Just heard on PTI that Nebraska is selling all of its jerseys from it's game against Texas this year at auction. The prices will start at $250 each. All proceeds are going to the nebraska athletic department foundation. Does anyone else think it is unfair that a kid (AJ Green) sells his and gets suspended 4 games while the institution is making huge profits off of them are kind of unfair?
OT Nebraska to sell jerseys
Yea, it's pretty absurd the NCAA is so intent on eliminating any possibility of kids making some money.
In Nebraska those jerseys are used as Wedding Dresses.
Is the maid of honor forced to wear a Texas jersey just to make the bride look better?
Brides wear black there actually, blackshirts.
while i find it a little unfair that the university is directly making money off the student athletes they are still getting a free education. thats pretty valuable. i wish i got my tuition for free or reduced.
More Student-Athletes took advantage of that aspect and used their degree.
Does anyone remember the "garage sales" that the athletic department used to hold once a year back in the late 90s? They had them at Oosterbaan Field and sold all the old jerseys, cleats, etc. for both football and basketball. I'll never forget the one I went to - they sold old b-ball warmups that Webber and the other Fab 5 wore. We got in line hours early to get them. Webber's pre-game warmups went for $50 - total! Do they still do this??
The hockey team does.
I believe this year the hockey sale was the same day as the Spring Game.
Does anyone else think it will be a huge problem that Michigan will make obscene amounts of money off #16 jerseys next year?
Yeah, I think the athletes deserve a cut of the profits.
This is the much more valid point over fairness to student athletes. I just can't get riled up over trying to raise money for a charity.
Pretty sure the money is going to the athletic department.
No mention of charity. Also:
Player names will be removed from the back of all jerseys before they are sent to the winner. Support the Huskers and own a piece of history.
Also, considering players risk their well being on that field, I'd support this. Perhaps a portion for work study or something
I know a few guys on the football team and they do get "paid," once they leave the dorms, that is. As part of their scholarship, they get $1200 a month for rent and whatever else. Since they are already fed, that comes out to about $400 or so for rent and $800 a month for whatever else they want. It's not a whole lot, but it is a lot considering what most college students make, even though football players work ten times harder than the people who working at the Wendy's in the Union
The OP used the phrase "athletic department foundation." I usually associate foundation with a charity. If that was a misinterpretation, then mea culpa.
That is the name that they used on PTI but I thought it was clear that the foundation was for themselves should've clarified
Or others trying to make huge money on Denard's jerseys.
Interesting, but hardly shocking, that the signatures don't look alike.
"Huge problems" start when you start trying to pay NCAA student athletes. Will they sign contracts? Will you give them agents to negotiate and sign those contracts? Can they collectively bargain? Will you pay Denard Robinson more than Tate Forcier? How much more? Does Tate get more, or less, than Devin Gardner? Does Devin Gardner get more than David Molk? How about Jack Kennedy? How do you split the royalties between Denard and the University? It's Denard's number, but it is on a Michigan jersey. What if Denard wants to market his own line of jerseys, though Champion, not adidas? How much will hockey players get paid? How about baseball players? Tennis players? Wrestlers? Gymnasts?
All should get an even cut within each program, based on how much that particular program brings in respectively. Not big money, but enough so they don't have to worry about jobs. It's not a professional organization, it would be more like a stipend, not a salary to be negotiated.
To the football programs at Cal, Indiana, Northwestern, Duke, Vanderbilt, Rice and SMU, that they will soon need to be expanding their budgets, in order to keep up with their rivals at Michigan, Ohio State, USC, Alabama and Florida, who will begin paying their players in the near future. God only knows where cash-strapped schools like Eastern Michigan, Bowling Green, Memphis, Fresno State or San Diego State might get that sort of money.
You might want to think about what you'll say to the university presidents who basically make all of these rules by their own mutual agreement, for the NCAA to administer with the schools all undertaking voluntary enforcement; because the school Presidents will all basically and viscerally hate that idea.
Actually, Adidas is the one that makes out. Our royalty cut is 4%, I believe. It works out to an okay chunk of change, but it's not quite as much as people think. Of course, they also pay us $7.5M a year up front.
As for athletes getting paid, the fundamental problem is that most athletic departments lose money. As long as that's the case, athletes won't get paid - schools literally can't afford it. We're among the privileged few.
Personally, if the athletic department isn't making money, then things need to raise revenues or make cuts until it's self-sufficient. Big-time college football isn't about students, it's big businesses. I'm not saying a highly sought after guy like Terrelle Pryor (or any other 5* superman) should be able to negotiate a contract, but they should get maybe $500-$1000 a month to pay the bills, buy clothes, and have a little left over to have some fun.
More than anyone besides perhaps the head coach of the football/basketball team, the players are the public face of the university and generate enormous revenue. The commitment to the team makes a part-time job impossible (if they aren't banned by the coach) and I just want them to get a little piece. That's all.
Does it benefit Eastern Michigan (or the taxpayer) to pay for their athletic department?
Actually, they do get a monthly room-and-board check, if they live off-campus. And of course, they get free training-table food whenever they want.
The reality is that the NCAA is hamstrung. The large majority of its member schools lose money on sports. (At least, they do when you look at the direct revenue streams, and not at indirect things like increased donations from alumni.) If you give athletes salaries, it has to be across the board, and has to apply to all member schools. It just isn't workable. (The other reality is that lots and lots of athletes at big-time schools are getting paid by boosters, agents, and whatnot.)
I hear you, I know they get a room and board check, and I know there are a lot of under the table payments.
All the directional schools in Michigan lose money on athletics and on their football teams. What I can't figure out is why students (and taxpayers) have to continue to financially support the teams--especially with the struggling economy. I'm fine with de-emphasizing football and making the players real student-athletes at school that can't give their players a stipend.
This is the only reason I want to see the NCAA disband. If the top 50ish schools formed their own association, they could provide a stipend to revenue sport athletes and schools like Eastern could ratchet down their programs to make the costs manageable.
Well, in the case of Michigan, the athletic department is self-sustaining. Nobody's tax dollars go towards the football team.
is a free college education.
What's the cost of out of state tuition/expenses lately? ...And how many out of state (and in-state) kids would love to simply be admitted and given the chance to pay their own way!
It isnt "free"
Now how many companies out there do you know that have only ~100 employees (again, round numbers) but generate ~$100 million a year in revenue? Not that many, right?
You are forgetting the maintenance crews for the field, the people that work behind the concession stands, the announcers, the camera men, the referees, the guys that worked on expanding the stadium, the other team (because without an entire other team to play, our football team generates nothing), equipment managers, people that work the Mden, etc. What you're analogy is in a business sense is: we have 100 sales reps that generate $100M for the business, and they should be getting a larger portion of the money, and not the people that designed the product, built the product, got the product to the stores, met with other business on parts for the product, the people that make sure the product is legal and safe, etc. But you know what, that's not what it's like in the real world. Sales reps get paid between $35-$60k/year. Which interestingly enough, is the cost of a year's worth of tuition. Additionally, that tuition figure ($200k over four years) does not include the potential future earned income that the opportunity is providing these players with either a career in the NFL or a career where a college degree is required with the athletic scholarship being the only way they would have been able to go to college at all. Being able to go to college, for free, is much more valuable than the cost of tuition alone. We're not giving them fish, we're teaching the how (at no cost), so to speak. So in other words, I would say your reasoning is an INVALID FAIL.
EDIT: I shouldn't say they are going to college "for free" because they do earn it by playing football. Maybe a better choice of words is, they are already being compensated over $50,000 a year in other ways, for being able to play a game they love, why do they need to be compensated even more? Also, the players already get a stipend if they choose not to stay in the dorms.
Your logic is wrong here too. No one responsible for generating revenue on the scale of, say, Denard Robinson is paid 60k a year. The best parallel to a college football team is a pro football team. There is some level of reduced revenue, but the average starting pro quarterback makes millions. I'm reasonably sure Michigan brings in more than 1% of the Detroit Lions.
I agree. I'm not discounting the parallel between a college football team and a pro football team. I was merely illustrating some of the issues with the above reasoning. Where does the line stop though? Do you only pay football and basketball players? Are we going to see a collegiate players union? Will there be no college football in 2032 because of a strike? I think paying players would be a terrible route to take in the grand scheme of what college athletics are meant to be.
EDIT: Will they eventually be able to negotiate their grades in classes? Will they even have to go to class? Then along those lines, we're all sitting here rooting for "Michigan" which is no longer the school they play for, but the employer that pays them.
This whole discussion is probably a great topic for an April diary.
My issue wasn't with the round numbers, it was with the fact that you weren't encompassing the larger aspect of the "business". The players are compensated for what they do in terms of a college education. It's also not like the University is taking whatever money they generate and piss it away. It's money earned from the revenue sports that allows the University to have sports like field hockey, swimming, etc. It's a part of the whole academic experience. With your logic, high school players should get paid too. A star high school athlete will put more butts in the seats, so they should be paid. Screw the orchestra program, or updating the library, we should pay players!
The Oracle believes this is a terrible injustice to A.J. Green. The Oracle also laughs because the Nebraska athletic department must be struggling greatly to have to auction off jersey's. The future is yours.
Only THE KNOWLEDGE can speak in the third person.
The Oracle does as he pleases.
But in 2007-08 revenue they were here:
I don't know if they made a profit because only 19 ADs turned a profit that year, but they're doing better than most. They did have to pay a good chunk of money to move to the BigTen recently.
I was talking to a Texas Aggie today and he said that while the Big 12 has said that Nebraska owes the 9.x million dollars they are still going into arbitration because they (Nebraska) believe they owe nothing. I had thought the 9.x million was an agreement between the Big 12 and the school - what's the official word on that?
The BigXII is withholding the $9.25 million from profits. They are supposed to meet in October to decide a final amount (no greater than $9.25 million).
I do not have a problem with the Universities making big piles of $$ and not paying the athletes. The reasons:
1. The athletes get a free college degree. That is worth over $100,000 right there.
2. The athletes also receive a huge leg up if they go into any business that involves sales. For example, I receive calls from life insurance agents trying to sell me a policy a few times a year. Usually, I just hang up. If, however, the caller said, "Hi, my name is Mike Massey. Do you have a few moments to talk?" he would get a meeting. Same goes in the job marker - talk about a conversation starter at an interview.
3. Paying the kids would turn college into a minor league version of the NFL. What is great about college football is that (aside from playing with the hope of going on to the pros), the kids are playing for school and team pride. Paying the players would ruin this.
While i agree with points 2 & 3...i'll say it again...its not free. To say its free would imply they're getting something for nothing. While in fact, student athletes are given a scholly in return for the use of their talents on their particular field of play. Where other students have jobs they work during the school year to cover their particular wants and needs...the student athlete is at practice, in a meeting or in the weight room. When the student athlete finishes their class work for the night, they might have to study their playbook or watch some film to try to prepare for tbeir upcomming contest that the university has "employeed" them for so to speak. While i dont believe student athletes should be paid, as that would open a whole new can of worms, I cant stand it when someone trys to say its a "free education" I show them the family of scars on my shoulder that ended my college football career....then I ask them again if they think it was free.
The soap box is now open for use.
You point is well-taken for sure - I have always been amazed at the workload that college athletes have in addition to the classwork that everyone has. That said, everyone has to remember that these kids are doing something they love and that the benefits outweigh the costs. If this was not true no one would play college sports. There is no "free lunch" but these kids seem to be getting a pretty darn good deal if ask me, notwithstanding their workload.
... that the athlete is benefitting just as much, if not more, than the university for all the popularity. Without an avenue to show how bad ass these players really are they won't get a chance in the NFL at all. The millions and millions and millions that the draft picks get is due, in large part, to the popularity they got because of their school and it's affiliations. Does the school see an uptick in merchandise sales and other things? Sure, but let's not act as if the athlete isn't also using the school for it's national foot print to get viewed by scouts. Just have a look at that running back from, what was it, NIU a few years ago - tiny little guy that had an absolutely absurd number of yards - if he had done that at OSU or UM he would have made millions more because the NFL would have valued him much higher but because he was at NIU I think he ended up getting drafted in the third round. IMO it was that early because of what he did against us and OSU, had he not played us it likely would have been later. Basically, do that same kind of stuff at UM and you're looking at top 10 draft pick and 10's of millions of dollars, do that at NIU and you're looking at maybe a million so the athlete is getting just as much out of it as the university is (again, IMO)
1. Granted, although the value of the degree varies a lot by school. Football may also push players into weaker majors than they would have in a vacuum (the Harbaugh argument).
2. That's kind of a stretch as a justification. There are plenty of high-profile jobs that also pay people, musicians being a prime example.
3. Paying a flat stipend to football players, which would be universal across BCS conferences (I assume) would not substantially change the dynamic of college football. As you argued earlier, they are also being "paid" by getting a free college degree, so isn't this happening already? Finally, it's possible to be paid for your occupation and still take pride in what you do, like working for a non-profit company, a for-profit athletic department, or a negative-profit government.
I don't necessarily agree with paying student-athletes, but I do think that there's a case to be made that shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.