The sky-high profile of this allegation meant that everybody on television, everybody on the radio, everybody in the newspapers wanted to throw their thoughts in the ring. And what we learned was two-fold. First, people are near unanimous that big-time violations deserve big-time consequences. I'm sure there was a contrarian out there somewhere, but by and large people felt a suspension or expulsion was appropriate if the allegations proved true. Second, people are the opposite of unanimous on what should be considered a big-time violation.
It seems a whole lot of people are of the opinion that "universities are making money hand over fist off these kids, why should the kids get something out of it?" It's easy to see the merit in this. At a certain level, making millions off student athletes who hardly see a dime seems a little like baseball before free agency. But, there was no level above the Majors for ballplayers to dump their clubs to pursue. The college athlete often leaves as soon as he has the opportunity to go where he wants in the draft. What we're left with are schools that make as much money as possible off of athletes who try to leave college as soon as they can. You could ask which came first, but it's unlikely that colleges would start paying athletes even if athletes would always stay for four years. So, the question becomes whether athletes would stay four years if they were paid.
The safest bet is no, they wouldn't. $200,000 might be possible for the number one guy, the one that everybody wants, but not as a baseline. Even if schools could justify shelling out this amount on each of their starters, it would never be enough to actually keep anybody that was already planning on leaving. Since 2000, almost 75% of NCAA All-Americans in football stay on to graduate (there seems to be some bias towards juniors and seniors for these awards, so it may need to be discounted, but probably not significantly). At the same time, over 66% of NFL Draft first-rounders left college without a degree. The point is, really good players actually do stay in college. And rare talent types are going to get millions for signing, meaning they wouldn't stay even for the money.
So, why not let schools pay? The argument that the NCAA should be about student athletes in the truest sense of the term should be out because the superstars are going to leave as soon as it makes sense. It's not really in line with the goal to have a bunch of college juniors. The ideal is college graduates. All of this doesn't even begin to take into account the rampant "assistance" athletes get at many schools with their classes. A salary might be one component that takes away from the student athlete, but it's hardly the only detractor. Another argument is that a bidding war between colleges would favor the already giants to the disadvantage of the smaller schools. But, this whole scandal revolved around Auburn, not Notre Dame. And no one at Mississippi State made it sound like they couldn't afford Cecil Newton's asking price for his son, but that paying would violate rules. Believe it or not, most Division I schools could put up that kind of cash for a one-man team like Cam Newton, especially when one considers the return on investment if the team makes a bowl.
If the NCAA allowed schools to pay up to $200,000 for up to 5 players, schools could begin to sell athletes on benefits outside athletic programs. This does little to stop cheater schools (outside of raising the required price to a level that would be less affordable), but lessens the incentive for athletes to choose them. A student who chooses to attend a cheater school for $200,000 over another school he really likes but would pay him nothing, may not make the same choice if the numbers were $300,000 vs. $200,000. This would also encourage athletes to stay in school if they have concerns about supporting their families back home. They may still jump ship if they're likely to be picked in the top 15, but at least there is a decision to be made.
It is good to see that people fall so squarely on the line when it comes to punishments for violations. But, maybe so many voices raised against restrictions mean that those acts shouldn't be violations after all.
My take is that every single varsity athlete should be paid an hourly wage by the university on par with other campus jobs (i.e. cafeteria, library etc.) and get free room and board. No one should get a massive salary. I think this would go a long way to address the gross inequity of the current situation without really cutting into the "purity" of college sports. Students shouldn't have to suffer to be college athletes, and, once you take this away, I think it would reduce the frequency of substantial violations that athletes currently justify by the unfair circumstances.
ReplyDeleteALSO - Are steroids too passe or can you do a post?
OK, first I have to say that regardless of how you feel about what student athletes deserve financially it is important to note that a precedent was set with Cam Newton. The NCAA has suspended players, taken away wins, removed scholarships from schools because of far less.
ReplyDeleteThe University of Utah basketball team lost scholarships in the mid 90s while Rick Majerus was still coach because he bought some players groceries. Dez Byrant had all of his eligibility removed last year at Oklahoma State University because he went to Deion Sanders house and worked out with him. That was it. Nothing else was involved. Plus we all know the penalties that were handed to the University of Southern California because Reggie Bush's family took money from an agent. Mr. Bush also said he was not aware of anything. But for some reason in that cause it didn't count. The by laws of the NCAA scholarship rules plainly state that ignorance is not a defense. Plus of course the fact that everyone knows he's lying anyway. But that is just speculation. Maybe his dad didn't tell him about the money that Auburn gave him to attend.
Either way, the NCAA clearly went against their own rules in this case for a reason unknown to me. And that needs to be pointed out.
As for the real point of your post, I do agree that the system is completely corrupt. And that the universities, the coaches and everyone else involved makes money hand over fist while the talent, the actually players get nothing more than a scholarship. Now you could argue that the value of the scholarship is in a way payment itself. But even adding in room and board and whatever else they receive it can't come to more than 25, 30 thousand a year which is far less than the millions they are actually worth.
But when I try and think of a system that could keep what little integrity is left in college athletics and also keep things somewhat fair I hit a roadblock. Because there are holes in ever situation.
The best idea I could think of would be to not pay the players literally but allow them to make money in other ways. Right now the NCAA rules are so restrictive these players can not even make a profit off their own likeness. Nor can they even technically take a free coffee or ice cream cone from a fan.
What if they lessened these pointless restrictions? Let them take money from boosters, or agents or their mom's friend's dad, or whoever. Let them profit off their own name. Sign endorsement deals. That way the NCAA and the university can be kept out of the situation and the athletes may have a little more incentive to stay in school with a few dollars lining their pockets. I mean didn't even Tiger Woods, who was so dead set on finishing school finally give up the fight because the money that was being offered by the potential endorsement deals was just too much to pass up, or wait for?
And there will be those that say the biggest schools with the best boosters will have an unfair advantage. But isn't it slightly naive to say that isn't how things are going now?
If there is a kid that lives in Houston, Texas that is this huge football star in high school who was always a fan of the Houston Cougars growing up but is going to get to the University of Texas instead because Houston is not in a BCS conference and therefore the exposure at Texas will be bigger. He might end of going to the University of Houston after all if he knows Nike is going to be paying him x amount of dollars during his time at college.
There are probably thousands of holes in this theory as well but it seems to me the best solution so that the players at least get a little of what they deserve. The NCAA and the schools are kept out and there are no more discussions of kids getting in trouble for something that most of us would do as well.
I definitely agree that the NCAA needs to start letting student-athletes get their share of the college football/basketball money-making machine. It just isn't fair to let college coaches get paid millions of dollars, while the players get a chance to attend some classes on the way to maybe obtaining a degree..
ReplyDeleteHere's a thought; let's let schools pay students whatever they want, but impose a salary cap (a la baseball), so if a school wants to pay kids over that salary cap, they have to pay a 100% penalty, which will be split between the other schools. It's not a perfect plan, but let's face it -- kids chose schools for lots of reasons, and salary is only part of it. If you want to be an engineer, you will chose U of I or Northwestern over Georgia or Florida any day.
My other thought is that the NCAA stops letting anyone make money off of college basketball or football, and all the money that schools, coaches, ESPN, or anyone else makes goes into a scholarship fund that will be used to make college affordable again for normal people... Thoughts?