Mudge
05-23-2014, 03:05 PM
I am surprised not to see any thread or comments here on the USA Today editorial/remarks by Boise State's President Kustra (which was cited in a story on the main page of DBR). http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/05/21/3195511/boise-state-president-bob-kustra.html?sp=/99/101/1272/1805/ So, I'll start:
I think there was quite a bit of truth in what BSU's president said-- and also a lot of (either) disingenuity or simple-minded delusionalism. On the one hand, yes, of course the big conferences are trying to find ways to keep virtually all of the financial benefits of high-level college sports to themselves (that's what profit-seeking companies in a capitalist environment do-- and the vast majority of US colleges long since stopped being non-profit entities-- they may call themselves that, but they long ago realized that they could charge nearly whatever they want, in the face of relatively inelastic demand for their products-- and they use that inelastic demand to fund a virtually bottomless pit of new projects, buildings, and staff/salary increases.) And, yes, of course, the current slate of benefits offered to Division 1 scholarship athletes is more than generous, and in no way, shape, or form requires augmentation to make it "fair"—so, in some respects, BSU's president is right to complain about being forced by an "arms-race" to up the ante on the benefits his school offers to scholarship athletes.
On the other hand (as someone who believes firmly in the corrosive effects of "big-time" college athletics on the academic atmosphere of this country in general, and American universities in particular), there is absolutely no reason that Boise State HAS to participate in this ridiculous arms race of intercollegiate athletics-- the University of Chicago opted out decades ago (leaving the Big 10 in the 1946), and is certainly no worse the wear for it-- I'd argue that the U. of Chicago is superior academically to 99.9% of the of all the schools in this country (regularly ranked in the Top 20 academic schools, and often in the Top 5)-- and after all, that is the true purpose of an institution of higher learning, isn't it? All of the rest of these schools are only letting themselves get dragged off track, to greater or lesser degrees. I'd be the first person to stand up and shout "Hallelujah", if every college in this country today renounced ALL intercollegiate athletics (and athletic scholarships) in favor of nothing other than intramural teams (coached only by fellow students-- or no one)-- it would be a great day for the economic competitiveness of our country, if we could make that happen immediately-- the US would quickly start to produce a more learned and educated work force that would be a more fierce, enhanced competitor in every field of global commerce-- that's my first reason for disagreeing with BSU's President.
Secondly, President Kustra is either disingenuous or willfully obtuse, if he thinks that he (and all of his peers in positions of leadership in colleges across this country) are not profiteering at the expense of (some) college athletes. While it is true that most college athletic departments do not cover their own costs, and even most Division 1 football programs are break-even propositions at best, this is not because there is not far more money coming in to those programs than is being distributed back out (in the form of scholarship benefits) to the athletes in men's football and basketball-- the break-even or money-losing nature of most athletic departments has to do with egregious expenditures on coaching staffs, facilities, travel, recruiting, etc.-- not because these colleges are coming anywhere close to broadly sharing the actual revenue from men’s football/basketball with the players.
So, yes, I agree with Kustra-- these college players get MORE than a good deal on their scholarships (and non-revenue sport participants have NO basis for complaining whatsoever)-- if these high-profile players don't like the deal they're getting, then DON'T SIGN IT-- go out and see how much you can make on your own, building your own brand and rep with some semi-pro team or as an independent businessman/contractor-- if you are worth so much, then by all means, GO-- get on with it, be on your way, and get what you're (allegedly) worth, in your chosen profession/career... But, having said that, let us not dispute that the players on big-time football/basketball programs are still getting a small fraction of the economic benefits that they (help) generate-- and Kustra and his peers are using that excess (undistributed) economic profit (resulting from "underpaying" these athletes) to subsidize a wide range of other things of their own choosing (coaches, buildings, programs, non-revenue sports, etc.)-- so, Kustra, don't be acting all lily-white and virtuous about your activities (and offended at those who would change the status quo), as if you aren't profiteering on the backs of relatively low-paid, unskilled labor-- the fact that these young men get a great deal on a scholarship doesn't obviate the fact that you COULD afford to pay them far more-- and are quite happy with the current state of affairs which prevents you (and all of your would-be competitors) from upping the ante to these players in any meaningful way. Both the college powers-that-be and the players should be mindful of the old saying about "not looking a gift-horse in the mouth."
I think there was quite a bit of truth in what BSU's president said-- and also a lot of (either) disingenuity or simple-minded delusionalism. On the one hand, yes, of course the big conferences are trying to find ways to keep virtually all of the financial benefits of high-level college sports to themselves (that's what profit-seeking companies in a capitalist environment do-- and the vast majority of US colleges long since stopped being non-profit entities-- they may call themselves that, but they long ago realized that they could charge nearly whatever they want, in the face of relatively inelastic demand for their products-- and they use that inelastic demand to fund a virtually bottomless pit of new projects, buildings, and staff/salary increases.) And, yes, of course, the current slate of benefits offered to Division 1 scholarship athletes is more than generous, and in no way, shape, or form requires augmentation to make it "fair"—so, in some respects, BSU's president is right to complain about being forced by an "arms-race" to up the ante on the benefits his school offers to scholarship athletes.
On the other hand (as someone who believes firmly in the corrosive effects of "big-time" college athletics on the academic atmosphere of this country in general, and American universities in particular), there is absolutely no reason that Boise State HAS to participate in this ridiculous arms race of intercollegiate athletics-- the University of Chicago opted out decades ago (leaving the Big 10 in the 1946), and is certainly no worse the wear for it-- I'd argue that the U. of Chicago is superior academically to 99.9% of the of all the schools in this country (regularly ranked in the Top 20 academic schools, and often in the Top 5)-- and after all, that is the true purpose of an institution of higher learning, isn't it? All of the rest of these schools are only letting themselves get dragged off track, to greater or lesser degrees. I'd be the first person to stand up and shout "Hallelujah", if every college in this country today renounced ALL intercollegiate athletics (and athletic scholarships) in favor of nothing other than intramural teams (coached only by fellow students-- or no one)-- it would be a great day for the economic competitiveness of our country, if we could make that happen immediately-- the US would quickly start to produce a more learned and educated work force that would be a more fierce, enhanced competitor in every field of global commerce-- that's my first reason for disagreeing with BSU's President.
Secondly, President Kustra is either disingenuous or willfully obtuse, if he thinks that he (and all of his peers in positions of leadership in colleges across this country) are not profiteering at the expense of (some) college athletes. While it is true that most college athletic departments do not cover their own costs, and even most Division 1 football programs are break-even propositions at best, this is not because there is not far more money coming in to those programs than is being distributed back out (in the form of scholarship benefits) to the athletes in men's football and basketball-- the break-even or money-losing nature of most athletic departments has to do with egregious expenditures on coaching staffs, facilities, travel, recruiting, etc.-- not because these colleges are coming anywhere close to broadly sharing the actual revenue from men’s football/basketball with the players.
So, yes, I agree with Kustra-- these college players get MORE than a good deal on their scholarships (and non-revenue sport participants have NO basis for complaining whatsoever)-- if these high-profile players don't like the deal they're getting, then DON'T SIGN IT-- go out and see how much you can make on your own, building your own brand and rep with some semi-pro team or as an independent businessman/contractor-- if you are worth so much, then by all means, GO-- get on with it, be on your way, and get what you're (allegedly) worth, in your chosen profession/career... But, having said that, let us not dispute that the players on big-time football/basketball programs are still getting a small fraction of the economic benefits that they (help) generate-- and Kustra and his peers are using that excess (undistributed) economic profit (resulting from "underpaying" these athletes) to subsidize a wide range of other things of their own choosing (coaches, buildings, programs, non-revenue sports, etc.)-- so, Kustra, don't be acting all lily-white and virtuous about your activities (and offended at those who would change the status quo), as if you aren't profiteering on the backs of relatively low-paid, unskilled labor-- the fact that these young men get a great deal on a scholarship doesn't obviate the fact that you COULD afford to pay them far more-- and are quite happy with the current state of affairs which prevents you (and all of your would-be competitors) from upping the ante to these players in any meaningful way. Both the college powers-that-be and the players should be mindful of the old saying about "not looking a gift-horse in the mouth."