Who is this clown? Topic

Posted by livemike on 6/9/2011 10:58:00 AM (view original):
Hey Mark, you're in the new EA sports game!  How much did you make off that!?

Nothing, I was already compensated in the form of an overvalued scholarship.

Well, at least you got to play and wear that awesome Under Armour logo! 

Yah it was really nice of them to use me to promote their product like that. 
Part 1:  Well its only overvalued because you did nothing with it.  You could have gone to classes and at least got a BA in English or Criminal Justice.  You knew football wasn't going to last forever.

Part 2:  Actually, it was your school that promoted the company's product, and as you said, they have already compensated you with much-needed training and exposure for your next job, stardom and adulation around campus, and opportunities to improve your life once you are done with your career.  You aren't getting any sympathy from me!
6/9/2011 2:24 PM
Posted by potter444 on 6/9/2011 11:55:00 AM (view original):
Posted by maddog63 on 6/9/2011 10:49:00 AM (view original):
One other thought on this subject then I am going to dismiss this thread from my mind...
Professional sports are filled with young men (I say men only because mens pro sports are where the money is) in their early 20's who are overwhelmed by sudden wealth, constant adulation and scrutiny, as well as huge responsibilities. Some crumble under the weight of it, others end up ******* away their new found wealth. We all constantly hear about the former pro athlete who is homeless and selling off his super bowl ring, got caught running some kind of scam or arrested for robbery.. Does anyone honestly believe that providing mass amounts of money to these same athletes at an even younger age is a good idea? I mean... really?
Great point.  Let's not these young whipper snappers have a piece of the football money because they would just blow it on.....Wait this just in.....

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/ncaa/03/29/fiesta-bowl-junker/index.html

Listen, the world wouldn't fall apart if a business wanted to have a college athlete get paid for a commerical, sponsoring a product or doing public appearances and getting paid for some autographs.  I find it funny that people treat this as some moral issue rather than questioning the underlying rules.  Major college football and basketball are businesses.  The players are labor.   
They get a piece of the football money.  It's called education, which, as slider stated before, is worth over 300K.

What do you think those scholarships are funded by?  Football and basketball programs.
6/9/2011 2:49 PM
Posted by potter444 on 6/9/2011 11:55:00 AM (view original):
Posted by maddog63 on 6/9/2011 10:49:00 AM (view original):
One other thought on this subject then I am going to dismiss this thread from my mind...
Professional sports are filled with young men (I say men only because mens pro sports are where the money is) in their early 20's who are overwhelmed by sudden wealth, constant adulation and scrutiny, as well as huge responsibilities. Some crumble under the weight of it, others end up ******* away their new found wealth. We all constantly hear about the former pro athlete who is homeless and selling off his super bowl ring, got caught running some kind of scam or arrested for robbery.. Does anyone honestly believe that providing mass amounts of money to these same athletes at an even younger age is a good idea? I mean... really?
Great point.  Let's not these young whipper snappers have a piece of the football money because they would just blow it on.....Wait this just in.....

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/ncaa/03/29/fiesta-bowl-junker/index.html

Listen, the world wouldn't fall apart if a business wanted to have a college athlete get paid for a commerical, sponsoring a product or doing public appearances and getting paid for some autographs.  I find it funny that people treat this as some moral issue rather than questioning the underlying rules.  Major college football and basketball are businesses.  The players are labor.   
NCAA athletics are not a business.  The athletic department is part of a non-profit educational institution.  You want to call athletics big business, go ahead, but it pales in comparison to the cash flow on the educational side by several mutiples.  Besides, only 14 FBS athletic departments out of 120 were profitable last year.  If you add paying athletes to this, that number goes down even further.  As a whole, athletic departments are a gigantic money suck.  

You are talking about making exceptions for less than 1% of NCAA athletes.  Given the already pitiful financial state of athletic departments, I don't believe rules should be in place to enrich so few athletes just because some feel that they are worth more than their scholarship.  It is this kind of enabling behavior that give athletes like Pryor a sense of entitlement and screws it up for the 99% of athletes who are thankful and grateful for the opportunity a school has given them.  
 
6/9/2011 2:51 PM
Posted by cydrych on 6/9/2011 2:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by livemike on 6/9/2011 10:58:00 AM (view original):
Hey Mark, you're in the new EA sports game!  How much did you make off that!?

Nothing, I was already compensated in the form of an overvalued scholarship.

Well, at least you got to play and wear that awesome Under Armour logo! 

Yah it was really nice of them to use me to promote their product like that. 
Part 1:  Well its only overvalued because you did nothing with it.  You could have gone to classes and at least got a BA in English or Criminal Justice.  You knew football wasn't going to last forever.

Part 2:  Actually, it was your school that promoted the company's product, and as you said, they have already compensated you with much-needed training and exposure for your next job, stardom and adulation around campus, and opportunities to improve your life once you are done with your career.  You aren't getting any sympathy from me!
It's not about sympathy, it's about exploitation.  If you don't even see a problem with NCAA/EA sports profiting off using these players in their video games without compensation then not sure what else to say. 

But I'm gonna go ahead and guess if companies were making profits off your name/likeness then you would be looking for your piece of the pie even though your company has already paid you, supplied you with much-needed training and exposure for your next job, and opportunities to improve your life.
6/9/2011 3:30 PM
Here is a look at the real money and this is just what is being reported.

College football's $1.1 billion profit

On average, each team earned $15.8 million last year, or well over $1 million per game.

They posted that jump in combined profit even though revenue rose by only 6% to $2.2 billion. That means the schools had a combined profit margin of 49%, enough to make any pro team owner green with envy.

Increasingly lucrative broadcast deals and strong ticket sales have been driving revenue. And, of course, not having to pay your athletes gives big-time college football the ultimate business model.

Bowl-eligible schools in the smaller conferences weren't nearly as profitable. Fifty-three schools split profits of $26 million. Eight lost money.

There was little change in the rankings of the most profitable schools. The University of Texas football program was once again the leader in both revenue, with $94 million, and profit, with $68 million.

Alabama is good enough to rank No. 2 in revenue and No. 7 in profits, while Georgia ranked No. 3 in revenue and No. 2 in profit.

Profits didn't always translate to victories on the field. Texas finished the season 5 wins and 7 losses, and players will be watching the bowl season on television this year. Georgia and Alabama are in small-dollar bowls this year.

But that won't necessarily be a big hit to their bottom lines, as payouts from the bowls are split evenly among all the teams in the conference, rather than going to the team that actually plays the game.

That split is a prime reason the major conferences will fight any effort to bring about a college football playoff system.

Clearly the schools would struggle paying player.....hey if you believe that baloney I have a bridge to sell you.
6/9/2011 3:35 PM
Here is yet another look at some of the less fortunate barely making ends meet majors.

the National Football League the only beneficiary of football’s enduring popularity. Indeed, in parts of the country with unsuccessful NFL teams (or no NFL teams), college football is just as popular – and just as lucrative. Likewise, an accomplished head coach at a prestigious college program can easily command several million dollars per year in salary, and the football teams themselves figure prominently in the entire cost structure of their universities. Today, Business Pundit examines the 12 most valuable NCAA football teams.
6/9/2011 3:42 PM
Here is a list of schools from 1 to 118 div 1a all turning some huge $$$ If the schools can feather their nest and spend all these revenues on other programs why not take most of the money from the pro teams and fund the police and fire dept and toss in the schools as well. Hey most teams play in stadiums paid by tax payer dollars.
6/9/2011 3:58 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Tell you what while the players are getting zero some body is making a killing my bet it isn't the parking lot attendents or the gal selling beer ..
6/9/2011 4:19 PM
Posted by rmancil on 6/9/2011 4:14:00 PM (view original):
The question I would love to see answered is just how these teams spend this kind of money each year. The where and what for.
 
The Buckeyes spent $32.3 million for the 2008-09 school year, according to figures from the U.S. Department of Education's Equity in Athletics. The 2008-09 school year is the most recent data that is available.



Share3
Ohio State's $32.3 million spending spree was $3.5 million more than the next closest school: Auburn at $28.8 million. Not surprisingly the nation's top eight spenders – and yes, they all bring in nearly two to three times that much in revenue – are from the Big Ten and SEC.

After Ohio State and Auburn is Iowa ($26.9 million) of the Big Ten, followed by four SEC schools – Alabama ($26.44 million), Tennessee ($22.96 million), Florida ($22.86 million) and LSU ($22.74 million). The Big Ten's Wisconsin ($22.71 million) ranks eighth.

The other BCS conference big spenders and how they rank nationally are: the Big 12's Texas (ninth nationally, $22.56 million), the Pac-10's USC (10th, $21.31 million), the ACC's Miami (11th, $20.97 million) and the Big East's Rutgers (16th, $19.73 million). Independent Notre Dame ranks 20th overall, spending $18.74 million.

You don't know where this money is going?

You posted information just about College Football.  Football is the thing that helps pay for almost every other sport in its athletics program and scholarships in those programs.  Slider posted that only 14 FBS schools profited in terms of their Athletic Department as a whole.  Football isn't the only sport being played.

You want to pay athletes at the collegiate level.  In order to do that, schools would have to conduct heavy cuts on their other athletic programs to benefit the top players in one sport.  That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
6/9/2011 4:28 PM
Posted by rmancil on 6/9/2011 4:19:00 PM (view original):
Tell you what while the players are getting zero some body is making a killing my bet it isn't the parking lot attendents or the gal selling beer ..
They do receive something, though.   They receive a free education, books, room & board and a stipend.  And may receive a tax bill because of it.   Most students (or their parents) have to pay for these.    That is huge, considering that they are showcasing their talents and learning other talents that they can turn into jobs when they graduate.    Many students go into debt for this.    They get a free ride.   Meanwhile, the money comes in is used to fund other athletic programs.   If you want to add onto the items they are already receiving (tuition, room & board, stipend), it would hurt more students as the money would have to be raised either by cutting other programs or raising tuition for other students.  

Families save for years in order to pay for the kids college.   Getting a scholarship is a huge advantage for them.   I would venture to guess that most families of student athletes are grateful that they A) do not have to pay the tuition and, in some cases B) the child is getting a college education that they otherwise not had the chance to get
6/9/2011 4:41 PM
rmancil - spoken like a truly myopic t-shirt fan.

All of this money talk relates to only the football program.  Athletic departments as a whole operate in a huge deficit.  And again, the athletic department is only a small fraction of the non-profit educational institution, and a money leach at that.  You are advocating the tail wagging the dog.  Schools have a much higher and broader mandate than to have a successful football team.  

Schools will never separate their profitable sports from their non-profitable sports because it would be the death knell of intercollegiate athletics.  Athletics, believe it or not, are actually considered a part of the student experience.  The onus isn't on the school to make exceptions for a small percentage of their athletes, the schools are already meeting their mandate.  The athletes don't have to attend school if they don't like the very generous proposition offered to them.  They are free to decline scholarship offers and do whatever it is they want to do with their life.

If you want college athletics to be run like a professional organization where free market economics determines player pay, you're barking up the wrong tree.  You should be making noise for the NFL to create a minor league system.  


 
6/9/2011 4:46 PM
They are being used but not exploited, a slight but significant difference.  They can always choose not to play/be used/be exploited. 

Its not a matter of whether schools generate revenue through their athletes, its whether (any) athletes are entitled to that revenue.  High school kids don't get a portion of the gate receipts, jersey sales, and concessions for playing in high school games.  There is nothing different here except the monies and markets are bigger.  When they sign up to play a sport (at the high school or college level), they are signing up as students, not school employees. 

I don't think a student is due any money because his likeness is used in a computer game, but if they changed the rules and allowed companies to start paying students for explicit endorsements, I would have no problem with it.


6/9/2011 5:11 PM
Posted by slid64er on 6/9/2011 2:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by potter444 on 6/9/2011 11:55:00 AM (view original):
Posted by maddog63 on 6/9/2011 10:49:00 AM (view original):
One other thought on this subject then I am going to dismiss this thread from my mind...
Professional sports are filled with young men (I say men only because mens pro sports are where the money is) in their early 20's who are overwhelmed by sudden wealth, constant adulation and scrutiny, as well as huge responsibilities. Some crumble under the weight of it, others end up ******* away their new found wealth. We all constantly hear about the former pro athlete who is homeless and selling off his super bowl ring, got caught running some kind of scam or arrested for robbery.. Does anyone honestly believe that providing mass amounts of money to these same athletes at an even younger age is a good idea? I mean... really?
Great point.  Let's not these young whipper snappers have a piece of the football money because they would just blow it on.....Wait this just in.....

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/ncaa/03/29/fiesta-bowl-junker/index.html

Listen, the world wouldn't fall apart if a business wanted to have a college athlete get paid for a commerical, sponsoring a product or doing public appearances and getting paid for some autographs.  I find it funny that people treat this as some moral issue rather than questioning the underlying rules.  Major college football and basketball are businesses.  The players are labor.   
NCAA athletics are not a business.  The athletic department is part of a non-profit educational institution.  You want to call athletics big business, go ahead, but it pales in comparison to the cash flow on the educational side by several mutiples.  Besides, only 14 FBS athletic departments out of 120 were profitable last year.  If you add paying athletes to this, that number goes down even further.  As a whole, athletic departments are a gigantic money suck.  

You are talking about making exceptions for less than 1% of NCAA athletes.  Given the already pitiful financial state of athletic departments, I don't believe rules should be in place to enrich so few athletes just because some feel that they are worth more than their scholarship.  It is this kind of enabling behavior that give athletes like Pryor a sense of entitlement and screws it up for the 99% of athletes who are thankful and grateful for the opportunity a school has given them.  
 

The last argument I always find interesting.  Hey, the athlete is receiving a scholarship, room and board and should be thankful.  To me, this shows that the real debate is about the form and manner of receiving compensation---not whether you agree that they should be compensated?  

If you think a scholarship, room and board is the proper compensation for all NCAA athletes regardless of sport, talent level or school, what is the proper fixed compensation for all coaches and Athletic Directors regardless of sport, talent level or school?  Of course, including the experience and ability to show case their talents.  So trying to understand this logic, what is the same compensation package that fairly compensatres the field hockey coach at Penn State, the head basketball coach at UCLA and the head football coach at LSU?    

You cannot reasonably ignore the obvious.  If you are a woman swimmer, a scholie is probably a great deal for the services (if any) you provide.  School gives money to you to particpate in an activity that loses money for the school and, possibly, the tax payers.  For BCS football or basketball programs, it's a weak argument in comparison to the revenues those two sports generate and what the market dictates

The fact that an Athletic Department may use (or misuse) those funds to pay high salaries to coaches or ADs, or fund non-income generating sports, doesn't change the analysis.  If you were an employee in a company and you generated 90% of the businesses profit but received the same compensation as the employees that generated 10% of the profit (or, worse, consistently lost money for the company), you would probably quit or form a Union.  Unless, of course, there was a monopoly and that system applied to all the companies in your field.

Take salaries or stipends out of the debate.  If Coca-Cola wants to pay the collegiate Cam Newton to do commericals, why not?  If a kid wants to openly hire an agent or a corporate sponsor out of high school and the agent or corporate sponsor wants to openly fund him through college, go for it.  Get it out in the open, declare the money and provide education on the business-side of sports/money management.  

There are huge monetary incentives from all angles in the major NCAA sports.  If Coach K can make millions and do commercials for AmEx, why can't his players? 

The hypocrisy of the system is ridicluous.  And so is the naive ideal that its not a business and, rather, it is an educational endeavor.  Do you really think the University of Alabama gives a sh#t if it's players are going to class and getting a solid education?  Christ, Harbaugh talked about how Michigan tried to unsucessfuly steer him, and successfuly steer other players, into easy majors so as to not to interefere with their jobs---playing football.

The system needs to be scrapped and find new ways.  Get rid of the one-and-done in BBall.  Let players apply for the NFL draft without consequences out of high school (or while in college) and let the NFL decide if they want to take on project.  But stop the mock (or foolish) indignation when a player sells an autograph for a few bucks because it doesn't comply with an archaic rule.
   

6/9/2011 6:04 PM (edited)
Maybe a few hundred thousand Africans were fortunate to be brought to America on slave ships since they were given the opportunity at freedom, education and prosperity here that they otherwise wouldn't have received.  Meanwhile European families had to save up their own money to afford such an opportunity. 
6/9/2011 5:42 PM
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4|5|6...12 Next ▸
Who is this clown? Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.