"As we near the exciting conclusion of 'March Madness' -- which would more accurately be described as the 2011 NCAA Professional Basketball Championships -- it's time we step back and finally address the myth of amateurism surrounding big-time college football and basketball in this country."
That would be former presidential candidate Ralph Nader. Would someone like to explain to me how the NCAA Tournament is more representative of players who are professionals than amateurs? Nader wants to claim that because the school is paying for their education, then these players should lose their amateur status. Unfortunately, this claim holds little credence to it.
First, I generally wonder if Nader wants to eliminate all athletic scholarships, or if he is just focused on the two sports that keep athletic departments afloat across the country: men's basketball and football. The removal of all athletic scholarships affects the woman's field hockey team as much as it does those two. Nader wants the athletic department to run as an unrelated business outside of the university.
If the university runs the athletic department outside of the school, what would stop them from investing ALL of their money into basketball and football, causing other smaller sports to suffer. Athletic scholarships exist to in part to help balance athletic funding by the school, preventing them from loading the football and basketball teams. Isn't that why we have Title IX?
Second, paying for four years of college academics (assuming that the player has a full ride) does not even come close to the amount of money that professional players make in ONE year. The NBA average: 4.9 million. The NFL: 1.3 million. The NHL: 1.8 million. The MLB: 2.5 million. Let's assume that a player attends an elite university, there is no way he is receiving more than 225k in scholarship money and that is spread out over four years.
College athletes do receive a per diem, yes, but that number is paltry. It is never more than enough to supply the player with his meals while they are traveling. Not exactly the almost $30,000 dollars per away game that the average NBA player makes.
Finally, the removal of athletic scholarships makes little sense because these athletes are just as responsible, if not more so than those receiving academic scholarships, for university recognition. Since 1999, when Gonzaga made a run to the Elite Eight, application inquires have increased 150%. After George Mason made the Final Four in 2006, applications received increased 25%. Research shows that after a team wins the NCAA Tournament or the football National Championship, applications increase approximately 8%.
And I would be remiss, as a Boston College student from the West Coast, if I didn't thank Doug Flutie for putting us on the map with a Hail Mary against Miami in 1984. How do I know if Boston College even registers a small interest on my part if I hadn't seen that clip hundreds of times?
Nader's vision of a world without athletic scholarships is short-sighted and lacking support. College scholarships provide thousands of kids with the opportunity to attend college when they otherwise would not have. In return, college athletics help promote university recognition, which results in more interest and applications at the school.
Drop the crusade, Ralph. Let the players keep playing.
No comments:
Post a Comment