Increased efforts are underway to clean up the current NCAA “amateur” mens basketball model, but the more serious question is whether the current model can be cleaned up — or if things would be better if it were simply blown up? Expanding this discussion to include NCAA mens football, and you don’t have to look too deep to see that there aren’t many schools leaving money on the table when it comes to revenues, and this holds true for the NCAA as well. Making things even more challenging are the ongoing efforts by student athletes and other interested stake holders to re-invent what it means to be a student athlete, and to include some sort of direct revenue opportunity rather than the “trade” of free classes (often not an incentive for student athletes) for sport participation.
How we got to now
While this may surprise younger people, it wasn’t that long ago where college basketball and football coaches weren’t the highest paid state employees (or even the highest employees at their respective universities). Over time, what used to look like an amateur sport model morphed into the multi-billion dollar business that we see today. The NCAA has gotten rich, as have NCAA member schools, coaches, and even many assistants and related personnel. In fact, the only folks who haven’t reaped any real, tangible benefits are, ironically, the student athletes themselves. Amazingly, while student athletes are, at best, given the opportunity to take free or reduced-fee courses toward a degree, the on-field efforts that they make and apparel that they sell through their likeness only benefit colleges and the NCAA. The NCAA and member schools offer a thin, hollow response consistently wrapped around the value of the education they provide in trade, but conveniently overlook the fact that many student athletes today are not only disinterested in the courses offered in trade, but actually see it as a burden to have to stay academically eligible. One change I have recommended to help offset the antiqued trade of free school in exchange for not paying athletes is to actually provide an option to student athletes: Accept free classes, or choose to have the university simply cut a check, in full, for what a 4 year degree costs other students at the university.
Why examine the problems now?
Whether we like to admit it or not, humans are generally wired to take as much as they can in life when it comes to money and power. In my view, this is exactly what has happened in college athletics. As the big dollars began to pour in, the NCAA and member schools saw it perfectly fine to fiscally reward everyone else but the student athlete, spending billions on athletic facilities, stadiums, and arenas. Again, none of these good fortunes were afforded to the actual engine that makes it all go – the student athlete.
As revenues dramatically increased, college coaches and other leaders also took note that the more you win, the more you sell out stadiums, sell apparel, and attract even more talented student athletes to sign up for your school in the future. Herein is the precise place where the amateur model began to erode and greed began to take a greater place in college sports, resulting in more coaches looking the other way with recruits who weren’t the least bit prepared (or interested) in the academic side of the student athlete equation. And it didn’t stop there — as more unprepared student athletes arrived on campus, more academic support and other helping professionals were put in place to catch their fall by setting these student athletes up in “dummy majors” without serious future career prospects, and academic support to all but do their work and have student athletes meet basic, minimum eligibility standards (many schools have been caught doing this in recent years).
Predictably, when academic/athletic paradigms like this develop, some individuals inevitably get caught with their hand in the cookie jar (i.e. Rick Pitino is a recent example). Today, we have FBI stings, major colleges and universities getting busted, and politicians and other influencers speaking out about how terrible things have become — and how important it is to right the ship. Sadly, the problem is the entire NCAA amateur sports model, which has become outdated and corrupt to the point where the only answer may be to blow it up.
Perhaps if the wealth had been divided and shared more evenly we wouldn’t have such growing outrage about the current status of NCAA sports today. Unfortunately, what we have witnessed are countless examples of flaunting of riches by coaches and colleges, while contrasting those images against hard working student athletes who barely have enough money to survive. And still, it’s been “business as usual” for the NCAA, rather than serious attempts to reel things in and create a more egalitarian model that works for all.
What to do next
There are a number of changes the NCAA should examine if they truly want to hold on to any kind of sport model in the future, including the following:
- Consider an actual “pay to play” system for student athletes that allow them the decision whether to take free courses, or a check in the amount of what it cost to attend the school for a 4-year degree.
- No more loopholes of any kind for student athletes — meaning no minimum age or college experience level needed to move on to professional sports. If an 18 year old is good enough to play pro sports, allow the individual to do so (why force people to go to college who have no interest in pursuing a college education?).
- Create a model where student athletes can profit from their likeness, be it from jersey sales, autograph signings, or other similar opportunities.
- Audit “dummy majors” in colleges that lead to very few, if any, real jobs (even if they are convenient for student athletes and their rigorous schedules). Similarly, ratchet up oversight on lax professors who overly-accommodate student athletes with easy grades, as well as support staff who all but do the work for student athletes in order to keep them eligible.
- Get serious about the salaries of NCAA coaches and assistant coaches. Take a few steps back and ask does it really make sense that high profile coaches are making literally hundreds times the salary of professors at the same university? And even more than university presidents? If nothing else this is terrible optics, and certainly does not send the message that academics are more important than sports.
Obviously these are not easy questions to answer, and working through them will require a new mindset that prioritizes integrity over revenues, and includes a more responsible and fiscally-incentive based model for student athletes (the ones who make it all go). If the goal is to clean up corruption and right the ship, I think these are important places to begin healthy dialogue around future positive change.