WBB — Pondering the Next Wave

WBB — Pondering the Next Wave - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WBB — Pondering the Next Wave (/thread-24915.html)

WBB — Pondering the Next Wave - Baez87 - 04-25-2024

Many posters on the Cardboard have opined on some of the current challenges facing collegiate sports — the Portal, NIL, play-for-pay, and a host of other issues that seek to respect the individual player, but might be detrimental to the sport itself. These issues can affect the ability to coach, the stability of the team, and the economic or academic interest of the university. We fans have lots to say about these issues on our fan forum, but little to say in the boardrooms where these issues are discussed and decided.
Of course, we can make our point by voting with our feet. We can quit buying tickets or stop watching games if we don’t like what has become of the game. But given the current trend in the sport — the potential surge of attendance and the media interest in woman’s basketball — others might have already voted with their feet, but in the other direction. Yet the resultant game itself might be unsustainable if the current changes in the way the players are managed actually end up devouring the game.
I suggest that we Card-boarders direct some of our collective energy to speculate how the current challenge we face in collegiate athletes might be channeled into creative opportunities.
Certainly the current Portal Madness is at a beginning stage and adjustments are bound to be made — just as in any other dynamic of change, the pendulum will swing back. For example, the transfer portal has been liberalized to give most of the power to the players leaving few options to the universities, athletic departments, and coaches. Once signed on to a school, players are guaranteed four years of play. Yet the players can quit and go elsewhere each year without consequence, leaving gaping holes in team's four-year plans. The institution is obligated, yet the student is not.
I would suggest that some sort of contractual agreement between player and school must be created to make this a fair agreement and that whomever is empowered to authorize this, should act. (This issue undoubtably has already started.)
I wonder what other ways the system might be changed to create a more equitable agreement between the player and the school without compromising the university. I’m curious what other members of this forum might suggest in terms of school, conference, or association policy to create a more equitable system that considers what is best for all — the university, the players, the coaches, and the fans.
Comments welcomed!

RE: WBB — Pondering the Next Wave - TonyLima - 04-25-2024

(04-25-2024, 11:16 AM)Baez87 Wrote: Many posters on the Cardboard have opined on some of the current challenges facing collegiate sports — the Portal, NIL, play-for-pay, and a host of other issues that seek to respect the individual player, but might be detrimental to the sport itself. These issues can affect the ability to coach, the stability of the team, and the economic or academic interest of the university. We fans have lots to say about these issues on our fan forum, but little to say in the boardrooms where these issues are discussed and decided.
Of course, we can make our point by voting with our feet. We can quit buying tickets or stop watching games if we don’t like what has become of the game. But given the current trend in the sport — the potential surge of attendance and the media interest in woman’s basketball — others might have already voted with their feet, but in the other direction. Yet the resultant game itself might be unsustainable if the current changes in the way the players are managed actually end up devouring the game.
I suggest that we Card-boarders direct some of our collective energy to speculate how the current challenge we face in collegiate athletes might be channeled into creative opportunities.
Certainly the current Portal Madness is at a beginning stage and adjustments are bound to be made — just as in any other dynamic of change, the pendulum will swing back. For example, the transfer portal has been liberalized to give most of the power to the players leaving few options to the universities, athletic departments, and coaches. Once signed on to a school, players are guaranteed four years of play. Yet the players can quit and go elsewhere each year without consequence, leaving gaping holes in team's four-year plans. The institution is obligated, yet the student is not.
I would suggest that some sort of contractual agreement between player and school must be created to make this a fair agreement and that whomever is empowered to authorize this, should act. (This issue undoubtably has already started.)
I wonder what other ways the system might be changed to create a more equitable agreement between the player and the school without compromising the university. I’m curious what other members of this forum might suggest in terms of school, conference, or association policy to create a more equitable system that considers what is best for all — the university, the players, the coaches, and the fans.
Comments welcomed!

I like the contracts idea. Any lawyers in these parts? Care to weigh in?

RE: WBB — Pondering the Next Wave - BobK - 04-25-2024

So many lawyers here

So a 4 year contract. Yet so many are graduating in 3 or 3 plus years.

RE: WBB — Pondering the Next Wave - 76lsjumb - 04-25-2024

How about this approach [which wouldn't work at Stanford, but might make sense pretty much anywhere else]? Don't recruit any HS players; only recruit seniors [and maybe juniors]. That way, you're not the "minor league" training ground for, say, Harrison Ingram or Kiki Iriafen. You don't have to spend money and effort on a player "with potential" -- who will turn in decent, but rarely dominant, performances as a frosh/soph and then leave you for the $$$ somewhere else just when the investment would finally pay off [potentially destroying your team for the following year <cough...Iriafen... cough>] Conversely, with good planning [and enough money] you can build [and annually rebuild] your team of experienced and likely dominant players who have already proven themselves.

As for 4-year player contracts, I imagine any school that required them would be at a disadvantage right off the bat to all schools that didn't, so that would only be viable if most/all schools required them. Wait a minute, I've seen this movie before...

And, of course, if all schools got together and agreed to require them... we'd have a lot more work for antitrust lawyers.

RE: WBB — Pondering the Next Wave - jonnyss - 04-25-2024

interesting idea!

i wonder though if that puts athletes at an unjustified disadvantage compared to other students. if i get accepted to the typical college, i get to stay for 4 years if i meet requirements. i also get to transfer out if i so wish.

why would athletes not have the same rights?

RE: WBB — Pondering the Next Wave - Goose - 04-25-2024

(04-25-2024, 03:55 PM)jonnyss Wrote: interesting idea!

i wonder though if that puts athletes at an unjustified disadvantage compared to other students. if i get accepted to the typical college, i get to stay for 4 years if i meet requirements. i also get to transfer out if i so wish.

why would athletes not have the same rights?

They would. They can transfer out. However, they would have a "buyout" liability because of a contract they signed. Nobody forced them to sign the contract. Indentured servitude is illegal, but "buyouts" are not. Of course, your destination school could front you the money. Kind of defeats the purpose of the contract, but that's how it would go. Just like coaches.

RE: WBB — Pondering the Next Wave - TonyLima - 04-25-2024

B

(04-25-2024, 03:17 PM)76lsjumb Wrote: How about this approach [which wouldn't work at Stanford, but might make sense pretty much anywhere else]? Don't recruit any HS players; only recruit seniors [and maybe juniors]. That way, you're not the "minor league" training ground for, say, Harrison Ingram or Kiki Iriafen. You don't have to spend money and effort on a player "with potential" -- who will turn in decent, but rarely dominant, performances as a frosh/soph and then leave you for the $$$ somewhere else just when the investment would finally pay off [potentially destroying your team for the following year <cough...Iriafen... cough>] Conversely, with good planning [and enough money] you can build [and annually rebuild] your team of experienced and likely dominant players who have already proven themselves.

As for 4-year player contracts, I imagine any school that required them would be at a disadvantage right off the bat to all schools that didn't, so that would only be viable if most/all schools required them. Wait a minute, I've seen this movie before...

And, of course, if all schools got together and agreed to require them... we'd have a lot more work for antitrust lawyers.

This is why I asked the question. Thank you.

(04-25-2024, 03:55 PM)jonnyss Wrote: interesting idea!

i wonder though if that puts athletes at an unjustified disadvantage compared to other students. if i get accepted to the typical college, i get to stay for 4 years if i meet requirements. i also get to transfer out if i so wish.

why would athletes not have the same rights?

Let me suggest that the contract duration does not have to be 4 years.

RE: WBB — Pondering the Next Wave - Baez87 - 04-29-2024

The WBB Portal situation will probably change significantly in the next two days, but for now fourteen teams of the three-hundred-fifty-one Division 1 women's basketball colleges have feasted on, what ESPN has regarded as, the the top twenty-five players available in the Portal. Two teams have selected multiple players from the top twenty-five ranked pool (USCa is one such team with its selections of Iriafen and VanOelhoffen). One player might gain, along with its newly selected team, but many will be negatively effected by this exodus.
Eight of the twenty-five players remain in the Portal, but we can expect this to change in the next couple of days. And, yes, the Top Five Ranked Players have been signed! Unfortunately, Stanford has not made a Portal selection from the 1,300 players currently in the Portal at this date. I’m sure it’s a very hot topic in the coach's meetings.
This live-market-mentality might be the nature of women’s basketball for the next several years if no restrictions are placed on the comings and goings of players. On the other hand, this two or three years period that we are in, in which all the power is held by the few fortunate skilled players who are regarded as prime prey by some, may soon be looked back upon as "The Old West That Was!" Or new rules and conventions might emerge from this period that replace the current set, rules that seek to renew some of the prerogative of the school, the coaches, and, to be fair, the game itself, so that WBB doesn’t become an ugly replica of itself.
I wish to invite our posters to apply some creative thinking to what those “new rules and conventions” could be. At the beginning of the thread I suggest that some bonafide organization — the NCAA or completely new organization such as a consortium of universities — create a contract. It wasn’t my intent to make the creation of a contract the only talking point on this thread. In my humble opinion, something significant needs to be instituted to redirect Women’s College’s Basketball. Whether that construct be a contract, a required period a player must remain with a team, a salary cap, or something not tried by the professional teams which dealt with this very same issue after Curt Flood changed professional baseball. Some creative solution might be imposed that makes this situation fair and equitable.
I’m sure that the NCAA, universities, coaches, and others interested in preserving the sanctity of the game are already engaged in such a process. Most organizations respond to change by "thinking outside the box" to craft solutions to, what might seem like a catastrophe, with the intention to bring change! There is no reason that the new status quo be accepted as it is!

RE: WBB — Pondering the Next Wave - BillBradley - 04-29-2024

(04-29-2024, 07:03 PM)Baez87 Wrote: The WBB Portal situation will probably change significantly in the next two days, but for now fourteen teams of the three-hundred-fifty-one Division 1 women's basketball colleges have feasted on, what ESPN has regarded as, the the top twenty-five players available in the Portal. Two teams have selected multiple players from the top twenty-five ranked pool (USCa is one such team with its selections of Iriafen and VanOelhoffen). One player might gain, along with its newly selected team, but many will be negatively effected by this exodus.
Eight of the twenty-five players remain in the Portal, but we can expect this to change in the next couple of days. And, yes, the Top Five Ranked Players have been signed! Unfortunately, Stanford has not made a Portal selection from the 1,300 players currently in the Portal at this date. I’m sure it’s a very hot topic in the coach's meetings.
This live-market-mentality might be the nature of women’s basketball for the next several years if no restrictions are placed on the comings and goings of players. On the other hand, this two or three years period that we are in, in which all the power is held by the few fortunate skilled players who are regarded as prime prey by some, may soon be looked back upon as "The Old West That Was!" Or new rules and conventions might emerge from this period that replace the current set, rules that seek to renew some of the prerogative of the school, the coaches, and, to be fair, the game itself, so that WBB doesn’t become an ugly replica of itself.
I wish to invite our posters to apply some creative thinking to what those “new rules and conventions” could be. At the beginning of the thread I suggest that some bonafide organization — the NCAA or completely new organization such as a consortium of universities — create a contact. It wasn’t my intent to make the creation of a contract the only talking point on this thread. In my humble opinion, something significant needs to be instituted to redirect Women’s College’s Basketball. Whether that construct be a contract, a required period a player must remain with a team, a salary cap, or something not tried by the professional teams which dealt with this very same issue after Curt Flood changed professional baseball. Some creative solution might be imposed that makes this situation fair and equitable.
I’m sure that the NCAA, universities, coaches, and others interested in preserving the sanctity of the game are already engaged in such a process. Most organizations respond to change by "thinking outside the box" to craft solutions to, what might seem like a catastrophe, with the intention to bring change! There is no reason that the new status quo be accepted as it is!

I'm a little unclear as to your main point. Are you saying this current wild-west / free-market model benefits the top players and top schools and is therefore unfair to the rest of the players & schools? Or simply that we need mechanisms in place to keep players at their schools longer?

RE: WBB — Pondering the Next Wave - Baez87 - 04-29-2024

Bill Bradley:
No, my point is that empowering the players to shape the terrain of college basketball places an inordinate amount of power in the player’s hands. I would favor a system that is shaped by the stakeholders of the game. That would include those who want to see athletics serve the institution rather than the reverse. However, in this post, I am simply asking others to join in to suggest legal ways that the current policy could be altered. You have asserted in the past that we should accept the current policy because that’s the way it is. I think that policies are worked out over time. We are in a very early stage of the modifications of collegiate athletics.
I

RE: WBB — Pondering the Next Wave - M T - 04-30-2024

Baez87, thanks for a level-headed call for ideas.

I don't claim that these are in any way thought out, but just putting these out as strawmen to encourage discussion. Others have mentioned these before.

1) You used the term "legal". Congress can make many things legal. I'd think access to college and athletics is something they might engage. I don't know the demographics of the full set of college athletic scholarship recipients, but athletics is one way someone go to college that might not otherwise (because of financial need or failure to make the grades). How Congress might wade into this is uncertain. One way is to make sure NIL payments are not considered tax deductible, and receipt of NIL money is taxed. After all, it is payment for services (just as paying Taylor Swift to promote a product) and has nothing to do with education. That will discourage money otherwise donated ("tax free") to colleges to be paid directly as NIL.

2) Another way Congress could act is to give special status to the NCAA or other collegiate sports governing body. AIUI, MLB has a special status. This could potentially allow the NCAA to set rules that they might not attempt now due to concerns about the legality of such rules. Exactly what the NCAA might do is not clear to me.

"Salary cap"? What we are starting to see smacks of rich teams (NYY-style) buying up the best players, leaving other teams as farm clubs (but they lose money developing players, and don't get paid for it). The difficulty is in identifying & categorizing 3rd party payments to players (the NCAA has been trying to control that for decades, until NIL).
"Sit out a year"? Frankly, I don't understand why the NCAA isn't requiring the sit-out-a-year rule. It would seem to be a major deterrent to teams transferring in players. It practically guarantees players won't leave after their Junior year. (Grad transfers (Iriafen, Madeline Gates) probably should be allowed to play if they have not exhausted their 4 years of eligibility already.)
Different leagues of Haves and Have-Nots.
Team limits on number of players in a class (where Grad Student is a class). As I thought of when Gates came to Stanford, a team could have no undergraduates and depend entirely on pulling upperclass/grad transfers in.
Personally, I'd work at splitting up super conferences. IMO, this is being used to squeeze out other schools from TV money.
Put limits on travel time during the school year, with a process for granting exceptions. Women's Field Hockey out west may need to travel to the East Coast to find sufficient teams to play; ditto for WWP in Michigan traveling to California. But there is no reason that BB and FB players need to play 5 or more games on the other coast, missing classes and student life.
Consider "taxing" TV money proceeds and spreading that money more widely. If Alabama - Auburn FB game pulls in big money, maybe some of that should be distributed to the FB program at Louisiana A&M (intentionally a no-name school -- I hope I didn't accidentally choose a real school). And for that matter, to the WFH program there as well. (Actually, I'm liking this approach a lot.)
As mentioned by Baez87 (and others, I suspect), contracts between the student and the school. I don't particularly mind the potential of buy-out by the NIL group paying the student they are hiring away. But this has to be thought out carefully. A student-athlete that wants to go play elsewhere may well claim that the coach/admin/team at the school they are transferring out of were abusive (etc) and threaten to sue. The school would probably drop the payment requirement to avoid such a potential ugly proceeding even if it were baseless.

Enough strawmen for me for now.

RE: WBB — Pondering the Next Wave - BillBradley - 04-30-2024

(04-29-2024, 11:34 PM)Baez87 Wrote: Bill Bradley:
No, my point is that empowering the players to shape the terrain of college basketball places an inordinate amount of power in the player’s hands. I would favor a system that is shaped by the stakeholders of the game. That would include those who want to see athletics serve the institution rather than the reverse. However, in this post, I am simply asking others to join in to suggest legal ways that the current policy could be altered. You have asserted in the past that we should accept the current policy because that’s the way it is. I think that policies are worked out over time. We are in a very early stage of the modifications of collegiate athletics.
I

OK thanks. I don't mean to derail your topic (others with law backgrounds please continue to keep the thread going). But FWIW, when Brittany Griner or Stewy or Caitlin or Juju brought their talents to the schools they chose as freshmen, why wasn't that in itself a display of an inordinate amount of power? It happens again and again, every recruiting cycle. The top players change the landscape when they enter as freshmen. Also, I know I sound like a broken record, but in all those cases I think the institutions were all glad to serve those athletes. They benefited greatly.

RE: WBB — Pondering the Next Wave - 76lsjumb - 04-30-2024

(04-30-2024, 10:12 PM)BillBradley Wrote:
(04-29-2024, 11:34 PM)Baez87 Wrote: Bill Bradley:
No, my point is that empowering the players to shape the terrain of college basketball places an inordinate amount of power in the player’s hands. I would favor a system that is shaped by the stakeholders of the game. That would include those who want to see athletics serve the institution rather than the reverse. However, in this post, I am simply asking others to join in to suggest legal ways that the current policy could be altered. You have asserted in the past that we should accept the current policy because that’s the way it is. I think that policies are worked out over time. We are in a very early stage of the modifications of collegiate athletics.
I
OK thanks. I don't mean to derail your topic (others with law backgrounds please continue to keep the thread going). But FWIW, when Brittany Griner or Stewy or Caitlin or Juju brought their talents to the schools they chose as freshmen, why wasn't that in itself a display of an inordinate amount of power? It happens again and again, every recruiting cycle. The top players change the landscape when they enter as freshmen. Also, I know I sound like a broken record, but in all those cases I think the institutions were all glad to serve those athletes. They benefited greatly.

The institutions benefitted greatly...until that player [in the new paradigm] decides to leave the following year for more money elsewhere, leaving the institution with a big hole in the team... requiring that institution to go raid another team to fill the unplanned vacant position, etc., etc. Otherwise put, the impact of upper class transfers is immediately twice that of a new high school senior coming in [since it hurts one school as well as helping one school], and those impacts are compounded further by the fact that transfers affect all four classes, not just one [incoming frosh].

RE: WBB — Pondering the Next Wave - SkiBum80 - 05-01-2024

I have been interested to follow the thoughts and ideas on here about where the NIL wild west is headed,
and what might be possible to bring some sanity to it.
But any hopeful thoughts about Congress stepping up to "fix" the situation reminds me of the oft quoted Mark Twain observation:
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."
In the meantime I support our own NIL cause that's the weedy empty lot and made-up hometown-rules we're currently playing by.

RE: WBB — Pondering the Next Wave - BillBradley - 05-02-2024

(04-30-2024, 11:31 PM)76lsjumb Wrote:
(04-30-2024, 10:12 PM)BillBradley Wrote:
(04-29-2024, 11:34 PM)Baez87 Wrote: Bill Bradley:
No, my point is that empowering the players to shape the terrain of college basketball places an inordinate amount of power in the player’s hands. I would favor a system that is shaped by the stakeholders of the game. That would include those who want to see athletics serve the institution rather than the reverse. However, in this post, I am simply asking others to join in to suggest legal ways that the current policy could be altered. You have asserted in the past that we should accept the current policy because that’s the way it is. I think that policies are worked out over time. We are in a very early stage of the modifications of collegiate athletics.
I
OK thanks. I don't mean to derail your topic (others with law backgrounds please continue to keep the thread going). But FWIW, when Brittany Griner or Stewy or Caitlin or Juju brought their talents to the schools they chose as freshmen, why wasn't that in itself a display of an inordinate amount of power? It happens again and again, every recruiting cycle. The top players change the landscape when they enter as freshmen. Also, I know I sound like a broken record, but in all those cases I think the institutions were all glad to serve those athletes. They benefited greatly.

The institutions benefitted greatly...until that player [in the new paradigm] decides to leave the following year for more money elsewhere, leaving the institution with a big hole in the team... requiring that institution to go raid another team to fill the unplanned vacant position, etc., etc. Otherwise put, the impact of upper class transfers is immediately twice that of a new high school senior coming in [since it hurts one school as well as helping one school], and those impacts are compounded further by the fact that transfers affect all four classes, not just one [incoming frosh].

OK, but over 1000 women basketball players have entered the portal this past period. Doesn't that say something about the need for players to be able to find a better situation for themselves? Look, as a Stanford fan I don't like it when we lose players. But Stanford is an outlier. I would say that practically all of the 1000+ players have put more into basketball than any other thing in their lives. It's another debate if sports have become too big and the heavy pursuit of success in athletics doesn't stack up with people's individual ideals. But these 1000+ players eat, sleep, and drink hoops. Early workouts, lifting, training, practice, film, more workouts, offseason strength, conditioning, studying in hotels, remote exams...it never ends. Most college hoopers put way more into basketball than their academics, and they really don't even have much choice. They have to put in the time if they want to play. The competition is fierce. Again, Stanford is an outlier here as are we as Stanford fans. But I think there's a level of ignorance on this board as to what the typical college basketball player at the average university goes through on a daily basis. It dominates their life at most schools. Academics are important, but secondary.

The transfer policies need to be considerate of the entire player base, not just the handful of top stars (like Kiki) where part of the reason for transfer is the NIL money. The vast majority of transfer cases have zero NIL money involved. Do people really want players to have to stay in programs where they aren't happy? If so, why? IMO, any "contract" or other legal mechanism that handcuffs players to their academic institution is really not a good fit in today's college basketball world.

p.s. I too roll my eyes at the players who are still "keeping the dream alive" and have played in 5 different programs by the time they graduate. For sure, I want them to pick something else for a career and get on with their lives. But that's not my choice, it's theirs.

RE: WBB — Pondering the Next Wave - M T - 05-02-2024

NCAA stats on the transfer portal can be found here.
(All data here is for 2023)
They note the 1/3 transfer rate for grad students and tie it to the extended eligibility (COVID) which is soon to expire. (I'd quote them but I can't copy their text.)

Some things I found interesting:
57% of those in the portal actually transferred to a new NCAA school in 2023. (70% for WBB, 55% for WSwim)
13,025 transferred to a new NCAA school (865 for WBB, 187 for WSwim&Dive)
so I derive about 22,851 in the portal (so, 9800 didn't transfer to a NCAA school).
33% of those who transferred have graduated. (29.5% for WBB, 24% for WSwim)

Looking at their aided/unaided at departing school, I derive
Entries into the portal: aided at departing school: 15,009; unaided: 6,180. (total 21,189 which is less than the 22,851 I calculate above)
(WBB: aided: 757; unaided: 57; WSwim: aided: 139; unaided: 63)
59% of those with aid who entered portal when to a different school and got aid. Another 10% transferred without aid (ie, they lost the benefit of scholarship) (No, that's not a consequence of grad transfers. For non-grad, 11% went from aid to no aid.)
(WBB: aided -> aided 74%; aided -> unaided: 3% . WSwim: aided -> aided: 54%. aided -> unaided: 20% )

WBB transfers seem quite different than overall or for WSwim.

I wish the NCAA also had included numbers for the total population. Ie, how many WBB student-athletes are there (ie, how many did NOT enter the portal), and how many have aid.

Regarding with aid vs without aid: I understand there are partial scholarships that I guess would be included as "with aid". So aid->aid may potentially increase or decrease the out-of-pocket expenses for the student.

RE: WBB — Pondering the Next Wave - BillBradley - 05-02-2024

(05-02-2024, 01:42 PM)M T Wrote: I wish the NCAA also had included numbers for the total population. Ie, how many WBB student-athletes are there (ie, how many did NOT enter the portal), and how many have aid.

Interesting stats, thanks for posting. I can totally see how basketball (both mens and womens) is an entirely different beast than swimming or other sports.

There are roughly 350 D1 womens basketball programs. If you take an average of 13 per roster, and remove 3 for players without eligibility left, you get 10*350=3500 total population. I'm missing some math for redshirts and other cases, but I bet that gets us within 15% or a range of around 3000-4000. So roughly 1 out of every 3 or 4 womens basketball players are entering the portal.