Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Basketball
Merits of G-League vs. College Basketball
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="MtnWasp" data-source="post: 710231" data-attributes="member: 4110"><p>The Federal indictments against the college coaches and shoe reps might have closed most of the back door money for the college game and the G-League contracts may merely represent the formation of a new market where that money can flow in the front door. Why should coaches, reps and players run the risk of running afoul when they can get the same thing above the table? </p><p></p><p>The talent is the commodity and we are seeing a lot of action across the globe for supply to meet demand. How many of these big money contracts for teenagers represent a speculative market? Are we seeing a bubble? At what point will there be a saturation of "stars?" </p><p></p><p>Baseball has had a stable minor league system for decades. Despite the bonus money, those prospects face a grueling bottle-neck to reach MLB. Basketball faces fewer infrastructure expenses and more international opportunities. But the rosters of basketball teams is relatively small and the shelf-life of a basketball player can be quite long, so that roster-turnover is less. </p><p></p><p>So, we get a cycle of a talent bottleneck, where emerging talent has fewer opportunities to crack into the big time, which results in the opening of a new market that the talent can exploit to earn a living. But then that market becomes saturated with talent and the cycle starts again. But at what point is there no longer a new market to exploit?</p><p></p><p>In Baseball's minor league system there has developed the trend where the AAA classification is largely occupied by veteran, fringe MLB talent and that most of the MLB franchise's most prized young prospects are in A and AA and only spend a short time in AAA if at all So, the saturation of MLB talent has filled AAA and now the development functions of the sport have been pushed down to AA and below. </p><p></p><p>I think that it is a foregone conclusion that college ball is no longer the default/mandatory developmental step in a professional basketball player's career. Players have alternatives that pose no existential threat to college basketball because pro-prospects represent such a small fraction of the basketball talent pool. Krzyzewski, Calipari, Miller, et. al. will have to compete with those pro-alternatives if they want to continue their present model of winning with proto-NBA talent. A question is, whether the NCAA/Feds are dedicated to closing down that back-door money? Even if they are not, is it just easier now for the talent to get a return on their market value in overtly professional venues? </p><p></p><p>But college basketball will be okay for those who enjoy the competition. The sport has a long tradition and established market. Even if the game is populated by players who are not as talented as the myriad of pro-leagues, the school Brands and competitive nature should leave a viable market. </p><p></p><p>As for the pro-leagues, how many is too many and when will they begin to dilute that market and decrease profitability and salaries? Is the decline in the popularity in attendance of live events merely a function of price or does it represent a cultural trend as young people prefer virtual entertainments? Big question, that.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MtnWasp, post: 710231, member: 4110"] The Federal indictments against the college coaches and shoe reps might have closed most of the back door money for the college game and the G-League contracts may merely represent the formation of a new market where that money can flow in the front door. Why should coaches, reps and players run the risk of running afoul when they can get the same thing above the table? The talent is the commodity and we are seeing a lot of action across the globe for supply to meet demand. How many of these big money contracts for teenagers represent a speculative market? Are we seeing a bubble? At what point will there be a saturation of "stars?" Baseball has had a stable minor league system for decades. Despite the bonus money, those prospects face a grueling bottle-neck to reach MLB. Basketball faces fewer infrastructure expenses and more international opportunities. But the rosters of basketball teams is relatively small and the shelf-life of a basketball player can be quite long, so that roster-turnover is less. So, we get a cycle of a talent bottleneck, where emerging talent has fewer opportunities to crack into the big time, which results in the opening of a new market that the talent can exploit to earn a living. But then that market becomes saturated with talent and the cycle starts again. But at what point is there no longer a new market to exploit? In Baseball's minor league system there has developed the trend where the AAA classification is largely occupied by veteran, fringe MLB talent and that most of the MLB franchise's most prized young prospects are in A and AA and only spend a short time in AAA if at all So, the saturation of MLB talent has filled AAA and now the development functions of the sport have been pushed down to AA and below. I think that it is a foregone conclusion that college ball is no longer the default/mandatory developmental step in a professional basketball player's career. Players have alternatives that pose no existential threat to college basketball because pro-prospects represent such a small fraction of the basketball talent pool. Krzyzewski, Calipari, Miller, et. al. will have to compete with those pro-alternatives if they want to continue their present model of winning with proto-NBA talent. A question is, whether the NCAA/Feds are dedicated to closing down that back-door money? Even if they are not, is it just easier now for the talent to get a return on their market value in overtly professional venues? But college basketball will be okay for those who enjoy the competition. The sport has a long tradition and established market. Even if the game is populated by players who are not as talented as the myriad of pro-leagues, the school Brands and competitive nature should leave a viable market. As for the pro-leagues, how many is too many and when will they begin to dilute that market and decrease profitability and salaries? Is the decline in the popularity in attendance of live events merely a function of price or does it represent a cultural trend as young people prefer virtual entertainments? Big question, that. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What is the last name of the current Head Football Coach?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Basketball
Merits of G-League vs. College Basketball
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top