So What Do We Do About College Athletics?
(Note: This is not a real Denard Robinson action figure, even though it should be. It was designed by the insanely-talented Jeremy of The Art. The Art. The Art! He was kind enough to let me use it here, and I am very, very grateful for that.)
Last week, I instigated a discussion about the state of affairs in college athletics. That was fun, and it was interesting to get down in the weeds with y’all about some of the moral concerns on both sides, but now I want to move to a more policy-related track. If you accept that the system doesn’t really work (and I think most, but definitely not all, of us were on that page to some extent), how do you go about fixing it? Some thoughts, from more to less radical:
Minor League. Pat Calahan was the first person to suggest this, so he’s getting the credit. Probably the most radical thing you can do with college athletics is to divorce the athletics part from the college part. This, of course, is basically how baseball does it. Players are compensated according to a more market-oriented structure, they have a full-time job that is explicitly their full-time job, and there is little to no exploitation of any kind involved (except insofar as the big leagues exploit their labor, but there are players’ unions that are responsible for combating this). You could even leave small-time athletics in the university situation, where the people who continued to participate would be actual student-athletes rather than athletes who basically sell out their bodies to the university in exchange for the promise of future compensation.
To Pat’s credit, this is almost certainly the most just way to approach the problem. That said, it’s completely impracticable. The NFL doesn’t want it, the universities don’t want it, and fans don’t want it. There is basically no constituency in favor of sending Cam Newton to the Triple-A Asheville Cardinals (or whatever) rather than Auburn.
Pay the Players (Salary). So why not pay the players at the universities? You could do this a couple ways: directly (the university negotiates or the NCAA sets some standard rate or schedule) or indirectly (boosters), and there are various ways this could shake out. Generally, it would allow the players who are generating revenues for their schools to recoup some of those revenues, as in most cases the players would be able to deploy their talents at the places that could pay them commensurately.
This one might actually be more radical than creating a minor league, despite my earlier indication that it wouldn’t be. It fundamentally undermines the educational mission of the universities (although, to be fair, they’re doing a fine job of that already), and it institutionalizes a system in which the rich continually get richer (again, though, we are already doing this to some extent). It has a small advantage over the minor league option, in that the NFL probably has no opinion about it, but schools and fans would lose their minds.
Image Rights. Okay, here’s the first idea that I think actually has some chance. Why not adopt the Olympic model of giving athletes the rights to their own images? The schools are not on the hook for paying them, they have no role in any capacity other than running the teams and managing the student-athletes, and the athletes are allowed to leverage their abilities and market themselves as they see fit (within some boundaries of acceptable behavior, obviously). Dan LeFevour would be allowed to pose for his own billboards, with Nike or Gatorade or whoever wants him. I remember when I was in college in 2004 or 2005, after the Olympics. Michael Phelps enrolled at Michigan, but he wasn’t allowed to compete on the swim team because he had taken endorsements during the Olympics, so he became an assistant coach instead. Call me a homer who just wanted a better swim team, but what interest did that serve exactly?
Pay the Players (Stipend). Okay, so if not a salary, what about a smaller stipend? Granted, this is maybe a minor difference, but it solves a real problem. Players aren’t allowed to hold jobs, and while there are sensible enough reasons for this, it still creates a situation in which athletes can’t actually cover their living expenses. Are we so committed to the purity of the student-athlete that we want to make it hard for them to have quintessential student experiences like getting drunk and ordering a pizza at 3am (only if they’re 21 or older, of course)?
Multi-Year Scholarships. This one’s a no-brainer. When a school takes in a student-athlete, it has a responsibility to that young man (or woman). No more one-year scholarships that can be revoked when a kid isn’t helping the team win quite enough games or the coach finds someone else he’d rather have on the team (paging Nick Saban). You admit an athlete, you pay four (or even five, in that athletes are often kept an extra year because of redshirts) full years unless he (or she) does something to void the scholarship (bad behavior, poor grades, etc.).
Cost of Attendance (COA). By far the easiest thing on the list. It’s so easy, in fact, that the NCAA is already moving in this direction anyway (and they’re moving on multi-year scholarships as well). Now, to be fair, this is fairly similar to a stipend, so it’s not totally fair for me to separate it out, but I think the framing matters a little. So I’m separating it. In any case, one of the things that a lot of people point to in this discussion is that full scholarships currently only cover tuition, room and board, and books. Those are the major costs of college attendance, but they certainly aren’t the only ones. If you’ve ever gotten one of those “estimated cost” breakdowns from a college, you know this. Outside books, incidental food or travel, laundry, supplies. There are lots of things students spend money on that aren’t “official” costs, so there is a gap between what scholarships cover and what students actually pay. Closing that is fairly easy (although there’s wide variance among schools that needs to be addressed), and that’s why this proposal is already on the move.
For full disclosure purposes, I think covering COA and giving multi-year scholarships are easy calls. Those basically only paper over the basic responsibilities a university owes its students and student-athletes in the first place, though. Of the more radical proposals, giving students the rights to their images strikes me as the least disruptive way to let them harness some of their own value to their institutions. It isn’t perfect, and I hope you’ll tell me all about the unintended side effects I’m not thinking of, but it seems like a beginning that really takes seriously the kinds of money surrounding these programs and the actual people who generate it. Plus, I kind of want to see a commercial where Denard Robinson outruns a Chevy Impala without any special effects.
I think that universities should also be required (or at least allowed) to insure players against chronic and disabling conditions which result from their participation in college athletics. Either that, or put the players into the Workers’ Compensation system.Report
Cost of Attendance: I’m down, absolutely
Multi-Year Scholarships: Especially with Cost of Attendance, coupled. Yes.
Full Medical Insurance: You don’t mention, but ought to be included. “Game-related injuries only” would be more fair, but it’s too easy to leverage that against the player.
Pay the Players: If you don’t want them to get a job, and you’ve already done #1, #2, and #3, there’s nothing wrong with a small stipend for having fun money. It’s better than having the boosters do it. It has to be uniform, though, coming from the NCAA out of their television deals, not out of the university budgets. No “Michigan State offers you $4k and a Macbook, were USC gives you a free leased car, $10k, and an entire suite of iLife products!”
Image Rights: provided this is negotiated by a collective bargaining agreement *or* it is supplemental to all of the above (or both), I’m okay with it. Having Johnny Q get $50K a year from Nike while his linemen are in the same situation they are now is right out.
Pay the Players (Salary): In this case, just formalize the relationship between the NCAA and the NFL and be done with it. All the players join the union. Otherwise, I don’t like it.Report
Your comment is much better than mine.Report
I think you and I are pretty much in alignment on this whole deal.Report
I’m nitpicking, Pat, but regarding this:
“Pay the Players: If you don’t want them to get a job, and you’ve already done #1, #2, and #3, there’s nothing wrong with a small stipend for having fun money. It’s better than having the boosters do it.”
I think that you will have colleges pay fun money stipends AND boosters will continue to illegally pay players.Report
Sure, this will happen.
It will probably happen less often, though. And we can all feel better about kicking the poor kid out of the game when he gets caught. Self-righteousness and all that.
Reduce the temptations by making it feasible to play for an NCAA team for four years and get the equivalent of a free ride and fun money, and only the really greedy will go for the illicit money, right?
I realize there will still be outliers, but there will be fewer of ’em.Report
I dunno. If every school is paying each kid $1000 bucks a month, I still see the Oklahomas, USCs and even Oregons of the world having boosters make sure the Cam Newtons of the world (and their families) get serious, serious coin to choose their alma mater.Report
I’m not going to rehash all of the reasons for my opposition to paying playings. The image rights way is the least objectionable way of doing it, from a philosophical perspective. From a practical perspective, unless very well done, I fear it mostly would serve as a way to even further differentiate the fortunes of the haves and have-nots (“Come to our university, and we have $200,000 a year’s worth of image endorsements already lined up for you!” “Errr, become a Bronco, and you can appear on advertisements for GM of Boise?”)
Multi-year scholarships and Cost of Attendance, however, are both, as you put it, “no-brainers.”
From a philosophical perspective, I think #1 is the correct way to go. I don’t think it would actually make college athletics “small time” though. A lot of very good baseball players still go through the college system, and that’s despite the lack of exposure it brings. Add in the exposure of the college games, I suspect that a very good number will still go that route. The main difference would be that the kids that just don’t want to be there won’t be there. And they’d have that choice. And that would be a good thing.
From a practical perspective, the NFL has a free minor league system. I don’t see them giving that up. I consider a good part of the problem on their heads. Maurice Clarett, for all his faults, was right. At the very least, they need to do away with the 3-years rule. And if they’re worried about kids not getting the training to be ready to go immediately into the big game? Bring back NFLE or something like it.Report
I’ve long mulled over how we could get to a real minor league for football, mainly from a ‘if I won a massive lottery payout’ fantasy mindset which is, obviously, really divorced from any real path to actualization.
I think you’re wrong in saying there is no constituency, the players are one and a pretty big one at that. I’ve always thought the main reason various semi-pro leagues have failed is that they go after the NFL where they’re bound to lose instead of the NCAA where they could conceivably win.
The obvious downside is that if a significant number of talented young players stopped going to NCAA football factory schools, I believe it would probably tear apart the smoke and mirrors that hold the NCAA together for FBS football as the big time conference schools decide they’d rather pay their players and hold their own postseason, thus moving the university schools even closer to being an actual minor league.
I’ve never really understood why the NFL opposes creating such a league other than not wanting to repeat their mistake in NFL-Europe. The only thing I can think of that makes any sense was a side note in the Taylor Branch article about some part of the anti-trust status of the NFL came alongside some kind of deal to let the NCAA have Saturdays and the NFL Sundays and they’re afraid of opening a can of worms if they go up against the NCAA.
I’d like to think and write more on the other parts, but not sure if I can mull over them and respond as thoroughly as I’d like. But I do want to say I’ve really enjoyed all these posts on the subject.Report
How do you propose they compete with the NCAA? I think that even if a league let in 18 year olds (which I think they should), most of the young players are going to be outdone by Troy Smiths and Graham Harrells. I guess you’d need an age limit, but without the connections to long-standing state and city institutions, I don’t see much interest developing.
If I were the UFL, I would probably go ahead and move to spring and (if they presently have an age limit – I’ve never been able to find out) go ahead and let 18 year olds in so that a freshman phenom somewhere or even highly-touted high school athlete can come to the league and bring publicity. It’s pretty rare that any of them would have an impact, though. By the time they would be ready to, they’d be graduated.Report
Well, if the NCAA was playing by its own rules, they could compete with the NCAA.
But the NCAA doesn’t play by its own rules, so there’s no real incentive for Joe Runningback to leave USC where he gets that Hummer (and a hummer) and a free ride and NFL scouts winking and telling him that he’ll sign a contract for $2mil a year in three years to go to a UFL league.Report
There are a lot of medium-sized cities that are 50+ miles from either an NFL or a Division I football program in areas of the country where high school football is huge, I think you’d have a real chance to do well with attendance and local TV if you went hard for the regional angle by making sure that a big part of every roster is young players with local ties.
Going up against the NFL is foolish. There’s way more revenue over there among only 32 franchises. They’ll always have better talent and a bigger marketing budget, you have nothing to offer potential fans except that you’re not the NFL, which is why the XFL bombed and no one watches the Arena League.Report
I know I am going to sound like a combination of jock-hating nerd and old curmudgeon (despite that I like watching college football and I’m not old, although I strive every day to be curmudgeonly) but . . .
There seems to be a lot of concern for the players (who I think are being exploited) and the fans, but what about the fundamental academic mission of the schools? I am all for the notion of sound mind and sound body, but no one seriously contends that NCAA football serves the purpose of creating ‘balanced’ individuals, do they? By lowering academic and moral (sex parties for recruits… yes I went to that school) standards, the academy not only degrades itself, but inverts its mission. Athletics should augment the curricula (extra-curricular), not be the central focus of how we think of a school.
I don’t labor under the impression that once upon a time things were pure and good (at least we aren’t killing football players anymore!), but I feel like schools have made a deal with the devil and don’t know how to extract themselves.
I’d be interested in hearing anybody’s thoughts on the above proposals as to the overall mission of the school. I certainly like the minor league idea, although I agree with its impracticality.Report
Let’s not forget Arena League Football. That’s where a certain multi NFL championship ring wearing QB honed his craft. It also is more fun to watch, especially in person. No 6-9 snoozefests, the scores look like basketball games.
As for the rest, debilitating injuries aren’t even covered in the NFL with all /their/ money. Just like other healthcare arguments, the problem is costs quite literally go exponentially north.
I had a friend in high school who won a college scholarship. By the end of the first season his knee was toast. He stayed at the school however, and doubled down on academics (something sorely lacking as an athlete). He went on to a tremendously successful business career. His knee is still gone however.
The conundrum is schools know the alchemy here. Winning teams equal loyal (and generous) alumni, students (not athletes) want to go to winning schools so enrollment improves, they can start winnowing out the lower quality students so academics improves, those university advertizements during NCAA games are free, part of the package and finally winning teams more than pay for themselves in direct and indirect revenues. It is no accident that the highest paid staff member of most major universities is not the president of the school, but the coach.Report
Well, Ward, a football player who has a contract for $3 million and is careful with his money* can probably handle having his knees blown out without going into poverty.
Some kid who has never earned a dime in his life, maybe not so much.
* I realize that most football players might not be careful with their money.Report
What multi-NFL championship ring wearing QB played in the Arena League? I know Kurt Warner played there, but he holds only one Super Bowl ring.Report
Beat me to it. Still, that’s a nitpick — change a few breaks, and he’d have three.Report
Oh, indeed! I wasn’t so much nitpicking as I was curious if there was some NFL great with a history I was unaware of. I was thinking, “When did Elway or Brady play in the AFL?”Report
Blame it on my Friday night drinking parties. I was only imagining he’d won those games. Still not bad for an AFL player who never got drafted to even take 3 teams to the big dance. And he did get NFL rings for the divisional championships so I can pretend I’m sorta right. 😉
Ok, too much vino, time to slow down on the typing. Will check my one other post from earlier to see how badly I screwed it up, then off to bed. Ok, maybe one more drink then off to bed…Report
I gave my suggestions in the other thread and will restate them here. There are similarities to some of your suggestions above. In order of my personal preference (though not necessarily in probability of occurrence):
1. The major problem is not with college athletics, it is with the NFL and, to a lesser extent, the NBA. If there is a problem go where the problem is.
2. A group of entrepreneurs could start a league of their own, recruiting talent right out of high school.
3. The stipend.
4. Make the football programs quasi-professional, licensed by the universities, with no pretense that the athletes are students (unless they are willing to abide by the NCAA rules). That is, the Auburn Tigers could still be the Auburn Tigers, but most of the players would receive above-board benefits and not be living on campus or attending class. Sort of like your local municipal league flag football except with honesty about the ringers.Report
Sorry, forgot to add, pay the players a salary — that is, keep the present system but cut Denard Robinson a large check — is the awfulest of the alternatives, IMO.Report
I don’t have a lot of strong opinions on this issue, but I’m dead set against putting them in boxes and selling them to the highest bidders.Report
Communist.Report
This, of course, is basically how baseball does it. Players are compensated according to a more market-oriented structure, they have a full-time job that is explicitly their full-time job, and there is little to no exploitation of any kind involved (except insofar as the big leagues exploit their labor, but there are players’ unions that are responsible for combating this)
I do not believe the player’s union has much sway over the minor league franchises (it’s why, for example, drug testing was able to be instituted in the minors well before the majors)
One other factoid – almost half (48%) of minor leaguers are foreign born (a little under a quarter of major leaguers are foreign born) http://mlb.mlb.com/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20100407&content_id=9121458&vkey=pr_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb
I think once the players get to the US, it’s not very exploitative* (the farm teams for the Braves used to go out of their way to acculturate the Latin American players, giving them English lessons, and helping them get part time jobs to augment the relatively meager minor league salaries)
But the stories you hear about when these kids** go through the baseball talent search machines down in the Caribbean – it’s not Triangle Shirtwaist, but it does leave even this gliberatarian with a bad taste in the mouth.
*otoh, this may have been more of an indication of a really good PR department
**literallyjoebiden, they start when they’re about thirteen or so if not youngerReport
Here’s the thing: What is the ~Point~ of college athletics?
Is it to have a way of raising revenue and improving school prestige? Then by all means pay the players like semi-professionals.
Is it a way to provide athletic competition to students? Then hold students accountable to be ~students~ and then from that pool let some compete. If Johny Football couldn’t get in without being a football player, then he doesn’t get in. If a college is shown to be laxing any standard for someone who can slam dunk then fine them into oblivion. Problem mostly solved.
It seems the problem is that there are too many people who have made too much of “Their School” winning sports that they forget the goal of all of it. So we’ve got these millions of dollars floating around, and we’ve got rampant profiting and no one seems to really want to talk about ~why~ the kids are in college.
Frankly if you’re not there to get an education/ degree, you don’t belong. I don’t care how accurate you can throw a spiral.Report
Teacher – this is a clearer statement of the point I was trying to make. At some point we are going to have to realize that college isn’t just a place to go after you graduate high school and that it has a particular purpose. Being the NFL’s minor league and atttracting booster dollars are not the purpose.Report
The problem with all of the proposals is that they are college football specific. Most college athletes other than football and basketball players only receive partial scholarships. Paying athletes and making the scholarships four years would destroyer all of the “olympic sports” since those are all partial scholarship sports and are usually comprised of students who are real students.
Giving more benefits to football and male players would destroyer the other sports. And without the other sports, the schools would be out of Title IX compliance.
If you want to give more benefits to football players, why not give a break to regular students and forbid the universities of giving money to the athletic departments. If the departments want to give more benefits then they should have to raise all of their own funding and stop receive student service fees .Report
> Giving more benefits to football and male
> players would destroyer the other sports.
Why? This doesn’t seem self-evident to me.Report