|
Post by n00b on Aug 3, 2020 13:47:15 GMT -5
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. Why do you think it's no longer sustainable? Because some Pac-12 football players are threatening a boycott?
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Aug 3, 2020 13:57:30 GMT -5
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. But the system your describing still requires an arms race to get the best players at that level.. .and we end up right where we are now. I'd be happy if the net profits were allocated more fairly to those producing it. Not just an in-kind offer of a college education that can't fully be taken advantage of and one that many don't even want. Other high income nations have very successful programs in Olympic sports. They wouldn't go away, but huge structural changes would have to take place. Do you know how many foreign Olympians in track and swimming we are training as well?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2020 14:08:59 GMT -5
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. Why do you think it's no longer sustainable? Because some Pac-12 football players are threatening a boycott? Did to read the article I posted? The P5 are actively working to undermine the NCAA with a potential breakaway occurring. That combined with the issues around athlete compensation and the post Covid financial situation for athletic departments suggests changes are coming.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,381
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 3, 2020 14:09:29 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 think we saw this with Men's college basketball. The level of play and quality of players is significantly worse now than it was in the 1980's. Yet the fan interest (measured by amount of money) is higher than ever. We can talk about the quality of the players driving the money - but it is the attachment to a University that is drawing the money.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Aug 3, 2020 14:13:18 GMT -5
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 think we saw this with Men's college basketball. The level of play and quality of players is significantly worse now than it was in the 1980's. Yet the fan interest (measured by amount of money) is higher than ever. We can talk about the quality of the players driving the money - but it is the attachment to a University that is drawing the money. This isn't even close to true. The level of play, depth of the field and overall athleticism is way, way higher nowadays. But I don't really understand this line of argument. These players are still driving insane amounts of money to their universities. Universities need the best players available to win enough to continue this cash flow. THAT is why the players are driving value.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,381
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 3, 2020 14:23:56 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. In Grad School - I had to take a couple classes of 'Institutional Economics'. I had never heard of it before or since. This was popular back in the early 1900's. If one was to assign a political lean to this philosophy- it would be Liberal or opposition to Capitalism. The essence of this school of economics is that Imbecile Institutions exist from traditions that make no modern sense, doesn't relate to the stated reasons, and/or serves no economic good. Thorstein Veblen is the father of Institutional Economics - and he would talk about how college sports is a prime example of an Imbecile Institution. Particularly college football - why are Universities, who stated goal is higher education, in the business of big money sports? His answer is - because of 'tradition' and an unwillingness to change from something that really makes no sense. He was talking about college football in the 1920's when he wrote about this (Veblen died in 1929). I am not an Institutional Economist - but I do believe there are many Imbecile Institutions in America, such as college sports. I like sports, I like college sports. I would hate to see dramatic change that eliminates or makes worse something I enjoy. But I still get back to this idea of college sports - and think there is a better solution than the status quo.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 3, 2020 14:26:32 GMT -5
I think we saw this with Men's college basketball. The level of play and quality of players is significantly worse now than it was in the 1980's. Yet the fan interest (measured by amount of money) is higher than ever. We can talk about the quality of the players driving the money - but it is the attachment to a University that is drawing the money. This isn't even close to true. The level of play, depth of the field and overall athleticism is way, way higher nowadays. But I don't really understand this line of argument. These players are still driving insane amounts of money to their universities. Universities need the best players available to win enough to continue this cash flow. THAT is why the players are driving value. If the players are easily replaceable and profit will be made regardless of the athletes, then I disagree that players are driving value.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Aug 3, 2020 14:30:24 GMT -5
This isn't even close to true. The level of play, depth of the field and overall athleticism is way, way higher nowadays. But I don't really understand this line of argument. These players are still driving insane amounts of money to their universities. Universities need the best players available to win enough to continue this cash flow. THAT is why the players are driving value. If the players are easily replaceable and profit will be made regardless of the athletes, then I disagree that players are driving value. If the players are easily replaceable, why is so much time and money spent on recruiting them? I don't throw the term 'gaslighting' around easily, but man....
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,381
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 3, 2020 14:31:13 GMT -5
I think we saw this with Men's college basketball. The level of play and quality of players is significantly worse now than it was in the 1980's. Yet the fan interest (measured by amount of money) is higher than ever. We can talk about the quality of the players driving the money - but it is the attachment to a University that is drawing the money. This isn't even close to true. The level of play, depth of the field and overall athleticism is way, way higher nowadays. But I don't really understand this line of argument. These players are still driving insane amounts of money to their universities. Universities need the best players available to win enough to continue this cash flow. THAT is why the players are driving value. There would be a dozen or more teams that would have 5 or 6 great NBA players on their roster in the 1980's. Today, it is rare if there is more than 2 or 3 teams with anything close to this - and they will always be just Freshman. The gap between the NBA and college basketball today is significantly higher than what it was in the 1980's when the greatest players in the world were playing 3 or 4 years of college basketball. I am all in favor of allowing the players get their value by playing the sport. However, the contention is that it is the school name on the jersey that is mostly driving that money. Put these players into a D league - and I would be willing bet the house that you aren't going to get the rabid fanbase that currently exists for Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke, Kansas, Michigan State, etc...
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Aug 3, 2020 14:34:38 GMT -5
However, the contention is that it is the school name on the jersey that is mostly driving that money. Put these players into a D league - and I would be willing bet the house that you aren't going to get the rabid fanbase that currently exists for Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke, Kansas, Michigan State, etc... Very true, that is why I think a professional women's volleyball league would fail pretty quickly in the US.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Aug 3, 2020 14:34:59 GMT -5
This isn't even close to true. The level of play, depth of the field and overall athleticism is way, way higher nowadays. But I don't really understand this line of argument. These players are still driving insane amounts of money to their universities. Universities need the best players available to win enough to continue this cash flow. THAT is why the players are driving value. There would be a dozen or more teams that would have 5 or 6 great NBA players on their roster in the 1980's. Today, it is rare if there is more than 2 or 3 teams with anything close to this - and they will always be just Freshman. The gap between the NBA and college basketball today is significantly higher than what it was in the 1980's when the greatest players in the world were playing 3 or 4 years of college basketball. I am all in favor of allowing the players get their value by playing the sport. However, the contention is that it is the school name on the jersey that is mostly driving that money. Put these players into a D league - and I would be willing bet the house that you aren't going to get the rabid fanbase that currently exists for Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke, Kansas, Michigan State, etc... Please cite the dozen college teams with 6 "great" NBA players on them in the 1980s. And also how much you think they'd lose to a top college team of today to by. They'd go into the D League and they'd earn more than they do currently! And some would earn way more if NBA's age rule were abolished.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,381
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 3, 2020 14:35:49 GMT -5
If the players are easily replaceable and profit will be made regardless of the athletes, then I disagree that players are driving value. If the players are easily replaceable, why is so much time and money spent on recruiting them? I don't throw the term 'gaslighting' around easily, but man.... It is relative. There is a ton of money to be had. If we took the 100 best HS players in the country and forced them to bypass college basketball. The blue blood basketball universities would continue to recruit the heck out of players 101-120 and compete against each other and make the same amount of money. Just before the one and done - this is what we saw. Only it wasn't the top 100 players, it was the top 10-15. And then the ones that did go to college, if they were really good, they didn't stick around. Didn't matter - as the level of play continued to decrease - the interest in the game didn't drop.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Aug 3, 2020 14:37:20 GMT -5
If the players are easily replaceable, why is so much time and money spent on recruiting them? I don't throw the term 'gaslighting' around easily, but man.... It is relative. There is a ton of money to be had. If we took the 100 best HS players in the country and forced them to bypass college basketball. The blue blood basketball universities would continue to recruit the heck out of players 101-120 and compete against each other and make the same amount of money. Just before the one and done - this is what we saw. Only it wasn't the top 100 players, it was the top 10-15. And then the ones that did go to college, if they were really good, they didn't stick around. Didn't matter - as the level of play continued to decrease - the interest in the game didn't drop. Then those players are still providing value. And the top colleges still need the top players available. There is no perennial losing team generating that revenue.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Aug 3, 2020 14:39:04 GMT -5
I mean, the gap between today's NBA and the NBA of the 1980s is vast, too.
|
|
|
Post by coldsnap on Aug 3, 2020 14:41:49 GMT -5
Man it sounds like we are being very narrow in our sight for this discussion. We need to examine the whole of college sports now cause Covid shut us down and schools are feeling the pinch? Everyone is feeling the pinch and this is gonna hurt for a good while and effect a lot of athletes well beyond this year. That's the real issue here. If we're worried about whether we should change our format and start paying college athletes at a time when these athletes, coaches, staff, admins, are worried what their careers will look like when and if we get back this year then we should have better things to talk about. The system we have is not successful because it's a monopoly, it's successful because it's a great model. Any other model would have to compete with the pro leagues and that ain't gonna happen. The pro leagues don't want anything to do with it. They want colleges to do it cause they can do it better and it doesn't compete with their product. It doesn't cost them anything and if you can go to watch a pro game why would you want to go watch a farm league game. They're both pro but one just gets paid like it and the other one gets minimum wage basically, hardly any fans, lesser coaching, and minimal support. But other than that they are basically the same. It's not college stopping pro leagues, it's that there is no market for it. College athletic departments provide a lot of people their livelihood, a lot of kids fulfillment of their dreams, their education, and their loyalty which results in them and their fellow students paying for the next generations athletic scholarships. Oh and for those advocating a coaches salary as a solution, think about the fact that many coaches donate millions of dollars back those very institutions in the form of buildings and facilities. Roy Williams paid for all the spring sport athlete's scholarships at UNC so the seniors could come back to play to the tune of $600,000. I am in favor of all sports but let's take volleyball since this is a volleyball forum. Take away the college name on the jersey and the fans that fill some of these arenas to the tune of 8000 plus, would not be coming to watch those same players at that rate if it was a pro league. In the absence of college, a pro volleyball league could make it (maybe) but the university name, and the affiliation with that university, is the reason the fans are coming out to watch. It would take years and a hell of a marketing team to make it remotely comparable to what college already has built in. I am all for giving kids a chance to get paid to play if that's what they want. Hopefully someone starts up these leagues and then kids don't have to play for free anymore. The rest of the chumps can still go to college and get a degree, play in front of packed stadiums, make friends, network, mature, and then maybe if they're good enough they can make it to the pros at some point. If not, maybe they can use that degree and those connections to get a job and go back and support their Alma Mater.
|
|