Tom Izzo's $400,000/year salary from Nike and other interesting tidbits

[Henderson]

Ah, the internets. No, Coach K is NOT on the Nike board of directors, and no, the "Blue Devils" were not named after a French WWI unit. There may have been some small influence on the latter point, but it doesn't hold up as a direct "named after" thing.

[greybeard]

My bad about the conflict-of-interest business. The rest stands.

However, K's income from Nike is not chump change. While the exact numbers do not seem to be clear (http://dukecheck.com/?p=3037), the annual payment seems to be $375,000; one source reported that there was also one million as a signing bonus when Duke basketball switched from Adidas to Nike. This to market multiple uniforms, shoes, practice and lots of other gear;, which also provide the Duke faithful lots of product to purchase. This is not counting indirect income in the form of a $2,000,000 plus contribution to a very worth-while charitable institution bearing K's name which K feels passionately about. There are scores and scores of other very worthwhile charitable and other public-interest institutions that could use such support. http://www.dukechronicle.com/article...e-krzyzewski#; http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab-...172431222.html.

Also, does anybody know how much Duke assistant coaches, past and present, receive income from Nike and how many former Duke players with name recognition do as well.

Listen, I know that everybody does it and have for a very long time. It was one thing when even big time coaches made very little, and companies gave players a couple pairs of shoes and uniforms. But current times are different and the monied interests we are talking about are huge and exploitive. They have helped to significant degree to make a mega industry of college sports, with the Nike's of the world giving free gear to the littles of the sports world, from the teen level on up through the beginning of college to create affinity groups for Nike gear, and to get the Nike name out there on a grass roots level. There have even been suggestions that kids chose where to play based upon which shoe company schools are affiliated with. And, a kid or college player who wears Nike stuff at Duke and who makes it in the pros; will they more likely to sign with Nike or a company to promote, and in some instances, advertise gear.

I'm not liking any of this. I hate when college sporting events, or entire tournaments, present on the air the names of their "corporate partners," I detest the exploitation of obscenely cheap labor in SE Asia that makes the marketing and sale of so much useless and overpriced stuff possible, and I do not think that sport would be any less popular with literally none of it.

K is no villain for taking part in all this for fairly big bucks, but I'm not absolving him either for failing to take a stand against it, by refusing to participate. But, then again, his University would not be getting its taste, and, what, that would be wrong. "What a revolting development this is." William Benedix, The Life of Riley.

[Henderson]

There have even been suggestions that kids chose where to play based upon which shoe company schools are affiliated with. And, a kid or college player who wears Nike stuff at Duke and who makes it in the pros; will they more likely to sign with Nike or a company to promote, and in some instances, advertise gear.

I sort of agree with your statements (not captured in the quote above but in you comments above) regarding the financing of "Big School" intercollegiate athletics. There are nearly intractable issues on that front. But I don't think it's a cesspool for the kids. As a result of all the money flowing into the schools from sponsorship dollars, the kids have better equipment and better facilities for their physical development, and (UNC notwithstanding) have better access to tutoring to help them in their academics. The money flowing in pays for that stuff. At the very least, on the academic side, a major school can't say, "We'd like to do a better job with tutors and academic advisors, but we don't have the budget." That was the old days. Now they have the budget. Some schools use it, some don't. Some SAs use it; some dont.

But I strongly disagree that a sneaker contract creates any sort of conflict of interest. All the major shoe manufacturers make excellent shoes, and no major brand shoe will injure a player as a result of a bad design. So what's the downside to Coach K or Duke University getting money from Nike? Every campus is a Coke or Pepsi campus. Every campus is a Budweiser or Miller campus. It's not like the university is taking inferior goods for personal profit.

I also disagree that a kid is "more likely to sign with Nike" [or whomever] just because he wore those shoes in college. Do you have any support for that? If a kid makes it to the NBA, he makes his own sneaker deal, and you can bet that his agent isn't thinking about college sneaker loyalty.

[Blue in the Face]

This is not counting indirect income in the form of a $2,000,000 plus contribution to a very worth-while charitable institution bearing K's name which K feels passionately about.

I'm sure K appreciates donations to charities he supports, but how is it indirect income?

[77devil]

My bad about the conflict-of-interest business. The rest stands.

This is not counting indirect income in the form of a $2,000,000 plus contribution to a very worth-while charitable institution bearing K's name which K feels passionately about. There are scores and scores of other very worthwhile charitable and other public-interest institutions that could use such support. http://www.dukechronicle.com/article...e-krzyzewski#; http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab-...172431222.html.

I found no reference to a $2,000,000 contribution by Nike or anyone else in the links you provided, one of which doesn't work and another is a highly inflammatory blog. Hardly authoritative. More likely your number is a gross exaggeration or an outright falsehood. Care to substantiate?

[Blue in the Face]

I found no reference to a $2,000,000 contribution by Nike or anyone else in the links you provided, one of which doesn't work and another is a highly inflammatory blog. Hardly authoritative. More likely your number is a gross exaggeration or an outright falsehood. Care to substantiate?

It was in the chronicle article he linked (the links don't really work in greybeard's post, but it's here).

Perhaps one of Nike's most generous overtures toward Duke came two years ago when it donated $2.2 million to equip and staff the Michael W. Krzyzewski Human Performance Research Laboratory.

[Olympic Fan]

Ah, the internets. No, Coach K is NOT on the Nike board of directors, and no, the "Blue Devils" were not named after a French WWI unit. There may have been some small influence on the latter point, but it doesn't hold up as a direct "named after" thing.

And where do you get this? According to Duke University itself, the nickname derives from the French Army Alpine unit from World War I, know as the Blue devils:

http://library.duke.edu/uarchives/hi...lue_devil.html

The article is written by former University Archivist William King, who is the go-to authority on Duke history. As he notes in the article, the origin of the Duke mascot is one of the most frequent questions that h had to answer -- and he notes that it WAS based on the French army unit.

[Dev11]

The fact is [the black uniforms] look good.

That sounds like an opinion to me.

[cf-62]

That sounds like an opinion to me.

a three game final four losing streak in blue is not.

[Jarhead]

a three game final four losing streak in blue is not.

So now superstition is why black is important to you, eh? Well, that explains a lot.

[Dev11]

So now superstition is why black is important to you, eh? Well, that explains a lot.

It's important to note, also, that we wear blue when we're the lower seeded team, so all we've done is fail to pull the upset the last three tournament games we weren't favored in. Good logic

[Henderson]

And where do you get this? According to Duke University itself, the nickname derives from the French Army Alpine unit from World War I, know as the Blue devils:

http://library.duke.edu/uarchives/hi...lue_devil.html

The article is written by former University Archivist William King, who is the go-to authority on Duke history. As he notes in the article, the origin of the Duke mascot is one of the most frequent questions that h had to answer -- and he notes that it WAS based on the French army unit.

I've been reading that same article for years, and every time I read it I note that it does NOT say that the nickname came from the WWI French army unit. Read it again.

[cf-62]

It's important to note, also, that we wear blue when we're the lower seeded team, so all we've done is fail to pull the upset the last three tournament games we weren't favored in. Good logic

Wrong!!!!!!!

NOT tournament games. Final Four games. Not that we weren't favored in. Either favored or "pick 'em." Just because we were picked as the visitor doesn't mean we weren't favored.

Look old people! Black is here to stay. I look forward to getting my black football jerseys, too. WHY I like it is really REALLY inconsequential. What you should know is that

OUR KIDS

like them. That's our players, our recruiting prospects, our students.

There are so many worse traditions being thrown away that you should be concerned with over the team wearing black road uniforms 2 or 3 times a year.

[sagegrouse]

And where do you get this? According to Duke University itself, the nickname derives from the French Army Alpine unit from World War I, know as the Blue devils:

http://library.duke.edu/uarchives/hi...lue_devil.html

The article is written by former University Archivist William King, who is the go-to authority on Duke history. As he notes in the article, the origin of the Duke mascot is one of the most frequent questions that h had to answer -- and he notes that it WAS based on the French army unit.

I've been reading that same article for years, and every time I read it I note that it does NOT say that the nickname came from the WWI French army unit. Read it again.

In 1980 I attended the 75th anniversary celebration for the Duke Chronicle. There were a number of former editors on the dais at the Saturday banquet in the Gothic Dining Room, each representing a decade. The oldest speaker, representing the 1920's, was a small man with a white beard (think Edmund Gwenn as Santa in the "Miracle on 34th Street"). He claimed to be the editor of the Chronicle when the name Blue Devil was chosen, and he made reference to the French military unit that had received a ticker tape parade on Broadway. It may have been the William Lander named in the Duke Archives article, or it may have been someone else (or it may have been a complete imposter, who knows?). Anyway, I'll go with the French alpine unit as the source of the nickname.

Aside number one: I wanted to be in the room when long-time Duke and Trinity President William Preston Few told the two presiding bishops of the Methodist church in North Carolina that the Trinity athletic teams were no longer the "Methodists," but the "Blue Devils." I suppose, channeling Prez Few, I would have said, "The students picked the name. It's just a fad. In a few years they'll pick another one. Pretty soon it will be the 'Methodists' again."

Aside number two (student dress in 1980): I had not been on the campus since shortly after graduation in 1964 (except for one football game). As I went back to my car at about 11PM, I walked through the Clock Tower Quadrangle (the "Animal Quad," in my day). There was a party going on with very loud music. The women were attractively dressed but the men were in a sort of uniform: all were wearing gold-colored shirts and brown sport coats, usually striped. Each was holding a bottle of Jack Daniels by the neck. Wow! Talk about conformity!

sagegrouse

[Dev11]

Wrong!!!!!!!

NOT tournament games. Final Four games. Not that we weren't favored in. Either favored or "pick 'em." Just because we were picked as the visitor doesn't mean we weren't favored.

Look old people! Black is here to stay. I look forward to getting my black football jerseys, too. WHY I like it is really REALLY inconsequential. What you should know is that

OUR KIDS

like them. That's our players, our recruiting prospects, our students.

There are so many worse traditions being thrown away that you should be concerned with over the team wearing black road uniforms 2 or 3 times a year.

We don't have a 3 game losing streak in the Final Four while wearing blue. We wore blue against Michigan State in 1999. Since that win, we've lost two games in the Final Four, both to UConn. You have to go back to 1990 to find the last three games we lost in the Final Four in blue.

Speaking of the 1990 Final Four, I was less than a year old when we lost to UNLV. I'm not old, at least by this board's standards. I just don't think our black jerseys look good with dark or royal blue trim.

I may be mistaken about the white vs. colored jersey selection in the NCAA tournament, so I concede that I may have been incorrect about being favored in those games.

There's no need to feel like you have to shout at me here. If you prefer the black jerseys, fine, but shouting your opinions as fact (or fiction, as it may be) does us no good for the sake of discussion.

[sagegrouse]

We don't have a 3 game losing streak in the Final Four while wearing blue. We wore blue against Michigan State in 1999. Since that win, we've lost two games in the Final Four, both to UConn. You have to go back to 1990 to find the last three games we lost in the Final Four in blue.

Speaking of the 1990 Final Four, I was less than a year old when we lost to UNLV. I'm not old, at least by this board's standards. I just don't think our black jerseys look good with dark or royal blue trim.

I may be mistaken about the white vs. colored jersey selection in the NCAA tournament, so I concede that I may have been incorrect about being favored in those games.

There's no need to feel like you have to shout at me here. If you prefer the black jerseys, fine, but shouting your opinions as fact (or fiction, as it may be) does us no good for the sake of discussion.

Well,... Our losing streak wearing BLUE uniforms in the Final Four includes only the loss to UConn in 1999 and the finals loss to Arkansas in 1994. The previous time we wore BLUE was against UNLV in 1991, and we all remember how that one came out. Anyway, it's been 14 years since we wore BLUE in a Final Four game.

Anyway, the errors in the two posts above are (a) that we wore BLUE against UConn in 2004 -- we wore WHITE, according to the pictures. And (b) we wore BLUE against Mich. State in 1999. We wore WHTIE, again according to pictures.

Here is the detail:

We wore WHITE against Butler and West Virginia in 2010 Final Four.

Against UConn in the 2004 FF we wore WHITE.

We wore WHITE against both Maryland and Arizona in the 2001 Final Four.

We wore BLUE against UConn in the 1999 Final Four.

Aginst Michigan State in the 1999 FF, this picture says that Duke wore WHITE.

In the 1994 FF against Arkansas, Duke wore BLUE.

In the 1994 semis, #2 seed Duke played #3 seed Florida. Duke should have worn WHITE.

In 1992 I believe #1 overall Duke wore WHITE against both Michigan and Indiana.

In 1991 Duke wore WHITE against Kansas in the finals.

In 1991 Duke wore BLUE against UNLV. AND DUKE WON.

In 1990 Duke wore BLUE against UNLV and lost.

sagegrouse

[rasputin]

Well,... Our losing streak wearing BLUE uniforms in the Final Four includes only the loss to UConn in 1999 and the finals loss to Arkansas in 1994. The previous time we wore BLUE was against UNLV in 1991, and we all remember how that one came out. Anyway, it's been 14 years since we wore BLUE in a Final Four game.

Anyway, the errors in the two posts above are (a) that we wore BLUE against UConn in 2004 -- we wore WHITE, according to the pictures. And (b) we wore BLUE against Mich. State in 1999. We wore WHTIE, again according to pictures.

Here is the detail:

We wore WHITE against Butler and West Virginia in 2010 Final Four.

Against UConn in the 2004 FF we wore WHITE.

We wore WHITE against both Maryland and Arizona in the 2001 Final Four.

We wore BLUE against UConn in the 1999 Final Four.

Aginst Michigan State in the 1999 FF, this picture says that Duke wore WHITE.

In the 1994 FF against Arkansas, Duke wore BLUE.

In the 1994 semis, #2 seed Duke played #3 seed Florida. Duke should have worn WHITE.

In 1992 I believe #1 overall Duke wore WHITE against both Michigan and Indiana.

In 1991 Duke wore WHITE against Kansas in the finals.

In 1991 Duke wore BLUE against UNLV. AND DUKE WON.

In 1990 Duke wore BLUE against UNLV and lost.

sagegrouse

"I remember every detail. The Germans wore gray, you wore blue."

[Dev11]

Well,... Our losing streak wearing BLUE uniforms in the Final Four includes only the loss to UConn in 1999 and the finals loss to Arkansas in 1994. The previous time we wore BLUE was against UNLV in 1991, and we all remember how that one came out. Anyway, it's been 14 years since we wore BLUE in a Final Four game.

Anyway, the errors in the two posts above are (a) that we wore BLUE against UConn in 2004 -- we wore WHITE, according to the pictures. And (b) we wore BLUE against Mich. State in 1999. We wore WHTIE, again according to pictures.

Here is the detail:

We wore WHITE against Butler and West Virginia in 2010 Final Four.

Against UConn in the 2004 FF we wore WHITE.

We wore WHITE against both Maryland and Arizona in the 2001 Final Four.

We wore BLUE against UConn in the 1999 Final Four.

Aginst Michigan State in the 1999 FF, this picture says that Duke wore WHITE.

In the 1994 FF against Arkansas, Duke wore BLUE.

In the 1994 semis, #2 seed Duke played #3 seed Florida. Duke should have worn WHITE.

In 1992 I believe #1 overall Duke wore WHITE against both Michigan and Indiana.

In 1991 Duke wore WHITE against Kansas in the finals.

In 1991 Duke wore BLUE against UNLV. AND DUKE WON.

In 1990 Duke wore BLUE against UNLV and lost.

sagegrouse

Thanks, Sage. I got myself all tangled up in blue trying to find pictures from these old games.

The point is, the blue jerseys aren't a curse, nor are black, nor white, nor gray (but don't get me started on the gray, blech).

[cf-62]

Thanks, Sage. I got myself all tangled up in blue trying to find pictures from these old games.

The point is, the blue jerseys aren't a curse, nor are black, nor white, nor gray (but don't get me started on the gray, blech).

I was a little off, too. I thought we wore Blue in 2004.

Another thing is while I love the black uniforms (obviously), I'm not sure I could stomach seeing Hurley Hill or Laettner in a Black uniform. Doesn't seem right.

[DukieInKansas]

Wrong!!!!!!!

NOT tournament games. Final Four games. Not that we weren't favored in. Either favored or "pick 'em." Just because we were picked as the visitor doesn't mean we weren't favored.

Look old people! Black is here to stay. I look forward to getting my black football jerseys, too. WHY I like it is really REALLY inconsequential. What you should know is that

OUR KIDS

like them. That's our players, our recruiting prospects, our students.

There are so many worse traditions being thrown away that you should be concerned with over the team wearing black road uniforms 2 or 3 times a year.

Do you really think uniform colors play that much of a role in a prospect picking a school? I would think coach, facilities, academics, and tradition would play a much bigger role in picking a school and that uniform color would not have much bearing.

Of course, I must confess to preferring white or Pantone 287 blue to black uniforms.