The Endorsement (returns): Pay college players
Occasionally in the Toy Department, a Sun sports writer will take a moment to offer his or her Endorsement of something they feel passionately about. There are no rules, and the subject can be as broad, or as narrow, as the writer chooses. This week, Chris Korman says college athletes -- at least those who make their schools millions in football and basketball -- should be paid.
It happens every year, about this time.
Fans from the top 40 or so college football teams begin thinking about conference championships and bowl games and possible Heisman or Doak Walker (they give that to really good running backs) winners while a few very conscientious media members act all serious and what not, buzzkilling the moment with a discussion of whether or not college athletes should be paid.
This is one of those.
It will probably be a short discussion, though. After about ten years of talking through this issue with various people in various ways, I'm set in the belief that it's all-but criminal that college football and men's basketball players do not reap more of what they generate for their schools.
I wrote that years ago while I was in college, and nothing I've seen since then has swayed me an inch. Even while covering Indiana, which has the smallest per-sport budget among the schools not called Northwestern in the Big Ten, it was clear that many of the so-called "student-athletes" were under-compensated.
Michael Rosenburg, writing for Sports Illustrated, makes a compelling case for paying players.
He points out that an entire summer of posturing and flirting -- sports writing turned Page 6 on us, and Big Ten commish Jim Delany wouldn't stop winking at everybody -- by the nation's finest bastions of learning centered on nothing but money. Reggie Bush's saga -- the one where he lost his Heisman, not the one where he lost a Kardashian -- revolved around him essentially being paid by agents as a student at USC. The NCAA was simply aghast at this, despite the fact that anyone who has ever seen Bush's high school highlights knew he was a pro in the making. Was he really expected to wait just because the NCAA said please? Was he supposed to be satisfied with gaining a few credits toward a degree he didn't want or need?
Perhaps the more compelling argument comes from Donald H. Yee, agent for the stars, writing in the Washington Post.
Yet, I suspect that virtually everyone in our industry -- players, coaches, administrators, boosters, agents and fans -- shed our naivete a long time ago. We know that the sole focus for many star college players is getting ready for pro ball, that coaches are looking for financial security on the backs of teenagers and that boosters enjoy the ego stroke that comes with virtually owning a piece of a team. There isn't anything inherently wrong with these goals, but there isn't anything "amateur" about the process, either.
Which is to say this: let's be honest. The system now is a sham, built on the myth of amateurism that becomes more and more absurd with each new sponsorship. Fans have to try to recall the name of the stadium they attend based on which bank is still in business, and some bowl games appear to have gone through multiple marriages. The Insight Bowl is also sponsored by Tostitos, meaning all sorts of chips -- from electronic to corn -- are covered, and the Champs Sports Bowl has had seven other names.
A vast majority of the money streaming into athletics department coffers comes from football and basketball, and while those sports certainly spend liberally they generally don't use anywhere near the same percentage of funds that they bring in. Money is spread out to run other sports, creating market anomalies. Women's basketball coaches often demand big money, even though their teams lose big money.
Yee offers a very reasonable solution in his piece, essentially proposing to spin off the football and men's basketball programs at major schools into corporate entities. They would still be affiliated with the school, but would be run by a CEO charged with making money, winning and developing players. This theory is clearly derived from the one put forth by Rick Telander, a former Northwestern defensive back and Sports Illustrated writer and current Chicago Sun-Times columnist, in his book The Hundred Yard Lie. First published in 1989, it still resonates.
There are noteworthy opponents of paying players, and perhaps their voices should be included (though only now, long after most of you have probably stopped reading.) Seth Davis, he of Sports Illustrated and CBS fame, tweeted that he "Could not disagree more w/ this" in response to Rosenberg's column, then offered this twitiloquy:
If you argue CFB players should be paid, you have to argue that the 1st string QB gets more $ than 3rd string safety, Fla players > FAU, etc
If college sports is all business, why do schools have two dozen sports that are guaranteed to lose money? Pretty lousy business model.
Not to mention tuition, books, food, tutors, training, exposure, etc. So the Q is not should they be paid, but should they be paid MORE?
Let's go point by point: Sure, the first-string QB should be worth more than the third-string safety. But I don't think salaries would change based on depth chart. Instead there should be some sort of salary cap, and then schools would need to recruit to fit under it.
True, Mr. Davis. It is a lousy business model, forcing the football and basketball players to prop up the track team. So let's change it.
Tuition is nice. I wish someone had paid mine for me. But many of the "student-athletes" aren't interested in an academic track. Or at least are more focused on athletics -- which can, you may have heard, be quite time consuming, especially if you play for Rich Rodriguez -- and would be better served by putting off their schooling. As it stands now, too many athletes are shuffled into majors that allow them to stay eligible at the expense of, you know, actually learning something useful.
Under our new model, athletes could attend school if they wanted to. The corporation would make sure they could study philosophy or plumbing, or could pay for an education once the athlete's career on the field/court is over. While playing for Dear Old Alma Mater, though, the athlete would be free to concentrate on chasing the dream of playing at the highest professional level. They'd be free to work out, practice and meet with coaches for as many hours as they wanted or needed (think about it: college coaches are paid $2 million a year and can't even coach their players for most of the year).
The rest of college athletics, meanwhile, could settle into true amateurism. Some schools will opt to downsize their football and basketball programs, making them more like FCS (formerly Division 1AA) or even Division II programs. Budgets would shrink as soccer and softball teams play more games within the region. Yes, a number of student-athletes would end up progressing enough to have a shot at becoming pros -- as is the case with baseball and ice hockey, the two pro sports that do not force kids to pretend to be college students for a few semesters -- but the overall culture would be clear: most of the people would be students who just happen to play sports.
Meaning the NCAA could at last be what it has always claimed to be.
in The Endorsement
| Permalink
Comments
Like most things with the NCAA this is much ado about nothing. There is no way that the colleges can or ever will pay their student players. What do you do with non traditional teams that generate revenue (do we pay UCONN women's BB)? What about the football programs that lose money? Now I am not against paying players just go back to what worked for years. Allow boosters to give these kids jobs and if they want to pay them for not working so be it. Who cares if some hot shot LA attorney wants to pay the best recruits from across the country to come to UCLA? Any other student at a university can get a job while they go to school why not the players?
Posted by: joe | August 30, 2010 12:46 PM
Nice thought. But the reason you have two
dozen money losing teams is Title IX. Pay
the men you must pay the women.
Posted by: Steve | August 30, 2010 1:19 PM
So if you're paying football and basketball players, how do you get away with not paying the bench warmer in field hockey? Equality remember. These kids are already being paid with a full scholarship to their university. If you began paying football or basketball players, how do you propose universities afford their other sports? or should we just cut those all together to pay the few players that are good enough to possibly deserve it?
Posted by: Joe | August 30, 2010 1:21 PM
Why bother with the traditional college education pretense at all? People go to college to get the knowledge and skills they need for their desired career - in the cases of these athletes, their sport is going to be their desired career.
Spin off the big sports programs into their own academic departments. Let schools like Duke and Purdue and USC and North Carolina develop basketball and football degrees so these kids aren't wasting everyone's time pretending to go to classes and take tests. A large factor in many decisions to enter the draft before graduating is that they're tired of doing the academics.
Having someone major in football or baseball is no different than having an athlete get a degree in theoretical basketweaving or underwater cheese appreciation; their employment prospects aren't going to change. Let the kids live their dream; if it doesn't work out for, then they can focus full-time on a real academic subject and earn a practical degree when their eligibility/playing days are over.
Posted by: Steve | August 30, 2010 1:23 PM
First, just need to quickly point out a mistake...Reggie Bush didn't lose his Heisman. USC removed its copy of it, but he's allowed to keep his.
Secondly, I agree with Steve above. I don't like the 'corporation' idea very much. If you went that route, it would only be a matter of time before the sports either developed new minor league systems or improved their current ones. The reason the NFL and NBA take a hands off approach to the NCAA is because they're getting a free minor league system. The second you spin those sports off into corporations, they'd not longer be free. The leagues would have to start paying various fees and have more limited access, and eventually they'd decide that they're prefer to bring in that revenue themselves if they're going to be paying costs.
I'm totally with Steve though. I've long supported the idea that schools should have degrees in various sports. A Miami football player or Kentucky basketball player should major in their sport. After all, that's why they're at college. We might as well drop the farce that is 'Criminology' or 'Family Studies' or whatever else they major in and teach them the skills they'll need. And forget about the argument that only a few of them go pro. That's true, but a great many more still make their living in the sport. They become coaches (at all levels), scouts, recruiters, writers, agents, etc. And they wouldn't HAVE to major in the sport, but it would be available to them as an option. There a ton of subjects and skills that would be beneficial for them to learn through this type of degree program.
The other thing I've always been an advocate of is that college players should be allowed to make money for endorsements. If they are capable of generating revenue, then I see no reason to prevent them from doing so. I understand the concern that random athletes could end up getting huge sums from boosters in order to steer them to school, it would be a lot easier to oversee and regulate if it were out in the open than if it all takes place behind closed doors like it currently does. It would also allow some kids (I always think of Chris Wilcox) who genuinely want to stay in school but need the money an option of continuing their education while providing for their family.
And finally, just a note: I can't stand this notion that 'they're already being paid.' No they're not. When Tyreke Evans showed up at Memphis, he was not being paid with a college education. Nobody in the world - not Evans, not Calipari, not Memphis fans, not the president of the school - thought that Evans would graduate from Memphis. These athletes' practice schedules conflict with them being able to receive the purported benefits of the free education they're receiving anyway. And on top of that, so many of them are not actually academically prepared to enter college that they receive very little from the classes they do get. It's a sham. The 'free education' is more of a hindrance than a benefit to plenty of athletes. The NCAA is a racket that needs to be torn down and rebuilt if it ever wants to establish credibility.
Posted by: Ben | August 30, 2010 3:41 PM
Interesting points here. Certainly see the Steve No. 2 (since he was the second Steve to post) model of allowing kids to major in their sport as a viable one. Also like the idea of allowing those who can make endorsement money to make endorsement money. Do take umbrage, however, with the insinuation that underwater cheese appreciation doesn't count as a "real academic subject." You elitist, you.
Steve No. 1 and Joe . . . if the football and basketball programs became separate from the university, I don't think they'd be subject to Title IX rules anymore. The corporations wouldn't receive federal assistance.
Posted by: Chris Korman | August 30, 2010 4:17 PM
Nice work. Still incorrect though. These guys take 200k from schools each year in freebies and have no loans to pay back. Check out my article today:
http://www.midwestsportsfans.com/2010/09/the-lunacy-of-the-ubiquitous-cries-to-pay-college-athletes/
Posted by: AJ Kaufman | September 3, 2010 12:49 PM
Korman, you're out of your freaking mind!
I welcome all of these athletes to take their talents to the free market out of high school rather than to colleges and universities. There isn't one (except for a few small exceptions)! So they oughta be thankful they're getting tremendous value for their talents taht, quite frankly for most of them, won't get them a damned thing in their adult lives.
Posted by: Chad Giddens | September 3, 2010 4:11 PM
Chad, where exactly are they supposed to go?
Looking at football specifically, high school kids are just not physically mature enough to go pro. They'll get destroyed.
Independent leagues don't make enough money to survive. They can't earn a living that way.
Pro teams are not going to draft a guy based on the video he made in his back yard. He needs to play on a team of roughly equal talent against teams of roughly equal talent for a few years before a team will take a chance on him.
Schools subsidize their athletic departments in the same way that they subsidize their academic departments; grants and scholarships are available to people who qualify. You can argue that most college athletes don't earn a dime in their sport, but I will argue that millions of college graduates don't earn a dime in their field of study either.
And don't forget that the majority of college athletes are not on scholarships. The most talented athletes get athletic scholarships just as the most talented academics get academic scholarships.
Posted by: Steve #2 | September 8, 2010 11:47 AM
Steve #2,
Your questions back to me prove my point precisely. Without college scholarships to play ahtletics, these kids have no value (relatively speaking) to 'society'. It's not a right to play college athletics or get a scholarship. so these jackholes need to appreciate the fact that they have an opportunity to play on full rides, get a higher education AND make themselves more marketable for professional sports, if they so choose. The alternative, for many of them, is go bag groceries or work in a warehouse somewhere. The NFL isn't going to find you there!
Posted by: Chad Giddens | September 15, 2010 9:50 PM