Interesting college athletics column

I thought about posting this in the in the women's-basketball-player-gets-her-scholarship-pulled thread, but didn't want it to get lost.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/opinion/11lewis.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

This ground has been covered before on threads here, but I've never seen math like this mentioned in the conversation.

Two things to add:

Does the writer think that Title IX and the courts will be OK if only football players get paid? Does the baseball, women's hoops or archery programs have 65 percent of their revenue available to pay players? What happens to the athletic budget at, say, Northern Arizona or Southern Illinois under such a scenario?

I have two sons. If they one day have an opportunity to be "exploited" like scholarship athletes at most BCS schools are, I'm rushing to sign them up.

 

Ivory-tower air-castle article, which utterly ignores the fact that a full-ride athletic scholarship at a D-I school is worth approximately $40,000 per year.

 

Also, Vince Young did get his $5 million -- and much more. His Titans contract was for a guaranteed $25M, with an opportunity to earn $58M.

What services had Young rendered to the Titans when he signed that contract? He was, in effect, being given $25M for what he had done at Texas.

 

Lewis' dismissal of the Franchione scandal was laughable.
It showed how limited knowledge in the hands of a powerful writer can be dangerous.
Franchione was not blasted for greed.
He was blasted because it was perceived he was providing inside knowledge to close boosters that was not available to others. And what they could have done with that knowledge runs a bit counter to what college sports are supposed to be about -- even if all they're about is making money for the schools and coaches.

 

The moral being: If you are willing to whore yourself for $40,000 a year while your pimp makes considerably more, you too may one day turn into Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman and meet the millionaire who will sweep you away in a limo pay you what you're really worth.

 

I think the writer fairly points out in this article that the pretense that the player is going to a university because of that $40,000 per year education is one of the biggest lies of the sport. The player (most, anyway) is going there with the hopes of earning an NFL contract, not whatever that $40,000 a year education is going to provide.

In a perfect world, the "scholar"-athletes would be going to these schools to get a good education that will set them on the path to a successful career. In the real world, they spend three or four years auditioning for the NFL for free, while the schools rake in millions. At the end of their eligibility, the players strike it rich with an NFL contract, find a job (often within the university), or realize they should have paid more attention to their Economics class than their playbook.

The idea of these guys using football to get an education and improve themselves is a noble one. It's also one that is untrue for a large majority of the players.

 

Michael Lewis is so on the money here.

Yep, its all about those scholarships, on wait those one-year grants that can be pulled if the kid doesn't perform. But if the player wants to bail, he's penalized. he also has to do well enough in school to stay on the field, but not well enough in school to actually graduate since he spends 60 to 70 hours a week working for the football team.
College football probably brings in a half-billion dollars every Saturday in ticket revenue, but the players don't see a dime.
That's just insane.

 

I'm wondering if things are going so well in New York, the United States and the world in general, that a half page op-ed piece in the Sunday New York Times should be devoted to the helping 5 dozen or so young males that are worth more than their athletic scholarships?

 

students don't get in for free. they pay an athletics fee as part of their tuition. so even if they go or don't go, they are still paying money for that game.
And a lot of those mid-majors have major school enrollment numbers. Kent State has around 35,000 students, that adds up to millions of athletics fees.
A half a billion every Saturday is probably way too low. Especially if you consider those mandatory donations for season tickets that most major schools have.

 

True or False.

Most Athletic Departments at 4 year degree granting institutions have surpluses(profits) that are put into the general treasury of the institution.

 

I'm not sure athletes should be paid in college. As a regular college student, I'd love to go to school for free.

At the same time, if I'm a Vince Young-type player, and the University of Texas is selling jerseys and t-shirts with its logo and my number on it, and the University of Texas is putting me on its tickets and me on its programs and me on its media guide, and ESPN and ABC are using me in promotional bits (for the rest of my life), and the Big XII is using me to promote itself, and the Rose Bowl or the Fiesta Bowl or the Whogivesashit.com Bowl is using me to promote its game, well I'm going to feel just a little bit exploited.

Especially when the University of Texas doesn't treat me like a student. Sure, as a college athlete, I need advisers and tutors and the like, but who's really putting an emphasis on graduating when I'm out of town six weekends in the fall, I'm practicing 50 hours a week, I'm too tired to go to class and the only thing the entire state of Texas is worried about is whether or not I perform on Saturday afternoons.

Of course, that's all well and good, because I've got a scholarship to college, so I shouldn't worry about the fact that the university, the state, the conference, the networks and everyone else is making billions off of my face or my uniform. Sure, the NCAA says Nike can't put my name on that replica jersey, but do they honestly think that keeps fans from buying it because it's got my number on it?

Like I said, I'm not sure if I think athletes should get paid, if only because I don't know how feasible it is. But there's definitely something wrong with the system, in my mind.

 

I think you're missing the point here, junkie. This isn't about "fault," it's about universities profiting in the millions off their student-athletes who don't see a dime. Let's go with the $40,000 per year tuition figure used earlier in the thread. By that calculation, these students are paid $160,000 for four years, totaling $13 million or so for 83 scholarship players. During that time Notre Dame, Ohio State and Texas will each have earned more than $2.4 billion in football revenues. Therefore, their players will have earned about .5 percent of the revenue they generated.

Personally, I don't advocate doling out 65 percent of the revenue to players, the way this article does, nor do I advocate letting schools sign players like Vince Young to a $5 million contract. I do, however, believe the players should see more than the "priceless" education which they're building their futures upon (as the NCAA portrays it).

Lewis is correct with his idea (if not completely unrealistic) that "If the N.C.A.A. genuinely wanted to take the money out of college football it’d make the tickets free and broadcast the games on public television and set limits on how much universities could pay head coaches."

That, of course, would never happen and it would go against free-market principles as well.

But I wouldn't have a problem if the NCAA allocated money in a revenue-sharing type pool that spread a portion of their money out evenly among all 83 athletes on every roster. Take some of that TV money, some of that merchandising money, and put it back into the pockets of the players who earn it for you.

Maybe I'm naive, but that might even help avoid some of the common NCAA violations. Since players wouldn't be as hard up for cash, maybe they wouldn't be so willing to risk their school's future and reputation for a $1,000 here and there.