There are plenty of schools with better players and better results than ND. Nd makes more money. Players who come here deserve less of the pie

I can keep going all day.

students being required to work for free with the univeristy collecting the money?

Dump all pure athletic and academic scholarships. Put that money into lowering tuition for all.

Between need-based scholarships and NIL, everyone should be able to field the teams they need.

for the football team? If it is the brand why do we care who is the coach?

I do find it ironic that many on here like to criticize Swarbrick for only caring about the brand and now the answer to not paying players is because the money comes from the brand.

The entire problem is the system (not just ND all schools) was built on a system where it was deemed acceptable to tell the kids they cant get paid, they cant get a job, they cant transfer schools and play. It was less unseemly before the explosion of big money but when you have the money generated today paying thousands of people at schools and the ancillary businesses built around the sport but not the players it isnt right.

As Mr.E has posted look at the % of revenue schools spend on coaches compared to pros. My guess is there is something similar with regard to the front office / athletic department. Then think of the millions the schools raise around or adjacent to these programs.

Want to find out what the players are worth then let the negotiate individual deals. Of course the schools dont really want employees and all the responsibilities that come with that.

the brand and the labor. The question is obviously what a fair split would be.

Notre Dame takes in 77 million in profit. It certainly does not cost ND 85k for 85 athletes, and their costs for food/housing/clothes/etc. are certainly nowhere near what airborneirish would lead people to believe. So is it a fair distribution? Most people seem to agree that it's not, especially for the top end performers. The fact that the schools admit that they're taking from the money making sport to pay for the non revenue sports would seem to indicate that it's not equitable; the football and basketball players derive no benefit from non revenue sports.

Airborne says 85k per student plus factor in the cost of stadiums, coaching staffs, academic support staff, food, transportation, etc etc.

Perhaps I missed it in the posts below, but what do you think the cost associated with a scholarship football player including all of the above is? Also, what are the costs for an Olympic sport athlete?

Not net costs, just what are the expenditures?

(source: ND)

Men's Hoops - $832,109
Football - $699,832
Women's Hoops - $410,001
Men's Olympic - $227, 094
Women's Olympic - $166,070

(these numbers based on dividing the expenses by the # of scholarships allowed for particular sport. Expenses per scholarship player would go up, of course, if a particular sport does not have the full amount of scholarship players on a roster).

I'm going to guess that it's inflated to show the full cost of tuition which is saved by the athlete being on scholarship. I'm going to guess that they include the cost of the support staff, coaches, etc.

To say the least, it's misleading.

Earlier you said that 85k was ludicrous. Now we have an order of magnitude higher costs and you wave it away.

If a teenager moves to Florida to go to a sports academy with Nike sponsorship, we would include the costs of everything from schooling to travel allowances to support staff.

the proper category is "value" to the athlete, not cost to Notre Dame. It does not cost Notre Dame 85k per athlete. If you need the why behind that explained to you, I can't help you.

The coaches expenditure is also a bit silly but is more accurate as it relates to "cost." However, what makes it silly is that the money for those salaries is largely inflated due to the bloat on the staff (which the players don't necessarily benefit from in most cases) and the fact that the money is coming from in part the fruits of the labor and not just the brand. So basically, the players are paying for their coaches without a say in which coaches they have, which are fired, etc. Were players circa 2010 getting more value because Notre Dame was paying for screaming, red-faced, shanty Irish Mick and big fat Weis as well? Man, the cost to Notre Dame per scholarship athlete must have been high during those years--some return on investment that was!

You are treating the football team as if they are the last 85 marginal students and seem to be only accounting for tuition and room and board costs. In that case, the non scholarship players must cost 0.

To the degree it matters, I don’t know why you are minimizing the expenditures on the football team, some of whom are receiving not only a degree but also four to five years of training for the NFL.l and many more are receiving a shot at the NFL though they won’t make it. It’s not dissimilar to Florida prep academies for teens trying to get a scholarship or go pro.

You still didn’t put your marker down on the average cost per player.

again, you need help that I can't provide. You think that it costs Notre Dame full freight for the tuition of the scholarship players? Wow.

Also note that I addressed your second point (which indicates that you didn't bother to read the first time, which is par for the course with you) about value to the player of the scholarship. There is no question there is value much higher than 85k to the scholarship athlete; that still doesn't change the point that it is not a direct cost to the school, dummy.

...delivering an undergraduate education relative to tuition. From what I've seen, highly selective universities like Notre Dame typically spend slightly more per student on undergraduate education than what they charge in full freight tuition. And I seem to recall a statement from Notre Dame a few years back that its spending per student on undergraduate education was about 11% higher than full freight tuition.

Note that none of this has to do with what it SHOULD cost to deliver an undergraduate education, just was it actually DOES cost (i.e., it includes however much bloat one is inclined to believe exists).

All of which is to say that it doesn't strike me as ludicrous to suggest that Notre Dame spends $85K per player on non-football related expenses.

Of course, doing the same exercise - revenue is like $1.6M per scholarship FB player

tremendously lucrative business for Notre Dame (and every power 5 school, and many group of 5 schools, and even a lot of FCS schools).

"most dont really pay that amount" so dont know that it is the right number to use here.