When it comes to the NCAA, when will we have enough?

In case this coffin needed a nail, here's an amazing report by Taylor Branch on "The Shame of College Sports," published in The Atlantic.  Within a few minutes I had seen it on line, two friends had emailed me the link to it.  This is spreading like wildfire.  In a nutshell:

But after an inquiry that took me into locker rooms and ivory towers across the country, I have come to believe that sentiment blinds us to what’s before our eyes. Big-time college sports are fully commercialized. Billions of dollars flow through them each year. The NCAA makes money, and enables universities and corporations to make money, from the unpaid labor of young athletes.

Slavery analogies should be used carefully. College athletes are not slaves. Yet to survey the scene—corporations and universities enriching themselves on the backs of uncompensated young men, whose status as “student-athletes” deprives them of the right to due process guaranteed by the Constitution—is to catch an unmistakable whiff of the plantation. Perhaps a more apt metaphor is colonialism: college sports, as overseen by the NCAA, is a system imposed by well-meaning paternalists and rationalized with hoary sentiments about caring for the well-being of the colonized. But it is, nonetheless, unjust. The NCAA, in its zealous defense of bogus principles, sometimes destroys the dreams of innocent young athletes.

The NCAA today is in many ways a classic cartel. Efforts to reform it—most notably by the three Knight Commissions over the course of 20 years—have, while making changes around the edges, been largely fruitless. The time has come for a major overhaul. And whether the powers that be like it or not, big changes are coming. Threats loom on multiple fronts: in Congress, the courts, breakaway athletic conferences, student rebellion, and public disgust. Swaddled in gauzy clichés, the NCAA presides over a vast, teetering glory.

 This is embarrassing.  Not new, mind  you, but coming from the pen of Mr. Branch, it packs a particularly poignant punch.    So the question is, what will it take to bring down this behemoth?

Jim Tressel's Nifty New Mural

A scant few weeks after Ohio State threw Jim Tressel under the bus and blamed their current problems on the coach, the University unveiled a mural honoring their old coach

This is a bit tricky, even controversial.  Without question, the coach had a great run as coach of the Buckeyes, winning 6 Big Ten titles and a national championship, going 8-1 against hated Michigan, and sporting a nifty 94-21 overall record.  No question that Tressel is a terrific coach.  There is also no question that his stint at OSU is deserving of a mural.

On the other hand, what kind of a message does this send not only to the NCAA, but also to fans of college football, to high school students, and to the people of Ohio?  How in the world do we consistently profess derision at Tressel's actions yet turn around a few weeks later and unveil a mural in his honor?

I don't think there is any question that coach Tressel's actions on the field are deserving of a mural.  But so soon?

This is like a poke in the eye to all the reformist talk of recent months. it is as if Ohio State does not care.  This is particularly hubristic for a school that is currently awaiting the result of an NCAA investigation and whether that body will add to the schools self-sanctions in the wake of the Tressel scandal.

NCAA and university presidents everywhere: your move.

The End of the NCAA?

College athletics are a mess.  While select schools reap tremendous economic rewards, the student athletes must take whatever the NCAA determines they are worth.  This is a remarkable system, especially if you are the one in control of the means of production.  I don't need to quote Marx here.  The point is too obvious for words.

Here's the problem, in the words of Michael Rosenberg:

But college sports, at their core, have nothing to do with amateurism. I mean that in a very practical sense. Players choose schools for education or playing time or because they like the coaches or the helmets. They work out and practice and study and party. Coaches watch film and recruit and put together game plans and punt on fourth-and-1 when they should go for it.

Nobody gets into sports because they have a passion for players not getting paid. They are certainly players who believe in following rules, but that doesn't mean they believe in the rules themselves.

This why all these scandals are not terribly surprising.  There is a market for elite college athletes, and there is also a need to win.  Put those two impulses together and you get exactly what we see in Miami and North Carolina; in Oregon and Southern California; in Auburn, Alabama, and Ohio State.

Anybody who thinks bad things only happen at other schools in not living in the real world.

Part of the problem is that the rules make no sense.  They address different questions for different times, and are established by people who lead comfortable lives and make more money than they probably deserve.  Case in point: Terrelle Pryor quarterbacks his OSU team to victory over hated arch rival Michigan and is given a pair of funny looking pants.  They are given to him because he had, as a student athlete, the opportunity to represent Ohio State.  This is an opportunity that other students do not have.  The pants themselves are immaterial, for the student population does not have access to them, irrespective of whether Pryor decides to sell them or not.  Of course, when Pryor decides to sell these pants, he violates an NCAA rule that does not allow him to benefit in ways other students cannot.

Not sure how that makes any sense.

This is why, to Guy's question whether disclosure would work, the answer depends on your goal for college athletics.  Clearly, disclosure only works once we disabuse ourselves of the quaint idea that  elite athletes go to college to get a top-notch education. Some do, I am sure.  But too many come to college to prepare for "the league."  And there is really nothing wrong with that.

It is time to turn back the clock to 1905 and blow up the system.  The NCAA exists only because a lot of fat cats want it to exist. 

Were I NCAA czar, I would begin my reform project with three basic ideas.  First, I would stop pretending athletes have no value.  They do.  And they know it. Pretending otherwise is not really working.  This reminds me of Nancy Reagan's abstinence program. Makes plenty of sense in theory, even if impractical in the real world.  Amateurism no longer makes any sense.  Big time college athletics are big business.  We should treat the athletes accordingly and stop pretending otherwise.

Second, I would punish schools for their indiscretions.  Heavily.  This might force them to monitor their coaches.

Third, I would also punish the head coaches.  As matter stand today, coaches walk away while their schools are left behind to pick up the pieces.  It happened at Indiana University with the mess left by Kelvin Sampson, and at USC with Pete Carroll, who went on to a $33 million contract with the Seattle Seahawks.  This also makes no sense.  To ask schools simply to show cause in hiring these coaches is not enough.  Restitution might be a much better option.

On the Embarrassment of Higher Education and Student Athletes

Here are a few headlines from the last few days:

• Records: Tressel made $21.7 million at Ohio State (this would be deposed football coach Jim Tressell, he who won over 80% of his games at Ohio State, a national championship, and beat hated arch rival Michigan eight out of nine times)

• UNC supporters want more on Butch Davis' firing (this one is soon becoming orthodoxy: boosters help pay for stuff.  Coach is fired.  Boosters are mad because they weren't consulted and want to know why they weren't consulted)

• Student-Athlete Equation Could Be a Win-Win

The last headline doesn't quite tell the whole story.  Here is how the article begins:

Joseph Agnew was once a Friday night superstar. A defensive back, he led his Texas high school football team to consecutive state titles in 2004 and 2005. He was also an A student.

Agnew went on to Rice, a first-rate university with an improving football program. But things didn’t quite work out for him, at least football-wise. The coach who had recruited him left after his freshman year. Agnew struggled to find playing time and had a string of injuries. After his sophomore season, he was cut from the team. The next year, he lost his scholarship and later left Rice.

 Somebody should be embarrassed.  Coaches get paid, booster influence is on the rise, and student athletes continue to be treated as means to the much larger aim of winning games and entertaining the masses. 

 This is not to say that the answer is simply to pay student athletes. This is too simplistic and probably unfeasible.  But this is not to say that better answers do not exist.  Here are a few few suggestions, from Jonathan Mahler, a writer for the Times:

They could start by declaring freshmen ineligible for intercollegiate sports to encourage them to focus on their classwork. They could take the scholarship status of athletes out of the hands of coaches, who have the power to cut off a player with a 4.0 grade point average but a bum knee. Most of all, they could place strict limits on full-contact football practices, a step recently taken by the Ivy League, so the minds they’re developing in the classroom aren’t being hastened toward dementia on the field. 

This is just the beginning. The real strides would come when universities declared a truce in the arms race of new athletics facilities and agreed to cap the soaring pay of coaches. Earlier this summer, John Calipari signed a contract extension with Kentucky that guarantees him $3.8 million a year — nearly 10 times what the president of an average state university makes.

Better yet, why not compel football and basketball programs to contribute a modest percentage of their revenue to their universities’ primary mission, education? These programs are heavily dependent on their universities. They leverage their brands, use their facilities and take up more than their share of their administrations’ time. (How do you think the Ohio State president, E. Gordon Gee, spent his summer? Reviewing course offerings, or dealing with the Jim Tressel mess?)

 The NCAA is looking into the matter.  Maybe they are finally embarrassed enough.  They are considering, among other things, extending scholarship offers from one year renewables to multi-years; increasing scholarship offers through stipends; and simplifying the NCAA rulebook. 

For one, I am not holding my breath.  Self-interest will rule the day, and that usually is bad news for student athletes.

More on Student-Athletes, Recruiting, and Oversigning

There will come a moment in the history of football as a national pastime when the violence of the game will no longer allow casual fans to enjoy it.  Last night's Super Bowl was quite lax in terms of injuries and ghastly moments, and yet it still had instances that made one turn away.  A knee turned awkwardly; a head shot or a body slammed violently to the turf; broken collarbones or twisted ankles.  This is the reality of the game we call football.  Every game offers myriad chances for injury.

But what we say when it comes to these athletes is that, while they put their bodies on the line, they are compensated handsomely.  They are adults, know the risks inherent to the game, and willingly do what it takes in exchange for financial stability.  

Further Thoughts on College Recruiting . . . and Admissions

College coaches zig-zag across the country looking for players for their teams.  Players similarly zig-zag across the country looking for their college campus of choice.  And between them we find a number of recruiting services willing to tell you what they think about any particular player.  Scout.  Rivals.  ESPN.  Any guy with a clipboard and an internet connection can start one.

So here is what I find intriguing about all of this: how accurate are these services?  How accurately can these recruiting outfits prognosticate whether a high school player will become a college star or bust?  For all the angst and energy that college fans now spend on national signing day, this would appear to be the only question worth asking.  The answer should not surprise anyone. 

How the NCAA Fails its Athletes

Today is national signing day.  This is the day when high school seniors formally pledge their allegiances to their colleges of choice. It is also the day when these seniors formalize their status as a cog in the much larger and unwieldy college football machine.  This is the moment when these students realize their dreams by becoming the means of production.  The colleges and the NCAA make a lot of money -- this past bowl season, for example, the BCS system produced a record profit of $170 million -- and the players see very little of it.  And they better not even think about selling their uniforms, or useless trophies or championship rings.  Needless to say, that would be illegal -- only the NCAA gets to make money from the sale of jerseys. Also, their parents better not try to get some of that money.  That also would be against NCAA rules.  And who gets to make money from the sale of the images and likenesses of star college athletes?  The NCAA, of course.  The athletes don't get a dime.  They are amateurs, after all.

How convenient. Can you think of a better system of exploitation?

But it gets better. Much better.

Race and College Basketball

Anyone watching the Kentucky - West Virginia basketball game will come away admiring the skill and athleticism of the players on the floor. These players are terrific talents, no question about it.

I just can't help but notice a far more interesting phenomenon. For long stretches during the first half, all ten players on the floor were black players. In contrast, when the cameras turned to the crowd, it was predominantly white, as were the bands for both teams, the announcers and the coaches.

Finally, around the 10:47 mark, what appeared to be the first white player stepped on the floor for West Virginia: Deniz Kilicli, a freshman forward from Istanbul, Turkey.

I kid you not.

This is embarrassing in so many ways that I don't even know where to begin.

Above all, I wonder whether the people of Kentucky and West Virginia are as welcoming of students who apply to their university as they are of their basketball stars.

I also wonder whether admission officials at both schools are similarly welcoming of applicants of color as they are of basketball players, black or white.

Same for residents of both states: I wonder about their views on race and affirmative action.

Back in January, I wrote about the blatant the hypocrisy in the affirmative action debate, written in the context of the hiring of two white coaches whose credentials were questionable at best. I wondered then whether we could only "find Ward Connerly when we needed him."

I am still waiting for the outrage. After all, aren't these players taking seats on college campuses -- and college teams -- away from deserving whites?

Maybe the tea partiers could add this issue to their cause.