OT Nebraska to sell jerseys
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?
September 30th, 2010 at 7:10 PM ^
September 30th, 2010 at 9:16 PM ^
September 30th, 2010 at 6:50 PM ^
... 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)
September 30th, 2010 at 6:50 PM ^
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.
September 30th, 2010 at 11:01 PM ^
This would be true if every athlete on the team was on scholarship. The majority of college athletes are not on scholarship yet the amount of time dedicated to their sport keeps them from being able to hold a steady job and a full class load. Leaving them with thousands in student loans when they are done. While their university makes millions.
October 1st, 2010 at 11:30 AM ^
The majority of college athletes are not on scholarship yet the amount of time dedicated to their sport keeps them from being able to hold a steady job and a full class load. Leaving them with thousands in student loans when they are done. While their university makes millions.
This statement is so entirely wrong.
1. The majority of college athletes are not on scholarship - um no (at least looking at Div 1). Baseball probably has the biggest non-scholarship to scholarship ratio because of the limited scholarships and high need for pitchers. But most teams spread their scholarships out. Not everyone (or nobody) is on a full ride, but most get a slice.
2. Being involved in a sport doesn't prevent them from holding a job. It makes it tough, sure. Most college kids have an activity or organization they're involved with that they devote a lot of time to and still work. It's possible. Tougher for a student-athlete? Sure. But not impossible.
3. Leaving them in thousands in student loans? So they're like, ummm, everone else on campus.
4. While their university makes millions? Yeah, while their University makes the money that allows them to get free clothing, practice with top of the line equipment, play in great facilities, and allows them to play that sport.
5. All the non-revenue athletes would not be on a team if the University didn't make revenue from athletics. Every athletic department in the country puts every dime they make back into their programs!!!! There's not some rich white guy sitting on a mountain of cash laughing at his slave workers while he eats filet mignon and sips on chardonnay.
September 30th, 2010 at 6:44 PM ^
I'm all for supporting the team but buying "game used" by 20 year olds just feels creepy. They should just give the jerseys to the kids when they graduate.
September 30th, 2010 at 7:03 PM ^
The jerseys are new for each game. I'm sure they get their last one or something like that.
September 30th, 2010 at 7:12 PM ^
When athletes pay their own way through school, then let them get paid.
They get a free education, free room and board, free meals, and free academic resources.
They've given a free opportunity to position themselves for the rest of their lives.
The idea that they need to be paid is ludicrous.
September 30th, 2010 at 9:15 PM ^
Ridiculous that they get paid for their services? They get paid to go to school, in the forms you mentioned. Why is it ridiculous that they get paid more than that?
College Football seem to me to be this artificial market where every athlete on a particular team is paid exactly the same amount (or absolutly nothing for a walk-on), where the university reaps the benefits (or costs) with a completly fixed wage scale. It seems highly unfair to me.
I would have much less problem with the whole thing if the NFL allowed players in at any age. Don't forget that athletes essentially have to play college football.
October 1st, 2010 at 11:56 AM ^
The only benefit the University athletic departments reaps, however, is to continue funding their athletic programs! Why is this point lost on all the "Pro-pay the players" people? The money the athletic departments make goes right back into the students.
October 1st, 2010 at 2:29 AM ^
ESPN has a breakdown of college revenue/expenses. http://espn.go.com/ncaa/revenue This data is from 2008. Here is a copy/paste of the top 10:
REVENUE:
| RK | TEAM | TICKETS | STUDENTS | AWAY_GAMES | DONATIONS | UNIVERSITY | MEDIA_RIGHTS | BRANDING | TTLREVENUE |
| 1 | Alabama | $28,410,419 | $0 | $5,500 | $29,860,400 | $4,101,515 | $8,825,964 | $4,506,056 | $123,769,841 |
| 2 | Texas | $44,691,119 | $1,832,229 | $318,000 | $35,057,421 | $0 | $191,690 | $16,639,171 | $120,288,370 |
| 3 | Ohio State | $38,608,138 | $0 | $3,750,189 | $27,556,385 | $0 | $15,799,713 | $5,015,349 | $115,737,022 |
| 4 | Florida | $21,122,966 | $2,578,306 | $283,376 | $42,630,821 | $0 | $3,907,635 | $10,184,021 | $106,607,895 |
| 5 | Tennessee | $29,403,335 | $1,000,000 | $250,000 | $26,405,309 | $0 | $6,650,000 | $4,154,643 | $101,806,196 |
| 6 | Michigan | $40,258,325 | $0 | $245,178 | $15,138,000 | $58,817 | $2,025,000 | $11,087,101 | $99,027,105 |
| 7 | Oklahoma State | $17,528,662 | $1,934,812 | $755,765 | $54,923,758 | $2,109,205 | $2,300,000 | $1,718,005 | $98,874,092 |
| 8 | Wisconsin | $26,936,910 | $0 | $330,000 | $18,777,294 | $3,356,669 | $5,660,555 | $2,705,018 | $95,118,124 |
| 9 | Texas A&M | $30,144,815 | $0 | $305,500 | $28,341,873 | $3,264,000 | $0 | $9,224,632 | $92,476,146 |
| 10 | Penn State* | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | $91,570,233 |
- TICKETS: Ticket Sales
- STUDENTS: Student Fees
- AWAY_GAMES: Money from playing at other colleges
- DONATIONS: Outside contributions, donations to athletics
- UNIVERSITY: Subsidy from university coffers
- MEDIA_RIGHTS: TV, radio, Internet broadcast deals
- BRANDING: Sales of branded novelties, sponsorships, ads
- TTLREVENUE: Total operating revenue
- *Information not provided
Expenses:
| RK | TEAM | TUITION | VISITORS | COACH_PAY | RECRUITING | TEAM_TRAVEL | GAMES | MARKETING | TTLEXP |
| 1 | Alabama | $8,824,492 | $2,193,500 | $13,118,559 | $1,029,523 | $3,580,868 | $1,345,797 | $3,460,518 | $123,370,004 |
| 2 | Ohio State | $13,184,957 | $6,248,917 | $14,108,419 | $1,137,016 | $5,225,694 | $10,364,206 | $2,602,886 | $114,264,848 |
| 3 | Texas | $6,993,766 | $2,599,256 | $17,810,365 | $1,291,852 | $6,991,985 | $16,230,167 | $6,867,642 | $110,996,365 |
| 4 | Tennessee | $9,780,350 | $2,250,000 | $16,655,628 | $1,789,301 | $5,611,586 | $2,126,101 | $5,632,325 | $100,507,146 |
| 5 | Florida | $6,482,515 | $2,803,232 | $13,574,263 | $1,468,044 | $6,162,438 | $4,801,014 | $5,941,289 | $98,775,583 |
| 6 | Wisconsin | $8,788,071 | $2,554,562 | $12,805,872 | $754,972 | $8,189,121 | $6,960,819 | $2,569,796 | $93,008,125 |
| 7 | Oklahoma State | $6,609,989 | $938,631 | $9,167,517 | $733,802 | $4,208,548 | $1,788,463 | $1,438,376 | $89,801,118 |
| 8 | Michigan | $13,584,477 | $1,905,538 | $13,561,605 | $1,333,040 | $6,914,132 | $2,524,741 | $2,174,835 | $85,496,004 |
| 9 | Michigan State | $8,901,044 | $5,669,052 | $10,527,226 | $1,067,088 | $4,478,011 | $3,617,147 | $1,110,438 | $83,444,368 |
| 10 | LSU | $7,779,905 | $1,843,292 | $12,810,268 | $1,078,187 | $4,142,660 | $4,039,261 | $846,694 | $81,150,829 |
- TUITION: Student athletes' tuition and fees
- VISITORS: Money paid to visiting teams
- COACH_PAY: Coaches' salaries and benefits
- RECRUITING: Costs of recruiting
- TEAM_TRAVEL: Team travel
- GAMES: Game Expenses
- MARKETING: Cost to fund raise, market and promote athletics
- TTLEXP: Total operating expenses
- *Information not provided
FYI Nebraska is 21st in total revenue at $75,492,884
and 16 in total expenses at $74,981,110
For Michigan, I expected us to be higher on revenue than we are, and I think most of us assumed that Michigan had a higher profit ammount. The thing is, the profit goes into a lot of other things. Not working in the Athletic Department, I can't say this for sure, but I would bet it gets reinvested into facilities, and to support other non revenue sports. There are a lot of programs who don't make any profit, and some that lose money. So paying players isn't likely to happen. I personally can't stand pro sports, once these guys start making the kind of money they do in the pros, it just loses something, and I don't enjoy it. I understand the reasons people want to pay college athleets, and I don't disagree that they should probably get something more than they do currently, but there do get a lot of benefits that other college kids don't. As for the non-scholarship players, I feel for them the most, as they probably have it rougher than many college students. However, that's their choice, if they don't want to do it, they don't have to. I personally would give anything to be able to make the Michigan football team. I don't know what the perfect answer is, but given the information I copied from espn above, I don't think that it's going to happen.