Dirty Ducks?

Did Oregon pay $25,000 to land Lache Seastrunk?

Oregon and LSU meet in the premier game of the first weekend of the 2011 college football season; and just like LSU’s 2010 opening opponent, Oregon will be under NCAA investigation.  If you recall, last season UNC was under investigation for a number of allegations involving the football team.  Now it appears Oregon is in the middle of a very suspicious set of facts which, to speak plainly, “stink to high heaven.”

The basic facts are as follows: On February 3, 2010, two high school players based in south Texas, Lache Seastrunk (5 star, rated #3 RB in country) and Dontae Williams (4 star, rated #12 RB in country) sign with Oregon.  It is well known that a man named Willie Lyles is a “mentor/confidant” of both players.   One month later, Oregon pays Lyles $25,000 for recruiting information on the 2011 recruiting class.  It turns out that NOT ONE player profiled in Lyles booklet was a member of the 2011 class.  Most were from the 2009 class, making the “information” Lyles provided virtually worthless.  Oregon’s current starting RB is LaMichael James.  James is from south Texas as well and was also “mentored” by Lyles.

Thus far Oregon has not made any substantive comments regarding the facts that have come to light.  Not surprising since the NCAA is digging deep into the Oregon program.  Apologist would have you believe that the unscrupulous Lyles duped Oregon and the signings of James, Seastrunk and Williams are merely a coincidence.  No way I buy that.  Oregon’s head coach Chip Kelly is one of the sharpest guys in the business and college football head coaches are notorious control freaks.  Did I mention that even after Lyles delivered the virtually worthless 2011 packet, Oregon continued to do business with him?  The NCAA is going to slap Oregon for this; the only questions are how serious will the penalties be and who gets pink slipped.

Play for Pay, part II

“Forty thousand dollars-plus a year to play, that's a pretty good salary for an 18-year-old that has no college education, if you think about it that way.” 

-Matt Howard, Butler basketball player

According to an article appearing in USA Today, the average basketball scholarship is worth $120,000.  You can argue about the methodology of arriving at this number, but certainly there is no dispute that college athletes are compensated in some form for their athletic performances.  The question asked by many, are these college athletes getting enough?

I would answer with a resounding YES!

For me, the most compelling argument is based on the nature of the system. Meaning that no one is forced to participate in college athletics.  No one has a gun put to his or her head.  No one is forced to sign with a school under duress.  The system is completely voluntary.  As with any job opportunity, if you don’t like the compensation package, don’t take the job.

But what about the poor kids that don’t have money and an athletic scholarship is their only way to college?  My answer to that is the following question, “since when is it the role of a college athletics department to engage in social engineering and welfare programs?”  This question is especially poignant in light of all of the financial assistance that is offered to ALL students.  Low interest loans, grants and many other sources are available to student athletes.  Why should these athletes be GIVEN more benefits that fans pay for when these other resources exist?

College football is a business, a billion dollar business.  Thus basic economic concepts can be applied to college football’s business model.  When it comes to labor, an analysis of simple supply and demand argues against any additional compensation to athletes.  Every year an enormous pool of seniors graduate from high school looking to take advantage of athletic scholarships.  The supply of potential talent, especially available to BCS schools far outnumbers the available scholarships offered each year.  From a strictly financial view, why would a person pay $10 for something they could get for $6?

Finally, looking at the issue in broader terms, how do we want to view our college athletes?  Does it bother you if they become true semi-professionals?  What message do we send to non-athlete students and young high schoolers growing up?  What exactly is the mission of the university in respect to the athletic department?

This is Our Starting Quarterback

Jordan Jefferson Confuses Thomas and George Jefferson

 LSU will NOT be "Moving on Up" this fall with this guy under center...

Play for Pay, Part I

This is the first of four posts regarding the issue of paying college athletes where I will attempt to address the main arguments of proponents of a Play for Pay system. 

1. Schools are making millions off athletes.

Currently there are 120 teams in Division I (FBS) football.  NCAA data from 2009 shows that only 14 of the 120 teams finished in the black for that fiscal year.  The median “net generated negative revenue” (loss) among the 106 teams that lost money was $10 million dollars.  88% of all athletic departments finished in the red, yet some advocates of stipends want to spend MORE MONEY.

Lets go even deeper into this argument.  The naïve and uninformed want to treat football as a separate entity of an athletic department.  It’s not.  Football by itself generally does well.  But an athletic department must manage all of the intercollegiate sports a school supports and comply with Title IX requirements regarding gender equity.  At many schools, football covers for sports that generate a loss, be they men’s or women’s teams.

There is no way a school could pay football players exclusively without running afoul of the Title IX gender requirements that students be treated equally and have the same opportunities.  So we are not talking about just paying football players, but paying EVERY SINGLE ATHLETE ON CAMPUS.  Where are these funds going to come from?

Which leads to my final point on the issue.  Who is going to pay for these stipends?  As in any business, when production costs rises, this is passed on to the consumer.  Why would college athletics be any different?  Tickets to the LSU v. Bama game are $70 face value.  For a family of four it would cost over $300 to attend the game with snacks and souvenirs.  Alabama can get away with that, but what about Tulane, UL Monroe or Southern Miss?  No one is going to pay that kind of money to see those schools.

Proponents of a pay system only look at the "star" athletes and giant programs without looking at the system as a whole.  Athletic departments must be looked at broadly to appreciate all the responsibilities these entities have.  The bottom line is that the funding is just not there to pay college athletes in addition to the scholarships they receive.  

The bigger question I will address in a later post will go beyond the practical issues and cut right to the heart of the matter.  What is the mission of college athletics?  Where do they fit in the mission of higher education as a whole?  Going forward, what do we want college athletics to look like?

Play for Pay

Recently, a BCS conference commissioner openly discussed the idea of adding a stipend to the scholarships now offered in college football. Steve Spurrier has even offered to pay from his own pocket. These ideas are nothing new. The idea of play for pay in college has been kicked around for years. What the idea needs is to be kicked to the curb.

The play for pay guys will tell you that these “poor student athletes” are making millions of dollars for their schools yet are not being compensated appropriately. Why should State U get all this cash when the players only get a lousy tuition and room and board scholarship? Plus the players are getting paid under the table, so lets put all above board and stop the hypocrisy and the cheating.

In my mind, all of the reasoning above is total bunk. I will be posting my thoughts in three parts over the next few days.