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.
Comments
Dayuum.
So much to unpack.
Thanks for posting.
found it:
There's a reason why I don't like TV programs like this and that segment is a fine of example of it.
Completely portray one side, show clips out of context and don't explain anything about the total issue.
For example, schools hide the profits by buying extravagant. Show something from one of the highest revenue generating schools (cue Alabama hydrotherapy pool for their revenue generating sport). How about drop back to the number 80 school and show their facilities and explain this money does not come from school budget. Explain the positive impact on football and bball revenues on Title IX and the positive impact that has on those student/athletes. Their sports may not exist at that level in more than a few colleges.
The segment on UNC paint EVERY SCHOOL in a bad light. It will not be clear to the masses that watch this show air that not all schools are this way and that some athletes have enough time to study to become architects and doctors. People that have seen this think VT does this too and it's common-place.
He's not touched on the reasons why payment is problematic and would result in the Michigans, Alabamas and U Texases perpetually owning the college sports teams through player purchases. All other "jobs" would be like jobs for the union guys in The Sopranos, no show payoffs.
Its just his weekly soapbox... Much like Jon Stewart, if you're turning to him for actual factual news, you're a bit of a moron. These guys distort the truth and pick and choose bullet points to create and agenda, falling back on the "we're a comedy show, not news" while playing themselves off as a legitimate news source.
Oliver had a hit early on with the Net Neutrality rant, and its been a bit of trying too hard since then.
hahahaha.... Pot meet Kettle.
What's moronic is not listening to one side of the argument or the other. No single person is 100% wrong or right.
You personally have ranted and raved on this very site about a wide variety of topics. Yet you say anyone that does this type of "ranting" is simply distorting the truth. So is that what you are doing here? We should simply dismiss everything you say because you rant from time to time? Seriously.. you should take a look in the mirror if that's the case. I would no more call the Oliver's & Stewart's of the world news casters as I would practically anyone on nightly news today. EVERYONE is biased these days.
Apologies if my opinions sometimes differ from yours.
that's the point that you can't quite understand. I really don't care if they do. Where I think you are in the wrong is that you have a penchant for dismissing people or arguments out of hand with a sometimes holier than thou attitude. Yet, you soap box as much or more than anyone else here.
uh... thanks for proving my point?
anyway, preemptive squirrel gif starting in 3.... 2.... 1....
You harshly make a point I do agree with. The fact is, I enjoy these rants. I enjoy these shows. What started as pure comedy and satire has somewhat evolved into individuals using a platform to share their political views AND acting as a credible source. HOWEVER....I am inviting you to look at this a slightly different way. Instead of scolding these individuals (which to a certain extent they deserve), I'd say join them in the conversation they started. You're right, its not the whole story, but its certainly not incorrect. Someone re-posted this segment and then someone called them out. They just got 2 people on opposing sides to talk about it (while providing entertainment). Maybe that's the idea?
I thought the Miss America piece was particularly successful. The Elected Judges piece, which doesn't apply to Virginia, was particularly appalling to me.
I knew the conservatives would find a way to voice their frustration with this post as soon as I saw the title.
Whoa there hoss, not all conservatives get butthurt over interesting, thought provoking John Oliver segments. I'd consider myself particularly conservative, yet I love LWT. Political views don't necessarily correlate with specific things like this, and definitely have no place in a sports forum.
Never said "all." That wasn't a general statement. And I obviously wasn't wrong, couldn't make it past 4 comments until what I suspected was proven right.
I know the guidelines. I wanted to make that statement so I did.
You did make a general statement; you don't have to say "all." You made an assumption by lumping a group of people into a political ideology. Don't do that here. No politics. This is the second time in a week that I've had to say that. I realize our minds wander around this time of year, and we delve into different topics, but come on. We've had reasonable debates about NCAA legislation and even stuff like constitutional law without going into the political side, debating only the merits of the argument. No reason to degrade the quality of those types of discussions by making assumptions about people and invoking politics.
Excellent, so it's Bender 2.0. "I don't care what the rules are."
Your passive aggressive signature line is also pretty outdated. Just saying.
Please follow the community guidlines.
Beat me to it. Thanks.
This comment has no place here. Please do the respectful thing and edit or remove it.
I don't see him portraying every school in a negative light at all. He is speaking specifically about a singular issue. No, he does not have a full reach on the topic, as I stated, but he is not wrong on anything he said. You are right about small schools struggling but he is right about Bama's and other program's extravagances. The cost of Bama's hydrotherapy POOLS could easily have paid for increased stipends for the football players for quite some time. That's not wrong. He has a limited amount of time and there is no way can broach the specifics of each school and program.
Yes, Oliver has a limited amount of time. A 20 minute segment didn't cover a wide ranging issue in its entirety? Shocking!
What Oliver's show has done on this and other stories (Net Neutrality and the FCC, Civil Asset Forfeiture, Big Tobacco Global Legal Wrangling, et. al.) is to present the indefensible pieces of a particular topic within the context of the entire topic. My experience is that the reason some feel discomfort in watching his show is his laser like precision in the targeting of the bad.
I don't think that any one thinks that collegiate athletics is perfect. One of Oliver's points is: if the refusal to compensate athletes is driven in any way by the desire to raise profits through avoiding liability for the long term care of injured athletes, then that is indefensible and cannot stand. Regardless of any good college athletics does, you cannot build a "business" on discarding broken kids.
#JEFFWECAN
I agree that he only presented UNC but a bunch of the people that watched that are not news junkies or ACC junkies that know this. It'll get applied as knowledge regarding all schools. My own relatives have already done this and one of them is an adjunct prof at a DIII school. She should know better.
Yep... that part irked me as well. He cherry picked the worst of the worst offenses throughout collegiate sports and then applied them across the board as if these kinds of things are going on everywhere. No, what happened at UNC is not going on everywhere. Not every school is tinkering with non-existent classes tailor made for athletes so they can remain eligible. That is entirely on UNC.
I disagree. He presented the events at UNC as a counterargument to the idea that student athletes are compensated with a quality education, by showing one instance of student athletes' education being worthless. By your argument, any presentation of specific examples to refute a vague, general claim world be cherrypicking.
The NCAA has never claimed that some/many/most student athletes are provided educational opportunities. They claim that "all" student athletes are provided educational opportunities. A claim of "all" can be disproved by a single counterexample. If their claim had been some/many/most student athletes are provided educational opportunities, then the obvious follow up would be "What about those who are not provided educational opportunities?"... a question to which I suspect they don't have a very good answer.
Mark Emmert President of the NCAA said [punctuation is mine]:
"The fact is they are not employees. They are student athletes."
"I can't say often enough, student athletes are students. They are not employees."
"We provide them with remarkable opportunities to get an education at the finest universities on earth (that's American universities and colleges)."
There are no qualifiers in his statements (e.g. some, many, most), which makes them blanket "all" statements.
But there is a stealthy qualifier in his statements. He never says that they given and education, but rather "opportunities" to get an education. This puts the onus of taking advantage of the opportunities to get said education on the student athletes. As a whole, the universities are not run by fools. They know exactly what they are doing.
Agreed, he does say "opportunity" for an education and that has long been the carefully worded collegiate athletics canon.
However, he also says "student athlete" and "student" repeatedly. If athletes aren't getting an education, then it begs the question as to whether or not they are actually "students" (in any traditional sense of the word).
Which is why thier inaction against UNC is going to be part of the NCAA's downfall. UNC basically did not uphold thier end of the deal and provide the education and the NCAA has drug its feet. If the NCAA truly believed that the education aspect is as important as they claim as compensation, this should have been an open and shut case
I am hoping there will be a follow up segment later on This Week Tonight entitled "The NCAA - A Study in Conflict of Interest"
But you are blaming the ignorance of the masses on Oliver. If everyone is so easily duped into blind belief then we would all be sitting in Europe scared of falling off the end of the earth. Oliver is putting a spotlight on a salient topic in today's society. He might not have all the facts crammed into his segment, nor do I agree with everything he said but at least he is bringing it to the forefront of conversation which is the point of his show.
I don't see how presenting UNC's idiocy translates to "every school academically fails student athletes". Instead I see a point - counter point argument by him and the NCAA. Student's are paid an education, but that education is not always the best or even what you could call an education. he literally says: "And the education athletes do get is sometimes insultingly watered down." (emphasis my own) at 7:12 mark before introducing the UNC segment.
I see where you are coming from, and because we know more about this particular subject, it highlights the one-sidedness. But I would like to know more about the OU basketball player. I assumed all hurt players were kept on scholarship (but it didn't count against the scholarship #) while continuing to get treatment paid for by the school. If that's not the case, it should be. Its a clear workers-comp issue (which raises another rant, WC is state-by-state, you get $750K for a lost arm in North Carolina but $48K in Alabama)
I'm in the Pay The Players camp while charging them for the education, marketing, medical, tutors, gear, nutrition, coaching, etc that they get in return.
I may be mistaken, but since they are classified as "student-athletes" and not "employees", workers-comp does not apply. Some say that they were classified that way back in the '50s for specifically that reason.
Yeah, that's what they said in the piece.
Which is bullshit. If a kid hurts himself training for the team, he should be treated as if it is a WC case.
Doh! Sorry about that. I couldn't watch the video at work (ironically enough).
I agree that it is total bullshit, but the NCAA will do everything it can to not call them "workers" or "employees".
I'm assuming you don't like FoxNews either then.
Since you bring it up, I see through the crap on most TV news magazines and news shows and tend to not watch them because they irritate the crap out of me for their one sidedness.
Much better to go with a written source where I can take notes and discover more facts than were presented. In today's day and age where one can get an electronic searchable copy of the Wall Street Journal and the NY Times delivered to your inbox, complete with archives, there is no room for wasting time with those guys.
I find it more interesting that you select only Fox News for your question.
Cable news in general is editorialized shit. Even the cable news that aligns with my own personal political viewpoint. I avoid all of it.
My own news preferences are shaped by the coverage in the aftermath of April 16. In the subsequent coverage of the shootings, I found the coverage of NPR and BBC America to be the most respectful in tone and of the highest, most objective quality. I have followed both those outlets as my primary radio/TV news sources since, and have yet to be given reason to question my original assesment.
Cablenews in general is editorialized shit.That's the way I see it.
I don't watch BBQ news, maybe I should try it but find NPR just a different style of advocate.
BBQ news is something I could totally get behind, although I could see it becoming too political when they show bias toward Texas style or that weird NC stuff
With the beautiful weather outside, perhaps this was a Freudian slip, eh?
tell me about it, I have some ribs in the freezer that will be meeting a grill this weekend.
I find All Things Considered to be the best all around coverage of any given day's major headlines, and any political spin is negligible IMO. Others might disagree, but to me they do a really, really good job of keeping everything factual and sourced.
I have NPR on in my car all the time, and I love All Things Considered.
I think there is a slight liberal leaning (and I mean that more in the non-political sense of the word really, I frankly hate how Liberal and Conservative have become used as derogatory words when they do have an actual meaning) by the simple nature of the types of stories they tend to highlight on NPR. Human interest pieces, international news stories, etc. I think you are much more likely to hear an NPR piece of growing wealth inequality, than not, for example, but as you said done in such a way to be factual rather than editorial.
Here in AZ the local segments when they have guests do a great job of balancing the two sides with commentators, which can be difficult considering the political realities found in this state.
I agree that their programming has a certain focus, but I really like that focus and, as you said, they really do present ALL sides. It was through All Things Considered that I realized that the Keystone Pipeline already existed and Keystone XL was a proposed addition/rerouting. They actually present the whole story.
They also have what in my opinion is the best investor-focused program in Marketplace. It beats the pants off of anything on CNBC.
I think Oliver's point is about equality, focusing on the elite programs. Both the 80th school and the top ten schools in revenue don't make a profit because they have non-profit status. Yet, the top-10 bring in hundreds of millions in revenue annually on the backs of top-10 level athletes. Yet, it's the coaches and the directors that profit on the top-10 athlete's back. Oliver was simply pointing out a huge problem, non-profit status of the elite programs to ensure the athletic directors and coaches stay millionaires. The solution is obviously more involved, most likely a severance of the P5.
The impact on Title IX is huge, but not relevant to the topic at hand. If you were to take a pie chart of top-10 athletic department's budget, and look at female sports, I imagine you would be looking at less than 20% sliver. It's approximately 30% nationally in 2006. The issue is not about Title IX, as Title IX proponents would argue the profits are becoming more unjust. The key issue is about who generates the money and who makes a profit and the inherent inequality.
Tradition is a terrible reason to prevent equality.
Being labeled as a non-profit has nothing to do with whether you run surplus income or a deficit. It has to do whether you pay income tax on the profits. Look at the endowment for Harvard it's what, 34.6 billion now? That's a non-profit.
Title IX is relevant because it is one way those athletic departments spend that revenue. It was made part of the argument by Oliver when he pretended it all went to extravagances. He's trying to play one side, I'm presenting the lopsidedness of his rant.
In theory, non-profits cannot generate excess profits. They must have a plan to use the surplus. A program can gain non-profit status for charitable, educational, or religious purposes. Obviously, an athletic program is providing educational benefit to the student athletes. An educational non-profit can only spend their revenues and profits on providing education and "keeping the program running."
However, in the elite athletic programs, the football and basketball athletes provide hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue above their cost of education. So, the non-profit athletic organizations must use this money in order to "keep it running," which means they spend it on exorbitant facilities, over-paid coaches, and a tiny fraction (10-20%?) to Title IX sports.
Bottom line: The elite athletic departments run their programs as for-profit businesses, with a non-profit titles, and spread the excess revenues among the facilities, coaches and directors. None of the profit goes to the hardworking individuals who provide the labor. Circumventing labor laws with bogus titles of "non-profit" and "educational" should be illegal. That's Oliver's opinion, and I agree.
But his rant was against the NCAA.
You are railing against the universities and their acquisition of revenues.
How much should these guys get paid? They are already about to get stipends.
The NCAA, collegiate conferences, and the university athletic departments go hand in hand. Listen to Oliver's rant at the end (approx. 17:30):
NCAA doesn't pay the employees at the campus book store nor the coaches. He's obviously ranting at all three levels of exploitation: the NCAA, Collegiate Conferences, and the University Athletic Departments.
Yes, his rant is against athletes not getting paid, the culprits including but not limited to the NCAA.
Hey I've got an idea...Instead of all the middlemen getting richer off of the athletes, and instead of the athletes getting paid....why not take a percentage of ANY item sold (shirts, jackets, programs, tickets, hot dogs, etc.) (% to be determined by someone smarter than me) and require said percentage to be automatically and evenly taken off the tuition of EVERY student in the university, That invests everyone at the school in seeing that those sports teams succeed, creates more potential fans and helps alleviate financial problems for all students... anything to help toward the astronomical costs of a college education...and insure that college athletes aren't professional athletes?
This already happens. All schools have licensing fees for use of their name, nickname, logo, etc. the school has no restrictions on the way it spends licensing money. If it wanted to not spend any of it on athletic facilities because it was getting a bigger share of the billions of dollars the "non profit" NCAA was taking in it could dedicate other revenue sources, like donations, to academics. I am not sure if the school is allowed to spend money on athletics if made from sports licensing specifically or if those designations exist, but there are restrictions how money that can be allocated to the athletic dept.
Alright...but specifically subtracting a percentage of all sales off all of the students' tuition?
God I love John Oliver. I know he has a pretty sweet gig with HBO but I'd love it if Comedy Central pried him away to be Jon Stewart's successor on the Daily Show. Oliver does a much better job at presenting global issues. Though admittedly that might change if he were to go to Comedy Central.
agreed. I hope he stays at HBO. I am in the Tina Fey camp for the Daily Show, though I doubt that's even in the cards.
Honestly that would be a step down for her unless they gave her absolute creative control over the program.
They'd have to somehow do more than that. Creative control is no longer a step up in her career. Ultimately I'd never see her doing it as it would be more work than she needs at this point in her career
You're right, of course. And I honestly don't think they could afford her. I'm just saying there's NO way they would get her workout making her head writer and giving her complete control over what pieces they run. Plus, her Sarah Palin impressions aside, she isn't really that political.
She's a wahoo though...immediately discredits her from the running.
He won't go back to CC because they sell advertising, which necessarily limits what he would be allowed to talk about on the show. That was one of the big draws for HBO, no sponsors means he can bag on anyone he wants. Which is a really good thing
#SOYBEANWIND is now trending
I love the Daily Show and if I had HBO I would totally watch John Oliver and Bill Maher. I don't use them for news but more entertainment and as sort of the distilled version of what is going on in the world. One could argue that the Fox News and CNNs of the world are more egregious as they claim to be news while both being completely bias and pandering to what they think viewers want to hear (i.e. entertainment). Oliver and Stewart aim their lens the ridiculous amount of things we as a society tolerate by looking the other way and attempt to shine a bright enough light that people have to pay attention. Their goal is simply to draw attention. It is then up to the viewer to look into the issue and decide to act. I am usually left just simply shaking my head after each show and wondering how in the information age, we as a society can be so blind at times.
Great point on the Oliver and Stewart types (and Colbert fell in this category obviously as well).
Whenever someone would label one of the Comedy Central shows as "fake news", I always felt that they were moreso real news, just delivered in a humorous way. And that method was to point out the sheer and utter ridiculousness (and factual reality) of a lot of these stories.
This clip is a great example. Although over the top, nothing that Oliver said is factually incorrect, and he has done a great job of this on a number of big topics (cigarette ads being one of my recent favorites)
I make sure to watch Oliver's main segments on YouTube because while this is an issue I see constantly other stories he's done are more obscure. Most of them are more, like he says, basic human decency stories. My favorite is the one on civil forfeiture, which just happened to my roommate.
Here's my take (for what it's worth)...the most common reason why a person is a fan of a college athletic program stems from a deep, emotional connection with that institution. Whether it's where they went to school, where their parents went to school, they grew up near the university or they saw a personification of themselves within that institution, the reason for their fandom is rarely esoteric. For example, the kid growing up in San Mateo, California is very unlikely to be a Virginia Tech Football fan unless his parents went there.
The closest parallel I can draw to this in the sporting world is the Olympics. I cheer for the United States in every event because I'm American. That will never change until the day I die (the only exception I could see is if my future kid is somehow competing for another country).
The idea that "playing the players will somehow change the face of collegiate atheltics" is laughable. I know that Michael Phelps, Apolo Anton Ohno, Missy Franklin and Gabby Douglas are all make several thousands of dollars (in some cases millions) because of their Olympic performance. I still root for all of those athletes as hard as I can even though I'm cognitive to their professional status. Those athletes getting paid doesn't change the idea that those athletes represent myself at a very basic, very deep and very emotional level. If Kendall Fuller starts making $75,000/year, it doesn't change the fact that he is associated with the same university where I graduated from. It doesn't change the fact that I'm emotionally vested in his athletic success. And it damn sure won't make me turn off the television at noon every Saturday because "Kendall Fuller isn't a true student-athlete".
The NCAA needs to get their heads of their collectives asses and remediate the program as quickly as possible.
If athletes were getting market payments there is no way Kendall is playing at VT, and I wouldn't blame him one bit. And that's the problem with your Olympic metaphor. As fans we are detached and can foster deeply rooted connections. For the Olympics there is but one choice for most U.S. citizens, not the plethora of options that college athletics offer.
Kendall being a blue chip player and very astute would easily recognize that he could make a hell of a lot more money for Bama, an OSU, etc than VT simply because our market is smaller. They can pay more than us. And with market payments in a game where injury is common you would be stupid not to get as much money as you can as quickly as you can. so recruits wouldn't be picking VT for that emotional connection they would be falling back to VT because they couldn't get a job at any other the schools that paid more than we do.
if that's the case drop education all together and pay them as a career. a pure minor league scenario, and let them pay for education themselves from their earnings if they wish to be educated.
in both scenarios market payments have completely destroyed college athletics.
Just playing devil's advocate, but couldn't one say that it's selfish of us as fans to support a system that doesn't give a player like Kendall the best possible situation for players?
sure, it's a fair point, but that's not what I am saying.
I feel universities are institutions of learning to educate/coach young minds to become more productive in society and hopefully help them succeed. that learning is paid for by the individual that wants it or if lucky provided an opportunity to receive it by scholarship. As I mentioned in the OP student athletes are given A LOT of value that may not be cash in hand, but equates to unheard of advantages if they can move on and succeed. Minus the national exposure that is true for normal students as well, if you study hard and make the grades you can also get a leg up, and that's exactly how a university should operate.
Nothing is stopping Kendall from going pro now. He has that option, just not with the NFL which prohibits it. otherwise arena and Canadian football is fair game. But if you want the leg up you go to a place to learn it. you don't get both, and you shouldn't.
And as I illustrated with rookie salaries it's hard to argue he isn't getting the best possible situation. he has potential to earn millions to sign his name on a piece of paper without playing a single down. What other profession gives you that? and it's precisely because universities are investing so much into sports that allows for that opportunity to happen for Kendall.
This is IMO the weakest point in this discussion. It's not for us to decide how much compensation another person deserves.
The major issue is that the system is now broken.
Before, there was (relatively) little value associated with college athletics, so there was no belief that players were entitled to (further) compensation. Now, NCAA sports are a multi-billion dollar industry.
The NCAA was originally created to prevent schools from taking advantage of athletes. Now, the NCAA tries (and often fails) at enforcing rules. As a result, the players no longer have a voice.
Agree that the system is broken and needs to be fixed. But disagree that universities should be both a place of education and professional sports companies.
It comes down to: where does it end? where does it end in valuation on either side, and where does it end with payments?
Valuation: Yes, athletics is big time money. But big time money is put into every player, and most do not become star players where they would receive big money while at college. So in a market based system all non-revenue sports will die off because the market inflation for football would kill the schools ability to fund anything else. Players have a value, but so does the coaching, training, free national exposure, etc that the school invests into the player. And I am willing to bet that value is more than what players would get from their likeness in the 2 - 5 years at a school, so it's not about deciding what another person deserves it's creating a stable platform where young kids can both get an education, which they all need, and be freely coached into having a chance to transition into a lucrative market place. Can you imagine if in the market economy there where labor disputes cancelling seasons, down economies that bankrupt schools, etc? How would that help the school or the athlete?
Payments: Why should payments stop at athletes then? All students should then have a right to claim market based salaries. I may not have had an athlete's schedule but I took an overload of classes every semester except freshman year and worked 2 jobs, one of those for the school that paid less than what athletes get paid. My schedule was extremely challenging and my success as a student translates into the school becoming more well known and thus more financially robust. Therefore I, and every student, should be paid something. It may not be what an athlete would make in those conditions but I sure as heck could have used the extra money.
It just doesn't work that way, and it shouldn't. Schools inherently should be education first, everything else second. If you really want athletes to be paid by market demands then kiss college football goodbye and have a minor league, because schools would never be able to support that.
The NCAA makes huge money no doubt, but it pays out huge money as well. It is a non-profit and cannot retain that money. The question is how is the money being used, and that's what needs to be addressed. Not the actual making of money.
To clarify, I do not think that universities should pay athletes (not even a stipend). However, I do believe that it is unfair and unethical to prevent athletes from using their own name or likeness. If an athlete thinks of a witty phrase/picture that includes his name/likeness and wants to print/sell it on a T-Shirt, then he should be able to do so. If an athlete wants to start a summer camp teaching football, and have his name in the title, he should be able to do so. If a player wants to appear in a commercial for pay, he should be able to do so. No other scholarship student is preventing from being a working, profiting member of society while in school. Athletes should be no different.
I realize the obvious issue - "boosters" could purchase from students purely with the intent of enticing players. I think if the schools and NCAA worked together, this could be doable. IMO, this should be the ultimate goal; the ideal college sports system. If a person can be a student athlete while being an entrepreneur, there is no reason why he/she should be stopped.
Booster corruption I think is the main problem, as you stated. But what about the notion that those students likenesses are only valuable because the school made them so? the school is the one that has invested tens of millions into these athletes to freely educate, coach them and give them a free venue to become famous. the intrinsic value of their likeness, etc was formed by the university's money not theirs. so shouldn't the school be the one profiting from it? by the time they leave school their brand has now been built up by both the school's financial equity and the athlete's sweat equity. and if they move up they cash out BIG and the school gets nothing back on their investment, so the money made during the investment must be theirs alone.
I'd argue that the athletic spends this money with the main intent of creating their own brand, the end goal being to make the university as a whole more appealing to students (who pay tuition, hopefully donate money later) and professors (remember, athletic revenue is ~$60mil, research is ~$400mil). The university does not spend this money to give student-athletes a venue for fame.
As long as the athlete does not damage or directly 'work against' the university's brand, I see no reason why they should be prevented (rather, delayed) from profiting off of their name.
not directly but it is without question that a student athlete gains fame from the expenditure, thus it has value. And this still doesn't answer the question about the investment that the school puts into the athlete. Do they not have a right to a return on that investment?
let's look at it a different way. I sit on the board of an angel investor that invests in start-ups looking for short term return on investment. there are 2 types of deals:
a) investor puts their money into you and gets their money & return out first before you profit, and relinquishes any entitlement beyond that.
b) investor puts their money into you sharing short term returns in order to share in larger long term gains.
these are the options. Current practice for student athletes is choice A, but i would be fine with athletes choosing B and taking market payments now if universities got a share of their lucrative contracts in the future. To be sure though there is no option where an investor says: i will put my money into you and we share the short term returns and I see zero on the long term either.
I'd say that the on the field product (and the resulting interest from current/potential students, TV networks, etc) is the return on investment.
I think your startup/angel investor example actually plays to my point. Consider the following:
Like the investor, our athletic department's interest in an individual should stop at stage 2.
haha... well I don't really see how that doesn't make my argument because in your scenario it says startup only gets income after investor gets return and they get famous, which is what happens in college athletics now whereby a player only gets return at step 3 when they have built fame and get drafted.
but i enjoy the debate!
The investor gets money from the product/business. Not the start-up founder. The two are completely different entities.
Another example: Consider a musician/record label relationship. Record label gives musician funding/platform/management/etc while, musician makes music. Music gets famous and starts acting in movies. Record label has no right to money from acting, even if musician/actor is acting while his contract with record label is still current.
yes and while at school the product is theirs, not the athletes. that's the point. the athlete has received millions in value, there needs to be a return, so the school should get that.
regarding the record label comparison I don't see it applying. those contracts have long legs and are not short term. but for sake of argument, in that scenario it would only make sense if university is getting shares of the athletes pro contracts and a football player then decides to play basketball, thus excluding the school from earnings.
I guess I just feel that the school already gets fair compensation. Good discussion though.
Same on both counts. thanks dude
I understand the problems with the NCAA and enjoyed this satire, however people need to understand that until football and men's basketball are exempt from Title IX numbers no significant change will happen (IMO). People fail to realize that at least 90% of athletes (I'd be inclined to say closer to 98%) get the better end of the deal. The NCAA should be able to reward the 10% with some sort of cash flow (Trust funds, stipends etc.), but when you have to give everyone a piece of the pie change is less likely to happen. For example the Hokies and every other P5 school are now paying(stipend) every single athlete about $2500. I appreciate every VT athlete and the passion and time they put into to perform their best on the field and in the classroom, however I find it highly unlikely that these non-revenue athletes are bringing in 10% of what they cost to the university. It makes way more sense to give football players $5000. They are the ones bringing in the money and the more they are rewarded/given their due the better off for not only the football program, but other sports are better off because in theory the football program would bring in more money which would be used to upgrade amenities(baseball field etc.) for the other programs.
Oliver pointed out that to maintain "Non-Profit" status they sink in money anywhere they can. What he failed to portray was that schools fund every other athletes in large part due to the money revenue brings in. It is prudent for schools to pour money into new facilities so that elite football talent still comes to their school, which helps fund non-revenue sports. Furthermore, without continuously looking to upgrade and do better in athletics some donors would cut funds to the school entirely, which could eventually affect the entire student body.
Sorry for the rant, but we all know the NCAA is far far from perfect, but considering the constrictions placed on them (Title IX and not all of it obviously just some exemptions that I mentioned above that would be beneficial and not harm the original intent of the legislation), for all the flaws the NCAA has the fact they are only ripping off 2-10%, while not worthy of praise, people should understand it could be much worse
Great take. I know everyone has an opinion on the topic, but this was really entertaining. I'm not sure which way I lean with regards to whether or not student athletes should get paid, but he does make a compelling argument. I re-watched the Fab Five 30 for 30 over the weekend and the part where Chris Webber was talking about driving a crappy car and asking for money from a team assistant, yet seeing his jersey being sold in a store in downtown Detroit, painted this whole picture beautifully. I also remember amidst the Manziel autograph thing where Jay Bilas googled Johnny Manziel jersey and the first result came from the NCAA team shop. The only rule I would personally change without a doubt is if players can make money off their "brand." It's the one thing Jameis got accused for that I would have had no problem with, if it's true. Also, the end of the Charles Barkley article stated it best in regards to a variable salary per position.
Final note, even though the video game thing at the end of the video was dripping with sarcasm, I gotta think Jalen Rose was right when he said that's pretty much what happens.
Yeah, about Chris Webber and Jalen Rose...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Michigan_basketball_scandal
I'm not 100% on board with Stewart's social or political views but definitely a fan of the daily show. John Oliver, less so... he's pretty hit or miss for me. And this episode just came across as very shallow and populistic (again, to me). Having Sherman talk about how he'd like to see "a regular student" go through an athletes day followed by the segment on UNC sent a mixed message at best. And that was just one of many issues that I felt needed some contextualization.
#SOYBEANWIND had me rolling though.
I cut off part of your comment to focus on this part. This statement by Sherman came off to me as self-aggrandizing. It almost sounds like he's saying that he had it harder than everyone else. I think a lot of students would be willing to do what he did and would be successful at it.
I'd like to see him do what a regular college student does. Goes to class and does homework just like he did. But then probably has to go to a job that pays them very little, as opposed to the $44,000 a year worth of schooling from one of the top schools on the planet that he got, and doesn't keep them in peak physical shape (I did not include the value derived from the top level athletic training he received in that estimate, also that tuition/room/board cost is from this year, which is surely higher than it was when Sherman went to school, but not a terrible estimate I don't think).
"This statement by Sherman came off to me as self-aggrandizing..."
Richard Sherman would never say anything like that
Yeah, funny how the (literally) millions of dollars in elite training and professional development that is provided to these guys is constantly overlooked when discussing how 'exploited' they are. Sure less than 2% make it to the NFL or NBA, but by virtue of what they're exposed to during the process, they're extremely well equipped to be successful in any number of post collegiate endeavors - more-so than most 'regular' students I'd say. Oh, and they're debt free... so there's that too.
Great point. Sherman can say things like that because he doesn't know what it feels like to be 200k in tuition debt. VT out of state adds up quick and Id definitely have done what he did to have my tuition covered by the school.
Being a student athlete has different challenges than being a regular student. I won't say that the challenges a student athlete faces are easier or harder, just pretty different. IMO, athletes should not receive compensation beyond a scholarship for these different challenges. However, I do believe that athletes should be able to personally market their likeness for profit.
A licensing rights agreement would disproportionately benefit skill position players. That's not inherently an argument against it, just saying that a QB or WR will make way more than a OT or LB on jerseys sold, etc. It's one thing in the NFL, where everyone makes a salary to begin with, but would be more unfair in college were that the only source of income.
I will say, I'm amazed there hasn't been a massive class action lawsuit against EA sports and the NCAA over their college sports games.
Agreed on the likeness aspect. I can't believe the NCAA and EA thought they could get away with that. College football is interesting enough without having to market super stars in video games. Besides, you can create your own players anyway. The only reason I can see for doing it is that roster changes give them an excuse to market a new game each year.
There already has been a huge class action suit
when i was in school, i would have said "yeah, right" to Sherman. but then my daughter tutored scholarship athletes at UF for a couple semesters...football, women's basketball, baseball, women's soccer, men's swimming, women's softball, women's gymnastics, and women's golf. i have no clue how any of them ever pull more than a 2.5. the notion they are student-athletes is a joke. eat, train, class, eat, class, train, class, eat, class/study hall, snack, sleep. and God help you if your team makes the post season.
Oliver presented one side but his point was to present one side, and he got some chunks of that one side right...the athletes are functionally employees, universities do slant (legally) the accounting, the NCAA lost in court for a reason (and I'll bet against their appeal), and most importantly, dabo swinney is an anagram for soybeanwind !
and VT, who is already out front on the compensatory issue, should make sure that video of Dabo gets wide circulation
Richard Sherman received a degree in communications (albeit from Stanford). Now, no degree easy if you take it seriously. But if you can't get a 2.5 in communications with all the tutoring, organization, and special academic assistance they offer scholarship athletes (especially football/basketball players) these days, then I don't have much sympathy for you. I'd like to see a "regular" Richard Sherman (who's by most accounts a pretty sharp guy) go through an undergrad electrical engineering schedule.
Truuuu. I don't know how many communications majors are on here and I am even a mass comm minor, but it's definitely not the most difficult major in the world. I'd like to hear Brandon Facyson's take on Sherman's stance, due to the fact he's literally pre-med and they play the same position.
the issue is time. depending on the sport/coach (and it is highly dependent on the coach), there may not be any. if the coach needs you to get a decent grade or wants you to have that opportunity, they will make time. if the coach needs you for the tournament this year but not next year, you are going to get whatever grade you can get without study
I've posted this before, but here it is again:
Ed O'Bannon Appeal is going on right now:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_video.php?pk_vid=0000007373
To me, the biggest problem is that FBS level football has become a de facto developmental league for the NFL. If the NFL ran a true minor league, a lot of these issues would be avoided. But as it stands right now, any athlete good enough to make the League must go through college first for at least a few years, when admittedly there is zero reason for some of these young men to go to college. You can argue the value of education, but I'm not sure how much a blue chip who charts the path of least resistance for five semesters really gains from his college experience.
If we gave aspiring NFL football players an alternate path to the League, I think a lot of these issues would self-correct, and more scholarships would be open for the players who put a premium on education.
It is a developmental league. And the only entity that can change it is the NFL, but they have literally zero reason to. If there was some kind of true minor league system most problems would be solved, but the NFL would never do it because they have a free minor league system with no liability already set up
And add to that the fact that NFL Europe failed, so the NFL is going to be very skittish at the idea of investing in the setup of another developmental league.
The problem is, there is no way to legally compel the NFL to institute a farm system, so the onus is on the NCAA and its member universities. And they seem none too eager to modify the current arrangement.
Players can go to the AFL at 18 and CFL at 19, just like Basketball players can (and have) bypassed playing in college by going to Europe. Also, I don't think many NFL teams would take the risk on signing a player right out of high school, given the unreliability of scouting high school prospects. With 4 and 5 star recruits bust every year, the value that players receive from playing in college, besides high level training is the chance to highlight their skills in games against other well coached top athletes that they wouldn't necessarily see in high school.
But neither the AFL nor CFL are affiliated with the NFL. It's a considerably different setup than what MLB has with the various levels of their minor league system. Going that route is essentially resting on a wing and a prayer of making it to the League. By and large, the pipeline into the NFL runs through the NCAA.
I agree the NFL would never draft a high school prospect now, just like almost no high school baseball player goes straight to the bigs. But if the NFL had a farm system in place then you'd see high school graduates drafted all the time, and playing for the NFL equivalent of single A.
While the video makes light of athletes getting an education that can be useful, using UNC as the example, that doesn't mean the kids couldn't have gotten a quality degree if they had chosen. Granted, not many would choose that route if given a chance to breeze through.
This issue has always rubbed me the wrong way simply because I had to go to war to pay for college and these kids are handed an opportunity that I could have only dreamed of. There are many of my brothers and sisters who lost their lives in pursuit of that dream.
That being said, I do think if a scholarship athlete gets hurt playing they should be able to keep their scholarship. I also have no problem with providing the full cost of attending that many schools are doing.
Outright paying student athletes never will sit right with me though, because of my personal circumstances above. Nothing's really going to change that.