Press "Enter" to skip to content

Rob Mullens gets $50K for Alamo Bowl, players get $125 gift certificate

Seems like as good a time as any to repost this, from 2016. And yes, Lorraine Davis is still on the payroll.

And how much did UO pay Lorraine Davis for her Alamo Bowl duties? Last year’s bowl overload was pretty lucrative:

Screen Shot 2016-01-02 at 5.09.07 PM

The NCAA’s unwritten rule is that “no black man shall make money off college football”. MLK biographer Taylor Branch’s expose is in the Atlantic, here:

The Washington Post reports on a new study on how racism drives opposition to paying college football players, here:

Racial prejudice is driving opposition to paying college athletes. Here’s the evidence.

… To find out whether racial prejudice influences white opinion on paying college athletes, we conducted a survey of opinions on “pay for play” policies using the 2014 CCES.

In a statistical analysis that controlled for a host of other influences, we found this: Negative racial views about blacks were the single most important predictor of white opposition to paying college athletes.

The more negatively a white respondent felt about blacks, the more they opposed paying college athletes.

UO Athletic Director Rob Mullens’s contract is here:

Screen Shot 2016-01-01 at 6.46.40 PM

While the Duck players get this:

Screen Shot 2016-01-01 at 7.05.44 PM


  1. honest Uncle Bernie 01/02/2016

    If one of them gets arrested, Rob needs money for a bail bond.

  2. thedude 01/02/2016

    The real question is how much did vegas pay them to blow that lead? If they would have let the academic side know we could have increased our endowment ten fold at halftime.

    • uomatters Post author | 01/03/2016

      Tempting, but NCAA rule 10.3 specifically prohibits the University President from gambling, and UO employees can be fired for violations of NCAA rules. (Or at least FAR Jim O’Fallon tried to get me fired for what he thought was one.)

      Title:10.3 – Sports Wagering Activities.
      The following individuals shall not knowingly participate in sports wagering activities or provide information to individuals involved in or associated with any type of sports wagering activities concerning intercollegiate, amateur or professional athletics competition: (Adopted: 4/26/07 effective 8/1/07)

      (a) Staff members of an institution’s athletics department;

      (b) Nonathletics department staff members who have responsibilities within or over the athletics department (e.g., chancellor or president, faculty athletics representative, individual to whom athletics reports);

      (c) Staff members of a conference office; and

      (d) Student-athletes.

  3. thedude 01/03/2016

    Does it prevent the UO foundation from gambling? Is that what investing is?

  4. cruel irony duck 12/30/2021

    Regarding “The more negatively a white respondent felt about blacks, the more they opposed paying college athletes.”, there doesn’t seem to be a link to an actual publication, but just looking at the money graph, the effect looks pretty modest. And it’s all the more suspicious given that they used N=294 “Racially Resentful Whites” and N=411 “All Whites”. So, basically, N=117 non-racist whites. Is it really that hard to sample a few more of the latter? (Also, imagine what the numbers for Asians and Latinos would be.)

    I don’t doubt the result as put. If anything, it seems almost tautologically true, and I’m surprised the effect is so small.

    I do object to the outer argument, which seems to be that college athletes should be paid. In my mind, a perfectly reasonable (and non-racist) alternative would be to simply not pay anyone for college sports. Sure, staff has to be paid. But cap it at the pay of econ profs, for example. They’re probably mostly white, and I bet they get paid a lot of money.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *