Interesting NCAA Column in NYT

[Col. Bleep]

Full article in NYT magazine.

NYT Link

And if link doesn't work:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/31/o...artel.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212

Mark Emmert is an SU MA & Ph.D.

 

[arbitragegls]

...excellent stuff...and oh so true

 

[SkanSU]

very nice and well presented ...

 

[Cusefan95]

So true. People that think college athletes are getting "paid" with an education are really out of touch with reality. The system is effectively racist - by underpaying a mostly poor black workforce, wealthy white coaches and administrators are able to keep the lion's share of the revenues produced.

 

[dasher]

race has nothing to do with it. The same rules applied when the population of players were mostly white. This is about money, not race.

 

[All4SU]

race has nothing to do with it. The same rules applied when the population of players were mostly white. This is about money, not race.

Exactly. If this was about race, 75% of the scholarship players would be white.

 

[stuckinbig11]

I began disliking the NCAA a while ago when they decided that big time programs that make a lot of MONEY should only get slapped on the wrist for major violations if money would be lost by doing anything drastic.

 

[Cusefan95]

race has nothing to do with it. The same rules applied when the population of players were mostly white. This is about money, not race.

The amount of revenue generated radically increased about the same time the predominant race of the athletes did, starting in the 1960's. The rules didn't change accordingly to allow athletes to get a fair cut of those revenues. It might not be outright blantant racism...but it is effectively racism anyway.

 

[Cusefan95]

Exactly. If this was about race, 75% of the scholarship players would be white.

Explain why. Alabama integrated after USC blew them off the field in 1970 using black athletes. Teams that wanted to win knew they needed to use black athletes. They didn't need to compensate them with a fair share of the revenues.

What your suggesting is for this to be about race it needs to be outright, obvious racism - black athletes not being allowed to play. In truth outright racism seldom exists...but effective racism in which black athletes are allowed to play, but not share equitably in the revenues produced through obtuse rules is racism as well.

 

[All4SU]

Explain why. Alabama integrated after USC blew them off the field in 1970 using black athletes. Teams that wanted to win knew they needed to use black athletes. They didn't need to compensate them with a fair share of the revenues.

What your suggesting is for this to be about race it needs to be outright, obvious racism - black athletes not being allowed to play. In truth outright racism seldom exists...but effective racism in which black athletes are allowed to play, but not share equitably in the revenues produced through obtuse rules is racism as well.

It's not about race, because schools are not selecting black players because they are black. (At least, I don't think so.) I think schools select the best players they can get.

 

[All4SU]

Rather than paying student/athletes, clearly the schools should simply eliminate scholarships entirely. (Hyperbole alert.) That way, only players who actually want to be in school, and who are willing to put up the money to do so, will attend college and play sports. Those who don't want to put up the money for an education can just go straight to the pros, or whatever alternative future they desire.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Rather than paying student/athletes, clearly the schools should simply eliminate scholarships entirely. (Hyperbole alert.) That way, only players who actually want to be in school, and who are willing to put up the money to do so, will attend college and play sports. Those who don't want to put up the money for an education can just go straight to the pros, or whatever alternative future they desire.

Great idea if you're a baseball or hockey player and you can get a minor league contract at age 18.

What about the NBA and the NFL where there are age limits?

 

[All4SU]

Great idea if you're a baseball or hockey player and you can get a minor league contract at age 18.

What about the NBA and the NFL where there are age limits?

I don't proclaim to know what the answer is. I do know that colleges make a lot of money in athletics. They also have huge investments in same. A small fraction of players will ever be good enough to play professionally. A VERY small fraction. I think people should dedicate their energies to convincing these kids that professional sports is not in their future. At the same time, folks should work hard to develop a legitimate minor league system for the NBA and the NFL. They may never supplant college athletics. But that sure sounds like a better solution than paying college kids. If that ultimately leads to diminishing the huge amounts of money made by college athletics, maybe that's a good thing. Of course, there will be far fewer scholarships available then too. (Which will probably mean no scholarships for wrestlers, swimmers, hockey players, gymnasts, runners, soccer players, lacrosse players, etc.)

 

[zeekay]

I was all for paying bball and football players until I heard that Title IX will force schools to pay the same amount to women's players. Which is total BS, as they make absolutely no money. Hence I'm against it now.

 

[All4SU]

I was all for paying bball and football players until I heard that Title IX will force schools to pay the same amount to women's players. Which is total BS, as they make absolutely no money. Hence I'm against it now.

So maybe you want every player to be able to negotiate their own individual contract? For example, would Dion Waiters command more money than Mookie Jones?

 

[triplethrea]

So maybe you want every player to be able to negotiate their own individual contract? For example, would Dion Waiters command more money than Mookie Jones?

Why not? How much money is Syracuse generating? How much money is Dion Waiters generating? Zilch, unless he's doing the unspeakable act of selling his jerseys to people willing to pay for it. If Dion is not able to make the NBA because he's a "tweener" or whatever, why is he not entitled to make money off his college days when he was a star?

Amateur athletics is the only organization in the country where higher-performing employees are not allowed to make more money than their peers. If you think paying Dion more than Mookie is some sort of outrageous moral idea, you are exactly where the NCAA wants you to be, as they puff cigars and laugh about how stupid we all are.

 

[MiniCuse]

race has nothing to do with it. The same rules applied when the population of players were mostly white. This is about money, not race.

Uh, when the population of players were mostly white it was because blacks were excluded based on race.

 

[pfister1]

Great idea if you're a baseball or hockey player and you can get a minor league contract at age 18.

What about the NBA and the NFL where there are age limits?

I don't agree with the initial premise, but what do professional league age limits have to do with? If the NCAA wasn't giving those players a place to hone their skills the professional leagues either wouldn't have age limits or would establish true minor league systems.

 

[pfister1]

Explain why. Alabama integrated after USC blew them off the field in 1970 using black athletes. Teams that wanted to win knew they needed to use black athletes. They didn't need to compensate them with a fair share of the revenues.

What your suggesting is for this to be about race it needs to be outright, obvious racism - black athletes not being allowed to play. In truth outright racism seldom exists...but effective racism in which black athletes are allowed to play, but not share equitably in the revenues produced through obtuse rules is racism as well.

It is not racism, no atheletes are being compensated black, white, Asian or otherwise. In that regard all athletes are treated equally.

 

[All4SU]

Why not? How much money is Syracuse generating? How much money is Dion Waiters generating? Zilch, unless he's doing the unspeakable act of selling his jerseys to people willing to pay for it. If Dion is not able to make the NBA because he's a "tweener" or whatever, why is he not entitled to make money off his college days when he was a star?

Amateur athletics is the only organization in the country where higher-performing employees are not allowed to make more money than their peers. If you think paying Dion more than Mookie is some sort of outrageous moral idea, you are exactly where the NCAA wants you to be, as they puff cigars and laugh about how stupid we all are.

I understand your opinion. But I don't believe you are thinking this all the way through.

Let's say individual college players are able to negotiate their own "salaries." A player such as Carmelo can certainly command more money than Scoop, for example. So Carmelo doesn't come to Syracuse, because he can get more money at Brand X University than he can get at SU. Recruiting goes to the highest bidder. Forget about Division 1 athletics. Only the biggest, wealthiest universities will be playing that game. And the wealthiest will win every year. The rest will drop out. That leaves a smaller group of players earning a lot of money, and the rest getting nothing. Not even scholarships. Do you think that's a good outcome?

If the problem is that there is no option for players to go straight out of HS to play in basketball and football, then fix the problem. Develop and create minor leagues for those sports. Don't bastardize college sports trying to fix some other problem.

If the problem is that most players are not interested in an education, fine. If that's really what they think is in their best interests, let them go to those minor leagues and take their chances.

The problem -- at least to me -- is not that the players aren't getting their share. The problem is these too many players just want to be professionals. So let them.

 

[All4SU]

I don't agree with the initial premise, but what do professional league age limits have to do with? If the NCAA wasn't giving those players a place to hone their skills the professional leagues either wouldn't have age limits or would establish true minor league systems.

Agreed. Age limits for the NBA or NFL are silly. If a player is physically mature enough to compete, and has the desire to do so, they should be allowed to play for those leagues. The age limits are simply a means of protecting the college games. And I agree that the colleges don't need/deserve that protection. Let the pros develop their own minor leagues. Then all of those athletes can earn $10,000 a year playing in Scranton because the fans just don't care enough about their individual abilities to watch them. As they say, the college game is about the name on the front of the jersey.

 

[zeekay]

Age limits are implemented because both NBA and NFL owners save a lot of money by not having to maintain minor leagues. Colleges benefit by having great athletes playing on their sports teams. Only the players lose out.

Nothing that's fair can be done while NCAA is still around. Like the small pay thing they've tried to implement this year, it applies to all scholarship players equally. So the guy on the swimming team gets paid the same as a star bball player. Same problem with them forcing all women's teams to be paid. Doesn't make sense. They refuse to acknowledge inequality in sports

 

[triplethrea]

I understand your opinion. But I don't believe you are thinking this all the way through.

Let's say individual college players are able to negotiate their own "salaries." A player such as Carmelo can certainly command more money than Scoop, for example. So Carmelo doesn't come to Syracuse, because he can get more money at Brand X University than he can get at SU. Recruiting goes to the highest bidder. Forget about Division 1 athletics. Only the biggest, wealthiest universities will be playing that game. And the wealthiest will win every year. The rest will drop out. That leaves a smaller group of players earning a lot of money, and the rest getting nothing. Not even scholarships. Do you think that's a good outcome?

Explain how this is different from what is happening today. Is it fair that Syracuse, UNC, Kentucky, etc. are the only schools that have realistic odds of getting top 20 recruits? Are we not the wealthiest universities? Are all the losing universities dropping out?

I would go so far as to say that with salaries given out to players, schools that would ordinarily never pull a top prospect would be able to outbid a powerhouse like Duke. Otherwise how can they compete? They don't have the facilities, history, coach, etc.

Right now parity is an illusion in college basketball and football. It's the same 20 or so teams beating up on the rest.

Also, not sure what you mean about your scholarship comment. It will turn into your typical economic market. Every school will have budgets and bid accordingly so they can afford the scholarships for everybody else. You're acting like it's going to be some sort of wild wild west. Instead it's going to be like any other free market. I think it's a fantastic outcome compared to the current status quo.

 

[NKR1978]

It is not racism, no atheletes are being compensated black, white, Asian or otherwise. In that regard all athletes are treated equally.

It is institutionalized racism when the athletes punished by the NCAA in two most important sports are almost exclusively black, especially in the highest profile cases.

Though, an argument can be made that it's more of a socio-economic problem than a race problem.

 

[All4SU]

You're acting like it's going to be some sort of wild wild west. Instead it's going to be like any other free market. I think it's a fantastic outcome compared to the current status quo.

I'm not advocating for the status quo. Why does the choice have to be (a) the way things are, or (b) pay the players? Why can't there be other options, such as minor leagues for those pro sports? That's what I'm recommending.