She wasnt clear on what's next, but she posted a thank you and goodbye.
https://www.instagram.com/p/C5EwCXDr8B7/?igsh=djUzdWxkcXRyamZ6
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
She wasnt clear on what's next, but she posted a thank you and goodbye.
https://www.instagram.com/p/C5EwCXDr8B7/?igsh=djUzdWxkcXRyamZ6
Comments
Good on her
Her former coach obviously didn't teach this, it's genuine good character.
Honestly was my first thought as well. Brooks could have communicated a thank you in so many ways since deciding to leave and has clearly chosen not to. It's the only step he has taken that I have faulted him for so far.
Because he knew he was torching the WBB program
Apparently the men's too
Man I'm gonna miss the Queens of Cassell 😭
Yeah I will be rooting for Australia to win silver in the next Olympics.
It has been a great ride with Liz and Georgia for the last 4 years. Wish them both well.
Always a Hokie!
One of my all time favorite Hokies. Classy farewell.
Hope she becomes a good coach and decides to come back someday.
Best of luck in whatever the future holds for you, Georgia!
Stand by this statement. She committed to play for Kenny Brooks at VT. She stayed at VT (and played) for four years, which would be the normal exhaustion of her college eligibility. She had a full career here, and this is basically a "grad transfer" which she would have been able to do anyway under the old transfer rules. I would have preferred she gone pro than to another school, but I don't know enough about the WNBA to weigh in on that decision-making process for her. I think it's pretty brutal to treat her like a mercenary when she played in Blacksburg for four years.
She is suffering from the collateral damage of the way Kenny left.
I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around why he didn't do a social media thank you post. I get that he left for the bag and the resources and the P2, and the fact that VT is pouring all of its resources into football for that P2 invite. I get the why he left. I have a hard time faulting him for it, even if he is a Virginia guy and and he had built a great family culture.
But was the fact that the university announced it before he did himself that big of a deal to just peace out without a thank you or farewell? Was Whit that much of an asshole during the counteroffer negotiations?
a whole lot of nothing for the fanbase that "is worth 8-10 points for a home game"
Thank you Georgia. Please don't be a stranger to Blacksburg.
Stupid allergies making me tear up at work.
Come back and coach for us one day! We will miss you. 😢
It was a GREAT pleasure watching her play basketball. Thanks for the memories.
I really hope this means she is going pro
Should no tomorrow. Think that's the deadline to declare. Fitting it will be April Fools.
Well it's April 1 and all quiet on the WNBA draft declaration front.....
She's going to be suiting up for UK next year. Breaks my heart man.
Sad that boosters couldn't pony up 750K dollars for her.
You know what is very frustrating? This shit doesn't happen at even a school like NC State. No way in hell do they let their basketball coaches walk in a year after reaching the Final Four this year. None. Those coaches are going to be so taken care of that the thought of leaving won't even cross their mind.
We all assumed they are our peer. I don't believe it anymore. They have will spend to win. They will fundraise what they need to win. Virginia Tech is frugal and cheap. And we get what we deserve
Once they let Brooks go, the jig was pretty much up.
Wasn't someone saying that she didn't have an NIL agreement because of her visa? So I'm not sure it was money.
she has an NIL link on her insta bio and apparently international students can do NIL while home and get a lump sum
Merchandise sales are considered passive income and international players can earn passive income while on an F-1 Visa.
Devil's advocate question here: How would you rationalize spending $750K on a player who plays for a team that loses money for the university? And who maybe 0.1% of the country even knows who she is?
Angel Reese (gag) has an NIL valued at $1.8 million. But she has endorsement deals with McDonald's and Coach. Caitlin Clark is valued at $3.5 million. But similarly, she has endorsement deals with Gatorade, State Farm, and Nike. The University of Iowa isn't paying her $3.5 million.
Top 10 NCAA earners
Well, you definitely couldn't justify it right now. VT doesn't even have a coach.
I think you could have justified overspending money on women's basketball had we retained Brooks.
Worse, unless they change the law she can't collect any NIL due to her student VISA.
Pretty sure this is not true. I've seen the are able to collect passive income from merch sales, and then other "income" is paid out in a lump sum in Australia. She has plenty of merch on the NIL store and has (had) it linked on her social media
She did mention in an interview that she cant get any money from the jersey sales (and hers isnt on the VT store) so she doesnt mind people buying on dhgate
This is correct. She can perform NIL work outside the US and can collect passive income. I am sure Kentucky will find a way to make it work. She is going to be in Australia with the Olympic team for significant periods so easy to get her paid up while there.
Imagine a school collective in the U.S. paying for NIL work in another country. That is so far from the intended NIL usage.
Kentucky fans pay their collective, collective pays for Amoore's NIL work done in Australia.
So, what is the value of the NIL work in Australia to those Kentucky fans?
It's also arguable that NIL should have some nexus to the people paying for the NIL. That's pretty easy to do when a collective pays for local NIL work. That nexus is completely lost if the NIL work is nondomestic.
The Exodus has begun--welcome mediocrity. I am saddened.
I hate this era of sports. F*&k all of this.
Can someone find the HokieBird 'PAIN' meme for me, please?
This sucks. I'm sure Georgia's departure will begin the exodus we've been expecting. 😔
***EDIT: found it.
With her transferring out, don't retire her jersey. I hate it, but that honor shouldn't be given to those who choose to turn their back on VT and play somewhere else.
Was she really of the level of having her jersey retired in the first place?
The last part of your post makes me wonder, in the NIL/TP age, if we will ever have players worthy of jersey retirement, banners, etc.
Kitley deserves it, I believe.
The crazy thing is, if Kitley had eligibility left, we would seeing her in a UK uniform next year as well.
Looking at the bright side, I'm grateful that didn't happen.
I suspect kitley graduating is part of his timing to leave.
And the whole getting hired by a school in the P2.
I would have been happy to see Georgia go pro and call it the end of an era. We all know where she's headed and to me, it's a gut punch. The current environment in college sports is that our athletes are permanent free agents playing in a semi-pro league that is loosely affiliated with a university. That's all it is. It's hard rooting for someone now, knowing they can just walk away next year for a bigger paycheck or for whatever reason.
I'm all for players changing their minds and being able to transfer somewhere else but there has to be a limit or some kind of restriction. Sit for a year, no NIL in year 1 after a transfer, something. Make the fact that you're suiting up for your team mean something in terms of consistency. Every year we panic over good players leaving for greener pastures. It's not fun any more. If the team has success, it may fall apart rather than garner excitement for the coming season.
Yep. College sports ain't fun anymore. The rich get richer at the expense of the poor and VT is a poor
Truth. It's going to be hard to watch women's bball next year. I hate this new reality.
It's hard to watch anything at the college level any more.
It's not going to be hard for me. I'm not going to watch.
This is ultimately the solution to the problem. Coaches and players in any sport are indirectly paid by the fans who buy the tickets and watch the games on TV (TV revenue used to be 100% funneled through selling commercials, but now direct streaming fees are a huge part of that revenue). Point is, the only way it changes is if it affects the bank accounts of the players, coaches, athletic directors, TV execs. etc.
I've had an SEC boycott for myself for about a year now. I refuse to watch any game of any sport that is SEC vs SEC. I refuse to contribute to the bottom line of ESPN's deal with the SEC.
Agreed.
My loyalty is with VT, and I'm boycotting the SEC unless and until VT is invited to the club or participating in the contest.
If you have to enforce loyalty, then it isn't really loyalty.
I dont give a shit about loyalty, I want consistency.
Disagree. Rules and regulations are useful for reasons, one of which is not to enforce loyalty, but to foster at least a semblance of fair competition. The golden egg we got a taste of needs the goose to lay it, and the way things are now, that goose is cooked. I'm all for transfers, but without restrictions, they're becoming poisonous for a lot of fans.
Hence why I never used loyalty. The notion of "I want to play here because I love this school" is disappearing. For some people, it's real. For most, it's an overblown, romanticized notion of what college sports are. If you want to represent a university in athletics, great! But there needs to be an agreement in place and some actual rules rather than a free-for-all in which players can move among teams freely at any whim. Just in terms of a fan's perspective, it sucks. You never know what's going to happen with a team. Offseason dismissals or transfers used to be the exception, now they're the rule.
When college basketball players and coaches just follow the money, what's the point of the college association?
The academic association has become arbitrary and tenuous.
Maybe it's time to break the meaningless association.
I've been saying this for some time. Not sure how we went from what we had to this. Just field a team from the student body like they do in high school. I'd rather watch that. If I want pro sports, which I don't, I'll watch the NFL or NBA or MLB, which I don't.
Same here. I don't watch any pro sports anymore, used to but haven't for decades. Hokie sports comprise the largest part of my attention and if I can watch them I will, softball, baseball and both basketball teams primarily.
I'll admit to nostalgia about VT and all the games I attended and the fellowship of now 50+ year friends that were
forged and fostered around those games. That is what I hate to see go. My friendships are cemented, but it would be nice to still enjoy Hokie sports more than perfunctorily, and who knows what's coming?
I used to be there. As soon as the NIL entered the picture, and teams were comprised of athletes effectively on 1-year paid contracts, I went right back to pro sports. At least the rules there between the leagues, players associations, CBAs, salary caps, arbitration, luxury taxes, etc mostly levels the field in terms of competition and any franchise can do a total 180 within a year.
With college sports, all we have is a battle to see which alumni has the deeper pockets.
As crazy as it sounds, I'm starting to see things the way Sands does...
The kicker is that pro leagues now operate more like colleges than colleges do. Multi year contracts give fans assurances that the team they cheer for won't dramatically change year over year and legitimate organizational growth is actually possible.
College is basically a rich personal's brothel where the wealthy can buy whoever they want whenever they want. And if you aren't rich, you are the ones being bought and sold.
This is my thought. It makes no sense to have academic institution tied to million and billion dollar sports leagues.
Why on earth would I support people wearing VT jerseys that are not VT students? What connection do I have to them? That I once lived in blacksburg too? If you want to kill off college sports in america, this is the way. And that's not hyperbole. Look no further than the zero people in the stands of NBA G league games and how no minor football league has ever caught on here. Proof is right there. I wouldn't watch non VT students in orange and maroon play in my back yard.
i agree with all of this, but also it's pretty strange that the professional athletic development ecosystem is inherently tied to our higher education system???
except in a few cases -- baseball and hockey. because of their draft eligibility rules, the development of prospects in those sports doesn't necessarily run through the education system. I would be in favor of NBA specifically getting rid of the age minimum, and probably would be in favor of the NFL doing so as well.
minor league sports haven't really caught on in the big revenue sports in part because the professional leagues (a) have legalized monopolies and (b) don't need to invest in minor league systems when the education system can do it for them.
People forget that there are hundreds of real student athletes at VT that don't star on the mens basketball and football teams. And there are even some real student athletes on those teams as well. Kids that are at VT for an education and do go to class and do excel in academics. So you want to parce out the "million dollar sports"? Fine, and their popularity would decrease 300X. And maybe that's cool? Just go all in on the make star players employees, unions, CBA's etc. remove any association with VT, and watch Lane become a ghost town. Fine by me, but I am not a fool.
Exactly - I had a number of friends in my engineering program that were on the non-revenue sports... and many of them were getting better grades than me!
basically have to either divorce it entirely or have a true amateur system, which both are problematic for all the reasons we've been discussing. It's reaaaaaallllly hard to thread the needle and find a balance, again for all the reasons we've been discussing.
we're not far removed from the "thousands of student athletes go pro in something other than sports" commercials. I didn't forget about them. but NFL and (W)NBA are different in that those leagues are happy to squash competition in terms of startup professional leagues, and happy to not invest in their own developmental leagues. the G League is a joke because the NBA doesn't need it to provide professional development for prospects when the NCAA is doing it for free with the NBA's draft eligibility rules. same with the NFL
"basically have to either divorce it entirely or have a true amateur system, which both are problematic for all the reasons we've been discussing" - yep so long as Johnny AAU hoops star and IMG academy football thrower kid (99.9% will never be pro's) are entitled to millions of dollars, this will always be an issue.
it will be a long time before anyone gets me to agree that we should impose earnings restrictions on teenagers. I also don't think I should be expected to pay for that earning. we're still in the "wild west" of NIL and so forth because there has not yet been any equilibrium established
There are no earnings restrictions on teenagers in America, that I know of? Oh you must mean amateurism rules, title 9 etc- which are voluntary agreements between the school and the student. You certainly aren't speaking about johnny high school going to get a job that pays him 5 million without experience. To my knowledge, johnny high school graduate is not restricted or capped in any way to do that in America.
"voluntary agreements between the school and the student" -- but wait, it's also the school and the athlete, and the athlete has no alternatives. Again, I don't disagree with you. But things get super fuzzy because anyone can pick a side, pick a perspective, and speak only in the language that supports that view while someone else can do the exact same thing with the opposing view and both people are entirely correct.
No a high schooler is not "entitled" to millions. But if the market says that high schooler is worth millions, then why should that teenager be put into a position where he or she isn't allowed capitalize on that?
"the athlete has no alternatives" - This is not true- especially basketball. We have seen many kids go to europe, the G league, etc vs. spending a year not going to classes at Kentucky. Football you have a small argument- however the game itself is not mandatory. And if the argument is that "it's the only path to the NFL/money"- well that speaks to entitlement as well.
FTFY.
It really is worth thinking about the system as much as the players. The system was messed up before and, as it turns out, saying "Fuck it, no rules" didn't fix it. But given the money floating around in the system, the idea that room and board was fair compensation is silly. You keep using the word entitled, and it just doesn't fit. They're making money by trading services for it. Like anyone else. The fact that the NCAA just stumbled blindly into this bad plan isn't their fault.
Entitled is 100% the right word, and it's 100% what got us here. Does an intern/junior employee demand profit sharing at Deloitte? Does a plumber cry foul because there is millions of dollars in the "plumbing" industry and where is their cut? What other relatively unskilled, inexperienced 18-20 year old demand a large sum of the business/pie in America? Only in college athletics does a Linn Kidd - a mid level skilled "employee" demand a half million dollars. Not the junior lawyer, not the medical resident, not anyone. Where does the Univeristy of Texas first year medical student demand millions to attend school there? oh that's not the medical school, that is Arch Manning- who didn't play a down.
Here's the difference - a junior employee can 'demand' profit sharing at Deloitte, but no one is willing to give it to him. A 5-star QB can 'demand' $100k for his first year on the team, and 12 collectives will raise their hand and say "PICK ME! PICK ME!"
The market says these kids are valued at this much. You can hate that (which is very reasonable - as you have pointed out - it is a bit disgusting that LSU fans are willing to have their school library condemned if it means they are winning football games), but IMO this is a problem with the fans/boosters, not the players.
Why these 18 year olds that likely won't be good enough to be pro's in their sport are entitled is certainly multiple reasons- as you point out, losers with no disposible income will give them money thinking they actually play for the team themselves... sure... but entitled- they 100% are. Entitled not to go to class, entitled to be coddled from age 10, etc etc. Multiple reasons- doesn't mean its not there.
right -- it's because the market just opened and hasn't balanced yet. eventually the bubble will pop because crowdfunding a roster isn't sustainable
"the bubble will pop because crowdfunding a roster isn't sustainable" FOR US. I'm afraid the bubble won't pop for the P2 any time soon.
Edited for typo
but as far as we know, the TV dollars don't go towards NIL/NIL collectives and so forth. unless schools are going to fund their athletic department from zero donations and instruct fans to give to NIL instead (which i understand could happen). but even then, i think the bubble will burst eventually for the P2 as well because the product will become worse. it's another story though
The argument is that the TV money displaces donor money from the university to the NIL
the next time a university tells people to donate their money elsewhere will be the first :P
I don't know where, but I've seen some of this already with Tech. Even if just implied.
This is false. Matt Brown did a piece about this in January titled No, NIL isn't cannibalizing school's donor pools. Here's proof. The quick and dirty:
If NIL/collectives were taking money away from the athletic department donor pool, then we'd see those donations decrease. In fact, the opposite is happening; NIL has unlocked a new type of donor.
I don't think that's the same theory. The theory is that P2 schools will tell their donor base to donate to the collective once they have a satisfactory balance with the surplus of TV cash. That wouldn't be cannibalization, but instead pushing growth into two different streams instead of just one. That sort of data wouldn't be available unless you can get athletic department and NIL donation dollar totals, compare and contrast growth of both AD and NIL donations. Further, NIL and these TV deals are really still in their infancy only a few years old and the economy is decently good and rising. The data right now won't be super indicative of this competing dynamic.
But ultimately, I don't know if an athletic department will ever say donate less here and more there. I think it's more here and also more there.
The article addresses this:
There's a lot more in the article:
If the athletic department says 'okay, we need $60m to run this operation, we're not taking more gifts, please funnel that to the collective,' not much of the money will actually go to the collective; it will go to other non-profits or investments.
Could this change in the upcoming years? Sure. But there's no evidence yet to suggest that is or will happen.
One additional difference is eligibility limits. Junior employees in other industries might have more bargaining power if it were illegal for more experienced employees to do those jobs that the business needs to be able to function.
If it wasn't for VT I don't think I would follow college football at all. The NFL has a lot of faults but at least they some rules and regulations to follow that gives fans assurances that there is a path to success. With college, the moment you have any whiff of success, the rich just buy all your players and coaches and you to back down to the sewer where you belong.
And even now, after this shit that just went down with basketball, my desire to even follow VT sports anymore is waning.
i mean i barely follow college football as it is, where i'm at right now is mostly that i simply love the hokies
This. Same for me. I've loved them since '68 and hope to love 'em 'til I die. Starting to worry now.
This argument falls flat on its face after 2 seconds of critical thinking. An intern at Deloitte is driving essentially zero value. The players in college sports are driving 100% of the value of a billion dollar industry. Can't fault them for wanting a cut. I'm sure you'll argue that the name on the front of the jersey is driving more value than the name on the back, but nobody would give a shit about Alabama football if they sucked ass. Without the players, there's nothing.
That's not to say that I like the current system. It's awful for everyone save a few haves at the top. There need to be some guardrails set up so this wild west bullshit will stop. But the player still deserve some cut.
"The players in college sports are driving 100% of the value"... not true. Coaches- the great ones - drive value as a known property an the schools are the value- ESPN didn't do a TV deal with players, if they did Ja Morant at Murray State would have had a deal similar to Kentucky's from ESPN, etc, etc, etc. These players are replaceable- much like the intern at Deloitte. ESPN doesn't reduce Bama's TV dollars when Saban leaves and 10 of their players go to the NFL every year. What if Bama gets no "good" players you say? 1. that is a false choice, and 2. They will still sell out their stadium- much like aTm does now when Johnny football is long gone. Should the players get a "cut" of the pie? perhaps. Why are they entitled to more than what an inexperienced, unproven worker is? entitlement of course- unless you think Linn Kidd is really worth half a million dollars? If he is, than Armando Bacot is worth 10 million. Its all fucked up and not comparable to any other job/industry.
just because you (and i) don't think Lynn Kidd is worth $500k doesn't mean it's "entitlement" because some Miami booster might irrationally think he's worth $500k. Maybe you're using a different definition of the word or maybe it's just because it's become a loaded word with negative connotations, but I don't really think it applies that much.
and that's irrespective of TV dollars or the total value of the college athletics lanscape. besides, your entire argument also applies to professional sports. The Yankees existed long before their current players and will exist long after. That doesn't make the players entitled to a certain amount of money, the collective bargaining and antitrust exemption do. The NCAA has neither.
having gotten just gotten past wedding planning, I can absolutely say that vendors set their prices based on what they think they are worth and what they think people are willing to pay, regardless of whether or not I (as the customer) thought their service was worth that price.
Or said booster is willing to cut the check regardless of value. Net worth of $1.5-$2B so dropping a couple million a year to make his Fandom easier to watch.
It's no less "the market" even if it isn't money-generating to give a financial "return on investment"
Wedding pricing is wild. Baby pricing is similar. The price markup between something branded as a "pet cam" and a "baby cam" that connect to your phone is something like 50%. For the same stuff.
how much do babies go for these days?
More than you would think man.
This is econ 101- Supply and Demand. Also- EACH party to ANY transaction has to be satisfied or the transaction simply doesn't occur. If I'm re-doing kitchen and price is no object? Sure I might pay exorbitant $ for gold plated faucets and granite or marble counters, etc. Of course for nearly everyone in the real world, price/money IS a consideration, so in my case I look at it as function over form and get a simple faucet and countertops. As a specific example recently, when I bought my charger I had choice between what I bought and an upgraded package with heated seats, heated steering wheel, bigger and nicer video screen, etc. BUT that would have added $5000 to the cost (going from $25k to $30k). To ME, the increased cost (even if materially reasonable as the cost of the additional features) did NOT provide enough additional VALUE. To many others, it does. And that's OK.
I have zero issue with any person trying to maximize their compensation-whether it's a pro athlete, actors, or Joe Blow plumber down the street AS long as the transaction is voluntary not coerced. If I don't want to pay higher costs for a product or choose to accept a lesser product, that's my choice. When the value -as I an individual see it-of the entertainment and enjoyment of having season tickets becomes less than what it costs me to purchase it, I will stop buying them. The point at which that occurs will differ for each person. (For me, it will be a long time before that occurs)
Big Pharma dwarfs "college football" in terms of business size, revenue, economic impact. Yet mysteriously junior pharmacists aren't vastly overpaid before learning how to fill a prescription. They also don't extort universities when they are residents- typically. Comparing the athletic machine to literally any other business is a joke.
I can confirm the big pharma stuff.
I watch tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars being wasted or tossed every day, but if you even think about mentioning a raise, you'll be put on the naughty list.
That said, I know multiple people that have locked up jobs in pharma while still being in school. Guaranteed employment on graduation.
you in this thread:
you're saying a lot of things i agree with, just coming out with the opposite conclusion. college athletics isn't comparable to pharma or deloitte, so why should we keep talking about them as if they are? there are 315000 pharmacists in the US. there are five times the amount of accountants. it's not "entitlement to their fair share of revenue" as much as it's "supply and demand"
The argument you make for athletes getting paid is a business one, and economic one- albeit with fake numbers. VT football alone does not generate millions of dollars annually for example. Real numbers would help. But lets pretend that college basketball after operating costs, etc is really a "billion dollar" industry. OK my opinion is that the relatively inexperienced labor pool in that industry feels entitled to more compensation and benefits than in literally any other business. - My opinion, yes. You don't see doctor residents at hopkins demanding more salary to stay each year they pursue their degree/license. If they do - hopkins tells them to fuck themselves. Maybe schools should start doing the same to inexperienced/learning on the job athletes?
the only business and economic argument i, me, personally, myself am making is that it is "supply and demand" more than it's "entitled to get a slice of a billion dollar industry"
if Lynn Kidd is so replaceable and the $500k market deal he got isn't commensurate with the true value for his talent and skills, Tech should just go find another NCAA-eligible 6'10, 235 lb athletic guy skilled enough to play basketball who wants to do it at VT, and find that player willing to do it for significantly less than $500k.
I don't see doctors at Hopkins doing that because it's a bad comparison (not to mention that doctoral residents and graduate students are increasingly unionizing) just like deloitte is a bad comparison and just like pharmacists are a bad comparison. there are ~145k doctoral residents in the US. there are around 5-6k men's D1 basketball players.
"Tech should just go find another NCAA-eligible 6'10, 235 lb athletic guy skilled enough to play basketball who wants to do it at VT, and find that player willing to do it for significantly less than $500k."- since VT will in fact do exactly this, it kind of kills the argument and is in fact a valid comparison to Hopkins and Deloitte.
You both have some good points, but it might be a good time to call it agreeing to disagree.
Next time you get upset about anyone entering the portal im just gonna remind you that they're infinitely replaceable lol
Supply and demand is all
Ugh.
I tried...
Didnt see your other comment bc i saw his reply, I'm done now. More supply on these comments than demand, message received lil soybean :)
Ill mark you down as stating Linn Kidd being irreplaceable. Got it
For market price :)
Don't stop now. Must make text vertical!!
The eternal arguments...
almost there
Here we go.....
HOKIES!
LETS GO
H
O
K
I
E
S
Oh, ffs
to be clear, I didn't actually bother reading what I was responding to. I was just trying to complain about the vertical thread while ignoring the fact that I was making it worse, in the hope of being funny. I guess it didn't work this time.
I feel like others have made most of my points, and we've been going back and forth on this for several days. If you honestly don't see the difference between your hypothetical interns and what we're talking about, I don't know what to say. Few direct points I want to mention though. I guess because I can't learn a lesson.
One, the group from which Deloitte can pull is WAY bigger than the group that college basketball teams can pull from. He may be a mid-tier D1 athlete, but that still puts him in the top tiny percentage of athletes. "Relatively unskilled" is just untrue. Especially those who are 6'10" or whatever. That scarcity drives value. If there were an equivalent to that level of natural ability/fit for a job in consulting, we might see a different market.
Second, the potential value add from a single basketball player is WAY bigger than the potential value add from a single intern/med student. The direct line between that one player and success is just clearer. Even if it doesn't pan out, if what you're investing in is basketball success, you take the misses with the hits, just like anything else.
And third, it wasn't athletes demanding millions of dollars that got us here. Some level of pay for play already existed. Because donors/boosters were willing to pay. You've decided to get mad at the people putting their bodies on the line to entertain people as opposed to the 1. Rich assholes who have long been willing to throw money at athletes to get them to play for their team, 2. ADs and presidents who have been chasing the one extra dollar for years now at the expense of fan enjoyment, 3. NCAA administrators who should have seen this coming from a mile away and didn't do shit about it. Seems like the wrong folks to be mad at.
Really well put.
To add to this - if the pro leagues just eliminated the age minimum, then the problem might be solved (or at least drastically improved).
it would also likely take years to find an equilibrium of balance
This is so true. Hell, we're not even out of covid-eligibility-exemption-hell yet
Don't get me started...
I think you started loooooong ago
IMO- the impact here will be minimal. How many NBA players on VT's hoops roster? None. So you don't think Pedulla and Kidd still don't want their bag? We may not have any football players drafted at all this year. How does no age limit quiet the NIL noise in the FB program? it doesn't. This would impact Kentucky, Duke, maybe a few others as their guys could actually legit go to the NBA.
because the alternative to a college NIL deal would be the NBA minimum G-league whatever. you want $750k in NIL because you think you're worth that... but the NBA won't give you a roster sniff at $75k? it's supply and demand at it's core
Would add soccer to your list of not tied to the education system.
American soccer has this issue...that most believe you must get an education then go be an athlete. Ask the European nations how they attack this. Better, ask Christian Pulisic how its done. Too many parents believe there is only one path...thru schools, whether it's from what they know/endured/experienced, or based on the fall-back plan of "well, you got an education if you don't go pro or get hurt."
A country of 340 million people with soccer fields on every corner in the suburbs that loses to Trinidad and Tobago regulary is doing a whole bunch wrong with their mens national team.
The approach, management, cultivation of talent, and culture around the sport are all so American that while we may pop up occasionally, we'll never compete for a World Cup. It's just not who we are as a soccer "country." Too individual and scatter brained.
True- and we have apparently tired everything- international coaches, players that were born on military bases, etc. It's just hard for me to believe that with the millions of kids that play soccer here, we can't find 24 males good enough to really compete internationally.
We haven't tried a consistent approach. Every coach in the US will tell you something different. Different styles, different approaches, heck even to go play other sports in high school. Other soccer power countries don't have this issue. In Germany, if you are a left mid, you play that style. Period. They can plug and play and the replacement knows their role and understands the assignment.
We have a national coach now taking guys playing in different systems for their clubs and applying yet a different approach that none of them play throughout the year. Why? These guys are in top leagues, but have to play different under Gregg. Insanity.
I don't think this is necessarily true, or at least true for all major soccer countries. I'd expect these players to have played at the academy level tied to individual clubs, and every national team has to deal with picking the best players for certain roles based on how they play at their clubs, which typically aren't all in the same country. I'll concede that these players' academy days were probably all at domestic clubs. But even though we associate certain styles of play with certain counties, I think that's more driven by the manager.
The glaring counterexample would be the Tiki-Taka era of Spanish football, but they basically sidestepped that issue by calling up practically the entire Barcelona squad for the national team along with a few Real Madrid players.
Gregg's system is absolute insanity - I've always advocated that a national team coach's job is to call up the best players, and put them in their best positions and situations on the pitch. Not try to implement some overarching system that requires 3 camps and 6-9 months with the team to pick up, and pigeonhole every player at a position to play the same way. Johnny and Adams are drastically different types of 6s. You need a safe, defensive-minded RB, then play Scally. You need one to contribute in the attack and take players on, play Dest. And GGG always picks the wrong striker for the situation.
FTFY.
This and I believe the European soccer clubs are now having a positive impact here by building academies here in the US. They are starting them on the process here and those they believe have the skill to be pros are then moved to the primary academies tied to their clubs in Europe. Barca has an Academy here in Loudoun County now. DC United also has a youth development academy in Northern Virginia that regularly produces MLS talent.
Some of the MLS academies are very good. Others, not so much. Once we scrap the MLS homegrown players rules - I think some of the lower academies will have to pick up the ball and invest in development rather than just relying on poaching players that grew up in their sphere of influence.
Yea? In UK you see people who are fans of low level teams like Wrexham, AFC Wimbledon, Forest Green Rovers FC, and much more. You spend your 4ish year college career supporting that team, going to that team's game every weekend, etc, so you presumably support them. Universities (and alumni) could also buy a ownership stake in the program. But I think you need promo/relo for this to work.
I'm not saying it will work, but I think it could work. And I don't get why a professional sports league is tied at the hip to a higher ed institution.
The sport of football was invented on college campuses. Schools have multiple generations of fans. The G-league was invented by the NBA. There's a huge difference in history and established fanbases.
Sports fandom (esp college) is largely dependent on an emptional connection between team and fan. Without the emptional connection you end up just being another entertainment option. Product on the field/court matters a lot more for "entertainment" than it does as an extension of that emptional connection.
This is the reason I watched every mens and womens bball this game and 0 NBA or WNBA games.
This is what happens when your emotional connection to a team results in feelings of emptiness after they rip your heart out.
This is why I keep it a logical connection ... attend VT = cheer for VT
Yeah, Lane will be half full at best with a bastardized minor league football team not associated at all with Virginia Tech beyond their helmet. Total disaster- my opinion, yes of course.
Like many, many years of my fandom. Big games might get 25-35,000 fans, but it had to be a big game. Many games I attended were less than or not much more than 20,000 folks in the seats. I went to a lot of games alone, most of my friends raising kids and starting careers. But as we finally got better after Beamer hit his stride, I had a lot of company. I can honestly say, though, that the lean years made the fat ones even more tasty to this old Hokie.
Blacksburg is not easy to travel to. No airport and one must trek the hellscape that is I 81. Color me HIGHLY skeptical that folks will go out of their way to watch a football game there with non- VT players. Semi pro. Hell the DC defenders wouldn't draw 5K to lane.
No argument from me. I wouldn't bother either, even if I still lived 25 minutes away from campus.
Point you are missing, though, is everyone of your opinion? If VT fields a team every year, there are going to be students, faculty and locals that will still show up, and if they're winning games, attendance will follow. You and I won't be there, but the Highty Tighties and that darned civilian band that came too late for me to join, would be there and the cheerleaders...
Yes, I'm loyal to the school and will likely root for and watch whatever VT puts on the field or court, but won't be sending money or traveling to see the product if it ain't on TV and I'm not fishing. The rest of the world, sadly in my opinion, goes blithely on and I increasingly feel the world speeding up as I wind down, but other than piss and moan, what's a feller to do?
If you do a bacon giveaway, they will come.
one must trek the hellscape that is I 81.
I love that drive. It's absolutely gorgeous. Do the trucks suck? Sure. Minor inconvenience. Whole lot better than taking the metro or 95 to the shithole in college park that's supposedly easy to get to.
I agree if you catch it right- no accidents, not a VT game weekend, etc
I81 from 66 until like JMU sucks. From JMU through Blacksburg it's pretty.
Dang, you're killing me. Strasburg to Harrisonburg is essentially home for me.
Any road with a view through the Shenandoah Valley is a top 3 scenic drive in North America. It's just beautiful.
Right there with you. Lots of room to spread out in sections 2 or 4 west side.
I remember going to back to Blacksburg for games in the mid 80's and buying tickets at half face value out in front of Lane. It was maybe late 80's - early 90's that we were stunned that we had to actually pay face value for tickets.
Yeah, but the World League, USFL, Arena League, multiple iterations of the XFL, and the AFA league that couldn't make payroll beyond week 6..would all argue that Minor League football has no history of being financially viable, despite whatever difference in fanbase.
Hell, the current UFL is only floating on because of celebrity endorsers and support from NFL itself.
Minor league baseball works because it has decades of history and because many teams are in smaller cities and there is an intimate tie/pride associated with that. Blacksburg is similar in a lot of ways. Having a squad of hired guns playing independently of the University breaks that apart. I think you would be surprised how quickly support fades for this, particularly if VT is playing in a second-rate league to the P2.
UK and U.S. are extremely different sports markets, trying to compare them is largely pointless. See: cricket.
A follow up question... every college fanbase has a not-insignificant amount of fans who never went to the university. I know VT isn't Alabama or Michigan when it comes to sidewalk fans, but even on this site, we have frequent posters who are not alumni (most notably French).
These individuals (not just the posters on TKP, but non-alumni fans in general) still have a rooting interest in the sport despite not being classmates with, or even going to school with the individuals on the team.
Those fans have no problem spending the money/making the effort to go to games and follow the teams. Do you really think that student/alumni connection is that big of a deal?
Yes I do think it is that big of a deal. You think Notre Dame- the nations leader in subway alumni - fans will be like - meh, they aren't catholic, and don't attend the school- we will still spend hundreds to go to games. Laughable.
Scrubbing VT... Have to admit this whole situation sucks. Feels like Brooks & Co are content with burning the bridge on their way out
Is it standard for a grad transfer to keep their old school on their social media bio?
At Brooks's level there are no bridges anymore. Let's say he spits in Whit's face literally and figuratively - what's the worst case scenario? Whit doesn't hire him back to VT one day? lol. Brooks won't be in that scenario now. Whit doesn't speak to him at the final four coaches conference? Whit doesn't recommend him for a job?
I see new comments, I come to the thread, I leave. Rinse and repeat.
So is she going to play for Kentucky or what? I don't like checking this tread so often.
I wouldnt expect a public announcement until classes are over and she is off campus
I think this is the case. I'm sure anyone planning on flipping to UK would not want to be walking around campus after doing so, which honestly really sucks but it is what it is.
Well this didn't age well. But we all knew this was coming
Imagine she is focused on prepping for Olympics more than anything else.