B4
B
KLMNO
SUNDAY, AUGUST 22, 2010
RANDY MAYS
their program. If an outstanding high school player is coveted, he should be al- lowed to experience the fruits of Amer- ican capitalism. Prominent high school players entering college are no different than prominent college players entering the NFL — they can bring excitement and new revenue to a program. No one, for in- stance, can deny the excitement, revenue and attention that Bush brought to USC. The players would pay income taxes; the football corporations would pay Social Security taxes; 401(k) plans could be es- tablished. USC Football Inc. would be free to re- cruit a player any way it wants, with any- thing it wants, say, an iPhone and plane tickets for his parents. If a player feels misled in the recruiting process, he could sue for fraud. Each program would be re- liant on the business acumen of its opera- tors and subject to whatever profit-mar- gin goal it chooses.
And he could go all the way . . . to the bank
football from B1 And we know that while college foot-
ball players aren’t getting a W-2, they are getting paid to play the game. It’s a straightforward business transaction: You play for us, we give you a one-year scholarship, renewable at the head coach’s discretion. In some cases, rules are broken by schools or other parties so that relatives and other associates of the players can be paid, too. I’ve had the privilege of representing professional athletes and coaches for more than 20 years, and I’ve had a front- row seat to observe the NCAA’s brand of amateurism. I’ve heard many times about events that would constitute NCAA rule violations — some were egregious, many weren’t. Some athletes take money from agents, marketers or others simply be- cause they are hungry (the scholarship is not always enough to buy food).Yes, there are some people out there with malicious agendas, but there are also many people who act in good faith with an allegiance to the integrity of the sport. The primary culprit isn’t the people around the game; it’s the NCAA’s legislated view of amateurism. It lacks intellectual integrity and is terribly unnecessary — particularly when better alternatives exist.
gifts from a sports marketer. According to the NCAA, Bush was, in effect, a pro while he was in college, and the university knew it. The NCAA concluded that USC demon- strated a “lack of institutional control” over its football program. The team re- ceived a two-year postseason ban, lost 30 scholarships over three seasons and va- cated its victories from the period when Bush was deemed to have been ineligible — including the 2004 national champi- onship season. Bush is long gone, now an NFL million-
aire. His former USC head coach, Pete Carroll, is long gone, also now an NFL millionaire. Many of the assistant coach- es who were there at the time are gone as well, and also became millionaires (e.g. University of Washington head coach Steve Sarkisian). Some leftand then came back as millionaires (e.g. new head coach Lane Kiffin). Left to suffer the penalties are the current players, many of whom were in middle school or high school when Bush played. The controversy over USC continues: Are the findings accurate? Should Carroll have done more, earlier? Is the punish- ment excessive? The answers won’t mat- ter, because I have no doubt that Bush- like situations will continue to emerge throughout college football. This sort of
thing has been going on for years, and the incentives to keep it up are too strong in the current system. What needs to change is the entire atti- tude toward college football. This is the perfect time to implement an honest ap- proach to the combination of big-time football and higher education, an ap- proach that eliminates the NCAA’s notion of amateurism. College football generates huge revenues, and there is plenty of money to create a win-win business mod- el for players, coaches and universities. A big business deserves market-driven re- form, free of hypocrisy. Here are 10 steps to accomplish that.
1
All of the major football-playing universities should lease the rights to operate a commercial football program on behalf of the university to an independent, outside company.
For example, the University of South- ern California would contract with USC Football Inc. Such leases would be open to bidding — schools such as Notre Dame, USC and Texas could generate massive revenue. USC football could look exactly as it does now, except USC Football Inc. would have paid for the right to operate it. The university and the company would share net profits from all revenue streams at a negotiated level. Can you imagine how much more revenue schools could garner if, for instance, they were allowed to sell more ad space on uniforms? This would not be a new business
structure for major universities; many al- ready use similar arrangements for other ventures. For example, many major ath- letic departments now sell their market- ing rights to outside companies, and the majority of schools (and the NCAA) con- tract with the Collegiate Licensing Com- pany to market and license their trade- marks.
Some universities would find that the Two developments this spring demon-
strate why the sham of amateurism should come to an end. The Pacific-10 Conference’s luring of
teams from the Mountain West and Big 12 conferences, which caused some scrambling in June, had nothing to do with education or amateur sports. It real- ly didn’t have anything to do with foot- ball or its traditions, either. It had every- thing to do with money. Saddled with ex- piring television contracts, the Pac-10 wanted to get bigger so it could com- mand larger contracts in its next round of negotiating and possibly launch its own TV network. With the addition of the University of Utah and the University of Colorado, the Pac-10’s revenues will grow. Its coaches will make more money, and its players will get bigger and shinier facilities, fancier menus, cushier dorms, more stylish travel arrangements and other perks. The average Pac-10 student will see none of this.
Around the same time as the realignment, the Univer- sity of Southern California, home of one of the premier college football programs, suffered a major embarrass- ment when Reggie Bush, who starred at tailback for the Tro- jans in the mid-2000s, was found to have received lavish
marketplace doesn’t have any interest in their programs. This means that business people think football is a money-loser for those schools. So those schools should drop football and allocate the money to their core objective: educating students.
2
Each university’s football corporation could create leagues, whether long- or
short-term, with other corporations.
There wouldn’t have to be any alle- giance to geography, fan loyalties or tradi- tion. For example, some of these leagues could be premised on budget size. To a large degree, this is already being done; it’s called the BCS. A group of conferences formed the BCS, or Bowl Championship Series, and decided to exclude other con- ferences.
Or the football corporations could de- cide to avoid joining a league, simply scheduling games as a free agent. Again, this is hardly novel — Notre Dame has done it for years, and Brigham Young Uni- versity is contemplating it now — so this arrangement would simply formalize and spread the practice.
Players would no longer receive schol- arships. Just as in the pros, they would be paid based on their perceived value to
3 All of the players would be paid
a salary, whatever the market would bear.
Academically gifted players could take regular university courses, if they could have gained admission on their own mer- it. Others may be more interested in voca- tional training or other specialty classes. Either way, average students would no longer lose a chance at admission be- cause the university made an exception for an academically less qualified athlete. And athletes would have a broader array of course offerings. Some may even choose not to attend classes and simply focus on honing their football skills.
4
frankly gibberish. The NCAA itself states that it does not have subpoena power, which is one way of admitting that en- forcement of its rules is difficult.
Vanderbilt University has done. The chief executive of, say, USC Foot-
5 6
ball Inc. would make decisions, and her mandate would be to ensure that the op- eration was self-sufficient — no student fees (or taxpayer dollars, in the case of a public university) would be used to sub- sidize the football program or facilities. Any profits flowing back to the university could go directly to support the general student body and faculty. As it stands now, large public universities across the country employ sizable staffs in their ath- letic departments; these public employ- ees (including the coaches) are entitled to public benefits and pensions, which are a drain on public resources.
regulation of college football. So long as these new corporations
7 .
Congress and state legislatures wouldn’t have to waste time investigating or discussing the
Universities could scrap much of their athletic administrations, just as
The NCAA can be eliminated, at least as it relates to football.
Many of its rules are archaic and
The corporations could offer a range of educational opportunities.
mind the same business laws that apply to Apple or General Electric, our repre- sentatives could devote their energies elsewhere.
corporation, not the university. Lane Kif- fin wouldn’t have to worry about mon- itoring every player’s vehicle of choice or whether a booster is buying meals for his quarterback. And Nick Saban wouldn’t have to waste his time discussing “pimps.” In this system, players could take money from agents or marketers be- cause their amateurism wouldn’t be at stake.
8
University presidents wouldn’t have to waste their time monitoring a football program, and they wouldn’t have to at- tend any more NCAA functions.
9
whether this player or that player was paid.
10
We could say without any hint of sar- casm, speculation or cynicism that yes, he was.
Finally, this system would end the tiresome sports media discussions of
Universities could focus on their core mission of educating students.
Coaches could focus strictly on coaching.
They would be employees of the
What’s the big idea?
Does guilt make you less racist?
Dr. Laura Schlessinger is very sorry. “I am very sorry,” she said on the air Aug. 11, apologizing to her listeners for a racially heated broadcast the day before in which she, in her words, “articulated the N-word all the way out, more than one time.” The radio veteran promised: “And it just won’t happen again.” Well, she’s probably right, for a number
of reasons. Last week, she told Larry King that she will end her radio program at the end of the year. But there’s another reason, too. She made a very public mistake, demonstrating, in the view of many listeners, racial insensitivity. Because of that, she’s likely to work harder to avoid any prejudice or insensitivity in the future. That’s one conclusion from “The
Egalitarian Brain” by New York University psychologist David Amodio, a chapter in the new book “Are We Born Racist?,” a collection of psychological and sociological research on racism and the brain.
Amodio focuses on how our brains are
wired to make snap judgments on race. The “basic machinery” to do this is located primarily in the subcortex. We can’t ignore these judgments, Amodio writes; our brains will always be able to detect difference. Of course, our brains also have a neocortex that can “override
our immediate, but sometimes inappropriate, reactions to people from other groups,” he writes. Amodio shows that when prejudice escapes — despite the neocortex’s best efforts — people become more vigilant in situations in which they might again express bias. In his research, Amodio could see that people who had expressed prejudice in some way, and were trying not to do so again, experienced heightened activity in the part of their brain associated with greater self-control. Failure to act without prejudice can trigger stronger efforts to regulate one’s behavior in the future. To explain this, he uses the same
example that Schlessinger did on her controversial broadcast, when the radio host asked her caller, an African American woman, if it was “racist” to say to her “bodyguard and dear friend,” a black man, that she’d like for him to be on her pickup basketball team. Amodio writes: “Let’s say you make a quip to a colleague that comes off as unintentionally racist: ‘Hey, I’d always rather have a black guy on my basketball team!’ ” Afterward, you might feel guilty, and that guilt is linked to “neural processes that help you think twice before you speak in the future.” Which is good news for Schlessinger. In announcing her eventual departure from the airwaves, she said: “I’m not quitting. I feel energized, actually, stronger and freer to say the things that I believe need to be said.”
Maybe the things that she believes need to be said will be a bit different now. —Rachel Dry
dryr@washpost.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160