Deadweight makes "Deadspin". . .

[Courthouse Carp]

Headline says it all:

http://deadspin.com/athletic-directors-plead-their-case-for-the-ncaa-spew-1794392052

 

[RegionWarrior101]

The next thing the athletes are going to want is for us to feed them...

 

[Frankie611]

The next thing the athletes are going to want is for us to feed them...

I am probably missing an inside joke but they get meal plans on scholarship

 

[RegionWarrior101]

I am probably missing an inside joke but they get meal plans on scholarship

His quote about "Some people think they get too much already."

 

[TC4THREE]

They do get too much. Haven't seen a case even come close to proving otherwise.

 

[RegionWarrior101]

They do get too much. Haven't seen a case even come close to proving otherwise.

With the money generated by the BCS and NCAA tournament (especially when forced to attend for a year) I will agree to disagree. Fairly compensated might be apt. And Athletic Departments may lose $$ on most other sports but with this TV $ no major institution is going broke.

 

[TC4THREE]

With the money generated by the BCS and NCAA tournament (especially when forced to attend for a year) I will agree to disagree. Fairly compensated might be apt. And Athletic Departments may lose $$ on most other sports but with this TV $ no major institution is going broke.

Highlighted the key words for you. Those make money because people care about the brands the athletes choose to play for, not because anyone cares about the individual athletes themselves. Want proof? Name the athlete that Purdue didn't get that caused you to stop following Purdue.

McDonald's needs people to flip burgers too but that doesn't mean all the revenue McDonald's generates is owed to them. They are providing a service that is replaceable. If they don't do it, McDonald's will find someone else who will. Same deal with the athletes. I'm not going to stop watching Purdue because Caleb Swanigan won't be there next year and I wouldn't watch the Fort Wayne Mad Ants, or hell...even any NBA team, because he was playing there. I am only interested in him because he represents the Purdue brand or possibly other players because they represent a brand I have other interests in cheering for or against. Unless I know the player personally, it would be very rare I'd tune into a game specifically to watch a player.

 

[RegionWarrior101]

TV ratings are much higher than 10 years ago with better players (Adam Morrison vs. JJ Reddick). Players drive the sport to casual fan, the TV fan. That and gambling but that is another issue.

 

[TC4THREE]

TV ratings are much higher than 10 years ago with better players (Adam Morrison vs. JJ Reddick). Players drive the sport to casual fan, the TV fan. That and gambling but that is another issue.

Again, what player did Purdue not land that caused you to lose interest?

 

[joseole101]

Again, what player did Purdue not land that caused you to lose interest?

Congrats! You prompted me to make my first post on here, TC4THREE. I just wanted to say that I couldn't agree with you more. I was talking to a friend (he's not a college sports fan) the other day, and he casually made a remark about how the NCAA is the last vestige of slavery remaining in the US. Needless to say, it really pissed me off.

People know these players BECAUSE of the university. There is a reason that the NBA one and done rule exists: people, for the most part, are far less interested in a no-name athlete that goes pro straight out of high school than they are in a kid that comes from an program that they've heard of. You could counter that by saying, "buy wait a minute, Caleb Swanigan was a US gold medalist before coming to Purdue, so he already had some name recognition." Right, and how many people watched those games? 1. I bet it's a very small number, and 2. I bet the far majority of the people watching were college fans trying to get some info on their school's next prize recruit. There is also a reason why people don't take the Brandon Jennings approach and go play in Europe: they can't benefit from the brand of a major college sports team.

Also, you don't change the entire financial regulations of the NCAA because of an instance like a Caleb Swanigan that represents less than 1% of college athletes out there.

 

[FirstDownB]

Headline says it all:

http://deadspin.com/athletic-directors-plead-their-case-for-the-ncaa-spew-1794392052

So much for MB just going back into the stands. Regardless of your stance on the particular issue, it is not in the best interest of Purdue athletics for a former AD to be making headlines pontificating on controversial issues. He has no accountability for his words, yet his words still reflect on the Purdue brand. This is a broken promise. He is a crusader of a lost cause, who seems to be set on going down with the ship, tied to the mast.

Regardless of being identified as former AD, his statements do reflect back on Purdue athletics and he continues to affect the brand. The best thing he could do is to just go away quietly like he promised and let Bobinski do his job, which includes repairing the image of Purdue athletics that MB had a big role in creating.

 

[boilermaker75]

So much for MB just going back into the stands. Regardless of your stance on the particular issue, it is not in the best interest of Purdue athletics for a former AD to be making headlines pontificating on controversial issues. He has no accountability for his words, yet his words still reflect on the Purdue brand. This is a broken promise. He is a crusader of a lost cause, who seems to be set on going down with the ship, tied to the mast.

Regardless of being identified as former AD, his statements do reflect back on Purdue athletics and he continues to affect the brand. The best thing he could do is to just go away quietly like he promised and let Bobinski do his job, which includes repairing the image of Purdue athletics that MB had a big role in creating.

Burke is a legend in his own mind and won't shut up. Daniels needs to tell him to shut up.

 

[pastorjoeboggs]

Again, what player did Purdue not land that caused you to lose interest?

The relationship between the athletes and the university's notoriety and financial success is symbiotic. Sure, the inertia of the NCAA and BCS would keep them going for some time if all of the top players refused to play without getting paid. But eventually, the dearth of talent would cause a drop in interest and the concomitant drop in revenue.

Look no further than our own football program for an example. When we had talented players and were winning, the stands were full. When we stopped having players on the national stage and stopped winning, the stands emptied out rather quickly. The financial hit had to have been massive, no?

When it comes to paying athletes, my thought process is somewhat of a middle way. Other students that get full rides (academic, for example), have the opportunity to work a part time job to earn money. Athletes have no time to do that. Their sport is their job. I have no problem with compensating them at a reasonable level (standardized across the NCAA) for the work they do for the University. It doesn't have to be a ridiculous amount or tied to the revenue at all. It could be a small weekly stipend.

 

[BoilerBulldog]

The relationship between the athletes and the university's notoriety and financial success is symbiotic. Sure, the inertia of the NCAA and BCS would keep them going for some time if all of the top players refused to play without getting paid. But eventually, the dearth of talent would cause a drop in interest and the concomitant drop in revenue.

Look no further than our own football program for an example. When we had talented players and were winning, the stands were full. When we stopped having players on the national stage and stopped winning, the stands emptied out rather quickly. The financial hit had to have been massive, no?

When it comes to paying athletes, my thought process is somewhat of a middle way. Other students that get full rides (academic, for example), have the opportunity to work a part time job to earn money. Athletes have no time to do that. Their sport is their job. I have no problem with compensating them at a reasonable level (standardized across the NCAA) for the work they do for the University. It doesn't have to be a ridiculous amount or tied to the revenue at all. It could be a small weekly stipend.

I thought they are getting stipends now already?

 

[Bippus33]

So much for MB just going back into the stands. Regardless of your stance on the particular issue, it is not in the best interest of Purdue athletics for a former AD to be making headlines pontificating on controversial issues. He has no accountability for his words, yet his words still reflect on the Purdue brand. This is a broken promise. He is a crusader of a lost cause, who seems to be set on going down with the ship, tied to the mast.

Regardless of being identified as former AD, his statements do reflect back on Purdue athletics and he continues to affect the brand. The best thing he could do is to just go away quietly like he promised and let Bobinski do his job, which includes repairing the image of Purdue athletics that MB had a big role in creating.

Well said. MB.....please go away!!!

 

[TC4THREE]

Look no further than our own football program for an example. When we had talented players and were winning, the stands were full. When we stopped having players on the national stage and stopped winning, the stands emptied out rather quickly. The financial hit had to have been massive, no?

The only problem is that not everyone can lose at the same time. There will always be a winner in each game. Some team will always win their conference. Someone will always play in the playoffs/tournament and win the national title. Yea it has hurt Purdue to lose. It hasn't hurt Iowa or Wisconsin or our other division foes that feast on us each year. They have actually benefited from our misfortune.

There probably is a point at which the product would become so poor that people would not continue to watch but I don't think we are even close to that point. If the top 5% of college athletes were to "go on strike", for lack of a better term, we'd see them replaced with decent athletes and people would still watch their favorite teams or cheer against their hated rivals. The NBA developmental league is made up of players who were among the best at the college level and is undoubtedly a more talented product than what you see in college basketball. Still, nobody cares about it or watches is because college basketball fans aren't looking for the most talented players.

 

[Courthouse Carp]

. . . his statements do reflect back on Purdue athletics and he continues to affect the brand. The best thing he could do is to just go away quietly like he promised and let Bobinski do his job, which includes repairing the image of Purdue athletics that MB had a big role in creating.

I strongly agree with everything you typed in this solid post, especially the last part, which will be a monumental task because here is what we currently have:

 

[Heiner]

Highlighted the key words for you. Those make money because people care about the brands the athletes choose to play for, not because anyone cares about the individual athletes themselves. Want proof? Name the athlete that Purdue didn't get that caused you to stop following Purdue.

McDonald's needs people to flip burgers too but that doesn't mean all the revenue McDonald's generates is owed to them. They are providing a service that is replaceable. If they don't do it, McDonald's will find someone else who will. Same deal with the athletes. I'm not going to stop watching Purdue because Caleb Swanigan won't be there next year and I wouldn't watch the Fort Wayne Mad Ants, or hell...even any NBA team, because he was playing there. I am only interested in him because he represents the Purdue brand or possibly other players because they represent a brand I have other interests in cheering for or against. Unless I know the player personally, it would be very rare I'd tune into a game specifically to watch a player.

Exactly this. Never saw Glenn Robinson in the NBA after watching him play numerous times as a Boiler. I'm having a hard time coming up with an example of attending a game or even tuning in to one because of a player. I am a fan of the Bears no matter if Walter Payton or Cyril Pender is in the backfield. More fun with sweetness though.

 

[boilermaker75]

Exactly this. Never saw Glenn Robinson in the NBA after watching him play numerous times as a Boiler. I'm having a hard time coming up with an example of attending a game or even tuning in to one because of a player. I am a fan of the Bears no matter if Walter Payton or Cyril Pender is in the backfield. More fun with sweetness though.

Same with me. I saw every game Glenn played in Mackey, but I don't think I ever saw one of his NBA games.

The only exception for me is Drew Brees. Whenever the Saints are on I catch the game to see Drew play.

 

[student'10]

The only problem is that not everyone can lose at the same time. There will always be a winner in each game. Some team will always win their conference. Someone will always play in the playoffs/tournament and win the national title. Yea it has hurt Purdue to lose. It hasn't hurt Iowa or Wisconsin or our other division foes that feast on us each year. They have actually benefited from our misfortune.

There probably is a point at which the product would become so poor that people would not continue to watch but I don't think we are even close to that point. If the top 5% of college athletes were to "go on strike", for lack of a better term, we'd see them replaced with decent athletes and people would still watch their favorite teams or cheer against their hated rivals. The NBA developmental league is made up of players who were among the best at the college level and is undoubtedly a more talented product than what you see in college basketball. Still, nobody cares about it or watches is because college basketball fans aren't looking for the most talented players.

I'm with you on everything you said and you have posted everything that I would want to say. The players know what they are getting themselves into when they sign up.

 

[PUBV]

Highlighted the key words for you. Those make money because people care about the brands the athletes choose to play for, not because anyone cares about the individual athletes themselves. Want proof? Name the athlete that Purdue didn't get that caused you to stop following Purdue.

McDonald's needs people to flip burgers too but that doesn't mean all the revenue McDonald's generates is owed to them. They are providing a service that is replaceable. If they don't do it, McDonald's will find someone else who will. Same deal with the athletes. I'm not going to stop watching Purdue because Caleb Swanigan won't be there next year and I wouldn't watch the Fort Wayne Mad Ants, or hell...even any NBA team, because he was playing there. I am only interested in him because he represents the Purdue brand or possibly other players because they represent a brand I have other interests in cheering for or against. Unless I know the player personally, it would be very rare I'd tune into a game specifically to watch a player.

The McDonald's comparison makes no sense. You, me, practically anybody can flip a burger. Whether you think they are over or under compensated, they possess a unique talent that should be compensated to the extent they can wring from the system. I'm sure the stands would be filled to the rafters if the top players walked and were replaced by co-rec level talent

 

[TC4THREE]

The McDonald's comparison makes no sense. You, me, practically anybody can flip a burger. Whether you think they are over or under compensated, they possess a unique talent that should be compensated to the extent they can wring from the system. I'm sure the stands would be filled to the rafters if the top players walked and were replaced by co-rec level talent

I'd question how unique their talent is if hundreds of colleges across the country fill their teams with athletes in each sport with many more kids each year working hard to try to get a scholarship but falling short. It is more unique than flipping a burger at McDonald's, I'll give you that but the vast majority of scholarships are for sports that generate barely any revenue and certainly less than the cost of that scholarship.

The problem is that they are still very replaceable. How many athletes do you think would have to quit before there wouldn't be another step up and take that scholarship that the first athlete felt "exploited" by? How far down the ladder do you think it would it have to get before fans would stop watching? Are those two points even remotely close?

 

[FirstDownB]

I'd question how unique their talent is if hundreds of colleges across the country fill their teams with athletes in each sport with many more kids each year working hard to try to get a scholarship but falling short. It is more unique than flipping a burger at McDonald's, I'll give you that but the vast majority of scholarships are for sports that generate barely any revenue and certainly less than the cost of that scholarship.

The problem is that they are still very replaceable. How many athletes do you think would have to quit before there wouldn't be another step up and take that scholarship that the first athlete felt "exploited" by? How far down the ladder do you think it would it have to get before fans would stop watching? Are those two points even remotely close?

Nope. The two points are not remotely close. As long as OSU is piling up wins, I don't think they would ever have to demonstrate the ability to complete a forward pass. In fact, that pretty much describes their football history in a nutshell..

College sports fans care mostly about pride and loyalty and want to see their team accomplish great things relative to their peers, such as making bowl games and beating rivals. Seeing great individual athleticism is the icing on the cake, but pales in comparison to winning. If all this wasn't true college sports would not be nearly as popular as the pros, because it is plainly obvious that the pros are much more talented overall. It is why OSU and Alabama have many more fans than the Jacksonville Jaguars. You could replace all the D1 athletes with D2 athletes and nothing much would change as long as the big boy programs are still competing for championships. Talent is all relative to what you are competing against.

 

[PUBV]

Nope. The two points are not remotely close. As long as OSU is piling up wins, I don't think they would ever have to demonstrate the ability to complete a forward pass. In fact, that pretty much describes their football history in a nutshell..

College sports fans care mostly about pride and loyalty and want to see their team accomplish great things relative to their peers, such as making bowl games and beating rivals. Seeing great individual athleticism is the icing on the cake, but pales in comparison to winning. If all this wasn't true college sports would not be nearly as popular as the pros, because it is plainly obvious that the pros are much more talented overall. It is why OSU and Alabama have many more fans than the Jacksonville Jaguars. You could replace all the D1 athletes with D2 athletes and nothing much would change as long as the big boy programs are still competing for championships. Talent is all relative to what you are competing against.

Sure college sports fans love the College name on the jersey, but you can't separate talent from winning. You have to have talented players to win, it's not just icing on the cake. Nor can you say that replacing all D1 players with D2 players would generate the same excitement because it's all relative to what your competing against. Your arbitrarily removing the most talented players just to prove your point. Hey, we'd all be happy with flip phones if talented minds didn't progress technology further. It would all be relative right if we existed in a vacuum, if I didn't know better existed. And comparing Jacksonvilles following to Alabamas is like comparing Jacksonvilles following to UTEP or Old Dominons following. We can't be capitalistic wonks about everything else, but then say athletes shouldn't try to leverage their talents to get whatever the market will give them.

 

[FirstDownB]

Sure college sports fans love the College name on the jersey, but you can't separate talent from winning. You have to have talented players to win, it's not just icing on the cake. Nor can you say that replacing all D1 players with D2 players would generate the same excitement because it's all relative to what your competing against. Your arbitrarily removing the most talented players just to prove your point. Hey, we'd all be happy with flip phones if talented minds didn't progress technology further. It would all be relative right if we existed in a vacuum, if I didn't know better existed. And comparing Jacksonvilles following to Alabamas is like comparing Jacksonvilles following to UTEP or Old Dominons following. We can't be capitalistic wonks about everything else, but then say athletes shouldn't try to leverage their talents to get whatever the market will give them.

You don't have to have talented players to win. You just need better players than your competition. You seem to acknowledge this fact but not acknowlege that without the most talented players, all other players would move up in the pecking order. There is nothing arbitrary about removing the best players. Those are the players that supposedly have the argument of being "irreplaceable".
That was my point with replacing D1 players with D2 players. If you were to cut away the top talent from college football, however deep you want to, schools like Alabama and OSU would still be first in line to get the top players out of what's left and would win just the same. Sure that is taking it to the extreme to prove a point, but scale it however you want based in how many players you think have some marketable value and the point remains.
FYI I'm all for the free market. Let's have someone create a football minor league that allows an player to get paid straight out of high school. Oh that's right, it would never be profitable because without the attachment to schools and their alumni bases, no one would care to watch.

 

[PUBV]

You don't have to have talented players to win. You just need better players than your competition. You seem to acknowledge this fact but not acknowlege that without the most talented players, all other players would move up in the pecking order. There is nothing arbitrary about removing the best players. Those are the players that supposedly have the argument of being "irreplaceable".
That was my point with replacing D1 players with D2 players. If you were to cut away the top talent from college football, however deep you want to, schools like Alabama and OSU would still be first in line to get the top players out of what's left and would win just the same. Sure that is taking it to the extreme to prove a point, but scale it however you want based in how many players you think have some marketable value and the point remains.
FYI I'm all for the free market. Let's have someone create a football minor league that allows an player to get paid straight out of high school. Oh that's right, it would never be profitable because without the attachment to schools and their alumni bases, no one would care to watch.

If your players are "better" than your competitors, aren't they more talented? More physically gifted, more savvy, etc? Thank you for pointing out you need better players to win.
By mentioning the alabamas and OSUs all the time, you seem to be steering the conversation towards the haves & the have nots which I don't think this discussion started as. I thought it was about what is an athletes talent worth to a school? I'm thinking for an unorganized group to get what they get, it's worth a heck of a lot more.
Again, to say removing the cream of the crop and allowing lesser talented players to fill the void because it's all relative and we'd all fill the stadiums regardless, I just disagree. If the average American weighed 2 bills, my 185 would be skinny because it's all relative. If they never invented TV with sound I'd be content with that because, it's all relative. You can basically make that argument about anything, and it's weak. Has there ever been a time when replacement players took over for striking players? How'd that work out? I know it was the pros but, cmon man.
Also disagree with your point about minor league sports. If college sports were abolished and the best high school athletes played for minor league teams affiliated with individual cities, uh yeah I'd pay to see that.
By the way, my little single A baseball team here in South Bend drew over 350,000 fans last year. Minor league sports, am I right?

 

[FirstDownB]

If your players are "better" than your competitors, aren't they more talented? More physically gifted, more savvy, etc? Thank you for pointing out you need better players to win.
By mentioning the alabamas and OSUs all the time, you seem to be steering the conversation towards the haves & the have nots which I don't think this discussion started as. I thought it was about what is an athletes talent worth to a school? I'm thinking for an unorganized group to get what they get, it's worth a heck of a lot more.
Again, to say removing the cream of the crop and allowing lesser talented players to fill the void because it's all relative and we'd all fill the stadiums regardless, I just disagree. If the average American weighed 2 bills, my 185 would be skinny because it's all relative. If they never invented TV with sound I'd be content with that because, it's all relative. You can basically make that argument about anything, and it's weak. Has there ever been a time when replacement players took over for striking players? How'd that work out? I know it was the pros but, cmon man.
Also disagree with your point about minor league sports. If college sports were abolished and the best high school athletes played for minor league teams affiliated with individual cities, uh yeah I'd pay to see that.
By the way, my little single A baseball team here in South Bend drew over 350,000 fans last year. Minor league sports, am I right?

This discussion is meandering all over the place with the sub-points, so I'll just circle back to my main point- which was agreeing with TC that individual players are highly replaceable in college sports. You may not agree with every one of the points as to why, but surely you must see that overall college sports fan interest is overwhelmingly tied to school and program affiliation and has little to do with individual athlete branding or marketing.

The degree to which an individual player contributes to the value of a team is the heart of 'replaceability'. The point that athletic prowess it is relative is exactly the point. I don't see why you think that is weak. Do you think it matters how the number one RB recruit in the country compares to Bo Jackson? No, all that matters is where he is relative to his peers who he will be competing against. If he were to not exist another guy would be the #1 RB in his class and would be sought after just the same in recruiting. That is pretty much the definition of value and replaceabilty as I see it. It has nothing to do with the value of the program to the school and everything to do with the value of the player (player value - replacement value) to the program.
This is an interesting discussion, so I thank you for participating. Perhaps we will 'agree to disagree' as they say. Lovely spring weekend, isn't it?

 

[uelnesm]

To meander to a different point....MB is likely on to something...

I Have read many pieces on the ongoing implosion of ESPN.

https://www.si.com/tech-media/2017/05/07/espn-layoffs-impact-media-circus

The above article is very good and links to 15+ other sources of information "why" ESPN is struggling. I found very interesting.

There are many points of view on the struggles of ESPN, but for sure they overpaid for the NFL, NBA and other live events. They are losing viewers at a significant pace and It also seems as though the models of conference networks are problematic. The Longhorn network being A1 example.

It does not take too much of a wild imagination to ponder a future where BIg time college athletics significantly fades over the next decade.

TV ratings are trending down, people are cutting cord and relying on the internet and I think overall interest in mainstream sports is starting to drop (see NFL ratings last year). ESPN ratings are down significantly and it is expected they will be losing money (likely not to recover) staring in 2020 (if not sooner).

I could see a scenario where BIG revenues from the television contract goes backwards and revenues across the league come back to earth. Therefore, a measured approach to spending Is prudent.

So, in reality, MB argument that student athletes are compensated 'fairly' is possibly a valid point of view.

This is no excuse for the state of Purdue athletics.

 

[TC4THREE]

I wouldn't mind seeing public interest shift away from sports to some degree. It has become far too important to many people and I am guilty of that sometimes as well. I just hope it is accompanied by a shift away from TV and movies as well.

 

[ossim]

When you consider the skyrocketing price of tuition, the fact they won't be leaving school in a mountain of debt is fair compensation. One could certainly argue that those exorbitant prices for a college education are ridiculous in the first place, but at this point, a student who is working a full time job and going to school at Purdue would probably still be in debt. Ultimately, the onus is on the athlete to take their education seriously and understand the value in it because it seems the future is not heading in a direction where a path to higher education is going to be an open road.