Intriguing debate... as are most in the IQ2 series...

56 minutes?

Can we get a TL:DW?

As expected the side that was for the banning of college football won easily. Jason Witlock was too much about capitalism and twisted himself out of the argument.

I can see how the argument about how coaches make 5-10x's more than the college president is an indication of how our priorities as a nation are mixed up.

One problem I had with Witlock and the other dudes argument was that they didn't promote the idea that if there wasn't college football poorer kids wouldn't have the opportunity to earn a degree enough. It is a fair assumption that the majority of college football players wouldn't have the chance to acquire a college degree w/out scholarships for sports. Granted a small portion of college football players move onto the NFL without a degree.

Perhaps a European Club style system is the best way to promote HS kids to the professional level and eventually the NFL.

(06-07-2013 04:50 PM)chrisattsu Wrote:  56 minutes?

Can we get a TL:DW?

Stop being lazy, you might learn a thing or two.

First of all - Tim Green!

Now...
"I have no problem with grown men in full possession of the facts and risks of the game choosing to participate."
The law says that you're a grown man when you're 18.

I thought Green made good points. Even bringing up what I just said previously.

I only watched to 12:14. I might come back later and watch the rest.

(06-07-2013 07:22 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  First of all - Tim Green!

Now...
"I have no problem with grown men in full possession of the facts and risks of the game choosing to participate."
The law says that you're a grown man when you're 18.

I thought Green made good points. Even bringing up what I just said previously.

I only watched to 12:14. I might come back later and watch the rest.

I don't have any problem with college or pro football. As Tim Green said they are grown men. They can make their own choices.

My problems lay at the HS and below level. I think major changes need to be made there.

(06-07-2013 06:53 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 04:50 PM)chrisattsu Wrote:  56 minutes?

Can we get a TL:DW?

Stop being lazy, you might learn a thing or two.

Gimme a break, not everyone has time for something that long, I know I don't these days. All we need are a few highlights.

But you people have the time to watch Duck Dynasty or other nonsense on TV... ohhhhhhhhhh

(06-07-2013 11:10 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  But you people have the time to watch Duck Dynasty or other nonsense on TV... ohhhhhhhhhh

I've gotta give those Duck Dynasty people credit. They've actually earned everything they have. Unlike reality shows like the Kardashians and Jersey Shore.

The only chance for the poor argument is weak. Financial aid and affordable community colleges provide far more access.

Further when you weigh the benefit (educating kids) vs the cost of the program it's a terrible investment. FBS athletic departments spend from 10% to as little as 3% of their budget educating kids.

Some programs have a single employee making about the same as the entire scholarship spending and that employee is responsible for only about one-third of the students.

Forty years ago the coaches of the top programs in Division I were paid about double their peers at bottom schools. Today it is about twenty times as much. Virtually every school has spent tens or hundreds of millions on facilities to impress athletes who became four and five star recruits training in facilities far cheaper that are functionally similar but without walnut paneling, lots of glass and chrome and leather chairs with iPhone charging stations built in.

Football is the primary institutional advancement vehicle for these FBS and FCS universities... presidents and their veeps of advancement consider home games to provide critical opportunities for fundraising schmoozing... it is a fundamental outreach arm that has to be assessed beyond the benefits to the athletes themselves.

Why do football coaches make more than presidents? Economics 101... there are significantly fewer successful head football coaches, and when you couple that with the high demand, the price of the hire naturally is driven up. It's not so simple as saying "it shouldn't be that way." It's that way because that's the state of the market.

(06-08-2013 01:12 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Why do football coaches make more than presidents? Economics 101... there are significantly fewer successful head football coaches, and when you couple that with the high demand, the price of the hire naturally is driven up. It's not so simple as saying "it shouldn't be that way." It's that way because that's the state of the market.

Not sure I agree.

In wins & losses it is a zero sum game for intra-divisional games. Quality coaches are routinely fired because someone must lose every game played and coaches are judged by results vs expectations of fans and leadership rare is the school that does not expect to be .500 or better vs FBS competition yet it is a mathematical impossibility.

If head coach salaries were capped at $120,000 the net number of wins and losses would stay constant and most likely remain distributed similarly to historic patterns because of the influence of name brand, fan support, TV exposure, and affiliation.

Salaries are as they are because the wealthiest programs can afford those salaries and those competing against them offer similar amounts to demonstrate a willingness to compete.

The reason coaches are paid so much is that is what the market dictates. If the market for college presidents and professors was as demanding, they'd get paid that much too. Not to mention many professors get tenure which guarantees a job for life no matter how bad/lazy the professors may become at their job. Ask assistant coaches like my cousin. He would probably be willing to take less to guarantee long term stability. He's been on the staff at several different schools due to changes in the head coach and is on the road constantly recruiting.

(06-07-2013 11:10 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  But you people have the time to watch Duck Dynasty or other nonsense on TV... ohhhhhhhhhh

I'm working 60-65 hours a week (two jobs) at the moment and don't watch much TV to begin with plus there are other things to do in life when not at work, so yeah a 56:00 minute video on something that's not pressing is a little much.

Take away the cash cow of football at some of these major universities and see how pleased people would be.
A lot of that debate had to do with the hitting aspect upon the human body. Think even their examples were
overstated in their examples. Much safer always to not participate in a sport, but did not hear the benefits of
participating that much. Kind of good debaters against not so great ones.

(06-07-2013 06:52 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  As expected the side that was for the banning of college football won easily. Jason Witlock was too much about capitalism and twisted himself out of the argument.

I can see how the argument about how coaches make 5-10x's more than the college president is an indication of how our priorities as a nation are mixed up.

One problem I had with Witlock and the other dudes argument was that they didn't promote the idea that if there wasn't college football poorer kids wouldn't have the opportunity to earn a degree enough. It is a fair assumption that the majority of college football players wouldn't have the chance to acquire a college degree w/out scholarships for sports. Granted a small portion of college football players move onto the NFL without a degree.

Perhaps a European Club style system is the best way to promote HS kids to the professional level and eventually the NFL.

The problem I had with Whitlock's argument is that his points about the value of playing college sports for the individual is valid. But why should they be valid only for those genetically blessed to be 6'2" 240lbs and can run a 4.5 forty.

Men's minor sports are in a free fall and one of the major reasons is the arms race in college football. Colleges and donors create increasingly lavish environments to attract players while at the same time cutting men's minor sports teams. So the whole point, when looked at in whole, is actually a reason to ban or reform college football. For a non-profit whose goal is to provide access to inter-collegiate athletics, colleges are failing significantly.

Football as currently constructed is a major reason why.

(06-08-2013 09:58 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Take away the cash cow of football at some of these major universities and see how pleased people would be.
A lot of that debate had to do with the hitting aspect upon the human body. Think even their examples were
overstated in their examples. Much safer always to not participate in a sport, but did not hear the benefits of
participating that much. Kind of good debaters against not so great ones.

Except that cash is going two places: back into football and basketball and in to women's sports as mandated by Title IX. So the point that football generates tons of cash is increasingly invalid. Every major professional sports league acknowledges you can't operate with some sort of expense cap. College football desperately needs one also in line with the mission of the University.

(06-08-2013 10:17 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 06:52 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  As expected the side that was for the banning of college football won easily. Jason Witlock was too much about capitalism and twisted himself out of the argument.

I can see how the argument about how coaches make 5-10x's more than the college president is an indication of how our priorities as a nation are mixed up.

One problem I had with Witlock and the other dudes argument was that they didn't promote the idea that if there wasn't college football poorer kids wouldn't have the opportunity to earn a degree enough. It is a fair assumption that the majority of college football players wouldn't have the chance to acquire a college degree w/out scholarships for sports. Granted a small portion of college football players move onto the NFL without a degree.

Perhaps a European Club style system is the best way to promote HS kids to the professional level and eventually the NFL.

The problem I had with Whitlock's argument is that his points about the value of playing college sports for the individual is valid. But why should they be valid only for those genetically blessed to be 6'2" 240lbs and can run a 4.5 forty.

Men's minor sports are in a free fall and one of the major reasons is the arms race in college football. Colleges and donors create increasingly lavish environments to attract players while at the same time cutting men's minor sports teams. So the whole point, when looked at in whole, is actually a reason to ban or reform college football. For a non-profit whose goal is to provide access to inter-collegiate athletics, colleges are failing significantly.

Football as currently constructed is a major reason why.

What beneficial changes would work though.

(06-08-2013 05:46 AM)DeacKillsaDevil Wrote:  The reason coaches are paid so much is that is what the market dictates. If the market for college presidents and professors was as demanding, they'd get paid that much too. Not to mention many professors get tenure which guarantees a job for life no matter how bad/lazy the professors may become at their job. Ask assistant coaches like my cousin. He would probably be willing to take less to guarantee long term stability. He's been on the staff at several different schools due to changes in the head coach and is on the road constantly recruiting.

So an expense cap for pro football, basketball, and hockey players is okay but an expense cap for college football which is "non-profit" is not? In what reality does this make sense?

Personally, think there should be caps on everything, at all levels.
Might cause BCS programs to jump to their own set up, but it is needed.