The Shame of College Sports - The Atlantic

[danaandvictory]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/8643/?single_page=true

This is a really thoughtful and well-written article about the NCAA, amateurism, and many of the issues facing college sports. I was captivated by some of the case studies Branch cites -- especially about the NCAA's selective enforcement.

Well worth a read.

[Kahns Krazy]

Jeeeesus. That thing is nearly 15,000 words.

How long before Snipe quotes the whole thing.

I hope I have time to go back and read the whole thing.

[waggy]

The NCAA makes money, and enables universities and corporations to make money, from the unpaid labor of young athletes.
Slavery analogies should be used carefully. College athletes are not slaves. Yet to survey the scene—corporations and universities enriching themselves on the backs of uncompensated young men, whose status as “student-athletes” deprives them of the right to due process guaranteed by the Constitution—is to catch an unmistakable whiff of the plantation. Perhaps a more apt metaphor is colonialism: college sports, as overseen by the NCAA, is a system imposed by well-meaning paternalists and rationalized with hoary sentiments about caring for the well-being of the colonized. But it is, nonetheless, unjust. The NCAA, in its zealous defense of bogus principles, sometimes destroys the dreams of innocent young athletes.


I'm for student athletes getting some sort of cost of living payment. But :rolleyes: cry me a river. What a pantload.

[GoMuskies]

Totally agreed waggy. Does the author actually believe these athletes would be better off WITHOUT the system the NCAA set up?

And did slaves get to have basically unlimited amounts of sex with the hottest girls on the plantation?

[MADXSTER]

What about doctors paying their dues in residency?

In the nursing program students have to put in about 1700 hours...unpaid.

What about college students in co-op programs? Most are unpaid.


Businesses are making out pretty darn good because of these programs.

[GuyFawkes38]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/8643/?single_page=true

This is a really thoughtful and well-written article about the NCAA, amateurism, and many of the issues facing college sports. I was captivated by some of the case studies Branch cites -- especially about the NCAA's selective enforcement.

Well worth a read.

That article is way too long.

Can you please sum it all up in the length of tweet.

[GreatWhiteNorth]

Holy Smoke! Its like reading Crime & Punishment or Pride & Prejudice. I need SparkNotes please.

[XULucho27]

That article is way too long.

Can you please sum it all up in the length of tweet.

@TheAtlantic
NCAA takes good care of its playaz... lolz j/k they're rayceees :p

[XUFan09]

Jeeeesus. That thing is nearly 15,000 words.

How long before Snipe quotes the whole thing.

I hope I have time to go back and read the whole thing.

I was laughing for awhile at that. Gotta love the Atlantic for thoroughness (and I suppose Snipe).

[XUFan09]

I'm for student athletes getting some sort of cost of living payment. But :rolleyes: cry me a river. What a pantload.

Agreed. The slavery analogy is also poorly constructed even from the slant, because the it's a four to five year period. If they want to take that approach, the analogy is indentured servitude.

[XUFan09]

What about doctors paying their dues in residency?

In the nursing program students have to put in about 1700 hours...unpaid.

What about college students in co-op programs? Most are unpaid.


Businesses are making out pretty darn good because of these programs.


Just wanted to clarify that doctors actually make alright money during their residencies (though the amount significantly drops with monthly loan repayments). Now, during their rotation years (3rd and 4th year of med school), they're paying something like $50,000 in order to be free labor at a hospital/clinic and every once in awhile receive a lecture.

The other comparisons are dead-on though.

[STL_XUfan]

Think of the opportunity these players get.

Where else can you get a free trip to Alaska to sleep with Sarah Palin....

http://deadspin.com/5840042/new-biography-claims-sarah-palin-had-a-one+night-stand-with-glen-rice-in-1987

[SixFig]

Eventually guys like this guy are going to win. Big time college programs will pay their players more. The little guys will try to keep up, cutting out rowing, swimming, softball ect just to pay 13 basketball players.

Then the same exact people will wax poetic about how in the good old days (2011) college athletes used to play for love of the game.

[SixFig]

That article is way too long.

Can you please sum it all up in the length of tweet.

@theatlantic
Got 2 pay athletes. Full scholarship, degree, fame ain't gon cut it SMH #donttrustwhitey

[smileyy]

I have cousins who are world class musicians. The National Collegiate Music Association didn't kick them out of their school symphonies when they played music for money during the summer.

You don't have to pay players. You just have to let them make money off their skills.

[SixFig]

You don't have to pay players. You just have to let them make money off their skills.

How would they do that? A summer football or basketball league? Selling cars?

[Snipe]

We have pro leagues. Let them go and play.

I don't care if XU makes money off the backs of it's players. We do. We give plenty of guys a shot at the NBA and if not Europe and a ton on money.

I recollect Terry Nelson arguing that college players should be paid. Why? You already get a scholarship? You already are paid.

They could go to the CBA. They could go to Europe. They could go to the NBA, but the NBA just made a rule that you need a year in college. Not four years, but one year. They made that rule so they wouldn't get burned. They like to scout players, and giving them one year to scout is much better than none. They don't care about the rest, just about scouting.

The NCAA rules are basically written by the NBA. And I don't care.

The kids that complain want NBA money, but they aren't good enough to actually make the NBA. Cue Terry Nelson again. He wasn't an NBA player, and never even came close. He was a no-talent hack with a mouth. He played for UC, and he wants some money out of it.

Kenyon Martin never complained. Terry Nelson did. See the difference? One had a future in the sport, and one obviously did not.

I wouldn't mind if we developed a minor league that kept more people out. Take every first year player away and I wouldn't mind. I would still love the college game.

[paulxu]

IYou don't have to pay players. You just have to let them make money off their skills.


How would they do that? A summer football or basketball league? Selling cars?

Tattoos for jerseys.

[whitesox]

I can't take any of these things seriously when the start with the premise that the NCAA and schools make a ton of money.

They don't.

They bring in a ton of revenue... which is almost all spent, mostly on student-athletes.

The more revenue that comes in from things like billion dollar tv deals, the more schools and the NCAA spends on student athletes -- both in terms of scholarship (especially to non-revenue sports) and funding for programs (free gear, better facilities, more/better trainers, etc.).

[xubrew]

Taylor Branch is not a sportswriter or a columnist. He's an author and a historian who focuses primarily on American History throughout the 20th century. This article is merely an outsider's assessment and examination of the NCAA. Nothing more. Nothing less. I actually thought it was very good.

He never compared college athletics to slavery. In fact, he said you SHOULDN'T compare it to slavery (well, okay, he said you need to be careful comparing it to slavery, but I took that to mean he thought that was taking it way too far). He compared it to colonialism. I fail to see how that's an unfair comparison. Several people here are dismissing the article as bullshit for saying something that he didn't actually say.

He gives a pretty thorough history from the very beginning up until now, and I thought it did a good job explaining why things are the way they are now. Colleges did used to pay players. One of the reasons they stopped was to avoid having to pay workers comp. In fact, the whole term "student-athlete" was designed primarily as a legal defense against workers comp claims. I didn't know that. I thought that was very interesting. To put that term on some sort of pedistal as something that is ideal and virtuous is very misguided. I have a hard time disagreeing with that after learning where the term originally came from.

More than anything else, he attacks baseball, and he's right on the money. Players can be drafted out of highschool or after their third year. If they don't like the deal they get they can come back to college. The problem is that if they even consult with an agent, they forfeit their eligibility. Anyone who acts as a consultant is considered an agent by the NCAA. Major League clubs are turning players in who they drafted and decided to stay in school instead out of spite, and the NCAA is declaring them ineligible. That's a problem. Branch points it out, and he's not wrong. How could any reasonable person disagree with that??

It attacks one-year renewable scholarships. 22 percent of all basketball scholarships are not renewed. That is a contradiction of an organization that claims to be all about the student-athlete when close to a quarter of them have their aid taken away. I don't see how you can look at that and not think that at the very least it needs to be addressed.

It points out that there is no legal definition of "amateur," and that the NCAA has their own definition which is constantly changing, and not always at the best interest of the student-athlete (a term that is not exactly virtuous). He's right.

He also goes after the NCAA using player images in video game licensnig, posters, and vintage video games that they sell. He quotes the NCAA's claim that players likenesses are not used in video games and that they don't make money off of it. He then accuses them of lying. I completely agree with that accusation. If you play NCAA 12, you cannot reasonably say they make no money and are not using likenesses.

He says a lot of things. What he DOESN'T do is what so many people on here seem to think that he did, and that's simply state that players should be paid and that it's like slavery since they're not. That's not even close to what the article is about.

Then again, I actually read it. I don't agree with all of it, and think that he fails to consider some other key points, but he does make a lot of good points and raises some real questions.

[XUFan09]

I can't take any of these things seriously when the start with the premise that the NCAA and schools make a ton of money.

They don't.

They bring in a ton of revenue... which is almost all spent, mostly on student-athletes.

The more revenue that comes in from things like billion dollar tv deals, the more schools and the NCAA spends on student athletes -- both in terms of scholarship (especially to non-revenue sports) and funding for programs (free gear, better facilities, more/better trainers, etc.).

Thank you for that. Whenever it's said, it makes it sound like the people in Indy and in university athletic departments just lay around in piles of money. The coaches in many cases, yes, but it's not like everyone in athletics (or even a solid minority) is rich.

[GuyFawkes38]

Whitesox speaks the truth.

I think even critics of college athletics realize that most of the money that goes into an athletic department is spent on the students.

They counter by arguing that basketball and football players support the non-revenue sports (often white student athletes.....I think this plays into the unfortunate slavery comparison....uggghhh).

Of course, that's misleading. Schools spend much more money on basketball and football players. They get better, more expensive coaches, equipment, facilities, housing, etc.... Coach K isn't cheap.

[xubrew]

I can't take any of these things seriously when the start with the premise that the NCAA and schools make a ton of money.

They don't.

They bring in a ton of revenue... which is almost all spent, mostly on student-athletes.

Okay, I'm not trying to pick on you or anyone else in this thread, but I don't see what you're looking at.

It opened with the premise that corporations give a lot of money to universities so the players and coaches will wear their gear. That's actually more of a statement of fact than a premise.

He doesn't mention that a lot of money is spent on non-revenue sports, and a lot of it is. But I don't think his main premise is that schools make all this money. I don't think he even has a singular premise. There is a ton of stuff there. No legal definition of amateurism, a lack of due process and documentation of the NCAA stating they do it intentionally, where the term student-athlete came from, coaches saleries and revenues have increased, consultants who have not been hired as agents being categorized as agents, the non-renewal of scholarships being as high as it is, how the TV contracts went from nothing to enormous, and the fact that the NCAA denies making money off of selling their likenesses to commercials, videogames, etc, or for that matter that there are likenesses at all.

The following excerpt from the article quotes the NCAA. It might be one of the most boldfaced lies I have ever heard. The article points things like this out....


“The NCAA does not license student-athlete likenesses,” NCAA spokesperson Erik Christianson told The New York Times in response to the suit, “or prevent former student-athletes from attempting to do so. Likewise, to claim the NCAA profits off student-athlete likenesses is also pure fiction.”




If nothing else, read this segment below and see if you think he's way off base in his assessment....


Obscure NCAA rules have bedeviled Scott Boras, the preeminent sports agent for Major League Baseball stars, in cases that may ultimately prove more threatening to the NCAA than Ed O’Bannon’s antitrust suit. In 2008, Andrew Oliver, a sophomore pitcher for the Oklahoma State Cowboys, had been listed as the 12th-best professional prospect among sophomore players nationally. He decided to dismiss the two attorneys who had represented him out of high school, Robert and Tim Baratta, and retain Boras instead. Infuriated, the Barattas sent a spiteful letter to the NCAA. Oliver didn’t learn about this until the night before he was scheduled to pitch in the regional final for a place in the College World Series, when an NCAA investigator showed up to question him in the presence of lawyers for Oklahoma State. The investigator also questioned his father, Dave, a truck driver.

Had Tim Baratta been present in their home when the Minnesota Twins offered $390,000 for Oliver to sign out of high school? A yes would mean trouble. While the NCAA did not forbid all professional advice—indeed, Baseball America used to publish the names of agents representing draft-likely underclassmen—NCAA Bylaw 12.3.2.1 prohibited actual negotiation with any professional team by an adviser, on pain of disqualification for the college athlete. The questioning lasted past midnight.

Just hours before the game was to start the next day, Oklahoma State officials summoned Oliver to tell him he would not be pitching. Only later did he learn that the university feared that by letting him play while the NCAA adjudicated his case, the university would open not only the baseball team but all other Oklahoma State teams to broad punishment under the NCAA’s “restitution rule” (Bylaw 19.7), under which the NCAA threatens schools with sanctions if they obey any temporary court order benefiting a college athlete, should that order eventually be modified or removed. The baseball coach did not even let his ace tell his teammates the sad news in person. “He said, ‘It’s probably not a good idea for you to be at the game,’” Oliver recalls.

The Olivers went home to Ohio to find a lawyer. Rick Johnson, a solo practitioner specializing in legal ethics, was aghast that the Baratta brothers had turned in their own client to the NCAA, divulging attorney-client details likely to invite wrath upon Oliver. But for the next 15 months, Johnson directed his litigation against the two NCAA bylaws at issue. Judge Tygh M. Tone, of Erie County, came to share his outrage. On February 12, 2009, Tone struck down the ban on lawyers negotiating for student-athletes as a capricious, exploitative attempt by a private association to “dictate to an attorney where, what, how, or when he should represent his client,” violating accepted legal practice in every state. He also struck down the NCAA’s restitution rule as an intimidation that attempted to supersede the judicial system. Finally, Judge Tone ordered the NCAA to reinstate Oliver’s eligibility at Oklahoma State for his junior season, which started several days later.

The NCAA sought to disqualify Oliver again, with several appellate motions to stay “an unprecedented Order purporting to void a fundamental Bylaw.” Oliver did get to pitch that season, but he dropped into the second round of the June 2009 draft, signing for considerably less than if he’d been picked earlier. Now 23, Oliver says sadly that the whole experience “made me grow up a little quicker.” His lawyer claimed victory. “Andy Oliver is the first college athlete ever to win against the NCAA in court,” said Rick Johnson.

Yet the victory was only temporary. Wounded, the NCAA fought back with a vengeance. Its battery of lawyers prepared for a damages trial, ultimately overwhelming Oliver’s side eight months later with an offer to resolve the dispute for $750,000. When Oliver and Johnson accepted, to extricate themselves ahead of burgeoning legal costs, Judge Tone was compelled to vacate his orders as part of the final settlement. This freed NCAA officials to reassert the two bylaws that Judge Tone had so forcefully overturned, and they moved swiftly to ramp up rather than curtail enforcement. First, the NCAA’s Eligibility Center devised a survey for every drafted undergraduate athlete who sought to stay in college another year. The survey asked whether an agent had conducted negotiations. It also requested a signed release waiving privacy rights and authorizing professional teams to disclose details of any interaction to the NCAA Eligibility Center. Second, NCAA enforcement officials went after another Scott Boras client.

The Toronto Blue Jays had made the left-handed pitcher James Paxton, of the University of Kentucky, the 37th pick in the 2009 draft. Paxton decided to reject a reported $1 million offer and return to school for his senior year, pursuing a dream to pitch for his team in the College World Series. But then he ran into the new NCAA survey. Had Boras negotiated with the Blue Jays? Boras has denied that he did, but it would have made sense that he had—that was his job, to test the market for his client. But saying so would get Paxton banished under the same NCAA bylaw that had derailed Andrew Oliver’s career. Since Paxton was planning to go back to school and not accept their draft offer, the Blue Jays no longer had any incentive to protect him—indeed, they had every incentive to turn him in. The Blue Jays’ president, by telling reporters that Boras had negotiated on Paxton’s behalf, demonstrated to future recruits and other teams that they could use the NCAA’s rules to punish college players who wasted their draft picks by returning to college. The NCAA’s enforcement staff raised the pressure by requesting to interview Paxton.

Though Paxton had no legal obligation to talk to an investigator, NCAA Bylaw 10.1(j) specified that anything short of complete cooperation could be interpreted as unethical conduct, affecting his amateur status. Under its restitution rule, the NCAA had leverage to compel the University of Kentucky to ensure obedience.

As the 2010 season approached, Gary Henderson, the Kentucky coach, sorely wanted Paxton, one of Baseball America’s top-ranked players, to return. Rick Johnson, Andrew Oliver’s lawyer, filed for a declaratory judgment on Paxton’s behalf, arguing that the state constitution—plus the university’s code of student conduct—barred arbitrary discipline at the request of a third party. Kentucky courts deferred to the university, however, and Paxton was suspended from the team. “Due to the possibility of future penalties, including forfeiture of games,” the university stated, it “could not put the other 32 players of the team and the entire UK 22-sport intercollegiate athletics department at risk by having James compete.” The NCAA appraised the result with satisfaction. “When negotiations occur on behalf of student-athletes,” Erik Christianson, the NCAA spokesperson, told The New York Times in reference to the Oliver case, “those negotiations indicate that the student-athlete intends to become a professional athlete and no longer remain an amateur.”

Paxton was stranded. Not only could he not play for Kentucky, but his draft rights with the Blue Jays had lapsed for the year, meaning he could not play for any minor-league affiliate of Major League Baseball. Boras wrangled a holdover job for him in Texas with the independent Grand Prairie AirHogs, pitching against the Pensacola Pelicans and Wichita Wingnuts. Once projected to be a first-round draft pick, Paxton saw his stock plummet into the fourth round. He remained unsigned until late in spring training, when he signed with the Seattle Mariners and reported to their minor-league camp in Peoria, Arizona

[XUFan09]

He doesn't say that the NCAA is just taking that money, but when you mention the amount of money in these contracts and then don't give even a sentence as to where it's spent, you leave readers to the conclusion of greed.

[xubrew]

He doesn't say that the NCAA is just taking that money, but when you mention the amount of money in these contracts and then don't give even a sentence as to where it's spent, you leave readers to the conclusion of greed.

Do you consider that to be a false conclusion??

The biggest thing that he fails to account for is the non-revenue generating sports and the money that is spent on them. By far, that is the biggest shortcoming. Fair enough. I get that.

Having said that, he succeeds in mentioning multiple issues within the NCAA that are extremely relevant.

Why is it that depriving student-athletes of due process was tactfully and strategically avoided??

In looking at his evidence, that is a strong and relevant question. Due process was stratigally avoided. He produces documentation proving this to be true.

I don't understand how anyone could look at this damning AND DOCUMENTED piece of evidence that and not say a damn thing regarding it, but yet be dismissive toward every major thing the article addressed and assessed because they feel it unfairly portrays the institions of being greedy.

You know what...I don't even know how to respond to that.

[sirthought]

To say schools don't make profit, they make revenue, in my mind is false. When you say the majority revenue is spent on student-athletes...well where is that money going? Back to the school to spend on whatever they deem important.

Not to spend on whatever is the student-athlete's pleasure. No, it's going to the school and what they deem to pay for residency, tuition and fees. There is a point of profit in all of that.

Plus, the marketing expense that goes into athletic programs...most of which are not profitable...is off the charts. Those new billboards XU is putting will likely cost more in a month than many make in a year. Not every program is laying out that kind of coin, but broadcast, print, and outdoor advertising of sports events is super expensive. Possibly more than what is being spent on student-athletes' education and personal care.

I was just out at the airport looking into prices of advertising there. XU is all over that place. If they are paying the rates I was being quoted, they spend in the range of $30K a month to put their message on signage there.

[waggy]

Do you consider that to be a false conclusion??

The biggest thing that he fails to account for is the non-revenue generating sports and the money that is spent on them. By far, that is the biggest shortcoming. Fair enough. I get that.

Having said that, he succeeds in mentioning multiple issues within the NCAA that are extremely relevant.

Why is it that depriving student-athletes of due process was tactfully and strategically avoided??

In looking at his evidence, that is a strong and relevant question. Due process was stratigally avoided. He produces documentation proving this to be true.

I don't understand how anyone could look at this damning AND DOCUMENTED piece of evidence that and not say a damn thing regarding it, but yet be dismissive toward every major thing the article addressed and assessed because they feel it unfairly portrays the institions of being greedy.

You know what...I don't even know how to respond to that.

A lawyer is an agent, an agent is a lawyer. Whatever. Are we going to split hairs and say that he/she/they never actually signed with an agent? That's a slippery slope in my opinion, because the real issue is whether you're getting financial support. You're either an amatuer or you're a pro. Everyone gets this. Whose cheating? The NCAA, or the players, their families, and the agents?

Do some players get screwed in the process? Maybe/probably, but it's a huge landscape to police.

[waggy]

Not to spend on whatever is the student-athlete's pleasure.

HAHAHAHAHA.

The student-athlete can just quit then. He can stop participating and take out a student loan like everyone else, or he can drop out, find a nice cardboard box and move under the freeway overpass of his/her choosing.

[xubrew]

A lawyer is an agent, an agent is a lawyer. Whatever. Are we going to split hairs and say that he/she/they never actually signed with an agent? That's a slippery slope in my opinion, because the real issue is whether you're getting financial support. You're either an amatuer or you're a pro. Everyone gets this. Whose cheating? The NCAA, or the players, their families, and the agents?

Do some players get screwed in the process? Maybe/probably, but it's a huge landscape to police.

You lost me. I was talking about lack of due process moreso than what does and doesn't constitute an agent, but since you brought it up....

They weren't getting financial support and there was not any sort of a retainer. The player turned down financial support so he could return to school. In some of the cases where players were declared ineligible the consultant was neither a lawer or an agent.

And that isn't the biggest gripe anyway. It's the lack of due process. Essentially they're guilty until proven innocent...even if they actually are innocent...and the NCAA gets around this by suspending during the investigation that they're intentionally not completing. This is their method for sidestepping the law.

[waggy]

It's their (NCAA) sandbox brew. You want to play in it, then don't open yourself up to suspicion. There is no due process, because eligibility isn't decided in a court of law, thankfully. The ncaa, I don't think, is looking for ways to keep good athletes out. Duh. They just don't want players taking money.

[xubrew]

It's their (NCAA) sandbox brew. You want to play in it, then don't open yourself up to suspicion. There is no due process, because eligibility isn't decided in a court of law, thankfully. The ncaa, I don't think, is looking for ways to keep good athletes out. Duh. They just don't want players taking money.

This is what I take issue with....


Searching through the archives, Johnson came across a 1973 memo from the NCAA general counsel recommending the adoption of a due-process procedure for athletes in disciplinary cases. Without it, warned the organization’s lawyer, the association risked big liability claims for deprivation of rights. His proposal went nowhere. Instead, apparently to limit costs to the universities, Walter Byers had implemented the year-by-year scholarship rule that Joseph Agnew would challenge in court 37 years later. Moreover, the NCAA’s 1975 convention adopted a second recommendation “to discourage legal actions against the NCAA,” according to the minutes. The members voted to create Bylaw 19.7, Restitution, to intimidate college athletes in disputes with the NCAA. Johnson recognized this provision all too well, having won the temporary court judgment that the rule was illegal if not downright despotic. It made him nearly apoplectic to learn that the NCAA had deliberately drawn up the restitution rule as an obstacle to due process, contrary to the recommendation of its own lawyer. “They want to crush these kids,” he says

It goes beyond the NCAA not feeling a responsibility for due process. It's to the point of deliberately avoiding it.

Yes, it is their sandbox. If that's you're take on the issue then that's fine. At least you know what the issue is. However, raising awareness to something like this the way Taylor Branch did in the article is worlds different than simply saying "He thinks athletes are treated like slaves because they're not getting paid." That seemed to be how several people were interpreting the article. My whole thing initially was that I don't see how anyone can read the article and conclude that that was his stance. Most people probably don't realize that there is documentation where the NCAA purposefully tries to deny athletes due process.

[GoMuskies]

Why would athletes get due process? Why would anyone think they should?

[waggy]

This is what I take issue with....

It goes beyond the NCAA not feeling a responsibility for due process. It's to the point of deliberately avoiding it.

Yes, it is their sandbox. If that's you're take on the issue then that's fine. At least you know what the issue is. However, raising awareness to something like this the way Taylor Branch did in the article is worlds different than simply saying "He thinks athletes are treated like slaves because they're not getting paid." That seemed to be how several people were interpreting the article. My whole thing initially was that I don't see how anyone can read the article and conclude that that was his stance. Most people probably don't realize that there is documentation where the NCAA purposefully tries to deny athletes due process.

I've never read bylaw 19.7 and I don't know why it was created. I stopped reading once I got to the paragraph I quoted above. And I won't take the authors word for his interpretation of the bylaw, because he's just taking an issue that on it's face seems to have great disparity and injustice (ncaa $$'s vs. amatuer athletes) and using it to further his own "awesome investigative reporter" career.

I'm totally fine with the NCAA taking a hard line, and if they get it wrong once in while, oh well, maybe that will lead other athletes not to push the envelope. A rule or a bylaw or a law, whatever.. There are consequences. How hard is it not to associate with an agent? I mean really.

Ever ask yourself why in those particular examples you cited, those athletes chose to turndown so much money? Maybe the NCAA was wondering the same thing?

[GuyFawkes38]

To say schools don't make profit, they make revenue, in my mind is false. When you say the majority revenue is spent on student-athletes...well where is that money going? Back to the school to spend on whatever they deem important.

Not to spend on whatever is the student-athlete's pleasure. No, it's going to the school and what they deem to pay for residency, tuition and fees. There is a point of profit in all of that.


I don't really understand the point here.

Student athletes are given a scholarship worth the same amount as full tuition and housing. That full tuition plus housing reflects the market value of an education at the school.

Of course, if you believe that higher education is a massive scam and that schools use athletics to artificially boost enrollment, you have a point.

But most people don't think that's true. The market doesn't believe that's true. A college education has real value and student athletes reap the benefits of that.

[MuskieCinci]

Perhaps we all need to watch the crack baby athletic association episode of South Park to get a better perspective.

[SixFig]

Perhaps we all need to watch the crack baby athletic association episode of South Park to get a better perspective.

The slavery analogy is insulting to real life slavery, but I credit South Park...that episode made an impact on the anti-NCAA movement.

[xubrew]

I've never read bylaw 19.7 and I don't know why it was created. I stopped reading once I got to the paragraph I quoted above. And I won't take the authors word for his interpretation of the bylaw, because he's just taking an issue that on it's face seems to have great disparity and injustice (ncaa $$'s vs. amatuer athletes) and using it to further his own "awesome investigative reporter" career.


Taylor Branch isn't what I would call an investigative reporter. He's an American Historian and an author. It's not as if he's the kind of person that works for TMZ.



I'm totally fine with the NCAA taking a hard line, and if they get it wrong once in while, oh well, maybe that will lead other athletes not to push the envelope. A rule or a bylaw or a law, whatever.. There are consequences. How hard is it not to associate with an agent? I mean really.

Ever ask yourself why in those particular examples you cited, those athletes chose to turndown so much money? Maybe the NCAA was wondering the same thing?

Here's the problem. The draft is in June. It's before the NCAA Tournament is even over. Players don't declare for it. They're just in it if they're high school graduates, JUCO players, 21 years old, or Juniors.

If a player is drafted they will receive a contract offer within two weeks (if they don't, then the club forfeits their draft rights). It's to the point to where merely having someone look at it with you to better understand it constitutes dealing with an agent even if that person isn't actually an agent. You've also got people that completely misrepresent themselves.

As far as why they didn't sign it, it could be for several reasons, but it is hardly unusual or suspect. Players have until August 15th to sign it, and many who are juniors or juco players will still be playing in summer leagues. Not signing it right away could earn a player more money if they're doing well that summer. Maybe there are stipulations that they don't like and/or don't understand. Maybe there are elements of their game that would raise their draft status the following year if they worked on them and developed them. Some players do actually develop better in amateur summer leagues and in college than they do in the minors. Maybe (probably not, but maybe) he just wanted to come back to school because the money would still be there.

It is true that generally speaking juniors will get better offers than seniors. The reason is that they know seniors don't have the option of returning to school, and in a take-it-or-leave-it situation they're much more likely to take it. That's not always the case, though. There are cases where juniors did come back, continued to develop their game, got better offers and probably had better careers.

The biggest issue is that players don't understand this stuff, and if they don't understand this then they won't understand their contracts. If they ask someone to help them, the NCAA is saying that constitutes dealing with an agent. The NCAA claims it has the best interest of the student-athletes in mind, but in cases like this it doesn't. They didn't take money. They didn't hire an agent. The didn't declare for the draft. Yet, they still couldn't play.