Kentucky Sports Radio
[Moderated by Matt Jones]
[Moderated by Matt Jones]
I get emails all the time that tell me how I have a very innovative and revolutionary view on sports. The word genius has been thrown around a few times. Let me give you one such email:
BTI, I normally don’t comment on KSR, but today I just couldn’t help myself. You’re argument that soccer would be better if youth girls were playing and fighting one another was both innovative and revolutionary, dare I say genius. I would love to know what other changes you would make to the sports world.”
Sincerely, Thomas B.
I get at least one of these types of email every 4 or 5 months and I am only here to please the masses. So, hopefully on a weekly basis, I will give some changes that need to be made in sports. Today’s are some that are on the top of my mind:
1. COLLEGE ATHLETES NEED TO BE PAID
As much as I would love to buy into the whole amateur thing, and think that college sports is the last purely clean athletic arena, we all know that we have passed that threshold a loooooong time ago. And so I see no reason that college athletes should not be profiting on the profit that they bring into the school. Every single one of these athletes are legal adults and the amount of hard work they put into their sport makes it just like a full-time job with the university. Several additions to this argument:
a. Athletes should not be paid the same amounts. Frankly, basketball and football players bring in millions upon millions to a university and softball and track do not. This plan is based solely on how much teams bring into the school. For instance, how many of you bought tickets for the sheer fact of wanting to see Wall and Cousins. Those guys “earned” that money, and deserve to profit off it.
b. Don’t give me the whole “their scholarship is the way they are paid” argument. Those guys pay back the school ten foldover what their scholarship is worth.
c. In a perfect world, a school like Kentucky would not have to even come close to cheating during recruiting because they could simply say “look how much you will be paid when you play for us”. That would be the new recruiting pitch. And I readily admit that I may just be wishfully thinking there.
d. The NCAA would have to set a percentage of the profit that a sport brings into the school to dish out to the athletes. The number I had in mind was 10%. So, if a sport like baseball brought in 1-million-dollars in a season, the players would equally divide up $100,000. The only sport where the percentage might be higher is football due to the sheer number of players on each team. Maybe make it 15% for football.
2. MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL NEEDS TO SHORTEN ITS REGULAR SEASON
We just had a MLB Playoff game postponed because of snow. SNOW! Last year, we had the World Series basically ruined because of terrible weather in Philadelphia. And even when there is not precipitation, the weather in the majority of MLB cities is frigid this time of year. And that’s not even the real reason I think the season needs to be shortened. The real reason is because the only part of the season anybody cares about is played right in the middle of this country’s favorite sport, football. How many of us are choosing playoff baseball on a Sunday over an NFL game. Very few. But, if the season was shortened by 30-40 games, the playoffs could be played in late August/early September, and catch it right at the beginning of football season. As it is now, nearly everybody has moved themselves into football season. Maybe next week, we will discuss the start times of games.
3. IT’S TIME FOR HOCKEY TO GET BACK ON ESPN
I think there are too many people that actually love sports who don’t realize how the game has changed since the strike and ESPN dropping the sport. Now, we only get an occasional NBC Sunday game, and maybe 2 or 3 Stanley Cup Finals games. But, in reality, the sport has really become more exciting. Scoring has been waaaaayy up since the players came back, the sport is much more wide-open, and there are some real stars in the sports. This is in no way suggesting the sport will ever become higher than 4th on the totem pole, BUT it is much better than any 4th sport that is currently on TV, i.e. poker or soccer or WNBA. One of the best endings I have ever seen to a sporting event was last years Game 7 of the Finals between the Penguins and Red Wings. A diving save at the buzzer gave the Penguins the upset. It was the equivalent of a Game 7 walk-off or World Cup Golden Goal. And yet, nearly all of last years playoffs were not broadcast or broadcast on Versus. As a bonus, hockey looks really good on HD TV, and you can actually see the puck.
4. THE WORLD CUP NEEDS TO BE EVERY 2 YEARS AND HELD ON YEARS WHERE THERE ARE NO OLYMPICS.
This is 100% coming from an American’s perspective, but this is the only event that I always mark down to watch when it comes to soccer. And despite what some may think, I have a feeling that most people feel the same way. Something is really cool about watching the Congo try and take down France. And this sport, unlike any others in the world, is fairly evenly played on all continents. Meaning Nigeria is just as good as Mexico who can compete with Germany who is challenged by South Korea who can play with Argentina. But, why only hold it every 4 years? What is the reasoning? Do you honestly think it would become watered down if held every 2 years? They held the Winter Olympics in 1992 and 1994, and I don’t remember the ’94 Olympics being any less watched or anticipated than the ones in ‘92. So my proposal is this: Hold the World Cup in odd years (2009, 2011, 2013, etc.) and hold the qualifying for the World Cup in even years.
[powered by WordPress.]
Bill Keightley Report : Never to be forgotten.
28 queries. 0.886 seconds
October 13th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
No way hockey is better than the WNBA.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Is no Olympics or Are no Olympics? Get it together BTI, don’t ruin this post that actually makes some decent points.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
If you’re proposing no salary cap on your “pay the college athletes” proposition, then I’m not surprised Matt keeps you locked up in the cellar like he does.
You switched motives at first from players not being payed for how hard they work to players deserving a cut of the profits. If it’s the first, then you have a reasonable argument. However, the players at Kentucky don’t practice more hours than the ones at northwestern south dakotah state tech, and having different schools pay different amounts would make the game much less enjoyable, because the big schools would get all the big kids. The results would become predictable, college bb would suffer as a whole, both fiscally and qualitatively, and tradition and history of programs would all go out the window. It would all become a joke. Nobody has respect for the Yankees’ tradition, because they just paid their way to 26 championships or whatever. Same principle here.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
hockey sucks there is a reason its not on espn no ratings. Now ESPN Canada………….. whats the spanish espn that show all the sooccer
October 13th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
WOOO, HOCKEY! UK hockey is awesome they need some love from this site, and have you seen the student section at these games, way better then football or basketball.
October 13th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
I hope this isn’t the overnight post…
October 13th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
You say that the players would equally divide a certain percentage. Ok, so Krebs would get “paid” as much as Wall or Patterson. Or Tebow’s holiness would make as much as their punter? I actually made an argument for paying profit producing athletes in my Economics of Sports class back in 2003, but I don’t have time to share it’s premise.
Yes, Please shorten baseball. It gets really old, really fast.
Hockey is only somewhat tolerable because toothless white guys fight.
As for the World Cup, it’s a great event. Every 2 years would be watered down.
October 13th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
3) But dont the big schools get all the big kids now? So whats really the difference. I thought about that point, but then I realize that a kid like Wall or Cousins or Brandon Knight are gonna go to a big school no matter what, so it really doesnt change that aspect of recruiting.
October 13th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
College players should NOT get paid. That’s just ridiculous to say that they should. That’s what makes college…college, it’s done for the love of the sport, not the money. Why does BTI even post?
October 13th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
9) To piss you off. In fact thats why all of us write on this blog, to see what your response will be.
October 13th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
I actually saw “The Thinker” at a Rodin exposition in London, and the statue itself is amazingly small. Also, a guy got thrown out by undercover agents because he tried to touch it. Good times.
October 13th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
stay off baseball. the whole world is not football first…especially here in ky
October 13th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Players should definitely be paid. Specially Basketball and Football players. If you consider the percentage of college players who don’t make it to their respective professional leagues, it is very small. And in order for players to keep their scholarships they have to dedicate an immense amount of time to training, traveling, practicing etc… Hence, most of these players have academic majors that are #1 easy and #2 hard to make a good living out of. Like most of us know, it is incredibly hard to do well in school and adding all the extracurriculars that these athletes HAVE to do, I understand why none of them are taking chemical engineering classes. Hence, pay them now for the lack of pay they will get later.
October 13th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
*percentage of those who DO make it to their respective professional leagues…
October 13th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
BTI try watching EURO
October 13th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
And either way, once again, it would taint the notion of tradition in the sport in general. Some might say it already has been by scandals, but I don’t think anyone will take it seriously if there are a bunch of different teams with different payrolls.
October 13th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
as one of the only people that reads this site AND actually likes and follows soccer, i would love to have the world cup every 2 years…but it just isnt possible.
EVERY country has a chance to qualify for the World Cup and the number of games it takes to narrow the field down takes time. having the WC every 2 years and trying to play all the qualifying games would mean that professional teams would have to train and play a majority of games without their star players due to time needed to be spent with the national team. club teams (not the crappy MLS teams) would never let that happen due to the potential loss in revenue.
i like the idea though, BTI…and the fact you posted something about soccer that was relatively positive
October 13th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Did anyone see this from the other day? HS team in Michigan loses in the last seconds. http://highschool.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1001233
October 13th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
17 right on all accounts.
October 13th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
i hate louisville
http://i886.photobucket.com/albums/ac67/bnoe5000/wallpaper.jpg
October 13th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Totally down with the World Cup argument. It might even drum up support for the sport. I know the main time I care about soccer is the World Cup, why not have more?
October 13th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Paying college athletes could be plausible, just not under your scheme. It wouldn’t be fair for athletes at UK to be paid more than at Tennessee. The athletes put in the same amount of work so why would any recruit choose to go to UT over UK? It just wouldn’t happen. It already occurs that UNC, Duke, Kentucky and Kansas are perennial top class recruiters, but the skew would increase even more where they would basically split the top 25 players each year. The only way for college athletes to be paid is a set amount for each school, or maybe each school in a conference since mid majors might not be able to afford it. I still don’t like the idea though.
October 13th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
I guess high school athletes should get paid too… heck, I worked pretty hard for my grade school basketball team and I didn’t see a dime of it. What gives?
October 13th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
22) I dont disagree with you, it would give schools likes UK and Kansas a big advantage, BUT to be honest, John Wall has brought more money into the UK atheltic department than some recruit at Washington State brought into his desprtment, so why should the two guys be paid the same amount?
October 13th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
13) That is crap. I played D1 athletics (at a top 10 university) and I was able to handle a tough course load and play at the top of my game week in and week out, making all conference. In fact, I am currently in medical school. While it was a challenge to manage my time, I did it quite successfully.
October 14th, 2009 at 12:14 am
25) do you also poop ice cream?
October 14th, 2009 at 12:51 am
They get a free tuition, free apparell, free shoes, a city/state that they can always come back to an open a business (car sales, restaurant, etc) and a whole heaping bunch of “hoonanny” from smokin hot college girls.
They should NOT be paid.
October 14th, 2009 at 1:23 am
27) did you just put a price on vajin?
October 14th, 2009 at 1:48 am
I like most of your points, but I’m actually very surprised that on one has pointed this out yet, even though it’s a minor point. Tickets for Big Blue Madness were free.
On the pay part, I think that all student athletes should be paid the same for the same sport at all schools. So the starting point guard at Murray State should make the same amount of money as John Wall. If not, that just further pushes the little guys down and you no longer have years where some school lands a big shot player and all of a sudden they are a decent team (Kansas State). Big schools already have a huge advantage over little schools with increased budgets, marking/TV deals, and more resources. There is no point to hammer down the little guys anymore than they currently are. So to recap, same pay at all schools, for all players, in the same sport. Each sport has their own pay standards.
October 14th, 2009 at 3:52 am
Dude you just contradicted yourself…same pay
for all players in a sport but different pay for
each sport…? Argument was dumb anyway but
I still had to point that out…
October 14th, 2009 at 6:10 am
24. I see your point, and its true that John Wall is worth more to UK than any basketball player is to his school this year so it would only be fair for him to make the most $. However, once greed creeps into the college game, it’ll be just like the NBA and become all about the money instead of the spirit of the game. I for one hope college athletes never get paid and take their payment in the form of a college education which is more valuable in the long run than the tens of thousands of dollars athletes could make in college.
October 14th, 2009 at 6:38 am
Give a kid that hasn’t been away from home a $1000.00 a week and watch him run!
Then watch the kid get shipped back home because he’s too immature to hold a scholarship……
October 14th, 2009 at 7:06 am
I love the World Cup, but you can’t have it every two years. The countries play 2 years of qualifying games just to see who gets in. You cannot speed up this process because most of these players have professional club commitments that pay their salaries. To have the WC every two years would essentially destroy the professional leagues around the world. There are many other great international soccer tournaments to fill the time (e.g., Euro), though admittedly not as encompassing or inclusive as the World Cup.
October 14th, 2009 at 8:25 am
I love how you spelled “hear” instead of “here.” Revolutionary and extremely innovative.
October 14th, 2009 at 8:25 am
you forget that college athletes are still getting and education in their “major” field of sports… college players are still getting taught the skills they need to be able to get a job at the next level especially in football and basketball (except for lebron/john wall phenoms)… they receive this education and support/motivation from fans for free with the trade off of knowing their career choice is a spectator event that makes money for the school… not to mention a PG at Kentucky would get paid a lot more than a PG at Louisville or Memphis based solely on fan base which compromises the game(s) a la NY yankees in baseball (and yes that is wrong).
October 14th, 2009 at 8:27 am
BTI, Jesus, the more I read the Dumber you get. What are you talking about paying for BBM tickets? They give those away fruity nuts. Yeah BTI, They could put the NHL back on ESPN OR they could have a Paint drying contest and we could watch that as it would be far more exciting.
October 14th, 2009 at 8:30 am
36) All i said was “bought tickets” and you assumed I meant BBM tickets? When you assume…
October 14th, 2009 at 9:06 am
Nothing you post pisses me off, makes me wonder what the hell you’re thinkin though. But if that’s your job to piss people off, congrats, I am sure you do that to plenty lol
October 14th, 2009 at 9:16 am
Excuse me, but I thought college players already got paid. The majority are on a full ride scholarship . If that doesn’t count for payment of something, I don’t know what would.
October 14th, 2009 at 9:19 am
College atheletes have the opportunity to get paid by earning a spot on a professional team. If the student is not good enough to go pro, they need to get as much out of their education as possible, something that would be forgotten if they were paid to play in college.
October 14th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Here’s a question for your well-thought-out plan: since there are less than twenty players on a bball team, and close to 100 on a football team, but at schools like UK bball brings in more revenue than football, is the bball revenue shared by 17 guys while 87 have to split football’s money pot? Why would anyone go into football if that were the case?
Also, according to your point #1C., schools like UK could pay their players more than schools like, say, UGA, that have less basketball revenue. Since the payments are not even from school to school, or maybe even player to player, then 16 year-old high school players will start hiring agents and the bidding wars will begin. If you think college athletics are dirty now, wait until sleazy agents are legal for high school and college students. It’s like saying, “the bath water isn’t completely clean, so let’s dump mud in it.”
And here is one final (although not the last) problem. Schools will never allow it because almost all bball players at top 25 schools will make a lot more money than their professors and even administrators. You cannot run an institution where an 18 year-old making 100K annually, has a posse and an agent, but is supposed to be under the authority of some one who makes 60K a year. Any pay-for-play plan would have to be approved by the college presidents, and the faculty and administration would fire any president who agreed to essentially let the inmates run the asylum. Thus, no president would *ever* agree.
Please learn how the real world works.
October 14th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Most people bring in millions and millions of dollars to their company. A doctor who does $10 million worth of surgeries, doesn’t get paid $10 mil. A sales person who sales $10 mil doesn’t make 10mil. So these players get paid very well. Duke/Stanford/Vandy etc. is around 50K per year, most players are out of state, so you’re looking at around $30K at state schools. They also get very good fringe benefits. This is very good pay for a non-educated, non-professional basketball player. The players who are good enough to play professionally are getting an internship and being paid for it. Players have no college degree and most can’t play professionally, so they are not worthy of more than 15-20K per year, but get much more than that.
October 14th, 2009 at 9:48 am
41) If the UK basketball team brings in more money than the the football team, then yes, those guys should split more money because they have EARNED more money.
Also, obviously, agents will still be banned from college athletics. Maybe they can create a financial position in each athletic department that can handle the money that is being split up.
And if college players bring more money into a school than the professors, than I would think that rationalizes them getting paid more. The athletes are just like employees of the university.
October 14th, 2009 at 9:49 am
36) Amen, complete agreement….Besides not paying all athletes the same amount is just asking for trouble. As much as I love to watch basketball, football, and baseball…and as much money as they bring in, you cannot pay the field hockey team and soccer teams minimum wage here, plus there is a small thing called Title 9…as much as it sucks sometimes that would raise a shit storm. Also 18 year olds runnin around with thousands of dollars, thats real smart you see what the pros do, they shoot themselves in the leg
October 14th, 2009 at 9:54 am
Paying athletes would eliminate most college sports.
In the current model revenue generated by sports such as football pay for sports such as
tennis and swimming. If football revenue went to pay a salary to players, these other sports
would be taken off the schools’ books.
October 14th, 2009 at 10:33 am
Totally with you on the hockey thing BTI. Not being on ESPN is killing a great sport that is dying a slow death anyway. Bettman and the owners blew that
#1 not only is hockey better than the WNBA, but it blows the NBA, NASCAR and MLB out of the water. I will hunt down an NHL game on whatever third world cable channel it is on, but I haven’t watched those other, better exposed sports in years. My $.02 on the matter.
October 14th, 2009 at 11:04 am
If they paid NCAA athletes the ticket prices to get into the games would skyrocket!! We don’t need this.
October 14th, 2009 at 11:26 am
43)
BTI, thats kind of a d!ck move that you just pulled. While 41 was being an a$$ about calling you out, I know you did have BBM in what you wrote. You went back and edited the page, and to act like you never put that in there is something Maggard would pull. It’s ok to make mistakes, but don’t go back and change things then act like you didn’t say that. Not cool man, not cool.
October 14th, 2009 at 11:27 am
BTI,
I think you post these ideas just to get a reaction out of people. There’s no way you think these are legitimate ideas. The only one that has any merit is the idea to shorten the MLB season. Paying college players is a terrible idea. What would make it any different than the NBA? Plus, once players start getting paid how would you regulate that to make sure the colleges are not paying them extra on the side. It would be even easier to cheat than it is now. TERRIBLE IDEA…
October 14th, 2009 at 11:27 am
BTI… genius is not the word I would use to describe your suggestion to pay athletes.
First, your suggestion that they bring in many fold profits to their tuition, books, housing, food, etc… well how is that different from any other employee? I was in sales, and I on many occasions made sales that were 10 to 100 fold my salary. I did that over and over during the year. No different from the players.
Let’s say you do pay them… then the NCAA will have to set the pay to be sure to keep an “equal” playing ground. UK could not recruit, as you suggest, by saying “look how much you will be paid to play for UK”… every other school would have to pay the same amount.
I think this is why I am seldom able to make it through one of your “blogs”… LOL.. you really seem to fail to think through an idea from all sides.
‘Basser
October 14th, 2009 at 11:29 am
It originally said “For instance, how many of you bought tickets for Big Blue Madness just for the sheer fact of wanting to see Wall and Cousins.”
October 14th, 2009 at 11:49 am
50) Most people in sales make a commission, so the fact that you are not is confusing. But most people are not brining millions upon millions of dollars into their business like college athletes do. And I have never gone to a game to watch the coach, yet he (Coach Cal) gets paid many millions while Wall and teammates get no piece of the pie.
Again, add up ALL the things that a basketball player gets (scholarship, books, housing, meals, clothing, travel) and it still doesn’t even come close to the money they bring in. These are adults doing a job and they deserve to get paid a little.
I dont disagree that it would be nearly IMPOSSIBLE to implement, but thats why there are really smart people in the world. My best guess is that each athletic department would hire a financial person that would handle the money that each player recieves. Maybe the players don’t actually have access to the money until they leave the school, I dont know.
But, I do know that its silly how much money these guys bring in and they get NONE of it.
October 14th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
I believe that someone here is suffering from rectal/cranial inversion. Hopefully, his head will be removed from his ass eventually.
October 14th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
To respond to your comments in #43: what is your justification that agents would still be banned from college and high school? In your plan, high school students can choose the college that offers them the most money to attend and play for; thus, it is purely a business move. Agents are currently only banned from college and h.s. athletics because they are presumed to be amateur. Your plan would end that amateur status, and thus the reason for not having agents. That is why pros have agents–they play for pay. So, please explain why you want to create a “professional” class of college players but do not want to them to have professional representation.
I hate to waste my time using reality to poke holes in this fantasy, but this is just one example how the plan just can’t work.
October 14th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
52) I don’t buy my TV from the CEO of Sony, but he sure as hell deserves more pay than the sales person. Also, college sports are a non-profit. They don’t return profits to shareholders. They spread it out amongst the other sports, the school, and reinvest it in the program. So these players are actually fund raisers for a non-profit. 30-50K per year compensation for 6 months work(2-4 hours a day) is plenty for that job. That actually comes out to 60-100k annualized. Nice work, if you can get it.
October 14th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
I just looked back at #52–you know a plan is doomed when the person proposing it assumes that “really smart people” will work out the very issues that he himself can’t think through. I rest my case and will get back to just enjoying UK sports.
October 14th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
10. If that’s the reason you write on this blog, here’s my response. Hope you enjoyed it.
But I do have a question for you BTI. Simply, do you like college or NBA basketball better?
October 14th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
57) College.
October 14th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
58. Me too. Why do you like college better? Your argument seems to me like you want to make college basketball more like the NBA. I’m not sure I understand the means of the point you are trying to make.
On another note, I disagree on the hockey issue. Statistically, I’m not sure, but I would think that the UFC (and other leagues of MMA) are hot on the rise. There a chance MMA leaps over hockey?
October 14th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Paying college athletes a “salary” based on how much they bring into the program is a complete non-starter. Negatives outweigh the positives around 100 to 1. Besides, if it was such a bad deal for the athletes, they wouldn’t do it.
I do have one problem w/ the current system though. Most college athletes spend so much time practicing, working out and studying (and signing autographs) that they don’t have time for a part time job. As a result, they have no way to generate cash for every day expenses, or to travel home on holidays / breaks. This is really puts them at a disadvantage versus all other students, particularly when many of their families do not have the money to help them with these expenses. For this reason, I believe “certain” athletes on scholorship should receive an allowance - say $500/mo. I would means test it, like financial aid is means tested to be sure it only goes to the kids that really need it. And the same amount should go to ALL athletes from ALL sports at ALL schools.
This would take some of the pressure off some kids who are vulnerable to currently illegal handouts.