kshoe Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=6566975 Sounds like the Big 10 is opening up the idea of paying players. Its an interesting topic and can go any number of directions but in a world where most athletic departments can't make ends meet, the idea of paying each player $5,000 (a max would have to be installed or it would be the wild wild west) doesn't sound great to me. I feel that all is going to happen is the revenue sports players will get more compensation and the non-revenue sports will lose scholarships and support. If schools comply with title IX, they won't be able to drop women's sports and it will be the non-revenue mens teams that suffer the most. Given my feelings on the BCS conferences, I also can't shake the suspicion that they view this as one more way to over recruit mid-major and lower conferences. Its one thing for a kid to go mid-major if there is a good coach or playing time, but what kid would take a $3,000 payment from a mid major while being offered $5,000 from BCS school? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Metzinger Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=6566975 Sounds like the Big 10 is opening up the idea of paying players. Its an interesting topic and can go any number of directions but in a world where most athletic departments can't make ends meet, the idea of paying each player $5,000 (a max would have to be installed or it would be the wild wild west) doesn't sound great to me. I feel that all is going to happen is the revenue sports players will get more compensation and the non-revenue sports will lose scholarships and support. If schools comply with title IX, they won't be able to drop women's sports and it will be the non-revenue mens teams that suffer the most. Given my feelings on the BCS conferences, I also can't shake the suspicion that they view this as one more way to over recruit mid-major and lower conferences. Its one thing for a kid to go mid-major if there is a good coach or playing time, but what kid would take a $3,000 payment from a mid major while being offered $5,000 from BCS school? This is a huge power push by E. Gordon Gee and the Ohio State University. Nothing more. Nothing less. I hope to God this doesn't happen and that the powers that be in Indianapolis cripple that school with sanctions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlarry Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=6566975 Sounds like the Big 10 is opening up the idea of paying players. Its an interesting topic and can go any number of directions but in a world where most athletic departments can't make ends meet, the idea of paying each player $5,000 (a max would have to be installed or it would be the wild wild west) doesn't sound great to me. I feel that all is going to happen is the revenue sports players will get more compensation and the non-revenue sports will lose scholarships and support. If schools comply with title IX, they won't be able to drop women's sports and it will be the non-revenue mens teams that suffer the most. Given my feelings on the BCS conferences, I also can't shake the suspicion that they view this as one more way to over recruit mid-major and lower conferences. Its one thing for a kid to go mid-major if there is a good coach or playing time, but what kid would take a $3,000 payment from a mid major while being offered $5,000 from BCS school? Cliff Lee? but seriously if this happens college sports will be changed forever and it will never be the same. No more cinderellas, no more davids upsetting goliaths, and pretty much no more amateur sports. Once they start paying athletes it will be the same 5-10 schools competeing for national championships in every sport every year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Rich Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Cliff Lee? but seriously if this happens college sports will be changed forever and it will never be the same. No more cinderellas, no more davids upsetting goliaths, and pretty much no more amateur sports. Once they start paying athletes it will be the same 5-10 schools competeing for national championships in every sport every year. It would sure free up fall and winter afternoon and evenings for walks in the park, bike riding, and building radio controlled aircraft......... Paying players or "BCSing" the NCAA basketball tournament would be the end for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
For-DaLove Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 If everything in the college basketball landscape was equal I would say paying players is a terrible idea. But things aren't equal. Big time schools already pay their players. If the NCAA implemented a system to pay the players, even if it was a lump sum at the end of their careers, the playing field would even out. This would have to be a very strict system with large punishment if a school gave any player benefits greater than the allowed amount, but it could work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willie Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 If everything in the college basketball landscape was equal I would say paying players is a terrible idea. But things aren't equal. Big time schools already pay their players. If the NCAA implemented a system to pay the players, even if it was a lump sum at the end of their careers, the playing field would even out. This would have to be a very strict system with large punishment if a school gave any player benefits greater than the allowed amount, but it could work.Back in my day,the late 60's plays received book and laundry money. I believe it was 50 per month. I think that would be a good idea. Make it 200 today. Give the players a little beer and pizza money. Might clean up some of the cheating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
For-DaLove Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Back in my day,the late 60's plays received book and laundry money. I believe it was 50 per month. I think that would be a good idea. Make it 200 today. Give the players a little beer and pizza money. Might clean up some of the cheating.They still do something like that today. It's a small amount, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwyjibo Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 When people talk about paying college players they are just using the wrong model and have a limited imagination. Nothing can be made better by paying existing college students (I am not totally against uniform small payments but that is still unnecessary as the education itself is far more valuable). If you really wanted to pay players why require the player be a student at all? That is the only way paying players would make sense. No one ever puts that on the table (because it really is not about the students but seeking competitive advantage or legalizing what was previously not public). The whole point of "college" athletics is that the person is a student with a special talent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlumniFan Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 I guess free room and board plus tuition does not mean anything. What a f'ed up culture we live in. This is about getting an EDUCATION. Have they forgotten (or rationalized away) this basic concept? But then again, as my wife always reminds me, if it was not for all these screwed up people, we would all be paid average wages and it would be impossible to excel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 It will ruin the sports (football and basketball) in the short-term and in the long-term kill fan interest. It will be like the the Olympics. Nobody cares about them like they used to and the ratings continue to reflect that. It will help some college programs in the short-term, but it will kill college sports in the long-term. There will be nothing left to seperate college sports from pro sports and we will move towards the european model. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 This just seems like another scheme for the rich to get richer. It will only make it more difficult for mid-majors to compete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlarry Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 I guess free room and board plus tuition does not mean anything. What a f'ed up culture we live in. This is about getting an EDUCATION. Have they forgotten (or rationalized away) this basic concept? But then again, as my wife always reminds me, if it was not for all these screwed up people, we would all be paid average wages and it would be impossible to excel. You nailed it right there. When I hear people say college players should get paid I just think, what about the $50,000.00 (at a minimum) they are getting that most people are not? If they want to make money they can use that Education they got for free to make money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyRican Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 We would get 20 bucks a day on the road. You eat 3 square meals of PB&J and end with 55 big ones for booze the next week. Kids these days just aren't that smart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Metzinger Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 We would get 20 bucks a day on the road. You eat 3 square meals of PB&J and end with 55 big ones for booze the next week. Kids these days just aren't that smart. Drejaj and I would hit the Queen on Tuesday afternoons back in 03. He'd take his stipend money over there and play third base on a $5 blackjack table. As you alluded to earlier, kids these days just aren't that smart. Living in Grand Forest for two years, I saw a lot of stipend money go to waste, but oh well. I love the kid, but yeah, use your dough wisely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
For-DaLove Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Drejaj and I would hit the Queen on Tuesday afternoons back in 03. He'd take his stipend money over there and play third base on a $5 blackjack table. As you alluded to earlier, kids these days just aren't that smart. Living in Grand Forest for two years, I saw a lot of stipend money go to waste, but oh well. I love the kid, but yeah, use your dough wisely.I guess you chill with the athletes a lot and know how yet spend their money? Come on, Metz... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Metzinger Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 I guess you chill with the athletes a lot and know how yet spend their money? Come on, Metz... No, this is an actual true statement. The sad thing is, I won $400 on the boat playing blackjack one of those afternoons, made the mistake of telling my Dad, then he suddenly realized there was a late payment on my tuition, so I had to walk that $400 to DuBourg Hall and the Registrar. I was living with a golfer (Evan Frederick) at the time and he'd go over there too, although to watch them lose their money! Good guys, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 It will ruin the sports (football and basketball) in the short-term and in the long-term kill fan interest. It will be like the the Olympics. Nobody cares about them like they used to and the ratings continue to reflect that. It will help some college programs in the short-term, but it will kill college sports in the long-term. There will be nothing left to seperate college sports from pro sports and we will move towards the european model. ? Ratings were way up for Vancouver 2010 and Beijing 2008 including some all time records being set. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Metzinger Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 ? Ratings were way up for Vancouver 2010 and Beijing 2008 including some all time records being set. Was that for NBC's telecast or were those numbers world-wide? U.S. interest in the games, be it Summer or Winter, probably peaked in 96. It probably spiked a bit for Phelps' run in Beijing and maybe Thorpe's run in Sydney in 2000, but the 2004 Athens games were horrible. Salt Lake City in 2002 didn't do much and Torino 2006 didn't either. When NBC has news people like Lauer and Couric covering the games, I definitely lose interest. Gone are the days of Jim McKay or Al Michaels calling the action. You don't see (with the exception of, and I hate to say this, Keith Olbermann) sports people doing the news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Was that for NBC's telecast or were those numbers world-wide? U.S. interest in the games, be it Summer or Winter, probably peaked in 96. It probably spiked a bit for Phelps' run in Beijing and maybe Thorpe's run in Sydney in 2000, but the 2004 Athens games were horrible. Salt Lake City in 2002 didn't do much and Torino 2006 didn't either. When NBC has news people like Lauer and Couric covering the games, I definitely lose interest. Gone are the days of Jim McKay or Al Michaels calling the action. You don't see (with the exception of, and I hate to say this, Keith Olbermann) sports people doing the news. Kid, it'd probably be a good idea for you to stay away from posts. As is usually the case on here, you are factual incorrect. The Beijing Olympics were the most watch event in United States Television history.(Yes more than Atlanta, despite the time difference and geographical distance of not being in the U.S.) But thanks. Also, NBC did more $1 billion in U.S. Ad revenue for it as well. The Vancouver Olympics were the most watched Winter Olympics in the U.S. Since 1994. All of this despite increased competition over time. And none of this includes the global increased interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMM28 Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Kid, it'd probably be a good idea for you to stay away from posts. As is usually the case on here, you are factual incorrect. The Beijing Olympics were the most watch event in United States Television history.(Yes more than Atlanta, despite the time difference and geographical distance of not being in the U.S.) But thanks. Also, NBC did more $1 billion in U.S. Ad revenue for it as well. The Vancouver Olympics were the most watched Winter Olympics in the U.S. Since 1994. All of this despite increased competition over time. And none of this includes the global increased interest. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/hiestand-tv/2008-08-24-olympics-ratings_N.htm And now for the rest of the story... Calling the Olympics an event would be like calling the NBA or NFL season one event. While it is true that Beijing did well, it was largely due to the phelps phenomenon. Viewership also has increased on paper because they are spread over several cable networks. Much like the NCAA tournament this year. Also, the biggest wrench in the Olympics is location. Without a major atoryline, those outside of the US time zones fair poorly. Especially those in Europe. Also the Olympics typically go up against reruns on other networks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 ? Ratings were way up for Vancouver 2010 and Beijing 2008 including some all time records being set. The share of the total audience that the Olympics get is almost half of what it was during the best years. The increased viewers are do do increased population. A much smaller percentage of the US population with TV sets watch the Olympics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/hiestand-tv/2008-08-24-olympics-ratings_N.htm And now for the rest of the story... Calling the Olympics an event would be like calling the NBA or NFL season one event. While it is true that Beijing did well, it was largely due to the phelps phenomenon. Viewership also has increased on paper because they are spread over several cable networks. Much like the NCAA tournament this year. Also, the biggest wrench in the Olympics is location. Without a major atoryline, those outside of the US time zones fair poorly. Especially those in Europe. Also the Olympics typically go up against reruns on other networks. Can't have it both ways. The Olympics are most definitely relevant. More channels also means more competition with hundreds and hundreds of channels unlike the old days. Revenue keeps going up, and percent of U.S. household viewership has been up. NBC did $1 billion in revenue in 08. The Phelps phenomenon? So when ratings are higher in other sports due to who is competing, should we say it doesn't count because of the names or teams of the participants? The Olympics are very relevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 The share of the total audience that the Olympics get is almost half of what it was during the best years. The increased viewers are do do increased population. A much smaller percentage of the US population with TV sets watch the Olympics. Percentages? 70 percent of the World's population watched the 2008 Olympics. U.S. Olympic Ad revenue is up over 40 percent this past decade. Significant percentage increases in U.S. Viewership for 2010 Olympics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlumniFan Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Only this board could turn a discussion about paying college basketball players into an argument about tv ratings for the Olympics.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 Percentages? 70 percent of the World's population watched the 2008 Olympics. U.S. Olympic Ad revenue is up over 40 percent this past decade. Significant percentage increases in U.S. Viewership for 2010 Olympics. You don't understand how audience share rankings work. That is cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.