Business Insider Lists CFB Players' Worth by School
Business Insider recently calculated the average CFB player's worth by school, listing the top 20. Their methodology:
We calculated the Fair Market Value of college football players at the 20 most profitable programs using data provided by the Department of Education. Using the NFL's most recent collective bargaining agreement in which the players receive a minimum of 47% of all revenue, each school's football revenue was split between the school and the athletes with the players' share divided evenly among the 85 scholarship players.
Notable ranks:
#1 Texas - $671,173
#4 Michigan - $487,979
#8 Notre Dame - $476,226
#9 OSU - $461,968
#20 MSU - $327,495
It was crazy to me to see such a massive disparity between Texas and everyone else, despite Texas being in a slump for quite some time. Any ideas where that disparity comes from? It must have something to do with the Longhorn Network, but I doubt having their own network creates that much more revenue. Also, what do you think are the greater implications for these numbers? The higher the number, the higher the expectations?
I'm a little new to posting things, so I apologize for any poor formatting.
Link: http://www.businessinsider.com/college-football-player-value-2016-10
October 19th, 2016 at 4:55 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 19th, 2016 at 4:58 PM ^
October 19th, 2016 at 5:02 PM ^
Right. That's why when I buy something from a company with a trusted brand name the workers don't get any of the money.
October 19th, 2016 at 5:04 PM ^
I think you are trying to be sarcastic, but I think what you said is more accurate than you really want it to be. Maybe I am wrong about your intent.
October 19th, 2016 at 7:09 PM ^
I think he was trying to be snarky but real. Success.
October 19th, 2016 at 5:04 PM ^
October 19th, 2016 at 7:04 PM ^
You're quite wise for a....oh..
October 19th, 2016 at 5:51 PM ^
This is a far too simplistic reading of the matter, given that the goodwill of the brand is intrinsically tied to the collection of individual players over time. Michigan isn't filling up a 110K stadium on Saturday if the school had been fielding EMU-level teams for the last 60 years.
October 25th, 2016 at 5:37 PM ^
That is essentially my point. You can't just take revenue in a given year and allocate it out to the current players -- it is way more complex than that. They didn't create all of that revenue. It was created in large part by the goodwill in the brand built up over decades.
October 19th, 2016 at 6:14 PM ^
Not bogus if they use total revenue driven by the football program excluding football donations. If they include donations, then it wouldn't be on an equal level with pro football.
But, assuming they exclude donations, then its the 47% of the football revenue for a year divided by the 85 scholorship players. No players, no football, no revenue - same as the pros.
October 19th, 2016 at 7:41 PM ^
October 19th, 2016 at 8:07 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 19th, 2016 at 10:23 PM ^
They have no idea what the "total revenue driven by football" really is, so these are swags. Also, the CBA distribution numbers they use are for a different sport, NFL football, so that part of the equation is also less sure than it is taken to be.
A better comparison is CFL salaries. The average CFL player makes about $80,000 a year.
October 20th, 2016 at 10:54 AM ^
Why is CFL a better comparison? Revenue for CFL teams is way lower than for top D1 football teams. Michigan's football revenue was something like $105M in 2014. The Montreal Alouettes made $12-14M.
October 19th, 2016 at 5:03 PM ^
All you need to do is look at the fact that Michigan lead the nation in attendance up until 2013 despite being a dumpster fire. People came because of the school, not specifically the players. It wasn't until there was gross incompetence that attendance declined, again because of the university not the players.
October 19th, 2016 at 5:18 PM ^
If the team sucked for 20 years fans wouldn't show up. Everyone knows that to be true. Michigan has a strong fanbase because it is the winningest program of all time. Sure the michigan brand matters a lot but it matters because of winning. If we stop winning fans stop showing up, see the later brady hoke years. The brand is driven by winning, winning is driven by the players, the players drive the continued value of the brand.
October 19th, 2016 at 5:56 PM ^
October 19th, 2016 at 8:27 PM ^
October 19th, 2016 at 8:29 PM ^
Winning driven by players - disagree.
See later Hoke years, as you suggest, see now with many of the same players. Also the RR to Hoke transition.
If just raw talent was the key, then the pro bowl would be the best game of the year - not the superbowl. Preperation, motivation etc are driven by the coaching staff.
Team does poorly - everyone blames the coaches. The coaches get fired. The players don't get fired or expelled.
October 19th, 2016 at 5:08 PM ^
October 19th, 2016 at 5:08 PM ^
This makes no sense to me. It's called brand equity, period.
October 19th, 2016 at 5:19 PM ^
You act like winning isn't built into that. If michigan puts out a team of non recruited engigneer s who thought playing football would be fun for the next five years the stadium would be empty.
October 19th, 2016 at 7:32 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 19th, 2016 at 5:16 PM ^
With 85 players, only some of them contribute to that number. Most people are buying Jabrill's number 5 jersey from the mden and not Malzone or Lawrence Marshall.
October 19th, 2016 at 6:06 PM ^
October 19th, 2016 at 8:50 PM ^
Schools should not be obligated to pay them on top of their $50,000+ scholarship packages that out of staters get to attend most P5 schools.
Furthermore, are we supposed to feel bad for eighteen year old student athletes getting into the University of Michigan with 18s, 19s, and 20s on their ACTs? Please. Give me a break. Sure, I'm all for paying you $450,000 if you can get into Michigan with the general population and pay for your own schooling, clothes, food, shelter, etc. etc.
October 19th, 2016 at 5:20 PM ^
I think it's simpler than that.
Texas does not engage in any revenue sharing with the B12. It is in part why Nebraska was so desperate to leave and why the recent B12 expansion talks failed. In the SEC and the B10, schools like UM and OSU spread the wealth whereas Texas does not, and that includes the revenue from the Longhorn Network.
To me it's just the basic math calculation that starts with higher revenue because Texas isn't sharing any of it's with the other schools.
"In 2014-15, according to the report, Texas earned approximately $15 million from its Longhorn Network, while KU received more than $6 million with its local broadcast deal. Kansas State also got about $4 million from third-tier rights.
In the SEC, schools have their own multi-media contracts and receive SEC Network money on top of that."
http://www2.kusports.com/news/2016/feb/19/report-big-12-lagging-behind-…
October 19th, 2016 at 5:25 PM ^
would have been in the top 5 had they counted the cash payouts to the players from dem good ole boys in the Rebel Alumni Club.
October 19th, 2016 at 5:54 PM ^
October 19th, 2016 at 5:35 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 19th, 2016 at 7:10 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 19th, 2016 at 6:03 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 19th, 2016 at 6:18 PM ^
Agreed. The NFL has reveune sharing, so the average or median revenue is what everyone should be looking at.
That said, it is annual revenue, not revenue over a four year education. Nigel Hayes is getting 1/4 of what he is worth (according to this metric).
October 19th, 2016 at 6:35 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 19th, 2016 at 8:15 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 19th, 2016 at 6:12 PM ^
Exactly, I'm glad so many people are able to come on here and penetrate the silliness of this 6-th grader conometric.
October 19th, 2016 at 6:57 PM ^
October 19th, 2016 at 7:27 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 19th, 2016 at 8:44 PM ^
October 19th, 2016 at 7:41 PM ^
October 19th, 2016 at 8:09 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 20th, 2016 at 8:44 AM ^
$488/4 = $122 / year
Taxes on that about 30% = $85K net
Out of state cost of attendance = $60K leaving $15K (How much do they get for stipend now?)
In state cost of attendance = $29K leaving $56K
Paying the players makes the case for staying in-state stronger. Anybody want to compete with just Michigan in-state players? This would result in Texas, Florida, Ohio, and California teams dominating college football. I also think it would cause issues with Title IX because non-revenue sports would go unfunded which may further reduce the number of paid players allowed.