Either that’s bullshit, or Texas A&M is severely undervaluing itself.
Category Archives: It’s Just Bidness
Ohio State’s Gene Smith is all in with Jim Delany’s vision of Big Ten expansion.
“I know that change is hard,” Smith said. “The reality is that the Big Ten needed to change in order to position ourselves for the 21st-century model of intercollegiate athletic competition.”
21st-century model? What’s that, Gene?
Peel away from the emotional tug of tradition and view the latest expansion by the now 14-member Big Ten through the prism of economics.
That is how Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith sees this season’s addition of Maryland and Rutgers, schools located in Mid-Atlantic states, to the Midwestern-based league.
“From a business point of view, it makes huge sense,” Smith said. “This is a business deal. This is about money. Everybody wants to dodge that; I don’t. It’s about the stability of our conference for the long term.”
Nobody’s dodging that. Except when they’re fighting player compensation.
“It’s our job to teach them how to make a living at the university and not to give them their living at the university.”
Brian Cook does a nice job skewering David Shaw’s company man defense of the collegiate model here.
The system has been very good to David Shaw. It’s time David Shaw and the others that have profited so extravagantly off the enterprise of college sports stop acting like it’s a failure if the athletes actually playing those sports get the living they’ve earned, not just some vague promise that it’ll all pay off eventually if they stop complaining and keep playing for the millionaires.
But allow me to take things a step further. In a world in which Auburn just finished shelling out almost $9 million in buyouts of the contracts of Gene Chizik and his staff – and ran up an operating deficit of close to $1 million in doing so – why is it a given that the schools are any smarter handling the money than the players would be?
The Big 12 Commissioner, we are told, “came to the defense of the collegiate model” at Big 12 media days Monday. It was a touching performance.
… He argued against the unionization of college athletes, noting that in his opinion, “student-athletes are not employees.” He also said it wouldn’t be fair to pay football players but not female student-athletes and student-athletes in sports other than football and men’s basketball.
“It is hard to justify paying student-athletes in football and men’s basketball and not recognizing the significant effort that swimmers and wrestlers and lacrosse players and track athletes all put in,” he said. “Football and basketball players don’t work any harder than anybody else; they just happen to have the blessing of an adoring public who is willing to pay for the tickets and willing to buy the products on television that come with the high visibility.
“We have both a legal obligation and a moral obligation to do for female student-athletes and male Olympic sports athletes just exactly what we do for football and basketball student-athletes. I don’t think it’s even debatable.”
Touching, but totally divorced from economic reality. Those lucky duck football and basketball players simply fortunate enough to be blessed with the scarce skills that the market place demands, why should they be rewarded for that? If everyone in this world were paid according to effort, I doubt Bob himself would be pulling in the big bucks he’s getting paid right now… speaking of which, exactly how far do those legal and moral obligations stretch?
“In the end,” he said, “it’s a somewhat zero-sum game. There’s only so much money out there. I don’t think that coaches and athletic directors are likely going to take pay cuts.[Emphasis added.] I think that train’s left the station. … I think over a period of time what we’ll find is that instead of keeping a tennis program, they’re going to do the things that it takes to keep the football and men’s and women’s basketball programs strong.”
Obligations are for the little guy – straight out of the 21st-century captains of industry playbook. There’s your collegiate model. And remember, Bowlsby doesn’t think this is even debatable. No wonder he expects to be in court the rest of his career.
Cedric Ogbuehi, Texas A&M’s extremely talented offensive tackle, could have gone pro, but elected to come back to school for his senior year. One reason for that is TAMU agreed to throw upwards of sixty grand into the pot to cover the premium for a loss-of-value insurance policy.
Now, while I find that admirable, I also think it’s pretty obvious that’s nothing the school is going to do every day. For one thing, the source of funds is limited.
Texas A&M, though, had researched a newer NCAA rule that offered them some flexibility, where the school itself could actually pay the difference out of the Student Assistance Fund, which each school has at its disposal to cover things such as the cost of post-eligibility financial aid, or if a student-athlete can’t afford to travel home in cases of emergency, or if they need a suit to wear to university functions or events like SEC Media Days.
It’s not an unlimited pool, and the NCAA creates its yearly limit for all schools so each has to budget where its money goes for that year. According to the SEC office, last year each of its members allotted $350,000 for the fund.
For another, and more obviously, it’s only the top-notch talent that justifies such an outlay. (And if you do the math, that’s some outlay – almost 20% of the fund.)
But here’s what I find interesting to consider. All that talk we heard during the debate about how allowing players to benefit from the market value of their names and likenesses would be bad for team cohesion because some would fetch greater compensation for those than others – how does TAMU stepping in for Ogbuehi like that pose any less of a problem for team unity? I’m guessing that Coach Sumlin, A&M O-line coach B.J. Anderson, Aggie associate AD for football Justin Moore and veteran director of football operations Gary Reynolds, all of whom visited Ogbuehi and his family to make the insurance pitch, aren’t particularly concerned.
Tech’s getting a nice bump in TV money.
The distribution from the ACC increased by 32 percent, from $17.9 million to $23.6 million. The distribution largely comes from ESPN, and the boost is a result of the ACC’s renegotiated contract with the network after the addition of Notre Dame, Pittsburgh and Syracuse, the grant of rights and the upcoming college football playoff. (According to the budget notes, the playoff agreement is worth $3 million in new revenue and the additions to the ACC were worth $2.5 in additional revenue.)
Which is a good thing, because ticket revenues are heading in the wrong direction.
Ticket sales revenue, while budgeted conservatively, is projected to drop from $11.6 million to $9.8 million. It’s the second-largest source of revenues after the ACC distribution. A projected slight drop in season ticket sales, six home games (as opposed to seven) and the even-year schedule without a home game against Georgia are primary factors.
Four tickets, four hot dogs and four cokes can only take an athletic department so far.
And this doesn’t help things on the buyout front, either:
The reserve fund, from which money can be taken in case of budget shortfalls, is at about $2.5 million. The goal for the fund is to be at least $5 million. The department had to draw on the reserve fund in the 2013 fiscal year due to a $1.8 million shortfall, largely due to expenses related to the ACC football championship game and the ensuing trip to the Sun Bowl.
Greg McGarity is laughing at the superior intellect.
A suggestion I’ve seen repeatedly offered as a way out of the NCAA’s amateurism trap is the European soccer model. And this does sound appealing:
Players enter the Ajax academy when they are as young as seven, and train to become professional players. Though private tutors provide a secondary education, Ajax and other European clubs make no pretensions about the arrangement: they are training soccer players, not “student athletes.” After school, the worst players get cut and return to civilian life, the better players star professionally for Ajax, and the best players are “sold” when another team purchases their contract for an often exorbitant fee. Why so much cash? A fully developed star is a rare commodity, and big money teams like Manchester City are willing to be exorbitant fees to acquire one. Last summer, Spanish super club Real Madrid paid London’s Tottenham Hotspur a reported $132 million to acquire Welsh star Gareth Bale. The Dutch model (buy low, sell high!) has been copied across Europe. In recent years, the sale of five Ajax players netted the team $80 million in transfer fees as bigger teams purchased Ajax’s premier talent.
So what would a European-style development system look like in American sports? Imagine if the Cleveland Browns had to pay the Texas A&M directly for the rights to Johnny “Football” Manziel. Want LeBron James? Let’s start the bidding at $50 million. The days of the draft, the annual pro sports meat market where scouts drool over college prospects, would be over.
Money. Yum. Manna from heaven if you’re the school that won the lottery with a stud player. (And, sure, you could tweak the system to make it more academically palatable.)
But there’s an obvious catch with this arrangement.
Big teams in big markets would pay top dollar and get the best players, and the relative parity that characterizes many American sports leagues would vanish. In such a competitive economic environment, professional teams would be incentivized to develop their own players; big-time college sports, long cloaked in a veneer of amateurism, could become a distant memory.
That’s what happened to baseball’s minor leagues in the first half of the 20th century. Major league owners got tired of shelling out major bucks for stars developed by independent minor league teams, so people like Branch Rickey took the obvious step by co-opting the minors with their own controlled farm systems. And that was the end of meaningful, independent minor league baseball.
Now, you can look at this as the author does and see it as a welcome, if radical development that might be necessary to save colleges from themselves, but I question whether coaches, athletic directors and presidents at schools with powerhouse athletics departments would share your point of view. Does anyone think that Alabama’s current business model survives intact if Nick Saban is coaching kids who would have been at best lower-tier Sun Belt players? I doubt Saban does.
Any sort of successor protocol to the NCAA’s amateurism model is going to have to be one that continues to allow the five-star studs to pass through the Alabamas of the college athletics world. Put it this way – notice how articles like this never make an effort to get the players’ point of view? Coaches want the talent, even if it’s for a limited amount of time.
Now I enjoy an anti-NCAA rant as much as anyone, and this one certainly has its moments of rhetorical pleasure – “the fevered delusions of NCAA chief Mark Emmert, who swore under oath that what he presides over is as amateur as tiddlywinks on a playground” has a nice ring to it, no doubt – but the idea that Jim Delany, a man who just added two teams to his conference for the sole purpose of making its broadcast network a more attractive proposition, would be prepared one day to blow up the entire structure of college athletics and return to a simpler, purer arrangement is a fevered delusion of its own.
Money is the drug and they’re hooked on it.
Have some football.
- Herschel Walker thinks the college football playoff format should be bigger than four teams to accommodate the SEC.
- I heard a lot of talk from some of the NCAA’s witnesses at O’Bannon that paying players could harm the integration between them and the rest of the student body. I wonder how they feel about this.
- The arrests of seven athletes over a three-month span at Missouri led the athletic director to the conclusion that he doesn’t believe the spate of arrests was indicative of a cultural problem. Isn’t that what they always think?
- More academic speculation on what the Northwestern unionization effort might lead to. Nobody knows, really.
- Statistical comfort for Auburn: Allowing big passing numbers is no indicator of a team’s success. Except when it is: “Four of the top five teams in the country in passing yardage — Florida State, Florida Atlantic, Michigan State and Louisville — held the top four spots in opponents’ passer rating, and they were the only four teams to hold teams under a 100 rating.”
- If you’re interested in some inside ball, Shakin the Southland, which has been an excellent Clemson blog, has lost two of its major contributors. Their story is here.
- Auburn wants to do something about limiting opponents’ explosive plays, although if the problem really goes back to Tuberville’s time, I’m not sure why that really matters now.