Skip to content

Player boycott to cost Grambling dollars now, home games later

Texas Southern Grambling Football AP

The decision of Grambling State players to protest what they considered to be substandard conditions will come at a steep cost to the athletic department in general and the football program specifically.

The SWAC announced Wednesday morning that Grambling State will be fined an undisclosed amount of money as a result of a player boycott of an October 19 game against Jackson State.  Grambling will also pay Jackson State an unspecified percentage of what’s described as “future distribution amounts.”

Additionally, Grambling will be forced to travel to Jackson State each of the next three seasons to help, the conference stated, recoup monies lost as a result of the boycott.  Two of those three games would’ve been home contests for Grambling, adding travel costs and lost revenue to the punitive measures.

“As far as the fine for Grambling State and subsequent payment to Jackson State, we believe that it is the right thing to do from a conference standpoint,” SWAC commissioner Duer Sharp said. “Our goal at this point is to address those concerns head-on, finish up our regular season and move on towards our Football Championship in Houston on December 7.”

The Grambling players protested what they considered to poor conditions in the football facilities as well as decisions made by athletic department officials related to the head coaching position.  That boycott led to a forfeit, with Grambling taking a loss and Jackson a win.

Following the protest, Grambling played its next three games as scheduled.  One of those, against Mississippi Valley State, stands as the Tigers’ lone win this season.

They will close out the season Nov. 30 (on NBC) against rival Southern in the annual Bayou Classic.

Permalink 9 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Top Posts
9 Responses to “Player boycott to cost Grambling dollars now, home games later”
  1. mcg1848 says: Nov 13, 2013 4:44 PM

    I would think the Grambling players would call this a necessary evil. If it calls attention to some obvious problems (e.g. staph infections, substandard conditions, etc), then it was money well spent. It is unfortunate though that Jackson State was caught up in this fiasco through no fault of their own.

  2. psly2124 says: Nov 13, 2013 5:30 PM

    Disband the program. It cannot support itself without state money. 99% of the student get free rides through financial aid. When they do graduate they donate zip to the school. It’s an albratross around the neck of the stats of Louisiana. I’d close the whole school.

  3. mrtreyseven says: Nov 13, 2013 5:59 PM

    close the program….all schools accept state money close that school close every school in the country

  4. burntorangehorn says: Nov 13, 2013 7:20 PM

    psly2124, if every school that uses state funding for its football program to any degree were to disband its team, there MIGHT be enough teams to field one conference, but probably not enough to hold a conference championship game. For example, Alabama’s AD generated about $119M in revenue in 2008, but had about $123M in expenses. The university subsidized the athletics department to the tune of over $4M to make up the difference.

    I’m not one who would support tuition-gouging to pay a coach more than anyone else in the country, but I sure as heck would oppose shuttering the athletics depts. at Alabama and many other institutions just because they aren’t fully self-funding. I doubt any Alabama fans would disagree on that.

  5. psly2124 says: Nov 13, 2013 8:11 PM

    Grambling is 100% dependent of state funding. There sports programs offer zilch and tuition is basically paid through the government program of financial aid. Most schools are not dependent on state funding

  6. burntorangehorn says: Nov 13, 2013 8:43 PM

    100% state-funded? False. The state budget for 2011-2012 was 61% self-funded.

    http://www.gram.edu/offices/administration/provost/pair/convocation/docs/Budget%20Reduction%20Plan%20Review.pdf

    Also, close the whole school? I do think universities and employers need to narrow the gap between learning outcomes and hiring requirements, because there’s a massive chasm between them at this point, but if you shut down colleges like that, you eliminate a lot of avenues to reversing centuries of institutionalized social stratification in states like Louisiana.

    If you’d like to name a school that is fully self-sustaining, I will bet you that you probably couldn’t name many of its past football or basketball players. I can name R.J. Bowers from Grove City College, but no one else from there, Hillsdale College, or Patrick Henry College. Those are the only three accredited colleges in the nation that use no federal funding. Not coincidentally, they’re also prohibitively expensive, largely monolithic (Hillsdale: wealthy white judeo-christian libertarians/neoliberals; Grove City: wealthy white protestant neoliberals/ultra-conservatives; Patrick Henry: home-schooled white creationist conservatives), and largely bastions of epistemic closure (except Hillsdale, which, unlike the other two, accepts Darwinism even in instances in which it’s not preceded by the word “social”).

    You can close all but these three schools, if you like, and get the albatrosses off our necklines, but I’m not sure how happy anyone would be with a return to the golden age. You know: pre-1900s, when the vast majority of people–including most of the middle class–lived at the subsistence level. To heck with providing opportunity for the kids of Louisiana to learn how to design an electrical circuit or administer information assurance so that they are contributing to (rather than drawing from) state and federal coffers; long-term strategy is for suckers.

  7. sportsguy3434 says: Nov 13, 2013 9:41 PM

    Burntorangehorn,
    Your numbers are old. Alabama had a surplus of $16M in 2012. So did many other departments have a surplus. Here are some current figures just fyi

    http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/?fullsite=true

  8. vcmg2707 says: Nov 13, 2013 9:48 PM

    http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20130727/news/130729819

    Burntorangehorn, you could not be more wrong. Although there are few profitable athletic departments, Alabama’s is one of them. Since you singled out Alabama, I would note that profitability has been the norm there for a while. According to the article above, which takes its data from USA Today, there are 22 others.

    Know your facts.

  9. ddmcd1974 says: Nov 14, 2013 3:59 PM

    The problem is your alumni blow as someone has stated. They give nothing back. Why?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!