We know from Ky Bowman's own Instagram that he worked out for the OKC Thunder. Now there are reports that the Houston Rockets are going to bring him in for a private session too. This is all good news for him but not great news for BC.
Houston and OKC have been two of the better franchises when it comes to using second round picks. Both convert those options into contributors. Based on being passed over for the Combine we know that Bowman is not viewed as a first rounder. But these long looks from smart teams might lead him to gamble on being a second round pick.
The downside for Bowman as a second rounder would be less money. One more strong year would probably get him into the first round next year.
I am still holding out hope for a BC return but the more interest he gets, the less likely that becomes.
Posts
30 comments:
What a mess this will be if Bowman is gone too. We'd have a starting five of Popovic, Mitchell, Chatman and two freshman supported by a largely ineffectual bench. The freshman look promising - but it will take them a while to mature. We'd be horrible in the ACC and fall into the same recruiting rut we have been trying to climb out of over the last few years. Deja vu all over again. If by some miracle we get Hawkins back, Mitchell steps up his shooting skills over the summer and Chatman can play at another level - things might prove to be better than anticipated. With the constant flight to the NBA - the college game has become nothing but an unending recruiting effort. Hockey not much better either. It all has to change.
Totally agree.
It will be very difficult to bring about change at the NCAA level for a host of reasons.
But some of the private schools such as Boston College, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, Duke, Georgetown, Northwestern, Rice, Tulane and Notre Dame would be wise to chart their own course and create something akin to the Ivy League with elite academics and athletics significantly more competitive than the Ivies and a different set of rules and aspirations. Would you rather hold a degree from an Ivy League school or an SEC school?
This is the apocalypse outcome for BC basketball. If we lose Bowman and Robinson we go 0 for in the ACC
The Ivy League was founded in 1954 among the oldest private universities in the country in a much less competitive collegiate environment with a vastly smaller student population. However, it has enjoyed an academic superiority and reputation (coupled with vast endowments) that continues to this day. It's now a much bigger academic universe with many other schools that have climbed the academic ladder since 1954 - but none of them have had the foresight to affiliate and reap the rewards of collaboration as the Ivies. It is time for a second Ivy League to compete and collaborate in a similar manner.
If you take the schools I have included above and added over time any of say Carnegie Mellon, Johns Hopkins, NYU, Washington, Emory or Chicago (all nearly as large as BC or Wake) if they agreed to upgrade their athletics - the Ivy League's edge among applicants, employers, research grants, academic hiring, etc. would finally be challenged. Why not?
I wanted Robinson to leave. I want Bowman to leave. That way I bitch about the coach. Who has nothing to do with them leaving. Who brought two sought after NBA players into the program. I want this because I want the program to rebuild. That way I can bitch about the new coach and the lack of improvement for three years. That way I can bitch some more like the lowlife I am. I am Mod34b.
If Bowman leaves for the prospect of being drafted late in the second round -- and the non-guaranteed contract that goes with it -- something is going on behind the scenes with him or the program. That's a very unsound decision.
Mod, Stop invoking the Lord. He is not saving you. Neither is ATL.
Keep trying and crying it proves every time that you are exactly what I have calling you for years a know nothing crybaby.
Ryan Day in 2020.
Mod, Idiot. I was mocking you. Denial or stupidity either way you know nothing about sports and contribute absolutely nothing.
napoleon
it is a game but played and based on the hard work of kids.
Most players will never get near the NBA, or the NFL. Not gonna happen.
So they pack Madison Square Garden or the Orange Bowl. The kids have to get some money.
Let them pay it to the graduating students from the proceeds from the tournaments.
It would be tough to do from general revenues because some jadrool will go nuts over Title IX if they reward the kids. But if they do it from tournament income, then the girls field Hockey team is not going to be able to claim too much.
If it really is an amateur sport than why did Rick Kuhn go to prison?
Amateur sport played by amateur athletes and gambling is illegal.
Kuhn messed up an illegal activity, as an amateur? and he went to prison?
Ban him from coaching CYO!
He should have gotten an award for messing up an illegal activity.
Good for Bowman if hemakes it ,
I would rather have him back
We need a charismatic coach who can recruit players usually willing to stay at least 3 years.
ND does this very well. There are past BC players who could do this successfully.
We now have such a coach for women's bb. Hopefully this will go very very well.
Will Magarity, AJ Turner, Mike Sagay,Matt Milon, Daryl Hicks, Sammy Barnes Thomkins, - some of the players who have left our program - along with Jerome and Ky.
Tough to operate like this.
I dunno. Is there any value in recruiting to being able to point to Robinson (when) and Bowman(if, then when) and say, "We can offer this to you and your family, too."?
working rich - it is not an amateur sport by any means and I agree with most of what you said. But its not amateur because the schools choose to make it a stand in for an NBA minor league since the money goes to the schools instead of the players. I don't support paying the players since it will guarantee rampant corruption by the majors to pay more to obtain and retain the best players (which I think will pretty much doom a school like BC to either drop or deemphasize the sport). I also think it's high time for the IRS to challenge the tax exempt status of a lot of these schools - talk about fictions. The NBA obviously likes the college game since none of it is on their nickel. And there is no way an NBA minor league will generate as much income as the colleges so as to offset the costs. One possible benefit of paying the players is that it may sink the whole rotten mess over time because as the revenues shrink (especially if those revenues become taxable) - so will the interest of the schools. Additionally, the more you make the college game look like a semi pro league by paying players, etc. - the more people will tune out and simply watch the NBA just as they do in baseball. So I think their is a real benefit to preserving the amateur status even if its fictional. At the end of the day - I'd prefer to see BC and the other privates with solid academics go in a different direction as in the long run I think that will pay far greater dividends to the school and the alums than trying to develop a semi pro basketball team with kids and overpaid coaches who don't give a crap about education and the mission of the school. But I'm probably in the minority.
Everyone gripping about this in the media wants fairness and equity because the players contribute more than they get. Anyone who works for anyone contributes more than they make. The people who support and perpetuate the idea of paying college athletes are stupid or don't understand capitalism.
Let's play a game. The folks who want college athletes to be paid are champions of fairness and equity. So let's pay the players. Let's pay them all the same amount. It would be unfair to do compensate them any other way. Then let's see the reaction to by the elite basketball and football players to the women's field hockey player making the same as them. ie let's push the younger generation to understand the benefits of a competitive capitalist society.
You want to social engineer society uber left. Let's see how you deal with it being done back to you.
The stars of the team will resent the guys who are bench guys getting the same pay.
We on Award Tour with Robinson my man
Going each and every place with the basketball in their hand
New York, NJ, NC, VA
We on Award Tour with Robinson my man
Going each and every place with the basketball in their hand
Oaktown, LA, OKC, Not BC
No one is compelling kids to play without pay (except for a free or partially free education). They can decline the athletic scholarships and do something else with those years. For once, I agree a little with Knucklehead (particularly the part about how those who work for others are compensated). Paying college athletes: which ones? Only the "major sports"? Why? Does that mean the UConn BB (and now the ND) girls get paid since they are arguably "major", but the BC BB girls not? Where would our stellar women's hockey and lacrosse teams fall on the scale? And, how much to pay? All major sports participants the same? Or, each individual based on perceived (by whom?) and changing contributions, season-to-season, game to game? Paying some more, some less, and some not at all? Chaos would be too mild a ward. "Unfair" would win the prize for understatement. In any event, a school like BC would be severely disadvantaged. (BC is already disadvantaged enough by insisting that its athletes go to school in some meaningful sense.) I'm pretty sure BC would simply opt out of any such system. You're looking at a radical transformation of the college sports scene. Is that what the thoughtless proponents want?
No one is compelling kids to play without pay (except for a free or partially free education). They can decline the athletic scholarships and do something else with those years. For once, I agree a little with Knucklehead (particularly the part about how those who work for others are compensated). Paying college athletes: which ones? Only the "major sports"? Why? Does that mean the UConn BB (and now the ND) girls get paid since they are arguably "major", but the BC BB girls not? Where would our stellar women's hockey and lacrosse teams fall on the scale? And, how much to pay? All major sports participants the same? Or, each individual based on perceived (by whom?) and changing contributions, season-to-season, game to game? Paying some more, some less, and some not at all? Chaos would be too mild a ward. "Unfair" would win the prize for understatement. In any event, a school like BC would be severely disadvantaged. (BC is already disadvantaged enough by insisting that its athletes go to school in some meaningful sense.) I'm pretty sure BC would simply opt out of any such system. You're looking at a radical transformation of the college sports scene. Is that what the thoughtless proponents want?
No one is compelling kids to play without pay (except for a free or partially free education). They can decline the athletic scholarships and do something else with those years. For once, I agree a little with Knucklehead (particularly the part about how those who work for others are compensated). Paying college athletes: which ones? Only the "major sports"? Why? Does that mean the UConn BB (and now the ND) girls get paid since they are arguably "major", but the BC BB girls not? Where would our stellar women's hockey and lacrosse teams fall on the scale? And, how much to pay? All major sports participants the same? Or, each individual based on perceived (by whom?) and changing contributions, season-to-season, game to game? Paying some more, some less, and some not at all? Chaos would be too mild a ward. "Unfair" would win the prize for understatement. In any event, a school like BC would be severely disadvantaged. (BC is already disadvantaged enough by insisting that its athletes go to school in some meaningful sense.) I'm pretty sure BC would simply opt out of any such system. You're looking at a radical transformation of the college sports scene. Is that what the thoughtless proponents want?
No one is compelling kids to play without pay (except for a free or partially free education). They can decline the athletic scholarships and do something else with those years. For once, I agree a little with Knucklehead (particularly the part about how those who work for others are compensated). Paying college athletes: which ones? Only the "major sports"? Why? Does that mean the UConn BB (and now the ND) girls get paid since they are arguably "major", but the BC BB girls not? Where would our stellar women's hockey and lacrosse teams fall on the scale? And, how much to pay? All major sports participants the same? Or, each individual based on perceived (by whom?) and changing contributions, season-to-season, game to game? Paying some more, some less, and some not at all? Chaos would be too mild a ward. "Unfair" would win the prize for understatement. In any event, a school like BC would be severely disadvantaged. (BC is already disadvantaged enough by insisting that its athletes go to school in some meaningful sense.) I'm pretty sure BC would simply opt out of any such system. You're looking at a radical transformation of the college sports scene. Is that what the thoughtless proponents want?
Paying college basketball players will open a Pandora's box of troubles that will never end.
"The god Prometheus stole fire from heaven to give to the human race, which originally consisted only of men. To punish humanity, the other gods created the first woman, the beautiful Pandora. As a gift, Zeus gave her a box, which she was told never to open. However, as soon as he was out of sight she said "screw this", took off the lid, and out swarmed all the troubles of the world (including thousands of women college athletes and a handful of savage lawyers on television demanding damages for back pay and future pay equal to that paid to male basketball players in Power 5 conferences), never to be recaptured. Only Hope and endless moral victories were left in the box, stuck under the lid. Anything that looks ordinary but may produce unpredictable harmful results can thus be called a Pandora's box."
Not sure how my comment got here so many times. Apologize. Atlanta, please excise all but one.
Yep
All the players ,on all the teams , cannot be paid.
How do you get around titlelX?
Have the orange bowl or the ncaa pay the graduating seniors a cash stipend for participating and making hundreds of millions for them.
The funny thing is that star players get notoriety exactly because they are in college. If they can't go straight to the NBA (very few can) but instead go to some development league, nobody would ever hear about them.
I guess one can make a half decent living playing in Europe, etc. But a lot of guys won't even make it there.
They would have passed up the notoriety that comes with being a star on their college team and all of the networking opportunities that around from that.
Go pro development or go to college. And if you accept a scholarship, you've got to stay for 3 years at least.
If you want to get paid early, and are basically a mercenary - screw. Go pro.
That's how I feel. More power to you, but don't come here.
Bowman would be extremely dumb if he left this year. Stay in for another year, hone your craft and get more disciplined and he could be a fringe first rounder next year. Robinson didn’t even make a smart move bailing before locking down a first round slot.
Post a Comment