- 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 6/2/11 at 4:07 pm to Catman88
Posted on 6/2/11 at 4:07 pm to Catman88
Geez. I put this topic out there just to say that I think the LSU uniforms are worth more than any athelete who wears it. If you disagree with me, that is fine. Some of you have really strong opinions on this. Good thing we're not in the same room, there might be punches thrown. That being said, I will leave it at this, the players are already paid heavily with all of the benefits of free college and the free marketing that the colleges do for their future earning potential.
1
Posted on 6/2/11 at 4:21 pm to Catman88
quote:
Its a nice thought but you can kill all college athletics if you do this.
That's really what the argument against paying players boils down to. People like college football the way it is and don't want change. Forget that it takes advantage of students who don't know the actual worth of their talents and hard work. Forget that the state protects its cheap labor pool by passing laws to prevent these athletes from ever learning their true worth.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 4:26 pm to Boh
quote:If you think the revenues for LSU football were zero in 1992 (when we were 2-9 and sucked horrific arse), then you are severely misguided. Yes, more money comes in when we are more successful, but saying that Stevan Ridley or Patrick Peterson brought in the $40+ million in revenue LSU football drew last year is way off base. A huge chunk (likely the majority) of the revenues would be there even if we were mediocre. And those extra millions are not from having the best football players in the country; those are in the NFL. It comes from having players better than almost any other NCAA program has. And that would be just as true whether we all had top-level talent out of high school or if we all had mid-level talent out of high school and all the best players went straight to the NFL (just like in basketball).
you don't think 5-10 years of being a dominating national program brings in more revenue for the university and city?
The point is, even if you view college football as a straight business (which I heartily refute), no sensible or successful business pays its employees based on how much revenue is generated by the product they create. If that were the case, Toyota and Ford would be paying their assembly line workers thousands of dollars for each car they work on every day. And I know autoworkers make a good living, but I'm pretty confident none of them make as much as all the cars they work on generate in revenue for their company. Not even close. I'm pretty confident that all the autoworkers' salaries and benefits combined for Toyota or Ford don't equal the revenue generated by the cars they build. And they don't even get free room, board, tuition and books, either.
Bottom line is that whether you look at college football as an educational extracurricular activity or as a purely commercial big business, paying players based on the revenue generated by college football is simply inconsistent with either model.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 4:27 pm to Dead Mike
quote:
So...is your argument that all of these instances pictured are not damaging to the product? There's a reason why the NCAA penalizes member institutions when the offense is blatant enough to warrant punishment.
Those pictured are NOT damaging to the product; they're damaging to the system or "brand". They improve the level of play, so they improve the product. They benefited their institutions by cheating, playing outside the rules. If the ordinary college football fan discovers that the outcomes of the games are predictable because of cheating, it damages the brand in the long-run.
If the rules were changed to allow this kind of "cheating", then you open the door to competition. That would spell the end of the NCAA. That's why there are penalties.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 4:29 pm to TigerEd
quote:
For me, its the uniform, not the player inside the uniform.
If I wanted to be an arse, I could post pictures of New Yankee Stadium, The U, and other storied franchises that once sold out, but now are ghost towns when games are there.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 4:33 pm to The_Pistol
quote:And yet they have successfully sold it for that amount with nothing but players who CHOSE to play for NCAA scholarships rather than whatever salary they could command outside of NCAA basketball, be it in a professional league or other endeavors. Why assume it would be different for football?
No doubt that brand loyalty amongst college sports fans is huge, but there is no way that the NCAA could sell it's rights to March Madness for $771 Million if every team is full of Voogd.
The point is, it's not the identity of the individual players that is generating revenue, like Jim Carey or Tom Hanks for a movie. It's the players who win games for their team. And if you took out all the players on every team who are the "superstars" you claim are generating the revenue, the revenue would still be there for whoever the guys are that replace them in those uniforms.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 4:37 pm to Jcorye1
quote:
For me, its the uniform, not the player inside the uniform.
This is probably true for this individual. Sports brand loyalty is an unusual thing. Even if the Saints go 0-16 next year, there will always be die-hard supporters. Same for LSU. Same for just about any other franchise. What the OP fails to realize is that not everybody thinks like this. Many if not most people consume sports entertainment the same way they consume whiskey. If Makers Mark starts making shitty batches, they're going to find another drink, maybe even quit drinking whiskey altogether.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 4:39 pm to TigerEd
F all this talk. Give players the opportunity to go professional out of high school. If you want to earn money, go play in the NFL, CFL, or AFL right out of high school. Give players this option.
That way they have a choice of whether they wish to pursue a professional career immediately or to be a college athlete on scholarship. Problem solved.
That way they have a choice of whether they wish to pursue a professional career immediately or to be a college athlete on scholarship. Problem solved.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 4:44 pm to Jcorye1
quote:
If I wanted to be an arse, I could post pictures of New Yankee Stadium, The U, and other storied franchises that once sold out, but now are ghost towns when games are there.
You are aware that NYY have had the highest or second highest attendence in MLB each season the new stadium has been open right?
Posted on 6/2/11 at 4:52 pm to clamdip
quote:I'm pretty sure the lowest attendance of any game in Tiger Stadium during the Archer/Curley nightmare was still above 50,000. And that was when the capacity was only about 80,000.
really? i think there are a buttload of exceptions out there then, including me.
The idea that college football would not generate the revenue it sees now without the Terrelle Pryors and Patrick Petersons of the world is as silly as saying Exxon would not generate the revenue it does if someone else were manning their refineries. If the guy driving a forklift around one of their refineries starting insisting he get paid on par with the billions of dollars Exxon is making "off of him", they'd laugh and find someone else to do it. And there'd be no more a shortage of guys ready to take his job than there is a shortage of guys who'd love to suit up for their college team and play every Saturday for nothing more than the scholarship and benefits athletes currently get. And when every team is playing those guys, people will still flock to the stadiums and tune in the TVs every Saturday (and most Thursdays, a few Tuesdays, and the odd Monday, Wednesday or Friday).
Posted on 6/2/11 at 4:53 pm to The_Pistol
quote:Like they did for the NCAA Tournament when the best players started jumping straight to the NBA?
as the level of competition decreases, viewers tune out and advertising dollars plummet.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 4:53 pm to King Joey
If they allow the best players to go to the NFL. Does anyone really think LSU wouldnt sell out as long as they are still on top of the ones that go to LSU for an education?
Posted on 6/2/11 at 4:57 pm to Cajun Revolution
quote:
So if they sucked you'd still go to every game? bullshite.
Why would they suck, if every team competes under the same rules? His point was valid, if players that want pay go elsewhere the products would still be competitive and entertaining.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 4:57 pm to DocBugbear
quote:Why? Would you stop going to the LSU-Florida game if Patrick Peterson and Tim Tebow weren't playing in it? Would you stop watching the Ohio State-SC games if the QBs weren't named Terelle Pryor and Mark Sanchez? Or Texas-Oklahoma? Can you point to any numbers to support this assertion?
And what would happen to the revenue generated by LSU and UF? They would plummet. It would not go to zero, but it certainly wouldn't be where it was before the players left.
LeBron James and Kobe Bryant never played a minute of an NCAA Tournament game, yet March Madness revenues are higher than ever.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 4:57 pm 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? If so, you are kidding yourself. For me, its the uniform, not the player inside the uniform. College players come and go, but the purple and gold is the constant attraction
Huge amount of the revenue they generate is from the huge TV contracts they have with CBS and ESPN. They would not get those contracts if these weren't the best players in the country playing in the most competitive conference. You think that revenue is the product of "college traditions"? Go ask the service academies what kind of revenue they get from TV contracts. Winning also increases merchandising. Let me know how much merchandising revenue is generated by a team like...say....Oberlin college that has been playing football since 1981 and was coached by John Heisman. And I won't even get into how a winning program elevates the university's visibility and allows it to attract more (and better) students through competitive admission standards and tuition increases.
If you think you can put Division 3 players in the purple and gold and 92,000 people are going to want to show up, that TV networks will want to broadcast it and that consumers are going to want to proudly wear the colors of Podunk U, you need to put down the crack pipe.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 4:59 pm to EricB
quote:How much do the Highland Park High School players get paid? What about Rummel, West Monroe and Ouchita? I know those schools pull in revenue from their games. Do those players see any of it in the form of cash payments?
In every other level of sports, the players are compensated for their efforts
Posted on 6/2/11 at 5:01 pm to LSU82BILL
quote:
They would not get those contracts if these weren't the best players in the country playing in the most competitive conference
WRONG
They get the TV contracts because the vast number of people that want to watch it and thats what they use to sell ad revenue to generate profit.
Anyone thinking college sports fans would cease to support their programs are insane.
The better leagues get better tv contracts because they have more fans.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 5:01 pm to EricB
quote:So is that why ESPN pays a billion dollars to air the post-season all-star games? Sounds like those games would command more TV revenue than the National Championship Game. Why don't you link the numbers showing how the networks pay so much more to air the "stars" than they do to air the teams like LSU, OSU, Bama, etc.?
ESPN makes millions... not from airing TCU, but Andy Dalton, not OSU, but TP, not LSU, but PP7... etc
Posted on 6/2/11 at 5:03 pm to Bubba Hotep
quote:And college basketball, where revenues are decidedly not "plummeting".
This exact situation exists in college baseball.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 5:03 pm to CarrolltonTiger
quote:
Why would they suck, if every team competes under the same rules? His point was valid, if players that want pay go elsewhere the products would still be competitive and entertaining.
So if my kid takes a video camera and makes a home movie with his friends, it would be as good as a blockbuster starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Denzel Washington and Russel Crowe because,....well, all of the actors in my kids video are equally amateur but entertaining?
Page 3 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News