I just browsed through the recent NCPA (National College Players Association) study “The Price of Poverty in Big Time College Sport“, which has gotten a lot of attention in the press. In general, the study looked at the value of a student-athlete and offers some suggestions for improving the system.
Most of the press went to the valuations they placed on major football and basketball college athletes. It claims the fair market value for a Duke basketball player is worth $1,025,656 and that a University of Texas football player is worth $513,922, both the top of their sport. It also claims that on average major college basketball players are worth $265,027 and football players worth $121,048. I am not going to argue the value of these numbers, which were used more for the flair than validity or accuracy. The point is, these guys are good and worth true value to a school. If you disagree, I suggest you get some Duke basketball tickets now and watch a game in person.
The study does a good job collecting a lot of good data and information regarding the topic. It brings forth a lot of valid numbers that need to be taken into account as colleges determine the definition and valuation for a scholarship, room, and board. However, it is clear from the start that the study is written by football players for football players. (They also write for basketball players, although the focus is on football.)
The study provides ample data and findings that warrant a lot of investigation into how college athletes are rewarded for their work. It also offers six recommendations to the NCAA (and Congress) on changes they propose should be made or discussed. However, from the start, the study comes across as biased and clearly written with the recommendations having been formulated prior to the study had taken place. The studies main purpose is to get college football and basketball players the big money that is going to the university, athletic directors, and basketball and football coaches. I will argue that each of their proposals are either unjustified, can be fixed with revisions to the college rules, or can be fixed with stronger enforcement to the rules.
Recommendation Number One
The recommendations are not all bad. The first proposal argues that student athletes are not provided enough room and board to cover all expenses of going to college, with an average shortfall of around $3200. Unfortunately, the study argues for an increase only in football and basketball scholarship values (an increase of which would cost the schools $47 million annually), not for anyone else. It tries to make up for this focused support by casually mentioning Title IX, as if it is a rule that they need to get around:
“Should Title IX compliance require that provisions be made for female athletes to receive a similar benefit, that amount can be doubled for a total of $94 million annually.”
Let’s not forget about the rest of the male sports either. I’m sure mens baseball, golf, and tennis players would not be very happy to see receive less scholarship value than their football counterparts! Just remember as you read through these proposals that athletes from every other sport in Division I receive the same scholarship value for their sport and struggle with the same cost of living shortfalls. Yet, these athletes seem to survive without the violations. I would assume most get NCAA-approved summer jobs and internships to earn extra money that tides them over through the school year, something that basketball and football players can surely do as well.
Recommendation Number Two
The second proposal by the NCPA again offers a focused solution. It suggests that the NCAA allow athletes to secure endorsement deals, similar to Olympic athletes. This proposal is even worse than the first. It only helps the best players on each football and basketball team, not even all players on those teams. In my opinion, if these athletes are good enough to receive endorsements for their skills, no matter how small, than they should either turn professional now or hang on until graduation to earn that extra money. Either way, this proposal only intensifies the divide between basketball and football student-athletes with the rest of the sports.
Recommendation Number Three
The third proposal suggests taking funds from the profits made by schools on these sports and using the funds to help educate these athletes during school or post-graduation. I do not disagree that student-athletes should have access to tutors and help if needed during school. But, they should not take it beyond the grasp of the school itself. For instance, letting these athletes take a special athlete-only version of the same class as normal students take, just so it can fit into their schedule or learning structure, is not a move in the right direction. And, helping out post-graduation will only encourage these athletes to take school less seriously during their undergraduate years.
Instead, I think the core of the problem needs to be addressed, which is why we let these college athletes get by with such mediocre grades. We need to raise the requirements for grades and graduation rates in order to determine eligibility and enforce them more strictly. If the NCAA is worried about deterioration of the quality of athletes due to tougher grade requirements, I have two arguments. First, as long as all athletes are on the same playing field in terms of grades, competition will remain fierce, and it is the extreme competition that the NCAA needs most, not the best athletes. Second, in the long run, it will benefit these athletes more. The NCAA has managed, with the help of the NBA and NFL, to create the dream of being a great college athlete. Very few people want or have the ability to skip college and go straight to the pros, and for those 0.0001% that do, so be it. But, for the rest, the dream will only encourage people to study more, to get the grades needed to pass, in order to become eligible. So many high school and college athletes do “just enough” to get passing grades to be able to play. I truly think that athletes will do “just enough more” if the requirements are raised.
Recommendation Number Four
The fourth argument of the study is to revoke the single year renewable scholarship rule, and go back to the 4-year scholarship that existed prior to 1973. Now, the argument here is that coaches are just cutting players if they are not good enough. This is wrong. But, I do not think guaranteeing a 4-year scholarship is the correct solution here either. The Ivy league does not provide scholarships and sees far more athletes quit before they graduate. To many Ivy league athletes, entry to the school is the value athletes place on their effort. Once they get into school, many quit their teams. I fear too many student athletes, once benched or not given their “minutes” (or for whatever other reason), would quit if they knew they had their school, room, and board paid for over the remaining duration of their undergrad career.
I think the better solution here is some sort of compromise. I would propose to move back to the 4-year scholarship. However, if an athlete has a career-ending injury, a coach can release him and get that scholarship back as it counts toward the team limit, while the athlete still retains the scholarship to attend school. If an athletes grades drop too low, the school can also release them from their scholarship, not the coach. Lastly, if the athlete does not show up to practice, games, or has attendance problems, the coach can also request the scholarship is dropped. This means the athlete must maintain some minimums and it is up to the coach to get more out of them.
Recommendation Number Five
I will not even discuss the fifth proposal.
“To the extent that Title IX requires universities to provide female athletes with accomodations similar to those mentioned in the reforms mentioned above, athletic programs should use new TV revenues to do so.”
It is a blatant slap in the face of women and at Title IX, and an even worse slap in the face at men’s sports outside of basketball and football, which it does not even mention. For these proposals to ask for benefits to basketball and football only shows that the NCPA is merely chasing the superstar money reward and not the fair rights for all college players, which its name implies. If this organization has any non-basketball or football members that stand by these proposals, I would be shocked.
Recommendation Number Six
The sixth and last proposal by the NCPA suggests that Congress get involved in college sports and fix all the problems that the University presidents are not able to fix. Personally, if my tax dollars are wasted on congressman getting involved in this rather than working on the problems with our economy, jobs, and education (to the masses, not the few), I will be very disappointed (although, not surprised).
Conclusion
Throughout the study, there is statistical data that one can draw glaring results from. For instance, the study shows that athletes spend almost 40 hours per week on their sport, while NCAA rules allow for only 20 hours. Yet, for some reason, the study argues that the athletes should receive more for doing more work, rather than simply suggesting that the rules are enforced. Cleaning up the rules and enhancing enforcement is the most important effort that should be made in my opinion. Take some of that TV revenue that the study seems to think can be spent freely, and put it to use as regulatory enforcement.
Next, if the NCPA wishes ever to be taken seriously with its studies, it needs to get backing from ALL college athletes, not the few. John Infante discusses this very accurately in his review of the study on the NCAA website:
“Saying institutions should only invest in non-revenue sports what is legally required or the bare minimum necessary to field a team is asking the NCAA and its members to embrace a cynical view of intercollegiate athletics. That college sports should be run as a profit-maximizing enterprise and under-performing business units shuttered or defunded.
That claim requires more than simply a statement that concludes non-revenue sports are lavish excesses. To justify taking money away from programs where coaches rarely make millions and where new money is often spent improving the student-athlete experience, you need an explanation of why only football and men’s basketball players deserve a well-funded, elite athletic experience.”
As a final note, I’ll touch on the money that everyone is so obsessed about with this study. I’m not digging into exact numbers, but let’s just look at this whole idea from the top-level.
First, I see no reason that these university officials and coaches do not deserve the money are generating. If the study wants to argue that this is strictly a business, then I do think the managers of the business deserved to be paid well for their efforts. Also, to argue that the athletes are not being paid their fair market value as workers is completely untrue. To say the value of a scholarship is only worth the present value of tuition, room, and board, is absurd.
In 2008, the average male college graduate earned a salary of $82,197 versus the high school graduate average salary of $43,165 (the disparity amongst women is not quite as equal). Not even taking into account the rate of inflation, an average 40-year career will net a college graduate $1.6 million in extra earnings over their career for having graduated college. Do we really want to separate these athletes completely, make them a minor league sport, give them no degree, for a four-year contract of $121k per year totaling $484k? I’d rather take $1.6 million instead of $484k, I don’t know about you.
