NCAA related NYTimes op-ed

[Dan_ref]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/01/opinion/01BLOO.html

Show Us the Money
By JEREMY BLOOM


OULDER, Colo.
When I was a kid, I remember my parents telling me that going to college would broaden my horizons and give me all the opportunities in the world. What I've found out, though, is that the benefits of being a student become clouded when you add the word "athlete." That's because the National Collegiate Athletic Association not only rules college athletics, it also limits the opportunities of the 360,000 student-athletes it purports to serve.

The N.C.A.A. was formed a century ago to establish rules for intercollegiate competition, and it did an admirable job. Today, however, it has become a multibillion-dollar organization that holds a monopoly on college athletics. Much of the television royalties and other revenue of college athletics go directly to the N.C.A.A., which distributes the money as it sees fit to its 1,200 member institutions. As the organization has smoothly adapted to the big-money era of college athletics, it has kept the student-athletes themselves from benefiting from the changes.

Division I basketball players, for example, won't receive a dime of the $6 billion deal that the N.C.A.A. has made with CBS for the rights to broadcast its national tournament. And not only do the student-athletes not share in this wealth, the N.C.A.A. has plenty of rules to keep us from making money on our own.

It prohibits us from having sponsors or appearing in advertisements, even if the products have no relation to the intercollegiate sports we play. In my case, to be allowed to play wide receiver for the University of Colorado football team, I had to give up endorsement opportunities I had garnered as an Olympic moguls skier.

Or consider the plight of Aaron Adair, a third baseman for the University of Oklahoma who also happens to have survived brain cancer. He wrote a book about his recovery intended to help others with the disease, only to receive a call from a compliance officer informing him that his college baseball career was over because his name was attached to a "corporate product."

When I voice my complaints, the usual response I hear is: "The N.C.A.A. provides a free college education for these kids and that should be enough." I address that question in two parts. First, "free"? We football players get up at dawn, do an hour of wind sprints, go to classes, spend two hours in the weight room, devote a of couple hours to seven-on-seven drills, study for school, and try to have something of a social life. And this is our off-season — the hours only increase after the games start. Even if you consider the scholarships we receive to be "payment," we are recompensed at far less than the minimum wage.

Second, the N.C.A.A. doesn't pay for athletic scholarships, the universities do. Many universities rely on wealthy alumni who create endowments to cover tuition, room and board.

My solution? I have drafted what I call the Student-Athletes' Bill of Rights and have sent copies to state legislators across the country. Among other things, my proposal would allow student-athletes to "secure bona fide employment not associated with his/her amateur sport" and collect money generated by the sale of apparel that bears their names and jersey numbers. At the very least this will help student-athletes cover school-related costs, like travel and books, over and above what their scholarships pay for. Also, because the N.C.A.A. doesn't allow universities to cover a student-athlete's health insurance during the summer, the bill would assure student-athletes a full-time policy. It would also help financially burdened family members travel to post-season tournaments.

I am not alone in this. Kevin Murray, a California state senator, has introduced a bill along these lines to apply to all universities in his state. The athletic director at Stanford called the bill "onerous" and warned that if it passed, every athlete in California would be ineligible under N.C.A.A. guidelines.

But that's exactly the point: if states start ensuring that us student-athletes received fair treatment, would the N.C.A.A. really ban us all? I doubt it — I bet the organization would understand that its reign was in jeopardy and come to the bargaining table.

Responding to my initiative, an N.C.A.A. spokesman pointed out that the organization gives 94 percent of every dollar it receives to the universities, where it supposedly trickles back to student-athletes. I'm curious about where that other 6 percent goes — after all, 6 percent of the basketball tournament contract alone is $360 million.

He might also have explained the television commercials made for the N.C.A.A. I see lots of ads featuring student-athletes who say things like "I'm a swimmer, I'm a business major, I am a student-athlete." I guess it's O.K. for student-athletes to do promotional commercials so long as the beneficiary is the N.C.A.A. itself.

Some may say that my efforts are only self-serving — that not many student-athletes have endorsement opportunities like mine. But by the time such laws could be fully adopted I will be long gone from the college football field. My goal is to improve the circumstances of the next generation of student-athletes. That seems to be a goal the N.C.A.A. has forgotten.


Jeremy Bloom is a sophomore at the University of Colorado.

[Mark Dexter]

I don't have tests? I don't have to study? I don't have to work? I don't have to try to have a social life?



I'm starting an association - I want a bill of rights for people who have to pay $40,000 per year!

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter
I don't have tests? I don't have to study? I don't have to work? I don't have to try to have a social life?



I'm starting an association - I want a bill of rights for people who have to pay $40,000 per year!

But you can keep any money you earn, and use it for whatever you feel is best. Bloom's point is that he is giving up too much.

I think a better solution for college athletes, if they feel they are being cheated, would be to just quit. It wouldn't take very long at all for the NCAA to start listening.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter
I don't have tests? I don't have to study? I don't have to work? I don't have to try to have a social life?



I'm starting an association - I want a bill of rights for people who have to pay $40,000 per year!

But you do not have an organization telling you who your friends can be, what job you can hold and what kind of car you can own. A Student-Athelete does.

The NCAA suspended a player on the Arizona team, because he was friends with Bill Walton's son and went to an NBA Finals game. So you are telling me that a kid cannot bring one of his closest friends to a concert or event without worrying about NCAA sanctions when he has "normal access" to those tickets (if you did not know, his Dad can get the tickets quite easy I am sure).

Or when a Colorado player, cannot attempt to achieve in a sport he won a Gold Medal in (might be Jeremy Bloom) another sport than the one he decided to play under NCAA Rules. So he cannot attempt to make a living of any kind in Mogal Skiing, before he played a down of football for the Colorado Football team.

I do not consider your situation at all similar to these kids Mark.

Peace

[Mark Dexter]

Life is a give and take.

I've had scholarships where I've been required to do certain things (maintain a certain GPA, etc.). I've known scholarships that require others to attend certain events (ROTC, for instance). Anyone on federal financial aid is required to not be convicted of drug-related offenses. I don't see the restrictions and requirements of student athletes to be any different than things like this.

Student athletes are not forced to be student athletes - they have the power to decide whether or not they want to go to a certain school and be on certain teams. Along with that comes rules. Of course, a student athlete can choose not to follow the rules, but there are then consequences.

I'm not against college athletics and I'm certainly not against scholarships for good athletes. I don't necessarily agree with all of the NCAA's restrictions - but they are there and that's what we have to deal with right now.

[JRutledge]

I completely agree with the spirit you make you argument. I agree that they do not have to do what they are doing. I think the idea that folks like myself have, just have rules with common sense, that is all. The NCAA makes rules that affect who they are associated with and there is not shady dealings involved. To not allow a kid to pursue other avenues of accomplishment. And that is the point of this article. The players are trying to change those rules and give them more flexible rights within the NCAA. It is their right to attempt to change that. Just like it is your right to say you do not agree. But I think many of us can agree that with the NCAA using millions of dollars to put on these events that the revenue they generate, they could at least allow these kids to open up other opportunities (jobs, other sports that might make money for example). Why can a football player be Minor League Baseball Professional Player and not be able to make money off of being a World-Class Skiier? The NCAA needs more common sense. I guess that does not fall into place the same way as changing conferences does and changing the lives of thousands of atheletes because of the money that will be made on their backs.

Peace

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter
Life is a give and take.

I've had scholarships where I've been required to do certain things (maintain a certain GPA, etc.). I've known scholarships that require others to attend certain events (ROTC, for instance). Anyone on federal financial aid is required to not be convicted of drug-related offenses. I don't see the restrictions and requirements of student athletes to be any different than things like this.

Student athletes are not forced to be student athletes - they have the power to decide whether or not they want to go to a certain school and be on certain teams. Along with that comes rules. Of course, a student athlete can choose not to follow the rules, but there are then consequences.

I'm not against college athletics and I'm certainly not against scholarships for good athletes. I don't necessarily agree with all of the NCAA's restrictions - but they are there and that's what we have to deal with right now.

Like Jeff, I agree with you in theory. And the philosophy you delineate is obviously one taken by a good many NCAA athletes, or it couldn't survive. That's why I think the best approach for someone to take who wants to change those rules, would be a sit-in or walk-out or whatever you want to call it. If it were well organized and many student-athletes felt the same as Bloom, it would get a good deal of attention and would give these folks the ear of the NCAA. Of course, it could also have the effect of demonstrating to Bloom how few of his peers agree with him.

[theboys]

Once again the love of money proves to be the root of all evil. Paying athletes to play will only lead us further down the path of destruction of amateur sports.

Right now, if I see Billy Bob, our star quarterback, at a frat party on Thursday night, its no big deal. He's just another student like me, havin' a good time. But, pay him to play, and he performs poorly, I start thinkin', "Hey, Billy Bob, they're payin' you this big money to bring State U. the national championship. Why aint you in the weight room? Why aint you studyin' film?"

Better yet, what's the pay scale gonna be? You gonna pay the third string deep snapper the same amount as Billy Bob? Or, are you gonna pay Lisa Lou, the back-up womens' soccer goalie, the same as your star quarterback? For every kid that whines about the unfairness of it all, you have 10 who just want to play ball.

How about, we stop worrying so much about money, and just play the game?

[LarryS]

Originally posted by theboys
How about, we stop worrying so much about money, and just play the game?

I could not agree more. Every college student-athlete knows, or should have known, the rules before they signed on the dotted line. Is it not enough that many of them don't have to go to class or take test (you know they didn't go to English class if you listen to an interview).

It is just like I told my daughter when she was complaining about the 27 page Code of Conduct for her competitive cheerleading gym. You don't want to follow the rules, don't participate....you want to participate, follow the rules.

Also, whenever I hear someone say the NCAA or the institution makes a lot of money off sports, my comment is always the same..."And you point would be?". For everyone on this board that is employed, does your employer make money? You agreed to a level of compensation just like the college athlete.

Participation in college sports is not a right...it is a priviledge.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by LarryS

Also, whenever I hear someone say the NCAA or the institution makes a lot of money off sports, my comment is always the same..."And you point would be?". For everyone on this board that is employed, does your employer make money? You agreed to a level of compensation just like the college athlete.

Ooops...be careful here. Colleges and NCAA are not employers of the athletes.

[LarryS]

I realize that the colleges are not employers (especially since a local institution recently won a worker's compensation claim made by an injured athlete)...but do you understand the analogy?

I don't give a rats arse how much people make off college sports, or research, or anything else related to the college. The kid signed on knowing the rules. Too bad...so sad.

Just remember, life is full of disappointments.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by LarryS
I realize that the colleges are not employers (especially since a local institution recently won a worker's compensation claim made by an injured athlete)...but do you understand the analogy?

Yeah, I get it

I don't give a rats arse how much people make off college sports, or research

Now that's a great analogy. Lots of money made in selling patents & ideas that the originator does not see.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by theboys
Once again the love of money proves to be the root of all evil. Paying athletes to play will only lead us further down the path of destruction of amateur sports.

Bloom isn't advocating 'pay for play' - he's advocating changing rules which, among other things, prohibit student-athletes from holding jobs outside of the athletic department. Changing these type of rules, IMHO, makes more sense than 'pay for play.'


BTW, it's nice to see someone who knows the correct quote.

[rainmaker]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark Dexter
[B]

Originally posted by theboys
Once again the love of money proves to be the root of all evil.

BTW, it's nice to see someone who knows the correct quote.

Yes, the whole thing... quite a different story from the way it's usually mis-quoted.

I agree with the points about knowing the rules ahead of time and either playing or not. But I do see Bloom's point that he didn't think his football scholarship and playing should be lumped in with his skiing activities. That does seem to me to be a little less obvious.

[theboys]

It is a shame an athlete like Aaron Adair, mentioned in Bloom's article, suffers because of an honest attempt to describe his life's experience to others. If all athletes (and their supporters) had the same high intentions we wouldn't have a phone book-sized body of regulations governing amateur athletics. Of course, if athletes were allowed to write books, and reap the benefits, is there any doubt Nike would've underwritten a Lebron James autobiography?

If I remember correctly, so many years ago, massive abuse by college boosters employing athletes in phantom summer jobs began our tortuous trip down this path. As a result, the Jeremy Blooms of the world can't capitalize on success in other areas. Unfortunately, as seems to always be the case, the abuse of the rules by a few ruins it for everyone.

Last (sorry to be so long-winded), I attended Texas A&M. When Jackie Sherill (I know, I know, he had issues, as well) coached football at A&M he began a tradition in which, with the exception of the kicker, the kick-off team at home games was comprised solely of walk-on athletes. It was a great idea, was hugely successful, and engendered a tremendous sense of camaraderie between the team and the other students. Funny, I don't remember seeing a NY Times article about their perspective.