GWRising wrote:

danjsport wrote:

Different idea—if a player wants to transfer, let them. Don’t hinder where they can go, or why. Don’t make them sit out. Let them go. If they leave because of money, so be it. That’s capitalism. Surely we have not made coaches sit a year between jobs for more money or prestige. If they leave because their parents are ill, so be it. If they leave just because they feel like it, so be it. Wanna stop it? Sign them to contracts that actually monetarily compensate them for their time and efforts. As long as each school is providing the same “compensation,” why shouldn’t the player get to choose where they go?

Despite the fact that this would ruin collegiate sports, is counter to the notion of student-athlete and we all know that each school is not able to provide the same "compensation", I'll play. Under your scenario since it's unlimited freedom and compensation for players like the pros, would coaches be allowed to cut players who don't perform like the pros? And if so can they do this midseason or at any point?

Seems to me if you want this to be like the pros then let's make it like the pros. 

Let's start with the fact that it is "counter to the notion of student-athlete." I disagree. "College athletes" are the only undergraduate students that have restrictions placed on their ability to transfer. A research assistant in a lab can transfer without sitting out a year because the research is more interesting (or they'll get compensated better) at another school. If we really want to treat them as students--rather than pawns in a game to make the viewing experience (and revenue experience) better for others, we'd allow them to transfer for any reason they choose, to attend whatever school they choose, and to continue to act in a manner that allows them to pursue their passions. Your version of "student athlete" focuses on the fact that they are there to serve the "school" in a role, in exchange for getting

Gwmayhem wrote:

I understand a lot of things, particularly as I get older.

Everyone would like to leave on their own terms.
Many individuals do not look forward to retirement.  They fret over how they will occupy their time.
We all have egos; some far larger than others.

Whether this is interesting or not, what I do know is that this is sad.  As in incredibly pathetic.  I suppose you can argue that anyone with multiple drunk driving incidents who also very knowingly made homophobic remarks while making a radio appearance may certainly be lacking self-respect, but to the extent that he has any, he should end this legal campaign to get his job back right now.  Am willing to guess that he does not know any better largely due to all of the enablers and WVU friends and fans in his life who have never stood up to him in the past about anything.  Huggins is that not so rare combination of part bully and part a-hole.  His time is more than up.  Changing attorneys while blatantly lying about his own recent resignation in a last ditch effort to get his job back would be beneath almost everyone out there.  And his (interim) replacement, Josh Eilert, who has been on staff for the past 16 years?  You're attempting to take away his opportunity as well.  

I'm never going to be one to defend somebody for making homophobic remarks. But I think the numerous drunk driving incidents and current stint in rehab may make it less than obvious that he "very knowingly made homophobic remarks." He may have drunkenly made these remarks because it seems like he sure has an alcohol problem. None of this should be condoned. Sober, drunk, or anything in between. But I suspect a lot of this is triggered through addiction concerns.

All that said, the sense of entitlement to ask for your job back--rather than simply asking for money. It's completely bonkers
 

1. The difference we have here is that you seem to disregard that Huggins being white had anything to do his being in a position of being a HC at a major university, people kissing his ass, and making a lot of money. I'm suggesting that if he were black and as big an asshole as he's been, he would not be in this position in the first place. Bigots DO come in all colors, shapes, and sizes. Bigots willing to get on radio and television and make those statements tend to be white...

2.  Again, the disconnect is you're trying to connect it to the action. I'm trying to say the money should never have been given to Huggins in the first place. He'll be fine with 1M less. AND that money could have been given to players. 66k a year. For 15 players. Of course, NCAA's dumb rules don't let this happen. Of course, taxpayer dollars are at play and heaven forbid the West Virginia taxpayers should pay the people that are providing their entertainment. Instead, they pay Huggins...
 

Rising- his fine surely has very little to do with referencing Catholics, though I have no problem adding in the fact that Huggins shouldn't be saying offensive things to Catholics either. You want to call all of these things unrelated, but I do not believe they are.

1. Huggins is white- you want to pretend that plays no role in anything, but I disagree. Huggins race, like most white folks (me included) has surely played a role in his ability to gain connections and push his way up the ranks. And it surely plays a role in his comfort in using the offending words on the air. If you don't believe race has anything to do with the comfort of a man with a $4.2M a year job using those words on the air, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

2. Yes, people of other races use this word. I'm not dumb and I know lots of people from lots of communities use this word (even if it shouldn't be used). I'm not dumb enough to think that Huggins is the only basketball coach to use this word (of any race). He's the only coach dumb enough to use it on air in a radio spot. And the fact that he can keep his job after that is appalling. If other people are using that word in their professional lives, they should be fired too. If you're letting that stand without responding when you hear it, that's on you.

3. Any time money is involved in college athletics, I believe the issue of NIL and player payment should be discussed. Where is that million dollars the University just saved going to go? Is it going to go back to the basketball program so Huggins can keep succeeding as a coach? To his assistants to allow him to keep trying to succeed? To professors? I don't know- neither do you (I'm guessing you don't, though your assumptions would be more well educated than mine here). But I know where that money is NOT going. That money is NOT going to players. Huggins takes a 1M cut (leaving him with a lowly 3.2M for the year). He then gets to implore his (largely black) players to keep playing har

Hard to argue with a kid for cashing in if he can. Good for him. Would I have loved for him to be at GW--of course! So let's hope GW's NIL gets off the ground so we can start to compete when it comes down to cash.

Great Post, Mayhem. I think the first question you ask is more complicated than a simple yes or no. To avoid evading the question, I think the "general" answer would be "probably not for some time--but you'd see it sooner." But I also think the problems run deeper, which is addressed to your second point.

You say "These players are receiving an education as compensation and that should not be undermined. Basketball in some cases is the very thing that allows an athlete an education that they otherwise may  not have access to." This puts me right back to the "race" point that I'm raising. Let's start with where we easily agree. An education should not be undermined. It's important! It's helpful! Thank goodness these kids can get it. But you know who doesn't have that problem (generally) White kids! White kids have better access to loans, better connections to get into college, better societal benefits to make college an option for them. So, when you ask if the white kids would have gotten paid sooner--maybe not. But also, Johny Manziel and Tom Brady, and JJ Reddick would probably have been fine. 

You know what else helps enable people to start embarking on careers that might not have anything to do with sports? Money! Money lets people choose where to live, buy (or rent) houses, and even invest as they see fit. I don't think (and I don't think you think) this is a zero sum game. I think my passion for it would be different if it were all white kids getting screwed (and they would be getting screwed). But I think the whole "they should be happy with what they get--which is a "free" education (as long as they play basketball well enough and follow the rules only placed on athletes to keep getting it")--really hits me differently when it predominantly impacts black kids. It allows them to be taken advantage of; it allows them to be treated as though "this is enough, take it." 

I think it's a systemic race problem. And I think the failure to change it systemically

More to come later, but maybe the schools should just give the coaches free housing and extra education? Shouldn’t that be enough? Or is it only “money” when it comes to the black kids that play the game?