Skip to main content

Why wouldn't we pay college athletes?

(Photo: Troy Taormina, USA TODAY Sports)
The latest NCAA scandal---scratch that. One of the latest NCAA scandals involves Johnny Football, a.k.a. Johnny Manziel of Texas A&M. The freshman phenom one the Heisman trophy last year, and this off-season was busted for...dunh dunh DUNNNN! selling his autograph for thousands of dollars. This is not okay because college athletes are supposed to be "student athletes" with amateur status. The whole sanctity of college athletics rests on the notion of college students who just happen to be pretty good at sports and play a little football in their free time.

Of course, the colleges occasionally make some net income off of this free-time activity. It's all in the name of keeping the lights on at our most prestigious institutions. So if a college just so happens to make a whole lot of money in ticket sales, merchandise, TV deals, etc, then it's fine to compensate those who helped bring in that extra money. This is why college football coaches such as Jeff Tedford at Berkeley make an order of magnitude more than a National Academies of Science astronomy professor: Tedford grossed \$2.9M in 2011, compared to \$0.24M for the top-paid UC astronomy prof. This make sense. UC Berkeley football brings in more dough than astronomy. Right?


But wait, how much did UC Berkeley's star football player bring in? Well, he got free tuition, room and board, and a per diem whenever he traveled. He also got some quality tutoring. The top student in astronomy? Well, he/she got about the same deal (with tutoring optional, of course. But unlike the football player, if the astronomy student breaks her ankle, she gets to keep her scholarship. Not so for the "student-athlete.")

So how dare a star college quarterback go off and make a couple thousand extra bucks on the side selling his autograph?! I'm being facetious, of course. But this is the stance of the NCAA, who would like to revoke Johnny's football-playing privileges for next year. No worries, though, because Johnny can just go to the NFL and bring in millions. Except that he can't, because the NCAA has rules specifying that prospective NFL players must wait three years after high school before turning pro.

Wait, what?!

And if you have any arguments to present based on what paying players would do to the competitive landscape of college sports, please go read this short piece by David Berri at Time:
Competition is unbalanced because the poorest schools are not competing, and if we apply some basic economics, we can see that the NCAA’s prohibition on paying players is part of the problem.
A competitive market uses prices to allocate resources.  But if price increases are not allowed, then non-price issues will dictate the allocation of resources. 
It is well past time to figure out how to pay college athletes. My modest proposal: Let athletes sign sponsorship deals on the side, and stop paying college coaches millions. My less modest proposal: scrap the NCAA and start a true minor league for football and basketball with real salaries. This way the pros would get their feeder league, and college football would retain a true sense of amateurism with far less corruption. Maybe.


Popular posts from this blog

An annual note to all the (NSF) haters

It's that time of year again: students have recently been notified about whether they received the prestigious NSF Graduate Student Research Fellowship. Known in the STEM community as "The NSF," the fellowship provides a student with three years of graduate school tuition and stipend, with the latter typically 5-10% above the standard institutional support for first- and second-year students. It's a sweet deal, and a real accellerant for young students to get their research career humming along smoothly because they don't need to restrict themselves to only advisors who have funding: the students fund themselves!
This is also the time of year that many a white dude executes what I call the "academic soccer flop." It looks kinda like this:

It typically sounds like this: "Congrats! Of course it's easier for you to win the NSF because you're, you know, the right demographic." Or worse: "She only won because she's Hispanic."…

Culture: Made Fresh Daily

There are two inspirations for this essay worth noting. The first is an impromptu talk I gave to the board of trustees at Thatcher School while I was visiting in October as an Anacapa Fellow. Spending time on this remarkable campus interacting with the students, faculty and staff helped solidify my notions about how culture can be intentionally created. The second source is Beam Times and Lifetimes by Sharon Tarweek, an in-depth exploration of the culture of particle physics told by an anthropologist embedded at SLAC for two decades. It's a fascinating look at the strange practices and norms that scientists take for granted.
One of the stories that scientists tell themselves, whether implicitly or explicitly, is that science exists outside of and independent of society. A corollary of this notion is that if a scientific subfield has a culture, e.g. the culture of astronomy vs. the culture of chemistry, that culture is essential rather than constructed. That is to say, scientific c…

The subtle yet real racism of the Supreme Court

Judge Roberts, a member of the highest court in the land, which is currently hearing the sad story of mediocre college aspirant Abigail Fischer, recently asked, "What unique ­perspective does a minority student bring to a physics class? I’m just wondering what the benefits of diversity are in that situation?" 
Did you catch the white supremacy in this question? If not, don't feel bad because it's subtly hidden beneath the cloaking field of colorblind racism. (As for Scalia's ign'nt-ass statements, I'm not even...)
Try rephrasing the question: "What unique perspective does a white student bring to a physics classroom?" The answer is, of course, absolutely nothing! Why? Because race isn't biological, and is therefore not deterministic of cognitive abilities. Did you perhaps forget that you knew that when considering Roberts' question? If so, again, it's understandable. Our society and culture condition all of us to forget basic facts …