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.
Thursday, December 18, 2014
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.
LeBron James-Led Cavs Have NBA's Most Expensive Tickets - forbes.com
LeBron James-Led Cavs Have NBA's Most Expensive Tickets
During the second half of the season last year, Cleveland Cavaliers' tickets were among the least expensive in the NBA, second only to the Pelicans. Now at the start of this season, Cavs' tickets are the most expensive on the market after they made some huge offseason moves. This goes to show you just how much the NBA is focused around its stars. Also, tickets for your home team will be priced a lot higher when they play teams with players like Derrick Rose or Kevin Durant. Even though the Lakers had a very bad season last year, and are expected to have another sub-par one this year, their tickets are still the second most expensive in the league. Not only is this because the Lakers have Kobe Bryant, but I also feel that it is because it's in Los Angeles and in the Staples Center and the Lakers have such a great tradition.
This article actually demonstrates a lot of what we're learning in class with supply and demand. As the demand for tickets goes up, the price also goes up because the demand curve was shifted. The determinant that causes this shift is a change in consumer tastes. If a team has one or two stars and they are exciting to watch, more people will want to come see the team play so the demand for tickets goes up. But if a team is really bad and has no one that is exciting to watch, not many people are going to want to go to the games so the demand will go down. For example, my own personal preference is that I wouldn't really want to go to a Bucks game so I wouldn't be willing to pay very much for a ticket. On the other hand, if the Cavs played the Sixers I would definitely like to see that game, so I would be willing to pay a lot more for a ticket.
It's incredible to see how much LeBron James can change the price of a ticket. I believe it's reasonable though because any game that LeBron James is playing in, the demand is going to go way up. Who wouldn't want to see arguably the most exciting athlete in the country perform? This article is a great example to portray how the equilibrium shifts when there is a change in demand.
During the second half of the season last year, Cleveland Cavaliers' tickets were among the least expensive in the NBA, second only to the Pelicans. Now at the start of this season, Cavs' tickets are the most expensive on the market after they made some huge offseason moves. This goes to show you just how much the NBA is focused around its stars. Also, tickets for your home team will be priced a lot higher when they play teams with players like Derrick Rose or Kevin Durant. Even though the Lakers had a very bad season last year, and are expected to have another sub-par one this year, their tickets are still the second most expensive in the league. Not only is this because the Lakers have Kobe Bryant, but I also feel that it is because it's in Los Angeles and in the Staples Center and the Lakers have such a great tradition.
This article actually demonstrates a lot of what we're learning in class with supply and demand. As the demand for tickets goes up, the price also goes up because the demand curve was shifted. The determinant that causes this shift is a change in consumer tastes. If a team has one or two stars and they are exciting to watch, more people will want to come see the team play so the demand for tickets goes up. But if a team is really bad and has no one that is exciting to watch, not many people are going to want to go to the games so the demand will go down. For example, my own personal preference is that I wouldn't really want to go to a Bucks game so I wouldn't be willing to pay very much for a ticket. On the other hand, if the Cavs played the Sixers I would definitely like to see that game, so I would be willing to pay a lot more for a ticket.
It's incredible to see how much LeBron James can change the price of a ticket. I believe it's reasonable though because any game that LeBron James is playing in, the demand is going to go way up. Who wouldn't want to see arguably the most exciting athlete in the country perform? This article is a great example to portray how the equilibrium shifts when there is a change in demand.
Sunday, October 5, 2014
Olympic Council of Asia warns India of penalty if it withdraws from some sports - indiatimes.com
Olympic Council of Asia warns India of penalty if it withdraws from some sports
Just like the Olympics, the Asian Games are held every four years. What are the Asian Games? I didn't even know the Asian Games were a thing until I read this article. I had to do some other research to figure out what they were. They are basically the same as the Olympics, except there are some different sports involved and it is only among athletes from all over Asia. There have been 44 different sports that were presented in Asian Games history. The Games for this year actually just ended yesterday, as they went from September 19 to October 4. This article dealt with something that happened before the Games started.
India was warned of a heavy penalty by the Olympic Council of Asia if they withdrew from sending a couple of teams to the Asian Games. They were going to receive a penalty because the team draw had already been completed, and if they were to withdraw, the whole draw would have to be done again. I feel that India should deserve a penalty if they withdrew because they waited until after the team draw was already completed. This penalty could end up being a bad thing for India economically. Not knowing what the penalty will be, it could be something like not allowing India to ever host one of the Asian Games. That could really be a bad thing because if they were able to host the Asian Games one year, that would bring in a lot of money to the businesses of the country and help out the economy a lot. So India has to make an economic choice here. The article doesn't really give a reason for why they are withdrawing some teams but it must help them in some way for the time being. So India can either decide to withdraw the teams and help themselves for a little, and receive a penalty that could possibly hurt them economically pretty bad, or they can send the teams to the Games and possibly help the economy in the future .
I just find it really interesting that I have never heard of the Asian Games. I'm sure a lot of other people haven't heard of them either. It's hard to believe because it's described as the second largest multi-sport event, behind the Olympics.
Just like the Olympics, the Asian Games are held every four years. What are the Asian Games? I didn't even know the Asian Games were a thing until I read this article. I had to do some other research to figure out what they were. They are basically the same as the Olympics, except there are some different sports involved and it is only among athletes from all over Asia. There have been 44 different sports that were presented in Asian Games history. The Games for this year actually just ended yesterday, as they went from September 19 to October 4. This article dealt with something that happened before the Games started.
India was warned of a heavy penalty by the Olympic Council of Asia if they withdrew from sending a couple of teams to the Asian Games. They were going to receive a penalty because the team draw had already been completed, and if they were to withdraw, the whole draw would have to be done again. I feel that India should deserve a penalty if they withdrew because they waited until after the team draw was already completed. This penalty could end up being a bad thing for India economically. Not knowing what the penalty will be, it could be something like not allowing India to ever host one of the Asian Games. That could really be a bad thing because if they were able to host the Asian Games one year, that would bring in a lot of money to the businesses of the country and help out the economy a lot. So India has to make an economic choice here. The article doesn't really give a reason for why they are withdrawing some teams but it must help them in some way for the time being. So India can either decide to withdraw the teams and help themselves for a little, and receive a penalty that could possibly hurt them economically pretty bad, or they can send the teams to the Games and possibly help the economy in the future .
I just find it really interesting that I have never heard of the Asian Games. I'm sure a lot of other people haven't heard of them either. It's hard to believe because it's described as the second largest multi-sport event, behind the Olympics.
After Rough Start To Season, Patriots Tickets Have Dropped 19% On Secondary Market - forbes.com
After Rough Start To Season, Patriots Tickets Have Dropped 19% On Secondary Market
After a tough start to the season, Patriots fans are starting to get a little worried. Who wouldn't be worried after your team barely beats the Oakland Raiders?! The worrisome ways of the fans are shown by the decline in prices of Patriots tickets on the secondary market. For most regular fans of the Patriots, this might sound like a good thing since it will be less to buy a ticket, but it's not a good thing for the team, or for the diehard fans that just want to see their team win and do not care about the price of tickets. Through four weeks of the season, the season average is $292.83, compared to last year's season average of $363.83.
The interesting thing is that a similar occurrence happened in the Boston area during the baseball season. When the season started, Boston Red Sox tickets were one of the most expensive on the secondary market, but as the season progressed and the Red Sox weren't performing well, the average price of tickets dropped 18%. I find it very interesting that both of these things happened in the Boston area. It really says something about the Boston fans. If their team isn't doing well, they won't come out to support the team. This whole situation is kind of like the economic concept: People respond to incentives. In this case, it's not really an incentive that people are responding to, but more of an outcome. If a team is really bad and loses most of their games, people will be less likely to want to see the team play, so the team has to lower the price of their tickets so that people will buy them since they are pretty cheap. On the other hand, if a team is doing really well and is exciting to watch, fans will really want to go out to the stadium to see the team play, so the team is able to raise the prices because fans will be willing to pay more to see their team win. This can even be related to the economic concept of demand. If the demand for an object is really high, customers will be willing to pay more for the object because they really want it.
The Patriots organization better hope the team starts winning some games starting with their Sunday Night game tonight against the Bengals. If they don't, well..... just look at the Red Sox.
After a tough start to the season, Patriots fans are starting to get a little worried. Who wouldn't be worried after your team barely beats the Oakland Raiders?! The worrisome ways of the fans are shown by the decline in prices of Patriots tickets on the secondary market. For most regular fans of the Patriots, this might sound like a good thing since it will be less to buy a ticket, but it's not a good thing for the team, or for the diehard fans that just want to see their team win and do not care about the price of tickets. Through four weeks of the season, the season average is $292.83, compared to last year's season average of $363.83.
The interesting thing is that a similar occurrence happened in the Boston area during the baseball season. When the season started, Boston Red Sox tickets were one of the most expensive on the secondary market, but as the season progressed and the Red Sox weren't performing well, the average price of tickets dropped 18%. I find it very interesting that both of these things happened in the Boston area. It really says something about the Boston fans. If their team isn't doing well, they won't come out to support the team. This whole situation is kind of like the economic concept: People respond to incentives. In this case, it's not really an incentive that people are responding to, but more of an outcome. If a team is really bad and loses most of their games, people will be less likely to want to see the team play, so the team has to lower the price of their tickets so that people will buy them since they are pretty cheap. On the other hand, if a team is doing really well and is exciting to watch, fans will really want to go out to the stadium to see the team play, so the team is able to raise the prices because fans will be willing to pay more to see their team win. This can even be related to the economic concept of demand. If the demand for an object is really high, customers will be willing to pay more for the object because they really want it.
The Patriots organization better hope the team starts winning some games starting with their Sunday Night game tonight against the Bengals. If they don't, well..... just look at the Red Sox.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)