(10-07-2015 01:09 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 12:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 12:19 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 11:12 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 02:26 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  The reason I bring this up is because he didn't even stick it out for the rest of the season/semester. Once he got hurt, he knew he'd never play at UCLA again and thus his free publicity was no longer accessible

It has nothing to do with getting "publicity" out of UCLA. Jack has a torn meniscus, it's a season-ending injury and he needs a lot of rehab. He also has an insurance policy protecting him against injury, which reportedly pays him $5 million if he gets a serious injury (which he has) and then is not chosen in the first round of the NFL draft. That's what we know. I will speculate that the insurance policy requires him to use his best efforts to make himself attractive to the NFL draft, meaning that he has to rehab so that he's as healthy as possible by next spring, and then has to attend pre-draft workouts and meetings with NFL teams, or otherwise the insurance company will say, "We're not paying you because you didn't try hard enough to get ready for the NFL draft."

Not feeling sorry for UCLA. They have several other future high draft picks on their team and they'll still get 3 or 4 years out of all of them, while not paying any of them, while the athletic department reaps the benefits of the players' efforts by collecting all that TV money, ticket revenue, and donations from boosters -- UCLA reported $30 million of revenue last year from football alone and that doesn't count the TV revenue and other money from the Pac-12 (which is part of the $35 million they don't allocate to a specific sport).

I don't think C2 point is that one should feel sorry for the school. Just that the narrative of the woe-is-me exploited CFB or BB athlete is not the whole truth.

UCLA football, like every money-making college football program, is a business enterprise in which about a dozen highly-paid guys direct the very hard work of 80 to 120 unpaid interns. If you love the entertainment provided by that business enough to believe that the interns should be unpaid even though their hard work generates so much profit, you're entitled to that opinion (with which I disagree) -- but C2 wrote, "the athletes exploit the schools."

But do you think these unpaid interns are exploited?

Compare it to unpaid interns used in another part of the entertainment industry: Movie or TV show production. There are unpaid interns working as go-fers on the set, their only "compensation" is being there, watching, making connections if they're lucky, etc. They are not the reason you buy a movie ticket or a DVD, not the reason the network and its advertisers pay for a show or a concert ticket, they're not stars or even cast members, and they're fungible -- the studio or producer could easily find any of thousands of people to do the intern's work at least as well.

Myles Jack's part in the entertainment show of UCLA football was not like that of a go-fer on a Hollywood set. He's a major cast member. Not paying him is like not paying the stars of "Modern Family" or "Big Bang Theory" and only paying the producers and directors of the shows.

(10-07-2015 01:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 01:09 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 12:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 12:19 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 11:12 AM)Wedge Wrote:  It has nothing to do with getting "publicity" out of UCLA. Jack has a torn meniscus, it's a season-ending injury and he needs a lot of rehab. He also has an insurance policy protecting him against injury, which reportedly pays him $5 million if he gets a serious injury (which he has) and then is not chosen in the first round of the NFL draft. That's what we know. I will speculate that the insurance policy requires him to use his best efforts to make himself attractive to the NFL draft, meaning that he has to rehab so that he's as healthy as possible by next spring, and then has to attend pre-draft workouts and meetings with NFL teams, or otherwise the insurance company will say, "We're not paying you because you didn't try hard enough to get ready for the NFL draft."

Not feeling sorry for UCLA. They have several other future high draft picks on their team and they'll still get 3 or 4 years out of all of them, while not paying any of them, while the athletic department reaps the benefits of the players' efforts by collecting all that TV money, ticket revenue, and donations from boosters -- UCLA reported $30 million of revenue last year from football alone and that doesn't count the TV revenue and other money from the Pac-12 (which is part of the $35 million they don't allocate to a specific sport).

I don't think C2 point is that one should feel sorry for the school. Just that the narrative of the woe-is-me exploited CFB or BB athlete is not the whole truth.

UCLA football, like every money-making college football program, is a business enterprise in which about a dozen highly-paid guys direct the very hard work of 80 to 120 unpaid interns. If you love the entertainment provided by that business enough to believe that the interns should be unpaid even though their hard work generates so much profit, you're entitled to that opinion (with which I disagree) -- but C2 wrote, "the athletes exploit the schools."

But do you think these unpaid interns are exploited?

Compare it to unpaid interns used in another part of the entertainment industry: Movie or TV show production. There are unpaid interns working as go-fers on the set, their only "compensation" is being there, watching, making connections if they're lucky, etc. They are not the reason you buy a movie ticket or a DVD, not the reason the network and its advertisers pay for a show or a concert ticket, they're not stars or even cast members, and they're fungible -- the studio or producer could easily find any of thousands of people to do the intern's work at least as well.

Myles Jack's part in the entertainment show of UCLA football was not like that of a go-fer on a Hollywood set. He's a major cast member. Not paying him is like not paying the stars of "Modern Family" or "Big Bang Theory" and only paying the producers and directors of the shows.

Honestly, I would say the UCLA on the side of helmet is the real star of the show. The schools, with precious few examples, matter more than the individual star in the college game. Alabama still flourishes despite Mark Ingram's departure.

(10-07-2015 01:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 01:09 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 12:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 12:19 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 11:12 AM)Wedge Wrote:  It has nothing to do with getting "publicity" out of UCLA. Jack has a torn meniscus, it's a season-ending injury and he needs a lot of rehab. He also has an insurance policy protecting him against injury, which reportedly pays him $5 million if he gets a serious injury (which he has) and then is not chosen in the first round of the NFL draft. That's what we know. I will speculate that the insurance policy requires him to use his best efforts to make himself attractive to the NFL draft, meaning that he has to rehab so that he's as healthy as possible by next spring, and then has to attend pre-draft workouts and meetings with NFL teams, or otherwise the insurance company will say, "We're not paying you because you didn't try hard enough to get ready for the NFL draft."

Not feeling sorry for UCLA. They have several other future high draft picks on their team and they'll still get 3 or 4 years out of all of them, while not paying any of them, while the athletic department reaps the benefits of the players' efforts by collecting all that TV money, ticket revenue, and donations from boosters -- UCLA reported $30 million of revenue last year from football alone and that doesn't count the TV revenue and other money from the Pac-12 (which is part of the $35 million they don't allocate to a specific sport).

I don't think C2 point is that one should feel sorry for the school. Just that the narrative of the woe-is-me exploited CFB or BB athlete is not the whole truth.

UCLA football, like every money-making college football program, is a business enterprise in which about a dozen highly-paid guys direct the very hard work of 80 to 120 unpaid interns. If you love the entertainment provided by that business enough to believe that the interns should be unpaid even though their hard work generates so much profit, you're entitled to that opinion (with which I disagree) -- but C2 wrote, "the athletes exploit the schools."

But do you think these unpaid interns are exploited?

Compare it to unpaid interns used in another part of the entertainment industry: Movie or TV show production. There are unpaid interns working as go-fers on the set, their only "compensation" is being there, watching, making connections if they're lucky, etc. They are not the reason you buy a movie ticket or a DVD, not the reason the network and its advertisers pay for a show or a concert ticket, they're not stars or even cast members, and they're fungible -- the studio or producer could easily find any of thousands of people to do the intern's work at least as well.

Myles Jack's part in the entertainment show of UCLA football was not like that of a go-fer on a Hollywood set. He's a major cast member. Not paying him is like not paying the stars of "Modern Family" or "Big Bang Theory" and only paying the producers and directors of the shows.

And yet, Myles Jack voluntarily agreed to the situation.

Hmm ... is Myles Jack an extremely stupid person? Or is it possible that he agreed to do this "free" work because he was getting something out of the deal.

(nevermind that, any way you slice it, it was not free)

(10-07-2015 01:56 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 01:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 01:09 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 12:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 12:19 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I don't think C2 point is that one should feel sorry for the school. Just that the narrative of the woe-is-me exploited CFB or BB athlete is not the whole truth.

UCLA football, like every money-making college football program, is a business enterprise in which about a dozen highly-paid guys direct the very hard work of 80 to 120 unpaid interns. If you love the entertainment provided by that business enough to believe that the interns should be unpaid even though their hard work generates so much profit, you're entitled to that opinion (with which I disagree) -- but C2 wrote, "the athletes exploit the schools."

But do you think these unpaid interns are exploited?

Compare it to unpaid interns used in another part of the entertainment industry: Movie or TV show production. There are unpaid interns working as go-fers on the set, their only "compensation" is being there, watching, making connections if they're lucky, etc. They are not the reason you buy a movie ticket or a DVD, not the reason the network and its advertisers pay for a show or a concert ticket, they're not stars or even cast members, and they're fungible -- the studio or producer could easily find any of thousands of people to do the intern's work at least as well.

Myles Jack's part in the entertainment show of UCLA football was not like that of a go-fer on a Hollywood set. He's a major cast member. Not paying him is like not paying the stars of "Modern Family" or "Big Bang Theory" and only paying the producers and directors of the shows.

Honestly, I would say the UCLA on the side of helmet is the real star of the show. The schools, with precious few examples, matter more than the individual star in the college game. Alabama still flourishes despite Mark Ingram's departure.

Boom. There it is.

Wedge is pretty skilled at coming up with analogies that seem like they're correct, but when you look close enough you see that they are false.


Here's the correct analogy: a movie where each character is in costume. People don't care who the person under the costume is, so long as he/she operates the costume in the correct manner.

(10-07-2015 02:03 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 01:56 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 01:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 01:09 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 12:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  UCLA football, like every money-making college football program, is a business enterprise in which about a dozen highly-paid guys direct the very hard work of 80 to 120 unpaid interns. If you love the entertainment provided by that business enough to believe that the interns should be unpaid even though their hard work generates so much profit, you're entitled to that opinion (with which I disagree) -- but C2 wrote, "the athletes exploit the schools."

But do you think these unpaid interns are exploited?

Compare it to unpaid interns used in another part of the entertainment industry: Movie or TV show production. There are unpaid interns working as go-fers on the set, their only "compensation" is being there, watching, making connections if they're lucky, etc. They are not the reason you buy a movie ticket or a DVD, not the reason the network and its advertisers pay for a show or a concert ticket, they're not stars or even cast members, and they're fungible -- the studio or producer could easily find any of thousands of people to do the intern's work at least as well.

Myles Jack's part in the entertainment show of UCLA football was not like that of a go-fer on a Hollywood set. He's a major cast member. Not paying him is like not paying the stars of "Modern Family" or "Big Bang Theory" and only paying the producers and directors of the shows.

Honestly, I would say the UCLA on the side of helmet is the real star of the show. The schools, with precious few examples, matter more than the individual star in the college game. Alabama still flourishes despite Mark Ingram's departure.

Boom. There it is.

Wedge is pretty skilled at coming up with analogies that seem like they're correct, but when you look close enough you see that they are false.


Here's the correct analogy: a movie where each character is in costume. People don't care who the person under the costume is, so long as he/she operates the costume in the correct manner.

I would also add people in character costumes at a theme park. You could be the best character impersonator ever, but at the end of the day as long as the character's head is being worn by an employee, the guests really don't care who is operating the giant head. Just as fans of UCLA will still pack the Rose Bowl for their Bruins.

But we'll ignore the era where schools were selling jerseys of their players?

Some make it seem like the loop was closed and the matter was fixed. It wasn't by any means.

(10-07-2015 02:16 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  But we'll ignore the era where schools were selling jerseys of their players?

That era is now. Myles Jack mentioned yesterday seeing his jersey on sale at UCLA when he was a freshman. (Pre-O'Bannon verdict, of course.)

(10-07-2015 02:09 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  I would also add people in character costumes at a theme park. You could be the best character impersonator ever, but at the end of the day as long as the character's head is being worn by an employee, the guests really don't care who is operating the giant head. Just as fans of UCLA will still pack the Rose Bowl for their Bruins.

(1) As you said, those "cast members" are employees. They get paychecks from Disneyland every two weeks.

(2) 70,000 people don't show up just to see anyone wearing a UCLA uniform. The people paying the money have an entire lifetime of expecting to see college football played at the current competitive level with the skill they're accustomed to seeing. If you replace elite college athletes with fraternity bros, the mass audience and the mountains of money go away. If college administrators thought they could replace elite athletes with randos and still make the same amount of money, they would have already done it.

(10-07-2015 02:48 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 02:09 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  I would also add people in character costumes at a theme park. You could be the best character impersonator ever, but at the end of the day as long as the character's head is being worn by an employee, the guests really don't care who is operating the giant head. Just as fans of UCLA will still pack the Rose Bowl for their Bruins.

(1) As you said, those "cast members" are employees. They get paychecks from Disneyland every two weeks.

(2) 70,000 people don't show up just to see anyone wearing a UCLA uniform. The people paying the money have an entire lifetime of expecting to see college football played at the current competitive level with the skill they're accustomed to seeing. If you replace elite college athletes with fraternity bros, the mass audience and the mountains of money go away. If college administrators thought they could replace elite athletes with randos and still make the same amount of money, they would have already done it.

1 - so if players got paychecks totaling the exact amount that their scholarships are paying them, you'd be just fine? We both know that's BS. You don't care about paychecks vs. scholarships. What you really want is for them to get scholarships valued significantly above FCOA

2 - that's completely your opinion. You have nothing to back it up.

Not saying our side has anything to back our hypothesis up either. Any historical examples are irrelevant today. There simply is no relevant examples or evidence. Just risks, fears and ideologies.

Let me put out this hypothetical scenario:

- all FBS football teams can provide scholarships that have the following values: 1x, 1.5x or 2x of FCOA. How they choose to award those scholarships to each player, is their business.

- a maximum of 85 players can receive some type of award. And the total sum of all awards may not be higher than 85x FCOA.


Would that satisfy you? Knowing that back-ups and are "only" getting FCOA while the starters on the team are getting twice that? Some young guys and back-ups would probably not receive an award, depending how they did it.


So for example, if the student bill was $20k for the semester, the 2x player would not only have his student bill paid off, he'd be getting a $20k deposit into his checking account.

(10-07-2015 03:09 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  2 - that's completely your opinion. You have nothing to back it up.

Not saying our side has anything to back our hypothesis up either. Any historical examples are irrelevant today. There simply is no relevant examples or evidence. Just risks, fears and ideologies.

The Patriot League is a relevant example. Didn't have the name on the door to out-recruit the Ivies, and couldn't sustain success or support without scholarships to these kids.

The Patriot felt it needed to enter that scholarship game in order to remain visible. Turns out, people at Lehigh, Bucknell, Colgate, etc., don't show up to watch really bad programs who can't play or compete, and the schools didn't want hobbyists representing them anymore.

(10-07-2015 03:31 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 03:09 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  2 - that's completely your opinion. You have nothing to back it up.

Not saying our side has anything to back our hypothesis up either. Any historical examples are irrelevant today. There simply is no relevant examples or evidence. Just risks, fears and ideologies.

The Patriot League is a relevant example. Didn't have the name on the door to out-recruit the Ivies, and couldn't sustain success or support without scholarships to these kids.

The Patriot felt it needed to enter that scholarship game in order to remain visible. Turns out, people at Lehigh, Bucknell, Colgate, etc., don't show up to watch really bad programs who can't play or compete, and the schools didn't want hobbyists representing them anymore.

So your example supports scholarships.

(10-07-2015 03:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 03:31 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 03:09 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  2 - that's completely your opinion. You have nothing to back it up.

Not saying our side has anything to back our hypothesis up either. Any historical examples are irrelevant today. There simply is no relevant examples or evidence. Just risks, fears and ideologies.

The Patriot League is a relevant example. Didn't have the name on the door to out-recruit the Ivies, and couldn't sustain success or support without scholarships to these kids.

The Patriot felt it needed to enter that scholarship game in order to remain visible. Turns out, people at Lehigh, Bucknell, Colgate, etc., don't show up to watch really bad programs who can't play or compete, and the schools didn't want hobbyists representing them anymore.

So your example supports scholarships.

Nope. Why did they get into the scholarship game? Hint: look at Fordham football and look at Patsy basketball pre and post mid-00's Bucknell.

Not everyone was sold on what Bucknell did for basketball when they started offering schollies. Then they saw what Bucknell could do with them, and BU became an actual, legit program. Media, merch, support...they weren't getting that before. They got over the issue quite swiftly and virtually all of them moved to the allowable maximum.

This is ridiculous. Very few college athletes get a chance to make a living playing after college. Students can leave for a job or for graduate education opportunities before finishing a degree if they choose and athletes should have that same option. There is absolutely no exploitation on the athlete's part. When coaches are making millions and athletic departments are putting millions in the hands of contractors, a stipend of $4,000 a year is virtually nothing to talk about.

(10-07-2015 04:26 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 03:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 03:31 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 03:09 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  2 - that's completely your opinion. You have nothing to back it up.

Not saying our side has anything to back our hypothesis up either. Any historical examples are irrelevant today. There simply is no relevant examples or evidence. Just risks, fears and ideologies.

The Patriot League is a relevant example. Didn't have the name on the door to out-recruit the Ivies, and couldn't sustain success or support without scholarships to these kids.

The Patriot felt it needed to enter that scholarship game in order to remain visible. Turns out, people at Lehigh, Bucknell, Colgate, etc., don't show up to watch really bad programs who can't play or compete, and the schools didn't want hobbyists representing them anymore.

So your example supports scholarships.

Nope. Why did they get into the scholarship game? Hint: look at Fordham football and look at Patsy basketball pre and post mid-00's Bucknell.

Not everyone was sold on what Bucknell did for basketball when they started offering schollies. Then they saw what Bucknell could do with them, and BU became an actual, legit program. Media, merch, support...they weren't getting that before. They got over the issue quite swiftly and virtually all of them moved to the allowable maximum.

So your argument is: no scholarships = bad, scholarships = good.

(10-07-2015 01:22 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Are the practice rules consistent across all sports there? Do they get to enjoy all of the benefits of being a student at UCLA, meaning, total access to the entire course catalog, freedom to explore their academic interests? Are they assured of their place/scholarship at the school if they uphold their academics but not the favor of their coaches?

If any of the above is "no," then I think they are.

People want to peg these free rides as some form of payment. But, if you want to play pro ball, you have to put your time at the level. So, does that make athletics at the college level for those sports "pay for play?"

It's honestly time to come to grips with the fact that the biggest schools need to split off and go semi-pro in basketball and football. It's a different day and age than before and the biggest sports and the people they recruit shouldn't be treated like everyone else. Look at the TV coverage and attendance by comparison to, say, women's rowing. The semi-pro players wouldn't even have to be students, let real students get scholarships and go to class.

(10-07-2015 01:56 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Honestly, I would say the UCLA on the side of helmet is the real star of the show. The schools, with precious few examples, matter more than the individual star in the college game. Alabama still flourishes despite Mark Ingram's departure.

Correct, there are very few transcendent superstars anymore and even when there are (Matt Leinart, Reggie Bush, Vince Young), the schools continue on unabated. Texas was fine before Vince Young and even with all of the glory and publicity he brought, they're still alive and kicking, even in a downturn.

Whereas, the PGA Tour could be affected by Tiger Woods performance tremendously. We've already seen this in another individual sport, boxing, which has only one star left, who is on his way out, Floyd Mayweather. Otherwise, it's nothing like it was in the 60's.

Quote:So your argument is: no scholarships = bad, scholarships = good.

No, and it's not like they didn't offer aid. The Patriot made a decision to "keep up" with others, demonstrating the merit of Wedge's remarks. They did it by switching subsidization methods, giving schools far more control of the product coming through the doors, and allowing for other incentives.

And I suspect it's only a matter of time until the Ivies drop their grant in aid thing and enter the scholarship realm, too. I work with someone who's friends with someone high up in one of UPenn's women's programs, and the biggest challenge for them is recruiting; not because of academic standards and athletic ability, but because you get a lot of hobbyists who take the opportunity given to them and then flake out on the athletic commitment to become active participants at the school, as the grant in aid packages assist (because they can't be used as athletic scholarships). The programs despise that. Athletic scholarships give schools more control over this thing, so it isn't a matter of them being good or bad, because subsidization has been going on for ages, but getting into the shell game of athletic scholarships definitely has its benefits for those who use them: commitment, talent, and access to revenue (countable FBS games).

Quote:It's honestly time to come to grips with the fact that the biggest schools need to split off and go semi-pro in basketball and football. It's a different day and age than before and the biggest sports and the people they recruit shouldn't be treated like everyone else. Look at the TV coverage and attendance by comparison to, say, women's rowing. The semi-pro players wouldn't even have to be students, let real students get scholarships and go to class.

I say go for it. Just kindly relinquish tax exemption status. And lawyer up.

(10-07-2015 02:03 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 01:56 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 01:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 01:09 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 12:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  UCLA football, like every money-making college football program, is a business enterprise in which about a dozen highly-paid guys direct the very hard work of 80 to 120 unpaid interns. If you love the entertainment provided by that business enough to believe that the interns should be unpaid even though their hard work generates so much profit, you're entitled to that opinion (with which I disagree) -- but C2 wrote, "the athletes exploit the schools."

But do you think these unpaid interns are exploited?

Compare it to unpaid interns used in another part of the entertainment industry: Movie or TV show production. There are unpaid interns working as go-fers on the set, their only "compensation" is being there, watching, making connections if they're lucky, etc. They are not the reason you buy a movie ticket or a DVD, not the reason the network and its advertisers pay for a show or a concert ticket, they're not stars or even cast members, and they're fungible -- the studio or producer could easily find any of thousands of people to do the intern's work at least as well.

Myles Jack's part in the entertainment show of UCLA football was not like that of a go-fer on a Hollywood set. He's a major cast member. Not paying him is like not paying the stars of "Modern Family" or "Big Bang Theory" and only paying the producers and directors of the shows.

Honestly, I would say the UCLA on the side of helmet is the real star of the show. The schools, with precious few examples, matter more than the individual star in the college game. Alabama still flourishes despite Mark Ingram's departure.

Boom. There it is.

Wedge is pretty skilled at coming up with analogies that seem like they're correct, but when you look close enough you see that they are false.


Here's the correct analogy: a movie where each character is in costume. People don't care who the person under the costume is, so long as he/she operates the costume in the correct manner.

SIGH.

I see this argument all the time these days.

The fact of the matter is that they are intertwined. Yes, the athlete gets an advantage from the platform of playing at UCLA, Ohio State or Alabama. However, UCLA, Ohio State and Alabama only have that platform as long as super-talented athletes keep going there. They go hand-in-hand. G5, FCS and lower division schools don't have the platform that the power schools have, but that's because they're not getting the top athletes that can provide that platform in the first place.

Frankly, it's no different from pro sports. What provides millions of dollars to MLB players - the fact that they are super-talented or the fact that the Yankees, Red Sox and Cubs provide them with the platform to get exposed to millions of fans? The answer is that it's not one or the other. Without the MLB platform, then those same baseball players would be playing in Japan or Latin American for a LOT less money. On the other hand, MLB wouldn't have that platform in the first place if it wasn't attracting the very best baseball players in the world. It's even more apparent in soccer where there is a true global professional market - look at the salaries in the English Premier League compared to the US-based MLS.

Top sports teams (both college and pro) need top athletes to make money on their platforms. At the same time, top athletes need the platforms of those top sports teams to make money. The money-making platforms of top sports teams collapse when they don't have top athletes, which is why it's a complete misnomer to state that the athletes are the only ones receiving the benefit of playing at power schools. All parties need one another in order to maximize success.

(10-07-2015 02:03 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Here's the correct analogy: a movie where each character is in costume. People don't care who the person under the costume is, so long as he/she operates the costume in the correct manner.

Also, this is a perfect example that DISPROVES your point.

Playing Batman turned Christian Bale into a mega movie star. You could argue that Christian Bale needed the Batman platform to go from being a very respected actor (along the lines of, say, Daniel Day-Lewis) into one that could be a part of blockbusters.

However, we saw in the latter part of the 1990s how not casting Batman well almost killed that franchise that a lot of people thought was just dependent upon someone showing up in a Batman costume. The Batman series needed a talent like Christian Bale to revive its franchise just as much as Christian Bale needed the Batman series to advance his career.

Movie brands get built up and can seem indestructible when they're based on fictional universes where the actors could appear to be interchangeable in theory, but not having the right talent in place can still tank even the very top brands. We're seeing it now with the Spider-Man series - it thrived under Toby McGuire (another person that got thrust into stardom with that role), but has languished without him.

How will Iron Man movies do when Robert Downey, Jr. stops playing that role? Iron Man is literally a guy in a full armor suit with a mask where you can't see his face for most of the movie, yet you can bet that Marvel is sweating how well that character will do going forward without Downey.

Also, think about how long it took to revive the Jurassic Park franchise that was a monster in the 1990s. Scripts languished in Hollywood for nearly 15 years. Chris Pratt himself might not have been the individual draw for people to watch Jurassic World, but that movie wouldn't have done as well without Chris Pratt in the lead role. It's intertwined - Chris Pratt needed a platform where people wanted to see a movie with dinosaurs, while Universal needed someone talented like Chris Pratt to turn it from a pure dinosaur special effects spectacle into a mega blockbuster.

Even the biggest movie brand names need the right talent in place to be successful, or else they will start to no longer be big movie brand names. You can apply the exact same rationale to college sports.

Jurassic World was...meh. Repackage it as a movie on the Sci-Fi channel and it doesn't get the hype and rave reviews it got.