(04-27-2023 07:53 AM)SeñorTiger Wrote: (04-26-2023 02:31 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote: (04-25-2023 05:24 PM)Alanda Wrote: (04-25-2023 04:23 PM)dwash Wrote: (04-25-2023 02:34 PM)Alanda Wrote: Yep to both. In this era it's going to be more about how well you build up, not so much about what all are you losing.
Deion Sanders went into Colorado talking about getting rid of players. With all the hype that was going on with Colorado's spring game, 18 decided to transfer after the spring game, including the top performing receiver in that game. The article also says they've had 31 players transfer since April 15th.
I hear you its a new era but cmon now. You gotta bring back more than two players who combined for like 8 ppg, one being your walk on caliber son. Other top programs arent experiencing *that* much transition.
Yeah but we also had 10 seniors (11 if you want to include Jahmar Young) so that's a unique situation on its own. And with the ones that had a shot at coming back, how many of them would you really want back? I'm honestly fine with the turnover from this past season.
But WHY did we have 10 seniors?
Being too heavily reliant on the portal created a senior-heavy team.
The portal is a failed experiment that needs to end.
42% of those who enter the portal do not find a new school.
4% pullout of the portal.
of the 56% that do final a new school, 13% end up at a lower division.
In 2021 600 players ended up with no place to play. Even more importantly 600 students which didn't return to school.
It needs some changes but it is not a failed experiment. You are drawing silly conclusions for the data.
13% end up at a lower division. That is not necessarily a bad thing for the players. Most likely the level they belong at and most likely results in them playing instead of riding the bench.
600 players with "no place to play"... I played college baseball for two years. Had then been a transfer portal I would have entered it after my sophomore year. I talked with other coaches and had the opportunity to transfer. In the end, I simply decided I just did not want to play anymore and wanted to focus on academics. So, 1. I was not left with no place to play and most importantly 2. I returned to school and ended up with a degree
I would imagine the majority of that 600 are more similar to my situation then having no team wanting them and also not returning to school altogether...
I think it is mostly a failure, but necessary at the same time.
BEFORE:
Players were paid under the table, The difference in benefits ranged from players having only a scholarship, to players being paid anywhere from impermissible benefit, meals, cars, up to probably low 6 figures. Player movement no longer restricted to having to sit out for a year. Every player benefitted and every player at least had a scholarship.
NOW:
Everything is legit. The difference in the range of benefits is now, a player not having a scholarship anywhere, so no free education, and no spot at a D1 program, to players making millions of dollars.
A much higher percentage of athletes are getting some sort of compensation, and at the top of the food chain, the elite players are getting fair compensation for the millions of dollars they generate for their schools.
The "only" ones being harmed are the bottom 25% on the food chain. Is that bad? Of course. Even with NIL and freedom of movement, the core goal should be for the 95% that don't play professionally to get a free education, and a degree that will serve them for the rest of their lives.
We are one of the only schools that sees the extreme at both ends. Our basketball program can attract the best talent and pay top level NIL money. There is nothing stopping us from competing at the highest level. Our football program can't come close dollar wise. What will save us is that we should be at the top of the G5, competing for conference titles and a trip to NY6 or whatever expanded playoff they come up with.
In the end, overall, it is a failure.
/
Johnathan Lawson in Portal
