collapse

* Stud of Colorado Game

Tyler Kolek

21 points, 5 rebounds,
11 assists, 1 steal,
40 minutes

2023-24 Season SoG Tally
Kolek11
Ighodaro6
Jones, K.6
Mitchell2
Jones, S.1
Joplin1

'22-23
'21-22 * '20-21 * '19-20
'18-19 * '17-18 * '16-17
'15-16 * '14-15 * '13-14
'12-13 * '11-12 * '10-11

* Big East Standings

* Recent Posts

Kam Jones 1st Round Mock - The Ringer by lawdog77
[Today at 10:19:35 AM]


2024 Transfer Portal by PGsHeroes32
[Today at 10:14:22 AM]


2024 Coaching Carousel by Uncle Rico
[Today at 09:52:19 AM]


Katz has MU in Final Four by Scoop Snoop
[Today at 09:51:44 AM]


10 years after “Done Deal” … It’s Happening! by Zog from Margo
[Today at 09:41:55 AM]


Big East 23-24 NCAA and NIT Results by cheebs09
[Today at 09:36:47 AM]


Pep Band/Cheerleaders by TallTitan34
[Today at 09:22:48 AM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!

* Next up: NC State

Marquette
81
Marquette vs

NC State

Date/Time: Mar 29, 2024, 6:09 pm
TV: CBS
Schedule for 2023-24
Colorado
77

Author Topic: Well that was a waste  (Read 206313 times)

Cheeks

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6045
  • Hall of Fame Hugger
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #75 on: September 05, 2019, 12:42:47 AM »
No, Cheeks, the media didn't get it wrong. You got it wrong.
Nowhere in the story you linked does it state "2018 average DI basketball head coaches’ salary is in the $100,000’s range."
That is something you made up because, as happens oddly often for you, you didn't actually read the story you linked.

Likewise, it was you, not the story you linked, that implied that only the top 25 to 40 coaches are rich compared to most Americans. Fact is, well over 70 coaches earn in excess of $1 million a year and the vast majority earn well over six figures. That is, as TAMU said, rich compared to most Americans.


Ahem.....nowhere and I just made it up?  hmmm.....from the article....yes, I said 2018 and the article referenced 2017....i’m Sure salaries changed immensely in the 9 months to change the $100,000 number he stated.  (Sarcasm) Note the title of paragraph 2 is Average Salaries.  He goes out of the way to mention the exceptions, those that made the tournament and despite those coaches, including the top 40. 

Good day.

“Average Salaries
Salaries range widely among college basketball coaches. Even among the coaches at Division I schools whose teams made it to the 2017 NCAA tournament, salaries range from former Louisville coach Rick Pitino's $7,769,200 to North Dakota coach Brian Jones' $109,273.

When the salaries of coaches at smaller schools are taken into account, the average is probably not more than $100,000. Even then, that average is skewed higher by the almost surrealistically high salaries of the 40 top-paying NCAA schools, all of which pay their head basketball coaches $1 million or more.”
« Last Edit: September 05, 2019, 01:04:54 AM by Cheeks »
"I hate everything about this job except the games, Everything. I don't even get affected anymore by the winning, by the ratings, those things. The trouble is, it will sound like an excuse because we've never won the national championship, but winning just isn't all that important to me.” Al McGuire

TAMU, Knower of Ball

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22056
  • Meat Eater certified
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #76 on: September 05, 2019, 07:20:23 AM »
Edit:  for giggles, about 30% of the NCAA tournament from a few years ago made $500K or less.  Source also USA Today.   https://247sports.com/college/west-virginia/Board/105475/Contents/College-Basketball-Coaches-Salaries-54684326/


I guess that’s super duper rich to some....i could not disagree more depending on family of four and where they live.  I would love to see the data, but I would wager 1/2 of all D1 b-ball coaches make less than $300k in salary from the school as a source.  A far cry from the top guys that so many point to as the “norm”.

Average American makes between 30K-40K. So for most Americans and for most of the world's population that is super-duper rich. If you "could not disagree more" than it's because you have lost perspective.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2019, 07:26:04 AM by TAMU Eagle »
TAMU

I do know, Newsie is right on you knowing ball.


Uncle Rico

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9591
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #77 on: September 05, 2019, 07:27:08 AM »
Majorly flawed.  The women today get the same scholarship the men do, they aren’t injured or aggrieved.  That’s why.  You start to change that dynamic, and one side is going to say there is a built in advantage.

More flawed logic by you is totally ignoring the benefits MU gets from being in a conference and the NCAA tournament credit money.  You had more of an argument when MU was an independent, but MU joined a conference for many reasons...scheduling, association with like minded schools, etc....MU receives money when OTHER conference schools make the tournament in addition to years we make it.  We get a cut....more of that socialism in sports that so many of you hate.  If MU merely went on its own and had no benefit from the conference and NCAA then MU should forfeit all those credits....which of course MU shouldn’t because MU benefits from such association.  Benefits!

Scale with 356 DI schools?  LOL.  You don’t understand scale then.  I’m talking hundreds of thousands or north of a million entities...true scale.

1. If you don’t think male athletes have greater benefits than female athletes at this current moment, your argument is then flawed.

2. Marquette being in a conference wouldn’t be changed one iota if athletes were allowed to be compensated on their likeness.  They’d still receive the same benefits by being in a conference.  The larger point was Marquette has adapted as the college sports landscape has changed.  They’d adapt if athletes were rightfully given the opportunity to earn money on their likeness.

3. It’s you who doesn’t understand scale.  College sports at all levels are dominated by the few.  Athletes earning from their likeness wouldn’t change that.

You’re simply scared Marquette would become irrelevant and want to prop up an organization you think somehow keeps them relevant.  Marquette stays relevant because they have chosen to.  The NCAA is a morally bankrupt organization that has been whistling past the graveyard for decades.

Whether you like it or not, college sports are a major business and corrupt to the core.  They have become entertainment inventory and the stars of the show should benefit from that.  The media and schools prop up coaches as these paragons of virtue and stars of the program but without the great, average and bad players we watch, there’s nothing. 

“This is bar none atrocious.  Mitchell cannot shoot either.  What a pile of dung”

TAMU, Knower of Ball

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22056
  • Meat Eater certified
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #78 on: September 05, 2019, 07:28:37 AM »

Ahem.....nowhere and I just made it up?  hmmm.....from the article....yes, I said 2018 and the article referenced 2017....i’m Sure salaries changed immensely in the 9 months to change the $100,000 number he stated.  (Sarcasm) Note the title of paragraph 2 is Average Salaries.  He goes out of the way to mention the exceptions, those that made the tournament and despite those coaches, including the top 40. 

Good day.

“Average Salaries
Salaries range widely among college basketball coaches. Even among the coaches at Division I schools whose teams made it to the 2017 NCAA tournament, salaries range from former Louisville coach Rick Pitino's $7,769,200 to North Dakota coach Brian Jones' $109,273.

When the salaries of coaches at smaller schools are taken into account, the average is probably not more than $100,000. Even then, that average is skewed higher by the almost surrealistically high salaries of the 40 top-paying NCAA schools, all of which pay their head basketball coaches $1 million or more.”

You notice the phrasing right? "Is probably not more?" The use of the word probably means that this guy was guessing. And as Pakuni showed, he was guessing badly.

Edit: I also notice that in that statement he says "coaches" not "head coaches." But later in the article he differentiates between "coaches" and "head coaches." So it is possible that he was also lumping in assistant coaching salaries with head coaching salaries. Which is confusing at best, disingenuous at worst.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2019, 07:34:56 AM by TAMU Eagle »
TAMU

I do know, Newsie is right on you knowing ball.


The Sultan of Semantics

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 11512
  • "Private message me coward" - panda
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #79 on: September 05, 2019, 07:53:40 AM »
You’re simply scared Marquette would become irrelevant and want to prop up an organization you think somehow keeps them relevant.


That's really not the reason.  Cheeks doesn't like change and especially doesn't like change that would somehow benefit those who lack power (players) at the expense for those who do (NCAA, schools, coaches.)  Every single thing he ever debates can fall along these lines.

The rest of the stuff, such as Title IX and the best players concentrating at a few schools, are simply excuses and scare tactics to support his positions because logically they can't be supported otherwise.
“True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else.” - Clarence Darrow

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9875
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #80 on: September 05, 2019, 08:10:18 AM »

Ahem.....nowhere and I just made it up?  hmmm.....from the article....yes, I said 2018 and the article referenced 2017....i’m Sure salaries changed immensely in the 9 months to change the $100,000 number he stated.  (Sarcasm) Note the title of paragraph 2 is Average Salaries.  He goes out of the way to mention the exceptions, those that made the tournament and despite those coaches, including the top 40. 

Good day.

“Average Salaries
Salaries range widely among college basketball coaches. Even among the coaches at Division I schools whose teams made it to the 2017 NCAA tournament, salaries range from former Louisville coach Rick Pitino's $7,769,200 to North Dakota coach Brian Jones' $109,273.

When the salaries of coaches at smaller schools are taken into account, the average is probably not more than $100,000. Even then, that average is skewed higher by the almost surrealistically high salaries of the 40 top-paying NCAA schools, all of which pay their head basketball coaches $1 million or more.”

This really isn't hard, Cheeks.
The story linked states "When the salaries of coaches at smaller schools are taken into account, the average is probably not more than $100,000."

You took that statement and changed it to "2018 average DI basketball head coaches’ salary is in the $100,000’s range."

You ignored two huge and obvious red flags - the clear mathematical improbability and his use of the word "probably" - and then inserted "D1" and "head coaches" into the statement. You literally altered the guy's statement and added words to fit your argument.


brewcity77

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 26360
  • Warning-This poster may trigger thin skinned users
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #81 on: September 05, 2019, 08:19:23 AM »
You mean the media got it wrong again?  I really have to stop trusting these journalist# and academics like the PhD that wrote this article.



Edit:  for giggles, about 30% of the NCAA tournament from a few years ago made $500K or less.  Source also USA Today.   https://247sports.com/college/west-virginia/Board/105475/Contents/College-Basketball-Coaches-Salaries-54684326/


I guess that’s super duper rich to some....i could not disagree more depending on family of four and where they live.  I would love to see the data, but I would wager 1/2 of all D1 b-ball coaches make less than $300k in salary from the school as a source.  A far cry from the top guys that so many point to as the “norm”.

You should spend time looking into household incomes in America. About $130,000 in household income is the cutoff for the top-10%. The median household income as of 2016 was under $60,000. So for 50% of the families in this country, one person making 220% or more of their total family income would probably be super duper rich.
This space reserved for a 2024 National Championship celebration banner.

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9875
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #82 on: September 05, 2019, 08:28:47 AM »

Edit:  for giggles, about 30% of the NCAA tournament from a few years ago made $500K or less.  Source also USA Today.   https://247sports.com/college/west-virginia/Board/105475/Contents/College-Basketball-Coaches-Salaries-54684326/

A household income of $225K - which is 58 of the 63 coaches on this list - is in the top 5 percent in the country.
An income of $450K - 45 of the 63  - puts you in the top 1 percent.
Now tell us again how D1 head coaches aren't getting rich.

Cheeks

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6045
  • Hall of Fame Hugger
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #83 on: September 05, 2019, 08:54:53 AM »
Average American makes between 30K-40K. So for most Americans and for most of the world's population that is super-duper rich. If you "could not disagree more" than it's because you have lost perspective.

Avg American Salary $47K as of Feb 2019

When did rest of world get brought into this?

Sorry, Super Duper Rich to me is people making millions, not making $300K. 
"I hate everything about this job except the games, Everything. I don't even get affected anymore by the winning, by the ratings, those things. The trouble is, it will sound like an excuse because we've never won the national championship, but winning just isn't all that important to me.” Al McGuire

Cheeks

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6045
  • Hall of Fame Hugger
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #84 on: September 05, 2019, 08:57:55 AM »
You notice the phrasing right? "Is probably not more?" The use of the word probably means that this guy was guessing. And as Pakuni showed, he was guessing badly.

Edit: I also notice that in that statement he says "coaches" not "head coaches." But later in the article he differentiates between "coaches" and "head coaches." So it is possible that he was also lumping in assistant coaching salaries with head coaching salaries. Which is confusing at best, disingenuous at worst.

Could very well be, which is why I said I shouldn’t listen to journalists and academics.....and then I was accused by Pakuni of making up the remarks when it was right there in his article.  Good times.  Just as Sand Knit and the Good Dr made up that I was going to Montana this week....never said it, but hey why not throw out falsehoods....then when I or others point out that falsehoods we are somehow still guilty or an apology or merely a “i was wrong” is nowhere to be found.
"I hate everything about this job except the games, Everything. I don't even get affected anymore by the winning, by the ratings, those things. The trouble is, it will sound like an excuse because we've never won the national championship, but winning just isn't all that important to me.” Al McGuire

Cheeks

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6045
  • Hall of Fame Hugger
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #85 on: September 05, 2019, 09:02:09 AM »
This really isn't hard, Cheeks.
The story linked states "When the salaries of coaches at smaller schools are taken into account, the average is probably not more than $100,000."

You took that statement and changed it to "2018 average DI basketball head coaches’ salary is in the $100,000’s range."

You ignored two huge and obvious red flags - the clear mathematical improbability and his use of the word "probably" - and then inserted "D1" and "head coaches" into the statement. You literally altered the guy's statement and added words to fit your argument.

LOL, I actually gave the guy even more latitude.  He said $100,000, and I said $100,000’s range which accounts for much more instead of his fixed lower amount. 

And excuse me, he was talking about D1 and head coaches....his words.  His only examples are head coaches.  Read the two paragraphs.  Now if this academic wasn’t clear, that’s fine....but those were his words.
"I hate everything about this job except the games, Everything. I don't even get affected anymore by the winning, by the ratings, those things. The trouble is, it will sound like an excuse because we've never won the national championship, but winning just isn't all that important to me.” Al McGuire

JustinLewisFanClubPres

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 209
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #86 on: September 05, 2019, 09:04:39 AM »
That's really not the reason.  Cheeks doesn't like change and especially doesn't like change that would somehow benefit those who lack power (players) at the expense for those who do (NCAA, schools, coaches.)  Every single thing he ever debates can fall along these lines.

+100000

brewcity77

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 26360
  • Warning-This poster may trigger thin skinned users
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #87 on: September 05, 2019, 09:11:28 AM »
Sorry, Super Duper Rich to me is people making millions, not making $300K.

And this is your problem. You don't understand what you are talking about because you can only see through your personal lens. I definitely consider $300,000/year to be super duper rich. It's more than double my household income, and I consider our household to be fairly wealthy.

I routinely go into households where the household income is $30,000 or less. I imagine anyone in that category would consider a 1000% increase in wages to be super duper rich.

You have to be pretty freaking privileged to not consider $300,000/year to be super duper rich.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2019, 09:13:22 AM by brewcity77 »
This space reserved for a 2024 National Championship celebration banner.

Cheeks

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6045
  • Hall of Fame Hugger
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #88 on: September 05, 2019, 09:15:43 AM »
1. If you don’t think male athletes have greater benefits than female athletes at this current moment, your argument is then flawed.

2. Marquette being in a conference wouldn’t be changed one iota if athletes were allowed to be compensated on their likeness.  They’d still receive the same benefits by being in a conference.  The larger point was Marquette has adapted as the college sports landscape has changed.  They’d adapt if athletes were rightfully given the opportunity to earn money on their likeness.

3. It’s you who doesn’t understand scale.  College sports at all levels are dominated by the few.  Athletes earning from their likeness wouldn’t change that.

You’re simply scared Marquette would become irrelevant and want to prop up an organization you think somehow keeps them relevant.  Marquette stays relevant because they have chosen to.  The NCAA is a morally bankrupt organization that has been whistling past the graveyard for decades.

Whether you like it or not, college sports are a major business and corrupt to the core.  They have become entertainment inventory and the stars of the show should benefit from that.  The media and schools prop up coaches as these paragons of virtue and stars of the program but without the great, average and bad players we watch, there’s nothing.

Where did I say college sports isn’t a major business?  Lol.  I worked in two athletic departments in my career including being responsible for the revenue of MU’s multiple years.  For many of the last 20 years I have worked with every major conference and the NCAA on the television side.  I still do to this day whether it is the Big Ten, SEC, ACC, the tournament, ESPN, etc, etc.  Uhm, yeah, I get it....much more than most here.

That doesn’t change the continued flawed focus by you and others of painting all of the ncaa or all colleges based on a small number of schools.  Most athletic depts don’t make money and cannot stand on their own two feet.  Do the men get it better than the women....another broad falsehood you have stated.  Does the Alabama football team get more than the Alabama women’s tennis team....yes.  Apples to oranges.  Does the Alabama men’s tennis team get more than the women’s team in terms of scholarships, aid, training, etc....that’s the proper comparison.  And in many cases, because of Title IX, more women are on scholarship in those sports then men.  Let’s use MU as an example.  How does the women’s vball team perks compare to the men’s vball team?  Here’s a hint....there is no men’s D1 vball team....again why your broad brush doesn’t make it so.   Men’s football, the number or scholarship athletes, heavily tilts the numbers because no women’s equivalent sports exists or comes close to it.

Finally, as I have already stated, I worked with these student athletes for many years at MU and IU.  Not just the basketball players, but the women and me busting their arses for themselves, their school, their families, to earn a degree and compete in varsity athletics.  Many were minorities.  Yes, my heart strings go to them and the opportunities that will go away from so many of theses kids in this insane drive to help the 1% get more because they are so deprived (heavy sarcasm) in school.  MU can choose to be where it is to a degree, but for you to not acknowledge the NCAA and the conference structure hasn’t benefited MU athletics is really something.

"I hate everything about this job except the games, Everything. I don't even get affected anymore by the winning, by the ratings, those things. The trouble is, it will sound like an excuse because we've never won the national championship, but winning just isn't all that important to me.” Al McGuire

Cheeks

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6045
  • Hall of Fame Hugger
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #89 on: September 05, 2019, 09:22:07 AM »
A household income of $225K - which is 58 of the 63 coaches on this list - is in the top 5 percent in the country.
An income of $450K - 45 of the 63  - puts you in the top 1 percent.
Now tell us again how D1 head coaches aren't getting rich.

Yup, and that doesn’t equal “super duper rich”.  The day in this country where $225k = “Super Duper Rich” ....we have a major vocabulary and education problem.....but I repeat myself.

I noticed you also conveniently left out avg career lifespan of a head coach.  Much like athletes, their window to make good money is highly compressed.  They don’t last long as they are hired to be fired.  This isn’t a 30 year teaching gig where it is impossible to get fired....it isn’t a tenured position.....it isn’t a Calif lifeguard making 6 figures the rest of their life....highly compressed timeline.
"I hate everything about this job except the games, Everything. I don't even get affected anymore by the winning, by the ratings, those things. The trouble is, it will sound like an excuse because we've never won the national championship, but winning just isn't all that important to me.” Al McGuire

Uncle Rico

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9591
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #90 on: September 05, 2019, 09:26:28 AM »
Where did I say college sports isn’t a major business?  Lol.  I worked in two athletic departments in my career including being responsible for the revenue of MU’s multiple years.  For many of the last 20 years I have worked with every major conference and the NCAA on the television side.  I still do to this day whether it is the Big Ten, SEC, ACC, the tournament, ESPN, etc, etc.  Uhm, yeah, I get it....much more than most here.

That doesn’t change the continued flawed focus by you and others of painting all of the ncaa or all colleges based on a small number of schools.  Most athletic depts don’t make money and cannot stand on their own two feet.  Do the men get it better than the women....another broad falsehood you have stated.  Does the Alabama football team get more than the Alabama women’s tennis team....yes.  Apples to oranges.  Does the Alabama men’s tennis team get more than the women’s team in terms of scholarships, aid, training, etc....that’s the proper comparison.  And in many cases, because of Title IX, more women are on scholarship in those sports then men.  Let’s use MU as an example.  How does the women’s vball team perks compare to the men’s vball team?  Here’s a hint....there is no men’s D1 vball team....again why your broad brush doesn’t make it so.   Men’s football, the number or scholarship athletes, heavily tilts the numbers because no women’s equivalent sports exists or comes close to it.

Finally, as I have already stated, I worked with these student athletes for many years at MU and IU.  Not just the basketball players, but the women and me busting their arses for themselves, their school, their families, to earn a degree and compete in varsity athletics.  Many were minorities.  Yes, my heart strings go to them and the opportunities that will go away from so many of theses kids in this insane drive to help the 1% get more because they are so deprived (heavy sarcasm) in school.  MU can choose to be where it is to a degree, but for you to not acknowledge the NCAA and the conference structure hasn’t benefited MU athletics is really something.

If athletic departments can’t sustain themselves financially, then it behooves the university to get out of that business.

This notion you have the NCAA is the only entity capable of providing opportunities further proves athletes should be able to sell their likeness at all levels.  Universities part of the NCAA fight for these kids at all levels means they have value beyond a scholarship.



“This is bar none atrocious.  Mitchell cannot shoot either.  What a pile of dung”

The Sultan of Semantics

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 11512
  • "Private message me coward" - panda
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #91 on: September 05, 2019, 09:32:52 AM »
I noticed you also conveniently left out avg career lifespan of a head coach.  Much like athletes, their window to make good money is highly compressed.  They don’t last long as they are hired to be fired.  This isn’t a 30 year teaching gig where it is impossible to get fired....it isn’t a tenured position.....it isn’t a Calif lifeguard making 6 figures the rest of their life....highly compressed timeline.


It is?  Where do you get that?

I think if you looked at all the D1 head coaches from 20 years ago, the majority are either:

--Working in coaching and making at least six figures as an assistant or head coach somewhere
--Working in something basketball related (TV, AAU, etc.) making similar amounts
--Retired
--Dead

I think you are making stuff up again.
“True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else.” - Clarence Darrow

brewcity77

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 26360
  • Warning-This poster may trigger thin skinned users
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #92 on: September 05, 2019, 09:37:17 AM »
Yup, and that doesn’t equal “super duper rich”.  The day in this country where $225k = “Super Duper Rich” ....we have a major vocabulary and education problem.....but I repeat myself.

Wrong. You don't get to define this. Roughly 5x the median household income of this country is exactly what super duper rich is to at least half the country. Take your privilege somewhere else.
This space reserved for a 2024 National Championship celebration banner.

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9875
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #93 on: September 05, 2019, 09:45:43 AM »
Yup, and that doesn’t equal “super duper rich”.  The day in this country where $225k = “Super Duper Rich” ....we have a major vocabulary and education problem.....but I repeat myself.

I noticed you also conveniently left out avg career lifespan of a head coach.  Much like athletes, their window to make good money is highly compressed.  They don’t last long as they are hired to be fired.  This isn’t a 30 year teaching gig where it is impossible to get fired....it isn’t a tenured position.....it isn’t a Calif lifeguard making 6 figures the rest of their life....highly compressed timeline.

So how would you define a person earning more than 95 percent of all American households? Slightly rich? Upper middle class? Doing OK? You're engaging in a lame semantical argument involving you personal defintions to avoid admitting the obvious ... college basketball coaching at the D1 is a pathway to riches.

And as FBM already points out, your "compressed" argument is nonsense. A guy who lands a D1 head coaching gig is pretty much guaranteed a job for the rest of his life. Look at Jerry Wainwright, for pete's sake.

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22723
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #94 on: September 05, 2019, 10:07:09 AM »
Y'all don't know what it's like, being male, upper-class and white.
“It’s not how white men fight.” - Tucker Carlson

Cheeks

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6045
  • Hall of Fame Hugger
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #95 on: September 05, 2019, 10:07:47 AM »
And this is your problem. You don't understand what you are talking about because you can only see through your personal lens. I definitely consider $300,000/year to be super duper rich. It's more than double my household income, and I consider our household to be fairly wealthy.

I routinely go into households where the household income is $30,000 or less. I imagine anyone in that category would consider a 1000% increase in wages to be super duper rich.

You have to be pretty freaking privileged to not consider $300,000/year to be super duper rich.

We all go through our personal lenses.  Super duper rich equates to ultra rich, and that amount of money to equate that is absurd.  A family of four living on $300k in a place like California is not super duper rich.  It’s absurd.  You are guilty of exactly what you are preaching against.  You don’t live in SF, or LA, or NYC, etc where people would laugh you out of the room to say super duper rich....because it is an absurd statement.  I guess I have to be pretty privileged in order to have a child with massive medical expenses each year, a wife as well....privileged...yup....and don’t forget the white part.  Sorry, $300k is not super duper rich.  If it is, what is a millionaire.....super super super duper duper duper rich.  The absurdity is awesome.
"I hate everything about this job except the games, Everything. I don't even get affected anymore by the winning, by the ratings, those things. The trouble is, it will sound like an excuse because we've never won the national championship, but winning just isn't all that important to me.” Al McGuire

Cheeks

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6045
  • Hall of Fame Hugger
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #96 on: September 05, 2019, 10:12:04 AM »
Rico

Does the MU men’s tennis team get it better than the MU women’s tennis team....the men’s players play in a different location?  Are their scholarships higher?  Same question for track, soccer? 

This is why when you sale male athletes have it better I call you out.  Yes, in some cases you are right, in some cases the women’s team has better perks, and often neither is the case.
"I hate everything about this job except the games, Everything. I don't even get affected anymore by the winning, by the ratings, those things. The trouble is, it will sound like an excuse because we've never won the national championship, but winning just isn't all that important to me.” Al McGuire

Uncle Rico

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9591
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #97 on: September 05, 2019, 10:14:50 AM »
Rico

Does the MU men’s tennis team get it better than the MU women’s tennis team....the men’s players play in a different location?  Are their scholarships higher?  Same question for track, soccer? 

This is why when you sale male athletes have it better I call you out.  Yes, in some cases you are right, in some cases the women’s team has better perks, and often neither is the case.

That’s why your Title IX argument is baseless, thank you
“This is bar none atrocious.  Mitchell cannot shoot either.  What a pile of dung”

Cheeks

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6045
  • Hall of Fame Hugger
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #98 on: September 05, 2019, 10:18:53 AM »
If athletic departments can’t sustain themselves financially, then it behooves the university to get out of that business.

This notion you have the NCAA is the only entity capable of providing opportunities further proves athletes should be able to sell their likeness at all levels.  Universities part of the NCAA fight for these kids at all levels means they have value beyond a scholarship.

Lol. Should we make that the case across all of society?  If you don’t drive a direct positive ROI you are eliminated.

Getting out the popcorn for this one.

NCAA isn’t the only entity, another false statement.  Play overseas.  Play in the G league.  Play at a NAIA school.  More false statements from you.
"I hate everything about this job except the games, Everything. I don't even get affected anymore by the winning, by the ratings, those things. The trouble is, it will sound like an excuse because we've never won the national championship, but winning just isn't all that important to me.” Al McGuire

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9875
Re: Well that was a waste
« Reply #99 on: September 05, 2019, 10:19:30 AM »
We all go through our personal lenses.  Super duper rich equates to ultra rich, and that amount of money to equate that is absurd.  A family of four living on $300k in a place like California is not super duper rich.  It’s absurd.  You are guilty of exactly what you are preaching against.  You don’t live in SF, or LA, or NYC, etc where people would laugh you out of the room to say super duper rich....because it is an absurd statement.  I guess I have to be pretty privileged in order to have a child with massive medical expenses each year, a wife as well....privileged...yup....and don’t forget the white part.  Sorry, $300k is not super duper rich.  If it is, what is a millionaire.....super super super duper duper duper rich.  The absurdity is awesome.

It's sad that your argument has devolved into debating the differences between "rich" and "super duper rich." I mean, who cares. The fact remains that D1 college coaches are getting wealthy while their players are deprived of the right to earn an income.

p.s. Median household income in LA County is $65K. Someone earning about 450% of that that is indeed rich.

Again, this is an irrelevant semantical argument that ignores the the heart of the issue.

 

feedback