Wetzel on O'bannon - Denard as an example

85 posts / 0 new
Login or register to post comments
Last post
March 20th, 2013 at 11:22 AM
#1
JeepinBen
JeepinBen's picture
Joined: 01/22/2010
MGoPoints: 9577
Wetzel on O'bannon - Denard as an example

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/o-bannon-case-against-ncaa-sheds-light-on-big-time-athletic-departments--fuzzy-math-145020856.html;_ylt=AuIM1UGnC.oYUCpsegxuQnULcykA;_ylu=X3oDMTFoZnA0Y2I3BG1pdANCbG9nIEluZGV4IGJ5IEF1dGhvcgRwb3MDMQRzZWMDTWVkaWFCbG9nSW5kZXg-;_ylg=X3oDMTFrODdzYXZuBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANhdXRob3IEcHQDc2VjdGlvbnM-;_ylv=3

 

From the end of the article:

 

The University of Michigan, for instance, is a Big Ten member with an endowment of about $8 billion. If it wants a field hockey team, it can most certainly afford one. Cutting football players past and present in on some of the tens of millions that program generates or allowing them to profit off their own likeness or to put a percentage of jersey sales into a trust fund, isn't going to bankrupt the school. And if Title IX can't be reworked (and it almost assuredly can), then Michigan would do just that to comply with federal law.

What Delany is saying is that left to its own decision, Michigan won't see field hockey as worth the money. He's acknowledging that outside the myopic prism of the athletic department, gold-plated, non-revenue sports don't make much sense.

Right now Michigan athletics gets 100 percent of the revenue and things roll on. If the players get a cut, then it will have to "reduce opportunities for student-athletes overall."

So it's the players' share of the revenue – the money the O'Bannon case is trying to divert – that is propping up the other sports … the same other sports that Delany doesn't believe the university itself considers a sound investment.

Which begs a simple, if inadvertent question: if Michigan doesn't think it should pay for a field hockey team, then why does it think Denard Robinson should?

"Over? Did you say, over? Nothing is over until we decide it is!"

Top
Tags:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
March 20th, 2013 at 11:32 AM | pfff... (Score:1 Normal)
French West Indian
French West Indian's picture
Joined: 12/28/2011
MGoPoints: 958

Wetzel is just another writer who apparently hates college sports.  Such a shame.

March 20th, 2013 at 1:52 PM | When did believing in fair (Score:5 Normal)
dr eng1ish
dr eng1ish's picture
Joined: 08/28/2009
MGoPoints: 1013

When did believing in fair compensation for one's labor turn into "hating college sports?" If college sports is synonymous with the interests of athletic directors and college presidents, then I suppose. I tend to think college sports is about the players, and to a lesser extent, the fans. If you say I hate college sports because I reject the worker's comp avoidance scheme more commonly referred to as the concept of "student-athlete" (http://bit.ly/qsU3pP) then I guess I hate college sports too.

I would rather emphasize the love of college sports, and the people who play them, that has been with me since before I can actually remember watching them. The love of Wheatley, and Woodson, and Denard, that has led me to conclude that they have the same right to fair compensation for their hard work as any other student, or human, for that matter.

March 20th, 2013 at 1:58 PM | Have you ever read Wetzel? (Score:3 Insightful)
Tater
Tater's picture
Joined: 08/13/2008
MGoPoints: 10491

Edit: reply was to French West Indian.

Wetzel writes with a lot of passion about college sports; it's difficult to imagine that he "hates" them.  It's the fact that the athletes don't get any of the money, and the way the BCS successfully stonewalled a playoff for so long that he doesn't like.

Wetzel has been a powerful advocate for athletes and for taking power away from the backroom bullies who run the bowls and who ran the BCS.  If what he does constitutes "hating college sports," then a lot more people should hate college sports.

 

 

 

March 20th, 2013 at 11:35 AM | Dan Wetzel has turned into a (Score:0 Trolling)
March 20th, 2013 at 11:36 AM | Ask him? (Score:1 Normal)
craigjjs
craigjjs's picture
Joined: 09/01/2011
MGoPoints: 62

If you're going to use Denard as an example (or straw man as the case may be), why don't you ask his opinion?  We might be surprised.

March 20th, 2013 at 11:44 AM | Sorry, but that is a pretty easy critique to dismiss (Score:4 Normal)
93Grad
Joined: 07/26/2011
MGoPoints: 855

If Denard wants to support non-reveunue sport athletes then all he has to do is donate his portion of the royalties to a scholarship fund.  He should have the choice whether to do that or spend it on Pizza House or extra shoe laces or what ever he wants. 

 

Why should Delany and others have total control over where to direct the royalies gained from using Denard's likeness?

March 20th, 2013 at 11:52 AM | Royalties (Score:5 Normal)
DoubleLegTakedown
Joined: 03/10/2013
MGoPoints: 172

should go to the university, Denard should be happy that he got a free UofM education...something that will pay for itself tenfold if the NFL doesnt work out...

"Once you've wrestled, everything else in life is easy"

March 20th, 2013 at 12:03 PM | Interesting assertion (Score:3 Normal)
Alton
Joined: 07/05/2008
MGoPoints: 1007

That the "free education" will "pay for itself tenfold" is an interesting assertion, but I certainly can't argue with it.

 

March 20th, 2013 at 12:03 PM | I don't mean to be rude, but (Score:3 Normal)
CooperLily21
CooperLily21's picture
Joined: 03/05/2013
MGoPoints: 498

I don't mean to be rude, but this is the easy response.  The position that market value for compensating a high-profile athlete that brings in millions (?) to a school is free tuition and board at that school.  What about the star athlete at a below-average school?  What about the star athlete that doesn't get a great job outside of the NFL?  I don't know the answers but the simple statement that they are already fairly compensated is an easy out.  As is Delany's position on the matter.

 

 
Follow me on the twitters at @CooperLily21
 
March 20th, 2013 at 12:17 PM | Part of me has a hard time (Score:5 Normal)
FreddieMercuryHayes
Joined: 12/29/2010
MGoPoints: 4989

Part of me has a hard time reconciling the fact that most, if not all, of athletes wouldn't be high-profile is they didn't go to a high-profile school.  There's nothing inately valuable (monetarily at least) about Denard Robinson's likeness.  That is until he puts on the winged helmet, then he "made the university millions."  But part of me believes that we could put tackling dummies on the field in winged helmets and the university would still make millions because there are enough people that love UM for other reasons.  Couldn't it be argued that it's the University of Michigan that makes Denard worth millions, and not the other way around?

March 20th, 2013 at 12:34 PM | In a couple months, Denard is (Score:2 Normal)
whitedawg
Joined: 07/08/2008
MGoPoints: 772

In a couple months, Denard is going to put on a different helmet and make a different organization millions of dollars.  The winged helmet might have added to Denard's value, but a large part of his value is due to his football talent.  It just so happens that there are tons of people who like watching incredibly talented players play football.

I don't doubt that some people would watch a bunch of tackling dummies in Michigan uniforms.  But I bet that if Michigan switched players with Prairie View A&M every year, sooner or later support for the football team would decrease significantly.  Considering that Michigan football brings in about $90 million a year (I think this is the number I read somewhere), even a slight dropoff is significant.

March 20th, 2013 at 12:38 PM | Definitely a good point.  (Score:3 Normal)
CooperLily21
CooperLily21's picture
Joined: 03/05/2013
MGoPoints: 498

Definitely a good point.  Definitely.  And I think you're probably right for the vast majority of cases.  Great schools/program put good or great talent in a position to succeed.  I think that's true of any kind of talent - easing their path can only help.  Take the point guard at SDSU, for example.  Would he be a "superstar" at a major program with the opportunity for more exposure and higher NBA draft status?  We'll obviously never know but probably so, yes. 

Its easy to have the discussion when we talk about players like Denard.  But like you and others have pointed out, the issue gets hazy when we talk about "average" players at big-time programs and their "value" to the programs vs. levels of compensation (scholarship value).

 
Follow me on the twitters at @CooperLily21
 
March 20th, 2013 at 2:50 PM | I don't think there is a good (Score:1 Trolling)
APBlue
APBlue's picture
Joined: 01/07/2011
MGoPoints: 1173

I don't think there is a good answer to it. I used to be against paying players, but the more I see these huge TV contracts that the NCAA and/or its conferences sign, the more I feel like these athletes are being USED.

The difficult part is establishing a pay scale that's fair. To fairly compensate players at top football schools, you're probably going to wind up with 4 (max) conferences in Div 1. These conferences could be much smaller than their current levels as well.

Maybe this wouldn't be such a bad thing. It could set up the coming 4-team playoff nicely using conference champions.

March 20th, 2013 at 12:13 PM | Why? (Score:2 Normal)
whitedawg
Joined: 07/08/2008
MGoPoints: 772

Why should Denard "be happy that he got a free UofM education"?  The market value of his services to the university is millions of dollars, and the market price of the education is about $40K per year.  I agree that the education will pay for itself many times over, but that doesn't change the fact that his services would be worth far more than the cost of the education if he were allowed to sell them on the open market.

March 20th, 2013 at 12:36 PM | Millions of dollars?  I don't (Score:3 Normal)
MGoBender
MGoBender's picture
Joined: 03/26/2010
MGoPoints: 5156

Millions of dollars?  I don't know about that... 

Really, we're talking jersey sales. And Denard is oviously the extreme exception. But there's no way Denard is personally responsible for millions. And remember, Michigan does get some credit for putting Denard in the position to sell jerseys.  Really, whoever it is the Michigan quarterback position that will sell the jerseys and Denard is the rare, exceptional case that overshadows the position.

CoE Class of 2007

March 20th, 2013 at 12:51 PM | People won't buy the jerseys (Score:5 Normal)
whitedawg
Joined: 07/08/2008
MGoPoints: 772

People won't buy the jerseys for whoever the Michigan QB is - I don't remember people lining up to buy Nick Sheridan jerseys in 2008.

Sure, the Michigan brand is part of the reason for the value of the players, but the skill of the players contributes heavily as well.  Between jersey sales, tickets, and TV rights, Michigan football brings in close to $100 million per year.  Now, let's be very generous and say that 90% of that revenue is due to people wanting to watch whoever is wearing Michigan jerseys (even if they sucked at football) and 10% is due to people wanting to watch great players like Denard, Taylor Lewan, etc.  So now we have $10 million per year of revenue that is due to the skill of the players.  In that case, I would think that Denard's skill is responsible for a minimum of 10% of that, or $1 million per year.

March 20th, 2013 at 4:30 PM | That's a valid point that is (Score:2 Normal)
APBlue
APBlue's picture
Joined: 01/07/2011
MGoPoints: 1173

That's a valid point that is largely overlooked - many people buy a Michigan football jersey because it's a Michigan jersey, not only for the player's name on the back.  

It has to be impossible to discern the value placed on each and apply it to a player's salary. 

March 20th, 2013 at 6:27 PM | Trying to discern which (Score:2)
turtleboy
turtleboy's picture
Joined: 04/22/2011
MGoPoints: 3264

Trying to discern which players deserve how big a slice of the football revenue is essentially an argument with no end or answer. Trying to answer "who made the money?" is like asking whether the chicken or the egg came first. 

Universities do profit from the sale of individual players liknesses and jerseys, so that's something I believe in all fairness should be shared with those individuals, perhaps set aside in trust until after they graduate. I especially think so since the University will continue to profit from their likenesses and jersey long after they've graduated. Desmond is now retired from the NFL and the university continues to profit from the sale of his likeness (which I think is fine) while he doesn't (which I do not think is fine.)

"that's why you don't go to Ohio State, Lawrence"

March 20th, 2013 at 12:19 PM | Herm is that you? (Score:0 Flamebait)
March 20th, 2013 at 12:48 PM | If you believe that, (Score:4 Normal)
jblaze
jblaze's picture
Joined: 08/29/2008
MGoPoints: 3202

Pay college football players like in the NFL and then make them pay for their education. I'm sure they would take that deal. Problem solved.

"They're stuck with that quarterback (sophomore Braxton Miller) for the next two or three years, that's fine with me. He throws worse than (Tim) Tebow. - Steve Everitt

March 20th, 2013 at 11:37 AM | Great question posed at the end (Score:3 Normal)
93Grad
Joined: 07/26/2011
MGoPoints: 855

and it perfectly highlights the absurd hypocrisy of Delany's comments.

I understand this is a complex issue with wide ranging ramifications for college athletics, but I keep coming back to the fact that I dont think I could ever root for Delaney over Denard.

March 20th, 2013 at 12:02 PM | Could you root for Delany if (Score:3 Normal)
FreddieMercuryHayes
Joined: 12/29/2010
MGoPoints: 4989

Could you root for Delany if he were the one that gave the opportunity for Denard to become the Denard we know and love?  I get what you're saying, and I'm not saying Delany is in the right on this issue, but Delany isn't totally a bad guy either, and him and his bretheren have given us the players we love.  This whole AD/University/Player/Fan relationship web is all very symbiotic, and they all need each other.  I find it difficult to make any one person a bad guy.  Unless it's me, the fan, who makes this all possible.  I suppose if we have a big problem with the whole situation, we as fans first need to look to ourselves putting this insignificant (in the grand scheme of things) buisness on such a tall (and profitable) pedestal.

(P.S. I know you didn't call Delany a bad guy or anything, but I just latched onto your post to make a tangentially related post)

March 20th, 2013 at 12:16 PM | Delany gave the opportunity? (Score:0 Trolling)
March 20th, 2013 at 12:34 PM | I mean.. (Score:5 Normal)
Hardware Sushi
Hardware Sushi's picture
Joined: 03/08/2010
MGoPoints: 3506

I mean, yes. Jim Delany is largely responsible for creating this argument we're having, and I mean that in defense of him.

You can either point to the Oklahoma vs. NCAA Board TV lawsuit or Jim Delany telling ESPN to F themselves in the early 2000s as the reason college football is making this much money right now. There have always been college football stars; this has not changed. What has changed is the need for revenue to pay for

  1. The revenue sports arms race (this one is more expensive and goes directly back to the revenue athletes, not sure why no one counts this)
  2. Non-revenue sports

I don't understand how people can just act like college football conferences and athletic departments print money without doing anything. The Michigan athletic department was broke in 2000. Less than 15 years ago. Bill Martin, for all his wacky tendencies, did an excellent job from the facilities, funding, and driving future revenues side of the job. Dave Brandon is a highly-respected and successful businessman. Both of these guys work 16+ hour days, 6-7 days per week. Surprising as it may be to some of you, most athletic directors do not look like this:

Denard did not take a plane to Michigan, build Michigan Stadium and Schembechler Hall, win a bunch of championships and create history, fill it with 114,000 people, and setup television contracts. He was great, but I don't see a way these players deserve to be compensated more than the opportunities given.

 

Intensity is a lot of guys that run fast.

March 20th, 2013 at 12:56 PM | i somewhat agree (Score:2)
TrppWlbrnID
TrppWlbrnID's picture
Joined: 10/29/2009
MGoPoints: 7973

but feel that Brandon's and Delany's success is built upon the ravenous nature of millions of college sports fans consistently and faithfully supporting their programs. the fan bases already existing when those two came in, they have just done a masterful job squeezing more blood from the turnip.

while i appreciate the fact that all ADs do not make dave brandon money, it is interesting that you bring up how long of hours the ADs do and the fact that the least of them gets 6 figures at all and they make it overseeing athletic programs that do so on the backs of hundreds of people who get paid $0 for the same hours.

2013 resolution - make it onto the 2014 favorite MGoPosters post, not ironically
March 20th, 2013 at 2:53 PM | I'm not saying that most ADs (Score:0 Trolling)
March 20th, 2013 at 12:39 PM | It's been a long process, but (Score:4 Normal)
FreddieMercuryHayes
Joined: 12/29/2010
MGoPoints: 4989

It's been a long process, but college athletics were not always multi-billion dollar buisness with TV contracts, video games, etc, and athletes didn't have their faces plastered everywhere in society.  It's the Delany's of the world that raised the system (albeit for financial gain) to where it is now.  It's the same system that made Denard so popular that he's probably going to make millions of endorsements in the future.  Millions he wouldn't have made in the dawn of college football.  If no one really cared that much about big-time football, it's not a stretch to imagine that Denard wouldn't be famous whether he's made of dilitium or not.  Again, this doesn't mean Denard doesn't deserve some of the money he helped the university make, but it's not like Denard just came into existance with millions cheering his name and wanting to wear his shirt.

March 20th, 2013 at 11:46 AM | How many Denard Robinsons have there been (Score:3 Normal)
bo_lives
bo_lives's picture
Joined: 04/10/2011
MGoPoints: 394

in Michigan history? Not very many. To point out a single player who happens to be one of the most celebrated athletes in the history of the program isn't a good way to frame an argument. Yes, Denard righteously deserves a cut of the jersey sales over the last four years. But his football career at Michigan is over. How about we establish an argument that addresses the whole big picture rather than one anecdote before changing the system in a profoundly fundamental way?

"That's right. It's an off-tackle play. It's coming right over you. And there's not a thing you can do about it."

March 20th, 2013 at 11:50 AM | Denard's cut (Score:5 Normal)
DoubleLegTakedown
Joined: 03/10/2013
MGoPoints: 172

is a free UofM education, end this pay the players nonsense, when did a free education become so scarcely valued in our society?

"Once you've wrestled, everything else in life is easy"

March 20th, 2013 at 11:52 AM | It's not that a free education has lost its value (Score:4 Normal)
JeepinBen
JeepinBen's picture
Joined: 01/22/2010
MGoPoints: 9577

The issue is that the amount of money the players has generated has dramatically increased in value while their compensation has failed to keep pace.

"Over? Did you say, over? Nothing is over until we decide it is!"

March 20th, 2013 at 11:55 AM | That my friend (Score:1 Normal)
DoubleLegTakedown
Joined: 03/10/2013
MGoPoints: 172

is the name of the game, if players don't like it then they do have the option to not play sports. Large entities almost always take advantage of the actual workers while they reep the profits, compensation should be a non issue in NCAA sports

"Once you've wrestled, everything else in life is easy"

March 20th, 2013 at 12:02 PM | well (Score:5 Normal)
jaggs
jaggs's picture
Joined: 02/03/2009
MGoPoints: 2470

that is the name of the current game. If players don't like it they also have the option of suing the NCAA, which they are doing right now.

March 20th, 2013 at 12:04 PM | If you don't like it, then (Score:3 Normal)
Colt McBaby Jesus
Colt McBaby Jesus's picture
Joined: 01/08/2009
MGoPoints: 1204

If you don't like it, then GET OUT!



Such a stupid point of view.

March 20th, 2013 at 12:23 PM | If you don't love it, leave (Score:3 Normal)
DeuceInTheDeuce
DeuceInTheDeuce's picture
Joined: 10/29/2008
MGoPoints: 770

If you don't love it, leave it! U of M, #1!

March 20th, 2013 at 1:05 PM | "Denard is worth millions (Score:2 Overrated)
grumbler
Joined: 08/17/2011
MGoPoints: 154

and Micjigan is cheating him" is such a stupid argument.

If denard is, indeed, worth millions, then he is in the wrong place.  He needs to go to the place that will pay him what he is worth (presumably millions).  Nothing stops him from leaving Michigan and going to work for the guy who thinks he is worth millions.

The argument for paying players is like the argument for giving the MD who takes a job on the brake assembly line a salary of $200,000 a year:  "an average MD inj his field makes $200,000 a year, so you are cheating him to give him the $25 an hour the rest of the workers are making!"

Denard isn't worth millions to the University of Michigan. Had he never come to UM, the stadium would still have sold out.  Sure, he is a magical player who is enormously fun to watch, and sure he is a great erson who added enjoyment to campus life, but his value was in those things, and not dollars.

If there is someone out there who valued his services at millions of dollars per year, as alleged by some posters here, then I would argue he was foolish to pass that up to play football at Michigan.  The "Denard was worth millions" crowd hasn't identified that person, yet.

The solution to the image proble is simply to not allow universities to license the use of any student's image, unless they compensate the student.  That kind of deal is struck all the time, and the student would have the choice to not allow image use at all.

The jersey sales argument doesn't sway me at all.  People are buying uniform jerseys.  Some numbers sell better than other, but the players don't own the numbers, like they do their own image.

March 20th, 2013 at 1:58 PM | Unions / Collective Bargaining (Score:4 Normal)
Kilgore Trout
Kilgore Trout's picture
Joined: 02/20/2009
MGoPoints: 1863

I think the flaw in your argument is that he does not have the ability to go make millions if he chooses to. A union that he is not allowed to be part of collectively bargained with the entity that could pay him and took that right away from him without him having a say in the manner.

I think this whole argument shouldn't be about whether or not a college education is fair compensation, it should be about the fact that the system has been set up by the NCAA, NFL, and NFLPA to dictate conditions for college aged football players and they have absolutely no say or representation in the process.

EDIT: Also, I do not follow your MDs on the assembly line analogy at all. People that work on the assembly line are paid in accordance with supply and demand and with the value they provide to the auto company. MDs that practice medicine are also paid in line with supply and demand and the value that their practice or hospital can get reimbursed for their services.

The difference in college football players is that there is a relatively small supply that can perform to the level that will keep cable viewers watching and seats full. They provide a significant value to the school that they attend and they are not able to fully negotiate a compensation package. They are told what it is and can take it or leave it. I don't think that's right, but maybe that's just me.

March 20th, 2013 at 2:21 PM | Hear, hear. Although I don't (Score:3 Normal)
dr eng1ish
dr eng1ish's picture
Joined: 08/28/2009
MGoPoints: 1013

Hear, hear. Although I don't see why the argument can't be about both those things at once. The lack of representation of college players in the decision-making process you described is exactly the reason why they do not receive fair compensation. It's a direct relationship.

March 20th, 2013 at 3:44 PM | His value is in playing (Score:3 Normal)
Colt McBaby Jesus
Colt McBaby Jesus's picture
Joined: 01/08/2009
MGoPoints: 1204

His value is in playing college football. Where do you suggest he take his talents in an effort to receive compensation when there is no other forum for him to do that? The univerisity has made a lot of money off of his name and likeness. I don't see why he shouldn't get a cut of his jersey sales, why the M-Den can't sell "Shoelace" shirts with him getting a cut, and why he can't sign his name on things and get paid for it.

I don't think every player should get the same amount. Let each player make their own royalties off of their name and likeness. I guess I don't see how that's an issue.

March 20th, 2013 at 12:45 PM | Not true (Score:1)
whitedawg
Joined: 07/08/2008
MGoPoints: 772

You say that "if players don't like it then they do have the option to not play sports."  Well, if they hope to use it as the basis for their career then they don't.  It is essentially impossible to make it to the NFL without playing college football.  If someone has the skill set coming out of high school where an eventual NFL career is a possibility, you're essentially saying "they do have the option not to take a career in which they would get paid millions of dollars."

Plus, that's beside the point.  Let's say there is a player - call him Jim Jebow - who is very good at college football but whose skill set doesn't translate to the NFL.  Now, despite his lack of NFL skills, Jim does have the ability to make millions of dollars, because fans will pay for tickets and TV channels to watch him play college football.  But under the current system, Jim can't make those millions for himself, because there's a rule that anything Jim would get paid on the free market for his college football skills has to go to one of 100 or so companies in a cartel.  That doesn't seem fair, does it?

 

March 20th, 2013 at 1:13 PM | Jim Jebow should not play in (Score:4 Normal)
grumbler
Joined: 08/17/2011
MGoPoints: 154

Jim Jebow should not play in the NCAA.  He should play in that organization that gets paid millions of dollars by people who want to see Jim Jebow play football.  That's the organization that can afford to pay him millions.

He would not have to pay the NCAA anything.  That seems fair, doesn't it?

March 20th, 2013 at 2:46 PM | No (Score:1)
whitedawg
Joined: 07/08/2008
MGoPoints: 772

There is currently no organization that will pay Jim Jebow for his football ability straight out of high school, even if his ability is worth millions of dollars.  The NFL's three year rule shares some of the blame for this, but that doesn't mean that the NCAA isn't taking advantage of the fact that players have no other options by exploiting their labor.

March 20th, 2013 at 12:22 PM | All football players are (Score:3 Normal)
MichiganManOf1961
MichiganManOf1961's picture
Joined: 05/18/2012
MGoPoints: 888

All football players are athletes.  All athletes are not football players.  There are differing arguments for each group, not a single argument to be made for both.

You also have to remember how many non-contributing athletes there are at any university. Yes, the football players may be undercompensated. But their "salaries" are going to provide the benefits which are given to the girls lacrosse team, men's wrestling, rowing, gymnastics, etc. All of those sports are net losers (and by a massive margin, I'd imagine).

Yes, Denard was undercompensated with his ~$200,000 "package" from the University. But maybe then you could also say that a 2nd string TE is "properly" compensated at ~$200,000. But then you have to also remember the hundreds of gymnasts, runners, swimmers, etc. who also receive the same ~$200,000 "package", but provide no income to the school.

Hell, I say cut all the sports who can't hack it and only keep those which either bring in revenue, bring in alumni donations, bring national recognition, or increase applications. The athletes would be happy then, right? They're being justly compensated for what they bring in and if they can't prove that their sport is bringing anything in, why should they be compensated? And if the sport brings in a disproportionate share of the revenue, allow them to take a disproportionate share

of the benefits. ~Herm

Stop the uniform changes! Contact Dave Brandon 734-764-9416.

March 20th, 2013 at 12:27 PM | Why stop with athletes, Herm? (Score:4 Normal)
Picktown GoBlue
Picktown GoBlue's picture
Joined: 01/21/2011
MGoPoints: 869

Cut the majors that don't bring in the big grants!!

/s

At some point folks may realize life just isn't fair, no matter how much and how many different people you sue.

March 20th, 2013 at 12:24 PM | for a Floridian (Score:4 Normal)
Picktown GoBlue
Picktown GoBlue's picture
Joined: 01/21/2011
MGoPoints: 869

who gets out of state tuition to Michigan, plus room and board, (do they get money for books??), it's pushing nearly a quarter of a million dollars, especially if the student athlete gets a redshirt year.  This does not include the value of any of the intangible benefits of coaching, TV exposure, strength and conditioning, training table, preparation for NFL, Pro Days, etc. 

March 20th, 2013 at 11:53 AM | Every program has them. (Score:2)
goblue20111
goblue20111's picture
Joined: 10/31/2010
MGoPoints: 1559

Every program has them. Henne, Manningham, Long, Braylon, etc. all had a great impact.

March 20th, 2013 at 12:19 PM | Star players (Score:1)
whitedawg
Joined: 07/08/2008
MGoPoints: 772

Denard was definitely one of the most celebrated athletes in Michigan history.  But before him, you could say that Braylon Edwards, Anthony Thomas, Charles Woodson, Desmond Howard, etc. funded the volleyball team by bringing in far more money to the athletic department than the cost of their scholarship.  The fact that Denard was unique doesn't change the argument.

March 20th, 2013 at 12:31 PM | Exactly. (Score:0 Overrated)
March 20th, 2013 at 1:43 PM | Wait. (Score:2)
Erik_in_Dayton
Erik_in_Dayton's picture
Joined: 12/03/2008
MGoPoints: 6798

You've been saying all this the last two days, but you pay at least $1,000 for a PSD?  The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars....

It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future. -- Yogi Berra

                         

March 20th, 2013 at 11:55 AM | I would agree with Wetzel... (Score:4 Normal)
Rage7
Joined: 05/15/2012
MGoPoints: 202

In that I think that the schools should get all of the money from their stadium revenue on game days and in return the students get scholarships.  However, I also think that when it comes to video games and jersey sales, I believe the students should get a cut from their respective likenesses.  It's a multi-billion dollar business and the broke kids can't sell an autograph without being criminalized.  

Delaney doesn't seem to have a problem giving away the schools money to Maryland though.    What a sham. 

March 20th, 2013 at 6:44 PM | schools pay out millions in salaries just not to the players. (Score:1)
pbmd
pbmd's picture
Joined: 04/24/2010
MGoPoints: 197

coaches and athletic directors make millions on the backs of the student athletes.  the advertisers and tv networks make millions and pay out huge salaries to their announcers and employees.

the players are stars because of their individual talents and their affiliations with their respective schools.

the compensation model to the players made sense in the 50s, 60s, 70s but is totally unfair today.

brandon, it is easy to be successful in a company where the most talented/marketed employees were paid almost nothing?

pbmd

Theme provided by Roopletheme; sidebars adapted from Chris Murphy.