Kambala: Sport or cruelty?
Every year during the November through March period about 18 events are held under the banner of Kambala Samithi. These events involved racing of buffaloes in paddy fields filled with slush and mud. These Kambala events were very popular drew a large number of people, so when there was a recent ban put on this traditional buffalo race, there was a large debate that followed. They debated over whether the events were cruel to animals or just a simple sport.
Kambala was banned after the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) said that it was cruel towards animals. AWBI argued that is should be banned since Jallikattu (bull fighting) was banned in Tamil Nadu. In its traditional form, Kambala is non-competitive and it consists of a pair of male buffaloes racing after each other in a paddy field. The Karnataka government also argued that buffaloes are not anatomically structured to run and making them run amounts to cruelty.
Now I don't know what it's like over in India or what their ethics are like, but if we had a traditional sport of buffalo racing in the U.S., I would see no problem with it. I don't think it's cruel at all to make buffaloes run. It's not like anyone is physically beating them or hurting them, we're just watching them run. I don't think the economy will take too big of a hit from this recent ban because India is still allowing the annual Kambala events to be held. The authorities said that making buffaloes run in 'Kambala' amounts to cruelty, so as long as they don't do that anymore, the rest of Kambala will still be allowed. I tried to relate this to something we talked about in class, but I couldn't think of anything since we didn't talk about ethics or anything of that nature.
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
With Super Bowl 3 Weeks Away, Phoenix Area Accommodations Already Dwindling - forbes.com
With Super Bowl 3 Weeks Away, Phoenix Area Accommodations Already Dwindling
The Super Bowl is fast approaching, with only two games remaining to decide which two teams will be squaring off on February 1st. I'm not really a big fan of any of the teams remaining, but I wouldn't mind seeing Andrew Luck get his first Super Bowl victory. With the way the Seahawks are playing right now though, they're starting to look a lot like last year's team that won the Super Bowl. I'll be excited to watch and see who comes out as the Super Bowl champs, even though my Philadelphia Eagles will be sitting at home.
Even though I'm a pretty big NFL fan, I'd be surprised if I ever went to a Super Bowl game in my lifetime. Those tickets are so expensive, it's ridiculous! Currently, Super Bowl tickets on TiqIQ have an average price of $3375.26. This figure is expected to rise since we haven't even reached the peak time for fans to buy tickets yet. Last year, the average price peaked at $4162.71 on the day of the NFC and AFC Championship games, which have yet to be played this year. Most times you'll be paying for a ticket without even knowing who will be playing in the Super Bowl. Also, depending on where the game is held, you might have to pay for a plane ticket and maybe even a hotel room. The Glendale area is already running low on available hotel rooms, three weeks before the game. There are no 4 or 5 star hotel rooms remaining in the 40 mile radius that surrounds Glendale, but there are still some 2 or 3 star hotel rooms available ranging from $139 to $799. The Super Bowl is a very appealing attraction, but I'd much rather save thousands of dollars by choosing to watch the game on my big screen TV at home.
This article relates a lot to the laws of supply and demand. The big reason why Super Bowl tickets are so expensive, is because they are in such high demand. The supply will change from year to year but not by much because it all depends on how many people the stadium can hold. As long as the demand remains high for Super Bowl tickets (which I don't see changing), the equilibrium price will continue to be very high and cause the tickets to be so expensive.
The Super Bowl is fast approaching, with only two games remaining to decide which two teams will be squaring off on February 1st. I'm not really a big fan of any of the teams remaining, but I wouldn't mind seeing Andrew Luck get his first Super Bowl victory. With the way the Seahawks are playing right now though, they're starting to look a lot like last year's team that won the Super Bowl. I'll be excited to watch and see who comes out as the Super Bowl champs, even though my Philadelphia Eagles will be sitting at home.
Even though I'm a pretty big NFL fan, I'd be surprised if I ever went to a Super Bowl game in my lifetime. Those tickets are so expensive, it's ridiculous! Currently, Super Bowl tickets on TiqIQ have an average price of $3375.26. This figure is expected to rise since we haven't even reached the peak time for fans to buy tickets yet. Last year, the average price peaked at $4162.71 on the day of the NFC and AFC Championship games, which have yet to be played this year. Most times you'll be paying for a ticket without even knowing who will be playing in the Super Bowl. Also, depending on where the game is held, you might have to pay for a plane ticket and maybe even a hotel room. The Glendale area is already running low on available hotel rooms, three weeks before the game. There are no 4 or 5 star hotel rooms remaining in the 40 mile radius that surrounds Glendale, but there are still some 2 or 3 star hotel rooms available ranging from $139 to $799. The Super Bowl is a very appealing attraction, but I'd much rather save thousands of dollars by choosing to watch the game on my big screen TV at home.
This article relates a lot to the laws of supply and demand. The big reason why Super Bowl tickets are so expensive, is because they are in such high demand. The supply will change from year to year but not by much because it all depends on how many people the stadium can hold. As long as the demand remains high for Super Bowl tickets (which I don't see changing), the equilibrium price will continue to be very high and cause the tickets to be so expensive.
Friday, December 19, 2014
NFL's Troubles Aren't Expected To Affect Super Bowl Advertising, Pricing - forbes.com
NFL's Troubles Aren't Expected To Affect Super Bowl Advertising, Pricing
After the NFL season started off on a low note with the different domestic abuse situations, there was reason for the league to worry about their financial security. The Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson scandals had major advertisers fretting about whether or not they should stay with the NFL. As it gets closer to the Super Bowl though, the NFL has managed to rebound from its September difficulties and as NBC tries to sell their remaining advertisement spots, the ratings and interest are as high as ever.
I believe the NFL saved themselves on this one by making a very smart decision. The NFL listened when several advertisers expressed concern over players' behavior, and the league's handling of it, so they decided to change their policies. This decision was huge in my opinion. If the NFL wouldn't have changed their policies and they would have handled these situations the wrong way, they could have lost a lot of advertisers.
NBC was seeking to get an increase over the $4 million that Fox earned last season for a 30-second spot. This part of the article kind of relates to supply and demand. Each year, the demand for a 30 second commercial during the Super Bowl keeps rising, so the equilibrium price keeps rising. Overall, I don't think the scandals will hurt the Super Bowl ratings at all. The Super Bowl is just way too popular for that too happen. Also, it happened in September, so the NFL has had time to make changes to appease their fans. The NFL just keeps getting more popular, and I don't see the ratings of the Super Bowl dropping any time soon.
After the NFL season started off on a low note with the different domestic abuse situations, there was reason for the league to worry about their financial security. The Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson scandals had major advertisers fretting about whether or not they should stay with the NFL. As it gets closer to the Super Bowl though, the NFL has managed to rebound from its September difficulties and as NBC tries to sell their remaining advertisement spots, the ratings and interest are as high as ever.
I believe the NFL saved themselves on this one by making a very smart decision. The NFL listened when several advertisers expressed concern over players' behavior, and the league's handling of it, so they decided to change their policies. This decision was huge in my opinion. If the NFL wouldn't have changed their policies and they would have handled these situations the wrong way, they could have lost a lot of advertisers.
NBC was seeking to get an increase over the $4 million that Fox earned last season for a 30-second spot. This part of the article kind of relates to supply and demand. Each year, the demand for a 30 second commercial during the Super Bowl keeps rising, so the equilibrium price keeps rising. Overall, I don't think the scandals will hurt the Super Bowl ratings at all. The Super Bowl is just way too popular for that too happen. Also, it happened in September, so the NFL has had time to make changes to appease their fans. The NFL just keeps getting more popular, and I don't see the ratings of the Super Bowl dropping any time soon.
Thursday, December 18, 2014
U. of Michigan Said To Offer Harbaugh Nearly 10 Times Its President's Salary To Coach Football Team - forbes.com
U. of Michigan Said To Offer Harbaugh Nearly 10 Times Its President's Salary To Coach Football Team
Just the other day, the University of Michigan offered Jim Harbaugh a six year, $49 million contract to become the school's next head football coach. That would give Harbaugh an annual salary of $8.17 million. That would make him the highest paid coach in college football and in the NFL. Nick Saban is the highest paid in college at $7 million per year, and Sean Payton is the highest paid in the NFL at $8 million per year. Right now with the San Francisco 49ers, Harbaugh is only making $5 million per year.
I think it is absolutely ridiculous that college coaches are paid that much. If Harbaugh would take the job, he would be paid nearly 10 times the annual salary of the University of Michigan's president, Mark Schlissel. With those numbers, schools are basically saying that athletics are more important than academics. For some D1 schools, I think this might actually be true. They care a lot about having a good sports team because then it will bring in a lot of money for them if their team wins a lot. I know that almost all the time, the coach will be paid more than the president of the school, but I feel that they should definitely not be paid 10 times more than the president. I just think it sends a bad message, but I know that nothing will really change that.
It would help the school out a lot if they only paid their head coach about $3-4 million a year. It would free up a lot of money that would make their team much better off. They would be able to spend a lot more money on recruiting to get great athletes to come to their school. It would also open up a little extra money that they could spend on academics or use to give out scholarships. Overall I think it is absurd that college coaches are paid as much as they are. In my opinion, no college coach should ever be paid more than an NFL coach.
Just the other day, the University of Michigan offered Jim Harbaugh a six year, $49 million contract to become the school's next head football coach. That would give Harbaugh an annual salary of $8.17 million. That would make him the highest paid coach in college football and in the NFL. Nick Saban is the highest paid in college at $7 million per year, and Sean Payton is the highest paid in the NFL at $8 million per year. Right now with the San Francisco 49ers, Harbaugh is only making $5 million per year.
I think it is absolutely ridiculous that college coaches are paid that much. If Harbaugh would take the job, he would be paid nearly 10 times the annual salary of the University of Michigan's president, Mark Schlissel. With those numbers, schools are basically saying that athletics are more important than academics. For some D1 schools, I think this might actually be true. They care a lot about having a good sports team because then it will bring in a lot of money for them if their team wins a lot. I know that almost all the time, the coach will be paid more than the president of the school, but I feel that they should definitely not be paid 10 times more than the president. I just think it sends a bad message, but I know that nothing will really change that.
It would help the school out a lot if they only paid their head coach about $3-4 million a year. It would free up a lot of money that would make their team much better off. They would be able to spend a lot more money on recruiting to get great athletes to come to their school. It would also open up a little extra money that they could spend on academics or use to give out scholarships. Overall I think it is absurd that college coaches are paid as much as they are. In my opinion, no college coach should ever be paid more than an NFL coach.
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Is Giancarlo Stanton's Reported Mega-Contract Rational?
Is Giancarlo Stanton's Reported Mega-Contract Rational?
The Miami Marlins have signed Giancarlo Stanton to a 13-year, $325 million contract. If you don't know who Giancarlo Stanton is, he is a physical specimen and a freak of an athlete who finished second in the National League MVP voting this year. He had an average of .288 and hit 37 home runs this past season. I think Stanton is a tremendous player, but there is no way the Marlins made the right decision here.
I find it ridiculous when any team signs a player for more than seven years, and baseball seems to be the sport that does this the most often. There are so many unpredictable things that can happen over that time, I just don't think it's worth it to sign a player for that long. I especially think it is a horrible decision for the Marlins. They made this mistake a couple years back, when they put most of their money into four or five of their players and then they couldn't make a good enough team with the little amount of money they had left. The Marlins hadn't been very good before the news of this contract, and now I think this will make their team even worse. They don't have a lot of money to begin with as a franchise, and now they are putting most of it into just ONE player. There's no way they'll have enough money to put together a good enough team to compete. In the future when their prospects come up through the system and become really good players, they wont have enough money to keep them and they will end up going elsewhere.
I don't think it would be that much of a problem if they signed him for a lot of money if it was only like a four or five year contract. It's physically impossible for Stanton not to decline over those thirteen years. He could possibly reach his best season in his fifth year of the contract, and never hit more than 30 home runs a season again. It's just too risky for teams to sign players to such a long contract. I just really don't know what the Marlins were thinking here. I believe this decision will really hurt their franchise for years to come.
The Miami Marlins have signed Giancarlo Stanton to a 13-year, $325 million contract. If you don't know who Giancarlo Stanton is, he is a physical specimen and a freak of an athlete who finished second in the National League MVP voting this year. He had an average of .288 and hit 37 home runs this past season. I think Stanton is a tremendous player, but there is no way the Marlins made the right decision here.
I find it ridiculous when any team signs a player for more than seven years, and baseball seems to be the sport that does this the most often. There are so many unpredictable things that can happen over that time, I just don't think it's worth it to sign a player for that long. I especially think it is a horrible decision for the Marlins. They made this mistake a couple years back, when they put most of their money into four or five of their players and then they couldn't make a good enough team with the little amount of money they had left. The Marlins hadn't been very good before the news of this contract, and now I think this will make their team even worse. They don't have a lot of money to begin with as a franchise, and now they are putting most of it into just ONE player. There's no way they'll have enough money to put together a good enough team to compete. In the future when their prospects come up through the system and become really good players, they wont have enough money to keep them and they will end up going elsewhere.
I don't think it would be that much of a problem if they signed him for a lot of money if it was only like a four or five year contract. It's physically impossible for Stanton not to decline over those thirteen years. He could possibly reach his best season in his fifth year of the contract, and never hit more than 30 home runs a season again. It's just too risky for teams to sign players to such a long contract. I just really don't know what the Marlins were thinking here. I believe this decision will really hurt their franchise for years to come.
International Olympic Committee opens door to joint bids and new sports events - indiatimes.com
International Olympic Committee opens door to joint bids and new sports events
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) is opening the door to many new possibilities, including holding events in more than one country. The President of the IOC, Thomas Bach, made these recommendations as part of his reform agenda, in an attempt to make the bidding process and the games more attractive and less costly. The Winter Games already allowed events to be held in a bordering country, but this change would be a first for the Summer Games. Another one of his proposals includes allowing more events, while still maintaining the same amount of athletes, and medal events. There was pressure for a change to the bidding process because of the troubled race for the 2022 Winter Games. Only a couple cities were left in the running after several others pulled out of the running scared by the reported $51 billion associated with the Sochi Games. Most of Bach's recommendations are expected to be passed.
From how the article is written, I sense that most of Bach's recommendations are very smart and should be put into use. I believe allowing the Olympics to be held in more than one country will definitely make the games and the bidding process more attractive. The reason why a lot of cities backed out of the running for the 2022 Winter Games was because they were scared by the large amount of money that it would cost them to host the games. The marginal costs for hosting the games would far outweigh the marginal benefits so there was no point for them to stay in the running. If events are now allowed to take place in more than one country, then it won't be as expensive for one country to host the games. Granite, there will still be one main location where the games will be held, and that country will have to pay the majority of the costs, but the expenses won't be quite as high if not all of the games are held there. The games will also become more attractive if they are being held in more than one country. It spreads the popularity around more if it isn't just limited to one country. I'm not quite sure how these recommendations will make the bidding process and the games less costly. Like I said, I believe it would make it less costly for the main country that is hosting the games because they don't have to take on the full burden of the costs, but I don't really see how it makes the games any less costly.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) is opening the door to many new possibilities, including holding events in more than one country. The President of the IOC, Thomas Bach, made these recommendations as part of his reform agenda, in an attempt to make the bidding process and the games more attractive and less costly. The Winter Games already allowed events to be held in a bordering country, but this change would be a first for the Summer Games. Another one of his proposals includes allowing more events, while still maintaining the same amount of athletes, and medal events. There was pressure for a change to the bidding process because of the troubled race for the 2022 Winter Games. Only a couple cities were left in the running after several others pulled out of the running scared by the reported $51 billion associated with the Sochi Games. Most of Bach's recommendations are expected to be passed.
From how the article is written, I sense that most of Bach's recommendations are very smart and should be put into use. I believe allowing the Olympics to be held in more than one country will definitely make the games and the bidding process more attractive. The reason why a lot of cities backed out of the running for the 2022 Winter Games was because they were scared by the large amount of money that it would cost them to host the games. The marginal costs for hosting the games would far outweigh the marginal benefits so there was no point for them to stay in the running. If events are now allowed to take place in more than one country, then it won't be as expensive for one country to host the games. Granite, there will still be one main location where the games will be held, and that country will have to pay the majority of the costs, but the expenses won't be quite as high if not all of the games are held there. The games will also become more attractive if they are being held in more than one country. It spreads the popularity around more if it isn't just limited to one country. I'm not quite sure how these recommendations will make the bidding process and the games less costly. Like I said, I believe it would make it less costly for the main country that is hosting the games because they don't have to take on the full burden of the costs, but I don't really see how it makes the games any less costly.
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Should NCAA Athletes Be Paid? - usnews.com
Should NCAA Athletes Be Paid?
I've wrote about this issue in some of my comments of other blogs, but I've never actually had an article that dealt with this main question. It's easily one of the most debated topics in college sports and there are pros and cons to each side of the argument. This article talks specifically about college basketball and March Madness and the Final Four. Athletic conferences receive millions of dollars from the NCAA if their teams advance deep into the tournament, and the NCAA, as a whole, makes $6 billion annually just from basketball. That's a ridiculous amount of money to be earning especially since they don't have to pay any of the people that are earning them that money. I'd like to know what the NCAA actually does with all of their earnings.
I'm kind of in the middle of this argument. I do not think college players should get paid to play, but I do think they should be able to earn money from autographs or jersey sales and stuff like that. It's only fair that way. The NCAA is making money by selling things with your name on it, so you should get some of the profit. It isn't a good idea to just outright pay college athletes just to play though because most of them will most likely make dumb decisions and use it on stupid things like alcohol because there isn't much they need money for in college especially if they have a scholarship.
Even though this will continue to be highly debated, I don't think that anyone will ever come up with a strong enough case for the NCAA to decide to pay their athletes. They're doing completely fine now with how it is structured and they're making a good profit so I don't see any need for them to change it any time soon. The marginal costs of paying college athletes would just far outweigh the marginal benefits for the NCAA.
I've wrote about this issue in some of my comments of other blogs, but I've never actually had an article that dealt with this main question. It's easily one of the most debated topics in college sports and there are pros and cons to each side of the argument. This article talks specifically about college basketball and March Madness and the Final Four. Athletic conferences receive millions of dollars from the NCAA if their teams advance deep into the tournament, and the NCAA, as a whole, makes $6 billion annually just from basketball. That's a ridiculous amount of money to be earning especially since they don't have to pay any of the people that are earning them that money. I'd like to know what the NCAA actually does with all of their earnings.
I'm kind of in the middle of this argument. I do not think college players should get paid to play, but I do think they should be able to earn money from autographs or jersey sales and stuff like that. It's only fair that way. The NCAA is making money by selling things with your name on it, so you should get some of the profit. It isn't a good idea to just outright pay college athletes just to play though because most of them will most likely make dumb decisions and use it on stupid things like alcohol because there isn't much they need money for in college especially if they have a scholarship.
Even though this will continue to be highly debated, I don't think that anyone will ever come up with a strong enough case for the NCAA to decide to pay their athletes. They're doing completely fine now with how it is structured and they're making a good profit so I don't see any need for them to change it any time soon. The marginal costs of paying college athletes would just far outweigh the marginal benefits for the NCAA.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)