Jay Paterno on paying college athletes

• queencitybuckeye

  FatHobbit;796018 wrote:I think he was referring to this
  
  
  

  
  I'm sure that's what he was referring to, and it has nothing to do with his response. They aren't remotely the same.
• FatHobbit

  

  queencitybuckeye;796113 wrote:I'm sure that's what he was referring to, and it has nothing to do with his response. They aren't remotely the same.

  
  It seemed to me that you were saying people were going to buy tickets because of the school and not the players, so the players don't deserve anything. But if the school doesn't get the players, they will suck and nobody is going to buy their tickets. They aren't exactly mutually exclusive.
• queencitybuckeye

  FatHobbit;796195 wrote:It seemed to me that you were saying people were going to buy tickets because of the school and not the players, so the players don't deserve anything. But if the school doesn't get the players, they will suck and nobody is going to buy their tickets. They aren't exactly mutually exclusive.

  
  Your first sentence is basically correct, although we were speaking more about merchandise where a player has his number on it. Your second sentence is correct, but what I said was that the program is more responsible for the money coming in than PARTICULAR players. If I don't get player "X", I might get player "Y" instead, who is about the same ability-wise. So whether I get player "X" or player "Y" has little effect on the amount of money coming in. As they say, it's the name on the front, not on the back.
• FatHobbit

  

  queencitybuckeye;796211 wrote:Your first sentence is basically correct, although we were speaking more about merchandise where a player has his number on it. Your second sentence is correct, but what I said was that the program is more responsible for the money coming in than PARTICULAR players. If I don't get player "X", I might get player "Y" instead, who is about the same ability-wise. So whether I get player "X" or player "Y" has little effect on the amount of money coming in. As they say, it's the name on the front, not on the back.

  
  There are some players that I think are head and shoulders above others and it's not quite as easy to find another player who is about the same ability wise IMHO.
• 2kool4skool

  

  queencitybuckeye;796003 wrote:Who said anything similar to this? Wasn't me.

  
  You contended the schools were the product not the players. Would OSU still generate the same amount of revenue, regardless of the talent level of its' players(and in turn, the amount of games they won?) If the answer is no, then clearly the players have a significant influence on how much money the school makes from its' football team.
  
  If the answer is yes, then it would seem obvious that recruiting these ultra-talented, but unsavory kids, is a high-risk, low-reward situation and should be discontinued ASAP.
• queencitybuckeye

  2kool4skool;798095 wrote:You contended the schools were the product not the players. Would OSU still generate the same amount of revenue, regardless of the talent level of its' players(and in turn, the amount of games they won?) If the answer is no, then clearly the players have a significant influence on how much money the school makes from its' football team.
  
  If the answer is yes, then it would seem obvious that recruiting these ultra-talented, but unsavory kids, is a high-risk, low-reward situation and should be discontinued ASAP.

  
  The answer is no, but it has absolutely nothing to do with my original post.