Leveling the playing field

[Norm Peterson]

Thought just popped into my head. Thought I'd throw it out there and see what people think.

 

The NCAA should want parity. There are only so many guys with pro potential running around and they wind up attending the same 20-30 schools. We can't compete with that.

 

But Covid did something that maybe levels the playing field just a tiny bit: a 5th season of playing eligibility.

 

Let's change the damn rules. Even for non-athletes, college tends to be more of a 5 year affair these days anyway. Let's just give athletes 6 years to play 5. And then the teams that aren't landing 5-star, early draftees in their recruiting classes can maybe offset things by having some older, more experienced guys.

 

Yeah, Duke, you may have 2 lottery picks, but we have 4 guys in their mid- to late-20s.

 

Would that be a bad idea?

[HB]

In this day and age of hyper-mobility, how u gonna get guys to stay for 5-6 years?

[Huskerpapa]

You would  likely have to address issues like class attendence and degree procurement as well. 

[hskr4life]

Grant Gibbs is on board.

[Handy Johnson]

Why shouldn’t we be one of those 20-30 schools…? 

[cornfed24-7]

7 hours ago, Handy Johnson said:

Why shouldn’t we be one of those 20-30 schools…? 

Hell, I'd settle to be in schools 31 - 60.

[Norm Peterson]

9 hours ago, HB said:

In this day and age of hyper-mobility, how u gonna get guys to stay for 5-6 years?

 

You might not get the kid's 1st, 2nd or 3rd years. You aim for his 4th, 5th and 6th. The NIL money (and a chance to get a graduate degree) might keep some talented kids from turning pro in something other than sports for at least one extra season.

[Nighthawk]

12 hours ago, Norm Peterson said:

Thought just popped into my head. Thought I'd throw it out there and see what people think.

 

The NCAA should want parity. There are only so many guys with pro potential running around and they wind up attending the same 20-30 schools. We can't compete with that.

 

But Covid did something that maybe levels the playing field just a tiny bit: a 5th season of playing eligibility.

 

Let's change the damn rules. Even for non-athletes, college tends to be more of a 5 year affair these days anyway. Let's just give athletes 6 years to play 5. And then the teams that aren't landing 5-star, early draftees in their recruiting classes can maybe offset things by having some older, more experienced guys.

 

Yeah, Duke, you may have 2 lottery picks, but we have 4 guys in their mid- to late-20s.

 

Would that be a bad idea?

I like the idea...and I'm probably going to sounds stupid here...but going to ask anyway.  1. How many players do we have (or most any other school have that stay the full time?  Are career players a thing of the past? By that i mean players that commit to a school and play their college career there. 2.  How do you deal with the transfer portal in this stuation?  Players go where they are going to get playing time.  I heard of a QB this season that got benched for one game and then decided to enter the portal.  Kind of childish...but maybe lots more to the story. 

[Norm Peterson]

1 minute ago, Nighthawk said:

I like the idea...and I'm probably going to sounds stupid here...but going to ask anyway.  1. How many players do we have (or most any other school have that stay the full time?  Are career players a thing of the past? By that i mean players that commit to a school and play their college career there. 2.  How do you deal with the transfer portal in this stuation?  Players go where they are going to get playing time.  I heard of a QB this season that got benched for one game and then decided to enter the portal.  Kind of childish...but maybe lots more to the story. 

 

If a guy gets to play 5 seasons in 6 years, I'm good with getting the last 3 years of a kid rather than the first 3 years.

 

They wouldn't necessarily have to stay with the same school the whole time, but look at Walker, for example. He's in his 6th year due to Covid. He had 5 years of playing time. And this 6th season, he's come of age. Can you imagine if good players we've had in the past had just one more year?

 

In terms of roster stability, you'd have more, not less. A 4-year player who transfers might get, say, 2 years with each school. Allowing players to play 5 seasons would mean that kid would play 3 full seasons with his 2nd school. Like Walker.

[basketballjones]

Like the sentiment of the idea. 

Only issue I see is that most of these guys (that aren't pros) are in position to get their MASTERS in like 4 years due to them taking full time classes all summer, every summer while they're on campus for their sport. So while the average student is doing what you're saying, taking ~5 years. The athletes are not, necessarily. 

[HB]

8 hours ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

You might not get the kid's 1st, 2nd or 3rd years. You aim for his 4th, 5th and 6th. The NIL money (and a chance to get a graduate degree) might keep some talented kids from turning pro in something other than sports for at least one extra season.

 

Correct on NIL for the guys going to non-NBA level pro leagues.   But we would need a boatload of NIL money.  Are we ready to do that for basketball?  We have done OK so far, but this would need to amp up at a much higher level.   

[hhcmatt]

11 minutes ago, HB said:

 

Correct on NIL for the guys going to non-NBA level pro leagues.   But we would need a boatload of NIL money.  Are we ready to do that for basketball?  We have done OK so far, but this would need to amp up at a much higher level.   

 

Is that a problem now? This entire conversation is about changing the covid extra year to a permanent deal.

[HuskerFever]

1 hour ago, HB said:

 

Correct on NIL for the guys going to non-NBA level pro leagues.   But we would need a boatload of NIL money.  Are we ready to do that for basketball?  We have done OK so far, but this would need to amp up at a much higher level.   

 

There are 16-20 year old kids making 6-figure salaries to play basketball. And then they pay for their college if they choose to go that route in their future. This isn't just a "college or pro overseas" thing at this point.

 

https://overtimeelite.com/articles/084ff4b1-80e4-4dc5-ae2e-12ffc1e68e01

[HB]

If we’re gonna get these veterans of which Norm speaks, and they are good enough to turn us into a winning program, it’s gonna take lots of NIL money.  Lots.  

Edited January 5, 2023 by HB

[cornfed24-7]

40 minutes ago, HB said:

Of we’re gonna get these veterans of which Norm speaks, and they are good enough to turn us into a winning program, it’s gonna take lots of NIL money.  Lots.  

Well as soon as I win that billion dollar Mega Millions our worries about NIL is over!

Signed T. Boone Cornfed

[Dead Dog Alley]

54 minutes ago, cornfed24-7 said:

Well as soon as I win that billion dollar Mega Millions our worries about NIL is over!

Signed T. Boone Cornfed

Use your leftover money to buy the CHI center, and then kick Creighton out of it.

[hskr4life]

58 minutes ago, Dead Dog Alley said:

Use your leftover money to buy the CHI center, and then kick Creighton out of it.

Hell… offer recruits NIL NOT to go to Creighton lol!

[cornfed24-7]

1 hour ago, Dead Dog Alley said:

Use your leftover money to buy the CHI center, and then kick Creighton out of it.

I thought about this. It would be wrong to kick them out. But they will be playing at the newly named Jaysker arena

[Handy Johnson]

Remember when we wanted to pay student athletes because they couldn’t afford a pizza & a movie…? 

[kldm64]

8 hours ago, Handy Johnson said:

Remember when we wanted to pay student athletes because they couldn’t afford a pizza & a movie…? 

 

Exactly and now college athletes are able to pay off student loan debt for their family members.  This whole NIL deal is ruining college sports.  

[Handy Johnson]

32 minutes ago, kldm64 said:

 

Exactly and now college athletes are able to pay off student loan debt for their family members.  This whole NIL deal is ruining college sports.  

It’s certainly been a Boon for Nebraska hasn’t it…? 

[Norm Peterson]

13 hours ago, HB said:

If we’re gonna get these veterans of which Norm speaks, and they are good enough to turn us into a winning program, it’s gonna take lots of NIL money.  Lots.  

 

If you increase the eligibility by 25% but keep the roster size at 13, it's going to mean that talented players wind up further downstream from the basketball blue bloods.

 

Maybe @HuskerActuary can check the math for me, but 350 D1 programs times 13 players each equals 4,550 players to fill the rosters of all the D1 programs in the country.

 

Now, there's not going to be an even distribution across all 4 years of eligibility. Some kids will drop out and quit the game or turn pro or what have you. So, the senior class is probably going to be smaller than the freshman class. But let's just assume a fairly even distribution from freshmen to seniors. That would mean each class would have an average of about 1,140 players.

 

If there were FIVE years of playing eligibility, however, that would mean each class would have an average of only 910 players. 910 spots. Across the country at the D1 level.

 

There's still the same amount of talent coming into the system, but each school is taking about 1 player fewer per recruiting class, which means they don't add as many new players every year to fill a roster, which means the talent gets distributed further down the system, which means a greater degree of parity across the entirety of the spectrum, which means, I think, the NIL dollars would NOT have to change significantly because the good players will necessarily have to broaden their search to find a program with an open spot.

[Huskerpapa]

24 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

If you increase the eligibility by 25% but keep the roster size at 13, it's going to mean that talented players wind up further downstream from the basketball blue bloods.

 

Maybe @HuskerActuary can check the math for me, but 350 D1 programs times 13 players each equals 4,550 players to fill the rosters of all the D1 programs in the country.

 

Now, there's not going to be an even distribution across all 4 years of eligibility. Some kids will drop out and quit the game or turn pro or what have you. So, the senior class is probably going to be smaller than the freshman class. But let's just assume a fairly even distribution from freshmen to seniors. That would mean each class would have an average of about 1,140 players.

 

If there were FIVE years of playing eligibility, however, that would mean each class would have an average of only 910 players. 910 spots. Across the country at the D1 level.

 

There's still the same amount of talent coming into the system, but each school is taking about 1 player fewer per recruiting class, which means they don't add as many new players every year to fill a roster, which means the talent gets distributed further down the system, which means a greater degree of parity across the entirety of the spectrum, which means, I think, the NIL dollars would NOT have to change significantly because the good players will necessarily have to broaden their search to find a program with an open spot.

You make my head hurt.

[cornfed24-7]

30 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

If you increase the eligibility by 25% but keep the roster size at 13, it's going to mean that talented players wind up further downstream from the basketball blue bloods.

 

Maybe @HuskerActuary can check the math for me, but 350 D1 programs times 13 players each equals 4,550 players to fill the rosters of all the D1 programs in the country.

 

Now, there's not going to be an even distribution across all 4 years of eligibility. Some kids will drop out and quit the game or turn pro or what have you. So, the senior class is probably going to be smaller than the freshman class. But let's just assume a fairly even distribution from freshmen to seniors. That would mean each class would have an average of about 1,140 players.

 

If there were FIVE years of playing eligibility, however, that would mean each class would have an average of only 910 players. 910 spots. Across the country at the D1 level.

 

There's still the same amount of talent coming into the system, but each school is taking about 1 player fewer per recruiting class, which means they don't add as many new players every year to fill a roster, which means the talent gets distributed further down the system, which means a greater degree of parity across the entirety of the spectrum, which means, I think, the NIL dollars would NOT have to change significantly because the good players will necessarily have to broaden their search to find a program with an open spot.

This logic makes sense to me. You would think the "reaches" on players would decrease for more known talent. Thus making lower level conferences feeder programs for higher level conferences. Which seems to already be happening. 

[Norm Peterson]

12 hours ago, Huskerpapa said:

You make my head hurt.

 

Let's try it this way: 1 is 25% of 4. If you add 1 extra season of eligibility to the current 4 to make 5 seasons, you have increased 4 by 25%.

 

Now then, if you increase eligibility by 25% without increasing roster size, you will necessarily spread the talent further. By a lot. Because there will be fewer spots for the same number of players.

 

Let's take the Rivals 150 as an illustration. Let's say there are typically 60 schools on average that land players on the Rivals 150. If you increase eligibility without increasing roster size, you NECESSARILY DECREASE the number of players any given team can add to their roster each season. Which means talent gets spread further down the pecking order.

 

So, instead of only 60 teams landing Rivals 150 players, it'd be more like 75.

 

And the trickle-down would reverberate throughout the entire college basketball landscape.