Dont worry its getting better lol

**Alundil** · 09-24-10, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by shoi

well the sports/entertainment industries are huge and support many other industries as a result. think of the people who have jobs and make a living due to the manufacturing of merchandise, arena construction, or even things like espn.
any given movie takes hundreds of people just to make. in fact, when the writers strike happened 3(?) years ago many feared what impact it would have on LAs economy because some businesses almost completely rely on it to make money.

my argument would be that while these people getting paid huge amounts don't really contribute directly to society beyond the entertainment value, they do prop up multi-billion dollar industries; the profits from which they receive only a small amount

So - based on that argument, if sports/entertainment creates hundreds of thousands of jobs and billion dollar industries downstream, don't you think that academics (specifically maths and sciences) generate several times that of sports/entertainment downstream? So by that same logic, academics is still the more "worthy" cause to fund (and I say that as a former collegiate scholar/athlete).

**shoi** · 09-24-10, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by Alundil

So - based on that argument, if sports/entertainment creates hundreds of thousands of jobs and billion dollar industries downstream, don't you think that academics (specifically maths and sciences) generate several times that of sports/entertainment downstream? So by that same logic, academics is still the more "worthy" cause to fund (and I say that as a former collegiate scholar/athlete).

sure, that argument does work and i'll give it to you and i even agree to an extent. the problem though is that colleges/schools can't capitalize very well on academics, people pay their tuition then leave and make their own money; most of which is very unlikely to go to the school. athletes/actors generate income for their institution just for doing what they do which isn't true about teachers/professors.

should teachers be paid more? and should more academic scholarships be given out? i'd say yes but it's a question of practicality. either the schools would have to raise tuition to make up for lost income and/or higher salaries or the government would have to step up and give schools more money to do these things. certainly this would lead to either higher taxes, spending cuts in other areas (and we know how hard it is to choose what to cut), or even both.

basically my point is that athletes and superstars are not complete drains on society even if that's what they seem to be

**rock_lobster** · 09-24-10, 10:31 PM

Originally Posted by Bunni

Ya it does because its productive by the definition of the term itself. If you want some thing to be passionate about find a hobby. Hobbies do the same thing and don't encourage obesity or if nothing else at least require some muscle to be used (even if like in programing is only the brain). Not sure if your trying to hit my hobbies (and if you are, you didn't even get close), but like you pointed out, someone ELSE besides the individual gets use of the work (in this case, the programing).

You apparently seem to only be defining entertainment has watching TV. Whats the rest of the world doing? America's the only country with the majority of its citizens spending the large amounts of time in-front of it.
What you are implying is that outside of sports and television there is no entertainment. What did people do before the TV was in every household? 5 hours in-front of the television hardly productive and is probably linked to America's serious obesity problem.

American Time Use Survey Summary
TV viewing in home at all-time high
Americans Watching More TV Than Ever; Web and Mobile Video Up too | Nielsen Wire

Now back to Scholarships:

You're right we do need a good balance, that's what Ive been arguing. 40 sports brats to 1 academic student is not balanced.

Talk to the University of Miami (Florida). Go look at all the pretty buildings, labs, academic facilities they had back in the 80's and into the 90's. Guess what paid for them......sure wasn't the Quizbowl team. Dominant Miami team that brought in MILLIONS. An espn special they did on the university back then, said that the University of Miami accounted for a ridiculous amount of Miami's economy. But sure, it's nothing more than a bunch of blockheads who contribute nothing playing their "hobby"

Also love the way that something you enjoy doing is considered productive and not a hobby simply b/c it's you doing it, but whatever.

Take Football/Basketball....sports in general away from a lot of universities, and watch as the funding for shit goes away.

**Alundil** · 09-28-10, 04:13 PM

This could also be it's own topic....I know, we can move it to OTS since it is now sports related

and so where did schools and institutions get all of the money they had/used prior to collegiate athletics becoming a major money maker (i.e. advent of televised games)? Because there was no where near the money in collegiate athletics prior to TV contracts, licensing and merchandising.

Big-time college athletics: Are they worth the big-time costs? - USATODAY.com
Very interesting article there about NCAA athletic programs and bloat.

Here's another one - NCAA College Athletics Finance database
USA TODAY database: What NCAA schools spend on athletics - USATODAY.com