Bracketology - Let's Do This

4shotB

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
3,229
. You don’t see male strippers out here crying cause female strippers make more than they do, or maybe they are I’m not sure 😂.
If you are talking averages OK but, without wanting to sound like a braggert here, I know I can't complain about my earnings in that profession. Had to give it up due to a knee injury plus a luctrative offer was extended to become a mod here on this board.

Would you be interested in a GT Swarm t-shirt or hat perchance? ;)
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
6,396
How many people ran around your workplace last week collecting whatever they call the women’s tournament brackets? Nobody really cares save a couple fans, some school interest if their school makes it, the parents of the players, etc. If the product was worth caring about there would be a market, interest & also the money. It’s not like you got some cabal running around stealing the women’s food, preventing them from getting gym equipment, etc. When the women’s sport becomes more popular than the men’s then they’ll get better stuff. Until then maybe they should work on making their product more valuable instead of trying to extort people to give them something they don’t deserve.
This isn’t a the WNBA compared to the NBA, it’s collegiate athletics, and the NCAA isn’t a for-profit business. If it’s a “product”, then how is that compatible with amateur athletics and players competing for the love of the sport?
Also, there’s a minimum quality bar to hit, here, and the NCAA is arguing on one hand that they’re an association of colleges that simply make sure the sports are fair, that they care about student athletes, and on the other hand they’re following the revenue like a for-profit business. Which kind of organization are they?
 

dtm1997

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
13,849
This isn’t a the WNBA compared to the NBA, it’s collegiate athletics, and the NCAA isn’t a for-profit business. If it’s a “product”, then how is that compatible with amateur athletics and players competing for the love of the sport?
Also, there’s a minimum quality bar to hit, here, and the NCAA is arguing on one hand that they’re an association of colleges that simply make sure the sports are fair, that they care about student athletes, and on the other hand they’re following the revenue like a for-profit business. Which kind of organization are they?
You make a good point.

Amateurism is a crock of **** and players should be allowed to seek out direct compensation based on market value, which may be as low as $0, if that's what the market bears.
 

Milwaukee

Banned
Messages
7,277
Location
Milwaukee, WI
This isn’t a the WNBA compared to the NBA, it’s collegiate athletics, and the NCAA isn’t a for-profit business. If it’s a “product”, then how is that compatible with amateur athletics and players competing for the love of the sport?
Also, there’s a minimum quality bar to hit, here, and the NCAA is arguing on one hand that they’re an association of colleges that simply make sure the sports are fair, that they care about student athletes, and on the other hand they’re following the revenue like a for-profit business. Which kind of organization are they?
That’s a rhetorical question that adults don’t need answered for them. I see where you’re attempting to come from but it’s just a large L.
 

Milwaukee

Banned
Messages
7,277
Location
Milwaukee, WI
You make a good point.

Amateurism is a crock of **** and players should be allowed to seek out direct compensation based on market value, which may be as low as $0, if that's what the market bears.
100% agree. And under this model female collegiate athletes will literally have to pay out of their own pocket for the right to play sports. As it should be IF and only IF those sports aren’t generating income. And it’s nothing to do with male/female, it’s all about consumer demand.
Dtm is 100% correct and it should be based off market value.
 

LibertyTurns

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,181
This isn’t a the WNBA compared to the NBA, it’s collegiate athletics, and the NCAA isn’t a for-profit business. If it’s a “product”, then how is that compatible with amateur athletics and players competing for the love of the sport?
Also, there’s a minimum quality bar to hit, here, and the NCAA is arguing on one hand that they’re an association of colleges that simply make sure the sports are fair, that they care about student athletes, and on the other hand they’re following the revenue like a for-profit business. Which kind of organization are they?
Gimme a law or regulation & you’ll find some rich elite dudes exploiting it. Hint: it’s not for the love of the game. In the end the women (actually those actually profiting from them) will extort $$ from the men because we live in an “enabling” age. They’ll get a few $$ to shut them up but the gap between the haves & the have nots will continue to grow. Little to no effort will go into improving the root cause of why the women generate a small fraction of the interest the men do. Rinse & repeat.

Well, until some hairy dudes “identifying” themselves as females start taking all the women’s spots then we’ll implode.
 

dtm1997

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
13,849
100% agree. And under this model female collegiate athletes will literally have to pay out of their own pocket for the right to play sports. As it should be IF and only IF those sports aren’t generating income. And it’s nothing to do with male/female, it’s all about consumer demand.
Dtm is 100% correct and it should be based off market value.
You're 100% wrong on my take.

I didn't say that the schools should pay athletes directly. I didn't say schools should reduce scholarship opportunities for non-revenue sports. Not sure why you're a proponent of taking opportunities away from hard working young people.

I believe that athletes should be able to partake in being compensated based on the free market.

That might mean dook boosters giving free rental homes to 5* player parents, UGA football players getting free sports car leases, GT student-athletes developing their own brands and getting paid for ads on their IG & twitter feeds. Take your pick.

The free market should be allowed to compensate student-athletes on top of the scholarships they've worked hard to earn. My belief in this is pretty well-documented, as @crut will attest.
 

Milwaukee

Banned
Messages
7,277
Location
Milwaukee, WI
You're 100% wrong on my take.

I didn't say that the schools should pay athletes directly. I didn't say schools should reduce scholarship opportunities for non-revenue sports. Not sure why you're a proponent of taking opportunities away from hard working young people.

I believe that athletes should be able to partake in being compensated based on the free market.

That might mean dook boosters giving free rental homes to 5* player parents, UGA football players getting free sports car leases, GT student-athletes developing their own brands and getting paid for ads on their IG & twitter feeds. Take your pick.

The free market should be allowed to compensate student-athletes on top of the scholarships they've worked hard to earn. My belief in this is pretty well-documented, as @crut will attest.
100% agreed. You nailed it, as I stated already. They should be compensated for all they earn, even if it’s in the negative and they would have to pay their own, which it is. I’m with you.
 

crut

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,366
You're 100% wrong on my take.

I didn't say that the schools should pay athletes directly. I didn't say schools should reduce scholarship opportunities for non-revenue sports. Not sure why you're a proponent of taking opportunities away from hard working young people.

I believe that athletes should be able to partake in being compensated based on the free market.

That might mean dook boosters giving free rental homes to 5* player parents, UGA football players getting free sports car leases, GT student-athletes developing their own brands and getting paid for ads on their IG & twitter feeds. Take your pick.

The free market should be allowed to compensate student-athletes on top of the scholarships they've worked hard to earn. My belief in this is pretty well-documented, as @crut will attest.
Doesn't make your belief a good idea!

Heavily regulated NIL = just fine imo and won't erode the opportunities that college athletics provides. A true free market when the entities are so unbalanced resource-wise absolutely would end up taking away a lot from so many. It's irrelevant that on the surface it is what is the most fair. Libertarianism in team sports is a garbo-strat.
 
Top