We’re in the midst of an NCAA revolution.
That’s right, what’s commonly thought of as your grandfathers NCAA – the one consisting of student athletes, institutional pride, and amateurism – is on the brink of a reconstruction, reorganization, and rehabilitation at the hands of a lynch-mob out for the blood of an association of bureaucrats late to a game they should’ve been playing more than a decade ago.
The NCAA makes a lot of money. So do the universities consisting of the century old governing body. The players participating in the games they’re selling? Not so much. That is the point of contention for many of the athletes, many more of the media who cover the games, and the laymen who see only the TV contracts and revenues generated from the games themselves. But while adjustments need to be made, an overhaul the likes of what the masses suggest, would be a progression beyond the mean necessary to get this right.
Last Spring, Connecticut basketball star Shabazz Napier intimated that his finances were so dire that he often went to bed hungry. This of course sent shockwaves through the aforementioned laymen who rarely get beyond the headlines of the stories or segments news publications and television use to get our attention. They don’t want to hear that people familiar with the situation of scholarship athletes, will tell you it’s virtually impossible for such to be true, but rather choose to align themselves with the “poor, exploited young talent on the whipping end of a group of have’s making millions off the have-nots.”
That is what they call sensationalism, in addition to the battle cry of a simplistic bunch without a proper understanding of a rather complicated system.
Shabazz Napier, in addition to the rest of his scholarship brethren, have plenty of food at their disposal. They also get the best facilities in which to train, the best help to succeed academically, and the best experience possible in regards to preparing themselves for their goal of a professional sports career. They’re also treated like gods on their campuses and in the communities in which they reside, often get to see and do things most their age never will, and have the opportunity to leave with a degree of their choice, without the burden of the debt most college students incur in the process. While not the means necessary for a “phat crib,” inarguably value beyond which many are willing to acknowledge.
I’m not suggesting changes needn’t be made, for there are undoubtedly flaws in the system at hand. As constructed, it’s archaic, dated, and unreasonable based on the level of revenue being generated in today’s climate. Athletes should get more, and the resources are there to make such possible. But “more” and “a lot more” is the difference between rational and irrational, and it’s that type of disconnect that has me scratching my head at the sentiment running amok.
Yes, the money is big, but it has to be to fund the athletic departments dependent on the small number of revenue-generating sports. Golf is funded by football and basketball. Softball and volleyball are funded by football and basketball. And gymnastics, field hockey, baseball, and every other ancillary sport offered by colleges abound, are funded by the revenue generated from the only 2 sports for the most part capable of creating the type of money necessary to make athletic departments tick, football and basketball. So while the schools, conferences, and associations like the NCAA make millions from the interest surrounding these games, they need much of it to feed the beast responsible for making it all happen. So to steal a quote from the great Patrick Ewing, “Sure, we make a lot of money, but we spend a lot too.” And athletic departments do spend a lot of money making their sports tick. Including the ones that bring little back to the hopper they’re pulling from.
So when people say, “Texas Football is worth X, therefore each and every player should get Y,” common sense should steer the masses from the ridiculous rhetoric of the galactically stupid.
A handful of players have the cache to sell jerseys. No one’s buying the starting offensive guard’s jersey, a poster of the back-up safety, or coffee mug with the kicker’s likeness. Sure, Johnny Manziel would’ve moved product, so would’ve Andrew Wiggins and any of the other small percentage of notable stars playing top-tier college football or basketball across the country. But the much larger percentage of the same level of athlete would be worth next to nothing on the open market, while reaping the rarely acknowledged benefits a college scholarship has to offer.
The average college student in 2013 left school with $35,200 in debt. The cost of attendance at Oregon State University, including tuition, room and board, and books and fees (all of which is included in a full scholarship) was $23,452 in 2013. Similarly, it was $25,307 at the University of Oregon, $23,000 at Portland State, and as a representative of the smaller private university, Linfield College was $50,000. Those were all per year costs for in-state students, and all costs falling into the “nothing” category that the “exploited” scholarship athletes get … or don’t depending on the perspective of he/she’s argument. That’s roughly between $100,000 and $200,000 over a 4 year college career that the “exploited” won’t be seeing a tab for, while the unexploited will be spending the next 20 years trying to pay back.
I’m sorry, but while in need of a reboot relative to the current environment, there is still significant value attached to a college scholarship and if you think not, ask a recent college graduate who’s trying to pay back 6 figures worth of debt with the $30,000 per year job he/she might be lucky enough to have.
In addition: No one’s making these kids play college sports. If it’s exploitation and invaluable like many suggest, then don’t play. College, while a golden opportunity to prepare yourself for adult life, it’s also providing athletes a great opportunity to train, prepare, and market themselves for a career in professional sports. Where else are you going to get the type of coaching, training, and marketability necessary to make it into the pro game? You get that all in college, and it isn’t costing you a dime.
Should these college athletes be better compensated based on the revenues being generated? Yes they should. They should be afforded a reasonable stipend allowing for what they call the “full cost of attendance,” so as to be able to have adequate money for the types of things the average student who’s able to work, is and does enjoy on a regular basis. Should they also be compensated in some way, shape, or form for the use of their likeness on marketing propaganda and in things like video games? Absolutely. But what they shouldn’t get is the type of compensation being suggested by the knee-jerk reactors that would severely threaten what we love so much about college sports, and the very opportunity being given to thousands of kids who under different circumstances wouldn’t have it.
College has a price … let’s quit acting like it doesn’t.
Add The Sports Daily to your Google News Feed!
