What is Next for the NCAA?

NCAA can argue that athletes have an equal opportunity to graduate. They can make all the eligibility rules they want, but they can't force the kids to study.

They can, however, go to the multi-year scholarship plan (I'm not sure they've done this yet), reduce the hours allowed to practice, and absolutely slam any team that goes over that limit.

 

It's also not fair the fans don't want to buy t-shirts with women's or non-revenue sport athletes on them either.

 

trying to kick start another thread with some bigoted posts?

 

Doesn't matter. Ever hear of disparate impact?

 

"A facially neutral employment practice is one that does not appear to be discriminatory on its face; rather it is one that is discriminatory in its application or effect."

"substantially different rate of selection in hiring, promotion, or other employment decision which works to the disadvantage of members of a race, sex, or ethnic group"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact

Unless there's a disproportionate amount of whites getting scholarships over blacks, good luck with claiming "disparate impact".

Otherwise, you're claiming that blacks are unable to graduate on their merits.

 

Nope. But it can be argued that tying payments to graduation is discriminatory to black athletes because they have significantly lower graduation rates.

 

Also, the players who don't graduate have significantly higher contribution to those jersey sales and marketing promotions.

Leave aside race. Justin Mason gets to pull in bank while fellow 2006 Texas basketball recruits Kevin Durant and D.J. Augustin make nothing? How does that solve the issue at hand?

 

It is borderline irresponsible to suggest that the Yahoo! stories were based entirely on the word of a convicted felon. They didn't take Shapiro's word for it; they made him produce documentation that supported his statements. This was spot-on reporting. People seem to forget that. Sure, the NCAA's actions were unethical, and I won't object too strenuously if they call off the investigation on the "fruit of the poisonous tree" theory and give Miami credit for time served. But none of the enforcement actions should obscure the fact that Yahoo! exposed a rotten culture and did it responsibly.

 

Even if it was in the best interests of Durant and Augustin to leave early, they didn't HAVE to go pro. They chose to. If it takes four years of employment to become vested in my company's retirement plan and I leave after one, I don't see a dime from it. The same principle ought to apply.

 

But how's that the NCAA's fault?

(yes, I can't believe I'm defending the NCAA here).

Players have scholarships. They can take classes. They can study for those classes. It's not the NCAA's fault if the athletes don't work hard enough to pass their classes and graduate. That's not to say the NCAA necessarily sets up athletes (of all races) for academic success. Athletes are on the road all the time, and while they get their private tutors, it's still not the same as sitting in class.

 

It doesn't matter whether or not it's the NCAA's fault. Intent is not a factor when the doctrine of disparate impact is applied. Merely the result.

 

Except how do you prove the result is due to discrimination?