The Shame of College Sports- a case against the NCAA
[Ed: PGB - Bumped for general awesomeness in the topic and the cerebral discussion that follows. This is a very good example of why the MGoBoard is great. Make sure to read the article before joining in on the discussion, if possible.]
Dr. Saturday linked to this (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-colleg… on the NCAA suggesting it:
"may legitimately be the most important article ever written about college sports. If not, it's certainly the most comprehensive, tracing the history of the NCAA from its humble, impotent origins, and making the most convincing case yet that the organization is not only the bastion of an exploitive, plantation-like system that violates antitrust law, but may in fact be little more than a basketball tournament with an empty office building in Kansas City. (Also: It includes a former coach describing his profession as "whoremaster.")"
I haven't read the whole thing yet (because I'm not one of those speed-readers), but it's both very well written and researched, and I thought it would be good to disseminate it to the masses for consumption and discussion.
September 15th, 2011 at 3:41 PM ^
but, last time I checked college athletes enter into this agreement (waiving the fruits of their labor) voluntarily.
That said, I don't like the one way LOIs, restrictions on transfer eligibility, lack of long term disability coverage, and the lack of profit sharing in your own name, or likeness after your eligibility has expired, etc.
I agree with the premise that at least some college athletes are getting the shaft in terms of what they could be making. Then again, where would these downtrodden superstars make their millions if the college facilities, and the other players did not exist?
Anybody know how much a Gulf Coast League Minor League player makes? I am typing in a circular argument here, but from a compensation standpoint, I'd bet the average scholarship college athlete is making more from tuition, room, board and training then they would in a professional minor league system.
So, my personal opinion: a small percentage of college athletes are under-compensated for their value. However, they voluntarily entered into the agreement. Meanwhile, the large majority are already receiving benefits they otherwise would not get if it were not for college athletics, the NCAA, TV contracts, merchandise sales, etc. Neither are enslaved. Most are not exploited.
And as for the skill players who are under-compensated are black, ergo lets use plantation-like. Andrew Luck isn't. So do we compare the NCAA to Australian (or American Colonial) penal colonies? They all entered into the agreement voluntarily.
I think the system needs to change to be more fair, more ethical, and simply more reasonable.
September 15th, 2011 at 1:51 PM ^
There is a ton of money in men's football (mostly) and basketball. It is given to the NCAA by large corporations and large TV Networks. The legal basis for the NCAA is tenuous, and they fight in court to maintain it. The NCAA makes much money off the system but enforces an outdated code of "student athlete." The system relies upon unpaid labor (the athletes) who are respnsible for all the money generated, yet they are unpaid--and the NCAA tries to keep them from getting even small amounts of money. This is immoral and verges on a "plantation mentality."
Gee, I'm outraged.
1. Corporations throw money at the system because people love watching it. They voluntarily give their money.
2. The NCAA or the conferences collect the money.
3. That money mostly goes back to the schools, who spend it on what they want--often into new facilities that, get ready for it--benefit the current or future athletes, athletes in other sports, or regular students. It may surprise you to know, after reading the article, that the money does not in fact go to Warren Buffett or other rich billionaires.
4. And now the crux of the moral outrage. The athletes represent "volunteer unpaid labor" because they are the major part of the system, yet don't get paid. Yet even though this is an awful, "plantation mentality," somehow the athletes are CLAMORING to be a part of it. Hmm.
I will posit a couple of things in response to the article. I will first stipulate that reasonable people may disagree, and I admire the fact that some truly are concerned for athlete welfare.
First, athletes are clamoring to be a part of the supposed immoral system because they in fact see a very large benefit to it. A- a scholarship at Michigan is worth roughly $50,000 a year. That is a strange definition of "unpaid." B- There are major non-financial benefits to the system--adulation on campus, connections from teammates that may in fact be of high value in the future, and of course, actually playing the game. C- the potential, for a small minority, of future professional success--while most will not play in the league, many entering college think they will.
Second, the athletes in fact, are NOT responsible for the success of college football. What? Let me explain. Athletes are in fact the attraction--but individual athletes, in fact, are not, other than certain (very few) transcendant talents like our own Denard. Do not believe this? Ask yourself how many people would have shown up at Michigan Stadium Saturday to watch the ND game if Denard or any other player we can name of the top of our heads didn't exist. My answer: 114,000. How many alumni would have watched on TV? All of them.
The attraction is that 99% of the athletes play for the SCHOOL. The schools get the money. The athletes get adulation, scholarship, and an opportunity most of us will never have in our lives. They recognize this, which is why they want to be a part of the suppsed immoral system. And why many of them do not even favor getting paid more money, or see the system as immoral.
September 15th, 2011 at 1:57 PM ^
I didn't realize that a summary was supposed to editorialize.
September 15th, 2011 at 2:25 PM ^
I guess I should have stated that the first paragraph was a summary, and then my opinion begins, but seeing as how you (rightly so) want everyone to read it, I figure you, and they, would know that. I'm interested to see if you disagree with my analysis of the situation, or are you going to just comment on the format?
September 15th, 2011 at 2:32 PM ^
I don't think you address the crux of the article once: That the NCAA uses it's anti-trust exemption to marginalize the rights of the athletes.
September 15th, 2011 at 3:43 PM ^
I thought it was that the system is immoral and unfair to the athlete. Which is what you and others argued. And which I believe I've done a decent job making a counter argument to. The fact that the NCAA (allegedly) uses it's anti-trust exemption to infringe on the rights of the athletes is a charge and a tactic--not the central argument of the article.
September 15th, 2011 at 3:46 PM ^
It literally informs every example the article catalogs.
And I would include "using questionable legal tactics abided by an anti-trust exemption" under "immoral".
September 15th, 2011 at 4:07 PM ^
I'm not here to defend the NCAA from charges that it's lawyers go too far. The article does a good job of it. Of course there is another side, but I'm not a lawyer. I did feel motivated to comment on the "morality" of the entire system, and I look forward to read someone counter my arguments there.
September 15th, 2011 at 2:29 PM ^
For instance, I would argue that his post fails to acknowledge three realities:
1) For high school athletes, the only truly viable path to playing in the NFL or NBA is to play in the NCAA. The NCAA uses this fact to force student athletes to receive little compensation (athletic scholarships) relative to their fair market value. Furthermore, as playing sports like football carry with them the risk of serious injury, NCAA institutions should at least have the decency to compensate players for their medical expenses. Not to mention that the NCAA refuses to allow multi-year scholarship guarantees.
2) The NCAA's totalitarian rules place absolutely ridiculous restrictions on NCAA players, such as the ban on selling thier memorabilia. It is completely unfair that the NCAA should be able to micromanage the financial rights of student athletes in this manner.
3) The NCAA attempts to force its member institutions to ignore court orders.
Attack him on the substance of his points or the lack thereof, rather than something as unimportant as the use of the word "summarize".
September 15th, 2011 at 2:38 PM ^
I agree with most of your point 1, but the premise (the first sentence) is wrong. MLB and the NHL both have viable developmental leagues that provide an alternative path to the big time. The primary reason the NBA and NFL don't is that they like the current system and are frankly complicit in it (see: ban on lowerclassmen declaring for draft).
September 15th, 2011 at 2:51 PM ^
I think the reason they don't is that the pro-leagues in both those sports developed after the college games established themselves. College football and basketball have been around much longer than the NFL and NBA. I take this from Bacon's class of course.
September 15th, 2011 at 3:02 PM ^
The onus is on the NCAA to establish a system that is fair to its athletes. The NFL and NBA have minimal obligations here.
September 15th, 2011 at 3:30 PM ^
But the NFL and NBA profit by having a free developmental league. They also have rules which keep college athletes from joining their ranks without first doing time in the NCAA controlled league. They're complicit.
September 15th, 2011 at 4:20 PM ^
Players can play overseas or in the (not free) NBDL before they start their NBA careers. Dirk Nowitzki and Yao Ming weren't forced to play in the NCAA. The rule is that they either must be 19 or be a year removed from high school, whichever comes later.
September 15th, 2011 at 4:38 PM ^
I was responding to the assertion that there is no viable path to the NBA / NFL that doesn't go through the NCAA and the implication that that is the fault of the NCAA. My point is that, to the extent that most NFL and NBA careers start in college, the NBA and NFL are at least partially to blame.
September 15th, 2011 at 6:27 PM ^
The NFL and NBA are professional sports leagues. They are in the business of making money. If they don't need to invest a lot of money in developmental leagues because the NCAA functions as a serviceable one, than they have no need to provide one. At the same time, there is no obligation for them to make sure that players and agents are following NCAA rules. And while NFL and NBA rules do effectively make most athletes play in the NCAA, it should be noted that their restrictions are age-based and there are other professional options for football and basketball players. And finally, the NFL and NBA have no say on NCAA rules and regulations.
September 15th, 2011 at 7:13 PM ^
But the fact still remains that the NFL and NBA profit by using the NCAA as their free de facto developmental league. Because of this and the fact that they (the NFL and NBA) are the prime motivations for star athletes putting up with NCAA shenaningans in the first place, don't you think the NFL and NBA have some responsibility to advocate for the fair treatment of their future employees? You would at least think the player unions would advocate for college athletes, but they don't (because it's in their interest to keep people OUT of the league).
I have a bigger beef with the NBA, since their draft rules (no freshmen, generally) seem like a particularly arbitrary barrier to entry.
September 15th, 2011 at 9:21 PM ^
And Wall Street and major corporations profit from having the University of Michigan and other elite universities as the training ground of their young talent. What of it?
Football players don't "work" for the university. Where does that idea even come from? Is high school basketball practice "work," too? If not, why not?
September 15th, 2011 at 4:16 PM ^
There are challenges with football that other sports don't have when it comes to developing these leagues. The first being that nobody would watch them. The football quality would be terrible, and there would be no sentimental attachment to any of the teams. Other leagues can get away with this because team sizes are smaller and the parts are more interchangeable. Basketball does not have an official developmental league, but there are pro alternatives.
September 15th, 2011 at 4:01 PM ^
I'll try to address your points. 1- I do acknowledge the reality that there is no other viable path in football for an athlete. Who's fault is that? If there was money in one, there would be one. If an entrepeneur or corporation decided a pre-NFL league would work, there would be one. Now as to your point about compensation, I agree medical expenses should be paid--beyond what they already are of course. And there is an argument to made for multi-year scholarships.
2- I think there should be a way to allow for some selling of memorabilia. But I think there are legitimate reasons to believe that there are potential problems in allowing that. I'm not totally opposed though.
3- I don't know enough, even after the article, about the truth of this to comment.
I would submit that your legitimate points are peripheral to the argument, because none of them really IMO go to the core of the argument against the current system--because instituting them wouldn't really change the system. And IMO the system, while not exactly equitable, is far from the debased and overused term "immoral" (not that you are using it). It is actually IMO a ok system that could always benefit from some change and improvement, hopefully to the further benefit of the athlete.
September 15th, 2011 at 7:17 PM ^
I too do not believe that the system needs to be completely overturned. I do, however, feel that certain major reforms should be made to the NCAA. Some of these, such as allowing full cost of living scholarships, multiyear scholarship guarantees, and allowing the sale of memorabilia are widely discussed and not particularly controversial. Another possible reform would be to allow schools to give a percentage of revenue earned from ticket sales, team-specific apparel sales, and television revenue to student athletes on a sport-by-sport basis. This would entitle football players to a certain percentage of football-specific revenue, basketball players to a certain percentage of basketball-specific revenue, etc.
September 15th, 2011 at 2:32 PM ^
for posting this. It saved me a lot writing. But I will add something:
There are many more people paying their way through college in this country than playing college athletics. Most of these students do not have access to the fantastic resources that student athletes do and will graduate with tens of thousands of dollars of debt. Student athletes walk away debt free with degrees that they may not otherwise have been able to afford, and the only price they pay is playing a game they love, often on a national stage, for four years of their lives. Pretty good fucking deal if you ask me.
September 15th, 2011 at 3:47 PM ^
the athletes that are injured or God forbid killed - the NCAA avoiding compensation in those instances ... there is an ethical point there.
September 15th, 2011 at 4:35 PM ^
I agree that the "regular' students are the unsung heros in this topic, so to speak. However, this is not the discussion. Those regular students (like myself) often do absolutely nothing for their university while they are there (other than pay to attend). The discussion is about students that generate a bunch of revenue for their universities (monetary or goodwill). The more proper analogy would be the student-athlete and the student that invents or discovers something that brings the university some publicity.
September 15th, 2011 at 6:24 PM ^
as I stated above, that the athletes generate "a bunch of revenue." The revenue would exist, in precisely the same amounts, whether or not (for example) Denard Robinson ever existed. ESPN and the other networks don't pay money because they know Denard will be around, or a new Denard. They pay because people love college football and they want to make money off that. We would still have 114,000 at every game no matter who our QB is. Or RB etc.
September 15th, 2011 at 9:04 PM ^
Short term, the Big House is going to draw 110,000 for every game, but say hypothetically that the team missed a bowl game for the next 15 seasons. Any chance 110,000 show up to watch the 2026 opener against Eastern Michigan? And if the team had been similarly terrible the past 15 seasons, 110,000 wouldn't have shown up for the Western Game. The reason these people show up is because of the past success of the team which is fueled largely by athletes.
September 15th, 2011 at 9:40 PM ^
I hear what you're saying and I don't necessarily disagree that people will always watch college sports but to what extent? Like mentioned above, without standout players there is clearly revenue lost - either by way of fewer fans or lost bowl revenue. But, maybe more importantly (?), without players like Denard the revenue lost from merchandise sales could be huge. Sure, people will always buy Michigan "gear" but how much without these marquee-name players?
September 16th, 2011 at 11:05 AM ^
That's my point. Denard is irrelevant to the overall financial situation of college football and Michigan. Because there will always be another successful player.
A larger question: why is it that all of a sudden (meaning last say, 10 years or so that this debate has taken place) there is "immorality" and inequity in the college game? Because the money given by the networks has exploded, and athletes aren't given their "share" right? So before this money was available, (let's say the 1970's) the system was more fair to the athlete? Why is it that just because now ESPN gives huge amounts to the game, that there is inequity? Guess what--as I mentioned in an earlier post, most of the money goes right back to the school--who the athlete plays for--and thus the money benefits the school, not any greedy rapacious capitalists holding down the worker. How is money exploding and going back to schools unfair? It is not IMO.
September 16th, 2011 at 11:46 AM ^
Yes, that is the real question. What is it about NOW that's driving what looks like a critical mass toward professionalizing college football. The "plantation" argument has been around for decades, TV has paid colleges and the NCAA a lot of money to televise games for decades, Michigan has been drawing 100K plus to its games for decades, and players have been playing for a schollie and BMOC status alone for decades.
The only answers that make sense are:
1. The adults are taking SO MUCH money out of the system now and are so crass about it. OK, why not legislate how much they can take?
2. Schools are paying players more frequently now than ever before; e.g., the Ohio and U scandals. I'm not even sure this is empirically true, and I don't see any logical connection between that, and legalizing outside payments to players.
Most of the "hypocrisy" is at places like the SEC, Ohio, and the U. If they want to break away and make their programs explicitly semi-pro, fine, let them. Life moves on. I don't see any reason Michigan should join them.
September 16th, 2011 at 5:20 AM ^
Almost all of the 114,000 people who would have shown up anyway or the countless others who would have watched anyway would have done so because they fell in love with Michigan football watching the Denards of yore.
September 15th, 2011 at 1:54 PM ^
anyone has. Yet is not offering any insight as to what he thinks the solution should be.
So what is the solution ChiTown (and no i haven't read the article) haha
September 15th, 2011 at 1:58 PM ^
If you don't see my opinion, you not only didn't read the article, you didn't read the thread. I stated it a very concise, 1 sentence post.
September 15th, 2011 at 2:05 PM ^
How dare you not have a 100 page solution to an almost century long problem of corruption and greed within an hour of reading this article. Clearly you don't care about the athletes involved, and to that I say, for shame sir, for shame.
September 15th, 2011 at 6:06 PM ^
If you sort this thread to show only Score:5 posts, they all belong to you.
September 15th, 2011 at 2:24 PM ^
I've stirred up controversy before by saying this, but it should not matter if a booster pays a guy to come to their school or a player sells memorabilia, guess what? That's life. Why does Google get the best programmers, why does Exxon get the best chemical engineers, why are the best brain surgeons at Johns Hopkins and not Iowa City General Hospital?
And you won't convince me college sports are amateur when the NCAA has a $10 billion contract with CBS for basketball, the SEC has a multibillion dollar deal, the cash cow that is the Big Ten Network. The rah-rah-rah days are over in college sports. Michigan has built luxury suites, theres too much money involved to pretend its not a professional sport.
September 15th, 2011 at 2:30 PM ^
You're not convincing me of anything by saying a few big numbers when time and again we see actual financial statements showing maybe 15% of athletic departments make any money at all.
September 15th, 2011 at 2:39 PM ^
This article reminds me of how glad I am that Dave Brandon can't get enough revenue growth.
September 15th, 2011 at 4:00 PM ^
The article brings up a lot of outrageous behavior and makes some good points, but I have a hard time getting past the "unpaid labor" and "plantation" language. There are some good arguments to letting players get paid, but they are often made by hyperbolic blowhards.
The article uses the example of a Rice football player who had to cover his own $35,000 per year of tuition and fees after he was cut from the team. $35,000 per year? How much are all of his living expenses after that? How much money does a single person have to gross to earn enough to pay for it all? $50K? $60K? Whatever it is, I'll bet that it's significantly more than the mean for immediate college graduates in most professions. And these are kids with no degrees. Many of which don't contribute for more than two or three years.
September 15th, 2011 at 4:28 PM ^
The issue isn't the specific price-tag though.
A signed LOI commits a kid for 4 years, essentially. If he wants out, he has to pay a 1 year penalty. The school suffers no penalty for cutting it, with or without cause. That's an imbalance, is it not? If a school is allowed to cut a kid after 1 year for no reason, why does the NCAA restrict him from just going somewhere else if HE wants to end the agreement?
September 15th, 2011 at 5:03 PM ^
I agree wholeheartedly with you on that issue. I wasn't even aware that a scholarship was officially only a 1-year deal until somewhat recently. I thought it was common sense that you commit to a kid for four years. Disgraceful not to, if you ask me.
September 15th, 2011 at 4:24 PM ^
I think that the author misses a huge point, although he can be excused because every other critic of the NCAA misses the same point. The point is this: it's not "The NCAA" who is writing these inhumane regulations, it is not "The NCAA" who is taking the rights of student-athletes away from them, it is not "The NCAA" who is violating antitrust law--it is the schools.
No school has to belong to the NCAA. No school has to follow NCAA regulations. Every member of the NCAA has the right to join with other members and form a new association...and yet they don't do it. Why not? Because the schools like these regulations. If the NCAA vanished into thin air tomorrow, the schools would get together and create an organization that is exactly like the NCAA, with rules that are exactly like the NCAA's current rules.
So to ask NCAA employees why they have this rule or that rule misses the point entirely--they have those rules because the schools instituted them. They have the enforcement committee because the schools want it. The correct object of our scorn is not some group of nobodies who work in an office building in Indianapolis, it is Mary Sue Coleman, it is Gordon Gee, it is all of the other University presidents who created this system, who support it and who defend it. They are the reason that athletic scholarships must only be 1-year scholarships. They are the reason that student-athletes are not covered by worker's comp. They are the reason that the entire system is the way it is.
September 16th, 2011 at 3:17 AM ^
I don't think it's correct to assume that the NCAA rules entirely represent what the member schools want.
The article explains how the NCAA became a self-interested entity fighting for its own power because of the TV money that it controlled. It used lawsuits and coersion to solidify its power over time. It seems to have created the illusion of a noble interest in amateurism when its true function is to preserve its position as a cartel controlling the money generated by college sports.
"No school has to follow NCAA regulations." Might be technically true, but the financial consequences of not following those regulations give the NCAA its leverage (e.g. it owns March Madness). It appears that the only way out is to break their legal web with a successful lawsuit.
I agree the University Presidents could do more to help the situation, but I think the problem is more complex and the responsibility much more distributed than you suggest.
September 15th, 2011 at 5:34 PM ^
Don't completely know how to respond, but the landscape of college sports appears to be changing. It will be very interesting to see where things go, but I can't see things continuing the way they have. The reality is that the way sports are run at Michigan is going to change vastly. While there is fear of the unknown, at the same time, the system is horribly broken and unfair, and something has to change at the very roots of the system.
September 15th, 2011 at 7:35 PM ^
What is an undergraduate degree in 'kinesiology' worth in the career marketplace? Why people still choose to attend university after age 16 in non-career disciplines boggles the mind. Hope? Now that is funny. We've entered the global commerce realm and a US college athlete with a graduate kinesiology degree from Yale is still only worth something as a freakin' h.s. gym teacher in the marketplace. A developing country grad with equivalent of Associate degree in a technology discipline can actually build useful stuff and earn the MNC revenue. You can guess who makes a middle-class living, the rest are going to struggle and perhaps suffer throughout their being on this earth.
September 16th, 2011 at 10:01 AM ^
With an Athletic Training BS you're not limited to a high school gym teacher. Graduate degrees in AT go on to work for pro teams in almost every sport. How many college football players are there? There's probably 1 BS trainer per about 10 college football players per team, and a few MS. How many high schools are there? each one has a trainer, probably a BS degree.
How many pro sports teams are there?
125ish between the MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL.
How many MINOR pro sports teams are there?
Thousands.
There's demand for these degrees. My girlfriend got a Movement Science degree and she's currently in grad school for Physical Therapy. There is a huge demand for DPTs out there. Kines degrees also work in the medical profession all over. some go to med school. Some work developing prosthetics, etc. etc. Your argument is idiotic when it comes to value of degrees. If you don't think high school trainers help people, you don't know what you're saying. If you think a Kines degree only makes you a gym teacher, you don't know what you're saying.
September 15th, 2011 at 8:01 PM ^
you only have to look at the double standard for Boise and OSU to see that the NCAA is afraid to punish a big time school.
September 15th, 2011 at 8:30 PM ^
Sorry if someone has already touched upon this (between reading the article and the thread, my head hurts): Isn't the problem here the labor pool for college athletics? Assume the the NCAA and the universities are evil, profit-driven entities that want to maximize their profit on the shoulders of poor and young student-athletes (I know that after reading the piece, I don't have much of a problem doing that). Now imagine if, prior to Saturday's EMU/U of M game, the Michigan football team refused to run out of the tunnel and take the field in a once-in-a-lifetime coordinated protest against the NCAA's and Michigan's profit-driven exploitation. The protest generates headlines, ESPN interrupts it's broadcast of another equally-expoitative football game to cover it, and the word shudders for a moment at the thought of student-athletes becoming sentinent of their own exploitation.
How long would it take Brady Hoke and Dave Brandon to find 85 fairly qualified guys who would gladly take the current players' place in that tunnel? An hour? Two? How many guys would KILL to put on the maize and blue and get a free ride to the University of Michigan to play football? I'm guessing quite a few, including most of the EMU football team. Hell, how many guys would kill to play and study at EMU on a scholarship?
As long as that is the reality, I think the NCAA and its member colleges can pretty much do what they want with respect to their defense of the phyrric amaterurism ideal. As long as that labor force imbalance exists, exploitation exists. Add to that the reality that we, as fans, will root at the game and watch on TV in numbers that justify the TV and endorsement contracts no matter who you put out there (the Michigan 2008 team pretty much proves that), you have a pretty solid base for the exploitative system the article illustrates.
I'm not saying it's right. But it's reality, and it explains the current system. Now, I also think that the NCAA can come up with a system that provides a more fair treatment of that labor pool (call it a Fair Labor and Standards Act for college athletes, or even more hippie, Fair Trade Football). The article might be the first step in shaming the exploitative parties to a more mutually benefitial arrangement.
September 15th, 2011 at 9:03 PM ^
Student athletes should receive equivalent of a transferable debit card from NCAA upper-tier programs. During their NCAA playing careers, these student athletes must work towards an undergraduate degree but in addition would be given an annual stipend for mean expenses at their university. After a student athlete ceases to play for university, the student athlete will "only" enjoy free tuition, room, board and books at any upper-tier NCCA program through graduate and professional degree according to that school's standard policies. Say, Todd Collins matriculates from U-M with a kinesiology degree. He can later enroll at Western Michigan in their pilot training/aviation maintenance programs to become an airline pilot (a course progression which Michigan does not offer) or, ideally, pick up an MBA at Ross and perhaps both degrees at the separate institutions -- free except for living expenses after first degree matriculation. The athletes remain students while playing but are not cheated from receiving a useful degree down the road and a certain sense of security to fulfill their dreams after the athletic career implodes as these tend to do. I claim that could have value for all involved and would be fair.
September 15th, 2011 at 9:11 PM ^
Thirty years ago, I played HS basketball at a decent HS. As a senior, my picture (and a couple other seniors' pictures) were on the cover of the program that was sold before all the games. A dozen or so local businesses had ads in the program that they paid for. A local radio station broadcast the games and for some of the bigger ones, a Lansing radio station did the broadcasts. Two to three thousand fans paid to see most games and for the big tournament games, I'd bet we had 4,000-4,500.
I never dreamed that they would pay me for my "likeness" or for playing in front of people who paid to get in. Why wouldn't I have dreamed it? Because the idea is ridiculous. I was a student at the school, it was the school's team, and I loved playing.
The only difference between this example and Michigan's football team is the dollars involved. It's the school's team. If you want to come and go to school, play football, have a blast, be a BMOC for four or five years, while your education and living expenses are paid in full, fantastic. If you don't, don't.
I'm missing the imperative to overhaul the fundamental feature of college sports -- students playing for the school's team. Why this and why now? I get that the adults have whored out the teams to corporations -- how can you not get that? -- but why is the remedy making the players pros?
September 15th, 2011 at 9:36 PM ^
Correct me if I'm wrong - but athletes that compete in the Olympics don't get paid a dime by the Olympics themselves. The Olympics uses its revenues to continue throwing a tournament, correct? BUT, the athletes get paid via endorsements and whatnot.
Why not the same thing in college sports? Schools need not pay them more than the cost of tuition and board - but it's ridiculous that an athlete cannot accept ANY gifts (like being taken out to dinner by their girlfriend's parents), cannot have an agent or lawyer look out for their best interests (that OK State kid's story is disappointing), and cannot make money off of their own name.
If you followed the article's advice and looked to the olympics, the schools can still support the non-revenue generating sports, but marketable athletes can make better informed decisions about entering the draft with qualified agents, and can make money off of their own gear (by trading it for tattoos, or selling it on eBay) or their own name (by doing advertisments).
This creates an "uneven playing field" between the B1G and say, the Sun Belt - but there already is an uneven playing field. And the end result of getting lawyers and agents involved is probably four-year scholarships and health benefits for athletes. And, realistically, a ton of paperwork.
I think a solution that prevents the NCAA from restricting athletes' rights but still allows them to "pay" for only their university experience is a fair one. It will change the business of college athletics as we know it - but then again, at least it admits that we are talking about a business. And at the same time, these athletes are still students. They're just students who can actually get a small slice of the pie that they earn everybody else.
Comments