Unverified Voracity Hit Mark Emmert With A Chair

Submitted by Brian on May 14th, 2018 at 12:21 PM

No news yet on the Jalen Wilson front. Other than the fact that he received his offer:

Standard "everything went great" takes from Josh Henschke at 24/7, but Henschke does mention he has an interview scheduled with Wilson. That in and of itself is a fairly good sign.

All-22 aggression. Via Cody Alexander:

This is the kind of stuff I can't see from the broadcast angle. One caveat: pretty sure that's Rutgers providing the opposition. Michigan had almost as many sacks (5) as Rutgers had completions (8) in that game, thus allowing things like "deep centerfield safety gets his nose on a ballcarrier at the line of scrimmage."

Alexander's Don Brown clinic notes are fascinating and available at the link.

*swoon.* Brad Stevens on a sticky wicket he found himself in:

I would not trade John Beilein for anyone. Brad Stevens makes you think, though.

WELCOME YOUR NEW GOD GAMBLOR. The Supreme Court struck down a federal ban on sports gambling, thus paving the way for every state hard up for a little cash to legalize and regulate the wildly popular activity. (Probably: Richard Hoeg has more law-talking details.) And if college athletic departments have their hand out…

…wait, what? Here is your justification:

"If this is legalized, what the ADs said is that we'll have to spend more money on compliance and we're going to have increased risk," McMillen told ESPN in a Thursday phone interview. "What was shown, at schools with regulated [sports betting] markets -- Nevada, UNLV -- they spend considerably more on compliance, because it's more open, more transparent, more in your face than the other schools where it's illegal. The fact of the matter is that the onus is going to fall on Marshall and West Virginia."

Those compliance departments have to send out way more than one tweet in March about not joining an NCAA pool? They have to have a workshop about how gambling on sports is bad if you play sports? I'm not sure what the big expense is.

Brian Windhorst has an interesting article about the push from pro sports leagues to legalize sports betting in the US; the NCAA is likely to get caught up in this whether they want to or not.

BAH GOD SHE KILT EM. A post-committee Condoleeza Rice is more explicit that the NCAA should restore name and likeness rights to athletes:

"We believe that students ought to be able to benefit from name, image and likeness but you can’t decide a program until you know the legal parameters,” Rice told USA TODAY Sports. “That was the point. I think some of the commentary suggested that we didn’t really speak on this issue. I think we did speak on this issue, it’s just that we understand there’s a legal framework that has to be developed first.”

Rice said she thought the commission’s report was “pretty clear” in its support of athletes being able to cash in once the various legal issues are resolved. But she maintains that the NCAA cannot do this while a pair of ongoing cases are pending.

"I think people may have looked at the fact that we said there's a legal framework to be developed and said, 'Oh, well, maybe they're punting on this.' Nobody was intending to punt on it."

As something that costs the NCAA nothing, has broad public support, cuts down on a bunch of self-contradictory rulings, and would pave the way for the return of NCAA Football, restoring NIL rights to college athletes is an obvious slam dunk. It thus has a 37% chance of actually happening.

One and done doesn't even accomplish much. John Gasaway has created a history of one and done that convincingly asserts that it accomplishes little:

We don’t yet know the order in which the freshmen of 2017-18 will be selected, of course, but, by Jonathan Givony’s lights, we may be due for a similar evaluative echo next month on draft night.

                     RSCI 2017    Projection 2018
Marvin Bagley III        1               3
Michael Porter, Jr.      2               8
Deandre Ayton            3               1
Mohamed Bamba            4               5
Trevon Duval             5              45
Collin Sexton            6               9
Wendell Carter, Jr.      7               7
Mitchell Robinson        8              22
Jaren Jackson, Jr.       9               4
Kevin Knox              10              15
  

Yes, Duval stands out, and, sure, projected No. 6 pick Trae Young made very good use of the one additional year of evaluation afforded to NBA teams. The question then becomes whether one-and-done earns its evaluative keep simply by having flagged the fact that Duval “should” drop 40 spots and Young “should” jump 20.

That’s pretty much all the current eligibility requirement is accomplishing in terms of player evaluations. Otherwise, we could have held this draft a year ago, and it would have looked highly similar to what will (we think) transpire next month.

Actually, even that gives one-and-done too much evaluative credit. In an alternate reality where players could be drafted straight out of high school, it’s possible Duval would have been a 2017 pick — but Young, surely, would have gone undrafted. Then, after the amazing freshman season that we now know happened, Young would have been a 2018 lottery pick. In this scenario, then, the lone evaluative function of one-and-done with regard to the top of the board is to prevent Duval from having been a high draft pick a year ago, period.

And Duval had to enter the draft anyway because Duke recruited over him with authority. There are probably some extraordinary busts the NBA has avoided, but the one-and-done rationale about preventing Kwame Browns is extremely flimsy.

No seed for softball. Michigan gets shipped to Lexington for the opening round of the tourney:



Lexington Regional

No. 16 Kentucky vs. UIC | 2:30 p.m. ET Friday on WatchESPN

Michigan vs. Notre Dame | 12 p.m. Friday on ESPN2

Softball regionals are, well, regional, so that's not a definite statement that Michigan was #17, but if they weren't they were fairly close. Unfortunately, Michigan is entering the tournament on a skid after getting blown out twice at the Big Ten tourney.

Iggy can dunk. But he has still not set a video of himself to Lust for Life.

Etc.: Remembering the 2004 Clemson-South Carolina brawl. Excellent set-piece goal in stoppage time gives AFC Ann Arbor a 1-0 win over Detroit Suburb Residents FC. More All or Nothing potentially on the way? Who the F is Tom Brady? Transferring is not really an epidemic. Adam Silver is not just in charge of things.

Comments

schreibee

May 14th, 2018 at 4:24 PM ^

I like my Iggy a little more hard core than Lust for Life, so may I suggest a series of dunks and 3-bombs set to Search & Destroy?!

"I'm a street walking Cheetah with a heart full of napalm" (series of slam dunks)

"I'm a runaway son of the nuclear A bomb" (medley of three balls swishing)

MH20

May 14th, 2018 at 1:09 PM ^

Right off the bat I see Taco, D Hill, JD, and Gedeon on the field. It's crazy to think that game started off as a normal November day before snowmageddon hit in the second half.

mGrowOld

May 14th, 2018 at 12:48 PM ^

First a snippet on the Cavs-Celtics (craptastic game btw) then a quote from Brian Windhorst?

Have you been spending your weekends down on the CLE? Plenty of good seats still available at Progressive Field and game 3 is next Saturday at the Q.

Section 1.8

May 14th, 2018 at 12:54 PM ^

... for all of the complications, abuses, unintended consequnces and general nastiness that unfolds when intercollegiate athletes start signing their own private promotional deals.

How schools will recruit with promises of exposure, and competitive prmotional deals.  The 19 year-olds signing promotional deals with lawyers who are agentsbutnotthatkindofagentrightnow.

Usually, when 80% of sports fans and 90% of sports writers all agree on something pertaining to amateur athletics, they have it wrong. 

 

bronxblue

May 14th, 2018 at 1:09 PM ^

Because the current system of said quasi-agents giving guys money under the table has been so successful?

There are going to be abuses. Everything gets abused in various ways, especially when millions of dollars are involved. But at least when you put it out there publicly, you have some accountability and chnace for consistent, if not proper, parameters.

I'd like to know how NIL rights being granted back to the athletes would demonstrably worsen the current system for anyone other than the schools that previously profitted from it without giving up a cut.

Section 1.8

May 14th, 2018 at 1:25 PM ^

"I'd like to know how NIL rights being granted back to the athletes would demonstrably worsen the current system for anyone other than the schools that previously profitted from it without giving up a cut."

So schools are "profitting from" indivudual athletes?  We should all try to avoid that.  So, no names of current athletes on for-sale jerseys.  No names of current athletes on video games.  Like, uh, stuff that is being done now.  How else are individual athletes being "profitted from"?

I say, as I always do; intercollegiate athletics should be for students.  Professional minor leagues should be for future pro's.  I'd like everything in college football to move in the direction of less professionalism, not more.

bronxblue

May 14th, 2018 at 2:03 PM ^

Because I already see where this is going, I'm not going to waste too much time entering into a tired back-and-forth about how "individual athletes get profitted from" when talking about a billion dollar organization whose sole purpose claims to be the furtherment of amateur student-athletes.  It's a core part of any argument that the NCAA makes money off of the athletes wearing the uniforms the schools put them in when competing on national TV in front of millions of fans who paid hundreds of dollars for seats and hundreds of dollars purchasing an every-expanding collection of paraphernalia adorned with that school's logos and names.   It's there if you want to look, and letting said players get a piece of that massive pie is in no way incongruous with your claim that you want "intercollegiate athletics should be for students", unless what you really mean is you don't want students to profit off their likeness but are fine with everyone else because these guys like millionaires like Dave Brandon have perpetuated this myth that amateur athletics can only be maintained if the profits go to the older men and women watching from the luxury suites, not the younger men and women on the field/court. 

But I'll leave you with this - I'm sure if you looked at sales of #16 jerseys 6 years ago, they'd be a lot higher then than now.  No name on the back, no special adornment.  But people bought those jerseys because of Robinson, and now that he's not here there isn't a run on JKP-numbered ones.  So yes, the schools profit off these guys no matter how lazily they hand-wave around it.

Section 1.8

May 14th, 2018 at 6:30 PM ^

The NCAA isn't making any big profits.  It is an organization of participant institutions.  With basically all of those member institutions operating at a loss, and begging alumni and other donors for more and more support.

Eastern Michigan University isn't making "billions."  It is operating with a crippling loss and begging anyone they can find for support.

The University of Michigan's large and supposedly "self-supporting" Athletic Deaprtment can sort of function the way it does even under Title IX constraints, but only with the massive largesse of alumni and other donors who pay for PSD's and similar perks, and large donors who are essential to it all getting close to breaking even (with a moderate bonded debt load).

Wanna know where the millions go, that Michigan gets from Conference- and NCAA-negotiated revenue "off the backs of" the athletes in high-revenue sports?  It goes to support non-revenue sports; many of them women's sports.

Denard Robinson wasn't carrying many middle-aged white millionaires on his back.  Denard was carrying a couple dozen softball or field hockey players on his back.  TitleIX'ed.

There are a few -- very few -- middle-aged white millionaires in University of Michigan sports.  Jim Harbaugh is a middle-aged white male making millions off Univeristy of Michigan sports.  John Beilein is a middle-aged white male making millions off University of Michigan sports.  But I am guessing that an MGoPoll would not question either of those two cases of transfer payments from the UM Athletic Department revenues to certain middle-aged white males.

Blue in Paradise

May 14th, 2018 at 6:54 PM ^

players with allowing players to benefit from their NIL.  How does Rashan Gary getting paid to do a commercial for the MDen or a local car dealership take money out of the hands of Eastern Michigan or women's athletes?

In fact, it will increase University revenues because NCAA Football will be back on with a split between players and schools and uniform sales will increase because I would rather buy a "Gary 3" jersey than a generic "3" jersey and will pay an extra $25 for that.

If Brian wants to pay Gary and Patterson $2,500 each to promote the MGoBlog HTTV 2018 and those guys are willing to promote HTTV for $2,500 - who are you or anyone else to say that those individuals are not able to execute that transaction without threatening the eligibility of Gary and Patterson.  The reason that there is a thriving black market in college sports is that the NCAA is artificially restricting the market value of players - the bagmen of the world are merely filling this void.  The bagmen really have nothing to apologize for because in the end, they are paying money to people who have both earned and, in many cases, truly need the money.

Now, you can say that they don't have to play NCAA football - but they have a gun pointed at their temple.  Declining to play NCAA football would have a catestrophic impact on their draft stock and cost them millions of $.  There is no alternate path to the NFL.

Now, you can say that the star players will likely make millions of $$$ in the NFL and they most of them will.  But what about injuries?  They have to pay for insurance out of their own f&cking pocket which they may or may not be able to afford.  Are you going to be send money to these guys if they blow their knees and couldn't afford insurance?

Blue in Paradise

May 14th, 2018 at 7:02 PM ^

willingly paying money to (mainly) poor and working class people who work really hard for their craft? I really can't understand that mentality. 

Jabril Peppers was eating f&cking raman noodles his sophmore year at Michigan because he couldn't afford a proper meal while he was busting his @ss for his school and fan base.  He has not been rewarded but plenty of others haven't and won't be.  Please explain how that is ok?

http://larrybrownsports.com/college-football/michigans-jabrill-peppers-…

panthera leo fututio

May 14th, 2018 at 2:03 PM ^

Wanting collegiate sports to be for amatuer students and pro minor leagues to be for future pros is an entirely reasonable desire. But it's not super helpful for guiding policy in a system where no viable minor league alternative exists, and the NCAA is entrenched as essentially the only high-level developmental game in town.

In such a system, the choice is between a quasi-professional set-up where athletic departments & 3rd party media interests extract absurdly large rents on players, and a quasi-professional set-up where where players receive a somewhat more proportional slice of the pie.

trueblueintexas

May 14th, 2018 at 3:48 PM ^

Why do you consider the G-league as not a meaningful alternative for high school seniors? It's a professional path to playing in the NBA. If that drains 15 - 20 percent of players from college teams is that really a problem? Especially if those kids don't really want to partake in the activities related to furthering their education.

schreibee

May 14th, 2018 at 4:35 PM ^

I think the G league is not currently a desirable alternative to playing the one year in college because I believe the "one n doners' are making far more scratch than what the G league currently pays.

Now if that changes, I'm sure those (non) student athletes will avail themselves of it.

TrueBlue2003

May 15th, 2018 at 5:15 PM ^

are they not getting paid fair market value?  Are there restrictions on what they can be paid (aside from salary cap considerations)?

Is there a single G League player who signed a contract that was restrictively less than his market value at the time he signed it?

I'm honestly just asking because I didn't think there were restrictions and can't think a player that is making less than his market value in the G League.

trueblueintexas

May 14th, 2018 at 11:01 PM ^

Laughable, I know, but let’s just say the NCAA implements all of the Rice Commission recommendations except for the NIL piece because they can not agree on the legal framework. There is now on-campus monitoring by a third party oversight organization tracking every move a student makes and they have investigative authority to subpoena texts, emails, phone records and bank accounts. The $100K suddenly doesn’t exist. The only compensation a one and done kid gets is tuition, room & board, and a travel stipend. Would the G-league become more appealing to a kid that knows they are only hanging out for one year waiting for the draft?

Tex_Ind_Blue

May 15th, 2018 at 12:55 AM ^

The $100K exists now. It will exist with a third party oversight organization being present on-campus with subpoena authority as well. To venture a guess, cash. In-kind services. below market rate services. Or inflated prices for something cheap. gift cards. reloadable debit cards. unsecured line of credit may be. insignificant gifts adding up to a large number. One thing to understand is how would a recruit use the money. From whatever I have read, mostly for family maintenance. In that case, hiding $100K won't be much of a problem. Now, if they want to invest that money and earn much more, then it's a different story. 

Blue in Paradise

May 14th, 2018 at 5:44 PM ^

Compensated for their name, image and likeness. Can you think of one? I literally can’t think of one. Even inmates can sell their NIL.

And don’t say that accepting a scholarship voids that right. NIL restriction is linked to eligibility and not scholarship, even walk-ons are unable to sell their NIL rights. It is a basic economic right that extends to all Americans and that is why the NCAA will lose every case that goes to court.

trueblueintexas

May 14th, 2018 at 1:08 PM ^

I guess those aweful gambling ads are going to be back in full force this fall??? This is clear proof our legal system doesn't work. If there were any justice, I would not have to watch another one of those again.