More NCAA Hypocrisy

Writing about an event that happened a few weeks is far from timely, but I figure it's never too late to opine about the hypocrisy that is the NCAA.

By now you all have probably read about the five Ohio St football players who were suspended five games next year for receiving improper benefits. The infractions were brought to light when a police raid at a Columbus tattoo parlor uncovered autographs and memorabilia that the players sold to the shop in return for some ink. The NCAA investigated the charges and after deciding that their was enough evidence to show guilt, suspended the five players for the first five games of the 2011 season, but not for last night's Sugar Bowl.

There are so many talking points to the story that I almost don't know where to begin. However, the most logical is to look at this from the player's point of view. Now I am not naive enough to think that big time college football players are like any other students on campus. The fact is, most get their college education paid for. Most enroll in cupcake majors. Most are big men on campus. And a rare minority will even make it to the NFL. Still if you can strip that all away you have 18-22 year olds who love to have a good time, love to go out to eat, and love to do what every red-blooded college student likes to do. Even though they get their education paid for, many still don't have any extra money for luxuries that more well off students have.

When faced with the question of how to pay for something, the players are able to use their most marketable quality: their star status. So they sell the jersey or a ring or an award and get a tattoo . Most other college students would do the same. The problem is, under NCAA rules, college football players are not allowed to sell any memorabilia for money. Even though they can keep the jerseys and rings for the rest of their life, as long as they are in college, they don't own any of it.

For me, this is where the hypocrisy smacks you in the face. Log onto any big time college football program's catalog and you will undoubtedly see 10 different versions of jerseys with at least 25 different number options, all selling for more than $50. The universities aren't allowed to put names on the back to go along with the numbers, but no one is dumb enough to not realize whose jersey they are buying. The jersey is only as good as the player wearing it. Once Terrelle Prior graduates from The OSU, his #2 will be irrelevant until another star player wears it. People spend money on the OSU #2 because of Prior. He is the reason the jersey sells, but he will never see a cent from it.

From the NCAA perspective, the rule was put in place to discourage players selling jerseys to boosters for 10x their retail price - you know, a sly way to get around the improper benefits from booster problem. To me, it is correct in spirit. However, for a minor infraction such as this, I think the NCAA needs to be lenient. Unlike receiving free housing or providing academic fraud, receiving tattoos in no way gave a competitive advantage to the players. They should have let it go. However, not only did the NCAA punish the players, but they did so for next year, rather than for this year's bowl game. The whole thing reaks of foul play - you know an OSU-Arkansas meeting in the Sugar Bowl WITHOUT Terrelle Prior would mean a loss of millions of dollars due to lower ratings. That is something the NCAA simply could not handle.

The next logical step is to ask what we can do moving forward? This is the part I have given a lot of thought to. I have long been a supporter of allowing players to either get paid by the athletic department or through a job. I am fully aware that this is an opinion that often falls on deaf ears. After all, most football players get their tuition paid for while Joe and Jane Schmo have to take out student loans. The rub to me is that while they do get tuition and books paid for, they most often won't have any extra spending money because they are not allowed to have paying jobs like other college students. It doesn't matter your position in life - when you feel like you need money for something, you will do whatever it takes to get that money, if even it means breaking the rules.

I propose one of two ideas. First, why not let the players get paid in addition to their tuition. All across America, universities fill up 75,000 seat stadiums (or as my friend BusStoller will tell me, 110,000 in Ann Arbor) every Saturday. Give the team a share of the revenue from ticket sales, food and merchandise. Let the coaches split it up evenly and give the players $50 every two weeks. I know it's not a lot, but at least the players could be getting something for filling the stands. After all, no one is showing up to watch coaches coach. Second, why not allow athletes on scholarships to have jobs. Now I understand the slippery slope that this entails. As it is, college football players have limited time to study and make grades with the intense amount of time they spend in practice and in meetings (a 2008 poll indicated they spend 44.8 hours on football and 40 hours on school work a week). If they are allowed to work a job, their academics will probably slip. My proposal would be to actually lower the maximum amount of practice time allowed a week. Scholarship players who want to get a job would be able to. Those that want more time to study would be given that. We really don't need players and coaches spending 20 hours a day living and breathing football. At some point, the law of diminishing returns sets in and you are no better a team for every increase in practice time.

Now the above is simply my naive thoughts on college football. However, I never played football; I was never on an athletic scholarship; I never had any event more important than a intramural basketball game against Vedder Vertigo. So I would love to hear from some of my readers - DLib, TGasp I'm especially talking to you.