Collegiate_Athletics__the_Flaws_and_the_Facts

Collegiate athletics have become a major aspect of American culture, and the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s job has been to be its police force against “improper benefits,” a key term in collegiate controversy. The NCAA was founded in 1910 to originally protect all of the college athletes in the NCAA. Over time, their role has increased to upholding and committing to: • The collegiate model of athletics in which students participate as an avocation, balancing their academic, social and athletics experiences. • The highest levels of integrity and sportsmanship. • The pursuit of excellence in both academics and athletics. • The supporting role that intercollegiate athletics plays in the higher education mission and in enhancing the sense of community and strengthening the identity of member institutions. • An inclusive culture that fosters equitable participation for student-athletes and career opportunities for coaches and administrators from diverse backgrounds. • Respect for institutional autonomy and philosophical differences. • Presidential leadership of intercollegiate athletics at the campus, conference and national levels. (NCAA.com) Their main weapon in doing this is to regulate eligibility through various means. Upon analysis of NCAA decisions, a student-athlete athlete loses their eligibility, or right to compete, when the student-athlete puts athletics ahead of academics to the point where they lose integrity in their actions. Throughout all their decisions, the NCAA points to what they call “amateurism” to defend their position. The NCAA believes that amateurism upholds the ideal collegiate sports atmosphere, and any action. However, their interpretations in high-profile cases seem to be swayed by profit and power. This paper will dissect the issues surrounding amateurism and eligibility and offer a possible solution. What is Amateurism' Amateurism dates back to Ancient Greece, where the Olympic Games consisted of strictly amateurs. In that era, an amateur was considered to be someone who didn’t train all the time and had a job besides athletics. (Perseus Digital Library) It seems that athletic glory was meant to stem from the layman's struggle and honor. Amateurs were supposed to compete out of sheer love for competition rather than for the love of riches or anything else that came with victory. Ideally, the Olympic Games would be an exposition where the best men came to compete, everyone would revel in the competition, and then everyone would return back to their original lives. However, the champion athletes were often given privileges that they wouldn’t have received had it not been for athletic glories. Throughout the history of the Olympic Games, this idea of amateurism faded. Eventually, “amateur athletes” became so similar to professional athletes that the Olympic Committee decided to do away with the amateur rule after the 1988 Games (Wikipedia.com). With the increase in the quality of athletics and the ability to market athletes came the inevitability that Olympic athletes would need to train year-round and would be marketed through all kinds of media. In collegiate athletics today, there is a similar disparity between what should be going on and what is actually going on. The following violate amateur status according to the NCAA: • Contracts with a professional team (Division I); • Salary for participating in athletics (Division I); • Prize money above actual and necessary expenses (Division I); • Play with professionals (Division I); • Tryouts, practice or competition with a professional team (Division I); • Benefits from an agent or prospective agent (Divisions I and II); • Agreement to be represented by an agent (Divisions I and II); and • Organized-competition rule (Divisions I and II). (NCAA.com) Recent violations of these rules suggest that the NCAA’s ideal student-athlete has fallen by the wayside. This poses the question, if the Olympic Games have such little controversy regarding eligibility, why shouldn’t the NCAA follow suit and eliminate amateurism to avoid disputes involving this eligibility' NCAA Rulings: In Support of Student-Athletes or Athlete-Students' A controversy during the 2010-2011 football season about Auburn quarterback Cam Newton leads into a real-life case regarding the NCAA’s interpretation of “amateurism.” On November 30, 2010, Cam Newton was ruled ineligible, albeit for a few days, because his father allegedly sought money from Mississippi State in return for his son’s commitment to play football there. In this context, Newton was ruled ineligible because he violated the second rule of accepting a salary for participating in athletics. However, the NCAA’s interpretation can be called into question here. Would they have made this decision if the player under fire was less popular' My answer to this question is no, which I will address later with an analysis of a less popular prospective student-athlete. In a similar case involving another high-profile athlete, Derrick Rose, the NCAA’s decision and interpretations are also seemingly hypocritical. One of the most criticized programs in the NCAA of recent years was the Memphis Basketball program, specifically with the recruitment of Derrick Rose and his participation with the team for one year before heading to the NBA, which is also known as the “one-and-done” rule to sports aficionados. This rule requires that “players entering the draft to be 19 years old or have completed their freshman year of college.” (Zegers) Now, Rose isn’t the only player to participate in college basketball because he was required to, but he is a good example here simply because his actions directly call the NCAA’s motives into question. The general controversy here is that, by forcing players into going to school for a year when they would prefer to jump straight into the professional ranks, the NCAA is directly mocking its goal to have student-athletes cherish academics just as much as athletics. When a student-athlete goes into school with the mindset that they will only be there for one year, there is no incentive to work hard in the classroom or to do anything that involves working towards a degree. Because this is the case, there is no justification as to why rules like this exist. It was also proved that Rose had someone else take his SAT for him, which made him an ineligible player, an epitome of dishonesty. Although the NCAA did forfeit the Memphis Tigers of their 38-2 record in the 2007-2008 season for playing with an ineligible player, Rose, the fact is that this decision had no effect beyond the world of statistics. It is possible to remove statistics from print, but it is impossible to remove memories. Fans will never label Rose and his teammates as a 0-40 team, but rather remember them as the top-class team that they were. To make matters worse, Rose’s lawyer, after this event happened, stated that “Mr. Rose sees no reason to engage in further discussion regarding this matter and will instead focus on his career as a professional basketball player” (Seligman). Most frightening is the fact that Rose saw “no reason to engage in further discussion.” Why' The answer dwells in not his, but the NCAA’s attitude in rules. It is apparent that Rose was more focused on “his career as a professional basketball player” rather than attempting to rectify his credibility as a legitimate student-athlete, which the fans and the media didn’t care about anyway. No one cared that Rose had broken the rules, but rather focused on what he was going to do as a professional. In fact, he was drafted as the number one pick in the 2008 NBA Draft and is one of the most popular players in the game today. Fans could care less about the academic side of things; they just want to focus on athletics, just like Rose and similar players. Similarly, in the Cam Newton case, the NCAA’s decision seems to be influenced by money, which is something that they say they try to detach student-athletes from. When information began to pile up against Newton for cheating, stealing, and trying to get paid for playing, Newton and the Auburn football team were ranked #2 in the nation. As a third-party observer of the situation, the evidence against Newton seemed to warrant his banishment from playing. The NCAA, always quick to intervene in these situations, performed an investigation over the long period of just under 24 hours. 24 hours is hardly enough time to pull together all of the information of a complex case. In the sports world, this kind of case is equivalent to a murder case in the real word. These kinds of violations have destroyed previous programs such as that of Southern Methodist University’s football program in the 1980s, which also was proved of paying their players to play. The only reason for this decision to reinstate Newton was to get the most exciting player in college football back on the field to vie for a National Championship as well as the Heisman Trophy, two very marketable events in the world of college football. If these facts had come out after the season had ended, would the NCAA have taken more time to dissect the situation, or would they have come to a decision within a day' Consider the following case involving Reggie Bush after he had already left the University of Southern California, which broke on April 23, 2006 according to rivals.yahoo.com. Bush was accused, like Newton, of receiving improper benefits including a house for his parents as well as "over $100,000 in cash disbursements from [an agent] and New Era Sports & Entertainment associate Lloyd Lake between November 2004 and February 2006.” (Robinson) The purpose of this paper isn’t to delve into the actual transgressions, but rather the meaning behind the decisions made by the NCAA. In this particular case, again according the rivals.yahoo.com, the NCAA finally made a decision on June 10, 2010. That’s over four more years interviewing and dissecting all of the information in regards to the Newton case. Some might say that more information had come out in the Bush case, but the NCAA didn’t even give the Newton case a chance to develop. The only real difference was that Newton was currently playing, while Bush had already moved on to the pros, so the NCAA had more time to come to a conclusion. In comparing these two, it seems that the NCAA takes more time to investigate players’ eligibility when they are out of season, where profitability is slim to none. Instead of protecting the student-athletes, the NCAA props them up as athletes before students. Meanwhile, the NCAA punishes athletes who have not yet proved to be stars (i.e. recruits) for trivial reasons compared to those of Bush, Rose, and Newton. For example, a would-be basketball player for Kentucky named Enes Kanter was recently deemed permanently ineligible by the NCAA because he received money “above actual and necessary expenses.” From an ethical standpoint, the two cases are incomparable. The previously stated cases are filled with lies and deceit, which both directly oppose the NCAA’s mission to promote a high level of integrity in their student-athletes. The startling fact, though, is that the NCAA does not seem to preserve this or the rest of their mission statement as well. Going back to my question about how the NCAA goes about investigating certain cases based on their relevance to the current sports world, there are certainly differences in the cases that I have brought up that dwell in money matters. The NCAA acts harshly on student-athletes like Kanter when there is money to be made, while they create double-standards for athletes like Rose and Newton who bring in large sums of money. An Ultimatum and Solution Through analysis of how the NCAA deals with their cases, it is evident that there is some sort of problem with how they operate. If they, in fact, used a perfect system, then there would never be any controversy. If the rules were so well-defined and student-athletes and school officials were 100% behind the rules, there would be no incentive for anyone to ever want to break them. However, some sort of perfect system that would appease everyone while upholding the key morals is not plausible. The fact is that the NCAA needs revenue to continue running at maximum capacity, but they don’t need to use fuel marked with hypocrisy. It might be impossible to run a perfect association, but it is possible to reach this asymptote of perfection. College sports are marketable even without having professional-like players in the ranks. An infrastructure exists in the form of alumni, students, and general branding of school. Take Duke University basketball as an example. Here’s a school that has had no violations in recent memory, yet still continues to churn out successful team after successful team the right way. Since 1981, when Mike Krzyzewski became the head coach, the Duke team has had winning years in all but three seasons, won four National Championships, placed second in the NCAA Basketball Tournament, and made it to the NCAA Tournament all but four years, all the while keeping their program clean. They do so with hard work not only from the student-athletes, but from the alumni and students as well. Their fans, known as the “Cameron Crazies,” make Cameron Indoor Arena, Duke’s arena, the second loudest college basketball arena in the nation according to nationofblue.com. Promoting this sort of camaraderie rather than promoting the use of exceptional athletes who really should be professionals should be the crux of the NCAA. Thus begins my attempt to rectify the controversy of the NCAA by the simple theory of promoting equality and placing the student before the athlete. Student-Athletes in the Future “There are over 360,000 NCAA student-athletes, and just about all of us will be going pro in something other than sports. The NCAA reminds us to ask ourselves, what will we do' Over the last 100 years, the NCAA’s helped millions of student-athletes find their power outside the field, court, and rink. NCAA: celebrating 100 hundred years of the student-athlete.” -NCAA advert aired earlier this year Commercials like these are ever-prevalent on TV, but the pro-student-athlete theme seems to only exist as the NCAA’s cover. This truth is that the NCAA’s current rules and rulings don’t put student-athletes at heart. One such program that the NCAA has provides insurance to “Exceptional Athletes,” or: Student-athletes with remaining athletics eligibility at NCAA institutions in the sports of intercollegiate football, men's or women's basketball, baseball, or men's ice hockey, who have demonstrated they have professional potential to be selected in the first three rounds of the upcoming National Football League or National Hockey League draft or the first round of the upcoming draft of the National Basketball Association, Major League Baseball, or Women's National Basketball Association, are eligible for this program. (NCAA.com) Such programs should not be allowed, as they cross the line of putting the student first. Other programs, such as their “Catastrophic Injury Program” are fine, as it doesn’t exclude any student-athletes from coverage, but a program that insures potential top draft picks shifts the NCAA’s attention to the few rather than the many. My main claim relies on the fact that most student-athletes never even become professional athletes. Not everyone becomes a John Wall or a Cam Newton, so why change the rules based on these outliers' Instead the NCAA should really hone in on creating the rules with the majority in mind, that is, for the law-abiding average student-athlete. Instead of assuming that everyone has the same mindset as Wall and Newton, the NCAA should assume that no one will ever become a professional athlete at all. This mindset would help to both to reform the current attitude that has been brought about by things like the Exceptional Athlete Insurance, as well as promote the student portion of student-athlete. This way, the NCAA would disconnect themselves from professional sports completely, and would focus solely on collegiate sports. In theory, it seems odd for a college sports association to have any relationship with professional sports at all. Yes many collegiate athletes do become professionals, but fact is that they are not professionals while in college. If these athletes want to be treated as pros, then they should simply move on without attempting to make college sports something they’re not. International Collegiate Athletic Association Apart from changing the total mindset of the NCAA, the NCAA should structurally change by adding a branch to investigate all potential foreign players entering collegiate sports. Such a branch would help to eliminate the most controversial cases of eligibility and amateurism. Investigating these potential student-athletes would make the process more individualized rather than using the rules as a be-all-end-all decision. This way, a player like Enes Kanter would be allowed to play if the NCAA found that his actions in acquiring the excess money weren’t for selfish reasons. There are tons of different circumstances in every situation, and the NCAA must learn that it is impossible to generalize every situation to follow a small set of rules. Athlete Classes: Classes for Dummies Also, the NCAA should do all it can to remove academic-related cases like Rose’s altogether by promoting high academic standards. Student-athletes should not be given academic privileges that average students do not have just to keep them eligible to play. A similar case was recently made against Stanford University, which stated that “Stanford athletes used list of ‘easy’ classes to boost GPAs” (The Detroit News). Although this claim is not true, similar “athlete classes” have been employed at the majority of universities for years. Student-athletes at all universities should be held to the same academic requirements as their peers; providing “athlete majors” or “athlete classes” diminishes the academic standards of the schools within the NCAA. Athletes who wish to take these sorts of course loads should instead either move on to the professional ranks or move to a school that is more in line with their academic capabilities. Student-athletes need to be treated as students who happen to play a sport as well, not the other way around. Licensing of Student-Athletes To further secure the fact that a student-athlete is a student before the athlete, the NCAA should remove from the shelves all merchandise that has any connection with any student athlete. After Tim Tebow, a quarterback for the University of Florida, won the Heisman trophy in 2007, his #15 jersey “sales have helped put the University of Florida among the top 3 in the country for merchandise sold.” (Curtis) Now, these jerseys didn’t have Tebow’s name on the back nor did he receive any of the profits, (Curtis) but it certainly wasn’t a coincidence that the majority of jerseys sold had the #15 on the back; it was a blatant marketing technique that used a student-athlete for profit. Similarly, the NCAA uses imaging in their NCAA Football series for their own profit. In 2009, ex-Nebraska quarterback Sam Keller sued “the NCAA and its video-game partner, EA Sports, claiming they've gone too far in using the likenesses of college players who are prohibited from sharing in the games' profits” (Wieberg). Again, the NCAA employs similar tactics here as in the Tebow jersey scenario. They don’t explicitly say that they are using student-athletes in the game (instead of names on the back of jerseys, they have something like “QB #7”) but the fans can make a connection as to which players they are controlling. Instead of paying the student-athletes like Keller wishes, the NCAA should simply stop putting likenesses of student-athletes into their games. As for uniforms, the NCAA should carefully screen the numbers placed on the back of jerseys, or even go as far as eliminating numbers on the back of their merchandise altogether. Relating to a school is fair, but relating to a specific student-athlete puts the athlete before the student. Everything under the umbrella of these sorts of licensing needs to be removed. The NCAA wouldn’t market the average student, and student-athletes shouldn’t be treated any differently. Some might say that the NCAA needs these profits this to run, but what’s really true is that they need these profits to make huge sums of money that are seemingly necessary. The NCAA’s main goal shouldn’t be to profit, but rather try to produce students who are able to contribute to society in more ways than just sports. Conclusion I’d like to take a moment to reiterate that I think the NCAA does a good job; despite my criticisms, I still believe that they do have the students’ well-being at heart. However, I still do think that there is some sort of corruption in their decisions. There are no evident links between the decisions in the cases I have brought up, which hints that there is some favoritism involved, and that favoritism stems from the NCAA’s desire to profit. The NCAA must not continue down this path of dishonesty if they expect student-athletes to follow along in the same quest for money. Instead, the NCAA needs to make changes that shift the mentality from money to the general good of the student-athlete. These changes come in the form of different policies that include making an international branch of the NCAA, and enforcing equality between student-athletes and the general population, which would mean keeping athlete education standards up while ceasing to market student-athletes for profit. All of these put together might make collegiate sports a less profitable entity, but that is exactly what collegiate sports needs. By creating an atmosphere of compliance where the student portion of the student-athlete thrives, the NCAA could finally return to the ideal amateurism described by the ancient Greeks. Works Cited "The Ancient Athlete: Amateur or Professional'" Perseus Digital Library. 13 Aug. 2004. Web. 12 Mar. 2011. . Curtis, Dave. "Sales of Tim Tebow's Jersey Help Make UF the No. 3 School for Merchandising in U.S. - Orlando Sentinel." Featured Articles From The Orlando Sentinel. The Orlando Sentinel, 01 Jan. 2008. Web. 12 Mar. 2011. . Eggemeyer, Chris. "Cam Newton Scandal: NCAA Ruling and SEC Commissioner Show Lack of Integrity | Bleacher Report." Bleacher Report | Entertaining Sports News, Photos and Slideshows. 4 Dec. 2010. Web. 12 Mar. 2011. . "Exceptional Student-Athlete Disability Insurance Program - NCAA.org." Public Home Page - NCAA.org. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 2011. Web. 12 Mar. 2011. . Farrey, Tom. "NCAA Amateurism Official: Loosen Rules for Athletes Who Have Played with Pros - ESPN." ESPN: The Worldwide Leader In Sports. 29 Oct. 2009. Web. 03 Feb. 2011. . Green, Tom. "NCAA Needs to Rethink Amateur Status given to College Athletics - The Independent Florida Alligator: Columns." The Independent Florida Alligator: We Inform. You Decide. 20 July 2010. Web. 03 Feb. 2011. . Infante, John. "The Delicate Balance of Amateurism and Education - The Blog of the NCAA." Public Home Page - NCAA.org. NCAA, 10 Nov. 2010. Web. 03 Feb. 2011. . Lambert, Joshua. "The NCAA and the Amateur Athlete Myth." Sports Card Forum - Sports Cards Community. 06 Jan. 2011. Web. 03 Feb. 2011. . Miller, Chip. "ESPN Announces Their Loudest College Hoops Arenas: How Does Rupp Rank'" Kentucky Wildcats Sports - Nation of Blue. 5 Nov. 2010. Web. 12 Mar. 2011. . Miller, Jeff. "NCAA Amateur Status For Foreign Student Athletes." College Athletic Scholarships. College Scouting And Recruiting. Web. 12 Mar. 2011. . "National Collegiate Athletic Association." Public Home Page - NCAA.org. National Collegiate Athletic Association. Web. 12 Mar. 2011. . "NCAA Amateurism Certification - NCAA.org." Public Home Page - NCAA.org. 15 June 2010. Web. 15 Feb. 2011. . Press, Associated. "Former NCAA Player's Video-game Lawsuit Threatens NCAA Hold on Student Athletes - College Football News | FOX Sports on MSN." FOX Sports on MSN L Sports News, Scores, Schedules, Videos and Fantasy Games. FOX, 13 Feb. 2011. Web. 12 Mar. 2011. . Press, Associated. "NCAA Rules Kentucky's Enes Kanter Permanently Ineligible - ESPN." ESPN: The Worldwide Leader In Sports. ESPN, 8 Jan. 2011. Web. 12 Mar. 2011. . "Report: Reggie Bush to Be Stripped of 2005 Heisman Trophy - ESPN Los Angeles." ESPN: The Worldwide Leader In Sports. Associated Press, 08 Sept. 2010. Web. 12 Mar. 2011. . "Report: Stanford Athletes Used List of 'easy' Classes to Boost GPAs | Detnews.com | The Detroit News." The Detroit News | Detnews.com | Saturday, March 12, 2011 | News, Sports, Features, Blogs, Photos and Forums from Detroit and Michigan. The Detroit News, 9 Mar. 2011. Web. 12 Mar. 2011. . Robbins, Lenn. "Newton Scandal Could Turn College Football Upside down - NYPOST.com." New York News | Gossip | Sports | Entertainment | Photos - New York Post. New York Post, 13 Nov. 2010. Web. 12 Mar. 2011. . Robinson, Charles. "Attorney's Letter Says Bush Family Got $100,000 - NFL - Yahoo! Sports." Yahoo! Sports - Sports News, Scores, Rumors, Fantasy Games, and More. Yahoo!, 29 Apr. 2006. Web. 12 Mar. 2011. . Rosenberg, Michael. "NCAA Needs to Change Ruling, Pay College Football Players - Michael Rosenberg - SI.com." Breaking News, Real-time Scores and Daily Analysis from Sports Illustrated – SI.com. 26 Aug. 2010. Web. 03 Feb. 2011. . Staff, Yahoo! Sports. "USC/Reggie Bush Investigation - College Football - Rivals.com." College Sports: Rivals.com. Yahoo!, 14 Sept. 2010. Web. 12 Mar. 2011. . Talbot, Chris. "Memphis Finds No Proof Derrick Rose Cheated On His SAT." Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post. The Huffington Post, 06 Feb. 2009. Web. 12 Mar. 2011. . Walker, Teresa M. "Derrick Rose SAT Scandal: Potential NCAA Violations Could Hit Memphis, Tarnish Rose." Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post. The Huffington Post, 28 May 2009. Web. 12 Mar. 2011. . Wetzel, Dan. "Let 'em Play - College Football - Rivals.com." College Sports: Rivals.com. Yahoo!, 25 Apr. 2006. Web. 12 Mar. 2011. . Zegers, Charlie. "What Is a "One and Done'"" About Basketball - NBA and NCAA Basketball News and Commentary. About.com. Web. 12 Mar. 2011. .