The NCAA is a gatekeeper, in essence, to entry to the pro leagues. Individuals who require further development out of high school-- as most would have no other leagues to which they can turn, in terms of coaching, facilities, and competition level -- cannot compete.Working on a book proposal a decade ago, I was struck by the essential difference between American football and basketball on the one hand, and just about every sport in the world on the other: football and basketball developed primarily as college games. When the NFL and NBA opened decades later, they simply hired the best college players available, but it still took the pro leagues decades to challenge the popularity of college football and basketball.
...
Why does this matter? Because by starting after college football and basketball were already established, the NFL and NBA were freed from having to develop viable minor leagues of their own, making them virtually the only sports in the world that don't have them. Roughly a century ago, Major League Baseball and the NHL could not rely on the nascent college programs to fill their rosters, so they had to create their own minor leagues.
And that's why today, almost every high school football and basketball star has just one path to the big leagues: the NCAA. This makes no sense. Athletes and universities can benefit each other, but they shouldn't need to. Pele never had to worry about passing 12 credits before playing in his first World Cup, and the University of Chicago figured out it didn't need a football team to be a world-class university. As former University of Chicago president Robert Maynard Hutchins liked to say, “Football is to education as bullfighting is to agriculture.†He backed it up in 1939, when he pulled the Maroons out of the Big Ten. Today, Chicago's admissions department is the fourth most selective in the country, behind only those of Harvard, Yale and Princeton.
When a committed student-athlete enrolls in a four-year college, everyone involved receives at least some benefit. The athlete gets a free education, an enduring asset no matter what he does on the field, and the college enjoys reflected glory from his performance. But when we require a gifted athlete with little or no interest in higher education to enroll in a four-year college to get to the NFL or NBA, he is more likely to fail in the classroom, which may actually prevent him from pursuing a promising athletic career – something that happens only in America – and the school's academic reputation will take a very public hit. Nobody wins.
Consider the skyrocketing salaries of Division I football coaches, which now average more than $2 million a year, an increase of 750 percent (adjusted for inflation) since 1984, about twenty times more than professors' salaries increased over the same period.
I really hate being the only one who's railing against a popular media opinion here, but the popular media opinion only sees the tip of the iceberg.
#1 - 412 out of 170,000 Division I college athletes can be drafted by the NFL, NBA or D-League. Show me another institution that needs total reform because of a flaw that affects only 0.2% of those involved**
#2 - The entire premise is drastically flawed: "But when we require a gifted athlete with little or no interest in higher education to enroll in a four-year college to get to the NFL or NBA…"
"We" do not. Still no response on the subject of Brandon Jennings. Jennings (like everyone else on the planet) was not required to go to college before going to the NBA. He said screw the NCAA, I'm getting paid out of high school. A route that is available to those "gifted athletes" out of high school in basketball, as it is in baseball, hockey, soccer, and other less popular sports.
Again, I'm not claiming the NCAA is gloriously just and not in need of changes. I'm merely arguing against misinformed, ignorant statements based on limited statistical samples.
**Here's an example. Let's say that the NHL had two draft picks (KevFu and Fugu) taken #1 and #2 in the draft. Both were so good they made Gretzky look like an AHL player. Each racked up 400 points as rookies and made their franchises millions of dollars… but only earned a maximum of $2,850,000 total after bonuses because they were on Entry Level Contracts.
That's not "fair market value" to Fugu and Kev. As free agents, we'd get the max -- which also wouldn't be "fair market value" because other guys on the max are hitting 135 points, and Kev and Fugu are tripling that.
Would there be a media outrage that Fugu and Kev are getting max ELC money and not their full worth?
0.2% of NHL 23-man rosters is 1.38 players. So, the issue facing Kev and Fugu is affecting the NHL more than the issue of future NBA/NFL players (lots of which get drafted and don't actually MAKE the pro league) stuck in the "unfair" NCAA.
But I guarantee you, everyone in the media would simply tell Kev and Fugu to shut up, pay your dues, and in 2-3 years, you'll get what's coming to you.
I think alot of people just hate seeing the kids there for sports development sit there making a mockery of the kids that earned their way to school, and having good schools have to bring themselves down to certain levels in the name of football/basketball.
And just because a certain percentage can be drafted, does not mean a bigger percentage is not in D1 to try to make a football career as first priority.
The one sport where you don't include the option of another route is football I see.
I myself have experienced entire insitutions get ruined too because of a few bad examples, so if kids had to skip football for 1 year of free education to prove they fit academically, I wouldn't even feel bad for them.
I really hate being the only one who's railing against a popular media opinion here, but the popular media opinion only sees the tip of the iceberg.
#1 - 412 out of 170,000 Division I college athletes can be drafted by the NFL, NBA or D-League. Show me another institution that needs total reform because of a flaw that affects only 0.2% of those involved**
#2 - The entire premise is drastically flawed: "But when we require a gifted athlete with little or no interest in higher education to enroll in a four-year college to get to the NFL or NBA…"
"We" do not. Still no response on the subject of Brandon Jennings. Jennings (like everyone else on the planet) was not required to go to college before going to the NBA. He said screw the NCAA, I'm getting paid out of high school. A route that is available to those "gifted athletes" out of high school in basketball, as it is in baseball, hockey, soccer, and other less popular sports.
Again, I'm not claiming the NCAA is gloriously just and not in need of changes. I'm merely arguing against misinformed, ignorant statements based on limited statistical samples.
**Here's an example. Let's say that the NHL had two draft picks (KevFu and Fugu) taken #1 and #2 in the draft. Both were so good they made Gretzky look like an AHL player. Each racked up 400 points as rookies and made their franchises millions of dollars… but only earned a maximum of $2,850,000 total after bonuses because they were on Entry Level Contracts.
That's not "fair market value" to Fugu and Kev. As free agents, we'd get the max -- which also wouldn't be "fair market value" because other guys on the max are hitting 135 points, and Kev and Fugu are tripling that.
Would there be a media outrage that Fugu and Kev are getting max ELC money and not their full worth?
0.2% of NHL 23-man rosters is 1.38 players. So, the issue facing Kev and Fugu is affecting the NHL more than the issue of future NBA/NFL players (lots of which get drafted and don't actually MAKE the pro league) stuck in the "unfair" NCAA.
But I guarantee you, everyone in the media would simply tell Kev and Fugu to shut up, pay your dues, and in 2-3 years, you'll get what's coming to you.
I know this is related to the O'Bannon case against the NCAA, but the topic probably deserves its own thread.
-------------
I think this frames the root problem quite well:
The NCAA is a gatekeeper, in essence, to entry to the pro leagues. Individuals who require further development out of high school-- as most would have no other leagues to which they can turn, in terms of coaching, facilities, and competition level -- cannot compete.
The NCAA is in a very powerful position, benefiting from the work of these kids, but they on the other hand have no other viable/realistic options.
The Andrew Lucks of the world that are able to use their scholarship to major in Engineering while simultaneously being able to play NCAA football and basketball are few and far between.
Fugu, a question on logistics... Aside from payment for direct marketing of an individual how would one really decide how much a player might get? What is the monetary value of the back-side defensive end to a Division 1 Football team?
The NFL seems to recognize how much impact that player can have if left unchecked and as such rewards the left tackle accordingly. Yet I wonder how many people care one bit about who is playing LT for their college team just so long as the star QB does not end up on the sideline with a nasty injury. As a result, how much of the pot should he get relative to the star point guard on the women's bball team. I honestly have no idea how to answer such a question.
BTW I just looked at the projected budget for the U of M's athletic department for 2012/2013.
http://annarborchronicle.com/wp-con...FY2013-Budget-Presentation-6-21-final-v.2.pdf
There are some interesting numbers here. I was struck by the fact that the operating profit is only about $5M and that combined financial aid to students is about $18M on about $130M in revenue. So on the surface there is not a lot of extra money to distribute, especially given some of the rules that are in place via Title IX, which I must confess I do not really understand.
It would seem to me that the part of the answer has to lie in relaxed rules regarding self promotion. If student athletes could market themselves independently of the University, would this work? Unfortunately, I don't think this helps out that LT I mentioned above but it might be a great thing for the star QB or RB.
I found that very hard to believe, so I did some digging. This is what he majored in: http://cee.stanford.edu/programs/archdesign/index.html
Relevant quote: This engineering major is not an ABET accredited engineering degree, nor is it designed to lead directly to professional licensure in architecture. In order to become a professional architect or engineer, additional graduate training is required.
Which means it's about as useful as an associate degree from a community college. And in fact if you look at the course sequence for the program you'll see that the freshman year is only three intro calculus courses, and the rest is CAD courses, a basic "engineering economics" course, and a bunch of fluff electives like "art history". So... the course sequence itself is a lot like you'd find at a community college too.
I found that very hard to believe, so I did some digging. This is what he majored in: http://cee.stanford.edu/programs/archdesign/index.html
Relevant quote: This engineering major is not an ABET accredited engineering degree, nor is it designed to lead directly to professional licensure in architecture. In order to become a professional architect or engineer, additional graduate training is required.
Which means it's about as useful as an associate degree from a community college. And in fact if you look at the course sequence for the program you'll see that the freshman year is only three intro calculus courses, and the rest is CAD courses, a basic "engineering economics" course, and a bunch of fluff electives like "art history". So... the course sequence itself is a lot like you'd find at a community college too.
See, I don't see that as the correct question. Like the rest of the real word, the price would be determined by the market. As these "schools' in the entertainment business would discover, in order to compete, they will have to make offers to players based on supply/demand and what they're trying to achieve. They already scout high school players. Instead of choosing a school based on personal preference and how much they may think of the coach, the athlete would pick a team based on the money they'd get, plus other factors important to them like location and the development program's strength.
If we removed this nonsense from the colleges that they had to offer athletic programs to everyone (e.g., the U of Chicago model), we wouldn't have to worry about it. If schools wanted to be honest, they'd drop the pretense of the not-for-profit status and get back to running academic programs in the university setting. As a side hobby, they could set up a legitimate sports entertainment business that has nothing to do with the university programs. Drop the BS basically.
I found that very hard to believe, so I did some digging. This is what he majored in: http://cee.stanford.edu/programs/archdesign/index.html
Relevant quote: This engineering major is not an ABET accredited engineering degree, nor is it designed to lead directly to professional licensure in architecture. In order to become a professional architect or engineer, additional graduate training is required.
Which means it's about as useful as an associate degree from a community college. And in fact if you look at the course sequence for the program you'll see that the freshman year is only three intro calculus courses, and the rest is CAD courses, a basic "engineering economics" course, and a bunch of fluff electives like "art history". So... the course sequence itself is a lot like you'd find at a community college too.
Another thing to keep in mind: Larger universities(the powerhouses) use a good portion of the income from their big name sports to help fund the smaller sports(swimming, track, golf, etc) and that in turn allows more kids a pathway to get a college education. It's not like all of the schools are hoarding the money from the football/basketball teams and sitting on it.
Thing is, none of these sports are "equity" sports. The athletic department, with much grousing from the football coach, chooses how many actual scholarships are awarded. These are not full-ride scholarships (the definition of an "equity sport" is that such sport must award full-ride scholarships), so there's an element of "pay-to-play" here... from the athletes to the university. If you add everything up, I question how much football truly contributes. There MIGHT be the issue of what the athletic department contributes vs the students paying tuition to the university's general fund... and it's hard to find two schools that account for revenues and expenses the same way, BTW.
In any event, I'm coming to the mindset that you have to kill the beast to save it.
I don't see this as workable at all especially in football. All of the money would go to a very small number of kids. With the exception of a few QB's and perhaps some running backs my guess is that no school would be willing to really make much of an offer beyond what they already do to many football players.
Ultimately there is not enough excess money to justify a radical reworking of this system I don't think. Despite the fact that the big sports bring in big dollars they are also very expensive to run.
I'll be honest, I don't see the advantage to anyone other than a few extremely elite athletes in what you are proposing, and I still think that by allowing them the right to market themselves outside of the university that even they might be better off.
If I had to guess I'd say that for many schools the biggest plus of high profile athletics teams is just brand recognition. I doubt that there is much tangible net monetary gain that comes directly from the revenues these sports generate since the costs are also huge.
There are "fluff" electives like art history precisely because this is the type of student this program is aimed at. Someone who may in the past have gone into a traditional Fine Arts program can now use their creative skills to find a niche that might lead to employment in a specific industry. But to do so they also have to take a bunch of courses that most fine arts students would not be able to pass. (Please find me a community college program that would require this level of mathematics.) So if you look at it that way is this really a watered down degree. The reality is that with the evidence you have presented I doubt either of us could tell.