Why the NCAA irritates me to no end: Good article.

[bajaden]

I wasn't quite sure where to post this, so it ended up here. For those not familiar with how the high and mighty NCAA operates, this article will enlighten you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/09/opinion/09nocera.html?_r=1

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Yeah, I don't know what's more annoying, the brown nosing "model programs" get, the way the punishments always seem to come down harshest on students rather than the enablers, or how they often affect the innocent future students more than the guilty ones, or just the fact that they are so damned inconsistent when it comes down to what they ultimately hand out.

But, they've got a good product.

 

[Glenn]

Good article. The good aspect of the present is that anyone and everyone can expose problems to the world. It is very difficult for any huge orgainzation, be it pro or amateur, to get away with anything. At the least, most organizations are trying to "seem" proper and I suspect many organizations actually DO run a tight and proper ship.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I'd like to believe that Glenn, but I have to think most of the big time programs knowingly commit lots and lots of tiny infractions figuring it will never catch up to them (things like phone calls, etc). And then when the NCAA cracks down on one and strips scholarships you look around and wonder why they don't do it more often. And then there's stuff like the Duke teams in the late 90s basically did the same stuff Webber was accused of and got away with it or how John Callipari seems to taint every program he touches but they go after the school instead of the coach.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

A few comments from my perspective:

1) The amateur status of collegiate athletics is essentially a joke. I believe that for "revenue sports" (essentially football and basketball) the student-athlete model is fundamentally broken with no hope of a fix without a complete overhaul. There is a tension between "athletes must be unpaid and pure as the driven snow" and "we need to make as much money from our sports programs as possible". The only way I see "cheating" being removed from the equation is if either revenue sports are forced into a non-profit model such that any revenue beyond the cost of running the program itself is lost to the school (this will NEVER happen) or if the definition of cheating is changed (and this can happen). Instead of considering revenue sports student-athletes as students who happen to be athletes, the NCAA should face reality - they are athletes who are given the opportunity to be students. Essentially they are already being "paid", as they are given scholarships, so the whole "amateur" thing is a joke anyway. Once the "amateur student" pretense is dropped, schools would not need to worry about potential "inadmissable benefits".

2) The racial element to the article was uncalled for. The NCAA has always come down hard on student-athletes and easier on schools and coaches. One would guess that this is because the student-athlete is a temporary concern while the coaches and schools are permanent. Perry Jones wouldn't be a student athlete four years from now no matter what the ruling is. Calipari and Calhoun will presumably be successful coaches building successful, large revenue programs for years to come. Going hard on them hurts the NCAA's bottom line way more than going hard on Jones (who was likely leaving anyway). To cast it as a "poor African-American kid"/"rich white guy" dichotomy is distasteful at best.

 

[bajaden]

A few comments from my perspective:

1) The amateur status of collegiate athletics is essentially a joke. I believe that for "revenue sports" (essentially football and basketball) the student-athlete model is fundamentally broken with no hope of a fix without a complete overhaul. There is a tension between "athletes must be unpaid and pure as the driven snow" and "we need to make as much money from our sports programs as possible". The only way I see "cheating" being removed from the equation is if either revenue sports are forced into a non-profit model such that any revenue beyond the cost of running the program itself is lost to the school (this will NEVER happen) or if the definition of cheating is changed (and this can happen). Instead of considering revenue sports student-athletes as students who happen to be athletes, the NCAA should face reality - they are athletes who are given the opportunity to be students. Essentially they are already being "paid", as they are given scholarships, so the whole "amateur" thing is a joke anyway. Once the "amateur student" pretense is dropped, schools would not need to worry about potential "inadmissable benefits".

2) The racial element to the article was uncalled for. The NCAA has always come down hard on student-athletes and easier on schools and coaches. One would guess that this is because the student-athlete is a temporary concern while the coaches and schools are permanent. Perry Jones wouldn't be a student athlete four years from now no matter what the ruling is. Calipari and Calhoun will presumably be successful coaches building successful, large revenue programs for years to come. Going hard on them hurts the NCAA's bottom line way more than going hard on Jones (who was likely leaving anyway). To cast it as a "poor African-American kid"/"rich white guy" dichotomy is distasteful at best.

Yeah, we're in agreement. Its too bad he added that last line. It tainted what was otherwise a good article. Racism has nothing to do with anything in the article. My biggest beef with the NCAA is that its always the student or the school, or both that suffer the consequences. Enes Kanter suffered a similiar fate prior to the season. I've never understood how a person is guilty when they're actually trying to abide by the rules and aren't even aware they're breaking them. What ever happened to the spirit of the law? Isn't that what the law is suspossed to be about?

Right now, the student athlete doesn't have much of a choice if he or she is a basketball player. If you want to play in the NBA after highschool, you pretty much have to go to college for a year. And it may be 2 years after the new CBA. At that point the player is akin to becoming a slave. Yeah, he gets a free scholarship, but if he's any good, he's one and done, so the scholarship is a moot point. The school makes tons of money. The coaches make a ton of money. TV sponsers make money. But the player makes nothing but a scholarship, and is held to a higher standard than anyone, probably including people on the board of inquiry of the NCAA.

Just what is the point of the NCAA? Who, is it suspossed to be helping? If that indeed is part of what they do. Are they simply rule makers and inforcers? Isn't college suspossed to be about students? And if so, shouldn't the students welfare be a high priority. Are you telling me that if the students mother or father is sick, that the player can't use the one thing he's good at to help his parents? Just where is the morality in that? I realize that I'm shouting into the wind. Its not going to change anytime soon.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Maybe the NBA could open the D-League up for one and done types. I don't know the solution, if you actually start paying the athletes cash instead of scholarships it will probably be the death of the "anyone can win it" aura that surrounds college hoops.

I've always felt the NCAA should go harder after the boosters that are enabling everything. If they can ban Reggie Bush from having anything to do with USC then they can ban the boosters from ever attending a school function as well.

But I agree that the NCAA has a very nice racket when it comes to making money for themselves and the future pros who draw the crowds get on the job training at the expense of scholarships for those who might really want an education. Maybe they should set up a player hardship fund for these athletes so that emergency health care for families and other things can be doled out. And give the players some kind of decent stipend.