The NCAA's new president is adamant that, on his watch, there'll be no straying from college athletics' most time-honored tenet: "It's grossly unacceptable and inappropriate to pay players … converting them from students to employees," Mark Emmert says.
But as the NCAA basketball tournament's Final Fourgathers here this week — capping a three-week showcase that generates more than $771 million a year in television rights alone — Emmert acknowledges it's time for a serious discussion about whether and how to spread a little more of the largesse to those doing the playing and sweating.
"The sooner, the better," Emmert says.
He's not thinking big. Maybe bump up the value of players' scholarships by a few thousand dollars to take care of travel, laundry and other typical college expenses that aren't covered now. And Emmert isn't promising anything, only that he'll bring it up at the NCAA's board meetings in April.
"I will make clear," he says, "that I want this to be a subject we explore."
He has plenty of company.
In an era of spiraling rights fees, sold-out luxury suites, full-speed marketing and an ever-growing roster of multimillion-dollar coaches, there are calls — from inside college athletics and out — to find ways for athletes to share in the proceeds of their sports' popularity. Some proposals arguably would bend the NCAA's amateur ideal by, among other things, allowing them to cash in on endorsements or profit from the use of their likenesses in video games, perhaps directing the money to trust funds that couldn't be tapped until they were out of school.
If change doesn't come voluntarily, legal analysts say, the courts eventually may require it. The NCAA has long argued that its strict no-pay standard is necessary to preserve the line between college and professional sports. But have college sports become so commercial that they've already blurred the distinction?
"It puts intercollegiate athletics in a precarious position," former NCAA executive director Cedric Dempsey says, "when you see the money and the kind of salaries you see now and the only group in the system that hasn't received any additional funding is at the student-athlete level."
At North Carolina, Hall of Fame basketball coach Roy Williams questions why athletic scholarships can't measure up to top academic awards, such as UNC's Morehead-Cain scholarship, that take care of a recipient's travel, computers and other incidental extras. He lobbies in particular for players in the revenue-producing sports of football and men's basketball.
"Human nature," Williams says, "is those kids are saying, 'Look at all this money we're bringing in. And I have to beg, borrow and steal to get an extra meal?' "
The what-to-give-players debate has percolated from the time the NCAA was formed in 1906. The current guideline — scholarships covering room, board, books and tuition — was set in the 1950s, though today's athletes also can draw modest amounts from special assistance funds set up by the governing body.
Most everywhere else, the evolution of college athletics has been striking. The money, especially.
Football's Bowl Championship Series is coming off the first season of a $125 million-a-year TV deal. Dwarfing that, the NCAA put the basketball tournament out to bid and last June landed a 14-year, $10.8 billion contract with CBS and Turner Sports.
Throw in conferences' TV packages, including the Southeastern Conference's whopping 15-year, $2.5 billion arrangement with ESPN. Fans are spinning turnstiles in expanded stadiums and arenas, including the 77,000 or so expected for Saturday's and Monday's Final Four games in Houston's Reliant Stadium. Schools' marketing and multimedia rights go for tens of millions of dollars to IMG and other companies.
Annual athletics revenue reaches into nine figures at a growing number of schools, topped by Texas and fellow football powers Alabama and Ohio State. Sizable amounts are trickling down to coaches. Rick Pitino, whose basketball team flamed out in the first round of the NCAA tournament, is being paid $7.5 million at Louisville this year, including a $3.6 million bonus simply for staying put for three seasons. At least five others in Division I basketball, including Duke's Mike Krzyzewski and Kansas' Bill Self, are guaranteed more than $3 million.
Listen, I understand that players put fans in the stands and bring in the money but there has to be a line. I would love to receive extra money for a computer and other activities but all I see it benefiting is the bigger schools. How many programs are going to be able to set aside the type of money that a Texas, Duke, or North Carolina could? Is there a limit to the amount of money a player can receive? I don't see eye to eye with the NCAA on much but you run a lot of risks with this idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment