The FBI Investigation Is Actually Good Comment Count

Brian

636421200889615111-Pitino03

don't feel bad for these vampires plz

There is a predictable set of bins people fling themselves in whenever it's revealed that someone playing college sports got money to do so.

"DAY OF GREAT SHAME" BIN: A rapidly dwindling category mostly filled by NCAA administrators who are literally paid to misunderstand economics. Also includes revanchist portions of NCAA fanbases, the sizes of which directly correspond to perceived cleanliness. Michigan and Notre Dame have tons of these fans; Memphis not so much.

"BUT THE DETAILS" BIN: A slightly woke-r segment of the populace, this group is hypothetically okay with paying players as long as you have a 100-page congressional bill that covers every last eventuality. Like to bring up Title IX as if that disqualifies the Olympic option. Frequently baffled by capitalism despite participating in it daily. Extremely concerned that some people might get paid more than other people. Like positing the status quo as a potential dystopia. NIMBYs for college sports. They are in favor of buildings, just not this building or that building. Or that other building.

"WHO CARES" BIN: The woke and cynical. See bagmen as folk heroes, more or less. Advocate burning down the system but fight and/or downplay anyone who would talk about the hidden details as a "cop." Sometimes right about this. Hate the status quo. Wish to preserve the status quo, at least as far as the under-the-table aspects go. Doesn't correlate a willingness to ignore mutually-agreed upon rules with, say, screwing around on your wife with every prostitute you can find. Or having a fraudulent department in your university. Or ignoring a rape.

At this late date, the first group is hopeless. The second is irritating and largely arguing in bad faith when they bring up things like "what if boosters gave players a lot of cash?!?!?!" I fell into the Andy Staples hole a few days ago by quote-tweeting these uniquely infuriating  takes on why making the current system more equitable is impossible. I refer you to Twitter if you'd like to relive this dark period.

I'd like to talk to the third group, though. The Who Cares bin frequently overlooks any potential upsides to the underground enterprise coming to light. Deadspin's Barry Petchesky:

What is the purpose of any straight college-scandal reporting, other than shaming players for trying to earn a tiny fraction of the money they’re earning for their schools and the NCAA? (I actually have an answer for this! The only reason fans and readers really care about recruiting scandals is because they’re hoping to see their rivals punished, and to be able to hold it over their heads for all eternity. Everything is fandom.)

That is certainly a reason but it's far from the only one. Without intervention there is no way the NCAA's system changes. Revenues have skyrocketed for twenty years and the only concessions the players have gotten have been either court-enforced or attempts to head off a PR disaster.

Without someone coming in and ripping the top off the anthill* this will continue in perpetuity. And while college basketball players are currently recouping some of their value under the table, it's nowhere near what they would in an open system. Patrick Hruby explains at... uh... Deadspin:

It’s no secret that the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s amateurism rules suppress above-board athlete compensation. Bowen’s supposed price tag shows that players are being shortchanged under the table, too. Let’s do the napkin math. First, compare NCAA basketball to the National Basketball Association—or any major sport where athletes enjoy their full rights and protections under antitrust and labor law, instead of being treated like second-class American citizens. ...

For schools at the highest level of the sport—that is, top 10-caliber programs that need the very best recruits to remain elite both in terms of winning lots of games and reaping the financial rewards that come with winning lots of games—the same NCPA study estimates that the average player is actually worth about $900,000 a year. And even that amount may be selling Bowen short, because if Louisville’s players received 50 percent of their school’s basketball revenues, they’d each be worth $1.72 million annually.

This money is instead going to worthless things like waterfalls and football locker rooms with VR headsets and Jim Delany. It will continue going to these things until such time as it is obvious to all that the NCAA's rules are not only unjust but entirely unenforceable, save the unlikely intervention of a subpoena-bearing organization. It will continue until and unless the NCAA is faced with a choice between its rules and money. An NCAA tournament in which no one gets to see Duke or a half-dozen other blue-bloods lose takes money out of CBS's pockets and therefore the NCAA's pockets. And we know what the NCAA will do: it will bend as much as it needs to maximize the amount of money entering the pockets of its executives.

That is at the very least the restoration of name and image rights to players and the expansion of the Olympic model to all sports, because that doesn't cost the NCAA anything. The FBI's investigation speeds up that day—and if it's big enough it might prompt it directly. Therefore it is good, sports tribalism aside.

*[Or a player strike at a key moment. See my annual plea for a basketball team in the national title game to go on strike for 15 no-commercial minutes at the scheduled tip time.]

Comments

Gameboy

February 27th, 2018 at 1:38 PM ^

You are forgetting the student part. I don't care about the payments but I have no desire to watch a bunch of minor league development players. And I don't see how a kid who is getting paid a million dollars a year can really be a student.

Gameboy

February 27th, 2018 at 5:02 PM ^

I watch Michigan sports because I was a student there. I never watched it beforehand. I still follow it because of the school connection, because it features students.

I have never followed minor league sports, even in cities and towns i've lived in. I am not about to start now.

If we are paying students, you might as well turn it into a minor league sports league. And at that point, I am not sure what business it is for an academic instituton like Michigan to own a minor league franchise.

If there was a pro league with all of the best 18-19 year old playing and B1G was left with crappy student players, I will watch students over pros without question.

Kevin13

February 27th, 2018 at 5:25 PM ^

Amatuers for a reason.  They are suppose to be student/athletes and attending a college for an education first. I agree if they want a developmental league by all means start one and pay the players to play in the leauge. But, keep college athletes seperate and have them be students first and playing the game because they love it and realize that only like 1% are ever going to go pro so get an education.

I also get tired of the poor exploited athletes. These kids are treated very well at the D1 level and get plenty of perks beside a free education and room and board. If they are being treated so poorly then stop playing. Go pro or just be a regular student and get your education.

BananaRepublic

February 27th, 2018 at 6:28 PM ^

This all just smacks of jealousy. These kids have an awesome opportunity to go play ball for a billion dollars if they're really good. If they're not really good, they get a free education that costs most mortals well over a hundred grand. What do they have to do in return, you ask? Well, they work their butts off for 4 years but enjoy tons of perks and also are treated like royalty on a college campus. I'm having a hard time shedding a tear for these guys.

Gulogulo37

February 27th, 2018 at 7:05 PM ^

God you actually still believe that? You think the education isn't a total farce at most schools? What North Carolina got away with and things just continue on as they were. At least admit that you know it's BS but that you feel better pretending.

DoubleB

February 27th, 2018 at 1:46 PM ^

"I have no desire to watch a bunch of minor league development players."

Um, what do you think college basketball is?

If you want watch true STUDENTS play there is plenty of D-III basketball in Michigan. Judging by attendance at those games, most people don't want to watch that.

CLion

February 27th, 2018 at 3:05 PM ^

No, that's not really what college basketball or college sports is about. College sports are student athletes playing for a university team being cheered on by their peers and alumni. Clearly these days there are players who are only attending because they have to wait a year, and that's unfortunate, but there are many D1 college basketball players playing simply because they want to be part of a team. You don't see walk-ons in the G League do you?

In reply to by CLion

bronxblue

February 27th, 2018 at 3:08 PM ^

If they simply want to be part of a team, they could join a rec league and play when they want and not deal with the crushing amount of time and energy you need to be good at your sport as well as at least keep your head above water in the classroom.

We as a society really glorify this sepia-toned view of the past.  Football used to be played not be students, but by roughnecks who worked in ship yards, meat processing plants, etc. for schools that paid them to do so.  They also killed each other.  College sports have been corporatized since day 1, and while certainly people play because they love the camaraderie and the game, that's more an added benefit than the core reason they do so; a bug, not a feature.

CLion

February 27th, 2018 at 3:22 PM ^

No, if you look at value vs. time, it would be foolish to say what we have now vs then is anything remotely similar. And I don't even mean just the NCAA. The whole industry: relevant professional leagues + sports media + athletic gear, etc. There is no comparison now with even a couple generations ago. And that's because the NCAA refuses to recognize the fundamental issues.

CLion

February 27th, 2018 at 3:17 PM ^

Yes, all these athletes that make up the core of the NCAA should just go play rec. Are you kidding?

You watch college sports because of the sense of team and identification with the university and its students. Why are you on this blog? Why aren't you commenting on the Pistons or Lions blog right now? College sports never has been simply a developmental league, and if it ever becomes that, it will be as popular as the G League.

In reply to by CLion

bronxblue

February 27th, 2018 at 3:51 PM ^

Your argument is that:

 

College sports are student athletes playing for a university team being cheered on by their peers and alumni...there are many D1 college basketball players playing simply because they want to be part of a team

My counter argument is that if they only cared about teamwork, they'd go play for a team that didn't require them to travel to Indy in a wind storm (while possibly dying on a plane in the process) to play in a boring-ass NBA arena in front of a couple thousand disinterested fans.  Or go to NYC and play in MSG when only 2 member schools of the conference are within 200 miles of that arena, and some are over a thousand miles away.

So it's not just about the love of the game and all that BS.  That's what they sell people and, to varying degrees, they buy it.  I like following Michigan sports because they are good at them and it's entertainment; neither of those two factors would change if the kids in the jerseys got some more money for their services.  

Also, the NCAA is already the developmental league for the NBA and the NFL.  You don't believe me, check out how hard they have worked to limit peoples' abilities to jump right to said league when they feel they are capable.  The NCAA should not care one iota about guys bypassing Purdue to play in the NBA, and yet they worked very closely with the NBA to install that 1-year period.

We are not going to agree on this, which is fine.  This is a debate that will rage on until such time as something changes.  But thinking I'm wrong because I don't share your particular viewpoint on the point of college athletics doesn't invalidate my fandom or my ability to enjoy it.

 

CLion

February 27th, 2018 at 6:34 PM ^

All I can say is that both historically and currently, the majority of D1 athletes are doing it be a scholar athlete with the primary goal of getting a four year degree to prepare them for their future that most likely will not include sports. So it seems the data points strongly in favor of one of our arguments.

And yes, playing for a team matters. Maybe not to the uber cynical blog nerds, but your counter argument is quite strange coming from a blog whose school's most famous tag line is the team the team the team.

But you're right, these premier athletes could just go play shitty pick up ball at the CCRB or maybe join a sweet local rec league rather than play at the highest non-professional level available to them.

bronxblue

February 27th, 2018 at 8:45 PM ^

You keep changing the argument you are making.  First you say it's because they want to be part of a team, then you say it's because they want a college degree, and then at the end you argue it's because they want to play in the "highest non-professional level available to them."  Those are all true, to varying degrees, but then again I ask, why does it matter if they also get a nice check for their efforts?  It won't change their goals, and it gives them a little something extra for their hard work.

Also, going to need to see some data (maybe a survey?) about the underlying reasons people play sports in college.  It's honestly probably because they want an education and it's a way to do so without paying for it.  That's great, though you'd probably view it as cynicism because they are simply leveraging sports to reach a better life than, in theory, might be available to many of them without athletics, and not for some ill-defined love of team mates.

So I will again state, if Mo Wagner only cared about playing with his friends, or a cross-country runner only cared about running faster, he or she could find non-team ways of doing so, or at least not deal with the BS that comes with being a scholarship athlete.  But they do, because they are competitive, they believe there is a future in the sport, they want to pay for school, etc.  All valid reasons.  And giving them a small piece of the revenue generated by certain sports (that is otherwise spent on, again, nice lockerrooms and Dave Brandon's salary) doesn't detract from any of them.    

Also, "uber cynical blog nerds" is a new one.

CLion

February 27th, 2018 at 10:18 PM ^

Your problem is you think I'm saying players like Ayton don't deserve to get paid. That's not what is being said and it's more nuanced than that. We have a student-athlete model that serves quite adequately the vast majority of NCAA athletes. It also makes up the core of why you and I like college sports. And that was my point. If you say those kids should just go play rec sports, well guess what, you don't have NCAA sports.

There is a fundamental incompatibility with the student-athlete and a few athletes (not students by any reasonable definition) who represent a huge amount of money. That is the problem. That's what is we should discuss. But to call the NCAA just another G League is disingenuous.

In reply to by CLion

bronxblue

February 28th, 2018 at 9:02 PM ^

But your argument is that the current model works for everyone, based on no evidence beyond some personal beliefs about their enjoyment and sense of team.  I'm arguing you can have all that, plus you get a slice of the pie sports generate for a school.  

I didn't say they should go play rec sports; I'm saying that your argument is they are involved in college athletics from the love of the game and team members, and I'm simply saying if that's the actual reason, and not one people fabricate to justify in their minds why someone like Trae Young shouldn't get a piece of the revenue his performances create for others, then they could just as easily not play on a college team and just find some friends and play there. 

But they don't, because college athletics (at all levels, not just P5 revenue sports) are about, yes, being competitive and playing for a purpose, but also are ways to pay for college, to get access to top-notch training resources, to get access to alumni networks and opportunities after school, etc.  And so, why not also give them some piece of the millions D1 programs currently receive?  I just don't see how giving them something more offends anyone to this degree.  I mean, if instead of a check each school handed out scholarships that included a $40k deposit in a trust fund each scholarship athlete could access once he/she left the school, would people equally be up in arms?  

Yost Ghost

February 28th, 2018 at 10:20 AM ^

You're oversimplifying his argument. He said there are those players that are just playing in the NCAA to get to the NBA and those that just want to play for a good program and experience the next level of competition.

I would submit that there are probably 3 groups of athletes. Those that know they're good enough to be professionals, those that think they might be with some development and those that know they will never be. The majority of players fall into the latter category.

That's CLion's point. They know they're not going to make it to the next level so the NCAA is the pinnacle for them. The chance to experience all that level of competition has to offer. Including being part of a team at a school that has a competitive program that affords them the chance to play in regional and national tournaments that may include the court at MSG.

A recreation league is never going to provide the opportunity to do all the things an NCAA program can offer. Just becasue a program can offer those things doesn't mean that's the main reason those players chose to go there. The majority of players chose to lend their skills to the NCAA so they can get a good education for later in life and play for a team that is on a level they'll never get to realize anywhere else.

 

PB-J Time

February 28th, 2018 at 10:31 AM ^

I'd further your point. It'd be nice if, at least in basketball (football is always going to be a harder fix), if your first group would be out NCAA. If you are good enough to be pro, want to be pro, go play in a proper minor league like you can do in baseball and hockey. If you want to go to college, commit to it. It doesn't proclude you from playing professionally later. This option will appeal mostly to your middle group-possible pros with development.

I don't reasonable see why the model for baseball and hockey couldn't also work for basketball. the NCAA should not be a (or the really) de facto minor league.

Admitedly, this arguement may not work/apply for football, but fixing one of them would be an huge step

Kevin13

February 27th, 2018 at 5:32 PM ^

portion of kids playing collegiate sports do it because they love the game and the University they attend and do enjoy the team aspects and friendships they make for a life time.  99% will never get paid for playing their sport, but they love it enough to put up with the work load.

In reply to by CLion

DoubleB

February 27th, 2018 at 3:08 PM ^

because they are getting paid in the form of a scholarship and many believe it is a chance to prepare to play professionally.

Ask any D-I player if he'd be putting in the amount of time required to play Division I basketball if he had to PAY to go to college and it wasn't a ticket to the NBA. I expect that number is incredibly low.

CLion

February 27th, 2018 at 3:14 PM ^

That's just completely false though. Just consider how many walk-ons there are in D1 college basketball. You think they think they are going to play in the NBA? Absolutely not. Now consider the various sports where the path to professionalism isn't even very lucrative.

CLion

February 27th, 2018 at 3:35 PM ^

I think you're simply out of touch with the typical NCAA athlete even at a school like Michigan. I'm not saying kids aren't going to have dreams, but they are there expecting to graduate in four years with a degree that can provide them with a career other than their athletic endeavors. Lucky ones do it for a scholarship, other do it just because they want to.  

Tex_Ind_Blue

February 27th, 2018 at 4:14 PM ^

It sounds like you have had long discussions with these players. Would you care to expand on your observations? It's very difficult to find a handful of people who do something just for the love of it. If you have seen 1000s of kids every year doing something for the love of doing it, I have great hopes for this country.

ReegsShannon

February 27th, 2018 at 6:19 PM ^

Most student-athletes play their sport primarily because they love it. Outside of revenue sports, basically every athlete has to put in a full time job's worth of time for only a fraction of a full scholarships. I've talked to recent non-revenue athletes from Michigan. They 100% do it because they love playing organized sports.

The same applies to basketball. A free scholarship is also a nice incentive. But there are plenty of walk-ons, D3 players, rich kids with no NBA future who all play despite not really needing the scholarship. And the kids who do need the scholarship more likely than not love the experience. It's tough to become that good at what you do if you don't love doing it.

BananaRepublic

February 27th, 2018 at 6:34 PM ^

These kids arent being forced to do this. The vast majority of student athletes are 100% certain that they won't be making the big bucks when their wrestling, gymnastics, track (insert non rev sport here) careers are over. They put in the work anyway. If football and basketball didn't have major leagues and got just as much media exposure as those sports, kids would still be signing up to play.

CLion

February 27th, 2018 at 6:37 PM ^

It's not worth the argument at this point. It's just blatantly obvious but under dispute for some reason. Either these people just don't understand what it's like to have a competitive drive and desire to play team sports or they think we're somehow arguing in favor of the NCAA.

DoubleB

February 27th, 2018 at 8:55 PM ^

college athletes from Divisions 1 through 3 for over 15 years. But yes, I'm completely out of touch with what a Division I and Division III athlete might be thinking.

In the Olympic sports, they are working their asses off in high school to get that scholarship. That is the end game when there are minimal professional opportunities.

In the revenue sports, colleges are development leagues under the guise of an educational opportunity. Why this is that hard to understand is beyond me.

CLion

February 27th, 2018 at 10:12 PM ^

You still don't get it. You see everything as a nothing value proposition. Yes, a good reason a number of kids play NCAA sports is because of a scholarship or chance at a scholarship. But that's still part of the whole scholar-athlete ideal. If you can use your athletic ability to help get a scholarship, why wouldn't you. If you are so academically inclined or eligible for other reasons, why wouldn't you.

It all still comes down to that the vast majority of D1 athletes, and effectively every non D1 athlete, are there to get an education first and play sports second. This is the classic model that is still going strong and something as a college educated American I support.

The problem is now we have athlete-athletes who have no interest in the education. It's not their fault, it's the system. But either way the problem exists.

Ali G Bomaye

February 27th, 2018 at 1:48 PM ^

  1. Virtually no kids would be paid a million dollars a year. And those that were anywhere close to that already lead lives that are nowhere close to the usual student experience.
  2. You don't want to watch a bunch of minor league development players... why? You're already watching a sport with ten million dollars of coaching salary wandering the sideline and ads jammed into every possible opening. If Denard Robinson can afford a LandRover rather than a ten-year-old Kia, that doesn't change my enjoyment of his play on the field one bit.

funkywolve

February 27th, 2018 at 4:27 PM ^

there are workers, young and old, all over the world that are exploited and in the vast majority of the situations they aren't getting a free education for their work.  They just get a paycheck which barely allows them to put food on the table and a roof over their heads.

bronxblue

February 27th, 2018 at 2:43 PM ^

If memory serves me right, Michael Phelps was a student (I don't believe toward a degree) at Michigan while training for the Olympics, and he was getting millions from sponsors.

And I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if someone in the engineering school at Michigan made a couple million mining Bitcoins, you wouldn't give a shit.

Mpfnfu Ford

February 27th, 2018 at 3:17 PM ^

To maintain an illusion in your mind that major college athletes are students is of no concern to the rest of the world. They are not students now. They are not allowed to be because their bosses are making too much money to allow them to be. Your inability to suspend your disbelief when they get paid as opposed to now, when everyone gets rich and forces them to work hours that make graduating impossible without doing their work for them, says more about you than anything else. 

B-Nut-GoBlue

February 27th, 2018 at 4:34 PM ^

That argument is so weak. You have this fairytale view of what a student athlete is. If said athlete...or said student makes some coin who gives a shit. Would Rahk be less likeable because he got to put some money away? If so.. that's a you problem, not a system problem.