• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Columbus Blue Jackets (Official Thread)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Steve19 said:
Anyone posting here knows that I am a dedicated sports fan (and an academician), but pro sports really is becoming an industry that will require a real rethink. Around the world, in various sports, stadiums are sitting less than a third full. Coach and player salaries are entirely out of proportion to their true contributions to society. It's not just the Jackets, the NHL, or even the US. @RugbyBuck and I attended an international Super Rugby game in South Africa featuring the leading team. Although 40,000 seats had been given away free in a competition, less than 30,000 people were in attendance. Twenty years ago, stadiums were full.

I couldn't care less about pro sports for the same reasons that you express. I do care that this is a growing concern at the college level.

I don't want to hijack the thread and the mods can take this elsewhere, but I think you are highlighting a growing cancer that affects college sports in an age when most sports administration departments run at a loss. We can be happy that Ohio State sports contribute to the University, but usually universities subsidize sports and that includes most of the teams Ohio State schedules every year.

In an age of international parity in education, this represents a real threat to college sports. We see that parity reflected in declines in international student applications to US universities (it's not all Trump!) and the quality of students (when chosen through competitive processes, most PhD students at top US universities have been from overseas for more than two decades).

As an example, consider the University of Alabama (https://www.insidehighered.com/aaup-compensation-survey/school-detail/university-alabama; https://projects.newsday.com/college-football-coaches-salaries-contracts/nick-saban/). How will Alabama respond when the time comes to justify the comparative contributions of Nick Saban to the upliftment of society (what universities do as a central mission). Fluff pieces such as this (link) don't really get to the comparative costs of the academic project and sports project. Given growing student activism, that day is not far away.

Again, I am a sports fan, but even to me things seem highly out of kilter. For those who don't want to click the links, Saban's package alone, not mentioning his assistants, is equivalent to those of 75 full professors. Is his contribution really equivalent to the contributions even 10 professors make to society when measured in the lifetime contributions of graduates versus what they might have contributed without a university education? I am not saying, by the way, that technical education is not valuable or making any similar comparison.

Add in his assistants and Alabama needs to explain how coaching packages are worth 119 professors, not assistant professors or associate professors, full professors. We can see problems across the entire ecosystem, from ESPiN to universities beginning to have conversations internally about exiting sports. I am not saying the day is on us now, but rather that we will soon see questions about the true value of "hey, we're national champions" and the underlying data look pretty much against college or professional sports right now.
Click to expand...


Contribution to society seems like a skewed lens to be peering through imo. How do you measure that and who gets to judge?

Let the free market do it's thing. Sports is just entertainment, no different than musicians and actors.

Why do they get paid so much more than teachers? Because regardless of the societal value some want to place on what they create, it is proven to create value for enough other people to warrant their pay. If it did not, there wouldn't be enough money to pay them the way they get paid (a lot more than teachers).

I think that the way sports is consumed will soon lead to some large changes but, again, because of the economics of it. Not some sense of "real" value. Kids my sons age don't watch games on t.v. the way we all did and more importantly, the way the current advertisement model is built upon. They keep up with scores and watch highlights later. They'd rather go play sports themselves or play video games with their friends.
 
Upvote 0
Steve19 said:
Anyone posting here knows that I am a dedicated sports fan (and an academician), but pro sports really is becoming an industry that will require a real rethink. Around the world, in various sports, stadiums are sitting less than a third full. Coach and player salaries are entirely out of proportion to their true contributions to society. It's not just the Jackets, the NHL, or even the US. @RugbyBuck and I attended an international Super Rugby game in South Africa featuring the leading team. Although 40,000 seats had been given away free in a competition, less than 30,000 people were in attendance. Twenty years ago, stadiums were full.

I couldn't care less about pro sports for the same reasons that you express. I do care that this is a growing concern at the college level.

I don't want to hijack the thread and the mods can take this elsewhere, but I think you are highlighting a growing cancer that affects college sports in an age when most sports administration departments run at a loss. We can be happy that Ohio State sports contribute to the University, but usually universities subsidize sports and that includes most of the teams Ohio State schedules every year.

In an age of international parity in education, this represents a real threat to college sports. We see that parity reflected in declines in international student applications to US universities (it's not all Trump!) and the quality of students (when chosen through competitive processes, most PhD students at top US universities have been from overseas for more than two decades).

As an example, consider the University of Alabama (https://www.insidehighered.com/aaup-compensation-survey/school-detail/university-alabama; https://projects.newsday.com/college-football-coaches-salaries-contracts/nick-saban/). How will Alabama respond when the time comes to justify the comparative contributions of Nick Saban to the upliftment of society (what universities do as a central mission). Fluff pieces such as this (link) don't really get to the comparative costs of the academic project and sports project. Given growing student activism, that day is not far away.

Again, I am a sports fan, but even to me things seem highly out of kilter. For those who don't want to click the links, Saban's package alone, not mentioning his assistants, is equivalent to those of 75 full professors. Is his contribution really equivalent to the contributions even 10 professors make to society when measured in the lifetime contributions of graduates versus what they might have contributed without a university education? I am not saying, by the way, that technical education is not valuable or making any similar comparison.

Add in his assistants and Alabama needs to explain how coaching packages are worth 119 professors, not assistant professors or associate professors, full professors. We can see problems across the entire ecosystem, from ESPiN to universities beginning to have conversations internally about exiting sports. I am not saying the day is on us now, but rather that we will soon see questions about the true value of "hey, we're national champions" and the underlying data look pretty much against college or professional sports right now.
Click to expand...

Jaxbuck said:
Contribution to society seems like a skewed lens to be peering through imo. How do you measure that and who gets to judge?

Let the free market do it's thing. Sports is just entertainment, no different than musicians and actors.

Why do they get paid so much more than teachers? Because regardless of the societal value some want to place on what they create, it is proven to create value for enough other people to warrant their pay. If it did not, there wouldn't be enough money to pay them the way they get paid (a lot more than teachers).

I think that the way sports is consumed will soon lead to some large changes but, again, because of the economics of it. Not some sense of "real" value. Kids my sons age don't watch games on t.v. the way we all did and more importantly, the way the current advertisement model is built upon. They keep up with scores and watch highlights later. They'd rather go play sports themselves or play video games with their friends.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is any doubt that teachers contribute more to society than athletes and entertainers; however under the "free market" system the latter is always going to get paid more until:

1. Teaching becomes a spectator event and the general population will pay to see them teach.

2. Teachers teaching in the classrooms becomes top rated TV shows: http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/mo...rograms-of-2017-super-bowl-li-laps-the-field/

You can currently see most to the top ranted TV shows are sporting events.

3. Large "fat cats" donate huge sums of money to a school for naming rights, etc.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
ScriptOhio said:
I don't think there is any doubt that teachers contribute more to society than athletes and entertainers; however under the "free market" system the latter is always going to get paid more until:

1. Teaching becomes a spectator event and the general population will pay to see them teach.

2. Teachers teaching in the classrooms becomes top rated TV shows: http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/mo...rograms-of-2017-super-bowl-li-laps-the-field/

You can currently see most to the top ranted TV shows are sporting events.

3. Large "fat cats" donate huge sums of money to a school for naming rights, etc.
Click to expand...
The effects of that logic, which does not apply everywhere by the way, is that the best and brightest do not make themselves available and the quality of education deteriorates. The result is that the competitive disadvantage of a country can be witnessed in increasing trade deficits, national decline, and social conflict. Let's see, what would that describe...
 
Upvote 0
If Panarin scores, the CBJ win.

If he struggles and they body him up again, the CBJ probably go golfing tomorrow.

Washington has used the exact same game plan Trashville used last year against Shitcago to stop him. Someone else needs to step up to take some of the pressure off of him. Werenski and Jones having a great game would be awesome too.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top