The Atlantic: The Shame of College Sports

[Predicto]

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.

I agree with the whole person admission concept, and I think that everyone should get the chance to further their education.

But I don't agree that people who like to play football should get much greater chances to further their education than people who do anything else.

[zoony]

If a graduate student or undergraduate student invents something using college resources, who owns it?

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

1- Best players go into a farm system. We do it differently. Our system > their system. Not even an argument. Where are the best universities in the world? And are you arguing with a straight face that college athletics don't contribute to USA's universities?

---------- Post added September-16th-2011 at 04:42 PM ----------

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' date=' those players should receive something.[/quote']

Little League World Series? Those kids should be getting $25000 royalty checks?

There are better ways to attack this. You're not going to be able to take economics out of the discussion. But by introducing economics further (paying players), you certainly stand to ruin a lot of what makes these games enjoyable for so many. The "purity" of watching kids play for love of the game.

If you think that's just a fantasy, you're delusional. That's exactly why these kids are playing. Paying them would ruin what makes them so popular with so many. Nobody cares about the AA world series. Is there one? Who knows. Seeing kids playing for nothing other than competitive drive is where the appeal is.

Which is why I say again, the answer here I think is what is done with the profits. Equally socialist, sure, but less-intrusive to the game.

[Predicto]

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.

Well, that one guy has been dead for 60 years, so it's not big deal.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

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.

Does UT own their research forever? Did UT ever have to negotiate a new contract with those professors?

Here is the difference. Toni Morrison won a Nobel Prize when I was at Princeton. The University pretty much immediately had to write a new contract with her that made her rich beyond imagination, left her with a schedule that was her own creation, and gave her other perks that are frankly somewhat embarrassing. Princeton did not get to keep the publishing rights to Beloved nor did it get a piece of the movie rights. Princeton does not get the movie rights for It's A Beautiful Mind either.

If Andrew Luck won the Heisman last year, would Stanford have to give him a raise? Could he go to a different school? Could he sell pictures of himself with the trophy?

No one is ever going to own their image 100 percent. Princeton gets some benefit from being in the Toni Morrison business. But she ultimately holds the power in that relationship. At that level of scholarship and fame, universities get into bidding wars. (I covered Cornel West's move to Harvard at the time. Princeton still had the benefit of being the University that helped make Cornel West famous. But Harvard got the benefit of Cornel West. Until West got pissed at Harvard and returned to Princeton for another huge payday).

Athletes own nothing of their image. That's unfair.

[Predicto]

And are you arguing with a straight face that college athletics don't contribute to USA's universities?

Actually, I think a very good argument could be made for that, don't you?

[zoony]

Well, that one guy has been dead for 60 years, so it's not big deal.

still bitter about Vandy being ranked higher than your precious Berkely I see

Yes, uncultured TN rednecks in Nashville>San Fran intellectuals.

---------- Post added September-16th-2011 at 04:46 PM ----------

Does UT own their research forever? Did UT ever have to negotiate a new contract with those professors?

Here is the difference. Toni Morrison won a Nobel Prize when I was at Princeton. The University pretty much immediately had to write a new contract with her that made her rich beyond imagination' date=' left her with a schedule that was her own creation, and gave her other perks that are frankly somewhat embarrassing. Princeton did not get to keep the publishing rights to Beloved nor did it get a piece of the movie rights. Princeton does not get the movie rights for It's A Beautiful Mind either.

[/quote']

was Toni Morrison a teacher or student? I honestly don't know. Sounds like a teacher though. If that's the case you should be comparing to Nick Saban.

---------- Post added September-16th-2011 at 04:47 PM ----------

Actually, I think a very good argument could be made for that, don't you?

The inflow of money into the University is enormous. Some of it has to trickle down to facilities and quality of education. Though again, it's not exactly clear how much.

[thebluefood]

As much as I love college sports, there's no doubt the NCAA is as corrupt as the day is long.

I wish I knew what to do about it, but I don't think anyone has a legitimate, realistic idea. These shenanigans will keep happening because college athletics, especially football, basketball and, yes, even baseball, is tremendous fun and makes all kinds of dough.

We're chasing shadows here, folks.

[Spartacus87]

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:

I think that's a slight over generalization.

SHF hasn't commented here yet, probably because he's busy watching Andrew Luck highlight videos on YouTube, but he'd probably be more than happy to go in to detail about the massive growth that Virginia Tech underwent immediately following the Michael Vick era there and the national spotlight that put on the school.

UF's "Gator Boosters" club, led by its "Bull Gator" members (those who donate at least 15k annually to the athletic department), has donated over 40 million dollars to the university over the last couple decades (with almost a quarter of that coming in the last few years with UF's national championship success).

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

If a graduate student or undergraduate student invents something using college resources, who owns it?

There are lawsuits over these sorts of things. Usually it get settled with a royalty agreement, which strikes me as fair. (Harvard doesn't own Facebook, I should point out).

That scenario generally happens with pharmaceuticals.

[zoony]

There are lawsuits over these sorts of things. Usually it get settled with a royalty agreement' date=' which strikes me as fair. (Harvard doesn't own Facebook, I should point out).

That scenario generally happens with pharmaceuticals.[/quote']

Harvard shouldn't own facebook, he developed it on his laptop in his dormroom. If you believe what you saw on the movie at least.

However, if, say, a university of TN engineering student is afforded special access to Oak Ridge National Laboratory (which they do), and uses multi-million $ equipment to develop a new process for fission as part of a learning assignment assigned by the University, who owns the process?

It's no different in sports. TN Athletes get to play in a state-of-the art facility in Neyland stadium, 3rd largest in the country. They get to market themselves on national TV through the University. They get access to world class weight rooms and trainers, medical staffs, etc. If their "invention" is a 99 yard TD run while they're still in school, I think it should be similar to the outcome of the similar scenario I mentioned above. And I'm still not sure what that answer is, my question of "who owns it" was not rhetorical.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Toni Morrison is a teacher.

My experience is that the celebrity professors take far more from the universities than they give. In '92, the entire economics department at Princeton seem to go all go on sabbatical at the same time to work for the Clinton White House. I guess it looked good in the advertising, but I was expecting to take Econ 101 from a Nobel Laureate and got an adjunct from Rutgers instead.

The point is professors have some power in their relationship with the university. It's not like they are forced to work at one school forever for the same salary they started at.

[Predicto]

I think that's a slight over generalization.

SHF hasn't commented here yet, probably because he's busy watching Andrew Luck highlight videos on YouTube, but he'd probably be more than happy to go in to detail about the massive growth that Virginia Tech underwent immediately following the Michael Vick era there and the national spotlight that put on the school.

UF's "Gator Boosters" club, led by its "Bull Gator" members (those who donate at least 15k annually to the athletic department), has donated over 40 million dollars to the university over the last couple decades (with almost a quarter of that coming in the last few years with UF's national championship success).

Yes, and pretty much all of that money has been spent on enormous atheletic facilities and staffs and equipment, not on chemistry labs and libraries and endowed poetry professorships. So where is the benefit to the educational mission of the University? (yes, I'm speaking in generalities here).

And yes, I am well aware that the national profile of some schools has risen dramatically because of athletics. Va Tech is a minor example when compared to the decades of publicity and rise in profile that Notre Dame, or Georgetown, or Duke got from their athletic exploits. Of course, that rise in national profile has come at the expense of other schools, correct? Basically, more people consider going to Va Tech because of improved football, not because of improved academics. Georgetown shot up the National rankings without changing a single academic program or professor (again, I am generalizing).

Meanwhile, less people consider going to Johns Hopkins because it doesn't have national athletics. Is that a good thing, overall?

[DjTj]

However, if, say, a university of TN engineering student is afforded special access to Oak Ridge National Laboratory (which they do), and uses multi-million $ equipment to develop a new process for fission as part of a learning assignment assigned by the University, who owns the process?

The university owns it, but they will share the royalties with the inventor.

The University’s policy with regard to inventions and creations resulting from research reflects the view that a university by its nature has an obligation to serve

the public interest by ensuring that inventions and other intellectual property are developed to the point of maximum utilization and availability to the public. The

University, therefore, generally assigns to the University of Tennessee Research Foundation title to inventions and creations made under its sponsored programs

with the understanding that it will license them in the public interest under an active inventions/creations management program in which licensing of industrial

research sponsors is an important part. The University and the inventor share in the proceeds of royalty-bearing licenses.

http://utrf.tennessee.edu/PDF/Policy_App.PDF

[zoony]

The university owns it, but they will share the royalties with the inventor.

Then the process for athletes is hypocritical. Who could argue otherwise?

[Predicto]

As much as I love college sports, there's no doubt the NCAA is as corrupt as the day is long.

I wish I knew what to do about it, but I don't think anyone has a legitimate, realistic idea. These shenanigans will keep happening because college athletics, especially football, basketball and, yes, even baseball, is tremendous fun and makes all kinds of dough.

We're chasing shadows here, folks.

Of course this is true. It's still an interesting discussion, at least to me.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

However, if, say, a university of TN engineering student is afforded special access to Oak Ridge National Laboratory (which they do), and uses multi-million $ equipment to develop a new process for fission as part of a learning assignment assigned by the University, who owns the process?

It's no different in sports. TN Athletes get to play in a state-of-the art facility in Neyland stadium, 3rd largest in the country. They get to market themselves on national TV through the University. They get access to world class weight rooms and trainers, medical staffs, etc. If their "invention" is a 99 yard TD run while they're still in school, I think it should be similar to the outcome of the similar scenario I mentioned above. And I'm still not sure what that answer is, my question of "who owns it" was not rhetorical.

There is no 100 percent answer to "who owns it." Generally, you own your own intellectual product. I'm tying this all back to my experience but whatever. Princeton does not own the answer to Fermat's Last Theorum; Andrew Wiles does.

On the other hand, under the US Code, "work for hire" is owned by the employer, not the employee. If you invent Post-Its at 3M, 3M owns the Post-Its. Same as if you invent a cancer drug while at Stanford. If Wiles figured out a way to make a product out of his proof, then the university would have a stake.

Of course, under the US Code, you are an employee and can negotiate your contract and own agreement - something no college athlete can do because they are not employees.

Most top researchers cut their own deals before going to work for a university though. And universities have their own policies regarding royalties that were negotiated with professors and researchers.

The point is, there is a give and take here that does not exist with athletes. Tennesse owns Erik Ainge forever.

---------- Post added September-16th-2011 at 04:10 PM ----------

This is a fun discussion. One thing I would like to point out is that "Pay them/Don't pay them" is not really the debate.

The debate is really "What rights do athletes have?"

One of the answers may be "the right to sell their labor." Another right might be "The right to play for who I want."

Why can universities drop an athlete's scholarship, but an athlete cannot transfer without losing eligibility?

[DjTj]

There is no 100 percent answer to "who owns it." Generally' date=' you own your own intellectual product. I'm tying this all back to my experience but whatever. Princeton does not own the answer to Fermat's Last Theorum; Andrew Wiles does.

On the other hand, under the US Code, "work for hire" is owned by the employer, not the employee. If you invent Post-Its at 3M, 3M owns the Post-Its. Same as if you invent a cancer drug while at Stanford. If Wiles figured out a way to make a product out of his proof, then the university would have a stake.

Of course, under the US Code, you are an employee and can negotiate your contract and own agreement - something no college athlete can do because they are not employees.

Most top researchers cut their own deals before going to work for a university though. And universities have their own policies regarding royalties that were negotiated with professors and researchers.[/quote']The gray area in the work-for-hire doctrine is that students are not employees of their schools. Universities would generally own anything created by staff, but it gets murky with students. Most universities try to clear this up with some standardized agreements, but even those tend to fall apart when there is real money at stake.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

The gray area in the work-for-hire doctrine is that students are not employees of their schools. Universities would generally own anything created by staff, but it gets murky with students. Most universities try to clear this up with some standardized agreements, but even those tend to fall apart when there is real money at stake.

I really don't know any cases were undergraduates invented something and there was a challenge. I would agree with you; I think the student would own it. Facebook is actually a good example. It was Harvard servers that hosted it and Harvard students who were the content. If a professor had created it, I think you could have a battle for ownership.

I would be interested to read about examples.

By the way, aren't grad students typically considered "employees" for legal purposes?

[Predicto]

By the way' date=' aren't grad students typically considered "employees" for legal purposes?[/quote']

I don't know, but I suspect it depends on whether they are paying full tuition or getting teaching fellowships.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I don't know, but I suspect it depends on whether they are paying full tuition or getting teaching fellowships.

I think there is a split between sciences and humanities, and I think - oddly enough - it exists because of work comp. If a grad student falls into a generator, I think you want him in the work comp system because of the protections you get.

[DjTj]

I really don't know any cases were undergraduates invented something and there was a challenge. I would agree with you; I think the student would own it. Facebook is actually a good example. It was Harvard servers that hosted it and Harvard students who were the content. If a professor had created it' date=' I think you could have a battle for ownership.

I would be interested to read about examples.

By the way, aren't grad students typically considered "employees" for legal purposes?[/quote']I always knew of this story:

While constructing elec-trical equipment (in his own garage) for Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering Donald S. Clark’s Impact Research Lab in 1938, Ed Simmons invented the strain gauge, an instrument consisting of a tiny wire connected to a device that measured the change in electrical resistance when strain stretched the wire. It was simple, elegant, and cheap, and quickly proved indispensable to the wartime aircraft industry. The postage-stamp-sized strain gauge could be plastered all over a prototype airplane wing and is credited by some as the greatest contribution to the efficient structure of American aircraft during World War II. The strain gauge eventually spun off a multi-billion-dollar industry when it also found application in bridges, buildings, machinery, and any kind of structure that undergoes stress. Today it’s an essential component of electronic weighing equipment, and

in his last years Simmons was fond of presenting bath-room scales to baffled recipi-ents as a reminder of his achievement.

When Caltech claimed the patent, Simmons sued; he fought his case all the way to the California Supreme Court, which finally ruled in his favor in 1949. The case in-spired the board of trustees to adopt a resolution requiring of employees a written agree-ment assigning to Caltech all patents for “inventions made in the line of Institute duty.”

http://eands.caltech.edu/articles/LXVII2/simmons.html

But it looks like he actually invented his strain gauge after he graduated.

Netscape was actually invented at the University of Illinois, and there was a big battle about that:

In mid-1994, Mosaic Communications Corp. was officially incorporated in Mountain View, California. The result of the company's efforts that year was Netscape, a browser system that incorporated many of MosaicÌs benefits and characteristics. There was one major problem facing the company, however. The University of Illinois claimed that Andressen had stolen Mosaic from them and demanded they change their name and quit distributing their product.

Mosaic changed its name to Netscape Communications Corporation, but refused to quit distributing software. On December 21, 1994, an agreement was reached. The University of Illinois made no further claims on Netscape and received a financial settlement. The settlement plus legal expense cost Netscape close to $3 million.

http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/andreesen=bina.html

Most science and engineering graduate students will sign something when they enroll saying that they get 5% of royalties or something like that. It's in the universities' interest to give their students incentives to invent and to disclose their research rather than try to keep it as their own.

edit: this might be one of the best stories of this genre:

Taborsky would not be bought. Taking his notebooks with him, he dropped out of school and delegated his newly wed wife Jennifer to field a barrage of frantic calls from Carnahan, who finally asked the university police to confiscate Taborsky's notes. The university, concerned that Taborsky's recalcitrance might set a precedent, filed criminal charges, accusing him of grand theft of trade secrets. Says Noreen Segrest, the school's general counsel: "It is irrelevant to us who invented [the process]. We own it."

The 1990 jury trial was, in Jennifer's view, a "massacre." "It was like a movie," she says. "They butchered him on the stand." Found guilty of theft--despite the fact that both the ideas and notebooks were his--Taborsky was given a year's suspended sentence, a year under house arrest and 15 years' probation. And, the judge ordained, he was forbidden to use or profit from his notes or his invention.

Despite the court's admonition, Taborsky on the very next day defiantly filed for a patent. Nine months later, having pored over Taborsky's notebooks, Carnahan and a Florida Progress officer filed for the same patent. But the U.S. Patent Office in 1992 granted two patents to Taborsky. Infuriated, the university appealed to the district court judge, who ordered Taborsky to assign his patents to the university or be sent to prison. When Taborsky balked, he was sentenced to 3 1/2 years. Jennifer, exhausted by the legal battles, left him. "I decided that the case was more important than our marriage," says Taborsky.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,985892,00.html#ixzz1Y9dCn3xU

[Destino]

1- Best players go into a farm system. We do it differently. Our system > their system. Not even an argument. Where are the best universities in the world? And are you arguing with a straight face that college athletics don't contribute to USA's universities?

Our System is better? Better for who exactly? Certainly better for fans and school but far worse for players. It's really not even close. The soccer farm system is the best system for professional athletes on the planet.

[Corcaigh]

1- Best players go into a farm system. We do it differently. Our system > their system. Not even an argument. Where are the best universities in the world? And are you arguing with a straight face that college athletics don't contribute

Not so fast. Take a look at rankings of the top universities in the world.

http://www.usnews.com/education/worlds-best-universities-rankings/top-400-universities-in-the-world

Now how many have a top basketball or football program?

[ixcuincle]

Top University - good athletics - money - research funding - better education

Anyway we must remember the real shame of collegiate athletics involves braindead decisions to relocate conferences that are not a step up in terms of competition. For instance, it was broken today that Pitt and Syracuse were interested in going to the ACC. This makes little sense in terms of football or basketball, considering the ACC is on par with the BE as being a mediocre football conference, and the ACC is actually worse than the Big East in terms of basketball. Te he he

[Redskins Diehard]

Not so fast. Take a look at rankings of the top universities in the world.

http://www.usnews.com/education/worlds-best-universities-rankings/top-400-universities-in-the-world

Now how many have a top basketball or football program?

3 out of the top 11? I guess that the argument could, probably should, be made that UM doesn't belong in that list of top programs...but it certainly isn't for lack of committing resources to trying to have a top basketball or football program. Hopkins gets a pass because it's sport focus is directed at a yuppy white guy sport. If any group of athletes DIDN'T need an athletic scholarship