Baldwin's would be an interesting recruiting. He might want to stay close to home if his dad is still coaching at UWM. Does that bring Marquette into play? Is UW an option just to be a little bit away from home but close enough for dad to get to the games? Is UW out right away because it's not a team that will showcase a potential one-and-done. Not really sure if Baldwin is that kind of player though usually a #1 nationally is viewed that way.
Badgers basketball make signing of Tyler Wahl official
- Thread starter Da-news-now
- Start date
- Messages
- 13,774
- Reaction score
- 6,592
The name I keep hearing witn Baldwin is Duke but it’s so dang early and who know how the NBA will handle the one and done thing in a year or 2. The last 2 state kids with this much hype were Dekker and Keonig and that turned out ok Stone was hyped but the back story on that well let’s say is interesting
- Messages
- 6,981
- Reaction score
- 5,781
Stone did not meet the eligibility requirements to go to Wisconsin. Ellenson did want to play with his brother. I know that first hand, as knowing first hand that he wanted to show case what he had and head to the NBA, not commit to a 4 year program.
My Brother is a close friend with the family, so this isn't "heresay," it's straight from the person himself. Henry had considered the Badgers, but the turned cool on him because of commitment. It was an easy choice for him then - Marquette.
My Brother is a close friend with the family, so this isn't "heresay," it's straight from the person himself. Henry had considered the Badgers, but the turned cool on him because of commitment. It was an easy choice for him then - Marquette.
- Messages
- 6,981
- Reaction score
- 5,781
If Maryland cheated to get stone, it didn't do them any good. They ended up looking like Louisville, and Kentucky. Now we have Duke using one and done players to stay at the top. This practice is not what should be allowed.
I keep hearing; "You can't blame the kids." Reality is, you can blame them. If we sign a contract to do something, they hold us accountable. If you don't want to do the college route, go pro immediately. This development league suggestion of kids coming out of HS, not going to college, makes sense. Give them a max of 2 years there, and no recourse going to college and a scholarship, because they'd be paid from a money pool. To fill out the rosters on those teams, you could add players from the recently released lists from NBA teams. BUT.... if a kid signs to go to college, make that a 3 year minimum commitment to stay with the school, and/or be ineligible for the development league or the draft, until that period is done.
Just my opinion. Schools invest a ton of money in these kids, and it should be on the up and up.
- Messages
- 13,774
- Reaction score
- 6,592
- Messages
- 13,774
- Reaction score
- 6,592
- Messages
- 6,981
- Reaction score
- 5,781
I understand that Pack, but I believe they should be a commitment for 3 years out front. This idea of buying a kid for a year of basketball is absurd. If you want a secondary pro league, fine, but don't try to turn colleges into a paid job. You'd be eliminating the majority of colleges from being even in the slightest bit viable immediately.
- Messages
- 13,774
- Reaction score
- 6,592
I look at it this way. If I’m in school and let’s say Google offers me $200,000 per year after my freshman year for 5 years why would I stay? The reality is kids should be paid. Schools and conferences make millions and kids make nothing. I know it’s a whole other discussion. I don’t think a development league is the answer. Easier for a kid to play in Europe and make more. Honestly the term student athlete is so hypocritical
- Messages
- 6,981
- Reaction score
- 5,781
I understand what you're saying, and in all honesty, don't really disagree with most of it. Even the point on scholarships being year to year, and pretty much at the discretion of the coaches and Athletic Departments. There are so many ways to revoke a scholarship, and it's done more often than people think. Sometimes not for the right reasons.
When you look at a particular sport in a school, and say that it makes money, and should pay it's players, aren't you actually saying that every player, in every sport, at that school, should be paid? In other words, aren't you saying that only schools who generate enough income from certain sports should be able to compete in sports?
Take schools like New Mexico, and New Mexico State, as an example. To keep their football programs alive, they send their teams into the meat grinders of top NCAA DI teams, on the road, so they can take care of the needs of scholarship players. But, that money goes far beyond the football field. Whatever they can squeeze out of it, they use to keep the lights on for their women's sports, and lesser income sports. It's all become a necessity because of Title IX, which will not be overturned.
Another thing to consider. I know people who have sent their kids to college, and spent over $100,000 of their own savings to help them make it through. To get their masters degrees, without benefit of scholarships, their cost has been over $150,000, and the kids are still coming out of school over $50,000 in the hole. Doesn't the promise of a college degree, if you do things right in school, amount to being paid for your services? You pretty much get it all, including room and board.
I can't envision NCAA DI consisting of 40 colleges, maybe 80, because the others would have to quit competing because they couldn't afford to pay their athletes.