The university didn't market my jerseys with "LS&A PoliSci 4 Life" quite as well....
alternate headline: man does job
The university didn't market my jerseys with "LS&A PoliSci 4 Life" quite as well....
Yeah, why no Residential College tiedye throwbacks?
some kind of reference to the now-deceased Half-Ass... a tiny little burger with the words "Half-Ass" in the spot where the adidas logo would otherwise be would be absolutely perfect (although the actual market for such a thing has to max out at what, like 5,000 total people? not including who'd actually buy one...)
Oh man, what happened to the Half-Ass? Probably ate there 50 times my Freshman year.
I was a valet in college and met The Million Dollar Man. He was driving a Jimmy-GMC and didn't look like a million dollars. Cool story. Not really.
I'd say that's a legitimately cool story.
The job was actually a lot of fun. I met tons of famous actors and athletes, Bonds, ARod, Schilling etc.... but when I met my favorite player growing up, Griffey Jr., it was both disappointing and awesome. Hey was high as a kite.
Ask Irwin R. Schyster...or Virgil.
a million dollars
Too add to the counter argument, why is it that I've never heard it get brought up that these players get "free" weight training, drill training, and greater knowledge of X & Os (on top of a free education and room & board).
In reality, not all schools will be able to afford playing their players. If they want to make money, have the NFL create a minor league. Colleges will still be here and still field a team irregardless.
I think a minor league that could take players directly out of high school would absolutely kill college football. You can't fill 100,000 seat stadiums with just the guys that are not going to go pro. This is a far cry from college basketball. And yes I am aware that that perspective seems to suggest that college players should get paid as they are filling that stadium but they do receive compensation, the college is the minor league that provides that training along with a degree in case football does not work out. But taking the players with serious talent out of the sport entirely would end college football. You have to find a middle ground that does not nuke college football because it truly is too big to fail. Like I said below, turn the 3 year rule to 2 and things would quiet down.
I don't think you're correct in saying that it would end college football. M fans would still pack in the fans who want to watch Michigan men represent the school over the names on their back. And it's not like all NFL talent would be gone from a team.
Plus maybe Michigan football can actually be a powerhouse again.
Kids could have played in the UFL, XFL, Canadian and arena league football right out of high school. I know some of the leagues have failed already but with the incredible interest in recruiting now a days, if some of the top recruits from high school had went directly to the UFL who knows what could have happend.
Winning sells, period.
and there would still be some interest in college football, but not to the degree you are seeing now. To a certain extent, I may enjoy the game more without all of the hoopla over individual talent and accolades. But I think the sport would shrink a great deal, and I doubt you could fill Michigan stadium weekly without big time talent taking the field.
but obviously the ticket prices would have to reduce drastically...and probably eliminate many of the non revenue sports or find another way to pay for them. I personally do not watch the NFL much anymore, and would have no interest in watching a developmental league. There is a reason the USFL and other attempts at other professional leagues have failed...no fan interest.
paying not playing, geez autocorrect (or fat fingers)
I guess I was just thinking that if all the NCAA teams were handicapped by losing their best players to a minor league, then you'd probably not notice much of a difference. Team will still score. Teams will still defend. In this scenario, I would think that big schools like Michigan would end up getting the better talent (just no super-star). We'd end up fielding teams like MSU does every year, with 2* and 3* talent. It'll all be about development for each program.
What you most likely will find if the NFL goes to a development league is that initially a lot of good, young players will go that route, but after a couple of seasons where a large chunk of these players wash out because they aren't ready to be professionals yet, more players will go back to the college route. Some of the truly top talent would go pro out of high school, but the rest would go to school.
Look at the NBA. When kids could go pro at 18, initially everyone did. Then both sides realized it wasn't a surefire thing, and more and more kids chose college.
that way. Compensating college players directly from the University is the straw that cannot break. Amatuer sports may be nothing more than a facade but it is one that needs to remain in place or there will be no more college football. All that would have to happen is for the NFL to change its 3 year rule to 2 and this would no longer be an issue.
Damn this argument starts and everyone leaves out a KEY factor. Sure, power conference football and basketball players make money for their schools. Sure, they are probably worth more to the schools than their scholarships. But if you're going to pay Devin Gardner, guess who else has to be paid? The third-string women's field hockey goalie. And the 5th best men's cross country runner. And every tennis player, swimmer, golfer, gymnast, etc. Well, you say, Michigan certainly brings in enough revenue to give these poor kids a little stipend, right? Guess what, only 23/228 Div 1 Althetic Departments even covered their own expenses. So, you'd essentially be forcing non-student athletes, already paying ever higher tuitions to pay these (often on scholarship already) student-athletes wages. http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/07/ncaa-finances-subsidies/2142443/
No thanks. Schools would likely either cut their sports programs entirely, or only keep football+basketball and enough women's sports to keep Title 9 happy.
Just because certain players get paid does not mean that ALL of them need to be paid. The third-string goalie and cross country runners aren't making $5.5 million for the university! And, part of that $5.5 million is going to their scholarships. It would be possible to devise a system where some neutral body evaluates a player's worth to the university/athletic program, and the player can get a cut. At the very least, the players could get some percent of jersey sales with their numbers on it, or permit the universities to sell jerseys with names on the back. I just think there is some middle ground where some players could be paid above scholarship level, and others don't have to be. It mirrors the real world - it's not like all NFL players are paid the same amount. You don't have to pay Tom Brady the same as the practice squad offensive guard.
That's called the NFL...In college there are rules. Namely, Title IX.
OT to the purpose of your post...The fifth best cross country runner is a pretty key person. In cross country the top 5 runners count towards your team score while the 6th and 7th serve to raise other teams' scores. This guy would be quite a bit more than a 8th or 9th (essentailly backups in cross country) best runner in a world where cross country was interesting enough to have professional teams.
Learned something new today.
Doesn't cost the school a dime. As someone said below, Gardner can't get paid for his talents, or doing anything else. What if Devin wanted to model the #98 jersey in an adidas commercial? No cash. Why not?
Right now there are like 75 people that Michigan DOES pay to make sure that Devin doesn't get a dime from his likeness.
This would simply invite rich boosters to offer kids the incentive of getting paid if they attend the bosters' schools. The outcome of college football seasons would rest on the ability of the various schools' boosters to out-promise the competition. Who wants that?
I don't think a semi-pro league would cut into college football much at all. Survey after survey has shown that college fans like to watch their teams, not individual players. If these top players are worth so much, then a semi-pro league ios absolutely inevitable, because there is money laying there on the table to be picked up (get Garner and 40 guys like him, and your team makes 200 million dollars a year).
I suspect, though, that gardner isn't really worth $5.5 million a year; that, if, say, a walk-on like nick Sheridan played football for the University of Michigan, the stadium would still fill, sports shows would still talk about Michigan football (and mention the quarterback), etc. I also suspect that, if Devin Gardner played for, say, Toledo, he wouldn't bring in $5.5 million to the school.
In short, i think the Daily and Joyce Julius and Associates reached a conclusion and then tried to justify it with bogus analysis.
Rich boosters DO offer kids incentives! Already! Is it better for Oregon to have their Death Star or Bama to have their waterfall as opposed to the kids who generate the revenue to get, you know, some of that growing pie?
"I suspect, though, that gardner isn't really worth $5.5 million a year; that, if, say, a walk-on like nick Sheridan played football for the University of Michigan, the stadium would still fill, sports shows would still talk about Michigan football (and mention the quarterback), etc."
The interesting analysis here isn't how much Gardner generates for the university - it's how much he generates vs. a generic player in the same position.
Give me a "Value Over Replacement Player" kind of analysis and it might mean something.
I think of it as a "Premium for Elite Winning Program Maintenance" or "Don't Screw It Up Premium".
Minor leagues work in other sports, but they don't draw the crowds or TV audiences that college or big league teams draw.
Part of the solution would be to give the players their choice by letting them go to the NFL or NFL D-league as early as they want. (Or maybe one-and-done.)
That said, the same logic for a Brady Hoke/Urban Meyer/Mark Dantonio versus one of the local DIII coaches should apply to Devin Gardner over Nick Sheridan. As we've seen most ticket holders aren't going to be happy paying over $100/ticket to watch their team lose. Premium talent supports that price-gouging. The premium for Devin is certainly more than just a football player's time-commitment adjusted education.
I highly doubt that Devin Gardner generates a marginal $5.5 million, but I think his contributions should be evaluated in light of Brady Hoke's ~$4 million salary.
Why would we have to pay field hockey at all? They don't generate revenue at all. The "paying players what they're worth" argument would entail that field hockey has to actually pay their own way to play, just like club sports.
If someone wants to pay Devin Gardner to endorse their shoes, there is literally no reason he shouldn't be able to cash that check. If I can make money in college using the skills I'm learning to (for example) write an article on a website, it's ridiculous that athletes can't do the same.
I'm very anti colleges paying players directly, though. I've never seen anyone propose a way do it that doesn't have massive downsides. And the truth is, the vast majority of these kids get more from the school (free education, free food, free housing, etc.) than they ever make back via on field contributions. The few exceptional stars, though, should be able to capitalize on 3rd party opportunities.
I just see this as a slippery slope. You allow that and then you have boosters promising recruits money for doing this or that. Come to this school, wear this arm band, and we'll pay you.
This argument is never made:
How much does the Michigan brand have to do with the money that student-athletes bring in to the institution? Over one hundrend year of football, alumnae base (size and wealth), the institution in one of the ten largest states, etc.
How much Devin Gardner had pulled in if he was the quarterback at Arkansas State? How much if he was at Eastern Michigan?
Arguement is rarely made in the mass media. I think Seth actually puts this in words the best I've seen.
I think someone associated with Michigan/B1G has actually gone public with this line of reasoning several times. Dave Brandon? Or maybe it was Jim Delaney.
How much would Tony Romo draw in ratings if he played in the CFL instead of for the Cowboys? It would be very different, yet we don't find it unfair that he makes millions playing for Dallas...You can say, well, Romo earned the right to play in Dallas instead of Montreal b/c of his talents, but you can say the same thing re: Gardner and Michigan/Arkansas State.
I was thinking about this. People will always buy the QB at Michigan's jersey. I guess the question is really how much more money does he specifically bring in than the average.
a number 12 Matt Guitterez jersey just this year. I am not sure who this Gardner guy is though.
Not true if the talent falls off. At the risk of bagging on the guy, imagine a world in which Michigan fields ten straight Nick Sheridans. You'd see a lot fewer jerseys sold than you do now with the DGs and Denards of the world playing QB for the Wolverines.
This is true, I still see people wearing their Nick Sheridan jerseys. It may not sell as much as DG's jersey, but people will still buy it.
I don't know tons of people bought Tate's #5 jersey. In reality he did next to nothing besides beating an equally bad ND team in his freshman year. When I attend games today nearly six ears later I still see fans wearing that #5 jersey. You know they purchased it sometime in the brief year and a half, or so, when his name was still relevant. To me at least that seems to prove he point that fans will purchase any Michigan qb's jersey.
The next season those same folks were buying up #16s like hotcakes.
Look at how many people are already pulling some level of support from Michigan football due to the struggles of the past several years. I also suspect that Tate Forcier jerseys were purchased when he was in his on-the-cover-of-Sports-Illustrated honeymoon phase.
This is the crux of the counterargument. I'm not saying students shouldn't be paid, it is certainly jarring to think about how much money coaches and higher ups are making compared to the small stipend of the students (yes full ride scholarship, I know I know...but that's nothing compared to multimillion dollar coaches)...but there are some very serious issues to take into account, and I have yet to hear a solution that will work for the Michigans, Alabamas, Texas's of the world as well as the Akrons, EMUs, and SDSUs of the world. And that's not even taking into account other sports.
This was Devin's face when he read this at practice.
won't be resolved here, but..... Let's not forget 2 things: 1) if not for the existence of college football, of which the sheen of amaturism isa huge part, Gardner's football talents are worth whatever some pro league would pay (not much at this point). This cannot be said about the "existence" of the NFL which would leave a market void that would no-doubt be filled. The closer college football comes to being viewed as AAA baseball or OHL hockey, the less it's worth. 2) Gardner's value as evaluated only works for 10 or 20 schools. Is he worth $5.5M at Central MI or Vandy or Montana, or Minny? I suspect not. Therefore, it seems the M brand is selling as much as the Gardner brand. No doubt an athlete occassionally supercedes his/her team (Manziel), but these are outlying cases and don't reflect that any of 30-50 quarterbacks could likely play starting QB for Michigan and be responsible for all these $millions.
It ignores the value to Gardner and his future earning potential. Much of this media exposure is because he plays for Michigan, it should not be ignored that he too will benefit from the media exposure.
This is a very interesting article and thanks for sharing it.
I don't know if the figures ever made it to the board here (they might have), but I wonder if a similar article was ever done for Denard Robinson, because I have to think that the figure would dwarf Gardner's value.
It is an interesting phenomenon when one player has this sort of impact on revenue through their media exposure. The comparison of the marginal revenue for an average NFL player versus Gardner was pretty illuminating, I think.
It does say something that we might have guessed - the exposure peaked during Notre Dame week between early Heisman talk, the "98" jersey and the general buzz about UTLII. Cool to see it graphed though.
This will totally end well.
Do they compare Gardner's value with that of other U-M quarterbacks? It could tell us how much the mere fact of being a U-M starting quarterback is worth.
If at any time Devin Gardner does not like his arrangement with the university, he can end it. My guess is that he won't do that, because he perceives value in being a student and an athlete. He probably assumes an investment of his time now will pay off later! Same reason anyone pursues higher education, or in his case perhaps college football, right? Without the UM providing a platform, he does not become a million dollar man.
He also pretty much has to go to college to showcase his talents for the NFL. I can think of one guy who I've seen in 25 years of watching football who made it to the NFL from somewhere other than college...There is no question that college gives DG something. The question is whether it is a fair amount.
"I can think of one guy who I've seen in 25 years of watching football who made it to the NFL from somewhere other than college"
Alex Karras told me that Otis Sistrunk came out of the University of Mars.
That doesn't change much in my eyes.
Well, it also ignores the scores of guys who DID play college football - but made it to the NFL by playing in the CFL.
So they made it to the NFL via college - they just had a stop-off in the CFL.
Working at a McDonalds would be voluntary too, that doesn't mean they don't have to pay you. They can't just buy a four star hotel, require to you live there to work at McDonalds, and then say living there is your compensation.
Oc course they could do that! Why anyone would agree is another question, but it wouldn't be illegal, so long as the compensation satisfies any applicable minimum wage laws.
I'm not fully versed on the topic so I won't go much further then to throw this out:
This story is what prompted my analogy. The key point being that "wages must be provided in 'lawful money of the United States or check.'" (In Pennsylvania and some other states, at least. Apparently that's not explicitly stated in labor laws in every state).
And, this circles back to what was brought up below. Once we start talking about paying players I would assume they would be considered employees or at least partially be treated as employees. I suppose it would probably be finessed in such a way that they were considered more like unpaid interns than employees in regards to labor laws, but I don't really want to dive down that deeply past stating that as a counter point.
Your argument is comparing two different systems, higher education and the business world. Devin Gardner is a student athlete, not an employee.
You know the term "student athlete" showed up so that colleges could avoid paying workers comp to injured players, right?
I thought it was assumed that they are "employees" going forward when we start talking about paying players. Although it would probably be more nuanced, as I talk about above in my other reply. In the end it would depend on what labor laws would actually protect them if we went this route.
Except that they are paying him. He just has the money direct-deposited into his checking account, and then the bills for his rent/mortgage, groceries, student loans, gym membership and other expenses are auto-debited from that account. They just happen to equal out each month.
If we're going to pay players for their abilities, then take away their scholarships and make them pay for their living expenses. After all, the pros do it, right?
Changing the jersey number of the star player or QB of the team is a brilliant way to make money. Just like the alternate jerseys, receiver gloves and bowl gear.
Because you have sheep/saps like me who will buy it up. I didn't even like the Road Legacy jersey(z)s. Still bought one just to have one.
Do you Brandon conspiracy theorists understand just how much, in terms of percent of revenues, merchandise actually brings into the AD? Or are you just talking out of your behind?
What this article and similar views fail to recognize is how much value Michigan and the conference and the NCAA add to these players. Suppose for a second that college football doesn't exist and instead the NFL has a minor league/farm system similar to baseball or many other sports. Now put Devin Gardner on the Ann Arbor Aviators (made up minor league team). Is he still worth $5.5M in revenue? Put Johnny Manziel on the College Station Cats. What is he worth then? How much is he selling autographs for?
I'm not saying that there aren't problems with the system, but it's ridiculous to assert that DG is worth $5.5M without also admitting how much value a great place like Michigan (tradition, stadium, fanbase, university, etc...) brings to the table as well.
Everyone talks about how much the player adds to the University's wallet, and they offset that value with the much smaller value of the scholarship, but how much does the team add to the player's wallet on top of the scholarship? Weighttraining was mentioned, job trainig? how about PR for the player, whats that worth? how much will Clowney make based on ESPN showing his hit on Smith over and over? How much will Barr from UCLA make based on all the pub he has gotten? What exactly is that worth?
The NFL would still scout players if SportsCenter didn't exist.
At $50,000/year x 5 years + future earnings (potentially millions if he makes it in the NFL), I think Devin will be alright. Look, High school football players who want to continue playing football have to do it at the college level (for at least 3 years). A lucky 20-30 choose to do it at Michigan annually. It's fortunate for both the player (great school, best stadium, fantastic college experience) and school (reap national appeal by attractiving good athletes). Everyone wins because that's the dynamic of playing college football).
Look, there are kids paying $50k for out of state tuition who will become teachers and make $40,000 a year. If anyone has the right to feel jipped, it's them.
players should and will not get paid. It's called capitalism. My employer makes much more money on me (more than those estimates you quoted for football players) than they pay and provide me. That doesn't mean I can all of a sudden ask to bump my salary to a million dollars. End of story.
Why do NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB players all get paid at a market rate? Also, I highly doubt the Michigan AD would relish being compared to an employer.
It's a bit more complicated than that too. NFL, NBA, and NHL players don't get market rates. The players (Unions) collectively bargained with the owners for revenue sharing that includes salary caps. These caps effectively help most players, as all but the elite would lose out if the elite made more.
The NCAA meanwhile has a totally 1 sided "revenue sharing agreement" with "salary" capped at a scholarship per player (85 per football team). Oh, and NCAA athletes can't make money another way either - someone is paid to make sure they don't get money for appearing in commercials or anything else pro athletes can do.
Also, pro players make a certain percentage of overall revenues - if the NFL makes more money, the cap goes up. The NCAA money pool, especially in football, has totally balooned recently, thus the money has gone to coaches, other AD employees, and facilities. The players have not gotten any of this new money windfall.
makes money from football. Most colleges struggle to break even on the costs for a football team. Only the big programs have any kind of surplus.
simple as that, and the market rate for pro athletes has balooned out of control (side note). College athletes get compensated plenty - tuition, meal tickets, some already get a stipend, development by coaches to get them to the pros (for the players that are good enough to go to the NFL), a degree which has the ability to serve as a springboard to more money than they likely would make without one (for those who do not go pro), etc.
so your argument is that athletes already get paid and they get paid enough.
What would you have them do with all the extra revenue compared to say, 1998? Coaches, AD, etc. salaries have increased a ton with all the new money that's poured into sports. They players' slice of the pie should be fixed though? because they already get compensated enough?
I don't think that coaches and ADs are the ones bringing in the new TV dollars.
with the way the salaries for coaches, ADs, etc has increased exponentially over the last two decades.
The big programs are able to fork over the big dollars to coaches, and we unfortunately have no way of changing that. As I mentioned a couple posts below, there are a limited number of football programs that even have excess money from the revenue they generate from football, so it is really only a subset of D1 colleges that even make money from sports.
The median net surplus of the 22 moneymaking athletic departments was roughly $7.4 million, while the median net deficit for the other 98 FBS schools was $11.3 million.
"What would you have them do with all the extra revenue compared to say, 1998?"
Pay the massively increased (vs. inflation) tuition rates?
When a network signs a 10 year, $2 billion contract with a league, do you think they do so because Michigan has Devin Gardner, Jake Ryan, and Taylor Lewan on its team, OSU has Braxton Miller and Carlos Hyde? No, ESPN gladly throws out that money because they can market Michigan and Ohio State; most of the players "bringing in the new TV dollars" aren't even in high school yet.
Tradition, stadiums, jerseys, etc., absolutely. But also because of Charles Woodson, Eddie George, Braxton Miller, etc. Harvard v. Yale used to be a big game, but it isn't nationally anymore. Why? Because those schools are perceived has having inferior football players now.
"Why do NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB players all get paid at a market rate?"
Minimum salaries guarantee that a number at the bottom of the pool are overpaid.
Maximum salaries, luxury taxes, salary caps, etc. guarantee that a number at the top of the pool are underpaid.
...and things like the draft and limitations on movement between teams also guarantee that a number at the top of the pool are underpaid.
The NFL/NBA/NHL/MLB are pretty darn far from a "free market".
It is a market within the confines of what you describe - free agent players are on a market in which teams bid for their services and the players can go to the highest bidder if they so choose. But you are aware of this, yes? You seem to be willfully ignoring the greater point, which is that players in all of those leagues make salaries that are based on their value as individuals and that have at least some correlation with the profits that they make as individuals for their teams and as a group for their leagues. Historically, the players in the NFL, NBA, and MLB (and I assume the NHL, though I'm less aware of its history) all at some point demanded a bigger slice of the revenue generated by their leagues and/or teams. NCAA players have had no such moment. The dollar value of what they get has gone up, but that hasn't happened at anywhere near the rate of the increase in revenue generated by major college football. Instead, that money goes to coaches, ADs, and other sports instead of the players on whose backs the money is made...If you were an elite college player, you would trade being a college player for being a pro (NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL) player if your primary motivation was tangible benefits, right?
Was huge. There were 6 teams, and 2 were owned by the same family. There weren't multi-year contracts until the 1960s, and many players had to work in the offseason pre-expansion. Collusion was rampant and players were afraid to speak up because they would get traded away to terrible teams (Ted Lindsay to the Blackhawks!). Lindsay was actually one of the heads in starting the NHLPA (didn't want to be called a Union, ya commies!) and just like the NBA it all started gaining momentum at an All Star Game.
(From memory above, it's detailed in Glenn Hall's biography "The man they called Mr. Goalie" which is where I know the Lindsay stories from. Wikipedia below)
The first NHLPA was formed in 1957 by hockey players Ted Lindsay of the Detroit Red Wings and Doug Harvey of the Montreal Canadiens after the league had refused to release pension plan financial information. The owners broke the union by trading players involved with the organization or sending them to the minor leagues. After an out-of-court settlement over several players' issues, the players disbanded the organization. Lindsay's struggle and the NHL's union busting efforts are dramatized in the movie, Net Worth.
Thanks for posting that.
"If you were an elite college player, you would trade being a college player for being a pro (NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL) player if your primary motivation was tangible benefits, right? "
Any elite college player who wishes to trade being a college player for being a pro can do so.
NBA D League and the Euro League for basketball.
Minor leagues for the hockey/baseball.
CFL and semi-Pro leagues for football.
They CHOOSE to go to college, because the payout (in current + future benefits) is greater than becoming a professional.
You can't enter the NBA until you're one year out of high school. You can't enter the NFL until you're three years out of high school. Jadeveon Clowney probably would have been the number one pick in the NFL draft last year, but he wasn't allowed in. I believe the CFL only requires you to be 18, but should you have to leave the country for your career?...A person can chose to do something but also be exploited. People used to chose to be sharecroppers because it was better than starving to death, but that doesn't mean they weren't exploited.
Also, do you want your response to the college player who says, "Hey, I make you guys a lot of money - Can't I have a $5,000 stipend?" to be "If you want more, you know where the door is"?
Exploit: make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource).
Welcome to how our economic system works.
Article doesn't at all touch on how much ANY Michigan QB would be "worth." There's nothing to indicate that the dollar values they're throwing out are because of Devin and not because of Michigan QB.
And of course Devin is going to be mentioned on TV–he's the quarterback for MICHIGAN, FOR GOD'S SAKE.
Also have a hard time believing the analysts who translate mentions on Sportscenter into dollar values have any idea what they're talking about.
Paying players would definitely make the asshole fans worse. Remember all the nasty tweets Gardner received from idiot fans? Suppose he was getting a salary of $1M and throwing picks all over the MAC and the American conference...
Couldn't we just cut him and get some salary cap relief?
Am not an a hole fan, but criticism goes with the glory. Cant have it both ways
Give the athletes all the money. They deserve every penny we pay for, considering nobody donates money directly to the athletic department to keep it afloat.
The problem I have with this analysis is that if you put Gardner on a team like Iowa State, his value drops to probably 5 digits. A lot of his value is due to playing for Michigan. Another QB of similar talents - say Kain Colter - would generate a similar amount of value to Michigan, even though he's not generating a ton for NU (due to NU's weaker brand).
That's not to say that their argument has no merit, a player like Manziel is delivering tons of value to A&M, but the analysis does not come close to accurately calculating Gardner's market value as a college football player.
I also strongly dispute Duderstadt's assertion that the AD does not deliver value back to the University. The AD is the University's biggest marketing tool. It is easily worth 8 figures to the U.
I agree with previous posters on needing to further understand the split between Devin Gardner vs. Michigan QB in generating articles and mentions.
What I haven't seen mentioned yet is the calculation of $5.5mm based on marketing cost. From my read, it seems like they are saying he is worth $5.5mm because that is how much money it would take to generate the same amount of "buzz" if you hired a marketing firm. Why does this translate?
Can you show me how Devin Gardner affects ticket sales or donations? That is where the value is, not in pseudo-marketing costs.
does that make him the