ESPN OTL: Internal NCAA, EA Emails/Memo's Released in O'Bannon Lawsuit

Having a facebook account is nothing at all like working damn near 40 hours a week, while being a college student, to be a student athlete. Not even close.

When it comes to the O'Bannon lawsuit (which this thread discusses) the question is, "does the NCAA have the right to sell player likeness and not compensate them", not "do athletes have good lives on campus". The answer to the former is completely independent to the answer of the latter.

I understand that it seems unfair.  However, I think too often we point fingers at athletes being the sole abberation in an otherwise perfect meritocracy of admissions.  They are not and it is not.

First, there aren't that many of them (relatively speaking).  There are something like 750 athletes on U-M's campus, not all of them getting the full scholarship.  Not all of them have a "remarkably" lower academic profile than the average student, either.  You're talking about a pretty small number of athletes that qualify for the complaint you are lodging.

I would also point out that some number of them would qualify for financial aid if the athletic department were not paying their way, so even without their special status they would get things paid for.

Furthermore, athletes are merely the most visible of the people who get a boost (or a scholarship, or a tuition discount) for something beyond grades and test scores.  It's not just those who can "run a bit faster or jump a bit higher."  You've got people who can play the trumpet really well.  Who have shown outstanding leadership in high school.  Who missed their entire sophomore year due to life-threatening illness.   Who parents are alumni.  Or in the case of U-M, who had the good fortune to live in Michigan instead of being from out of state.  

It's far from a perfect meritocracy, and not everyone pays the same or gets the same perks while in college.  It can be pretty galling at times, I get that.  But IMO athletes seem to get bitched about the most, and painted with a broad brush, it chafes at my sense of fairness.

I think the main thing to take away from this rant is that "chafe" is just a funny word regardless of context.

This is all irrelevant and colossaly-sized sour grapes. Its really a news flash that some people in society get preferrential treatment based on nearly arbitrary things? Is what it is man, our society rewards pretty people more than ugly people, tall people more than short people, skinny people more than fat people, and so on. Where's the news?

If there were a viable minor leage for football and  (to a lesser extent) basketball then yeah, the Demar Dorseys of the world could at least take their chances. But there isn't. Moreover, a player can get cut from Alabama for no reason and not be allowed to transfer without penalty. They aren't even guaranteed an education (NCAA forbids 4 year scholarships), and so on. Moreoverer, the definition of the word education is being stretched by some of these tailored degree programs being offered by essentially all schools. Players cant even sell their own property (gold pants and bowl rings for example). I know why, I just think its a bogus reason.

The gap between athletes and the student body at large brings nothing to bear on this conversation. Revenue sports athletes, especially the elite ones, generate a whole lot of scratch for a whole lot of people and are forbidden from participating in that benefit. The people creating the value are the only one forbidden from benefiting from that value. That's bunk. Pay 'em.

Give me a freaking break, man. If you worked 40 hours a week in ANY capacity (even as a janitor) in addition to schooling, you would be able to pay most of your tuition and have some spending cash (more than what football players have).

Just because you can get a high score on a freaking test doesn't entitle you to the same benefits as somebody who works their butt off in high school sports and will bring in millions of dollars of revenue, while you study in the library and get drunk on Thursday night. What they do helps the university (and on special occasions, can help the players by getting them to the nfl). What you do helps yourself (and on special occasions, can help the university if you make enough to give back)

And, please, you think theyre going to have an easier time in the job hunt just by being a bench warmer at michigan? You think somebody Russel Bellomy is walking into a hedge fund job without good credentials just because he played football at Michigan?

I'm assuming you're referring to football players. I have no idea if all scholarship athletes receive the same benefits.

I can't believe you'd begrudge the athletes anything they receive. If anything, football players are woefully under-compensated. Just think of their benefits as compensation for a job they're performing for the university. A job that has skill requirements that few in the student body possess.

As a former student I appreciated all the football players did for the school. They gave the school a great team for which to cheer.

They also subsidized part of our own education costs. Having the Athletic Department being financially independent and profitable allowed the University to not pass some of the costs to the students.

As for having to stress out about interviews, applications, and resume, that's all on you. If you're smart and motivated, opportunity will be there.

People are under the impression that the NCAA and the schools that play games under its banner are the same thing. If you have a problem with the student-athletes getting all that, your problem is with the schools, NOT with the NCAA. The NCAA doesn't provide any of that. Nada.

This is the problem -

Schools recruit student athletes

Student athletes play a sport for their school, and in return recieve free or discounted tuition and room and board.

School makes money by selling game tickets, merchandise and so on.

NCAA sells licencing rights for products featuring the student athletes and makes money.

The School/Student-Athlete relationship is a sound, stable relationship wherein payment (in whatever form) is provided for services rendered. If you think that payment is biased or unfair one way or the other, fine, but at least it is a two way street. (Your particular argument also fails to recognize you can earn a scholarship for applying yourself accademically, artisitcally or socially, where it benefits the world in some way, so basically it sounds like you're bitching that some people work harder than you and get free education for it.)

The Student Athlete - NCAA relationship, on the other hand, is beyond bogus. Nothing is provided for services rendered under the pretense that  digital representations, numbered jerseys and other non-specific gear don't relate to a specific person, which we all know is bullshit.

Here's how it should work:

Student athletes agree to play a given sport for a given school, and recieve free or discounted education in return.

Schools make money by selling game tickets and team based merchandise. A portion of that money is paid to the NCAA to provide governance and structure for competition and the lives of student athletes.

Item manufacturers, like EA, approach individual schools about licencing fees to represent the school and its players in various merchandise. (If you're too small for a merchandise manufacturer to care about putting you in its product, that's too bad).

The school, either through a pre-set agreement in the LOI or through as-needed contracts, gets approval from the student athletes to be represented to okay that likeness or representation, in return for a portion of the licencing fees. To preserve some level of amatureism, entire teams must be licenced, not jsut individual players. You wanna make a Michigan licenced #16 shirt? Okay, but you'll be making all of the other numbers currently represented on the roster, and each player will receive the same portion of the licencing fees (football players might recive 0.25%, whereas basketball players might recieve 3%, due to the smaller number of players).

Remember that annoying smart guy we all knew who could skip class, never study, and ace the exam by cramming the night before? Do you remember that friend we all had who would always do better than you on the exam even though he studied with you and reviewed the exact same material for the exact same amount of time? Are you irritated by them as well just because they're quicker or better at memorizing, comprehending, or test taking? 

I'm not sure about that.  I read recently that only a small number of Division I schools actually make money on athletics.  Even many BCS-conference schools need subsidies from their school's general fund to stay afloat.

If we are talking about a hypothetical situation in which players are getting paid for their own licensing rights, then why can't we talk about a hypothetical situation in which you don't have to compensate everyone equally and instead do something that makes actual sense?

In the United States, intercollegiate sports are understood to be part of the normal undergraduate experience.  Students want to go to schools that field sports teams, especially football.  And then when the program is up and running, there is strong demand to be competitive, which means paying large salaries and spending a lot on facilities.  Having a football program also requires lots of women's sports to compensate for the 85 scholarships allotted for football (all men).  

Many university administrators, if they had their druthers, would drop varsity football in a heartbeat.  But public pressure is too strong, so they have to live wth it.  And they recognize that successful teams do generally boost applications and donations, so they grudgingly foot the bill.  But the cost of fielding successful football teams is getting more and more prohibitive, especially as tuition keeps skyrocketing.  We're possibly nearing a breaking point even without any changes to the status quo.  If we make schools start paying stipends, we'll probably reach it sooner.

People always focus on guys like Denard.  I agree that for him in particular, the compensation is arguably not sufficient.  But he's in the minority.  The vast majority of these guys aren't marketable while they're here (have you ever seen a Ricky Barnum or Elliott Mealer jersey for sale) and futhermore, aren't likely to have long careers in the pros, if any.  In the long run, their free college education and entrance into the alumni network will more than pay itself off for them.