Diehards: Deante Gray calls debate over paying players ‘laughable’ after NCAA earnings report

[Mean Purple]

I could have sworn I saw something a while back about someone trying to start up a pro league for HS kids who would rather do that than go to college.

This morning on SXM espn kissup (The one with Bama's opie and that Taylor felllow), they had a clip of a coach talking about the idea of having players (basketball, but would work for football) got to a scout camp before their junior year. Have the pros give them a score and they can decide whether or not to come out early. While not addressing the player pay issue, it would surely help kids make a better choice. NFL has a heck of a racket going on the way it is now.

 

[Double V]

The activity is not the comparison; the choice is.

And what is the obsession with the 'party'? How many people even have parties?



TV was just invented in the last 2-3 years?

BTW ratings this season were down so that argument doesn't hold water either: https://www.si.com/tech-media/2017/12/10/college-footballs-declining-ratings-2017-media-circus

You can't compare the choice of a worker in a sweatshop in a 3rd world country to that of an American kid deciding whether or not to play college football. Nobody is going to kill your family if you choose not to go to college for free...

The party is not an obsession, but rather a demonstration of just how excited the kids and their families are at the opportunity. It's an illustration to contrast your dumb sweatshop comparison.

As for TV ratings...From your article: "Karp said ratings were not available for conference channels like SEC Network, Big Ten Network and Pac-12 Network." That's a sizeable chunk of content and eyeballs. Also, a 1-year change is not a trend. That can all be due to less compelling match ups than the prior year, etc.

Besides, are you implying that fewer people are consuming college football because the players aren't paid enough in cash?

 

[DickBumpastache]

You can't compare the choice of a worker in a sweatshop in a 3rd world country to that of an American kid deciding whether or not to play college football. Nobody is going to kill your family if you choose not to go to college for free...

The party is not an obsession, but rather a demonstration of just how excited the kids and their families are at the opportunity. It's an illustration to contrast your dumb sweatshop comparison.

As for TV ratings...From your article: "Karp said ratings were not available for conference channels like SEC Network, Big Ten Network and Pac-12 Network." That's a sizeable chunk of content and eyeballs. Also, a 1-year change is not a trend. That can all be due to less compelling match ups than the prior year, etc.

Besides, are you implying that fewer people are consuming college football because the players aren't paid enough in cash?

You’ve got some serious reading comprehension issues. I’ll try all caps: THE ACTIVITY IS NOT THE COMPARISON; THE CHOICE IS. The ‘choice’ here is that there isn’t one. If you want to play sports professionally, your ‘choice’ is to go to college or...nothing.

Your ‘sizable chunk’ refers to cable-subscription networks in an era where thousands of people are cutting the cord every month. It’s a simple refutation of your suggestion that attendance is lower because people are somehow just now figuring out that they can catch a game on TV instead of attending.

Im saying that this idea that the ‘brand’ draws eyeballs is BS. Casual CFB fans make up a huge chunk of the base in college football...and without professional prospects, you lose them.

 

[Wexahu]

You’ve got some serious reading comprehension issues. I’ll try all caps: THE ACTIVITY IS NOT THE COMPARISON; THE CHOICE IS. The ‘choice’ here is that there isn’t one. If you want to play sports professionally, your ‘choice’ is to go to college or...nothing.

Your ‘sizable chunk’ refers to cable-subscription networks in an era where thousands of people are cutting the cord every month. It’s a simple refutation of your suggestion that attendance is lower because people are somehow just now figuring out that they can catch a game on TV instead of attending.

Im saying that this idea that the ‘brand’ draws eyeballs is BS. Casual CFB fans make up a huge chunk of the base in college football...and without professional prospects, you lose them.

There are very few legitimate pro prospects that are going to play in the NCAA tournament this month, but the ratings and the money will be there. An NBA D-league team has more talent and pro potential players than most any college team, yet nobody gives a crap about the NBA D-league. Why is that?

Almost all the money the NCAA brings in comes from the basketball tournament. Just heard it on the radio yesterday, Seth Davis when asked if Oklahoma will get in because of Trae Young, said “it doesn’t matter who is playing, it doesn’t matter what players are in the tournament, the tournament itself creates star players, the TV ratings won’t be affected by any individual player.” I think he was quoting someone else but it’s true.

 

[Chico Dusty]

You’ve got some serious reading comprehension issues. I’ll try all caps: THE ACTIVITY IS NOT THE COMPARISON; THE CHOICE IS. The ‘choice’ here is that there isn’t one. If you want to play sports professionally, your ‘choice’ is to go to college or...nothing.

Your ‘sizable chunk’ refers to cable-subscription networks in an era where thousands of people are cutting the cord every month. It’s a simple refutation of your suggestion that attendance is lower because people are somehow just now figuring out that they can catch a game on TV instead of attending.

Im saying that this idea that the ‘brand’ draws eyeballs is BS. Casual CFB fans make up a huge chunk of the base in college football...and without professional prospects, you lose them.

Basketball players have a choice and some are exercising it - you can play professionally internationally for a year and get ready for the NBA Draft.

 

[DickBumpastache]

There are very few legitimate pro prospects that are going to play in the NCAA tournament this month, but the ratings and the money will be there. An NBA D-league team has more talent and pro potential players than most any college team, yet nobody gives a crap about the NBA D-league. Why is that?

Almost all the money the NCAA brings in comes from the basketball tournament. Just heard it on the radio yesterday, Seth Davis when asked if Oklahoma will get in because of Trae Young, said “it doesn’t matter who is playing, it doesn’t matter what players are in the tournament, the tournament itself creates star players, the TV ratings won’t be affected by any individual player.” I think he was quoting someone else but it’s true.

You must not follow the NBA...or college basketball. The only top-level (non-European) prospect who may be missing is Trae Young...and I’m guessing he’ll at least be playing in the First Four.

And there are no ‘prospects’ in the D-League. It’s for fringe-level NBA players who would rather not play overseas. They are collectively a group of 14th/15th men there for depth purposes...the ‘prospects’ only play when they can’t get time with the NBA team, and they’re only there for a game or 2 at a time.

The NCAA tournament is a great event. Without the players it is non-existent. The TV money isn’t anywhere near as big if star players had a viable option outside of college...Turner isn’t paying to broadcast a second-rate product.

And it’s still beside the point anyway. Looking at the NCAA itself for revenue figures in college sports is like calculating the price of a house based on how nice the garage is...doesn’t tell anywhere near the whole story. The CFP was negotiated exclusively by the Power 5 conferences. The conference TV deals are their own entities. Then there’s merchandise, booster ‘gifts’, etc etc etc.

Even if you buy the ludicrous argument that there isn’t enough money available to pay players, barring them from seeking sponsorships or otherwise capitalizing on their own names is not justifiable. The NCAA has already had to pay a nine-figure settlement for not covering the full cost of living for scholarships in the past, and EA got out of the video game market after paying out a $40 million settlement in the O’Bannon case.

Anyone with a modicum of reason knows the current situation is untenable. Wanting college athletics to stay the same because you like watching them is not a valid reason to maintain the status quo.

 

[Double V]

You’ve got some serious reading comprehension issues. I’ll try all caps: THE ACTIVITY IS NOT THE COMPARISON; THE CHOICE IS. The ‘choice’ here is that there isn’t one. If you want to play sports professionally, your ‘choice’ is to go to college or...nothing.

Your ‘sizable chunk’ refers to cable-subscription networks in an era where thousands of people are cutting the cord every month. It’s a simple refutation of your suggestion that attendance is lower because people are somehow just now figuring out that they can catch a game on TV instead of attending.

Im saying that this idea that the ‘brand’ draws eyeballs is BS. Casual CFB fans make up a huge chunk of the base in college football...and without professional prospects, you lose them.

Your assertion that everyone playing college sports is there as a stepping stone to go pro is ludicrous. Baseball players often have the choice and choose college, even with a less than full scholarship. And, again, if they were in any way coerced or compelled to make that choice (or non-choice in your opinion) then why are they all so excited to do so?

And I never said people are just now figuring out TV, but as you mention many are cutting the cord and watching over the air, which aren't accurately measured in those ratings as Nielsen can't keep up. Not to mention the fact that just because there are people cutting the cord doesn't mean that nobody else is watching the SEC and PAC12 networks. Throw in the proliferation of TV coverage for college football and there are more games on now than there were 5 years ago. Fans today can find their team on TV every single week with a top-notch broadcast where that didn't used to be the case.

People simply aren't boycotting college football because the players aren't paid.

 

[gohornedfrogs]

Even if you buy the ludicrous argument that there isn’t enough money available to pay players....

You can call it ludicrous, but not one person here has explained where the money to pay players is going to come from when nearly every athletic program operates at a loss....

 

[flyfishingfrog]

You can call it ludicrous, but not one person here has explained where the money to pay players is going to come from when nearly every athletic program operates at a loss....

Exactly - paying every athlete as little as $10k would require $4 billion annually

Many universities would just shut down a lot or even all athletics before they could come up with their share of money because overall athletic programs don’t make money for universities even if a few programs at an overall small percentage of schools make a lot

The view that athletes need to be paid is typically focused on revenue positive only sports and ignores that reality of the entire athletic program spectrum at a school

Football players will get paid on the backs of women’s sports and non-revenue men’s sports by eliminating those sports from programs entirely to reduce costs

 

[Wexahu]

You can call it ludicrous, but not one person here has explained where the money to pay players is going to come from when nearly every athletic program operates at a loss....

I think the argument is that players should be able to make money on the side. I don’t know, that would completely kill college football and basketball too, but I think that’s the angle. I’m not even sure, that side of the argument is so short-sighted IMO it’s almost hard to believe.

 

[Wexahu]

You’ve got some serious reading comprehension issues. I’ll try all caps: THE ACTIVITY IS NOT THE COMPARISON; THE CHOICE IS. The ‘choice’ here is that there isn’t one. If you want to play sports professionally, your ‘choice’ is to go to college or...nothing.

Your ‘sizable chunk’ refers to cable-subscription networks in an era where thousands of people are cutting the cord every month. It’s a simple refutation of your suggestion that attendance is lower because people are somehow just now figuring out that they can catch a game on TV instead of attending.

Im saying that this idea that the ‘brand’ draws eyeballs is BS. Casual CFB fans make up a huge chunk of the base in college football...and without professional prospects, you lose them.

You seem to be taking the position that since there are no other alternatives than the NFL for these guys to make money playing football like there possibly are in other sports, it's the NCAA's obligation to step in and take the place of all those other options that clearly aren't viable (or else we'd already have a minor league football league). That's BS. The NCAA makes their own rules and one of them is that you have to be an amateur in order to compete.

If these players weren't affiliated with their schools, almost NOBODY would be watching them. If you can't understand that I don't know what to tell you.

 

[DickBumpastache]

Your assertion that everyone playing college sports is there as a stepping stone to go pro is ludicrous. Baseball players often have the choice and choose college, even with a less than full scholarship. And, again, if they were in any way coerced or compelled to make that choice (or non-choice in your opinion) then why are they all so excited to do so?

Baseball is a great test case for the viability of a college sport when players have a choice to go pro. It is a DISTANT 3rd in popularity among ‘amateur athletics’ in terms of popularity, tv ratings, etc etc. I wonder why that is? MLB doesn’t have the same problem.

 

[DickBumpastache]

You can call it ludicrous, but not one person here has explained where the money to pay players is going to come from when nearly every athletic program operates at a loss....

If you honestly believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. I love that programs are claiming poor when billions of dollars have been infused into the college athletics arena just over the past 20-25 years...and especially in the last decade. How were these programs operating before that time? It would have been impossible...if you believe their story.

Coaches’ salaries have basically tripled since 2000. Texas A&M is going to pay $15 million IN TAXES on Jimbo’s new deal. Don’t tell me for 1 second that there isn’t money available.

 

[flyfishingfrog]

Baseball is a great test case for the viability of a college sport when players have a choice to go pro. It is a DISTANT 3rd in popularity among ‘amateur athletics’ in terms of popularity, tv ratings, etc etc. I wonder why that is? MLB doesn’t have the same problem.

Actually MLB has exactly the same problem - it is a distant third in popularity and ratings also

If they didn’t play so many games it would be even worse money wise

 

[flyfishingfrog]

If you honestly believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. I love that programs are claiming poor when billions of dollars have been infused into the college athletics arena just over the past 20-25 years...and especially in the last decade. How were these programs operating before that time? It would have been impossible...if you believe their story.

Coaches’ salaries have basically tripled since 2000. Texas A&M is going to pay $15 million IN TAXES on Jimbo’s new deal. Don’t tell me for 1 second that there isn’t money available.

A significant portion of the money spent on facilities has been from booster donations or debt financing based on future revenue - none of which would have happened if the money was to pay players instead of build facilities

In the last 20 years it would have taken over 50 billion doallars to pay athletes at a minimum level unless again you only mean football which won’t fly

Not that much money in athletics when all schools lose money as a whole on athletics

The state trust money that A&M uses has specific use provisions and I doubt paying athletes is one of them

 

[Hoosierfrog]

Don’t know about most of you, but I show up because of the TCU on the uni first and who is in the uni is important, but I’d still be fan if I didn’t know who was whom

 

[flyfishingfrog]

Don’t know about most of you, but I show up because of the TCU on the uni first and who is in the uni is important, but I’d still be fan if I didn’t know who was whom

Exactly

The reality is the level of competition between the teams is just as compelling in college baseball as it is in the other 2 big male sports even with “the best” going pro

Frankly I think basketball was better competition before 1 and done when some guys just went pro directly- now it’s become unbalanced with a few truly elite teams that can attract multiple 1 and dones

If they want to fix the pay the player problem- the fix is a minor pro league not paying amateurs

 

[SnoSki]

I don’t have an opinion. I’ll cheer for anyone wearing a TCU uniform.

 

[DickBumpastache]

Actually MLB has exactly the same problem - it is a distant third in popularity and ratings also

If they didn’t play so many games it would be even worse money wise

This is factually incorrect, and a big part of why I can’t take anything you say seriously. In the past few years, ratings for the World Series and NBA Finals are virtually identical.

Even if you grant that the NBA is more popular - which is debatable- it’s not even close to the chasm between college basketball and college baseball.

 

[flyfishingfrog]

This is factually incorrect, and a big part of why I can’t take anything you say seriously. In the past few years, ratings for the World Series and NBA Finals are virtually identical.

Even if you grant that the NBA is more popular - which is debatable- it’s not even close to the chasm between college basketball and college baseball.

And why your entire view point is a joke is because much like you are cherry picking the playoffs for two sports and ignoring the actual seasons that they play instead the final weeks only - you choose to cherry pick the fact that football and basketball at a few schools make good money and ignore that the other 95% of athletic programs lose their butts and are supported by a combination of tuition, booster donations and subsidies from the two sports that make money if they are lucky enough to be part of the elite in those sports

You have no facts in your favor where as I have a lot of financial, economics and pure math in mine