NCAA president Myles Brand offered up his opinion over on HuffingtonPost, and needless to say it was in line what we usually hear from the NCAA side on the whole debate about certain athletes getting paid to play.
He's against it, and goes on to state that athletics are nowhere the cash cow that people tend to think that they are. He brought up how basketball and football are the only revenue generating sports in all of intercollegiate athletics and that a lot of schools don't even make a profit off of those while the ones that do have to subsidize the other sports that the school fields teams for.
Now, it possible that he's telling the truth because I went to a small school where the basketball team didn't draw enough to make any money and there was no football team. However, I find myself wondering just what is the right way to handle the whole "pay-for-play" problem.
I can understand the anger that comes when coaches get huge contracts and the NCAA itself gets millions upon millions for television rights while the athletes don't get to partake in any of it. But if the money isn't there, even after all of that, then how can you pay them?
We can't make the mistake of believing that every school with a big-time basketball or football team is raking in money hand-over-fist. All those millions that are made get divided up so many different ways that the amount that actually trickles down to each school is nowhere near what you might think it is.
In addition, when you factor in the reality that no schools are drawing 20,000 people for basketball at $100 or more a head, and a select few are drawing NFL-size crowds for football for much smaller ticket prices, the argument about there not being any money becomes a lot more reasonable.
Now I know what you're thinking. (1) If Kansas can find $30 million over 10-years for Bill Self, how can it not afford to break off a couple thousand for Mario Chalmers and the boys? Well, between the boosters and the alumni and the school itself, they probably can. But should they? (2) And aren't they already doing that by giving them a free education for four years? (3) And what would you think if there weren't any big television contracts and coaches got paid what regular faculty made?
Those are the questions I pose to you. My answers are: (1) yes and no, (2) yes they are, (3) I think we wouldn't care as much. Allow me to elaborate.
For the first question, I'm for giving some walking around money to those who truly need it, but that's it. Contrary to what you see on TV, these dudes don't all come from the ghetto or the trailer park. Some of them are just fine when it comes to pocket money. They don't need salaries.
For the second question, I feel that being given something that costs the rest of us anywhere from twenty to a hundred thousand dollars is pretty damn good by itself. Now if you choose to act like it's worthless, that's on you. There are plenty of guys who play on the same rosters with the future NFL and NBA stars who graduate in pretty difficult majors with degrees and have the exact same practice schedules and what not. They're not too busy so you shouldn't be either. And what about the guys who come to school unable to learn at the college level? That's the fault of the education system they went through before college, not the college they got into through some illusion of competency. We need to fix that, but that doesn't mean you have to give guys money because they read at a fifth grade level and somehow got admitted to the University of ______ (don't want to single out any one place).
As for my last question, I don't think there would be the level of outrage if we didn't read about huge television contracts for the NCAA and huge deals for the coaches. These sports weren't always huge moneymakers, even at the Dukes and North Carolinas of the world. If I use you up over four years in front of a half empty gym, am I exploiting you any less than if the gym is full all the time? I'd say no. The gymnasts, wrestlers, baseball players, etc. are working every bit as hard at their sports as the basketball players but since they play to small crowds no one advocates for them. Is the wrestler from the inner city who goes to Iowa State, where wrestling is big and draws good size crowds, less entitled to money than the suburban kid on the basketball team who may actually play in front of fewer people at his particular school? You tell me, but I say no.
Just some things to ponder....
They should give those kids at least enough money to be able to go out on a date with some co-eds