Derrick Rose

A forum for non-baseball sports
Post Reply
User avatar
thrill
bronoun enthusiast
Posts: 30369
Joined: April 14 06, 10:45 pm
Location: barely online

Re: Derrick Rose

Post by thrill »

Socnorb11 wrote:The NCAA benefits from the rule.
By rewarding corruption?
bobby bo wrote: The rule makes a joke out of the concept of the "student athlete" by forcing young men who have no intentions to become a dedicated student to pretend they are, ties up a scholarship that might otherwise go to a different player who would value the free education and make the most of it, prevents an adult from pursuing their chosen profession that they have the skills and training to perform at a professional level, fosters a culture of scofflaws and puts programs that abide by the rules at a competitive disadvantage.

Socnorb11
The Last Word
Posts: 21588
Joined: June 21 06, 8:45 am

Re: Derrick Rose

Post by Socnorb11 »

bobby bo wrote:
Socnorb11 wrote:The NCAA benefits from the rule.
By rewarding corruption?
bobby bo wrote: The rule makes a joke out of the concept of the "student athlete" by forcing young men who have no intentions to become a dedicated student to pretend they are, ties up a scholarship that might otherwise go to a different player who would value the free education and make the most of it, prevents an adult from pursuing their chosen profession that they have the skills and training to perform at a professional level, fosters a culture of scofflaws and puts programs that abide by the rules at a competitive disadvantage.

Why does the player accept the scholarship, if he has no intention of becoming a dedicated student athlete? Because it is to their benefit, under the rules, to do so. They have options (sit out a year, play overseas, pursue a degree.....). But they choose the option that is most beneficial to them, even if it does mean taking a scholarhip from someone who might value the free education. That's no different than what the NCAA and the NBA are doing - they're doing what's most beneficial to them.

User avatar
thrill
bronoun enthusiast
Posts: 30369
Joined: April 14 06, 10:45 pm
Location: barely online

Re: Derrick Rose

Post by thrill »

Socnorb11 wrote:
bobby bo wrote:
Socnorb11 wrote:The NCAA benefits from the rule.
By rewarding corruption?
bobby bo wrote: The rule makes a joke out of the concept of the "student athlete" by forcing young men who have no intentions to become a dedicated student to pretend they are, ties up a scholarship that might otherwise go to a different player who would value the free education and make the most of it, prevents an adult from pursuing their chosen profession that they have the skills and training to perform at a professional level, fosters a culture of scofflaws and puts programs that abide by the rules at a competitive disadvantage.

Why does the player accept the scholarship, if he has no intention of becoming a dedicated student athlete? Because it is to their benefit, under the rules, to do so. They have options (sit out a year, play overseas, pursue a degree.....). But they choose the option that is most beneficial to them, even if it does mean taking a scholarhip from someone who might value the free education. That's no different than what the NCAA and the NBA are doing - they're doing what's most beneficial to them.
So you support a rule that makes the NCAA system inherently more corrupt.

Socnorb11
The Last Word
Posts: 21588
Joined: June 21 06, 8:45 am

Re: Derrick Rose

Post by Socnorb11 »

bobby bo wrote:
Socnorb11 wrote:
bobby bo wrote:
Socnorb11 wrote:The NCAA benefits from the rule.
By rewarding corruption?
bobby bo wrote: The rule makes a joke out of the concept of the "student athlete" by forcing young men who have no intentions to become a dedicated student to pretend they are, ties up a scholarship that might otherwise go to a different player who would value the free education and make the most of it, prevents an adult from pursuing their chosen profession that they have the skills and training to perform at a professional level, fosters a culture of scofflaws and puts programs that abide by the rules at a competitive disadvantage.

Why does the player accept the scholarship, if he has no intention of becoming a dedicated student athlete? Because it is to their benefit, under the rules, to do so. They have options (sit out a year, play overseas, pursue a degree.....). But they choose the option that is most beneficial to them, even if it does mean taking a scholarhip from someone who might value the free education. That's no different than what the NCAA and the NBA are doing - they're doing what's most beneficial to them.
So you support a rule that makes the NCAA system inherently more corrupt.
So the NCAA is supposed to determine which players are going to pursue a degree, and which ones aren't? The unversity offers the kid a degree. The kid is the one who decides whether he's going to accept it in good faith or not. The NCAA didn't institute this rule, so I'm not sure why you're putting it on them.

If you want to be angry at someone, then be angry at the NBA. But that seems a little disingenuous, since they're doing what they think is best for their "comapany", just like every other company does.

User avatar
thrill
bronoun enthusiast
Posts: 30369
Joined: April 14 06, 10:45 pm
Location: barely online

Re: Derrick Rose

Post by thrill »

Well now you're getting into my more extremist beliefs. I think college sports should lose all athletic scholarships, offer only academic scholarships to people who want to play sports and professional sports teams should follow the European model of signing children to their local academies. So the Bulls would have scouts scouting youth leagues, sign whomever they want, move them and their families if necessary to Chicago, have them in their own school, their own training facilities etc. I want to be rid of serious amateur athletics.

User avatar
BW23
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 13026
Joined: July 7 06, 11:08 pm

Re: Derrick Rose

Post by BW23 »

Has Rose signed his huge sneaker deal? My boss, originally from Chicago and a huge Bulls fan, said that Rose would make the most money ever wearing shoes and not having to speak during commercials. At least that he shouldn't.

Socnorb11
The Last Word
Posts: 21588
Joined: June 21 06, 8:45 am

Re: Derrick Rose

Post by Socnorb11 »

bobby bo wrote:Well now you're getting into my more extremist beliefs. I think college sports should lose all athletic scholarships, offer only academic scholarships to people who want to play sports and professional sports teams should follow the European model of signing children to their local academies. So the Bulls would have scouts scouting youth leagues, sign whomever they want, move them and their families if necessary to Chicago, have them in their own school, their own training facilities etc. I want to be rid of serious amateur athletics.

Hey, I'm down with that.

User avatar
thrill
bronoun enthusiast
Posts: 30369
Joined: April 14 06, 10:45 pm
Location: barely online

Re: Derrick Rose

Post by thrill »

BW23 wrote:Has Rose signed his huge sneaker deal? My boss, originally from Chicago and a huge Bulls fan, said that Rose would make the most money ever wearing shoes and not having to speak during commercials. At least that he shouldn't.
I don't know if it's signed or not, but it's rumored to be $250,000,000.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1003 ... to-be-good

User avatar
cardsfansince82
is shooing asian children away from his fridge.
Posts: 27873
Joined: May 17 06, 10:23 pm
Location: at the gettin' place

Re: Derrick Rose

Post by cardsfansince82 »

bobby bo wrote: I'm reading your posts. I just don't understand why you're so concerned about the development of an athlete or the ways owners spend their money. If a team owner wants to spend his money on a risky, undeveloped prospect, they should be able to do so.
I dunno, because I'm a fan? I want to see the best product possible? I don't want to see every team with multiple roster spots committed to guys who aren't ready or able to contribute.
Wayne Rooney was physically developed enough to be a Premier League star for Everton when he was 16. Lots of other players weren't, so Everton didn't sign them.
LeBron James would have been developed enough to play for the Cavs when he was 16. Lots of other players would not be.
What counts as physically mature in soccer is completely different from basketball. And no, Lebron couldn't have played in the NBA at 16.

If a team signs someone who isn't ready, then that was a bad investment and they'll just have to be patient and wait for the player to develop. There's no harm in that other than the player not getting the in-game minutes they would get playing at a lower-level, but at the same time they are training with better players, coaches, trainers etc and making a lot of money that could significantly improve their family's position in life.


If you run a business and you think you've found a high school student that is the best candidate to fill a position in your company, by all means, hire that person. If you're wrong, you failed because you made a bad evaluation of that person's value.

You should know as well as anybody that NBA owners need to be protected from their own stupidity. Darko over Melo/Wade, Yi Jianlian dominating a chair in pre draft workouts, etc. College is the best approximation we have for the NBA. If you can succeed there, you are likely to at least be worth a roster spot in the NBA. Players that haven't played in college, especially straight out of high school, are extremely risky. Before the rule was instated we were heading towards 10 guys a year getting drafted from high school. Teams would be more or less forced to take them because that group would include practically every future superstar, but also a lot of duds. Making players prove themselves at the college level completely changes the risk profile. Josh Selby would have been the number one pick overall straight out of high school. He was the 49th pick after a year in college. Sucks for him, but helps the NBA and the fans. According to you the team that took him first would have made a bad business decision, even though everyone agreed he was the best. In reality, draft picks are pretty risky and there is way too much projection involved. The rule eliminates a large chunk of that uncertainty. Instead of pointing and laughing at all the bad picks in hindsight, why not do something about it?

The benefits of the rule are pretty obvious and pretty substantial. Everybody wins except the Josh Selbys of the world. If no one questioned Rose's character or integrity for his time in college we probably aren't even having this discussion.

Besides, you should love the rule. Without it Derrick Rose isn't playing for the Bulls.

User avatar
cardsfansince82
is shooing asian children away from his fridge.
Posts: 27873
Joined: May 17 06, 10:23 pm
Location: at the gettin' place

Re: Derrick Rose

Post by cardsfansince82 »

bobby bo wrote:Well now you're getting into my more extremist beliefs. I think college sports should lose all athletic scholarships, offer only academic scholarships to people who want to play sports and professional sports teams should follow the European model of signing children to their local academies. So the Bulls would have scouts scouting youth leagues, sign whomever they want, move them and their families if necessary to Chicago, have them in their own school, their own training facilities etc. I want to be rid of serious amateur athletics.
That is pretty extreme. What is the difference between "athletic scholarships" and "academic scholarships to people who want to play sports"? My opinion kind of depends on what the distinction is. The NCAA is plenty corrupt with or without a handful of one and done players each year. But it's also really, really successful at producing talent for the NBA and promoting the game of basketball in general. Players get all kinds of exposure on national TV and are ready to be stars, and it costs the NBA nothing. Why change? There's only so many entertainment dollars to go around. Developing club teams or junior teams or whatever they do in Europe to compete directly with the NCAA would dilute the talent pool and turn fans away.

Honestly the only thing that truly bothers me about the rule is how badly Kentucky exploits it. There should be some kind of limit to how many a program can have.

Post Reply