Currently experiencing technical difficulties. Please refresh page or try again later.

NCAA Must Show Us the Money

BY GWEN KNAPP,
AOL
Posted: 2008-02-15 19:06:39
Sports Commentary

We're supposed to care deeply whether Kelvin Sampson has an incurable telephone addiction. We're supposed to be scandalized that Reggie Bush may have taken $291,000 under the table during his last two years at USC. We're supposed to hold dear every syllable of a rule book that is as relevant to the modern world as Bible passages about harvest scheduling.

The Bush outrage is particularly comical. Late last year, USA Today reported that at least 50 head football coaches made $1 million or more a year. Butch Davis, at North Carolina, received a raise that precisely matched Bush's alleged payola. Not a $291,000 salary. A raise. From a public school.

Davis' total pay is expected to be $2.1 million this fall, but we don't know for sure. He could have all sorts of side deals that don't show up in the contract. North Carolina, by the way, went 4-8 last year.

This is a crime, an undeclared, unwritten, unacknowledged crime. The NCAA can punish players if they accept a free suit to attend an awards dinner, but it can't set a salary cap for coaches. It can monitor telephone records to regulate how, when and where a coach dials up a high school kid, but it can't rule on whether Rich Rodriguez breached a contract by not paying a $4 million buyout clause to West Virginia. A court has to settle that.

The real problem isn't so much the NCAA as all the fans and media who accept its guidelines as gospel. Sampson has been excoriated since the news broke that, yet again, he has made illicit phone calls to recruits. No one really questions the nature of the infractions. The rules are the rules are the rules, and if racking up parking tickets placed Indiana basketball in jeopardy, the coach would be demonized for not keeping enough quarters on him at all times.

The Hoosiers were criticized for hiring Sampson from the very beginning because he was already in trouble for dialing excesses at Oklahoma. Far less attention was given to the fact that his team's graduation rate was roughly, depending on how you read the numbers and sort out the various academic years, zero. It was seen as a red flag, to be sure, but not a deal-breaker.

In truth, there are a lot of disturbing factors in Sampson's downfall. At the very least, his behavior suggests a self-destructive compulsion. Improper phone calls had already cost him a $500,000 raise from Indiana, and he still couldn't kick the habit. Then again, when someone has a $500,000 raise to jeopardize, it's not hard to figure out where he got a taste for excess.

Bush's transgression, if he committed any at all, is that he didn't repay a debt. (He might apply to be Rodriguez's assistant someday.) But that's not what has sent people into high dudgeon, inspiring the book title "Heisman Tarnished." They're worked up about a possible end-around on NCAA amateurism, a farce that begs to be defrauded.

College football, with the help of the NFL and the Supreme Court, is a closed market. Bush was worth $60 million the day he left campus, but he wasn't able to borrow $300,000 from a prospective agent before then? What an absurdity. His Heisman Trophy isn't any more tarnished than the game itself.

The frequent calls to pay athletes are off-base. How do you decide salaries? Does eventual market value count, in which case the backup punter gets nothing? Do people in non-revenue sports have to settle for scholarships, and if so, do female athletes sue for discrimination since their teams have received about a century's worth of marketing less than the men's?


It's too messy, but allowing outsiders to enrich the athletes of their choice is not. The "donors" would have to register in some fashion with the school, and possibly the NCAA itself, to keep gamblers at bay. But other than that, the market would be open. The savings on investigations alone could mean a freeze on student fees, or a fatter raise for the basketball coach.

It will never happen. College presidents make the rules, and they want booster money crossing their palms. So they'll keep throwing flags anytime a linebacker intercepts it. And, en masse, we'll keep calling the kid a cheater, a traitor to his school and teammates.

It's hard to deny that taking money is often a sign of weakness that reveals itself in other ways. The rules-breakers tend to come up lacking in their pro careers, undermined by a diva mentality and a sense that things would always be easy for them. Chris Webber, a recipient of booster money at Michigan, is a great example. He has rarely played with an intensity that could have elevated him to greatness. Bush, so far, hasn't begun to fulfill predictions that he would be the next Barry Sanders.

Perhaps the inability to follow rules, however silly they might be, indicates a deficit in the discipline necessary to excel in the pros. But that assumes that their weakness lies in taking the money, rather than the real sin -- getting caught.

Gwen Knapp is a sports columnist at the San Francisco Chronicle.

2008 AOL LLC. All Rights Reserved.
2008-02-15 13:26:47
Bookmark:

Recent Comments

1 - 10 of 28
28 comments

evansbastrop 08:19:34 AM Apr 07 2008

The ncaa needs to start making college atheletes take a 5th grade math exam unassisted before allowing them to play any sport. This would eliminate a lot of problems in college sports.

mteassociates 12:28:19 PM Mar 26 2008

hwhilgerlps3, you are not very knowledgeable about college or the student atheletes you are commenting on. your comment "it is a well known fact that most if not all athlet's use colleges and universities as a stepping stone to to enter professional leagues". Actually a very small percentage of student atheletes go on to professional sports and that is true for all sports including football. As far as the majority of scholarship money it is paid for by private donations and is not paid by the taxpayers. As far as the Student athelete leaving early for a professional contract? Atheletic scholarships are awarded on a yearly basis and may not be renewed without consequence to the student or the university. You are incorrect on pretty much every issue.

mteassociates 12:05:17 PM Mar 26 2008

I have always maintained that student atheletes should be paid a stipend. However, that, stipend should be an equal amount regardless of the sport and should be just a small amount that would allow a student athelete to live in the same manner as his/her fellow non-athelete peers. Read that as enough to go on a date and interact with friends in a social setting not buy a condo and a sports car. The reason you can't pay them some higher amount or allow an outside source such as an agent pay them is it undermines the athority of the University, the Coach, the Team, by making an individual out of them rather than a Team member. Also the vast majority of schools cannot afford the same things that a major football school can afford. Which is an unfair recruiting advantage. College atheletes are compensated fairly by their pespective universitys in the form of an education which is not cheap. Pay them a small stipend 10k a year or so to help them live like normal students or let them seek pa

robertnoir 12:07:03 AM Mar 17 2008

Hey, Kenbrz, you gotta get the story right, dude? If it's true and not extortion, it happened in San Diego and it wasn't an SC alumni or anyone with a connection to USC - it was an ex-con, wannabe agent, who had some dealings with Reggie's dad. The NFL rule that stops agents from talking to college players until after their eligibility is up is something that Pete Carroll pushed hard to enact. He lectures players about staying away from agent's until their career is up. He's done it ever since he's been at USC. If Carroll wanted to help Reggie get an agent, do you really think he'd recommend an ex-con with no real connections to the NFL? And if Reggie really did it, he has to be a moron because, by the way, he never signed with this guy and he had to know a firestorm would come from that. And if he did take the cash he obviously he only thought about himself and not the school, program and coaches who gave him so much. For right now, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doub

jcnbarb4rn 12:09:46 PM Feb 24 2008

If you are saying that the student athletes should be paid, you are not a college fan. You are just a journalist who thinks they know what is best for everybody else. The fact that the "student-athlete" doesn't get paid (except a completely free education) is what makes the college game great. The pro's don't care about winning, I mean if I was paid 10 million to play sports, winning and losing would not be the first thing on my mind. paying college athletes will ruin the game just like the NBA. The college players play for the name on the front of their jersery not the name on the back of their jersey.

stilleaglesfan 12:04:54 AM Feb 24 2008

Gwenn are you a man or a woman?

lewiscinjohn 09:24:34 PM Feb 18 2008

I guess you can't blame these coaches. If they don't win they are fired.The school lose all the big TV money. Its a no win situation.

hwhilgerlps3 11:33:47 PM Feb 17 2008

kenbz:

If I read your writing correctly than I must assume that there is much deliberate deception practiced to secure unlawful gain. If this should be the case, then there could also be the possiblity of tampering with grades to keep an excellent footbal player on the field, win championships and give the University undeserved prestige . In my humble opinion, sports in any Highschool or University should only played during the semester break or at a local level.

hwhilgerlps3 11:18:18 PM Feb 17 2008

it is a well known fact that most if not all athlet's use colleges and universities as a stepping stone to to enter professional leagues. Many of them are on a full scholarship, and now want to get paid for playing ball in a State University. If this is the case then they are to pay back their free scholarship,. Also the question I have, what happens when I student has a full ride scholarship and he leaves the university after 2 years to enter lets say the NFL , should he not have to pay back what he received from the University. I hope someone can answer that question. I am assume this free ride Scholarship is paid by the Taxpayers. Am I correct.?

kenbrz 06:08:20 PM Feb 16 2008

Bush got an opportunity for a great education. He got room and board for playing a game. Then he received $ 291,000 in additional benefits that we are to believe that USC knew nothing about. Somebody has got their head in the sand but it is not the NCAA. If the coach and his teammates could not tell he was receing more than regular tuition, books and room and board they were not paying attention. When Michigan found out about Webber they fired the coach. Indiana will probably do the same. Does USC have the integrity to fire their coach?

1 - 10 of 28
28 comments

Add your own Comments