The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 15, 2011, 12:18pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terrapins Fan View Post
But then what would they do with the WNBA?

NBA Draws about 17,0000 plus per game.

WNBA draws 7,800 ( which shocks me that it's that high) ( I bet they give a lot of tickets away free)

There IS a difference.
Maybe not free, but I'll bet they're significantly cheaper.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 15, 2011, 12:22pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 5,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terrapins Fan View Post
But then what would they do with the WNBA?

NBA Draws about 17,0000 plus per game.

WNBA draws 7,800 ( which shocks me that it's that high) ( I bet they give a lot of tickets away free)

There IS a difference.
Of course there is a difference - the NBA and WNBA are entertainment businesses. And they would and should be handled differently than an optional activity in an educational setting.

Given that there is such a huge disparity, I'm sure you would tell the ticket takers, janitors, and concession workers that if they work at a WNBA event, they should also expect less of an hourly wage? Does their concession stand uniform cost less? Do they somehow drive a lesser distance to the game, even if the game is in the same arena?

Let's move that same argument to the school setting - does the janitor get paid a lesser wage for cleaning up after a girls' game? Should the table crew get paid less, because there is a difference in attendance between a girls' vs. a boys' game? How should the attendance at a game affect the number of officials used for that particular game?
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department.

(Used with permission.)
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 15, 2011, 12:22pm
Aleve Titles to Others
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: East Westchester of the Southern Conference
Posts: 5,381
Send a message via AIM to 26 Year Gap
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire View Post
My guess is they will sue all Americans in an attempt to require us to attend more women's basketball games but will actual end up with a legal cap on men's basketball attendance equal to the the attendance at the last women's game. (It's as logical as most of their arguments.)

The ACLU doesn't care that there's a difference. They think it's possible to make women men and vice versa if only they can find the right person to sue.
Possibly that rationale came from:
__________________
Never hit a piņata if you see hornets flying out of it.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 15, 2011, 12:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy View Post
Of course there is a difference - the NBA and WNBA are entertainment businesses. And they would and should be handled differently than an optional activity in an educational setting.

Given that there is such a huge disparity, I'm sure you would tell the ticket takers, janitors, and concession workers that if they work at a WNBA event, they should also expect less of an hourly wage? Does their concession stand uniform cost less? Do they somehow drive a lesser distance to the game, even if the game is in the same arena?

Let's move that same argument to the school setting - does the janitor get paid a lesser wage for cleaning up after a girls' game? Should the table crew get paid less, because there is a difference in attendance between a girls' vs. a boys' game? How should the attendance at a game affect the number of officials used for that particular game?
I think the answer to all of these questions is most likely (or most likely should be) yes. Athletics at the school level should be self-supporting. It is quite likely, given the disparity of paying fans, that girls basketball doesn't bring in enough money to pay for three officials. I'd go further and say that most girls programs are probably subsidized by the boys program in the first place.

I know a lot of members of this forum think $500 a year is insignificant, but if it's $500 a year the program doesn't have, it is a big deal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap View Post
Possibly that rationale came from:
Touche.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 15, 2011, 01:21pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire View Post
My guess is they will sue all Americans in an attempt to require us to attend more women's basketball games........
That will never happen. It's a direct violation of the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution for imposing cruel and unusual punishment.

Oh, the humanity, the humanity.......
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 15, 2011, 01:50pm
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 14,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire View Post
I think the answer to all of these questions is most likely (or most likely should be) yes. Athletics at the school level should be self-supporting. It is quite likely, given the disparity of paying fans, that girls basketball doesn't bring in enough money to pay for three officials. I'd go further and say that most girls programs are probably subsidized by the boys program in the first place.

I know a lot of members of this forum think $500 a year is insignificant, but if it's $500 a year the program doesn't have, it is a big deal.

Touche.
So scholastic sports should be available based upon the attendance of the events?

And only schools who can self-sustain sports should field teams? So if a child is from the projects, or a rundown trailer park, or is female they shouldn't have scholastic sports available to them in public schools?
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR

Last edited by Raymond; Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 01:52pm.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 15, 2011, 01:53pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef View Post
So scholastic sports should be available based upon the attendance of the events?
They should be based on being self-supporting. Attendance is just one of the ways they can do this.

Quote:
And only schools who can self-sustain sports should field teams? So if a child is from the projects, or a rundown trailer park, or is female they shouldn't have scholastic sports available to them in public schools?
Should schools provide sports with the money they could use on teachers, books and supplies when they are short on these things? No. It has nothing to do with who the children are or what gender they are. It's about good stewardship of the funds the school has. Just because you want to offer sports doesn't mean you have the money to do so at the level you would like.

Ultimately, athletics is not a necessary part of the school function. So why should we take money away from the necessary parts to fund the unnecessary parts? Obviously, I'm a big fan of high school sports. I like to see everyone get a chance to play that wants to. But you can't spend money you don't have (well, you shouldn't).

Last edited by Eastshire; Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 01:59pm.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 15, 2011, 01:59pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire View Post
They should be based on being self-supporting. Attendance is just one of the ways they can do this.
Very few amateur athletic programs anywhere are self-supporting by any meaningful definition of the word.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 15, 2011, 02:02pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
Very few amateur athletic programs anywhere are self-supporting by any meaningful definition of the word.
You're suggesting that almost all amateur athletic programs are run by simply accumulating debt that is never paid back? I find that very unlikely. After all who would loan them the money in the first place?

Most amateur athletic programs are run via registration fees, sponsorships, donations and fund raising but at the end of the day they have to pay their bills. This is what I mean when I say self-supporting.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 15, 2011, 02:03pm
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 14,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire View Post
They should be based on being self-supporting. Attendance is just one of the ways they can do this.



Should schools provide sports with the money they could use on teachers, books and supplies when they are short on these things? No. It has nothing to do with who the children are or what gender they are. It's about good stewardship of the funds the school has. Just because you want to offer sports doesn't mean you have the money to do so at the level you would like.

Ultimately, athletics is not a necessary part of the school function. So why should we take money away from the necessary parts to fund the unnecessary parts? Obviously, I'm a big fan of high school sports. I like to see everyone get a chance to play that wants to. But you can't spend money you don't have (well, you shouldn't).
Who says the money isn't there? It's how the money is budgeted that determines if it's there or not. And the money that is available goes to the entire school district. It should cost each school in a particular school district/city the same amount money to fund its programs.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 15, 2011, 02:11pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef View Post
Who says the money isn't there? It's how the money is budgeted that determines if it's there or not. And the money that is available goes to the entire school district. It should cost each school in a particular school district/city the same amount money to fund its programs.
There should be no money in the school's budget for athletics (as a separate entity from PE). If a school can't run it's athletics program without taking money out of the main budget of the school, it shouldn't be running an athletics program.

The athletics program is not part of the mission of the school. If it can run one without taking money away from it's mission, that's great. If it can't, it shouldn't be doing it at all.

I understand you won't agree with this; and I'll happily admit it's a bit of an odd position for someone who's second job is officiating high school sports.
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 15, 2011, 02:12pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire View Post
You're suggesting that almost all amateur athletic programs are run by simply accumulating debt that is never paid back? I find that very unlikely. After all who would loan them the money in the first place?

Most amateur athletic programs are run via registration fees, sponsorships, donations and fund raising but at the end of the day they have to pay their bills. This is what I mean when I say self-supporting.
No, stop assuming what I'm suggesting because you keep getting it wrong. You'll save time.

I said "any meaningful definition." The fact that virtually every amateur athletic program in the world either gets sufficient support makes your statement meaningless. Of course they're all self-supporting, but so?

Now, some of them get support from other sports (the men's tennis team at the University of Iowa, for example, is likely taking their funds from the football team). Others get it straight from donors. Others get it from tax dollars, raffles, bake sales, etc.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 15, 2011, 02:15pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire View Post
There should be no money in the school's budget for athletics (as a separate entity from PE). If a school can't run it's athletics program without taking money out of the main budget of the school, it shouldn't be running an athletics program.

The athletics program is not part of the mission of the school. If it can run one without taking money away from it's mission, that's great. If it can't, it shouldn't be doing it at all.

I understand you won't agree with this; and I'll happily admit it's a bit of an odd position for someone who's second job is officiating high school sports.
Ah, now you're defining it in a way that's meaningful (and therefore debatable), and where I thought you were heading. The vast majority of scholastic athletic budges of which I'm aware are indeed general-budget-funded and therefore, in your definition, not self-supporting.

I'm willing to bet this is the case with most colleges as well. Athletic budgets will necessarily drain funds from the general budget that would be used for other things.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 15, 2011, 02:17pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
No, stop assuming what I'm suggesting because you keep getting it wrong. You'll save time.
You'll note that I asked if that was what you were suggesting. I didn't assume it.

Quote:
I said "any meaningful definition." The fact that virtually every amateur athletic program in the world either gets sufficient support makes your statement meaningless. Of course they're all self-supporting, but so?
So, you said very few were self-supporting. Now, of course they all are.

Quote:
Now, some of them get support from other sports (the men's tennis team at the University of Iowa, for example, is likely taking their funds from the football team). Others get it straight from donors. Others get it from tax dollars, raffles, bake sales, etc.
This is my point exactly (well, except for the tax dollars bit). They should support themselves, not take tax money. (Unless, of course, the tax was specifically raised for the purposes of supporting athletics.)
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 15, 2011, 02:21pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire View Post
1. You'll note that I asked if that was what you were suggesting. I didn't assume it.



2. So, you said very few were self-supporting. Now, of course they all are.



3. This is my point exactly (well, except for the tax dollars bit). They should support themselves, not take tax money. (Unless, of course, the tax was specifically raised for the purposes of supporting athletics.)
1. I missed the question mark on what was grammatically written as a statement. Fair enough.

2 and 3. I addressed them in my next post. I'll just say that most school budgets are passed with the assumption that sports are included.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.

Last edited by Adam; Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 02:24pm.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stepping down at C Ch1town Basketball 16 Sat Aug 16, 2008 07:05pm
Stepping Off bossman72 Baseball 6 Thu Jun 23, 2005 09:45pm
Stepping on a bunt bethsdad Softball 8 Mon Nov 10, 2003 03:40pm
stepping out of box rezdog Softball 13 Thu Jul 25, 2002 12:22pm
PLayer stepping OB Thom Basketball 5 Tue Dec 21, 1999 09:15pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:05am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1