OT Nebraska to sell jerseys

Submitted by Zvornik Bosna on September 30th, 2010 at 5:54 PM

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 8:24 PM ^

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??

Zone Left

September 30th, 2010 at 5:59 PM ^

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.


September 30th, 2010 at 7:47 PM ^

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

Section 1

September 30th, 2010 at 7:06 PM ^

"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?

Section 1

September 30th, 2010 at 10:40 PM ^

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. 


September 30th, 2010 at 6:52 PM ^

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. 

Zone Left

September 30th, 2010 at 7:18 PM ^

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?


September 30th, 2010 at 7:26 PM ^

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.) 

Zone Left

September 30th, 2010 at 7:45 PM ^

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.


September 30th, 2010 at 7:11 PM ^

I don't have the exact numbers, but you figure they're getting $50K / yr to play at Michigan (via free education, books, room and board).

Now, the product they help produce generates how many million per year?  Let's say it's $50 million for ticket sales, another $20 million in concessions, and another $30 million in other (TV, merch, etc.) - so $100 million (for round numbers sake).

At the end of the day, you've got 100 guys generating $100 million per year, of which only 1 (head coach) is making SERIOUS bucks. 

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? 

So, in my opinion the "yeah, but they get paid in terms of a college tuition" is not only INVALID FAIL on the level that they are clearly underpaid, but that it doesn't work because "not every school is Michigan".  And by that I mean - some programs lose money.  It would be unfair for the NCAA to allow teams to compensate players further when not every team is in the black.  Ultimately, that's the main reason why these kids get a schollie and are in turn told to pound sand when it comes to jersey sales.


September 30th, 2010 at 7:50 PM ^

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.

Zone Left

September 30th, 2010 at 7:52 PM ^

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.


September 30th, 2010 at 8:19 PM ^

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. 


September 30th, 2010 at 7:52 PM ^

I tried to note my post wherever possible that the numbers were round and for observational purposes.  But I guess that is just not good enough.

Point stands = not all programs make money, players can't be "paid" anymore than they are because of competitive issues between programs.  The fact that some people consider $50K / year to be sufficient for all players is insane - since there are some (Denard) that generate a nearly unquantifiable (spelling?) amount for the University.  But then again, you're just opening one can of worms after one another. 


September 30th, 2010 at 8:03 PM ^

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!


October 1st, 2010 at 9:23 AM ^

Your logic is so flawed its not even funny. 

Thank you for making my point, though.  Yes - college football's revenue structure is also flawed because it is used to pay for so many other sports programs.  Communism right at home in our back yard!


September 30th, 2010 at 6:11 PM ^

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.


September 30th, 2010 at 6:41 PM ^

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?


September 30th, 2010 at 6:25 PM ^

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.