kmacker69 wrote:"Definitely disagree with the thought that the rich stay rich through their genius, and poor stay poor through their dimwittedness."
First off sorry for the gin soaked over reaction last night.
Point of clarification:living poor and living rich do not equal dumb or genius, just for the day or the future! (And way over generalized, it's a saying to make people think about how they are spending, not a fundamental truth.) I've know lots of rich dumb people and poor people who were damn smart! I grew up poor as dirt in a town that the factories were all closing down in the midwest... Oh and what we call poor in the USA is wealthy in a whole lot of countries that I have got to visit with a gun strapped to my side or back.
I think it boils down to that there are around 20 basketball and maybe double that for football that have a legitimate shot a a career in the NBA or NFL. Should the NCAA change so that they can start making a living at the expense of the other thousands? The problem is the NBA's not the NCAA's. There is a lot more than just Div1 basketball and football for the NCAA to regulate.
I also think that they should have a better option than overseas, the G league, or college. What that is, is hard to say, and why the NBA hasn't done it, but changing the very fundamental nature of the NCAA's isn't the answer in my opinion. Professional sports needs to fix that part of it instead of mixing the amateur and paid in the NCAA. (MLB seems to do ok with their system.)
Maybe I'm wrong, but I haven't seen an argument to convince me otherwise. The NCAA has been a stepping stone for millions of kids over the years to get out of poverty, and a few crappy Mid west towns that all the jobs left from... (Even if they don't give you a scholarship at all.)
cu blujs wrote:That will be the end of college athletics, IMO. It will take less than a decade for state legislatures to start dropping all sports and move to a European model where schools do not sponsor athletic teams and they become club sports. Yes, football makes money, but few universities actually make money off football, and very few are net positive in sports revenue overall. As budgets shrink, there is no way state legislatures in most states will allow universities to start paying large amounts to dozens and dozens of players - plus you aren't just paying football players. Title IX will require equal payment to all female athletes. Few colleges can absorb that costs, and few legislatures will spend tax dollars to subsidize that.
Xudash wrote:cu blujs wrote:That will be the end of college athletics, IMO. It will take less than a decade for state legislatures to start dropping all sports and move to a European model where schools do not sponsor athletic teams and they become club sports. Yes, football makes money, but few universities actually make money off football, and very few are net positive in sports revenue overall. As budgets shrink, there is no way state legislatures in most states will allow universities to start paying large amounts to dozens and dozens of players - plus you aren't just paying football players. Title IX will require equal payment to all female athletes. Few colleges can absorb that costs, and few legislatures will spend tax dollars to subsidize that.
Very good post.
This conversation sometimes take place with too many generalities comprising it. The P5 this and the P5 that. As you so eloquently point out, not even the P5 is a level playing field. Ask Wake Forest if they can truly compete all-in with Ohio State. More to your point, though the accounting has been noted to be creative from school to school, there are a disproportionately low number of schools who actually generate a "profit" from their athletic departments.
Where I disagree is with the notion that the U.S. will go to the European model. I don't see that happening. Sports is in our culture in a big way and university affinities are strongly tied to them in most cases.
Savannah Jay wrote:Xudash wrote:cu blujs wrote:That will be the end of college athletics, IMO. It will take less than a decade for state legislatures to start dropping all sports and move to a European model where schools do not sponsor athletic teams and they become club sports. Yes, football makes money, but few universities actually make money off football, and very few are net positive in sports revenue overall. As budgets shrink, there is no way state legislatures in most states will allow universities to start paying large amounts to dozens and dozens of players - plus you aren't just paying football players. Title IX will require equal payment to all female athletes. Few colleges can absorb that costs, and few legislatures will spend tax dollars to subsidize that.
Very good post.
This conversation sometimes take place with too many generalities comprising it. The P5 this and the P5 that. As you so eloquently point out, not even the P5 is a level playing field. Ask Wake Forest if they can truly compete all-in with Ohio State. More to your point, though the accounting has been noted to be creative from school to school, there are a disproportionately low number of schools who actually generate a "profit" from their athletic departments.
Where I disagree is with the notion that the U.S. will go to the European model. I don't see that happening. Sports is in our culture in a big way and university affinities are strongly tied to them in most cases.
Agree with the idea that the P5 really aren't in danger of "doing their own thing," for the reasons expressed above and because the disparity in revenue among the P5 schools is a huge issue. This article is a little dated, but the essence of the issue it presents is still valid.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/sports/wp/2015/11/23/running-up-the-bills/?utm_term=.2345c5be9746
in 2014, P5 athletic revenues ranged from Oregon ($193MM), Texas ($161MM), Michigan ($158MM), and Alabama ($147MM) on the high end to Rutgers ($40MM), Utah ($46MM), Wash St ($49MM), and Maryland ($55MM), Separating themselves from the rest of the NCAA schools will only serve to heighten the disparity between the haves and the have nots within the P5. If they break from the rest of the NCAA and you are an alum at Wash St, or Iowa State, or Utah, or Rutgers...what hope do you have that your school will ever be relevant athletically? They need Central Florida, Boise St, and Western Michigans of the world to give alumni hope that they can occasionally grab a little national glory or at least get ranked, if not every year, at least occasionally.
MarquetteRustler wrote:The fact that the conferences don't own the TV rights to March Madness or the CFP makes it more likely the power 5 will split in my opinion.
Savannah Jay wrote:The P5 clearly want a bigger piece of the money pie but I think they have to walk a fine line between wrangling more of the pie and cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Return to Big East basketball message board
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests