NIL deal: family sponsorships
Since the Hockey program was nixed from being able to execute their family sponsorship program where families would basically “adopt” a player. Couldn’t this be in play for all sports going forward? Especially if we were able to position our more financially able alumni to our major sports. If I’m missing something or it’s already been posted, feel free to hand me a one way ticket to Bolivia. ??
August 11th, 2021 at 9:02 PM ^
I am definitely missing something, or multiple somethings;
1. When was the hockey program “nixed from being able to execute their family sponsorship program?”
2. If the hockey program was nixed from being able to do it, how could another Michigan team do it?
August 11th, 2021 at 9:15 PM ^
On your point #2, we could have that sport join the SEC and then the NCAA would look the other way.
August 11th, 2021 at 9:38 PM ^
I’m sorry I failed to add context. The family sponsorship was nixed about 8 or 9 years ago. With the changes, can’t we assume that these measures would be permitted again?
August 11th, 2021 at 9:50 PM ^
Hunter Dickinson was on Stu Douglass's podcast today and they discussed NIL in some depth:
Hunter did not sound pleased at all with Michigan's approach, in particular noting the limits on trademark usage.
It does sound like he has some things in the works, but he said $1 million would be an out of reach overall figure. For the clear star at Michigan, regardless of sport, that should be an achievable figure if Michigan pursued NIL to the fullest.
August 11th, 2021 at 10:49 PM ^
I get why Michigan doesn't want an athlete to be able to use the logo (block M) but it doesn't make a lot of sense with regard to using your advantage to lure athletes.
I can imagine a scenario where a player takes a huge deal from a company that is...less than ideal from a PR standpoint. Insert a business or person here, you can imagine one for the sake of the point. Ok, so I get why The University of Michigan wants to avoid that being a thing that could even happen. Yet, that logo is what differentiates you from most Universities and sports programs. It's not the alumni base or anything along those lines, as much as we may want to pretend it is. That logo carries a lot of weight (diminishing slowly but still a massively popular logo). Why remove that from a player's options and NIL bargaining position?
Basically, UM likes to talk about how they recruit the "right kind of kids". Ok, prove it. Let the players decide when *insert awful company/person that wants to sponsor them* is not a good idea. Better yet, F*CKING TALK TO THE PLAYERS more than almost never.
Michigan is so embarrassingly inept these days precisely because it has no fn idea what it wants to do from an athletics standpoint. They want to fill that MASSIVE stadium every home game to take in cash, win games, recruit the best players, sell a ton of merch and entice students via every avenue available to them but do it all in a way that makes it almost impossible. They want to talk championships while also maintaining that the model to do so is the same in 2021 as it was in 2001, 1991, 1981 and 1901 for that matter.
It's all the same thing and why I'll rail on Michigan athletics as a cult of personality while also admitting that the school itself is probably the biggest hurdle to getting UM Football (specifically) back to a true, consistent top-10 program nationally. To not even allow the athletes to use the branding of the school they play for WHEN YOU'RE MICHIGAN is dumb and a practice of self-defense so over-the-top that it borders on mental illness. It's like a severely OCD person bleaching doorknobs to avoid the bubonic plague. Trust your kids not to partner with NAMBLA or The Charlie Manson Posthumous Pardon Fund, lol.
Do you or do you not recruit "the right" kids? Also, the notion that it weakens your brand is even more insane! Yeah, a super-popular player covered in your logo is bad. Don't want that! Having Charles Woodson or The Fab Five covered in Block Ms in the 90s would have been atrocious for the brand, lmao.
August 11th, 2021 at 11:07 PM ^
The fact that you argue the logo has value is the exact reason why the school wouldn’t want everyone to be using it.
August 11th, 2021 at 11:53 PM ^
I wouldn't trust any institution's brand valuation instincts that would allow one of its doctors to molest hundreds of its own players.
But, hey, that's just me.
August 12th, 2021 at 6:15 AM ^
To me that is kind of like saying the University "allows" students to cheat on their exams. They know it is wrong but do it anyway. Also, at the community college where I teach, it is almost impossible to dismiss a student for cheating.
August 12th, 2021 at 2:21 AM ^
It's not "everyone" that would be using it—it would be UM athletes who all wear the block M while they compete for Michigan.
Putting in a blanket prohibition on using the block M is stupid—communicate to the athletes what is and what is not permissible, and state clear, unequivocal penalties if they break the rules.
It's not complicated. Or shouldn't be if the University pulled its head out of its ass.
August 12th, 2021 at 5:25 AM ^
Yep.
Much to his credit, Jim Harbaugh is pro-student-athlete. The University of Michigan is not.
I have no illusions about what is taking place. UM Athletics Department is a 9 digit enterprise but clearly risk-averse. And in this new NIL landscape (which Michigan Athletics can leverage to TREMENDOUS success), the institution fails to take advantage by being conservative and adhering to rigid thinking. Meanwhile, lesser institutions with fewer resources are pushing the boundaries and getting ahead. Sound familiar?
Disappointingly, our alma mater is run by non-forward thinking idiots. Leaders and best my ass.
This is VERY disappointing considering CK Prahalad was one of the most well-known professors at Michigan and wrote a seminal article (on core competency) that became one of the most reprinted Harvard Business Review articles of all-time.
That article served - tangentially - as a springboard for Clayton Christensen's Disruption Theory which answers the fundamental question of "How and why do great / established businesses fail and disappear?"
Some realized that Christensen's question can be generalized to "How and why do empires or any industry leaders fall and fade away?"
The answer: By not innovating and staying ahead. Competitors can only catch up with the leader when the leader becomes complacent and inertial. Despite a leader having an enormous resource advantage, it is often the up-and-comer who makes the industry-changing breakthrough partly because they are forced to do more with less. The industry leader fails to continually solve new problems and update (or reinvent/reconfigure) its business model.
Don't think so? What is IBM now in comparison to Google?
The key takeaway: the best way to predict the future is to shape it or create it.
Maybe the idiots over at Michigan should (re)read those 2 works before it's too late. They go hand-in-hand.
/Yes, I'm quite disillusioned and bitter about the University of Michigan.
August 12th, 2021 at 5:36 AM ^
In the podcast posted above, Dickinson literally said UM is acting like the NCAA with its limitations. meanwhile the NCAA has said regarding NIL the schools make the rules. Michigan cannot get out of its way ever.
August 12th, 2021 at 6:31 AM ^
what you are arguing here. Is it that other schools will innovate in the NIL space better than UM and thus UM will no longer appeal to students or athletes?
August 12th, 2021 at 8:15 AM ^
Essentially, yes.
Michigan will lose in this arms race too if it doesn't innovate.
Think about it. If I'm a 5 star / "can't miss" prospect...why would I take a lesser deal at Michigan than a better deal at Ohio State or Alabama or Clemson or Oklahoma? If that was your son, what would you tell him to do? Would you actually advise him to take the lesser deal? Why?
Based on the past 2 decades, it's not like Michigan can make up the difference with superior football performance barring some incredible turnaround.
Some people mistakenly believed that NIL would help Michigan level the playing field. It's a nice thought but those people grossly underestimated the inertial thinking deeply rooted in Michigan's core.
August 12th, 2021 at 9:21 AM ^
This has been my thought exactly, basically the University doesn't want to lose standing. This results in trying to maintain an image vs. innovating to enhance the image. The University does not care about the athletes and that message will eventually be understood loud and clear.
I like the IBM vs. Google point in the earlier post, this is what it looks like from the outside. Time will tell, I'm hope I'm wrong.
August 12th, 2021 at 12:46 PM ^
Your last two posts are astoundingly true FC, and explains the reality of where we are at right now.
August 12th, 2021 at 6:54 AM ^
The players are granted the rights to profit off their name, image or likeness not the university’s trademarks. Professional sports teams have limits about what athletes can and cannot do with the team logos/trademarks/etc. Derek Jeter couldn’t just use the NY logo on things he was endorsing. Why would a university be different?
this post is brought to you by Carl’s Jr. “F You I’m eating.”
August 12th, 2021 at 9:48 AM ^
Professional teams can be risk-averse with their brand because (1) the vast majority of athletes enter the professional ranks through the draft, so teams don't have to be "chosen" by high end talent, and (2) they can pay their athletes directly.
The University of Michigan, and all other D-1 schools, don't have that luxury. Every high school prospect is a free agent, and the programs need to sell themselves as the prospect's best option. Refusing to allow athletes to use the school's branding undercuts our argument.
August 12th, 2021 at 7:54 AM ^
All of these replies have, IMO, missed a very reasonable thing Michigan could do to allow its 'student athletes' (or any student, really) to use the official logo's (images, fonts, etc) while keeping control over them - give case by case permission for use. It's pretty clear that the school doesn't want the M plastered all over Barstool Sports' website. Okay, fine... When a student presents a case where he/she wants to use the logo, have some group in the marketing department sign off on it. It's no different than when a business wants to license the logo.
Remember the floating helmets back in 2016-17? That guy had to work with the school for a while to get a license. Students should get some fast track process to 'licensing' (for lack of better term) the logos, but they should absolutely be able to use that logo.
Michigan the organization just cannot get out of its own way. Don Canham would have had 47 footballers already signed to endorsement deals by now... Warde? He leads like Kevin Warren does...
August 12th, 2021 at 2:16 PM ^
As with admissions-related issues, the University's policy on (non)-use of its trademarks has nothing to do with student athletes, but rather is a University-wide policy impacting everyone on campus. We were not, for example, allowed to use the Block M on the shirts that our undergrad department made as seniors. We weren't trying to make money; we just wanted to make shirts that said "CHEMENG" with block-M in the middle to commemorate our time on North Campus. We were informed that legal action would be taken against us if we tried to do this. How lame is that!
As a student, I thought it immensely stupid that the very people for whom the University exists - the students - couldn't use the University logo. I get why this is more complicated when a student _is_ trying to make money, not for the University but for him/herself, and wants to use the logo in the process, but that doesn't seem like it should be an unmanageable situation. But as I said, the policy isn't targeted at student athletes in particular, so I would not necessarily expect that the wants or desires of student athletes will have much impact on changing it.
August 12th, 2021 at 7:12 AM ^
to reprise a part of a recent post:
"Of course, it is logical that M would crank up NIL activity given its resources, of course, it's logical that a school that prides itself on academics would devise creative ways to maximize the academic appeal for transfers and create meaningful and innovative curriculums for them, of course, it's logical that a school that calls itself Leaders and Best would be on the cutting edge of College football change.....Unfortunately, logic can't overcome reactionary old men living a fantasy "
August 12th, 2021 at 1:36 PM ^
Generally speaking, as a matter of intellectual property law, the owner of the IP has to vigorously assert their exclusive ownership and right to use and enjoy the property. Permitting others to use the IP is a big no-no, unless it's done through a proper licensing agreement. However, the NIL rules currently prohibit institutions from compensating players. So it appears the schools are stuck in a weird place here where they can't license their IP to the players nor can they permit the players to use the IP. I'm sure there is a solution but I don't know what it is.
August 12th, 2021 at 4:45 AM ^
I think it is time the board starts to realize that Michigan’s alumni don’t necessarily have more money than other schools and certainly aren’t inclined to give it to 19 year olds. We should probably also lose the falsehood that we have the biggest alumni base.
Neg me up, but in a couple years you will also come to the realization this is true.
August 12th, 2021 at 5:50 AM ^
1. I would be quite surprised if Michigan didn't rank top 10 in alumni wealth.
2. I remember when I was a student at Michigan in the early-to-mid 2000s, our alumni size was emphasized in recruiting material.
But I harken to a question King Robert asked Cersei in Season 1 of Game of Thrones: 5 or 1?
Cersei answered 5 (thinking it was a silly, obvious question).
Robert explained that 1 fist is greater than 5 fingers.
The lack of a cohesive, united front is a major problem in our alumni base (and I can vouch for that from experience). We have no one that effectively organizes and leverages our massive, amazingly diverse, fabulously wealthy, and phenomenally talented alumni base.
August 12th, 2021 at 6:24 AM ^
And I’m reminded of what Rick James asked Charlie Murphy. “What did the five fingers say to the face?
SLAP!”
August 12th, 2021 at 7:12 AM ^
Maybe we do have a very wealthy alumni base. But maybe they are wealthy because they don't see it as a good business proposition to throw money at 19 year olds.
August 12th, 2021 at 11:08 AM ^
I think the Michigan-educated economists, statisticians, and finance major would look at Alabama's recruiting or Ohio State's recruiting versus the results and argue otherwise...
At the end of the day, talent raises the ceiling and wins game. But winning championships (which requires something more) comes down to the coaching staff having that extra "it" factor that can effectively harness the talent it recruits.
It's no different than a founder having a great idea. But having a great idea isn't enough (as VCs have learned over the years). Execution and timing matters.
I mean...we had DPJ and Nico Collins. How da heck does Harbaugh not produced a single 1,000+ yard WR in 6 full seasons so far?
Watching Michigan's ineffectiveness on offense reminds me of Kirby Smart's Georgia.
Smart's idiotic insistence on pro-style meant he went with game-manager Jake Fromm instead of dynamic talent Justin Fields. LOL, monumental screw up.
Our ROI on Harbaugh has been quite poor so far...
August 12th, 2021 at 8:39 PM ^
You miss my point. Yes throwing money at players makes our team better. But does it help a business owner make money?
August 12th, 2021 at 1:41 PM ^
What is the "sponsorship" for?
It sounds like it's just a gift of some sort, in which case the wealth transfer tax rules apply, and there are probably more tax-efficient methods to capitalize on NIL opportunities.