There has been a debate with regard to paying college athletes. Lots of good points have been made on both sides. A relatively few college athletes, particularly those playing Division I football and basketball, generate enormous revenue for their “institutions of higher learning” as well as broadcasters, advertisers, and the communities in which they perform. Those revenues dwarf the benefits the athletes receive…primarily in the form of scholarships. But, they also have a place to demonstrate their skills preparatory to professional careers. When it comes to football and basketball, the colleges and universities serve as minor leagues for the NFL and the NBA.
Should all Division I football and basketball players get additional compensation? Should the compensation be commensurate with the player contributions much like it is in the NBA and NFL? Should other “minor sports” also get some compensation even though they don’t generate much – if any – revenue? Should these athletes be able to unionize since they are now and if paid would even more certainly become “employees?” These are just some of the complex questions that appear to need answers. There are no easy answers and even once we have found what appear to be reasonable and equitable answers, we keep generating more questions for which the answers become increasing complex and debatable.
So, what IS the answer? We need to change our national culture and place more emphasis on amateur sports and less on professional. We need to value academics over athletics. That means giving meaning to the term student-athlete instead of making it a candidate to replace “military intelligence “ to illustrate the definition of an oxymoron. Here are some specific suggestions:
The precise procedures that would demonstrate the values suggested above are:
Compensation Athletic directors should not be able to make more than 90% of college presidents. Coaches should not be paid more than 90% of what their bosses, the athletic director, make; or, more than the top professor’s salary, whichever is lower. All revenue made by coaches and others associated with the institution such as from talk shows, speaking engagements, clinics and camps, and books should go directly to the institution that gives them their jobs and careers and under whose logo and history they work and benefit.
Admissions Athletes should be required to meet the same admissions requirements as other students…recognizing some latitude for “special skills” given to all applicants. Only the institution president should be able to overrule the admissions department.
Graduation Rates Over the past four year period, the intercollegiate team should need to achieve at least two thirds the school graduation rate in order to participate in any post season play. Note: There should be no “special” courses for athletes or any other group.
Scholarships. All scholarships shall be based on financial need. Applications for scholarships shall be considered on a consistent basis school-wide, with no financial preference given to athletes. Any scholarship given to an athlete may not be awarded to a different individual for 5 years or until the awardees graduate, whichever comes first.
Practice Time Team practice time for any team sport or activity should be limited to 10 hours/week and individual preparation time (like strength and skill building) should be limited to 5 hours/week.
Conclusions
These practices would eliminate the need for further discussion about paying college athletes or unionizing them, would place the focus at “institutions of higher learning” on learning…as it should. Further, it would provide an even playing field for all teams and place the value on a female soccer player closer to a 300-pound lineman or 7-foot center. The overall quality of play would be diminished so little that only a handful of people could discern the difference. (Note: A Division I college hockey championship was won by Union College that gives no athletic scholarships and yet came out on top of 59 schools many of which do give athletic scholarships.) Some of the focus on “blue-chip” athletes could be redirected to making education more available to those with disadvantages benefitting efforts to enlarge the middle classes by moving more people up the economic “food chain.”
Unfortunately, there is no chance this will happen until we change our national culture. So, why don’t we think about how we can do that since it makes a lot of sense and benefits far more people?
In order to change culture we need to state the precept, explain why it is valid, find authority figures (in this case probably college presidents and alumni associations and boards of directors) that will be “role models” and advocate and practice the principles. Then continue to widen the circle of proponents. We could start with Union College.