In the wake of a number of scandals that are being investigated regarding college athletics, focusing on the concept of the “student-athlete” (I use the “student” half loosely here), one can’t help but wonder to the purpose of maintaining such a system. At best, the NCAA is a corrupt system that needs radical measures to resemble some “fairness” so that we don’t feel cheap when watching a non-professional game. At worst, it is a system that rewards deception and guarantees payoffs to colleges, players and coaches to fuel the mad profits generated by placing these athletes onto the court.
It seems the news reports blunder after blunder to the public, but for most who have at least a little knowledge of college basketball, much of the discussed issues are already understood. The NCAA game is corrupt. How often is it that the public isn’t truly outraged at a blatant disregard for laws?
The most recent article to be published is on the UNC ruling that states they will receive no penalties because they found no violations. Essentially, the NCAA has little or no power in enforcing anything out of its domain. The main defense was that the NCAA could not conclusively determine that certain courses that included little or no work were created only for student-athletes. They linked a number of emails from academic advisors to student-athletes directing them to these courses, but that wasn’t enough. The resolution was to let the UNC deal with their own academic honesty.
As a graduate (not of UNC), I would feel that my degree was cheapened if I knew there were courses that required only one paper to pass. What would future employers think if these were to keep happening?
How big is college basketball?
Big.
Not NBA big, but still big.
I’m not a huge NCAA fan, but I would tune in to the odd March Madness game, the time where NCAA rakes in 1 billion dollars of revenue and an additional 9.2 billion are processed in bets gambled in the tournament. This is excluding future sponsorships, draft orders and a number of other hard-to-determine values associated with these few weeks of basketball.
College basketball was once seen as the only way to enter the NBA. You were supposed to hone your game playing against some of the greatest competition available while still receiving a college education. It was meant to be a style of basketball more about the fundamentals, about the team and about basketball purity. You would stay four years in the college game and you were supposed to emerge a mature player ready for the NBA.
Somewhere along the last 20 years, the entire concept changed. The NBA exploded into global entertainment and with it came billions of dollars. The growth meant that players were being paid more and more each year as the contracts became more lucrative. In 2003, when a teenager with a huge following coming straight out of high school became the number one draft pick in the NBA and succeeded in the professional game, the entire structure of the NCAA college game cracked. If you could be as successful as LeBron James without playing college ball, why wouldn’t you?
College basketball became more of an option over a necessity. Players considered declaring for the NBA draft out of highschool, especially those who would benefit the most from the financial benefits of a NBA rookie contract. These kids were faced with immediate payout or prolonging their earnings for 2-4 years. Even with a full-ride scholarship, the opportunity cost of entering the NBA right away was too high.
I believe colleges saw this shift and it accelerated the deterioration of the NCAA structure. I don’t think the NCAA was ever entirely rule-abiding, but the rapid expansion of the NBA and the money that came, meant that schools felt like they needed to offer more benefits under the table. The NCAA rules, in the spirit of equity, were strict on the scholarships offered and in what amounts. Programs were going to have to encourage student-athletes to commit to their school in other ways.
I would say that the framework of the NCAA now is broken. In the end, the NCAA is a for-profit organization that is losing out on stars who decide to go overseas, to schools out of the NCAA’s top tier, and straight to the NBA. The NCAA had a monopoly on talent and doesn’t know how to deal with the competition that has proven now to lead towards the big NBA contract.
Marketing
I’m torn when looking at this situation from a marketing standpoint. The NCAA brand has always been about offering the best of the best. Now that some of the best are not in the NCAA, it will be interesting to see how long their brand will stay strong and what adjustments they will make.
The NCAA is marketed very well to athletes and have a strong enough presence in the minds of the public to maintain its revenue, even with some fluctuations resulting from scandals. It will be interesting to see the damage control and what rulings/penalties (if any) the NCAA brings onto the competing schools.
There is also a huge ethical dilemma, aside from the dishonesty that is so apparent in the college game. It’s obvious that these scholarships and programs have helped a number of athletes succeed in their lives, but what message are we sending when we know that the system is corrupt?
When you ask a child what they want to be when they grow up, you often get a range of answers and reasons. “I want to be a cop to help people.” “I want to be a singer because I love music.” “I want to be a basketball player to make money.”
The NCAA is marketed very well to athletes and have a strong enough presence in the minds of the public to maintain its revenue, even with some fluctuations resulting from scandals. It will be interesting to see the damage control and what rulings/penalties (if any) the NCAA brings onto the competing schools.
Clever Trev 