Worth reading: Gordon's Critique of the $$ Grab

[cgeldmacher]

Just now, cgeldmacher said:

That's not at all what I said.  I said that if the "cash grab" being referred to is coaches cheating to justify big salaries and lucrative promotional deals, I have a problem with that, obviously.  Who wouldn't?  If the "cash grab" is a broader reference to all the money that is brought in by football and basketball, then I don't have the same issue.  Sure there is crossover between the two in that the cheating coaches out to benefit themselves also make money for their schools, and other schools for that matter.  However, clean programs also generate that money.  The fact that football and basketball bring in all that money isn't a bad thing in and of itself.  The money generated does fund a lot of other sports programs and academic endeavors.

 

[Cowboy]

1 hour ago, kshoe said:

You do realize that every other sport is playing now, including college football, don't you? High schools sports are playing. I go to 4-5 youth soccer games every weekend. Tonight I coach my 3rd grade girls basketball team. Life and sports continue outside of ivory towers of isolation.

Every college basketball player has the choice of not playing and can keep their scholarship and their extra year of eligibility. It would be unethical NOT to play at this point.

-yep, play the games

[3star_recruit]

37 minutes ago, cgeldmacher said:

That's not at all what I said.  I said that if the "cash grab" being referred to is coaches cheating to justify big salaries and lucrative promotional deals, I have a problem with that, obviously.  Who wouldn't.  If the "cash grab" is a broader reference to all the money that is brought in by football and basketball, then I don't have the same issue.  Sure there is crossover between the two in that the cheating coaches out to benefit themselves also make money for their schools, and other schools for that matter.  However, clean programs also generate that money.  The fact that football and basketball bring in all that money isn't a bad thing in and of itself.  The money generated does fund a lot of other sports programs and academic endeavors.

The reason the money got so big in the first place is because college administrations and coaches looked the other way while boosters bought players who could have gone straight to the pros.  I'm not sure you can separate the two.

[Old guy]

8 minutes ago, 3star_recruit said:

The reason the money got so big in the first place is because college administrations and coaches looked the other way while boosters bought players who could have gone straight to the pros.  I'm not sure you can separate the two.

And you think this is the only area where money plays a MAJOR role in our society? Just look around yourself.

[cgeldmacher]

22 hours ago, 3star_recruit said:

The reason the money got so big in the first place is because college administrations and coaches looked the other way while boosters bought players who could have gone straight to the pros.  I'm not sure you can separate the two.

I get what you are saying.  I'm in the corner of allowing the top players and avenue for going pro and earning money right away outside of college.  If that ever happens, I still think college football and college basketball will be huge despite not having the top pro-bound talent.  Assuming that's correct, it would still make the money it makes which would fund other athletic programs and build academic buildings on campuses.  So, it's not the big money that's bad.

Having said that, yes, presently you can't separate the big money from the bad side of making the big money.

[3star_recruit]

44 minutes ago, cgeldmacher said:

I get what you are saying.  I'm in the corner of allowing the top players and avenue for going pro and earning money right away outside of college.  If that ever happens, I still think college football and college basketball will be huge despite not having the top pro-bound talent.  Assuming that's correct, it would still make the money it makes which would fund other athletic programs and build academic buildings on campuses.  So, it's not the big money that's bad.

Having said that, yes, presently you can't separate the big money from the bad side of making the big money.

Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't.  Would Duke, Carolina and Kentucky's brands survive with players that are just slightly better than everybody else?  Because that's largely what the networks are selling, tradition-rich Goliaths ruling over many Davids.

[DoctorB]

On 10/27/2020 at 11:39 AM, kshoe said:

You do realize that every other sport is playing now, including college football, don't you? High schools sports are playing. I go to 4-5 youth soccer games every weekend. Tonight I coach my 3rd grade girls basketball team. Life and sports continue outside of ivory towers of isolation.

irony, right?  Yeah I heard about that. Let's see how all that works out. But the argument here goes a little like this: "Gee, Ma, all the other boys are jumping off of buildings, you do realize that, right???"

I don't think it is unreasonable, or obtuse, to question these issues, especially with amateurs, as cases and hospitalizations continue to spike.  That is all...

[Billiken Rich]

3 minutes ago, DoctorB said:

 "Gee, Ma, all the other boys are jumping off of buildings, you do realize that, right???"

A ringing endorsement of your fellow ivory tower types at other institutions?  

[DoctorB]

1 hour ago, Billiken Rich said:

A ringing endorsement of your fellow ivory tower types at other institutions?  

Speaking truthfully: I have no idea what this means. Try again, perhaps using simpler words ... or maybe it means that only "ivory tower types" would find any of this morally problematic?

[kshoe]

1 hour ago, DoctorB said:

irony, right?  Yeah I heard about that. Let's see how all that works out. But the argument here goes a little like this: "Gee, Ma, all the other boys are jumping off of buildings, you do realize that, right???"

I don't think it is unreasonable, or obtuse, to question these issues, especially with amateurs, as cases and hospitalizations continue to spike.  That is all...

If EVERY other sport can figure out how to play a season despite having to work through the issues before the college basketball season tips off, it would be completely unreasonable for college basketball to not play. 

[kshoe]

4 minutes ago, DoctorB said:

Speaking truthfully: I have no idea what this means. Try again, perhaps using simpler words ... or maybe it means that only "ivory tower types" would find any of this morally problematic?

It was a joke; that maybe the ivory tower types should take a jump off of tall buildings.

And yes, it seems like the more the ivory tower the more "morally problematic" it becomes. Case and point is the Ivy league likely isn't playing any sports this year, but everyone else is.

This belongs in the other thread on attendance at games, but it seems like we can count on DoctorB to give up his season ticket this year since he is so morally conflicted by this... 

[Billiken Rich]

1 hour ago, DoctorB said:

Speaking truthfully: I have no idea what this means. Try again, perhaps using simpler words ... or maybe it means that only "ivory tower types" would find any of this morally problematic?

I just meant that you were , in essence, accusing your fellows in university administrations across the country of "jumping off buildings."  I didn't think I'd have to spell that out......

[Brighton]

I would not be on a sports oriented message board if I didn’t like sports. Just saying.

[cgeldmacher]

23 hours ago, 3star_recruit said:

Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't.  Would Duke, Carolina and Kentucky's brands survive with players that are just slightly better than everybody else?  Because that's largely what the networks are selling, tradition-rich Goliaths ruling over many Davids.

I say yes.  The NCAA's advantage is the competition, the tournament, and fan's passion for their teams, not having top level talent.  The schools at the top now would still likely get the best college players even if those guys weren't one and done types.  You would still have the Goliath's ruling over the Davids.

To put it another way, the talent level in the NCAA now is better than it was 10 years ago.  It's better than it was in the 90's or the 80's.  Did people like college basketball less in the 80's or 90's than they do now, because the talent isn't quite as good as it is now?  No.  As long as there is good competition, which there still would be even without the one and done guys, college basketball will still thrive.

[cgeldmacher]

23 hours ago, 3star_recruit said:

Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't.  Would Duke, Carolina and Kentucky's brands survive with players that are just slightly better than everybody else?  Because that's largely what the networks are selling, tradition-rich Goliaths ruling over many Davids.

Also, it basketball fandom was simply based upon wanting to watch the best, most talented players, then everyone would just watch the NBA.  Clearly, there's something more about college basketball that makes it interesting despite not having the top players.

[brianstl]

6 hours ago, DoctorB said:

irony, right?  Yeah I heard about that. Let's see how all that works out. But the argument here goes a little like this: "Gee, Ma, all the other boys are jumping off of buildings, you do realize that, right???"

I don't think it is unreasonable, or obtuse, to question these issues, especially with amateurs, as cases and hospitalizations continue to spike.  That is all...

But hospitalizations aren't spiking among these amateurs.  Games have not turned into super spreader events among those amateurs.  Those amateurs almost universally want to play.  Those amateurs that do not wish to play are free to sit out the season with no threat to their scholarship and will not lose a year of eligibility.  

What it really boils down is some people feel entitled to force their opinion on this issue onto those amateurs by not letting them play.