The NCAA is an evil and corrupt organization

[progrocks]

This article in the Atlantic does a good job laying out the history of the hypocrisy that is the NCAA. I highly recommend giving it a read.

The Atlantic

It is not about education, it is not about protecting students, it is about profiting. I hope it all collapses.

 

[MTHusky]

Your link isn't working.

 

[rbny1]

Your link isn't working.

The link works for me.

As much as I dislike the NCAA and its claim that it is protecting the amateurism of college sports, when it is actually protecting the money stream, I'm not sure what it can do. I doubt that any of us would be happy if college sports were to revert to the days when fewer games were shown on TV and less money was involved. I suppose the NCAA could acknowledge that college sports are now commercial and allow teams to pay their athletes, but that raises problems of its own.

 

[upstater]

I saw a study that said average basketball players or football players are worth $250k to the university based on the NFL's form of payment, which is 50/50 of the gross. Based at that, as one of 1200 employees of a billion and a half gross revenue institution, I deserve $1.3 million!!!

Anyway, if it collapses, it would take professional football with it to a degree. Basketball would survive with minor leagues, but football wouldn't. The kind of training these players get during 4 years of college would not be available through a minor league system.

 

[floridahuskie]

Very good article.

But as mentioned earlier, sometimes evil, corrupt and hypocritical organizations are needed because the alternative is probably worse (i.e., think Congress).

 

[arnie3]

It's the mantra of the NCAA of " it's best for the student" that bother's me most. The NCAA is unbending and unyielding in its pursuit to squash any change to its system that would benefit the athlete. I think of Kirk King and Ricky Moore who got home sick and accepted tickets to go back home, and how the university had to self-penalize. Both were suspended and UConn had to forfeit Tournament wins. It was such a travesty by a sanctimonious organization that delved in pettiness.
I do hope that college basketball evolves into another system, one that actually helps the athlete!

 

[bmayuc]

I saw a study that said average basketball players or football players are worth $250k to the university based on the NFL's form of payment, which is 50/50 of the gross. Based at that, as one of 1200 employees of a billion and a half gross revenue institution, I deserve $1.3 million!!!

Anyway, if it collapses, it would take professional football with it to a degree. Basketball would survive with minor leagues, but football wouldn't. The kind of training these players get during 4 years of college would not be available through a minor league system.

This doesn't make sense. If the NCAA collapses it doesn't mean that college sports cease to exist, but rather they are administered in a different way. Frankly I like the NCAA because it provides a level of stability to the system, but that's because i understand and am ok with the fact that it is more or less a cartel. Plus, a ton of kids get educated.

Another thing to consider is that this is a system that supports(albeit to a less degree) alllll of the other divisions of sports as well. I doubt there would be field hockey, soccer, track, etc events if the NCAA didn't use its financial muscle to help out.

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out, as there finally seems to be some momentum to kill the NCAA.

 

[arnie3]

I just think of it needing an overhaul, rather than a complete dismantling. It began to gain power in the '50's, according to the article, over a scandal (Kentucky) which was fine, but its the minutiae of petty ordinances that drives me crazy- that, and the fact it wants everyone to be P.C. which leads to a lot of phoniness. As JC intimated, there are so many pages of rules that it is almost impossible not to break one of them!

 

[Adios]

Welcome to mankind. When has there NOT been corruption?!

 

[Mr. Hand]

Corrupt? Yes. Evil? No.

They don't have the best interests of the athletes in mind. But, that's a big club they belong to as far as that goes.

 

[District-Husky]

Thanks for posting that article. The Atlantic is solid.

 

[jleves]

When did DogMania start writing for The Altantic?

 

[upstater]

This doesn't make sense. If the NCAA collapses it doesn't mean that college sports cease to exist, but rather they are administered in a different way. Frankly I like the NCAA because it provides a level of stability to the system, but that's because i understand and am ok with the fact that it is more or less a cartel. Plus, a ton of kids get educated.

Another thing to consider is that this is a system that supports(albeit to a less degree) alllll of the other divisions of sports as well. I doubt there would be field hockey, soccer, track, etc events if the NCAA didn't use its financial muscle to help out.

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out, as there finally seems to be some momentum to kill the NCAA.

The Ivy league schools and many others field those sports and lose money without batting an eye. There would still be sports on campus.

If the NCAA collapses, it all collapses, IMO. Why? Because schools will begin to drop bigtime sports when it becomes mercenary, and shortly thereafter fan interest will dwindle, and after that, TV revenues will collapse.

 

[bmayuc]

The Ivy league schools and many others field those sports and lose money without batting an eye. There would still be sports on campus.

If the NCAA collapses, it all collapses, IMO. Why? Because schools will begin to drop bigtime sports when it becomes mercenary, and shortly thereafter fan interest will dwindle, and after that, TV revenues will collapse.

The key point is that there will still be a TON of money to be made, whether the four letters NCAA are involved or whether it is a different governing body in control. I don't see how the shell organization that negotiates licencing fees matters.

This is america. America loves sports. Americans love their colleges. Americans love TV.

There is a lot of money in that formula somewhere, and I don't just see it evaporating because some stiff suits in indianapolis stop getting their fat paychecks.

 

[UCHuskies08]

Am I the only one who's pretty much okay with the NCAA as it is?

 

[upstater]

The key point is that there will still be a TON of money to be made, whether the four letters NCAA are involved or whether it is a different governing body in control. I don't see how the shell organization that negotiates licencing fees matters.

This is america. America loves sports. Americans love their colleges. Americans love TV.

There is a lot of money in that formula somewhere, and I don't just see it evaporating because some stiff suits in indianapolis stop getting their fat paychecks.

You're talking about academic institutions whose budgets dwarf those of their athletic departments. The revenue from sports goes to sports, not to the core operations. The thing that tethers sports to universities is boards of trustees, alumni, etc. But you'd start to slice into that relationship once you start paying the players. You know that faculty are already against the influence of sports on campus. Soon, you'd have students (i.e. future alumni) grousing about it.

 

[bmayuc]

i dont see these academic institutions pulling in the reigns of the moneygrab in this conference alignment currently. the reason is because sports are the number 1 advertisement for the school, i mean look at what bball did for uconn... i mean this is all theoretical but there is no way in my mind that the death of the NCAA even slows down the rise of college sports. like i said, too much money/pride/advertising/competition for an obsolete organization takes down bigtime intercollegiate athleticss.

 

[stamfordhusky]

As JC intimated, there are so many pages of rules that it is almost impossible not to break one of them!

Let's not forget, however, that most of the rules were proposed by various schools due to specific problems - and all of the rules were voted on and passed by the member colleges. It's not like some NCAA bureaucrat just makes up the rules and puts them into the bylaws without approval of the colleges.

 

[upstater]

i dont see these academic institutions pulling in the reigns of the moneygrab in this conference alignment currently. the reason is because sports are the number 1 advertisement for the school, i mean look at what bball did for uconn... i mean this is all theoretical but there is no way in my mind that the death of the NCAA even slows down the rise of college sports. like i said, too much money/pride/advertising/competition for an obsolete organization takes down bigtime intercollegiate athleticss.

We've been over this before a thousand times. For every UConn there are 10 Rutgers. Since Rutgers upped the ante with their sports, they have dropped 25 spots in the US News rankings. Andrew Zimbalist makes the point that as far as advertising goes, there are many more schools pouring money down a hole than schools capitalizing on success in sports. Beyond that, there's the question of utility of advertising at all, especially for state schools that cap the number of out-of-staters admitted. Are state schools out to find the best students they possibly can. Well, actually, no. They are public schools meant to serve the taxpayers of that state. It's not even a priority for them. Beyond that, the improvement in the quality of each incoming class and the rise in applications is seen at non-bigtime sports schools such as the Cals or the SUNY's among others. Check out UMass, for instance.

The reason why academics and presidents stay out of the discussion about moneygrabs and conference shifting at all is because the entire enterprise is ancillary to the core mission. In other words, as long as it doesn't impact them, they don't really care.

 

[progrocks]

That is because Rutgers advertises failure

 

[bmayuc]

i see your argument but i dont buy it. with billions of dollars on the line not to mention dozens of millions of fans across the major sportw, essentially a built in audience/market an organizwtion will steop in and stabilize and capitalize on that. major college athletics cannot be taken down by a change in orgqnization.

 

[upstater]

i see your argument but i dont buy it. with billions of dollars on the line not to mention dozens of millions of fans across the major sportw, essentially a built in audience/market an organizwtion will steop in and stabilize and capitalize on that. major college athletics cannot be taken down by a change in orgqnization.

Billions of dollars in aggregate over a decade. You're seeing billions, whereas a school like UConn, with an annual budget of a billion or so, is seeing a couple million. Have a look at NCAA distributions. It's $400 million a year to over a thousand schools, 3 or 400 in D1 alone. What are UConn's NCAA credits? Minimal compared to the entire enterprise. What are its TV revs? Again, they don't even cover the costs. You have administrators right now making ruthless decisions to cut profit-making entities in order to reduce expenses (as crazy as that sounds). When you look at sports, it's low hanging fruit. Slashing it brings savings because for the vast majority of schools, they are a money loser. Sure the SEC and Big10 make a lot of money, but my argument is that the casual fan will lose interest in college sports when you have 20 or 30 of them willing to pay players while the others step aside for the mercenary era.

 

[bmayuc]

if the situation is as dire as you make it, why have college sports existed til now? and what will the ncaa folding have anything to do with changing that equation. for instqnce, why does anyone besides the bcs schools play NOW, given your doom and gloom? and surely it isnt the NCAA that haw been keeping low 1a schools, d2, and d3 schools playing athletics.

your point about the very small portion of the budget overall is valid, but is relevant only in the opposite way you think. for a school, athletic departments are short money to spend to advertise for the school, increase school solidarity/spirit, provide entertainment, and continue athletic trqditions thqt run quite deep even at small schools... think amherst/wesleyan.

given thwt, answer this.... why have college qthletics not completely yet, and what on earth does the NCAA hqve to do with keeping them together?

 

[ZenConn]

I saw a study that said average basketball players or football players are worth $250k to the university based on the NFL's form of payment, which is 50/50 of the gross. Based at that, as one of 1200 employees of a billion and a half gross revenue institution, I deserve $1.3 million!!!

Anyway, if it collapses, it would take professional football with it to a degree. Basketball would survive with minor leagues, but football wouldn't. The kind of training these players get during 4 years of college would not be available through a minor league system.

I read the report. You can find it here.

http://assets.usw.org/ncpa/The-Price-of-Poverty-in-Big-Time-College-Sport.pdf

I found one of the findings to be extremely troubling.

"Despite record revenues, salaries, and capital expenditures as well as prohibitions on countless sources of income for athletes, the NCAA explicitly allows tax payers to fund food stamps and welfare benefits for college athletes.(NCAA Bylaws 15.2.2.5 & 15.2.5.1)"

 

[stamfordhusky]

There are so many errors and false premises in this paper that I'd be embarassed to put my name on it. It has a not-so-hidden agenda and clearly is not trying to put forth an objective analysis.

 

[upstater]

if the situation is as dire as you make it, why have college sports existed til now? and what will the ncaa folding have anything to do with changing that equation. for instqnce, why does anyone besides the bcs schools play NOW, given your doom and gloom? and surely it isnt the NCAA that haw been keeping low 1a schools, d2, and d3 schools playing athletics.

The answer is easy: losing $5 million a year is acceptable. Losing $20 million a year is harder to swallow. Look at Rhode Island. They spend $5 million a year total. Look at U. Buffalo. Their budget was at $7 million when they joined D1 football less than a decade ago. By 2009, he budget had grown to $26 million. I just looked up its cohort, SUNY Binghamton, and their budget is $12 million.

 

[upstater]

There are so many errors and false premises in this paper that I'd be embarassed to put my name on it. It has a not-so-hidden agenda and clearly is not trying to put forth an objective analysis.

The professor who affixed her name to it was well paid.

 

[Danzz]

This article in the Atlantic does a good job laying out the history of the hypocrisy that is the NCAA. I highly recommend giving it a read.

The Atlantic

It is not about education, it is not about protecting students, it is about profiting. I hope it all collapses.

What would we have without the NCAA?I don't like the organization but we need a cop in college sports and they are the police.

 

[bmayuc]

The answer is easy: losing $5 million a year is acceptable. Losing $20 million a year is harder to swallow. Look at Rhode Island. They spend $5 million a year total. Look at U. Buffalo. Their budget was at $7 million when they joined D1 football less than a decade ago. By 2009, he budget had grown to $26 million. I just looked up its cohort, SUNY Binghamton, and their budget is $12 million.

Yes, if anyone starts losing a ton of money, they will probably stop whatever they are doing whether we are talking sports or banking. What I am asking you to answer is this: What does the NCAA folding have anything to do with a loss of revenue or an increase in losses? The NCAA isn't paying these schools because the NCAA isn't making money. The NCAA is simply an ineffective enforcement body and a minimally effective administration operation. Hell, with the rise of conferences as the main power player in TV negotiations, you could argue that the NCAA is mostly obsolete in the negotiation arena as well. If the NCAA dies, how does that have any impact of the revenue/cost/profit/loss of college sports?

The paper is full of holes, the biggest one is this: While top-tier players may be worth 250K or whatever this article supposes(artificially), if the NCAA collapsed it would be replaced by another governing body. If that governing body can't keep the scholarship model intact, it would fall to a true market system. If that is the case, then the market would bear what the market would bear. Each Athletic Department would pay what it would pay or not pay, and that would divide the athletic marketplace accordingly. D1 wouldn't be divided by number of scholarships available but by cost each conference would allocate for each player. Maybe the SEC is 50,000 and the Big East is 10,000, for example. But its not like sports would die, they would just be run much more like businesses than before.

 

[upstater]

Yes, if anyone starts losing a ton of money, they will probably stop whatever they are doing whether we are talking sports or banking. What I am asking you to answer is this: What does the NCAA folding have anything to do with a loss of revenue or an increase in losses? The NCAA isn't paying these schools because the NCAA isn't making money. The NCAA is simply an ineffective enforcement body and a minimally effective administration operation. Hell, with the rise of conferences as the main power player in TV negotiations, you could argue that the NCAA is mostly obsolete in the negotiation arena as well. If the NCAA dies, how does that have any impact of the revenue/cost/profit/loss of college sports?

The paper is full of holes, the biggest one is this: While top-tier players may be worth 250K or whatever this article supposes(artificially), if the NCAA collapsed it would be replaced by another governing body. If that governing body can't keep the scholarship model intact, it would fall to a true market system. If that is the case, then the market would bear what the market would bear. Each Athletic Department would pay what it would pay or not pay, and that would divide the athletic marketplace accordingly. D1 wouldn't be divided by number of scholarships available but by cost each conference would allocate for each player. Maybe the SEC is 50,000 and the Big East is 10,000, for example. But its not like sports would die, they would just be run much more like businesses than before.

Based on the first post of the thread, I thought we were discussing what would happen if the NCAA went kaput because schools wanted to adopt recommendations similar to those in the Atlantic article linked. In other words, I was discussing what would happen if schools or conferences set their own policies. I think the whole enterprise would eventually collapse, with perhaps only a couple big conferences surviving.