Money and college sports
I don't usually agree with Michael Wilbon -- he's one of those shouting pundits that typically speaks before he thinks -- but he has a point in this article. It's crazy how much coaches and athletic administrators are making at the expense of college athletes.
September 10th, 2010 at 11:33 PM ^
How much different is Mike Wilbon...just a talking head...talking *about* these issues...I'm sure he'll make a couple mil this year...
Glass houses Wilbon.
September 10th, 2010 at 11:41 PM ^
who would win in a fight:
Mark May (lou holtz as trainer) or Mike Wilbon (kornheiser as trainer)
September 11th, 2010 at 12:07 AM ^
come on out of state costs at Michigan run about 40k a year. it's ridiculous to think that these kids are getting screwed because they aren't..
September 11th, 2010 at 2:36 AM ^
The league minimum salary in the NFL this season is $325,000. While the vast majority of college football players are not NFL prospects, some are.
A person who has marketable skills worth $325,000 (or more), but who for arbitrary reasons is permitted only to obtain in-kind compensation worth $40,000 for his labor, does not receive a fair deal.
Since the NFL arbitrarily excludes all players less than three years removed from high school, and since the NFL is a monopoly, playing college football is the best economic choice open to those players. For the majority of players this may not be an unfair exchange, for those few who could be playing in the NFL and earning 10 or 20 or 50 times the value of their scholarships, it is decidedly not fair.
September 11th, 2010 at 3:31 AM ^
of a 'fair deal' is what the market will bear, then I would like to point out that they are in fact earning what the real market will bear (a scholarship for now) and as such your argument is self-defeating.
If however, you are talking about some unfettered market, free of social and legal restrictions then 'fair' isn't even a relevant term.
September 11th, 2010 at 8:00 AM ^
Many of these kids are in fact receiving lots of money and perks, e.g., Reggie Bush. Under the table, sure, but those are still "real" markets. And it's not criminal, just against the NCAA's regulations. Moreover, there are many sports (e.g. baseball) where players at the same age and talent level are in fact receiving money, which suggests that we don't have to imagine some "unfettered market, free of social and legal restrictions." Your attempt at a reductio ad absurdum is absurd.
September 11th, 2010 at 3:19 AM ^
for financial gain. Our financial structure is built upon relationships like these.
Well... most relationships aren't quite as advantageous for those being used. These college athletes have real opportunities presented to them that many of their high school peers of lesser talent never will, whether it's making it to the pros or in a non athletic profession by virtue of a free education. These kids are giving something (that most of them love and enjoy) to get something in return.
For the most part, they don't even have to face the consequences of their actions beyond game suspensions (Green in the article) or trophies stripped (Bush perhaps), but these are trivial as long as the real opportunities remain. It takes a Cissoko or a Clarett to lose out on those.
As our capitalist democracy evolves, Wilbon's idealized notion of fair becomes ever more irrelevant. The fact that idiots like Terrell Owens make more in a year than dedicated educators of our children will make in a lifetime indicates that neither 'fair' nor 'rational' has been a significant part of the social equation for quite some time.
Luckily for me, most of the reasons that I am irrevocably hooked on Michigan football are not at all rational either, and therefore afford me temporary immunity from all that other unfair and irrational stuff.
September 11th, 2010 at 3:44 AM ^
the argument that teachers should be paid more than athletes is. . .distorted. number one, the skill set needed for being a teacher is not as genetically rare as the one needed for being Terrell Owens. Very few people who are 6'5 can run a 40-yard dash in four seconds. Do we make too much of this? Maybe. But, we made sports into this, into a celebration of the absolute best of the best.
The other thing that I think is very, very frequently ignored is that someone can teach from the time that they're 20 or so until at least 70. An athlete in the NFL can make it to 30, if they're lucky. The average career for an NFL player is 4 years, at which point their bodies could very well be destroyed, not to mention their minds. The Lions in Winter did a few fantastic posts about this around the time of Ndamakong Suh's holdout, though I can't locate them right now, unfortunately. I know the writer from that site comes here from time to time, despite being a Michigan State fan. Perhaps he knows better how to find these.
September 11th, 2010 at 5:28 AM ^
the argument that teachers should be paid more than athletes (even though I think they often should) I was merely pointing out that the notion of fair tends to be well... distorted. 1 yr TO pay > Lifetime of multiple teachers pay combined.
My company's CEO received a raise last year that amounts to more than I will earn in my entire career to retirement. This is another celebration of the best of the best as you put it... just not in athletics.
I think we all agree that athletes bodies take a lot of wear and tear in a short period of time... good thing they have that college degree to fall back on when their sports career ends. The one they got for free while having fun playing the sport they love.
September 11th, 2010 at 3:35 AM ^
If schools start to pay student atheletes then you'll never see a Boise State or TCU crack the BCS ever again.
September 11th, 2010 at 3:51 AM ^
presumably, paying would not be a bidding war situation, at least not at the beginning. i mean, maybe it would turn into that, but, even if they were to allow for a stipend, the NCAA would never go for a difference between schools. Not that they'd go for a stipend.
But, I don't see how this argument makes sense. Couldn't you say, if some schools spend ten times the amount other schools do on football, only those first schools will ever crack the BCS? It's not like BCS and TCU are doing this by getting 5-star recruits. They're doing it by under-the-rader recruiting and outstanding coaching. I don't see how that'd change.
September 11th, 2010 at 6:41 AM ^
Paying the players would be too problematic, and would turn players into employees, but players deserve to be paid. So, players should be allowed to get outside income however they want to.
If a booster wants to "buy a stud running back" for his favorite school so he can brag to his buddies, great. Buy Reggie Bush's parents a house? Great: how 'bout a little bit for Reggie, too? And there must be a way to pay players for selling jerseys with their names on them without making them "employees." If a company wants to pay a player to help sell their products, no problem: sign them up.
The best players go to the schools with the best programs as it is now, anyway, so letting them get paid won't really change the distribution a lot. All it will do is give the players the freedom to make money, just like a normal student. Also, if anything, it will give schools like, for example, SMU a chance to buy their way back into relevance.
I have been against the enforcement of shamateurism for about twenty years now. I see no reason to change my mind. Allowing players to cut their own deals with boosters would give players a "piece of the pie" without actually taking it from the pie. The schools and bowls would get to keep their precious money while the players would be paid according to merit.
Everybody wins.
September 11th, 2010 at 10:12 AM ^
There seems to have been a number of opinion piece articles recently about compensating college athletes (probably because of the Bush and Green scandals. Most of them have been arguing that the players should receive some kind of money compensation but these articles always seem to miss the point that if college players are paid then they are now professional athletes. That is a huge change to the landscape of sports and has many implications beyond the simple plea of "just give the kids a few bucks." How would the NFL react to this new group of professional football players on the scene? What is to stop these (supposedly greedly) college athletic departments from expanding further? If colleges are now forced to invest larger sums of money in these revenue producing young athletes then why should they only be allowed to keep them on the payroll for four years? College football as we know it (and love it) would be irrevocably ruined. Paying these college football players would open a huge pandora's box.
Additionally, it's not like the athletes are getting nothing. College tuition has skyrocketed in recent years and compared to their non-athlete peers who are now graduating loaded with (sometimes six-figure) debt and grim job prospects, the average athlete is in much better shape as at 21 or 22 years old than most people. If you've ever know any athletes while you were on campus then you'd also see that they also benefit from clothing apparel, food, and travel far beyond what an average student gets. Maybe a star athlete like Bush or Green can believe he's bigger than the university...but I'd be curious to see how many jerseys either one could sell on their own without the university/ESPN/NCAA complex backing them. Moreover, it's not as if the young athlete is forced to go to college. There are other football leagues in the US...admittedly not very prestigious but if Bush & Green are such money making, household name "stars" then that shouldn't matter, should it?
Are some players paid under the table? Probably...maybe all of them for all I know. But the important thing is that they don't overdo. It's one thing to have a few drinks comped...but Bush had a house?!!
I guess what these kids need to realize is that they accepted a deal when they decided to play college football. It was their choice. And if they want to be professionals then they can start by acting like one and honoring the terms of their agreements.
As for the sportswriters accusing college football of hypocrisy, how about they consider themselves first. They argue that the schools are greedy (at the expense of players) and shouldn't profit from the sales of jerseys (aside: I've smugly argued elsewhere that no adult should be wearing a football jersey anyhow) but then the sportswriters also keep pushing for a "national playoff" in part by arguing that it would be such a grand financial windfall for the schools and the NCAA. In fact, this whole convoluted business of "national championships" is arguably the doing of sportswriters since they are the ones who started crowning mythical national champions with their AP and UPI polls. The writers/media are as much responsible for the mega-sized dollars involved in college football as the NCAA and its schools...maybe even more so.
September 11th, 2010 at 11:25 AM ^
but I wonder about this issue of "choice." Actually, these kids don't have much choice, because as a previous poster pointed out, the NFL is a (virtual) monopoly and to play in the NFL you have to play college football. Of course, these student-athletes choose to become football players, but it seems odd to argue that they have to accept an inherently unfair (how unfair is debatable, but most seem to accept that it is somewhat unfair) system if they want to have the chance to play in the NFL.
September 11th, 2010 at 12:11 PM ^
I concede that it is not a very good or fair choice. But at the same time nobody is forced to play college football. And although it is very rare, the NFL has occasionally drafted players who were not in college.
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing some kind of alternative to college football for the top athletes who aren't interested in college (as well as those who get left behind when they fail to qualify for academic reasons). There is really no reason that NFL players have to come from the college ranks.
Some kind of NFL minor league for 18-21 year olds would be good for many of the young football players. It would also have the benefit of nudging college football back towards it's "student athlete" roots. That is the players would be there because they want to go to school and play football, not because they have to go to school. The talent level of college football would likely drop but I think the appeal of college football is based more on a sense of love/pride for alma mater than pure talent anyways and would still remain wildly popular.
Additionally, in my perfect world, I would take college football off the major networks because their bidding has driven the huge inflows of cash into the sport. That doesn't mean we shouldn't still be able to see the games on TV. There's no reason that they couldn't be shown (commercial free too) on public broadcasting systems. And with internet streaming available there's no reason anybody couldn't see any game that they wanted to see.
I personally wouldn't mind if college football was (to some extent) taxpayer supported provided the players remain student athletes and coach salaries were more reasonable.
Sadly, the genie seems to be out of the bottle on the influence of money in college sports.