This certainly has been an interesting day. Both sides present a strong case (I have my own opinions, but for the purpose of this post, I'll stay mute on that). Both sides disagree (sometimes vehemently) with the others arguments. So who's wrong? Who's right? Dare I say both? Insane? Perhaps not.
The crux of this debate is the issue of college sports: Money/winning vs. academics/integrity. In a perfect world, we would have both. But it cannot be. Who is to blame? Majerus and other coaches? Hardly. They are doing what they need to do to survive, as distasteful as it may be to many of us (myself included, so I guess I had to show one color). So who shoulders the responsibility?
Easy. The four letter word (er, acronym): NCAA
An institution that on one side shouts: ACADEMICS! INTEGRITY! SCHOOL PRIDE! FAIRNESS! EXCELLENCE! While on the other side, rolls around in barrels full of hard cash (which if your school happens to win, you get to roll in a nice little pile yourself). The NCAA is the figurehead of this ugly little paradox. They constrain the people that bring in the money, while swallowing enough money to fund some small countries.
Sure, the student-athlete gets the compensation of an education, but what good is it if you can't stick around for four years? For some of these kids, sports is the only way they could afford an education (and I'm not talking just people from the inner city either). If there scholarship gets jerked for any reason, they are out. And it can get jerked for any reason.
So why do coaches pull a scholarship? They can provide a myriad of reasons, but they all boil down to winning, which begets money for the coach and money for the school. The NCAA makes the argument that a player commits to a school and not to a coach, but usually the first thing any new coach does is come in and cut four or five players. Cleans house if you will.
What are some possible solutions? Well, in my mind, the NCAA needs to quit putting on two faces and say: We are about money, or we are about student-athletes. The duality this whole mess sickens me.
If they say they are about money, then pay the damn players. Not easy though. Which athletes do you pay? Can you pay only football and men's basketball players and not pay the volleyball players, swimmers, gymnasts, or wrestlers? How much do you pay them? When do you pay them?
If they say they are about student-athletes, then take some of the buckets of cash and fund non-revenue sports. Make Title 9 an entitlement to women's sports, and not a death wish for non-revenue men's sports. Decrease the pay of the coaches, but give them more job security. If the coaches truly love their craft, then this won't matter a whole lot. Compensate them their worth, but by removing the specter of unemployment (at least fast and meaningless unemployment) they often won't have to make decisions regarding athletes that ruin their livelyhood (think of how many coaches have cheated to get a player so that they can win and keep their jobs). Reward coaches for graduating players on time.
That's my two cents. I don't like some of the things that happen at the U, but the other side of the coin is understandable. It is a regretable part of the hypocracy that is NCAA sports.
Jeromy in SLC
Look at how many of us participate on this message board. How much time do we spend reading the sports section, attending games, watching sports on TV, purchasing apparel, etc.? How much money do we spend? Why? Because it's entertaining. If you don't want money in sports, than make it boring. As long as it's entertaining there will be money involved because we'll spend it. The NCAA keeps up the student-athlete schtick because it sells. How many of us want another pro basketball team in Salt Lake (a minor league one at that). I'm sure most of us on this board would agree that we enjoy watching the Utes more than the Jazz. Why? Because of the schtick. These guys aren't playing for the money. They're playing for school pride! Let's kick some cougar butt! It gets the emotions involved in a way that the pro game doesn't because we all belong to the U community. There is no Jazz community. I think we have to acknowledge that we are a big part of why things are the way they are and the NCAA looks at its audience.
The minute someone plunks down money for a ticket, money becomes involved. I think it's what your mission is with the money that should separate the NCAA from the pro leagues. I think the money would be better spent enhancing the whole spectrum of college sports, knowing that football and men's basketball are the driving force of that cashflow and can provide for other sports, not plunging down the road on a quest for more money.
Case in point: In the early 90's, Clemson fired Tommy Ford and bought out his contract. The cost of the buyout caused them to drop wrestling, men's gymnastics, and women's track to balance their budget and keep compliant with Title 9. The total cost of the buyout would have funded those three programs for three years. THAT is where money ruins college athletics.
Jeromy in SLC
Last modified .