Football is generally a loss-leader because it loses money for all but like 6 schools. Think about the cost of sending 85 kids, plus coaches, across the country 4-7 times a season. Plus many teams stay in off-campus hotels for home game Friday's to stay away from the "distractions" campus could provide. Intercollegiate sports should just become a private enterprise separate from education. It would make Universities go back to being about education not entertaining people. Plus the kids who are providing our entertainment for "an education" (which is really a joke when you can only take certain classes at certain times), would actually receive a monetary reward for their services - not some joke of a trade.
Smith said the Buckeyes must play a minimum of seven home
games to support all of the school's sports teams.
As for travel...I calculate it would run roughly a million bucks to travel for 7 games.
1K per person per game. 150 people per game. 7 games. if you take the band, double that to $2M for a season.
They take in roughly $6.5M per home game just in tickets. I highly doubt Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Texas, NE, USC, Oklahoma, Florida, TN, LSU, Auburn, Alabama, FSU, Miami, to name a few are losing money on football.
Some of your smaller D1 teams might be, but i doubt it, not when they get paid a million bucks to visit a power house for a beat down.
Football is generally a loss-leader because it loses money for all but like 6 schools. Think about the cost of sending 85 kids, plus coaches, across the country 4-7 times a season. Plus many teams stay in off-campus hotels for home game Friday's to stay away from the "distractions" campus could provide. Intercollegiate sports should just become a private enterprise separate from education. It would make Universities go back to being about education not entertaining people. Plus the kids who are providing our entertainment for "an education" (which is really a joke when you can only take certain classes at certain times), would actually receive a monetary reward for their services - not some joke of a trade.
again you are taking a small minority of D1 athletes and schools and making it like all are that way. it's just not true. there are many more schools and athletes who do it the right way and use it in the right way then there are Ohio States and Terrelle Pryors.
Smith said the Buckeyes must play a minimum of seven home
games to support all of the school's sports teams.
As for travel...I calculate it would run roughly a million bucks to travel for 7 games.
1K per person per game. 150 people per game. 7 games. if you take the band, double that to $2M for a season.
They take in roughly $6.5M per home game just in tickets. I highly doubt Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Texas, NE, USC, Oklahoma, Florida, TN, LSU, Auburn, Alabama, FSU, Miami, to name a few are losing money on football.
Some of your smaller D1 teams might be, but i doubt it, not when they get paid a million bucks to visit a power house for a beat down.
and you didnt even mention tv money and bowl games. look up the stories on the Big 10 and Pac 10 expansions. the numbers the Big 10 generate from the Big 10 network are staggering. something like $20 million per school per year.
Smith said the Buckeyes must play a minimum of seven home
games to support all of the school's sports teams.
As for travel...I calculate it would run roughly a million bucks to travel for 7 games.
1K per person per game. 150 people per game. 7 games. if you take the band, double that to $2M for a season.
They take in roughly $6.5M per home game just in tickets. I highly doubt Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Texas, NE, USC, Oklahoma, Florida, TN, LSU, Auburn, Alabama, FSU, Miami, to name a few are losing money on football.
Some of your smaller D1 teams might be, but i doubt it, not when they get paid a million bucks to visit a power house for a beat down.
and you didnt even mention tv money and bowl games. look up the stories on the Big 10 and Pac 10 expansions. the numbers the Big 10 generate from the Big 10 network are staggering. something like $20 million per school per year.
genearlly speaking, football is the engine that provides swimming, tennis, golf, curling, rowing, gymnastics, womens basketball etc etc etc.
many schools do lose money on sports, but it's not football driving those losses.
Wow I can't believe that the term "hood rat" was actually used in this forum. WTF? The free education argument is funny especially the way educations are valued post-graduation. By this I mean getting a "free" (although it's really in return for services) at different schools is worth different amounts. For instance if you go to private schools like Duke, Notre Dame, or Syracuse aren't you actually getting more than if you go to say the University of Maryland as a Maryland resident, or other state runs schools for that matter? I mean 4 years of tuition at those private schools, the enhanced opportunities offered to you in the "real world" because you're going to the same school as rich peoples' children, plus power that comes with holding a piece of paper stating you graduated from there is worth a shit-ton more than graduating from a state state school.
Intercollegiate sports, run by a corrupt organization, are a huge detriment to the upper-educational system in the United States. They are essentially a laboratory for what is wrong with our priorities in this country. I mean we'll spend $1M to shine grass every week at OSU, and then bitch when the borderline slaves providing that money want a little something back. Or, at my school, Towson, my President ups the total number of students to make the University the largest in the state, spends millions on a new basketball arena, then forces professors to take furloughs and never upgrades the educational space of the school.
I'm not sure why you find the value of an education funny. I will agree that not every education is created equal, but a majority of the big time football schools have well respected programs.
Hood Rat is bad, yet borderline slave is ok. wow. These players have a choice. They could pay for their education out of pocket like i did, or they can take the value of that education and play football. Not only do they get the education that opens doors, but they get a chance to get their name out there, which will also open doors post graduation, unlike joe blow that just goes to class. There is value in that as well. But to say these players are "slaves" is a bit much.
"While football and men's basketball programs are generally seen as supporting other sports teams in Division, fewer than 60 percent of those programs reported net "generated" revenues for all three years in the 2004-6 period, the NCAA report finds.
In the Football Championship Subdivision (the competitive level previously known as Division I-AA), there was a less visible gap between haves and have-nots, because not a single athletics program had positive net revenues in 2006. The median net loss for the 118 programs at that level was $7.1 million, although programs generated as much as $15.2 million in revenues and spent as much as $34.9 million, far above the medians of $2.3 million and $11.4 million, respectively."
You also have to feed the kids when you travel too.
2. Saying someone is treated like a borderline slave is a little different than calling someone a hood rat. Especially if you go out and entertain people for no pay, and can't get an outside job, or even engage in a different sport as a professional (see: Jeremy Bloom). What would be a better term for it, undercompensated laborer?
3. Choice is a very funny word given the wildly differential access to money, power, privilege, and education we have in this country. For instance, I get some kids who come from Baltimore City who have nowhere near the same social or educational background than kids from Baltimore County. Is going to a college to play sports the same choice for rich kids with good educational and social backgrounds as it is for the undereducated kid through no fault of his/her own? Further, when you went to school (and didn't play sports I presume) did you have a person tell you what classes you could and couldn't take, when you could and couldn't take them, and with whom to take them with? Even at Towson my athletes all devote several hours of their time to practice, travel, and games at the cost of their educational pursuits. Is their "free" education full of choice, or yet another restriction on their lives.
"While football and men's basketball programs are generally seen as supporting other sports teams in Division, fewer than 60 percent of those programs reported net "generated" revenues for all three years in the 2004-6 period, the NCAA report finds.
In the Football Championship Subdivision (the competitive level previously known as Division I-AA), there was a less visible gap between haves and have-nots, because not a single athletics program had positive net revenues in 2006. The median net loss for the 118 programs at that level was $7.1 million, although programs generated as much as $15.2 million in revenues and spent as much as $34.9 million, far above the medians of $2.3 million and $11.4 million, respectively."
You also have to feed the kids when you travel too.
can we see what the football and basketball programs look like as stand alone entities
I took a class on it once at Ithaca College and it was bad for the football and basketball teams - even D1. Let me see what I can dig up. This is mostly because they spent money on stupid shit like hotels before home games, vacuuming offices everyday, and other stuff. I know when Debbie Yow came to College Park she cut those things back and was able to upgrade all of the sporting facilities.
here's the deal if you follow the first article approximately 75 of 119 schools in D1 BCS make money. 0 in D1 sub, D2, or D3. So we are looking at 75 of approximately 600 schools making money on football AT BEST. At worst it's 5 of 600! And they supposedly pay for the other sports? How is that possible? Does Texas actually donate their extra profit to other schools?
The second article and third shows what I was talking about, and I am inclined to see it through their lens. To my earlier point:
A favorite argument of those who argue that big-time NCAA football turns a profit is that teams that participate in Bowl games, especially the BCS games, surely turn a profit with the big payouts. A brilliant example of this fallacy is the University of Wisconsin, which, as winner of the 1998 Rose Bowl, received a payout of $1.1 million. Despite this, they lost $286,700 on the trip. This was largely the result of paying for “832 people to attend, including players, band members, boosters, and university administrators.” (Welch Suggs, “A Look at the Future Bottom Line of Big-Time Sports,” Chronicle of Higher Education (12 Nov. 1999)).
As for We are Paternalistic State:
I don’t want to see college football end. I just think that the cost of the programs should be born by those who actually want the service. Those students who want to go to the games can pay higher ticket prices. Don’t force all students to pay higher fees. I never went to a football game when I was at Penn State (the university couldn’t afford to put books in the library, but they had $14 million to build a covered practice field so the players wouldn’t get wet. In a meaningless act of protest, I boycotted the games), but I had to pay higher fees to support the team.
This is old information but I'm sure you can see why the president didn't have the balls to fire Tressel. Check out the revenue they generated.
This wasn't his 1st scandal either, but I'm sure he'll get another shot if he wants some where else.
THANK YOU! If hood rats like Pryor are too dumb to realize the good thing they have in a free college education, which I'm guessing could do someone from Pryor's background wonders, then screw him. He can have fun pumping gas or working at McDonalds. Hope that tat's and rides were worth it. As a Badger fan I just sit and laugh as everyone stereotype I had about OSU is comming true.
i'm sure i've asked before, but what's with all the hate agaist Ohio State.
One, I'm a Badger fan and they have been the elite football program of the big 10, although now we are seeing why. Guys like Pryor, Clarrett, and Troy Smith seem to pop up a lot at OSU. Guys who are the classless of the classless when it comes to college athletes in my opinion. Selling memorbilia for money is about as bad as it could get. If a Badger ever did it, I'd hope he'd get ran out of town. It should be a priveledge to play for a big name school, and should be a thing of pride, not a revenue source for these athletes. I'll give you credit, as you at least realize what a POS Pryor and the rest of these guys are and what no part of them in your program. I could be wrong, but I think the "holier than thou" attitude I see from "most" not "all" OSU fans means you are in the minority. Everyone is entitled to there opinions and my opinion of OSU was verified even more with these happenings. Again, I'll give credit where it is due, and you realize what a disgrace these guys were, but again I would like to see if the majority of Columbus agrees with you.
Alpine Valley 6/26/98, Alpine Valley 10/8/00, Champaign 4/23/03, Chicago 6/18/03, Alpine Valley 6/21/03, Grand Rapids 10/3/04
Chicago 5/16/06, Chicago 5/17/06, Grand Rapids 5/19/06
Milwaukee 6/29/06, Milwaukee 6/30/06, Lollapalooza 8/5/07
Eddie Solo Milwaukee 8/19/08, Toronto 8/21/09, Chicago 8/23/09
Chicago 8/24/09, Indianapolis 5/7/10, Ed Chicago 6/29/11, Alpine Valley 9/3/11 and 9/4/11, Wrigley 7/19/13, Moline 10/18/14, Milwaukee 10/20/14
Wow I can't believe that the term "hood rat" was actually used in this forum. WTF? The free education argument is funny especially the way educations are valued post-graduation. By this I mean getting a "free" (although it's really in return for services) at different schools is worth different amounts. For instance if you go to private schools like Duke, Notre Dame, or Syracuse aren't you actually getting more than if you go to say the University of Maryland as a Maryland resident, or other state runs schools for that matter? I mean 4 years of tuition at those private schools, the enhanced opportunities offered to you in the "real world" because you're going to the same school as rich peoples' children, plus power that comes with holding a piece of paper stating you graduated from there is worth a shit-ton more than graduating from a state state school.
Intercollegiate sports, run by a corrupt organization, are a huge detriment to the upper-educational system in the United States. They are essentially a laboratory for what is wrong with our priorities in this country. I mean we'll spend $1M to shine grass every week at OSU, and then bitch when the borderline slaves providing that money want a little something back. Or, at my school, Towson, my President ups the total number of students to make the University the largest in the state, spends millions on a new basketball arena, then forces professors to take furloughs and never upgrades the educational space of the school.
I'm not sure why you find the value of an education funny. I will agree that not every education is created equal, but a majority of the big time football schools have well respected programs.
Hood Rat is bad, yet borderline slave is ok. wow. These players have a choice. They could pay for their education out of pocket like i did, or they can take the value of that education and play football. Not only do they get the education that opens doors, but they get a chance to get their name out there, which will also open doors post graduation, unlike joe blow that just goes to class. There is value in that as well. But to say these players are "slaves" is a bit much.
"While football and men's basketball programs are generally seen as supporting other sports teams in Division, fewer than 60 percent of those programs reported net "generated" revenues for all three years in the 2004-6 period, the NCAA report finds.
In the Football Championship Subdivision (the competitive level previously known as Division I-AA), there was a less visible gap between haves and have-nots, because not a single athletics program had positive net revenues in 2006. The median net loss for the 118 programs at that level was $7.1 million, although programs generated as much as $15.2 million in revenues and spent as much as $34.9 million, far above the medians of $2.3 million and $11.4 million, respectively."
You also have to feed the kids when you travel too.
2. Saying someone is treated like a borderline slave is a little different than calling someone a hood rat. Especially if you go out and entertain people for no pay, and can't get an outside job, or even engage in a different sport as a professional (see: Jeremy Bloom). What would be a better term for it, undercompensated laborer?
3. Choice is a very funny word given the wildly differential access to money, power, privilege, and education we have in this country. For instance, I get some kids who come from Baltimore City who have nowhere near the same social or educational background than kids from Baltimore County. Is going to a college to play sports the same choice for rich kids with good educational and social backgrounds as it is for the undereducated kid through no fault of his/her own? Further, when you went to school (and didn't play sports I presume) did you have a person tell you what classes you could and couldn't take, when you could and couldn't take them, and with whom to take them with? Even at Towson my athletes all devote several hours of their time to practice, travel, and games at the cost of their educational pursuits. Is their "free" education full of choice, or yet another restriction on their lives.
no one said these kids HAD to go to Towson or any other school they chose. if they want choices and more freedom in their classes they can pay for education like everyone else in america. no one says these kids have to choose schools wher they are 'undercompensated' as you say. if you don't want to play by the rules of the scholarships you can always go to a school that doesn't give scholarships. as i mentioned before for football there are only about 130-150 schools that give out scholarships, for basketball probably about 350-400 (i think some DII schools give scholarships) which is a very small portion of the number of colleges in America. saying they are border-line slaves is implying that they HAVE to be where they are and choose that path, and the fact is they just don't. it's a choice.
i can see part of your argument, but CHOICE is a funny thing. It's kind of like when you are told to give kids two decisions to make even though neither are ideal for them. for kids who just want to ball they could make the choice to go play in Europe for money instead of school, but then they have to leave friends, family, etc. for football players they are fucked, because the NFL doesn't allow you in until you are 21. so what's your choice here? is that not a form of highly undercompensated labor? now if you're lucky enough to be born into enough wealth and privilege then you do have more choice. you could choose to or to not play football, because you are more likely to grow up with a strong education and a habitus that provides support for non-sporting decisions. Plus you probably have the money to pay for this freedom. if you aren't as lucky, and America's (under)education system leaves you all sold out, not prepared for SATs, and/or to perform in a collegiate classroom, and you literally have to either leave the country or play collegiate sport your choice is much more restricted. free choice is one of the most dominant mythologies driving america today. i say mythology because it is rooted in some truth, but it's definitely much more "messy" than just free choice. believing in free choice is to completely disregard the social structures defining our everyday lives.
i can see part of your argument, but CHOICE is a funny thing. It's kind of like when you are told to give kids two decisions to make even though neither are ideal for them. for kids who just want to ball they could make the choice to go play in Europe for money instead of school, but then they have to leave friends, family, etc. for football players they are fucked, because the NFL doesn't allow you in until you are 21. so what's your choice here? is that not a form of highly undercompensated labor? now if you're lucky enough to be born into enough wealth and privilege then you do have more choice. you could choose to or to not play football, because you are more likely to grow up with a strong education and a habitus that provides support for non-sporting decisions. Plus you probably have the money to pay for this freedom. if you aren't as lucky, and America's (under)education system leaves you all sold out, not prepared for SATs, and/or to perform in a collegiate classroom, and you literally have to either leave the country or play collegiate sport your choice is much more restricted. free choice is one of the most dominant mythologies driving america today. i say mythology because it is rooted in some truth, but it's definitely much more "messy" than just free choice. believing in free choice is to completely disregard the social structures defining our everyday lives.
where does it say that they have to play football or basketball or whatever sport? that is a choice they make to play. we don't MAKE anyone be a football or basketball player. not sure i understand your argument here. no one FORCED Terrelle Pryor to play football at Ohio State just like no one forced me into the profession i am in.
edit: and my niece just graduated from Towson this year. I'm sure her and her parents would gladly have been an 'undercompensated' student to avoid the $200k or so cost of her education. when she can't afford to buy her own home until she is 35 because she is paying off student loans and johnny the bball player doesn't have that concern it's hard to feel sorry for johnny.
i can see part of your argument, but CHOICE is a funny thing. It's kind of like when you are told to give kids two decisions to make even though neither are ideal for them. for kids who just want to ball they could make the choice to go play in Europe for money instead of school, but then they have to leave friends, family, etc. for football players they are fucked, because the NFL doesn't allow you in until you are 21. so what's your choice here? is that not a form of highly undercompensated labor? now if you're lucky enough to be born into enough wealth and privilege then you do have more choice. you could choose to or to not play football, because you are more likely to grow up with a strong education and a habitus that provides support for non-sporting decisions. Plus you probably have the money to pay for this freedom. if you aren't as lucky, and America's (under)education system leaves you all sold out, not prepared for SATs, and/or to perform in a collegiate classroom, and you literally have to either leave the country or play collegiate sport your choice is much more restricted. free choice is one of the most dominant mythologies driving america today. i say mythology because it is rooted in some truth, but it's definitely much more "messy" than just free choice. believing in free choice is to completely disregard the social structures defining our everyday lives.
where does it say that they have to play football or basketball or whatever sport? that is a choice they make to play. we don't MAKE anyone be a football or basketball player. not sure i understand your argument here. no one FORCED Terrelle Pryor to play football at Ohio State just like no one forced me into the profession i am in.
edit: and my niece just graduated from Towson this year. I'm sure her and her parents would gladly have been an 'undercompensated' student to avoid the $200k or so cost of her education. when she can't afford to buy her own home until she is 35 because she is paying off student loans and johnny the bball player doesn't have that concern it's hard to feel sorry for johnny.
how did she incur $200k in debt from Towson? if she's in-state the cost if she paid nothing is like $50k for 4 years, and 90k out of state. As I said choice is as slippery a word as forced. Just because you aren't forced by some human to do something, doesn't mean that you aren't guided by social structures to that decision. For instance if you grow up in the inner-city, getting a crappy education because we'd rather build up the inner harbor or pave roads for a stupid F1 race, and are really not prepared to do anything other than work a blue collar job or play sports then "choice" is limited. Conversely, if you grow up in the county going to schools with computers, gymnasiums, updated books, the best teachers, and parents who have the privilege to support you and time to watch you play sports or decide to be a student "in something other than athletics" - isn't your choice widened? What did the county kid do to earn that privilege? What did the city kid do to get fucked over by the system? Nothing, but those are the realities of the situation. Playing sport for the former is a luxury for the latter it is almost a necessity.
i can see part of your argument, but CHOICE is a funny thing. It's kind of like when you are told to give kids two decisions to make even though neither are ideal for them. for kids who just want to ball they could make the choice to go play in Europe for money instead of school, but then they have to leave friends, family, etc. for football players they are fucked, because the NFL doesn't allow you in until you are 21. so what's your choice here? is that not a form of highly undercompensated labor? now if you're lucky enough to be born into enough wealth and privilege then you do have more choice. you could choose to or to not play football, because you are more likely to grow up with a strong education and a habitus that provides support for non-sporting decisions. Plus you probably have the money to pay for this freedom. if you aren't as lucky, and America's (under)education system leaves you all sold out, not prepared for SATs, and/or to perform in a collegiate classroom, and you literally have to either leave the country or play collegiate sport your choice is much more restricted. free choice is one of the most dominant mythologies driving america today. i say mythology because it is rooted in some truth, but it's definitely much more "messy" than just free choice. believing in free choice is to completely disregard the social structures defining our everyday lives.
where does it say that they have to play football or basketball or whatever sport? that is a choice they make to play. we don't MAKE anyone be a football or basketball player. not sure i understand your argument here. no one FORCED Terrelle Pryor to play football at Ohio State just like no one forced me into the profession i am in.
edit: and my niece just graduated from Towson this year. I'm sure her and her parents would gladly have been an 'undercompensated' student to avoid the $200k or so cost of her education. when she can't afford to buy her own home until she is 35 because she is paying off student loans and johnny the bball player doesn't have that concern it's hard to feel sorry for johnny.
how did she incur $200k in debt from Towson? if she's in-state the cost if she paid nothing is like $50k for 4 years, and 90k out of state. As I said choice is as slippery a word as forced. Just because you aren't forced by some human to do something, doesn't mean that you aren't guided by social structures to that decision. For instance if you grow up in the inner-city, getting a crappy education because we'd rather build up the inner harbor or pave roads for a stupid F1 race, and are really not prepared to do anything other than work a blue collar job or play sports then "choice" is limited. Conversely, if you grow up in the county going to schools with computers, gymnasiums, updated books, the best teachers, and parents who have the privilege to support you and time to watch you play sports or decide to be a student "in something other than athletics" - isn't your choice widened? What did the county kid do to earn that privilege? What did the city kid do to get fucked over by the system? Nothing, but those are the realities of the situation. Playing sport for the former is a luxury for the latter it is almost a necessity.
1) she was out-of-state - not sure the cost of Towson is. $200k was probably way too high for me to estimate but i honestly don't know for sure what it is. Zero debt over $90k is a choice anyone in their right mind would choose.
2) my father worked 50 weeks a year for 40 years to afford to live in the 'county'. to insinuate there is something wrong with being what you determine as privileged because of that is insulting to my parents and to myself. there are plenty of people out there who have come from disadvantaged situations and prospered. my grandparents came over here with nothing. my parents sure as hell didn't grow up privileged being born just before the great depression. as for city kids being fucked over by the system well we could go into a whole other direction with that topic. let's just say having children when you can't support them and absentee fathers play a huge role. we could debate for hours on causes and effect but let's just say at times too much blame is put on other places and people in my opinion.
If your parents were born before the great depression and were able to prosper doesn't that reflect both their hard work and white privilege? For literally 35 years they likely never had to compete with a non-white person for a job, you could segregate suburbs legally, and there were some colleges you couldn't even attend if you were not white. I'm not saying your parents didn't work hard, because from your description it seems like they did/do, but they certainly had some unearned breaks go their way. On top of that what did you do to EARN living in the county? Not a damn thing you were born into a good family, that cared for you, and supported you. Likely through that care and support you became well educated, hard working, and driven to succeed.
Now if your family was not-white they were legally prevented from the best schools, transportation, and places to live. If you grow up in that era what sort of drive are you going to have to do anything? On top of that what kind of support are you going to give your children, who are likely going to schools that are underfunded, with the worst teachers, etc.? What did that kid do to deserve that? Not a damn thing, they were born into a tough situation.
Do privileged people screw it all up? Sure. Do people come from tough places to succeed? Sure. But if you look at this country post-Carter/Reagan we have seen a retrenchment of class power to pre-1950s times. If you live in a capitalist country wealth is the way you get to have more "choice". The College Football situation is a good example of how this works out.
If your parents were born before the great depression and were able to prosper doesn't that reflect both their hard work and white privilege? For literally 35 years they likely never had to compete with a non-white person for a job, you could segregate suburbs legally, and there were some colleges you couldn't even attend if you were not white. I'm not saying your parents didn't work hard, because from your description it seems like they did/do, but they certainly had some unearned breaks go their way. On top of that what did you do to EARN living in the county? Not a damn thing you were born into a good family, that cared for you, and supported you. Likely through that care and support you became well educated, hard working, and driven to succeed.
Now if your family was not-white they were legally prevented from the best schools, transportation, and places to live. If you grow up in that era what sort of drive are you going to have to do anything? On top of that what kind of support are you going to give your children, who are likely going to schools that are underfunded, with the worst teachers, etc.? What did that kid do to deserve that? Not a damn thing, they were born into a tough situation.
Do privileged people screw it all up? Sure. Do people come from tough places to succeed? Sure. But if you look at this country post-Carter/Reagan we have seen a retrenchment of class power to pre-1950s times. If you live in a capitalist country wealth is the way you get to have more "choice". The College Football situation is a good example of how this works out.
you are giving people an easy and convenient excuse. i live in a suburb within 20 minutes of the city of philadelphia. apartments in this area are around $500 a month. plenty of people could have access to my 'affluent' school district with a few more personal sacrifices like not having children at a young age, not having to have a satelittle dish and 50 inch screen tv, not having to wear $200 Nike's, etc. My parents weren't rich and made personal choices to keep us in our area and school district. my dad probably could have driven a $40,000 car, or had the nicest suits, or went to events every week but he didn't. he drove a freaking chevy Nova with no air conditioning and came home and watched tv every night. i can count on one hand the number of times my parents 'went out' for a fun evening together from the time i could remember until i was an adult. getting the next generation into a better situation has to be a priority and very often that just doesn't seem to be the case.
as for education funding how much is too much? and at what point are dimishing returns enough? Education funding in the US has increased in super large numbers since the 80s but children's test scores have gotten worse. and don't even get me started on teachers (and i have teachers in my family...) and the teacher's union.
oh so back to original topic, yea Terrelle Pryor doesn't need to play football at Ohio State or anywhere else and no one has to play sports at Towson. It's their choice and they choose to accept the guidelines of accepting that choice. just as i accept the guidelines of my working situation. i don't have to work for the company i do or in the industry i do. and i live with those choices everyday.
but you don't make those choices out solely of conditions created by your own hard work. you may claim i'm too deterministic and that's fine, but you are too focused on the individual agent's power without considering the outside influences on their lives.
but you don't make those choices out solely of conditions created by your own hard work. you may claim i'm too deterministic and that's fine, but you are too focused on the individual agent's power without considering the outside influences on their lives.
i just think you are giving people free and convenient excuses. it's such a tragedy that Terrelle Pryor might actually have to get a job outside of football like the rest of america.
but you don't make those choices out solely of conditions created by your own hard work. you may claim i'm too deterministic and that's fine, but you are too focused on the individual agent's power without considering the outside influences on their lives.
this sounds alot like the "its not my fault" arguement. it's always somebody else's doing.
Classic neoliberal libertarian argument. We'll take away all the things that were put in place to help the American minority (race, class, gender, sexuality, ability), return things to near-1950s levels of inequity then blame the individual for poor choices because "at least they can get a job". That is the most inane, simplistic way to look at the contemporary social condition, but for people looking for easy answers its one or the other right? The system is either fair and the individual fucked up, or the system is fucked up and the individual takes no blame. How about both? Isn't there room for degrees of the two? How about this idea: Pryor screwed up, but the game is rigged against people like him. Plus when he screws up he maybe gets a shot at the Canadian Football League and if/when he fails what's he got to show for it? Tressel is a millionaire d-bag, who never has to put his body on the line and gets to retire to cognac and stogies in his beautiful mansion. The moral of the story is that in the traditional American narrative, and in its lived reality rich people almost always win. The rich people in this story are the purveyors of the NCAA and the BCS.
Maybe the system isn't 100% fair, but i tell ya what, i would love to have had my education paid for.
What about those fringe sports, where athetes get a paid tution and don't generate any revenue for the school. Are they not just a drain on joe tax payer?
A good case in point regarding the above argument is that most of you believed that football and basketball "paid" for the "Olympic" sports in college, when at best that's the case for 12% of colleges and at worst under 1%. I bet even after I posted the articles demonstrating this fallacy most of you still chose to believe it. How does that mythological belief still exist? The NCAA and BCS have power to tell us what they want us to hear, not the dirty underbelly that is the reality of big-time college athletics.
How about this idea give the kid a choice when he comes to school, either take the "free" education or get paid the amount that "free" education is worth. So if you go to Towson you get 90k over 4 years as an out-of-stater, Duke you get $160k over 4 years as an in-state resident, while at UNC you'd get 25k as in-state over 4 years, and 100k as out-of-state. If you choose the "professional" track you don't have to take any classes, but get training seminars on how to do personal finances, and other things of that nature. If you chose the "free educational" track you get to place a bigger focus on your academics. Of course this would never happen because without University subsidies football and basketball are an unsustainable business venture.
Maybe the system isn't 100% fair, but i tell ya what, i would love to have had my education paid for.
What about those fringe sports, where athetes get a paid tution and don't generate any revenue for the school. Are they not just a drain on joe tax payer?
do you know how many scholarships go to those fringe sports? Most baseball teams split like 3-4, swimming and diving has 1, etc. Many of those kids are playing on their own dime, and not really costing the University that much. Look at how successful Athletic Departments and University budgets have been at every school that has dropped football (Mansfield and Boston to name two).
of course there is cupability on both sides. you seem to be the only one blaming only one side though. there has to be some personal responsibilty and since many others have more than succeeded under similar circumstances it's hard to argue against putting more personal blame on people than you currently are.
and jim tressel wasn't handed the Ohio State job without working for 20 some years at smaller much less lucrative jobs. he came from youngstown state prior to Ohio State so as much as a scumbag tressel is, he worked to get to that level of salary and presitge.
Comments
http://www.kolotv.com/sports/headlines/38786767.html
As for travel...I calculate it would run roughly a million bucks to travel for 7 games.
1K per person per game. 150 people per game. 7 games. if you take the band, double that to $2M for a season.
They take in roughly $6.5M per home game just in tickets. I highly doubt Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Texas, NE, USC, Oklahoma, Florida, TN, LSU, Auburn, Alabama, FSU, Miami, to name a few are losing money on football.
Some of your smaller D1 teams might be, but i doubt it, not when they get paid a million bucks to visit a power house for a beat down.
again you are taking a small minority of D1 athletes and schools and making it like all are that way. it's just not true. there are many more schools and athletes who do it the right way and use it in the right way then there are Ohio States and Terrelle Pryors.
and you didnt even mention tv money and bowl games. look up the stories on the Big 10 and Pac 10 expansions. the numbers the Big 10 generate from the Big 10 network are staggering. something like $20 million per school per year.
genearlly speaking, football is the engine that provides swimming, tennis, golf, curling, rowing, gymnastics, womens basketball etc etc etc.
many schools do lose money on sports, but it's not football driving those losses.
"While football and men's basketball programs are generally seen as supporting other sports teams in Division, fewer than 60 percent of those programs reported net "generated" revenues for all three years in the 2004-6 period, the NCAA report finds.
In the Football Championship Subdivision (the competitive level previously known as Division I-AA), there was a less visible gap between haves and have-nots, because not a single athletics program had positive net revenues in 2006. The median net loss for the 118 programs at that level was $7.1 million, although programs generated as much as $15.2 million in revenues and spent as much as $34.9 million, far above the medians of $2.3 million and $11.4 million, respectively."
You also have to feed the kids when you travel too.
2. Saying someone is treated like a borderline slave is a little different than calling someone a hood rat. Especially if you go out and entertain people for no pay, and can't get an outside job, or even engage in a different sport as a professional (see: Jeremy Bloom). What would be a better term for it, undercompensated laborer?
3. Choice is a very funny word given the wildly differential access to money, power, privilege, and education we have in this country. For instance, I get some kids who come from Baltimore City who have nowhere near the same social or educational background than kids from Baltimore County. Is going to a college to play sports the same choice for rich kids with good educational and social backgrounds as it is for the undereducated kid through no fault of his/her own? Further, when you went to school (and didn't play sports I presume) did you have a person tell you what classes you could and couldn't take, when you could and couldn't take them, and with whom to take them with? Even at Towson my athletes all devote several hours of their time to practice, travel, and games at the cost of their educational pursuits. Is their "free" education full of choice, or yet another restriction on their lives.
can we see what the football and basketball programs look like as stand alone entities
http://www.zimbio.com/NCAA+Football/art ... e+Football
http://jvlone.com/InsideHE_Enemy013105.pdf
here's the deal if you follow the first article approximately 75 of 119 schools in D1 BCS make money. 0 in D1 sub, D2, or D3. So we are looking at 75 of approximately 600 schools making money on football AT BEST. At worst it's 5 of 600! And they supposedly pay for the other sports? How is that possible? Does Texas actually donate their extra profit to other schools?
The second article and third shows what I was talking about, and I am inclined to see it through their lens. To my earlier point:
A favorite argument of those who argue that big-time NCAA football turns a profit is that teams that participate in Bowl games, especially the BCS games, surely turn a profit with the big payouts. A brilliant example of this fallacy is the University of Wisconsin, which, as winner of the 1998 Rose Bowl, received a payout of $1.1 million. Despite this, they lost $286,700 on the trip. This was largely the result of paying for “832 people to attend, including players, band members, boosters, and university administrators.” (Welch Suggs, “A Look at the Future Bottom Line of Big-Time Sports,” Chronicle of Higher Education (12 Nov. 1999)).
As for We are Paternalistic State:
I don’t want to see college football end. I just think that the cost of the programs should be born by those who actually want the service. Those students who want to go to the games can pay higher ticket prices. Don’t force all students to pay higher fees. I never went to a football game when I was at Penn State (the university couldn’t afford to put books in the library, but they had $14 million to build a covered practice field so the players wouldn’t get wet. In a meaningless act of protest, I boycotted the games), but I had to pay higher fees to support the team.
This wasn't his 1st scandal either, but I'm sure he'll get another shot if he wants some where else.
http://www.sectalk.com/boards/sec-footb ... hools.html
One, I'm a Badger fan and they have been the elite football program of the big 10, although now we are seeing why. Guys like Pryor, Clarrett, and Troy Smith seem to pop up a lot at OSU. Guys who are the classless of the classless when it comes to college athletes in my opinion. Selling memorbilia for money is about as bad as it could get. If a Badger ever did it, I'd hope he'd get ran out of town. It should be a priveledge to play for a big name school, and should be a thing of pride, not a revenue source for these athletes. I'll give you credit, as you at least realize what a POS Pryor and the rest of these guys are and what no part of them in your program. I could be wrong, but I think the "holier than thou" attitude I see from "most" not "all" OSU fans means you are in the minority. Everyone is entitled to there opinions and my opinion of OSU was verified even more with these happenings. Again, I'll give credit where it is due, and you realize what a disgrace these guys were, but again I would like to see if the majority of Columbus agrees with you.
Chicago 5/16/06, Chicago 5/17/06, Grand Rapids 5/19/06
Milwaukee 6/29/06, Milwaukee 6/30/06, Lollapalooza 8/5/07
Eddie Solo Milwaukee 8/19/08, Toronto 8/21/09, Chicago 8/23/09
Chicago 8/24/09, Indianapolis 5/7/10, Ed Chicago 6/29/11, Alpine Valley 9/3/11 and 9/4/11, Wrigley 7/19/13, Moline 10/18/14, Milwaukee 10/20/14
no one said these kids HAD to go to Towson or any other school they chose. if they want choices and more freedom in their classes they can pay for education like everyone else in america. no one says these kids have to choose schools wher they are 'undercompensated' as you say. if you don't want to play by the rules of the scholarships you can always go to a school that doesn't give scholarships. as i mentioned before for football there are only about 130-150 schools that give out scholarships, for basketball probably about 350-400 (i think some DII schools give scholarships) which is a very small portion of the number of colleges in America. saying they are border-line slaves is implying that they HAVE to be where they are and choose that path, and the fact is they just don't. it's a choice.
where does it say that they have to play football or basketball or whatever sport? that is a choice they make to play. we don't MAKE anyone be a football or basketball player. not sure i understand your argument here. no one FORCED Terrelle Pryor to play football at Ohio State just like no one forced me into the profession i am in.
edit: and my niece just graduated from Towson this year. I'm sure her and her parents would gladly have been an 'undercompensated' student to avoid the $200k or so cost of her education. when she can't afford to buy her own home until she is 35 because she is paying off student loans and johnny the bball player doesn't have that concern it's hard to feel sorry for johnny.
1) she was out-of-state - not sure the cost of Towson is. $200k was probably way too high for me to estimate but i honestly don't know for sure what it is. Zero debt over $90k is a choice anyone in their right mind would choose.
2) my father worked 50 weeks a year for 40 years to afford to live in the 'county'. to insinuate there is something wrong with being what you determine as privileged because of that is insulting to my parents and to myself. there are plenty of people out there who have come from disadvantaged situations and prospered. my grandparents came over here with nothing. my parents sure as hell didn't grow up privileged being born just before the great depression. as for city kids being fucked over by the system well we could go into a whole other direction with that topic. let's just say having children when you can't support them and absentee fathers play a huge role. we could debate for hours on causes and effect but let's just say at times too much blame is put on other places and people in my opinion.
Now if your family was not-white they were legally prevented from the best schools, transportation, and places to live. If you grow up in that era what sort of drive are you going to have to do anything? On top of that what kind of support are you going to give your children, who are likely going to schools that are underfunded, with the worst teachers, etc.? What did that kid do to deserve that? Not a damn thing, they were born into a tough situation.
Do privileged people screw it all up? Sure. Do people come from tough places to succeed? Sure. But if you look at this country post-Carter/Reagan we have seen a retrenchment of class power to pre-1950s times. If you live in a capitalist country wealth is the way you get to have more "choice". The College Football situation is a good example of how this works out.
you are giving people an easy and convenient excuse. i live in a suburb within 20 minutes of the city of philadelphia. apartments in this area are around $500 a month. plenty of people could have access to my 'affluent' school district with a few more personal sacrifices like not having children at a young age, not having to have a satelittle dish and 50 inch screen tv, not having to wear $200 Nike's, etc. My parents weren't rich and made personal choices to keep us in our area and school district. my dad probably could have driven a $40,000 car, or had the nicest suits, or went to events every week but he didn't. he drove a freaking chevy Nova with no air conditioning and came home and watched tv every night. i can count on one hand the number of times my parents 'went out' for a fun evening together from the time i could remember until i was an adult. getting the next generation into a better situation has to be a priority and very often that just doesn't seem to be the case.
as for education funding how much is too much? and at what point are dimishing returns enough? Education funding in the US has increased in super large numbers since the 80s but children's test scores have gotten worse. and don't even get me started on teachers (and i have teachers in my family...) and the teacher's union.
oh so back to original topic, yea Terrelle Pryor doesn't need to play football at Ohio State or anywhere else and no one has to play sports at Towson. It's their choice and they choose to accept the guidelines of accepting that choice. just as i accept the guidelines of my working situation. i don't have to work for the company i do or in the industry i do. and i live with those choices everyday.
i just think you are giving people free and convenient excuses. it's such a tragedy that Terrelle Pryor might actually have to get a job outside of football like the rest of america.
this sounds alot like the "its not my fault" arguement. it's always somebody else's doing.
What about those fringe sports, where athetes get a paid tution and don't generate any revenue for the school. Are they not just a drain on joe tax payer?
How about this idea give the kid a choice when he comes to school, either take the "free" education or get paid the amount that "free" education is worth. So if you go to Towson you get 90k over 4 years as an out-of-stater, Duke you get $160k over 4 years as an in-state resident, while at UNC you'd get 25k as in-state over 4 years, and 100k as out-of-state. If you choose the "professional" track you don't have to take any classes, but get training seminars on how to do personal finances, and other things of that nature. If you chose the "free educational" track you get to place a bigger focus on your academics. Of course this would never happen because without University subsidies football and basketball are an unsustainable business venture.
and jim tressel wasn't handed the Ohio State job without working for 20 some years at smaller much less lucrative jobs. he came from youngstown state prior to Ohio State so as much as a scumbag tressel is, he worked to get to that level of salary and presitge.
This was actually written by two authors funded by a right-wing think tank (American Enterprise Institute). What is happening in this world?