MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: #UnleashSean on March 17, 2015, 04:41:10 PM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX8BXH3SJn0
Wrekt.
-
Been there. Done that.
Check the superbar!!
-
Gah someone got there before me? LAME
-
Hook em !
-
That is hilarious, I kept thinking of Buzz and his revenue streams.
-
Very good but it does not tell the whole story. I agree with the fact that most coaches are creeps and the NCAA officials are the lowliest but athletes do generally benefit from their time on campus and often times get fairly good jobs after college due to connections they make at the school.
-
Very good but it does not tell the whole story. I agree with the fact that most coaches are creeps and the NCAA officials are the lowliest but athletes do generally benefit from their time on campus and often times get fairly good jobs after college due to connections they make at the school.
I'm thinking that this had a lot to do with Josh Sharma dropping Wisconsin for Stanford.
-
And I would grant some compensation to the players. As Al McGuire said when one of his players went pro after sophomore year "I would have gone pro if I had what was in his family's refrigerator when I visited". (Paraphrased)
-
Very good but it does not tell the whole story. I agree with the fact that most coaches are creeps and the NCAA officials are the lowliest but athletes do generally benefit from their time on campus and often times get fairly good jobs after college due to connections they make at the school.
I'm just curious how many NCAA people you know, or for that matter coaches? The wrestling coach, the women's volleyball coach at Portland State, the fencing coach at Yale, the rowing coach at Harvard, the softball coach at Alcorn State, the golf coach at Truman, etc, etc.
Are you judging all coaches by the handful you see on tv, as that is a minority when you consider all the sports the NCAA offers in the three divisions, let alone the assistant coaches, etc. As for the NCAA officials, I honestly can't think of any of those that I know currently or worked with in the past are anything but wonderful people. They are in compliance, or statistics, or the championships part of the organization.
-
Same weekly script for him. Old.
Does he even know what the NCAA is? I doubt it. I'll bet he's a huge basketball fan as well.
-
Same weekly script for him. Old.
Does he even know what the NCAA is? I doubt it. I'll bet he's a huge basketball fan as well.
Obviously doesn't write his own stuff. Like 99.999999% of any tv host.
-
Same weekly script for him. Old.
Does he even know what the NCAA is? I doubt it. I'll bet he's a huge basketball fan as well.
Quite possibly not. Which if you think about it, isn't a good sign for the NCAA. When this call for paying football and basketball players no longer runs solely on sports themed shows but moves onto mainstream media shows it can only be a sign that the drums are starting to beat louder.
-
Same weekly script for him. Old.
Does he even know what the NCAA is? I doubt it. I'll bet he's a huge basketball fan as well.
John Oliver's show was really a cool idea for the first 3 episodes, then it became obvious that he was going to run out the same trope time and time again. Just change the names and find some other strawman to burn down.
-
The thing that really bothers me is that he doesn't even bother to bring up ANY counter argument AT ALL. What about athletes not playing men's basketball? Per Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972, how much do you pay a discus thrower? Look, I'm not saying the current system is perfect (far from it), but I have yet to see someone present a reasonable solution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX. It's so easy to just pin it all on Men's basketball without even considering all of the other sports...
-
The thing that really bothers me is that he doesn't even bother to bring up ANY counter argument AT ALL. What about athletes not playing men's basketball? Per Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972, how much do you pay a discus thrower? Look, I'm not saying the current system is perfect (far from it), but I have yet to see someone present a reasonable solution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX. It's so easy to just pin it all on Men's basketball without even considering all of the other sports...
I think you are misinterpreting Title IX. There is nothing that says if a basketball player is paid you must pay a discus thrower. Most non-basketball/football student athletes don't even get full scholarships despite the basketball and football players getting full rides.
-
The thing that really bothers me is that he doesn't even bother to bring up ANY counter argument AT ALL. What about athletes not playing men's basketball? Per Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972, how much do you pay a discus thrower? Look, I'm not saying the current system is perfect (far from it), but I have yet to see someone present a reasonable solution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX. It's so easy to just pin it all on Men's basketball without even considering all of the other sports...
[/quote
Title Nine has nothing to do with this.
-
I think you are misinterpreting Title IX. There is nothing that says if a basketball player is paid you must pay a discus thrower. Most non-basketball/football student athletes don't even get full scholarships despite the basketball and football players getting full rides.
So then what does it say?
-
So then what does it say?
Absolutely nothing having to do with this topic. Title IX is about preventing gender discrimination in higher education.
-
Same weekly script for him. Old.
So, what time is your show on? I'd like to get some new, fresh humor.
Until then, I'll have to agree with HBO, which thought enough of Oliver's weekly script to extend his contract.
I happen to think he's funny, but maybe The Chicos Report on Showtime will convince me otherwise.
-
So, what time is your show on? I'd like to get some new, fresh humor.
Until then, I'll have to agree with HBO, which thought enough of Oliver's weekly script to extend his contract.
I happen to think he's funny, but maybe The Chicos Report on Showtime will convince me otherwise.
Not that Chicos needs someone to come to his defense, but I didn't realize that just because someone doesn't have a show of their own, they must find all that do funny. You're so right - that Steve Harvey show is hysterical.
This is the same argument as saying only those that have played college basketball are qualified to judge.
-
Not that Chicos needs someone to come to his defense, but I didn't realize that just because someone doesn't have a show of their own, they must find all that do funny. You're so right - that Steve Harvey show is hysterical.
This is the same argument as saying only those that have played college basketball are qualified to judge.
You're right. Chicos is entitled to his opinion, as is everybody else.
-
John Oliver's show was really a cool idea for the first 3 episodes, then it became obvious that he was going to run out the same trope time and time again. Just change the names and find some other strawman to burn down.
Yup....it's just a cut and paste shat show now.
-
Absolutely nothing having to do with this topic. Title IX is about preventing gender discrimination in higher education.
As any Title IX specialized attorney will tell you, however, if you pay the men's basketball players you can bet the lawsuits on the grounds of title ix will fly fast and furious. Whether they are successful or not, that's another story.
-
So, what time is your show on? I'd like to get some new, fresh humor.
Until then, I'll have to agree with HBO, which thought enough of Oliver's weekly script to extend his contract.
I happen to think he's funny, but maybe The Chicos Report on Showtime will convince me otherwise.
82, he's in your wheelhouse on ideology, of course you think he is funny. I happen to think some of his stuff is quite good, but he needs to shake it up. Plus, talk about something he actually knows, it was painful watching him do this...he had no idea about the NCAA or the tournament and it was obvious. He clearly doesn't understand intercollegiate athletics either.
-
He brings up some good points, but he really didn't talk about how basketball and football pay for all the sports in an athletic department. Also if basketball football players get paid do all sports get paid? Do lower division one players get paid? If Napier was actually going to bed hungry then that for sure needs to be fixed, but the NCAA doesn't really make any money many people don't realize that.
-
82, he's in your wheelhouse on ideology, of course you think he is funny. I happen to think some of his stuff is quite good, but he needs to shake it up. Plus, talk about something he actually knows, it was painful watching him do this...he had no idea about the NCAA or the tournament and it was obvious. He clearly doesn't understand intercollegiate athletics either.
I am quite confused. I have seen both of these threads on Oliver take, what is to me an odd turn. I watch comedy/satire to laugh. I watch documentary/news magazines to learn of facts and issues.
Rarely do I care or fantasize that the mouthpiece in either case has any personal knowledge...nor could I care. If what the presenter reads (ugly or handsome, British or American) the humor which makes me laugh, or the facts which the documentarian covers.... mission accomplished.
Anyone with a true curiosity and the internet can research and self educate on any facts they seek (assuming they can filter quality sources from BS). We have lots of media, including on this subject, to educate us.
BUT...Humor is special. Laughter is an involuntary reflex. Those that make us laugh are special too. The world is full of too much BS and humor is a great balancer/outlet for us to cope.
If a totally inaccurate fact presented by a comic makes me laugh I am still happy. Example: I knew Nixon did not air a special showing of the movie Deep Throat to learn how he could get it down Pat...but I laughed. BTW, for those that want your humor to connect to your politics, this 70's era joke can be revised to any president's name you like or dislike...its the joke, not the factual content, that springs humor.
I took all of Oliver for his humor and it doesn't even occur to me to analyze any humorist's facts or personal knowledge. I enjoy laughter for its own sake.
-
He brings up some good points, but he really didn't talk about how basketball and football pay for all the sports in an athletic department. Also if basketball football players get paid do all sports get paid? Do lower division one players get paid? If Napier was actually going to bed hungry then that for sure needs to be fixed, but the NCAA doesn't really make any money many people don't realize that.
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh what?
-
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh what?
From a profitability perspective, he is mostly right. Revenues are high, but expenses are high because the NCAA has to redistribute the revenues. About 93% of the revenues are redistributed to benefit the student athletes (Scholarships, Student Athlete Fund, Academic Enhancement Fund, Student Athlete Services, NCAA championships). The rest goes to operation of the 90 NCAA championships, G & A for 500 NCAA employees, governance of 1000+ schools, statistics, educational training to coaches, etc, etc.
-
Marquette has 14 intercollegiate athletic teams. Let's say there are an average 15 scholarships per team -- I don't know if it's true and I actually suspect it's high so I am erring on that side.
That's 210 scholarships (some of which will be divided by non-revenue sports teams).
Let's say you assign a $5,000 stipend to each of those scholarships. That's $1.05 million.
That's a relative drop in the bucket for a major athletic budget, less than half of what Buzz made all by himself. (I don't know what Wojo makes.)
So would it really be "impossible" to fund stipends such as these, as some contend?
There must be a way to craft NCAA legislation that would have the salaries of the head football coach, head men's basketball coach, head women's basketball coach, and athletes' stipends all in one pool. The coaches then could only get paid after the money was distributed to the athletes.
Look, I fully acknowledge what I said in my preceding paragraph might not work. But there has to be some system that can work at most institutions, especially those in the top 10 conferences, to let the athletes get some kind of stipend.
Because to claim Alabama couldn't "afford" such stipends while paying its head football coach $7 million per year is the height of disingenuousness, no?
-
I've seen John Oliver a few times. He comes with a slant but he is funny. He's also beside the point in this discussion.
This is really simple. Some sports (both pro and college) make tons of money. At the pro level the hired help collectively bargains with the owners on how to split up the dough. I don't know exactly, but I think in a sport like basketball or football player salaries are between 40% and 50% of revenues. In big time college football and basketball the players get maybe 5%-7% of the revenues in scholarships and other ancillary benefits. After the coach is handsomely rewarded (in college basketball his compensation may be worth two or three times the amount of his entire team's scholarships). The school then takes the rest of the money that the football or basketball team has generated and gives it to some soccer goalie nobody but a Mom or Dad would watch for free. And people who absolutely hate the idea of redistributing wealth (even to feed people or give tax credits to the poorest of the working poor) think this is just peachy. What's mine is mine. I earned it. What you earned? Not so much. Hilarious.
-
Let's just let them all get agents in grade school, go to the highest bidder, and whatever's left funds Title 9.
-
I've seen John Oliver a few times. He comes with a slant but he is funny. He's also beside the point in this discussion.
This is really simple. Some sports (both pro and college) make tons of money. At the pro level the hired help collectively bargains with the owners on how to split up the dough. I don't know exactly, but I think in a sport like basketball or football player salaries are between 40% and 50% of revenues. In big time college football and basketball the players get maybe 5%-7% of the revenues in scholarships and other ancillary benefits. After the coach is handsomely rewarded (in college basketball his compensation may be worth two or three times the amount of his entire team's scholarships). The school then takes the rest of the money that the football or basketball team has generated and gives it to some soccer goalie nobody but a Mom or Dad would watch for free. And people who absolutely hate the idea of redistributing wealth (even to feed people or give tax credits to the poorest of the working poor) think this is just peachy. What's mine is mine. I earned it. What you earned? Not so much. Hilarious.
I also think the biggest people who stand to lose are the legions of administrators who make money off of big time college athletics. I imagine Madison is swimming in bureaucrats who have gotten rich off of everyone's beloved fake non-profit institution. If you have to actually compensate athletes, suddenly the budget for redundant admins gets tighter.
-
As any Title IX specialized attorney will tell you, however, if you pay the men's basketball players you can bet the lawsuits on the grounds of title ix will fly fast and furious. Whether they are successful or not, that's another story.
For women's basketball? Absolutely. For others sports? I don't see it.