Sunday, March 13, 2011

Monday Morning S--t Storm

Holy balls the Fab Five 30 for 30 was out of this world. It literally had so many themes to it that I can't even tell what I'm thinking about right now. We make fun of ESPN all the time, but the 30 for 30 has been nothing short of outstanding.

Anyway, other than the actual basketball and the cultural impact, it showed how much money Michigan made off of these kids. The most revealing point was that prior to the Fab Five Michigan had 1.6 Million in Merchandise revenue. After their freshman year? 10.6 million. The merchandise sales always get me because they are never factored into the profits for athletic departments.

It seems like the most pertinent topic at this moment, with Cam Newton pay for play, and the tOSU merchandise situation coming out.

So, for the shit storm, should college athletes be able to make money off of their likeness? Should they be paid in general?

I don't know about paying athletes because that just opens up a whole can of worms, but I've really never had a problem with players selling their merchandise or even their likeness. If you look at tOSU somebody didn't want Terrell Pryor's jersey because it was a tOSU jersey, they wanted it because it was a TP tOSU jersey. That is, TP's play on the field made people want that. I also find it funny that if I buy a standard #2 tOSU jersey there is no name on the back, but if a buy a custom #2 with Pryor on the back I have to pay more money.

That's a real basic way to look at it, but we can hash it out in the comments.

Shit storm begin.


  1. I have no problem with paying players. I'd pay Tristan Thomas out of my own pocket if I could.

    Also, I still see people rocking Michigan #4 jerseys. Never seen a Detroit CWebb jersey in the wild.

    Furthermore, Juwan Howard still receives money to do whatever it is he does. Which is suck.

  2. Just read that in 2009 UT pulled in over 900 million. That's a lot of McCoy jerseys

  3. Houston Rappers prefer TJ Ford throwbacks.

  4. I think if you could establish a precident, like a very specific, uniformed percentage that every student athlete got. Therefore, players like Pryor who would naturally bring in more money gets his percentage, which is the same percentage as the linebacker, who will get less, but could, with the right marketing, get some jerseys sold, and make SOME money.

    That made too much sense. Give them knives. Knives will solve this entire conundrum.

  5. I just typed out a whole bunch of sh!t out only to say "if the school uses a players name to charge a higher price than a generic product with no player mention, then yes, the student should get receive royalties on those products. They should not however receive a salary or payment from any outside agencies, companies etc, nor should ticket sales be divided amongst the players. Only royalties from using the students likeness to attract increased pricing"

    And as the VP of my company said as he busted me writing this "It's a whole lot of money being made off people who don't make any"