In Defense of the NCAA

In my time, I have been a staunch defender of many unpopular causes. The BCS, Rex Grossman (pre-Super Bowl), Brian Anderson as the White Sox center fielder, and the Scott Podsednik-Carlos Lee trade (until I threw in that last one, you were probably thinking I should have clarified that to say I am a staunch advocate of bad arguments) come to mind. Well, you can add the NCAA to that list. The reality of the situation is that the NCAA, enforcing all its rules, has one of the most difficult administrative tasks I could imagine (and there is very little hyperbole in that statement). In response to the post below (and what I imagine will be the lengthiest comment this site will ever receive), I argue that whether the NCAA allows member institutions to pay players is, in fact, largely irrelevant to the discussion of how to curb the ills in college sports, and that allowing athletes to be paid for advertising opens Pandora’s Box and removes the NCAA’s tenuous control over outside influences.

First of all, to limit the length and breadth of this post, I am limiting my analysis to the revenue sports: football and men’s basketball. Second, I believe that it is important to acknowledge the fact that most of the highly publicized debates relating to this subject focus on the top 1% of athletes in those sports. Marcus Dupree, Reggie Bush, Cam Newton, Derrick Rose, and Anthony Davis (the latter four of which I will discuss in greater detail later in this post) were all expected to be impact players and all became the focus of investigation and scandal. The vast majority of Division I athletes in the revenue sports are not even the subject of the debate. Those athletes are not worth millions of dollars in college, and those athletes are not just putting in their time until they make the jump to the next level. Third, football is a different animal than basketball. College is necessary for football players. There are no minor leagues, there are no leagues in Europe, and, most notably, there are very, very few impact Freshman in football because there is a physical difference between 18 year olds and 21 year olds. Finally, other than in this paragraph, I will not address the fact that colleges do pay athletes... directly. Tuition, room and board. Anyone that has attended college knows that when you move out of the dorms, expenses go down. When you receive the same amount from the school regardless of where you live, you end up with athletes living in cheap apartments and, legitimately, pocketing money every single month of their college careers. With those constraints in mind, here we go.

Whether or not the NCAA allows athletes to be paid is largely irrelevant. The NCAA claims to protect amateurism in their athletes, but as the years progress, the term amateur will continue to diminish in meaning. Rather, I see the role of the NCAA in the treatment of athletes and in recruiting as that of keeping a level playing field amongst its member institutions. If the NCAA ever allowed their schools to pay players, they would no doubt impose limits on how much money schools could pay to prevent any school from obtaining a competitive advantage. Say the NCAA had allowed Auburn or Mississippi State to pay Cam Newton $200,000.00. When have you ever heard someone say, “thank you for the money you have given me. Now that I have $200,000.00 I will not try to obtain further compensation elsewhere.” If you can receive $200,000.00 from Mississippi State, why not try to milk some more out of your asset, whether from the university directly or from a booster with deep pockets?

Maybe I am naive, but I do not believe that schools are paying players directly (not even at Kentucky) in the current environment. Anthony Davis’s father may very well have made it clear, as reported by the Chicago Sun-Times, that he was selling his son’s services to the highest bidder, but I cannot believe that, in this era, John Calipari would be dumb enough or desperate enough to actually take Mr. Davis up on that offer. The problems for schools arises when they turn a blind eye to obvious benefits. And that is the distinguishing factor between Cam Newton at Auburn and Reggie Bush at USC. Reggie Bush’s family actually received benefits and USC more or less looked the other way. Cam Newton’s father asked for benefits, but according to the NCAA investigation did not receive anything. The soliciting of benefits just means that Cam Newton’s father was an idiot. But the crux of the argument is this: letting schools pay athletes does nothing to diminish the role of outside influences over whom the NCAA has no control. Boosters, agents, the NCAA has little ability to punish them directly other than by punishing the school itself. The NCAA punishes the school when there is a perceived alteration in that competitive balance.

Allowing players to be paid for promotions, advertisements, etc. also leads to an uneven playing field. Oregon is a Nike school. Every time Nike releases a new special uniform, Oregon receives one. If Ernie Kent could have told potential recruits that, if they came to Oregon, and if they were successful, they would be able to make millions on the side in Nike advertising dollars while in school, Ernie Kent would not have been fired by Oregon last year because his school would have an immediate competitive advantage.

There are people who believe that advantage exists regardless. During the Derrick Rose recruitment, there were whispers that Rose would not attend Illinois because Illinois is a Nike school and Rose was going to an Adidas school. Type “college basketball recruiting shoe wars” into Google and you receive a litany of articles, including a 2005 article from ESPN, detailing the influence shoe companies exert over prep athletes. Legitimizing that influence allows it to trickle down from the top 1% to everyone.

So what is the fix? In college football, there is no perfect system. The universities should understand that their role is to make sure their athletes are not living beyond their means and if they willfully turn a blind eye, the NCAA only has the school to punish (see Reggie Bush). One easy rule that the NCAA could implement, in tandem with the NFL, is to de-certify agents that have improper contact with athletes, an idea championed by Nick Saban, and to prevent coaches like Pete Carroll from abandoning his school as imminent sanctions come down. The NCAA, however, cannot enact that alone. They need to partner with the NFL to enact any real, actual change.

In basketball, on the other hand, there are three potential fixes, two of which are reliant on the NCAA’s partnership with the NBA to make a reality: (1) drop the age limit for entry to the NBA; (2) enact the rules regulating eligibility for the Major League Baseball draft and apply them to basketball; and (3) create a viable minor league.

All three ideas can work in tandem. Major league baseball allows athletes to become eligible for the draft (1) after they graduate from high school; or (2) after completing their Junior year of college. The MLB creates an exception for Junior College and DIII players, but that is not relevant to this discussion. For example, Lebron James could still have gone straight to the NBA. That top 1%, the players that the shoe companies go to war over are no longer an issue.
Well, I can hear you say, the NBA has been down this road before and I can provide you with literally dozens of examples of players that jumped to the NBA too soon. But I am prepared for that argument. The NBA could easily have a viable minor league. The D-League is worthless. Not every team has a D-League affiliate and, with the exception of the occasional Terrence Williams or Hasheem Thabeet, no one of any relevance steps foot in the D-League. Here is the solution: extend the NBA draft. Add at least one round. Let NBA teams draft players straight out of high school who are not ready for the NBA and stash them in the minors. Some will develop like they would have in college. Some will not develop just like they would have in college. Then, you follow the minor league baseball model with D-League teams. Put a team in Peoria, Illinois and stack it with young talent and former Bradley and Illinois players who can still play and use that system to develop talent. The whole point is to create options for these players while maintaining the competitive balance between the schools.

At the end of the day, the status quo is as valid as any alternative. The status quo maintains competitive balance and minimizes, as best as possible, the influence of parties that the NCAA has no regulatory control over. The system is far from perfect, but so are all the alternatives. Fixing a broken system with an equally broken system is just a bad idea.