Skip to main content

View Diary: The BCS System is Corrupt (37 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  how about no money at all? (0+ / 0-)

    why should schools get paid for being in a bowl game?

    Seriously. Serious question.

    GOP:: Greedy One Percent

    by YsosadisticGOP on Fri Jan 06, 2012 at 05:51:34 PM PST

    •  Because someone's making money off of it. (3+ / 0-)

      The TV stations are selling commercials, because people are watching it.

      The stadiums are selling TV rights and tickets.

      I'm not opposed to the idea of paying college athletes—though I could potentially see issues with that as well—but I have absolutely no problem with the money that is made from the bowl games going to the schools that end up playing. I'd like it even more if the rule were that 100% of the bowl money must go to the school's academic departments.

      "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

      by JamesGG on Fri Jan 06, 2012 at 06:37:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I get it. But why televise the games? (0+ / 0-)

        If games were not televised, how many universities would have football programs, do you reckon?

        The money should go to the players, they've earned it. Any other system only exploits players and serves itself. If universities were considered corporations, and corporations are people, why does a university making a profit not give up its amateur status?

        Or, why can't players become corporations and sell shares of themselves, then pay shareholders dividends and allow those shares to be traded publicly? Price of shares determined by season record.

        What I see are two systems-- system 1 (players) can't be paid for performing, for some arcane reason. system 2 (NCAA/television) profits when these arcane reasons aren't challenged. So system 2 keeps all the money, and also makes 'rules' to 'govern' the continuing enterprise. And they  ignore questions, like: Why do games need to be televised? Why can't student athletes be paid for their part in creating all of this revenue? Is the NCAA qualified to govern itself, or will they only ever look after their own interests? Are players just powerless pawns, ruthlessly exploited by powerful corporate interests? What does the NCAA produce, what is its product?

        Instead of changing the amateur status requirements, we start thinking about how the university should get its share of the gate. As though that will make everything right, as though the university itself will somehow protect its players. When in fact the unversity is profiting from its players and, like any boss, will only be interested in keeping players playing.

        And then we end up talking about a playoff system, instead of considering how our appetite for sports and entertainment has resulted in this indentured servitude system.

        GOP:: Greedy One Percent

        by YsosadisticGOP on Fri Jan 06, 2012 at 07:08:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  They're televised because people want to watch. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          YsosadisticGOP

          Not just alumni strewn across the country, but also folks with regional ties and college football fans in general.

          Quite honestly, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea that the NCAA should put a cap on revenues spent on sports facilities—no more cushy locker rooms, etc.

          After that cap is reached, each and every penny not spent on the players' scholarships, a small stipend for them (not a large income, but enough that they don't have to scrounge), and whatever other support services they need (also spending-capped), must go into the school's academic departments, and must be directed entirely toward academic ends (such as hiring faculty or grad students, funding research programs, improving teaching and learning, etc.).

          If football and basketball are going to be revenue producers for the university, then their revenue should support the university's mission—which is academic in nature.

          "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

          by JamesGG on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 09:37:17 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I get your point, I want to watch the games (0+ / 0-)

            too. Right now I am watching aforementioned SMU play Pittsburgh in the Compass Bowl. The fact that people do want to see a game, deriving pleasure from this entertainment, I can attest to that. Some of my most obsessive weeks have been spent in front of the tv in the week before New Year's, watching every college football bowl game, one after the other.

            We agree the audience for college sports exists. Can we agree on why universities are relinquishing control of their brand and product to the NCAA?

            My suspicion is there is lots and lots of money and it goes to everybody but the players. And the NCAA and the universities claim that the players can't have money because they must remain amateurs. What an absurd arrangement! And so very self-serving.

            It's the media layer that causes some of my confusion here. Why are they still necessary? Mega-deals with the NCAA/conferences for broadcast rights?

            So what if a university said, "Screw it. We don't need no stinking ABC and ESPN. We can broadcast this ourselves! And we can even get our Business Department faculty and grad students in on this, and sell our own spot ads." And next year the Compass Bowl is broadcast by the two unversities playing in it.

            With NCAA/media involvement eliminated, the feed can be  managed/controlled by the university. That radical change makes a difference in the way this looks to me. It doesn't look like such a money-grab now that the corporations are gone. Still the question of amateur status, though.

            Some more pondering, while I watch SMU go up 21 in the first quarter. This crazy idea is growing on me...

            Players will still need compensation, they must be paid something. The glaring unfairness of this sytem as it exists now is appalling. Either players get paid, or every student at the university gets a scholarship and attends for free. Why should professors get paid for the services they provide, when student athletes do not?

            How to fix? I agree the money should be used to support the university's mission, but are we clear about what that mission is? Education is a big part, but this university also fields a football team.They charge tuition and gate receipts, and advertising revenue comes their way, too. I see these universities as miniature cities, even multi-tool corporations, capable of many missions. I'd even say that their ultimate mission, the tip of the spear, is to continue to exist as a preferred brand. Reputation. Athletics revenue should be shared by the entire university, but a major portion is reinvested back into the team that produced it.

            Maybe college teams should exist in semi-pro leagues, a work-study program of sorts... Players share in profits as they get vested in the program, for example. Universities would have a more direct connection to the players producing the entertainment.

            Then, more ambitiously, since I've got you here, let's get rid of professional football teams with owners who make cities pay for new stadiums.

            Start with a farm system like the MLBs. College towns would be associated with professional teams; the pro team owned by shareholders, like GB. Stadium paid for by shareholders, rather than all taxpayers; no media layer to suck up all of that extra cash like now. Stadiums built as needed, not to satisfy some rich dude's pathological narcissism. College players get semi-pro status, as scholar-athletes; in today's game, they're commodities;  in my future-world, they're shareholders.

            Football is a product created by players, not by the NCAA. Not ESPN. Not mega-rich individuals who can afford a sports franchise but not the stadium to play in. Time they all took their greedy snouts out of the trough.

            GOP:: Greedy One Percent

            by YsosadisticGOP on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 11:54:23 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site