Bacot - A 5th Year?

[Steat]

Folks, you wanna make rival fans puke? Lol

What if Bacot decides to come back for a 5th year?

Over the next 2 years in a UNC uniform, he could make 4-5M in NIL. Perhaps two more Final Fours ? He was pretty vocal when he came in as a Freshman making it known that his goal was OAD.

I love Bacot, but I just don't see him sticking ever with a NBA team. With prudent investing with business and graduate degrees, who needs the G-League and overseas basketball leagues?

I listened to Andrew's Jones podcast when he mentioned Bacot's Jimmy Seafood NIL deal. They are based in Baltimore, MD, about 20-miles north of my home.

I'm a huge Baltimore Ravens fan and I was talking to friend up here today and he asked was I going to the Ravens Draft Party at Jimmy's Seafood on 4/28. I told him no and I then I initiated at conversation that I was a big UNC fan and mentioned that Bacot was a NIL sponsor Jimmy's Seaford. Then, the guy said I know that and heard Bacot was visiting Jimmy's in Balltimore this summer to make an appearance. I don't know whether the guy was shooting from the cuff or not, but his comments were interesting.

Bacot, a 5th year with GG, Wicher, Puff and RJ? Ridiculous!

 

[Travis2262]

Not sure it will happen but I for one would love to see it

 

[superstar57]

Bacot coming back is huge, but nah I don't care to see him for 5 years.

Become national player of year, and get your jersey hanging at the Dome, and then go on and become a pro. Five years to much.

 

[Steat]

Bacot coming back is huge, but nah I don't care to see him for 5 years.

Become national player of year, and get your jersey hanging at the Dome, and then go on and become a pro. Five years to much.

Pro overseas?

 

[dtodd4475]

Bacot coming back is huge, but nah I don't care to see him for 5 years.

Become national player of year, and get your jersey hanging at the Dome, and then go on and become a pro. Five years to much.

My opinion remains the same as it was going into this year's decision. I think if he does not feel his NBA prospects are good, then graduating possibly with honors, as he is a strong buisness student, plus a masters now and with 7 figure NIL earnings, looks like a good buisness choice.

If he stretches out his game offensively and defensively, and believes he is viable option for NBA teams, then that makes buisness sense to go.

If he does not add those aspects to his game and dominates in a similar fashion skill wise as he did this year with his game next year, his interest from NBA teams will probably be even less next year, as he will be another year older, and still in need of a couple years working on those aspects with a clubs G league affiliate.

 

[superstar57]

Dunn played more than Walton down the stretch. Walton was the only available scholarship player who didn't see the floor in the regular season finale against dook.

Pro overseas?

I honestly see him getting to play in the NBA, he does have ability to guard a big up to three point line, his offensive game just doesn't go out that far.

NBA is getting knocked a little on the way the game is played. I wouldn't be surprised to see the return of the true power forward/ Center position, and then Bacot makes a good living.

 

[dtodd4475]

I honestly see him getting to play in the NBA, he does have ability to guard a big up to three point line, his offensive game just doesn't go out that far.

NBA is getting knocked a little on the way the game is played. I wouldn't be surprised to see the return of the true power forward/ Center position, and then Bacot makes a good living.

NBA is at an all time high in popularity. Where it is getting "knocked" is in the older demographic not the key younger demographic, and absolutely killing it globally. It is thriving in it's current version.

Mando's dee away from the basket is probably further off then his offense for a NBA roster. He would be targeted in pick and roll and must be able to guard away from the basket. He would have to retool his game. He could do it, but it would take time working on that, and he is a older matured player now playing against young still physically developing future NBAers or overseas/only college/G league level type guys his age.

Not sure how another year helps that, but it certainly makes all kind of sense for this year and possibly next with NIL earnings, the limelight, his buisness degrees, if he indeed sees his NBA prospects as slim.

 

[Kerwinwaltonsafro]

NBA is getting knocked a little on the way the game is played. I wouldn't be surprised to see the return of the true power forward/ Center position, and then Bacot makes a good living.

They aren't going back to traditional post players anytime soon. The 3pt shot dominates the game. And with the defensive rule changes, they want to see the floor spaced at all times.

 

[imajericho]

Would make any records he breaks sullied if he came back for a fifth year on top, imo.

 

[DaSheed]

If Mando wins a Natty (or 2), gets NPOY, plus all the records he would shatter…he’d be a Tar Heel legend. In the same sentence as Psycho, Ford and MJ. NEVER would have thought that when he came in as a freshman.

 

[Kerwinwaltonsafro]

Would make any records he breaks sullied if he came back for a fifth year on top, imo.

There were people just like you in 1972 complaining about records being broken after the NCAA decided to make freshmen eligible, giving elite players the opportunity to play 4 years of college basketball. The addition of the shot clock to increase possessions, and the addition of the 3pt shot to increase scoring, further buried those many of those old records. Not to mention the expanded regular season schedules offer today's players more games in which to accumulate stats.

But you really don't hear anyone these days complaining about all those pre-1972 records that have been shattered by the change in rules and schedules.

 

[Archer2]

There were people just like you in 1972 complaining about records being broken after the NCAA decided to make freshmen eligible, giving elite players the opportunity to play 4 years of college basketball. The addition of the shot clock to increase possessions, and the addition of the 3pt shot to increase scoring, further buried those many of those old records. Not to mention the expanded regular season schedules offer today's players more games in which to accumulate stats.

But you really don't hear anyone these days complaining about all those pre-1972 records that have been shattered by the change in rules and schedules.

Apples and oranges. Poor analogy.

 

[Steat]

As it stands right now, Bacot is not projected to get drafted in the NBA. Does 1-2 more years at UNC project him to get drafted? IMO, no.

The overseas option no doubt will be there for him if he wants it.

The 5th year option probably will be on the table for him.

With 3-4M NIL in the bank and a graduate degree from UNC's business school he can go out and get a 150-200K normal job right away. I think he would be excellent at ESPN if he wants to do that. That job pays in excess of 250K a year.

I know he has aspirations to play in the NBA, but Mike Tyson said it best "Everybody has a plan until they get hit in the face".

Don't get me wrong, I love Bacot!

 

[heels05champs]

Bacot needs to land a similar deal for this year and to maybe let him consider a 5th year.

 

[Kerwinwaltonsafro]

Apples and oranges. Poor analogy.

Apples and apples, perfect analogy.

Players going from 3 to 4 years of eligibility had the same effect on records that players going from 4 to 5 years of eligibility has.

 

[gobblercalls]

Apples and apples, perfect analogy.

Players going from 3 to 4 years of eligibility had the same effect on records that players going from 4 to 5 years of eligibility has.

except that the change to 4 years of eligibility was permanent, the change to 5 was for 1 event. Big difference, kinda like apples to oranges!

 

[hill6]

except that the change to 4 years of eligibility was permanent, the change to 5 was for 1 event. Big difference, kinda like apples to oranges!

Not to the players who were only allowed to be eligible for 3 years. It's different for us because we are used to the 4 year rule, but even though 4-years became the standard, it destroyed any chance at a previous player holding an 'all-time record', kind of like how playing a 5th year potentially destroys a lot of the records for the 4 year players.

 

[Kerwinwaltonsafro]

except that the change to 4 years of eligibility was permanent, the change to 5 was for 1 event. Big difference, kinda like apples to oranges!

Tell that to all the players who held records during the 3-year era.

The comparison isn't about the duration of the rules change. The comparison is about records being broken because players were given an extra year of eligibility. That's what the whole conversation is about. Records being broken because players were given an extra year of eligibility.

 

[CURRY2WOODYR80]

Would make any records he breaks sullied if he came back for a fifth year on top, imo.

but is it really different than 4 year guys breaking records of guys that couldn't play Varsity their freshman
year?

 

[gobblercalls]

Not to the players who were only allowed to be eligible for 3 years. It's different for us because we are used to the 4 year rule, but even though 4-years became the standard, it destroyed any chance at a previous player holding an 'all-time record', kind of like how playing a 5th year potentially destroys a lot of the records for the 4 year players.

Tell that to all the players who held records during the 3-year era.

The comparison isn't about the duration of the rules change. The comparison is about records being broken because players were given an extra year of eligibility. That's what the whole conversation is about. Records being broken because players were given an extra year of eligibility.

But the difference is one was a permanent change and one was temporary. Records can be set during this 4? year period that should never be broken because only this group will get the 5 years. Sure it's a change, just as the 4 year eligibility was a change, but much different. That's why it's apples to oranges.

 

[Kerwinwaltonsafro]

but is it really different than 4 year guys breaking records of guys that couldn't play Varsity their freshman
year?

It's exactly the same.

Anytime the NCAA gives an extra year of eligibility to anyone, this argument pops up.

 

[imajericho]

but is it really different than 4 year guys breaking records of guys that couldn't play Varsity their freshman
year?

Yes, because no one gets a 5th year going forward or prior.

 

[hill6]

But the difference is one was a permanent change and one was temporary. Records can be set during this 4? year period that should never be broken because only this group will get the 5 years. Sure it's a change, just as the 4 year eligibility was a change, but much different. That's why it's apples to oranges.

Permanence doesn't impact the ability of someone to set a record.

Yes or no: an extra year to play makes it easier/more likely to set an all-time record, such as scoring, rebounding, total games, etc?

 

[Kerwinwaltonsafro]

Yes, because no one gets a 5th year going forward or prior.

Except for every athlete the NCAA gives a 5th or 6th year waiver due to health issues.

There is no difference. When a player is granted an extra year, no matter what the reason, no matter when it happened, that played is afforded extra opportunities to break records. Which is exactly what happened in 1972.

 

[imajericho]

Except for every athlete the NCAA gives a 5th or 6th year waiver due to health issues.

There is no difference. When a player is granted an extra year, no matter what the reason, no matter when it happened, that played is afforded extra opportunities to break records. Which is exactly what happened in 1972.

That's incorrect. A medical redshirt is for someone who missed over 50% of games with an injury that was not returnable from through the end of the season.

You can sugarcoat it all you want, but I will be happy that Bacot plays 4 years and takes whatever records he can with him. If he would play a 5th and break something like Hansbroughs scoring record or something somehow, I would never consider it legit.

 

[Kerwinwaltonsafro]

That's incorrect. A medical redshirt is for someone who missed over 50% of games with an injury that was not returnable from through the end of the season.

You can sugarcoat it all you want, but I will be happy that Bacot plays 4 years and takes whatever records he can with him. If he would play a 5th and break something like Hansbroughs scoring record or something somehow, I would never consider it legit.

I'm not sugarcoating anything. The entire discussion is about how unfair it is for players to be given an extra year of eligibility to break records. That's the discussion.

I'm just pointing out the indisputable fact that the ruling in 1972 had the exact same effect.

 

[hill6]

That's incorrect. A medical redshirt is for someone who missed over 50% of games with an injury that was not returnable from through the end of the season.

You can sugarcoat it all you want, but I will be happy that Bacot plays 4 years and takes whatever records he can with him. If he would play a 5th and break something like Hansbroughs scoring record or something somehow, I would never consider it legit.

I'm not sugarcoating anything. The entire discussion is about how unfair it is for players to be given an extra year of eligibility to break records. That's the discussion.

I'm just pointing out the indisputable fact that the ruling in 1972 had the exact same effect.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you both are arguing the same thing - that players who play an extra year can break records more easily than if everyone played 4 years or less. Gobbler is the one arguing this is "apples and oranges" different that when players got to play as freshmen. (Admittedly I don't really care to re-read the whole thread.)

 

[gobblercalls]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you both are arguing the same thing - that players who play an extra year can break records more easily than if everyone played 4 years or less. Gobbler is the one arguing this is "apples and oranges" different that when players got to play as freshmen. (Admittedly I don't really care to re-read the whole thread.)

are Freshmen still allowed to play? Will anybody be allowed to play 5 years after this covid allowance is over? So 5 classes in all the history of NCAA basketball get a 5th year and you don't see any difference? I'm done.

 

[hill6]

are Freshmen still allowed to play? Will anybody be allowed to play 5 years after this covid allowance is over? So 5 classes in all the history of NCAA basketball get a 5th year and you don't see any difference? I'm done.

You really aren't getting it. We're not saying it's a comparison between impact on the players themselves, but on the records. The records will stand forever. If a fifth year player shatters the records for most points or rebounds, that record stands. It's unfair to 4 year player records, just like 4 year player records were unfair to 3 year players.

All you need to do to clarify this is answer the question: is it easier for someone with an extra year of eligibility to break a cumulative record than someone with fewer years? As in, is it easier to score more points over a career if you have 5 years or 4 years? Or 4 years vs. 3 years?

 

[Steat]

Here is the rule. In a nutshell, any player on the team for the 2020-2021 season gets an extra year. The freshman last year (Dunn and Styles) that came in for the 2021-2022 team only get 4 years.

Breaking down the COVID-19 extra year of eligibility​

Breaking down the COVID-19 extra year of eligibility

Wisconsin football and women’s volleyball will both benefit from the return of several players who were expected to graduate last May.

www.dailycardinal.com

 

[gobblercalls]

You really aren't getting it. We're not saying it's a comparison between impact on the players themselves, but on the records. The records will stand forever. If a fifth year player shatters the records for most points or rebounds, that record stands. It's unfair to 4 year player records, just like 4 year player records were unfair to 3 year players.

All you need to do to clarify this is answer the question: is it easier for someone with an extra year of eligibility to break a cumulative record than someone with fewer years? As in, is it easier to score more points over a career if you have 5 years or 4 years? Or 4 years vs. 3 years?

You're the one not getting it! Imajericho stated "Would make any records he breaks sullied if he came back for a fifth year on top, imo." That is the statement that started this whole thing. Nobody is arguing that it's easier to break records with extra longevity. No shit the record will stand! Duh! The argument is the "worth" of the records when only 4 classes in the history of the NCAA will have the 5th year. It's completely opinion and in my opinion the records would be "sullied". If the 5 year rule was permanent it would be comparable to going from 3 years to 4.

 

[dtodd4475]

Players were allowed to play an extra year by the thousands after freshman were made eligible. If one year of kids getting that same extra year tops your record then, OK, they topped you, just as you topped others.

Hell, you and thousands of others had an advantage over thousands before you for a cumulative record. You benefited, they had 1 class with a benefit, if a guy tops you don't cry. The records are legit for any cumulative, it is who did the most whatever as a Tar Heel.

They all had different opportunities.

 

[dtodd4475]

Sullied is an awful choice of words. That connotes something nefarious, or some wrong done, dirty dealing. Nobodies record would be sullied.

You could debate which level you think is more impressive as with the Maris and Ruth with the extra games, but nobody would say Maris sullied the record. It was the most HR's hit in a season. He did that!!

Running back records, every cumulative record was played in different amounts of games, so what, nothing "sullied" by Jim Brown not holding the rushing record. It happens, it is called life, things change. In this case a small amount got the change. The all time whatever, is the guy who got the most.

 

[imajericho]

I mean sullied means damaged the purity of. I think that's about as an accurate of a description as I can think of.

 

[dtodd4475]

I mean sullied means damaged the purity of. I think that's about as an accurate of a description as I can think of.

Purity in what sense ? What is your purity? Is it then only through junior season or 1st 3 years. Sullied is an awful choice of words to describe what you are trying to point out as a difference.

 

[imajericho]

Purity in what sense ? What is your purity? Is it then only through junior season or 1st 3 years. Sullied is an awful choice of words to describe what you are trying to point out as a difference.

I said I felt the record would be tarnished if broken by a 5th year player. I also said if he broke it in his 4th year and and took it to whatever lengths in his 5th year I would be unhappy with the record where it ended instead of where it would have been the final year.

The difference pointing came out after I expressed how I would view 5th year records.

That some person can't understand a one off rule change for a single class versus a rule change going forward for all of time isn't my concern really. That's common sense.

If they said tomorrow all players get 5 years going forward, then I wouldn't find it tarnished or sullied. That's just a change to the game going forward. That is not what this 5th year would be.

 

[gobblercalls]

I said I felt the record would be tarnished if broken by a 5th year player. I also said if he broke it in his 4th year and and took it to whatever lengths in his 5th year I would be unhappy with the record where it ended instead of where it would have been the final year.

The difference pointing came out after I expressed how I would view 5th year records.

That some person can't understand a one off rule change for a single class versus a rule change going forward for all of time isn't my concern really. That's common sense.

If they said tomorrow all players get 5 years going forward, then I wouldn't find it tarnished or sullied. That's just a change to the game going forward. That is not what this 5th year would be.

Well stated. Explained so that a 6 year old can understand it. It's opinion, so there is no right or wrong.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Count me as one that would not view any records that a 5th year COVID player set as legitimate. I too would value them less than a record set by a 4 year player. And whether some here think they're legit is irrelevant. The fact that we're even having the discussion means that our side will win this debate. We didn't have these discussions when Hansbrough set his records. We all just accepted that he is the record holder and there was no debate.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I'm not sugarcoating anything. The entire discussion is about how unfair it is for players to be given an extra year of eligibility to break records. That's the discussion.

I'm just pointing out the indisputable fact that the ruling in 1972 had the exact same effect.

I think we should go to a 50-game season. That way Hubert can break all of K's records.

Dean would be even more revered (if possible) if he could have coached 35-40 games every season.

 

[alabamaheel]

There were people just like you in 1972 complaining about records being broken after the NCAA decided to make freshmen eligible, giving elite players the opportunity to play 4 years of college basketball. The addition of the shot clock to increase possessions, and the addition of the 3pt shot to increase scoring, further buried those many of those old records. Not to mention the expanded regular season schedules offer today's players more games in which to accumulate stats.

But you really don't hear anyone these days complaining about all those pre-1972 records that have been shattered by the change in rules and schedules.

Problem with your argument is that freshmen aren’t gonna be stopped from playing. The five years for any player is almost over. If the ncaa would have balled up in the first place and just realized that the first year Covid players would just have to miss a year, then none of this crap would be happening. Just an example of our weak society not wanting to hurt anyones feelings. SMH