#SOYBEANWIND - John Oliver Drops Mic on NCAA

First the video:

I love me some John Oliver.

This topic has come up A LOT on TKP. I really like the points that Oliver is making though I think some of it doesn't have the right context, for example coaches salaries are not just paid by the school but also boosters. Points on Oliver's discussion:

1) #SOYBEANWIND - this almost makes me want to join Twitter. Dabo looking like an classless ass clown is always a good thing. Oliver just needed to add the Dabo "looking at tiger" GIF to achieve perfection.

2) UNC academics, or lack thereof, involved in another awesome take down. It's more punishment than what the NCAA will ultimately give them.

3) Taiwan style Animation of "March Sadness" was pure gold, but obviously not for the athletes.

4) Paying athletes: I have been vocal about being against market based payments to athletes. In fact, I believe this is the quickest way to destroy college athletics. Traditions that define schools will wither and die, and recruits will place importance of selecting school (and rightly so) purely on who can pay the most. I disagree that this is good for college sports and schools. I do however, and have stated so many times, believe in increased stipends or monthly payments, similar to graduate assistants, etc to give athletes a living wage. I also believe in Full Cost of Tuition measures and after sports medical insurance coverage. What happened to Hardrick at Oklahoma is a travesty. This leads to a part of the conversation that Oliver didn't touch on...

5) Power5 power moves: The Power 5 Conferences forced the NCAA to allow them to dictate the way in which they treat their own athletes. The intent obviously is to both increase benefits for stressed athletes that need them and also appease the masses so as to not allow market conditions into the sport. It was a watershed moment for the NCAA that hasn't gotten enough press. The more schools, who ultimately are simply allowing the NCAA to police them, can dictate change to the NCAA (an institution vilified by it's ineptitude and inaction) in positive directions the better.

6) #SOYBEANWIND - I wish I could see Dabo's face when he sees this... so much. I expect to see this during Clemson football games next season painted on opposing student bodies.

7) Ed O'Bannon: I agree with O'Bannon in that players should receive increased benefits and living wage but I disagree with O'Bannon's case about getting paid for likeness, name, etc. The reason is that in my account athletes are not just given a free education. They are given free coaching, free PR and marketing, free advertising, etc for their brand. Those good enough will go on and cash in, those not good enough won't. But that level of national exposure is something immensely valuable, into the 10's - 100's of millions of dollars, demanding schools to pay for their likeness pales in value in comparison. It's taken me nearly 20 years to build my brand as an architect to where I am able to reap the benefits from it and at no point during my collegiate studies was my work given national exposure. You can see the direct correlation of this in the contract size for athletes that turn pro over time as college sports has become more and more popular on national television from the early to mid 80's. It is not a coincidence that rookies are getting paid so much more now than just decade(s) ago. The comparable on the #1 draft pick's contract values are staggering:
1980 Billy Sims: $1 million Signing Bonus, 180,000 annual salary
1990 Jeff George, $15 million for 6 years
2000 Courtney Brown, $45 million for 6 years, $10.8 signing bonus
2010 Sam Bradford, $76 million for 6 years, $50 million guaranteed!

average rookie salaries have also exponentially increased. I can only dream of how much money I could be making if I was a nationally recognized design talent coming out of school. So why is this? because the ones that can make it are coming out of school with immeasurable amount of value put into them. A value that is high risk for the school which puts that value in all players but only sees a few start and even fewer be stars. And if the money they put in does not translate to success on the field it's loss of revenue due to loss of ticket sales and boosters. As Oliver stated those that do reap the rewards only counts for roughly 2% of athletes, which is why all athletes need certain rights, increased money and benefits. Market based compensation however is not the answer, fair stipends/living wage with medical insurance is.

One thing is for certain, this issue certainly is not going away.

Recently, professional athletes have weighed in, Richard Sherman, and others for, for:

Sir Charles against: LINK

I think Sherman wins the debate on this occasion but I still don't think he's right.