Page 200 of 230
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2023 7:04 pm
by Back2Lawrence
twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 4:49 pm
Back2Lawrence wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 10:52 am
I wonder if there would be outrage if the public knew how much all the athletes made.
I mean student-athletes.
Are you OK with your salary being made public? They aren't being paid with taxpayer money through the state or university. It's none of our business.
Athletes on a professional level (getting paid) have had their salaries public knowledge for a long time.
I get your sentiment about personal salaries being shared. But not the same thing. At all.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2023 7:11 pm
by TDub
yea, twocoach is comparing apples to oranges
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2023 7:33 pm
by Back2Lawrence
At a minimum, it’s needed to be known for competitive reasons/research/is this shit unfair to certain institutions/sports, etc. It’s all a Wild West carnival still.
But, that’s probably to be expected, because see thread title.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2023 7:48 pm
by twocoach
Back2Lawrence wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2023 7:33 pm
At a minimum, it’s needed to be known for competitive reasons/research/is this shit unfair to certain institutions/sports, etc. It’s all a Wild West carnival still.
But, that’s probably to be expected, because see thread title.
Translation: it's needed so the public can bitch about it.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2023 7:51 pm
by Back2Lawrence
There has to be some level of transparency to be able to assess fairness/validity/etc I would think.
And yea, also so I can bitch about it!
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2023 10:08 am
by jfish26
https://x.com/medcalfbyespn/status/1732 ... q_-8Yt1KMA
Per federal data, the combined revenue for the men's and women's teams at Texas, UNC, Ohio State and Michigan was $609 million combined last year. Revenue. Four schools. That's what these athletes will be fighting for now. Not a check for a fraction of their full worth and value.
Andrew Garfield’s great delivery in The Social Network comes to mind.
“I’m not coming back for 30%, I’m coming back for everything.”
There are reasonable disagreements that can be had over the role of money in college sports.
But, strictly from a strategic perspective, why would the athletes - after being shut out for decades and told to appreciate the tiny piece they were permitted, while revenues metastasized - do anything BUT play with the sharpest of elbows here?
This is precisely why the schools and admins should have got ahead of this issue while it was still somewhat manageable. And yet, they stalled and stalled and stalled, hoarding every quarter to avoid sharing more than a penny, and here we are.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2023 10:11 am
by pdub
Yes.
Here we are.
Pro sports with college mascots.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2023 10:27 am
by pdub
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2023 10:48 am
by jfish26
This is sort of my point - this turgid, mealy-mouthed "rules with a smile" approach might have actually stopped the bleeding...twenty years ago.
Maybe ten.
But this moment we're in - with collectives and NIL-hooks and a hodgepodge of rulemakers and enforcers, etc. - is temporary.
I have my opinion on it, and you have yours. The intent of posting today isn't to pick at that scab.
But, good/bad/right/wrong, this transitional moment will pass, and athletes will be compensable (and taxable, and subject to contracts) just like anyone else. The schools that will end up on top will be the ones who realize this sooner rather than later.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2023 10:53 am
by pdub
Right.
Pro sports with college mascots.
Interest level 10 out of 10 to 3 out of 10.
A better pro sports league with better pros exists already.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2023 2:07 pm
by TDub
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2023 2:08 pm
by Back2Lawrence
I'll just be happy when they stop calling them student-athletes.
If I was a professor, and had in my class player(s) making 5-10-more times money than me, I'd be pissed. Just let them come and play their sports ball without the mockery of mixing in an academic experience. The men will still have their pick of the ladies, undoubtedly, so selling points remain the same, minus the financial incentives no longer hush-hush.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2023 2:09 pm
by pdub
The inevitability of the free market is one thing but the bowing to it "what can we do?!" comments from seemingly intelligent people might be worse.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2023 2:14 pm
by pdub
Back2Lawrence wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 2:08 pm
I'll just be happy when they stop calling them student-athletes.
If I was a professor, and had in my class player(s) making 5-10-more times money than me, I'd be pissed. Just let them come and play their sports ball without the mockery of mixing in an academic experience. The men will still have their pick of the ladies, undoubtedly, so selling points remain the same, minus the financial incentives no longer hush-hush.
Right.
Also start here:
viewtopic.php?p=115728#p115728
Everything that we were mocking less than 3 years ago will probably be common place 5 years from now.
"There should be a minimum salary each player gets, adjusted every season by the NCAA.
What does a campus have anything to do with college athletics?"
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2023 2:46 pm
by jfish26
Back2Lawrence wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 2:08 pm
I'll just be happy when they stop calling them student-athletes.
If I was a professor, and had in my class player(s) making 5-10-more times money than me, I'd be pissed. Just let them come and play their sports ball without the mockery of mixing in an academic experience. The men will still have their pick of the ladies, undoubtedly, so selling points remain the same, minus the financial incentives no longer hush-hush.
To me, we're
decades late in creating a Professional Sports (or whatever) major.
Because I wholeheartedly agree with you that, especially when we're talking about major-level classes, the "student-athlete" fiction is a waste of lots of people's time (including the professors', not to mention the other students').
The educational experience would absolutely serve the players better were it directed toward, you know, their desired career paths.
All of that said - kids make (or simply have) more money than teachers all of the time; should Natalie Portman's professors at Harvard have been pissed at her choosing to take their classes?
That's why, to me, the issue is more the put-upon fiction of shoehorning athletes into courses of study that they really have no interest in pursuing.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2023 3:43 pm
by Back2Lawrence
Well, for the longest time, it was the best way to keep all the money in a few people's (coaches and sport admins) hands. Fucking dirty.
But so is NIL in it's current state, and looks like it's going to.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2023 5:08 pm
by TDub
jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 2:46 pm
Back2Lawrence wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 2:08 pm
I'll just be happy when they stop calling them student-athletes.
If I was a professor, and had in my class player(s) making 5-10-more times money than me, I'd be pissed. Just let them come and play their sports ball without the mockery of mixing in an academic experience. The men will still have their pick of the ladies, undoubtedly, so selling points remain the same, minus the financial incentives no longer hush-hush.
To me, we're
decades late in creating a Professional Sports (or whatever) major.
Because I wholeheartedly agree with you that, especially when we're talking about major-level classes, the "student-athlete" fiction is a waste of lots of people's time (including the professors', not to mention the other students').
The educational experience would absolutely serve the players better were it directed toward, you know, their desired career paths.
All of that said - kids make (or simply have) more money than teachers all of the time; should Natalie Portman's professors at Harvard have been pissed at her choosing to take their classes?
That's why, to me, the issue is more the put-upon fiction of shoehorning athletes into courses of study that they really have no interest in pursuing.
this is insane
1.2% of DI basketball players, 2.8% of DI football players go pro.
thats it.
The theory of the approach is that these kids get free education to specifically try and give them skills
Outside of their desired path so they can have something to fall back on when it, almost inevitably, fails.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2023 6:31 pm
by ousdahl
Where’s that 1.2% stat come from?
that would mean we only have someone go pro like once every 8 years or something
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2023 6:33 pm
by ousdahl
pdub wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 2:09 pm
The inevitability of the free market is one thing but the bowing to it "what can we do?!" comments from seemingly intelligent people might be worse.
Well said, Qusdahl.
Re: F the NCAA
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2023 6:47 pm
by pdub
ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 6:31 pm
Where’s that 1.2% stat come from?
that would mean we only have someone go pro like once every 8 years or something
Wut?
There are over 300 teams in D1 with over 10 scolly players per team.
That’s say 3500 players.
There are 60 draft spots per year and what, 1/4th of them or more didn’t go to college.