a little more on this.
again, one of the unforeseen consequences of the NBA instituting its age limit/one-and-done rule is that it exploded a lot of the polite fictions we have around men's college basketball.
Ben Simmons, an Australian phenom who is now a budding star for my beloved Sixers, had to more or less bide his time at an American university (Louisiana State) before going to the NBA. And he kinda openly disdained the whole charade.
He didn't go to class, and as soon as LSU's season was over, he was basically never on campus. He couldn't make the list for the Wooden Award, given to the best college player in the country, because he didn't meet the academic requirements.
And he came in for a LOT of criticism behind it — he was disrespecting college athletics or whatever. But SImmons was always more or less like: "i'm only here because i HAVE to be here."
This year, Michael Porter, Jr., was one of the highest-touted freshman in the country, and he landed at Missouri after an excellent HS career.
bit.ly/2ou7u1b
bit.ly/2ou7u1b
he played a total of two minutes at Missouri before he sat down with a back injury. He hasn't played since, although he miiiight come back this season, which is over in a few weeks.
But tellingly, little of the conversations about whether he should try to play this season is about what it might means for Missouri's tournament chances. It's about whether it will help or hurt his NBA draft position when he goes pro this summer.
And so this is where we are: Missouri is essentially housing and rehabbing a dude for 8 months because that dude is not allowed to start working for the corporate entity that is absolutely going to hire him.
in the interim, though, he cannot be compensated and he can't contact a sports agent.
he has to travel with the team and work out and rehab. he is a college student, technically. But come on.
he has to travel with the team and work out and rehab. he is a college student, technically. But come on.
i point this out because the rhetoric around these one-and-done players tends to be that they are selfish, and taking advantage on the munificence of their hallowed institutions of higher learning.
And why are universities so invested in these dudes who don't want to be there?
And why are universities so invested in these dudes who don't want to be there?
Here's why: when Villanova won the NCAA men's national title two years ago, it saw a 22 percent increase in high school student applications the next year.
A bigger applicant pool means univs can be more selective in who they accept, which increases their rankings, and so on.
A bigger applicant pool means univs can be more selective in who they accept, which increases their rankings, and so on.
It's also just a windfall for the universities and the conferences they play for.
But this is important: the NCAA tournament — which will be everywhere in a few weeks — more or less funds the NCAA's entire operation, with annual revenues of $700-800 million each March.
But this is important: the NCAA tournament — which will be everywhere in a few weeks — more or less funds the NCAA's entire operation, with annual revenues of $700-800 million each March.
The NCAA keeps about 40 percent of that haul, and gives out the other 60 percent to the colleges and universities.
And again: all of that $ is generated by a labor pool that, per NCAA rules, cannot be compensated.
And again: all of that $ is generated by a labor pool that, per NCAA rules, cannot be compensated.
*cough*
"Only 33% support paying college athletes. At 64 percent, opposition is nearly twice as high as support, with 47 % strongly against the idea. Nearly every demographic + political group opposes it except non-whites, for whom 51 % support."
wapo.st/2CoORVk
"Only 33% support paying college athletes. At 64 percent, opposition is nearly twice as high as support, with 47 % strongly against the idea. Nearly every demographic + political group opposes it except non-whites, for whom 51 % support."
wapo.st/2CoORVk
Of the 5484 men's basketball players in Division I schools in the 2016-2017 academic year, 56% percent were black. 
i don't think you can have an honest conversation about whether we should pay college basketball players without making clear how differently the player pool looks like from what the college hoops TV audience looks like (at least during the tournament).
to make this plainer: we are talking about older white men who are watching a sport in which the majority of players are black teenagers and young adults and who heavily oppose the idea of remunerating those black players.
Just for shits and giggles: the NBA TV demo looks a loooooot different.
source for those figures here: theatln.tc/2ou5FRR
Before I sign off, I want you to look at this:
"Paying college athletes would hurt traditions, NCAA chief Emmert testifies"
cnn.it/2Co0FqJ
"Paying college athletes would hurt traditions, NCAA chief Emmert testifies"
cnn.it/2Co0FqJ
