OT - Michael Jordan's son won't wear Adidas

[Mark Padgett]

Jordan's son not free to wear Air Jordans - College Basketball - Rivals.com

[BktBallRef]

MJ could more than make up for any lost contractual money that UCF might lose. Seems to me Nike would get more publicity if Michael did that. Adidas would be smart to just leave this one alone.

[fullor30]

Marcus should learn it's a team game and not about him. Great start to his college career.

[SAK]

I have heard that UCF allowed a football player to wear a different brand of shoes in the past. So this is not the first time that UCF has had to tackle this issue.

[Adam]

The school is getting endorsement dollars for putting brand name shoes on the athletes, who get nothing from it. I've never really been too high on letting the athletes get paid, but I hadn't really considered the endorsements which have the schools getting money directly for the players' behavior.

And don't tell me the kids are getting scholarships out of the deal. They get the scholarships for playing basketball, not for wearing a particular brand of clothing.

[eyezen]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The school is getting endorsement dollars for putting brand name shoes on the athletes, who get nothing from it. I've never really been too high on letting the athletes get paid, but I hadn't really considered the endorsements which have the schools getting money directly for the players' behavior.

And don't tell me the kids are getting scholarships out of the deal. They get the scholarships for playing basketball, not for wearing a particular brand of clothing.

I could be naive but don't those endorsement dollars go back into the program? Tutors, dietitians, chartered flights, training facilities, etc I mean the amount of supplementary support these kids get is simply amazing even from 10 years ago. All things those kids directly benefit from. All things which are not free to provide.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The school is getting endorsement dollars for putting brand name shoes on the athletes, who get nothing from it. I've never really been too high on letting the athletes get paid, but I hadn't really considered the endorsements which have the schools getting money directly for the players' behavior.

And don't tell me the kids are getting scholarships out of the deal. They get the scholarships for playing basketball, not for wearing a particular brand of clothing.

And who are the players representing when they play - themselves or the school? It's the school, who provides the uniforms. If the school wants an endorsement on the uniform and the player plays for that school, then the player should wear the endorsement - unless, of course, he or she wants to buy their own uniforms (and other equipment).

Just try telling some HS kid who wants to go to the University of Oregon that they'll have the choice of not wearing a Nike logo on their game uniform.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The school is getting endorsement dollars for putting brand name shoes on the athletes, who get nothing from it. I've never really been too high on letting the athletes get paid, but I hadn't really considered the endorsements which have the schools getting money directly for the players' behavior.

And don't tell me the kids are getting scholarships out of the deal. They get the scholarships for playing basketball, not for wearing a particular brand of clothing.

And for most schools, the sports programs are NOT a profitable entity. The sponsorship deals just help cover the gap. There are only a very small handful of schools where you argument could even come close to having any merit....and I doubt UCF is one of them.

(See Few colleges turn profit on athletics* - College Sports - Charleston Daily Mail - West Virginia News and Sports -)

The NCAA's latest report on revenues and expenses, released Tuesday and available at ncaa publications.com, showed that fewer than 25 percent of all Football Bowl Subdivision schools made money in 2007-08, while the remaining 302 schools competing in Division I struggled to break even.

Twenty-five of 119 FBS schools reported overall profits, an increase from 19 in 2006.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

And who are the players representing when they play - themselves or the school? It's the school, who provides the uniforms. If the school wants an endorsement on the uniform and the player plays for that school, then the player should wear the endorsement - unless, of course, he or she wants to buy their own uniforms (and other equipment).

Just try telling some HS kid who wants to go to the University of Oregon that they'll have the choice of not wearing a Nike logo on their game uniform.

I highly doubt young Master Jordan is requesting the school pay for his Air Jordans. Now, I would agree that if he was aware of the endorsement deal beforehand, and it was that big a deal to him, he should have chosen a different school.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And for most schools, the sports programs are NOT a profitable entity. The sponsorship deals just help cover the gap. There are only a very small handful of schools where you argument could even come close to having any merit....and I doubt UCF is one of them.

(See Few colleges turn profit on athletics* - College Sports - Charleston Daily Mail - West Virginia News and Sports -)

The NCAA's latest report on revenues and expenses, released Tuesday and available at ncaa publications.com, showed that fewer than 25 percent of all Football Bowl Subdivision schools made money in 2007-08, while the remaining 302 schools competing in Division I struggled to break even.

Twenty-five of 119 FBS schools reported overall profits, an increase from 19 in 2006.

Camron, I'd be willing to bet money that the number of schools for which football or men's basketball turn a profit is much higher than 25%. It's not the men's basketball programs that drain the coffers; it's gymnastics, softball, baseball, wrestling, tennis, etc.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by eyezen

I could be naive but don't those endorsement dollars go back into the program? Tutors, dietitians, chartered flights, training facilities, etc I mean the amount of supplementary support these kids get is simply amazing even from 10 years ago. All things those kids directly benefit from. All things which are not free to provide.

You may well be right, but the majority of those things, while benefiting the kids, are put in place for the benefit of the program; to the point where they may well provide a return on investment in the form of booster donations.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Camron, I'd be willing to bet money that the number of schools for which football or men's basketball turn a profit is much higher than 25%. It's not the men's basketball programs that drain the coffers; it's gymnastics, softball, baseball, wrestling, tennis, etc.

I'd agree...this same report that said a majority (57%) of 119 DI-FBS football teams are profitable. It also said that a majority of the 119 FBS school's men's basketball programs were profitable (56%). That leaves almost half the FBS schools where the "profit sports" are still losing money. That doesn't even mention the other 200 or so non-FBS D-I schools that where nearly all lose money on all sports....even in football/basketball.

Even so, it is the bottom line that matters, not a compartmentalized view. For those profitable teams to even be Division I, the school must have at least 14 teams across all sports...men and women (7 each, or 6 men/8 women). So, an inevitable requirement of playing D-I is to subsidize the other sports.

See: Title IX Blog: NCAA Releases Report on Athletic Department Profitability

When you don't count institutional subsidies as revenue, only 17 out of 300 Division I program (5%) were profitable during the 2004-2006 period that was the scope of the study. 16 of these programs were in the Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly, DI-A).

Note that 5% number....only 17 D1 schools have a net profit from thier sports even with all the revenue for basketball and football. That says that a lot of them probably even lose money on the money sports.

[Adam]

Too many charter jets?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I highly doubt young Master Jordan is requesting the school pay for his Air Jordans. Now, I would agree that if he was aware of the endorsement deal beforehand, and it was that big a deal to him, he should have chosen a different school.

Actually, he was very aware of the Adidas affiliation. In fact, before he signed, he asked the school if he would be allowed to wear Air Jordans. The response was yes, no problem.

Now, the school has the problem with Adidas, not Marcus Jordan. Further, Nike has no interest in UCF as they already have Florida, Miami and Florida State.

UCF has no one to blame but themselves.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Actually, he was very aware of the Adidas affiliation. In fact, before he signed, he asked the school if he would be allowed to wear Air Jordans. The response was yes, no problem.

Now, the school has the problem with Adidas, not Marcus Jordan. Further, Nike has no interest in UCF as they already have Florida, Miami and Florida State.

UCF has no one to blame but themselves.

Right, that was my next point; that he seemed to have gotten one answer from them initially only to be followed by a reversal.