Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« What He Said | DIY Medicine »

Monday, December 11, 2006

College Bowl Season—$$$ for everyone but the players

posted by on December 11 at 8:19 AM

So, as college football winds down its season with innumerable bowl games sponsored by various corporate entities, it’s a good time to remember: Division IA college football players are unpaid labor, while coaches, media outlets and boosters make gazillions. Professor Telander, former NU cornerback and current Sun-Times columnist, explains it all yet again. And if you want to reform college football, you couldn’t do better than he suggests in his book The Hundred Yard Lie: The Corruption of College Football and What We Can Do to Stop It.

RSS icon Comments

1

A free ride five-year college education is hardly "unpaid". Add tuition, tutors, books, housing, food and more together and you're looking at anywhere from $50,000 to $250,000 in benefits.

I wouldn't mind additional stipends being paid, however, especially if it was tied to GPA or even simply class attendance.

Posted by DOUG. | December 11, 2006 9:33 AM
2

The average pay for Division I coach is one million dollars a year. Off the labor of college athletes who, if they simply refused to pay without cash payments, could shut the whole system down. The players produce the value of the game, and get chump change next to the coaches, the networks, the NCAA. And while many athletes will take full advantage of the educational opportunity, many many more are seduced by the false promise of NFL big bucks, and are coddled through a non-existent "education" for the sake of their coaches Ws and $s.

Posted by bill | December 11, 2006 9:44 AM
3

College football should be returned to full amateur status: no scholarships, no salaries for coaches, free tickets available only to students, and no TV. The purpose of the university is education, not minstrel entertainment.

Posted by Fnarf | December 11, 2006 10:33 AM
4

Last time I checked, UW PATP students performing in Meany Hall, The Penthouse, The Glenn Hughes Theatre, etc., aren't paid either. It's called college.

Next.

Posted by Laurence Ballard | December 11, 2006 10:52 AM
5

fnarf, if they did that, there would be a lot of kids who just wouldn't go to college. many of the players who get on scholarship wouldn't have been able to pay for college. some wouldn't have even been able to get into college.

take, for example, troy smith, who just won the heisman. in all seriousness, without a football scholarship, he would have probably not even graduated from high school. now, he is going to graduate from college, and make a lot of money playing professional football. afterwards, who knows what he'll do. but college football has given him a great life that he can use to help others like him who came from really crappy childhoods.

Posted by konstantconsumer | December 11, 2006 10:58 AM
6

Terrible article. Not only does the guy write just above Neanderthal level, but he's bereft of any useful suggestions.

Posted by Matthew | December 11, 2006 11:07 AM
7

Hey LB:

So, let me see if I get your logic: theatre students learn theatre by studying theatre and performing for audiences. That's called college. So are football players majoring in football?

Next.

No, furthermore: theatre students can have part-time jobs or outside employment if they want. NCAA Division I athletes cannot--they don't have the time (football practice, weight training etc can take 40 hours a week) and there are all sorts of rules governing what they can do outside of school. A few years back, an NU running back (Darnell Autry) almost lost his eligibility because he wanted to appear in a film: and he was a fucking theatre major, but couldn't take money.

Theatre students they can change their major if they want to, without losing a scholarship and being booted out of school. And the many hours they spend a week doing art or music or whatever they're doing for their own education, not for the entertainment of sports fans and the enrichment of coaches and ESPN.

I'm with FNARF.

Posted by bill | December 11, 2006 11:32 AM
8

Fnarf's idea is (as usual) bad.

Love it or hate it, college football and basketball bring A LOT of money into schools (like Boise State) that might otherwise have trouble funding "lesser" sports, from which many benefit.

It also provides an excellent marketing tool for the schools. How many extra student applicants has Gonzaga gotten as a result of their basketball team successes?

Posted by DOUG. | December 11, 2006 11:51 AM
9

Ah, I see Doug has drunk the boosters' kool aid.

The so-called revenue sports of football and men's basketball do not financially support the other non-revenue sports: they simply cost the schools money. Football especially is extraordinarily expensive (80+ players' equipment, not to mention huuuuge coaching staffs that gotta be paid). Were it not for Title IX requirements, there'd be no gender parity whatsoever.

As for publicity, everyone I know in college admissions says the same thing: athletic success provides a brief spike in the raw number applications, but no real change over time--and many of the new applicants wouldn't get in anyway.

As anyone who chooses a school for its athletics is a bonehead.

Posted by bill | December 11, 2006 11:56 AM
10

I'm not sure where you get your info Bill, but a 2003 NCAA financial study shows that 68% of Division 1-A schools made a profit from their football programs, averaging $9.2 million. 70% made a profit from their men's basketball programs, averaging $3 million.

Lower divisions don't fare as well, but they're also not the schools with the million dollar coaches, the source of your ire.

Posted by DOUG. | December 11, 2006 12:27 PM
11

I'm with Doug.

Bill and Fnarf, your proposals to wipe out scholarships would thereby deny educational opportunities for thousands of students every year. Moreover, sports are one way in which alumni keep in contact with their alma mater. Success is a source of pride/bragging rights for the alumni, and the connection is a means of fundraising for the university.

Posted by him | December 11, 2006 1:17 PM
12

Doug:

I'm not familiar with that study, but everything I've ever read that isn't generated by the NCAA and its boosters goes the other way: claims that schools make money off these programs always cook the numbers to make all incoming moneys look like profits. Will go find my sources and add more tomorrow (in this thread, not the slog).

As for the "underprivileged kids can only go to college with athletic scholarships" argument, that's purest bullshit. Schools can give out as many scholarships as they'd like to students based on financial need. It's crazy to tie that social do-goodery to the ability of a student to play a game. Unless, of course, these students aren't academically qualified to go to that college and are only being admitted for their athletic ability, i.e., their use value to the institution as cheap labor.

Bill

Posted by bill | December 11, 2006 2:31 PM
13

Bill... Here's the report. The data I cited is on page 14, under "Program Profits".

And that "scholarships" argument was not mine.

Posted by DOUG. | December 11, 2006 2:50 PM
14

So Bill, what would you do? If you do the no scholarships thing, the hundreds of young men who now play college football would probably go into some football version of the minor leagues, where they'd get minuscule pay and no education. They are better off under the current system, where they get an education that's more valuable than minor-league pay.

What if you pay the players in the interest of "fairness"? How much? Do players at a lower-tier school like Bowling Green get the same amount as their colleagues at Ohio State? If not, why not--players who generate more revenue should get more money, right?

If so, then you've got the best players going to the higher-paying schools, and college athletics becomes a bidding war.

Posted by Seth | December 11, 2006 2:56 PM
15

#7 -

We're in essential agreement here; the purpose of institutions of higher learning should be a obtaining a better education in one's chosen discipline(s), not to serve as partially tax supported training fields for future professional sports players. Particularly given the multi-billion dollar sports industry.

These same students all presumably have declared majors and subsequent studies to fulfill. When the obligations of fulfilling a sports scholarship - as defined by well-heeled collegiate coaching staffs - supersedes these studies, something is very wrong.

Posted by Laurence Ballard | December 11, 2006 4:07 PM
16

Laurence, whether "obtaining a better education in one's chosen discipline(s)" should be the purpose of an institution of higher learning is immaterial, as currently institutions of higher learning, and their athletic teams, serve as points of pride for people in their community. On game days in Lincoln, Nebraska, the U of Nebraska stadium has a greater population than any city in Nebraska. Nebraska football is probably the single-most important community event in that entire state.

Does this make sense? Perhaps not, but to destroy college football--and generations of cultural history and memory--would be a sad thing.

Posted by Seth | December 12, 2006 8:20 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).