PDA

View Full Version : Atlantic Magazine - The Shame of College Sports



EBE
10-31-2011, 09:22 PM
In the October 2011 issue of the Atlantic Magazine there is an
interesting article written by Taylor Branch titled "The Shame of
College Sports". What are some of you thoughts on the issues raised in this article?
The Atlantic Magazine article can be accessed at:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/8643/

Following are some quotes from the article.

Quote:

“I’M NOT HIDING,” Sonny Vaccaro told a closed hearing at the
Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., in 2001. “We want to put our
materials on the bodies of your athletes, and the best way to do that
is buy your school. Or buy your coach.”

"For all the outrage, the real scandal is not that students are getting
illegally paid or recruited, it’s that two of the noble principles on
which the NCAA justifies its existence—“amateurism” and the
“student-athlete”—are cynical hoaxes, legalistic confections
propagated by the universities so they can exploit the skills and
fame of young athletes. The tragedy at the heart of college sports is
not that some college athletes are getting paid, but that more of
them are not."

"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."

"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.

"Today, much of the NCAA’s moral authority—indeed much of
the justification for its existence—is vested in its claim to protect
what it calls the “student-athlete.” The term is meant to conjure the
nobility of amateurism, and the precedence of scholarship over
athletic endeavor. But the origins of the “student-athlete” lie not in
a disinterested ideal but in a sophistic formulation designed, as the
sports economist Andrew Zimbalist has written, to help the NCAA
in its “fight against workmen’s compensation insurance claims for
injured football players.”

"NCAA v. Regents left the NCAA devoid of television football
revenue and almost wholly dependent on March Madness
basketball. It is rich but insecure. Last year, CBS Sports and
Turner Broadcasting paid $771 million to the NCAA for television
rights to the 2011 men’s basketball tournament alone. That’s three-
quarters of a billion dollars built on the backs of amateurs—on
unpaid labor. The whole edifice depends on the players’
willingness to perform what is effectively volunteer work."

"All of this money ultimately derives from the college athletes
whose likenesses are shown in the films or video games. But none
of the profits go to them. Last year, Electronic Arts paid more than
$35 million in royalties to the NFL players union for the
underlying value of names and images in its pro football series—
but neither the NCAA nor its affiliated companies paid former
college players a nickel. Naturally, as they have become more of a
profit center for the NCAA, some of the vaunted “student-athletes”
have begun to clamor that they deserve a share of those profits.

"The NCAA rarely tangles with such people, who are apt to fight
back and win. When Rick Neuheisel, the head football coach of the
Washington Huskies, was punished for petty gambling (in a March
Madness pool, as it happened), he sued the NCAA and the
university for wrongful termination, collected $4.5 million, and
later moved on to UCLA. When the NCAA tried to cap assistant
coaches’ entering salary at a mere $16,000, nearly 2,000 of them
brought an antitrust suit, Law v. NCAA, and in 1999 settled for
$54.5 million. Since then, salaries for assistant coaches have
commonly exceeded $200,000, with the top assistants in the SEC
averaging $700,000. In 2009, Monte Kiffin, then at the University
of Tennessee, became the first assistant coach to reach $1 million,
plus benefits."

“Ninety percent of the NCAA revenue is produced by 1 percent of
the athletes,” Sonny Vaccaro says. “Go to the skill positions”—the
stars. “Ninety percent African Americans.” The NCAA made its
money off those kids, and so did he. They were not all bad people,
the NCAA officials, but they were blind, Vaccaro believes. “Their
organization is a fraud.”

"Olympic officials, who had once disdained the NCAA for offering
scholarships in exchange for athletic performance, came to
welcome millionaire athletes from every quarter, while the NCAA
still refused to let the pro Olympian Michael Phelps swim for his
college team at Michigan."

"Without logic or practicality or fairness to support amateurism, the
NCAA’s final retreat is to sentiment. The Knight Commission
endorsed its heartfelt cry that to pay college athletes would be “an
unacceptable surrender to despair.” Many of the people I spoke
with while reporting this article felt the same way. “I don’t want to
pay college players,” said Wade Smith, a tough criminal lawyer and
former star running back at North Carolina. “I just don’t want
to do it. We’d lose something precious.”

HillBillyZag
10-31-2011, 10:58 PM
Frankly, you will never see the day that any University other than the 100 or so schools who make up the BCS third of Division 1 athletics will pay student athletes more than the $2K per year stipend that was just passed, many just will not be able to afford it, as is, let alone after student/athletes in the non-revenue producing sports take the issue to Court and you can rest assured they will. In fact I believe that many schools will just drop athletic scholarships completely and offer only a limited number of need-based Academic scholarships per sport and those will not go to student athletes who frankly lack the high school preparation and/or the smarts to maintain even a 2.3 Avg. on core subjects.If they want to be fair to all their best shot is a model similar to the MLB agreement with Collegiate baseball . So let those who feel that Collegiate athletics are simply farm clubs for professional sports keep pushing the issue and see where it gets them?, the NBA deveopmental league will become their only chance.

ZagsGoZags
11-01-2011, 12:00 AM
I haven't read the whole thing.
But it sounds like the fancy talk of a scam artist,
coming up with elaborate rationales for breaking the law.

Yeah maybe the laws are not duly capitalistic, or fair, but
there is an established way to change laws.

I am sure a lot of drug dealers believe in legalizing drugs and have
similar rationales for breaking existing laws.

75Zag
11-01-2011, 06:06 AM
. . . I am sure a lot of drug dealers believe in legalizing drugs and have similar rationales for breaking existing laws.

If you are comparing Sonny Vaccaro's ethics to those of drug dealers, you owe an apology. To every drug dealer in America.

What a slime.

Go Bulldogs! Get Bigger!

LongIslandZagFan
11-01-2011, 06:32 AM
If you are comparing Sonny Vaccaro's ethics to those of drug dealers, you owe an apology. To every drug dealer in America.

What a slime.

Go Bulldogs! Get Bigger!

:lmao:

+1 on that sentiment.

JPtheBeasta
11-01-2011, 07:30 AM
I don't like how the author tries to make a race issue out of this. The plantation imagery, while provocative, isn't accurate or fair. It's capitalism, pure and simple. And these players are getting compensated, by the way- college education and room/board are not cheap. These recruiters are pulling many out of these kids out of their culturally induced "plantations" in the inner cities and they have many more opportinuties after going to college. I have been on the verge of thinking that student athletes should get some kind of compensation, but articles like this make me reactionary in the other direction.

LongIslandZagFan
11-01-2011, 07:40 AM
Yes... They do get a free education... But the NCAA does make money on their likeness in video games.

Kiddwell
11-01-2011, 07:50 AM
Yes... They do get a free education... But the NCAA does make money on their likeness in video games.

Kiddwell pines for the day his likeness will be used in a sports video game. T'were it only so! Imagine the glory, the adoration..."Thank you! Thank you! Please, please, fans, no more flowers!" :adored:

:]

ZagFanInNC
11-01-2011, 08:49 AM
I am a grad student for Sport Management and we had this same topic, here is a snippet of my option that the NCAA should use...

I think that the best way to combat this problem would also have a positive effect on competitive balance in collegiate athletics. For revenue generating sports there should be the standard amount of scholarships with a limited number of them being what I will call a “plus scholarship”. Only 20% of the scholarships that can be offered for the sport could be plus scholarships. For instance a men’s basketball team could only have 3 kids on this plus scholarship because they only have 13 total scholarships available (NCAA 2011-2012). This scholarship would include everything given in a full ride scholarship, it would also include a cost of living stipend giving the player a relatively low monthly income. This stipend would change depending on the area in which they live. As a way to ensure the well being of the athlete it would also include a stipulation that the University would have to guarantee the scholarship for 4 full years, scholarships now are only guaranteed on an annual basis. These top players would have stability and be less likely to risk their NCAA eligibility.

The competitive balance in sports would be improved as well, as it is now the top colleges fill their rosters each year with top recruits. Let’s say that the University of Texas who hand picks top recruits in football each year only had a total of 17 (20% of 85 available scholarships) plus scholarships to give out for the football team (NCAA 2011-2012). They would continue getting the 17 recruits that they regularly sign; they may even continue getting the rest of the recruits. However, it will make it harder for one of these other top recruits to turn down a plus scholarship from a different school in exchange for just a full ride from Texas. Collegiate athletes need to be compensated for the income that they generate. To be able to do this, and improve the competitive balance in the NCAA would be ideal.

Dont kill me too bad people...

JPtheBeasta
11-01-2011, 08:59 AM
Dont kill me too bad people...

You failed to mention anything about this pressing video game issue.

LongIslandZagFan
11-01-2011, 09:07 AM
You failed to mention anything about this pressing video game issue.

I know that the broadcast money get redistributed back to the conferences and in some cases to the schools based on games appeared in during the tourney. I am sure that EA pays money to the NCAA... So the questions from this are... How much? And What do the do with it?

JPtheBeasta
11-01-2011, 09:30 AM
I know that the broadcast money get redistributed back to the conferences and in some cases to the schools based on games appeared in during the tourney. I am sure that EA pays money to the NCAA... So the questions from this are... How much? And What do the do with it?

Video game budgets are starting to rival blockbuster movie productions in scope, from what I have read. I remember growing up and being frustrated that the college games didn't have the player's names on their jerseys. I didn't know if you were using sarcasm or not earlier but it is an issue. They should do something for the kids whose pictures they use on the cover- and maybe they do, because it's possible that they only use outgoing players and compensate them after they leave college basketball.

The whole thing is a mess. The thing that bothers me the most is that the NCAA institutionalizes corruption behind a facade of this moral and ethical absolute that only they, seemingly, have the divine right to maintain.

ZagFanInNC
11-01-2011, 09:46 AM
They should do something for the kids whose pictures they use on the cover- and maybe they do, because it's possible that they only use outgoing players and compensate them after they leave college basketball.


They only put players who are rookies in the league on the covers. Adam was on the cover of EA's college basketball game the year after he left.

LongIslandZagFan
11-01-2011, 11:09 AM
Within the games are the names and likenesses used? Honestly, haven't really played the games so I truly don't know.

JPtheBeasta
11-01-2011, 12:00 PM
Within the games are the names and likenesses used? Honestly, haven't really played the games so I truly don't know.

They use the player attributes (eg speed, awareness) and their build/body type/skin color , but don't use actual names.

LongIslandZagFan
11-01-2011, 12:27 PM
They use the player attributes (eg speed, awareness) and their build/body type/skin color , but don't use actual names.

Hmmmmm... I guess that is how they try and get around this.

eastsideballer
11-01-2011, 02:25 PM
I have a son that plays DI basketball and I have to say that both sides of the arguement are intriguing. Last year the amount of days that he was home amounted to under 25. That means he was on campus for 340 days. During those days he was required to not only attend classes but to also attend strength and conditioning sessions and open gym. If I were to calculate the number of hours in the day, the days in the year and compare them to the 42k it cost to attend school (room and board included) I would guess that the hourly wage equilivent would be around $24.00 an hour. Granted this is somewhat a "guesstimate" but its reasonable.
So the hourly wage is comparable to what some people make in their jobs, better than some lower than others. But for a 20 year old its not a bad wage.

The problem arises with spending money. Its unreasonable to think that a student can live on campus and not have any walking around money. I know what I put in his account every month and what he spends. Its not a lot but its there. The question begs, if a student athlete is expected to take a full course load, spend an average of 5 hours a day with sports related commitments, how is he/she supposed to find that spending money? Not all student athletes are from a background that allows their parents to fill in this void. It is not a black or white thing, its the way of life.
Not to mention the two summer school sessions that are required. When other students are able to come home and work for the summer, student athletes are in school. Where I used to work in Alaska, my son is on campus all summer. So where does that athlete have the opportunity to make some spending money?
I am not in favor of sharing revenue of apparel, video games etc with athletes who garner the sales but if these corporate dollars are used to distribute 2k to student athletes evenly in all sports then I am in favor. Two thousand dollars spread over 11 months is just under 200.00 a month for a student athlete to have as spending money. I think that is a reasonable amount and certainly wouldnt imho constitute "paying athletes".

willandi
11-01-2011, 08:19 PM
NCAA took $771,000,000 for rights to the March Madness last year. They took in a lot more for football and other sports. If there are 350 D1 schools, and 250 athletes at each school (just a guess), and they paid each athlete $2,000/yr, it would come to $175,000,000.00, or about 1/4 of what they took in for March Madness alone. There would be no conference bias etc. All athletes would get the money. There would be less to pay out to the March Madness teams/conferences and to football bowl game teams/conferences (although most of that comes from game sponsors) and everyone would be slightly happier. They could even throw a couple thou my way!

ZagDaddy
11-02-2011, 04:37 AM
I haven't yet read the Atlantic article, but Frontline did a story on this subject last spring. It's well worth a look. You can view it on-line here (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/money-and-march-madness/).

Beer_Engineer
11-02-2011, 07:59 AM
Its only a matter of time. The concept of "amateurism" is ridiculous in today's culture. The athletes deserve it. Here's another good article. Much....much shorter :)

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7177921/the-beginning-end-ncaa

Beer_Engineer
11-02-2011, 08:02 AM
The whole thing is a mess. The thing that bothers me the most is that the NCAA institutionalizes corruption behind a facade of this moral and ethical absolute that only they, seemingly, have the divine right to maintain.

Exactly right. The NCAA denies the use of their likeness, then uses it for their convenience. Its ludicrous.

kclubfounder
11-02-2011, 08:17 AM
The day when an individual is forced against his will to go to a college and play on a team is the day when I will start to listen to the slavery analogy. You don't want to go to college because you think you are being taken advantage of, don't flipping go.

NEC26
11-02-2011, 08:39 AM
The day when an individual is forced against his will to go to a college and play on a team is the day when I will start to listen to the slavery analogy. You don't want to go to college because you think you are being taken advantage of, don't flipping go.

This

LongIslandZagFan
11-02-2011, 08:45 AM
The day when an individual is forced against his will to go to a college and play on a team is the day when I will start to listen to the slavery analogy. You don't want to go to college because you think you are being taken advantage of, don't flipping go.

Completely agree... The imagery used borders on offensive.

Beer_Engineer
11-02-2011, 09:32 AM
Completely agree... The imagery used borders on offensive.

Offensive cause its about right on? Agreed, it is offensive...

Beer_Engineer
11-02-2011, 09:34 AM
The day when an individual is forced against his will to go to a college and play on a team is the day when I will start to listen to the slavery analogy. You don't want to go to college because you think you are being taken advantage of, don't flipping go.

The day that the NCAA gives tickets to games and gives out video games for free at their own choosing and declares it's self a non-profit is the day this debate dies.

75Zag
11-02-2011, 10:10 AM
We have had this discussion before, and I get it that most of you don't care about the plight of the top 1% of the Men's BB world, but it remains a truth that every year a significant number of 5 star kids come out of high school or prep school or whatever who are unable to spell DOG if you spot them the first 3 letters, but as they position themselves to exploit their basketball talents they are presented with two options, which are (a) go to college and perform for free like a trained seal for a year or two until an NBA spot becomes available, or (b) try one of the other largely unsuccessful alternate paths to the NBA such as going straight from prep school to Europe or the NBA D League.

You can talk about free choice all you want, but so long as the AAU / Shoe Company / Agent / NCAA / NBA machine keeps rolling along, super elite kids with -0- academic skills will continue to be forced to work for free for a year or two while they enrich the system.

Go Bulldogs! Get Bigger!

NEC26
11-02-2011, 10:33 AM
The day that the NCAA gives tickets to games and gives out video games for free at their own choosing and declares it's self a non-profit is the day this debate dies.

The money goes to support their scholarship and others scholarships. They are not playing for free and they will always have a choice.

DADoZAG
11-02-2011, 11:09 AM
It would seem that many on this board would support a "redistribution of wealth."

I guess I'm a bit surprised in that...

Go ZAGS!

ZagWhoShotLibertyValance
11-02-2011, 11:58 AM
great article. discussion not so much.

several items not being commented on:
1. The NCAA is a self-created, self-perpetuating sham. This article makes a great argument that the NCAA is the third wheel-- there are the colleges, there are the students, and then somehow, there is now, attached like some kind of remora, the NCAA. I had always imagined that the schools created the NCAA. Weird to find out how wrong I was. So, why do we listen to the NCAA?

2. The coaches. No-one seems to have any kind of problem with coaches and assistants making so much money. Working at academic institutions. Why do they make so much? Because they are so much more valuable to the college than professors, etc. Really? At an academic institution?

3. There is some brief commentary and discussion about how the scholarships somehow make it all worth while. Aside from the very fact that many students (20 percent) don't get their schollies renewed and that many finish their scholarship eligibility without graduating (see APR) there is still the grotesque distribution of resources. If these students got to go for four years AND if they graduated with marketable skills, this would be a closer argument (still exploitation) but its really not close. Seriously. (Now we can segue into the discussion how its all the athlete's fault, too - gosh, they should have known to go to class or known that people get hurt or known that most people don't play pro-- all the dreams fed to them by parents, teachers, coaches, the media-- none of that should compare to what the athlete should have known before they went to school).

Final comment. Who is getting rich? Well, it ain't most of the players. If it were the players there would not be this discussion. It because most of the people getting rich are machiavellian movers and shakers who care about their pocketbook more than they will ever care about the players.

Oh, well. Love the Zags. This whole thing about colleges supporting athletics is pretty stupid, though.

ZWSLV

HillBillyZag
11-02-2011, 12:16 PM
There are plenty of stones to cast, but we all can share at least part of the mess that big time Collegiate athletics has become. PARENTS who try and relive their own dreams through childrens eyes by pushing them to excel in sports that they don't ENJOY or fail to teach them while the object of any competition is to WIN, there is NO SHAME in giving your BEST EFFORT and failling short, as we all have done or will do, from time to time. MEDIA who don't respect the sports they cover and encourage some athletes to feel they are BIGGER than the game itself and promote attitudes and actions that are not only only in poor taste, but illegal. . SCHOOLS that fail to prepare kids to continue their education in College or learn a trade that will earn them a decent living? Colleges and Universities that seek out and recruit student/ athletes who may excel that their sport?, but have neither the basic education. social skills, or character to succeed in LIFE if they cannot perform at the professional level? And one can't leave out we FANS whose sometimes unrealistic expections for success place the jobs/careers of many
excellent Coaches at risk every season.

DrDrivel
11-02-2011, 12:20 PM
I'm honestly shocked that there are people on this board taking the NCAA's side on this issue. I mean, honest shock. If you're really backing the NCAA, a shadowy organization that threatens and intimidates so as to keep its coffers stuffed and its cash-crop "student-athletes" uncompensated and cowed, you clearly either know nothing about the issue-at-hand or you're a terrible person. I'm not even bothering to rework my logical fallacies. That's actually how I feel.

The NCAA is a cartel. And its primary goal is its own preservation and stimulus, which is NOT to say the preservation and stimulus of its member-schools and emplo- er... "student-athletes." I'm not being a conspiracy-theorist. This is pretty much the accepted reality.

HillBillyZag
11-02-2011, 12:45 PM
You've been listening to Cowherd and Rome too long Doc. Most private Universities and Colleges are run by Presidents hired by a Board of Regents or Directors. They wield the real power in establishing and carrying out school policies. They also are gaining more muscle in enfluencing NCAA policy. I will be you a large steak that if this " pay for play'
thing gets pushed, many Institutions will eliminate athletic scholarships and offer only a limited number of "need based " Academic Scholarships per sport. In addition, all of the womens and non-revenue producing sports would take that paid athletes deal to Court ASAP and would likely win, I can see Rutgers Girls Field hockey Team getting an extra couple thousand per? No way, Jose!

DrDrivel
11-02-2011, 12:59 PM
I don't listen to Cowherd or Rome at all. I don't have TV.

Yes, I see the notion of stipends costing schools their lower-revenue sports, but most schools are operating in the red on those sports to begin with. A fairer distribution of the income from student-athletes (i.e., less money siphoned off to the NCAA) would provide counterbalance and perhaps even viability. As this article and another on Grantland right now http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7177921/the-beginning-end-ncaa show us, two conferences alone accounted for just shy of $2,000,000,000 in revenue. Look at the Longhorn Network, the BigTen Network, the SEC Network, etc... this is a sh*tty economy and there's still enough income to be creating MORE sustainable, profitable outlets. Come on.

RenoZag
11-02-2011, 05:45 PM
From the Grantland Story linked above:


On October 27, undoubtedly in response to all of this, and in an obvious attempt to keep order within the help, the NCAA voted to allow its member conferences to decide whether to pay their athletes an annual stipend of $2,000 to cover the "incidental costs" of a college education. NCAA president Mark Emmert was firm in his denial that this constituted "pay for play."

Nonsense.

Of course, it is.

And that's the ballgame right there. As soon as you pay someone $2,000, you cannot make the argument that it is unethical to pay that person $5,000, or $10,000, or a million bucks a year, for all that. Amateurism is one of those rigid things that cannot bend, only shatter. Amateurism is an unsustainable concept. It could not last in golf. It could not last in tennis. It couldn't even last in the Olympics, where it was supposed to have been ordained by Zeus or someone. It is the rancid legacy of a stultified British class system in which athletes were supposed to be "gentlemen" and not "tradesmen." Which is to say that sports are supposed to be for Us and not Them, old sport.

The two thousand dollar "stipend" payment establishes what the players are - we're just haggling over the price.

NEC26
11-02-2011, 05:51 PM
So what would you have them do then? Let those who do have the cash pay their players to come and those who do not will simply give their players scholarships (thereby enslaving those poor players)?
I'm not saying I'm a huge fan of the NCAA but we will have a huge mess if we open this door. There will no longer be amateur sports and would high school teams be the next in line to start paying players?
Some high school sports are on ESPN now I could see this generating some decent revenue eventually. Why shouldn't those kids get paid too?
Shoot lets start giving out scholarships to middle schoolers while we are at it too.

RenoZag
11-02-2011, 06:05 PM
Shoot lets start giving out scholarships to middle schoolers while we are at it too.

If Calipari could give one to LeBron James' 7 year old son, he would. . .

DixieZag
11-02-2011, 06:06 PM
I agree that there is a huge value in the scholarship offered players and that is a form of payment. As to whether there should be a stipend - I say fine, some students get aid by working at the library for minimum wage, perhaps the players could get the same for time spent practicing and games.

What REALLY is unfair are the NCAA rules against an athlete capitalizing on his/her own fame - recently several athletes got suspended (USC?) for selling autographed items. THAT goes against every legal and moral principle I can think of. What business is it to the NCAA if an athlete is paid to come speak to a club - on his/her own time? What business is it of the NCAA's if an athlete sells his own autographed posters? If an athlete is offered money to make a local (even national) commercial - on their OWN time, why can they not? Those are the rules that really stretch into the realm of unfairness. IMHO

Good points made on both sides - but I don't see how the above can be de

kclubfounder
11-02-2011, 07:02 PM
Again, if you don't like the NCAA, don't think the NCAA is fair, think the NCAA is run by the devil, or don't like the NCAA for any reason at all, you have a choice. Don't participate.

If too many stop participating because they don't like the rules then it is likely the rules will change.

What a concept!

Many on this thread sure seem to think they are pretty smart, and believe they know what is right and what is wrong more than anyone else.

In fact, many on this thread seem as arrogant as those who control the NCAA.

RenoZag
11-02-2011, 07:28 PM
Many on this thread have strong opinions but don't see a need to dismiss those they disagree with as "arrogant."

kclubfounder
11-03-2011, 06:34 AM
Only as arrogant as those who run the NCAA. So it is a statement of relativity, which shouldn't be THAT controversial, unless one has really thin skin.

a13coach
11-03-2011, 06:54 AM
I agree that there is a huge value in the scholarship offered players and that is a form of payment. As to whether there should be a stipend - I say fine, some students get aid by working at the library for minimum wage, perhaps the players could get the same for time spent practicing and games.

What REALLY is unfair are the NCAA rules against an athlete capitalizing on his/her own fame - recently several athletes got suspended (USC?) for selling autographed items. THAT goes against every legal and moral principle I can think of. What business is it to the NCAA if an athlete is paid to come speak to a club - on his/her own time? What business is it of the NCAA's if an athlete sells his own autographed posters? If an athlete is offered money to make a local (even national) commercial - on their OWN time, why can they not? Those are the rules that really stretch into the realm of unfairness. IMHO

Good points made on both sides - but I don't see how the above can be de

The potential for abuse of the system of the above is staggering. Let's suppose Frankie All-Star PG decides to make an appearance at the local mall near BCS U where he plays ball, in order to sell a couple of autographed posters of him. And what do you know little Jimmy, who just happens to be at the mall (and is the child of a wealthy booster) with a wad of cash and offers up $10,000 for the poster. And of course at no time whatsoever during Frankie's recruitment before signing with BCS U there was any mention that his autographed posters would be so profitable, right?

Beer_Engineer
11-03-2011, 08:26 AM
Many on this thread have strong opinions but don't see a need to dismiss those they disagree with as "arrogant."

+10k

DixieZag
11-03-2011, 08:41 AM
The potential for abuse of the system of the above is staggering. Let's suppose Frankie All-Star PG decides to make an appearance at the local mall near BCS U where he plays ball, in order to sell a couple of autographed posters of him. And what do you know little Jimmy, who just happens to be at the mall (and is the child of a wealthy booster) with a wad of cash and offers up $10,000 for the poster. And of course at no time whatsoever during Frankie's recruitment before signing with BCS U there was any mention that his autographed posters would be so profitable, right?


I agree that the potential for abuse is there, but that sort of potential is already there, already a very difficult source of abuse. I didn't propose the perfect answer, and I totally agree that there is potential for abuse, it just offends me that once a player signs to a school, they lose all rights to make money during their own time and on the basis of their own fame.