One of the common arguments made by those supporting the idea that college athletes should be paid beyond scholarships are the exorbitant salaries of college coaches. For example 42 head football coaches make at least $1 million dollars per year with the salary average for all coaches around $1.64 million.1 The problem with this argument is it ignores all of the problems associated with paying college athletes and how those problems make such a desire nearly impossible; these problems were discussed in a previous blog post here. However, by itself the argument that college football coaches are paid too much money is a valid one. With more and more college students swimming in greater amounts of debt due to tuition increases, scholarship/grant decreases and worsening high-salaried job prospects it is difficult for defenders of these salaries to continue to hide behind ‘don’t hate the coach, hate the market’ type arguments.
The failure of the market argument is that the market has been inflated and effectively destroyed because it is awash with television money. There is no correction factor because there is no incentive construct. For example a head football coach of university A in a BCS automatic qualifying conference can go 4-8, but because of the revenue sharing in the conference from television deals, especially those conferences with their own television networks, the $1 million dollars paid to that coach is not viewed as a significant loss even if gate receipts drop because of poor play. In fact some may view the search process involved in finding a new coach more costly over absorbing the costs associated with a mediocre coach producing mediocre results, especially for a university that does not have a history of success in football.
When identifying an object or system as broken the natural reaction is to begin processing solutions to fix the problem(s) to repair the system. Unfortunately this reaction has skipped the high value college athletic environment. Such a reality is sad because the fix is rather simple. Instead of providing large base salaries for coaches, universities should arrange all contracts to operate on commission with incentives and a small base salary. An example of such an arrangement is shown below.
Instead of paying a coach $3.6 million dollars a year like the University of South Carolina pays Steve Spurrier, payment over a given year could be as followed:
Base Salary = $40,000
Salary increase per win over unranked team = $5,000
Salary increase per win over ranked team* = $10,000
Salary increase per win over the historical rival university = $15,000
Salary increase upon going to a non-BCS bowl game = $15,000
Salary increase upon winning a conference championship = $25,000
Salary increase upon going to a BCS bowl game = $50,000
Salary increase upon winning a national championship = $250,000
* = the increase is only valid for victories over teams ranked at the end of the year not when they were played.
Under such a contract if coach A lead a team to a 10-3 record with 3 ranked victories, the rival victory and a non-BCS bowl game appearance he would be paid $135,000. Some might argue that such a salary is not fair, but anyone who makes such an argument has a distorted sense of importance. In the above scenario coach A makes $135,000, a salary that is more than a large number of other occupations that are more important to the infrastructure of society including public school teacher, police officer, fire fighter, farmer, lab technician, most engineers, some general practitioners, etc. Therefore, how is awarding coach A such a salary unfair? Especially when the workload of a college football coach is less than the workload of all of the above mentioned professions.
Some could argue that such a system depends too much on luck, not skill because what happens if a team in a given year is devastated by injuries resulting in numerous losses? While such an argument is a definite possibility its influence is insignificant. One could argue that a chief aspect of being a coach for a given sport is the ability to design strategies that enhance the strengths of the players while concealing their weaknesses, thus a rash of injuries should not affect a good coach as much as a bad coach. Also good coaches are able to improve the abilities of weaker players reducing the reliance on their recruitment and maintenance of four and five star prep talent. Therefore, a commission system actually differentiates between a good coach and a bad coach and how they should be financially rewarded for their job performance, exactly how capital markets should function.
If such a commission system is created it is important that the conferences themselves or even the NCAA design a strong system of regulations to avoid inflation. For example a commission system does little to restore market functionality and legitimacy when a coach at university A is awarded $80,000 per win. One possible regulation would be a maximum salary, as a combination of incentives and base, is defined by a NCAA defined percentage of total shared conference revenue and university specific ticket gate. Basically suppose university A was awarded $13 million dollars in revenue sharing from conference television deals, etc and made $8 million dollar in ticket revenue. If the NCAA defined a 1% salary limit then the maximum potential salary of the coach at university A would be $210,000. With the ticket gate inclusion in the above example clearly larger universities are going to have an advantage in coach recruiting because of the ability to offer higher salaries, but it is difficult to eliminate this advantage in a general market operating system. However, good coaches at smaller universities can increase their salaries by raising the profile of the football program and increasing ticket gates and interest.
Overall fixing the salary system in popular college athletics should free up a lot of wasted money that can be diverted to supporting other male and female sports beyond football or basketball as well as provide additional funds for other scholarships encompassing either sports, academic or special needs. People frequently speak of allowing the market to determine the value of something, but do individuals have the will and/or intelligence to recognize when the market is broken and work to fix it accordingly?
==
Citations:
1. http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2012/11/19/college-football-coaches-contracts-analysis-pay-increase/1715435/?csp=usattumblr
Showing posts with label College Athletics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label College Athletics. Show all posts
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Cheerleading and Title IX
The modern perception of cheerleading has commonly existed in two role characterizations: the supportive eye-candy for male sports demanding an attractive form and enthusiasm and the athletic aerial gymnastics demanding coordination and cooperation. While the former role will more than likely always persist in society, many cheerleading proponents want the latter role to nurture a new respect for the required athleticism of cheerleaders. Further more proponents believe that a critical element to this role transition is recognition of competitive cheerleading as an official NCAA sport. Whether or not such a desire is appropriate demands analysis.
To begin proponents already have one strike against them in the form of the court case “Biediger v. Quinnipiac University”. In March 2009 the Quinnipiac University women’s volleyball team sued the university to prevent the termination of their program in favor of competitve cheerleading. The crux of the case revolved around whether or not the new cheerleading squad would qualify as a viable athletic opportunity under Title IX. In July 2010 U.S. District Judge Stefan Underhill ruled that the competitive cheerleading program proposed by Quinnipiac University was not a valid substitution for the volleyball program for Title IX compliance. Due to this ruling, the first and still only judicial precidence with regard to collegiate competitve cheerleading, termination of the volleyball program would have left Quinnipiac University below their Title IX requirements. Thus, Quinnipiac University currently maintains their volleyball program and have continued their competitive cheerleading as well.
Based on this ruling the first step proponents need to address is the reasoning used by Justice Underhill to come to the conclusion that competitive cheerleading did not meet the requirements to qualify as a sport under Title IX. The core statement of Title IX is:
"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance..."
Title IX extends to elements beyond athletics in a collegiate environment, but most legal challenges invoking Title IX involve athletics. Athletic compliance with Title IX typically involves meeting one of three elements (commonly referred to as prongs):
1. Prong one - Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment;
2. Prong two - Demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex;
3. Prong three - Full and effective accommodation of the interest and ability of underrepresented sex;
While any of the prongs can be used to meet Title IX compliance, prong one is almost exclusively used because of its quantitative nature over the more qualitative elements, which dominate the second and third prongs. This quantitative nature of prong one compliance could explain some of the attractiveness of competitive cheerleading to colleges because of the typical high participation to overhead cost ratios.
Before discussing the deficiencies cited by Justice Underhill, it is important to address an element to the argument that is not directly applicable to the core argument regarding Title IX compliance, but could be a diction distraction. Some individuals question whether or not competitive cheerleading can be regarded as a sport. Typically two arguments are used to classify whether or not a particular activity is a sport. First, does that particular activity invovle significant physical movement. Second, is the outcome of the activity dependent primarily on the merits of those participating [does not use outside officials (judges) to determine the outcome].
Competitive cheerleading can be classified as an athletic physical activity which uses judges to determine winners and losers; it passes the first element, but not the second. However, while some believe the subjectivity of judges eliminates the ability to classify an activity as a sport it is difficult to justify such thought when transparent and universal criteria is used for judgment. Think of it similar to gymnastics in that there are transparent assigned difficulty rankings to a participant’s program; if scoring by the judges were more transparent (rationalities for why certain points were subtracted) then it would be difficult to argue that such a system does not conform to the both points of contention. For example a ‘bad’ ruling by a judge in a valut jump could be viewed in the same light as a ‘bad’ foul call by an official in basketball.
With the issue of ‘sport or not a sport’ out of the way, why did Justice Underhill rule against competitive cheerleading as a Title IX valid athletic opportunity? The key issue is what is considered a ‘genuine’ opportunity to participate in a varsity sport. In addition to meeting one of the aforementioned three prongs there is also another element that must be met established by the Office of Civil Rights 2008 letter: the sport must be recognized by the NCAA as a ‘legitimate’ sport and participants in that particular sport must receive experiences similar in nature to those participating in other sports. At Quinnnipiac University or any university, competitive cheerleading does not meet either of these two elements. This lack of compliance is exactly what Justice Underhill used for his reasoning.
While the purpose of the squad was determined to be competitive over strictly entertainment and the team followed NCAA rules with regards to funding, coaching structure, medical clearance, training, access to facilities and support staff, all of these elements were essential to demonstrate similar varsity experience, the competition itself failed. Despite Quinnipiac University and others establishing the National Competitive Stunt and Tumbling Association (NCSTA) as a planned governing body (later renamed the National Collegiate Acrobatics and Tumbling Association (NCATA)) at that time the NCATA was still a hollow entity with no real inter-collegiate association and no system of governance, strategy or scheduling power with an ability to impose consequences for non-compliance.
This lack of organization and structure was on full display for the court during the Quinnipiac competitive cheerleading ‘season’ in 2009-2010 when the competition faced what amounted to 1 university competitive cheer squad (Maryland), ‘all-star’ teams from private gyms without university affiliation, entertainment-based (‘sideline’) teams and high-school teams. In addition to the myriad of different types of cheerleading squads that were opponents, various different scoring systems were used among all of the competitions. Clearly other varsity collegiate sports do not have their teams compete against high-school teams or non-university affiliated teams that would count officially towards their record using different rules per competition.
Based on interpretation of Title IX and the reasoning of Justice Underhill’s ruling supporters of competitive cheerleading should be encouraged because all that appears lacking is the number of universities competing and an official organizational structure. The chief problem between these two elements is the ‘go first’ mentality. While some universities, most notably the University of Maryland and University of Oregon, have attempted to make competitive cheerleading a sport, their action has not catalyzed significant followers in the collegiate community. To deal with this problem universities must coordinate their actions both on establishing competitive cheerleading programs and developing the proper scheduling and rule structure which will govern the activity. The NCATA is expanding in this regard, but there are some reservations about its sanctioning deferment to USA Gymnastics as somewhat of a ‘cop-out’.
Unfortunately for competitive cheerleading proponents, neither one of the above two issues cited by Justice Underhill is the major problem. Recall that Quinnipiac University established competitive cheerleading as a replacement for women’s volleyball, not as a supplement for female sports in the university. Once again the issue comes down to money. Any realistic scheduling structure for an official ‘season’ of cheerleading will demand the inclusion of public universities. However, with state-based monetary support for public universities closer to a floor than the average it is likely that universities will have to act similar to Quinnipiac University, competitive cheerleading will have to replace another female sport. The probability that a large number of universities will be willing to undertake such an action, which more than likely will lead to more lawsuits, does not bode well for competitive cheerleading in the near future. For example the NCATA recently had their first ‘National Championship’ (again not one sanctioned by the NCAA) with six participating universities: Maryland, Oregon, Quinnipiac, Baylor, Fairmont State and Azusa Pacific. Clearly six teams does not a conference make let alone an entire sport.
That said, interestingly enough proponents of competitive cheerleading may have an unusual ally. Recall that this blog has demonstrated the futility of arguing that collegiate football and male basketball players should receive additional funds apart from their scholarships. One of the major obstacles for paying college players is the equal funding protection offered under Title IX. Could Title IX limitations be eliminated if this additional pay for male college athletes in high revenue grossing sports was offset by the establishment of another female sport, perhaps competitive cheerleading? Note that based on current funding concerns it is more than likely that the funds for both player salaries and competitive cheerleading would have to come from outside sources (boosters). It is certainly an issue that warrants further investigation, especially the issue that under Title IX only the same dollars need to be spent within athletic scholarships.
However, it must be mentioned that other significant obstacles remain to paying college players including the insistence by the NCAA that their players are amateurs and should not be paid like professionals. Overall as it currently stands unless a large number of universities in most of the major collegiate athletic conferences are willing to terminate existing women sports that are already officially recognized as sports by the NCAA in favor of competitive cheerleading, it does not look promising that competitive cheerleading will become an officially recognized NCAA sport in the near-future.
To begin proponents already have one strike against them in the form of the court case “Biediger v. Quinnipiac University”. In March 2009 the Quinnipiac University women’s volleyball team sued the university to prevent the termination of their program in favor of competitve cheerleading. The crux of the case revolved around whether or not the new cheerleading squad would qualify as a viable athletic opportunity under Title IX. In July 2010 U.S. District Judge Stefan Underhill ruled that the competitive cheerleading program proposed by Quinnipiac University was not a valid substitution for the volleyball program for Title IX compliance. Due to this ruling, the first and still only judicial precidence with regard to collegiate competitve cheerleading, termination of the volleyball program would have left Quinnipiac University below their Title IX requirements. Thus, Quinnipiac University currently maintains their volleyball program and have continued their competitive cheerleading as well.
Based on this ruling the first step proponents need to address is the reasoning used by Justice Underhill to come to the conclusion that competitive cheerleading did not meet the requirements to qualify as a sport under Title IX. The core statement of Title IX is:
"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance..."
Title IX extends to elements beyond athletics in a collegiate environment, but most legal challenges invoking Title IX involve athletics. Athletic compliance with Title IX typically involves meeting one of three elements (commonly referred to as prongs):
1. Prong one - Providing athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment;
2. Prong two - Demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex;
3. Prong three - Full and effective accommodation of the interest and ability of underrepresented sex;
While any of the prongs can be used to meet Title IX compliance, prong one is almost exclusively used because of its quantitative nature over the more qualitative elements, which dominate the second and third prongs. This quantitative nature of prong one compliance could explain some of the attractiveness of competitive cheerleading to colleges because of the typical high participation to overhead cost ratios.
Before discussing the deficiencies cited by Justice Underhill, it is important to address an element to the argument that is not directly applicable to the core argument regarding Title IX compliance, but could be a diction distraction. Some individuals question whether or not competitive cheerleading can be regarded as a sport. Typically two arguments are used to classify whether or not a particular activity is a sport. First, does that particular activity invovle significant physical movement. Second, is the outcome of the activity dependent primarily on the merits of those participating [does not use outside officials (judges) to determine the outcome].
Competitive cheerleading can be classified as an athletic physical activity which uses judges to determine winners and losers; it passes the first element, but not the second. However, while some believe the subjectivity of judges eliminates the ability to classify an activity as a sport it is difficult to justify such thought when transparent and universal criteria is used for judgment. Think of it similar to gymnastics in that there are transparent assigned difficulty rankings to a participant’s program; if scoring by the judges were more transparent (rationalities for why certain points were subtracted) then it would be difficult to argue that such a system does not conform to the both points of contention. For example a ‘bad’ ruling by a judge in a valut jump could be viewed in the same light as a ‘bad’ foul call by an official in basketball.
With the issue of ‘sport or not a sport’ out of the way, why did Justice Underhill rule against competitive cheerleading as a Title IX valid athletic opportunity? The key issue is what is considered a ‘genuine’ opportunity to participate in a varsity sport. In addition to meeting one of the aforementioned three prongs there is also another element that must be met established by the Office of Civil Rights 2008 letter: the sport must be recognized by the NCAA as a ‘legitimate’ sport and participants in that particular sport must receive experiences similar in nature to those participating in other sports. At Quinnnipiac University or any university, competitive cheerleading does not meet either of these two elements. This lack of compliance is exactly what Justice Underhill used for his reasoning.
While the purpose of the squad was determined to be competitive over strictly entertainment and the team followed NCAA rules with regards to funding, coaching structure, medical clearance, training, access to facilities and support staff, all of these elements were essential to demonstrate similar varsity experience, the competition itself failed. Despite Quinnipiac University and others establishing the National Competitive Stunt and Tumbling Association (NCSTA) as a planned governing body (later renamed the National Collegiate Acrobatics and Tumbling Association (NCATA)) at that time the NCATA was still a hollow entity with no real inter-collegiate association and no system of governance, strategy or scheduling power with an ability to impose consequences for non-compliance.
This lack of organization and structure was on full display for the court during the Quinnipiac competitive cheerleading ‘season’ in 2009-2010 when the competition faced what amounted to 1 university competitive cheer squad (Maryland), ‘all-star’ teams from private gyms without university affiliation, entertainment-based (‘sideline’) teams and high-school teams. In addition to the myriad of different types of cheerleading squads that were opponents, various different scoring systems were used among all of the competitions. Clearly other varsity collegiate sports do not have their teams compete against high-school teams or non-university affiliated teams that would count officially towards their record using different rules per competition.
Based on interpretation of Title IX and the reasoning of Justice Underhill’s ruling supporters of competitive cheerleading should be encouraged because all that appears lacking is the number of universities competing and an official organizational structure. The chief problem between these two elements is the ‘go first’ mentality. While some universities, most notably the University of Maryland and University of Oregon, have attempted to make competitive cheerleading a sport, their action has not catalyzed significant followers in the collegiate community. To deal with this problem universities must coordinate their actions both on establishing competitive cheerleading programs and developing the proper scheduling and rule structure which will govern the activity. The NCATA is expanding in this regard, but there are some reservations about its sanctioning deferment to USA Gymnastics as somewhat of a ‘cop-out’.
Unfortunately for competitive cheerleading proponents, neither one of the above two issues cited by Justice Underhill is the major problem. Recall that Quinnipiac University established competitive cheerleading as a replacement for women’s volleyball, not as a supplement for female sports in the university. Once again the issue comes down to money. Any realistic scheduling structure for an official ‘season’ of cheerleading will demand the inclusion of public universities. However, with state-based monetary support for public universities closer to a floor than the average it is likely that universities will have to act similar to Quinnipiac University, competitive cheerleading will have to replace another female sport. The probability that a large number of universities will be willing to undertake such an action, which more than likely will lead to more lawsuits, does not bode well for competitive cheerleading in the near future. For example the NCATA recently had their first ‘National Championship’ (again not one sanctioned by the NCAA) with six participating universities: Maryland, Oregon, Quinnipiac, Baylor, Fairmont State and Azusa Pacific. Clearly six teams does not a conference make let alone an entire sport.
That said, interestingly enough proponents of competitive cheerleading may have an unusual ally. Recall that this blog has demonstrated the futility of arguing that collegiate football and male basketball players should receive additional funds apart from their scholarships. One of the major obstacles for paying college players is the equal funding protection offered under Title IX. Could Title IX limitations be eliminated if this additional pay for male college athletes in high revenue grossing sports was offset by the establishment of another female sport, perhaps competitive cheerleading? Note that based on current funding concerns it is more than likely that the funds for both player salaries and competitive cheerleading would have to come from outside sources (boosters). It is certainly an issue that warrants further investigation, especially the issue that under Title IX only the same dollars need to be spent within athletic scholarships.
However, it must be mentioned that other significant obstacles remain to paying college players including the insistence by the NCAA that their players are amateurs and should not be paid like professionals. Overall as it currently stands unless a large number of universities in most of the major collegiate athletic conferences are willing to terminate existing women sports that are already officially recognized as sports by the NCAA in favor of competitive cheerleading, it does not look promising that competitive cheerleading will become an officially recognized NCAA sport in the near-future.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Lingering Issue Regarding Payment of College Athletes
While a previous post addressed the issue of paying college athletes beyond their scholarships, there is still a lingering issue that was not addressed. Unfortunately in their zeal to attempt to apply an inappropriate solution to the question of student finances proponents of paying athletes have failed to seize a genuine opportunity to improve the future lives of these athletes.
Potential college athletes are clearly presented with the information that the college scholarship will be the compensation for their participation in a given collegiate sport. Nevertheless some proponents believe that for the more skilled athletes the utility of a scholarship is lacking, similar to giving a coupon for 10 free car washes as payment to an individual who does not own a vehicle. If these athletes do not accept the scholarship as adequate compensation there are other avenues to acquire requisite experience before attempting to enter the professional level of their desired sport: semi-pro, overseas, private workouts, etc. No professional league has a requirement demanding a prospect plays in college. Therefore, the availability of these alternatives (regardless of their equality or development) and the intern argument neutralizes the chief argument made by the proponents regarding additional compensation to athletes.
Instead of trying to fight against the scholarship for the 1-2% of students critics believe does not suit them, it would be more productive to work within the scholarship to help these athletes. For example anyone who rejects the usefulness of an education that can be acquired with a college scholarship is a fool. However, both proponents and those that support the status quo rarely assess how useful the education is to these individuals. Therefore, it is rational to ask the question: how can the athlete receive the maximum value from the scholarship if he does not plan to graduate from college?
In the given scenario most of these athletes will elect to forego their college eligibility to enter the professional ranks for their respective sport. One of the primary purposes of education is to develop the practical reasoning and communication skills an individual will need to be a productive and effective member of society. This purpose still applies even if an individual elects not to pursue a degree in favor of moving to the professional ranks in a given sport. The time spent in the classroom under these circumstances should focus even more on this primary purpose because there will not be instruction in a particular career pathway.
At first glance one may question the belief that colleges should establish, what a cynic would regard as, a major in ‘Going Pro’ as silly; when raising this concern it is important to consider the value college athletes, who will leave early, receive from their existing majors. When looking at college athletes in high profile sports like football and basketball a large number claim to be majoring in ‘Communications’, ‘Sociology’ or some uncommon major like ‘Undergraduate Studies’. It is difficult to ascribe a real value to these types of majors (or any major for that matter) when these athletes have more than likely selected them because of their perceived low difficulty to ensure continuing academic eligibility, not because they find any kinship with the courses that make up the major. It is reasonable to contend that a major specifically designed to aid these individuals as professional sports athletes as well as provide the necessary support to become well-rounded individuals in society makes more sense than the current system.
Assume for a moment that this proposal moves forward, what course work should make up the bulk of the major. One problem that adults have, especially young adults that come into a large amount of money that is commonly only available over a short period of time, is effectively managing that money. Therefore, one course in this major would focus on finance, investment, budgeting and various other accounting elements. Another element in the career of a professional athlete is conducting interviews and expressing ideas. This requirement lends itself well to including a public speaking/debate class in the curriculum. In addition to helping prepare the athlete for these interviews, the debate class should also assist the individual in developing a basic strategy regarding how to process different ideas and judge their validity. The ability to properly judge the validity of different ideas is important for an individual that wants to be a useful member of society.
Another class that would be useful to these specific types of athletes is a class on basic biochemistry with a focus on energy generation. Basically the class would focus on how various aspects of nutrition and training translate into biological and biochemical changes in the body. Such an understanding would be useful for athletes both in development and maintenance of physical attributes. Also due to the high stress and high ego world of professional sports, instruction in conflict resolution through various diplomatic strategies would be useful as well. Finally a fifth course would involve civics/government, so the athlete would have a better understanding of both how their professional league is structures as well as how government influences their lives as well as others.
The above five courses should not be remedial type courses, but legitimate courses with legitimate instruction because the point of this major is to give these athletes tools to succeed at the ‘next’ level, not an easy path to ensure college eligibility. These courses should also be available for non-student athletes to ensure that these courses do not devolve and so non-student athletes can acquire the same skills if they so desire.
Overall the prospect of paying college athletes is still incredibly small, especially with Title IX, the NCAA code of conduct and basic rationality on the side of not paying them. While the specified courses above are merely suggestions, the development of a specific set of course work for individuals that are viewed as highly probable to make a professional sports league would be an important step in allowing these individuals to better optimize the scholarship benefits that are provided in exchange for participating in athletics. It definitely seems like a better strategy to outfit early departing athletes with the tools to succeed both at the professional level and in life more than throwing a couple of thousand dollars at them, even if that were viable.
Potential college athletes are clearly presented with the information that the college scholarship will be the compensation for their participation in a given collegiate sport. Nevertheless some proponents believe that for the more skilled athletes the utility of a scholarship is lacking, similar to giving a coupon for 10 free car washes as payment to an individual who does not own a vehicle. If these athletes do not accept the scholarship as adequate compensation there are other avenues to acquire requisite experience before attempting to enter the professional level of their desired sport: semi-pro, overseas, private workouts, etc. No professional league has a requirement demanding a prospect plays in college. Therefore, the availability of these alternatives (regardless of their equality or development) and the intern argument neutralizes the chief argument made by the proponents regarding additional compensation to athletes.
Instead of trying to fight against the scholarship for the 1-2% of students critics believe does not suit them, it would be more productive to work within the scholarship to help these athletes. For example anyone who rejects the usefulness of an education that can be acquired with a college scholarship is a fool. However, both proponents and those that support the status quo rarely assess how useful the education is to these individuals. Therefore, it is rational to ask the question: how can the athlete receive the maximum value from the scholarship if he does not plan to graduate from college?
In the given scenario most of these athletes will elect to forego their college eligibility to enter the professional ranks for their respective sport. One of the primary purposes of education is to develop the practical reasoning and communication skills an individual will need to be a productive and effective member of society. This purpose still applies even if an individual elects not to pursue a degree in favor of moving to the professional ranks in a given sport. The time spent in the classroom under these circumstances should focus even more on this primary purpose because there will not be instruction in a particular career pathway.
At first glance one may question the belief that colleges should establish, what a cynic would regard as, a major in ‘Going Pro’ as silly; when raising this concern it is important to consider the value college athletes, who will leave early, receive from their existing majors. When looking at college athletes in high profile sports like football and basketball a large number claim to be majoring in ‘Communications’, ‘Sociology’ or some uncommon major like ‘Undergraduate Studies’. It is difficult to ascribe a real value to these types of majors (or any major for that matter) when these athletes have more than likely selected them because of their perceived low difficulty to ensure continuing academic eligibility, not because they find any kinship with the courses that make up the major. It is reasonable to contend that a major specifically designed to aid these individuals as professional sports athletes as well as provide the necessary support to become well-rounded individuals in society makes more sense than the current system.
Assume for a moment that this proposal moves forward, what course work should make up the bulk of the major. One problem that adults have, especially young adults that come into a large amount of money that is commonly only available over a short period of time, is effectively managing that money. Therefore, one course in this major would focus on finance, investment, budgeting and various other accounting elements. Another element in the career of a professional athlete is conducting interviews and expressing ideas. This requirement lends itself well to including a public speaking/debate class in the curriculum. In addition to helping prepare the athlete for these interviews, the debate class should also assist the individual in developing a basic strategy regarding how to process different ideas and judge their validity. The ability to properly judge the validity of different ideas is important for an individual that wants to be a useful member of society.
Another class that would be useful to these specific types of athletes is a class on basic biochemistry with a focus on energy generation. Basically the class would focus on how various aspects of nutrition and training translate into biological and biochemical changes in the body. Such an understanding would be useful for athletes both in development and maintenance of physical attributes. Also due to the high stress and high ego world of professional sports, instruction in conflict resolution through various diplomatic strategies would be useful as well. Finally a fifth course would involve civics/government, so the athlete would have a better understanding of both how their professional league is structures as well as how government influences their lives as well as others.
The above five courses should not be remedial type courses, but legitimate courses with legitimate instruction because the point of this major is to give these athletes tools to succeed at the ‘next’ level, not an easy path to ensure college eligibility. These courses should also be available for non-student athletes to ensure that these courses do not devolve and so non-student athletes can acquire the same skills if they so desire.
Overall the prospect of paying college athletes is still incredibly small, especially with Title IX, the NCAA code of conduct and basic rationality on the side of not paying them. While the specified courses above are merely suggestions, the development of a specific set of course work for individuals that are viewed as highly probable to make a professional sports league would be an important step in allowing these individuals to better optimize the scholarship benefits that are provided in exchange for participating in athletics. It definitely seems like a better strategy to outfit early departing athletes with the tools to succeed both at the professional level and in life more than throwing a couple of thousand dollars at them, even if that were viable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)