It's really disappointing that ISU fans have not contributed something meaningful to the discussion. I concur. But, on the other hand, it's why a Big12 board is often times kind of interesting by exception. This is a really important topic.
Condi's report due Wed - here's what could be done?
- Thread starter surly
- Start date
1. There is nothing inherently wrong with AAU. And getting rid of it hurts players and schools. NCAA just wants to be able to profit off of HS players. Furthermore, it doesn't do away with people going around with their hand out. It just moves it somewhere else.
2. Your concern with AAU is partially dealt with by getting agents out in the open.
3. I think one and done should go away because the players should be able to go if they want, but it will do nothing to stop players from getting paid.
4. Yes, but they then propose to do nothing about the timing of this which creates problems for the schools and coaches.
5. Nothing that prevents this from happening already.
6. Won't happen and won't do anything. Member institutions aren't going to cede control over enforcement to some independent party. In addition, they would have the exact same authority the NCAA has which isn't much.
They didn't deal with the amateurism issue which is the biggest issue in college sports. These are things that basically come right from Emmert and could have been put together in a weekend. They also rail against transfers and grad transfers like the players shouldn't be able to go where they choose.
I’m skeptical that any significant improvements will be made to the system we have. The NCAA will do whatever it takes to continue making as much money as possible.
I don't like Rice much (at all) but if her report recommends air strikes against both KU and KSU I'm on board. Hell, carpet bomb the whole ******* state!
That is unfortunately her solution to most problems.
Suspect with NCAA getting the word out to administrators, coaches, and others to get behind and support the recommendations that these proposals will be adopted fairly soon. Much of the time taken to develop them was probably spent checking-off with those affected, primarily the NBA. Condi didn't go to all this effort without greasing the skids. And I suspect that's why player payments weren't recommended because she didn't like them, couldn't get consensus, or the idea was broadly rejected.
Last edited:
Yeah I agree. But anybody that thought they were going to recommend sweeping changes were the ones that were naive.
The need for validation by some fan bases is amusing, to say the least.
Or we are obsessed with college basketball and will talk to anyone about it.
