Early takes on the portal / NIL?

[MtnWasp]

What are the takes among us about the effects on the men's game of the portal and NIL? I intentionally link the two (NIL and the portal) because the effects on the game of the two changes seem to be synergistic.

I thought going in that the increased player mobility combined with a free market NIL potential would result in a coherent system where the cream rises, players can move up and down based on desired exposure, playing time and market forces.

So far, I see chaos and inefficiency. Mostly, I see a game disrupted by the locus of incentive being shifted from winning to players realizing their market potential. In theory, those two incentives could be harmonious but I don't think it is working out in that way. Players as mercenaries with such short term goals do not appear to be simpatico with building a winning program or good basketball.

As the NCAA tournament unfolds, we will watch the games and see the fine play and say to ourselves that the game is fine. But these teams are the top 20%, the teams that caught lightning in a bottle. But the rest of the 80% are not in the same position.

Personally, my skepticism about the portal has grown as a means to build a program. If I am a coach, I am asking the transferring player WHY he is moving? Are those reasons consistent with a player who is committed to his team mates and is a winning player? I like that Stoudamire seems to be favoring high school recruits as a means to establish a winning culture.

Programs will benefit from a very discerning and efficient allocation of NIL resources, where production is rewarded and speculation is marginalized.

 

[57jacket]

What are the takes among us about the effects on the men's game of the portal and NIL? I intentionally link the two (NIL and the portal) because the effects on the game of the two changes seem to be synergistic.

I though going in that the increased player mobility combined with a free market NIL potential would result in a coherent system where the cream rises, players can move up and down based on desired exposure, playing time and market forces.

So far, Is see chaos and inefficiency. Mostly, I see a game disrupted by the locus of incentive being shifted from winning to players realizing their market potential. In theory, those two incentives could be harmonious but I don't think it is working out in that way. Players as mercenaries with such short term goals do not appear to be simpatico with building a winning program or good basketball.

As the NCAA tournament unfolds, we will watch the games and see the fine play and say to ourselves that the game is fine. But these teams are the top 20%, the teams that caught lightning in a bottle. But the rest of the 80% are not in the same position.

Personally, my skepticism about the portal has grown as a means to build a program. If I am a coach, I am asking the transferring player WHY he is moving? Are those reasons consistent with a player who is committed to his team mates and is a winning player? I like that Stoudamire seems to be favoring high school recruits as a means to establish a winning culture.

Programs will benefit from a very discerning and efficient allocation of NIL resources, where production is rewarded and speculation is marginalized.

Good post. Greedy players should be shunned.

 

[Root4GT]

What are the takes among us about the effects on the men's game of the portal and NIL? I intentionally link the two (NIL and the portal) because the effects on the game of the two changes seem to be synergistic.

I thought going in that the increased player mobility combined with a free market NIL potential would result in a coherent system where the cream rises, players can move up and down based on desired exposure, playing time and market forces.

So far, I see chaos and inefficiency. Mostly, I see a game disrupted by the locus of incentive being shifted from winning to players realizing their market potential. In theory, those two incentives could be harmonious but I don't think it is working out in that way. Players as mercenaries with such short term goals do not appear to be simpatico with building a winning program or good basketball.

As the NCAA tournament unfolds, we will watch the games and see the fine play and say to ourselves that the game is fine. But these teams are the top 20%, the teams that caught lightning in a bottle. But the rest of the 80% are not in the same position.

Personally, my skepticism about the portal has grown as a means to build a program. If I am a coach, I am asking the transferring player WHY he is moving? Are those reasons consistent with a player who is committed to his team mates and is a winning player? I like that Stoudamire seems to be favoring high school recruits as a means to establish a winning culture.

Programs will benefit from a very discerning and efficient allocation of NIL resources, where production is rewarded and speculation is marginalized.

That's a bit harsh in my opinion. Players move for lots of reasons. Most of the movement is up from mid majors or lower to P6 teams by very good or from P6 teams down as for players can't get on the court for at the P6 level.

There are players who simply move for the money but they are vastly in the minority in my view. Now many of the lower program guys moving up will use money as one of the main criteria in selecting a team.

It's hard but not impossible to build a team from scratch. Utah State did it this year. Zero returning minutes and they make the NCAAT.

For most teams there needs to be a solid core of good players and adding one or two pieces from the Portal can make a huge difference. In our conference see UNC. They had a good returning core in Davis and Bacott and added two very good experienced players in Ryan and Ingram. Wake always add a player who become 1st team all ACC yet they still don't make the NCAAT even though they are a pretty good team.

HS recruting is still crucial to long term success, Teams need to be good at recruting HS players every year and just fill in a hole or two with high level transfers.

As always money matters. That has always been the case in college basketball. It is simply in the open now.

 

[stinger78]

What are the takes among us about the effects on the men's game of the portal and NIL? I intentionally link the two (NIL and the portal) because the effects on the game of the two changes seem to be synergistic.

I thought going in that the increased player mobility combined with a free market NIL potential would result in a coherent system where the cream rises, players can move up and down based on desired exposure, playing time and market forces.

So far, I see chaos and inefficiency. Mostly, I see a game disrupted by the locus of incentive being shifted from winning to players realizing their market potential. In theory, those two incentives could be harmonious but I don't think it is working out in that way. Players as mercenaries with such short term goals do not appear to be simpatico with building a winning program or good basketball.

As the NCAA tournament unfolds, we will watch the games and see the fine play and say to ourselves that the game is fine. But these teams are the top 20%, the teams that caught lightning in a bottle. But the rest of the 80% are not in the same position.

Personally, my skepticism about the portal has grown as a means to build a program. If I am a coach, I am asking the transferring player WHY he is moving? Are those reasons consistent with a player who is committed to his team mates and is a winning player? I like that Stoudamire seems to be favoring high school recruits as a means to establish a winning culture.

Programs will benefit from a very discerning and efficient allocation of NIL resources, where production is rewarded and speculation is marginalized.

I don’t know why any HC would want any player who’s just jumping around for the money. You don’t built a program off those guys. Not all portal guys are like that (e.g.: Kyle Sturdivant). If I can recruit well, I choose that route and build it that way. I applaud CDS for that.

 

[Peacone36]

Its garbage. Don't forget realignment. We have destroyed regional rivalries and now the PAC12 is toast and the ACC as we know it is next. The NCAA couldn't perform their duties to begin with and then they opened up this can. Now all hell has broken loose and its destroying what made CBB great. I am far less invested/interested than i have been in years past. They are going to further ruin it by expanding the tournament. It is entertaining though watching the Field of 68 dip****s try to say why its killing the game when Dob Rauster, Reags, Goodboy, Redhead Shoulder Pads and others were huge voices in giving the players everything they wanted. Bunch of clowns.

 

[ESPNjacket]

College basketball is in grave danger due to greedy and ignorant ADs and College Presidents. The players aren't the problem.

 

[kg01]

Best thing about all this is how all the elder statesmen, many of whom were responsible for illegal payments to their players to fuel their success, are turning their backs on the game when it needs them the most.

I guess they figure they made their money off the game, so screw it I'm retired.

Cowards.

 

[Home Park Jacket]

its destroying what made CBB great. I am far less invested/interested than i have been in years past.

Me too. These 4 days used to be my favorite of the year. Now I plan on watching the game summaries on Youtube.

 

[ESPNjacket]

If you ask the question: How did we get here? The people who were in charge and making millions of dollars just shrug their shoulders. They were paid a lot of money to do nothing and don't want anyone to understand they were paid a lot of money to do nothing.

Blaming NIL and the portal is their way out without accountability. Cowards is right. Thieves is probably more accurate.

 

[dtm1997]

If you ask the question: How did we get here? The people who were in charge and making millions of dollars just shrug their shoulders. They were paid a lot of money to do nothing and don't want anyone to understand they were paid a lot of money to do nothing.

Blaming NIL and the portal is their way out without accountability. Cowards is right. Thieves is probably more accurate.

Great post!

 

[78pike]

I don’t know why any HC would want any player who’s just jumping around for the money. You don’t built a program off those guys. Not all portal guys are like that (e.g.: Kyle Sturdivant). If I can recruit well, I choose that route and build it that way. I applaud CDS for that.

There are several examples of coaches, particularly newly hired coaches, building an entire team from the portal and being very successful. I think Steve Forbes did that at Wake. Of course there are probably just as many examples of that approach failing miserably. I believe the coaches that have a specific type of player that they believe will fit in their system do much better than coaches who are looking to just grab the most hyped transfers and hope they mesh well. I believe CDS falls into the former category. We can already see what he likes based on the players he brought in this season and the new recruits as well as the transfers he is going after this season. That gives me great hope for the future of our program. I believe we will improve each year he is here and return this program to prominence.

 

[kg01]

If you ask the question: How did we get here? The people who were in charge and making millions of dollars just shrug their shoulders. They were paid a lot of money to do nothing and don't want anyone to understand they were paid a lot of money to do nothing.

Blaming NIL and the portal is their way out without accountability. Cowards is right. Thieves is probably more accurate.

And all these sports journalists(sic) refusing to do their jobs are too busy sucking up to them to point out their theiving hypocrisy.

Great post!

I thought mine was pretty decent too, no?

 

[Root4GT]

There are several examples of coaches, particularly newly hired coaches, building an entire team from the portal and being very successful. I think Steve Forbes did that at Wake. Of course there are probably just as many examples of that approach failing miserably. I believe the coaches that have a specific type of player that they believe will fit in their system do much better than coaches who are looking to just grab the most hyped transfers and hope they mesh well. I believe CDS falls into the former category. We can already see what he likes based on the players he brought in this season and the new recruits as well as the transfers he is going after this season. That gives me great hope for the future of our program. I believe we will improve each year he is here and return this program to prominence.

Forbs has been solid at Wake but no NCAATs in his 4 years and a 37-41 Conference record. He is close to making the NCAAT every year. High turnover and he gets a star guard from the Portal every year.

 

[Peacone36]

Forbs has been solid at Wake but no NCAATs in his 4 years and a 37-41 Conference record. He is close to making the NCAAT every year. High turnover and he gets a star guard from the Portal every year.

Hed make the tournament if he played someone out of conference.

 

[slugboy]

Do 18-19 year old athletes who have spent the majority of their focus on becoming top-tier pro athletes make great financial judgments? Or act in the best interests of the sport and the fans?
For all but a few, the answer is “no”.
With a slew of relatives and others in their ears 24/7, it would be hard to act that way, even if it was smart—and who says it’s smart for them?

But even if you forgive that the ADs and Commissioners and NCAA staff ignored the elephant in the room before Alston, the Supreme Court lit their house on fire in that decision, and the collective response has been to wait for someone else to put out the blaze while they toast marshmallows

There’s blame to go around, but the 70-year old men with a lifetime to develop good judgment have shown none. Folly in a 20-year-old is one thing, but from men (and it’s almost all men) at the peak of their careers is another.

 

[cpf2001]

Do 18-19 year old athletes who have spent the majority of their focus on becoming top-tier pro athletes make great financial judgments? Or act in the best interests of the sport and the fans?
For all but a few, the answer is “no”.
With a slew of relatives and others in their ears 24/7, it would be hard to act that way, even if it was smart—and who says it’s smart for them?

But even if you forgive that the ADs and Commissioners and NCAA staff ignored the elephant in the room before Alston, the Supreme Court lit their house on fire in that decision, and the collective response has been to wait for someone else to put out the blaze while they toast marshmallows

There’s blame to go around, but the 70-year old men with a lifetime to develop good judgment have shown none. Folly in a 20-year-old is one thing, but from men (and it’s almost all men) at the peak of their careers is another.

I have a cynical streak that makes me suspect it's more intentional and "good judgement" in a greed-is-good-pure-selfish way: collect as much money as they can before someone else forces the system to change. At the end of the day, so many people are collecting paychecks for jobs that don't need to exist from a fan's POV, so any changes to where the money goes, or how it comes in, are changes they aren't going to make themselves.

Sometimes people choose to get paid well while going down on a sinking ship instead of trying to plug the leak.

 

[CEB]

And all these sports journalists(sic) refusing to do their jobs are too busy sucking up to them to point out their theiving hypocrisy.



I thought mine was pretty decent too, no?

 

[MtnWasp]

Directed at no-one post in particular:

In any team endeavor there is a balance between goals and ambitions of any individual in the group and the goals and success of the team. I think that the point here is that this balance has been lost.

I think the interest in team sport exists, whether that be on the participation side or the spectator's side, is based on the successes or failures of the team. Michael Jordan blurred the lines to some extent, and fans would actually attend just to go see the star. But overall, fans tend to be interested in following the exploits of their team regardless of who the team members are.

In book after book, article after article, interview after interview, coaches and athletes of successful teams always discuss how team members bought in to play for each other. That winning, the ultimate measure of success, the very origin of value of team sport entertainment, is the result of a measure of self-sacrifice by individuals to attain team goals (winning).

The current imbalance among some current athletes is that they fail to recognize the source of their value. They see an industry with a lot of revenues, and they assume that because they are participating in the industry that they deserve a cut. But that attitude is parasitic.. In fact, the origin of value is their production, the actual contribution to a winning team endeavor.

Trying to attain notoriety, to establish a brand and monetary value independent of team, and placing those individual ambitions above winning as a team undermines the value of the product. Their net value to the team and the industry is actually negative.

 

[ESPNjacket]

Just using GT as an example, in the '17-18 academic year GT's athletic revenue was about $92M. In '22-23' it was about $134M.

The people constantly whining about lacking revenue have had tremendous revenue growth yet continue to spend/waste it. There is no accountability in college athletics.

 

[MtnWasp]

This isn't limited to college athletics, it is everywhere! You are citing some of the founding sacraments of bureaucracy. Use revenues to establish departments who's sole purpose is to justify larger budgets. The diffusion of accountability is the Holy Grail of deeply bureaucratic organization.