The fans may show up to the games, but the TV contracts no longer pay schools $30-50 million per year.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Pac 12 players threaten opt-out of 2020 CFB season unless health and safety and other demands are met
- Thread starter Jens1893
- Start date
Again, where are the players going to go? They have no other options.
jizzrag85
Well-Known Member
They will for the next 3-5 years while they’re under contract. Know what happens if ratings stay up, which they will, they keep getting paid.
No offense but that’s horses**t. How many kids every year have the opportunity to earn a college degree that they otherwise wouldn’t have had access to were it not for non-revenue sports? Public universities are non-profits and their mission should be educating people of all walks of life and sports provide access to many who otherwise couldn’t afford it. I’d like schools to continue that practice.
In the scenario where everyone plays chicken, then the players have to decide how much they’re willing to stand up for themselves to gain participation into the market.
Aren’t you the one who tried to tell me that contracts can’t continue to rise so we can’t possibly bother to pay players?
Meh. While I think the #WeAreUnited "movement" is a good thing, I think whoever wrote it made some mistakes.
The first was to buy into college sports as a capitalist system. The thing about American capitalism is that it exists to exploit labor. So, if you are trying to form a labor union, it's probably best not to use American capitalism as your starting point.
It would have been better to couch their demands as based on fairness and ethics and demand revenue be directed to all student athletes. By not doing so, they announce that ethical treatment of all athletes is not their aim--just that players should be paid what they are indivdually "worth." In the marketplace, many individuals won't have the value they think they will.
Then support the university raising money to educate those students without making billions off of the backs of mostly black kids.
I actually think the united movement is much closer to what you’re describing than what I think is the best alternative.
Sounds great, but I prefer the current system that forces them to do it rather than hoping they’ll all do the right thing.
somebody
Well-Known Member
"knew" so it is political to you
And I think the players know this and that’s why there are only a dozen or so players who attached their name to this. You’re going to hear a lot more players supporting the cause while electing to continue playing because they wouldn’t dare sit out.
jizzrag85
Well-Known Member
Nope.
You prefer the system wherein schools make billions on the backs of black people to help white people?
no need to reply.
I guess you must’ve forgotten your earlier position.
jizzrag85
Well-Known Member
Its always about race with some people.
You know what’s funny? No one asked them to play football, they showed up willingly but it’s the colleges they “make money off mostly black kids.”
Those poor kids, free food, free school, free clothes, free housing and they’re treated like kings on campus and in the media. Must be rough.
Yeah, it’s never about race when mostly black players make schools enough money to pay for mostly white kids to go to college.
And where exactly are they going to go to gain participation into the market if they do stand up for themselves?
Is that not capitalism? Do you believe in the value of a college degree? 99% of these players aren't going to sniff meaningful $$ from the league, but you're lobbying for all of them acting like they are all getting millions guaranteed money one day.
Uh, what? It sounds like you’re saying non-revenue sports are just for white people so I’m going to assume that can’t possibly be what you’re saying.
I’ve already posted dozens of messages about this subject. I’m not going to rehash them.
If you believe that a perk is commensurate compensation for a limited staff employee that makes an organization tens of millions each year, then we won’t understand each other.
jizzrag85
Well-Known Member
You’re confused.
TV viewership drives ratings which drives profits.
When the schools are force to pay our 50% of their profits to athletes they will be forced to charge more for tickets, donations, gear etc. Fans don’t like paying more, they’ll ask the networks for more, who asks the advertisers for more who put the bills squarely on the customers who subscribe.
It gets to a point where people refuse to pay anymore, we’re already seeing it now.
That has nothing to do with players leaving college and networks being forced to pay the colleges what their contract stipulates for the next 3-5 years. Furthermore since fans root for teams in college and not football they will be able to renegotiate good deals with the networks because viewership will continue to stay high, as always.
Do some research on the racial composition of the players in non-revenue sports and get back to me.
We’re not going to convince each other and I don’t think the argument is going beyond us repeating ourselves, so I’m bowing out of this conversation. Good luck.
I feel like I've asked you this question a dozen times today, but you have yet to actually provide specifics on where the players are going to go if they don't get what they are asking for. You just continue to say they have all the leverage, but you're not really providing anything that backs that up other than saying that people will stop watching, which we know isn't the case.
>50% of D1 athletes are white and I think that's what he was getting at. I've searched previously for the distribution of scholarships by demographic and couldn't find it.
You brought it up, go ahead enlighten me.
Regardless I thought this was about capitalism, but now it sounds like it’s about affirmative action.
BUFFS14
Well-Known Member
Agree, but do you think every pac12 player is on board?
You don’t read what I write, so I don’t know why I bother repeating myself.
1) if you think that college football networks will be able to get the ratings so that they will pay schools $30-50 million with horrible players, then we just have a fundamental disagreement on why people watch sports on TV. I know that the money will dry up because lower division schools field mostly bad players and get nowhere near the money (or any) for their substandard product.
2. Players don’t really have to “go” anywhere because schools need the best players to keep getting money. You don’t think that $50 million per school contracts will dry up without great players. The schools know that they need the best players. They’re simply looking for ways to pay them the least.
Affirmative action for white kids on the backs of blacks? Yes