From @TheDeuce:
 

2 minutes ago, Colonels_Wear_Blue said:

From @Jumper_Dad:
 

In the arena? Probably, but I would bet those advertisers are lined up years in advance, way before Zion decided on Duke.

Duke sells out their ads because of K and program strength. Had Zion stayed a second or third year, they could have boosted in arena ad prices because of him...but those deals for that season were probably signed before he was.

They aren't. Maybe a very small select few. But those can change from game to game.

From @Jumper_Dad:
 

1 minute ago, Colonels_Wear_Blue said:

From @TheDeuce:
 

They aren't. Maybe a very small select few. But those can change from game to game.

That money goes to JMI, not Duke.

Just like at UK.

From @Jumper_Dad:

Duke may have switched from JMI to a new partner, but it still works the same way.

From @TheDeuce:
 

1 minute ago, Colonels_Wear_Blue said:

From @Jumper_Dad:
 

That money goes to JMI, not Duke.

Just like at UK.

So your position is that Duke gained nothing financially from having Zion on campus?

From @Jumper_Dad:
 

1 minute ago, Colonels_Wear_Blue said:

From @TheDeuce:
 

So your position is that Duke gained nothing financially from having Zion on campus?

Directly, very little. Indirectly, it definitely helped strengthen the brand and made Duke "Cool" which means more shirt and souvenir sales.

It's just the way the business is set up at the bigger collegiate properties.

JMI for example paid UK $210,000,000 for their rights for several years. JMI then has the rights to sell all of the school based advertising and keep that money. If UK tanks and all sports suck, they already have their money and JMI is stuck trying to sell ads that no one would want. JMI got the money from Kroger, not UK.

From @TheDeuce:
 

1 minute ago, Colonels_Wear_Blue said:

From @Jumper_Dad:
 

Directly, very little. Indirectly, it definitely helped strengthen the brand and made Duke "Cool" which means more shirt and souvenir sales.

It's just the way the business is set up at the bigger collegiate properties.

JMI for example paid UK $210,000,000 for their rights for several years. JMI then has the rights to sell all of the school based advertising and keep that money. If UK tanks and all sports suck, they already have their money and JMI is stuck trying to sell ads that no one would want. JMI got the money from Kroger, not UK.

So if these major schools don't benefit from these athletes being on campus, why do they cheat to get them?

From @Jumper_Dad:
 

1 minute ago, Colonels_Wear_Blue said:

From @TheDeuce:
 

So if these major schools don't benefit from these athletes being on campus, why do they cheat to get them?

Coaches cheat! They do it to keep their jobs or because they want to take a shortcut to winning.

Schools do get paid more for going to bowls and advancing deep in the tourney. Also coaches have huge egos and want to win at any cost.

Plus the stronger your program is over several years, the more it's worth when you negotiate your next deal for your advertising rights or next shoe deal.

From @4 Quarters:
 

1 minute ago, Colonels_Wear_Blue said:

From @TheDeuce:
 

So if these major schools don't benefit from these athletes being on campus, why do they cheat to get them?

To win a title.

From @TheDeuce:
 

Just now, Colonels_Wear_Blue said:

From @4 Quarters:
 

To win a title.

As JD finally pointed out, the schools benefit financially from making deep runs, winning more games and signing better deals. Saying that a school doesn't directly benefit from a player like Zion is silly.

From @4 Quarters:
 

1 minute ago, Colonels_Wear_Blue said:

From @TheDeuce:
 

As JD finally pointed out, the schools benefit financially from making deep runs, winning more games and signing better deals. Saying that a school doesn't directly benefit from a player like Zion is silly.

You really can't say made a deep run this year, as there was no tourney. Did Zion really help the Duke won/lost record, looked about like the so old Duke record.

From @Jumper_Dad:
 

1 minute ago, Colonels_Wear_Blue said:

From @TheDeuce:
 

As JD finally pointed out, the schools benefit financially from making deep runs, winning more games and signing better deals. Saying that a school doesn't directly benefit from a player like Zion is silly.

Duke didn't make enough of a run with Zion to earn any real money. Winning more games with Zion didn't get them any money. In 5 or 6 years when they renegotiate their contracts, Zion will be an after thought.

Zion helped maintain what Duke had going already. If he had gone to Kansas it wouldn't gave cost Duke anything, except maybe a few T-shirt sales.

From @MBWC41:

16 minutes ago, Colonels_Wear_Blue said:

From @Jumper_Dad:
 

Really? Duke games, both home and away don't already nearly sell out every night? What extra money did he make for Duke or the ACC? TV contracts were set years ago and he will be a distant memory by the time the new contracts are determined.

Past performance dictates future earnings.
Zion , and every high profile 1 and done are a very important part of future earnings.

You’re telling me you think Zion was only worth t-shirts?

From @MBWC41:
 

Again, as much as I hate Duke, I watched 90% of their games to see Zion.

He was good for Duke. He was good for college basketball. He made a lot of people a lot of money. He should have been compensated for that.

From @MBWC41:
 

I’ve already admitted to rooting against Duke so I’ll change names and schools.

UK and the NCAA benefited enormously from Anthony Davis. He should have been paid for his services.

From @Jumper_Dad:
 

2 minutes ago, Colonels_Wear_Blue said:

From @MBWC41:

Past performance dictates future earnings.
Zion , and every high profile 1 and done are a very important part of future earnings.

You’re telling me you think Zion was only worth t-shirts?

In the immediate short term when discussing actual cash, yes. Duke got no extra financial gains from ads, shoe, TV or radio the year he was there. Those numbers were already set before he signed with Duke. Whoever paid Duke for their media and ad rights, may have been able to jack up the prices on some ads and pocket some extra money. But it didn't go to Duke.

I know what I'm saying sounds crazy, but schools like UK, Duke, Alabama, Clemson all sell their media rights off. They get a big guarantee up front and the media partner is left to market the ads and other stuff to make their profit.