never.. if michigan ever got rid or drop football i would cry as a grown man
Tennessee is not recruiting well just because they got 18 dudes
never.. if michigan ever got rid or drop football i would cry as a grown man
Well, don't forget, Michigan isn't obligated to stay in the big ten either. Michigan and OSU have some extreme power to throw around in college athletics. Theoretically all big ten schools could choose to dump Delany as well.
Michigan, Ohio would join forces with UF, Texas, USC, etc. and create it's own league to "rival" the SEC. That is until the top SEC teams broke away too.
since the possibilities are almost endless. At that point, is it just a mercenary league out for the cash and basically semi-pro with only the biggest names. It would require such a structural shift, that you just wonder if it could functionally work.
Michigan could then create theitr very own conference and invite whomever they wanted to join.
We could invite Ohio State and put them in the Schembechler Division!
...nothing to do with the issue at stake. The important point is that Delaney is saying that these schools will never, never pay players and I absolutely believe him when he says they would rather go Ivy league than start fielding professional teams.
If they go the professional route, then they are competing with the NFL for talent and fan resources and that is a sea change that no University president (or board of regents) wants to deal with.
Speaking personally as an alumnus, I have no problem with Michigan taking the high road here. In fact, I almost wish they would. I'd rather be competing with Harvard & Yale than Alabama & Texas.
...Delaney is saying that these schools will never, never pay players and I absolutely believe him when he says they would rather go Ivy league than start fielding professional teams.
I hope that you're right, and that Delany is serious about that. I would rather Michigan go into an "Ivy" league, than start paying players in a semi-pro league.
Exactly, Michigan, OSU, and to some extent Penn State have nothing to worry about. They would be accepted with open arms into any of the major conferences.
I'll call his bluff.
If they did away with athletics, what are they going to do with all of those stadiums and bills they still owe on the stadiums? Not to mention they'd be in breach of all of their TV contracts. The amount of money they'd lose from fallout lawsuits, a severe drop in donations, etc would dwarf whatever they'd have to pay athletes.
...what are they going to do with all of those stadiums and bills they still owe on the stadiums?
Open gyms/rinks. City league/rec sports. Corporate shindigs. Birthday parties. Paintball. The possibilities for renting out Michigan Stadium, Crisler, and Yost are endless. We don't need no stinkin' university-sanctioned sports to make a mint off of UM's sporting infrastructure.
Divorce attorney's dream. I mean, Congratulations! Mass weddings! Make it happen, DB!!
They would more than likely drop the non profit sports. You'ld have to pay all your student athletes so i'd assume they would just keep mens football, basketball, baseball and hockey. The last 2 could reasonably be scraped too. Football is the cash cow tho
He better alert Northwestern now that they shouldn't be spending $220 million and Michigan not to spend $250 million on non-revenue sports, etc. Also: he should inform Maryland that all that money they thought they had coming: no go.
Ask David Brandon, Mark Hollis, Gordon Gee, etc how that will all work out with a D-III model.
Man, I hope O'Bannon wins. It's time for hypocrites & blowhards like Delany to be taken down.
I bet the teams drop the B10 first
I think UM and OSU would join the GLIAC before they would even consider dropping football.
Oh great....NOW they tell us. Does this mean I'll get my preferred seat "donation" back?
be sponsoring a Michigan athlete! Your donation will be $24,000 a year, and you will receive weekly updates on your athlete from the University...
There is no way Delany actually believes what he is saying. Give the man credit, he has done a great job of turning the Big Ten into a very lucrative entity and he does not want anything to jeopardize that. He is always posturing to get the Big Ten any advantage he can, which I guess is what you want out of a conference commish.
If the Big Ten goes to a D-III he would be out of a job, or at the very least have a massivly reduced salary. But based on his track record I assume he knew this was a possiblity and has plans ready to react accordingly. Who knows, perhaps this will just push us further down the path of the major, football hungry, money producing universities to leave the NCAA completely.
That's the general thought around Twitter right now, Delany isn't just talking out of his ass, and he's planning something (that wouldn't be the Big Ten going DIII)
You can say a lot of things about Delany, but stupid is not one of them
Why else would he even make a public comment on the matter? That's the only thing that makes sense, it's the only obvious gain.
Is it a realistic possibility that O'Bannon could win the lawsuit?
People act like making more money is only good for Delany and the other big wigs.
The B10 making more money is good for student-athletes too. More money = more sports = more scholarships to players at elite institutions.
Since 99.99% of student athletes do not personally and specifically lead to this money making, I'd say it's a pretty damn good deal. For those 0.001% (the Denards of the world), I don't see them complaining - they're getting a quarter million (in some instances) dollar education.
Win-win-win. We don't need to pay players more. They are already getting an amazing deal.
It should also be noted that the "stars" are already getting a benefit 90% of student athletes do not get: a full ride. The majority of NCAA student athletes only have partial schollys.
It's why I think the Olympic model makes sense, at least more than just straight up paying the players. They're still amateurs, but they would be open for Endorsements and such
So then you'd agree with O'Bannon right? They should get paid for their likeness (believe that's the term) used in video games.
If all athletes big or small felt that a full ride was this amazing gift then we wouldnt be having this conversation. We aren't talking about someone on the track team, field hockey, or even lacrosse. These guys see their jerseys in the stands, see themselves in every year of NCAA videogames, and can read the prices of tickets. It's no secret how much money the sweat and blood of a few use to provide for the rest. I don't think paying the players is the right way. I also think the reason the olympic model works so well is because most of the sports no one cares about for 3.5 years.
I've thought for a long time that a percentage of jersey sales should go directly to a tust account given to the player after graduation assuming they stayed out of trouble. If none of those things are met than it is given to a charity. The other option is create a semi pro league. Let those not interested in academics play for someone else.
many times for something like this.
Put some money in a (Tust?) account for the athletes, the more their likeness/popularity is used to make $ the more goes into the account. (say 20%)
This would acknowledge their worth to the university and reward them for their efforts.
Then make receiving that $ dependent on them furthuring their education by paying out only 25% if leaveing after 1 year 50% for 2, 75% for 3 and full 100% payout upon graduation.
Stars could stay 3 or 4 years and that $ would also pay for injury insurance etc.
It would also allow the big ten to honestly show that education & getting a degree are their members ultimate goals.
I don't think any player is going to assume they're going to make millions while in school, but seeing your account grow each year would be rewarding & motivating to stay in school and "get paid".
Sure a swim team member will never see a dime (apart from some 'ship $) but how much would 100% (of 20% of all #16 jersey sales after 4 years) help Denard? I'd say a lot.
The 110,000 seats filled for at least 7 Saturdays a fall tell me this will nver happen.
and is a pretty big hypocrite considering how every institution in this conference and the conference itself does anything it can for money (cough adding maryland and rutgers cough)
Maryland and Rutgers bring in far more research $$$ than they do athletic $$$. The B1G does not need sports to roll in dough.
Considering the B1G is an athletic association, I'm pretty sure they do need athletics to bring in the dough. The member schools may not, but B1G itself does.
Personally, I would love to see all major college athletics take the DIII model as it may actually bring some integrity back to sports.
You don't follow DIII close enough if you believe that. There may be more integrity than DI but some teams bend the rules to get advantages in DIII as well. That's why the same two teams have won the DIII National Championship in football for 9 years.
Those teams don't compete with UM and OSU for recruits yet either!
Intellectually I know you are correct. D-I athletics is hopelessly broken, corrupt, and pretty much indefensible (if revenue sports didn't evolve the way they did, could anyone really justify creating the current system from scratch)?
But damnit, I love being with a group of fellow alumni on a Saturday afternoon for three perfect hours that people who went to D-III schools will never understand or experience. It keeps my friends and I connected to our university wherever we are in the world.
"That Veronica Vaughn is one piece of ACE. I know from experience dude. If you know what I mean." -Jim Delaney
No you don't.
I'LL TURN THIS DAMN BUS AROUND!
what else is there to live for if Michigan dropped football?
"Staples points out the discrepancy between the Big Ten adding Maryland and Rutgers for no other reason than cable money..."
There was a pretty good argument made here a while back that the reason for adding Maryland and Rutgers was much more about academic research funding than about athletics.
Aside from that, I would applaud a move to take the B1G out of the money loop if O'Bannon's suit wins. It would be the beginning of minor-league football.
Hutchins is bluffing. The University of Chicago will NEVER drop football.
Fun fact: When Chicago reintroduced football in the late 60s, the students staged a sit-in at the 50 yard line right before the kickoff of the opening game. You've got to admire their tenacity.
This is an attempt to influence the court. I almost can't believe he had the gall to say that.
From the article:
"He believes now as he believed then: A pay-for-play model involving contracts and individual negotiations with players would not interest the schools of the Big Ten."
Which is different from the plantiff plan: "...suggests players should receive 50 percent of television revenue. (The money, according to the plaintiffs' plan, would be placed into a trust and given to the players upon graduation.)"
50% seems high when most schools don't profit but I don't see any problem with the players getting a cut of the TV money, but I could see how this lawsuit could fracture the NCAA (maybe in good way). B1G isn't going to subisidize the MAC with their TV money so all the players get paid the same.
Delaney has constructed a straw man, here. I don't see anyone advocating for player contracts and individual negotiations. Just an equal slice of the pie. TV revenue makes sense as a jumping off point.
Any tv revenue attributable to a sport during the time a player is on that team (commercials shown during games or licenced segments (Michigan Replay)), is divvied up, say 65% to schools, 35% to players. Each scholarship player recieves the same percentage of that 35%, whether they're a starter or 4th string.
Here's what I think he's getting at.
If the schools are able to give money to athletes as they please (or as determined by conference), the big name schools (or schools in the BCS conferences) will have all of the elite athletes gravitate toward them. Basically, athletes at all schools are going to have to be given the same amount or any illusion of fairness will be gone. You can accomplish that by taking half of all of the television contracts, putting that money into a single pool, then splitting that money evenly across all athletes listed on an official roster. If that actually happens, rough numbers put the amount per football player at $55,600/year. The only problem that I see with this is that you now have non-BCS schools leeching off big name schools and every FCS school will want to move up to the FBS. If no rule is made and each school's television revenue is split amongst its athletes, then B1G football players would make around $116k/year. The basketball tournament alone would allow for $76,500/year per player.
Maybe what Delaney is getting at is that the players would no longer pull scholarships from the university, but instead get paid directly and then have to pay their way through school. Even the $55k is enough to pay your way through the nicest of schools and still have spending money left over. If that's the case, the scholarship is redundant. The athletes still come out on top (even after paying taxes) and the schools take a lessened blow from the lost television money. When contracts are up for negotiation, they will factor in the new costs and the bill will be fronted by the television providers. This also allows for players to get academic scholarships and pocket the football money.
This of course brings up potential Title IX issues. Should male players be getting paid while female players aren't? Does this alleviate those issues since the burden of paying for the athlete's schooling is removed from the schools? Should the money just be spread across all athletes? What happens when you do that and the amount of money per athlete drops below the cost of schooling?
Whatever happens, I think it will be very interesting to see. After working through this, I'm kind of leaning toward paying players directly and removing the athletic scholarships. I think it would end up being better for the students and the universities would make it work in the long run.
for athletic training as well. Tutoring services. Training table food. Etc.(Wait Minor League baseball players get $20 a day for food while on the road.)
Supposedly most Minor League baseball players get $850 a month the first season, and between $1050 and $2150 a month depending on A - AAA.
I'm sorry but that doesn't stack up to tuition, room, board, academic support, atheletic training, etc.
On the flip, I believe Denard should benefit more directly from his own jersey number sales. But who buys NCAA 12, or watches the game on TV or in person just because of one player? (Well ,aybe this coming year. ...)
pay them...but if they don't perform, like a real job, the school can let them go. If they overperform....RAISES
Basically, athletes at all schools are going to have to be given the same amount or any illusion of fairness will be gone.
There is no way that this will stand for long. In a related case, the Ivy league schools (along with a number of private eastern schools associated with them such as MIT) were sued by students over their price-fixing scholarship offers (non-student athletes) a little over 20 years ago. Representatives from each school got together and in order to avoid competition between the offers of each school, they "normalized" the scholarship offer that each school was to give a prospective students. This was clearly price-fixing and they ultimately had no choice but to settle out of court.
Similarly, if there is an arrangement within the NCAA that sets the amount to be paid to a student athlete across the country's universities, I just can't see it lasting long at all. A case in which there is a fundamental difference between price fixing at $0 (under the guise of amateurism) and any other set amount.
Ultimately, this will result to competition in cash for the high-profile high school athletes. This new free agency would transform college athletics far beyond what Delany is proposing.
Honestly, I'd rather get rid of D1 football and basketball before we pay players.
These are pro teams once the players get paid. They're no longer part of the student body, they are not student-athlete peers: they will be university employees that happen to take classes.
I'd much rather participate in intercollegiate sports like the Ivy Leagues than have professional athletes charading as a student athlete.
The players are already used to generate revenue. Now (some) of them just don't get near what they bring in.
Some is a generous term. At Michigan, right now, I would say there is exactly one (maaayyyybe two) that get what they bring in. Denard and Burke. Denard solely on jersey sales and I guess free advertising since he's all over the WWL all the time. Burke arguably brings in more because he was a main forced in filling seats that were unfilled before.
Other than those two, the coaches, their continued success and programs traditions are what keeps the seats full and the TVs on.
Wow. I don't earn nearly what I bring in for my employer. Too bad my employer has to pay for my equipment, my computer, the building I work in, and the salaries of few thousand other people. Otherwise, I'd be rolling in dough.
...that you are being exploited too, and I think it's hard to argue that Denard got a fair percentage of the money that he made the university and/or EA Sports, a company to whom something very close to his likeness was sold without his permission.
but does that really matter? I mean, so what if someone doesn't get back what they generate? I think back to when I was an intern and resident at the hospital and I provided much more than I was getting back in salary. I was doing the same work any doctor would (more in terms of actual hours worked) and got paid less than one tenth of the salary. Not only that, but I had to pay my own tuition, meals, housing etc.
I guess I just have a hard time viewing the roughly 250,000 dollars worth of education, housing, meals etc these players get as being less than they deserve (or "nothing" as some say). If they're good enough they'll move on to the NFL and a life of riches. If they aren't, they'll have a degree they can fall back on (that they didn't pay a dime for). I think they do pretty well for what they actually provide to society.
To go back to my original point, I don't think it is mandatory for people to "get" what they "bring in". If that were the model used, no company could make a profit. I think the college experience for athlete's should be looked at as an internship where you are essentially fine tuning your craft and putting it on display in hopes of getting picked up in the future. No intenrs ever make near the money they bring in for companies and they are fine with that because the hopeful end result is a career that proves more financially rewarding.
Your internship contributes directly to your future profession, whereas a player's time on a team likely doesn't (since most don't play pro football). Also, you're not likely to be injured during your internship in such a way that you cannot practice medicine ever again...And I'm not arguing that the players get nothing. I don't think that at all. I just don't think they get a fair share of the money that they generate.
They generate an incredible amount of revenue, they are entitled to more of it than they are getting at the moment. At least the football and basketball players.
There will come a day when college athletes are paid, maybe not by the universities, but at least in endorsements. Which is always the more ridiculous ban, theres no reason someone shouldn't be able to sell their image if they are popular enough.
Let them earn money through endorsements and not the school? Allow individuals to pay them that aren't associated with school? This seems to be a catch22 as others point out and maybe this is the middle ground? Man am I bummed by all of this.
They're getting a free bachelor's degree and potentially a free year of grad school. That's F-R-E-E, as in no PLUS loans at 8.5% interest or Stafford loans at 6.7% interest. They also get fairly generous monthly stipends for living expenses, and access to a special fund for unexpected expenses - which can include anything from orthodontia to paying for their travel if there's a family emergency. Yeah, they're really getting ripped off.
And, actually, they have the potential to get two degrees paid for. If they enroll early and take a few summer classes, they can get their bachelor's and master's in the 5.5 years they are here. I believe that's what Zoltan did.
Not all take advantage of this, but it is there. I heard Ron English speak recently and he says one of the first things they do when they get an athlete into their program is to lay out the athlete's path to earning a master's.
I ask because I have no idea. Do grad students get paid a lot of money by the university? I mean, I have heard here that the revenue universities get from sports pales in comparison to the money they receive from grants, so in that vein I am wondering what portion of that grant omney is returned to the students whose work is, at least in part, responsible for getting them?
The premise that since a person brings a lot of money to a business means they are entitled to most of that money is ridiculous. That is what we have in professional sorts and look at the mess they are in now. I have a friend who is a CEO of a pretty large company and who is responsible for bring millions of doallrs per year for that company. His pay doesn't come close to reflecting the amount of money he brings in. He does get bonuses, but his pay is still multiple times less than that which he brings in to the company.
Let's be completely honest: is someone who was admitted exclusively to play basketball, works on basketball for fourty+ hours a week, and matriculates with absolutely no intention of graduating really a "part of the student body" in a meaningful sense just because he isn't getting paid (beyond his scholarship).
trey burke is not being compensated with an "education." he is being compensated with an opportunity to earn $$$$$$ by proving himself to have NBA talent while playing for a big name program.
So by him playing basketball for Michigan he is signaling that he is able to play in the NBA. Just as a student does well and signals to prospective employers that they're capable to be employed.
but for many elite college players in revenue sports, there is no emphasis on the student part of being athlete. These players gets compensated by being given the opportunity to PLAY for their schools. The education has lost its importance in the equation.
Let's be real here. There are athletes that care about getting educations. Take Denard for instance. He is obviously not just screwing around with football. He's about to graduate with a sociology degree. I believe more athletes need to take the path of Denard.
to be the first in his family to graduate from a 4-year college. But the share of money from jerseys sold, endorsements, etc. that he could have made would take yeaaaaarrrrrrsssss to get with a job one could obtain with an undergraduate degree in almost any field.
Probably true, but Denard is the extreme outlier.
Even take someone like Tim Hardaway Jr. One of the leaders of the bball teams. How much do you think he has made the school? I don't know if I can quantify it, but I struggle seeing it as being more than the education he's earned and the ability to play for Michigan, which is like 3 years of free, elite training in the most advanced and comfiest of facilities.
Denard and Burke are in a group of anywhere from what, 50-100 (??) kids who have individually earned the school boat loads of money. You don't want to blow up the whole collegiate model to compensate this small number of kids every year. But at the same time, it feels dirty to ignore that these guys aren't getting any piece of the pie and justify it with an education that say Burke probably won't utilize and furthermore say it's okay because they are outliers.
Leaving the TV issue aside (and admitting it's what's blown this case up), the thing that most bothers me is that EA and the NCAA can continue to profit off players likenesses even after they leave school, ie, that they are forced to sign their rights to profit from their own personal characteristics away in perpetuity. I
Need too: of course. Will: no. For every Denard there are 10 Chris Webbers pissed off that the B1G made 950 Million and they still have to wait until they're eligible to be drafted. Do you really think Clowney would stay if he didn't have to after watching Lattimore's injury? I wouldn't if i'm going to be a top 5 pick. Aside from the fact that not every school would honor his scholly if he did get seriously hurt and couldnt play. Not all coaches would
Well, some would just abandon what would amount to semi-pro teams, perhaps myself, I dunno, but the whole "student-athlete" concept has been a farce for quite a while. I haven't taken any classes with football/basketball players AFAIK, and while I'm busy with midterms, 8th semester football players are dropping out to focus on the combine. I know there are exceptions, but in general they don't take the education too seriously, nor are they cut out for it. Plus SEC teams are likely already paying them.
Delaney's just bluffing anyway. Yeah, U Chicago and a few elites like Stanford can get by just fine without football, but colleges like UMich benefit too much for the time being to suddenly stop being competitive in sports. The visibility of the football team no doubt draws thousands of applications and at Michigan anyway, the athlete scholarships are a windfall. I think it sadly might also devastate donations to go the D3 route. Sure, most revenue goes to ADs and a few coaches and their pet projects, but we're still talking tens of millions that gets funneled to the general fund.
Now aside from Michigan and most (all?) of the conference teams, I can see headway being made to de-emphasize sports. Not only does the opposite occur at places like VCU (the students subsidize athletics), but the higher ed bubble may burst soon anyway. How these programs that are deeply in the red will start paying athletes I have no idea. If it becomes 20 teams dominating every year cause they literally buy all the best talent, it may as well be the NFL at that point and I probably will lose interest.
You mean like if the same best group of a few teams from the SEC wins the National Championship every year?
Even if I agree with what he says, I will still be petty and disagree. Jim Delany is an idiot. But anyways, I'm concerned that the O'Bannon lawsuit will win and lead to Pandora's box being completely blown open with the little integrity that's left in college athletics being lost. The current system is not the greatest, especially with the athlete's getting exploited through video games and apparell. I'm sure the Universities wouldn't go bankrupt if they paid athletes 2% of the revenue generated...but if O'Bannon wins, more problems will occur than be solved.
Would better players get compensated more?
Would their be salary caps and max contracts now?
Would they still get scholarships?
College athletics then becomes semi-pro athletic teams with a multitude of complications from money that will ruin the heart of the game. Idk...don't mind me, I'm all over the place.
Interesting point, if it's a percentage of what is made off of them too players would go to schools where they make more money off of a fan base that is willing to buy no matter the individual players.
The day players get paid is the day I never watch or attend a college sporting event again.
I won't buy anything if the workers who made it got more than $3.00 per hour. I don't want them to be corrupted by money.
A poor kid in Bangladesh could support his whole family with that money. Go easy Mr. Moneybags. If you want a poor family to stay in the pure noble savage range, you can't pay them more than 50 cents an hour. What would Delaney do? WWDD
You'll still tune in or buy tickets for those poor exploited athletes, and are probably wearing a pair of jeans made for far less than that $3 per hour.
If you really feel that strongly it's wrong, yet you still partake in it, you're part of the problem.
Absolutely agree, and so did Bo:
"Because you can go into professional football, you can go anywhere you want to play after you leave here. You will never play for a Team again. You'll play for a contract. You'll play for this. You'll play for that. You'll play for everything except the team, and think what a great thing it is to be a part of something that is, The Team."
That's a great quote, but I don't see how the lawsuit's proposal of revenue sharing with the athletes has any effect on the team concept. In the NFL, sure, you play for an individual contract - get paid more than anybody at your position.
Revenue sharing is different, and if you don't think the student athletes who generate all of this money by playing on TV are being exploited, then you ignoring the issue.
I don't think they're being exploited because of what they get in return: at a school like Michigan, it's a $165,000 education, plus living expenses. For those who expect to go to the NFL, they're getting additional compensation: massive exposure, year round training and medical care. I don't why these things are so undervalued in this argument. If they need more money so that they can live more comfortably, that's one thing. But if athletes are expecting their compensation to be commensurate with revenue, then we're not in college anymore. We're in the pros. The education part of the equation becomes moot.
And the few stars who do will want a bigger cut. And then you have the NFL model Bo was talking about. So it's pretty much spot on.
I agree with the sentiment. The thing is, they already get paid, just not much. They get a stipend, which I'd like to see increased considerably in a perfect world. It would have to be the same for all players though, or you ruin the "heart" of the game. That's the real issue.
The only way to be "fair" to the players is to ensure all D1 players get an equal amount, which forces a socialist sytem into place in which schools like Michigan are penalized for having made money through their AD. I'd love to find a way to make it work, but I can't see how.
It's a catch 22.
But I still contend that the players have little affect on revenue. Michigan stadium sells out whether the team is good or not, whether we have great players or not. People, in general, watch games because of the teams playing not because of the players. I understand you obviously need players to have a game, but the point is that they are not a major factor driving revenue.
This is also true for the big TV contracts. Whether it is the BTN or ESPN, they do not make their money off big ratings. They make their money by charging satellite and cable providers per subscriber. You can take AMC or TNT or whatever channel off cable, but if you take BTN or ESPN off people stop dropping you as a provider. My point being, the sports channels make money because most of us won't live without our one game a week, not because we tune in to the channel in huge numbers all the time. Even Heisman trophy winners don't drive huge ratings.
So whats my point, These guys are likely paid more than appropriately by their scholarships and the exposure they get that can generate them future income. The latter part of that equation is more than overlooked by most. Anyone think Tom Brady gets drafted if he was at a smaller school? Probably not.
I support the idea of expanded stipends, but most other changes could be problems. Just my opinion.
...every time I happen to click past a D-Fenders game on TV (for reasons unclear, Time Warner here has added the local L.A. Time-Warner sports channel to our channel roster so we can watch high school and minor leagues sports from 2000 miles away). Here's the best team in the D-League, with a young roster that would be the envy of most colleges, with familiar coaches (Reggie Theus, Phil Hubbard), with a link with one of the biggest names in professional sports...
And there's that blank wall on the other side of the court. They're playing in a practice facility that doesn't even have 300 seats. We get more than that for our high school here, and it's a tiny public school in an unincorporated, sort of identity-less community.
It's the name on the shirt that's driving NCAA revenues, it's the tradition, the fan community, the link to the school. Take that away and you've got a couple of hundred people watching and every once in a while you get one of your games shown on tape delay on NBATV.
Forcing everyone into a year of college is absurd and I have nothing against a professional alternative available straight out of high school, like we have in other sports. But I don't it see it pulling the sort of revenues that will drive big player salaries, and it leaves me wondering what Ed O'Bannon's likeness would really be worth if it weren't for his connection to UCLA.
Delaney is an enormously hypocritical ahole.
I am now buying a second amp and a kick-ass tweeter, and I am paying some very pricey A/V guys to install this equipment with like 6"-diameter cable connecting everything, and I am inventing a new kind of megaphone that has its own internal volumizing booster, and I am doing all of this in order to call bullshit louder than I just called bullshit on that other thing, because: are you fucking kidding me? (-fjm)
Ask Henry Rollins...
So the University of Chicago was right all along. Those beautiful bastards.
... Look where that's gotten them. That school has absolutely no brand recognition and no prestige whatsoever. Who would ever go there?
You mean, other than for a great education?
Does he seriously need the /s? I mean, come on...
Milton Friedman disagrees.
To wit, "The University of Chicago Economics department, considered one of the world's foremost economics departments, has fielded more Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel laureates and John Bates Clark medalists in economics than any other university."
...fuck Milton Friedman.
If their English department teaches sarcasm, it seems vastly preferable to wherever the first two responders to this comment were educated
They are out of them
I am more concerned about the effect on non-revenue sports if O'Bannon wins than whether or not it affects the integrity of ameteur athletics in football and basketball.
If we go to pay-for-play model, alot of schools, and I'm assuming Michigan included, will have to drop at least a few sports. Which totally sucks.
This is the dark side of the O'Bannon lawsuit for sure. And it's not being talked about enough. This isn't really about a pure and righteous movement to let poor exploited kids get what they deserve. I mean, O'Bannon probably sees it as such. But the idea of taking 50% of the TV money and just handing it straight to players is going to murder programs like swimming, wrestling, track, volleyball, and so on. I predict a non-revenue bloodbath if that plan ever comes to fruition. With men's sports bearing the brunt of the sacrifices.
I'm going to overgeneralize in this post, but I am going to feel bad for quite a few kids. Sports like golf and tennis, where most of the kids come from better off, country club type families I won't feel so bad for. Those kids could probably afford to go to school at a similar instiution like Michigan without the athletic scholarship. But in sports like track and field, where you have a much more diverse roster, those kids might not be afforded an education like Michigan without the benefit of their scholarship. Michigan won't be as affected as some schools IMO, because our brand is so large. But MAC schools are going to see their athletic programs whittled down to men's & women's bball, football, volleyball and other women's sports. It's crazy.
Not to say that I don't feel bad for football players that don't get a piece of the pie. Athletic departments and administrators are definitely greedy and deserve alot of flak for being all about the money. But I would hope that the football and basketball players take a little pride in knowing that they are helping provide scholarships for the rest of the athletes at the school. Ameteur athletics is a messed up system and I don't think there's an easy fix. But I prefer the way it currently stands than I would a pay for play model which causes us to lose teams like men's lax, baseball and swimming and whatever else might be cut.
Each B1G school takes in tens of millions more now than it did just 10 years ago because of BTN. I realize a lot of that money is being pumped into new facilities, but does it have to be? Do we really need a state of that art rowing facility to have a rowing program?
...This man makes none.
Jim Delaney knows just how much the Big 10 schools have guaranteed bondholders to build and renovate athletic facilities. Michigan isn't going to de-emphasize athletics.
...expected to bail out all of the "too big to fail" Wall Street banks, then I don't see any problem with taxpayers bailing out college football stadiums. In fact, I imagine that would prove to be quite popular politically.
Cost of attendance for out of an out of state student "which all full ride scholarships are" is $54,724. So a 4 year athlete gets over $218,000 worth of education to play a sport. ~$273,000 for guys who get a fifth year. And thats not even counting spring/summer term.
Pretty hard to feel bad for these kids at all when some of us are out here paying our own way through school and paying dues to the university to play our sports.
/rant not completely on topic
Did you get free MRI's and surgery in college? How about unlimited contacts and eye appointments? Did the school pay for an ambulance and overnight hospital stay for you when you had the flu? How about weekly therapy sessions with a psychologist for free?
As an athlete I had all of that paid for.
/responding to not completely on topic
Two other points: the football team generates how much money for the school? Pretty much the entire athletic department budget, which is huge.
Also the skyrocketing cost of tuition is a different matter entirely, one which is basically forbidden on the boards, so I won't go too deep other than to say it's artificial bullshit.
I'm getting fed up with the antics. People said I was insane for looking at the Big 12. Not such a bad idea. I say give some of the charter members a call and jump off the sinking ship.
That or independence. The day Michigan drops ANY varsity sport much less the biggest one is the day a pair of underwear become the emperor of the Soviet Union.
Seriously Delany. Just piss off.
you want to see Buckeyes, Wolverines, and Spartans unite on something? Try to "de-emphasize" our football or basketball programs. Literally, millions of people would be super pissed off by that
To anyone with half a brain this is hyperbole in the extreme, because it will immediately elicit an 'over my dead body' statement by all parties involved aside from Jim Delany. Can't he just say something more along the lines of, the B1G strongly opposes such a measure? It almost feels like he's insulting my intelligence by spouting this nonsense. Can we just go back to adding crappy teams to the conference like we were before? Thanks Jim.
Jimmy will take his ball and go home!!
Leaving the NCAA to form an allegiance with the other major conferences in which they are not held responsible to NCAA licensing rules is not the same as going DIII and de-emphasizing athletics. I know what was said publicly, but blowing up the NCAA and forming a new coalition which has better operating, revenue, and oversight programs would not send major college sports into the stone age or minor league sports. It would bring it back to what it is meant to be and has been. Another reason teams are positioning to get into the "super conferences".
...it doesn't sound like Delaney (and the schools he represents) are particularly interesting in a coalition with better operating revenue. They already got good operating revenue, if anything they're problem is they have too much money.
The real point is that the schools will never start paying players because they do not want to start competing in professional sports. That's a whole different ballgame that no university president or board of regents wants anything to do with. And in that context, it is more likely that Michigan will go Ivy League before they start paying for professional athletes.
...the possible ramifications of this lawsuit could be huge...yet there has been little discussion about it (or at least not enough coverage as there should be).
The O'Bannon case will have some of the biggest affects on amateurism that any of us could possibly imagine ( potentially the end of college video games as well.) A former law professor of mine is working on the plaintiffs side. He has been doing so for 3 of the last 4 years the case has been going on. I personally side with the NCAA and we debated after class for three semesters of my grad school. I honestly feel like he did it just to get opposing viewpoints. He sent me an email a year ago thanking me for my opinion. In hindsight I wish I really would have never debated with him. I spent so much free time researching my arguments that I feel like I did some of the work for him. I honestly don't want his side to win, even though I know he is very capable. The man came from Greece and went to Indiana to receive his attorney at law and PhD. You couldn't understand a word he said when he started talking fast though.
I know, cool story bro.
It might have some effects too. Those effects might even affect something.
It seems to me that we have a not-quite-perfect controlled experiment on hand that, at least in basketball, might give us a handle on how much value is generated by the players on their own and how much is generated by the schools, coaches, fanbases, everything else involved in college athletics.
The D-league is made up of players just a bit older than college players, with a better average talent level--it's missing the 30 or so kids that are NBA ready, but it's also missing the bottom half or more of the D1 pool, made up of players that aren't likely to ever play professionally.
If you like we can ignore those 30 schools with first-round talent that will head straight to the NBA, in case someone wants to argue that it's those players that are generating all the interest in their teams. What about the other 300 schools? What's the atmosphere like, how's attendance, how are merchandise sales going, what are the TV contracts like, at a Wisconsin or an Iowa compared to a typical D-league team?
pucky and crocodile tears.
I would be proud of the B1G if they followed the Ivy League model. I also would support individual players reaping whatever endorsment $$$ their name recognition would warrent. The best players could then use their endorsment $$$ to pay their way in school.
What's to stop boosters from "endorsing" recruits then? Or, even if a rule is passed that you can't endorse a recruit, what's to stop an Ed Martin from promising (under-the-table) to "endorse" the recruit to come to Michigan?
I understand the argument for "you have a skill, get paid for it." I actually agree with it in theory. HOWEVA, in application, it just leads to boosters doing the same shit we complain about, but OVER the table now.
Not sure where I fall on that, but my initial reaction is "ick". How do the schools, or new association, or NCAA, or whatever, stop boosters from "endorsing" recruits under this model?
P.S. If you continue this train of thought, it leads to an oligarchy where the richest teams get richer as they win more and more boosters come in, while crappy teams lose their boosters, and so can't compete for the recruits. You have a dual upward-spiral for the good teams, and downward-spiral for the bad teams. Does a salary/endorsement-cap need to be used then? If so, what differentiates Pros from "Amateurs"?
Nothing, and that's the point of capitalism and free markets. When a rich alumni gives an athletic dept a wad of cash, it's a donation, and they name something after them, and nobody bats an eye. Same rich alum gives money to a recruit, and its shady? If everyone loves the level playing field amateur model, why don't more people watch DII or DIII games?
College sports (revenue) are not an amateur endeavor. Even the athletes themselves (non-revenue too, on the backs of the revenue athletes) are compensated...albeit poorly. As soon as we stop pretending that: a) these endeavors are amateur and b) realize there is no great honor or morality in amateur athletics (compare to pros) we will be able to figure this out. But don't expect those that get rich off of it to help us get there.
Just to add to this, everyone should read Taylor Branch's articleffrom the Atlantic about the origins of "scholar-athlete," which was a moniker deployed specifically to avoid athletes from being able to file workmans' comp claims when they were injured.
The whole thing about this comn up is because Ed o bannon was a bust in the NBA n he is jealous of all the others making it n he didn't have the drive and will to be successful. It is for all the people who are jealous n hate on the others with more talent than them.. a top notch education the best medical care u can ask for n all the other benefits of being an athlete n that isn't enough.. they did a study a while back and an average worth of a football players scholarship to school well exceeded $75000 a year. N if this goes through then college sports will never be the same and u might as well just call it the minore of the NfL.. I will forever hate Ed o bannon for his greed n his way to make a quick dollar n laziness. He feels he is entitled.
Maybe you should learn some third grade grammar before calling someone a loser.
home games in ann arbor not neutral site games
road games on TV not streaming
trips to pasadena on new year days not third tier bowl games in florida or texas
the rest of current big time college football really doesn't add much to the real experience
except wealthy coaches/ADs/announcers/etc. and players who feel like they are exploited.
Watching UM play anywhere is great.
I don't know what the future holds for collegiate "amateurism" but I am certain that Delany's position of power would be "de-emphasized" into a retirement well before athletics in the B1G ever will be. Way too many stakeholders with an interest in keeping the profits of this industry running full tilt even if it means shifting some of the $ from coaches/administrators to the players. The establishment would kick and scream but they'll go along in the end.
The NCAA should have settled the O'Bannon case the minute it came up and canceled their contracts with EA. You can believe that college athletes receive sufficient reward for their services in the form of a scholarship, but it's pretty difficult to justify the use of their images in perpetuity by a 3rd party without due compensation.
was slow for like an hour and a half and then just blew up. I hope they strike it down. It might be nit-picky, but this just doesn't make enough sense to say "Yes, we need this."
Delany does not have the clout to make the schools of the Big Ten agree to de-emphasize athletics. The conference would break up before that happened and the schools would still be linked through the CIC.
...he doesn't have the clout. But don't forget that he does represent these member schools and as the SI article points out, he's expressed similar opinions in 1996. It is very likely that he has discussed the "de-emphasis" position with the school presidents and it is also very possible that he has their full support in expressing "his" opinion publicly on the issue.
Not to mention Delaney isn't fucking Hitler (as much as he probably thinks he is). It would never happen. The member schools would just leave the conference and form a new one.
I've often wondered what I would feel like if I were Denard Robinson, walking past that indoor rowing facility or asinine billboard. I think this exchange from Seinfeld sums it up pretty nicely:
JERRY: Does it ever bother you that this organization-
JERRY: is beating the bushes-
GEORGE: Nope! (Starts heading for the door)
JERRY: to basically give this money away-
JERRY: to virtually anyone, as long as they're not you?
GEORGE: (Standing in the doorway) I'm fine with it! Fi-hi-hi-hine I say! (Leaves)
I'm in the minority in that I think the trial has real merit to it and the players should get paid to some extent. That said, Delany is an asshat using scare mongering tactics usually reserved for politicians.
I think you're all focusing on the 1st paragraph when you should focus on the 2nd. He admits that there are a lot of alternatives to pay for play and to DIII, and that the B10 would likely go to one of the unspecified alternatives within the spectrum of payforplay<---------> DIII
if the obannon plaintiffs are awarded the suit, this will expedite the split of the NCAA & the BCS schools. We will likely see a new collegiate athletic league where member schools will be BCS schools, plus a handful of Gonzaga/BoiseSt types. They will likely have players sign waivers forfieting their rights to compensation based on their performance, in exchange for insurance, education, facility access, etc. Perhaps they would even include a smaller scale trust than the 50% TV rev model the obannon group proposes where the players can draw out of that while in school, if they choose: like borrowing from a 401k.
My sense is that such an organization, formed clearly in response to a class action ruling and designed to avoid its financial consequences, would never survive the anti-trust suit that would be filed about 2 days after it was announced.
Just get rid of Delany all he care about is the rose bowl and keeping the money in his pockets, did he even attend a big 10 school
I just have a question. I read through most of this thread, and I dont think anyone answered, if they did sorry. If players get paid, what if they dont perform. Do they get cut, not just from being paid, but a scholorship as well. What if they get hurt, would they still get paid for the rest of their time at school?
...they'll get cut. If they are getting paid, then they are professional athletes. The schools will be fielding professional teams and they'll have no choice but to compete for talent and fan resources (against competition like the NFL).
But I wouldn't sweat that detail. As Delaney is pointing out, the schools have no interest in fielding professional teams.
As much as I love getting to watch college football and hockey, I've always been really conflicted by this. In some ways I would be upset to see it, but at the same time, athletics really does need to be de-emphasized. Michigan is a University first and foremost, and I never could justify to myself how sports reasonably fit into that. And spare me the nonsense about being great publicity for the school, because I disagree.
Agree. Can't award point because of Bolivia'd.
Put me firmly in the "de-emphasize" crowd.
I'll always support M because it is my school. Just like I always support my high school too. It's nice to have the teams on TV & get top-quality athletes but it is by no means a necessity for me.
This topic obviously strikes a cord with all fans, as we hate the idea of losing our big sports teams and rooting interests. Michigan graduates should be as proud of the academic reputation of their school and of the B1G schools as a group. Don't fool yourselves, Delany and the university presidents care far more about the academic side of the equation than we fans do, and rightfully so. They will gut the athletics if it comes down to it.
I'd like the B1G to de-emphasize Jim Delany.
The article also links to an earlier Staples piece on the ongoing investigations into some of the NCAA's miscues of late - (LINK). It's an interesting piece which discusses how the NCAA has, through time, been very good at selling the narrative that providing compensation beyond a scholarship is essentially "immoral" (Staples' word), but then by doing this, it creates opportunities for players to basically risk their collegiate careers merely by realizing their potential market value.
What was suggested, interestingly enough, was something akin to the Olympic model, which would allow for boosters and wealthy benefactors to provide the "pay", relieving the school of Title IX problems related to compensation as well as tax issues. In support of that, he notes the relative imbalance of the competitive field of FBS football and notes that 13 of the 20 top revenue producing schools actually have classes in the Rivals Top 20 for recruiting. His argument then is that competition would not be terribly altered in that scenario.
I don't know if this is one of the other alternatives which Delany believes to exist, of course, but it was an interesting approach to the issue, I thought. In the article as well, there is a link to a theory on a truncated handbook which would accommodate these changes as well and that was also an interesting read.
A draft for high school players might be kinda cool. 25 rounds of 150 or so picks would be epic. If they're getting paid to play, they shouldn't get the opportunity to play where they want to as well - that would just be plain greedy.
...compensating players and drafting them out of high school, how long before the NFL also starts drafting these kids out of high school?
And likewise, why would a school feel compelled to let a good player graduate & move on to the NFL after they've invest 4 years of training in him? If Michigan were a pro team, would they really let Denard go? Or what about Tom Brady, for that matter?
Completely agree. This whole thing is just one giant slope that makes the absurd appear somewhat plausible.
Also, Charles Woodson would probably have been a better example than Tom Brady. I have to believe Michigan would have had no problem letting Tom Brady go after the 98-99 season with Drew Henson in the fold, unless he agreed to be the backup.
...said McCloud, "why a man can't play college ball till he's forty, if he takes good care of hisself."
Read Chapter 28.
This is merely posturing on the part of the "big boys." It has helped them get their way for years. Ever since Walter Byers coined the term "student-athlete," the NCAA has had free labor to drive a multi-billion, dollar business. I'm consistent in my arguments on this: all they have to do is allow the athletes to take money from boosters and accept endorsements.
Most of all, I just wish they would all stop pretending that anything the NCAA has done in the last forty years even comes close to being "amateur."
It's scare tactics. He's not daring anyone, he's trying to get everyone so worried that Big Ten sports will go away, that they won't risk it. Probably not a good strategy.
Though they'd have to go all Division III, because he's never going to get pay for play for small sports but scholly's for Football past Title IX. Unless his plan is to have a football team, men's and women's basketball teams, and then whatever group of women's sports he can cobble together that adds up to 85 scholarships.
On the bright side, if there's going to be a last edition of EA College Football, it'll at least have Denard on the cover.
I don't know if this has been posted already, but I just educated myself the quick and easy way, through Grantland:
I was thinking that some sort of post-career trust would be amenable to both sides, but I guess Ed O'Bannon's attorneys already tried that and the NCAA said no. I'm still opposed to athletes getting paid while they're in school, as that denigrates the value of the education they're getting, not to mention all the other benefits if they have a future in professional sports (entre into the pro world through exposure, TV time, etc..). But I have to say, O'Bannon and his fellow plaintiffs have a point: if the school continues to use their images and numbers, they should get a piece of it.
I understand why college teams don't want to undertake the responsibilities and liabilities related to "paying" players (revenue sharing at this level of granularity would be a massive headache), but at the same time many of these schools are making a significant amount of money from these same individuals. I've never quite bought the argument that these players are being abused, as they are receiving scholarship money and all of the perks attached to being an athlete, but claiming financial concerns when you are clearing $20+ million a year in TV revenue alone is disingenuous.
I'd be fine if the school wanted to address these concerns constructively, perhaps through some insurance plan or additional aid, but I don't for a second expect UM to drop athletics down to the Ivy/DIII model, which means they'll just create a myth surrounding the new procedures while still recruiting top athletes and providing them academic/aid scholarships that perform the same purpose.