So people only watch for the talent? I haven't sat and watched a Bama game for decades by the way.
Jay Wright Retires
- Thread starter TheLogicalTake
- Start date
Skills in society? Now that's laughable!!! Most are lucky if they can function in society. But they can play with their balls.
The NCAA gets paid over a billion dollars a year for the tournament and that’s seen as a massive underpay. CFP several hundred million a year. Conference TV rights for CBB/CFB are several hundred million too. Their skills are valuable. People are willing to watch them, advertisers chase that. Do you understand how the market economy works?
and I know tons of D1 hoopers, past and present. They’re overwhelmingly good, honest guys. Weird to denigrate them without knowing them at all
As a young person, sometimes you need to move around before you find the right fit, When I joined the work world, I moved around, probably changed jobs 4-5 times in 7 years, because I seriously found nothing that I could stand to do, then eventually I found the right fit and have been there over 30 years, been promoted 5 times there, was able to actually stand being there and doing that every day. I'm glad I didn't "suck it up" or "tough it out" or I might of stayed at one of those jobs I hated for a lifetime
That is between those parties to decide. Whoever pays it, the buyout is an impediment to a coach breaking a contract.
I doubt your figures are correct. But you do understand that relative to educational endowments, the figures you quoted are small? They're pocket change.
Goodie for you that you know some players. Some are decent guys, I'm sure. I've known some as well, and also head coaches. It's a fact that if not for sports, most would not have made it to college at any level. And we hear quite often about players who get arrested or engage in illegal activities. Neither one of us should make blanket statements about any of them.
I do understand market economies. I have an MBA in Finance from Katz.
Well enjoy this new version of the sport that you apparently think is an improvement. I’ll try, but it’s trending hard in the wrong direction for the vast majority of fans of the college game. I’m having a hard time imagining what this is all going to look like in 5 years without some changes and tweaks to these rules.
Most coaches, including Izzo and Wright, got into coaching initially because they’re teachers at their core. They are still teachers at their core. When they’re good at what they do, and they are two of the all time best at it, the money follows. Both of them paid a lot of dues before they earned-and I stress earned-their present salaries and status. As for this coach jumping argument, Izzo has been at MSU for 40 years, the first 12 as an assistant. Wright’s only head coaching job has been 21 years at Nova, he was an assistant at various schools including Nova for 17 years before that. Both of them had every opportunity to leave their schools for more money, bigger jobs, etc. But they didn’t. Now if they yell at a player too much in practice, he’s off to the portal the next week. Sorry but these are kids, very young men. If this is a good thing for the players, the coach and the sport, then a lot of the life lessons we’ve all been taught along the way were all wrong.
I played D1 college football. I’m not jealous of anything. I just think this idea that the revenue sport athletes are put upon and taken advantage of is a joke. Actually I don’t think it is, I know it is.
Wright was HC at Hofstra prior to Evillainova. Different level for sure, but head coach nonetheless.
You destroyed that straw man
Nobody says they are put upon
We are saying they should be allowed to make a chunk of the value they create for the sports they play .
I find most people on this board, including you, have no idea what you are talking about. It's hard for me to be around such idiocy. Another one on Ignore.
It's not surprising that someone like you thinks that.
Basketball money
CFB Playoff Money
Conference TV Rights Fees
I mean if you are going to doubt that someone's figures are correct, shouldn't you at least have some idea what the heck you are talking about?
Apparently not.
My point was that those figures are small compared to educational endowments. And just because something is posted on the internet or written in some publication doesn't make it true. I don't believe any of that crap. You are on twitter too much, or whatever silly social media you frequent. Do you believe everything you read and believe it is fact?
Too many gullible cretins on this board.
Why don't you believe it? Do you have evidence to suggest the information Joe posted is incorrect?
My figures are not incorrect, they are easily found on Google or Twitter.
You know that endowments aren’t a yearly revenue stream right? Schools invest in athletics to get people to donate to increase their endowment. And who cares whether kids would’ve gotten in without sports? If my aunt had balls, well she’d be.. you know the saying. They “engage in illegal activities” at best no differently than the college population as a whole, and probably less. They just make headlines.
Wait, so you think that these numbers, which are widely reported in all sorts of different media and are confirmed by things like publicly available school and conference documents, are all made up?
You aren't gullible, you just aren't very bright.
And as to your point about educational endowments, so what? And I mean that seriously, so what? If your point is that anything that is small in dollar value compared to educational endowments isn't worth worrying about well, that's just plain old dumb. And there isn't any person running any educational institution in the country that wouldn't agree.
You believe television rights are not worth an incredible amount of money? And education endowments are not an annual revenue stream. Is it that difficult?
I strongly believe that for every college athlete who “wouldn’t have gotten admitted if they weren’t an athlete,” there are many, many more students who were only admitted because they’re legacies or their parents donated a sufficient sum to get them admitted.
The #1, top priority for these kids who get athletic scholarships is to get an education and graduate so they can be productive contributors to society. Most (>95% of them) will never play the sport beyond college. I know many of them don't for various reasons and they wouldn't be there if it weren't for their athletics. But it doesn't change the fact of what their #1 priority is. It has nothing to do with playing a sport. That's an activity for them that pays their tuition and room and board. And it's entertainment for consumers.
I may be wrong, but annual educational contributions exceed annual athletic contributions. There are more people who benefit from education than from athletics, and most of those people have no clue who the head football and basketball coaches of their schools are, nor do they care. Yes, a school's contribution level can be positively influenced by athletic success. But then that contribution goes toward a specific school within the college, with smaller sums going toward athletics in some cases.
I may be wrong, but annual educational contributions exceed annual athletic contributions. There are more people who benefit from education than from athletics, and most of those people have no clue who the head football and basketball coaches of their schools are, nor do they care. Yes, a school's contribution level can be positively influenced by athletic success. But then that contribution goes toward a specific school within the college, with smaller sums going toward athletics in some cases.
Last edited:
Sorry, I don't visit Google or twitter as they are notorious for false information. But I apologize if I was wrong and your figures are accurate. I have no way of knowing that, especially if you used Google or twitter as your source.
I don't want to get into the details because then we're bordering on talking about something other than sports, such as politics, and that is forbidden on this site.
But briefly, Google was fully aware that their site was and is providing false information, specifically about COVID recently. Recently, they invested $65MM into reducing the frequency of false information that is displayed on their site. Kudos to them for recognizing it. But there will always be false information on Google. It can't be helped because of the size of the organization.
I routinely use other search engines other than Google, and some of the reason I do is security and privacy.
I believe in facts. I try very hard to do that, in spite of the noise. We're all free to believe what we will. At least some of us.
You misunderstand google. It is a search engine, and as such directs users to the information they are seeking. That information may be incorrect, but google, or any other search engine, cannot possibly verify the information that they link to. And that is not because of the size of google, it is because of the massive amount of information that exists on the web. All search engines face the same situation. You can’t blame google, if the financial information in an article that shows up on a search, is incorrect.
Yeah but Google has been found to totally manipulate their search engines. They've deliberately manipulated what people will see to influence them.
I disagree with Hail on the main topic but he's got fair points about Google.
However i believe Joe is more than capable of finding accurate numbers
Wait, so if I find a piece of information through a Google search it's suspect, but if I find the exact same piece of information through a Bing search or a DuckDuckGo search then it's good? Even if they both take me to the exact same piece of information?
It's in times like this we need Ask Jeeves to return to save us all!
I don’t understand your position on this. Google is nothing more than a search engine. It’s up to the Google user to select a valid source of news or information from the sea of bullshit out there in cyberspace. And if a user doesn’t know what a recognized valid source of news or information is, that’s on the user.
That is exactly right - google is not adding its own content, it is merely listing sources that relate to the search. It is up to the searcher to decide which of those sources to read or watch.
This. Yes, you can use Google to search for whatever they have out there that they have manipulated. Google has been known to manipulate it and slant it in one direction or another to suit their needs.
Similar threads
