What if our team staged Brian's Final 4 amateurism protest?
For those unfamiliar, Brian sometimes proposes an idea that the teams in the final four/championship should protest the NCAA (mainly amateurism) by delaying the start of the game and just waiting in the locker room, sending the message that the players are the show and that the money doesn't flow without them there. I agree with Brian that this would be incredibly effective. TBS would just air commercials, sure, but the message would get sent somehow.
What if it was our team? How insane would it be if the actually clean programs were the ones to make this statement? (Not throwing shade at Nova because I am mostly unaware of their reputation, but we know our own coach is Mr. Clean and I doubt Loyola has much of a bagman network.)
Wouldn't it be more effective that way? I really doubt the country would have any sympathy if two teams like Duke and Kentucky staged a protest, but what about us?
Important note: I'm not saying I want this. I would rather they didn't; it seems very nerve-wracking and stressful at a time where you want 100% focus. I also really doubt they'd do it for a lot of reasons, especially given that Beilein would probably not agree to it and I don't think the team would want to do it without their coach's consent/participation. It's interesting to think about, though, and it just hit me.
Also: I don't intend this to devolve into an argument about amateurism or various other MGoBoardian ways of missing the point of the hypothetical.
It would rule.
What if they didn't?
Period. The vast majority of fans would disagree and be annoyed at this, which helps no one
and undies
Go commando, start pooping. Halfway through the poop, remove your pants and slide on undies. Continue pooping in undies.
in front of the whole team and handing it off to your student manager I guess.
March 27th, 2018 at 11:08 PM ^
Yeah, but that was politicized because it was largely black people protesting unfai... oh.
I doubt Loyola has much of a bagman network.)Don't assume that only big programs cheat.
True. Was Loyola the team that got that 5-star a year or two ago? I remember some mid-major in/around Chicago got a really high recruit and we all scratched our heads.
I'm not sure - but fans should not assume that only blue-chip recruits are for sale. At every level there is a competitive advantage to out-recruiting your competition.
Calling Northwestern a mid-major isn't very nice.
(Seriously though, the Chicago midmajors UIC and Loyola haven't pulled anyone surprising. DePaul stinks but plays in a major conference for basketball; last guy of major recruiting relevance they got was Billy Garrett, who was a top 100 guy from Chicago.)
They landed a 5* center from Louisiana.
Sister Jean is actually their bag-lady?
"God wants your grandmother to drive safely. That's why he arranged one of our Chicagoland car dealer friends to lend a Rover to her. Bless you, son."
It might be cool to see. However, it'd be pointless. It wouldn't work. They're not going to pay the players. It's that simple.
At least according to the 2015 rulebook (first one I found on Google), a forfeit may be declared by the ref if the team refuses to play AFTER the ref has instructed them to do so. So they could definitely delay a bit. Also would the ref really do that if BOTH teams protested the game? They can't declare a winner in that case.
And based on reactions to peaceful protests, a large portion of the fanbase would blame the players for costing them a championship.
A free education
Free room, board, books, fees, and stipends
their swag - shoes, shirts, clothes, watches, championship rings
The experience of the tournament
Their epic runs in the previous two Big Ten Tournaments.
The jubilation following Jordan Poole's epic have winner
A chance to play for a national title
And playing for the best coach in he league
....all to express their displeasure with the NCAA?
Uh...what?
Who's giving up what to do what now? Are we talking about time travel?
I was confused by that as well - are we assuming that such a protest would automatically result in a forfeiture of the game? As well as the Big Ten championship?
I didn't have any trouble understanding it.
Hypothetical....the NCAA agrees to allow schools to pay players $15,000.00 per year for playing. What is going to keep the slime programs from using the same bagmen to slide an extra 20k under the table to mom, dad or player.
I don't see how paying these players is going to "fix" college sports. They have turned in to a feeder system for the NFL and the NBA.
So what you're saying is that the free market works in almost every other aspect of our society, but could not work here?
You're making a big assumption that all players need to be paid the same
The free market arguably works for the consumer (well . . . let's say that it does) but not necessarily for businesses themselves, many of whom go under every year.
If you have teams freely paying whatever they want to players, that will not work out well for a lot of them financially. That's the underlying issue here. It's not about amateurism, but competitive balance. Any sort of move to increase compensation has to be agreed to by the NCAA membership at large, and most do not stand to benefit from anything that isn't closely regulated.
So the NCAA should focus on propping up athletic programs for schools that could not compete if handcuffs were not placed on the most capable and/or resourceful of its member institutions?
Also, where in the NCAA mission statement does it mention competitive balance?
We all know the NCAA always has been about and forever will be about looking out for the interests of student athletes. Lulz
I'm not talking about what they "should" do. People should do a lot of things that they don't.
The NCAA exists because a bunch of universities decided to agree to compete under certain rules. Most of these schools don't make money on sports, so they've put in rules that protect the competitive balance. The minority that do arguably are stifled in some ways by the NCAA's rules, but inertia's a powerful thing and it's probably not worth the hassle of leaving the NCAA and forming their own organization, so they deal.
Competitive balance isn't a real exciting thing to sell to the general public, so the noble ideal of amateurism is what's put forward instead. No one really cares about that, though, and over the years little cracks have appeared in that façade - athletic scholarships (only since the 1950s, BTW), bowl game gift suites, and now cost-of-living stipends.
Core Purpose: Our purpose is to govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't "fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike" translate to making it a fair competition?
There is a difference between making sure Akron can compete at the same level as Michigan every year and preventing shoe companies from paying coaches, players, agents and schools to make sure the best talent consistently goes to the same small group of schools.
Fair and safe competition does not equal competitive balance
Sooooooooo...you are just going to ignore the equitable and sportsmanlike part? Got it.
Again, the NCAA's job is not to make sure talent is spread around equally to all schools. Not everyone can have a Big House. Not everyone has Cameron Crazies. Schools earn the reputation they get which influences recruits to sign with one school instead of another.
But the NCAA is responsible for making sure programs do not cheat to get players to attend their school.
Ask any athlete what they want more than anything, and I bet their response will have something to do with getting a fair shot to compete for a championship. How do you think the 2013 basketball team feels about losing to a team that cheated to get their roster put together? How do you think the 2006 football team feels losing to Troy Smith & OSU now knowing Smith should not have been eligible?
Your points just weaken your argument. The NCAA does not adequately provide a fair, equitable, sportsmanlinke.. pick your ajdective... environment CURRENTLY. So why should we stick with a system that does not "make sure programs do not cheat to get players to attend their school"? The olympic model or even a completely free market would do a much better job of curbing cheating and have the side benefit of actually doing the right thing for the kids generating the revenue.
Pro or amateur.
It's socialism, is it not? The LA Clippers were historically horrible under Donald Sterling. He's goes ApeshitRacist, and the team, which he bought for something like 45.00 and some green stamps, and did nothing to improve, sold for TWO BILLION DOLLARS!!!.