I understand economics very well, I just don't think we should let the market drive everything in our lives. There are alternatives. Other countries regulate things outside of market forces and it works well for them.
Concentration of talent
- Thread starter Sean Miller Fan
- Start date
So then you don't get many people wanting to be teachers? And really it is a more important job than hedge fund manager. I know you won't agree, but I think it is.
The thing that I love is that I work for government, and my salary is almost 3 times the median income currently. Twenty years ago when private sector salaries where up, people would say it's justified that government salaries are lower, now that our salaries are better in many cases you say we are overpaid. It's a joke, when the market said we where underpaid, that was OK, but now that we're overpaid compared to the market, it's not! LOL! Well I'll happily cash my overpaid check and take my six weeks vacation, THANK GOD I LIVE OUTSIDE MARKET FORCES! LOL 
Back to the topic, I guess the consensus here is that most people want to see Bama vs. Clemson in the CFB playoffs for 20 straight years, and won't watch if Purdue or Missouri get in. So basically that's fine, I'll just watch the Pitt games. That's 12-13 games per year, that's enough.
There are ton of people who want to be teachers and many that are capable of being successful at it. While there maybe many people who want to be hedge fund managers not many are capable of doing the job successfully. Is that really that hard to understand?
Are you a hedge fund manager? Or a teacher? How do you know how many could be successful at either? There are surely hedge fund managers that couldn't hack being teachers and vice versa.
The thing that I love is that I work for government, and my salary is almost 3 times the median income currently. Twenty years ago when private sector salaries where up, people would say it's justified that government salaries are lower, now that our salaries are better in many cases you say we are overpaid. It's a joke, when the market said we where underpaid, that was OK, but now that we're overpaid compared to the market, it's not! LOL! Well I'll happily cash my overpaid check and take my six weeks vacation, THANK GOD I LIVE OUTSIDE MARKET FORCES! LOL
I do not know what you do, but some government jobs are overpaid and other underpaid. The problem most people have with government compensation is the lifetime benefits. States are going bankrupted do to legacy cost. Now on top of these benefits that are already crippling states and the Fed, your wages are now equal the private sector in many cases. It is BS, if you want paid like the private sector then give up the lifetime benefits. Want the lifetime benefits, accept the much lower wage.
Bottom line with this topic is that it's just BORING that the same teams win ALL THE TIME, rarely any variation. and some people wouldn't mind seeing something done to spur some parity or at least some other teams to rise every now and then. Seems that most want the same old/same old to continue and I guess if the ratings stay high enough, that's how it will remain. That's OK to me too, I've been watching every Pitt games and maybe parts of a few other games for decades, so nothing will change for me either.
While you last statement may hold some truth, I am willing to bet that more HMF can teach and most teachers would fail at HFM. If you don't believe that, then you have an intelligence logic issue.
NO, why? I have it, I'll fight to keep it ALL. How about this and I say it all the time. People complain and say "Government is paid too much or has too much vacation time, that should stop!" AMERICANS ARE DUMB! Why do you want to strip us of good stuff instead of demanding that YOU GET EVERYTHING WE GET TOO?
Hell, I'm like LeVeon Bell, I get all I get and demand more and I demand more then TAKE IT, knowing I'm not even worth it.
I would never ask that because I know the company would go bankrupted like all States and the Federal government currently is paying for legacy cost. A person would have to be a real moron to think companies can pay these legacy cost and stay functional. Look at what legacy cost did the the US automotive and Steel industries. They are shells of there former selves.
How about you stop! Quit with your economics lessons. Tell us again that we are all supposed to be OK with Bama winning every damn year because the market wants that. Fine, I know it won't end. Doesn't mean I can't advocate for something else. I'm sure it's not just me that wishes other teams could get a shot.
SO JUST STOP! We know, the blue bloods rule, and we shouldn't complain, we have no right to say anything, and we can stop watching... I already have, I don't remember the last time I watched the CFB championship game. I think it was when Michael Vick and VT played in it?
That's what I'm saying, they have you by the balls and you aren't even willing to demand anything. Luckily your grandparents didn't care and joined unions and put up a big fight! If they had been like you, we'd be working 12 hours a day and 7 days a week with no benefits.
Yes because my grandparents did that, the steel industry collapsed and foreign automobiles flooded the US market because the cost of doing business was cheaper in other lands. Not that hard to understand really if you put your emotions in check.
The thing is, nobody is actually giving “economic lessons.”
You just keep saying stupid sh*t like this that has no basis in reality, which then requires others in this thread actually lay out reality based parameters for an actual discussion to take place.
As I said, just stop saying stupid sh*t and the rest will take care of itself.
Under the current structure, it's plain dumb for Pitt and many other schools to field teams. We (and most others) start out each season with practically zero hope for competing for championships, which even Pitt says is their stated objective for fielding teams.
And it's not even as beneficial to the blue bloods to have the monopoly they do, because as the other major sports have found, better opportunity for success for all lifts all boats.
Built in advantages of most of the blue bloods still would give them better odds of domination like they now have (giving them no reason to scorn the concept) , but would give more hope to more programs to attract a legit talent base.
More and better teams across P5 makes for more meaningful games week in and week out, maintaining fan interest and viewership. With no harm in the least to the appeal of the blockbuster blue blood prime time matchups.
And it's not even as beneficial to the blue bloods to have the monopoly they do, because as the other major sports have found, better opportunity for success for all lifts all boats.
Built in advantages of most of the blue bloods still would give them better odds of domination like they now have (giving them no reason to scorn the concept) , but would give more hope to more programs to attract a legit talent base.
More and better teams across P5 makes for more meaningful games week in and week out, maintaining fan interest and viewership. With no harm in the least to the appeal of the blockbuster blue blood prime time matchups.
Yeah, but they lived THEIR LIVES very well, THEY GOT THEIRS, and that's what I believe in doing. The industry collapsed after they paid for their house and raised their kids... THEY WHERE SMART! They demanded a bigger piece of the pie and ate the whole thing. Now people like you defer to the CEOs, who still GET THEIRS. While you get less than you could with a fight.
He hates the market so much, not realizing even his union wet dream was a source of the market.
You could unionize the workers of Ghana tomorrow, and their standard of living wouldn’t improve any.
People stopped working 7 days a week because their productivity allowed for such an occurrence. The market allowed for it.
The private sector doesn’t offer the benefits of the public sector because the market does not allow for such an occurrence.
Teachers do not make as much as hedge fund managers because the market does not allow for such an occurrence.
The Pitts and Rutgers and Wakes of the world do not rise up against Alabama because the market does not allow for such an occurrence.
Passing NCAA regulations or unionizing, will not change any of that. These things are the creation of such market occurrences, they do not create them.
Yes, this is what I can agree with. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I find it hard to care about the CFB Playoff Rankings or the BCS Rankings etc. Or whatever they name them this year or next, when it's always the same every year. I feel like Pitt is just like The Sopranos or The Walking Dead to me, just a weekly TV series that is independent of anything else. I don't care about the championship race, because Pitt NEVER gets even close to it.
Can you imagine if the NFL had limited rosters and dispersed its new talent more equally? People would hate that. Oh wait.
Bottom line is 85 scholarships is far, far too many. Even if you forget the fact, that lowering scholarships makes Pitt better, having that many players on a team is unnecessary. You can get through a season using 50-60 players if you really had to.
Things could change if sheep like you would take a risk. People ever stand up to the market anymore. No use arguing. I'm not even talking about socialism, but you think any change is bad, even going to from 85 to 70 scholarships is socialism to you, so we'll never agree.
I am done. If you are this childish and selfish, there is no more to say.
I can't believe this shit. "They were smart, they got theirs." yeah and their kids paid for it. Great job.
In the pro's when you can bring in more players as the season goes on, yes you can. In college where you cannot (going to the student body for help with this would be a stupid argument so please do not go there) 60 players is not.
That's right, they went after it, their kids where all better off because of what they did. It's funny how today most people won't fight for a bigger piece of the pie. There's plenty of money there, in the '50s CEOs made about 8 times what workers made, today it is 312 times! THREE HUNDRED TWELVE... Oh no! There's no money to support a demand for MORE! No, not at all ! LOL.
What is funny, there used to be unlimited scholarships right? But outside of a handful of 10 schools that every decade rise up and compete at the top level then go back down (Pitt was one of these in the mid 70's to mid 80's), the same bluebloods are the same blue bloods. If you look at a top 20 poll in 1965, 1970, 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, etc....you are going to see the same teams. I can say the preseason AP Top 10 poll in year 2025 will be Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State, USC, Michigan, Clemson, Florida State, Notre Dame, Texas, LSU, Oklahoma and likely nail at least 6 out of the 10 tells you all you need to know.
The reduction of the schollies to 85 hasn't balanced power out as much as people thought it would when it was rumored Woody Hayes would just offer and take kids, just so Michigan and Michigan State wouldn't get them. It is still the top teams. Now maybe a drop to 70 would smooth out, but now what we see is the talent now is where college football is most popular (South and Texas).....so the northern teams and even Michigan is starting to feel this, is starting to fall behind. The concentration of talent AND interest is going to continue to concentrate the power of college football.
Not everyone has to be on a full scholarship, Like in soccer Pitt has something like 25 players splitting 11 full scholarships or something like that? At least that's how it was when my nephew spent a year as a walk on with that team.
No. It is true. Baseball (your fav sport) loves its Red Sox/Yankees and Cubs/Dodgers, dream series of Yankees/Cubs or Dodgers. Football? They love it when it is Steelers/Pats in the AFC and Cowboys/Packers in the NFC. Hockey.....a bit more different but the dream matchup would be Blackhawks/Rangers. Basketball is more individual superstar oriented, but in a perfect world Celtics/Lakers.
Alabama/USC Ohio State/Notre Dame. Michigan. Yes, Penn State. Texas. Those all drive the needle in college football. In college BB while it was fun seeing Butler or George Mason make runs, Duke/Kentucky or Kansas/UNC will drive more ratings.
I am saying there is no real incentive to "spread the wealth" so much.
Because the weak are actually needed in the NFL.
Why is this so complicated????
Dallas and NY and Chicago and company can’t have a 10 team league. It would hurt them. So the lower market teams have some power. The market gives that to them.
That’s not the case in college football, so it’s reflected accordingly.
I keep bringing this up. But look how bad Texas bends over the weaker teams of the Big XII over the network and conference expansion. Why don’t they all just rise up against Texas and stop it?
79's problem is he has a real issue viewing the realities of the world through anything other than his personal like prism. In any argument, whatever is his preferences, he can't understand for the life of him, how someone would think differently.
Lollllll @ standing up to the market.
There is no such thing. Everything exists within the market. Every human action has reaction to it by another human, by another party.
This is lime saying, “I’m going to stand up to the dating market by refusing to brush my teeth before my next date,” not understanding that you are doing this within the market.
While absolutely true, let's face it, in regards to CEO's, not just their compensation, but their retirement/buyout packages are way over the top. I can say athletes and entertainers are too, but they are the product themselves, so they aren't so much overpaid as paid market value. But many CEO's who make upwards of $10 million or more are hardly worth that and they have no risk in their jobs because of the extreme comfort of their comp packages.
The thing about the NFL, with the long standing revenue sharing that has allowed teams to compete equally, you have more "brands" than you do markets. Pittsburgh and especially Green Bay are not particularly large markets that move the needles, but these franchises are more "brands" which have global reach, and are essentially more important than larger markets such as an LA franchise or even say the Jets or Bears.
The common retorts that this somehow violates the free market seems misguided. The free market objective of this business, like all, is to maximize revenue and profit. And other major sports have found it beneficial to set up a structure so that the Dallas Cowboys, New York Rangers, LA Dodgers etc aren't the only teams with any prayer of winning their respective sports every single year. It's not outright rigged for a different winner every year or anything, which wouldn't be fair to their owners and cities that do have justifiable advantages ... but gives decent opportunity to all, even lonely places like Green freaking Bay Wisconsin. That's been genius for the NFL, not some socialist travesty.
And as for limiting opportunities for scholarships for players or for those poor female gymnasts who would be sodomized by an adjustment, the first has been proven ridiculous, no truly worthy football players will lose out on scholarships. Just like it is today, each program will divvy out its available ships to the best guys they have commits from, others do the same, and in the end all good football players will have the opp for a free ride. If 15 can't go to Michigan and ride the pine, they'll be able to go to Michigan state or Purdue or Indiana or so on so forth, cascading appropriately.
And there would be no political appetite whatsoever to see that kind ofv change cause a decrease in women's scholarships. None. It would be an untouchable consideration in this climate. If anything schools would reallocate lesser football scholarships to more women sports, and heartily tout it in their promotional materials. And if any obscure govt decree currently obstructs doing that, it would be the easiest bipartisan thing in Washington to change, because NOBODY would dare say No to more women's sports scholarships.
In the words of Glenn Frey the school prezs of the majority just need a little shot of courage. Properly presented as a way to make everyone richer (which it is), blue bloods, networks and the govt would get behind it.
Last edited:
Yes. And that is your choice. Aka....that is "the market".
We can't agree. Look at for example things like Canadian health care. they run that just fine without a market. Free universities in Germany, no market. The NFL is not a free market system. All of those things are standing up to the market and not letting the market determine everything. You can argue about how successful that stuff is, but they are examples. Sure these things happen within the giant world market, but they don't let the market rule the results.
EXACTLY, they tell us that CEOs get paid so much because they "take risks", but there is absolutely ZERO RISK in your life when you have even a 7 figure golden parachute, you can just sit in your office and smoke dope until they come to take you away, then COLLECT! So where is the risk? I could see it if the risk was you have to pay them back if you fail, but no, you get paid a mountain of money even after failing.
I won't comment on the other, because that veers into areas the mods don't seem to want these threads to go. But the NFL most DEFINITELY adheres to the free market. They exist for profit and structure it to maximize that profit. If it was more profitable overall to contract to 12 or 16 super teams or more profitable that the teams in the biggest cities with the richest owners won every single year, they'd embrace that model. The fact they do NOT do that, and have the most successful enterprise imaginable by setting up a structure that allows for reasonable talent distribution, is testament to why college sports should pursue similar. The masters of the product have shown how well it works.
Similar threads
