HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

NCAA-O'Bannon Case: using athlete images w/o compensation-#756 Court Favors Plaintiff

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-21-2013, 05:29 PM
  #101
Concordski
Knockoff Jets FTW
 
Concordski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 6,997
vCash: 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
That's the point: The individual talent of the individual players is not what is making the revenue. Who the individual you have playing for you is immaterial.

It's the performance of the school relative to the rest of teams in college athletics.

Good players help you win. But it doesn't matter WHO that talented player is. All that matters is that your talent is better than everyone elses.

If you take away all the "Stars" of college football and college basketball, the fans are still going to show up and pay money, and TV is still going to give money to THE BEST athletic departments.

Take a look at college basketball, where guys like Kobe, Garnett and LeBron have skipped college and went to the pros; and hundreds more players have left college early.

The talent level of college basketball has gone DRAMATICALLY down in the last 20 years. Everyone in the media says the quality of college basketball as a sport is at an all-time low.

That hasn't hurt the revenue-generating ability of the sport one bit.

Without Kobe, LeBron and Garnett, the NCAA Tournament kept rolling along. Players "worse" than those guys became the "best players" in college basketball, guys like Adam Morrisson and JJ Redick.

College sports aren't popular because of the star players. College sports MAKES the best players stars.
Except it isn't, enough bad players will kill a program. Also, your statement of college basketball is incorrect, Michigan was a big name program in basketball but was absolutely destroyed when good players stopped coming here in the years following the scandal. It is the players which matter, Michigan Basketball still hasn't recovered the attendance figures it used to have (Though it might following the run in the Tournament last year).

Concordski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 05:39 PM
  #102
joelef
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 383
vCash: 500
theres a reason no one is calling for college baseball or hockey players to get paid. MLB and NHL dont have the strigent rules the NFL has and theres also alternatives like going overseas or going to juniors. If the NFL had a minor league system many of the best players would get paid and we wouldnt be talking about getting college players getting paid.

joelef is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 06:01 PM
  #103
PCSPounder
Registered User
 
PCSPounder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Portland. So there.
Country: United States
Posts: 883
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelef View Post
theres a reason no one is calling for college baseball or hockey players to get paid. MLB and NHL dont have the strigent rules the NFL has and theres also alternatives like going overseas or going to juniors. If the NFL had a minor league system many of the best players would get paid and we wouldnt be talking about getting college players getting paid.
There's a part of me that wonders the following:

The NFL does not sponsor a minor league for reasons beyond simply the lack of desire.

They don't think it pays for itself.

Part of the reason for that... they LIKE the notion of a few strong programs that rarely play each other and a lot of other players that either sift out, languish, or maybe even rise. The main part of this: a 32-team minor league system would injure more of the better players, replaced with not-necessarily-better-players. Football is a degenerative sport. These wannabe leagues that spring up periodically usually die because INSURANCE costs are too high. More than even paying the players, it's the health costs that scare the NFL. That's why we're made to suffer while the NFL tries to look highly combative and prevent concussions at the same time.

AT SOME POINT, THIS WHOLE THING CRACKS. Football, the NCAA dependent upon football, the billions in donations are not sustainable as parents are better informed about the health aspects of playing (which, considering the sport isn't just a Johnny-come-lately, is probably helped along by PEDs and even legal drugs maximizing performance and making for more dangerous collisions).

(How's that for a rant?)

PCSPounder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 06:04 PM
  #104
LPHabsFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,412
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to LPHabsFan
Anyone ever calculate what the trade off is in terms of tuition, books, room, board, food, medical, travel, etc....?

LPHabsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 06:28 PM
  #105
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,874
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelef View Post
because of lot of those kids care abut education because there sports arent being watch by millions of people on tv and its the highist level they will play in there sport.
So, you're saying those kids are getting degrees because they have the opportunity from their athletics scholarship... Where do you think their scholarship money comes from? It comes from the fans and TV networks who want to see that school play football or men's basketball.

And the "solution" to this alledged "problem" is to eliminate those opportunities?

(We're not even arguing the real issue of O'Bannon vs the NCAA.
We're talking about a side-argument started when I pointed out how statements about NCAA "corruption" and "greed" being wrong).

People throw out these ridiculous statements about college athletes being exploited and not receiving compensation.

Let's take the principle a step further: Why aren't all the Junior Hockey Players making the minimum minor league salary? What about high school athletes? "Because they are playing for the fun of it. Not to make money." Because Junior programs aren't "raking in" massive revenue amounts. They're just making enough to break even.

A) that's true in college athletics. Only 22 athletic departments are self-sufficient. Out of 343 in Division I.

B) College athletics' goal isn't to make money. There's no shareholder meetings and stock options. The goal is to WIN. You need as much money as possible to win consistently: to have the best coaches, to have the best facilities, and to have the best administrators who can bring in the money to improve. Because those things help you win.

C) The claims of football and men's basketball revenues vs expenses are incomplete, incorrect and misguided.

That's really the main reason people have this argument...
they see the millions generated by football programs, look at budgets that have to be disclosed by public institutions, fake the math and make up these wild stories.

Out of everything it takes to bring in revenue in college football/men's basketball, VERY LITTLE is included in line-item budgets under football and men's basketball.

The weight room, training room, compliance, academic coordinators, statisticians, publicists, marketing and equipment people; all their equipment and materials and expenses and the like. Virtually most the ACTUAL expenses of running an athletic department are seperate lines on a budget sheet (there's no consistency among schools, either. Some schools might have football pads in the football budget; others might have them in the equipment budget; no football athletic budget includes the tape on all the players, that's from the athletic training budget).

When you factor in everything a football or men's basketball student-athlete GETS and what an AVERAGE athletic depart could afford to compensate them with, it's probably extremely close. And that's without a cash value on a lot of things.

Ed O'Bannon has a great point: He shouldn't have had to sign over his licensing rights in perpetuity to UCLA and the NCAA. He should get residuals after his career is over, like actors get when their TV shows are in syndication.

But that's about the end of the argument on exploiting college athletes.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 06:36 PM
  #106
joelef
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
So, you're saying those kids are getting degrees because they have the opportunity from their athletics scholarship... Where do you think their scholarship money comes from? It comes from the fans and TV networks who want to see that school play football or men's basketball.

And the "solution" to this alledged "problem" is to eliminate those opportunities?

(We're not even arguing the real issue of O'Bannon vs the NCAA.
We're talking about a side-argument started when I pointed out how statements about NCAA "corruption" and "greed" being wrong).

People throw out these ridiculous statements about college athletes being exploited and not receiving compensation.

Let's take the principle a step further: Why aren't all the Junior Hockey Players making the minimum minor league salary? What about high school athletes? "Because they are playing for the fun of it. Not to make money." Because Junior programs aren't "raking in" massive revenue amounts. They're just making enough to break even.

A) that's true in college athletics. Only 22 athletic departments are self-sufficient. Out of 343 in Division I.

B) College athletics' goal isn't to make money. There's no shareholder meetings and stock options. The goal is to WIN. You need as much money as possible to win consistently: to have the best coaches, to have the best facilities, and to have the best administrators who can bring in the money to improve. Because those things help you win.

C) The claims of football and men's basketball revenues vs expenses are incomplete, incorrect and misguided.

That's really the main reason people have this argument...
they see the millions generated by football programs, look at budgets that have to be disclosed by public institutions, fake the math and make up these wild stories.

Out of everything it takes to bring in revenue in college football/men's basketball, VERY LITTLE is included in line-item budgets under football and men's basketball.

The weight room, training room, compliance, academic coordinators, statisticians, publicists, marketing and equipment people; all their equipment and materials and expenses and the like. Virtually most the ACTUAL expenses of running an athletic department are seperate lines on a budget sheet (there's no consistency among schools, either. Some schools might have football pads in the football budget; others might have them in the equipment budget; no football athletic budget includes the tape on all the players, that's from the athletic training budget).

When you factor in everything a football or men's basketball student-athlete GETS and what an AVERAGE athletic depart could afford to compensate them with, it's probably extremely close. And that's without a cash value on a lot of things.

Ed O'Bannon has a great point: He shouldn't have had to sign over his licensing rights in perpetuity to UCLA and the NCAA. He should get residuals after his career is over, like actors get when their TV shows are in syndication.

But that's about the end of the argument on exploiting college athletes.
"So, you're saying those kids are getting degrees because they have the opportunity from their athletics scholarship... Where do you think their scholarship money comes from? It comes from the fans and TV networks who want to see that school play football or men's basketball.

And the "solution" to this alledged "problem" is to eliminate those opportunities?
"Yes i think we should go to academy like model like europe does with there sports or go to system like college rugby has.


"Why aren't all the Junior Hockey Players making the minimum minor league salary? What about high school athletes? "Because they are playing for the fun of it. Not to make money." Because Junior programs aren't "raking in" massive revenue amounts. They're just making enough to break even." Juniors dont hide under the umbrella of amaturism and the "student athlete".

joelef is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 06:40 PM
  #107
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,874
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LPHabsFan View Post
Anyone ever calculate what the trade off is in terms of tuition, books, room, board, food, medical, travel, etc....?
Problem is that it's inconsistent (different schools have different tuition prices, for example), as well as incomplete.

It's extremely difficult to put an exact cash value on things provided by people like athletic trainers, media relations, marketing and strength coaches.

For example, let's say a women's basketball player isn't a star player. She's just a decent player. She doesn't go to a big school, she goes to a very mediocre small school. But during her career, the school goes from bad, to kinda good. Not NCAA Tournament worthy, but close.

And she gets the opportunity to play professionally in Europe because her coaches called contacts, her media relations department made a highlight video/athletic resume for her to send out.

What's the cash value of that? (and what's the cash value for her teammate who DIDN'T get the offer to play professionally, but will probably make more actual money the next few years by getting a real job?)

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 06:56 PM
  #108
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,874
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelef View Post
Yes i think we should go to academy like model like europe does with there sports or go to system like college rugby has.
What exactly does that solve? Pro teams pick up the expense of a minor league system (which already exists in everything but the NFL) and colleges... continue on as usual with worse players? So what. The NBA Draft rules have done that already to college basketball, which people still pay to see.

Or are you suggesting we eliminate college athletics all together?

"The system that college rugby has" is merely club teams playing each other on the dues/fundraisers of their members. It's just college athletics from 1880. What happens when ESPN wants to put THAT on TV because they just lost about a million hours of programming? Hey, it gets organized. It's a reset button, not a solution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joelef View Post
Juniors dont hide under the umbrella of amaturism and the "student athlete".
Hide from WHAT? You're merely echoing the ignorant and misinformed opinions of sports writers who need to fill time/inches. This is just a fun little off-season topic for the sports media; and those in academia who hate sports.

College athletes aren't exploited. There's a few who bring their schools a ton of exposure for whom the deal doesn't seem quite fair. However, they're not indentured servants. No one is forcing them to play.

If they don't want to play their sport for the compensation being offered by the schools, don't do it. Someone else will take their place, take advantage of the opportunity, and fans will still want to watch and find out who's the best.

Look at Bill Walton, A hippie protester on UCLA in the 70s. He argued constantly with his head coach.

Walton said "you can't make me cut my hair. You can't make shave my face. You can't make me stop going to peace rallies and anti-war demonstrations." And Coach John Wooden said "You're right. I can only decide who plays and who doesn't. We're going to miss you."

Walton sprinted to the barbershop on the spot, making the CHOICE to cut his hair, shave his face, and stop going to peace rallies and anti-war demonstrations.

He could have gone pro, he could have dropped out of school and followed the grateful dead around the coutnry while smoking pot (which is actually how he spent his summers!). He wanted to play and accepted the deal.


Last edited by KevFu: 06-21-2013 at 07:04 PM.
KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 06:56 PM
  #109
LPHabsFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,412
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to LPHabsFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
Problem is that it's inconsistent (different schools have different tuition prices, for example), as well as incomplete.

It's extremely difficult to put an exact cash value on things provided by people like athletic trainers, media relations, marketing and strength coaches.

For example, let's say a women's basketball player isn't a star player. She's just a decent player. She doesn't go to a big school, she goes to a very mediocre small school. But during her career, the school goes from bad, to kinda good. Not NCAA Tournament worthy, but close.

And she gets the opportunity to play professionally in Europe because her coaches called contacts, her media relations department made a highlight video/athletic resume for her to send out.

What's the cash value of that? (and what's the cash value for her teammate who DIDN'T get the offer to play professionally, but will probably make more actual money the next few years by getting a real job?)
Oh I'm 100% agreeing with you. I have never bought into the whole NCAA is making millions off the players playing for free argument because. That's the point I was trying to make out by asking that question is whether or not people have actually looked at what type of expenses the schools have with regards to operating the team (and having the players in school). Though I will say your post above was very informative and strengthens the argument.

LPHabsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 07:01 PM
  #110
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,874
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LPHabsFan View Post
Oh I'm 100% agreeing with you. I have never bought into the whole NCAA is making millions off the players playing for free argument because. That's the point I was trying to make out by asking that question is whether or not people have actually looked at what type of expenses the schools have with regards to operating the team (and having the players in school). Though I will say your post above was very informative and strengthens the argument.
Why thank you. It's very easy to sound informed on this topic for me, since my "for example" scenario was part of my job this spring.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 07:35 PM
  #111
joelef
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
What exactly does that solve? Pro teams pick up the expense of a minor league system (which already exists in everything but the NFL) and colleges... continue on as usual with worse players? So what. The NBA Draft rules have done that already to college basketball, which people still pay to see.

Or are you suggesting we eliminate college athletics all together?

"The system that college rugby has" is merely club teams playing each other on the dues/fundraisers of their members. It's just college athletics from 1880. What happens when ESPN wants to put THAT on TV because they just lost about a million hours of programming? Hey, it gets organized. It's a reset button, not a solution.



Hide from WHAT? You're merely echoing the ignorant and misinformed opinions of sports writers who need to fill time/inches. This is just a fun little off-season topic for the sports media; and those in academia who hate sports.

College athletes aren't exploited. There's a few who bring their schools a ton of exposure for whom the deal doesn't seem quite fair. However, they're not indentured servants. No one is forcing them to play.

If they don't want to play their sport for the compensation being offered by the schools, don't do it. Someone else will take their place, take advantage of the opportunity, and fans will still want to watch and find out who's the best.

Look at Bill Walton, A hippie protester on UCLA in the 70s. He argued constantly with his head coach.

Walton said "you can't make me cut my hair. You can't make shave my face. You can't make me stop going to peace rallies and anti-war demonstrations." And Coach John Wooden said "You're right. I can only decide who plays and who doesn't. We're going to miss you."

Walton sprinted to the barbershop on the spot, making the CHOICE to cut his hair, shave his face, and stop going to peace rallies and anti-war demonstrations.

He could have gone pro, he could have dropped out of school and followed the grateful dead around the coutnry while smoking pot (which is actually how he spent his summers!). He wanted to play and accepted the deal.
questioning college sports is not academia hating sports. Again bill walton was from a different time where the ONLY way to get into the NBA was through college. Now just about every pro sport in this country you can get into without college. In fact many stars of MLB, NBA , NHL and MLS never went to college. The NFL on the other hand is cheap and relies solely on college football players. And because of this is why we are having this discussion in the Nfirst place.

joelef is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 10:57 PM
  #112
joelef
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
What exactly does that solve? Pro teams pick up the expense of a minor league system (which already exists in everything but the NFL) and colleges... continue on as usual with worse players? So what. The NBA Draft rules have done that already to college basketball, which people still pay to see.

Or are you suggesting we eliminate college athletics all together?

"The system that college rugby has" is merely club teams playing each other on the dues/fundraisers of their members. It's just college athletics from 1880. What happens when ESPN wants to put THAT on TV because they just lost about a million hours of programming? Hey, it gets organized. It's a reset button, not a solution.



Hide from WHAT? You're merely echoing the ignorant and misinformed opinions of sports writers who need to fill time/inches. This is just a fun little off-season topic for the sports media; and those in academia who hate sports.

College athletes aren't exploited. There's a few who bring their schools a ton of exposure for whom the deal doesn't seem quite fair. However, they're not indentured servants. No one is forcing them to play.

If they don't want to play their sport for the compensation being offered by the schools, don't do it. Someone else will take their place, take advantage of the opportunity, and fans will still want to watch and find out who's the best.

Look at Bill Walton, A hippie protester on UCLA in the 70s. He argued constantly with his head coach.

Walton said "you can't make me cut my hair. You can't make shave my face. You can't make me stop going to peace rallies and anti-war demonstrations." And Coach John Wooden said "You're right. I can only decide who plays and who doesn't. We're going to miss you."

Walton sprinted to the barbershop on the spot, making the CHOICE to cut his hair, shave his face, and stop going to peace rallies and anti-war demonstrations.

He could have gone pro, he could have dropped out of school and followed the grateful dead around the coutnry while smoking pot (which is actually how he spent his summers!). He wanted to play and accepted the deal.
The NFL forces potential players to go to college for 3 years. they cant skip college or leave after a year or go overseas lke basketball players. They cant go into the minor leagues outside of highschool like baseball and hockey players


Last edited by joelef: 06-21-2013 at 11:03 PM.
joelef is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 11:09 PM
  #113
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,874
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelef View Post
many of those kids arent interested in education and is only there because the NFL requires you to have three years of college.
"Many" is an extremely tiny amount relative to the number of student athletes. How many NFL draft picks come out of Ohio State in a year? Ohio State has roughly 35 sports, and roughly 650 student athletes.

The kids who are ONLY going to college because they can't play in the NFL right away are 1/65 of the big time athletic departments.

There's 504 NFL draft picks and more than 27,000 football players in the Division I FBS/FCS sub-category.

You don't make policy decisions for the entire scope of NCAA athletics (which is almost 200,000 student athletes) based on the 200-400 kids who are playing football and men's basketball just because they have to wait for the draft.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Concordski View Post
Except it isn't, enough bad players will kill a program. Also, your statement of college basketball is incorrect, Michigan was a big name program in basketball but was absolutely destroyed when good players stopped coming here in the years following the scandal. It is the players which matter, Michigan Basketball still hasn't recovered the attendance figures it used to have (Though it might following the run in the Tournament last year).
But that doesn't run contrary to my point: Michigan didn't get some of the best kids any more. The point isn't that you don't need talent. You do need talent.

The point is that WHOM that TALENT IS doesn't matter. Talent is interchangeable.

My Tebow/Flacco example holds up: Tim Tebow allegedly "brought in" millions of dollars to Florida, and Joe Flacco brought in only dozens of dollars to Delaware. Swap Tim Tebow (Florida) and Joe Flacco (Delaware) and both programs still win. But now Flacco is "bringing in" millions of dollars to Florida, and Tebow is bringing in dozens of dollars to Delaware.

It's not the player making the teams money. It's the program making their talented players famous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joelef View Post
questioning college sports is not academia hating sports.
No, it isn't. Nor did I say all questioning of college sports was academia hating sports. But these articles that pop up about college football/men's basketball being some disgraceful "business" lining their pockets off the sweat of the underprivileged is still the work of ignorant media who don't bother to notice the other 87 NCAA sports; OR the opinion of those in academia who do hate college sports.

Questioning is fine. It's refusal to accept there's more to it than just "football revenue > football expenses = PROFIT!" that is misguided, misinformed and wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joelef View Post
The NFL on the other hand is cheap and relies solely on college football players. And because of this is why we are having this discussion in the Nfirst place.
In the thread about the basketball player Ed O'Bannon. I find that amusing.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 11:15 PM
  #114
joelef
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
"Many" is an extremely tiny amount relative to the number of student athletes. How many NFL draft picks come out of Ohio State in a year? Ohio State has roughly 35 sports, and roughly 650 student athletes.

The kids who are ONLY going to college because they can't play in the NFL right away are 1/65 of the big time athletic departments.

There's 504 NFL draft picks and more than 27,000 football players in the Division I FBS/FCS sub-category.

You don't make policy decisions for the entire scope of NCAA athletics (which is almost 200,000 student athletes) based on the 200-400 kids who are playing football and men's basketball just because they have to wait for the draft.



But that doesn't run contrary to my point: Michigan didn't get some of the best kids any more. The point isn't that you don't need talent. You do need talent.

The point is that WHOM that TALENT IS doesn't matter. Talent is interchangeable.

My Tebow/Flacco example holds up: Tim Tebow allegedly "brought in" millions of dollars to Florida, and Joe Flacco brought in only dozens of dollars to Delaware. Swap Tim Tebow (Florida) and Joe Flacco (Delaware) and both programs still win. But now Flacco is "bringing in" millions of dollars to Florida, and Tebow is bringing in dozens of dollars to Delaware.

It's not the player making the teams money. It's the program making their talented players famous.



No, it isn't. Nor did I say all questioning of college sports was academia hating sports. But these articles that pop up about college football/men's basketball being some disgraceful "business" lining their pockets off the sweat of the underprivileged is still the work of ignorant media who don't bother to notice the other 87 NCAA sports; OR the opinion of those in academia who do hate college sports.

Questioning is fine. It's refusal to accept there's more to it than just "football revenue > football expenses = PROFIT!" that is misguided, misinformed and wrong.



In the thread about the basketball player Ed O'Bannon. I find that amusing.
I dont think they hate college sports but its an educational institution not a semi pro football outfit outlit the english department should get more then athletics because thats the point of the organization.

joelef is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 11:26 PM
  #115
Brodie
watcher on the walls
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 12,163
vCash: 500
look up grayshirting and why schools like Alabama and LSU have so few upperclassmen sometime and get back to me on the value of that scholarship

Brodie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 11:40 PM
  #116
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,582
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelef View Post
questioning college sports is not academia hating sports. Again bill walton was from a different time where the ONLY way to get into the NBA was through college. Now just about every pro sport in this country you can get into without college. In fact many stars of MLB, NBA , NHL and MLS never went to college. The NFL on the other hand is cheap and relies solely on college football players. And because of this is why we are having this discussion in the Nfirst place.
I think saying that the NFL is cheap misses the dynamics of the football player marketplace. College football is bigger than the MLB, NHL, MLS and NBA feeder leagues combined, including the NCAA basketball and hockey.

The economics just don't make sense for the NFL to create a major farm system to develop players out of high school like the MLB has.

mouser is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 11:43 PM
  #117
joelef
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
I think saying that the NFL is cheap misses the dynamics of the football player marketplace. College football is bigger than the MLB, NHL, MLS and NBA feeder leagues combined, including the NCAA basketball and hockey.

The economics just don't make sense for the NFL to create a major farm system to develop players out of high school like the MLB has.
so putting out a 2nd string QB who sat on the bench all year in an important playoff game does make sense?

joelef is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 11:53 PM
  #118
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,582
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelef View Post
so putting out a 2nd string QB who sat on the bench all year in an important playoff game does make sense?
Let's consider economics. How much would it cost for the team to fund a farm system to get that backup QB that's probably making $1-2m/year experience in non-NFL games? Not to mention that experience would be with at best some of the team's NFL coaches and probably none of the players he'll be working with on the field when he gets inserted into the NFL game.

Besides the 2nd string guy isn't going to be in the farm system in the first place.

mouser is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-22-2013, 12:11 AM
  #119
Brodie
watcher on the walls
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 12,163
vCash: 500
the NBA tried to do this and they discovered that Americans would rather watch third rate players in college than second rate players in the NBADL. There's all kinds of cultural factors at play that could never be replicated by an NFL feeder league.

Brodie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-22-2013, 01:59 AM
  #120
Djp
Registered User
 
Djp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Seattle,WA
Posts: 5,879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
Every college athletic department is a non-profit. It's not "College Football" that's a business, it's "college athletics."

Every. Single. Dime. Of what college football brings in, goes right back out in re-investment in student-athletes: funding other sports no one cares about like Ohio State's fencing team, Texas' tennis team and Michigan gymnasitcs; or put into facilities and support staff areas to improve the college athlete experience.

There's no profit. There's no shareholder bonuses. There's no lighting of cigars with $100 bills in athletics.

Stop making ridiculous statements and talk about the real issues in the O'Bannon case.
Non-profit under IRS definition does not mean they dont make money. They can repay their financiers and investors.

The money made from football allows them to pay coaches multimillion dollar soalaries and pay athletic directors and other senior staff high 6 figure salaries.

Djp is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-22-2013, 02:00 AM
  #121
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,874
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelef View Post
I dont think they hate college sports but its an educational institution not a semi pro football outfit outlit the english department should get more then athletics because thats the point of the organization.
I was talking about two different groups of people:
#1 - those academics who hate sports, and are misinformed and wrong.
#2 - those who like sports and write about them in the press, but are misinformed and wrong.

I agree Universities should spend more on academics than they do athletics. But here's why group #1 is "Wrong."

Because Universities DO spend more on academics than they do on athletics. BY A MASSIVE MARGIN.

The University of Alabama has a $775.3 budget. Alabama athletics spends $108 million a year.

Group #1 is wrong when they say "they should spend that money on something more worthwhile than athletics" because that $108 million doesn't come from the $775.3 budget.

The University gives athletics $5.5 million (that's 0.007% of their budget). I don't know what their English department gets, but it's more than $5.5 million.

The $108 million Alabama spent came from the $124 million Alabama generated from tickets, sponsors, TVs and donations to athletics. That money isn't available for anything else, because 93,000 people aren't buying tickets, and ESPN isn't paying rights fees for SEC English Classes.

Now, you might say "why does athletics need $5.5 million from the university if they make more revenue than they spend?" And the answer is simple: They don't. That's why athletics GAVE IT BACK* (* - they gave back $4.4m after the University approved a $12 million project).


In 2007, the University of Florida had budget cuts and were going to eliminate a program designed to provide scholarships to students from low-income families who are the first in their family to attend a four-year university. Well guess who takes advantage of that program the most? Athletics. So the athletic department donates the money for the program back to the university.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brodie View Post
look up grayshirting and why schools like Alabama and LSU have so few upperclassmen sometime and get back to me on the value of that scholarship
I don't need to look it up, I know what it is.

It's not right. And it's really bad for those kids. Those are kids who desperately want to play for a big time program and are willing to take the risk involved with no guarantees. I'd much rather see those kids sign scholarship offers somewhere else, giving more teams more talent, making the sport more competitive.

At the same time, part of the reason that exists is because of the NFL's draft rules. Coaches do it because they don't know how many juniors they're losing.

And these are top level BCS programs you guys keep bringing up. BCS institutions are only 22% of Division I. The rest of us are about opportunity, not exploitation.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-22-2013, 02:08 AM
  #122
Concordski
Knockoff Jets FTW
 
Concordski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 6,997
vCash: 663
So your putting the blame on the kids for choosing Alabama and LSU? I doubt some of the kids can even comprehend what grayshirting is when they sign their letter of intent.

Concordski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-22-2013, 02:15 AM
  #123
Djp
Registered User
 
Djp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Seattle,WA
Posts: 5,879
vCash: 500
Whats also not publicized much with scholarships......a player cant switch teams without taking a year off.

The athletes scholarship is NOT guarenteed. the coach can opt to strip the player from the scholarship for any reason.

Djp is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-22-2013, 02:19 AM
  #124
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,874
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concordski View Post
So your putting the blame on the kids for choosing Alabama and LSU? I doubt some of the kids can even comprehend what grayshirting is when they sign their letter of intent.
No, I would't "put the blame on the kids."

But it's not a black or white issue. It's part coaches giving kids a pitch which is probably misleading. It's partly kids wanting something badly (and not grasping the coach is really telling them they're #26+ in a recruiting class), it's probably partly the fact that the kids don't have someone advising them who knows what the hell is going on.


Also, grayshirts don't sign NLIs. NLIs are for scholarships. Grayshirts are kids who come to school without a scholarship "hoping" one opens up (What makes it not right is that the coaches are probably leading the kid to believe a scholarship is inevitable when the coach has no idea and is really covering his behind).

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-22-2013, 02:37 AM
  #125
Brodie
watcher on the walls
 
Brodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 12,163
vCash: 500
it doesn't really matter what level it is, it's the same all over FBS. I mean, imagine you're Bubba. Your 2.1 GPA barely qualifies you to go to the local Learning Annex but since a scouting service has determined that you're a two star defensive tackle, you manage to get that nice scholly to the University of New Mexico. Go Lobos! Now, you don't exactly have the grades to go to B-School, but it doesn't really matter because coach says you should major in Kinesiology... it's basically gym class so you have plenty of time for football. You don't get to have any sort of job, not because it's a violation or anything but because football is basically your life.

But boy is it worth not having money! You're the big man on campus! And hey, there you are in NCAA Football 14! Sure you're called DT #96, but everyone knows it's you! That's payment enough right? Every Thursday the whole team gets together for dinner at coach's (he can fit everyone since, at $700k a year plus incentives, he's the highest paid public employee in New Mexico). Sure, you'll never play in the NFL but man, partying all night after winning the Famous Idaho Potatoes Bowl was a blast.

Senior year, against Colorado State, you go in to recover a fumble and tear your ACL and MCL. The school covers your medical care, no worries. Until you graduate. Foisted out into the world with nothing more than your worthless BA in "human motion", a serious injury for which you'll likely never be able to afford proper treatment and a whole bunch of fading memories.

Brodie is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:24 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.