• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Football issues

JuiceCrewAllStar said:
so stupid

of course people realize the positive impact of football

but we also recognize the cognitive dissonance required to watch it
Click to expand...

Sounds like quite the moral dilemma for you. How will you ever cope?

You're arguing for dismantling the current college football system, so you clearly think the negatives outweigh the positives.
 
I'm saying that is the best solution to avoid some of the ethical quandaries posed by a handful of people making huge money off college athletes who are legally prevented from pursuing the NFL

I also understand it's not going to happen
 
https://www.espn.com/college-footba...sions-facing-college-football-coaches-players

i
Mack Brown auditioning for a majorette spot in UNC's marching band.
 
tigerswood said:
A lot of these people would also prob be cool with Wake basically becoming William & Mary or Carnegie Mellon. People don't seem understand the positive impact P5 sports have on Wake as a whole.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the Magnolia League has a chance of being reality.
 
Clawson on the front page with photo of the ESPN site, talking about the risks of the season and his staying distanced from his wife. The first phone call he got was from Penn State head coach James Franklin, who told him "Hang in there, brother." Franklin's daughter in infected with sickle cell disease and he will also spending the season apart from his family. Very nice of Coach Franklin!
 
TheReff said:
Clawson on the front page with photo of the ESPN site, talking about the risks of the season and his staying distanced from his wife. The first phone call he got was from Penn State head coach James Franklin, who told him "Hang in there, brother." Franklin's daughter in infected with sickle cell disease and he will also spending the season apart from his family. Very nice of Coach Franklin!
Click to expand...

Yeah, maybe he isn't a complete ass.
 
I think the critical part of this is recognizing that on average players are probably better off with college football / basketball existing in its current form. It isn't perfect, but players do capture benefits from college football / basketball (scholarships, visibility, training facilities, instruction), and the revenue that funds those benefits is driven first by the University's brand and connections.

That said, there are two core problems here:
1) Coaches, administrators, and even non-revenue athletes capture a disproportionate of the benefits / revenue
2) The very, very best players are harmed by college football (and this is a very small group I would imagine) because they miss out on earning potential from being drafted

Problem #2 is not in the NCAA / college sports remit - the NFL / NBA are the ones that create restrictions on draft eligibility, not the NCAA.

Problem #1 then is what the NCAA / college sports can solve, but it's going to be tricky to not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Creating too unequal of playing field or diminishing the college / sports connection too much, and the whole thing falls apart, and almost everyone is worse off. It seems unlikely that 50/50 revenue sharing is the right spot in the equilibrium that will balance out what players get without making college sports as a whole unsustainable economically. If you have to cut title IX sports then there goes the university connection and now we're talking about a minor league. Compared to college football / basketball, a minor league will likely have fewer roster spots and worse economics for most (maybe triple aaa equiv players are better off, but likely not single or double a).
 
Bravo to the posters who correctly pointed out that the reason athletic departments "lose money" and major colleges "break even" is because of how they choose to spend the massive buckets of cash raining down on them. The administrative and facilities bloat at Wake Forest even since I was there 20 years ago is almost comical, on both the athletic and academic sides. I'm sure it's the same at every other major school, if not worse.

Also I'm not sure what Adam Smith's invisible hand has to do with this. There is very clearly not a free market in college athletic services. There is a massive cartel called the NCAA that strictly prohibits a free market from operating. Booster clubs around the country would be happy to pay for top talent to win on Saturdays if the opportunity was available - hell, they already do in every legal way (the aforementioned waterslides and other ridiculous facilities) and in many prohibited ways.

We are not choosing between Adam Smith and Karl Marx. In the current system the people reaping all the cash benefits (coaches, college presidents, ADs, the NCAA execs) do all they can to make sure the labor doesn't get paid anything close to fair market value. Allowing the labor to negotiate for fair payment for services is not Marx, it's basic free market economics.
 
This dumb shit about tuition and football players is a joke. Doesn't cost the University shit to have these people in classrooms. Football players work for food. That's the one cost to WFU. Other than that the books don't change if they are gone or here.
 
BeachBumDeac said:
for real. I'm betting the people who like going to Lenoir-Rhyne games are the kind of people who go to high school football games for fun.
Click to expand...
Guess you win the bet: in addition to Wake games, I've thoroughly enjoyed the occasional L-R game, and numerous high school games over the years.
 
tigerswood said:
What do you tell 50% of the athletes from non-revenue sports when 50% of the football revenue no longer exists to fund their scholarships? And should there be coaching salary caps across the board? How do you implement?
Click to expand...

Tobacco Road said:
What do you tell high school soccer players?
Click to expand...

BiffTannen said:
You tell them the truth. Nobody really cares about college soccer or any of these other non-revenue sports beyond their friends, families, and people really wrapped up in their alma mater.
Click to expand...

You missed my point. People are saying non-revenue sports can’t exist in college without Football revenue. Some how, high school soccer is able to exist without college football revenue.
 
tigerswood said:
What do you tell 50% of the athletes from non-revenue sports when 50% of the football revenue no longer exists to fund their scholarships? And should there be coaching salary caps across the board? How do you implement?
Click to expand...

Tobacco Road said:
What do you tell high school soccer players?
Click to expand...

06deacon said:
The tuition rabbit hole has gone far enough. The schools who get $$$ from billion dollar TV deals are not breaking even because tuition sticker prices have gone up since the 80s. They’re breaking even because they’re choosing to spend it on all sorts of other amenities, salaries, etc.

It is cynical to claim that paying athletes peanuts from this cash influx will be the straw that causes all these ADs to lose money. They just don’t want to spend money on that. If money is really that tight they could cut back on the “assistant administrator to the linebacker coaches athletic training assistant” positions. Matter of priorities, no ones forcing you to blow all your cash on this stuff.
Click to expand...

Yep. Athletic departments don’t make money only because they are going to spend all the money they have, no matter how much.
 
Deacon923 said:
Bravo to the posters who correctly pointed out that the reason athletic departments "lose money" and major colleges "break even" is because of how they choose to spend the massive buckets of cash raining down on them. The administrative and facilities bloat at Wake Forest even since I was there 20 years ago is almost comical, on both the athletic and academic sides. I'm sure it's the same at every other major school, if not worse.

Also I'm not sure what Adam Smith's invisible hand has to do with this. There is very clearly not a free market in college athletic services. There is a massive cartel called the NCAA that strictly prohibits a free market from operating. Booster clubs around the country would be happy to pay for top talent to win on Saturdays if the opportunity was available - hell, they already do in every legal way (the aforementioned waterslides and other ridiculous facilities) and in many prohibited ways.

We are not choosing between Adam Smith and Karl Marx. In the current system the people reaping all the cash benefits (coaches, college presidents, ADs, the NCAA execs) do all they can to make sure the labor doesn't get paid anything close to fair market value. Allowing the labor to negotiate for fair payment for services is not Marx, it's basic free market economics.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely correct. However, I think it's important to note that some systems really do not work with a free market approach. One is healthcare. Another is college athletics. There are many points that argue for college athletics working quite well - the prestige of an athletic scholarship, the number of international students coming to the US to participate in college athletics, other countries currently trying to incorporate similar systems, the immense interest in college sports (hence this message board and discussion). College sports is obviously not based on a free market model, but it's a model that encourages students to make academic progress and provides college access and scholarships to thousands of kids annually.
 
Last edited:
Deacon923 said:
Bravo to the posters who correctly pointed out that the reason athletic departments "lose money" and major colleges "break even" is because of how they choose to spend the massive buckets of cash raining down on them. The administrative and facilities bloat at Wake Forest even since I was there 20 years ago is almost comical, on both the athletic and academic sides. I'm sure it's the same at every other major school, if not worse.

Also I'm not sure what Adam Smith's invisible hand has to do with this. There is very clearly not a free market in college athletic services. There is a massive cartel called the NCAA that strictly prohibits a free market from operating. Booster clubs around the country would be happy to pay for top talent to win on Saturdays if the opportunity was available - hell, they already do in every legal way (the aforementioned waterslides and other ridiculous facilities) and in many prohibited ways.

We are not choosing between Adam Smith and Karl Marx. In the current system the people reaping all the cash benefits (coaches, college presidents, ADs, the NCAA execs) do all they can to make sure the labor doesn't get paid anything close to fair market value. Allowing the labor to negotiate for fair payment for services is not Marx, it's basic free market economics.
Click to expand...

Isn't class envy Marx-like? Doesn't the market determine who gets paid? I agree completely that the higher ed market is dysfunctional in general, with athletics being part of that. But that's a topic for another thread.
 
If labor chooses to negotiate individually, Smith would say go forward. The best funded team would have the best funded players. However, they would also be free to sign one year deals or multi-year deals. This would impact their long term value. It would also kick the conferences out of the NCAA championships.

If labor chooses to negotiate collectively (Already struck down), they are bound by the Collective Bargaining Agreement its union agree to at the time.

Unlike a true market, like Apple, Samsung, etc..., the conferences need each other under an umbrella to declare champions and would have far less revenue and prestige if they just had conference titles. Also, one sport would impact every other, destroying TV deals and allow a few to dominate the entire landscape.

Unless, conferences got hit with anti-trust legislation/litigation. Which, given, the P5's reach could never pass the Senate.
 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
might want to sit out the econ discussion, tags
Click to expand...
You might want to ponder the opening lines of "The Communist Manifesto":

“The history of the hitherto existing society is the history of the class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journey man, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on uninter­rupted, now hidden and now open fight, a fight that each time ended in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in common ruin of the contending classes. ”

Again, I'm not arguing for or against any certain approach to reforming college sports, just raising the possibility that Marx and Smith each have something to say about the different possible paths for reform.
 
Tobacco Road said:
You missed my point. People are saying non-revenue sports can’t exist in college without Football revenue. Some how, high school soccer is able to exist without college football revenue.
Click to expand...

missingitbob.jpg
 
Tobacco Road said:
You missed my point. People are saying non-revenue sports can’t exist in college without Football revenue. Some how, high school soccer is able to exist without college football revenue.
Click to expand...

High school sports don't have massive scholarships to fund. Also, they rarely travel all over the country.

Football and Men's basketball are a double-edged sword. They provide major funding for the other sports. But, the conference alignments they drive travel and other costs to much higher levels. If conferences were compact, costs for minor sports would be lower.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top