Animal02
Banned
- Messages
- 6,269
- Location
- Southeastern Michigan
ESPN ruining football for fans attending games.
- Thread starter Animal02
- Start date
GTHomer
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 898
This was a good read. It reinforces the point that the almighty dollar is driving bowl business and college football. With few exceptions, most bowls did not have competition from another bowl during their time slot. This helps to ensure maximum TV viewership along with generous ad revenue.
This should also bring up the conversation about whether college athletes should be paid, especially when you consider the amount of money that is being spent/made.
This should also bring up the conversation about whether college athletes should be paid, especially when you consider the amount of money that is being spent/made.
B Lifsey
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,379
- Location
- Barnesville, Georgia
A bowl in a stadium that only holds 15,000...who would'a thunk it.
- Messages
- 11,525
- Location
- Marietta, GA
I thought it'd be more about the poor fan sitting in the HEAT, RAIN or COLD for 2+ minutes of dead time every time the guy in the red shirt walks out onto the field ...
ClydeBrick
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 944
Except those millions being spoken about in the article is spent money - there is no way the AA's are going to cut existing expenses to leave money for the SA. Coach's salaries, facilities, recruiting budgets - these costs are not going to go down. Money to pay the athletes will have to come from new revenues and cutting the non-revenue sports.
New revenues means that tickets & student athletic fees and everything you buy that advertises during a game will cost more.
CFB ain't free - hasn't been in a hundred years. We consumers pay for it all - whether we like CFB or not. If you are reading my words you at least get to receive the enjoyment of the games.
E.$EC.PN may be the visible mechanism that is "ruining" bowl games, it is however, money that is the real culprit. Adding more money (more bowl games, paying SA's) is probably going to make things we hate about sports worse.
IEEEWreck
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 655
Actually, I'd argue that coaches', especially head coaches' salaries are pretty downwardly flexible in the face of labor competition. The scarcity there is abstract and the marginal return to salary is, well, actually negative right now across the sport after like $750,000. Also, you have to keep in mind that the buyers also absorb some of the labor cost. That means EA will have to spend a few million less on really, really nice offices and a few million more on compensating players for the commercial use of their likeness in perpetuity. Consumers never (in real situations) absorb all of a cost, and there's plenty of price elasticity on a whole bunch of related football markets.
It's still not a good idea though.