Nader: deprofessionalize college athletics, get rid of scholarships

[AllByDesign]

Shorton, I understand the points you are making, and I can't really take exception to them, but it seems as if you don't have a fundamental understanding of schollarships and why they are awarded to athletes. Maybe you do, and you are just choosing to ignore the value of athletic programs to the schools themselves. Look at this from another angle.

Schools generate revenue via their athletic programs, much the same as professional sports franchises. A succesful sports program also becomes a point of merit when soliciting donations from wealthy allumnists. These additional revenues in the coffers add to the bottom line. Remove this revenue from the schools and what happens to the tuition of the remaining students?

 

[WheatiesHockey]

I think Mr Nader is missing the problem, as much as I respect him.
Tuitions are very high, even for middle class families with decent incomes. For families of more modest means it is either don't go to University or take on a crushing unforgiveable debt load for most of their working lives. Getting rid of athletic scholarships would not address issues like affordability or equality of access to an education.
The fact of the matter is that few parents would tell their children to turn down an athletic scholarship when there are not many other viable alternatives. Part of being a parent is being practical.
If tuition was free to all or at least affordable to the many an athletic scholarship wouldn't mean much.

 

[sh724]

Shorton, I understand the points you are making, and I can't really take exception to them, but it seems as if you don't have a fundamental understanding of schollarships and why they are awarded to athletes. Maybe you do, and you are just choosing to ignore the value of athletic programs to the schools themselves. Look at this from another angle.

Schools generate revenue via their athletic programs, much the same as professional sports franchises. A succesful sports program also becomes a point of merit when soliciting donations from wealthy allumnists. These additional revenues in the coffers add to the bottom line. Remove this revenue from the schools and what happens to the tuition of the remaining students?

Less than 10% of schools have a profitable athletic program, yes they do generate a lot of revenue but they also use all that revenue. If you look at the schools that are profitable and break it down most have excess money coming in from other funds and do not take account for all expenses that are caused by athletics once you account for those only a handful of programs are profitable on their own.

People who want to play sports are still going to play sports even without a scholarship, D1 NCAA is really the only collegiate athletic programs that rewards athletes with scholarships, yet millions of people play sports that do not receive scholarships and the majority or D1 athletes do not receive scholarships but still play because they enjoy playing. Athletes are still going to play and schools are still going to have athletic programs. The NFL is the only league that players cannot go pro in right after high school and the majority of athletic scholarships are for football players so all the best players are still going to play if they want a chance at the NFL. The top baseball players drop out of high school and get a GED so they can go pro asap. Hockey players have the CHL for the majority of top players. Basketball is pretty much the only sport that would experience any change if scholarships were not offered, and theres maybe 10 basketball players a year that are good enough for the NBA right out of high school. College athletics would be pretty much the exact same thing without scholarships and alumni are still going to donate to the schools.

 

[DeathToAllButMetal]

Shorton, I understand the points you are making, and I can't really take exception to them, but it seems as if you don't have a fundamental understanding of schollarships and why they are awarded to athletes. Maybe you do, and you are just choosing to ignore the value of athletic programs to the schools themselves. Look at this from another angle.

Schools generate revenue via their athletic programs, much the same as professional sports franchises. A succesful sports program also becomes a point of merit when soliciting donations from wealthy allumnists. These additional revenues in the coffers add to the bottom line. Remove this revenue from the schools and what happens to the tuition of the remaining students?

I'd love to see actual stats about this. Because this argument seems about as mythical as the one about how pro sports teams have huge economic benefits on their cities. I would doubt very much that the US college athletic system is a big cash cow subsidizing other scholarship programs, etc.

Again, though, I'd love to read a detailed study of this to see where the money really goes. Shorton724's comments seem dead-on to me.

 

[Turkpbr*]

I'd love to see actual stats about this. Because this argument seems about as mythical as the one about how pro sports teams have huge economic benefits on their cities. I would doubt very much that the US college athletic system is a big cash cow subsidizing other scholarship programs, etc.

Again, though, I'd love to read a detailed study of this to see where the money really goes. Shorton724's comments seem dead-on to me.

I don't have the more recent years in front of me, but going off the top of my head from a project two years ago, I can tell you in 2005 the University of Wisconsin athletic department had an operating profit of $19 million dollars. Revenue of $73 million and expenditures of $54 million. 48% of the athletic department's budget came from ticket sales revenue (33%) and donors (15%). Concessions were something like $6 million and luxury suites (prior to Camp Randall expansion) were $2 million.

Before the advent of the Big Ten Channel, media rights were $4 million. Big Ten universities now get about $20-22 million each (revenue sharing) from the Big Ten Network, bowl games and other various TV contracts. For UW, most of that money is made from men's football, basketball and hockey.

As you move down divisions, scholarships become less plentiful until you reach Division III which does not offer athletic scholarships. Academic scholarships can of course help at that level. It's always cheaper to play DIII at a state school than it is for a private university. Academic scholarship's can be more lucrative at private school's however.

 

[Hal 9000*]

Really? Is this nutcase still spewing his idiotic idealistic statements?

 

[Cirris]

His proposal will never see the light of day.

College Football and Basketball are a serious business. Politicians don't mess with it or they'll quickly find themselves out of a job.

In the southeast the SEC and ACC are king. Even higher than the NFL in some areas.

In the Midwest it's all about the Big 10. People get chased out of Ohio for even criticizing "the U".

If you even think of messing with Texas and Oklahoma's Big 12 schools you'll have shotguns in your face.

Ralph Nader is barking up the wrong tree here.

 

[Sens With Benefits]

Someone got picked last in high school gym class. Sorry had to be said.

 

[Pantokrator]

Shorton, I understand the points you are making, and I can't really take exception to them, but it seems as if you don't have a fundamental understanding of schollarships and why they are awarded to athletes. Maybe you do, and you are just choosing to ignore the value of athletic programs to the schools themselves. Look at this from another angle.

Schools generate revenue via their athletic programs, much the same as professional sports franchises. A succesful sports program also becomes a point of merit when soliciting donations from wealthy allumnists. These additional revenues in the coffers add to the bottom line. Remove this revenue from the schools and what happens to the tuition of the remaining students?

There was a Sports Illustrated article a few years back discussing title IX and how there were some who thought college football should be rejected due to the fact there is no women equivalent, but they pointed out in the article the the Ohio State Football program funded all of the other sports programs at the school, many of which (especially the women's sports) operated at a loss.

I live in Alabama, and the football programs down here are HUGE money. You make a good point.

 

[Marotte Marauder]

1. College athletes make $$ for the school.

2. Top level athletes are typically not top level students, just as top level students are typically not athletes.

3. To be in the top XX% of anything is a major accomplishment, it is unreasonable to expect these young people to excel in multiple fields.

4. Many athletes are deluded into thinking they will become pros and do not take the education portion seriously.

5. The time requirements on the athlete further hinders their education.

Why not make the athletic scholarship with a lengthened time period? Let the athlete/student do their best in trying to achieve a pro career. If they succeed, terrific! If they don't, now they have a free education available to them.

They are no longer delusional, more mature and would understand the benefit of furthering their education. Seems win-win to me.

 

[Gobias Industries]

Why don't they set strict academic standards and (as they've somewhat done in the NBA) force students who dropout prior to gaining a degree to sit for a year before being drafted?...Just include it as a part of the scholarship: you need to get over 60%, your work will be reviewed more than other students, and then draft agreements with the NBA, NHL and NFL that no player is drafted without fulfilling NCAA requirements...

Wouldn't that accomplish the same thing?...

No more Derrick Rose-esque crap, and after they all get concussed or destroy their backs they'll be happy they completed a degree from a top flight school...

 

[Marotte Marauder]

Why don't they set strict academic standards and (as they've somewhat done in the NBA) force students who dropout prior to gaining a degree to sit for a year before being drafted?...Just include it as a part of the scholarship: you need to get over 60%, your work will be reviewed more than other students, and then draft agreements with the NBA, NHL and NFL that no player is drafted without fulfilling NCAA requirements...
Wouldn't that accomplish the same thing?...

No more Derrick Rose-esque crap, and after they all get concussed or destroy their backs they'll be happy they completed a degree from a top flight school...

Why would billionaire owners agree to let there source of employees be dictated by some other entity? Answer, they wouldn't.

We as fans, want the top flight athletes at the pro level. That player does not necessarily earn a "C" in Trigonometry, just like the Honors Trig student likely can't stop a 90 MPH slap shot.

My suggestion is the only way, IMO, to accomplish both agendas of getting an education while keeping the pro dream alive.

What's the downside to my suggestion?

 

[sh724]

You guys seem to think not having athletic scholarships will end college sports, which is not the case high school athletes are not developed enough to go pro right away with the exception of like 5 a year. People who want to play pro sports would still have to play somewhere to develop their skills before going pro and unless new leagues develop for kids between 19-22 the NCAA will continue to be the best place for the athletes. Every D1 school in the country has club teams and intramural programs for students who still want to play sports while in college, and none of them are getting scholarships.

Here are a few quotes from the NCAA about revenue and sports

"The median negative net generated revenue moved from $5,907,000
in 2004 to $6,231,000 in 2005 and $7,121,000 in 2006 – all representing expenses in excess of generated revenues." ....so the average program lost over $7 million in 2006

"No athletics programs reported positive net generated revenues in
2004 or 2006, while one institution reported net revenues in 2005.
The average negative net generated revenue (expenses in excess of
generated revenues) in 2006 was $7,121,000. The net losses have
increased steadily over the three year period. (4.5)" ....So in a 3 year period only one school made a profit in 1 year

"Only 4% of football programs and 8% of men’s basketball programs
reported net generated revenues (surpluses) for 2006, which is rather
consistent over recent years. (4.6) These net generated revenues are
minimal." ....that is less than 10 schools that have profitable football programs per year.

8% of revenue is from contributions

No D1 2A schools made money from 2004-2006 and on average lost over $6 million.

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/RE2008.pdf

Athletic programs are not profitable, and keep in mind those figures come directly from NCAA who has every reason to make athletics seem profitable but even they cannot make athletics look like a good business.


Gobias the problem with that is the NCAA has no power outside of college sports and the government would not interfere with private business like that. Although I see no problem with schools writing in athletic scholarships that if the student leaves school early to go pro then they have to pay back all of the benefits they recieved.

 

[Dado]

You do realize that colleges and universities are academic institutions right?

They are that, but they are not ONLY that. They are also, especially in the US, important cultural bedrock, and as such, athletics most definitely has a role to play.

I'm not going to argue that there aren't excesses in the system, but I do oppose the argument that there is no place at all for big-time athletics.

 

[tarlinian]

What people are missing is that despite the NCAA's corruption and idiotic "amateurism rules" in regards to their big football and basketball programs, the fact is that most of the sports teams in universities are composed of actual student-athletes. The kids on the volleyball fencing or crew teams know that they probably aren't going to make a career out of the sport, but do it for fun anyway. Those programs are funded by successful DI football and basketball programs. Basically the successful, popular scholarship sports fund the less popular ones. Usually they can't cover the cost of the entire athletic department, but are able to keep it from being a drain on the university's budget. Killing scholarships would likely *increase* the cost of running what is currently a successful D1 program.

 

[Retail1LO*]

Shorton, I understand the points you are making, and I can't really take exception to them, but it seems as if you don't have a fundamental understanding of schollarships and why they are awarded to athletes. Maybe you do, and you are just choosing to ignore the value of athletic programs to the schools themselves. Look at this from another angle.

Schools generate revenue via their athletic programs, much the same as professional sports franchises. A succesful sports program also becomes a point of merit when soliciting donations from wealthy allumnists. These additional revenues in the coffers add to the bottom line. Remove this revenue from the schools and what happens to the tuition of the remaining students?

Who knows. But I don't think it's helping much NOW. I went to a state school here in PA because it's all I could afford. My mom made good money, so I didn't qualify for any grants or loans. At the time, a full year with room and board was 7K. It's 18K now. I don't even know how kids afford school regardless, today. Everyone wants kids to be educated, but the cost is beyond prohibitive. College has turned less into educating tomorrow's leaders, and more into a business.

 

[tarheelhockey]

For those concerned about racism, you're missing a crucial point about the way universities operate.

Even though hard-line racial quotas are now deemed unconstitutional, every mainstream institution puts a premium on maintaining a degree of racial balance (aka diversity) in their student population. Typically that means aggressive recruitment and acceptance of minority applicants in order to keep the diversity numbers up.

Now, consider the number of NCAA athletes who are black. For example, 46% of D-I football players and 60% of the players in the March Madness basketball tournament. Overall, the percentage of black student athletes (23.4%) is more than double the number in the general population (10%).

Some people look at that and say "sports are a gateway to college". That would be great if it were effective. But only 59% of black athletes graduate, barely half the white athlete graduation rate (91%), which tells us a hell of a lot about why these players are actually being brought into the school in the first place.

What's more, it's the biggest-and-most-profitable institutions that are most obviously exploiting black players. Sticking to basketball, perennial powerhouse Arizona has a miserable 14% grad rate for black basketball players. Kentucky and UConn, among the most decorated programs in the country, tied at 31%. Clearly, the university's mission to educate is the farthest thing from their minds when they pay/recruit these players to come play ball.

Bringing this back around to the first point: it seems like a victimless crime until you consider the emphasis on maintaining racial diversity. A black player recruited with full knowledge that he will drop out after 2 years literally takes the place of a motivated black student who intends to pursue a 4-year degree. On an institutional basis, the university is simply pursuing a number. Recruiting 65 black football players and 10 black basketball players accomplishes the goal just as effectively as recruiting 75 scholarship-worthy black students. But which one is healthier for everyone involved?

This is the sort of institutional corruption Nader is getting after. It's not about sports, it's about publicly-funded institutions overtly exploiting young people. If you are seriously concerned about racism in this country, this is a no-brainer.

 

[Dado]

College has turned less into educating tomorrow's leaders, and more into a business.

Perhaps inadvertently, you've hit on a key point here, since most people, by definition, cannot be leaders. Put another way, if colleges are going to stick with the role of creating the next generation of leaders, then there need to be a lot fewer colleges, and a lot fewer college students.

So colleges may be filling a useful role, but for the vast majority of them, it is a different role than what they traditionally played.

 

[Aaronxxx]

The original article posted is incomplete and missing a crucial detail. Here is a much better writeup. http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9M6D2T00.htm

"Nader said that colleges should either integrate athletics into the educational mission by eliminating college scholarships, or, "openly acknowledge the professionalism in big-time college sports, remove the tax-exempt status currently given to athletic departments, and make universities operate them as unrelated businesses."

 

[billycanuck]

USA Today articles

Couple of articles in USA Today about the NCAA's $$ and what the new president feels should be done with it.

USA TODAY analysis finds $120K value in men's basketball scholarship

That $120,000 represents far more than the $27,923 median grant-in-aid, or athletic scholarship, received by men's basketball players at the 120 schools in the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS)

NCAA president: Time to discuss players getting sliver of revenue pie

Because of that, money actually is tight in most athletics programs. In fiscal 2009, only 14 of the 120 FBS schools were operating their overall programs in the black.
Giving 85 scholarship football players an extra $3,000 would cost $255,000 annually. Spreading it across all athletes in all sports — Stanford counts 475 scholarship athletes, Ohio State has 448 in 30-plus sports — could take $1 million or more a year and lead some cash-strapped schools to pare teams.

 

[billycanuck]

HBO's Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel

Anyone with HBO may want to tune in tonight as it is reported in USA Today that:

Four former Auburn players admit to receiving money during careers

During the program, McClover also spoke about receiving money while at LSU, Michigan State and Ohio State, and sexual favors during his visit to Columbus.

 

[BadHammy*]

It'd have a disparate impact, for sure. But I theoretically agree, of course. College sports should NOT be a massive business endeavor.

 

[kdb209]

This was recently the subject of a PBS Frontline show - it premiered on Sat and should still be in rebroadcast - and a segment on KQED's Forum (SF NPR station's local public affairs / news call in show).

Should NCAA Players Be Paid?

Fri, Apr 1, 2011 -- 10:00 AM
Download audio (MP3)

Should NCAA student athletes be paid to play? The annual March Madness college basketball spectacle generates hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues that go to the NCAA, coaching salaries and TV networks. But NCAA rules require that college athletes participate only as unpaid amateurs.

We talk with a PBS "Frontline" correspondent and a former Nike executive who supports a class action lawsuit against the NCAA policy.

Host: Dave Iverson

Guests:

* Alex Pribble, Tamalpais High varsity boy's basketball coach and former four-year basketball player and graduate assistant coach at UC Berkeley

* Andrew Zimbalist, economics professor and sports economist at Smith College and author of "Circling the Bases: Essays on the Challenges and Prospects of the Sports Industry"

* Lowell Bergman, professor of investigative reporting at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism and producer and correspondent for the PBS documentary series "Frontline"

* Sonny Vaccaro, former executive at Nike, Reebok and Adidas

More info:

* Watch the "Frontline" special, "Money & March Madness" : on KQED Public Television

 

[JacketsFanWest]

Why don't they set strict academic standards and (as they've somewhat done in the NBA) force students who dropout prior to gaining a degree to sit for a year before being drafted?...Just include it as a part of the scholarship: you need to get over 60%, your work will be reviewed more than other students, and then draft agreements with the NBA, NHL and NFL that no player is drafted without fulfilling NCAA requirements...

I used to be for this, because I was angry about the free passes that "student" athletes had (I attended Ohio State right before the Maurice Clarett scandal).

I took classes with several OSU hockey players, who did end up playing minor league hockey. One guy was failing a low level history class and was so utterly clueless about basic geography and history that I thought it was absurd he was admitted into college to begin with and his writing was barely at a junior high level, much less college (He was Canadian by the way). Yet, he somehow passed the class.

While I was enraged at the time, but after talking to some of OSU players, I came to realize that their work on and off the ice to become professional hockey players had taken up some much of their time, starting with when they were 11 or 12, that they had fallen so far behind in school that they had completely given up. These were guys who's parents were driving them 2 and a half hours into Ontario four time a week when they were in junior high. They were playing 80 games a year in junior b.

Yes, they were partying far, far too much in college rather than studying, but they had no motivation to do anything other than play minor league hockey somewhere and maybe some chance that they might make it to the NHL.

With hockey players, for some, it's best for them to finish their hockey careers, and then go back to school, focus and decide what they want to do with the rest of their lives. They may want to go into sports management or coaching. They may decide they want to do something completely different.

They aren't going to make those decisions when in college trying desperately to become pro hockey players while they ruin their grades so they have no chance of possibly getting into grad school or getting a good job with a decent GPA.

Guys who make the bare minimum playing in the ECHL or other low level leagues aren't going to be able to afford to pay to go back to college. The same is true of football, basketball or baseball players who don't end up stars.

After the amount of money that universities have made off of student athletes, they deserve to set up a program that helps them with their post-professional athlete lives where they can return, get their degree and focus their next career.

 

[sh724]

I used to be for this, because I was angry about the free passes that "student" athletes had (I attended Ohio State right before the Maurice Clarett scandal).

I took classes with several OSU hockey players, who did end up playing minor league hockey. One guy was failing a low level history class and was so utterly clueless about basic geography and history that I thought it was absurd he was admitted into college to begin with and his writing was barely at a junior high level, much less college (He was Canadian by the way). Yet, he somehow passed the class.

While I was enraged at the time, but after talking to some of OSU players, I came to realize that their work on and off the ice to become professional hockey players had taken up some much of their time, starting with when they were 11 or 12, that they had fallen so far behind in school that they had completely given up. These were guys who's parents were driving them 2 and a half hours into Ontario four time a week when they were in junior high. They were playing 80 games a year in junior b.

Yes, they were partying far, far too much in college rather than studying, but they had no motivation to do anything other than play minor league hockey somewhere and maybe some chance that they might make it to the NHL.

With hockey players, for some, it's best for them to finish their hockey careers, and then go back to school, focus and decide what they want to do with the rest of their lives. They may want to go into sports management or coaching. They may decide they want to do something completely different.

They aren't going to make those decisions when in college trying desperately to become pro hockey players while they ruin their grades so they have no chance of possibly getting into grad school or getting a good job with a decent GPA.

Guys who make the bare minimum playing in the ECHL or other low level leagues aren't going to be able to afford to pay to go back to college. The same is true of football, basketball or baseball players who don't end up stars.

After the amount of money that universities have made off of student athletes, they deserve to set up a program that helps them with their post-professional athlete lives where they can return, get their degree and focus their next career.

Ok so since they were 11 or 12 they wanted to do nothing by try to become a pro athlete well why should they get special treatment over some one who since the age of 11 or 12 wants to become CEO of a major company. Why are the dreams of someone wanting to be an athlete any more special and important than any other kids goals?

If they were only in college to try and become a professional athlete they should not be in college College is for students to get a more advanced education than what they get in high school. If they were only motivated to play hockey they should have went to the CHL and not to NCAA.

You say ECHL players do not make enough money to go to college, well guess what over 90% of college students go straight from high school to college and last time i checked 18 year old high school students are not making $50k a year to pay for college

So you want colleges to give athletes a free education that saves them tens of thousands of dollars and since the athletes do not try to graduate you think the schools should then pay for the athletes to go back to school once the athletes realize they are not good enough to be a pro. I sure hope i misunderstood your last paragraph because that is ludicrous. The athletes have to be accountable for their own actions if they dont want to take college seriously then they should never be in college to begin with.

Your seriously arguing athletes should get more benefits because they are not accountable for their own actions? If athletes cannot play a sport and do well in school then they should drop sports because college is for learning. If the athlete has no desire to focus on school then they should not be in college because college is for learning. If the extremely privileged athletes have it so hard they should try leaving school with $50k in student loans they have to try and pay back and not have the opportunity to get a job from some one they only met because of their exposure as an athlete.



Its sad that people see the best advanced education system in the world as a place that athletes go to train and not as the best place to get an education. No wonder the intelligence of US students is quickly dropping compared to other countries people need to really get their priorities in order if they cant figure out the purpose of college. Sports should be a fringe benefit of going to college and not the main goal unfortunately this is one area that capitalism has ruined.