Cal on Grad Transfers - Bad for the "Kids"

#155
#155
And this seems to be good business. Vetting the candidates you hire properly.
 
#156
#156
If the NFL had a one and done type ordeal,the quality of football would go into the sinker very quickly.

The NBA already has a quality problem, hence why their ratings are going down. The best thing the NBA can do for the product is to put in effect the 3 and done rule. The prospects would be more developed going out of college.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#157
#157
Burger said:
If the NFL had a one and done type ordeal,the quality of football would go into the sinker very quickly.

The NBA already has a quality problem, hence why their ratings are going down. The best thing the NBA can do for the product is to put in effect the 3 and done rule. The prospects would be more developed going out of college.
Click to expand...

But? They would "lose" 3x as much money as they do now. :) When we're doing telethons to bridge that gap between 15-30 million a season, you'll take all this back! :aggressive:
 
#158
#158
butchna said:
But? They would "lose" 3x as much money as they do now. :) When we're doing telethons to bridge that gap between 15-30 million a season, you'll take all this back! :aggressive:
Click to expand...

Some would earn that much more if they were developed better in college.
 
#159
#159
butchna said:
Collective bargaining involves sides determining how far they'll go at the table. Don't recall how much the players association "fought" that year, but sacrificing considerable paychecks so kids fresh out of high school can cash theirs most likely tempered that spirit. I think they'd dig in over two so they probably wouldn't let it get that far. Why do you pretend interest in what I "like"? :) One year is peachy imo.
Click to expand...

Because you seem fully on the NBA side, where more time is always better for everyone because there's more information. I'm asking where you place the limit on more time always being preferable--should we make players wait until they're 25?--and you cop out by saying the players wouldn't agree to it. If you could unilaterally impose an age limit, what would it be?
 
#160
#160
NashVol11 said:
I'm genuinely asking. Durant lost tens of millions by spending a year at Texas. And he gained...what? Social skills? Are you saying he wouldn't be a great player without college? Is it about the year of college education?What's the number one benefit for players to you
Click to expand...

95 Vol Alum said:
Legit players only lose in the 1 and done world. As already noted, they defer being paid by 1 year as a result and risk injury to do it. There is little to no benefit to the 1 and done model for a legit player.
Click to expand...

Question: "Great players don't seem to benefit from this. Can you explain where you see a benefit?"

butchna said:
There's risk in everything. Kyrie Irving got hurt in the 9th game at Duke. Destroyed him to the effect of first pick in the draft.
Click to expand...

butchna said:
Yeah, he'd have sucked without college. Can't "lose" what you never had. He's rebounded quite well. :)
Click to expand...

Answer: "There's risk in everything" + sarcasm. Not even close to addressing the question.
 
#161
#161
Burger said:
The NBA already has a quality problem, hence why their ratings are going down.
Click to expand...

Did you miss the giant salary cap spikes over the last two consecutive summers? Why do you think those happened? Result of the quality problem?
 
#163
#163
NashVol11 said:
Because you seem fully on the NBA side, where more time is always better for everyone because there's more information. I'm asking where you place the limit on more time always being preferable--should we make players wait until they're 25?--and you cop out by saying the players wouldn't agree to it. If you could unilaterally impose an age limit, what would it be?
Click to expand...

I'm on the side of the better product. We can't all be crusaders for the "rights" of players to become instant millionaires without reasonable vetting. First time you've mentioned AGE. Could give a crap how old they are. Fifteen year old kid plays legit competition for a year? Draft the hell out him I say. Ain't no "copping out". Maybe you're getting Burger's posts and mine mixed up? :)
 
#164
#164
NashVol11 said:
Question: "Great players don't seem to benefit from this. Can you explain where you see a benefit?"





Answer: "There's risk in everything" + sarcasm. Not even close to addressing the question.
Click to expand...

Answer it deserved. Made up "facts" on your part. Great players will shine...if they're truly great. Waiting a year won't affect that. This is for the quality of the other players needed. Chaff the bad wheat, so the good wheat can shine. :)
 
#165
#165
butchna said:
I'm on the side of the better product. We can't all be crusaders for the "rights" of players to become instant millionaires without reasonable vetting. First time you've mentioned AGE. Could give a crap how old they are. Fifteen year old kid plays legit competition for a year? Draft the hell out him I say. Ain't no "copping out". Maybe you're getting Burger's posts and mine mixed up? :)
Click to expand...

I've never mentioned "rights," and the reason you say we can't agree to disagree is mainly because you continue to mischaracterize my position and put words in my mouth, as you do above. To me, it's a solution in search of a problem, and ends up costing players money for no good reason. Nothing about rights, plights, or fairness.

I say "copping out" because I don't think you've explained where you'd draw the line. Theoretically, forcing players to play in the top European leagues after a year of college would give you even more "vetting" and information pre-draft. Would you support that?
 
#166
#166
butchna said:
Answer it deserved. Made up "facts" on your part. Great players will shine...if they're truly great. Waiting a year won't affect that. This is for the quality of the other players needed. Chaff the bad wheat, so the good wheat can shine. :)
Click to expand...

More accurate is "if they stay healthy."

"Won't affect that" just means it won't harm them, other than financially. How does it help? What's the benefit outweighing the financial loss?
 
#167
#167
NashVol11 said:
I've never mentioned "rights," and the reason you say we can't agree to disagree is mainly because you continue to mischaracterize my position and put words in my mouth, as you do above. To me, it's a solution in search of a problem, and ends up costing players money for no good reason. Nothing about rights, plights, or fairness.

I say "copping out" because I don't think you've explained where you'd draw the line. Theoretically, forcing players to play in the top European leagues after a year of college would give you even more "vetting" and information pre-draft. Would you support that?
Click to expand...

Of the two of us, I'm the only one who HASN'T mischaracterized the other's opinion. You've alleged that I've mentioned age limits...when I haven't. And I've never advocated multiple years of vetting. One would suffice...SAID THAT! Don't know why you insist on being confused. I'm sure doctors feel that internships and residencies "cost them money" because they can't go straight into private practice. It's money you don't have yet...so it doesn't COST you jack. Life sucks, then you're a millionaire on your way to being a multimillionaire. :)
 
#168
#168
NashVol11 said:
More accurate is "if they stay healthy."

"Won't affect that" just means it won't harm them, other than financially. How does it help? What's the benefit outweighing the financial loss?
Click to expand...

Grant Hill could've banked millions more...got injured...life. Staying healthy in professional sports may seem an unfair concept to you but no one cries when they get a guaranteed contract and never play a second. Grant Hill jumped every hoop. Dominated in college, rookie of the year, headline talent on the Detroit Pistons. Cashed in on his second contract and...debilitating foot injury. Was it "fair" that he never significantly contributed to the team that set him up for life? I say yes. Risk goes both ways. Owners shouldn't be the only ones to risk anything. As is, the players are made clear on what needs to be done. You need to do this for a year to get there...DO YOU WANT TO PROCEED? Betting 100% yes on that answer. :)
 
#169
#169
butchna said:
Of the two of us, I'm the only one who HASN'T mischaracterized the other's opinion. You've alleged that I've mentioned age limits...when I haven't. And I've never advocated multiple years of vetting. One would suffice...SAID THAT! Don't know why you insist on being confused. I'm sure doctors feel that internships and residencies "cost them money" because they can't go straight into private practice. It's money you don't have yet...so it doesn't COST you jack. Life sucks, then you're a millionaire on your way to being a multimillionaire. :)
Click to expand...

You've been either mischaracterizing or misunderstanding my opinion the entire time. If you want to say it's the latter, fine, as that's probably more likely anyway. The fact that you are talking about how you never advocated for multiple years (which is my point) reflects clear misunderstanding.

My question is, why not? I asked why high school vetting isn't enough; "because more information is better." Okay, so if more information is better, why not add even more? "Because one year is enough." WTF? Did more information suddenly stop being better? Your evasive non-answers have you speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

We are comparing this system to the previous one. Compared to that system, money is shifted from the hands of 18-year-olds to the hands of the owners. That is an economic cost stemming from the change in systems. Argue semantics all you want, but it won't get you anywhere.
 
#170
#170
NashVol11 said:
You've been either mischaracterizing or misunderstanding my opinion the entire time. If you want to say it's the latter, fine, as that's probably more likely anyway. The fact that you are talking about how you never advocated for multiple years (which is my point) reflects clear misunderstanding.

My question is, why not? I asked why high school vetting isn't enough; "because more information is better." Okay, so if more information is better, why not add even more? "Because one year is enough." WTF? Did more information suddenly stop being better? Your evasive non-answers have you speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

We are comparing this system to the previous one. Compared to that system, money is shifted from the hands of 18-year-olds to the hands of the owners. That is an economic cost stemming from the change in systems. Argue semantics all you want, but it won't get you anywhere.
Click to expand...

Not evasive. Sorry that you can't comprehend my continual answer of "one is sufficient". Not sure why you're so dogged on 18 year olds "having their hands on millions"? If they're good enough, the millions will still be there. Maybe you believe that if you keep asking the same question without accepting the answer that you win some point?
You don't. :)
 
Last edited:
#171
#171
NashVol11 said:
More accurate is "if they stay healthy."

"Won't affect that" just means it won't harm them, other than financially. How does it help? What's the benefit outweighing the financial loss?
Click to expand...

butchna said:
Grant Hill could've banked millions more...got injured...life. Staying healthy in professional sports may seem an unfair concept to you but no one cries when they get a guaranteed contract and never play a second. Grant Hill jumped every hoop. Dominated in college, rookie of the year, headline talent on the Detroit Pistons. Cashed in on his second contract and...debilitating foot injury. Was it "fair" that he never significantly contributed to the team that set him up for life? I say yes. Risk goes both ways. Owners shouldn't be the only ones to risk anything. As is, the players are made clear on what needs to be done. You need to do this for a year to get there...DO YOU WANT TO PROCEED? Betting 100% yes on that answer. :)
Click to expand...

All those words, still nothing approaching an answer, still the misguided notion that I'm complaining about lack of fairness. Reading comprehension can be difficult, I guess
 
#172
#172
butchna said:
Not evasive. Sorry that you can't comprehend my continual answer of "one is sufficient". Not sure why you're so dogged on 18 year olds "having their hands on millions"? If they're good enough, the millions will still be there. Maybe you believe that if you keep asking the same question without accepting the answer that you win some point?
You don't. :)
Click to expand...

So, more information is better, until you decide it's not. Seems there are arbitrary limits to your care for "the product" or the information.

Look, if this is all just baseless opinion, that's fine. Then don't pretend it's fact, or people will ask what you're basing it on, which is evidently nothing.
 
#173
#173
butchna said:
Not sure why you're so dogged on 18 year olds "having their hands on millions"? If they're good enough, the millions will still be there.
Click to expand...

And again, I'm not. I'm not talking about whether it's right or wrong. But, factually, it is a cost. So if you're going to claim that it's a net benefit for great players, then you would ideally describe a benefit that outweighs the cost, or any benefit at all, rather than avoiding the question over and over and over and over and over
 
#174
#174
NashVol11 said:
All those words, still nothing approaching an answer, still the misguided notion that I'm complaining about lack of fairness. Reading comprehension can be difficult, I guess
Click to expand...

I've made my position clear. Maybe frustration compromises your prose? Or you can't accept differences in opinions. :)
 
#175
#175
NashVol11 said:
And again, I'm not. I'm not talking about whether it's right or wrong. But, factually, it is a cost. So if you're going to claim that it's a net benefit for great players, then you would ideally describe a benefit that outweighs the cost, or any benefit at all, rather than avoiding the question over and over and over and over and over
Click to expand...

Cost is when you have money EXPENDED. They don't have it yet so it doesn't COST them anything. Better players surrounding great players is a benefit to those players careers. Sorry you can't accept differences in opinions. :)
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top