I grew up with college sports and I have always been a huge fan of them. I never played at the college level, but I celebrate the victories and suffer the despair of defeats along with all of the other rabid college sports fans. The changes that have taken place in college sports over the last few years have altered it in dramatic fashion. Those changes beg a very real question as to whether or not college athletics is on the rise or in a downward spiral.
The most recent change in
college sports is the Name, Image, and Likeness Rule (NIL). Here is the “official” explanation of NIL
from the ruling body of college sports, the National Collegiate Athletic
Association (NCAA): https://www.ncaa.org/news/2021/6/30/ncaa-adopts-interim-name-image-and-likeness-policy.aspx
There is a legitimate
debate to be had regarding the “fairness issue” when considering the income
realized from college sports and the past practice of requiring college
athletes to maintain “amateur status”.
Put another way, the college athletes who are supplying the
entertainment that generates the income were prohibited from sharing in that
particular stream of income. While this
paradox may sound grossly inequitable, it must also be recognized that these
athletes were receiving free tuition, room, and board from their college
athletic scholarships and the value of those scholarships are sizeable.
It is also germane to
this discussion that to a large degree, college athletics has become a farm
system for professional sports and many of the college basketball and football
players will only play a year or two of college sports prior to leaving for a
professional career in the NBA or NFL.
The overwhelming majority of those who leave college early never return
to complete their degrees. The
scholarship investment in those athletes could be considered unfulfilled while
many worthy high school students with limited resources never realize the
opportunity to attend college at all.
The NIL rule change is
apparently designed to permit the college athlete to share in the revenue the
school realizes from the athletic events the athlete participates in. For instance, a basketball star may do local
television commercials for a local car dealership and legally be reimbursed for
his or her endorsement. Some of the more
recognizable and talented athletes may earn well over $1 million per year in
this venue; while some of the lesser talented ones with more photogenic aspects
might earn in the tens of thousands.
Universities across the country are gearing up for this new situation by
forming organizations and groups of alumni, donors, and fans who collectively
raise funds for use in this new and permitted NIL activity.
It should be noted that
this “fairness” issue that has led to the new NIL rule has been hotly debated
for several years now. The ruling body
of college athletics (NCAA) has had ample opportunity to take proactive action
in rectifying this inequity. However,
they have continued to fiddle while college sports burns. A simple allowance permitting some type of
“reasonable stipend” for the participating athletes would have likely prevented
this NIL issue from rising to a crisis level.
Combined with the
fairness issue previously discussed, the fact that scholarship athletes must
devote an inordinate amount of their time to practice while maintaining a required
grade level effectively prevents them from acquiring and maintaining a
part-time job. There just aren’t enough
hours in a day. It is simply
unacceptable that the dual pressures of maintaining grades, maintaining peak
body performance, and living a life of a college student be balanced on the
shoulders of these young men and women.
There should be no objections to a reasonable allowance that would
permit these athletes to have some pocket money for periodic trips back home,
occasional entertainment, and extra food beyond the campus cafeteria.
The change that
immediately preceded the NIL is the Transfer Rule. Here is the NCAA explaining exactly what that
rule entails: https://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/2022-08-31/ncaa-division-i-board-adopts-changes-transfer-rules
Prior to this rule
change, under normal circumstances, when a college athlete decided they no
longer wanted to play for one school and would like to transfer to another
school to play, they would lose a year of eligibility in the transfer process. In other words, if they went from a
University A football team to a University B football team, they had to sit out
a year and lost one of their four years of college sports eligibility. Now both the old and new transfer rules have
special exceptions for special circumstances, but the aforementioned
explanation pretty much covers the normal transfer process.
An athlete does not go
from University A to University B because they have a better psychology
department. They do not transfer because
another school might give them a better chance to get into law or medical school. The college transfer of a “student athlete”
does not occur for academic reasons. They
typically transfer because the move might improve their chances to (A) get more
playing time because of decreased competition and/or (B) it will improve their
chances of being recognized and recruited by professional sports teams…put them
on a better team with more national exposure.
It stands repeating…the
new transfer rule now permits an athlete to leave a school one year and
immediately play at another school the following year…without losing any
college sports eligibility. Needless
to say, this rule change combined with NIL has changed the college sports
landscape in an historical sense. One of
those changes is that it has significantly increased the useful function of
college sports as a farm system for professional sports.
We now have a situation
where a university will recruit an athlete from high school, offer that athlete
a “full ride” scholarship, provide that athlete with a stage upon which to
perform for their future employers’ viewing, and then simply watch as that
athlete decides that another school might provide more NIL money or a bigger
stage and walks away from their campus.
There are other
considerations, but it stands to reason that the schools that can provide the
largest NIL payments to the athletes will likely obtain their services on the
playing field. This will inevitably lead
to those particularly “well-heeled” schools converting their newly-acquired superior
athletes into a high level of success on the field. That winning success will in turn attract the
attention of the professional recruiters.
The whole process will be used by the athletes to earn the maximum
dollars at the college level while gaining the maximum exposure for a
professional future. It will likely
simplify the professional sports recruiting by consolidating the top-flight
athletes onto fewer teams.
It will further separate
the “haves” and the “have nots” in college sports conferences. This in turn will lead to fewer conferences,
covering wider geographical areas, acquiring disproportionately more of the
television revenue for college athletics, destroying traditional rivalries that
have existed for decades, and geometrically increasing the expense of college
athletic departments via higher travel expenses. The “rich will get richer” while the “poor
will get poorer”. And trust me on
this…professional sports teams are not amongst the “poor”.
This increased enrichment
of the better-talented college athletes will undoubtedly lead to dissension in
the locker rooms, where the “team concept” will be sorely tested by those
receiving large NIL payments competing alongside those receiving no NIL
payments. These changes will cheapen
college sports and create serious fractures in, if not totally destroy, any
remnants that might remain of the traditional “student athlete” concept. The once honorable trade-off of playing four
years of college sports in return for a bachelor degree has been increasingly deteriorating;
these changes will essentially end its existence.
Now permit me to bring
this situation into real terms.
According to public records, the basketball coach at the University of
Kentucky (UK) receives a base salary of $8.1 million per year, plus other valuable benefits, with additional
“potential” bonus payments: https://legal.uky.edu/sites/default/files/2022-04/Coach_John_Calipari_Contract_0.pdf
The football coach
receives a base salary of about $8.6 million per year, plus other valuable
benefits, with additional “potential” bonus payments: https://legal.uky.edu/sites/default/files/2022-11/stoops-mark-20221118170505634.pdf
UK has a storied
basketball history and still competes at a high level; but its national performance
over the last several years certainly ranks far lower than the national ranking
of its coach’s salary. UK has, at best,
been a mid-level performing school in football for most of its history, yet its
coach is now among the highest salaried college football coaches in the nation. Let me put a finer point on those facts.
A salary of approximately
$9 million per year equates to a monthly salary of $750,000; a weekly salary of
$173,000; a daily salary of $24,650; and an hourly compensation rate of over
$1,025. How many college professors do
you suppose make that kind of money? How
many college PRESIDENTS make that kind of money? How many PEOPLE make that kind of money? A U.S. Representative or Senator makes $174.000 per year. Now college sports generate a huge amount of
revenue for schools, but then again…an average college basketball season runs
about 30 games over 4 months, including tournament play. An average college football season includes
about 12 games over 14 weeks plus bowls and/or playoffs. In fairness to the coaches, their job is not
confined to gameday. They have to
recruit, manage, counsel, maintain public relations, be accountable to school
authorities, and deal with fan bases that are certifiably crazy. But the point is this…they are well paid. VERY WELL PAID INDEED.
The balance between
college athletic expenses and college athletic revenues is not a simple
calculation. It can also be fairly
stated that the discussion of that balance extends beyond “dollars and cents”
and bleeds over into the realm of “exactly what is the function of a
college?”. It is not difficult to
understand why the academic segments of college staffs might harbor some resentment
towards the athletic segments of college staffs. It is not difficult to understand how
exceptional students in various academic disciplines might resent the huge
expenditures in athletic scholarships…especially in consideration of the new
rule changes. (A significant point to be made is the fact
that college students other than athletes have essentially no prohibitions on using
their “skills and abilities” to earn money outside of their college activities.) There is no question that these recent changes
bring into greater focus a closer examination of the sky-rocketing rise in
college tuitions and expenses. And if
you are one of the fortunate/unfortunate people paying those bills today, you
can relate to my frustration with an article I just read about our UK football
coach.
By all indications, the
UK football coach is a decent, honorable man that works hard, conducts himself
in a manner that reflects well on his employer, and treats the players and fans
with respect and dignity. The early
signing period for college football recruiting opened this week (December 21)
and like all other college football coaches, the UK head man held a press
conference to discuss UK’s new recruits.
While discussing the players that would be joining UK football next year
both through high school recruiting and the transfer portal, the coach
addressed the new NIL element in college football and how that was playing out
at UK.
It appears that UK has
taken a careful and deliberate approach to this NIL feature and has apparently
been attempting to approach it in a legal and responsible fashion. The primary group that will be fund-raising
for and essentially managing the NIL arrangements for UK football players is
known as the “The 15 Club”. It is
reported that donors to this collective can make one-time donations or become
members with a monthly donation of $25 per month. It is said that 90 percent of the net
proceeds will go directly to the student athletes. This organization has been soliciting
donations from alumni, businesses, and fans for a few weeks now and the UK
football coach commented on that fact. He is quoted as saying, “It’s like anything. There’s never
enough. We’re competing. We have our collective, The 15, up and running. And
thank you. Thank you, thank you to the people that have given to that. There
are already grassroots people that I know maybe don’t have 10s or 20, 30
thousand dollars to donate but that are donating monthly. And it makes a
difference. That collective, that money is starting to add up where we’re
getting monthly income in that 15 fund. That helps fund the big picture and
these players. Gives them the opportunities.”
I have to wonder how this plea for donations from a man who is receiving
about $9 million a year to coach UK football sounds to the parents paying
tuition at UK, to the fans paying travel expenses to attend home games in
Lexington while driving up to 200-300 miles, then paying high ticket prices at
the football stadium that was recently renovated in a multi-million dollar
project funded by UK (tuition)/State of Kentucky (taxes)/City of Lexington
(taxes), paid the parking fee upon arrival at said stadium, and then paid
obscenely-high concession prices while enjoying the football game.
There are people in Kentucky that everyday put the purchase of a lottery
ticket ahead of basic family necessities.
There is no doubt that many will make donations to the “The 15
Club” in the same fashion. It is a
personal decision to throw one’s money away and people have to be held
accountable for their own actions; but we should not expect our state
institutions of higher learning to create opportunities for that type of
behavior. In an environment like
college athletics that is awash in dollars… how pathetic is it for a university
and a grossly over-paid employee to be soliciting “donations” to an auxiliary
support program for its student athletes?
Are these people truly that clueless?
I believe that a large part of my discomfort with this NIL business is
the fact that the university is “officially” involving itself in the
soliciting. I have no problem with the
lottery (i.e., gambling); it is a free choice by individuals to gamble with
their own money. I do, however, have a
problem with my state government running the entire operation. If there are “private” organizations that
want to raise NIL funds to support a college sports program, that is their
business. I may not like that new
“aspect” of college sports, but it is a private affair of people making their
own choices with their own resources.
On the other hand, there is something distinctly “unseemly” about seeing
the UK football coach shilling for this type of “extracurricular” rewards
program. It is symptomatic of our
culture and society that we have become “desensitized” to this type of messaging. Is this really what we expect from our
“institutions of higher learning”? And please…do
not use the lame justification that “everybody is doing it”; that is mighty
thin gruel.
It is not my intention to blend the two different trends of “wokeness”
in our world with this “evolution” of college athletics; they are two separate
and distinct issues. But the way in
which we are “easing into” both of them with creative rationale should provide
us with a bit of unease when considering the similarities in happenstance.
I believe the UK football coach is a good man. I believe he is trying his best, within the
system in which he operates, to be successful.
But someone…somewhere…in this whole messed-up universe of college
athletics should realize how truly stupid and out-of-whack this whole situation
has become.
If you think these new college athletics rules are messed up, consider
“this” as a footnote on the bizarre universe that our colleges and universities
now reside in:
·
Stanford
University, officially Leland
Stanford Junior University, is a private research university in Stanford, California. The campus occupies 8,180 acres, among the
largest in the United States, and enrolls over 17,000 students. Stanford
is considered among the most prestigious universities in the world and often
regarded as the world's most innovative university. (Wikipedia)
·
For 17,000
students, Stanford lists 2,288 faculty and 15,750 administrative staff.
·
Here is a
link to Stanford University’s “Elimination of Harmful
Language Initiative”: https://www.scribd.com/document/615550719/Stanford-Language-Guide#
