More problems with College Athletics
More problems with College Athletics
More problems with College Athletics
Athletic Benefactor bribes to land athletes are increasing while scholarships for scholars are dropping at an disturbing rate.
Inside Higher Ed and the Chronicle of Higher Education both recently ran stories speculating as to the position the current Justice Department inquiry into intercollegiate athletics (ICA) will take with respect to scholarship rules for student-athletes. Currently, according to NCAA guidelines, scholarships for athletes are granted on a year-by-year basis and can be revoked for academic or athletic reasons. The Justice Department is likely most concerned with the legality of this policy and seeks to clarify whether such policies impede competition in violation of anti-trust law.
The NCAA maintains that this guideline is in place because athletic based scholarships are a merit award and student-athletes must maintain eligibility throughout their collegiate careers. This eligibility hinges on both athletic and academic qualifications. If scholarships were guaranteed, the argument goes, then student-athletes not meeting eligibility requirements would face no consequences.
However, critics assert that the one year renewable scholarship model is used to mislead student-athletes and inappropriately emphasizes athletics at the expense of academics. They argue that when committing to a college, high school athletes are often misled into believing that their scholarship is guaranteed for all four (or five) years of college. Furthermore, they prescribe that since coaches can deny scholarships for athletic reasons, student-athletes find themselves in a precarious position. Being a student-athlete is supposed to imply that these individuals are students first. However, the opposite is usually true as they face great pressure to perform well athletically. Even though coaches are not supposed to strip scholarships for things such as injuries, many in the college sports world admit that appeal committees are a joke and it's rare for a coach's decision to be overturned.
Compared to the real scandals associated with ICA, this argument is somewhat inconsequential. My hope is that the Justice Department condemns the NCAA for its cartel like policy that allows student-athletes to be manipulated and exploited. As Dr. Vedder and I argued last year in an article for the Wall Street Journal, many student-athletes are wildly undercompensated for the marginal product they return to their universities. In a normal market, exploitation doesn't persist for very long because rival firms offer a higher compensation package and lure away formerly exploited employees. However, the NCCA fervently insists that member schools cannot provide compensation beyond scholarships to their athletes because they are amateurs. It would be difficult to convince anyone that college sports is indeed an amateur operation. Many football coaches earn salaries in excess of $1 million and this month the NCAA just inked a new contract with CBS and Turner to cover March Madness for $10.8 billion. The only people treated as amateurs are the players who actually enable the entire system. The Justice Department would be well served to eliminate this practice.
Another issue in ICA that deserves more investigation is the highly regressive nature of the "athletics tax." Nearly all athletic departments require subsidies from the wider university, students, and taxpayers to balance their budgets, this subsidy can be thought of as a tax on resources that would have been used for other purposes. The tax is small (or non-existant) at the well-known and more wealthy institutions, but much larger at the lesser known schools that have poorer students on average.
ICA needs serious reform to help control costs and address scandals. A number of organizations such as the Knight Commission, the Drake Group, and the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics continue to fight. Perhaps the Justice Department will be a positive force. Time will tell.
The little guy (The Drake Group) takes on the NCAA in a battle over academic and integrity in college athletics. Some of the members won't even identify themselves, for fear of reprisals from their schools.
There are seven "things" that the Drake Group has identified as targets through the years, most tied to academics: a 2.0 grade-point average for eligibility, holding incoming freshmen and transfers from varsity play for a year, a return to multi-year athletic scholarships, an IRS review of the NCAA's non-profit status.
With the advent of College Sports TV two years ago and the new ESPNU, the Drake Group fears more teams and schools could come under the influence of jock snffing donors(Frank Cuenca SDSU, Hank Sims Tulane). As stated by Drake member Ellen Staurowsky of Ithaca College: "The [last] train has left the amateur station."
I am a fan of freshman ineligibility, primarily in basketball and football, and don't see a problem with a 2.0 gpa. Multi-year athletic scholarships sound like a good idea, but when you talk about the practicality of administering them it would be a nightmare. And, what is there to ensure that someone gives it their all for all four years?
Learn Cool Magic Tricks With Master Mentalist Learning All About The Different Kinds Of Horse Fly Rugs Easy Scholarships For college - You Can get a College Scholarship Now Learning from a Stuffed Reading Pup! Learning More About The View The Cardiovascular In Vivo Imaging Meme Learn How to Get Him Back Using 4 Simple Strategies A Brief Study About Caterpillar Inc. Moms: Know Your Junior College Financial Aid Options Does a Bible study on Revelations have any bearing on your salvation? Learn About Published Research On The Gout And Arthritis Pain Fighting Ability Of The Montmorency Ta Easy Video Player 2.0 Study Learning How To Dive Through Malaysia Padi Ibm 000-891 Certification Exam