M FB players worth 470,000
Basically positing what if college players got the same deal as pros' CBA, which seems unlikely to happen. Maybe this is only useful as a gauge of each program's revenue, in which case, it must be said that Dave Brandon is good at that part.
September 27th, 2013 at 6:04 AM ^
September 27th, 2013 at 6:28 AM ^
That's a totally dumb analogy and you know it. People pay for an education, they don't get paid to have one.
September 27th, 2013 at 7:20 AM ^
September 27th, 2013 at 8:23 AM ^
...but what is "more dumb" is thinking any of this about education.
That is the first mistake that so many people make in this conversation. And I wish people would stop using the stupid "they get a free education" argument.
ITS NOT ABOUT EDUCATION! It never was...never will be. Trust me, from someone who is in college athletics each and every day. As much as that feels like a valid argument, it's not. I had 60k in loans...so I know what it's like to NOT have a free education. Many people have more than I did. I get it.
However, this isn't about education or being a student or anything academic. THIS ABOUT FOOTBALL AND MEN'S BASKETBALL. Nothing else.
Formulate your own opinion and/or solution, but keep that in mind. You can't make this about academics because it never was or will be about academics.
September 27th, 2013 at 10:00 AM ^
then what about the what....99% of student athletes that will never go pro in their specific sport? You people are lumping all SA's into the same category and they aren't. Most of these people will never play pro sports but if they took their free education (that you don't want to admit is worth anything) they could at least come oput of this with a decent life.
September 27th, 2013 at 1:30 PM ^
This isn't about going pro...who said anything about going pro?
I'm pretty sure the people saying S-As should be paid aren't changing their minds based on whether or not a player goes pro.
I'm pretty sure if Johnny Manziel quits football after college and starts a reality show...those people will still say he should've been compensated for his time at Texas A&M.
-----------------------
Next note: When did I admit that education is not worth anything? Can you read? Are you even replying to me? I never said that. EVER. An education is worth a LOT. I'd argue that it's worth more than just the dollar number than is attached to it...so where the hell did that come from?
-----------------------
All I said was that this isn't about academics...it's about FOOTBALL and MEN'S BASKETBALL. Period. It's not even about college sports. It's not about rowing or gymnastics or even Baseball. It's about the two sports that I mentioned.
Is that right? Maybe not. But that's how it is...so don't think otherwise. Start with that simple fact and build your opinion from there.
Like I said below, if you think it was about something else then you probably also thought conference realignment was about location and/or competitve excellence. We all know it wasn't and we scratch our heads on why Rutgers is in the B1G over many other schools. Why TCU and Boise were in the Big East, etc.
-----------------------
YOU PEOPLE need to take your personal emotions out of it. It's perfectly okay to disagree with it. I thought it was dumb as hell that Boise was in the Big East. But at some point you have to take the facts and go from there. Fact is, this isn't about academics. Never was.
September 27th, 2013 at 10:33 AM ^
It's about more than just football and basketball. Title IX says so. You are somewhat on the right track when you say it is not about academics. But, Title IX is tied to federally funded academic institutions. The structure is in place to offer a free education to all scholarship athletes in competitive sports regardless of the level of interest from the public.
The problem is creating a model that will not completely undo Title IX. There are just over 28,000 undergraduate students at UM. There are around 1,000 student-athletes. The university and athletic department already spends about $100,000 per athlete per year. $100,000,000 per year!!! How do you equally distribute funds in a pay for play situation when budgets at most institutions cannot accommodate? The problem that can arise from paying athletes based on their perceived value is that athletes from non-revenue sports can make a claim that institutions are not doing enough to increase the popularity of their sport and allow them the same opportunities.
September 27th, 2013 at 1:18 PM ^
You're basing your predictions off the current model of the NCAA and the current model of college sports.
None of this would EVER happen in the current model...even if it was just football.
UL-Monroe can't afford it and Alabama ain't sharing. At least not with them they aren't.
September 27th, 2013 at 10:57 AM ^
Well thats why the players attend right? Its the overall scope. They get an amazing education, the stigma of being a Michigan man and being beloved in the state. Football is just as much a part of the education as the education itself. The lessons these kids learn about life if they have the right staff are unmatched. If they graduate like Denard, Devin, Jordan they will not only have a degree, but they can also show to employers that they were hard workers in the classroom and on the football field. Let the one percent go to a minor league and regret it later when they are uneducated and throw away the free opportunity they had. The University Of Michigan Is much larger than one individual. Remember the school gives them the platform. Without the school they are nothing more than an up and coming entertainer.
September 27th, 2013 at 1:16 PM ^
...I just said it has nothing to do with academics.
Anyone who thinks it is probably thought conference realignment was about location or competitve excellence.
September 27th, 2013 at 7:15 AM ^
They get way more than 40K per year. Crap, at Michigan, that wouldn't even cover OOS tuition. Note Table I in the link below where players in major conferences have up to160K per year spent on athletic spending.
http://www.deltacostproject.org/pdfs/DeltaCostAIR_AthleticAcademic_Spending_IssueBrief.pdf
If players don't like their free ride, I would suggest that they enroll on their own dime in the college of engineering instead.
September 27th, 2013 at 9:49 AM ^
I think that when the kid gets the scholly they should have the option of taking it in cash form and then take out a student loan, or use it for its intended purpose. This way they have their money, and they are responsible for their education just like all of the non SA's.
I know the amout as of now would vary from school to school, but those are details that can be worked out. The way I am thinking about it is SA's get a reuced or standard tuition for all SA's. This way all institutions of higher learning will be on the same level.
September 27th, 2013 at 3:14 PM ^
Rather than the university GIVE them 5k for spending money...why don't they simply pull out a supplimentary student loan? If they go pro, then they can pay it in full...if not then they'll have a minimal payment when they gradutate.
September 26th, 2013 at 11:36 PM ^
The value of the football program doesn't primarily rest in the players, and people would find that out quickly if players had a professional/semiprofessional avenue into the game. Move many of the best players into some sort of minor league and there would still be 80.000-100,000 people in Austin and Tuscaloosa and Lincoln and Ann Arbor on Saturday, while the minor league games would command all the interest of the Shrine Bowl or the East/West Game.
The schools get that revenue in large part based on the accumulated capital of a tradition, a loyal fanbase, loyal alumni. I cheer for the uniform and not any particular player and I'm sure I'm not anywhere near alone in that.
September 26th, 2013 at 11:48 PM ^
That is what most of these "studies" miss. You don't calculate the "value" of the players by dividing revenue by number of players. You need to calculate it based on replacement value.
You replace every player on the team with less talented players and Michigan is still going to draw similar revenues. You can put every 5* players around the country out of the game and NCAA revenue is not going to fluctuate.
These kids are just cogs in the machine. They are readily replaceable (and we do, every 4 years!). Their value is far lower than what revenue says.
September 27th, 2013 at 3:14 AM ^
You replace every player on the team with less talented players and Michigan is still going to draw similar revenues.
Do you really think that's true? If you replaced Michigan's team with less talented players, you'd end up with Indiana or Purdue. Fans would still support the team for a few years, but it wouldn't take long for the stadium to start to look empty. If not for Denard, it might have started happening in 2010.
These kids are just cogs in the machine.
I don't think you meant it this way, but this comes across as terribly callous. If you think of Denard Robinson, or Taylor Lewan, or Jack Miller as a cog in a machine, I feel sorry for you.
Three separate companies have been able to make money charging people for content on the Internet to track high school students deciding what college to go to. If you could do a Kickstarter to pay money to Jabrill Peppers to come to Michigan, how much do you think you could raise just in direct payments from MGoBlog readers alone?
The NCAA is essentially a monopoly for football players aged 18-21 who want to play in the NFL, and they've artificially limited the amount a player can be paid to the value of a scholarship. That doesn't mean those players are actually worth no more than the price of a scholarship.
You can put every 5* players around the country out of the game and NCAA revenue is not going to fluctuate.
Really? That's basically what's happened to college basketball, and here's what's happened to the ratings. That's only for the NCAA finals. I can't find numbers for the regular season, but I would guess the drop off has been even steeper. If you reduce the quality of the game, people won't care as much.
Before anyone tries to put words in my mouth, let me clarify a few things:
- The article posted in the OP is ridiculous. I don't think Michigan football players should be paid $470,000 each.
- A lot of what makes me care about people like Denard and Lewan and Miller is that they're representing a school, not a pro sports franchise that will move to San Antonio and start wearing teal if they think it will make them more money.
- Most NCAA football players' true market value is not much more than the value of the scholarship they're getting, and many of those players are better served by getting a college education rather than $200,000 in cash, which they would blow on motorcycles and hookers. On the flipside, I don't feel too sad for NFL players who make millions because they didn't get paid enough in college.
If you see this as an easy issue either way, I don't think you're thinking about it seriously enough.
September 27th, 2013 at 8:31 AM ^
What if it's not about the players' worth. What if it's about the worth of the sport that they play?
Johnny Football's worth ain't shit compared to college football's worth. But why is college football worth so much?
THAT is the issue. Not trying to separate Denard Robinson from Justice Hayes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an argument that will never get settled because of professional sports. Think about it, the more the NBA, NFL, etc are worth...the more players get paid. Arena Football isn't worth what the NFL is worth...players get paid less. Certainly there are other factors, but the correlation is relevant.
So I repeat, people need to stop trying to seperate the few stars from college football from the random scholarship player that no one knows about. That isn't what the issue is about. It's about the value of college football, the value of March Madness...and why they are so valuable. Then it's about what makes them so valuable.
Don't make this about eduation...don't make it about a handful of players.
September 27th, 2013 at 8:45 AM ^
argument. I I looked at your link and have no idea what your point was. Maybe you would like to clarify.
September 27th, 2013 at 11:15 AM ^
I linked to that page because of the graph of NCAA tournament ratings that appears about 2/3 of the way down the page. Sorry that wasn't clear.
My point was that ratings for the NCAA championship game dropped pretty significantly in the mid-90s. Prior to then, they were getting around 30 million viewers. Then, right after a peak that coincided with the Fab Five, they dropped steadily, and now hover in the low 20-million range. That's almost exactly the time frame when top players started leaving early or skipping college altogether in large numbers.
I think those statistics probably understate the decline. March Madness is the one time per year when people care about college basketball. For more casual fans, regular season college basketball barely registers, and I think that's a big change since the 1980s. But I don't have the statistics to back that up.
I don't think you can attribute the decline in basketball ratings to a general decline in TV viewership. Again, I don't have access to a full database of bowl game ratings, but the 1989 Fiesta Bowl, the de facto national championship game between Notre Dame and West Virginia, got a Nielsen rating of 17.0. That's pretty much in line with the ratings that BCS championship games get now. (See here, and again scroll down to see the list of TV ratings.)
September 27th, 2013 at 11:52 AM ^
of disagreement. It's pretty clear that the NCAA ratings went up and down based on the appeal of the individual games. 1979 is #1 because of Magic vs Bird. The numbers spiked up because of the fab five (and Michigan). The real decline to my eyes started in 2000.
I don't think the BCS championship game is a fair comparison either. BCS bowl ratings have gone down quite a lot in that time. The exception is the championship game, which is now marketed and scheduled much differently than it was.
September 27th, 2013 at 1:04 PM ^
You're right, the sample sizes are just too small to know for any given year whether a decline is due to random fluctuation or a real trend. The graph I cited was for the NCAA championship game, so I think the BCS championship game is the best comparison.
I'd really like to see a full set of data in basketball vs. football over the last 20-30 years, but I can't find it with basic Googling.
September 27th, 2013 at 9:12 AM ^
If you replaced Michigan's team with less talented players, you'd end up with Indiana or Purdue.
Indiana and Purdue would also have less-talented players. I don't see any reason to think the relative status of the teams would change, except that the better academic schools would probably see a boost because the players in the college game would be the ones that cared enough about academics to go that route.
September 27th, 2013 at 10:03 AM ^
One of the arguments against paying players is that it is the institution people cheer for, not the team. But if Michigan were consistently not good, would they still enjoy the same support?
On an open market, players would be able to go to whichever school paid them the most, so some teams would be getting that talent, and the remainder would lag behind. So if signing Jabrill Peppers is the difference between going 7-5 vs. 11-1, and consequently enjoying a $20 million increase in revenue, should he enjoy some of that money?
You could extend it by analogy to the NFL. Most fans don't cheer for the Chiefs because they have analyzed their players, coaching staff, and style of play and are particularly fond of it. They cheer for the Chiefs because they like in Missouri or Kansas, just the same way that most fans of Michigan are students, alumni, or live in Michigan The success of the program will affect how fervent that support is, and the success is, in large part, dependent on the players.
That said, I haven't seen a solution offered which I thing would not result in the destruction of college football as we know it.
September 27th, 2013 at 2:15 AM ^
September 27th, 2013 at 7:25 AM ^
September 27th, 2013 at 12:25 PM ^
Football isnt for everyone, just like engineering, law, business etc.... Everyone has to find their niche in life. If your good at football you then are an entertainer and many football majors go into a football related major which leads to broadcasting, coaching, training etc... I personally wouldnt say that an engineering major with a 4.0 would be irrelevant considering he would be a first round pick with just about any major engineering firm in the country if he graduates from Michigan. I woudlnt give two shits if my mom was the only one who cared.
September 26th, 2013 at 11:45 PM ^
If you add up tuition, room and board, meals, cost of travel etc. I would guess you would see a number awfully close to that figure spent on each athlete.
Yes, football brings in the most revenue but if athletic departments compensate them, and only them, with their fair market value, most of the other sports will be discontinued.
September 26th, 2013 at 11:57 PM ^
And that's not to mention the non-scholarship football players, graduate assistants, and others who contribute to the team's ability to function and play. Where's their share of the pie? And what percentage to agents and lawyers who would be necessary to negotiate any deals?
September 27th, 2013 at 12:16 AM ^
To be fair to the study, they probably think they've accounted for that by allotting the same percentage of revenue to the college players that the pros commanded in their agreement with the NFL owners. Everybody else's share of the pie would be the other 53%.
It's a dubious assumption--look at the pay scales in the minor and developmental leagues in other sports. College football commands revenue because it's college football and people have loyalty to the schools. Take the schools out of the equation and you've got all the earnings power of the D-League or the Pioneer League.
September 27th, 2013 at 6:30 AM ^
I could be wrong about this too, but it seems odd in this article to do what is essentially a revenue per employee calculation with just one subset of the "employees", if you will. I wonder what it would look like if you took the operating revenue of the department and divided it by the whole body of athletes (and then to be absolutely fair, the athletes and actual paid staff). I have to think the figure would be interesting, especially because the resulting figure would be seen as a measure of productivity in other environments. Again, I could be misapplying it though.
September 27th, 2013 at 9:00 AM ^
September 26th, 2013 at 11:54 PM ^
September 27th, 2013 at 8:02 AM ^
Sound business logic and clear thinking.
September 27th, 2013 at 1:23 AM ^
September 27th, 2013 at 6:30 AM ^
Okay, let some enterprising person start a developmental league and pay the kids. Forget college, just play the game and collect your salary. It would never work because the value of the product lies with the institutions and the platform they provide. Maybe 1% of the kids add genuine star power and generate revenue. The others wouldn't be missed if someone else was wearing the uniform.
September 27th, 2013 at 6:34 AM ^
Not only that, but so much of the value of the player also derives from the institution. Johnny Manziel: famous if he went to Idaho? Denard: on the cover of NCAA 14 if he had chosen to stay home and play for FIU?
September 27th, 2013 at 7:36 AM ^
September 27th, 2013 at 8:42 AM ^
I wouldn't disagree. Just think it needs pointing out that quite a bit of a player's marketability comes from the uniform he wears. It's a two-way street. Rich Guy Car Dealer in Birmingham, Alabama might be falling all over himself if he could get the chance to put a Bama football player in his ad, but put that exact same player in school at South Alabama and he's got no power at all.
September 27th, 2013 at 7:17 AM ^
The players (all of them, even scout players) probably come pretty close to this in the full ride they get. UM out of state room and board is what $60k a year. Add in all the benefits (equipment, tutoring, clothes, meal stipeds, travel..etc) and football players get a little under $400k in four years. every last one of them.
Plus football in large part just funds the other non-revenus sports as the athletic department at UM is self funding (one of the few in the country). Take it away the the Univ loses its largest recruiting tool to students but it will still be there. It'd be like any other private school in the country. A lesser Ivy if you will. ie just fine.
Finally, take out the 150 kids a year that are 5star recruits (really these are the only types that could go pro from HS) and college football wouldn't even notice. Arena league and the minor league texas rattlers team in waco might get a small bump in ticket sales. We all tuned in to watch Novak and Stu douglas right? Lester Abram and Dominic Ingerson in basketball. We'd do the same to watch 3 and 4 start UM football players. Heck, this would be the big tens best chance to pass the SEC.
I agree with Delany. I say remove the age restriction and let the kids have a choice. Go pro or go to school. Get some chump change now (which is what 18yr old prospects would get given the 5star bust rate) or go to a school for a free ride, 100,000 fans a week, education, espn promotting you, and STILL a shot at the pros in 3 years once you develop.
September 27th, 2013 at 7:42 AM ^
My friends with Ph.D.s will be wanting their bigger checks too. They brought in more to their university as a result of their research than the football players did, and they did their work at B1G school.
Hell, they both teach at another B1G school now and one of their labs created a new catalyst that could be worth up to 7 figures if sold to a major corporation. The best part is that most of the work on the catalyst was done by an undergrad that was screwing up the research and sort of hit on it accidently. You know what that undergrad gets? Nothing. Outside of the chance to work in a multi-million dollar lab, her name on the paper, and an amazing educational opportunity.
September 27th, 2013 at 7:59 AM ^
September 27th, 2013 at 12:34 PM ^
What you just wrote had absolutely nothing to do with the content of my post.
The researchers and professors at schools bring in more money than the athletic teams.
The undergrads do not directly receive compensation for their additions to the research.
Professors = Coaches/AD
Undergrads = Athletes
In both groups, the individuals doing the majority of the physical labor are being compensated in forms other than money. The complaints from the media are only about the athletes getting a pay day, yet the the undergrads doing research bring in more money for the school than the athletes.
If you don't believe that, just look up the yearly budgets for research and sports at major universities that participate in both research and Div I sports. The research budget is going to be a larger amount.
September 27th, 2013 at 9:38 AM ^
September 27th, 2013 at 7:59 AM ^
but great article I saw that I think you guys would enjoy: lauramctaggart.wordpress.com Scroll down. It's called "Open letter to a college player who thinks they should be paid".
September 27th, 2013 at 8:50 AM ^
Lets not forget Title IX. The feminists would sue immediately.
September 27th, 2013 at 8:57 AM ^
September 27th, 2013 at 11:20 AM ^
Collegiate athletics does not allow remuneration for anything other than attending classes. I could be a billionaire from Tuscaloosa and offer a kid $1 million to endorse hog shit once they were enrolled at Alabama. I guarantee that everyone on this blog would have a meltdown over the new ways in which "cheating" would occur once those flood gates were opened.
How would you limit the types of endorsement deals? How would you deal with Knight at Nike and his ties to Oregon, or Wexner at Limited Brands and his ties to Ohio State, or Plank at Under Armour and his ties to Maryland? You've just given them a legal avenue to providing benefits upon the condition of enrolling at their school...
September 27th, 2013 at 9:00 AM ^
If you feel like you're being exploited by the NCAA, there is a simple solution: DON'T PLAY COLLEGE FOOTBALL. No one is holding a gun to these guys' heads. Apply to colleges as a "normal" person and go down a different career path. Football is not the only way to make money.
I understand that the counter-argument to this is that most of these guys couldn't go to Michigan without football, whether it be because of grades or money. To me, that only strengthens my argument. Michigan provides them a platform to escape their troubled backgrounds. As Brian has pointed out in the past, a vast majority of Michigan football players go on to be productive members of society even without pro ball.
September 27th, 2013 at 9:28 AM ^