Hello, everyone. I hope you have all had a blissful, restful, and relaxing off-season.
I am anxiously waiting another grand and glorious year of college football.
I know that this time of year, the College Football Wizard is busily churning out his predictions and predilections, but I wanted to take this time to talk about a couple of things that have been gnawing at me lately.
Have you ever heard of the term; “the narrative”?
Well, to the best of my knowledge, a narrative is something that is ginned up in association with a story to interpret that story in the best light possible. In other words, it’s a lie that puts an unfortunate or negative event or story in the most positive light so that seems plausible and believable, to someone’s advantage.
I’ll give you a for instance. Let’s look at Benghazi. The story from our administration is that, as a result of rioting caused by a video that was less than flattering to the Muslim faith, four Americans were killed in the U.S. mission in Libya and there was simply nothing we could do. Nothing.
Here are some examples. Let’s start with Benghazi. Originally, the story from our administration is that, as a result of rioting caused by a video that was less than flattering to the Muslim faith, four Americans were killed in the U.S. mission in Libya and there was simply nothing we could do. Nothing.
Another narrative is that when Michael Brown was shot in Ferguson, Mo. he was on his knees with his hands up and was brutally gunned down. According to grand jury testimony, nothing could be further from the truth.
The Occupy Wallstreet gang would have you believe that the 1% are the most evil, greedy, manipulative individuals on the planet. This though they are industry leaders, job creators, and give enormous sums to charities.
I know that’s a rather caustic situation that encourages rage from some, but let’s look at another narrative that has been bantered around as gospel and has gained traction among many, especially the “victimologists”.
And that narrative is that college athletes should be paid for their play.
This is an argument that is completely omits a myriad of facts, reeks of class warfare, and, surprisingly, makes victims of college athletes.
The supporters of the “pay for play” narrative opine that college athletes are taken advantage of. In other words, they are victims of a corrupt system that takes advantage of poor, oppressed, athletes and conjures up images of the days of slavery in the South.
These poor children are put through the regimens of workouts, late days and early mornings and are no more than indentured servants who are the slaves to the NCAA and its member institutions. They continue by deriding these same colleges and its governing body, the National Collegiate Athletic Association because of the “obscene” amount of money it “rakes in” year after year at the expense of these lowly servile athletes.
This narrative paints a very bleak picture for the college athlete. I mean, why would anyone consent to attend an institution and perform activities on the playing field if they were subjugated to what some interpret as indentured servitude to racist oppressive, organizations like Colleges, Universities, and the NCAA? Well, the reason college athletes sign letters of intent and accept scholarships is because they are not oppressed, subjugated, or taken advantage of.
Here’s what the pundits of “pay for play” conveniently omit from their narrative.
1. The value of a scholarship: The consideration for the value of a scholarship is not just the price of admittance, but the total cost of attendance. This is considerably higher because included in that costs of attendance are the books, fees, meal plans, and residence in a dorm. As of 2014, the cost of residence ranged from $16,000 at the University of Florida to over $66,000 at Northwestern University. So the cost for a 4 year degree will range from $30,000 to over $200,000 depending on whether or not the institution is a public or private institution.
2. Additional benefits are those perks that add value to the college scholarship. The average Joe has access to intramural athletics, a library, and other facilities.
But what about the college athlete?
How about those state of the art athletic facilities such as stadiums, practice fields, athletic dorms, weight rooms, and other facilities which are accessible ONLY to a student athlete? But, it doesn’t end there. Maintaining eligibility is a major factor for student athletes. How about special study facilities and tutoring which add additional value to an athletic scholarship?
In a 2015 article in the Charleston Post and Courier, the Clemson University Athletic Department announced that they were building a 62 MILLION dollar football operations center. The recipients of this facility will not be students from the general population. The only students accessing that facility will be football players.
3. As we (hopefully) all know, the majority of athletes that compete for a college or university will go on to seek jobs, raise families, and become productive, tax paying citizens. Only a small number of graduates or participants in college athletics will go on to the professional ranks. But, for the college graduates of our institutions of higher learning, the disparity in pay and the employment rate as compared to a high school graduate is significant. Today, the employment rate for a college graduate is over 80% as compared to a high school graduate, which sits at close to 55%. Even an individual who only has some college have a higher employment rate than high school graduates.
But what about real numbers?
A college graduate makes over $30,000 a year more than a high school grad which equates to over $1.2 million more in earnings than a high school grad over a 40 year career.
4. And finally the money. Yes, the money. Proponents of pay for play conveniently leave out the fact that only 18 or 20 institutions of higher learning actually make a profit. They also forget to point out that of the money made from football and basketball (the revenue producers) is divided up among other non-revenue sports like women’s basketball, men’s and women’s tennis and golf, and others.
They also tend to omit the fact that student fees are used at a majority of institutions to make up for shortfalls in the athletics department budget. Finally, there is the glaring omission of what the NCAA does with that bucketful of money they make. How about tournaments at all levels (D-1 thru D-III) in all sports? All funded by the NCAA of course.
How about the money that the schools themselves see from TV revenues? Received by the NCAA and distributed to member schools. They pay for compliance, rules, facilities, research, and other activities. Remember, the NCAA is a non profit. I’m not a big NCAA fan by any stretch of the imagination, but, the facts are that the money comes in and it goes right back out to member institutions.
So, what is the conclusion? Despite the narrative being bandied about by the 99 percenters and those who have nothing more than a passing knowledge of the economics of college athletics, “Pay for Play” is not a good idea.
Athletes are more than adequately compensated, to the detriment of traditional college students who will get a rude awakening when the institution they attend raises their student fees in order to pay a “poor” athlete. In a CNN.com article in 2014, UConn basketball player Shabazz Napier was quoted as saying he went to bed hungry despite provisions for a meal plan. What happens when a traditional student goes to bed hungry? Their parents are who these students go to for support. Where are the parents in the student-athlete conversation? And who will get paid? Will it be only those in the revenue producing sports of basketball or football? Not so fast my friend.
There are title IX issues to contend with there. This will be a Pandora ’s Box that, once opened, will totally change the landscape and dynamics of collegiate athletics.
I will say this in conclusion. Granting stipends to athletes was a bad decision by the “Big Boy” schools. They will only drive a wedge between the lower and upper echelons of the D-I schools. Having a policy of “You break it you bought it” similar to the how the military takes care of injuries while serving ones country will go a long way in taking care of athletes who give their all for their alma maters. But, “pay for play”? A bad idea that continues to linger despite a narrative that overlooks the obscene benefits enjoyed by college athletes when compared to a traditional student
That’s all for now
I’m Harley Hanesworth