New poll. Large gaps by age, race and gender -

https://www.axios.com/paying-college-ath...e8d61.html

(03-16-2022 01:34 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  New poll. Large gaps by age, race and gender -

https://www.axios.com/paying-college-ath...e8d61.html

"Survey of 1,264 U.S. adults conducted between Feb. 15-21, 2022"

Why yes... 600 people clearly extrapolates to half of the US Adult population.

(03-16-2022 01:44 PM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(03-16-2022 01:34 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  New poll. Large gaps by age, race and gender -

https://www.axios.com/paying-college-ath...e8d61.html

"Survey of 1,264 U.S. adults conducted between Feb. 15-21, 2022"

Why yes... 600 people clearly extrapolates to half of the US Adult population.

This poll may or may not be good.

However, it’s always wrong to just base whether a poll is good or not simply based on the sample size. You could have a very accurate poll with 1200 participants provided that those being polled accurately reflects the general population in terms of age, gender, income, political viewpoints, etc. In contrast, you could have a poll with millions of people that would be very inaccurate across the general population of those millions of people don’t reflect the general population. (A simple example is a presidential party primary. Any primary has little reflection on what the national vote will be because a primary electorate composition is much different than the general electorate even though a primary has tens of millions more voters compared to a general election poll.)

(03-16-2022 01:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-16-2022 01:44 PM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(03-16-2022 01:34 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  New poll. Large gaps by age, race and gender -

https://www.axios.com/paying-college-ath...e8d61.html

"Survey of 1,264 U.S. adults conducted between Feb. 15-21, 2022"

Why yes... 600 people clearly extrapolates to half of the US Adult population.

This poll may or may not be good.

However, it’s always wrong to just base whether a poll is good or not simply based on the sample size. You could have a very accurate poll with 1200 participants provided that those being polled accurately reflects the general population in terms of age, gender, income, political viewpoints, etc. In contrast, you could have a poll with millions of people that would be very inaccurate across the general population of those millions of people don’t reflect the general population. (A simple example is a presidential party primary. Any primary has little reflection on what the national vote will be because a primary electorate composition is much different than the general electorate even though a primary has tens of millions more voters compared to a general election poll.)

It would help to know what the poll's margin of error is and the confidence level in that margin of error. Not enough information here.

(03-16-2022 04:28 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-16-2022 01:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-16-2022 01:44 PM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(03-16-2022 01:34 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  New poll. Large gaps by age, race and gender -

https://www.axios.com/paying-college-ath...e8d61.html

"Survey of 1,264 U.S. adults conducted between Feb. 15-21, 2022"

Why yes... 600 people clearly extrapolates to half of the US Adult population.

This poll may or may not be good.

However, it’s always wrong to just base whether a poll is good or not simply based on the sample size. You could have a very accurate poll with 1200 participants provided that those being polled accurately reflects the general population in terms of age, gender, income, political viewpoints, etc. In contrast, you could have a poll with millions of people that would be very inaccurate across the general population of those millions of people don’t reflect the general population. (A simple example is a presidential party primary. Any primary has little reflection on what the national vote will be because a primary electorate composition is much different than the general electorate even though a primary has tens of millions more voters compared to a general election poll.)

It would help to know what the poll's margin of error is and the confidence level in that margin of error. Not enough information here.

Here is the methodology and a direct link to the polling data -

Nature of the Sample: Marist Poll with the Center for Sports Communication at Marist College of
1,264 National Adults
This survey of 1,264 adults was conducted February 15th through February 21st, 2022 by the Marist Poll
in partnership with the Center for Sports Communication at Marist College. Adults 18 years of age and
older residing in the United States were contacted on landline or mobile numbers and interviewed by
telephone using live interviewers. Survey questions were available in English or Spanish. Mobile
telephone numbers were randomly selected based upon a list of telephone exchanges from throughout
the nation from Dynata. The exchanges were selected to ensure that each region was represented in
proportion to its population. Mobile phones are treated as individual devices. After validation of age,
personal ownership, and non-business-use of the mobile phone, interviews are typically conducted with
the person answering the phone. To increase coverage, this mobile sample was supplemented by
respondents reached through random dialing of landline phone numbers. Within each landline household,
a single respondent is selected through a random selection process to increase the representativeness
of traditionally under-covered survey populations. The samples were then combined and balanced to
reflect the 2019 American Community Survey 1-year estimates for age, gender, income, race, and region.
Assistance was provided by Luce Research for data collection. Results are statistically significant within
±3.5 percentage points. There are 707 sports fans. The results for this subset are statistically significant
within ±4.6 percentage points. Tables include results for subgroups to only display crosstabs with an
acceptable sampling error. It should be noted that although you may not see results listed for a certain
group, it does not mean interviews were not completed with those individuals. It simply means the sample
size is too small to report. The error margin was adjusted for sample weights and increases for crosstabulations.

https://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content...031619.pdf

(03-16-2022 01:34 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  New poll. Large gaps by age, race and gender -

https://www.axios.com/paying-college-ath...e8d61.html

I would have predicted older adults not wanting to pay college athletes…that fits the stereotype of not wanting change.

But would not have predicted a difference in preference by race / ethnicity. Maybe the surveyed blacks and Latinos skew younger, while whites are mainly old people. The dislike of paying athletes by whites is remarkable.

(03-16-2022 05:01 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-16-2022 01:34 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  New poll. Large gaps by age, race and gender -

https://www.axios.com/paying-college-ath...e8d61.html

I would have predicted older adults not wanting to pay college athletes…that fits the stereotype of not wanting change.

But would not have predicted a difference in preference by race / ethnicity. Maybe the surveyed blacks and Latinos skew younger, while whites are mainly old people. The dislike of paying athletes by whites is remarkable.

That surprised me too! Very odd that the black & hispanic percentages are the same and the whites are so much lower. I wonder if both older Americans and whites in general are more likely to have some cherished notion of college sports as amateur sports and reject pay for that reason?

(03-16-2022 01:34 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  New poll. Large gaps by age, race and gender -

https://www.axios.com/paying-college-ath...e8d61.html

Surprised it is that low. I thought I was a small minority.

Personally, I hate the destruction it will rein on non-rev sports to pay football and basketball players. And the damage to either; a) the pocketbooks of students from student fees and institution subsidies or b) the loss of programs who can't afford the arms race.

(03-16-2022 08:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  Personally, I hate the destruction it will rein on non-rev sports to pay football and basketball players. And the damage to either; a) the pocketbooks of students from student fees and institution subsidies or b) the loss of programs who can't afford the arms race.

IMO, I view this change as inevitable. The current system benefits the sophisticated institutions (mainly P5), as well as coaches and administrators. It's time to let players fully into the business. Also, I'm a Latino male that is not yet 60 years old...so my view is well aligned with the results in this poll.

(03-16-2022 08:49 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-16-2022 08:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  Personally, I hate the destruction it will rein on non-rev sports to pay football and basketball players. And the damage to either; a) the pocketbooks of students from student fees and institution subsidies or b) the loss of programs who can't afford the arms race.

IMO, I view this change as inevitable. The current system benefits the sophisticated institutions (mainly P5), as well as coaches and administrators. It's time to let players fully into the business. Also, I'm a Latino male that is not yet 60 years old...so my view is well aligned with the results in this poll.

I am a white guy who turns age 65 in four months and I support the athletes being paid.

If someone is okay with coaches making $10 million a year and everyone in the athletic department being paid big salaries and universities spending $400 million on facilities, but objects to the players getting a bigger piece of the pie, then we are very different people with very different viewpoints about life and society.

(03-17-2022 05:52 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-16-2022 08:49 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-16-2022 08:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  Personally, I hate the destruction it will rein on non-rev sports to pay football and basketball players. And the damage to either; a) the pocketbooks of students from student fees and institution subsidies or b) the loss of programs who can't afford the arms race.

IMO, I view this change as inevitable. The current system benefits the sophisticated institutions (mainly P5), as well as coaches and administrators. It's time to let players fully into the business. Also, I'm a Latino male that is not yet 60 years old...so my view is well aligned with the results in this poll.

I am a white guy who turns age 65 in four months and I support the athletes being paid.

If someone is okay with coaches making $10 million a year and everyone in the athletic department being paid big salaries and universities spending $400 million on facilities, but objects to the players getting a bigger piece of the pie, then we are very different people with very different viewpoints about life and society.

I'm not ok with coaches salaries and $400 million dollar facilities. I'm a fan/alumn of a G5 in one of the poorest states in the country. I think all of this money being made should be funneled to the school and the majority should be used to benefit all the students in their education. I think there should be salary caps for athletics and no I don't see a problem with athletes getting paid. Academic scholarships allow students to have jobs and work for extra cash so why not the athletes. BUT it is a slippery slope and will eventually be abused to the point of destroying its self.

Wait, y'all are really surprised that white Americans are way less likely to support athletes being paid, given that the most visible beneficiaries of such benefits would be...non-white guys? I figured tat would have been pretty obvious.

(03-16-2022 08:49 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-16-2022 08:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  Personally, I hate the destruction it will rein on non-rev sports to pay football and basketball players. And the damage to either; a) the pocketbooks of students from student fees and institution subsidies or b) the loss of programs who can't afford the arms race.

IMO, I view this change as inevitable. The current system benefits the sophisticated institutions (mainly P5), as well as coaches and administrators. It's time to let players fully into the business. Also, I'm a Latino male that is not yet 60 years old...so my view is well aligned with the results in this poll.

College athletes are not students therefore they are not employees at all. They are there to get an education, not a job.

(03-17-2022 05:52 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-16-2022 08:49 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-16-2022 08:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  Personally, I hate the destruction it will rein on non-rev sports to pay football and basketball players. And the damage to either; a) the pocketbooks of students from student fees and institution subsidies or b) the loss of programs who can't afford the arms race.

IMO, I view this change as inevitable. The current system benefits the sophisticated institutions (mainly P5), as well as coaches and administrators. It's time to let players fully into the business. Also, I'm a Latino male that is not yet 60 years old...so my view is well aligned with the results in this poll.

I am a white guy who turns age 65 in four months and I support the athletes being paid.

If someone is okay with coaches making $10 million a year and everyone in the athletic department being paid big salaries and universities spending $400 million on facilities, but objects to the players getting a bigger piece of the pie, then we are very different people with very different viewpoints about life and society.

Its a different viewpoint about economics. If the top 100 players left in football and basketball, they would still be profitable. A difference maker in football is rare, only a few in any given year. More common in basketball since it is 5 players. What generates the money is the school and tradition, not the current crop of players. And the coach who puts together the team is critical.

You've got the "you didn't build that" mentality.

Now I'd agree with you on most CEOs of companies. Companies usually succeed in spite of the $20 million a year top managers. But coaches really do make a difference.

An argument I would be more susceptible than yours is the idea of what they would get if there are no restrictions. On the other hand, as college sports are treated as a loss leader, its not a true market.

Agreed. $1/day sounds about right.

How many of them actually give a damn about college athletics or know more about the topic than the 'do you support paying college athletes' question?

College athletes have been getting paid for years. Back when I was in college it was called laundry money.

If they get paid big bucks they should lose their Scholarship so that it can go to someone who can't afford to pay their own way.

(03-18-2022 12:34 PM)panite Wrote:  College athletes have been getting paid for years. Back when I was in college it was called laundry money.

There is definitely under the table stuff. My Dad knew a guy who claimed he got $10,000 a year in the 50s to play at Arkansas.

And there is tuition, room and board (at a training table). Training. Tutors. Probably 50-75k in value at state schools. Not bad for somebody right out of high school.