When the NCAA puts forth crazy stuff to defend its enterprise, I may not like what they say, but I understand their strategy: Defend their business enterprise at all costs--or perish...even if what they say makes virtually no sense. I am clearly not the NCAA's constituency. Sadly, neither are "student-athletes," who have no legal standing in the NCAA, no direct role in its governance structure and no real voice. The NCAA's stated mission is student-athletes, so at least they have that going for them.
I do get bothered when someone I respect parrots NCAA talking points. Here, I am talking about CNNSI's Seth Davis who wrote a rebuttal to Taylor Branch's acclaimed "The Shame of College Sports." In it, Seth expresses his disagreements using virtually the same shopworn arguments used by the NCAA to make his case.
Say it ain't so, Seth!
I consider Seth a friend. He gave me a tremendous endorsement for my book, Money Players, We've also fought together against the National Letter of Intent by encouraging future collegiate athletes and their families to consider the benefits of not signing. Also, Seth's next book is on the late John Wooden, which I look forward to reading.
Still, Seth's rebuttal of Branch's piece is wrong on many levels, so let's go...
The true value of a college education
Seth writes, "Student-athletes earn free tuition, which over the course of four years can exceed $200,000. They are also provided with housing, textbooks, food and academic tutoring."
The real question should not be what a college education costs, but what is it worth to an individual student? To someone who maximizes their college experience, this exchange might be more than fair. On the other hand, it lacks intellectual honesty to argue that revenue-producing college athletes will, one day, have fond memories of the NCAA's educational and economic paternalism imposed on them.
Yes, athletes who are provided "full" athletic scholarships have a great advantage over students burdened by the enormous costs of college (The NCAA preferred term is "grant-in-aid," yet another contrivance used to avoid the appearance of quid pro quo). While this arrangement sounds great to Seth and many others, like a lot of things in life, "free" often comes with a hidden price tag.
Sorry, but just because a person assigns a high value to a full ride athletic scholarship does not make it so.
A degree or a meaningful education?
Seth suggests, "We spend way too much energy worrying about how the system affects a very small number of elite athletes, young men who are going to be multimillionaires as soon as they leave campus."
To suggest that impending wealth is reason to stop worrying about "small number of elite athletes" is completely off base. The huge number of college athletes participating under the NCAA umbrella provides ample opportunity to lie with statistics.
Let me quote...me, from a 2010 US News Op-ed:
The NCAA's incessant references to 410,000 athletes obscure the problem. Few think we need to reform lacrosse, field hockey, or other sports in which there is no economic incentive to have "student athletes" who are not really students. Just 13,000 (3 percent) of the 410,000 athletes support the NCAA and its member conferences and colleges through billions of dollars in TV revenue through major football and basketball programs. Even among that 3 percent, it's the much smaller number with NBA or NFL potential who galvanize the fans.
Also, many college athletes who are fortunate to go on to earn millions playing professional sports, don't become millionaires. Seth, re-read Money Players. This is well documented.
Seth continues his hyperbole, "As the father of three children under the age of eight, I can only pray that someone 'exploits' my sons someday by giving them tuition, room and board at one of America's finest universities."
As a father of an almost two year old, here's my view: No effen way. No one will exploit or "exploit" my daughter. If she plays sports in college, it will be because she wants to, not because she has to in order to fund her college education. In the meantime, I will unapologetically advocate for more fair treatment of all college athletes.
Is college athletics a lousy business?
Seth writes, "Myles Brand, the late NCAA president, frequently railed against [reckless expenditures]. They don't, however, begin to account for just how expensive it is to operate an athletic program. Branch derides college athletics as 'Very Big Business,' but the truth is, it's actually a 'Very Lousy Business.'"
Seriously? College sports is a lousy business? Back to reality: College athletics is a fantastic business for anyone fortunate enough to work in this enterprise, including coaches, administrators and also media.
As comedian Stephen Colbert once joked, “The NCAA basketball tournament has everything I like: corporate sponsorship, unpaid labor and blind partisan allegiance.” That's a funny punchline, but also spot-on accurate.
Can anyone think of a better business model? A legal (at least for now) cartel that conspires to define labor as students, caps the value of allowable aid, keeps athletes out as members (ensuring little pressure from within to change) and combines it with a devoted and vast fan base coveted by corporate sponsors. Absolutely brilliant, assuming you don't care about the rights of those who operate under these rules.
The NCAA is getting paid $10.8 billion from CBS and Turner Broadcasting in exchange for the broadcast rights to the next 14 NCAA men’s basketball tournaments. The Pac-12 signed a 12-year deal with ESPN and Fox for $2.7 billion ($225 million per year). There are at least 25 college football coaches earning at least $2 million dollars per year. Anyone who wants to argue that college sports is a lousy business is either an accountant named Max Bialystock (from "Springtime for Hitler" fame) or works in some aspect related to NCAA sports.
Seth works for CBS Sports. As Upton Sinclair wrote, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding."
If you don't like being an amateur, leave
Seth writes, "Left unsaid is the fact that the players do have access to the fair market. If they want to be compensated for their abilities, they can simply turn professional."
Perhaps Branch left it unsaid because the notion that college athletes have access to professional sports is completely dishonest. There is no competing market for football players until three years after they graduate from high school. Basketball players currently have a one-year restriction post-high school. They do have the options of Europe and the D League, but college is a better place to hone one's basketball skills, assuming eligibility can be maintained.
After Maurice Clarett sued the NFL in order to enter the league after only two years at Ohio State, the NCAA filed an amicus brief in support of the NFL position.
According to Wally Renfro, who still slings it at the NCAA: "The reason for filing the amicus brief had to do with...being supportive of education. The concern is not for those who go to professional sports, including the NFL, and are successful. Those folks are going to do just fine. The concern is for those who believe they can (and) probably have no real chances of being successful (as a professional) but abandon education in the process and wind up with neither a career nor education."
Nate Jones debunks this crazy theory in a Money Players post in response to a Len Elmore Op-ed.
The fact is the NCAA has actively lobbied and supported barriers to entering these professional workforces, while maintaining an opposite public stance.
--Marc Isenberg
On Twitter