- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Experts Are Wrong About Players Generating Revenue
Posted on 6/21/11 at 7:37 pm to RBWilliams8
Posted on 6/21/11 at 7:37 pm to RBWilliams8
The players generate that 3-5k easily with jersey sales alone. The schools that do cheat and pay a ton of money (180k) know that they'd get their money back or else they wouldn't do so.
0
Posted on 6/21/11 at 8:00 pm to LSU82BILL
quote:Nope, they are just like the student athletes. They don't have to be anywhere, they are voluntarily choosing to be in the room.
Are these people students? Are they required to be in this room as a condition of a scholarship and are they required to be there 20 hours per week?
quote:If they are free to leave at their will, then of course it is. You think it is more fair to deny them that free choice and force them to starve?
Is it "fair" that Phil Knight is a billionaire while hundreds of hundreds of thousands of Asian factory workers voluntarily choose to be exposed to toxins and carcinogens and paid $3 a day to work in a factory - a voluntary choice they make to avoid say, starvation?
quote:Of course it isn't, because they had no choice in the attack and were subjected to violence against their will without the freedom to opt out of the situation.
Is it fair that 2,752 people died in the World Trade Center because they made a voluntary choice to work in a building that was a terrorist target?
Posted on 6/21/11 at 8:03 pm to LSU82BILL
quote:And you are doing it poorly. Choosing something as an alternative to starvation is not voluntary, that is squarely within the definition of duress. Are you suggesting that the NCAA is putting student athletes in a situation where they must play college sports or starve to death?
I am trying to put the word "voluntary" into context since another poster believes that as long as a person acts voluntarily that the result is fair.
Like I said before, as long as the people in question are free to leave at their will -- like college athletes are -- then their treatment is as fair as they choose it to be, which is plainly fair enough. If you are forced into a situation by threat of death, then you are not voluntarily choosing it because you are not free to leave it at your will, and your situation is completely unanalogous to that of an NCAA athlete.
Posted on 6/21/11 at 8:12 pm to peopleschamp
quote:No one is talking about taking away all the players. The discussion is whether the sports would generate revenue without the exact same people playing it who are playing it now. If they all chose to do something else, then the schools would simply dress out the next in line who did want to play without getting paid, and the sport would continue on. The question is whether people who are currently paying tons of money (collectively) to see second rate talent (second behind NFL-level) would suddenly stop paying money altogether to watch similar competition between slighltly lower rate talent (if all the college players went elsewhere).
Take away all the players and you have no teams.
Since college basketball lost out on first rate (NBA stars) and second rate (NBA potentials) talent years ago and is generating more revenue than ever, there is strong evidence to suggest that revenues would not be adversely affected if the overall talent level in college football were to drop a notch. If elite teams had Matt Flynns and Joe Addais instead of Vince Youngs and Adrien Petersons, and great teams had Jordan Jeffersons and Stevan Ridleys instead of Rohan Daveys and Dominick Davises, etc., the games would still be as competitive as they are now and there would still be tough struggles between the top level programs featuring the best talent in the game even though it's not the best talent in the world (just as is the case today).
Posted on 6/21/11 at 8:17 pm to rintintin
quote:That is true, but there is a flaw in your reasoning as well. The reduction in talent has no correlation to the success of the programs because it is an across the board reduction in talent. ALL teams would be competing with lesser talent, thus the elite programs like LSU, Florida, Alabama, Oklahoma, etc., would still be at the top of the heap, it would simply be a slightly shorter heap.
but there is a LARGE portion of every school's fanbase that will only pay attention if the team is successful. You have a point, but your reasoning is flawed. There are so many other factors to take into account
Again, basketball offers an informative model. The most talented players in basketball no longer compete in the college game, but the revenues on NCAA Basketball are higher than ever.
Posted on 6/21/11 at 8:20 pm to tgerb8
quote:Why? What do methods of viewership and profit have to do with whether the competitors are performing as their employment or not?
I don't care either way.. but if we're going to call it "amateur" then it shouldn't be a multi billion dollar industry.. the tickets should be free.. the games shouldn't be on tv.. and obviously the BCS doesn't exist.
If I pay you to videotape my daughter's dance recital, does that mean she can't be an amateur just because someone is making money off of the event? That's absurd.
Posted on 6/21/11 at 9:13 pm to GeorgeTheGreek
quote:
Yeah this is a horrible argument. You may disagree with mine, but at least my argument has some merit.
The OPs argument is a very sound argument.
If you had to put a percentage of who is responsible for the revenue of college football, it would be 90% the schools, tradition, and the infrastructure of the college game itself vs. 10% of the current players. I can't imagine anyone would argue with that.
Posted on 6/21/11 at 9:33 pm to TigerEd
quote:
Many claim that the atheletes should be paid because they are the ones creating revenue for the schools.
Atheletes get a scholarship to play football. If they don't like the arrangement, they can either not attend college or pay their own way.Next thing you know, some will want to start paying high school football players.Why not pay students who receive academic scholarship?
Posted on 6/21/11 at 9:56 pm to Newbomb Turk
The point is that Cam Newton would not have drawn 90k in attendance if the allegiance to AU was not existent to his play. I would not have flown across the US to watch Jacob Hester if he were playing for the Shreveport Steamboats. If all FBS colleges had division 2 athletes and all D1 athletes played for minor league pros, Alums like me would still fill the stadium and donate money to the school and watch our beloved college teams.
Posted on 6/22/11 at 5:29 am to TigerEd
quote:
Many claim that the atheletes should be paid because they are the ones creating revenue for the schools. I have been a season ticket holder and lifelong fan because its LSU playing, not a particular player playing for LSU. If there were no college traditions and these athletes were playing in semi-pro leagues, does anyone think they would have the same following?
So, you think that LSU from 1995-2002 generated the same amount of revenue as LSU from 2003-2010?
Posted on 6/22/11 at 5:31 am to aglandry
quote:
Atheletes get a scholarship to play football. If they don't like the arrangement, they can either not attend college or pay their own way
Just because it is the best arrangement for them doesn't automatically make it fair.
quote:
Why not pay students who receive academic scholarship?
Are they generating millions upon millions of dollars for the department of their major? If so, yes we should.
Posted on 6/22/11 at 8:11 am to King Joey
quote:
quote:
Are these people students? Are they required to be in this room as a condition of a scholarship and are they required to be there 20 hours per week?
Nope, they are just like the student athletes. They don't have to be anywhere, they are voluntarily choosing to be in the room.
NO - they are not like the student athletes so your chat room analogy is completely irrelevant.
Posted on 6/22/11 at 8:27 am to King Joey
quote:
And you are doing it poorly. Choosing something as an alternative to starvation is not voluntary, that is squarely within the definition of duress. Are you suggesting that the NCAA is putting student athletes in a situation where they must play college sports or starve to death?
Top scholars receive stipends and are eligible for to earn money through research programs and student aides in addition to full tuition and room/board scholarships.
If a senior HS football player who is an average or below average student but has a God-given ability to play football at a very high level, what "alternative" does he have to use his most marketable talent to earn a living? There really is no alternative.
Posted on 6/22/11 at 8:37 am to King Joey
quote:
That is true, but there is a flaw in your reasoning as well. The reduction in talent has no correlation to the success of the programs because it is an across the board reduction in talent. ALL teams would be competing with lesser talent, thus the elite programs like LSU, Florida, Alabama, Oklahoma, etc., would still be at the top of the heap, it would simply be a slightly shorter heap.
Although this is such an extreme hypothetical, I will continue with the argument.
Yes, the talent would decrease across the board, BUT the LSU's, Florida's, Bama's would still be at the top of the heap because they are still getting the most talented players of that board. Compared to previous generations, yes the talent has decreased, but compared to other schools the talent is still superior. Therefore better players are still going to generate more money.
And it would still be the same as now, if one of those teams dropped off in talent (comparative to other teams) they would generate less money than if not.
It's not how the talent compares to every athlete in the world, its how the talent compares to other schools. Better players = more money.
Posted on 6/22/11 at 6:47 pm to shel311
quote:
Just because it is the best arrangement for them doesn't automatically make it fair
Guess what, life isn't always fair.People that have = opportunities don't always have = results.Just because it may be the best arrangement for them doesn't automatically make it unfair.Many students on academic scholarship end up donating millions of dollars to the University.
Posted on 6/23/11 at 12:15 am to aglandry
quote:
Guess what, life isn't always fair
So, if it's not fair, we shouldn't try to fix it because "life isn't always fair?
quote:
Many students on academic scholarship end up donating millions of dollars to the University.
No clue how this is relevant to the debate, but many athletes also donate millions of dollars to universities. Hell, even to universities they never went to lol.
Posted on 6/23/11 at 7:55 am to shel311
quote:
So, if it's not fair, we shouldn't try to fix it because "life isn't always fair?
You can't fix stupid.
quote:
No clue how this is relevant to the debate, but many athletes also donate millions of dollars to universities. Hell, even to universities they never went to lol.
You need to read the quote I was addressing from TigerEd's post.
Posted on 6/23/11 at 8:09 am to Hulkklogan
quote:
A free ride through school is TONS of money as it is
I am a big believer in a free market society. I completely understand how much an athlete gets "paid" already. The debate is that if they can earn more than that, why are we stopping them?
The first thing I will say is that I do NOT believe this is feasible. I think it makes sense on principal, but the corruption that would reign once you allowed players to be compensated above and beyond the status quo will always hold back the idea IMO. That being said, every human should be allowed to market him/herself however he/she would like, and he/she should be allowed to make as much money as someone will pay.
Someone who worked hard in school and made the grades and gets an MBA and goes on to make $120,000 out of school will believe that he earned that money. Often times, however, when an athlete comes up and makes 10 times that, the MBA student will gripe that it is not fair, or that person did not work hard enough but got paid a great deal of money. The thing the MBA student fails to realize is that the athlete getting paid $1.2M is 10 times more valuable than the MBA student. Fairness is out of the window. If you want fair, join a socialist society. I think the buck stops here. Should student athletes get paid more than they already do? I believe so. The argument rest with the fact that in the system today, student athletes are NOT free to explore their true earning potential while in college. That is where I have an issue.
Posted on 6/23/11 at 8:22 am to TigerEd
quote:
For me, its the uniform, not the player inside the uniform.
If this were 100% true, why has Boise State's football budget increased 13.5% from last year? Boise State is growing revenues and profits SOLELY on the shoulders of talent and winning, not tradition.
LINK
Also if traditions and historical success are the main factors in revenues, then one could deduce that Notre Dame should be in the top 5 of revenues each year, right?
Yet, in 2007-2008, ND was behind schools like Wisconsin, Oklahoma State, Auburn, and Kansas. Kansas??? Really??
Look, I know traditions are a big part of it, and that is what keeps ticket sales up most of the time, but revenue is more than that. Revenue is contingent upon the success of the school and the conference as well. If the talent went down in the SEC relative to the rest of the football world, the SEC would make less money and LSU would make less money. College football, even at LSU, does not enjoy inelastic demand.
Posted on 6/23/11 at 8:22 am to Cajun Revolution
quote:
So if they sucked you'd still go to every game? bullshite.
So from around 1989 through 1999, with a brief three year respite between 1995-1997, LSU sucked, they had no season ticket holders, and no one showed up?
I got news for you, there were MANY die-hards that filled that stadium. There weren't 80K in there, but they showed up. They showed up faithfully all the way up until the last season of the Curley Hallman Era.
You're eithre purposefully ignorant of that time period of LSU Football, or too young to have lived through it. Because otherwise, you'd have never made your statement.
Oh, & BTW-South Carolina had back-to-back 1-10 seasons before Lou Holtz took over. They averaged 80K+ in attendance in those years. Don't let that get in the way of your well-thought out, reasonable opinion
This post was edited on 6/23/11 at 8:24 am
Page 7 of 8
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News