|
Post by coldsnap on Aug 3, 2020 12:29:34 GMT -5
Agreed.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 3, 2020 12:33:08 GMT -5
Of all things, why are UNIVERSITIES subsidizing these sports? Why do high schools have sports? Most people who play sports do so because they like playing sports. And people are very tribal, so if you stick a bunch of them in one school they will want to compete against other schools. The "Robber's Cave" experiment is a classic example of how this works. It would be a real mistake to look at the business of D1 sports as it now exists and assume that this was somehow the end goal when schools first started playing sports against each other.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohn043 on Aug 3, 2020 12:34:39 GMT -5
I just think you overestimate the appetite for professional sports absent the universities. And, thus, the profitability of those pro sports. Of all things, why are UNIVERSITIES subsidizing these sports? And to a more indirect extent, why are university football and basketball teams subsidizing several dozen Olympic sports? Commentators aren't incorrect when they note the massive wealth transfer from primarily lower-income athletes to wealthier, whiter athletes playing niche sports. There are all sorts of issues here so lets unpack them: First, do the players really create the value in college football and basketball? There are no minor league sports anywhere around the world that are anywhere near as profitable as college football and basketball. If the Columbus Buckeyes played the Ann Arbor Wolverines in a game of minor league football would anyone care? The allure of college sports is created more the universities and their alumni bases than by the minor league competitors in those sports. Second, it isn't like the teams are owned by some rich individuals that are making a bunch of money. They are owned by universities that are all not for profit organizations. Third, as you noted, almost all athletic departments either break even or lose money. Any money that goes to football or basketball players has to come from cutting sports. This would be bad for women's volleyball and crushing for mens. Fourth, your liberal values are going to clash here. While you are right that you are subsidizing nicher, whiter sports. Title 9 literally demands that you do that. Pretty ironic.... Alternatively, we could create racial targets and affirmative action for white football and basketball players.... Finally, no one is forcing anyone to go to college. Many go there because college can help prepare them for a career. Many go straight to the job market or drop out before finishing. If you don't want to go to college you can play basketball overseas or go play Canadian football. The idea that these alternatives aren't that attractive should be an indication to you that these players aren't really exploited.....
|
|
|
Post by FUBAR on Aug 3, 2020 12:35:02 GMT -5
They just haven't juiced up enough. Come on... I've talked to volleyball players who didn't "juice" and they've all said to me that weight work during the off-season is very difficult and painful as they work through its routine complications... but that it makes a huge difference between a freshman and a sophomore... and that's in a non-contact sport. In a contact or collision sport (Bill Russell made that BB versus FB distinction many years ago), building muscle is vital even if you do it without "juice". I'm sure Phaedrus was referring to why the NFL doesn't want 18 year olds. You can play volleyball at a very high level without PEDs. It's nearly impossible to play some positions in the NFL without PEDs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2020 12:41:01 GMT -5
Finally, no one is forcing anyone to go to college. Many go there because college can help prepare them for a career. Many go straight to the job market or drop out before finishing. If you don't want to go to college you can play basketball overseas or go play Canadian football. The idea that these alternatives aren't that attractive should be an indication to you that these players aren't really exploited..... The system is... That's the nature of a monopoly. If you doubt that, check how many elite soccer, basketball, volleyball players in Europe elect to take 4 years out of an already short career to do college?
|
|
|
Post by coldsnap on Aug 3, 2020 12:45:29 GMT -5
It wasn't. But we love sports in this country and it became a business and a very profitable one. Boosters give money, fans buy tickets and merchandise, TV allows anyone anywhere in the country to watch their favorite team. Heck it is more popular that pro sports in most cases. By the way, these facts have afforded many kids an opportunity to realize their dreams and get their education paid for in the process. Athletic scholarships have been one of the best sources of college opportunity aside the GI Bill. College sports are not a bad thing, not a bad thing at all. Even the biggest and the best, it's not a bad thing. They are non profit, they put the money back into the universities and help all the students. People who don't want to play college sports or who aren't capable of it can still enjoy the excellent club/intramural teams that many schools have in place. Many of which that gt to use the same fields, gyms, and facilities that were built from the income of the varsity sports and sports boosters. Is anyone enjoying not having college sports or any other sports right now. If we did we wouldn't be running this thread right now. I for one wish we could get back to playing sports again.
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Aug 3, 2020 12:49:47 GMT -5
Come on... I've talked to volleyball players who didn't "juice" and they've all said to me that weight work during the off-season is very difficult and painful as they work through its routine complications... but that it makes a huge difference between a freshman and a sophomore... and that's in a non-contact sport. In a contact or collision sport (Bill Russell made that BB versus FB distinction many years ago), building muscle is vital even if you do it without "juice". I'm sure Phaedrus was referring to why the NFL doesn't want 18 year olds. You can play volleyball at a very high level without PEDs. It's nearly impossible to play some positions in the NFL without PEDs. Yes I was. Thank you FUBAR
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Aug 3, 2020 12:50:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Aug 3, 2020 13:22:34 GMT -5
Of all things, why are UNIVERSITIES subsidizing these sports? And to a more indirect extent, why are university football and basketball teams subsidizing several dozen Olympic sports? Commentators aren't incorrect when they note the massive wealth transfer from primarily lower-income athletes to wealthier, whiter athletes playing niche sports. There are all sorts of issues here so lets unpack them: First, do the players really create the value in college football and basketball? There are no minor league sports anywhere around the world that are anywhere near as profitable as college football and basketball. If the Columbus Buckeyes played the Ann Arbor Wolverines in a game of minor league football would anyone care? The allure of college sports is created more the universities and their alumni bases than by the minor league competitors in those sports. Second, it isn't like the teams are owned by some rich individuals that are making a bunch of money. They are owned by universities that are all not for profit organizations. Third, as you noted, almost all athletic departments either break even or lose money. Any money that goes to football or basketball players has to come from cutting sports. This would be bad for women's volleyball and crushing for mens. Fourth, your liberal values are going to clash here. While you are right that you are subsidizing nicher, whiter sports. Title 9 literally demands that you do that. Pretty ironic.... Alternatively, we could create racial targets and affirmative action for white football and basketball players.... Finally, no one is forcing anyone to go to college. Many go there because college can help prepare them for a career. Many go straight to the job market or drop out before finishing. If you don't want to go to college you can play basketball overseas or go play Canadian football. The idea that these alternatives aren't that attractive should be an indication to you that these players aren't really exploited..... First, they create value by being BETTER football players than those on the other teams. The idea that Ohio St. could replace its team with a bunch of scrubs and still be making money in a decade is ludicrous. Secondly, there's an entire ecosystem of people making money (have you seen the map of highest-paid state employees)? Third, yes. It would. Olympic sports need to find another way to survive besides pumping parents for upwards of five-figures a year for the dream of a college scholarship. Fourth, I'm not even going to engage here. But you do you boo. Fifth, Yes, athletes are forced to go to college to progress in their sport. Alternative routes are either non-existent or frowned upon because the NCAA fills up the space for all of those. basketball prospects get dinged for going foreign, god knows how NFL scouts would react to someone skipping NCAA for college ball. The alternatives aren't attractive precisely because the NCAA is taking up their space.
|
|
|
Post by Murina on Aug 3, 2020 13:26:23 GMT -5
I get that. But I think your frame of reference is limited. Neither Belarus or Romania have anything analogous to the NCAA but both have pro volley leagues. Judging the viability of pro sports based on our current sporting landscape, is like looking at the fact that U.S. prescription drug prices are 4000% higher than the rest of the world and imagining that we, as a nation, couldn't change that. What are sports like in those countries? I genuinely have no clue. I assume soccer is big there, but are those volleyball leagues sustainable behind no fewer than 5 massive, established pro sports leagues? What is the pay like in those leagues? Enough that somebody like Kathryn Plummer would want the paycheck instead of a degree from Stanford? Great questions. It is rare in countries like Belarus that teams are "professional" in any way resembling what they are in the USA. There is little to no pay for most of the players and coaches. That's why the ones who are able "escape" to Russia or western European teams. Most Americans would be shocked to realize how few "professional" European clubs have more than one or two full time employees apart from some of the players & coaches. It's also important to understand that at least in Italy, there is NO PROFESSIONAL VOLLEYBALL (soccer, cycling & basketball are the only professional team sports in Italy). But isn't Italy of the biggest leagues? Yes, but the legal structure is amateur - and that is important because it has allowed it to exist for the last 70 years. I believe this is generally similar across most, if not all, of Europe but I can only speak with authority about Italy. What does it mean to be an amateur club: it means that clubs aren't required to pay for catastrophic injury insurance for their players, or pay for them to go to private medical hospitals/clinics if they are injured. It means clubs aren't required to pay into their player's retirement benefits. It means that contracts can be broken quite easily because the player is ostensibly playing "for the love of the game." It means that the clubs can raise money much more easily than if they were professional. It means there are fewer legal hoops to jump through (in normal times - in COVID times this is different) in order to get a foreign player into the team. There is actually a movement on the men's side of Italian volleyball to professionalize Serie A. It would be good for the players, and some clubs think it would be good for them. They are still a few years away from that move if it ever happens. My point is that there is an underlying legal structure that allows a quasi-"professional" structure to exist (apart from schools) in non-revenue sports in Europe that doesn't exist in the USA. It's wrong to say that "if they can have professional volleyball in Switzerland we can do it here in the USA" without understanding why it works in the other country. 100 years ago amateur sport in the USA developed through schools and over time the laws have been written to accommodate that (anti-trust exemptions and things like that). In Europe amateur sport developed apart from schools and the laws were written to reflect the realities in each country.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 3, 2020 13:28:18 GMT -5
Enough that somebody like Kathryn Plummer would want the paycheck instead of a degree from Stanford? You get why this isn't a good question right? Nothing in Belarus is paid as well as it is in the U.S. because the cost of living here is so much higher. A MUCH better question is, if she'd been born Italian (the country she played in last season), would KP be wealthier and a better volleyball player right now? I think it's really hard to imagine a world where the answer to both of those questions isn't a resounding yes. Absolutely. But there's no way volleyball gains the popularity here that it has in Italy. Heck, there are two other women's sports alone that have figured out a legitimate pro league way before volleyball (four if you want to count the WTA and LPGA). I think the vast majority of college volleyball fans are loyal to their school first but also enjoy volleyball. What other explanation is there for Team USA drawing way lower numbers in Nebraska than the Cornhuskers do. Presumably, people are traveling from throughout the country for a rare chance to see Team USA and still they have bad attendance numbers despite 1/3 of the team being Nebraska alumnae. Your arguments are based on the assumption that the NCAA folding would result in an immediately-viable league, and that is preferable. I disagree with the premise. (I also disagree that it would be better)
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 3, 2020 13:41:02 GMT -5
First, they create value by being BETTER football players than those on the other teams. The idea that Ohio St. could replace its team with a bunch of scrubs and still be making money in a decade is ludicrous. Strongly disagree with this. Yeah, if it's just Ohio State replacing with scrubs, you're right because they'd go 0-12. But even Ohio State and Clemson would get crushed by NFL teams. College plays on Saturday with a vastly inferior on-field product, yet draws WAY more people to the stadium than the NFL does on Sunday. The level of play isn't the draw to college football. If all 120 teams get worse but the parity stays the same, I think you only lose a very small percentage of fans. I guess that's fair. I just am not bothered by people making lots of money. Would athletes be happy if coaches had a salary cap and all net profits were donated to charity? Or, more likely, wouldn't survive. Which is fine if that's what we prefer. But I think in the long run, every sport (including football and basketball) would decline in international relevance as a result of this. I don't think minor league football or basketball is profitable without ties to universities and the fanaticism of alumni. So those sports get worse, and then obviously the vast majority of Olympic sport training is crushed. USA's success at the Olympics in swimming, track, etc., would go away.
|
|
|
Post by Murina on Aug 3, 2020 13:42:14 GMT -5
Let's not overstate the popularity of volleyball in Italy. There is a small number of teams that can draw more than a few hundred fans on average. Even in Serie A1 average crowds are between 2000-3000, and that includes a few clubs who can draw 4000+ and a few clubs that struggle to draw 1000 in the same league. Without subsidies volleyball in Italy would be a much lower level sport.
|
|
|
Post by knapplc on Aug 3, 2020 13:46:01 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2020 13:46:03 GMT -5
You get why this isn't a good question right? Nothing in Belarus is paid as well as it is in the U.S. because the cost of living here is so much higher. A MUCH better question is, if she'd been born Italian (the country she played in last season), would KP be wealthier and a better volleyball player right now? I think it's really hard to imagine a world where the answer to both of those questions isn't a resounding yes. Absolutely. But there's no way volleyball gains the popularity here that it has in Italy. Heck, there are two other women's sports alone that have figured out a legitimate pro league way before volleyball (four if you want to count the WTA and LPGA). I think the vast majority of college volleyball fans are loyal to their school first but also enjoy volleyball. What other explanation is there for Team USA drawing way lower numbers in Nebraska than the Cornhuskers do. Presumably, people are traveling from throughout the country for a rare chance to see Team USA and still they have bad attendance numbers despite 1/3 of the team being Nebraska alumnae. Your arguments are based on the assumption that the NCAA folding would result in an immediately-viable league, and that is preferable. I disagree with the premise. (I also disagree that it would be better) You're entitled to that opinion. No one knows conclusively either way because of the business college sports has become. I think it's pretty clear the current model is no longer sustainable. I'm interested to see what is next.
|
|