Self-Esteem Booster doesn’t do much for esteem

Don't laugh. He's a US Senator nowESPN released its “Your Ad Here” Self-Esteem Boosters field yesterday. It’s the 10th straight year more than 130 colleges let a tv network schedule one of their games under the guise of “Look at us! We matter!”

Do we sound bitter?

Yeah. We do. Cause this lil exercise in false hype is just that. It’s not about the games, it’s about slapping a corporate sponsor on the games.

Rest assured, no brackets will be busted. And other than a corporate logo on your school’s sports website, few will know this game is different from any other.

That said, App State is again involved. So who we got? Let’s go to the mothership, which is putting on this shindig.

That’s weird. Nothing there. Let’s check the men’s basketball page. Nope. Nothing there. Or there. Or there.

Let’s turn to Google. Jackpot! Five results!

Who’s a “mid” major now? (Uh, scroll down for the details.)

Appalachian State University men’s basketball will play Winthrop at home on Feb. 18 as part of the YOUR AD HERE BracketBusters event. Tipoff is scheduled for 2 p.m.

The Mountaineers (9-11, 5-5 SoCon) are playing in a BracketBuster game for the sixth straight season. Four of ASU’s five previous BracketBuster games have been decided by one or two points.

Winthrop is 9-14 on the season, thus the teams are a combined 18-25.

Evenly matched! Double OT, bay-bee! Brought to you by someone paying ESPN a bunch of money in an attempt to profit off the free labor running the court that day.

Busted.

MORE TO OUR POINT. Why not allow sponsors for other regular season bball games? Heck, just go the full bowl-ty and have one for every game?

App State versus Milligan, brought to you by Walmart. Or Big Lots. Or, heck, Idol’s Tire. You name ‘em. Anyone with the dough can pay to have App State play whomever they want, and get their logo attached to the date. No tv needed. It’s just a normal game, scheduled by a third party looking to make a buck via advertising. Just like the Self-Esteem Boosters.

12 comments to Self-Esteem Booster doesn’t do much for esteem

  • Dan

    It may well be free labor running around the Holmes Center floor, but these kids are hardly the ones who have an argument about being exploited for *only* a free education. The free market likely wouldn't pay them a whole lot to play this sport professionally, so these may be that rare breed of athlete (you know like the 95 or whatever percent of them) that can't earn a check playing their sport professionally.

    There should be better profit sharing between the institutions and the players that generate that income, but to be realistic, it's only going to make a difference for a select few out of the thousands of D-1 Scholarship athletes.

    That is unless you'd prefer a more socialist method of wealth redistribution, which probably comes out to an extra what, $100?, $200? per athlete? Keep in mind, this is to all D-1 athletes, not just the football and basetkball players.

  • mountaineermaniac

    Hilarious video about Boonetown.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embed

  • A.Freeman

    I don't see anyone holding a gun to the player's heads forcing them to play but they still do. Hmmmmm……

    Someone please give me three reasons why.

    /stirs pot

  • JMcCray

    Thanks A. Freeman. It's a game. The student athletes make a choice. If you think the set up is unfair, why support any part of it?

  • bcoach

    If the athletes should be sharing in profits, should they also be covering the losses? Should we subtract student fee contributions from the budget then bill athletes for their share of the loss? Should we take into consideration the value of their tuition? An example would be that our guys would start out with a bogy of about $ 10k a year and a Duke player starts with a bogy of $40K a year? If they make the big league should we then bill them for their training? Remember the old deal “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it”?

    In my mind this argument will never be legitimate till we subtract that portion of student fees, which are forced fees, that support the athletic department. If you want to start talking about all the profits that the athletic department provides the university you would then have a more honest discussion.

  • A.Freeman

    To appfan's latest point, I say why not? I am all for corporate sponsorships. Heck, I would even love it if companies such as IBM, NetApp, SAS here in the triangle would sponsor high schools and curriculum. It would be a great way to fund and a great way for the companies to farm potential recruits.

  • A.Freeman

    Oh and by recruits I meant in the corporate world….not sports.

  • clayton

    Kind of think college sports should be forced to abolish commercials. Because, they're a non-commercial station, WASU doesn't have sponsors. They have underwriters.

    Why are athletic departments allowed to sell advertising?

    Not saying that Nike can't be involved. But, they should be underwriters, not sponsors. There is a legal difference.

  • appfantoo

    But there is almost no practical difference between a sponsor and an underwriter.

    WASU gets money and the underwriter gets commercials or mentions on the air.

  • ASU Lacrosse 18

    appfantoo, we are really limited at the station for what we can and cannot say in underwriting though. If we say certain things, it's considered commercial.

  • clayton

    Listen to WASU or NPR then listen to a commercial station. There is a substantial difference.

    There's an awkward relationship between sponsors and non-profit organizations. If Nike donates a bunch of money to a cancer walk, you may see their logo free t-shirts that people are wearing, but if you show up in Adidas shoes, nobody will ask you to change. A football player can't do that.

    The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has donated a ton of money to education programs. Some of that money was used to buy Apple products.

  • Dr. Gonzo

    Signing day thread?