Michigan makes (and spends) A LOT of $ on athletics

Submitted by The Mad Hatter on

These numbers are from 2014 so I would expect them to be quite a bit higher for 2015 and 2016.  We had the 3rd highest expenses, behind only Texas and OSU.

MSU lagging behind at #17 as expected.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports/college/2016/04/18/um-3rd-msu-17th-nationally-athletics-spending/83187160/

 

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

bluebyyou

April 18th, 2016 at 2:03 PM ^

I'd be surprised if ND or USC or Stanford would have greater revenue based on the size of Michigan Stadium in a typical year.  In most years, I'd think it wouldn't be close unless ticket prices were vastly more expensive in the schools you noted just based on the seat differential.  

ijohnb

April 18th, 2016 at 2:13 PM ^

years.  Two BIG ten championships.  Four NCAA tournament appearances.  One National title game.  One elite 8.  One national player of the year.  One BIG player of the year.  Four players drafted into the NBA.  6-6 against Michigan State.  Your definition of mediocrity seems to differ a little from mine.

In reply to by ijohnb

Maize Craze

April 18th, 2016 at 2:52 PM ^

Well it is good to know that we are basing the future of our program on past accomplishments, instead of future trajectory. It goes nicely with hockey program actually.

ijohnb

April 18th, 2016 at 2:57 PM ^

= 16-16 and missed tournament.

2015-16 = 23-13 and made the conference tourney semis and the NCAA tournament.

Ohio Mr. Basketball, and three other 3/4 star players committed.

4 star committed for 2017.

Two seniors who earned conference recognition returning next year.

This is based on current trajectory.

In reply to by ijohnb

UMxWolverines

April 18th, 2016 at 3:19 PM ^

I'm glad we're basing what we should be accomplishing in basketball on the worst stretch in program history.

I guess we should base what football will do on the Rich Rod and Hoke years too. After all Hoke won a sugar bowl!

You forget we have two first round exists (no, we did not win a first round game this year) and missed the tournament completely once.

ijohnb

April 18th, 2016 at 3:51 PM ^

let's go back another 10 years.  Before Beilein - worst recruiting scandal in the history of college basketball, 0 BIG championships, two national title games that were both vacated.

That doesn't quite get you to 89 where you would need it to go to have a viable argument.  So, you only have to go back 18 measly years before Beilein was hired. 

In reply to by ijohnb

UMxWolverines

April 18th, 2016 at 4:21 PM ^

I don't understand your argument. Are you saying we should be happy with first round exists and missing the tournament because we have in past years? Sports are not won in the future based on the past. If that was true MSU and Wisconsin wouldnt have won as much as they have in both football and basketball.

ijohnb

April 18th, 2016 at 4:40 PM ^

at the thread history. I am arguing that we don't have a mediocre basketball program. I am using recent and not so recent history to show what a mediocre basketball program actually is. Right now, conversely, and commencing about 5 years ago, we have a good basketball program as distinct from a mediocre one.

ijohnb

April 18th, 2016 at 1:15 PM ^

you pay college athletes then they are professional athletes.  The fallacy of the amatuerism is the only thing that holds this thing together.  I support sizeable stipends, cost of travel for family, life time health coverage with regard to possible injuries occuring while playing college athletics.  I don't support flat out paying the players because I love college athletics and if you start paying salaries it is only a matter of a few years before the house of cards collapses entirely.

In reply to by ijohnb

Zone Left

April 18th, 2016 at 3:31 PM ^

Why would college athletics collapse? I don't understand this portion of the argument.

There's a tradeoff to be made between giving a salary to revenue athletes versus better facilities for non-revenue athletes. I'm concerned about building really high-end facilities for non-revenue sports from a budgetary standpoint. A building isn't a one-time cost, but rather an upfront cost and a commitment to maintain the building.

Building very high-end facilities that won't generate any revenue is a model that only works in today's world of college athletics. I'm not sure how long that model actually works, however.

vbnautilus

April 18th, 2016 at 4:39 PM ^

It would absolutely change everything. 

Once the players are paid as employees, you enter a whole new realm of labor law. The NCAA would be anticompetitive to restrict their salaries, for example. So you would have to get it set up like an approved monopoly like the NFL if you don't want the best players just going to the richest schools. That means a players union that  has to collectively bargain with the NCAA.

How would those negotiatons change things? It's surely hard to predict but it will change things.   If I'm the player's union one of the first things to negotiate away is the 3 year restriction from entering the NFL draft. If they are sucessful in that, well, we've seen what has happened to college basketball...

wolverine1987

April 18th, 2016 at 1:18 PM ^

They get wonderful facilities that in most cases, regular students aren't even allowed to enter, much less use. Not to mention free food, free travel, free medical, payment in cash for cost of attendance benefits, and of course the 40-50k equivalent that free room and board and tuition is at Michigan. Football athletes at large schools are in fact, the 1% themselves, with benefits and treatment far above what a regular students receives, not to mention the general adoration and oh yeah, girls. 

Athletes are paid, that is categorically a fact. The only question is, should they be paid more? that's the debate worth having.

ijohnb

April 18th, 2016 at 1:26 PM ^

they shouldn't.  Remove the three year rule with regard to the NFL and create professional developmental leagues that players can play in (and be paid for) instead of going to college if they choose.  There should be nothing that prohibits a player from getting paid if they want to and are good enough, but it flat-out-period-no-questions-asked should not be colleges that do it. 

I think people would be very surprised at how many players still go the college route, because, surprise(!) having a degree from the University of Michigan is a big deal and winning a BIG, SEC, National Championship has inherent value that players want to acheive completely independent of the desire to make money.

In reply to by ijohnb

wolverine1987

April 18th, 2016 at 3:23 PM ^

I personally think the system works just fine for the athletes--every wonder why there is so little demand for a players union? So little activism? It's becasue the vast majority realize they have it pretty, pretty good.

I'm just saying that the debate is about paying more, because they are already paid. 

In reply to by ijohnb

grumbler

April 18th, 2016 at 3:42 PM ^

There is no three-year rule in the NCAA.  Any player who wants to, and is good enough, can play for the CFL or any non-NFL league he wants to, and get paid for it.  He just cant go from pros to the NCAA.

So, the current situation with regards to the ability of high school graduates to get paid for playing football (or any other sport) is pretty much exactly what you call for.  No changes needed.

In reply to by ijohnb

grumbler

April 19th, 2016 at 7:13 AM ^

So

What is the issue?

I am not advocating changing anything, other than, perhaps, the cost of attendence stipend for all athletes.  You were seeming to advocate changes, but those changes seem to be unnecessary at the college level.

In reply to by ijohnb

Michigan4Life

April 18th, 2016 at 6:06 PM ^

is who's going to pay for the developmental league? NFL isn't going to do it.  Every football developmental leagues have failed because of lack of funding and revenues. No one cares about it so you're better off not to have one where you have one in college football.

ijohnb

April 18th, 2016 at 2:27 PM ^

it wouldn't, because this is a controversy wherein the individuals "prejudiced" by this atrocity are largely not the ones complaining.  For the most part, it is people completely unaffected by the situation that write articles pining for change and how much we "take" from the players.  When I watch college football and basketball I see players having the time of their life and giving everything because they love the game.  I guess some people must see players angrily sneering about their situation and playing because they are forced into such humiliation but I don't get that impression.  I don't think taking away the scholarship and giving them 40 grand a year would make a difference because for the most part they look to be perfectly content to me already.

I tell you what.  Go find any 17 year old in the country and make this pitch.  Go to Michigan, get a Michigan education, get it for free, room and board for 3-4 years, play the game you love at a very high level in front of millions, travel all over the country and get paid trips for free for bowls, camps, etc.  Oh, and get the best training and coaching money can buy while building relationships with influential coaches with ties to the NFL.

I think they will be cool with it.

In reply to by ijohnb

Michigan4Life

April 18th, 2016 at 6:07 PM ^

that's not every elite recruit's mentality. They won't go to Michigan just because they love Michigan and cares about Michigan education. Far from it.

hailtoyourvictor

April 18th, 2016 at 1:21 PM ^

They do get cut a check to cover rent, food, etc. It's quite a bit more than someone would need if they were budgeting, too. It's not like players have to work a part time job to get by.