Interesting perspective from ex-UNC athlete

[arnie]

Hope I’m allowed to post this

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/article194229694.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/article194229694.html)

[dudog84]

Thanks for sharing that. My only problem is her statement that she attended "one of the top public universities in the nation". :)

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Hope I’m allowed to post this

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/article194229694.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/article194229694.html)

This will generate some discussion.

/goes to get his popcorn

[uh_no]

Hope I’m allowed to post this

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/article194229694.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/article194229694.html)

so....she's willing to pay back her scholarship then? It seems she's taking advantage of the system as much as all the people she criticizes for being fans.

I understand taking advantage of a system that is poorly set up....I don't pay more taxes than I have to out of altruism....but she doesn't actually answer the question of whether she would forego her own advantage (and by extension all those non-revenue athletes that benefit) in order to change the system.

From a utilitarian perspective, is the system doing more good overall by helping people like her?

I don't know. I don't think she really shares anything new here.

[Bob Green]

From a utilitarian perspective, is the system doing more good overall by helping people like her?



Yes it is. While the system is flawed, I'd say helping all the non revenue student athletes is one of the system's strong points.

[CDu]

so...she's willing to pay back her scholarship then? It seems she's taking advantage of the system as much as all the people she criticizes for being fans.

I understand taking advantage of a system that is poorly set up...I don't pay more taxes than I have to out of altruism...but she doesn't actually answer the question of whether she would forego her own advantage (and by extension all those non-revenue athletes that benefit) in order to change the system.

From a utilitarian perspective, is the system doing more good overall by helping people like her?

I don't know. I don't think she really shares anything new here.

I am not sure I understand the need to bash her here. She fully admits that she benefited from the system. In fact, she states emphatically that the system is designed to benefit her at the expense of others. That she is saying it and not someone in the “we were wronged” position makes it a more relevant message in my opinion.

And she is right in many ways: athletes in revenue sports aren’t afforded the same academic opportunities as nonrevenue athletes.

I don’t see the need to ask her to give back her scholarship. Frankly, that seems likeetes in a petty response to this article. I think she is simply voicing the problrm from a perspective not commonly seen. And I think there is value there.

While I am not in favor of paying players, I would be in favor of reforming the system such that athletes in revenue sports get an opportunity for a real education. Maybe it is an offer to pay for those kids whom they recruit to get a real education from that school after their eligibility is complete or something similar, I think reform is due. And I hope this article helps further that cause.

[Wander]

Despite my eye-rolling at this board bringing up the UNC cheating scandal in every unrelated thread possible (the NFL playoff thread, really?), it's a bit hard to talk about the specific issue of racial inequality that the writer focuses on without considering that her view may be what it is because UNC is especially bad among universities in that area with the African American Studies department scandal.

There are some good points here (like the difference in time commitment between sports), but she brushes aside other things (like the benefits to revenue athletes) too easily.

[CDu]

Yes it is. While the system is flawed, I'd say helping all the non revenue student athletes is one of the system's strong points.

Interestingly, the author (a nonrevenue sport athlete) feels the opposite: that the system is disproportionately benefiting nonrevenue sport athletes, who are the ones who need the benefit least.

[Bob Green]

Interestingly, the author (a nonrevenue sport athlete) feels the opposite: that the system is disproportionately benefiting nonrevenue sport athletes, who are the ones who need the benefit least.

I disagree with the author. Plenty of non revenue athletes need their scholarship to attain an education just like some revenue athletes would be just fine without a scholarship. One can't paint with too broad a brush.

[JNort]

Wow after reading that I have lost even more hope for our future if people can actually buy into what she said. What a moron. Yeah I agree with her on athletes being exploited at the college level (imo they should be paid) but she incorrectly ties it to race.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Wow after reading that I have lost even more hope for our future if people can actually buy into what she said. What a moron. Yeah I agree with her on athletes being exploited at the college level (imo they should be paid) but she incorrectly ties it to race.

If a system is disproportionately exploiting a minority, isn't it fair to examine whether there is a connection to race? I know correlation =/= causation, but in my mind it warrants some investigation.

[Faison1]

I agree with some points, and disagree with others...what's new?

The biggest issue I see going forward is how far we let this cash grab go...I mean, $25 mil for Jimbo Fisher at Texas A&M??? That's outrageous, and frankly a little pathetic. What does a D1 athlete make of that? A public institution shelling out that kind of money is ridiculous.

Until we control what administrators make at Universities, we are going to continue to have a lot of disagreements over misguided values.

And, having two kids staring at a college bill of over $500k between both of them, I can say this is a very personal matter.

[arnie]

Wow after reading that I have lost even more hope for our future if people can actually buy into what she said. What a moron. Yeah I agree with her on athletes being exploited at the college level (imo they should be paid) but she incorrectly ties it to race.

Remember that this is her perspective: a perspective gained from attending the “flagship university” south of Durham.

[Stray Gator]

Remember that this is her perspective: a perspective gained from attending the “flagship university” south of Durham.

I still think that "fraudship" is a more appropriate label.

[DavidBenAkiva]

so...she's willing to pay back her scholarship then? It seems she's taking advantage of the system as much as all the people she criticizes for being fans.

I understand taking advantage of a system that is poorly set up...I don't pay more taxes than I have to out of altruism...but she doesn't actually answer the question of whether she would forego her own advantage (and by extension all those non-revenue athletes that benefit) in order to change the system.

From a utilitarian perspective, is the system doing more good overall by helping people like her?

I don't know. I don't think she really shares anything new here.

You are attributing personal responsibility to systemic problems. I don't agree with that approach at all. Let's say that you were on that infamous United plane where the doctor was dragged off. As a passenger, would it be your personal responsibility to ensure that he wasn't physically assaulted? It would be preposterous to suggest that.

This was a tough article to read and one that we should take to heart as well. Duke's class of 2020 is 12% Black and less than 50% White, so far more diverse than UNC (and most public universities, for that matter). It's students tend to come from very wealthy families. But Duke also has a sterling graduation rate among its revenue sports and general student body. As fans, I think it is important for us to see that we are supporting an institution that prioritizes a future for the students that are generating revenue for the coaches, the non-revenue athletes, and university. It doesn't mean that Duke is perfect by any stretch of the imagination. But the Blue Devils certainly appear to value the student-athletes more than other schools.

[PackMan97]

Remember that this is her perspective: a perspective gained from attending the “flagship university” south of Durham.

https://youtu.be/NML9JEhXa6c

This is a problem, particularly at UNC which has a very low black enrollment. I think it molds the view the author has of the issues. When looking at her experience and the experience at UNC that minority revenue athletes have had it is easy to see how she feels this way.

[CDu]

I disagree with the author. Plenty of non revenue athletes need their scholarship to attain an education just like some revenue athletes would be just fine without a scholarship. One can't paint with too broad a brush.

While it is true that there do exist non-revenue sport athletes in need of a scholarship, I would venture that the number and relative percentage of athletes who need a scholarship is much lower in the non-revenue sports than it is in the revenue sports.

But more importantly, it is the benefits that the author is referring to, less so the scholarship. There are fewer scholarships available to non-revenue athletes than to revenue-sport athletes, and in many sports there are no scholarships at all. But the benefits for non-revenue sports are far greater than they otherwise would be on the backs of the revenue-sport athletes. And those revenue athletes are worked much harder and (as a result of their time commitments to the sport) much less at benefit from the educational opportunities of the school.

When you factor in that the revenue sport athletes are disproportionately lower-income, minority students - relative even to the non-revenue sport athletes - and you get the situation that the author describes: predominantly minority and lower-income athletes carrying way more of the burden and getting less of the benefits, while predominantly non minority athletes having less burden and getting the full benefit of the academic experience.

[kmspeaks]

I never spent more than 20 hours per week in practice and competition

Unless she's talking about the way the NCAA counts hours and not actual time spent then I have an incredibly hard time believing this. I played DII softball at two small schools in conferences with much smaller geographic footprints than any DI conference and I doubt we were ever under 20 hours a week. A typical one may look like this:
Monday - off but there was usually a "voluntary" workout and a training room appointment for those dealing with nagging injuries. I'll be generous and call this a 0 hour day
Tuesday - morning lifting before classes, practice in the afternoon. 4 hours
Wednesday - game day, we always played a double header. If it's a home game 6 hours. Away then depending on travel probably 10-12.
Thursday - repeat Tuesday. 4 hours
Friday - just practice, no weights. 3 hours
Saturday - game day. 6 hours if home, 10-12 if away
Sunday - game day. 6 hours if home, 10-12 if away

Those poor "exploited" football players had a similar time commitment for a day of practice or game day, but they only had one game a week.

In my opinion the vast majority of NCAA athletes are getting a good deal, and the small number who could be playing professionally are prohibited from doing so by the NFL/NBA not the NCAA, as long as their school does actually provide an education The fact that uNC intentionally withheld that education doesn't make the whole collegiate sports system broken, racist, or exploitative.

[uh_no]

Unless she's talking about the way the NCAA counts hours and not actual time spent then I have an incredibly hard time believing this.

For track, you're often wear-limited. Do too much and you get injured. That often limits the total time that can be spent training.

Most sports don't have that limit....so her experience probably really is exceptional.

[uh_no]

You are attributing personal responsibility to systemic problems.

No, I'm attributing it to the fact that money is a real asset, and you can't create it from thin air. Her scholarship, especially at that school, is paid on the backs of the exploited revenue sports players.

You want to pay them? sure, so long as your scholarship is willing to take a cut to do it?
Oh, so you want the coach to take a pay cut? Well, the coach will leave and maybe you'll bottle lightning and find a great coach on the cheap, but chances are the team will perform worse and revenue will decrease. Further, there are usually one 1 or 2 coaches making huge bucks, a full slate of scholarships is sometihng like 3-400. Cutting coaches salaries would be a few thousand bucks a year for each athlete..nice? sure. but hardly enough to make a dent in the inherent exploitation.
Maybe you just want the revenue players to have more of a shot at academics? Well, her school has proven they are unable to provide that while still fielding competitive teams. Revenue decrease.

So yes, it would be nice for her to get her free ride, and for the other athletes to be less exploited, but the two are inexorably linked. Don't believe me? Why are non-revenue sports so often on the chopping block at schools without big-time football and basketball programs?

http://america.aljazeera.com/features/2014/3/men-s-running.html

Here's an article specifically about mens track, which i'm aware of because I follow it....but i hardly doubt the situation isn't similar for other sports. And it's not going to get any better any time soon with ticket sales down across the country and ESPN revenues drying up with cable.

You can't prop up non-revenue sports while not taking advantage revenue sports and their athletes. And proposing less advantage be taken of revenue athletes while not examining the negative impacts to herself and people like her is a cop-out. Not providing an actual solution makes this, IMO, simply complaining. Not that pointing out issues isn't bad, but the fact that she doesn't suggest any novel (or even any at all) approaches to fix the problem (combined with the race card) makes me disregard this as noise.

I'm not denying that there aren't race issues in sports....but I feel she's off the mark here. Those fans buying tickets are the same ones enabling her to have an education....and I'd bet the UNC fanbase tracks the overall demographics of this area of the state pretty darn closely anyway.

[JasonEvans]

I don't think she really shares anything new here.

Yeah, that is where I am coming from as well. I generally expect to get my eyes opened and hear an unique perspective when an athlete lifts the curtain and shows us the view from the inside, but I didn't really get that here. Aside from the fact that she is criticizing a system that benefited her, I don't find anything about this article very notable.

-Jason "and I too find it hard to believe that non-revenue athletes spend less than 20 hours per week on their sport... my non-rev friends at Duke would laugh at that, I think" Evans

[CDu]

No, I'm attributing it to the fact that money is a real asset, and you can't create it from thin air. Her scholarship, especially at that school, is paid on the backs of the exploited revenue sports players.

You want to pay them? sure, so long as your scholarship is willing to take a cut to do it?
Oh, so you want the coach to take a pay cut? Well, the coach will leave and maybe you'll bottle lightning and find a great coach on the cheap, but chances are the team will perform worse and revenue will decrease. Further, there are usually one 1 or 2 coaches making huge bucks, a full slate of scholarships is sometihng like 3-400. Cutting coaches salaries would be a few thousand bucks a year for each athlete..nice? sure. but hardly enough to make a dent in the inherent exploitation.
Maybe you just want the revenue players to have more of a shot at academics? Well, her school has proven they are unable to provide that while still fielding competitive teams. Revenue decrease.

So yes, it would be nice for her to get her free ride, and for the other athletes to be less exploited, but the two are inexorably linked. Don't believe me? Why are non-revenue sports so often on the chopping block at schools without big-time football and basketball programs?

http://america.aljazeera.com/features/2014/3/men-s-running.html

Here's an article specifically about mens track, which i'm aware of because I follow it...but i hardly doubt the situation isn't similar for other sports. And it's not going to get any better any time soon with ticket sales down across the country and ESPN revenues drying up with cable.

You can't prop up non-revenue sports while not taking advantage revenue sports and their athletes. And proposing less advantage be taken of revenue athletes while not examining the negative impacts to herself and people like her is a cop-out. Not providing an actual solution makes this, IMO, simply complaining. Not that pointing out issues isn't bad, but the fact that she doesn't suggest any novel (or even any at all) approaches to fix the problem (combined with the race card) makes me disregard this as noise.

I'm not denying that there aren't race issues in sports...but I feel she's off the mark here. Those fans buying tickets are the same ones enabling her to have an education...and I'd bet the UNC fanbase tracks the overall demographics of this area of the state pretty darn closely anyway.

I suspect she would be just fine with non revenue sport athletes getting less so that the revenue athletes can get more.

And yes, it is simply complaining. It's not her job to find the solution. One can voice a problem and a new perspective on said problem without having to have the solution. If we required everyone who sees injustice to shut up until they have the solution themselves, well, a lot of injustice would go unnoticed/unresolved.

Also, I don't think she needed the scholarship to get her education. Which is, again, part of her point. The ones in most need of the benefit of a scholarship (and the actual educational opportunities involved) are the revenue sport athletes. And they're being worked to the point of not getting the benefit of said scholarship. And it's to provide more benefits to the non revenue athletes, who predominantly don't need those benefits.

[uh_no]

I suspect she would be just fine with non revenue sport athletes getting less so that the revenue athletes can get more.


right, hence my initial question about if she was paying her scholarship back, potentially earmarking it for better academic support for revenue athletes. You can't take full advantage of a benefit and then complain that the people after are you are doing the same.

Also, the comparison made above the doctor dragged off the united flight is silly. there is no connection between people speaking off and the guy getting dragged off. he was getting dragged off with p=1....so nobody benefits from trying to get him not dragged off the plane, since the action would be futile. Not having to pay tens of millions to non-revenue scholarships, however, could go a significant way towards compensating revenue athletes, or getting them academic support, or dealing with a loss in revenue from allowing them more academic freedom.

[CDu]

Not having to pay tens of millions to non-revenue scholarships, however, could go a significant way towards compensating revenue athletes, or getting them academic support, or dealing with a loss in revenue from allowing them more academic freedom.

Which, ultimately, I would be absolutely fine with. The revenue sport athletes are disproportionately more in need of said academic aid, and disproportionately worked harder in a way that prevents them from receiving said benefit. I would be quite fine with a larger share of resources be reallocated back to those student-athletes such that they could actually benefit from said education that they were purported to receive. Maybe it is 2 years of tuition/fees coverage post athletic eligibility. This would allow the student a chance to pursue an actual degree of interest without the restrictions of their athletics (since in most cases aside from engineering, the first two years are largely electives). This would amount to about a 1.5 scholarship per athlete benefit. It would undoubtedly cut into the budget for the non revenue sports. But again, given that these students (a) are much closer to the general student population anyway and (b) are essentially freeloading on the backs of athletes who are typically disproportionately more minority and lower-income than the general student population, that is something I'd be okay with.

[uh_no]

Which, ultimately, I would be absolutely fine with. The revenue sport athletes are disproportionately more in need of said academic aid, and disproportionately worked harder in a way that prevents them from receiving said benefit. I would be quite fine with a larger share of resources be reallocated back to those student-athletes such that they could actually benefit from said education that they were purported to receive. Maybe it is 2 years of tuition/fees coverage post athletic eligibility. This would allow the student a chance to pursue an actual degree of interest without the restrictions of their athletics (since in most cases aside from engineering, the first two years are largely electives). This would amount to about a 1.5 scholarship per athlete benefit. It would undoubtedly cut into the budget for the non revenue sports. But again, given that these students (a) are much closer to the general student population anyway and (b) are essentially freeloading on the backs of athletes who are typically disproportionately more minority and lower-income than the general student population, that is something I'd be okay with.

If she wanted to make a point, she should have come out and said exactly that. A non-revenue athlete coming out and saying "people like me are part of the problem, and if we want things to change, we have to advocate for ending schollys for NRS" would be novel and a new perspective...but she didn't say that. She said "I had a jolly good time at their expense, but the real problem is all the fans who prop it up" I give her credit for "boycotting" major sports (though who knows if she would have watched them anyway), but that could have come from any old fan, and doesn't mean any MORE just because she was an athlete.

[DavidBenAkiva]

right, hence my initial question about if she was paying her scholarship back, potentially earmarking it for better academic support for revenue athletes. You can't take full advantage of a benefit and then complain that the people after are you are doing the same.

Also, the comparison made above the doctor dragged off the united flight is silly. there is no connection between people speaking off and the guy getting dragged off. he was getting dragged off with p=1...so nobody benefits from trying to get him not dragged off the plane, since the action would be futile. Not having to pay tens of millions to non-revenue scholarships, however, could go a significant way towards compensating revenue athletes, or getting them academic support, or dealing with a loss in revenue from allowing them more academic freedom.

You've completely missed the point of her essay. The author notes that she benefited from the system, but that the scholarships the revenue sports athletes received did not come with the kind of academic support she received. She's calling out injustice. You've moved the conversation form individual benefit to systemic injustice, in this case poor graduation rates and ballooning compensation for coaches, athletic departments, schools, shoe companies, broadcasters, and more. UNC, like many public universities, are not graduating basketball and football players at acceptable rates. Part of the responsibility rests on students themselves, but it sure as heck rests on the universities and many others (including the author) that benefit from their rather cheap labor.

[CDu]

If she wanted to make a point, she should have come out and said exactly that. A non-revenue athlete coming out and saying "people like me are part of the problem, and if we want things to change, we have to advocate for ending schollys for NRS" would be novel and a new perspective...but she didn't say that. She said "I had a jolly good time at their expense, but the real problem is all the fans who prop it up" I give her credit for "boycotting" major sports (though who knows if she would have watched them anyway), but that could have come from any old fan, and doesn't mean any MORE just because she was an athlete.

I disagree. SHE isn't the problem. The system is the problem. That she realizes that she was a beneficiary for a corrupt system is accurate. It's not fair to put the blame on kids for taking what is given to them. The blame should go to those creating a system that is so skewed.

Did she make some overly provocative statements? Sure. Did she overgeneralize and exaggerate in some cases? Absolutely. But that's common in any editorial, especially when written by someone who isn't a seasoned writer or debater as she probably isn't.

Also, I think you are overstating how much blame she is putting on the fans though. I think she's referring primarily to the system - that being the NCAA leaders, largely comprised of rich, white men - as the problem. And that fans are more complicit (perhaps in most cases ignorant of the extent of the problem) because all we ultimately care about is our entertainment.
I'm certainly guilty of this, and hadn't really fully thought through the implications of the current system until recently.

But sure - bash the messenger, not the problem itself. That seems easier. And seems to miss the point altogether.

[dukelifer]

I am not sure I understand the need to bash her here. She fully admits that she benefited from the system. In fact, she states emphatically that the system is designed to benefit her at the expense of others. That she is saying it and not someone in the “we were wronged” position makes it a more relevant message in my opinion.

And she is right in many ways: athletes in revenue sports aren’t afforded the same academic opportunities as nonrevenue athletes.

I don’t see the need to ask her to give back her scholarship. Frankly, that seems likeetes in a petty response to this article. I think she is simply voicing the problrm from a perspective not commonly seen. And I think there is value there.

While I am not in favor of paying players, I would be in favor of reforming the system such that athletes in revenue sports get an opportunity for a real education. Maybe it is an offer to pay for those kids whom they recruit to get a real education from that school after their eligibility is complete or something similar, I think reform is due. And I hope this article helps further that cause.

I think the best option is as you say to give these players the best opportunity to complete their degree. Maybe 6-7 years to complete 4. For Duke this is expensive, but a significant fraction complete their degrees in 5 years- mostly due to their redshirt. But perhaps more players would seek different majors if afforded more time to complete.

[uh_no]

I disagree. SHE isn't the problem. The system is the problem. That she realizes that she was a beneficiary for a corrupt system is accurate. It's not fair to put the blame on kids for taking what is given to them. The blame should go to those creating a system that is so skewed.


Yes, but claiming to be fighting the system by not watching sports while not actually advocating for eliminating the major benefit she got from the system is borderline hypocritical. It's not fair to blame her for taking what is given. But that excusal is foregone when she claims to want to fight the system.

<trying to find a good example...>

Hypothetically, I'm a lord and the masses are mad at me. I try to appease them by saying they're right and i'm going to have the rich people (including me, i'm a lord of course) pay more taxes. I do that by eliminating the deduction for the depreciation on light bulbs.

Should the masses be happy at me for saying i'm going to increase my own taxes? If they're critical of my intended fix, are they simply "killing the messenger?" Does it matter that 99% of all lord deductions are on real estate interest? Are any lords to blame for taking advantage of the deduction?

Of course you don't blame the other lords for taking advantage of an existing deduction. Of course i'm a hypocrite for claiming to want to pay more taxes, but not decrying my own biggest deduction. You can't both claim to hate a scheme, and not advocate for eliminating the major way in which you benefit from it.


That's what the author does here. She says "yeah there's a problem (athlete exploitation), yes i'm going to do something about it (not watch games), but i'm not going to actually advocate for eliminating my real estate deduction (her scholarship)" and that's why she opens herself up to criticism. Maybe she would advocate for that, but she doesn't, and again, that's ultimately why I find it a poor article. (but hey, it's spurred discussion :) )

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Yes, but claiming to be fighting the system by not watching sports while not actually advocating for eliminating the major benefit she got from the system is borderline hypocritical. It's not fair to blame her for taking what is given. But that excusal is foregone when she claims to want to fight the system.

<trying to find a good example...>

Hypothetically, I'm a lord and the masses are mad at me. I try to appease them by saying they're right and i'm going to have the rich people (including me, i'm a lord of course) pay more taxes. I do that by eliminating the deduction for the depreciation on light bulbs.

Should the masses be happy at me for saying i'm going to increase my own taxes? If they're critical of my intended fix, are they simply "killing the messenger?" Does it matter that 99% of all lord deductions are on real estate interest? Are any lords to blame for taking advantage of the deduction?

Of course you don't blame the other lords for taking advantage of an existing deduction. Of course i'm a hypocrite for claiming to want to pay more taxes, but not decrying my own biggest deduction. You can't both claim to hate a scheme, and not advocate for eliminating the major way in which you benefit from it.


That's what the author does here. She says "yeah there's a problem (athlete exploitation), yes i'm going to do something about it (not watch games), but i'm not going to actually advocate for eliminating my real estate deduction (her scholarship)" and that's why she opens herself up to criticism. Maybe she would advocate for that, but she doesn't, and again, that's ultimately why I find it a poor article. (but hey, it's spurred discussion :) )

I also disagree. She's pointing out an unfair system. That commendable, regardless of anything else. I don't ascribe to this idea that I have seen on this forum and elsewhere that if you don't have an alternate proposal for an unfair system (paying revenue college athletes is a frequent example, OAD is another) then there's no benefit in having a conversation. People do this with politics too, but I will refrain from using any particular example to not polarize the conversation or veer to PPB.

College athletics is a broken system that doesn't make sense anymore. I don't know the solution, but saying I certainly am interested in ANY perspective from an athlete, particularly a non-revenue athlete, particularly one who has recently been examined for cheating their rivals and defrauding their students.

[SenatorClayDavis]

Eliminate nonrev scholarships? Figure out a way to do that which is Title IX-compliant and you will have the attention of administrators all over the nation.

[CDu]

I also disagree. She's pointing out an unfair system. That commendable, regardless of anything else. I don't ascribe to this idea that I have seen on this forum and elsewhere that if you don't have an alternate proposal for an unfair system (paying revenue college athletes is a frequent example, OAD is another) then there's no benefit in having a conversation. People do this with politics too, but I will refrain from using any particular example to not polarize the conversation or veer to PPB.

College athletics is a broken system that doesn't make sense anymore. I don't know the solution, but saying I certainly am interested in ANY perspective from an athlete, particularly a non-revenue athlete, particularly one who has recently been examined for cheating their rivals and defrauding their students.

I agree. It seems absurd to me that a response to this article is to complain about the author rather than the problem itself.

[dudog84]

She graduated about 15 years ago. My perspectives changed enormously in the 15 years after I left school, let alone from when I was a freshman. It's called maturing.

Sheesh.

[Wander]

Which, ultimately, I would be absolutely fine with. The revenue sport athletes are disproportionately more in need of said academic aid, and disproportionately worked harder in a way that prevents them from receiving said benefit. I would be quite fine with a larger share of resources be reallocated back to those student-athletes such that they could actually benefit from said education that they were purported to receive. Maybe it is 2 years of tuition/fees coverage post athletic eligibility. This would allow the student a chance to pursue an actual degree of interest without the restrictions of their athletics (since in most cases aside from engineering, the first two years are largely electives). This would amount to about a 1.5 scholarship per athlete benefit. It would undoubtedly cut into the budget for the non revenue sports. But again, given that these students (a) are much closer to the general student population anyway and (b) are essentially freeloading on the backs of athletes who are typically disproportionately more minority and lower-income than the general student population, that is something I'd be okay with.

I agree with most of your posts on this subject, but I think it's a mistake to pitch a solution this way. Universities shouldn't be run exactly like a marketplace where Sport A brings in more money than Sport B so Sport A's athletes are treated better. I think a better easy solution would be some common sense reforms, like recognizing that Division 1 sports take up a lot of time and should probably count as a class to give a more realistic work load per semester. Another would be to remove all transfer restrictions. I do like your idea of the scholarship after eligibility is up, but IMO it shouldn't come at the expense of the smaller sports.

The best, but much harder and less practical, solution would be to focus on getting some of the ridiculous amount of money out of the sports. There's always going to be a good amount of money because of how popular football and basketball are, but it'd be nice if coaches had salary caps and, my ever-present pet wish, if bowl games in college football would be 100% completely eliminated. But these types of things would take really bold NCAA leadership, which I don't see happening anytime soon.

[lotusland]

Which, ultimately, I would be absolutely fine with. The revenue sport athletes are disproportionately more in need of said academic aid, and disproportionately worked harder in a way that prevents them from receiving said benefit. I would be quite fine with a larger share of resources be reallocated back to those student-athletes such that they could actually benefit from said education that they were purported to receive. Maybe it is 2 years of tuition/fees coverage post athletic eligibility. This would allow the student a chance to pursue an actual degree of interest without the restrictions of their athletics (since in most cases aside from engineering, the first two years are largely electives). This would amount to about a 1.5 scholarship per athlete benefit. It would undoubtedly cut into the budget for the non revenue sports. But again, given that these students (a) are much closer to the general student population anyway and (b) are essentially freeloading on the backs of athletes who are typically disproportionately more minority and lower-income than the general student population, that is something I'd be okay with.

I like your solution better than anything I’ve heard but I don’t think critics of the current system would be satisfied. She complains that revenue athletes don’t get paid nor do they have time to study but she doesn’t say which one she would change. I suspect I know. If UNC recruited revenue sport athletes by offering a rigorous challenging education with sufficient time away from sport to succeed ( I know, I know but use your imagination) but at the expense of training facilities and perks, I wonder how many would come. I suspect if the “exploitation” ended, recruiting would suffer to the point that all sports would be non-revenue.

I think changes may be coming that will make all the hand wringing moot. Mainly I think football, especially associated with primary and higher education, is unsustainable. The demise of football wouod be devastating to non-revenue sports, especially women’s sports.

[Papa John]

You've completely missed the point of her essay. The author notes that she benefited from the system, but that the scholarships the revenue sports athletes received did not come with the kind of academic support she received. She's calling out injustice. You've moved the conversation form individual benefit to systemic injustice, in this case poor graduation rates and ballooning compensation for coaches, athletic departments, schools, shoe companies, broadcasters, and more. UNC, like many public universities, are not graduating basketball and football players at acceptable rates. Part of the responsibility rests on students themselves, but it sure as heck rests on the universities and many others (including the author) that benefit from their rather cheap labor.

And she’s full of it. I have a daughter who is a D1 non revenue athlete, and the support she receives is in no way superior to that of revenue athletes. The argument is comical at best. Revenue athletes are somehow being shortchanged in comparison to non revenue athletes? Give me a break!

[lotusland]

I agree with most of your posts on this subject, but I think it's a mistake to pitch a solution this way. Universities shouldn't be run exactly like a marketplace where Sport A brings in more money than Sport B so Sport A's athletes are treated better. I think a better easy solution would be some common sense reforms, like recognizing that Division 1 sports take up a lot of time and should probably count as a class to give a more realistic work load per semester. Another would be to remove all transfer restrictions. I do like your idea of the scholarship after eligibility is up, but IMO it shouldn't come at the expense of the smaller sports.

The best, but much harder and less practical, solution would be to focus on getting some of the ridiculous amount of money out of the sports. There's always going to be a good amount of money because of how popular football and basketball are, but it'd be nice if coaches had salary caps and, my ever-present pet wish, if bowl games in college football would be 100% completely eliminated. But these types of things would take really bold NCAA leadership, which I don't see happening anytime soon.

The way to get money out would be to quit watching, which is what she’s doing. Unfortunately for her, the rest of us will still watch. But fewer people are watching and the revenue is declining accordingly (or it will when network contracts are renegotiated). Just curious, do you want losing coaches to make the same income as winning coaches? That would change things quite a bit but then someone else would pay for the winning if the university didn’t.

[Wander]

Just curious, do you want losing coaches to make the same income as winning coaches? That would change things quite a bit but then someone else would pay for the winning if the university didn’t.

Nah, it's still a profession, so I don't see a problem with better coaches getting paid more. I just think there should just be a cap (like plenty of professional sports leagues have for players) to prevent crazy arms races and the embarrassing situations like the one with Jimbo Fisher that Faison1 mentioned.

But, you're certainly correct about the practical long-term way to get money out of the sport.

[swood1000]

If a system is disproportionately exploiting a minority, isn't it fair to examine whether there is a connection to race? I know correlation =/= causation, but in my mind it warrants some investigation.
We say that the racial imbalance in Division I college basketball is not the result of discrimination against one race, because these positions are hotly sought after (after all, this is the ticket to the pros) and are chosen strictly on the basis of athletic skill. But then how can one turn around and claim that any drawbacks of playing college basketball are racist because of that same racial imbalance?

The article says that the revenue athletes graduate at a rate of 45 percent, compared with 72 percent for all athletes, and that this amounts to 21st century Jim Crow. If the revenue sports are placed under conditions that make it more difficult to graduate, then that would suggest that there should be higher academic standards for entry into college as a revenue athlete. Is that her point?

It’s true that many recruits are falsely led to believe that the content of college classes will be within their grasp, and there are also many who choose not to make an effort because a non-graduating path is quietly made available to them by athletic advisors who know where all the easy classes are. These clearly amount to an abuse of revenue athletes. But this is dispensed to all revenue athletes, on a basis unrelated to race.

If football and basketball recruits were unequivocally notified, like with the warning on the cigarette package, that those with an SAT of less than X are very unlikely to be able to do college-level work, will therefore have to take special classes, very likely won’t graduate, and that less than 2% (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/estimated-probability-competing-professional-athletics) of them will make it to the pros, would most of them take a pass on college?

[johnb]

Under 3% of unc students are African American. 62% of b-ball and football players are A-A. 22% of the tax-paying citizens of North Carolina are A-A. Jim Crow means institutionally sanctioned/supported segregation.

Sports is far more time consuming and exhausting for players in the revenue sports (this doesn’t come with a reference, but—apologies to other hard working athletes— it’s inarguable), and lets not even go to the topic of brain injury that has been systematically hushed up for many years.

An African-American buddy of mine went to the pro bowl as an offensive lineman. He went to a Duke-like college and got an elite MBA. We watch our daughters play sports. As he says, “I can’t really watch football anymore because all I see is the damage being done.”

Plenty of Duke b-ball alumni have made a nice living off of the sport. Scholarships have helped many people around the country get an education. It might seem nit picky for the author to complain about a system that helped her get ahead. Her stuff isn’t new, and she doesn’t have a neat answer. But she has a point.

[PackMan97]

Under 3% of unc students are African American. 62% of b-ball and football players are A-A. 22% of the tax-paying citizens of North Carolina are A-A. Jim Crow means institutionally sanctioned/supported segregation.

Only 98 black males enrolled as freshman at UNC last year. That is out of a freshman class size of almost 4,000. Now think of how many of those are athletes across all sports? 20? 30? 40? It is really quite sobering.

As far as major Universities in the South, only the University of Georgia has a smaller % of black males than UNC.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/marybeth-gasman/where-are-the-black-men-at-unc_b_4294064.html

In this case I really don't mean to pick on UNC, it is really just convenience and likely partly due to their recent scandal focusing on a fraudulent AFAM curriculum. I know that NC State is not much better (if at all). ( https://oied.ncsu.edu/divweb/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2015-African-American-Status-Sheet.pdf )

[DavidBenAkiva]

And she’s full of it. I have a daughter who is a D1 non revenue athlete, and the support she receives is in no way superior to that of revenue athletes. The argument is comical at best. Revenue athletes are somehow being shortchanged in comparison to non revenue athletes? Give me a break!

UNC's graduation rate for revenue athletes is 45% compared to something like 90% for non-revenue athletes.

[DavidBenAkiva]

Only 98 black males enrolled as freshman at UNC last year. That is out of a freshman class size of almost 4,000. Now think of how many of those are athletes across all sports? 20? 30? 40? It is really quite sobering.

As far as major Universities in the South, only the University of Georgia has a smaller % of black males than UNC.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/marybeth-gasman/where-are-the-black-men-at-unc_b_4294064.html

In this case I really don't mean to pick on UNC, it is really just convenience and likely partly due to their recent scandal focusing on a fraudulent AFAM curriculum. I know that NC State is not much better (if at all). ( https://oied.ncsu.edu/divweb/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2015-African-American-Status-Sheet.pdf )

Wow! This made me want to do a little digging in Duke for comparison. Duke's Class of 2020 was 12% Black/African-American (including women). For roughly 1,300 students, that works out to about 156 Black freshmen. I am assuming some of these students are international students from African or other countries, so not all African-American. In higher education, more women than men and much more African-American women than men go to college. Let's say it's a 60/40 split at Duke between Black women and men at Duke. That means that there are roughly 62 Black males in the Class of 2020 at Duke compared to 98 at UNC. That is almost twice the share of the freshman body. That's an astonishing figure to note on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day for a public university, the flagship school in the state. My goodness.

[Papa John]

UNC's graduation rate for revenue athletes is 45% compared to something like 90% for non-revenue athletes.

First of all, let's look a bit broader than UNCheat... As we've noted over the past few years, they're not a model when it comes to emphasizing educational opportunities for their "student" athletes. But also of note, revenue athletes are, by the nature of their sports, often seeking to play professionally. A number of these athletes leave early [particularly in basketball, as we well know as Duke fans], and either never complete their degrees or return to complete their degrees outside of the 5-6 year window that the NCAA uses to calculate graduation rates.

At the end of the day, though, revenue athletes have access to the same resources as non-revenue athletes (and, actually, I would argue that they have access to more resources, based on my observations). They just tend to not always take advantage of these resources (of course, some of them do, but many of these athletes are often fixated on the dream of playing in the pros and making top dollar). And why? Because most of them have grown up in a culture that worships and coddles them from rec leagues through high school through summer leagues and into college, all because of their skill in a game.

The idea that scholarship athletes in revenue sports are being short changed is laughable at best.

[swood1000]

Here is the result of one NCAA survey dealing with student-athlete time and how it should be counted.

http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=7979&stc=1

[swood1000]

The 2016 NCAA survey dealing with Division I time demands (SAAC) is here (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2016RES_DI-Time-Demands-Full_20160506.PDF). Results of the 2016 GOAL study of the student-athlete experience is here (https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/GOALS_convention_slidebank_jan2016_public.pdf).

[DavidBenAkiva]

First of all, let's look a bit broader than UNCheat... As we've noted over the past few years, they're not a model when it comes to emphasizing educational opportunities for their "student" athletes. But also of note, revenue athletes are, by the nature of their sports, often seeking to play professionally. A number of these athletes leave early [particularly in basketball, as we well know as Duke fans], and either never complete their degrees or return to complete their degrees outside of the 5-6 year window that the NCAA uses to calculate graduation rates.

At the end of the day, though, revenue athletes have access to the same resources as non-revenue athletes (and, actually, I would argue that they have access to more resources, based on my observations). They just tend to not always take advantage of these resources (of course, some of them do, but many of these athletes are often fixated on the dream of playing in the pros and making top dollar). And why? Because most of them have grown up in a culture that worships and coddles them from rec leagues through high school through summer leagues and into college, all because of their skill in a game.

The idea that scholarship athletes in revenue sports are being short changed is laughable at best.

First, the GSR takes into account students that leave in good academic standing. Here's a description of from the NCAA:

"The GSR formula removes from the rate student-athletes who leave school while academically eligible and includes student-athletes who transfer to a school after initially enrolling elsewhere. This calculation makes it a more complete and accurate look at student-athlete success." Source (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/di-african-american-student-athletes-graduate-record-rates)

So a student that goes pro or transfers to another school in good academic standing is not counted among the 45% of students that do graduate.

I agree that students have to be held partially responsible for their failure to succeed in the classroom. But the university made a promise to these students, too. You've clearly taken the side of the institution in this matter and provided zero evidence to support the position you've taken. You even called the ideas, supported with a lot of evidence, "laughable." I don't see how I or the other posters here can show you how there is institutionalized disparities going on, so we'll just have to disagree on this.

[Bluedog]

Wow! This made me want to do a little digging in Duke for comparison. Duke's Class of 2020 was 12% Black/African-American (including women). For roughly 1,300 students, that works out to about 156 Black freshmen. I am assuming some of these students are international students from African or other countries, so not all African-American. In higher education, more women than men and much more African-American women than men go to college. Let's say it's a 60/40 split at Duke between Black women and men at Duke. That means that there are roughly 62 Black males in the Class of 2020 at Duke compared to 98 at UNC. That is almost twice the share of the freshman body. That's an astonishing figure to note on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day for a public university, the flagship school in the state. My goodness.

Duke had 1751 students enroll for the class of 2021, not 1300.

If you think UNC's black male enrollment is small, check out the UC's. In 1996, California voters passed a resolution to not allow admissions to consider an applicant's race, gender, ethnicity, or national origin in their admissions decisions. Since then, the numbers have plummeted. Black males comprise about 2% of UCLA's male student body (and the majority of them are varsity athletes). However, black females make up a significantly larger number as black females attend top tier institutions in much larger numbers for some reason.

[DavidBenAkiva]

Duke had 1751 students enroll for the class of 2021, not 1300.

Good point. I was going off of memory when I was an undergrad. It seems that enrollment has expanded to north of 1,700. So if 12% of 1,731 undergrads (http://admissions.duke.edu/images/uploads/process/ClassProfile2020web.pdf) were Black or African-American, than about 80-85 of them were Black males. That Duke and a school like UNC, with more than twice the size of student body, would have similar numbers of Black male students is startling.

[CDu]

Duke had 1751 students enroll for the class of 2021, not 1300.

Doesn't really change anything. It increases the numerator too. 12% of 1751 is 210, and 40% of that is 84. Which further emphasizes the point: Despite being less than half of the size of UNC, Duke had nearly as many African-American males enrolled in its freshman class.

[kmspeaks]

Under 3% of unc students are African American. 62% of b-ball and football players are A-A. 22% of the tax-paying citizens of North Carolina are A-A. Jim Crow means institutionally sanctioned/supported segregation.

Sports is far more time consuming and exhausting for players in the revenue sports (this doesn’t come with a reference, but—apologies to other hard working athletes— it’s inarguable), and lets not even go to the topic of brain injury that has been systematically hushed up for many years.

An African-American buddy of mine went to the pro bowl as an offensive lineman. He went to a Duke-like college and got an elite MBA. We watch our daughters play sports. As he says, “I can’t really watch football anymore because all I see is the damage being done.”

Plenty of Duke b-ball alumni have made a nice living off of the sport. Scholarships have helped many people around the country get an education. It might seem nit picky for the author to complain about a system that helped her get ahead. Her stuff isn’t new, and she doesn’t have a neat answer. But she has a point.

You have no evidence to back up your claim so you just say it's inarguable and we're all supposed to go along with it? The non-revenue athletes are still flying all over the place in these geographically spread out conferences. They have the same limitations as far as practice times. I know volleyball, baseball, and softball have pre-season tournaments similar to a Maui invitational or pre-season NIT in basketball where athletes are off campus for several days in a row and I would guess most other sports have some version of those as well. What exactly are these extra time commitments that make it harder for revenue sport athletes to succeed academically if they want to?

[swood1000]

According to the 2016 GOALS study (https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/GOALS_convention_slidebank_jan2016_public.pdf), this is how many hours per week student-athletes reported spending on athletic activities. However, it is not clear which of the activities that student-athletes thought should properly be considered "countable athletically related activities" but which are not so considered for official purposes (such as study hall, travel to and from competition, and tutoring sessions - see the list above) are included in these figures. So, when people throw around figures of 50 - 60 hours a week spent on athletics it's not always clear what they're talking about.

http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=7980&stc=1

[swood1000]

A breakdown.

http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=7981&stc=1

[swood1000]

The above numbers do not demonstrate the huge disparity claimed by the author of the original article in the amount of time spent on athletics by revenue vs non-revenue athletes. Maybe since she didn’t spend more than 20 hours per week she assumed that number for all non-revenue sports. She referred to a study done on Pac-12 student-athlete time demands, described here (http://static.pac-12.com/PAC12TimeDemands160512.pdf) and here (http://www.cbssports.com/images/Pac-12-Student-Athlete-Time-Demands-Obtained-by-CBS-Sports.pdf) that describes Pac-12 athletes as spending 50 hours per week on athletics during the season:


Student-athletes report spending an average of 21 hours per week on required athletic activities, only one hour more than the 20 hour limit. However, they spend an additional 29 hours on other activities including voluntary athletics (4 hours), receiving treatment (4 hours) and traveling for competitions (22 hours). Qualitatively, Pac-12 athletes say traveling for competitions is extremely stressful, as it forces student-athletes to miss class and takes up much needed time for homework, studying and sleeping.

But why can’t travel time be used to do homework and/or sleep?

[PackMan97]

But why can’t travel time be used to do homework and/or sleep?

It can, but as anyone who has tried to work/sleep on a bus/plane...attempting to do so yields a poor quality output.

[kmspeaks]

The above numbers do not demonstrate the huge disparity claimed by the author of the original article in the amount of time spent on athletics by revenue vs non-revenue athletes. Maybe since she didn’t spend more than 20 hours per week she assumed that number for all non-revenue sports. She referred to a study done on Pac-12 student-athlete time demands, described here (http://static.pac-12.com/PAC12TimeDemands160512.pdf) and here (http://www.cbssports.com/images/Pac-12-Student-Athlete-Time-Demands-Obtained-by-CBS-Sports.pdf) that describes Pac-12 athletes as spending 50 hours per week on athletics during the season:



But why can’t travel time be used to do homework and/or sleep?

Exactly. It's a matter of choice and priorities. Also, non-revenue athletes are traveling just as much as basketball players and more than football players who play once a week so how are the revenue sport athletes being put in a worse position? Maybe track is a different animal but I don't think the baseball, softball, volleyball, soccer, lacrosse, etc athletes have this extra time the author and some posters here think they do.

[swood1000]

It can, but as anyone who has tried to work/sleep on a bus/plane...attempting to do so yields a poor quality output.

I don’t know, I’ve always been able to make pretty good use of time spent sitting in an airport or in an airplane, though probably no more than half the travel time can be productive. I also assume that most MBB players wearing headphones are not listening to lectures or books on tape (as it used to be called).

[PackMan97]

I don’t know, I’ve always been able to make pretty good use of time spent sitting in an airport or in an airplane, though probably no more than half the travel time can be productive. I also assume that most MBB players wearing headphones are not listening to lectures or books on tape (as it used to be called).

Traveled much lately? I can't even open my laptop on an airplane these days.

[swood1000]

If a Division I student-athlete spends 40 hours per week on athletics he or she starts to look like a student who has a full time job while carrying a full load. The full time job pays the cost of annual tuition, room and board, worth typically $25,000 and up. Such a person is going to have to make some sacrifices, typically in the leisure activities that students without full time jobs are afforded. Fortunately, he or she is not loaded down with twenty years of debt to pay off, as many students are.

[uh_no]

If a Division I student-athlete spends 40 hours per week on athletics he or she starts to look like a student who has a full time job while carrying a full load. The full time job pays the cost of annual tuition, room and board, worth typically $25,000 and up. Such a person is going to have to make some sacrifices, typically in the leisure activities that students without full time jobs are afforded. Fortunately, he or she is not loaded down with twenty years of debt to pay off, as many students are.

for many, it's not a full load during the season. athletes will often underload in season, and then make up for it over the summer or off-season semester.

This is easier for football, but rough for basketball, which spans both semesters.

[swood1000]

Traveled much lately? I can't even open my laptop on an airplane these days.
The perfect place to pull out your Kindle E-reader.

[Neals384]

White Americans tend to pat ourselves on the back for providing some disadvantaged minorities a lottery ticket out of an otherwise bleak future, instead of acknowledging that it amounts to just that — a lottery ticket. Sure, being tall is a lottery. But not every tall kid gets a scholarship or an NBA career. Those opportunities go to those with the hard work, determination and moral character to make the most of their God-given talents. Calling it a lottery ticket is demeaning to the efforts of those black Americans who succeed in athletics.