The Atlantic: The Shame of College Sports

[Corcaigh]

So your argument is against all extracurricular activities? Because I don't think it is even about a "more competitive" version of those teams. But really about having those teams, and many others, at all.

No, of course I'm not against all extracurricular activities. That's part of the college experience. Why do college athletes deserve scholarships worth tens of $k? And I'm not persuaded why activities that generate no revenue should incur highly paid professional coaches and the cost of flying to play schools 500 miles away when there are a dozen opponents within a few hours drive.

[PleaseBlitz]

It seems the argument is...do away with college sports. And if you don't have the grades or mom and dad don't have the means....then don't bother with college.

Also, from a purely economic standpoint, it assumes that none of the participants WANT to play that sport. It is defined solely as work to be exploited by others.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

This article was absolutely phenomenal. Frank Deford said that it "may well be the most important article ever written about college sports."

I understand the concerns of those above saying that the volleyball team would have to be compensated if it was through the university. I just don't understand why the athletes at these money-making top-tier schools need to be compensated by the schools. Seems there's a line of people waiting to give them endorsements and financial aid with NO involvement from the University. Just go to an Olympic model, let them make what they can on their own, and be done with it. Nothing immoral or illegal about it.

That may be the model that ultimately saves the day here.

And no one has read the article. Paying athletes is actually just a small piece of the discussion.

The real crime is the arbitrary and capricious manner the NCAA can destroy any student athlete it chooses to go after. The stuff on the baseball players is chilling.

[Redskins Diehard]

No, of course I'm not against all extracurricular activities. That's part of the college experience. Why do college athletes deserve scholarships worth tens of $k? And I'm not persuaded why activities that generate no revenue should incur highly paid professional coaches and the cost of flying to play schools 500 miles away when there are a dozen opponents within a few hours drive.

I guess I am having a tough time deciphering whether you are in favor of providing salary and benefits to athletes or scaling down college athletics all together.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

It seems the argument is...do away with college sports. And if you don't have the grades or mom and dad don't have the means....then don't bother with college.

There is no need to do away with college sports. There are college sports all across the world. It's only in the US that the sports generate revenue for their colleges and a faceless agency.

---------- Post added September-16th-2011 at 02:53 PM ----------

I guess I am having a tough time deciphering whether you are in favor of providing salary and benefits to athletes or scaling down college athletics all together.

Why can't we do both?

The NCAA governs the University of Texas and Harvard. Does that make any sense at all? Do those two schools have ANYTHING in common when it comes to athletics?

[Corcaigh]

And if you don't have the grades or mom and dad don't have the means....then don't bother with college.

Wait. Your argument is that college sports provides a good opportunity for people who are otherwise a bad fit academically to attend?

[PleaseBlitz]

Why can't we do both?

The NCAA governs the University of Texas and Harvard. Does that make any sense at all? Do those two schools have ANYTHING in common when it comes to athletics?

Why can't we do neither? I like college sports and want to see MORE, not less. I just wish they would fix the BCS system and fix the convoluted rulebook concerning eligibility (and relax the rules slightly, but not fundamentally change the entire system).

[zoony]

I would love to read the article but that crap website keeps locking up my browser. Three times now. **** it, I'm not trying again.

[PleaseBlitz]

Nobody wants to address the fact that college athletes WANT TO PLAY THEIR SPORT.

[zoony]

Nobody wants to address the fact that college athletes WANT TO PLAY THEIR SPORT.

I think that's a very fair point in all of this.

Granted, people WANT to work, but that doesn't mean workers shouldn't have basic rights. Still, though, these athletes are definitely signing up willingly, eagerly.

Where does all of the money that the NCAA go? That's the main question I have. Does it go back in to education? Or does it line Thurston Montgomery IV's pocket?

[NavyDave]

If the University of Maryland football players sold their jerseys after the game last week its a crime, but the college auctioning off the jerseys off their back or selling jerseys with their names on it, with no kick backs to said players it is ok???

Walk-on players with out the Athletic scholarships would face the same nonsense, right?

[zoony]

If the University of Maryland football players sold their jerseys after the game last week its a crime, but the college auctioning off the jerseys off their back or selling jerseys with their names on it, with no kick backs to said players is ok.

Walk-on players with out the Athletic scholarships would face the same nonsense, right?

for sake of argument, if all proceeds from sale you mention went to charity, would you be okay with it?

Seems to me the problem is not that money is being made, it's what is being done with the money.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I think that's a very fair point in all of this.

Granted, people WANT to work, but that doesn't mean workers shouldn't have basic rights. Still, though, these athletes are definitely signing up willingly, eagerly.

Where does all of the money that the NCAA go? That's the main question I have. Does it go back in to education? Or does it line Thurston Montgomery IV's pocket?

We are actually probably going to find that out soon thanks to the Ed O'Bannon case.

PB is hung up on a pay for play system, but the problems go way way way beyond that.

The big issue is that when you agree to play college sports, you have signed away your image, your licensing rights, and your ability to profit off your own work forever. The NCAA and your college own you from age 18 to death.

Hausfeld LLP has offices in San Francisco, Philadelphia, and London. Its headquarters are on K Street in Washington, D.C., about three blocks from the White House. When I talked with Hausfeld there not long ago, he sat in a cavernous conference room, tidy in pinstripes, hands folded on a spotless table that reflected the skyline. He spoke softly, without pause, condensing the complex fugue of antitrust litigation into simple sentences. “Let’s start with the basic question,” he said, noting that the NCAA claims that student-athletes have no property rights in their own athletic accomplishments. Yet, in order to be eligible to play, college athletes have to waive their rights to proceeds from any sales based on their athletic performance.

“What right is it that they’re waiving?,” Hausfeld asked. “You can’t waive something you don’t have. So they had a right that they gave up in consideration to the principle of amateurism, if there be such.” (At an April hearing in a U.S. District Court in California, Gregory Curtner, a representative for the NCAA, stunned O’Bannon’s lawyers by saying: “There is no document, there is no substance, that the NCAA ever takes from the student-athletes their rights of publicity or their rights of likeness. They are at all times owned by the student-athlete.” Jon King says this is “like telling someone they have the winning lottery ticket, but by the way, it can only be cashed in on Mars.” The court denied for a second time an NCAA motion to dismiss the O’Bannon complaint.)

---------- Post added September-16th-2011 at 03:15 PM ----------

What this utlimately comes down to is property rights. Who owns your labor, your body, and your name.

The NCAA argues that for the privilege of playing college sports, they take away those property rights from you into perpetuity. There is no contract that says this. There is no bargain for exchange. It just magically happens when you agree to play college sports. Even if you are non-scholarship, it happens.

[Predicto]

It seems the argument is...do away with college sports. And if you don't have the grades or mom and dad don't have the means....then don't bother with college.

Why does it make sense to offer college scholarship to people because they can play sports? Why is a poor football player worthy of special attention but a poor chemist not worthy?

In other words, if you are going to give scholarships, why not base them on your financial need and your prospects as a Scholar?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Ponder this: Peyton Manning and Andrew Luck were rich kids before they got to college. They would likely be rich adults regardless of whether they played in the NFL or not. (Top students who come from highly highly connected families).

What if they refused scholarships and played as walk-ons?

Under NCAA rules, they still could not sell their jerseys. They still could not sell autographs. They still could not get money from EA Sports.

People like PleaseBlitz hide behind this scholarship stuff without realizing that the scholarship is just a token. The rules apply regardless of the scholarships. I think you could argue in court that a scholarship is not consideration because it is not relevant to the ultimate relationship created. The act of playing itself is the only consideration granted. The NCAA and the college let you play in exchange for your labor and your image.

[zoony]

The NCAA and the college let you play in exchange for your labor and your image.

Which again, I think would be all well and good if there was strong accountability for profits and transparent accounting of proceeds being funneled back into education and collegiate athletics/etc.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

for sake of argument, if all proceeds from sale you mention went to charity, would you be okay with it?

Seems to me the problem is not that money is being made, it's what is being done with the money.

I would have a problem if it went to charity.

The problem is that the profits from labor are being pulled from these athletes without a contract and without negotiations. And then the NCAA can take away your right to play without due process. And it is doing this to 20 year old adults.

---------- Post added September-16th-2011 at 03:25 PM ----------

Which again, I think would be all well and good if there was strong accountability for profits and transparent accounting of proceeds being funneled back into education and collegiate athletics/etc.

Do you think the NCAA should be able to make money off Bill Waltons' image for the rest of his life without ever having to compensate him? At some point, should control of his image and likeness return to Walton?

[Redskins Diehard]

Wait. Your argument is that college sports provides a good opportunity for people who are otherwise a bad fit academically to attend?

I don't see where I said that they were a "bad fit academically". What I meant was the grades for an academic scholarship and I didn't put that. But I definitely didn't say a "bad fit".

[zoony]

I would have a problem if it went to charity.

The problem is that the profits from labor are being pulled from these athletes without a contract and without negotiations. And then the NCAA can take away your right to play without due process. And it is doing this to 20 year old adults.

Let's extrapolate your logic. High School games are $5 to attend. High School football players should be paid, yes?

I do think scholarships should not be as arbitrary as what they are, but that's a separate discussion.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

The funadamnetal problem I have with all this is that it is basically a contract of adhesion. You play once second in an NCAA game and they own you forever. They don't have to compensate you. They don't have to consult you on how they market you. And they can ban you from playing without due process.

[Redskins Diehard]

Why does it make sense to offer college scholarship to people because they can play sports? Why is a poor football player worthy of special attention but a poor chemist not worthy?

In other words, if you are going to give scholarships, why not base them on your financial need and your prospects as a Scholar?

I think plenty of poor Science Fair winners do get scholarships. I find it pretty hard to believe that you are making an honest argument that only the best academic performers should be given a chance to further their education. I went to a school that based admission on the "whole person concept" and I think there is merit in that.

[Predicto]

Even though I enjoy rooting for Michigan, stuff like this makes me think that my college alma mater had it right.

UChicago dropped out of the Big Ten and renounced football back in the late 1930s because the University President felt that big time sports were a corrupting influence that interfered with the academic mission of the school. He took huge heat from the alumni, but stuck to his guns.

I enjoy it, I'm a sports fan, but I have to admit that big time college athletic are a weird thing, because they add nothing to the academics of a university, and they pull billions in resources away from real academic pursuits. :whoknows:

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Let's extrapolate your logic. High School games are $5 to attend. High School football players should be paid, yes?

I do think scholarships should not be as arbitrary as what they are, but that's a separate discussion.

No. And I think you can make an argument that high school athletes are minors to support that position.

I will say this: If a high school game is on ESPN, those players should receive something.

And here is something that bothered me. Friends of mine are involved with the 5A Football Championship team in Texas. 60,000 people attended the title game at JerryWorld. The game was broadcast live across the state.

Stores in that team's hometown are selling jerseys for the players for $50. You go into stores and themed picture frames are available using the players' images. At some point, it crosses the line. In high school, it's probably a case by case basis though.

The NCAA is obviously proper grounds for class-action level suits.

---------- Post added September-16th-2011 at 03:33 PM ----------

Here is another question: Why is there no college soccer in England or Spain? Why is there no college basketball in Lithuania or Argentina?

[zoony]

Do you think the NCAA should be able to make money off Bill Waltons' image for the rest of his life without ever having to compensate him? At some point' date=' should control of his image and likeness return to Walton?[/quote']

The University of Tennessee uses its list of Nobel laureates in its advertising to attract students and funding, without those Nobel prize winners' permission.

Is that fair? You're saying it's not, if I'm understanding you correctly.

[DjTj]

Athletes shouldn't be paid by the schools. The NCAA should just let athletes get endorsements and free tattoos and negotiate royalties from EA Sports without kicking them off their teams.