Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 30, 2014 -> 03:01 PM) Or you unionize or leave for somewhere else. I think it's pretty silly to frame attempts to get better pay or better workers' rights as "extend[ing] the hand," as if they're asking for "handouts" So hopefully you can see the difference here and why the NCAA is like a cartel. It is a handout when they've been "paid," but the argument is "not enough." This isn't a coal town situation. There's a decent argument that a big chunk of student athletes who get scholarships are getting something much more beneficial than the monetary cost of that scholarship - they're going to college, something they'd never be able to afford without one. You have a pretty distorted definition of cartel. By your definition the government is a cartel. The Illinois Supreme Court is a cartel. They mandate certain rules for practice and compensation.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 30, 2014 -> 02:12 PM) Most of us "choose" to work and are "at-will" employees. Is it wrong that we might ask for a raise, better working conditions, better benefits, more time off, etc? Does the ABA control your employment rights and rules at every law firm in the country? eta: a decent health insurance plan should cover mental illness problems and substance abuse therapy! Yeah, we can ask, and when our employers say no we don't keep complaining about it and pretend like some big injustice is being done to us. We start our own firms. We go solo. We don't extend the hand. And no, i'm not aware of any ABA control over employment rights/rules. Only ethical stuff.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 30, 2014 -> 02:18 PM) I just think it's fair to point out that there are a lot of dangerous/unhealthy jobs out there, including those where you don't physically tackle people with helmets. yep, agreed.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 30, 2014 -> 02:02 PM) If they could increase revenues simply be rising prices, they already would have done that. These sorts of benefits would represent new costs, and in the short-term there could be budgeting issues, but long-term things would even out. If new revenue streams don't magically appear (if they could raise prices and increase revenue, they'd do it regardless of new costs), then schools won't be able to spend as much on future coaching/AD/executive salaries. And it's not just schools here but all of the people that run the various conferences that often make very nice salaries. Telander mentioned on Mac & Speigs the other day the "bowl sponsors" who can get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars basically just to glad-hand corporate sponsors at the bowl games. There is more than enough revenue within college sports to pay for what the NW players are asking for without crippling other sports or programs. It's just that the people who benefit the most from the current system don't want to give up any of those benefits. Well, agree to disagree. We'll find out soon enough when the NCAA/schools will be forced to pay out some kind of settlement in the O'Bannon case. I won't hold out hope that schools will start spending less on their football and basketball programs to make up the difference.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 30, 2014 -> 01:39 PM) They also go to bloated admin/coaches salaries in many cases, or spending money on new facilities just to spend money. Non-profits do this in every industry, which is why it's important to look at revenues and not just pure surplus. That's really the crux here for you: coaches makes millions, players get nothing. Unfair. OK, well I guess I misread your prior post:

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 30, 2014 -> 01:37 PM) But his point, which is true, is that the enormous salaries of the coaching staffs at these top-level programs are that high because the money doesn't have to be spent anywhere else. If you've got a coach who you have to pay $15 million in order to turn a $10 million profit, you do that...and that's a big pool of money going to a coaching staff that could be directed elsewhere. Ok, but you're not going to change the status quo. Universities aren't going to start lowering salaries. If you don't have a competitive program, you don't win games. And if you don't win games, you don't make money. And if you don't make money, the school itself becomes damaged. So, what will happen is that X millions will have to be allocated to provide, fight legally, and administer X millions for "long term effect" injuries not currently covered and the school will say "well, i have a choice between lowering coaching salaries, or increasing ticket/merchandise prices." Or if the numbers are that serious, perhaps AD's start cutting sports (http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/...-234783781.html)

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 30, 2014 -> 01:21 PM) Think about the argument you're making. Collectively, the NCAA sports generate about $5,000,000,000 a year. New medical coverage for athletes will cost $X. Your argument is that any new costs imposed on the NCAA will not come out of that current $5B revenue stream, so they're voluntarily foregoing $X in revenue each year. Now, why would they be doing that? It would mean bigger, fancier sports facilities, bigger TV contracts, bigger endorsement deals, bigger executive/coaching salaries, etc. Why would NCAA sports be completely immune from the basic forces of capitalism that every other industry faces? They may not be publicly traded companies, but there definitely are people who would love to have additional revenue streams. Plus, this ignores that a lot of the revenue actually does come from publicly traded companies (NBC/ABC/ESPN, Adidas/Nike, Gatorade). The NCAA itself made that much in surplus (profit) revenue. When you add in the conferences and schools, it amounts to billions of dollars a year. Alabama generated over $100M alone last year. In the grand scheme of things, that really is a lot of money and more than enough to pay for athletes' ongoing medical issues. There are huge amounts of money thrown around to coaches and administrators throughout the NCAA, and there's nothing that says they're entitled to the entire revenue stream while locking the players out. There isn't some law of economics that says if suddenly the athletes got a bigger share of the revenues (via medical insurance, better scholarship guarantees, stipends, etc.) that existing expenses are fixed in stone and that the only possible source would be additional revenues. That doesn't happen anywhere else and there's no reason to expect it to happen here, even if they aren't publicly traded for-profit companies. Here are the profits of the top schools: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/ You keep talking about revenue. Great, they make a s*** ton. But they also pay out a s*** ton. Same with the NCAA. It's not like schools are walking away with earnings of 100M which they just hand out to the President or other board members. They go back into the school to fund other athletics, building projects, etc. Some schools (Iowa for example) LOST money. You're suggesting that universities should be on the hook FOR LIFE for "long term effect" injuries to student athletes. You think that's just going to be some pocket change? And you think that the schools and/or NCAA will just pay for it without cutting things and not increasing prices? You honestly believe that?

Alright, f*** it. With this impending snow storm, i'm buying a snow blower. Anyone have any recommendations? I have a pretty typical suburban 2 car wide driveway, probably 30-35 ft long and some walkways to the front door and back door. The only wrinkle is that my driveway is angled, so where it meets the road it always gets 2-4 feet deep because of the trucks plowing the street. What would people recommend? A manual single stage or a larger self-propelled double stage blower? I'd prefer not to have to create an oil/gas mix since my lawn mower doesn't require it. I've heard most single stage models require the mix.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 30, 2014 -> 10:36 AM) Gee, maybe he was tired from ALWAYS guarding KD? One-on-one, LeBron would destroy KD's frail little ass. If I have one game to win, I'm taking LeBron all day over KD, and I'm really tired of hearing otherwise. I'd want KD taking the last shot if I had a choice.

I have a $20 dollar Honeywell programmable thermostat that works just fine. /drops mic

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 30, 2014 -> 09:41 AM) There are all sorts of business ventures that a university could be involved in. Fielding a sports team makes about as much sense to the university's mission as building a factory to make the t-shirts that are sold in the book store. Why are universities running billion dollar sports franchises? How about running enormousuniversity.com and competing with Amazon? If you're starting a school from day one it might make sense to have this conversation, but there's no going back now. Schools rely on the big sports programs both for money and for marketing to potential students.

Yes. Without people saying outrageous things, there'd be nothing to talk about. For people that post here daily, we all basically know what we're going to say.

I wasn't in pain this morning waiting for my Metra train. Progress!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 29, 2014 -> 05:00 PM) I don't think and didn't say that any coaches make millions without doing any work. They don't put their personal health at risk, but that's not the same thing. You're arguing against free markets here and in favor of a cartel, fwiw. How exactly? The "employees" have the option to play the game or not play the game. No one is forcing them to do it. They can wait and see if they get drafted. They can go play in other countries. That's pretty "free" to me. And it's not a cartel either. The schools don't own some unique product. You can start a school and a football program if you'd like. There's also not any price fixing. Schools charge different amounts to watch the games. They charge different amounts for networks to broadcast their games. And they don't really market themselves the same way either. I fail to see how that's a cartel situation. I don't think AD departments act like normal businesses, so that's a faulty comparison. They have no shareholders or investors to pay back. They worry about funding their programs and maybe expanding the school a little bit. That's it. I'd also bet that the major schools like OSU, Texas, any SEC, etc. could double their ticket prices and still sell out. But they don't, because there's no need to. Present them with the need and they will. The NCAA made 71 million in 2012. http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/colle...urplus/2128431/ In the grand scheme that's really not a lot.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 29, 2014 -> 04:46 PM) I don't know every school but here's University of Tennessee's assistant coaching roster salaries: I dunno, I might be pretty game for that pretty awful life. Oh don't get me wrong, they pay well, but your life sucks. You work for that money by working 80-100 hour weeks. Job security sucks. You change jobs and move constantly. It's not some amazing deal where you just show up to the stadium, get paid bank and let the "disposable players" make you all the money. That's a complete fallacy.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 29, 2014 -> 03:52 PM) Some people don't see any good reason that the players who actually play the game should be treated as disposable while the coaches and administrators make millions of dollars a year. Why don't you give a s*** that these people who play a game for your entertainment can face lifelong health issues because of it? It doesn't even require you, as an individual, to do or change anything at all. They're just asking for some of the revenue to go towards the players themselves for scholarship guarantees and medical issues that directly result from the game. I'm also unclear as to why anybody but the industry that makes billions of dollars a year off of these athletes should be responsible for medical conditions that arise from playing the sport. What's the moral argument here against medical coverage for athletes and for keeping all of the revenue with the non-athletes? Against not giving athletes a voice when discussing working conditions and durations before adding more and more games and practices? Coaches are disposable. Coaches get fired all the time. Until coaches make it big, they live pretty awful lives as assistant coaches. You've got a warped view of the actual system. Not ever player is a star being denied millions in endorsement deals, and not every coach is making millions without doing any work. That's all wrong. It's the complete opposite. Very few players could make any money outside of football even if it were allowed, and very few coaches make millions without doing any work. I don't care because that's their choice to play the game. And IMO they're compensated just fine for it. Give me 100-150k (or more) and i'll deal with a bad shoulder. And yes it does require me to change. I'll have to pay more for tickets. I'll have to donate more to my school to get the same seats/perks. I'll have to eventually pay more to get sports networks and whatnot on TV. It's not like the cost of this is going to be taken from the schools or the NCAA. Look, the NCAA is a joke. It should be abolished. I fully support the major conferences that want to leave it and operate on their own. That would be great. But there's not a single cell in my body that feels badly for college athletes. None. The vast majority are getting an excellent opportunity. And the ones that are really being taken advantage of will be making s*** tons of money at the professional level anyway.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Jan 29, 2014 -> 04:15 PM) And IIRC, and HDTV antenna is not a thing anymore. They stop transmitting over-the-air tv signals last summer I think. I used to do that in my room at home, where I had like 60-70 digital channels, a handful of them in HD, just using over-the-air, but then at some point they decided not to do that anymore. Unless something has changed. Nah that's not true. They required all over the air signals to be sent out in HD (even if not in HD format) a few years ago, so people with old tube tv's needed a digital tuner box, but you can still get over the air stuff.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 29, 2014 -> 02:27 PM) It's more of the long-term impact that injuries or even just playing DI football can have on your body that aren't covered. Sure, the surgery to repair your torn ACL may be covered, but not the lingering bad shoulder you'll have for the rest of your life or maybe the CTE you got playing. Right, and that's the part I could give two s***s about. You chose to play a sport in which you run full speed into another human and land on a hard ground. Why should anyone else be responsible for that decision? edit: and that's ignoring the benefits these guys get for that potential long-term impact.

I just got an email from my town that said they're running out of salt. More salt is hard to come by I guess. I bet this has been a great season for those salt companies.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 29, 2014 -> 01:32 PM) For two people?! I can't go to a bar/pub by myself and spend less than 20$, and that's what I spend before I'm about to play an actual league hockey game. Going out to watch a game?! That's like 2-4 hours depending on the sport...and 4-5 bud lights isn't all I'd be drinking, not to mention eating...plus tip. $100 might be a little much, but my wife and I were spending $50-60 bucks easy to watch all of the 2010 Bulls playoff games. That was one factor in getting cable again.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 29, 2014 -> 01:38 PM) If they get injured, they can lose their scholarship and not have medical coverage for their injuries. These guys are going out there week after week, putting their bodies at risk for your entertainment (and money!). Colter signed up and took the risk that he did, but why is it wrong for him to want to lessen that risk or at least help protect against that risk for future players? I know they can lose their scholarships, but I don't believe they can lose their medical coverage. My understanding is that college athletes basically have workers' comp claims at that point, so the school is going to be on the hook for that injury until the person has reached "maximum medical improvement."

Also, I'm completely unsympathetic to Colter's tweets from this afternoon about potential medical problems. You signed up for that s***, you took the risk. No one forced you to play football at NW and get a pretty sweet (and free) education out of it.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 29, 2014 -> 12:59 PM) How about universities drop athletics and focus on education? Why should they field teams? It's a silly tradition started a hundred years ago. Have intermural sports and let those serious athletes hook up with pro teams. It may hurt the universities, but it will be much fairer to all the athletes who are being ripped off by this system. They can be pro athletes and not worry about going to classes or getting a degree. So, you want to get rid of multi-multi-multi billion dollar industry (and the jobs, tax revenue and local economic impact) just to save like 1% of college players that are being "ripped" off by a system that provides them with exposure/experience that also gets them paid by the professional leagues? That makes no sense.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jan 29, 2014 -> 01:22 PM) You can't get ESPN3 unless you have an existing cable/satellite service that carries ESPN (or unless you are bumming someone else's login). I'm pretty sure you can get it through various ISP's too.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 29, 2014 -> 12:28 PM) These are also the first few years where players of his generation are available. I think he'd feel more comfortable recruiting knowing he could still be Mr. Alpha. That's the key. He wants to be THE guy. I think if they bring in a guy like Melo he's going to be pissed off about it.