd imagine that Madsen would let TT return, unless he had already recruited someone else for the position or he ran out of schollies.

---

Soooo, here's a fun portal question: If a player making $200k enters the portal (thinking he can do better), but doesn't get a better offer and returns to original school...

Does the original school need to honor the $200k or is that alos forfeit?

Discuss....

---

BeachedBear said:

---

Big C said:

---

northbay said:

---

Will be a total bummer if we lose TT but it makes sense to at least put his name in the portal since today is the deadline if he felt like his position on the team today isn't where it stood during pre-portal commitment period.

And he can always return if he doesn't find a spot to his liking.

But I think he'll need to drop down to a mid major if he's looking for guaranteed starter mins since his counting stats and inconsistent shooting means we are probably his best shot at playing significant P4 mins next year.

---

Once a player enters the portal, his most recent team can let him come back, or not. Their choice. That said, I'd imagine that Madsen would let TT return, unless he had already recruited someone else for the position or he ran out of schollies.

---

Soooo, here's a fun portal question: If a player making $200k enters the portal (thinking he can do better), but doesn't get a better offer and returns to original school...

Does the original school need to honor the $200k or is that alos forfeit?

Discuss....

---

Big C said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

Big C said:

---

northbay said:

---

Will be a total bummer if we lose TT but it makes sense to at least put his name in the portal since today is the deadline if he felt like his position on the team today isn't where it stood during pre-portal commitment period.

And he can always return if he doesn't find a spot to his liking.

But I think he'll need to drop down to a mid major if he's looking for guaranteed starter mins since his counting stats and inconsistent shooting means we are probably his best shot at playing significant P4 mins next year.

---

Once a player enters the portal, his most recent team can let him come back, or not. Their choice. That said, I'd imagine that Madsen would let TT return, unless he had already recruited someone else for the position or he ran out of schollies.

---

Soooo, here's a fun portal question: If a player making $200k enters the portal (thinking he can do better), but doesn't get a better offer and returns to original school...

Does the original school need to honor the $200k or is that alos forfeit?

Discuss....

---

It might be forfeited, but I'm thinking the school would honor it, if they could. Otherwise, why take the player back and have a cancer sitting there on the team.

I could use $200k these days, but I guess it's chicken feed in this context.

---

barsad said:

---

How about instead of getting upset that there are four other guards recruited for your team, you decide you're going to prove yourself in practice and actually earn a starting position OVER those four guards. How about not running scared to the portal whenever things get tough?
This idea that you can "dip your toe" into the portal and come back if you can't secure more $$ is hogwash. The whole player-coach-team dynamic is different once you go that route. You ruined it, TT, good riddance.

---

stu said:

---

I can't speak for Carr, only say what I think as someone 4 times his age with parents long gone.

If money is most important then I'd look for the best offer, which I guess would not be from Cal.

If playing time is most important I'd look for a bottom P4 team or a better non-P4 team. Morale might be better at the latter.

If education is most important I'd look at Ivies, other UCs, and the like.

If proximity to home is most important I'd look at USF, St. Mary's, Santa Clara, Pacific, UC Davis, maybe UC Santa Barbara or Cal Poly SLO.

Of course the coach, staff, team, campus, town, etc. matter but those are beyond my knowledge.

It seems to me that UC Davis checks most of the boxes. FWIW more than 50 years ago I spent 2 quarters there and was very happy with the experience.

---

barsad said:

---

stu said:

---

I can't speak for Carr, only say what I think as someone 4 times his age with parents long gone.

If money is most important then I'd look for the best offer, which I guess would not be from Cal.

If playing time is most important I'd look for a bottom P4 team or a better non-P4 team. Morale might be better at the latter.

If education is most important I'd look at Ivies, other UCs, and the like.

If proximity to home is most important I'd look at USF, St. Mary's, Santa Clara, Pacific, UC Davis, maybe UC Santa Barbara or Cal Poly SLO.

Of course the coach, staff, team, campus, town, etc. matter but those are beyond my knowledge.

It seems to me that UC Davis checks most of the boxes. FWIW more than 50 years ago I spent 2 quarters there and was very happy with the experience.

---

Davis is going to beat Cal on $$?
I guess my real point is, the college experience is not about "maximizing your utility" on a checklist of things that you have above. A young person can learn a lot more by sticking to a decision, overcoming adversity, and being part of a team for four years (not to mention a free Cal degree, no offense UC Davis, but it's not the same).
He didn't even bother to see how he would match up against Wilkes and the other guys, now we'll never know. I think if he ever learned how to shoot faster (over the taller shot blockers) he would be competitive as a starter. But again, we'll never know because he was busy with the checklist.

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

barsad said:

---

How about instead of getting upset that there are four other guards recruited for your team, you decide you're going to prove yourself in practice and actually earn a starting position OVER those four guards. How about not running scared to the portal whenever things get tough?
This idea that you can "dip your toe" into the portal and come back if you can't secure more $$ is hogwash. The whole player-coach-team dynamic is different once you go that route. You ruined it, TT, good riddance.

---

I have had many colleagues and friends who found themselves in a job that didn't offer them a good pathway for advancement with co-workers who were more valued turn down better offers from others to fight and prove themselves to their employer who had no loyalty to them go on to thrive by burying themselves at that job for several years rather than take a job with better opportunities just to not be called afraid to compete

I also have never heard of an employee getting an offer and then using it to negotiate a better situation with their current employer. I've never had an employer who placed a very high value on me openly admit that my salary was 50% too low but that they wouldn't give me a raise unless I got a better offer from someone else. And I absolutely didn't get an offer from someone else with a 60% pay increase and I absolutely didn't leave to take that job even though my current employer matched their offer and I didn't go on to double my salary in 5 years and triple it in 10 years without ever asking for a raise simply because that employer valued me when my first employer proved they would make me fight for every dollar

I absolutely don't think that anyone who would stay to prove themselves rather than take a better opportunity elsewhere is a moron, nor do I think anyone who would castigate someone for doing so is probably a gigantic hypocrite.

Sincerely,

George Costanza

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

This site is so entertaining, even though there are maybe 2% of the original participants.

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

barsad said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

barsad said:

---

How about instead of getting upset that there are four other guards recruited for your team, you decide you're going to prove yourself in practice and actually earn a starting position OVER those four guards. How about not running scared to the portal whenever things get tough?
This idea that you can "dip your toe" into the portal and come back if you can't secure more $$ is hogwash. The whole player-coach-team dynamic is different once you go that route. You ruined it, TT, good riddance.

---

I have had many colleagues and friends who found themselves in a job that didn't offer them a good pathway for advancement with co-workers who were more valued turn down better offers from others to fight and prove themselves to their employer who had no loyalty to them go on to thrive by burying themselves at that job for several years rather than take a job with better opportunities just to not be called afraid to compete

I also have never heard of an employee getting an offer and then using it to negotiate a better situation with their current employer. I've never had an employer who placed a very high value on me openly admit that my salary was 50% too low but that they wouldn't give me a raise unless I got a better offer from someone else. And I absolutely didn't get an offer from someone else with a 60% pay increase and I absolutely didn't leave to take that job even though my current employer matched their offer and I didn't go on to double my salary in 5 years and triple it in 10 years without ever asking for a raise simply because that employer valued me when my first employer proved they would make me fight for every dollar

I absolutely don't think that anyone who would stay to prove themselves rather than take a better opportunity elsewhere is a moron, nor do I think anyone who would castigate someone for doing so is probably a gigantic hypocrite.

Sincerely,

George Costanza

---

Really hilarious, BC, leave it to you to put the Turd In a Punch Bowl with words like "moron" and "hypocrite" that no one else had used in the entire thread. TIPB is going to be your new handle in my mind from now on.
We'll see what great "job opportunity" TT can land. Next time you feel the need to tell us about all your worldly success, maybe consider not sharing.

---

I didn't call anyone, including you a moron. I called the hypothetical person that would turn down the opportunity a moron, which is to say I called no one a moron because no one would. I did call you a hypocrite and I stand by that on this point 1000 fold.

Leave it to you to put a TIPB by ripping a 19 year old for reasonably evaluating his options after getting recruited over.

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

barsad said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

barsad said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

barsad said:

---

How about instead of getting upset that there are four other guards recruited for your team, you decide you're going to prove yourself in practice and actually earn a starting position OVER those four guards. How about not running scared to the portal whenever things get tough?
This idea that you can "dip your toe" into the portal and come back if you can't secure more $$ is hogwash. The whole player-coach-team dynamic is different once you go that route. You ruined it, TT, good riddance.

---

I have had many colleagues and friends who found themselves in a job that didn't offer them a good pathway for advancement with co-workers who were more valued turn down better offers from others to fight and prove themselves to their employer who had no loyalty to them go on to thrive by burying themselves at that job for several years rather than take a job with better opportunities just to not be called afraid to compete

I also have never heard of an employee getting an offer and then using it to negotiate a better situation with their current employer. I've never had an employer who placed a very high value on me openly admit that my salary was 50% too low but that they wouldn't give me a raise unless I got a better offer from someone else. And I absolutely didn't get an offer from someone else with a 60% pay increase and I absolutely didn't leave to take that job even though my current employer matched their offer and I didn't go on to double my salary in 5 years and triple it in 10 years without ever asking for a raise simply because that employer valued me when my first employer proved they would make me fight for every dollar

I absolutely don't think that anyone who would stay to prove themselves rather than take a better opportunity elsewhere is a moron, nor do I think anyone who would castigate someone for doing so is probably a gigantic hypocrite.

Sincerely,

George Costanza

---

Really hilarious, BC, leave it to you to put the Turd In a Punch Bowl with words like "moron" and "hypocrite" that no one else had used in the entire thread. TIPB is going to be your new handle in my mind from now on.
We'll see what great "job opportunity" TT can land. Next time you feel the need to tell us about all your worldly success, maybe consider not sharing.

---

I didn't call anyone, including you a moron. I called the hypothetical person that would turn down the opportunity a moron, which is to say I called no one a moron because no one would. I did call you a hypocrite and I stand by that on this point 1000 fold.

Leave it to you to put a TIPB by ripping a 19 year old for reasonably evaluating his options after getting recruited over.

---

Astonishing wit in your comebacks, TIPB, keep it up, apparently Bobo is entertained. Free agents "evaluating options" every year, four schools in four years… yeah, what was I thinking, we should support this 100%, great for college sports.
Carr will find somewhere to land, but he won't find himself at Cal after "evaluating", and he's getting bad advice on this move so early in his career.

---

I wasn't trying to be witty.

I don't remember you screaming about coaches getting paid millions, able to jump from program to program, while driving salaries multiple times higher and draining resources from universities and programs that could have gone to support student athletes. I don't remember you screaming about administrators making 7 figure salaries. I don't remember you having a problem with an industry making billions while using non-paid workers to prop up those billions, at great personal risk by the way.

If we were talking about nice activity where alums, students, and other members of the community pay $20 to go see students at their school give the old college try to defeat students of other schools, where coaches and administrators are paid a reasonable salary, and revenue is a reasonable amount to cover the reasonable expenses of a program with reasonable resources, I'd agree with you. Give em a schollie for their efforts, develop them over 4-5 years, expect some loyalty to the school. That ain't what we have and it isn't the players' fault. The adults ruined this thing. They set out to get rich and squeeze every dime out of this endeavor and made it a multi billion dollar industry with no loyalty to the fans or the player, all while getting rich because they didn't have to pay players a remotely fair share of the revenue the players had a significant hand in generating.

You also seem to miss there is not loyalty from the university either. Under the old system, you recruited a guy and part of the deal was you developed him with some intention that he was going to play for you down the line. Yeah, you brought in new recruits every year, but they were almost all younger recruits. Transfers were a small percentage and mostly came from JC. Now, a guy can work his butt off for 4 years and be ready to start, be the best player at his position, and the school will still be actively looking for players who developed elsewhere to take his place if they are a smidge better. You want loyalty one way and not the other. The players all have to live by some code from 50 years ago while no one else does.

And let's be honest. You wrap this up in some morality play in your mind, but you aren't really upset with players for ethical reasons. You are upset because you want to watch football and basketball and enjoy it the way you used to and you don't care that your enjoyment required young players to be completely taken advantage of. You are blaming players savagely for being the last straw that broke the camel's back instead of looking at any of the straws that went before it.

I would love to go back to days where student athletes competed on behalf of their schools and money was a much smaller part of the system. That isn't going to happen. This is a professional league. The school-player relationship is an employer-employee relationship. Schools have no loyalty to players and have proven time and again that they will replace them and provide them as little compensation as they possibly can arguing some "be true to your school" BS. And in return, players have no loyalty to schools and will take the best deal they can. For many of these guys, these are their highest earning potential years and asking them not to maximize their earning potential while everyone around them does in the extreme is quite simply unfair. And ultimately your enmity is because you want to watch them play sports and you don't want to pay them market rate for it.

We don't disagree that the system sucks. We severely disagree about where the blame lies for that. And much of that blame, by the way, is also with the fans who continually make demands that lead to this ridiculous arms race. In fact, you could still have the system you want where players behave how you want, you just have to accept stepping down to a level where revenue is much lower and players don't command high dollars. You could have players with all the loyalty and heart that you want, they would just be much worse at actually playing and that is your real problem. You don't want to give up the high value player. You just don't want to pay them.

---

01Bear said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

barsad said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

barsad said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

barsad said:

---

How about instead of getting upset that there are four other guards recruited for your team, you decide you're going to prove yourself in practice and actually earn a starting position OVER those four guards. How about not running scared to the portal whenever things get tough?
This idea that you can "dip your toe" into the portal and come back if you can't secure more $$ is hogwash. The whole player-coach-team dynamic is different once you go that route. You ruined it, TT, good riddance.

---

I have had many colleagues and friends who found themselves in a job that didn't offer them a good pathway for advancement with co-workers who were more valued turn down better offers from others to fight and prove themselves to their employer who had no loyalty to them go on to thrive by burying themselves at that job for several years rather than take a job with better opportunities just to not be called afraid to compete

I also have never heard of an employee getting an offer and then using it to negotiate a better situation with their current employer. I've never had an employer who placed a very high value on me openly admit that my salary was 50% too low but that they wouldn't give me a raise unless I got a better offer from someone else. And I absolutely didn't get an offer from someone else with a 60% pay increase and I absolutely didn't leave to take that job even though my current employer matched their offer and I didn't go on to double my salary in 5 years and triple it in 10 years without ever asking for a raise simply because that employer valued me when my first employer proved they would make me fight for every dollar

I absolutely don't think that anyone who would stay to prove themselves rather than take a better opportunity elsewhere is a moron, nor do I think anyone who would castigate someone for doing so is probably a gigantic hypocrite.

Sincerely,

George Costanza

---

Really hilarious, BC, leave it to you to put the Turd In a Punch Bowl with words like "moron" and "hypocrite" that no one else had used in the entire thread. TIPB is going to be your new handle in my mind from now on.
We'll see what great "job opportunity" TT can land. Next time you feel the need to tell us about all your worldly success, maybe consider not sharing.

---

I didn't call anyone, including you a moron. I called the hypothetical person that would turn down the opportunity a moron, which is to say I called no one a moron because no one would. I did call you a hypocrite and I stand by that on this point 1000 fold.

Leave it to you to put a TIPB by ripping a 19 year old for reasonably evaluating his options after getting recruited over.

---

Astonishing wit in your comebacks, TIPB, keep it up, apparently Bobo is entertained. Free agents "evaluating options" every year, four schools in four years… yeah, what was I thinking, we should support this 100%, great for college sports.
Carr will find somewhere to land, but he won't find himself at Cal after "evaluating", and he's getting bad advice on this move so early in his career.

---

I wasn't trying to be witty.

I don't remember you screaming about coaches getting paid millions, able to jump from program to program, while driving salaries multiple times higher and draining resources from universities and programs that could have gone to support student athletes. I don't remember you screaming about administrators making 7 figure salaries. I don't remember you having a problem with an industry making billions while using non-paid workers to prop up those billions, at great personal risk by the way.

If we were talking about nice activity where alums, students, and other members of the community pay $20 to go see students at their school give the old college try to defeat students of other schools, where coaches and administrators are paid a reasonable salary, and revenue is a reasonable amount to cover the reasonable expenses of a program with reasonable resources, I'd agree with you. Give em a schollie for their efforts, develop them over 4-5 years, expect some loyalty to the school. That ain't what we have and it isn't the players' fault. The adults ruined this thing. They set out to get rich and squeeze every dime out of this endeavor and made it a multi billion dollar industry with no loyalty to the fans or the player, all while getting rich because they didn't have to pay players a remotely fair share of the revenue the players had a significant hand in generating.

You also seem to miss there is not loyalty from the university either. Under the old system, you recruited a guy and part of the deal was you developed him with some intention that he was going to play for you down the line. Yeah, you brought in new recruits every year, but they were almost all younger recruits. Transfers were a small percentage and mostly came from JC. Now, a guy can work his butt off for 4 years and be ready to start, be the best player at his position, and the school will still be actively looking for players who developed elsewhere to take his place if they are a smidge better. You want loyalty one way and not the other. The players all have to live by some code from 50 years ago while no one else does.

And let's be honest. You wrap this up in some morality play in your mind, but you aren't really upset with players for ethical reasons. You are upset because you want to watch football and basketball and enjoy it the way you used to and you don't care that your enjoyment required young players to be completely taken advantage of. You are blaming players savagely for being the last straw that broke the camel's back instead of looking at any of the straws that went before it.

I would love to go back to days where student athletes competed on behalf of their schools and money was a much smaller part of the system. That isn't going to happen. This is a professional league. The school-player relationship is an employer-employee relationship. Schools have no loyalty to players and have proven time and again that they will replace them and provide them as little compensation as they possibly can arguing some "be true to your school" BS. And in return, players have no loyalty to schools and will take the best deal they can. For many of these guys, these are their highest earning potential years and asking them not to maximize their earning potential while everyone around them does in the extreme is quite simply unfair. And ultimately your enmity is because you want to watch them play sports and you don't want to pay them market rate for it.

We don't disagree that the system sucks. We severely disagree about where the blame lies for that. And much of that blame, by the way, is also with the fans who continually make demands that lead to this ridiculous arms race. In fact, you could still have the system you want where players behave how you want, you just have to accept stepping down to a level where revenue is much lower and players don't command high dollars. You could have players with all the loyalty and heart that you want, they would just be much worse at actually playing and that is your real problem. You don't want to give up the high value player. You just don't want to pay them.

---

This is probably the best post I've read on these forums. Spot on!

---

barsad said:

---

01Bear said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

barsad said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

barsad said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

barsad said:

---

How about instead of getting upset that there are four other guards recruited for your team, you decide you're going to prove yourself in practice and actually earn a starting position OVER those four guards. How about not running scared to the portal whenever things get tough?
This idea that you can "dip your toe" into the portal and come back if you can't secure more $$ is hogwash. The whole player-coach-team dynamic is different once you go that route. You ruined it, TT, good riddance.

---

I have had many colleagues and friends who found themselves in a job that didn't offer them a good pathway for advancement with co-workers who were more valued turn down better offers from others to fight and prove themselves to their employer who had no loyalty to them go on to thrive by burying themselves at that job for several years rather than take a job with better opportunities just to not be called afraid to compete

I also have never heard of an employee getting an offer and then using it to negotiate a better situation with their current employer. I've never had an employer who placed a very high value on me openly admit that my salary was 50% too low but that they wouldn't give me a raise unless I got a better offer from someone else. And I absolutely didn't get an offer from someone else with a 60% pay increase and I absolutely didn't leave to take that job even though my current employer matched their offer and I didn't go on to double my salary in 5 years and triple it in 10 years without ever asking for a raise simply because that employer valued me when my first employer proved they would make me fight for every dollar

I absolutely don't think that anyone who would stay to prove themselves rather than take a better opportunity elsewhere is a moron, nor do I think anyone who would castigate someone for doing so is probably a gigantic hypocrite.

Sincerely,

George Costanza

---

Really hilarious, BC, leave it to you to put the Turd In a Punch Bowl with words like "moron" and "hypocrite" that no one else had used in the entire thread. TIPB is going to be your new handle in my mind from now on.
We'll see what great "job opportunity" TT can land. Next time you feel the need to tell us about all your worldly success, maybe consider not sharing.

---

I didn't call anyone, including you a moron. I called the hypothetical person that would turn down the opportunity a moron, which is to say I called no one a moron because no one would. I did call you a hypocrite and I stand by that on this point 1000 fold.

Leave it to you to put a TIPB by ripping a 19 year old for reasonably evaluating his options after getting recruited over.

---

Astonishing wit in your comebacks, TIPB, keep it up, apparently Bobo is entertained. Free agents "evaluating options" every year, four schools in four years… yeah, what was I thinking, we should support this 100%, great for college sports.
Carr will find somewhere to land, but he won't find himself at Cal after "evaluating", and he's getting bad advice on this move so early in his career.

---

I wasn't trying to be witty.

I don't remember you screaming about coaches getting paid millions, able to jump from program to program, while driving salaries multiple times higher and draining resources from universities and programs that could have gone to support student athletes. I don't remember you screaming about administrators making 7 figure salaries. I don't remember you having a problem with an industry making billions while using non-paid workers to prop up those billions, at great personal risk by the way.

If we were talking about nice activity where alums, students, and other members of the community pay $20 to go see students at their school give the old college try to defeat students of other schools, where coaches and administrators are paid a reasonable salary, and revenue is a reasonable amount to cover the reasonable expenses of a program with reasonable resources, I'd agree with you. Give em a schollie for their efforts, develop them over 4-5 years, expect some loyalty to the school. That ain't what we have and it isn't the players' fault. The adults ruined this thing. They set out to get rich and squeeze every dime out of this endeavor and made it a multi billion dollar industry with no loyalty to the fans or the player, all while getting rich because they didn't have to pay players a remotely fair share of the revenue the players had a significant hand in generating.

You also seem to miss there is not loyalty from the university either. Under the old system, you recruited a guy and part of the deal was you developed him with some intention that he was going to play for you down the line. Yeah, you brought in new recruits every year, but they were almost all younger recruits. Transfers were a small percentage and mostly came from JC. Now, a guy can work his butt off for 4 years and be ready to start, be the best player at his position, and the school will still be actively looking for players who developed elsewhere to take his place if they are a smidge better. You want loyalty one way and not the other. The players all have to live by some code from 50 years ago while no one else does.

And let's be honest. You wrap this up in some morality play in your mind, but you aren't really upset with players for ethical reasons. You are upset because you want to watch football and basketball and enjoy it the way you used to and you don't care that your enjoyment required young players to be completely taken advantage of. You are blaming players savagely for being the last straw that broke the camel's back instead of looking at any of the straws that went before it.

I would love to go back to days where student athletes competed on behalf of their schools and money was a much smaller part of the system. That isn't going to happen. This is a professional league. The school-player relationship is an employer-employee relationship. Schools have no loyalty to players and have proven time and again that they will replace them and provide them as little compensation as they possibly can arguing some "be true to your school" BS. And in return, players have no loyalty to schools and will take the best deal they can. For many of these guys, these are their highest earning potential years and asking them not to maximize their earning potential while everyone around them does in the extreme is quite simply unfair. And ultimately your enmity is because you want to watch them play sports and you don't want to pay them market rate for it.

We don't disagree that the system sucks. We severely disagree about where the blame lies for that. And much of that blame, by the way, is also with the fans who continually make demands that lead to this ridiculous arms race. In fact, you could still have the system you want where players behave how you want, you just have to accept stepping down to a level where revenue is much lower and players don't command high dollars. You could have players with all the loyalty and heart that you want, they would just be much worse at actually playing and that is your real problem. You don't want to give up the high value player. You just don't want to pay them.

---

This is probably the best post I've read on these forums. Spot on!

---

If "best" is measured in "most words," then you and TIPB are indeed Champions of the BI Forums, congrats.

---

01Bear said:

---

barsad said:

---

01Bear said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

barsad said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

barsad said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

barsad said:

---

How about instead of getting upset that there are four other guards recruited for your team, you decide you're going to prove yourself in practice and actually earn a starting position OVER those four guards. How about not running scared to the portal whenever things get tough?
This idea that you can "dip your toe" into the portal and come back if you can't secure more $$ is hogwash. The whole player-coach-team dynamic is different once you go that route. You ruined it, TT, good riddance.

---

I have had many colleagues and friends who found themselves in a job that didn't offer them a good pathway for advancement with co-workers who were more valued turn down better offers from others to fight and prove themselves to their employer who had no loyalty to them go on to thrive by burying themselves at that job for several years rather than take a job with better opportunities just to not be called afraid to compete

I also have never heard of an employee getting an offer and then using it to negotiate a better situation with their current employer. I've never had an employer who placed a very high value on me openly admit that my salary was 50% too low but that they wouldn't give me a raise unless I got a better offer from someone else. And I absolutely didn't get an offer from someone else with a 60% pay increase and I absolutely didn't leave to take that job even though my current employer matched their offer and I didn't go on to double my salary in 5 years and triple it in 10 years without ever asking for a raise simply because that employer valued me when my first employer proved they would make me fight for every dollar

I absolutely don't think that anyone who would stay to prove themselves rather than take a better opportunity elsewhere is a moron, nor do I think anyone who would castigate someone for doing so is probably a gigantic hypocrite.

Sincerely,

George Costanza

---

Really hilarious, BC, leave it to you to put the Turd In a Punch Bowl with words like "moron" and "hypocrite" that no one else had used in the entire thread. TIPB is going to be your new handle in my mind from now on.
We'll see what great "job opportunity" TT can land. Next time you feel the need to tell us about all your worldly success, maybe consider not sharing.

---

I didn't call anyone, including you a moron. I called the hypothetical person that would turn down the opportunity a moron, which is to say I called no one a moron because no one would. I did call you a hypocrite and I stand by that on this point 1000 fold.

Leave it to you to put a TIPB by ripping a 19 year old for reasonably evaluating his options after getting recruited over.

---

Astonishing wit in your comebacks, TIPB, keep it up, apparently Bobo is entertained. Free agents "evaluating options" every year, four schools in four years… yeah, what was I thinking, we should support this 100%, great for college sports.
Carr will find somewhere to land, but he won't find himself at Cal after "evaluating", and he's getting bad advice on this move so early in his career.

---

I wasn't trying to be witty.

I don't remember you screaming about coaches getting paid millions, able to jump from program to program, while driving salaries multiple times higher and draining resources from universities and programs that could have gone to support student athletes. I don't remember you screaming about administrators making 7 figure salaries. I don't remember you having a problem with an industry making billions while using non-paid workers to prop up those billions, at great personal risk by the way.

If we were talking about nice activity where alums, students, and other members of the community pay $20 to go see students at their school give the old college try to defeat students of other schools, where coaches and administrators are paid a reasonable salary, and revenue is a reasonable amount to cover the reasonable expenses of a program with reasonable resources, I'd agree with you. Give em a schollie for their efforts, develop them over 4-5 years, expect some loyalty to the school. That ain't what we have and it isn't the players' fault. The adults ruined this thing. They set out to get rich and squeeze every dime out of this endeavor and made it a multi billion dollar industry with no loyalty to the fans or the player, all while getting rich because they didn't have to pay players a remotely fair share of the revenue the players had a significant hand in generating.

You also seem to miss there is not loyalty from the university either. Under the old system, you recruited a guy and part of the deal was you developed him with some intention that he was going to play for you down the line. Yeah, you brought in new recruits every year, but they were almost all younger recruits. Transfers were a small percentage and mostly came from JC. Now, a guy can work his butt off for 4 years and be ready to start, be the best player at his position, and the school will still be actively looking for players who developed elsewhere to take his place if they are a smidge better. You want loyalty one way and not the other. The players all have to live by some code from 50 years ago while no one else does.

And let's be honest. You wrap this up in some morality play in your mind, but you aren't really upset with players for ethical reasons. You are upset because you want to watch football and basketball and enjoy it the way you used to and you don't care that your enjoyment required young players to be completely taken advantage of. You are blaming players savagely for being the last straw that broke the camel's back instead of looking at any of the straws that went before it.

I would love to go back to days where student athletes competed on behalf of their schools and money was a much smaller part of the system. That isn't going to happen. This is a professional league. The school-player relationship is an employer-employee relationship. Schools have no loyalty to players and have proven time and again that they will replace them and provide them as little compensation as they possibly can arguing some "be true to your school" BS. And in return, players have no loyalty to schools and will take the best deal they can. For many of these guys, these are their highest earning potential years and asking them not to maximize their earning potential while everyone around them does in the extreme is quite simply unfair. And ultimately your enmity is because you want to watch them play sports and you don't want to pay them market rate for it.

We don't disagree that the system sucks. We severely disagree about where the blame lies for that. And much of that blame, by the way, is also with the fans who continually make demands that lead to this ridiculous arms race. In fact, you could still have the system you want where players behave how you want, you just have to accept stepping down to a level where revenue is much lower and players don't command high dollars. You could have players with all the loyalty and heart that you want, they would just be much worse at actually playing and that is your real problem. You don't want to give up the high value player. You just don't want to pay them.

---

This is probably the best post I've read on these forums. Spot on!

---

If "best" is measured in "most words," then you and TIPB are indeed Champions of the BI Forums, congrats.

---

You can't defeat his argument by logic so you resort to ad hominem. Brilliant! Perhaps you should consider asking for your money back from Cal (assuming you actually attended) as your writing evinces you never learned how to think critically.

---