S02.E06: The NCAA

[Athena]

The NCAA doesn’t pay athletes because they consider them amateurs. The NCAA considers them amateurs because they don’t get paid.

[Lantern7]

Wow. Like I needed another reason to hate "March Madness." Actually, my beef centers on CBS not moving The Amazing Race from the shelf for two weeks, so it's petty by comparison to the real bullshit "student-athletes"* go through. The LWT video game was funny, as was Ed O'Bannon's commentary. Who can blame him for being pissed off at the NCAA for appropriating his likeness to make a buck?

 

*For maximum fun, pronounce it like Eric Cartman in that one episode of South Park that covered this very injustice. "Student ath-oh-leet."

 

ETA: Full disclosure . . . I went to a school in a small conference whose sole tournament representative usually gets fed to a big school in the first round of play. That is, if they don't get shoved into the "play-in" game.

[Victor the Crab]

I didn't need Ollie telling me how the whole NCAA system that flows through college sports in America is pure bullshit, because I already knew. But I'm glad he did. The NCAA's blatant hypocrisy is the reason I don't follow college sports. I'd like to punch Mark Emmert hard in the gut until his internal organs are damaged.

[BabyVegas]

Mark Emmert used to be dean of my university. On the day he announced a 33% tuition increase he also drove his Lamborghini (a signing bonus from the NCAA) onto campus. As far as I'm concerned that douchewagon can go swim in Lake Washington and take a deep breath.

 

Also, I am a Seahawks fan and I stan for Richard Sherman on a lot of things, but his statement on student athletes is not one of them. They have the equivalent of a full time job. Many students also have actual full time jobs. The professors of student athletes are often made aware that they are student athletes who are very important to the school. Not so with those with regular full time jobs. By most accounts, student athletes are granted some leeway that regular students with full time jobs aren't.

 

All that said, fuuuuuuuuck the NCAA. If they're super intent on spending the money that sports brings in there are a lot of ways to do that. Harbaugh got 44 million dollars at UM, right? Let's say he has to take a hit to...35 million (poor baby.) Put that money aside as a fund for kids who are injured, essentially on the job, and pay for them to get an actual degree. Pay the kids minimum wage. Frats have cooks, right? Why don't you hire a team chef to make sure those kids are eating three proper healthful meals per day? Don't get me wrong, I have issues with the treatment of student athletes versus the average student, but when it comes to the NCAA versus the students, I'm on the side of the students every single time.

[biakbiak]

I am also a lifelong Seahawk fan (first game I ever went to I was three years old in the kingdom) living in SF, so I have to defend Richard Sherman a lot but I agree with him based on other things he has stated about his education being important to him, he was responding to a question about how student atheletes can be preceived as whining about getting paid. Heck some student atheletes (particulalry in smaller sports also have full-time jobs) but as Sherman and many others have pointed out (including this piece) the schools don't give a shit about big time players education as long as they are passing and than the program deserts them the moment they get hurt (including their medical bills) including even if they want to get jobs/loans to try and stay in school, they might not have the academic skills to survive in these schools and that is because of a process that can literally start in elementary/middle school if adults notice that they have the talents. Even in high school people are making money off of them (particulalry in basketball) through summer leagues and sponsorships.

[futurechemist]

I teach at a Division 1 University, and I'm opposed to sports as big business.  I don't like the NCAA for making so much money on the backs of athletics.  I don't like universities who pay coaches ridiculous salaries (in ~40 states, the highest paid public employee is either a football or basketball head coach).  And I also don't how athletics takes money away from other academic divisions - which has the net effect of raising tuition for the average student.  And if a university could shave $5 million in annual salaries for athletic directors, and annual tuition is $20,000, then that alone would allow full academic or financial need based scholarships for 250 students!  Honestly Ollie could have done a whole segment on the creative accounting universities use to keep athletic money separate from the rest of the budget.  

But even if the NCAA allowed players to get paid and unionize (another issue there wasn't time for in the show), that still wouldn't solve the problem of how college athletics sets a double standard.  Universities are meant for education and cutting edge research.  Except, like at UNC and others, when they're a factory to produce athletes at the expense of their education.

 

Also of note, this is mainly a problem in Football and Men's basketball, most other sports manage to escape the rampant commercialism.

 

I'm lucky though, as my screen name suggests I'm in a science department so we have a tiny fraction of student athletes since they get shunted into "easier" majors. Of the ~800 students I taught this academic year, I had 0 football players, 0 men's basketball players, and maybe 1 baseball player.

Edited March 16, 2015 by futurechemist

[biakbiak]

Also of note, this is mainly a problem in Football and Men's basketball, most other sports manage to escape the rampant commercialism.

 

To be fair those sports don't manage to escape rampant commercialism it's because there isn't a built in fanbase who cares enough about those sports to make it worthwhile for major advertisers to give a fuck about (Nike, Under Armour and other sporting manufactures do supply equitment to smaller sports but thats just so they can have the sponsorship for bigger sports). If advertersizers thought they could make a dime by supporting Women's Field Hockey, there would be commercialization of those sports and the pressure that kind of money puts on the schools to continue to perform at a higher level.

 

The reason that football and basketball collegiate are a bit different than college baseball players is because neither the NFL or NBA have the major organized farm system that the MLB does and no one really cares about college baseball. I mean it's more popular than soccer, tennis or golf but it doesn't come close to the revenue stream that football and basketball generate for schools and sponsors.

 

I did wish that they had pointed out the lack of a farm system because the NFL and the NBA profit dearly from having a proven feeder system that doesn't cost them nothing and even hypes the atheletes before they even enter those leagues.

[KerleyQ]

I did wish that they had pointed out the lack of a farm system because the NFL and the NBA profit dearly from having a proven feeder system that doesn't cost them nothing and even hypes the atheletes before they even enter those leagues.

 

 

And in return, the leagues scratch the schools' backs, with things like the NBA requiring players to be out of high school for one full year before they can be eligible for the draft.  So, essentially, even if someone is ready and able to play in the league, they are required to play at college for one season - risking potential career-ending (or altering) injuries, their draft stock dropping, etc, along with putting off earning a living at their job for a year.  Add in that, like Jalen Rose's story last night, some of these kids come from very poor families, where it is a legit concern that their family might not financially survive, or they really want to get their family out of crime-ridden neighborhoods, and it's absurd that these kids can't make a single dollar off their talent while their coach is paid a king's ransom and their schools (and the NCAA in general) are making money hand over fist off of their talent.  And then, if they do, God forbid, get that career-ending injury in that required one year of college play?  Well, sucks to be them.  Thanks for all that money you made us, now get out.  

 

There should absolutely be some sort of disability fund built into all schools' athletic departments.  And if a student athlete suffers an injury that makes them unable to play, they aren't just shunted off and forgotten.  They should be able to get the education their initial scholarship promised.  And their medical bills should be covered.  They suffered that injury in the act of earning a mega crap-ton of money for the school, so the school should be responsible for covering that injury.  

 

On a side note, when this issue first started heating up, Kyle Long (Bears player, and son of Howie Long) was tweeting his support for the students to get paid.  People ripped into him for it, saying he had no say in the matter, because he wasn't a stereotypical "poor college student," having grown up the son of an NFL player.  Because he didn't go to school and play on the field with plenty of kids who weren't as fortunate as he was and see what life was like for them?  Or he didn't deserve to be compensated for the work he did for the school on the field because he happened to be born into a well off family?   I really don't understand the general public/fans being against these kids getting paid (and covered for injuries).  I mean, I understand why the schools don't want to do it - they're greedy bastards who have higher financial gain if they aren't sharing that pie with the kids.  Fans should be pressuring the shit out of schools to change this.  

 

Seriously, I'm just astounded that schools get away with this shit.  "Oh, we can't possibly afford to pay those kids.  Where would we get the money?" and "We'd like to announce the signing of our new head coach to a $40 million dollar contract."  It reminds me of an old Dilbert strip that my husband and I still quote every now and then - in a meeting, they first talk about how there won't be raises because the company hasn't made enough of a profit, then the next item is announcing new executive bonuses.  The exec turns to his secretary and says "you were supposed to put the United Way update in between those two items."  

[Traveller519]

As someone who follows college sports, there wasn't a lot of new information there. That said, having it all laid out back to back like that certainly raises the huge issue of the monetization of "Amateur Collegiate Athletics."

 

There definitely is no easy answer. Those scholarships are valuable items (especially when room and board/supplies and team clothing get added into the mix) but it's up to the student to decide to make something out of that scholarship. I do hate the notion of Athletic Departments steering athletes towards certain programs, especially if it's an Athletes Only - easy A. There are too many Athletic Directors worried primarily about the budget and not about the students. How easy would it be for an Athletic director (or division the program) to sit with an incoming athlete and find out where their interests lie and put them on the course to a program that matches up with that. Education is a lot more valuable when you think you're getting something out of it.

 

The other problem is that Men's Basketball and Football which are generating the revenue are where the athletes want to see some of that come down to them. Fine, but what about the other 20+ sports at your school that don't generate revenue, does that mean that those athletes need to pay back a portion of their scholarship to keep everything level on revenue generated to compensation received? Nobody thinks that. But the reality is, the athletic program at the school is much bigger than those 2 sports, and the vast majority of those other athletes are using their athletic talents to fund an education.

[LisaBLingLing]

First off, I'll admit it up front that I'm a hypocrite.  I went to a school with a big time basketball program and I still love my team.  I love March Madness and I watch as much of it as I can. 

 

But for me, reality set in when I started having to pay for college for my kids.  Just because Richard Sherman was highlighted on Last Week Tonight, I'm going to pick on Stanford.  Stanford gives no merit based aid for scholarship.  They have need based aid and athletic scholarships.  The white kid from somewhere in suburbia who doesn't play lacrosse?  First off, fat chance getting in, even with perfect grades and perfect scores.  But, even if you are one of the lucky few?  It costs over $60 grand a year to go to Stanford.  I don't know the floor to the exact number, but at something like $150K of family income a year, you do not qualify for need-based financial aid.  Medical expenses, other kids coming down the pike, needing to care for elder relatives - does not matter - you and your family get nothing in terms of financial aid.  By Stanford's calculations, spending 40% of your income on college tuition is affordable.  That same kid plays lacrosse?  College paid for.  No debt upon graduation. 

 

But let's go back to that fat chance of getting in - I do not begrudge Richard Sherman his Stanford education -  but by his own admission - he didn't get one.  But see, he's not the only one.  It is not just football players that don't have enough time to study.  Playing a D1 sport, no matter the sport, revenue or not, is similar to having a full time job.  The NCAA runs that ad every year about all those athletes going pro in something other than sports.  It shows a female student in a chem lab.  Bullshit!  I defy you to find me a female chemistry major at any university that is also a letter-winning D1 varsity athlete.  (Perhaps I'm overstating, there is probably one somewhere.) Stanford has an undergraduate student body of about 7,000.  They also have 36 Varsity sports.  I'll make some rough estimates, I may be off by a bit, but let's say those teams average between 25 and 30 students a team which works out to about 1000 of the students at Stanford are athletes.  Stanford gets over 30,000 applications a year and 1/7th of their slots are spoken for by their sports teams.  So?  Student athletes!  Except, bullshit.  To me the term "well-rounded" is code for letting in dumb jocks.  Now, is that fair?  Aren't all Stanford athletes smart?  Probably.  But they aren't the best students.  They can't be.  Because to be good enough at your sport to get recruited by Stanford, you have to make the choice even earlier on where your primary focus lies, and to be good enough at sports, your primary focus, even in high school, is not academics.  The public high school my kids go to is often ranked as one of the best in the state (Massachusetts).  There are some very good students who are also varsity athletes, but, if you want to play in the games, you don't get to miss practice even if you have a huge chem test the next day.  Practice comes before studies and students wishing to participate in those sports have to make that commitment at the start of the season.  There have been some very good athletes that have gone on to go to some very highly ranked colleges on athletic scholarships coming out of my local high school.  And good for them.  None of them were at the top of their class though. They got into those highly ranked competitive colleges over kids that had better grades.  Stanford prides itself on picking the best and the brightest, except, it doesn't.  The give 1/7th of their slots to kids who get in because they are good athletes. 

 

OK, so, what is wrong with that?  Shouldn't a student body be diverse?  I'm going to pick on Harvard now which has even more varsity sports - 40.  Harvard is different because they do not give athletic scholarships.  All of their aid is need-based but because of their endowment they can give a lot of need based aid.  That same kid who doesn't play lacrosse with a family income of $150 would actually get some financial aid from Harvard.  Hooray!  He's still not getting in.  He will still lose his spot to a kid who rows crew.  And diversity?  Take a few minutes and look at the high schools of Harvard's athletic teams (besides basketball), you're not getting diversity.  And let's really talk diversity, if the majority of your students of color are athletes - is that diversity?  Really? 

 

Now let's go pick on a big state school - Texas A&M.  Remember when Johnny Manziel won the Heisman and the alumni donations to Texas A&M went up by $300 million and everybody thought maybe he should get some of that money?  Remember?  That same year, the graduating class got to leave Texas A&M collectively $100 million in debt. 

 

Athletes take up the slots and soak up the financial aid and the term student athlete should be changed to athletes that have to go to class every once in awhile.  I agree that a lot of them are being exploited.  That's bad.  But they sure as hell are not the only ones. 

 

As far as paying athletes a salary on top of their scholarships, as someone who is currently paying one tuition and next year will be paying two?  Hell no!  Because of Title IX, you're not going to be able to get by with just paying the athletes in the "revenue" sports, and I, for one, am having a hard enough time subsidizing the tuition of the women's golf team - I'm not up for paying even more tuition so that they get a salary.  And really - why should any of them be paid as long as of their fellow students are graduating with student loan debt?  Give me one good reason cause I'd love to hear it.  I cannot think of one myself.

 

So - besides complaining - do I have a suggestion?  I do.  Here's what I propose - allow athletes to apply to colleges and upon acceptance they get to pick - am I coming for athletics or am I coming for academics.  If they choose athletics, they get paid and are treated as university employees.  They can enroll in some classes but they are not degree seeking students and do not count in student body statistics - which would allow the schools to accept more students.  The ones that say I'm coming for academics?  They go into the need-based financial aid pool along with everybody else. 

Edited March 16, 2015 by LisaBLingLing

[ganesh]

I swear, someday, I hope sooner than later, someone is going to organize these student athletes into a legit union, and they are going to strike. When alums sitting in the 4th largest city in Michigan after having shelled out $200+ or so, they'll be seething for the players to be paid.

 

I get why Sherman is being criticized, but what wasn't added to his explanation was that being on the football team is basically year-round at the big-time places. So these guys couldn't get a job even if they wanted to. 

 

I think one could come up with a sliding scale for paying all the athletes actually. 

[peeayebee]

I don't know what the solution is, but what the hell is with the athletes taking Swahili?

 

I like the way John mimes stuff. The cat going for the laser pointer was perfect.

[LisaBLingLing]

I don't know what the solution is, but what the hell is with the athletes taking Swahili?

 

I like the way John mimes stuff. The cat going for the laser pointer was perfect.

 

Those athletes were from the University of North Carolina which is under investigation for a multi-decade cheating scandal.  Just Google UNC and cheating scandal or UNC and Wainstein Report.  UNC is currently under investigation not just by the NCAA but also by the SACS.  The SACS is the bigger worry.  http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2014-10-30/ncaa-unc-academic-scandal-accreditation-roy-williams-tar-heels-fake-classes-sacs

[Dandesun]

It's hard to look at something like this where coaches are getting multi-million dollar deals while the schools who give their student-athletes scholarships just... write them off completely if there is a career ending injury. You'd think that maybe that gigantic cathedral to sport that is built could maybe not have constant flowing waterfalls into their hot/cold "spas" and maybe have a contingency set up for athletes who wind up hurt... and then lose said scholarship and can often no longer afford to go to the school. It seems like the schools have a 'you had ONE job!' mentality.

 

I recently saw a thing on NBCSports on the Premier League's 'Southhampton Way' where they talk about how this football club (soccer) brings up talent from a young age and how they manage these kids. They have host families for kids out of the area, the younger players are taught and expected to do the laundry and clean the boots of the First Team as a motivational tool as well as, you know, giving them actual work to do instead of just party party party, play play play. I recall reading that the German national football team has worked hard with the Bundesliga teams to take care of the young players as people not just as athletes. That they will need actual skills to be members of society because not everyone is National Team material... or even going to be playing in the upper eschelons of the National Club system. The percentage of college players that go onto the pros -- less than 2% -- you really do wonder... has the school done anything to prepare them for life outside of the game? College is supposed to be that thing that takes you from your parents home and transitions you from that to ready to take on the real world (how successful is that with just regular students for that matter?) but I would imagine that the universities are dropping the ball on this score, too.

 

How much of the money that collegiate football/basketball brings in gets rerouted to the school in other areas? Less popular athletics, libraries, labs... that's what I'd like to see. I don't want to believe that it's all about coaches' salaries and stadiums.

[Lemons]

Not athlete related, but what was the joke, Ireland is Europe's Boston?

[stillshimpy]

But let's go back to that fat chance of getting in - I do not begrudge Richard Sherman his Stanford education -  but by his own admission - he didn't get one.

 

Emphasis mine. 

 

I wasn't aware that Richard Sherman said that at any point. When did he?  I don't actually follow any sports, I'm just familiar with Richard Sherman because of the Superbowl moment last year and the famous furor afterward, at which point I saw a lot about what a great GPA Sherman had, both in high school and in college.  Not a "keep your eligibility by taking the aforementioned paper course" education either.  

 

I think I missed something rather key.   Has he since said that his grades were falsely inflated and that he did end up taking pretend courses?  

 

Anyway, I think his point about college athletes having a full-time job was a good one, because they aren't compensated for that full-time job and are put at great risk.  If anything happens to them, that scholarship is taken away, so they don't even receive a guaranteed education.  It's like indentured servitude more than a full-time job.  College student's with full-time jobs also get their full-time pay that.  Clearly room and board isn't such a given if we have college athletes talking about not being able to eat at night and then still having to play the next day.  

 

It's all so disheartening when you read the tiny percent of people who go on to play professional sports in any capacity. 

 

I know so many people who just love sports, both professional and collegiate, but I confess I find them both so disillusioning in almost all forms.  

 

I did want a big cartoon anvil to fall from the sky on that guy who dared stand there and talk about how the purity of the game and its intent was on the line and how he'd rather just walk away on the day that the athletes are paid (with his millions of dollars).  

 

I did think that the clip of the coaches misbehaving was going to be so much worse than the incredibly bad crap it was though, so at least there was that bright spot.  

 

I liked the piece, but damn, I ended up bummed out after tonight's show. 

Edited March 17, 2015 by stillshimpy

[biakbiak]

Yeah I have never heard Richard Sherman state he didn't get a Stanford education, he stayed four years and graduated and he goes around to high schools speaking on the value of education (something he also did with his teammates when he was in high school). He has stressed how important his degree is to him and how he was fortunate that his talent on the field helped him get a scholarship but that he also applied himself academically both in high school and college.

 

The question in the clip was in response to a  about how regular students would feel about atheletes getting paid because the atheletes already get so many advantages but he was simply pointing out that atheletes who are trying to take their education seriously have a lot of stuff to do that students might not really see because they only see the hero worship on Saturday and other advantages they might not have and don't see the hard work it takes to perform at that level.

Edited March 17, 2015 by biakbiak

[VCRTracking]

Besides John ripping apart the NCAA I loved the joke about the "Wes Anderson sex party".

[BabyVegas]

His mother is also a teacher, so I have no doubt that Sherman legitimately valued his education. From my perspective, if the education were guaranteed then I would consider it a thing of value, but realistically no degree means very little, if any value. So if the NCAA scholarships meant a guaranteed education, even in the event that a player suffers a career-ending injury, then I'd be down with their position that the athletes are compensated. At this point they're basically compensating the players with a lotto ticket.

[BrittaBot]

A degree nowadays doesn't even mean much, so even without a career-ending injury and getting a degree in whatever doesn't mean the athlete will be okay. I have a law degree and am making minimum wage. Like Ollie said, no one is expecting to pay these athletes millions of dollars while they're in school. I don't get why they can't, at minimum, get whatever per hour the kid working at the bookstore is getting and some kind of worker's comp.

 

The NCAA just sucks so much. I am not a fan of sports at all and hated at my own school, which wasn't even that good at sports, how athletes were favored over others. And yet I STILL sympathize with these guys and want better for them.

Edited March 17, 2015 by BrittaBot

[Unraveled]

Sure, a degree doesn't mean that you'll be able to get a full-time job in that field. However, having a degree (debt free) is better than no degree at all.

 

I honestly didn't know that you could lose your athletic scholarship if you have a career-ending injury. That seems very unfair to me. I would understand losing your athletic scholarship if you chose to no longer participate in that sport.

 

Full ride athletic scholarships should include room and board (a full meal plan).

 

I would imagine that the Division I athlete who will never be able to go pro, but was never academically prepared to finish college faces the most challenges. (Not academically prepared could easily be a class thing or even someone who was so good in high school that their teachers passed them.)

[KerleyQ]

I honestly didn't know that you could lose your athletic scholarship if you have a career-ending injury. That seems very unfair to me. I would understand losing your athletic scholarship if you chose to no longer participate in that sport.

 

 

This, to me, is the worst part of all of it.  Like I said before, if these kids get hurt, their education should still be covered and their medical bills should be covered.  They're getting hurt in the process of making a lot of money for the school.  Make it so that their scholarship moves out of the sports department (since I know there are typically limits to how many scholarships each team can give), so it frees up a scholarship for another player, but this should be, basically, an insurance situation, where the school has a policy that kicks in and covers the scholarship and medical costs. 

[fastiller]

I teach at a Division 1 University, and I'm opposed to sports as big business.  I don't like the NCAA for making so much money on the backs of athletics.  I don't like universities who pay coaches ridiculous salaries (in ~40 states, the highest paid public employee is either a football or basketball head coach).  And I also don't how athletics takes money away from other academic divisions - which has the net effect of raising tuition for the average student.  And if a university could shave $5 million in annual salaries for athletic directors, and annual tuition is $20,000, then that alone would allow full academic or financial need based scholarships for 250 students!  Honestly Ollie could have done a whole segment on the creative accounting universities use to keep athletic money separate from the rest of the budget.  

 

Re the bolded section: I wish that Oliver had mentioned this (perhaps he did and I missed it?).  It's surprising to me just how many people don't know this fact.  Not a chief safety person (whether police, or fire, or whatever), not a chief medical person, the motherjumping state school coach!

 

The NY Times columnist Joe Nocera has been railing against the NCAA for a few years now.  He has some very good columns on the topic.

[futurechemist]

Having had a couple of nights to sleep on it, I'm genuinely undecided if athletes should get paid or not.  A student washing dishes in the dining hall gets paid.  A student on the debate team doesn't.  Which of those is more like a basketball player?  If student-athletes were eligible for some version of worker's comp, that would solve the issue of them losing a scholarship because of an injury.  If the dishwasher gets scalded by hot water, they'd get compensation, same as a basketball player breaking their leg.  Also, scholarships aren't guaranteed for 4 years.  Academic scholarships can be revoked each year if a student fails too many classes.  Financial scholarships can be revoked each year if a student's financial circumstances change.  So to summarize, I do believe that while student-athletes aren't being treated as well as they should, they're still being treated better than the average student.

 

Ideally, I would like to see all American college athletics become intramural.  So basically the British system.  And since Oliver is British, it would have been nice for him to mention that Britain maintains some high quality universities with no NCAA style athletics at all.

[dusang]

Having had a couple of nights to sleep on it, I'm genuinely undecided if athletes should get paid or not.  A student washing dishes in the dining hall gets paid.  A student on the debate team doesn't.  Which of those is more like a basketball player?  If student-athletes were eligible for some version of worker's comp, that would solve the issue of them losing a scholarship because of an injury.  If the dishwasher gets scalded by hot water, they'd get compensation, same as a basketball player breaking their leg.  Also, scholarships aren't guaranteed for 4 years.  Academic scholarships can be revoked each year if a student fails too many classes.  Financial scholarships can be revoked each year if a student's financial circumstances change.  So to summarize, I do believe that while student-athletes aren't being treated as well as they should, they're still being treated better than the average student.

 

Ideally, I would like to see all American college athletics become intramural.  So basically the British system.  And since Oliver is British, it would have been nice for him to mention that Britain maintains some high quality universities with no NCAA style athletics at all.

 

I see your point but, at the end of the day, unlike the debate team, other people are profiting from student athletes.  My problem is partly that professional sports involves too much money -- how can we, as a people, as a society, justify the millions of dollars spent paying a guy who can throw/catch/kick a ball real good??  But, since we do, and these poor dudes are the centre of this multi-billion dollar industry, and their whole lives can be destroyed by one bad landing in a practice or a game ... they should probably get paid.  In real money.

Edited March 18, 2015 by dusang

[enlightenedbum]

 

Harbaugh got 44 million dollars at UM, right?

Full disclaimer: HUUUUUUGE Michigan homer here.  Went there for undergrad and going to be a student again in June for my Master's.

 

38, but the other 6 went to the assistants, I'm pretty sure.

 

Which is basically the problem.  The people risking the most and making the money aren't compensated at anything like the rate that administrators and coaches are.  Especially obvious at Michigan, where a corporate jackass destroyed the fun parts of the athletic department to extract as much revenue as possible in the short term.  In the process ruining everything that separated the college sports experience from an NFL experience.  And making us suck on the field (in football) and driving away the assistant hockey coach who apparently was the key to the team's long running success.  And we had the whole Shane Morris thing, which I was kind of shocked that Oliver didn't address, because health concerns are one of the things the Northwestern union wanted addressed.

 

For those of you who don't follow sports, basically what happened is that we sucked at football last year, and naturally blame fell on the quarterback so the coaching staff put in a kid who was highly regarded but very, very badly coached (because the Hoke staff was bad at coaching, especially quarterbacks).  So he starts against Minnesota and plays poorly.  It's clear he's not the answer, but they keep him in.  Then he hurts an ankle.  He wants to be all tough so he insists he can keep playing.  Then he's hit in the head and is CLEARLY wobbly.  Everyone watching on TV and pretty much everyone in the stands sees it and thinks he might have a concussion.  ABC/ESPN's announcer is going nuts.  Coaching staff "doesn't see it" and keeps him in.  After the next play he's finally removed and the old starter is sent in.  THEN the old starter has his helmet come off which mandates him taking a play off.  So they send the clearly concussed kid back on the field.

 

To complete the travesty, they lied about his injury to the press afterwards, with the corporate tool AD finally releasing a statement to the press at 1 AM Tuesday morning, which completely contradicted what Hoke had said at his press conference on Monday.  Because damned if Dave Brandon was going to be held responsible.

 

Whole thing caused first world problem protests on campus (admittedly, I attended) and eventually contribued to Brandon being finally fired.

 

For more on Brandon and the way corporate assholes are ruining the fun things about college sports, read this.

 

It's all about extracting short term profits.

 

 

My problem is partly that professional sports involves too much money -- how can we, as a people, as a society, justify the millions of dollars spent paying a guy who can throw/catch/kick a ball real good??

I've always disagreed with this argument.  Entertainment is somewhere I'm pretty much cool with the market doing its thing.  And if the money is going there, much better it goes to the players rather than management/ownership, you know?

 

As for good news: there is a movement to make commitments basically reciprocal.  As it stands right now, scholarships are renewed on a year by year basis at the school's discretion, and the school has to give you a waiver to transfer (and thus can control where you can transfer to).  This also allows schools to kill scholarships based on injury.  Or oftentimes "injury" aka "Acute Dropitis" or "Brick Lung."  However, the Big Ten at least has moved to four year scholarships so the school is committed to the player for four years regardless.  And that's put pressure on the other conferences to follow suit.  I think there are proposals to do the same in the other big ones.

 

Next major thing is basically lifetime health insurance for sports related injuries suffered at school.  If an injury is particularly gruesome or noteworthy like that of Louisville's Kevin Ware in the NCAA Tournament two years ago, he might get compensated (though IIRC he's had to fight for it) and that was the biggest concern of the Northwestern players who were seeking to unionize.

 

As for the access argument, there's certainly validity there.  But on the other hand, given other realities of poor areas, sometimes athletics is the best legitimate way out of there.  Even with Affirmative Action (which is under attack in its traditional sense) it doesn't really help if your school doesn't have textbooks.  But you can get kids who are great at football into an elite institution and they'll shine.  And as a public university, that's part of the mission, right?  For example, again from Michigan:

 

Here's a story from the Michigan Daily about Pahokee, Florida, and a group of kids Rich Rodriguez recruited from there to come to Michigan.  After they graduated, two of the three players featured there started doing this, which shows up on mgoblog every couple months with some event the proprietor and usually Smith are putting together.  And neither of them were NFL caliber players so it's not like they had million dollar contracts to work with.  In theory, the intercollegiate athletics model can work.  But it needs... a lot of reform and is probably impossible because you can't put the money genie back in the bottle.

[A Boston Gal]

Thank you for the detailed explanation, enlightenedbum. I learned a great deal!

[LisaBLingLing]

Did you watch the clip from Richard Sherman on John Oliver's show?  He said that he had to get up every morning and lift weights, then go to team meetings, then practice.  By the time he did all that, he could go to his classes but not much else in terms of studying. 

 

Perhaps my definition of education is different from yours, but if you're spending all of your non class time in football related activities - you might get a degree but you're not getting everything that Stanford has to offer in terms of an education - which is what I meant - he didn't get a true Stanford education.  I don't discount the value that Richard Sherman places on his time at Stanford nor do I think he slacked off, I think he took advantage of as much as he possibly could but it wasn't the same Stanford as non-athletes. 

This, to me, is the worst part of all of it.  Like I said before, if these kids get hurt, their education should still be covered and their medical bills should be covered.  They're getting hurt in the process of making a lot of money for the school.  Make it so that their scholarship moves out of the sports department (since I know there are typically limits to how many scholarships each team can give), so it frees up a scholarship for another player, but this should be, basically, an insurance situation, where the school has a policy that kicks in and covers the scholarship and medical costs. 

 

That's a lot of my point - there aren't scholarships outside of the athletic department.  There is need based aid and perhaps the young man at Oklahoma did not qualify for it.  There are thousands of kids out there who can't go to the school of their choice for financial reasons.  I feel for the young man, but, why really, should he as a former athlete get to skip the line for financial aid over other non-athletes?   I would hope that a school would make good on promises despite injury, but even professional players can lose salary due to injury.  Getting injured sucks and it is often a financial hardship, athlete or not.  He was a student at the University of Oklahoma - yes?  I don't know what kind of financial aid they are able to offer but apparently it wasn't enough once he lost his full ride.  Although I agree insurance policies are probably a good idea. 

Edited March 18, 2015 by LisaBLingLing

[KerleyQ]

Did you watch the clip from Richard Sherman on John Oliver's show?  He said that he had to get up every morning and lift weights, then go to team meetings, then practice.  By the time he did all that, he could go to his classes but not much else in terms of studying. 

 

Perhaps my definition of education is different from yours, but if you're spending all of your non class time in football related activities - you might get a degree but you're not getting everything that Stanford has to offer in terms of an education - which is what I meant - he didn't get a true Stanford education.  I don't discount the value that Richard Sherman places on his time at Stanford nor do I think he slacked off, I think he took advantage of as much as he possibly could but it wasn't the same Stanford as non-athletes. 

 

That's a lot of my point - there aren't scholarships outside of the athletic department.  There is need based aid and perhaps the young man at Oklahoma did not qualify for it.  There are thousands of kids out there who can't go to the school of their choice for financial reasons.  I feel for the young man, but, why really, should he as a former athlete get to skip the line for financial aid over other non-athletes?   I would hope that a school would make good on promises despite injury, but even professional players can lose salary due to injury.  Getting injured sucks and it is often a financial hardship, athlete or not.  He was a student at the University of Oklahoma - yes?  I don't know what kind of financial aid they are able to offer but apparently it wasn't enough once he lost his full ride.  Although I agree insurance policies are probably a good idea. 

 

I don't see it really as skipping the line.  If he gets injured due to playing for the school (and, in the process, earning the school money), then they should be held accountable for what that injury is costing him.  Obviously, they can't be held fully accountable for that cost, especially if it's a kid who was legitimately good enough to go pro, but, at the least, they should cover his medical costs and still provide the education they promised him when he agreed to play for them. 

[LisaBLingLing]

Fair enough. I asked why, you gave a good answer.

I thought of one more thing to point out as far as paying the athletes is concerned when compared to other students. If you are a regular student who decides to get a job to help your parents pay for school (and it is parents' income that determines financial aid need), student earned income is counted by colleges as pretty much being solely for paying for college. If a student earns enough money, they could lose financial aid completely. Talk about a Catch 22. Let me say again, it's not that I don't think athletes are exploited. It's just they are far from the only ones who get screwed. And if we are going to pay athletes, they shouldn't continue to get full ride scholarships.

[KerleyQ]

Fair enough.  I can be flexible on outright being paid to play, provided the insurance is there.  But, I do think that, if the school is making money off of their name/image, the kids should get a cut of that.  And they should be able to make money off of their own name/image without it dinging their eligibility.  

[enlightenedbum]

The issue is more that I, as a math student, was not making the University millions of dollars.  And they should DEFINITELY be able to endorse and receive some of the proceeds from jersey/memorabilia/video game sales.

Edited March 19, 2015 by enlightenedbum

[Dandesun]

They should sure as hell be allowed to be taken to lunch by their coach when a parent dies without losing their eligibility!

[ganesh]

I don't see why they don't let the players major in football. Let them take classes in basic game theory, leadership, communication, etc. Then that would count for course credit during the normal day. Treat the scholarship as a fellowship and give them a stipend. 

 

Having had a couple of nights to sleep on it, I'm genuinely undecided if athletes should get paid or not.

 

Look up Spencer Tillman. He has the most compelling and reasonable argument I've heard for paying players. I don't find fault in it. 

[enlightenedbum]

Every year I forget how the cost of the TV rights means way longer commercial breaks during the tournament.

[LisaBLingLing]

Fair enough.  I can be flexible on outright being paid to play, provided the insurance is there.  But, I do think that, if the school is making money off of their name/image, the kids should get a cut of that.  And they should be able to make money off of their own name/image without it dinging their eligibility.  

Here's the thing about that - Johnny Manziel brought in an extra $300 million in (mostly alumni) donations because he went to Texas A&M.  Texas A&M creates roughly 10,000 alumni every year.  If Johnny Football had chosen to play for, I don't know, let's say Boston College, with it's total undergraduate enrollment coming in under 10,000, even in a Heisman trophy winning year, the donations would not have gone up as much.  Johnny Manziel didn't bring in all that money - Johnny Manziel AT Texas A&M brought in all that money.  Should he perhaps get a cut of jersey sales?  Perhaps, but so should the general scholarship fund of Texas A&M - his fellow students who will one day be alumni share in that ability to raise money.  The other thing about those donations?  I'm sure a significant percentage of that money was designated for athletic department use only.  There are many public institutions that are both cash strapped and have amazing athletic facilities at the same time.  So, I do agree that the kids should get a cut, I'm just expanding my definition of the kids to include all students.  

 

But complaining about paying coaches?  I don't do that.  That statistic about college football coaches and basketball coaches being the highest paid public employees in all those states is bogus.  Land grant universities receive large subsidies of tax-payer money but they are separate institutions.  No state elects the president of their local state university.  Those institutions receive money and conduct business as they see fit.  The legislatures set salaries of public employees.  Universities set salaries of their athletic coaches.  If merely receiving public money makes all employees of that institution/company public employees, well, the largest federal government contract is with Lockheed-Martin.  Last I checked, Lockheed-Martin's business is 90% federal contracts to the tune of $44 billion or so a year.  Lockheed-Martin's CEO makes not quite $40 million in salary a year.  So, if you want to call college football coaches public employees, fine, but then you've got to call the CEO of Lockheed-Martin a public employee too, and his salary swamps those coaches.

 

And truly, when it comes to college sports - the stars are the coaches.  They are just as responsible, and probably more so, for bringing in those billions.  You gotta be good to get the huge coaching salaries.  Considering the money available - I don't view a single college coach as overpaid.  Just because the players are exploited does not mean we should exploit the coaches too.  

 

For the record - I'm kinda playing devil's advocate here.  I do think that very many college athletes get a raw deal.  I have just come to respect John Oliver's ability to get to the heart of issues and this one is way more complicated than his bit would lead a lot of us to believe, IMHO.  Final comment - it's not the Richard Sherman's or even the Ed O'Bannons of the world who are getting the raw deal.  (Although Ed O'Bannon should be paid for the use of his image in video games.)  Their time in college should be viewed as a training program for a professional career - football residency.  We pay our medical residents diddly-squat and they put up with it because of the career waiting for them at the other end.  I feel the same way about athletes who have a professional career waiting for them at the other end - its the kids who aren't good enough athletes to make it professionally while at the same time aren't good enough students to earn a degree who are exploited the most.  

 

One more point about college athletes being able to profit from their images - if you have a good enough college career and stay in college long enough to build a following - there is no salary cap on endorsements.  Our highest paid athletes, regardless of the sport, are the ones who get endorsement deals.  You're more likely to get endorsement deals straight out of college if you stay for 4 years (well, providing you're good enough).  Texas A&M should help more of their students graduate without debt and let Johnny Football make money selling Coca-Cola.  

[LisaBLingLing]

The issue is more that I, as a math student, was not making the University millions of dollars.  And they should DEFINITELY be able to endorse and receive some of the proceeds from jersey/memorabilia/video game sales.

 

I disagree.  Let's go back to Stanford.  Their application fee is $90 per application.  They get something like 35,000 applications a year.  They get that many applications because the position they hold in public perception is that they take the best and the brightest.  The best math students at every high school probably dream of getting into, if not Stanford, another university that holds the perception of accepting only the best and the brightest.  If they lower their standards  -outside of the athletic department - maybe they won't get so many applications the next time around.  So, having good students does indeed bring in millions to the university - although I will concede it doesn't bring in billions.  ;-)  

 

Math majors should never sell themselves short!  

 

(Wanna guess what I majored in?)  

[biakbiak]

John Oliver's show?  He said that he had to get up every morning and lift weights, then go to team meetings, then practice.  By the time he did all that, he could go to his classes but not much else in terms of studying.

 

That isn't what I got from the clip, just that their schedule was more difficult than maybe perceived but also I am not basing my opinion on a 20 second clip but numerous other things he has said about his education over the years.

[LisaBLingLing]

That isn't what I got from the clip, just that their schedule was more difficult than maybe perceived but also I am not basing my opinion on a 20 second clip but numerous other things he has said about his education over the years.

I have no doubt that he valued his time at Stanford.  I also have no doubt that he values an education, but, I repeat, when you are spending that much time on football related activities you are not getting the same Stanford education as non-athletes, you simply do not have time.  I am also not basing my opinion on 20 second clip.  I am basing it on what I know about the requirements placed on athletes at the university where my husband is a physics professor.  Football players are not the only ones with that kind of a schedule - a schedule that revolves around the demands of the sport they play.  One of the courses my husband teaches is an upper level lab course required by physics majors.  In 15 years, one athlete has taken this class.  One.  Not just one football player, one athlete, a female who played volleyball. Now - are there just no athletes who are interested in physics or is it perhaps that this course requires a lot of time outside of lecture to be spent in lab?  I vote for the latter.  When you have to choose your major based on how much time you have left for practice, you aren't afforded the same educational opportunities as the students who are not athletes.  I suspect Richard Sherman had to make choices in his studies based on football and not based on his desire to learn about a subject.  And when you have to do that, you are not getting the full benefit of the educational opportunities at your chosen school.   

[stillshimpy]

Did you watch the clip from Richard Sherman on John Oliver's show?  He said that he had to get up every morning and lift weights, then go to team meetings, then practice.  By the time he did all that, he could go to his classes but not much else in terms of studying.

Perhaps my definition of education is different from yours, but if you're spending all of your non class time in football related activities - you might get a degree but you're not getting everything that Stanford has to offer in terms of an education - which is what I meant - he didn't get a true Stanford education.  I don't discount the value that Richard Sherman places on his time at Stanford nor do I think he slacked off, I think he took advantage of as much as he possibly could but it wasn't the same Stanford as non-athletes.

LisaBlingLing, I think I found what happened.  

 

Yes, I did watch it.  Again and carefully, just to be sure. I think I see what happened here:  Richard Sherman was not speaking in "I" statements.  He was speaking in generalized terms against the student-athlete system.   I rewatched the clip (which starts at 13 minutes in) and he is talking about student athletes and why the system is punishing.  The only time he refers to himself is when he says " wish that" an average student could experience a student athletes schedule.  

 

At no point was he actually talking about what he did, LisaBlingLing.  Of course, part of the problem is that apparently John Oliver wasn't aware that Sherman was switching pronouns and speaking in general terms for a reason.  

 

Richard Sherman is actually well known for valuing education, hence my surprise.  He is also well known for charity work that involves encouraging other student athletes to get a real education.  Again, that's why I was so surprised that you thought he didn't get a real Stanford education.  His point in that clip was that it was damned near impossible for him to do so, given a student-athlete's schedule. 

 

Richard Sherman has been a proponent of student athlete rights.  Just weirdly, he's the only professional football player I know anything about, because his stance on education impressed so much. 

Edited March 24, 2015 by stillshimpy

[OneWhoLurks]

Comedian John Oliver—in discussing your antitrust lawsuit, O’Bannon v. NCAA—ripped the NCAA on HBO’s Last Week Tonight in March. But you stole the episode, saying that a fake video game, March Sadness 2015, “is every bit as fucked-up as the real thing.”

How’d that come about?

He had heard about the case and wanted to do a little segment on it. I was interested and intrigued. I saw a whole page of one-liners and wanted to do it so bad. I thought my grandmother wouldn’t like it, with all the f-bombs. But I had to do it. I went to a green room in a little studio here in town. Everyone enjoyed it; even my mom said, “I can’t believe you said that … but it was pretty funny.” John Oliver helped me show my sense of humor about it and show people that I’m not some militant.

 

 

http://vegasseven.com/2015/10/27/seven-questions-ed-obannon/