Ncaa Ripped - John Oliver

[HouWarrior]

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.

[#UnleashSean]

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?

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[MU82]

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?

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[Marqevans]

Let's just let them all get agents in grade school, go to the highest bidder, and whatever's left funds Title 9.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

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.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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.