- 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 5:08 pm to LSU82BILL
Posted on 6/2/11 at 5:08 pm to LSU82BILL
quote:
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?
This is just horrible...
First off.. The vast majority of college football players are much worse than NFL players..
To use your horrible analogy.. That would make about 80% of NCAA football players Little Theatre of BR actors compared to Hollywood.
0
Posted on 6/2/11 at 5:09 pm to Catman88
quote:
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.
You can't be this stupid. Do you think a company pays the same amount of money to advertise during a game between 2 unranked teams in the WAC as they do between 2 SEC teams ranked in the top 10?
Do you think that the only people that watch a college football game are the fans of the 2 teams that are playing?
Posted on 6/2/11 at 5:09 pm to LSU82BILL
quote:Are you familiar with the word "competition", and it's related term, "competitive"? Football is a competitive endeavor, where the equality of talent on each team makes the competition more even and, thus, more intriguing. There are no "teams" in a movie, and no competition. Maybe you didn't know that, but that's a big difference between movies and football. Baseball and basketball have teams, too, btw. Just in case you weren't clear on that, either.
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?
Seriously, though, I'm guessing you've probably watched a high school football game. Did you watch it because you thought the players in that game were the best football players on the planet? Or did you watch it because you thought it would be a good competition between one team (at least) that you cared about and another team competing against it?
Posted on 6/2/11 at 5:11 pm to TigerEd
This argument makes no since at all, if the player were not outstanding athletes there wouldn't be any tradition. I can assure u if we were to transplant our current team over to vandy which school would have the sellouts, its won't be lsu.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 5:16 pm to LSU82BILL
quote:
You can't be this stupid. Do you think a company pays the same amount of money to advertise during a game between 2 unranked teams in the WAC as they do between 2 SEC teams ranked in the top 10?
Do you think that the only people that watch a college football game are the fans of the 2 teams that are playing?
Wow you are a thick one huh?
quote:
The better leagues get better tv contracts because they have more fans.
Read that a few times and let your brain kick in then go back and read the garbage you just wrote.
If all the good players went pro then the SEC would still get the very good HS players instead of the best and the WAC would get the avg players instead of the very good players.. All competitive levels inside the sport remain the same.. THE FAN NUMBERS remain the same.
Since competition levels remain the same you will still have 400 yard passers and 200 yard rusher and people will still win the Heisman.
This post was edited on 6/2/11 at 5:21 pm
Posted on 6/2/11 at 5:22 pm to King Joey
quote:
Seriously, though, I'm guessing you've probably watched a high school football game. Did you watch it because you thought the players in that game were the best football players on the planet? Or did you watch it because you thought it would be a good competition between one team (at least) that you cared about and another team competing against it?
Actually I've played in a HS football game. And I've also played in a HS baseball game, and a college baseball game,...AND I have even played in a professional baseball game. But I could drive to Sun Life Stadium and get a great to watch the Florida Marlins play pretty much any night I want for about $25. BUT I DON"T. Why? Because despite that team having some of the best young players in the game, watching baseball bores the shite out of me. That, and the fact that in a 162-game season, the outcome of one game isn't particularly "intriguing" despite how competitive it might be.
But the point I was trying to make and that you obviously missed was that just because it is "competitive" doesn't mean it is a quality product or that I care to see it.
This post was edited on 6/2/11 at 5:23 pm
Posted on 6/2/11 at 5:27 pm to Cajun Revolution
quote:
So if they sucked you'd still go to every game? bullshite.
i went to more games in the 90's than the 2000's.
Or course I was younger ( I graduated LSU in 92)
Posted on 6/2/11 at 5:31 pm to Catman88
quote:
Read that a few times and let your brain kick in then go back and read the garbage you just wrote.
If all the good players went pro then the SEC would still get the very good HS players instead of the best and the WAC would get the avg players instead of the very good players.. All competitive levels inside the sport remain the same.. THE FAN NUMBERS remain the same.
Since competition levels remain the same you will still have 400 yard passers and 200 yard rusher and people will still win the Heisman.
I guess you are that stupid if you think that everything revolves around "the competitive level" of the teams.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 5:33 pm to LSU82BILL
this thread is fail.
y'all are arguing extremes and sanity doesn't visit either of those extremes.
fact is that what makes a product is not just the players, or the loyal fanbase, or the LSU marketing dept, the coaching, or 100 years of good/bad teams, but a combination. And it is not a constant across all colleges.
do you think Florida's rise from mediocrity in the early 90s had more to do with Shane Matthews or Steve Spurrier? They both showed up at the same time. Learn some recognition of causality.
players make up only a portion (less than 50%) of the elusive formula for this "product". We know LSU has it. (and btw LSU had it in the sucky 90s, too, but just now like we do now.) We know Vandy does not have it.
If you want pay the players who "generate the revenue" -- as some dolts on ESPN (pardon redundancy) have said -- then you are extremely short-sighted.
as I've said, they are already paid, but maybe not to everyone's liking. And, btw, a lot of them continue to be "paid" for the rest of their lives by getting meal tabs picked up, desk job consideration over their peers, etc.
anyway, degenerating this argument into one of extremes is tiresome. please stop.
y'all are arguing extremes and sanity doesn't visit either of those extremes.
fact is that what makes a product is not just the players, or the loyal fanbase, or the LSU marketing dept, the coaching, or 100 years of good/bad teams, but a combination. And it is not a constant across all colleges.
do you think Florida's rise from mediocrity in the early 90s had more to do with Shane Matthews or Steve Spurrier? They both showed up at the same time. Learn some recognition of causality.
players make up only a portion (less than 50%) of the elusive formula for this "product". We know LSU has it. (and btw LSU had it in the sucky 90s, too, but just now like we do now.) We know Vandy does not have it.
If you want pay the players who "generate the revenue" -- as some dolts on ESPN (pardon redundancy) have said -- then you are extremely short-sighted.
as I've said, they are already paid, but maybe not to everyone's liking. And, btw, a lot of them continue to be "paid" for the rest of their lives by getting meal tabs picked up, desk job consideration over their peers, etc.
anyway, degenerating this argument into one of extremes is tiresome. please stop.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 5:36 pm to LSU82BILL
quote:Wow. Congratulations. That is a hell of an accomplishment. In any sport.
AND I have even played in a professional baseball game.
quote:The point you were missing, though, is that the vast majority of people watching college football know that they are not watching the highest level of football competition available (they know that's on Sundays), but they watch week after week and year after year anyway. There's no reason to think that would change just because another couple of dozen players a year are not on the field.
But the point I was trying to make and that you obviously missed was that just because it is "competitive" doesn't mean it is a quality product or that I care to see it.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 5:56 pm to King Joey
quote:
The point you were missing, though, is that the vast majority of people watching college football know that they are not watching the highest level of football competition available (they know that's on Sundays), but they watch week after week and year after year anyway. There's no reason to think that would change just because another couple of dozen players a year are not on the field.
But I think you are missing the point that they know they are (or not) watching the highest quality of football at the college level and that some of those players will some day be playing at the pro level. That coupled with their loyalty to the school, the tradition and the rivalries make it what it is. But if you dilute the product, it will not have the same appeal.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 6:35 pm to LSU82BILL
quote:The product is already diluted (to the extent the best talent is not there). What is it about one more layer of dilution that you think would make so much more of a difference? I mean, if they're already not getting to watch Peyton Manning, Aaron Rogers, Drew Brees and Tom Brady, is it really going have much more of an impact if they're also missing out on Terrelle Pryor and Andrew Luck?
But if you dilute the product, it will not have the same appeal.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 6:38 pm to Catman88
quote:
You are aware that NYY have had the highest or second highest attendence in MLB each season the new stadium has been open right?
Attendance percentage > actual attendance.
Fwiw, I was talking more about the complete lack of high paying seats even when the team is doing well.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 6:43 pm to King Joey
the players are already being paid, just not in any cash. they want to legalize making loans to the student-athletes which obviously then could be paid by a third party if they so wished and were able to get it done.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 7:09 pm to Hired Gun
The problem here is one of fairness. If the restrictions were removed and universities were allowed to pay players whatever the market demanded, some would easily be making a few hundred thousand dollars a year. The only reason they aren't is because as a group all of the colleges agreed not to pay these players. In the business world this is called collusion. Furthermore, if a player wants to play football professionally, he virtually has to go through collegiate football. There is no reasonable alternative.
There's really no way to avoid the fact that this is an unfair trade practice. You can complain about what it would do to the game to pay them. You can argue that their compensation is sufficient already. But neither of these is sufficient to warrant this unfair trade practice.
There's really no way to avoid the fact that this is an unfair trade practice. You can complain about what it would do to the game to pay them. You can argue that their compensation is sufficient already. But neither of these is sufficient to warrant this unfair trade practice.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 7:18 pm to DocBugbear
you don't pay them, someone legit loans them money and third parties can pay their debts if they so choose, like a politician's war chest, but you don't leave with anything except a balance of zero for no moey loaned or due or your debt to repay once in the pros or your debt you are going to repay after you get a job or some booster takes pity on you and pays part or all of your debt. coaches do not want players with a bunch of cash in their hands getting in trouble, but they do want them in dependable cars able to make it to their hometown and back and they want their players to enjoy a little more than their own family poverty and the ncaa allow.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 7:30 pm to King Joey
this same concept should also be applied to Pro athletes too. If a player maybe other than QB doesn't play, the attendance won't be drastically affected either.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 7:37 pm to Hired Gun
How bout we just start the "SEC Children's Fund"? We can put on tear-jerking commercials showing the hardships of playing college ball, collect donations, and then send out payments evenly to all the "undernourished" football players in the SEC.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 7:43 pm to DocBugbear
they don't need food, they already get that. they need cars mostly, as the OSU debacle shows. they need cell phones and may need computers depending on how the AD works. etc. not pay for play-but loans.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 7:49 pm to Cajun Revolution
quote:
So if they sucked you'd still go to every game? bullshite.
Some of us did, you might be too young to remember when LSU went 2-9, yes there were still quite a few of us still in the stands and yes we still tailgated.
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News