Recently there has been lots of chatter and debate over whether college athletes should be paid to participate in collegiate athletics. Journalists, who I respect, have weighed in passionately on the matter. Jason Whitlock of Fox is demanding Revolution and Reform. His position is that it’s unfair for players who generate billions to not receive an equitable piece of the financial pie. Colin Cowherd of ESPN believes the status quo is the answer. He asserts that the scholarship the player receives is more than adequate compensation. Jamele Hill of ESPN wrote today that the players should BOYCOTT. Wow. Really? Is it that bad? Are civil liberties being ignored?
The NCAA has made this bed and now it has to lie in it. The currently rulebook for college athletes is a joke. The rules have progressively gotten more narrow over the past 25 years. The foundation of all the rules is “improper benefits” received by the college athlete. “Improper benefits” mean that a player can’t get anything that a “normal” student would not receive in the course of receiving an education. Because the NCAA has made this the foundation the entire structure will fall within the next 10 years. Look most athletes are treated different than the average student. The recruitment process reeks of improper benefits. When I was in high school, I didn’t have a university fly me in first class for a tour of their facilities. When I visited the University of Maryland, I didn’t get to meet Len Elmore, or Buck Williams but I’m sure the basketball recruits did. Once I enrolled in school and became an officer in the Young Republican Organization I didn’t have girls showing up to “hug” me, but I’m sure the 1st string QB did. So the entire notion that all collegiates are and should be treated equal is a pipe dream.
I once believed that the players should be compensated monetarily, but I don’t anymore. I do believe that the scholarship is a great base salary for lack of a better term. Most student athletes are happy with the education and the ability to play a game they love for a few more years before they go out into the real world. But there are outliers in this system that because of their rare talent, move the meter in college athletics, and a different model should apply to them.
Take a guy like Tyler Hansbrough of the University of North Carolina. He was a basketball ICON for 3 years. His likeness was used on video games. His jersey was sold all over the country. He lost out on 3 years that he could have marketed himself in the Chapel Hill community. He could have done commercials for the local car dealerships or grocery stores, but because he was a student athlete he lost 3 years of earning potential in a career cycle that for most ends in 10 years. 33% of his ability to market himself was gone because he decided to stay an amateur. Hansbrough could have left school after his sophomore season signed basically the same NBA contract that he signed 2 years later. Yet the NCAA capitalized on his love for school to the tune of millions of dollars, but he couldn’t. Conversely, if a Film Major at NYU, while on scholarship, makes a movie that generates money he/she can keep it and there is no conflict. Or if a Singer enrolled at Duke Ellington can sing back up on an album and make a little spending money on the side. The irony of the whole thing is that the NCAA wants to keep money out of the collegiate activity that generates by FAR the most MONEY.
If Tyler Hansbrough had been an Olympic “amateur” he could have made marketing money and still kept his amateur status. Olympians can do commercials, and pitch products, why can’t basketball and football players. In this model Hansbrough could have taken care or himself while the NCAA was taking care of itself. Win/Win! The Olympic model has merits that the NCAA must adopt. Post Haste!
If we look at the Ohio State Football Scandal we notice that the players are being sanctioned because they traded awards for tattoos. Players were given gold pants trophies for beating Michigan, and because they have owned Michigan for the past few years they had several gold pants. So they traded them for ink. It’s funny because aren’t the gold pants alone an improper benefit? Did the debate team get gold pants? Furthermore once you give something to someone isn’t it theirs. Can’t they do with it what the will? Damn the NCAA sounds like Communist China!
Many of the best players come from the most impoverished families. They need money. They want money. Worst yet they see everyone else making money in the current model except them. So when someone gives them a $100 handshake they have no problem with it, because in their mind it’s trickle down economics. There has to be a way to use bad booster money and turn it into good. Why can’t booster set up a fund for the team and have the university manage it? Why can’t the marketing and business departments create real businesses under the university umbrella to make real money for the teams? Beats the hell out of the Hypothetical Hubbard International Shoe Company I had to create junior year.
The NCAA is at a crossroads. The money is too big, and the players know it. Coaches are making 5 million a year. The TV deal is worth 11 billion. Something has got to give. I say the NCAA should take the lead because in 5 years or so it’s going to be out of their hands and they may be left holding a large rulebook that applies to no one.
