SuperJon, on 04 November 2013 - 04:49 PM, said:
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.
SuperJon, on 04 November 2013 - 05:34 PM, said:
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?
SuperJon, on 04 November 2013 - 06:47 PM, said:
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.
SuperJon, on 04 November 2013 - 07:16 PM, said:
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?