Maybe the Crown is the canary in the coal mine. The DOA Crown is a warning that the system is eating itself alive.
I am not certain the point you are making.
Most teams in years past would play in the NIT if invited. Most would even hang a banner for it in their gym.
Back in the days when the player-employees were chattel told what to do by their employer. And then, coaches salaries went up and up and up. And more assistant coaches and more administrators. And then the CBI tournament. And yet more television.
I would've played basketball for a free education. The Big Ten teams started paying stipends, too, so don't pretend that there was never any reform. It beats digging ditches over the summer. There are professional basketball leagues for those not interested in the free education.
I always hated this argument of I’d play for the free college. People said that to me many decades ago. My response was “Then why didn’t you” ? It really easy to say this and I am sure it’s true of most students. I would have loved to replace Bill Wyman on bass for the Rolling Stones and would have done it for expenses. Thing is no one ever wanted to see me up on stage with Mick and Keith.
For many they used success in the NIT to jumpstart their following year, I can think of a few champions that did well the next year in the Dance. There was some status to it but when you then add Crown it makes everything but the dance somewhat irrelevant. To think that the NIT was once the BIg Dog.
Being 6-9 inches taller would certainly help. But I'm not, so I had to work my *** off to get into and pay for college. I don't begrudgingly these athletes for leveraging their talents to earn a free education, and many thousands willingly took that deal in years past.
It's not slavery, but it is certainly exploitation. Universities used a situation where they had all the power to create a system where they could profit from the players' talent while paying them far less than their market value. That's pretty much the textbook definition of exploitation. You and I would have been happy to take that deal, and many players were happy to as well because there were really no other options, but that doesn't make it any less exploitative.
They're free to play for a professional sports league for their market value instead of an education
The university’s never wanted that. They are making millions being the de facto minor leagues for football and to a lesser extent basketball. They would jettison this whole concept of “student athlete” if it was a loss leader. The University doesn’t make less money due to Carl the Car dealer funding their point guard. In fact, then benefit from the exposure. University’s are not funneled their TV money and other revenue to athletes out of the goodness of their hearts.
Theoretically, sure. But here in the real world, none of those minor leagues were set up to get the most value out of young players the way the NCAA is. The proof is in the results. The market opened up and players started making millions. That's pretty good evidence that they were previously being exploited.
Sounds like the "market value" is in the universities, not the players, if the players can't command those "market prices" in professional leagues.
