Is CBB in worse shape than CFB?

[irishtrain]

Didn't read where there was evidence he did anything wrong. Camby took money at UMass and said so without anyone associated with the program knowing. The D. Rose stuff at Memphis was just as much the fault of the NCAA as it was with the school. The NCAA green lights Rose to play and comes back what.. two three years later and says they messed up. Then slaps a school for that? Come on.

Gee- kinda sounds like a football program in the southern part of the country. Nothing wrong here just the business of having winning team.

 

[MNIrishman]

According to at least one source, Notre Dame already is Ivy caliber. It won't out compete the big 3 of the Ivy league (Princeton, Yale, Harvard) but it's academically as good or better than the rest of the schools.

You're right, we're like the Ivy League in many ways (most like Dartmouth in my opinion). We have the undergraduate focus, an absolutely elite student body and alumni asscn, tons of cash, our hands in tons of companies and organizations around the world, etc. I meant that we're different in that we tend to attract different (though no less accomplished) students, we don't have a major research program (though that's changing) or medical school, and we have elite athletics. I also think that we focus on undergrads more than almost (emphasis on almost) any other institution in the country. I also believe that we're more national than any other school in the country, in that we have a higher fraction of students from outside the school's region than any other school, but I'm not certain about that.

I didn't mean to imply ND was of lower caliber than the Ivy League; the opposite, that our differences have made us strong.

 

[stlnd01]

I think you'd have a hard time convincing non-Notre Dame people that Notre Dame is in quite the same league academically as any of the Ivies beyond perhaps Cornell.
In my (admittedly biased) opinion, Notre Dame is comparable for undergrads to Columbia and Penn, but lacks the med school and maybe high-end grad programs.
Brown's smaller and completely liberal arts-focused, so not really a relevant comp. Dartmouth is similar culturally in some ways to Notre Dame but is probably more selective in admissions, in part because it's a lot smaller.
Harvard, Princeton and Yale are at a higher level. Among the five or six best universities in the country (with MIT, Stanford, Duke). I think it's OK to acknowledge that, and aspire to develop what they've got.
What all this has to do with the current state of college basketball, I'm not entirely sure.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Nielson ratings. I'd have to look it up to find out what the viewership was in millions. If i remember correctly, the '79 NCG was a 24. Game 6 of the '98 Finals was a 22. How that translates into total viewers, I'm not sure. Obviously, there were more TV's in '98 but the competition for those viewers grew exponentially in those 20 years with cable's explosion in channels. If I had to guess, I'd go with the '79 NCG.

.

It's worth considering that the NBA Finals are in June and March Madness in March/April. That's a huge factor.

 

[wizards8507]

The one-and-done culture is the best thing to ever happen to Wichita State or Butler. If Duke and UNC had kids staying all 4 years, these mid-major schools that are succeeding would never stand a chance. Butler would never make back to back championship games and WSU would never be a one seed.

You're thinking about eliminating the one-and-done culture as if the top talent guys would all of a sudden be staying for four years. I think it's much more likely that those guys wouldn't go to college in the first place.

 

[wizards8507]

You guys are over thinking this. It doesn't mater if the talent pool is reduced. You'll never miss the kids that go pro out of high school. Look at Wichita State, they were the best team in the country last year. If you play the tourney 100 times, they win more than anyone else.

I bring that up because it illustrates the opportunity in the current system for the WSU's and Butler's of the world to beat more physically talented teams with more experienced teams.

The star driven mentality only goes so far in college. Unlike football, 5 good upperclassmen from a mid major can beat a power 5 team ANY time they toss it up.

That was exactly my point. We agree. Someone had made the argument that nobody would care about Duke basketball without the NBA type guys and I vehemently disagreed. When I mentioned that the talent pool would be diluted, I meant it as a good thing. The playing field would be leveled in recruiting and there would be much more parity and competitive balance.

 

[tussin]

You're thinking about eliminating the one-and-done culture as if the top talent guys would all of a sudden be staying for four years. I think it's much more likely that those guys wouldn't go to college in the first place.

No, I don't think the elite NBA talent kids will go to college to stay for four years. But someone will them at Duke and UNC, and they will likely be more talented than whoever is going to WSU or Butler. In my mind, mid-majors have an advantage because they are often 22 year old men playing against 18 year old freshman. That advantage will disappear if the rules are changed.

 

[MNIrishman]

I think you'd have a hard time convincing non-Notre Dame people that Notre Dame is in quite the same league academically as any of the Ivies beyond perhaps Cornell.
In my (admittedly biased) opinion, Notre Dame is comparable for undergrads to Columbia and Penn, but lacks the med school and maybe high-end grad programs.
Brown's smaller and completely liberal arts-focused, so not really a relevant comp. Dartmouth is similar culturally in some ways to Notre Dame but is probably more selective in admissions, in part because it's a lot smaller.
Harvard, Princeton and Yale are at a higher level. Among the five or six best universities in the country (with MIT, Stanford, Duke). I think it's OK to acknowledge that, and aspire to develop what they've got.
What all this has to do with the current state of college basketball, I'm not entirely sure.

Depends on how you define an 'academic league.' ND applicants are self-selecting to the point where we don't get as many, but our student body has about the same credentials (ECs, SAT scores, GPA, etc.) as any school in the country. Without the mass appeal that secular institutions have, our acceptance rates are higher.

If you're just looking at undergrad education, a lot of top schools derive their reputation from graduate and medical programs. For example, Harvard is well-known for considering undergrads a 'necessary evil.' That's why I didn't list them as a good example. I'd say we're already pretty much on par with Duke, maybe a little better, but that's immaterial. At a certain point, the differences between schools in terms of academic quality mean far less than the differences in focus and culture.

Notre Dame has always striven for holistic education. That means school, faith, and sports (mind, spirit, body+leadership). That's a valuable difference from a lot of schools that seem to focus on education as narrow skill development (cough cough MIT). Obviously, there's room to improve and I have a lot of ideas on that. However, that improvement doesn't mean our focus should be on 'becoming as good as Harvard' (whatever that means) but on becoming a better Notre Dame.

Edit: I'd like to add that a good fraction of what ND is today is a result of the anti-Catholic policies of the the Ivy League, among others. That kind of discrimination isn't OK, and is not part of the value set to which we should aspire, regardless of society's general view that it's alright to be bigoted as long as it's against Catholics.

 

[IrishLion]

Until you can put the evidence out there that he is doing something wrong, then I agree... it isn't worth debating.

I'm well versed in this argument, living in Kentucky while not being a UK bball fan, and my favorite response to this is: He's the only coach to have TWO final four appearances vacated from the time he coached.

Come on now. Nothing fishy about that track record. Purely coincidental that he coached TWO teams where athletes made such big mistakes. Nope, nothing to see here.

 

[Irish#1]

This this this. And it's the answer to the "pay the players" argument too. Let all the pro-or-bust guys go do their thing in the minor leagues and repopulate college sports with nothing but #RKGs.

The NBA has no interest in setting up a "real developmental league" that will cost them a lot of money to run. They let the colleges do that for them.

Right, and also the NFL won't let kids enter the draft until they've been out of high school for 3 years. The NBA only requires you to a year removed from high school, I think.

But yeah, I tend to think the NBA's one-year-rule is stupid and harms college basketball -- not from the standpoint of college basketball fans and TV networks and media members covering college basketball, who actually benefit from a rule forcing star prep players to go to college for at least a year, but from the perspective of the other students, professors and alumni of the schools, who have a stake in the integrity of the institution of college basketball at their particular school. Players like Okafor or Jabari Parker last year ... I have a hard time seeing them as legit student-athletes. They are athletes who moonlight as students for a year.



Yes, exactly. I've been saying this for years.

The NBA was pressured into enacting the one year rule. I thought two years would be better. That way the kid is forced to study while in school and if he doesn't make the NBA at least he has a little something to fall back on.

Someone may have already posted similar comments, but I'm pressed for time and didn't read every post. Ignore if I'm being repetitive.

 

[wizards8507]

The NBA has no interest in setting up a "real developmental league" that will cost them a lot of money to run.

Why would it cost so much? My understanding of minor league baseball is that they're generally profitable.

 

[T Town Tommy]

I'm well versed in this argument, living in Kentucky while not being a UK bball fan, and my favorite response to this is: He's the only coach to have TWO final four appearances vacated from the time he coached.

Come on now. Nothing fishy about that track record. Purely coincidental that he coached TWO teams where athletes made such big mistakes. Nope, nothing to see here.

I don't think he has to do anything at UK to get the recruits he gets. He sure doesn't get any preferential treatment from the NCAA either. They stay on him like a hawk but have yet to this day pinned the first thing on him. I will wait till they actually stick him with something before I condemn him.

 

[IrishLion]

I don't think he has to do anything at UK to get the recruits he gets. He sure doesn't get any preferential treatment from the NCAA either. They stay on him like a hawk but have yet to this day pinned the first thing on him. I will wait till they actually stick him with something before I condemn him.

Oh at UK he's clean for sure. The school's name and tradition, mixed with one of the biggest names in coaching, provides them all the recruiting boost they could possibly need. If a guy like Calipari can't win a 'chip every three years at UK, there's something wrong. The ease with which UK was revived is how I wish it was for ND football.

But to say he's not a shady SOB, in light of the NCAA vacating final fours at two schools he coached at, is a bit naive IMO.

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

Why would it cost so much? My understanding of minor league baseball is that they're generally profitable.

I don't know if they're profitable or not but the MLB teams subsidize the salary bonuses given to draftees and pay the salaries of the coaching staff. If MLB minor leagues were on their own and could only pay the monthly salaries then college baseball would hold a virtual monopoly on the top talents the way college basketball keeps all the best young talent out of the D-League.

EDIT: Maybe not as extreme since baseball scholarships are more scarce than in basketball.

 

[Irish#1]

Why would it cost so much? My understanding of minor league baseball is that they're generally profitable.

I'm not sure I have a good answer for you, but I know that several D league teams folded or merged to stay afloat. Poor attendance? Not enough revenue? I may be wrong, but I think the NBA only partially supports the teams, and most of the operating expenses have to come from the teams. A lot of NBA teams are barely treading water, so having to pay for a D league team is not an option. There are about 8-10 teams that own D league teams. I have no idea how the rights to players are handled.

 

[PANDFAN]

Question: If I'm big-talent so-and-so from High School XYZ, why on earth would I want to go to Duke and fake it when I can go to a developmental league or Europe and get paid actually money and not worry about playing school?

exposure, would you want your child going oversees to live on their own at 17/18??? don't act like they are taking major courses....they take a couple easy classes EVEN at Duke and that's it...it's not like they are taking a full course load and it is for 2 semesters

 

[Emcee77]

My bro played against Brandon Jennings in high school at Oak Hill, so I followed his career a bit for a while. When he wasn't sure if he could qualify academically for NCAA basketball, he played in Rome for a year. He doesn't recommend it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/24/sports/basketball/24recruit.html