Today is Labor Day and I am clearly working (but only a little bit). Malcolm Gladwell posted a comment on his blog entitled “Abolish the NCAA” and I encourage everyone to go read what Gladwell has to say.
Let me add just a few additional comments to Gladwell’s post. Gladwell notes a paper written by Jim Peach, an economist at New Mexico State University and out-going president of the Western Social Science Association. Peach’s paper, which I plan on commenting on in more detail in the future, examines the level of competition in the NCAA.
Peach basically finds that for 50 years the NCAA has been expanding its rule book. Despite more and more rules, Peach also finds that competitive balance does not seem to exist in sports like football, basketball (for men and women), volleyball (again for men and women), and baseball. Looking at these findings one wonders: If the NCAA’s rules do not promote competitive balance, what is the purpose of this institution?
As you watch tonight’s game between Miami and Florida State, think about who is profiting from the spectacle that is big-time college athletics. Given ESPN’s promotion efforts, clearly it finds broadcasting the game to be profitable. The schools and coaches also benefit from these games. The players, though, see very little of the revenue these games generate. And remember, the vast majority of NCAA athletes – as the commercials say – will turn pro in something other than athletics. In other words, the athletes – who we all enjoy watching – generate much money for other people, but very little for themselves.
Perhaps this is a situation more people should ponder on Labor Day.
— DJ
Update: Jim Peach tells me his paper — entitled “College Athletics, Universities, and the NCAA” — will appear in the January issue of the Social Science Journal. This paper was his presidential address to the Western Social Science Association.
Wages of Wins Journal 
Travis
September 4, 2006
Is there nothing to be said of the free education and free room and board that a majority of the “big name” students athletes will receive? As a student myself I will, upon graduating, be in much debt and would jump at any opportunity for a full scholarship.
I know that the NCAA, ESPN, and seveal other entities will profit from tonights FSU and Miami game but won’t the athletes who are receiving full rides be able to profit from there degress (ideally) once they graduate. Thus being able to earn a lot more money than they otherwise would have.
Brad
September 4, 2006
Nope–nothing to be said for the free education. In big time programs, “student” athletes regularly put in 30-40 hours a week to their sport, which is time they can’t put into their schooling. And again, it’s uncompensated time that they can’t use for education, or for any other pursuit that they might eventually make money from (I edited my college newspaper, for example, which was a lot of free work, but which also helped me get a job.) Also remember that these are not necessarily the best students–their athleticism qualified them, at least in part, for school. They simply are not alloted the time they need to get a real education–reflected by the fact that there there are some sports where player graduation rates hover around 30%.
And they can’t stop putting in the time. Setting aside pressure from fans, etc., full scholarship students need to produce to retain their scholarships. If they don’t, they risk getting cut for a different scholarship player and losing their free “education.”
Basically, the NCAA is a terrible system.
Jason
September 5, 2006
This is not to say that there are not some significant problems with college athletics and some programs in particular, but let’s keep this grounded in reality.
It is possible for athletes in just about any program to get an education if they so desire, though this task is made more or less difficult depending on the program and the staff and institution’s commitment to education. There are no programs with graduation rates of zero.
It’s also important to remember that graduation rates in isolation are more than a bit misleading. There are quite a few institutions that have low graduation rates as a whole for a number of reasons. Finishing college is difficult for many people, not just athletes. Most people who matriculate at Harvard finish up there. But far fewer people who matriculate at CSUB graduate (~40% within 6 years for the whole student body, not just athletes). If 44% of the athletes at CSUB get degrees, this means as a whole, they’re outperforming the general student body.
While there are ways for coaches to force out players they no longer want around, it is the exception far, far, far more often than the rule that players who do not perform have scholarships removed. MANY institutions (including some athletic powerhouses) have rules to specifically prevent this. Once a scholarship is awarded, it cannot be taken away for any reason other than academic inelligibility or criminal misconduct. I’d be impressed with actual evidence that players have had scholarships pulled for failing to produce. If you have such evidence, do share the actual evidence, not the generality. Having worked for a couple of high profile programs myself, I’ve never actually seen this happen, though I know of several athletes who have never shown the promise they held as recruits who held scholarships for 5 years while rarely actually playing.
As for exploitation of the ‘unpaid’ scholarship student athlete: They do receive much for their play. In addition to a free education should they desire to pursue it, an athlete at FSU or Miami with dreams of playing in the NFL has behind them a very powerful publicity department, media relations experts. Athletes profit from the media exposure as well.