There is a new story almost everyday published somewhere about an NCAA football playing school being sanctioned or facing some other problem.
Almost exclusively of late, these problems relate to the archaic amateurism rules the NCAA insists on enforcing despite the multi-million dollar industry that is college football.
At the crux of it all is this: (skip to ******* if you already understand the situation)
The NCAA says that it's purpose is to foster the academic success of it's "student-athletes." They say that to do this, the players must be students first, and athletes second.
To allow players to receive benefits because of their status (free tatoos, discount cars or outright pay for play), according to the NCAA would be a detriment to them in some way.
Football programs make money on ticket sales, stadium adverting, tv and radio deals, national exposure and more based off the performances of the players on the field. The NCAA says that 85 players per football team can be awarded scholarships for their trouble. Walk-ons get nothing but the experience of playing/practicing college football.
The players likenesses can be used indefinitely at no cost and the player cannot make any money on their own image while in college. In exchange, they may get a quality and often expensive education.
There are others who argue that the players are being exploited. They say the that schools, conference admins, bowl people and others (Nike, Gatorade etc.) are making tons of money while at best a player gets a free education.
At worst, coaches like Nick Saban and Mack Brown make more than $5 million a year while a player has to struggle to balance the demands of school and playing essentially minor league football. If the player isn't well off and traveled a long way for school, sure he gets housing and a meal plan, maybe a few travel dollars, but not money for clothes or personal travel.
Some say players should be paid, some say the NCAA should relax rules about player benefits etc.
***********
The Reality:
NCAA football is minor league football. Call it an extra-curricular activity all you want but the NFL doesn't hold a draft for the top players in the CFL or Arena league, they grab from the NCAA.
Most players playing at the FBS level will never play in the NFL. In 2009, 67 percent of Division I football players got degree.
In 2008 the graduation rates for the BCS conferences broke down in essentially reverse order of athletic success.
1. ACC........72.3
2. Big East...67.4
3. Big Ten....66
4. Big 12.....63.2
5. Pac-10.....61.3
6. SEC........60.5
------------
The Fix:
All NCAA universities with football programs get a choice. Adapt a more stringent, version of the NCAA to govern your college football, or become a club team.
This eliminates, if nothing else, the hypocrisy.
-----------
The Club Team
In this example, Stegeman University has the opportunity to cut loose it's football program. The school and football program would remain affiliated in name and branding and whatever financial deal the two sides agree too.
For example, the school, in exchange for the use of it's facilities and existing infrastructure, could lease the stadium, practice facilities etc. They could keep parking revenue. However they want to do it.
Under the club system, totally divorced from the NCAA, the teams would essentially be professional minor league football teams. All the schools that opt-in to this club model would agree on rules just as the NFL has done. With the NCAA out of the picture, the choice of how to compensate players falls to the teams.
They can offer scholarships, straight pay or a combination —within the limits the teams jointly agree upon.
I would suggest a system that offers a relatively low salary and a long term salary cap on the straight-pay side. Even with the lack of rules and new flow of booster money, the cost of straight pay would be high, prompting most teams to likely continue to offer scholarships as the primary way of player compensation.
Under this model, the player's are not student-athletes any more than a student working at Kroger is a student-cashier. They are, if they choose to be, students who play football.
In this world, if a booster gives a kid a $100 handshake or a kid gets a free tattoo for his play, it's not a problem. In fact, it's totally irrelevant.
Yes, this does mean there will be people playing for Stegeman University's football team that do not go to school there. It also means that kids that really don't want to go to college, and who really aren't cut out for it, don't have to lie about their SATs and fudge numbers on GPA to go to a school they're not smart enough to go to anyway. They can still play football there, but honestly, and be compensated for it with pay instead of education.
In recruiting, a kid can still choose where he wants to go based on what is offered.
Why is this plan great?
I'll tell you.
First, college sports makes it's money off fans who love to watch it and buy stuff. They will still do that under this plan. Fans will not care if the left tackle isn't actually a student. He's still wearing Stegeman U colors and battling for the team.
The teams names, stadiums, jerseys etc. remain the same. The traditions remain the same. The product on the field will not be adversely affected in any way.
What are the drawbacks?
It's untested. The current system is a mess of lies and crap but it functions in some way. Under the current system fans are happy, coaches and ADs are rich and there aren't all that many players bitching too loudly.
-----------
The other way
Remaining in something like the NCAA
The first plan will only be viable to your major programs. Ohio State's, Oklahoma's, Texas. Schools like that and others with the donor base willing to take the risk.
For the rest, it's time to end the bullshit.
Set a scholarship limit that doesn't change based on exceptions. The schools have to choose wisely. Make it a four year deal. If a player is cut, let him transfer immediately and play.
Make it so use of a player's image to make money is only allowed during their college years, after that only with compensation.
Make it so at Crisler University, a player who comes for a year and gets a career ended injury WHILE PLAYING FOR THE SCHOOL IN A GAME THE SCHOOL MADE MONEY OFF OF will be compensated with either his remaining four years, or the equivalent financially.
There are a million things to change in the NCAA but in this level, the non-club teams, you enforce with an iron fist. Too many infractions=death penalty (season suspended, program cut for X amount of time) on a regular basis.
Be real about it.
But if a school doesn't want to deal with that, let them become a club team and do it another way.
----------------
Ray Dennison died of a head injury playing college football back in the 1950s and his widow wanted worker's comp.
This is from "The Atlantic"
"Did his football scholarship make the fatal collision a “work-related” accident? Was he a school employee, like his peers who worked part-time as teaching assistants and bookstore cashiers? Or was he a fluke victim of extracurricular pursuits? Given the hundreds of incapacitating injuries to college athletes each year, the answers to these questions had enormous consequences. The Colorado Supreme Court ultimately agreed with the school’s contention that he was not eligible for benefits, since the college was “not in the football business.”
Think about that now. Is Ohio State "not in the football business?"
Of course they are. Let's stop pretending.
No comments:
Post a Comment