Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Zelda Zonk, post: 5387140, member: 966"] I'm not going to go back into all of this, because you're resting on- and amplifying the same types of faulty reasonings. Some points, though: • The "out of the ghetto crack." Yes, of course i've heard that before. That's not the point. I've heard a lot of offensive, invalid things before. This one, not for quite a long time. Hoped we had evolved past this. It's a sloppily-affixed stereotype, usually without basis. What's the phrase when it's a white kid coming out of a delapidated rural environment? Who's definining "economically-challenged?" Does it cost more or less to live in a 2-br apartment in the Bronx, or a 3-br ramshackle in Iowa? • The analogy of an actor in a blockbuster film vs a Broadway run... that's an analogy. To serve to illustrate ONE concept: that a single person can have a valuation in one circumstance that is vastly different from a valuation in another circumstance. That's it. The two different situations don't have to otherwise also be completely the same. One concept. If i have to go back to your Bacot example, fine. You seem mystified that a guy who played for one college team for eleven years—a 'legendary program,' with hundreds of thousands of active alum fans—has built up more value than he has on a G League team that he's been a member of for one year. A team that no one watches. I can't clear up that confusion any better. • Systems pay participants based on their ability to pay participants. Systems adapt and expand, to make more money for its owners and the participants reap some of those benefits. Yes, "consumers" are footing the bills. Whether that's in ticket, concessions, merch prices, cable/streaming bills, bonds/taxes for stadiums, or tuition and NIL for college players. The money isn't coming out of thin air. When you say colleges are going to be "forced" to pay $20million "or get left behind," again, isn't that "business?"' • You're again making some sort of foundationless correlation between what players are worth to the colleges in terms of raising revenue. It's too 'in the weeds' for me to deal with now. But, suffice it to say that it doesn't need to correlate 1:1 to still be worthwhile for a school to pay. Firstly, if you "get left behind," the losses can be more devastating than the additional financial output. Secondly, the money is either going to come from somewhere or it won't, and if it doesn't, yes, some teams will be left behind. Just like when the competitive balance was affected by schools' legacies, the power of their coaches, or under the table payoffs. There's not going to be equity in this system. Because there are so many factors at play, there isn't going to be equity ever. As for the statement you made: "not exactly good reasons to be paying athletets astronomical money for what they would be more than happy to do for what it always was," see my rant about Jimmy Butler in another thread. I agree. About most of the rest of the stuff, you're preaching to the choir. As i said at the top of my first response, i despise NIL. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?