MBB Transfer Portal Thread: Moser Year 4

Eielson said:
I'm going to strongly disagree with you here. While there are certainly outliers in every sport, the average football player is working much harder than the average baseball, golfer, soccer, or tennis player. I'm sure Jayda works hard, but I assure you that her fiancee is working harder.
Click to expand...
Just because football is a a more physical sport doesn’t mean players train/work harder. Take a look at how many tennis players have to retire by their early 30s because their bodies take an insane amount of pounding, from matches and training. Football players in general likely do more work with heavy weight, but that’s just one form of hard work. Soccer is a ton of cardio, for example.

As for Jayda, unless her fiancé becomes one of the 10 best players in the country, her resume blows his out of the water. Who knows which one of them “works harder.” Either way, she has had infinitely more success.
 
WichitaSooner said:
Just because football is a a more physical sport doesn’t mean players train/work harder. Take a look at how many tennis players have to retire by their early 30s because their bodies take an insane amount of pounding, from matches and training. Football players in general likely do more work with heavy weight, but that’s just one form of hard work. Soccer is a ton of cardio, for example.

As for Jayda, unless her fiancé becomes one of the 10 best players in the country,but her resume blows his out of the water. Who knows which one of them “works harder.” Either way, she has had infinitely more success.
Click to expand...

All athletes at OU work hard, but OU football is on another level. Being a more physically demanding sport is certainly part of it, but they also have more overall time commitment. I personally knew football, baseball, and soccer players while at OU. Unless something changed in the last few years, it's not a question among them who had a tougher schedule.

I never said anything about overall resume, and they are both incredible, so I'm not going to dabble in it. I hope they have a wonderful marriage and make lots of babies.
 
skyvue said:
Fair enough. But I've seen other posts that were utterly dismissive--if not downright resentful--of any team that wasn't men's hoops or football and the money often gets mentioned.

As for the second part, that puts us right back on the profits track. Do the athletes in the revenue sports work harder than than ones in non-revenue sports. They don't, but they happen to compete in sports that's more popular. Jayda Coleman, to name just one of our great softball players, will be remembered more fondly and for much longer than any player who's competed for OU under Porter Moser. Who's more deserving of money--Coleman or Tanner Groves?

That's the problem with it being all about money now. Almost everything that used to matter--that used to be special about collegiate sports--is now thrown aside and the focus is basically entirely on money.
Click to expand...
I enjoy watching non-rev OU sports more than most, I just don’t see why OU football or basketball should subsidize them (or the CFP, March Madness at a national level) or their existence should put an artificially low cap on what a player in a rev sport can earn.
 
Hecubus said:
Not a hill to die on, since you are wrong. Great way to get sued for wage theft though and possibly wind up abrogating your liability protection if you intended to defraud them.
Click to expand...
Again. Missing the point lol
 
SoonerDutch said:
I enjoy watching non-rev OU sports more than most, I just don’t see why OU football or basketball should subsidize them (or the CFP, March Madness at a national level) or their existence should put an artificially low cap on what a player in a rev sport can earn.
Click to expand...

The idea that a collegiate sport has to be a money-maker to matter runs counter to everything that college sports have stood for 100+ years.
 
Eielson said:
I actually think you missed the point, as evidenced by your "huh" comment.
Click to expand...
The huh was because your comment doesn’t make sense in reference to my post

The whole freaking point is pretty simple. If a company is losing money they will not be around long and hence you will be out of a job and not getting paid. I’m not sure what is so difficult here
 
skyvue said:
The idea that a collegiate sport has to be a money-maker to matter runs counter to everything that college sports have stood for 100+ years.
Click to expand...
To be clear, I never said non-rev sports don’t matter lol but I’ll ask my questions one more time - why should OU football/basketball subsidize non-rev sports and why should revenue sport athletes have comp limited because non-rev sport athletes cannot command the same comp?
 
SoonerDutch said:
To be clear, I never said non-rev sports don’t matter lol but I’ll ask my questions one more time - why should OU football/basketball subsidize non-rev sports and why should revenue sport athletes have comp limited because non-rev sport athletes cannot command the same comp?
Click to expand...
Because that's the only way the other sports continue in the new culture. That's patently obvious.

And why should athletes who work just as hard as the football and men's basketball players make less than they do, simply because their talents and abilities lie in another area? In the arrangement you're defending, the football guys will be paid more not because they work harder or are more talented but simply because the game they play is more popular.

I understand that in the commercial arena, that's understood, but collegiate athletics have never been a purely commercial endeavor.
 
SoonerBounce13 said:
The huh was because your comment doesn’t make sense in reference to my post

The whole freaking point is pretty simple. If a company is losing money they will not be around long and hence you will be out of a job and not getting paid. I’m not sure what is so difficult here
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying. It's just that it's flawed on so many levels. You don't think that the baseball players should get paid unless they're responsible for a direct profit. Are you suggesting that the coaches shouldn't get paid, either, or do they get some form of exemption?
 
skyvue said:
Because that's the only way the other sports continue in the new culture. That's patently obvious.

And why should athletes who work just as hard as the football and men's basketball players make less than they do, simply because their talents and abilities lie in another area? In the arrangement you're defending, the football guys will be paid more not because they work harder or are more talented but simply because the game they play is more popular.

I understand that in the commercial arena, that's understood, but collegiate athletics have never been a purely commercial endeavor.
Click to expand...
Obviously entitled to your opinion, although IMO I think you’d support extending football/basketball subsidization to non-athletic university cultural programs like the arts or even tuition support for non-athletes. Which maybe you do, I don’t know but will ask?

Following your logic, I’d be more for the OU AD pumping money into Fred Jones rather than OU supporting a volleyball or a crew program with excess FB money. That serves the university community (students, Norman, alumni) way more IMO.

Because honestly yes, I think rev athletes should be able to earn more because more people follow their sports (it’s the American way and honestly since UGA/OU sued the NCAA in the 80s, college athletics has been about the $$) and the non-rev sports should be curtailed dramatically if they can’t financially support themselves.
 
skyvue said:
Because that's the only way the other sports continue in the new culture. That's patently obvious.

And why should athletes who work just as hard as the football and men's basketball players make less than they do, simply because their talents and abilities lie in another area? In the arrangement you're defending, the football guys will be paid more not because they work harder or are more talented but simply because the game they play is more popular.

I understand that in the commercial arena, that's understood, but collegiate athletics have never been a purely commercial endeavor.
Click to expand...
It’s commercial now. Better get used to it. It’s the real world now
 
Eielson said:
I understand what you're saying. It's just that it's flawed on so many levels. You don't think that the baseball players should get paid unless they're responsible for a direct profit. Are you suggesting that the coaches shouldn't get paid, either, or do they get some form of exemption?
Click to expand...
lol again missing the point. Not worth it we are so far removed from the context of my comments.

My comment wasn’t even about college sports
 
skyvue said:
Because that's the only way the other sports continue in the new culture. That's patently obvious.

And why should athletes who work just as hard as the football and men's basketball players make less than they do, simply because their talents and abilities lie in another area? In the arrangement you're defending, the football guys will be paid more not because they work harder or are more talented but simply because the game they play is more popular.

I understand that in the commercial arena, that's understood, but collegiate athletics have never been a purely commercial endeavor.
Click to expand...
because that is how the world works ..

the football and basketball players will be paid more because they generate money they make money ..
 
BoulderSooner said:
because that is how the world works ..

the football and basketball players will be paid more because they generate money they make money ..
Click to expand...
Several of you have now simultaneously stated the obvious and ignored my point: The business world does work that way, it's true, but college athletics has never been a business--not in the truest sense. Sure, money played a role, as with any endeavor, but the point was never to make a profit (if it was, the VAST majority of colleges failed in this regard). And the goal has always been to have every sport in which a university's students compete be successful, while, yes, making sure the more successful sports--the cash cow(s) at each school--received the most focus.

But that's a long way from where we are now and some of you seem to be embracing--tacitly in some cases, overtly in others--the attitude and approach that favors paying football and men's basketball players whatever it takes, even if it means the other sports wither and die. That is a new outlook (though perhaps not for certain individuals), and one I most definitely do not endorse.

For one thing, it's likely to mean that women's sports get short shrift, just when they are increasing in popularity. The two most successful programs at OU in recent years, in terms of on-court/field performance, are the softball and women's gymnastics squads. Some here have made it clear they don't care a whit about those programs (there's even been some resentment and disdain expressed toward softball). And women's hoops has been vastly more successful than men 's. But if we remain on the trajectory some here are embracing, they could just fade away.
 
skyvue said:
Several of you have now simultaneously stated the obvious and ignored my point: The business world does work that way, it's true, but college athletics has never been a business--not in the truest sense. Sure, money played a role, as with any endeavor, but the point was never to make a profit (if it was, the VAST majority of colleges failed in this regard). And the goal has always been to have every sport in which a university's students compete be successful, while, yes, making sure the more successful sports--the cash cow(s) at each school--received the most focus.

But that's a long way from where we are now and some of you seem to be embracing--tacitly in some cases, overtly in others--the attitude and approach that favors paying football and men's basketball players whatever it takes, even if it means the other sports wither and die. That is a new outlook (though perhaps not for certain individuals), and one I most definitely do not endorse.

For one thing, it's likely to mean that women's sports get short shrift, just when they are increasing in popularity. The two most successful programs at OU in recent years, in terms of on-court/field performance, are the softball and women's gymnastics squads. Some here have made it clear they don't care a whit about those programs (there's even been some resentment and disdain expressed toward softball). And women's hoops has been vastly more successful than men 's. But if we remain on the trajectory some here are embracing, they could just fade away.
Click to expand...
Again, I’d argue you’re ignoring the reality since the UGA/OU lawsuit (or before but that’s a clear/recognizable breakpoint) but I’d love to get your thoughts on revenue college athletics subsidizing broader university programs?

Following your logic, I don’t see why one would draw distinction between supporting a university art museum versus a university volleyball team.
 
I love this site, but I posts thinking "man there's a lot of news,hopefully it's good news on ou basketball transfer portal news but just bs about what is the best chili, now it's posts about what players should be paid and sports that should get money. Start a post about any crap other than transfer portal news!!!
 
chadmac said:
I love this site, but posts thinking "man there's a lot of news,hopefully it's good news on ou basketball transfer portal news but just bs about what is the best chili, now it's posts about what players should be paid and sports that should get money. Start a post about any crap other than transfer portal news!!!
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top