Interesting college athletics column

And, considering that a lot of these people have 40-hour a week jobs that require nationwide travel -- something I didn;t have until I was 25 -- they qualify as one of the most one-sided deals in the history of cheap labor.
I've argued this out, in print and outside, for 30 years. Rossi's point is the most salient -- that Title IX probably precludes independent deals for the major revenue cows.

 

Football, men's basketball, and in some limited cases, baseball, hockey and women's basketball, should be designated as "commercial public-relations athletic enterprises," and the players paid on a contract basis. The pay rate should be comparable to the value of a full-ride room-and-board tuition-and-books scholarship.

All "athletic scholarships" in all other sports should be terminated.

There should be no academic requirements or expectations whatsoever for the employee-athletes, other than they should be allowed to register for classes (if they qualify on their own merits) and some accommodations made for testing/assignment schedules.

If the players elect to attend classes and earn degrees, more power to them. If they elect to spend the extra money drinking beer and hanging out in strip joints, so be it.

 

Yes, businesses profit off their employees, but they also compensate them fairly for their effort (the good ones anyway). You can argue that the $40,000 per year tuition (or whatever it is) is fair compensation, but I disagree, considering its relative value to the revenue the athletes bring into their schools.

I also don't like the idea of classifying universities as businesses, particularly state schools (I suppose you can't argue the same for private schools because, well, they're private). A state school isn't in the business of MAKING money, or at least it shouldn't be. A state school (like Ohio State, for instance), should be in the business of educating students and hoping that when they graduate, they decide to stay in-state and put their earning potential and income to use helping its economy, quality of life, etc., etc.

All the money generated by a state school should go toward improving the school and the quality of the education it provides. Now, one way to do that, is through athletics. A successful football program attracts students, the same way nice living quarters and good cafeterias can help attract students.

As far as the education given to these student-athletes, you seem to place the "blame" or "fault" completely with them if they don't make the most of it and get a good education.

I don't think you're giving fair consideration to the amount of time they put in on the practice field and travel, nor to how easy the school makes it to cut corners on their education. Many of these big-time football schools (and even a lot of the smaller ones) have little interest in giving players a good education. They only care about keeping them eligible so they can field a good team and make money. That's why so many schools are caught helping their students skate by in classes, either by encouraging professors to give them grades they don't deserve or paying their "tutors" to do work for the players.

I'm not saying the athletes aren't at fault if they don't make the most out of the education they earn (and I won't say free education, because it's most certainly work they're doing to get that scholarship). But I also won't believe that given the choice between studying for five hours after three hours of practice and three hours of class or having your tutor write a paper for you, that most 19- and 20-year-olds (especially ones with pipe dreams of playing in the NFL) won't choose the latter 90 percent of the time.

I don't feel bad for college football players, so I hope it doesn't sound that way. But as someone else pointed out, if it were my image and my name that was making millions for my school, TV networks and merchandising companies, you're damn right I'd want a piece of that pie. If my school newspaper were bringing in millions of dollars to the university, I'd have certainly wanted more than the $75/month we got as reporters.

 

There are plenty of "regular students" who do not have to pay for their education. I was one of them (until that blasted second semester of my freshman year). There are many ways for "regular students" to earn scholarships as well (there are academic scholarships, theater scholarships, band scholarships, etc.).

The difference is that those students don't bring in millions of dollars in donations and revenue to the university. The ones who do, such as grad students doing research, are usually paid for their work through grants and whatnot.

As for the players who never get in a game giving money back, I think you know as well as I do that they hardly "do nothing." Without the practice squads, the starters would never be as prepared to play as they are and without the backups, teams would be crippled by any injury. It's a cliche, but it's true: everyone on a team contributes to the team's success or failure. And those kids that never step onto the field on Saturday do plenty of work the rest of the week to make sure their team is ready.

As I said, I don't feel bad for these guys. I understand your point that they are being given a chance to earn an education that could help them in the future and if they waste it, they'll pay the price later on. If I had the chance to play college ball for a scholarship, especially if it could someday earn me millions in the NFL, I'd take it in a heartbeat.

But that's really the point of the article: "their hope is eternal, and their ignorance exploitable."

 

To ease the burdens on athletes I think the NCAA should give them the option of not having to take classes until their eligibility's over. Once their eligibility's exhausted, the NCAA could set a rule requiring the athlete to graduate in a certain amount of years or they're forced to pay part of their scholarship back.

For example, if Eric Crouch only completed 3/4 of his degree requirements five years after his eligibility expired he'd owe Nebraska $40,000. I think such a move would have a number of positive ramifications on college sports.

1. College football players wouldn't feel as overworked. You'd see their gpa's increase and consequently they'd learn more in the classroom. Instead of rushing to get work done or cram for a test, they'd have more time to concentrate on school with no sports involved.

2. For the 99% of students who won't make the pro's, this gives them opportunities to get ready for the real world once sports end.

3. This virtually removes any incentive for schools to cheat a la the Minnesota scandal. Why would tutors feel the need to write a paper for a point guard when he's no longer on the team? If a player doesn't graduate on time it affects only him financially. It makes no sense for the school to help an ex-player cheat because if they don't graduate the school gets money back.

4. Without the burden of classes, performance on the court or field will undoubtedly increase. Not that anyone cares, merchandise, tv ratings and ticket revenues will stay the same.

Yeah there are negatives the biggest having former 26 year old athletes preying on 18 year old freshman sorority girls. But imo all the positives outweigh the negatives.

Also, as many have said the players should start to receive a stipend. Nothing huge, but just enough to have money in their pockets.

 

Why would the Titans give Young money for what he did at Texas? They gave him $25M for what they thought he would do for the Titans.

 

Notre Dame, Ohio State and Texas each earn more than $2.4 billion in football revenues in four years?

 

The system does seem patently unfair to the athletes, but it's the system they've agreed to. Rather than pay the athletes, I'd prefer to see the money taken in from sports — every nickel of it — go back into the general fund of the universities. That would help lessen the financial burden on all students. It could help schools better compete financially for the best teachers — not just the best coaches.

 

Not likely, considering that the most recent annual revenue figure for Ohio State's entire athletic department, which the school reported to the U.S. Department of Education, is $104 million (highest in the nation).

A great resource if you cover college athletics:

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/main.asp

And yab's T or F is false. Many times, the money goes the other direction, which is why some faculty members at San Diego State want to blow up the athletic department right now.

 

As I alluded to in the thread about the woman's hoops player who had her scholarship yanked, the system will change when the athletes band together to make it change. Maybe the next basketball star will wear Nikes when his coach tells him to wear adidas, or maybe a coach will punish an athlete unfairly and his teammates will band together against the coach. If I'm the NCAA, I better start looking for ways to work with the student-athletes before the whole system comes crashing down.

 

Baron --
I've been making the "one night they'l throw up the ball at the Final Four and nobody will jump" argument for almost 25 years now.
Believe it when I see it.