If the NCAA allows players to get paid ...

[Tugg Speedman]

... these schools (the entire Ivy league) will dominate everything.

Right now the ivies do not offer scholarships.  But, unleash an alumni base to pay players and with the astronomical amount of is much money they have, and they can buy anything they want.

As the story below details, Harvard alone raised $2.8 billion in a "quiet period."  $2.8 billion alone would be one of the 50 largest endowments.  Harvard rakes this in from a rabid alumni base without trying.  They now have about $34 billion in their endowment (Yale is second with $21 billion).  If this rabid alumni base is interested in "buying victories" over Yale, when they are done, they will also be able to beat Alabama.

Thoughts?

PS other than football and basketball, the ivies on the strength of the education they offer, do very well in attaching top athletes in most non-revenue sports.  Yale is the current Hockey National Champions.  

------------------------------------------------------

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/9/21/capital-campaign-target-announced/

Harvard Campaign Aims To Raise Record-Breaking $6.5 Billion
Fundraising drive has already hauled $2.8 billion in donations and pledges

The Harvard Campaign has set a fundraising goal of $6.5 billion, University officials announced in a press release on Saturday, a target that, if reached, will make it the largest fundraising drive ever in higher education.

The announcement said that Harvard has already raised $2.8 billion in donations and pledges from more than 90,000 supporters in the Campaign’s quiet phase, a two-year period of intense internal planning and preliminary gift solicitation behind the scenes. The quiet phase ended Saturday with the Campaign’s public launch, which has drawn alumni from around the world to campus this weekend for several launch events.

In its announcement, the University also laid out an approximation of how the Campaign’s funds will be spent. Forty-five percent will go to teaching and research, 25 percent will go to financial aid and “the student experience,” 20 percent will be used for capital improvements, and the remaining 10 percent will serve as “flexible funding to foster collaborations and initiatives,” according to the release.

The announcement also named more specific campaign priorities that have been public for some time—House renewal, development in Allston, expansion of the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, creation of common spaces, and the advancement of HarvardX, the University’s branch of the virtual education platform edX.

Saturday’s launch, which is not open to the public but is being streamed live online, includes events featuring University President Drew G. Faust, former students such as Bill Gates, and prominent Harvard faculty members. Live-streamed events began at 1 p.m. with a faculty panel held in Memorial Church.

According to excerpts of Faust’s prepared remarks, slated to be delivered at 4 p.m. in Sanders Theatre, she will frame the Campaign as a chance to address unprecedented challenges and opportunities in higher education.

“We undertake this campaign in a time when public discourse about higher education so often focuses narrowly on outcomes we can measure in dollars and products, numbers and jobs. Make no mistake: those are important, and universities are crucial to those outcomes,” she will say. “But to see universities through so restricted a lens is to fail to recognize their most distinctive strength; it puts at risk their most vital and enduring contributions to society—their singular power in the search for meaning, values and creativity, in the constant and ever-changing pursuit of truth.”

In a statement in the press release, James F. Rothenberg ’68, University treasurer and a Campaign co-chair, expressed excitement about the public phase of the campaign.

“The Harvard Campaign is critical to the University’s ability to fund important priorities going forward, but it is also an opportunity to redefine Harvard and higher education more broadly,” Rothenberg said. “This is an exciting time for Harvard, and we are committed to ensuring that the University will continue to have a meaningful impact well beyond Cambridge.”

The University’s fundraising target of $6.5 billion exceeds the record-breaking $6.2 billion raised by Stanford in its latest campaign, which wrapped up December 2011, as well as the $6 billion goal set by the University of Southern California, which launched its ongoing campaign in September 2011.

A Harvard official told The Crimson in 2011 that Harvard’s campaign would likely last for about five years past its public launch, a timeline that would see the campaign’s conclusion in 2018.

[Coleman]

Aren't you assuming the NCAA would allow universities to pay certain athletes as much as they wanted? I think this is unlikely. More likely will be a set amount across all schools and sports (remember Title IX). Like, every Division 1 athlete gets a $10k stipend with room and board. The NCAA isn't going to let recruiting turn into the free market where rich schools can pay more than other schools. It's going to be applied equally.

And if the Ivies were really interested in athletics, they'd already be offering athletic scholarships. The only thing preventing them from doing so is there own conference rule.

[Tugg Speedman]

Aren't you assuming the NCAA would allow universities to pay certain athletes as much as they wanted? I think this is unlikely. More likely will be a set amount across all schools and sports (remember Title IX). Like, every Division 1 athlete gets a $10k stipend with room and board. The NCAA isn't going to let recruiting turn into the free market where rich schools can pay more than other schools. It's going to be applied equally.

And if the Ivies were really interested in athletics, they'd already be offering athletic scholarships. The only thing preventing them from doing so is there own conference rule.

Yes this is a hypothetical discussion because the NCAA does not allow payment and says (for now) they will change that policy.  But if they do, in any way, once they start down the road of paying, no matter what the initial rules are on the stipend, it will end up as a free market (like the pros are now).

If they allow athletes to hold outside jobs, then title IX does not apply.  That is what I'm talking about, alumni "paying" athletes, not the university.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I hope they pay them all and then when the rubble is cleaned up, people pushing for this will go WOW.

$200K+ in benefits over a 4 year academic career at MU today for a volleyball, basketball, soccer, tennis, track, etc athlete.  PLUS, a chance to put on their wares on display for future employment in athletics at no additional charge (ESPN, FS1, Gomarquette.com, etc)....if only the Accounting major could get those benefits. 

[Tugg Speedman]

I hope they pay them all and then when the rubble is cleaned up, people pushing for this will go WOW.

$200K+ in benefits over a 4 year academic career at MU today for a volleyball, basketball, soccer, tennis, track, etc athlete.  PLUS, a chance to put on their wares on display for future employment in athletics at no additional charge (ESPN, FS1, Gomarquette.com, etc)....if only the Accounting major could get those benefits. 

+1

College athletics is a very good deal for athletics in non-revenue sports.  But it is a bad deal for the STARS in revenue sports.  It is the stars in revenue sports that matter the most.

[forgetful]

Yes this is a hypothetical discussion because the NCAA does not allow payment and says (for now) they will change that policy.  But if they do, in any way, once they start down the road of paying, no matter what the initial rules are on the stipend, it will end up as a free market (like the pros are now).

If they allow athletes to hold outside jobs, then title IX does not apply.  That is what I'm talking about, alumni "paying" athletes, not the university.

They can hold outside jobs.  They are just capped at 2 or 3k during the school year.  As far as I understand it is uncapped in summer.

[forgetful]

I hope they pay them all and then when the rubble is cleaned up, people pushing for this will go WOW.

$200K+ in benefits over a 4 year academic career at MU today for a volleyball, basketball, soccer, tennis, track, etc athlete.  PLUS, a chance to put on their wares on display for future employment in athletics at no additional charge (ESPN, FS1, Gomarquette.com, etc)....if only the Accounting major could get those benefits. 

Don't forget that they are still eligible for pell grants which can bring them an extra $6k each year.  And there is an NcAA special assistance fund for students who are still in need.

The deal athletes get is ridiculous.  None of them should complain.

[Atticus]

Put me in the camp that thinks athletes should get paid. If the top 10 or so execs of the NCAA get paid a combined $10M...on the backs of the "student-athlete"....then the student-athlete can get 3-4K per school year. I have no problem with that. The NCAA says they lack resources....maybe they shouldnt have 3 private jets paid for by selling Manziel jerseys on their website.

F* them.

Every story about players getting paid by boosters puts a smile on my face. Good for Foster.

[chapman]

$200K+ in benefits over a 4 year academic career at MU today

And that's those can be can directly quantified.  Others such as the exposure that you mentioned, full-time salaried academic support staff, full-time salaried training staff, all expense paid trips to a dozen different cities each year, access to multi-million dollar practice/training/studying/chilling facilities that put "regular" students to shame (not to mention those in minor/semi-pro leagues)...the sum of that is well into six figures per year.  If it wasn't - hey, there are alternatives.  For basketball, overseas or the D League.  For football, the Arena League pays $28k-$165k per year with a minimum age of 18, and the CFL is 19.  Either players are just completely oblivious to these alternatives, or the total package that playing in the NCAA gives them is more valuable.

[forgetful]

Put me in the camp that thinks athletes should get paid. If the top 10 or so execs of the NCAA get paid a combined $10M...on the backs of the "student-athlete"....then the student-athlete can get 3-4K per school year. I have no problem with that. The NCAA says they lack resources....maybe they shouldnt have 3 private jets paid for by selling Manziel jerseys on their website.

F* them.

Every story about players getting paid by boosters puts a smile on my face. Good for Foster.

Texas A&M jerseys sold for a combined total of $596,000 last year.  10% of that went to A&M.  I'm not sure the NCAA makes any money off jersey sales.  The bulk of their income stems from the basketball tournament TV rights.

I think you have a valid point.  Paying the execs $10M per year is excessive, but the solution isn't to pay athletes, it is to funnel that money back to Universities to help improve education.

[Atticus]

Texas A&M jerseys sold for a combined total of $596,000 last year.  10% of that went to A&M.  I'm not sure the NCAA makes any money off jersey sales.  The bulk of their income stems from the basketball tournament TV rights.

I think you have a valid point.  Paying the execs $10M per year is excessive, but the solution isn't to pay athletes, it is to funnel that money back to Universities to help improve education.

So the NCAA hires a company to manage the content on their website (including the sale of jerseys) and the NCAA doesnt get  cut? Why do they bother then?

[forgetful]

So the NCAA hires a company to manage the content on their website (including the sale of jerseys) and the NCAA doesnt get  cut? Why do they bother then?

I know they said they were getting out of the business, because their was no benefit.  Honestly, I don't know if they got any money, but it would have been a very small amount if they did. 

I just pointed it out, because I think a lot of these issues are blown out of proportion.  The athletes get a ton as of right now.  What they get is in line with other businesses.

Examples.

An attorney will be billed out at $300 an hour but get paid $50.  (6-fold less than their value).

A professor will bring in upwards of $1.5M, but be paid $70-150k (less than 10% of their value).

Athletes are getting compensated around $100k per year, at 10% of their value they would need to bring in $1M each to the university.  Probably less than 20 nationwide do this.

[brandx]

They can hold outside jobs.

Do you think they just practice for an hour after class and then have free time the rest of the night?

[brandx]

I hope they pay them all and then when the rubble is cleaned up, people pushing for this will go WOW.

$200K+ in benefits over a 4 year academic career at MU today for a volleyball, basketball, soccer, tennis, track, etc athlete.  PLUS, a chance to put on their wares on display for future employment in athletics at no additional charge (ESPN, FS1, Gomarquette.com, etc)....if only the Accounting major could get those benefits. 

If only accounting majors were in the same demand as athletes. Let's see - about 500 job openings on the NBA; hundreds of thousands of job openings in accounting. Hmmm... who can command more money?

[forgetful]

Do you think they just practice for an hour after class and then have free time the rest of the night?

Look at the schedule of your average college student.  They have their classes 15-18 hours (3-6 more than the athletes).  The estimate of time outside of class required for each hour in class is 3 hours per course hour.  So the 3-6 additional credit hours is the equivalent of 10-20 hours of time per week.  They are members of 1 or more clubs (takes up a ton of time).  Likely are members of a fraternity or sorority (a ton more time).  By the end of it all they have as little time as the athletes to work, but find time to do so.

They also don't have the benefit of the athletic department placing them in low work load positions to help get them that $2k per year. 

Add to the fact that the average college student is likely in a much more challenging major and they don't have the luxury of free excellent tutors and the athletes likely have as much free time or more free time than the average student. 

[forgetful]

If only accounting majors were in the same demand as athletes. Let's see - about 500 job openings on the NBA; hundreds of thousands of job openings in accounting. Hmmm... who can command more money?

With only 500 job openings (with high long-term pay) and a surplus of people fighting for those positions, supply and demand indicate that they would be willing to do just about anything and at any costs to facilitate their ability to secure those positions.

In fact one would argue that people would be lining the streets to play for free with the chance to secure an inside tract to those positions (aka internships).  That would indicate that the fact that their are fewer openings and that the desired job commands more money, then less compensation should be required to individuals seeking the training and exposure to get that job.

So in that regards, in college athletes should be getting less than accountants not more. 

The flip side is that the athletes bring exposure value to the University, which leads to compensation in the form of scholarships and other benefits even though no compensation may be needed to fill the positions.  All in all things balance out.

[Coleman]

Look at the schedule of your average college student.  They have their classes 15-18 hours (3-6 more than the athletes).  The estimate of time outside of class required for each hour in class is 3 hours per course hour.  So the 3-6 additional credit hours is the equivalent of 10-20 hours of time per week.  They are members of 1 or more clubs (takes up a ton of time).  Likely are members of a fraternity or sorority (a ton more time).  By the end of it all they have as little time as the athletes to work, but find time to do so.

They also don't have the benefit of the athletic department placing them in low work load positions to help get them that $2k per year.  

Add to the fact that the average college student is likely in a much more challenging major and they don't have the luxury of free excellent tutors and the athletes likely have as much free time or more free time than the average student.  

If Davante Gardner came up to Buzz and asked him if he could work at Qdoba for some extra scratch, do you really think Buzz would be on board? Would you want Buzz to be on board? Would you want Davante working the late shift the night before a noon game?

The notion that athletes could hold outside jobs during the school year is ludicrous. And what employer would hire you after telling them all of the times you would be unavailable to work due to practice or playing in a different part of the country? It all sounds well and good until you think about how it would actually play out.

[forgetful]

If Davante Gardner came up to Buzz and asked him if he could work at Qdoba for some extra scratch, do you really think Buzz would be on board? Would you want Buzz to be on board? Would you want Davante working the late shift the night before a noon game?

The notion that athletes could hold outside jobs during the school year is ludicrous. And what employer would hire you after telling them all of the times you would be unavailable to work due to practice or playing in a different part of the country? It all sounds well and good until you think about how it would actually play out.

I assure you every one of the athletes likely has a position working the recreational sports desk or equivalent making $10 an hour for about 5-10 hours per week (while getting their studying done or shooting hoops), that gets them their $2k per school year.  Are they going to work at Qdoba, no, because they don't have to. They will line them up with cushy jobs.  

They also get camp jobs in the summer where they get great pay for short periods of work.    

The only rule is the job can't be in the athletic department and the compensation is in line with that offered to other students.  In principle you could create a handful of jobs that are compensated at $100 an hour provided all student in that job capacity are compensated equivalently.

[Tugg Speedman]

Forgetful,

You seem to be talking about the "average" student/athlete.  The issue of pay is not about the "average" athlete.  I agree the average athlete has a good deal now.

Pay is about the superstar.  The superstar is the one that generates millions in exposure and revenue for the university (i.e., Denard Robinson's four years at UM is estimated to have generated them $50 to $80 million in exposure and actual sales.  Manziel is generating similar numbers at A&M).  

The superstar is what makes a program.  Without a Manziel, what would A&M be over the last two years?  A fraction of what they are now.

If pay was an option, Blue might be coming back this year.  If so, we would be higher ranked.  A higher ranking would have been a better seed and a deeper run in the tourney.  Combined with increased merchandising (because Blue would have meant more exposure from a higher ranking) and MU could have justified paying him $100,000 or more this year to stay.

So let's stop with how much the volleyball player gets.  The answer will always be nothing more than a scholarship and the use of the coaches and facilities.  They do not deserve a stipend.  

The real question is the superstar.  Can you/should you pay them?  In MU's case for this season it is Gardner and Blue.  Not having pay cost us the opportunity to retain Blue.  Gardner deserves more than a Scholarship.  These two are the issue when talking about pay, no one else.  These two are also the entire upcoming season so they mean more than anyone not named Buzz Williams to the University. 

[forgetful]

Forgetful,

You seem to be talking about the "average" student/athlete.  The issue of pay is not about the "average" athlete.  I agree the average athlete has a good deal now.

Pay is about the superstar.  The superstar is the one that generates millions in exposure and revenue for the university (i.e., Denard Robinson's four years at UM is estimated to have generated them $50 to $80 million in exposure and actual sales.  Manziel is generating similar numbers at A&M).  

The superstar is what makes a program.  Without a Manziel, what would A&M be over the last two years?  A fraction of what they are now.

If pay was an option, Blue might be coming back this year.  If so, we would be higher ranked.  A higher ranking would have been a better seed and a deeper run in the tourney.  Combined with increased merchandising (because Blue would have meant more exposure from a higher ranking) and MU could have justified paying him $100,000 or more this year to stay.

So let's stop with how much the volleyball player gets.  The answer will always be nothing more than a scholarship and the use of the coaches and facilities.  They do not deserve a stipend.  

The real question is the superstar.  In MU's case for this season it is Gardner and Blue.  They are the two guys that make or break a season.  They deserve substantial pay.  Blue left because he was not paid.  Gardner is worth a lot more than a scholarship.  Not having pay cost us the opportunity to retain Blue.  Gardner deserves more than a Scholarship.

The players you mention are part of that 10-20 players that are being under compensated (that I mentioned above).  What I contend is that you and others are grossly exagerating the financial benefit to the university.  The best example is in merchandising.  A&M grossed $59,600 from merchandising sales (aka jerseys and such) last year.  

I've always argued that the benefit to the University is in the exposure, which are the numbers you are citing for Robinson.  Their are two problems with compensating them for this exposure.  

1.  The increased exposure becomes redundant, meaning if it wasn't for the sports, they would never pay for the increased exposure.  It becomes saturating way before the $50-80M in valued exposure.  Especially because it only targets sports fans.  Look at it from this perspective.  If a market analysis indicated that you could get 90% publicity saturation at $2M worth of commercials.  95% would require $20M and for $200M you would get 100% saturation.  But for the additional $18M and $198M you would only see an increase in revenue of $5M and $10M respectively (Assuming $100M in publicity related revenue), you would only spend the $2M ($90M in revenue) as additional spending does not increase net profits.  If someone else (Denard Robinson/ESPN) is going to provide that publicity for free, you'll take it, but it doesn't bring value of $18-198M, rather only $5-10M.  It is the incremental benefit which is of merit, not total exposure.

2.  If you look at the incremental value due to a Denard Robinson/Manziel (i.e. the increased exposure due to them) the value is significantly smaller.  The leagues have established TV deals that do not depend on these stars and would get the exposure anyway.  This further depletes their 'emotional' value.

So for your Vander Blue argument.  To justify a $100k compensation, his presence would have to bring in an additional incremental value of close to $1M to the University.  He wouldn't have done that.  You can argue the increased media exposure, but the difference in terms of actual market effect for MU with/without Vander is insignificant (market being increases in enrollment and basketball income).

The final aspect relates to ideas about the athlete themselves, Denard Robinson/Manziel.  Robinson will be lucky to have a reasonable professional career.  Some argue that Manziel will also not have much of an NFL career (hotly debated).  So they have little to no professional value, their value is associated with the University/NCAA system. (think Ron Dayne, Maurice Clarett).  

You say that A&M would be a fraction of itself, but we do not know who the replacement would have been, many college programs are systems that showcase an individual (think UW running backs).  Without Manziel A&M is still a bowl-team.

I understand yours and Brandx's arguments. I just believe that a lot of it (and the media's treatment) is based off of emotion that doesn't consider the actual financial basis.  Are a handful of athletes still undercompensated, yes, but we are looking at a handful of athletes that should get an extra $10-50k (not 100k-1M).  Every company/profession has a handful of employees that are underpaid compared to their peers, we don't go and give everyone raises because of this.

[Tugg Speedman]

It's not about Jersey sales.  That is a tiny fraction of the worth.

Success in athletics leads to more donations and more applications.  Why do you think their is such an arms race for good players?  Otherwise everyone would be Depaul and not care.

For instance, what was the monetary value of D Wade for MU.  Without him, at the time he came along, one could argue no Big East and no AL.  We would have been the Midwest version of UAB and/or Memphis (less Calipari).  D Wade meant millions for MU.  Pay = 1 college scholarship.

-----

The TV ratings for Alabama/A&M was the highest in 23 years (below).  Why?  One reason and one reason only, Johnny Manziel.  The attention and exposure for both Alabama and A&M are incalculable.

So explain this ... Robinson and Manziel play in front of 100,000 every Saturday.  College football TV ratings are greater than MLB TV ratings (but less than the NFL)

By what logic does a baseball team have a $100 million payroll and a QB in the NFL make $75 million but playing in front of 100,000 and a larger TV audience than MLB only has the value of Jersey sales?

You're arguing your position so hard you're not making any more sense.  Again we are talking about a few players per University.  But those players are the difference between being MU or Depaul. You think a Diamond Stone is worth $59,000 to some university?  The jet fuel some are spending to recruit him is more than that.  That alone argues your math is totally wrong.

----

CBS: Alabama-Texas A&M TV ratings highest in 23 years
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/23663035/cbs-alabamatexas-am-tv-ratings-highest-in-23-years

[ChicosBailBonds]

If only accounting majors were in the same demand as athletes. Let's see - about 500 job openings on the NBA; hundreds of thousands of job openings in accounting. Hmmm... who can command more money?

That's why I specifically mentioned volleyball, tennis, soccer, track, etc......you can't just pay the football and basketball players.

All those other sports, LOSE money big time. Hell, many football and basketball programs lose money.

[Tugg Speedman]

I found this ...

------------

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9690028/texas-raises-record-740-million-donations-fiscal-year

Texas A&M's move to the Southeastern Conference was something school president R. Bowen Loftin called a "100-year decision" when it occurred. Turns out it was one of several factors that helped contribute to hundreds of millions in increased donations for the school.

The university raised more than $740 million in donations in the past fiscal year, the school announced on Tuesday. The total, documented between Sept. 1, 2012, and Aug. 31, 2013, is a school record and more than $300 million better than any previous 12-month period in the school's history. ... Of the total, $351 million went to the Texas A&M Foundation and $271.5 million went to the 12th Man Foundation, according to the Bryan-College Station Eagle.

The school attributed the increase to many factors, including attracting a record number of high-qualified students, record numbers of graduates and the university's entry into the SEC. The football program's first-year success in the league, which included an 11-2 season, a win over Oklahoma in the Cotton Bowl and quarterback Johnny Manziel becoming the first freshman to win the Heisman Trophy, created a national buzz about Texas A&M football.

"People ask me all the time if you have a winning football team, do you raise more money," [Texas A&M Foundation president Ed] Davis told the Bryan-College Station Eagle. "In normal times, the statistical data wouldn't support that, but in an era where we are in, effectively, in the news everywhere and you have a young man like our quarterback who has been a media magnet and you have the success you have, I do think that euphoria does spill over into success in fundraising. I'm hoping we can keep it up."

-------------

Given this what would Manziel's fair value to the University?  $10 million?  $20 million?  $30 million?  Certainly not 10% of $59k of Jersey sales.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Put me in the camp that thinks athletes should get paid. If the top 10 or so execs of the NCAA get paid a combined $10M...on the backs of the "student-athlete"....then the student-athlete can get 3-4K per school year. I have no problem with that. The NCAA says they lack resources....maybe they shouldnt have 3 private jets paid for by selling Manziel jerseys on their website.

F* them.

Every story about players getting paid by boosters puts a smile on my face. Good for Foster.

He does a job, that is what he is paid for.  This sounds like the ridiculous arguments labor makes that the CEO made $X but the guy on the assembly line only made $18 an hour.  

Emmert make $1.7M...and for that he sure has a "cushy gig"...he sure isn't pounded by everyone in this country that thinks they can do the job better, he sure doesn't have to worry about 450,000 student athletes, over 1,000 institutions, etc....nah, he has his feet up on the desk.

And by the way, only three execs at the NCAA make more than $500K per year....hardly the top 10 making $10M....or anywhere close to that.

[forgetful]

I found this ...

------------

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9690028/texas-raises-record-740-million-donations-fiscal-year

The university raised more than $740 million in donations in the past fiscal year, the school announced on Tuesday. The total, documented between Sept. 1, 2012, and Aug. 31, 2013, is a school record and more than $300 million better than any previous 12-month period in the school's history. ... Of the total, $351 million went to the Texas A&M Foundation and $271.5 million went to the 12th Man Foundation, according to the Bryan-College Station Eagle.

"People ask me all the time if you have a winning football team, do you raise more money," [Texas A&M Foundation president Ed] Davis told the Bryan-College Station Eagle. "In normal times, the statistical data wouldn't support that, but in an era where we are in, effectively, in the news everywhere and you have a young man like our quarterback who has been a media magnet and you have the success you have, I do think that euphoria does spill over into success in fundraising. I'm hoping we can keep it up."

-------------

Given this what would Manziel's fair value to the University?  $10 million?  $20 million?  $30 million?  Certainly not 10% of $59k of Jersey sales.

I discussed this in the two other threads on Manziel.  You have to be careful with fundraising.  Between $200-400M of that $740 million is due to federal money for a biosecurity center.  I'm pretty sure the federal government didn't say, look at that Manziel kid, we should give them a ton of money.

Another $250 million was for the new stadium, they most likely had those pledges before Manziel ever stepped foot on campus and the money is just coming in now.  That is how University fundraising usually works, they set a bar (goal) based on already existing pledges so that they are sure to meet/exceed the goal.

So between $450-650M is due to 'non-manziel related activities'.  The director of fundraising indicated a lot of the increase is due to demographics, with recently doubling alumni over 55 and the Texas energy boom. 

Relating it to Manziel is politicing to deflect some of the heat they got for leaving the big 12.

How much should Manziel be compensated.  Two things.  The millions in University exposure is also millions in his own exposure, which created his value.  But I digress.  I would say his value to the university is between $1-4 million.  He will be at A&M for 3 years total.  His total compensation is likely on the order of $200-300k.  Honestly, even at the top value of $4M that is between 5-8% of his value, well within typical norms in industry.

But these are all guesses.  I'm sorry you didn't understand my argument above.  My point is that people are citing articles based on raw emotion trying to prove a point and not a systematic rational treatment of the numbers.  They are trying to sell a story line (just like politics).  The actual numbers don't reflect real value as they don't consider market saturation and incremental benefit.  My opinion is that a systematic study would indicate that the players get a pretty sweet deal, especially since most Universities are losing money on athletics, even on basketball and football.