On March 20 2015 01:52 PrinceXizor wrote: I like college football better than the NFL for sure. but i have a kinship with my NFL team because i grew up as it did. the jags are only a little younger than me, and all my memories are from when they were forming or later.the kinship i have with the jags and jags fans is a very similar feeling with UCF. and from what i've discussed is totally different from the fandom people have for the phins or the patriots/cowboys/whatever. i didn't watch this past super bowl for example, it didn't interest me. i turned it on for parts, its hard to avoid the super bowl, but i wasn't watching it, really.
its hard to argue that college athletes are unpaid. the free food, housing and living stipend of 2k a semester along with free tuition end up amounting to like 40-50k a year. its not NFL money, but its certainly more than i got paid to go to school. i made about 12k a year in scholarships and stipends, and had to pay 7000 in rent, 1000 in tuititon whatever amount it ended up being in food, and then had to pay for everything else. They make no savings, thats true. but neither do most college students even working the same hours that football players practice.
Entirely depends on the program.
There were only 17 men's college gymnastics programs in the country when I was at Springfield (there are a couple less now, I know Temple lost their program). Out of all of those programs, Springfield was the only D3 school. Being a D3 school, it is not allowed to give out athletic scholarships. So, even though we were competing at a D1 level and had to abide by all NCAA rules, we reaped none of the benefits. Obviously this is an outlier of sorts, but still relevant.
Also, the NCAA is a bullshit organization. I haven't watched that LWT episode yet, I'll have to remember to look at it tonight.
On March 20 2015 02:02 jcarlsoniv wrote: Entirely depends on the program.
There were only 17 men's college gymnastics programs in the country when I was at Springfield (there are a couple less now, I know Temple lost their program). Out of all of those programs, Springfield was the only D3 school. Being a D3 school, it is not allowed to give out athletic scholarships. So, even though we were competing at a D1 level and had to abide by all NCAA rules, we reaped none of the benefits. Obviously this is an outlier of sorts, but still relevant.
Also, the NCAA is a bullshit organization. I haven't watched that LWT episode yet, I'll have to remember to look at it tonight.
I was using college football (the profit sport outside of basketball for small schools).
Gymnastics programs tend to be a money sink for universities outside of the huge schools for example.
but it sucks that not all athletes representing their school make the same scholarship/housing/food ect. but from a profits point of view, the argument falls apart there because people aren't spending billions watching college gymnastics, as shitty as that sounds to say.
On March 20 2015 02:02 jcarlsoniv wrote: Entirely depends on the program.
There were only 17 men's college gymnastics programs in the country when I was at Springfield (there are a couple less now, I know Temple lost their program). Out of all of those programs, Springfield was the only D3 school. Being a D3 school, it is not allowed to give out athletic scholarships. So, even though we were competing at a D1 level and had to abide by all NCAA rules, we reaped none of the benefits. Obviously this is an outlier of sorts, but still relevant.
Also, the NCAA is a bullshit organization. I haven't watched that LWT episode yet, I'll have to remember to look at it tonight.
I was using college football (the profit sport outside of basketball for small schools).
Gymnastics programs tend to be a money sink for universities outside of the huge schools for example.
but it sucks that not all athletes representing their school make the same scholarship/housing/food ect. but from a profits point of view, the argument falls apart there because people aren't spending billions watching college gymnastics, as shitty as that sounds to say.
Oh, no, you're absolutely right, gymnastics is a huge money suck for any school outside of the Big 10, and even then.
But it was the same for our Men's Volleyball team, except probably comparatively worse. They were fucking goooooooooood. Again, D3 team, but they won D1 nationals and traveled to Russia (and a few other places I think) to compete internationally. Same deal though. And people actually like watching volleyball.
On March 20 2015 02:01 PrinceXizor wrote: Oliver's (and many others') arguments are based on the relative income of the schools and conferences compared to that of the players.
That's no difference argument than discussing how minimum wage isn't enough to live on comfortably at full time, while executives and owners of McDonalds make millions upon millions of the work of minimum wage employees struggling to get by.
if thats the argument its fine. that stuff is kind of BS and unfair.
but saying tuition/housing/food and 4k a year spending money doesn't count for compensation is implying that these kids would be getting all of that for free without football/sports. which is absolutely false. They get paid. they just don't get paid in cash they get paid in what they would be spending that cash on if it wasn't for the sport they have the scholarship for. College athletes get paid about 15-20 dollars an hour for their effort. its not great. but its better than my job at the bakery i used to pay rent food tuition books and my spending money.
The outrage about "unpaid" student athletes could be transferred just as easily to the struggle of minimum wage employees compared to their corporate counterparts. but that is cold war'd away as un-american.
The main difference there is that the struggling minimum wage employees aren't directly bringing millions of dollars into the organization.
On March 20 2015 02:16 onlywonderboy wrote: The main difference there is that the struggling minimum wage employees aren't directly bringing millions of dollars into the organization.
only 20 athletic departments in D1 actually make money overall. the rest operate in the red, using the funding from football/basketball to pay for the other sports. those that make money make a lot though.
how much money would McDonalds bring in if all the minimum wage employees stopped coming in to work. and only the managers and owners left to run the stores?
The outrage about college athletes being paid three times minimum wage to make their school enough money to pay for gymnastics or baseball or softball or volleyball, is overblown. the real issue is the NCAA's executives profits and the conferences making huge sums off TV deals with less compensation to universities as there should be.
On March 20 2015 02:17 PrinceXizor wrote: only 20 athletic departments in D1 actually make money overall. the rest operate in the red, using the funding from football/basketball to pay for the other sports. those that make money make a lot though.
I meant the NCAA organization as a whole, not specific schools. I guess idk if there's a difference. My point is I think they system is pretty messed up and simply explaining it away as "oh well there are bigger social issues here at work" doesn't really fix anything.
On March 20 2015 02:17 PrinceXizor wrote: only 20 athletic departments in D1 actually make money overall. the rest operate in the red, using the funding from football/basketball to pay for the other sports. those that make money make a lot though.
I meant the NCAA organization as a whole, not specific schools. I guess idk if there's a difference. My point is I think they system is pretty messed up and simply explaining it away as "oh well there are bigger social issues here at work" doesn't really fix anything.
I'm saying that i don't think there is anything to fix on the athletes getting money front. they get paid better than any other undergrad college student working the same hours outside of school. The main issue is the universities are not compensated nearly enough for the TV deals. and that outside of D1 most schools are burdened by cost of athletics as it is.
the athletes themselves aren't bringing in the money to the NCAA or to their conference heads. TV deals do that, radio deals do that. the media pays those groups. the athletes bring in money to their schools, who use that money to attempt to pay for the other athletics and the money lost is considered marketing for the university because of the media presence. if anything the universities do not profit nearly as much as they should from those media deals that are super topheavy, with the SEC/B1G/ACC making the cast majority of college profits with the rest sitting on old or undervalued media deals make very little to give back to the students.
On March 20 2015 02:17 PrinceXizor wrote: only 20 athletic departments in D1 actually make money overall. the rest operate in the red, using the funding from football/basketball to pay for the other sports. those that make money make a lot though.
I meant the NCAA organization as a whole, not specific schools. I guess idk if there's a difference. My point is I think they system is pretty messed up and simply explaining it away as "oh well there are bigger social issues here at work" doesn't really fix anything.
I'm saying that i don't think there is anything to fix on the athletes getting money front. they get paid better than any other undergrad college student working the same hours outside of school. The main issue is the universities are not compensated nearly enough for the TV deals. and that outside of D1 most schools are burdened by cost of athletics as it is.
No, the real issue is that the NCAA reaps massive benefits from all of the talent nationally while enforcing rules around what the people with those talents can and cannot do.
On March 20 2015 02:16 onlywonderboy wrote: The main difference there is that the struggling minimum wage employees aren't directly bringing millions of dollars into the organization.
only 20 athletic departments in D1 actually make money overall. the rest operate in the red, using the funding from football/basketball to pay for the other sports. those that make money make a lot though.
how much money would McDonalds bring in if all the minimum wage employees stopped coming in to work. and only the managers and owners left to run the stores?
The outrage about college athletes being paid three times minimum wage to make their school enough money to pay for gymnastics or baseball or softball or volleyball, is overblown. the real issue is the NCAA's executives profits and the conferences making huge sums off TV deals with less compensation to universities as there should be.
"makes money overall". is misleading, if you watch LWT, he mentions the exact thing, then you see them spend all the excess money on other shit that's pure luxury.
not to mention, the tuition cost is completely moot, since almost none of the student athletes in big sports actually get an education, especially considering the hours they put into the sport, and not in school.
On March 20 2015 02:26 wei2coolman wrote:] "makes money overall". is misleading, if you watch LWT, he mentions the exact thing, then you see them spend all the excess money on other shit that's pure luxury.
Oliver also doesn't mention that the vast majority of those excess spending projects are paid for by the state, not by ticket sales or media income. subsidies make up a massive portion of athletic department income. because having big nationally recognized college teams brings in tourism and spending from out of state.
On March 20 2015 02:26 wei2coolman wrote: not to mention, the tuition cost is completely moot, since almost none of the student athletes in big sports actually get an education, especially considering the hours they put into the sport, and not in school.
what? lol that's true for basketball. but not football. basketball is a sham sport because of the one and done rule and the small roster size. the vast majority of football (the big profit sport) players get a good education. with only maybe 10% of them leaving early without a degree, and even then half of those go back for it while in the NFL. college basketball functions far more like a minor league sport than football does for the NFL. but then again you can't complain too much about basketball because those that stay make enough money to get their degree, and those that can leave early for the NBA do so and then get paid. with that year in college pretty much being an internship for the NBA.
EDIT: but there tends to be a huge argument about college education on the internet. saying that certain majors don't count as an education because one reason or another, oftentimes because the degrees don't lead to obvious careers like a lot of hard sciences or computer based degrees. A degree, taking classes you are interested in is valuable regardless of the major written on it.
On March 20 2015 02:26 wei2coolman wrote:] "makes money overall". is misleading, if you watch LWT, he mentions the exact thing, then you see them spend all the excess money on other shit that's pure luxury.
Oliver also doesn't mention that the vast majority of those excess spending projects are paid for by the state, not by ticket sales or media income. subsidies make up a massive portion of athletic department income. because having big nationally recognized college teams brings in tourism and spending from out of state.
On March 20 2015 02:26 wei2coolman wrote: not to mention, the tuition cost is completely moot, since almost none of the student athletes in big sports actually get an education, especially considering the hours they put into the sport, and not in school.
what? lol thats true for basketball. but not football. basketball is a sham sport because of the one and done rule and the small roster size. the vast majority of football (the big profit sport) players get a good education. with only maybe 10% of them leaving early without a degree, and even then half of those go back for it while in the NFL.
getting a degree =/= getting an education.
the stadiums may be paid for by state but the athletic departments pay insane amounts for rent as well. Guess why they keep buidling bigger and bigger college stadiums and facilities? because the athletic departments can afford the rent.
On March 20 2015 02:28 PrinceXizor wrote: basketball is a sham sport
it's impossible to have a discussion with you when you say things like this
I don't mean its a sham sport as a sport. but rather that the college basketball implementation is a sham. the top athletes don't play college basketball to make money or pay for their education, they do so in order to get to the NBA and get drafted to make professional money. and they shouldn't count in the discussion for payment of student athletes because they get paid next year anyway.
for the students that are playing basketball for the sport itself, they often stay long enough to get a degree. and thats fine.
On March 20 2015 02:36 wei2coolman wrote: getting a degree =/= getting an education.
the stadiums may be paid for by state but the athletic departments pay insane amounts for rent as well. Guess why they keep buidling bigger and bigger college stadiums and facilities? because the athletic departments can afford the rent.
This is horseshit to me.
if you are talking about the shit that UNC pulled with fake classes, yeah that's terrible and they should lose their accreditation but getting a degree is Sports education is still an education. getting a degree in Sports medicine or anthropology or history or whatever is still an education. You don't have to have a degree in aeronautic engineering to have an education.
as for paying for more facilities, that's essentially marketing expense. the same as investing in a better office building for your company or investing in an intern program to top universities in order to get a pipeline for well educated employees.
While I do really enjoy watching professional games of Brood War and some games of Star Craft 2, I have to say that I really, really enjoy watching Street Fighter, Marvel vs. Capcom and Killer Instinct.
EPT
