troy
Well-Known Member
The quote from the NCAA President is at about the 2 minute 34 second mark of the video. Very interesting!
Money and March Madness | FRONTLINE | PBS Video
Money and March Madness | FRONTLINE | PBS Video
90% of NCAA's Revenue is Generated from NCAA Men's Bball Tourney
- Thread starter troy
- Start date
hawkIhoops
Well-Known Member
The paying players debate is silly because the second you pay a football or basketball player (the only revenue generating sports) every Title 9, drama club, student senate, chess club member / advocate will line the lawyers up a mile long to file suit. I do not agree wtih paying players, but IF players are going to be paid, only those from revenue genrating sports should get paid. This axiom makes sense in the business world, but not in the world of left-wing academics that think money falls from the sky.
To me this is no different than the debate over how much Ferentz makes. Many in the "intellectual" community in Iowa City think it is absurd to pay him so much, without taking into consideration how much $$ Iowa football brings to the university and surrounding community. You pay a $2M (whatever it is) and he brings in $30M in additional revenue (hotels, meals, gas, bowl money, etc.).....that is a pretty good return on investment.
These kids get free educations and don't have to pay back student loans for 15 years like myself and others. Not every kid has rich parents that send them to college with a credit card and a Volvo. Lots of kids (myself included) worked through college at the expense of fun and I can assure you that mopping the floors in the dorm was far less fun than playing a sport and being a rockstar on campus.
To me this is no different than the debate over how much Ferentz makes. Many in the "intellectual" community in Iowa City think it is absurd to pay him so much, without taking into consideration how much $$ Iowa football brings to the university and surrounding community. You pay a $2M (whatever it is) and he brings in $30M in additional revenue (hotels, meals, gas, bowl money, etc.).....that is a pretty good return on investment.
These kids get free educations and don't have to pay back student loans for 15 years like myself and others. Not every kid has rich parents that send them to college with a credit card and a Volvo. Lots of kids (myself included) worked through college at the expense of fun and I can assure you that mopping the floors in the dorm was far less fun than playing a sport and being a rockstar on campus.
blkngoldUofI
Well-Known Member
And that is why thye will expand the tournament to 96 teams. With the involvement of TNT, TBS, and TruTV they now know they can show every game. When they do that the whole March Madness will be ruined for me.
tm3308
Well-Known Member
I'm no advocate for paying players, but there are things that athletes are not allowed to do that any other student would be. Remember that hole-in-one contest that Drew Tate won? Had to give back the money. Darnell Autry from Northwestern had to go through a mountain of red tape to get like a 5-minute cameo in a movie (he was studying acting). Would somebody like me have to do things like that? Nope, I could do whatever I wanted. Those things have NOTHING to do with football or basketball.
If this sort of logic were used before now, Jeremy Bloom wouldn't have been forced to choose between two lifelong dreams: play in the NFL, or ski in the Olympics. He ended up with both, but his road was made MUCH more difficult when he couldn't play for Colorado.
I'll never understand why stuff like this is NOT okay in the eyes of the NCAA, but players like Russell Wilson (as an example) can pocket salary money playing professional baseball every summer.
If this sort of logic were used before now, Jeremy Bloom wouldn't have been forced to choose between two lifelong dreams: play in the NFL, or ski in the Olympics. He ended up with both, but his road was made MUCH more difficult when he couldn't play for Colorado.
I'll never understand why stuff like this is NOT okay in the eyes of the NCAA, but players like Russell Wilson (as an example) can pocket salary money playing professional baseball every summer.
hawkIhoops
Well-Known Member
I agree that the NCAA should loosen some of their silly restrictions. So it is ok for stuff to go on behind the scenes, but a kid can't sell his ring or keep a prize if won fairly? They should focus on increasing graduation rates and decreasing booster / agent involvement vs. trying to police a player getting a free stack of pancakes a IHOP or a ride across campus in a golf cart.
racerhawk
Well-Known Member
I think you make some good points, but your last paragraph doesn't make sense.
In your middle paragraph, you talk about the ROI for KF. That makes sense. The football program brings in $30M or so, and paying him a lot of money makes some sense in terms of the ROI.
However, if one applies this logic to the actual athletes, they are not getting even the tiniest fraction when compared to the value they bring. At some schools, kids are encouraged to change their class schedules so that football can be maximized. Some end with career ending injuries as well. To top if off, the NCAA can use their likeness (to make more millions) forever, and that player will never see a dime of that money.
I do think that the college scholarship matters, but the time has come to pay the players a stipend, and call it a day. It's a rational thing to do.
These players are THE engine for a multi billion dollar industry. Sure, they've got a scholarship, but they're absolutely being used and the money is lining the pockets of businessmen.
tm3308
Well-Known Member
Selling championship rings would be an exception to loosened restrictions, IMO. Those are given to them by the school, so they didn't come by it fairly (no other student could get one).
Now understanding the quote was that 90% of the money that comes in the *NCAA* comes from the men's basketball tournament. This isn't 90% of the money that colleges make from basketball.
This is the NCAA organization's cash cow. Colleges make their revenue from the regular season and conference tournaments. Think of the NCAA basically as one giant individual bowl committee.
This is the NCAA organization's cash cow. Colleges make their revenue from the regular season and conference tournaments. Think of the NCAA basically as one giant individual bowl committee.
shonblatt
Well-Known Member
You're being a little dramatic. So many people act like the tournament is sacred and shouldn't be touched.
It's not like these play in games are a brand new concept. The NCAA tourney invited 48 teams in the early 80s, so there were a bunch of the play-in first round games, the top 4 seeds in each region had byes, and it worked out just fine.
Do we need 96? Of course not.
But is two extra days of basketball such a horrible thing? 96 teams means 32 extra games.
Hawkeye11en1
Well-Known Member
I really haven't been paying much attention to the talk about 96 teams. Would it be a larger bracket in which every team will play more games or will it just have a ton of play-in games? I am assuming it will be a combination of both, but I honestly have no clue.
tm3308
Well-Known Member
My guess would be that the top 32 would get byes. Then the rest of the teams would play to get to the real round of 64, and then the tournament would continue as it normally does.