Joe Nocera in the New York Times has attacked the NCAA with accusations on various levels against that not so august body. Nocera’s most vociferous complaint, however, that the colleges make huge amounts of money on the play of student athletes and therefore should pay them a salary is way off base. Forgetting about the problems that would bring to the surface and the fact that it would take away any last remnant of amateur standing for student athletes, the fact is that they already get what amounts to a very good salary in the form of room, board, tuition and books, plus first choice of cushy jobs when they need extra cash. This amounts to over $50,000 a year at most colleges today. In addition, most colleges have fund set up to take care of emergency situations that require quick but limited cash.
Besides the value they get, the athletes get a chance to develop their skills at a very high level, which for the most talented few, could lead to professional riches. For those with a historical perspective it looks very much like the apprentice programs that have existed in crafts since the Middle Ages.
$50,000 by the way is a damn good salary for an 18 or 20 year-old kid whose only skill is that he can run, throw or shoot a ball. Sure the schools make a lot of money but the ones that have not given up their sense of being educators use most of that money for scholarships for non-athletes and other school expenses. I’m not speaking about the likes of Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Arkansas, Ohio State and Kentucky but I am speaking of Vanderbilt, Duke, Notre Dame, Stanford, Northwestern and that group.
Probably the biggest problem for college athletics, and Nocera doesn’t touch on it, is the one and done syndrome where kids, especially basketball players enter a college program only until they are old enough (19) to go into pro basketball. These kids, while often wildly talented, are actually pulling down the sport. Most have no interest in school and I think that the NCAA, if it had the guts, would institute some ruling to stop this most unfortunate practice. The problem arises because the pros don’t have the guts or inventiveness to police their own programs. A history of immature players directly out of high school, getting in trouble and failing to live up to their potential and thereby wasting a lot of owner’s money, prompted the 19 year-old rule.
The colleges should institute a contract that would apply to all athletic scholarship students that would require them to pay a penalty out of their first year professional contract, if signed directly out of college, in which, they would have to pay some significant amount to the school’s non-athletic scholarship fund. The amount would be regressive the longer the student stayed in school. That is say 100K if he left after 1 year, 75K after 2 years 50K after 3 and zero after graduation. The purpose would be twofold. Help the schools non-athletic scholarship fund and keep the student-athlete in school.
Would that be fair? I think so, mainly because, by the student-athlete taking the scholarship for one year and then going pro, he creates two negative situations. One, he takes the scholarship away from someone else who may not be as good an athlete but may stay in school, get an education and become a more productive member of society and two he hurts the team long range by keeping it in constant turmoil. John Calipari, the coach of this year’s excellent Kentucky basketball team would not agree with me. He has managed to triumph over that turmoil with a series of one and done athletes, but then he coaches at a school that cares only minimally for education when it is measured against success in sports.
If Nocera really wants to attack the NCAA he should do it for its gutless obeisance to the BCS and its current football bowl system, which does not allow for a playoff tournament like all the other college sports.