Interesting (long) article in the Atlantic this month regarding the state of College athletics. Provided Summary: I am a big fan of college sports, but do think it is time to re-think how we do this Other recent related articles: Texas and OK to switch to Pac 12? the Longhorn Network is a perfect example of the Atlantic piece
College sports are effed up at all levels. We all know about the big D1 money programs. But it is that way for the nonrevenue sports too. It' doesn't make a hoot of sense that because a girl is 6' tall and can jump, that she can gain admission into a superelite private D3 school, be accepted when she is 200th in her graduating class when that school is turning down kids with 2400 SAT tests. It makes a college more balanced because it has tall people who don't study?
I love the circuitous logic of college sports apologists. Q. Why is it wrong to pay college athletes? A. Because it's against the rules. Q. Why is it against the rules? A. Because it's wrong to pay college athletes. I just don't get how people can get upset over elite athletes who play for professional organizations are treated as anti-christs because they sell their autographs and game-worn jerseys or get deals on cars and tattoos. And it's amazing that most fans and commentators keep missing the lessons of various college sports scandals. It's not that Miami is a horrible, horrible school. It's that when you severely underpay your talent, the black market will always come in and make up the difference. By not paying elite football and basketball players, schools are actively ceding control to agents and boosters.
My understanding is that most D1 football schools lose money. Why should their players be paid, if that's the logic? And recently, the scandals have almost all been IN football.
1. Not true. Only five BCS conference schools lost money in 2008-09: http://articles.courant.com/2010-07...100703_1_million-profit-uconn-football-report 2. Having a unprofitable business doesn't absolve you from the responsibility of paying your most highly skilled employees. 3. Athletes don't just make money for schools. They also make money for the NCAA, its partner television networks and sponsors. 4. Schools have always used football as marketing for their academics and to pay the bills for other athletic programs. They can't do that without hiring elite athletes.
OK, what about the other D1 schools who aren't in the BCS? Personally I think that athletics should be a secondary consideration to academics, but I'm also one of those people who believe that the Olympics was a helluva lot better when the participants were just amateurs.
Right. Every time they're on national TV, they get a free 30-second slot to advertise the school. That's a pretty coveted slot that beer, investment and erectile dysfunction companies pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for. The Big East and Conference USA are full of schools that are happy to lose money on football in exchange for more applicants and alumni donations.
Who cares? All they play is that gayass soccer shit anyway. Noted for emphasis, when major sports at big schools are down, in general, so are alumni donations, across the board for all academic and artistic programs.
I don't know and honestly, I don't care. The major conferences are where the money is and where the scandals are. I'm not demanding that all colleges pay their athletes - just that when they choose not to compensate highly skilled employees, they pay the consequences, which seems to be a less of an issue with smaller schools. You liked it better when athletes had to work odd jobs in non-Olympic years instead of fully investing in being really good at their sports, because of arbitrary rules from cashing in on their world class talents, and some athletes simply quit their sports because they couldn't pay their bills, and Jesse Owens had to make ends meet by racing airplanes and race horses? That's just awesome. I know I'm coming off a little dick-ish, but I wish people wouldn't romanticize amateurism so much. To oversimplify a little, amateurism as a virtue was a concept invented to: a) Keep the riff-raff out of the Olympics b) Stop northern clubs from being better at football than the London-area clubs that founded the FA. c) Avoid having to compete with blacks in Brazil. I doubt you support any of the above.
This is very important. Most college programs lose money, especially football. and wherever Calaperi coaches B'ball. Also hoops is kept 'clean' thanks to the AAU/sneaker companies keeping it out of the schools.
Here's the real scandal in college sports: http://hamptonroads.com/2011/05/college-athletics-costs-grow-student-fees-rise
Yep, regular students pay more to subsidize recruited athletes who benefit from cash payments from the universities at the D1 level, and easier admisssions at all levels.
nobody wants to be associated with a loser... look at Ok State. Traditionally, they would field competitive teams from time to time. But now, with Pickens $, they are turning into a real program.
As a Wildcat hoops fan, I'm just waiting for the day where we get slapped with another investigation.
It's one of the most circular arguments there is. I know some people who were athletes for their schools, and quite frankly, I'm all for college athletes getting paid. People who are against it only see it as tradition for the sake of tradition, which is dangerous logic.
even as a soccer player, I got a ton of extra benefits from being an athlete. athletes had their own dining hall with grub better than what the students got. the football and basketball players had their own dining hall, and menus would include surf and turf dinners. we had our own weight room. football had their own. basketball had their own. if a student strained a muscle while running, they'd go to the hospital. I got free trainer services. athletes had access to free PT. revenue sports had their own team doctors. the benefits nowadays are way over the top. it is all in the name of competitiveness. we had 'average' facilities, and could only shake our heads when we saw the facilities some of the really big time programs had. as for the "scandals" over selling players selling trophies, jerseys, etc., I have this to say: if the ncaa is going to punish players for selling jerseys and trophies and memorabilia, then the ncaa should find themselves at fault for giving the kids items of value. the kids should not be faulted for securing value for them once in their possession, in the open market. if the ncaa is going to punish kids for selling their signatures, then they should find themselves at fault for giving value to the kids brands through increased television exposure and placement in promotional ads for the college athletic gear sponsors.
My thinking is that they should not get payed because they are in fact amateurs, not professionals. The great majority of those who play college ball in most sports are not good enough to be professionals. I should know, I came to the US and played three sports at college, and I know my limitations, I know I was never close to being good enough to be a pro at any sport and neither were most of the guys I competed against. I believe college sports make money because of the great tradition of the schools, not because of the quality of the athletes. Yeah, the games are nice, but you take away the pageantry and the school colors and you are left with amateur leagues full of amateur players most of whom will never be good enough to make it as professionals in the sport that they choose to participate in. And those few who are good enough will get their due eventually, once they join the pro ranks. So I don't see why amateur athletes should be payed. But I also don't see why it's such a big deal that they sell memorabilia and the like, if somebody is willing to buy it. I mean, I'll sell my signature too, if somebody values it.
The age limitation by the NFL is the only thing that prevents the football players from being pros. Paying players is easy to advocate in theory, but difficult to apply in practice. People should be careful what they ask for, because the consequences might not be what was anticipated. Paying men's football and basketball players could eventually spell the end of all non-revenue college sports teams, including most soccer programs.