OT: Indiana OSU

[Purple Pile Driver]

Yep, but IU kicked your tails, and if we played each other again this week, it would be a repeat.

You were due. It’s been a losing streak for IU to NU in Football and even basketball in recent times. Sure glad Cig is over 60 years old or we’d never be able to catch IU in my lifetime.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

My Lamborghini analogy was only about the logic (not wealthy donors) - you could substitute anything.
The argument I dislike is - We need to pay the players because "they" are paying the players.
We need to buy a Lambo, because "they" are buying Lambos. We need to cover our entire house in Christmas lights because "they" are covering their houses in Christmas lights. I find that logic silly. Thats all I meant by that.

On the more interesting point - I think it is indisputable that nobody would care very much about watching Johnny Common play football, except for the fact that he is playing for Northwestern. I'd guess that 50% of NU's current undergrads couldn't name 10 players on the football team.

My argument is that players don't have a claim to the television revenue. The tv revenue is primarily a result of the Name and Image of the university - not the individual players. I can see paying them for their time, given the tv revenue. However, other students have time-consuming jobs that generate revenue for the university. But those kids with the work study jobs aren't getting their tuition and housing provided for $0, like the scholarship athletes do. So the athletes are already being paid, regardless of any attempt to obfuscate. And a scholarship to Northwestern is worth a lot more than a scholarship to Mississippi State.

The argument isn’t we need to pay players because they pay players. The argument is we need to pay players to remain competitive. We can go back and forth and whether the high profile athletic teams enhance the application pool, alum donations, and overall branding of the University, to me that is also indisputable. As stated, chicken and the egg.

I would also argue that a scholarship to Northwestern is always worth a lot more than to Mississippi State, Alabama, or any other less prestigious institution. This is generally true for the gen pop of NU like your daughter. However, if you are Wil Clark what’s more valuable your baseball scholarship to Mississippi Stare or your scholarship offer to NU. If you are Jalen Hurts, what’s a better life/career decision an Alabama scholarship or a NU scholarship.

 

[techtim72]

Yeah, that was a bad example. The USWNT is way better than the men in terms of outcomes and popularity.

Really? I truly don't give a shit, but the fact remains that the men's and women's contracts were what they were. The women leveraged the usual crap to up their share of a contractual split. That's just a fact. Another time in history they wouldn't have gotten another nickel. Since it means absolutely nothing to me financially or in any other way, good for them.

NU320 you never miss a chance to profess your distain for "boomers" even when it is irrelevant. It's like you just can't wait to find something to rage about that shows your good standing in the correct way to view the world.

TheC I wasn't referring to your post although I have no idea what you were talking about in reference to my comment that in summary says NU women will get their share.

 

[NUCat320]

Really? I truly don't give a shit, but the fact remains that the men's and women's contracts were what they were. The women leveraged the usual crap to up their share of a contractual split. That's just a fact. Another time in history they wouldn't have gotten another nickel. Since it means absolutely nothing to me financially or in any other way, good for them.

The women are more popular. The women’s games are better-attended. The women are globally respected in a way the men never have been.

They women leveraged their position of strength and got more.

What is wrong with that? If you’ve ever asked for and received a raise, that’s what you did too!

I can only conclude that you are angry not because they’ve negotiated effectively, but because they are women who have negotiated effectively.

This is a notably boomer way of thinking, which is why I wrote OK Boomer.

(The reason the phrase OK Boomer is so wonderful is because…it got a reaction!)

 

[techtim72]

Again I don't care - and in all this discussion have never said I had a negative perspective on the women's soccer team renegotiating their contract - but the most relevant fact in all this is that the women, despite all the popularity, etc didn't pull in the cash the men did. And then they proceeded to land an egg in the next tournament and saw their popularity decline. The number one reason, not the only reason, they prevailed in their pursuit of a renegotiation, IMO, was because of the larger environment at the time that was hyper focused on women's rights and equality. My only reason in bringing the subject up at all is to suggest that in today's world women will be able to leverage the concepts of rights and equality along with the law to get their share of the $20 mil settlement.

You like the term boomer because that's the way you see the world and your politics - identity groups. Boomers are no different than any other age group - they don't all have the same opinions, there is complexity and there is a lifetime of perspective. This is the same age group that effectively ended the Vietnam War and pushed forward civil rights from the recent days of Jim Crow. What did you and your age cohorts do in your spare time?

 

[Frabjous]

Title IX has cost schools multi, multi millions of dollars every year. Women’s, almost entirely across the country lose millions and millions and generate nothing. Some women’s bbal and volleyball generate big crowds, but the ticket prices, little girls free, the rest of ticket prices range from $5 to $20 generate no where’s near the amount it costs to operate these women’s sports. If you are a real conservative, this millions of dollars in losses can’t be accepted. Just saying

How much revenue does IU baseball generate?

 

[NUCat320]

The NCAA hasn't been in charge of college football for awhile now - ever since the 1984 Supreme Court decision to strip the NCAA of its television negotiation monopoly. The current (unsustainable) chaos is simply the result of having no regulatory authority.
In fact, it is easy to argue that the universities (and their biggest donors) have been running college football for 40 years - and the NCAA is just a scapegoat - essentially a whipping boy for the abuses carried out by the universities.

The NCAA has more control over basketball, because it runs the NCAA tournament and that generates a lot of revenue. But football is in the hands of the schools and the conferences.

This guy presents an interesting perspective (and he ultimately disagrees with me on some things)

The NCAA: A history, its fall, and how it can be rebuilt. | mgoblog

There is one wonderfully consistent trend on this blog...the universal hatred of the NCAA.While I have stated the NCAA in its current state is a horrible organization, I also think a better understanding of its history would be helpful in explaining why it acts the way it does now. For those who...

mgoblog.com

The NCAA had always controlled the cost side until very recently.

Football negotiated for its own revenue, while using NCAA “player cost” policy as a cudgel. (Beyond making player payment illegal, college football also chose to abide by NCAA bowl bans and tv exposure limits and the like, despite NCAA having no legal control.)