Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I don't believe in players getting paid less because of the fact that they used to not be as good as they are now either. It doesn't make a lot of sense that players should have to absorb that downside without the upside.

 

I might agree if you could name some occupations where an employee would earn a higher salary in conjunction with a weaker performance.

 

I know that if I suddenly stopped being productive at my job, I might not get a decrease in pay, but I certainly wouldn't be offered a raise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You didn't finish college, what's he supposed to think?

I remember Jalen Rose talking about taking money once. Like, people become outraged and act like it's a bunch of greedy assholes ruining the integrity of the game, but even if you have a problem with

LBJ > MJ

I might agree if you could name some occupations where an employee would earn a higher salary in conjunction with a weaker performance.

 

CEOs are signed to big contracts all the time, and while I don't follow any CEOs by name I would be fairly stunned if none of them were incompetent and/or had to be bought out or something. When you sign someone to a contract, you are gambling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't think it should be equal, but I do think there should be a cap ($10,000 to $20,000/yr). That way (as mentioned previously) the rich schools can't "buy" their teams.

 

I also think there should be factors that determine how much each athlete makes. Things like performance and possibly even GPA.

 

Finally whatever they do get paid shouldn't be a huge amount. As is, I think athletes are highly overpaid, and giving these kids "baller money" probably isn't a great idea.

 

Schools already try to legally buy teams. Good recruiters and coaching staffs aren't cheap, and holy crap Oregon. Have you seen their model? Spend more on facilities and uniforms every year than NASA's budget. And every professional team does it. Salary caps just artificially keep money in management's pocket.

 

As for the second part, why do you care how much the market values athletes? I mean, do you just really REALLY love ownership groups or something? You think the Steinbrenners, Cubans, and Lorias of the world are severely under compensated? Oh, and the reason Sklansky keeps making this racial is cause you say stuff like baller money, and put "baller" in quotes, which, you, has some racial connotations.

 

 

 

In my perfect world, all athletes would earn the same amount (by position). Maybe something like $500k/yr (for kickers) up to $10m/yr (for QB's) Then at the end of each season, they can get bonus money based on achievements/stats. I'm just tired of seeing these guys sign huge deals, and then be unable to back it up when the season starts. Joe Flacco is a good example. He won the superbowl and was flawless in the playoffs. That's definitely deserving of some extra money in the bank in the form of a bonus. However, looking at his stats for this season so far, I can't be convinced that he's actually worth 6 years/$120 million.

 

How do you feel about players that sign reasonable deals, and then outperform their contracts by tens of millions of dollars? Or players on the rookie wage scale, who have the amount they can earn capped? Or football contracts, that can be voided by ownership for any reason?

 

It sounds like you believe owners should assume none of the risk, which is batshit. You know what? I don't think Flacco is worth 6/120 either, but, first of all, only a fraction of that is guaranteed, and there is no way he's earning it all. Second of all, nobody held a gun to the Ravens head. They made a rash and terrible business decision. How is that not their responsibility?

 

I'm not saying it's entirely the player's fault, but they do play a part in contract negotiations.

 

I just don't agree with paying them a ton of future money for past accomplishments.

 

It is zero percent the player's "fault" when he or his agent negotiates for a deal that is heavily in his favor. I can't help but wonder why I'm not hearing an equal amount of frustration from you about owners who earn money off players that are compensated well below their value. Why is it that "overpaid players" and "ballers" is the thing that gets you fired up?

 

All that money has to go somewhere. Why is the athlete, the group without whom there could be no sports in the first place, the object of your scorn?

 

Oh, and every raise you've ever gotten was in part based on past accomplishments.

 

I might agree if you could name some occupations where an employee would earn a higher salary in conjunction with a weaker performance.

 

I know that if I suddenly stopped being productive at my job, I might not get a decrease in pay, but I certainly wouldn't be offered a raise.

 

Every golden parachute ever deployed.

 

If you were super productive at your job, negotiated a raise, and then your performance fell off, you'd earn the salary you negotiated, no less. Which is... How is that... not the same? THE EXACT SAME?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Are any of the athletes in the lesser, non-money-making sports on scholarship?

 

Depends on how big the school is also. I know at ISU, the track team, volleyball team, and even some cheer squad members were on full scholarship. Every coach has a certain number of full scholarships to give out. I'm sure that's not true at small schools.

 

Also, just for the record, I hate the current NCAA, and think that they are most of the problem.

 

I'm 100℅ for not holding kids hostage and forcing them to be in school for 'x' number of years. It's just stupid and evil. I can't imagine it's anything but a bribe paid by the NCAA.

 

Obviously Maurice Clarett is the first to come to mind. Destroyed his life.

 

I like the idea of amatuer sports, and think of it like any other job. If an employee agrees to their compensation, then they can't complain about it. There are thousands of colleges to choose from, so you aren't limited in options.

 

All they need to do is remove any limitations at the professional level

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of amateur sports, and think of it like any other job. If an employee agrees to their compensation, then they can't complain about it. There are thousands of colleges to choose from, so you aren't limited in options.

 

The employees here have no options. They can choose one of thousands of colleges, none of which are allowed to pay them. What are you talking about?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The employees here have no options. They can choose one of thousands of colleges, none of which are allowed to pay them. What are you talking about?

 

Tuition is not nothing. I already stated that anyone good enough to play professionally should be allowed to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I already stated that anyone good enough to play professionally should be allowed to.

 

Then what is the point of amateurism? Really?

 

You're on record as being in favor of amateurism (or the NCAA), in general, and that's a pretty common sentiment. I think the counterpoint, though, is that it's a sham. If you can't profit from your own ability, nobody should be able to profit from it. The notion that Johnny Manziel, professional prospects aside, generates millions upon millions for Texas AM, yet can't write his name on something in exchange for money, is patently absurd. His arm, his talent, is worth millions of dollars. Right now, that money can be collected by Texas AM only. If she shatters his knee tomorrow, he'll never see a penny of that.

 

I don't understand what you think the value of amateurism IS. Let's talk about it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a lot of Lebron talk. Had 35/8/8 last night.

 

 

And what is amateurism? Olympians in the glory sports make millions in endorsements.

 

I love when they talk about Miami going small with Lebron at the 4. He's 6'8" and about 280 lbs, that is not small. It's just that he's so good he can guard every position except the biggest of centers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love when they talk about Miami going small with Lebron at the 4. He's 6'8" and about 280 lbs, that is not small. It's just that he's so good he can guard every position except the biggest of centers.

 

Right? That's Karl Malone's size. Were the Jazz going small? They should call it "going big" when they have Lebron on the wing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I love when they talk about Miami going small with Lebron at the 4. He's 6'8" and about 280 lbs, that is not small. It's just that he's so good he can guard every position except the biggest of centers.

 

His size is irrelevant. It's going "small" because he can guard 4s and play the point. It's an extra perimeter player.

Link to post
Share on other sites

His size is irrelevant. It's going "small" because he can guard 4s and play the point. It's an extra perimeter player.

 

Most so called stretch 4's are really just perimeter players as well.

 

Not really a big deal but just illustrates how good he is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Most so called stretch 4's are really just perimeter players as well.

 

Not really a big deal but just illustrates how good he is.

 

Yes those teams are also going small, size itself is a misnomer. Going small is simply putting a perimeter oriented guy at the 4.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Then what is the point of amateurism? Really?

 

You're on record as being in favor of amateurism (or the NCAA), in general, and that's a pretty common sentiment. I think the counterpoint, though, is that it's a sham. If you can't profit from your own ability, nobody should be able to profit from it. The notion that Johnny Manziel, professional prospects aside, generates millions upon millions for Texas AM, yet can't write his name on something in exchange for money, is patently absurd. His arm, his talent, is worth millions of dollars. Right now, that money can be collected by Texas AM only. If she shatters his knee tomorrow, he'll never see a penny of that.

 

I don't understand what you think the value of amateurism IS. Let's talk about it.

 

I think that my perfect definition of amateurism would be universities playing sports against each other with students that will never be professionals. In doing so, colleges can cheer for themselves in a fun way for everyone, while the student/atheletes get a free education.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that my perfect definition of amateurism would be universities playing sports against each other with students that will never be professionals. In doing so, colleges can cheer for themselves in a fun way for everyone, while the student/atheletes get a free education.

 

so you wish it was 1901?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What I loved about that era was that people didn't know what lies were yet. It would have been like living in that Ricky Gervais movie. Anyone ever read about H.H. Holmes? I think he basically funded the construction of the murder castle by taking out insurance policies on random people, murdering them, and then selling their skeletons to science.

 

Even a fool today would instantly put the pieces together, if not when some one took out policies on strangers than surely when they were all murdered...but in those times, it just wouldn't register in their simple little minds. I could have been Tiberius had I been born in basically any year before 1970.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...