Because college sports are cash-cows for their institutions.
Now you have. Has it changed your opinion?
Has it changed yours?
I’m not sure I understand the question.
Are you asking whether the fact that Barkis has never experienced the things I have and the things reported on in the media has led me to believe that those things never happened?
No, just that it is the norm. I mean, athletes have gotten cars from boosters but that would seem to be far and few between.
Anecdote =/= data, and this is a friend-of-a-friend story, but…
One of my work colleagues has a good friend who played safety on a Division I football team in the 1980s (in the old Southwest Conference, in which football was pretty much a religion). I’ve been told the story about how, after games, the players would attend parties with boosters; the players would wear their team letter jackets, which specifically had extra pockets on the inside. As the players would mingle with boosters, the boosters would slip cash into the pockets in the players’ jackets, and players who’d had a particularly good game would be rewarded for it by the boosters.
This particular player mostly played on special teams, but he had one game in which he was pressed into a start due to injury. He had a good game (a number of tackles, and an interception), and walked out of that party with, literally, tens of thousands of dollars in his jacket pockets.
It’s the norm.
The NCAA is a billion-dollar business built on the back of unpaid laborers.
They are kept unpaid by the illusion of amateurism, which pretends that they receive in trade an education which they are unprepared to receive (because such laborers are specifically targeted) and not mature enough to prioritize (because not only are they targeted for this, but their trust in the institution is exploited).
Why wouldn’t an institution which knows that a vast proportion of its unpaid labor force would be disqualified from service do everything in its power to ensure that they aren’t?
Here are some statistics from the NCAA for FY 2015:
The top median coaching salaries were:
FBS Football - $1,945,000
FBS Men’s Basketball - $1,376,000
FBS Women’s Basketball - $419,000
I-AAA (Division I without football) Men’s Basketball $379,000
FBS Men’s Ice Hockey - $391,000
Sports that made more money (not counting money budgeted by the university) than they spent:
FBS Football - 70/128
FCS Football - 2/124
Division I Men’s Basketball - 73/346 (64/128 FBS, 3/124 FCS, 6/94 I-AAA)
Division I Women’s Basketball - zero
Other sports are not listed, although I doubt any of them made money, with the possible exceptions of some of the SEC baseball teams (e.g. LSU).
Probably the biggest reason: Division I football and men’s basketball are the only sports where the schools make money from postseason revenues. (The NCAA pockets all of the profits of the women’s basketball tournament and the College World Series, among other events.)
I believe you and so I acknowledge that what you experienced must happen at some schools. But I don’t know that your experience is normal for a 4 year student, especially in a non-revenue sport.
Although my school is D1 in almost all sports (not football), I’ll acknowledge that it was not a Big Huge State school. Maybe that makes a difference?
Many student athletes do graduate with real degrees. But I don’t doubt that Kentucky basketball, for example, pushes their kids through a joke curriculum without much (if any) discussion of that *they *want to do.
Well, at a certain point we get into money as a proxy for institutional ideals and for race.
I was in a non-revenue sport at a school you may not have heard of (my team is the only NCAA championship team in school history), and I was pressured to take classes outside my major, that would not have helped me graduate, because they didn’t interfere with practice.
Now, I balked. And many in my position would. Non-revenue sports have a much higher percentage of participants who are economically advantaged, educationally prepared, and less likely to trust Coach to look out for them academically. Call it a proxy for race, class, educational background- call it what you will, but the number 3 girl on the equestrian team is likely much more concerned with getting a diploma than the 3rd-string cornerback, and is much more likely to realize that the “suggested offerings” are not diploma-qualifiers.
Similarly, a school has less incentive (and less need) to pressure its top water polo player into “rocks for jocks” rather than Political Theory 302, because the school has less riding on the success of the polo team than it does on football (and because the polo player is more likely to be prepared for college-level courses, because high schools that have the money to field a polo team also typically have enough money to provide a college-prep or better education).
It’s my position that this type of thing happens whenever a school can get away with it, and it can get away with it more often when the coach/player power disparity is great, and when the educational demographics of the player pool allow it. That’s not to say it’s the rule, but it’s not the exception either.
Same explanation, different iteration. It all comes back to money.
Well yeah.
Bah. They’re getting a free education, often at elite universities, to play a freaking game. For the 90% that don’t end up playing a game for a living, they have an education that everyone else goes deep into debt for.
Except they’re not getting an education as mentioned multiple times in the this thread. Graduation rates for major college football and basketball powers are quite low, and the education the students who do graduate receive is quite a bit different from the mainstream college student. It’s not impossible to get an education and play Division 1 Football or Basketball, but it’s not required or in many cases encouraged. In some situations it is actively discouraged.
I think this is a fairly thoughtless manner in which to dismiss the un-American and unfair abrogation of the athletes’ economic liberties. Anyone who wants to should be able to give them whatever gifts they want without it costing the student their NCAA eligibility. The “they already get enough” argument has never been the least bit compelling.
If it’s such a burden, they’re free to forgo a college athletic career and experience college the same way as the other 95% of students who aren’t athletes. They can take whatever classes they want, apply for other scholarships, work part time to help pay for it.
Maybe that sounds harsh, but the option is always available.
There are quite a few people on this message board from whom i expect a simplistic answer that completely ignores all of the substantive comments already made in the thread. You weren’t one of those people.
I was too late to edit, but I should add that I do think the NCAA is badly broken and generally does not treat athletes fairly. But the reality is that the NCAA makes over $10 billion a year so radical changes aren’t coming any time soon. Maybe 80 years ago the “amateur” student athlete status made sense for a lot of reasons. But college sports has grown into a monster industry and the athletes themselves are, unfortunately, an afterthought. So in the meantime, I think they (athletes) just need to make the best they can out of it. If you think you’re being forced to take joke classes and want to do better, speak up. Even athletes have academic advisors. Get them involved.
I don’t think “make the best of it” is in the cards for the near future. They’re entitled to the same economic rights as anyone else and sooner or later they’ll find a court that agrees with this fundamental fact. The schools have no right to collude among themselves to limit the outside incomes of their students.