Mick at the time I was a fan, now that I'm ref all I see is blue. By the way notice small case letters. Dave

Attaboy, Dave! :)

Totally Against
 

I'm totally against it. I think it cheapens sports. I see this as a major rat hole too.

Forget Nike, Addias, Pepsi, and so forth. They are the big guns. What will, and would most likely happen are kids running around with uniforms advertising, Joe's Crab Shack, or Big Al's Tires. Save it for the rec leagues.

The vast majority of HS's are rural and therefore would not get the big boys. Instead it would be Billy Bob's Bar-B-Q.

Not to mention, once the pen is opened, what's to say that Bud, Coors, etc. will not try and get in on a good thing. This then would go down a national legal rat hole where one industry sues the FED because they are not allowed to advertise, while say Burger King can. Then we fight another battle as to what is worse, Burger King or the King of Beers?

Lastly, who gets the money? Let's see, the NCAA has been under increasing pressure to pay some amount to athletes since some colleges reap huge profits off their play. When Doug Flutie was at B.C., it was estimated that he generated over 10 million dollars for the university, yet he did not recieve a dime apart from a free education.

Fast forward. Here comes the next Lebron. The big boys want to advertise not so much for the school, but to possibly make a contact with a future cash cow. So they advertise on the school uniforms and such. In other words, they take care of the school. The parents of the next Lebron might not see it that way, and want compensation in some form for them using his or her rights. You know, a promotional picture? How about an early basketball card? Could they use this persons image in an advertising campaign even if local?

Don't say it won't happen, cause it is all over the NCAA with shoe deals and uniform deals. As they say, crap rolls down hill. I don't have a problem with the manufacturing logo, but that is it. I'll draw the line there. And who's to say that a parent wants their child/student running around advertising "The Pussycat Lounge" or "Porky's Bar-b-Q" especially when they are Jewish? Refuse to take those ad's....that might and in this day and age, would probably be challenged in court. What some consider normal and valid companies, others do not. So where would one draw the line?

goose

Chico's Bail Bonds is the new sponsor for Ohio State but they haven't announced it yet!

Varsity Boys basketball presented by Baccardi and Coke

Re: Totally Against
 

Let me just say that if I had my "druthers" (an old expression of my mom's. http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/inde...?date=19960809 ), I'd continue to keep ads off the uniforms. Having said that, I don't think your point above is really persuasive.

The fact is, as others have mentioned, that teams and schools already sell ad space in programs, on walls, and on scoreboards. Somehow, they can draw the line for those spaces. Is there really any reason to think that it would be any harder to draw the line when it came to uniform ads? I just don't think that particular point is as big a deal as you seem to.

[Edited by ChuckElias on May 26th, 2005 at 12:11 PM]

Re: Re: Totally Against
 

You're right. As a parent I object strongly to these. I mean, the "Bar-b-Q" in Porky's should be all caps. What would be teaching our children if we set this kind of example?!?

alright Goose, those are good points and I think we're mostly in agreement.

After filtering who can and can't sponsor (this would be the same guidlines as the schools dresscode), no alcahol, tobacco, etc companies, let them sponsor the offseason leagues. This could potentially save the school a ton of $$ if someone else besides the school was ponying up. In exchange, the kids will wear the sponsors name on the jersey. If a sports drink or power bar comapny wants to donate product and money, they can have banners in the weight room, etc. I think there's lots of places to put "qualified" advertisers messages but please keep them off the uniform. They can also buy the kids jackets or warmups and ask them to wear when traveling to games. How about putting your business name on their duffle bags or a magnet sign on the team bus as it travels to games?

I think there's alot of possibilities here.

In Oregon, it's mostly not the schools that pay for off-season stuff anyway. It's usually the parents. We have quite a few teams sponsored, too, especially in poorer neighborhoods. With Nike world headquarters here in Portland, sponsorship is usually not a problem.

Logos on uniforms, in my opinion, is too much.

Every state has money problems. It's a big point of debate here in Houston and Texas. Teachers aren't getting raises, but bond money is being used to build lavish athletic stadiums and fields. And, it seems to have escalated in Houston to see who can have the largest one. Supporters claim they are self-sufficient, that they will pay for themselves in admissions, concessions, etc. But the patrons will have to buy a lot of M & M's at halftime to pay for these things.

My tax dollars at work!

Juulie - you know better than that. Nike is in Beaverton, not Portland. For those of us smart enough to live in the suburbs, this is a big distinction.

Guys - here's what the legislators are thinking about (yes - occasionally they actually think): it used to be that any kid could participate in a HS sport at no additional cost. Now, there is frequently a charge to the kid to participate. If costs keep going up and revenue stays neutral or goes down, only "rich" kids will be able to participate. Eventually, using the same path of logic, sports will eventually disappear altogether due to cost.

Personally, I have no problem at all with a corporate logo on a uniform if it means sports programs can continue to operate and virtually any kid can participate if he or she is good enough regardless of family income (or lack thereof). I really don't see any difference between that and logos on scoreboards and/or in programs.

I remember the "pay to play" issue coming up in New Jersey as well. I really can't imigine why it would become necessary for kids to pay for the opportunity to play high school athletics. There are some poor school districts here in VA, and they all their kids play for free. Are the districts in these other places providing something that other places aren't. In the case of New Jersey, I found out that some schools were providing equipment to the kids that I always had to pay for myself when I played. It just seems odd that the kids would have to pay some type of fee.

There are a lot of HS gyms with advertising already in them. There is nothing stopping a school sports program from taking a "donation" and displaying a sign of the donor. It may allow it to be more formal...a contracted amount and and a contracted display.
[rant=on]
It's always at a crisis level. It will remain so as long as they have one of the sweetest retirement programs in nation. There are teachers retiring earlier than they would have because they get more income from their retirement program than they do working (and Oregon ranks 14th in the nation in teacher pay from 2003 numbers). Then they come back as contract workers for the school and get a paycheck and the retirement at the same time. There are several other loopholes in the system that public workers use to boost their retirement. For those that get paid vacations (administrators and such), they accrue vacation until their last year or two and take cash in lieu of vacation. The retirement income is calculated based on their total pay over the last few years before retirement. By accruing the vacation time and taking cash in the last few years, they get paid now for not taking it and they boost their retirement pay by 4-6% (or even more) for the rest of thier life. (This is not limited to teachers).

They've also pulled stunts such as giving up one benefit in exchange for something else only to go back to court afterwards and argue that they couldn't legally give it up then effectively keep both.
[rant=off]
I'm mixed on this one. I think the sports programs should get a defined portion of it but can see arguments for sharing it with the performing arts programs which have no source of income and cost the same if not more to run.
No. They do that now with taxes...distributing them across the state and limiting what local residents are permitted to self-impose. It hurts the willingness of contributors when they know their money is not going to the school/organization they want but being split 1000 ways.
A state law allowing it is orthogonal to the rules of the game. State laws can only prohibit things beyond that prohibited in the rules of a game...not allow things in the game that the rules prohibit. State laws don't prohibit people from wearing earrings but the rules do. Which do we go by?



[Edited by Camron Rust on May 26th, 2005 at 03:02 PM]

I suppose if a team has red and white as colors, the stripes on the shorts could look like the stripes on a can of Coke. No words would be needed.

Here in Illinois, there are already some schools that have an 'affiliation' with certain shoe companies. I have seen the Nike, And1,and Adidas logos and shoes on complete teams. Swoosh on the shorts, etc. I also know that schools already sell ad space to local establishments. I have no problem with it, unless it gets ridiculous, like the college bowl system. No ad space on the unis, just sell ad space in a program.

What drives me nuts is when I turn on a premiership game it takes 20 minutes to determine which team is which because no team name appears--only corporate sponsors. Hope HS sports don't get that desperate. Of course, if a corporate sponsor renames the SCHOOL Nike HS or Coca-Cola Academy, I guess we'd be in a quandary.