College athletes exploited?

[arch]

College sports make a lot of money.

No-they don't.

 

[CocoHusky]

Here's another piece of info that may or may not be relative to the initial issue: Of ALL college sports scholarship recipients, I believe only about 15% or less are African American.

More precisely and from this same article:
"A 2013 study by the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for the Study of Race and Equity in Education found that 57 percent of the football players and 64 percent of the men’s basketball players in the six biggest conferences were black; at the same schools, black men made up less than 3 percent of the overall student population."

So either way you slice it, The vast majority of African American students in these top 6 conferences would not be at these schools unless it was to boost the athletic fortunes. That is by definition "exploitation". And don't get me started on how many "exceptions" are made for admissions and the graduation rates are abysmal.

My solution is way too simple. 1) No exceptions for admissions for athletes. 2) When a school graduates a player they will be eligible to hand out a scholarship to an incoming student.

 

[HuskyNan]

doesn't the athletes have to be careful of who "gives" them food.... 6'6 linemen meal plan may be the same as Moriah but I'm sure his appetite is a lil bigger

The cafeterias are all you can eat. Back in the "old days", when I went to college, the cafes were like high school - grab a tray and choose one of three hot meals. Now they have sandwich stations, hot meal stations, pizza/pasta stations, huge salad bars and more.

 

[CocoHusky]

Schools get multimillion dollar payments from the conferences tv
contracts... That has to be included. College sports make a lot of money.

No-they don't.

A billion here a billion there pretty soon we are talking about real money. Same article:

"The College Football Playoff will generate more than $7 billion from ESPN over a 12-year contract. Basketball’s March Madness will bring in nearly $11 billion from CBS Sports and Turner Broadcasting over a 14-year TV and Web deal. Merchandising and licensing revenue reportedly exceeds $4 billion a year."

 

[CL82]

In 2014, UConn basketball player Shabazz Napier "complained of often going to bed hungry." The NCAA quickly passed legislation mandating year-around meals for athletes.

College athlete's always meals while on campus. The difference, IIRC, was the ability to feed athletes 24/7. For those who don't see an issue, keep in mind that they have demands on the schedule that might interfere with normal dining hall hours and that the caloric needs are astronomical compared to non-athletes.

 

[UcMiami]

More precisely and from this same article:
So either way you slice it, The vast majority of African American students in these top 6 conferences would not be at these schools unless it was to boost the athletic fortunes. That is by definition "exploitation". And don't get me started on how many "exceptions" are made for admissions and the graduation rates are abysmal.

' Exploitation: the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work'

So giving more non-white students access to education is by definition 'exploitation'? By that definition, affirmative action in admissions, job market, etc. would also be exploitation. And by that definition, every company that employs more men than women would be 'exploitation' of the male population.

Do you define professional sports teams as exploitive employers since they hire black athletes at a higher rate than their representation in the general population and they make money of the labor of their employees.

By definition, you have to establish that they are being treated unfairly and that is a much harder task than just saying the percentage of a group in any situation is higher than that of the the general population of whatever universe you are using. In many cases the exact opposite is true - the group that is overrepresented is receiving an unfair benefit.

 

[CajunHusky]

In my view it is simple: the Coach as an agent of the University makes a contract with the student athlete:

the Univ will train, and house and board and provide an education to the student athlete. And the Univ is free to market the "team" to recoup as best as possible it's expenditures and market itself to other individuals not just as an athlete but also students.

I believe the student athlete is also provided with a small allowance as well as assist with part time employment(?).

So NO it isn't exploitative ....

If the university does not live up to its side of the bargain then it starts to become a problem .... and then there are those are no show jobs, free cars, etc usually from alumni, and when the staff actually restricts the athletes educational opportunities.

The UNC situation mentioned something I found interesting... apparently UNC took it upon themselves to put students in for Pell grants. I would expect this is not unique to UNC. Pell grants are made regardless of any other assistance the student may be receiving. Apparently anything remaining after all fees are paid, the student gets to keep. So it appears a Pell grant to a student athlete on a full ride is essentially money in the pocket

 

[HuskyBandDad]

The cost of OOS tuition, room and board, and fees for UConn is approximately 20k per year. The university just signed a new TV Deal this year with SNY that will pay them $1.14 million per year for 4 years for the broadcast rights to the women's games, not to mention the image, licensing fees and royalties for UConn Merchandise. I'm willing to wager that Breanna Stewart's image is worth more than the 20k a year her scholarship covers, she gets none of the revenue generated from a brand that sells mainly because of her. Geno makes out like a bandit, but the players don't get even a portion of that money and it's even worse in MCBB and CFB. So exploited yes, I'd say and so did Federal Court Judge Claudia Wilkens in the O'Bannon Case. You may want to read her decision.

I do not disagree what you say here but as I stated in my post where does the money come from to pay for the free education and charter flights and 4 star hotels? Not to mention the cost to run the new practice facility and the support staff. It comes from the athletic department budget.
You really think Breanna's scholarship is only worth 20K a year the same as a normal student? Add up all of the perks and it is worth much more than 20k. The players practice gear, sneakers, ect is probably worth $1000 alone.
If you want to have a big time athletic program than you need the money to support it.

 

[arch]

A billion here a billion there pretty soon we are talking about real money. Same article:

"The College Football Playoff will generate more than $7 billion from ESPN over a 12-year contract. Basketball’s March Madness will bring in nearly $11 billion from CBS Sports and Turner Broadcasting over a 14-year TV and Web deal. Merchandising and licensing revenue reportedly exceeds $4 billion a year."

Lots comes in but more goes out. Now even more will go out.

 

[CocoHusky]

' Exploitation: the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work'

So giving more non-white students access to education is by definition 'exploitation'?
Do you define professional sports teams as exploitive employers since they hire black athletes at a higher rate than their representation in the general population and they make money of the labor of their employees?

Access to education is not the issue. I am very surprised that you think it is. The issue is why are the students at the University? Sadly in many cases the answer is to boost the fortunes of the Athletic program. Many AA students are admitted simply because they are athletes with academic credentials that would not qualify them for general admissions into the University. These students are there to play sports and ill prepared to compete for a degree with their peers. Look at the graduation rates in Football & Men's basketball it will tell you every thing you need to know.

You are comparing apples to bananas. The NCAA and colleges are amateur endeavors the purpose of which is to educate. That is significantly different from professional sports where labor is collectively bargained and governed by a free market.
Simply put, a professional team has no responsibility but to pick the best talent available. A university has a responsibility to educate. When a university admits students of any color with little regard for educating and graduating them that is exploitative.

 

[UcMiami]

Access to education is not the issue. I am very surprised that you think it is. The issue is why are the students at the University? Sadly in many cases the answer is to boost the fortunes of the Athletic program. Many AA students are admitted simply because they are athletes with academic credentials that would not qualify them for general admissions into the University. These students are there to play sports and ill prepared to compete for a degree with their peers. Look at the graduation rates in Football & Men's basketball it will tell you every thing you need to know.

You are comparing apples to bananas. The NCAA and colleges are amateur endeavors the purpose of which is to educate. That is significantly different from professional sports where labor is collectively bargained and governed by a free market.
Simply put, a professional team has no responsibility but to pick the best talent available. A university has a responsibility to educate. When a university admits students of any color with little regard for educating and graduating them that is exploitative.

Again, I have to disagree - admitting students to a school to train them for a professional athletic career is not in itself 'exploitive' - the number of 'students' that get admitted purely as athletes is debatable and no doubt varies widely from school to school, but out of the 85 scholarships allowed for FBS football and 13 for basketball I doubt it averages more than 20 at the 'athletic mill' schools. These particular athletes have a real shot at signing professional contracts, but except for a very few basketball players have no shot at it at age 18. The university is providing them with a chance to train and play at a non-pro level and develop their skills for a few years to a level where they do have value. The athletes are exploiting a university academic system to convert their athletic potential into possibly a huge paycheck, and they are receiving coaching, training, facilities to work in, a competition environment, and a marketing machine, as well as room and board and a bunch of other perks, in return for which they are only required to pretend to attend classes and do course work for a few hours a week. Does it actually pay off for every one of them, no. But there are never any guarantees - there are a lot of parents spending incredible amounts of money on personal trainers and coaches and on travel team participation in the hopes that their little Johnny will get accepted into one of these free ride college athletic training facilities - they do it in every sport from individual ones like Tennis and Golf to team ones like football and basketball. And the ones that do get accepted into a collegiate training facility are the envy of all the ones that don't make it in, who would personally castrate themselves for the same chance. Look at the numbers that come out for any open tryout for semi pro and pro teams - kids that never got that ticket for a D1 school training and marketing facility.

MLB does have a minor league system that takes in some 1500 new players each year - a small portion of those players get a significant signing bonus, maybe as high as 250 of them. They all get $1100 per month in salary for the chance to possibly have a pro career. That $1100 salary works out to $22,000 a year before taxes - less than the value of housing and food at most universities for an athlete (which is tax free) and for most it results in a lot less pleasant living conditions. The perks of a minor leaguer vs. a college athlete also compare to the detriment of the minor leaguer. The best of the high school baseball players (maybe 100 players a year) leverage their university scholarship offers to increase their MLB signing bonuses - a true market value being placed on those scholarships which can reach $6M but probably averages about $1M - the kids that don't have that option but are truly exceptional may get $100,000 and probably average $25K. In the 2015 draft the highest HS signing bonus was $5.5M and their were 32 HS kids that received at least $1M.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

I'm not going to get in a major article, but most colleges lose money overall on athletics, I believe.

Of course, part of the reason is the large amount of out-go for salaries and state of the art facilities, etc., as well as perhaps the number of sports offered at some schools. Here at Arizona, we reportedly break even. Lots of fundraising to make it so. But then, as to sports, we are fairly fiscally conservative. Rutgers loses money hand over fist. As to individual sports, everyone knows that virtually no WBB program is self-supporting, maybe 1 or 2 in a good year. Even UConn has "hovered" around breaking even in the past. And the non-revenue sports - well, "non-revenue" speaks for itself, no?

 

[meyers7]

A billion here a billion there pretty soon we are talking about real money. Same article:

"The College Football Playoff will generate more than $7 billion from ESPN over a 12-year contract. Basketball’s March Madness will bring in nearly $11 billion from CBS Sports and Turner Broadcasting over a 14-year TV and Web deal. Merchandising and licensing revenue reportedly exceeds $4 billion a year."

I believe arch was talking about the actual colleges themselves. And and has been stated most of them lose money.

 

[alexrgct]

Bottom line, the notion of any group of women being exploited is an incendiary one, and our girls are clearly not such a group. So can we please not have thread titles like this? I hate for someone to see this as one of the first things of note there is about the program...

Not trying to be a traffic cop here...just providing the feedback.

 

[JS]

Bottom line, the notion of any group of women being exploited is an incendiary one, and our girls are clearly not such a group. So can we please not have thread titles like this? I hate for someone to see this as one of the first things of note there is about the program...

Not trying to be a traffic cop here...just providing the feedback.

I agree. I know what the OP was trying to do -- narrow the discussion to a manageable and familiar case -- but it didn't succeed in that, and the inflammatory title isn't (wasn't) worth it.

 

[CocoHusky]

I believe arch was talking about the actual colleges themselves. And and has been stated most of them lose money.

I agree that most colleges lose money on athletics. But respective to P5 conferences for Men's basketball and Football revenues are huge. So in addition to being exploiters the management are also poor businessmen.

 

[CocoHusky]

Again, I have to disagree - admitting students to a school to train them for a professional athletic career is not in itself 'exploitive' - the number of 'students' that get admitted purely as athletes is debatable and no doubt varies widely from school to school, but out of the 85 scholarships allowed for FBS football and 13 for basketball I doubt it averages more than 20 at the 'athletic mill' schools. These particular athletes have a real shot at signing professional contracts, but except for a very few basketball players have no shot at it at age 18. The university is providing them with a chance to train and play at a non-pro level and develop their skills for a few years to a level where they do have value. The athletes are exploiting a university academic system to convert their athletic potential into possibly a huge paycheck, and they are receiving coaching, training, facilities to work in, a competition environment, and a marketing machine, as well as room and board and a bunch of other perks, in return for which they are only required to pretend to attend classes and do course work for a few hours a week. Does it actually pay off for every one of them, no. But there are never any guarantees - there are a lot of parents spending incredible amounts of money on personal trainers and coaches and on travel team participation in the hopes that their little Johnny will get accepted into one of these free ride college athletic training facilities - they do it in every sport from individual ones like Tennis and Golf to team ones like football and basketball. And the ones that do get accepted into a collegiate training facility are the envy of all the ones that don't make it in, who would personally castrate themselves for the same chance. Look at the numbers that come out for any open tryout for semi pro and pro teams - kids that never got that ticket for a D1 school training and marketing facility.

MLB does have a minor league system that takes in some 1500 new players each year - a small portion of those players get a significant signing bonus, maybe as high as 250 of them. They all get $1100 per month in salary for the chance to possibly have a pro career. That $1100 salary works out to $22,000 a year before taxes - less than the value of housing and food at most universities for an athlete (which is tax free) and for most it results in a lot less pleasant living conditions. The perks of a minor leaguer vs. a college athlete also compare to the detriment of the minor leaguer. The best of the high school baseball players (maybe 100 players a year) leverage their university scholarship offers to increase their MLB signing bonuses - a true market value being placed on those scholarships which can reach $6M but probably averages about $1M - the kids that don't have that option but are truly exceptional may get $100,000 and probably average $25K. In the 2015 draft the highest HS signing bonus was $5.5M and their were 32 HS kids that received at least $1M.

UC at a minimum the exploitation goes both ways. Absolutely some of the athletes exploit the universities. I have a hard time with a University primary interest in a kid being dependent on his ability to run the 40 yard dash in under 4.5 when the primary purpose of the University is to educate. I am probably too knee deep in this but it is shameful how many athletes are admitted to these universities that do not meet even the minimum standards for admission. If Johnny can't meet the minimum requirements, he has no shot at successfully competing for a college degree. If you admit Johnny knowing this you are exploiting Johnny IMO.

 

[meyers7]

I agree that most colleges lose money on athletics. But respective to P5 conferences for Men's basketball and Football revenues are huge. So in addition to being exploiters the management are also poor businessmen.

If you mean the Football and Basketball managers, ...sure.

Although I don't really consider them exploiters.

 

[PhillyCoach]

UC at a minimum the exploitation goes both ways. Absolutely some of the athletes exploit the universities. I have a hard time with a University primary interest in a kid being dependent on his ability to run the 40 yard dash in under 4.5 when the primary purpose of the University is to educate. I am probably too knee deep in this but it is shameful how many athletes are admitted to these universities that do not meet even the minimum standards for admission. If Johnny can't meet the minimum requirements, he has no shot at successfully competing for a college degree. If you admit Johnny knowing this you are exploiting Johnny IMO.

Coco - Always like your common sense thinking and open mindedness about multiple issues. Your perspective seems big picture and you throw out ideas as food for thought.
I have a question for you--and I don't say there is a definitive answer, however I would say I do lean in one direction more than another.
Scenario - Inner-city kid, marginal student (not up to snuff with regard to requirements for that college recruiting him). Probably will not go to any post-HS institution of learning otherwise. College comes in and offers him a full ride.
For the most part there are two choices--
Don't take the ride, struggle in the neighborhood with environment/low-skill job or lack thereof, live at home or really struggle on their own, expectations are bleak and difficult. OR
Take the ride, get out the neighborhood for a year or two or four, maybe make some contacts, maybe have your eyes opened to a better world, maybe even hit the books and find out that you have some smarts, maybe be taken under the coaches wing or a boosters wing, & of course, maybe make it to the show!! Real longshot I know. Could there possibly be frustration and flailing around dealing with the academics? Probably. Could they play for a year or two or four and not make the grade for pro or semi-pro?--Probably. Could they end up back in the neighborhood? Probably. But the players/students/ young men who took the opportunity will be different (better off?)-- then the young men who never left.
When I was at Bartram HS in SW Philly I had numerous occasions to mentor, counsel, or advise young men who had opportunities to accept a scholarship. There were times where the player was not the best student and I did advise (warn them) that it would be difficult, but there are risks and rewards for certain decisions.
To be honest, I never suggested to a student that they should not take a scholarship because they did not fulfill the requirements or were not up to a challenge. Just like I would with my son, I would discuss the big picture and all the ramifications/implications/consequences. IMHO A tough, difficult chance is better than no chance. That chance over-rules any discussion about exploitation.
I look forward to your thoughts.

 

[BroadwayVa]

Was the quick decision to help the hungry students a good thing or a bad thing? I can't tell what you are inferring.
Upfront I want to state - I am not a fan of the NCAA and some of their rules. I believe that the NCAA took away the opportunity for summer work because of a few cheaters. There should be a simple stipend for every athlete since they can't work much since they are practicing and training. This goes for band members, cheerleaders, etc. (could be based on time put in each week.) Football players and maybe soccer & basketball players should have special insurance. I am supportive.
What I don't agree with is making this a racial thing! If you add up every athlete from every sport from every level of college play--there are many more non-minority athletes. Why go there? It does not bring me into the fold of support when the focus is on "certain groups." You know there are many wealthy black players in college and many poor white players. How about treating ALL POOR players equally. From what I know, every athlete is being treated in the same way by the NCAA.
I taught and coached in the inner-city for 40 years. I loved my students as my own children. All lives matter--yes, all athletes matter.
Final note - I am a firm believer in free will and personal responsibility. Players and parents make the decision to play or not to play. Ironically, my son was offered a half-scholarship to UConn for track in the early 90"s. HE decided it was not worth the travel, practice time, and NCAA rules he would have to deal with. He went with a PA school as a non-athlete and loved every minute of it. He was going to live with that decision.

Coach I couldn't agree more. The NCAA is disgusting--they seem to be lost in left field

HOWEVER--I think it an INSULT to Black players and White players alike, mostly on the feminine side--to believe that they come to college from barren backgrounds financially. Stokes immediately comes to mind. Equality dictates no pre conceived bias one way or the other.
Walking around/pocket money to buy the coffee or coke or late night snack --must be demanded for all college athletes--especially in high power sports (BB, FB, ).

 

[UcMiami]

Phillycoach - I really like you take on this. And CocoHusky, I am not really trying to be argumentative. I am a college professors son, and truly believe in the mission of higher education and find the compromises of athletic departments and schools to be very problematic. The UNC situation is really disgusting and the degradation of an academic department into a farce something that should be taken seriously and punished severely. The death penalty is an appropriate response to such institutional corruption.
At the same time, I went to university with interests both academic and practical - a premed intention but with a huge interest in pursuing theater as well, and after a few really dreadful science professors, theater began to win out. And I became friends with a number of other students who were also pursuing 'non-academic' courses of study, from artists to musicians to dancers. We generally have no problem with the students who graduate with degrees who beyond the basic general ed requirements of college have never had to crack a book while studying sculpture or painting or modern dance or experimental theater, and many schools offer MFA degrees for those who want to continue in an 'academic' pursuit of these 'practical' studies, but go all high and mighty when the students main course of study is basketball or football or general physical education. In reality athletes are in fact getting collegiate level training and instruction in a course of study - their particular sport. Is that so dissimilar to the 'non-athlete' who graduates from the department of modern dance or the theater department, or the department of music? They have about the same chance of employment in that discipline, and if they are employed will generally make a heck of a lot more money! (I should know! )

My biggest problem with this thread and much of the discussion here is that I personally consider the word 'exploitation' to be a very powerful term that should be reserved for very strong unambiguous situations like human trafficking, slavery, sweat shops, and similar situations. When people use it in the case of athletes in college, in many cases they are trying to associate those strong connotations to a situation that is much more complicated. Especially when they try to add in a framework of racism. What might be being taken advantage of is athletic skill, but coaches could care less about the ethnic background of a basketball player or football player when it comes to stretching the academic requirements for admission.

And while many recruiters tell monstrous lies in pursuit of the next star athlete, I also find the idea that parents and children are oblivious to their own or their child's academic deficiencies to be disingenuous in most cases. There may be some true innocents that get caught up in the lies of academic excellence that will be achieved, but I don't believe there are many. So most are complicit in this charade and are using the school just as much or more than the school is using them.

And while the vision of academic success may be a pipe dream, the practical facilities supplied to athletes are real - academic advisors, tutors, and monitoring of study and class attendance. Many more resources than are provided to the general student population. And universities do not guarantee an education to any student, just access to the facilities and teachers to pursue that education - 'horse to water' and all that.

 

[PhillyCoach]

Phillycoach - I really like you take on this. And CocoHusky, I am not really trying to be argumentative. I am a college professors son, and truly believe in the mission of higher education and find the compromises of athletic departments and schools to be very problematic. The UNC situation is really disgusting and the degradation of an academic department into a farce something that should be taken seriously and punished severely. The death penalty is an appropriate response to such institutional corruption.
At the same time, I went to university with interests both academic and practical - a premed intention but with a huge interest in pursuing theater as well, and after a few really dreadful science professors, theater began to win out. And I became friends with a number of other students who were also pursuing 'non-academic' courses of study, from artists to musicians to dancers. We generally have no problem with the students who graduate with degrees who beyond the basic general ed requirements of college have never had to crack a book while studying sculpture or painting or modern dance or experimental theater, and many schools offer MFA degrees for those who want to continue in an 'academic' pursuit of these 'practical' studies, but go all high and mighty when the students main course of study is basketball or football or general physical education. In reality athletes are in fact getting collegiate level training and instruction in a course of study - their particular sport. Is that so dissimilar to the 'non-athlete' who graduates from the department of modern dance or the theater department, or the department of music? They have about the same chance of employment in that discipline, and if they are employed will generally make a heck of a lot more money! (I should know! )

My biggest problem with this thread and much of the discussion here is that I personally consider the word 'exploitation' to be a very powerful term that should be reserved for very strong unambiguous situations like human trafficking, slavery, sweat shops, and similar situations. When people use it in the case of athletes in college, in many cases they are trying to associate those strong connotations to a situation that is much more complicated. Especially when they try to add in a framework of racism. What might be being taken advantage of is athletic skill, but coaches could care less about the ethnic background of a basketball player or football player when it comes to stretching the academic requirements for admission.

And while many recruiters tell monstrous lies in pursuit of the next star athlete, I also find the idea that parents and children are oblivious to their own or their child's academic deficiencies to be disingenuous in most cases. There may be some true innocents that get caught up in the lies of academic excellence that will be achieved, but I don't believe there are many. So most are complicit in this charade and are using the school just as much or more than the school is using them.

And while the vision of academic success may be a pipe dream, the practical facilities supplied to athletes are real - academic advisors, tutors, and monitoring of study and class attendance. Many more resources than are provided to the general student population. And universities do not guarantee an education to any student, just access to the facilities and teachers to pursue that education - 'horse to water' and all that.

Hey UC - Good stuff. Well said! I'm in.

 

[CocoHusky]

Coco - Always like your common sense thinking and open mindedness about multiple issues. Your perspective seems big picture and you throw out ideas as food for thought.
I have a question for you--and I don't say there is a definitive answer, however I would say I do lean in one direction more than another.
Scenario - Inner-city kid, marginal student (not up to snuff with regard to requirements for that college recruiting him). Probably will not go to any post-HS institution of learning otherwise. College comes in and offers him a full ride.
For the most part there are two choices--
Don't take the ride, struggle in the neighborhood with environment/low-skill job or lack thereof, live at home or really struggle on their own, expectations are bleak and difficult. OR
Take the ride, get out the neighborhood for a year or two or four, maybe make some contacts, maybe have your eyes opened to a better world, maybe even hit the books and find out that you have some smarts, maybe be taken under the coaches wing or a boosters wing, & of course, maybe make it to the show!! Real longshot I know. Could there possibly be frustration and flailing around dealing with the academics? Probably. Could they play for a year or two or four and not make the grade for pro or semi-pro?--Probably. Could they end up back in the neighborhood? Probably. But the players/students/ young men who took the opportunity will be different (better off?)-- then the young men who never left.
When I was at Bartram HS in SW Philly I had numerous occasions to mentor, counsel, or advise young men who had opportunities to accept a scholarship. There were times where the player was not the best student and I did advise (warn them) that it would be difficult, but there are risks and rewards for certain decisions.
To be honest, I never suggested to a student that they should not take a scholarship because they did not fulfill the requirements or were not up to a challenge. Just like I would with my son, I would discuss the big picture and all the ramifications/implications/consequences. IMHO A tough, difficult chance is better than no chance. That chance over-rules any discussion about exploitation.
I look forward to your thoughts.

Coach I do have a definitive answer. Take the ride 100% of the time! College offers significantly more possibilities than staying in your neighbor.
As I said in my original post " Get to class, get your degree and make something off your opportunity!".

 

[CocoHusky]

Phillycoach - I really like you take on this. And CocoHusky, I am not really trying to be argumentative. I am a college professors son, and truly believe in the mission of higher education and find the compromises of athletic departments and schools to be very problematic. The UNC situation is really disgusting and the degradation of an academic department into a farce something that should be taken seriously and punished severely. The death penalty is an appropriate response to such institutional corruption.
At the same time, I went to university with interests both academic and practical - a premed intention but with a huge interest in pursuing theater as well, and after a few really dreadful science professors, theater began to win out. And I became friends with a number of other students who were also pursuing 'non-academic' courses of study, from artists to musicians to dancers. We generally have no problem with the students who graduate with degrees who beyond the basic general ed requirements of college have never had to crack a book while studying sculpture or painting or modern dance or experimental theater, and many schools offer MFA degrees for those who want to continue in an 'academic' pursuit of these 'practical' studies, but go all high and mighty when the students main course of study is basketball or football or general physical education. In reality athletes are in fact getting collegiate level training and instruction in a course of study - their particular sport. Is that so dissimilar to the 'non-athlete' who graduates from the department of modern dance or the theater department, or the department of music? They have about the same chance of employment in that discipline, and if they are employed will generally make a heck of a lot more money! (I should know! )

My biggest problem with this thread and much of the discussion here is that I personally consider the word 'exploitation' to be a very powerful term that should be reserved for very strong unambiguous situations like human trafficking, slavery, sweat shops, and similar situations. When people use it in the case of athletes in college, in many cases they are trying to associate those strong connotations to a situation that is much more complicated. Especially when they try to add in a framework of racism. What might be being taken advantage of is athletic skill, but coaches could care less about the ethnic background of a basketball player or football player when it comes to stretching the academic requirements for admission.

And while many recruiters tell monstrous lies in pursuit of the next star athlete, I also find the idea that parents and children are oblivious to their own or their child's academic deficiencies to be disingenuous in most cases. There may be some true innocents that get caught up in the lies of academic excellence that will be achieved, but I don't believe there are many. So most are complicit in this charade and are using the school just as much or more than the school is using them.

And while the vision of academic success may be a pipe dream, the practical facilities supplied to athletes are real - academic advisors, tutors, and monitoring of study and class attendance. Many more resources than are provided to the general student population. And universities do not guarantee an education to any student, just access to the facilities and teachers to pursue that education - 'horse to water' and all that.

UC,
We are not being argumentative we are having a great dialogue. I struggle to find any disagreement with these very powerful and persuasive parts of you arguments.

• The compromises of athletic departments is problematic-You Bet.
• UNC disgusting-Very good word.
• Basketball & Football should be a major like dance-I agree.
• The word "exploitation" may be too powerful to describe this situation- I also agree.

The only place we may have still a slight disagreement is with the vision of academic success. It is the compromise on the admission standards which makes this vision unachievable for some & far too many AA athletes. For everyone else it is a competitive process to get in these universities and each admitted student via standardized test scores and transcripts comes with a set of basic skills which the university builds upon. For example most universities require that you are able to write a coherent paper. Students that cannot write a coherent paper are not admitted. Some athletes that cannot write a coherent paper are admitted. While you and I may disagree on the numbers of athletes admitted below minimum university admissions standards, hopefully we both define academic success the same way- as getting a diploma. The graduation rates for AA men in the P5 conferences is dreadful. Even after you subtract the athletes leaving early for NFL & NBA.
http://www.gse.upenn.edu/equity/sports
The root cause is that many of the AA athletes lack the basic academic skills to successful complete the college curriculum. So while many of these AA athletes fully utilize the university resources to catch many never do and eventually drop out because while they are learning to write a basic coherent paper their peers are writing advanced ones. The reason I think the "E" word applies is that most often these University do not have to look very hard to find a better AA student who is a less of athlete but .....Better athlete=More $$ for the university.