(B)racket

119120 Responseshttp://www.deepintosports.com/2009/03/28/ncaa-division-i-big-money-economics/%28B%29racket2009-03-29+00%3A12%3A12Gary+Porpora to “(B)racket”

1. Nate Barlow says:

   March 29th, 2009 at 12:21 am

   It's shameful. Even more disgusting is that so many college basketball players don't receive the education that is their supposed payment–not that there were ever brought into these schools with that expectation or goal–making the whole situation even more exploitive. And then the NCAA (which is a truly evil organization, even if I do enjoy the games) puts limits on the types and amounts of income that players can earn from campus or off-campus jobs. Revolting.

2. Gairzo says:

   March 31st, 2009 at 8:38 pm

   I was shocked at the level, the open arrogance of the exploitation. You’ve got university presidents making high six figures and coaches making million—and a recruit from the projects or a poor ‘hood is penalized for trying to get his family out of a less than desirable situation?

   It is sinful. I get chills of shame from finding out how blatant, unconscionable the exploitation is. First off, they are exploiting children. Not adolescents, true, but children in terms of societal mores and customs.

   The other angle most pundits treat as a third rail is the racial factor.

   Graduation rates for black athletes are significantly lower than those of their white brethren. New methodology used by the NCAA finds less than half of black athletes graduate from college. Even using other statistical analyses, black athletes graduate at rates well below white athletes. A good breakdown of the numbers can be found here:

   http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2006-01-19...

   The systemic racism aimed at keeping an entire race of young people uneducated is undeniable; it begins with our under-funded public school system, teachers’ unions that resist sensible reform to insure their members are doing their jobs, economic oppression and political stagnation. It is a four-headed monster intermittently wounding itself and any “foe” seeking to tame its savagery.

   What is the solution?

   That's another column.

3. Nate Barlow says:

   March 31st, 2009 at 11:19 pm

   If we paid the athletes, how many more would stay in school and finish their education. How can anyone blame those select few who have enough talent to turn pro from leaving early for the big bucks when they can? Why risk injury that could cost them everything?

   It's those rest who don't have that talent who are the real victims.

   The NCAA is an evil organization. I don't blame coaches for taking what they can get, and I don't blame the schools for paying coaches a lot of money–a good coach is going to bring more than his income back to the school with success. I think most coaches wouldn't care if the kids were paid, probably many think it would be a good deal, more equitable for the teams than the under-the-table corruption already occurring, definitely more fair to the athletes.

   Where the line lies between the actions of the individual schools and the NCAA as a whole is very fine. Regardless of where the blame lies between them, the fact remains that the athletes are exploited.

4. ernessa says:

   April 1st, 2009 at 12:32 am

   Actually, I'm of a different feeling about all of this. Having lived abroad, I was surprised to meet so many other people from other first world countries who went to schools with as good of a reputation as mine — for pretty much free. This was basically b/c in many other countries, the citizens and government values education and therefore uses their tax dollars to make sure that every kid that has the smarts and drive can get a good university education, even if they're working class.

   Now, I'm going to be paying back student loans until I'm 60 for the same quality education. I get that America's citizens aren't willing to use their tax dollars to fully fund our university system. That's b/c we really just don't value education the way we should and that's a shame.

   However, I know these same people who don't value education are willing to watch a bunch of overly tall men throw a basketball around on TV and that brings in ad revenue which funds not only these coaches and university presidents salaries, but also, let's face it, pays for a lot of other university programs that don't make money.

   I was actually offered a full academic scholarship to Mizzou, b/c of my grades and b/c of my early journalism prowess (maybe I saw the writing on the wall as far as newspapers were concern, b/c I didn't take it and went East instead). Mizzou also used to have a large academic scholarship for ANY kid that made over 30 on their ACTs. That's not b/c their alumnae or the government is giving them so much money — it's b/c they don't pay their players and they have a lot of extra money to throw around for important stuff like, you know,actual education.

   I have so many friends and family members that have graduated from Mizzou on academic scholarships that otherwise would not have been able to pay for a decent education, that I say, thank God that we're not paying these few players. It's for the greater good.

   Just as I'm not going to be paid to be a good parent and raise decent children (who might make the States a lot of money), these players don't really need to be paid to contribute to the greater good of funding important university programs and initiatives. I don't care how much money the NCAA makes off of them as long as university programs are also getting a piece of the pie.

   Also, basketball players aren't children. They know what they're signing up for. If they don't like the system, then don't play basketball. And much like smart, black kids from bad schools, if they show initiative, they can get a good education AND play ball. We shouldn't have to hold their hands. Either they want a education or they don't.

   I might actually watch March Madness next year, b/c I just realized that my watching contributes to the greater good in a way that watching pro-games does not.

5. Nate Barlow says:

   April 1st, 2009 at 1:08 am

   Ernessa, you make a very interesting and valid counterpoint. Many students receive academic scholarships paid for by athletic success and that is GREAT and a completely appropriate use of said money. It would be great if every last cent of profit earned by the athletic programs went to academics. If that were the entirety of the matter and the system worked perfectly, fine, no complaints. But it's not.

   The problem is considering many of these athletes student-athletes in the first place. Ideally, their payment is a great education. But many of the universities have no intention of providing said education. They use the kids for their purposes and a lot of people make money off of them. The fact that everyone around these athletes coddle them and spoil them divorces them from the real world and exacerbates the problem. They are convinced that they will make it big, everyone around them feeds into that, and when that dream collapses, they are left nothing. Even worse, many enter school so academically lacking that even if they wanted to learn, they aren't given the support by the university to do so. The schools should be stressing that the education is a priority for them–just like any other student–but do not hold up their end of the bargain.

   In the long run, this situation breeds corruption and scandal in other manners, on top of it being the sham it already is.

   Yes, athletes are given advantages, and, no, I'm not crying for them in that manner. But the fact remains that most of them (minus the small percentage good enough to make the pros) are being exploited. They're spoiled by the system until the system can no longer use them. That's not right.

   The idea behind paying the athletes is to throw away the facade. Stop hiding behind the lie of calling them "student-athletes". They don't have to receive pro salaries, but something. But if the universities have no commitment to their education, at least give them something to take away. As it is, the schools use them, nothing more. And there would be less reason for the boosters and other people who provide the illicit perks to do so.

   Even better, the schools could do their academic duty for these kids. Not likely.

   I don't think anyone wants to see the athletes awarded more than hard-working students. But seeing them exploited is not right either.

6. Nate Barlow says:

   April 1st, 2009 at 1:11 am

   I should also mention my father was a university professor, very committed to education, and while he enjoys watching some college games, is not a fan of big-time college athletics as a whole for this reason. And even he stated to me many times, pay them, have everything in the open, and eliminate the sham about big-time college sports having anything to do with education.

7. ernessa says:

   April 1st, 2009 at 12:51 am

   Engineering programs have the same problem. My sister started off with a strong minority class in her engineering program and by the end, the vast majority of her black friends were in other easier programs or had dropped out. She and her then-boyfriend (from Cameroon) were two of the very, very few black people graduating w/ engineering degrees.

   If you look at Carnegie Mellon's stats, they probably have the same situation going on — though of course I can't be sure. Basically, it's incredibly hard to make it in an engineering program if you went to a poor high school that didn't have really strong math and science programs.

   I remain extremely proud of my sister, b/c she studied very hard and got tutors and worked every single weekend to close that gap. She had one of those miserable undergrad experiences that I have ever witnessed.

   We have a serious dearth of engineers in this country. I would address that problem, before I gave basketball players another second of thought.

8. ernessa says:

   April 1st, 2009 at 9:38 pm

   Hmm, I'm not sure how we know where all the money that the NCAA receives from ad revenue goes. Do we know? If we feel the amount that they are keeping in-house is egregious, then it would probably be best to tax them on ad revs and divert the money towards the state university fund.

9. ernessa says:

   April 1st, 2009 at 9:39 pm

   However, I remain unmoved on the subject of the basketball players. They are given access to a top-notch education and free housing. That's basically what most kids need to get buy in university. If they don't like the terms of that agreement, then they don't have to play basketball. As for boosters, I doubt paying players would eliminate that problem. If all the players got paid, then the perks would just get bigger: like come to Mizzou as opposed to Duke b/c we'll give you a car and provide your mom w/ an apartment — stuff like that. you're always going to have the problem of illicit perks, even if you pay these guys.

10. ernessa says:

    April 1st, 2009 at 9:39 pm

    And you can't lead a horse to water. So what if they're coddled and spoiled? The university has given them access to education and a bunch of free stuff to play basketball at their school — I really think that's all they owe these guys. The onus is on them to do the rest. In my opin, saying that it's unfair that a spoiled athlete is divorced from reality and therefore doesn't graduate though he has access to a great education is the equivalent of saying that it's unfair that Rumer Willis dropped out of college b/c she's divorced from reality. There are plenty of actors who do manage to graduate from college. And if ego keeps these guys from making their own education a priority, then seriously they're lucky that they got what little college education that they did, b/c they're dumb. It's not on the university to make sure that these don't make dumb moves like blowing off classes and/or dropping out.

11. Nate Barlow says:

    April 1st, 2009 at 9:58 pm

    Ernessa, I'm interested… regardless of whether you think the athletes deserve anything, do you think that the schools themselves are at all exploitive? Your comments read as if the schools and NCAA have no culpability for the problems in the system, that their actions are above reproach. That may not be what you believe (it may only sound that way as a side effect of your stance), but I think it's truly naive to think that the universities are guilt and responsibility free.

    The entire system is messed up and corrupt. Some good does occur with academic scholarships being funded, but at what cost to integrity? Everything should be overhauled. That doesn't mean necessarily paying players, but revamping the whole system with rigid, equitable rules that apply to all.

12. ernessa says:

    April 2nd, 2009 at 6:47 pm

    I wouldn't call it "naive" — more like indifferent. I don't really regard this particular aspect a problem that needs to be addressed. And no, I don't think the NCAA or the universities should be responsible for any student's inability to graduate except in a few cases which include medical injury — if you promise a player an education in exchange for his services, he should still get that education if his knee blows out in the first game and he's no longer able to play.

    Most schools have free tutors and academic probation programs in place for all of its students. I think that's enough.

    Also, I'd rather see general problems with the University system addressed before a lot of time and money was spent on an NCAA overhaul. That would actually be my last priority as a law maker or university administrator.

13. Nate Barlow says:

    April 2nd, 2009 at 8:16 pm

    Even if fixing the problems might actually benefit the student body as a whole? I think if you clean up the NCAA the flow of money would most likely end up with more going to academic scholarships and other needs of schools in the long run.

    Indifference to problems is a dangerous road to take. Indifference to problems breeds abuse. Indifference is why our whole economy is in a mess. Indifference is why entire nations and natural resources have been exploited. Indifference to some problems within a system (in this case, a university) while trumpeting the needs for others is at best inefficient and at worse recipe for disaster since, as Charlie Crews would say, "Everything is connected." The problems of the college athletics are a subset of the systemic problems of universities as a whole. Fix everything or you fix nothing.

    I believe strongly in personal responsibility. You're right, these athletes should be responsible for taking advantage of what opportunities are given to them. I have no personal affinity for them; I care more about the student body as a whole. And I don't believe we should coddle people and absolve them of responsibility for their own lives at any level of society. But that's exactly why I feel this needs to be fixed. The lack of responsibility in our society, in the NCAA, in individual lives is a systemic problem. Whether its irresponsible corporate heads exploiting the financial system and individual investors/homeowner to line their own pockets or the NCAA and universities exploiting athletes, the same root problem is in effect.

    Until everyone (and everything) takes on responsibility, until we fix the mindset behind the problems, until we throw away indifference to the problems we don't care about–but which do exist–and only focus on the ones that do matter to us, we're only fixing the symptoms.

14. ernessa says:

    April 2nd, 2009 at 6:49 pm

    I wouldn't call it "naive" — more like indifferent. I don't really regard this particular aspect a problem that needs to be addressed. And no, I don't think the NCAA or the universities should be responsible for any basketball player's inability to graduate except in a few cases which include medical injury — if you promise a player an education in exchange for his services, he should still get that education if his knee blows out in the first game and he's no longer able to play.

    Most schools have free tutors and academic probation programs in place for all of its students. I think that's enough.

    Also, I'd rather see general problems that affect most of the student body addressed before a lot of time and money was spent on an NCAA overhaul. That would actually be my last priority as a law maker or university administrator.

15. ernessa says:

    April 3rd, 2009 at 2:06 am

    Hmm, I would argue back that being indifferent to one problem isn't the same as being indifferent in general. As you know, I have my issues which I feel strongly about and advocate for. This isn't one of them. Indifference to problems is bad. Indifference to one problem is, in my opin, okay.

    I'm a HEAVY believer in personal responsibility. I think if we all learned to accept the consequences of and take responsibility for our own actions, then the world would be better off in general — not to mention less economic mess.

    I think it's impossible to take on responsibility for most problems. I think it's better to pick one or two things you're passionate about and go hardcore at them, so as to get real work done on them and not split your attention. Funnily enough, I also have the same theory about writing projects, which is how I learned the hard way to only work on one at a time.

    But I am impressed that you seem particularly passionate about this cause (and the NFL being evil). Though I can't agree on paying student-athletes, what do you think would be some good solutions for the problem?

    I suggested taxing ad revs earlier. Do you think there should be tougher academic sanctions on players — like you can't play if your grades aren't at a certain level and professors caught inflating an athlete's grades would not be eligible for tenure or have their tenure revoked? Also, I wonder if there's any kind of sunshine clause in the NCAA bylaws. Like do they have to tell us what they're spending their money on.

    I really think that the coaches deserve big salaries. They do something that most people in our country would not be very good at, and I would say that since they're picking the players and shaping the overall program, which makes the university a lot of money, then they should be rewarded for their efforts.

    It's kind of like the talent problem at non-profits. The reason many non-profits continue to struggle and be ineffective is b/c they don't provide competitive salaries for their workers. A lot of people theorize that non-profits would be able to do more and be more effective if they paid their workers competitive salaries. Instead they're stuck with a constantly revolving door of people who can't be satisfied with making $25,000 for a $50,000 job past a certain age.

    So I say it's reasonable to pay coaches well for what they do.

16. ernessa says:

    April 3rd, 2009 at 2:09 am

    Hmm, I would argue back that being indifferent to one problem isn't the same as being indifferent in general. As you know, I have my issues which I feel strongly about and advocate for. This isn't one of them. Indifference to problems is bad. Indifference to one problem is, in my opin, okay.

    I'm a HEAVY believer in personal responsibility. I think if we all learned to accept the consequences of and take responsibility for our own actions, then the world would be better off in general — not to mention less economic mess. Also, I think if these players had personal responsibility grilled into them from the outset, this would solve a few of the issues that you talked about.

    I think it's impossible to take on responsibility for the majority of problems outside of yourself. I think it's better to pick one or two things you're passionate about and go hardcore at them, so as to get real work done on them and not split your attention. Funnily enough, I also have the same theory about writing projects, which is how I learned the hard way to only work on one at a time.

    But I am impressed that you seem particularly passionate about this cause (and the NFL being evil). Though I can't agree on paying student-athletes, what do you think would be some good solutions for the problem?

    I suggested taxing ad revs earlier. Do you think there should be tougher academic sanctions on players — like you can't play if your grades aren't at a certain level and professors caught inflating an athlete's grades would not be eligible for tenure or have their tenure revoked? Also, I wonder if there's any kind of sunshine clause in the NCAA bylaws. Like do they have to tell us what they're spending their money on.

    I really think that the coaches deserve big salaries. They do something that most people in our country would not be very good at, and I would say that since they're picking the players and shaping the overall program, which makes the university a lot of money, then they should be rewarded for their efforts.

    It's kind of like the talent problem at non-profits. The reason many non-profits continue to struggle and be ineffective is b/c they don't provide competitive salaries for their workers. A lot of people theorize that non-profits would be able to do more and be more effective if they paid their workers competitive salaries. Instead they're stuck with a constantly revolving door of people who can't be satisfied with making $25,000 for a $50,000 job past a certain age.

    So I say it's reasonable to pay coaches well for what they do.

17. Nate Barlow says:

    April 3rd, 2009 at 8:30 pm

    I do feel that being indifferent to one problem is the same as being indifferent overall, especially when said problem is emblematic of a greater societal concern. You of course can–and must–pick and choose which problems you focus your energy on, since no one person can tackle everything. I don't argue that. But to be indifferent as to whether a problem exists or is solved (by others) is another matter altogether, especially when that problem is a different manifestation of an issue you would care about elsewhere or a small part of a greater system. In some instances, such indifference could be considered hypocrisy.

    Perhaps we use the word "indifferent" differently? :-)

    To be honest, I'm not actually that passionate about this particular problem at all. There are plenty of others I'd focus my personal energy on first. However, I do care deeply about how the problem and its underlying causes interrelate with other problems both in higher education and the world at large. Why? Because they are all connected, and I am not indifferent to their existence.

    Academic standards are important. They exist, but the problem is compliance. Colleges, teachers, coaches, etc. violate them constantly, because so there is so much money to be made. Since they don't care if a kid receives his education, they'll make sure he is able to play at any cost. Penalties for both students failing to make the grade should be stricter–and those for outside violators even harsher. The question is, how do you maintain accountability and responsibility? Getting around the system is easy to do, particularly inside a relatively closed system such as a university.

    The trail of money needs to be crystal clear, and any and all net profits should be earmarked for the benefits of the general student populace in very clear and defined ways. That having been said, I have no problem with coaches' salaries. They bring in massive amounts of money to their schools, so as long as they generate a profit which is put into the general scholarship fund and other worthy school uses, fine. ROI is ROI. Since they are the lynchpin, the justify their salary. But anyone who isn't directly contributing to that money coming in should not receive a cent of it. That money goes to the student body.

    I don't necessarily advocate paying the athletes if the rest of the system can be repaired so that student-athlete is a legitimate term and not a facade for a money-grubbing system exploiting the athletes. In addition to the aforementioned tight constraints on the money, the other big step necessary to achieve this is oversight by an impartial outside organization. The NCAA is run by member schools who have no vested interest in changing things, with board members from the universities themselves (on another note, the weight of power conferences inside the NCAA is actually the root problem of the whole BCS system for determining football's so-called national champion).

    One other small change that should help is that student-athletes should be able to work part-time jobs with the same flexibility and potential to earn that other students can. There are much tighter restrictions on the athletes than other students. Why is this? In the guise of trying to "appear" as amateur as possible, scholarship athletes are actually prohibited from earning the same legitimate, non-sports money that other student can. That's not right. It's one thing not to pay the athletes, another not to let them earn money from actual jobs. Talk about rules that can do nothing but engender corruption.

18. Nate Barlow says:

    April 3rd, 2009 at 8:30 pm

    I do feel that being indifferent to one problem is the same as being indifferent overall, especially when said problem is emblematic of a greater societal concern. You of course can–and must–pick and choose which problems you focus your energy on, since no one person can tackle everything. I don't argue that. But to be indifferent as to whether a problem exists or is solved (by others) is another matter altogether, especially when that problem is a different manifestation of an issue you would care about elsewhere or a small part of a greater system. In some instances, such indifference could be considered hypocrisy.

    Perhaps we use the word "indifferent" differently? :-)

    To be honest, I'm not actually that passionate about this particular problem at all. There are plenty of others I'd focus my personal energy on first. However, I do care deeply about how the problem and its underlying causes interrelate with other problems both in higher education and the world at large. Why? Because they are all connected, and I am not indifferent to their existence.

    Academic standards are important. They exist, but the problem is compliance. Colleges, teachers, coaches, etc. violate them constantly, because so there is so much money to be made. Since they don't care if a kid receives his education, they'll make sure he is able to play at any cost. Penalties for both students failing to make the grade should be stricter–and those for outside violators even harsher. The question is, how do you maintain accountability and responsibility? Getting around the system is easy to do, particularly inside a relatively closed system such as a university.

    The trail of money needs to be crystal clear, and any and all net profits should be earmarked for the benefits of the general student populace in very clear and defined ways. That having been said, I have no problem with coaches' salaries. They bring in massive amounts of money to their schools, so as long as they generate a profit which is put into the general scholarship fund and other worthy school uses, fine. ROI is ROI. Since they are the lynchpin, the justify their salary. But anyone who isn't directly contributing to that money coming in should not receive a cent of it. That money goes to the student body.

    I don't necessarily advocate paying the athletes if the rest of the system can be repaired so that student-athlete is a legitimate term and not a facade for a money-grubbing system exploiting the athletes. In addition to the aforementioned tight constraints on the money, the other big step necessary to achieve this is oversight by an impartial outside organization. The NCAA is run by member schools who have no vested interest in changing things, with board members from the universities themselves (on another note, the weight of power conferences inside the NCAA is actually the root problem of the whole BCS system for determining football's so-called national champion).

    One other small change that should help is that student-athletes should be able to work part-time jobs with the same flexibility and potential to earn that other students can. There are much tighter restrictions on the athletes than other students. Why is this? In the guise of trying to "appear" as amateur as possible, scholarship athletes are actually prohibited from earning the same legitimate, non-sports money that other student can. That's not right. It's one thing not to pay the athletes, another not to let them earn money from actual jobs. Talk about rules that can do nothing but engender corruption.

19. Nate Barlow says:

    April 3rd, 2009 at 8:30 pm

    I do feel that being indifferent to one problem is the same as being indifferent overall, especially when said problem is emblematic of a greater societal concern. You of course can–and must–pick and choose which problems you focus your energy on, since no one person can tackle everything. I don't argue that. But to be indifferent as to whether a problem exists or is solved (by others) is another matter altogether, especially when that problem is a different manifestation of an issue you would care about elsewhere or a small part of a greater system. In some instances, such indifference could be considered hypocrisy.

    Perhaps we use the word "indifferent" differently? :-)

    To be honest, I'm not actually that passionate about this particular problem at all. There are plenty of others I'd focus my personal energy on first. However, I do care deeply about how the problem and its underlying causes interrelate with other problems both in higher education and the world at large. Why? Because they are all connected, and I am not indifferent to their existence.

    Academic standards are important. They exist, but the problem is compliance. Colleges, teachers, coaches, etc. violate them constantly, because so there is so much money to be made. Since they don't care if a kid receives his education, they'll make sure he is able to play at any cost. Penalties for both students failing to make the grade should be stricter–and those for outside violators even harsher. The question is, how do you maintain accountability and responsibility? Getting around the system is easy to do, particularly inside a relatively closed system such as a university.

    The trail of money needs to be crystal clear, and any and all net profits should be earmarked for the benefits of the general student populace in very clear and defined ways. That having been said, I have no problem with coaches' salaries. They bring in massive amounts of money to their schools, so as long as they generate a profit which is put into the general scholarship fund and other worthy school uses, fine. ROI is ROI. Since they are the lynchpin, the justify their salary. But anyone who isn't directly contributing to that money coming in should not receive a cent of it. That money goes to the student body.

    I don't necessarily advocate paying the athletes if the rest of the system can be repaired so that student-athlete is a legitimate term and not a facade for a money-grubbing system exploiting the athletes. In addition to the aforementioned tight constraints on the money, the other big step necessary to achieve this is oversight by an impartial outside organization. The NCAA is run by member schools who have no vested interest in changing things, with board members from the universities themselves (on another note, the weight of power conferences inside the NCAA is actually the root problem of the whole BCS system for determining football's so-called national champion).

    One other small change that should help is that student-athletes should be able to work part-time jobs with the same flexibility and potential to earn that other students can. There are much tighter restrictions on the athletes than other students. Why is this? In the guise of trying to "appear" as amateur as possible, scholarship athletes are actually prohibited from earning the same legitimate, non-sports money that other student can. That's not right. It's one thing not to pay the athletes, another not to let them earn money from actual jobs. Talk about rules that can do nothing but engender corruption.

20. jkelbel says:

    March 13th, 2010 at 12:14 am

    Each college should have a fund which pays out to each student athlete at age 25 x dollars

    who graduated
    who did not sign a pro contract who was given a scholarship and who played or practice

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.