Money Players

Branch article in The Atlantic lays college athletics bare

Here's my October Basketball Times article.

If you are a frequent reader of my columns, you know that I often use this space to write about problems in big-time college sports. I point out an unfair rule or two, explain its unfair impact on players, spread some blame and offer a few solutions. But the NCAA remains elusive when it comes to criticism.

 So a few members of the media and the academic world criticize the NCAA. It happens when you try to lord over the amateur world. Interestingly, the NCAA is remarkably thin-skinned when it is criticized. Especially if it Jay Bilas is talking or tweeting.

NCAA blogger-in-chief David Pickle once wrote, “Over the last six months, Bilas has written 13 posts focusing on the NCAA. The tone has ranged from a little negative to negative to hostile … (He) knows he can say whatever he wants, secure in the knowledge that he’s accountable for nothing.”

Interesting that an NCAA employee would play the accountability card, considering the NCAA really only has to please two constituencies: Congress and college presidents.

Congress can be plied with tickets. College presidents are slightly easier. Just keep the money flowing.

Shortly after the University of Miami scandal broke, NCAA president Mark Emmert rose to Miami president Donna Shalala’s defense: “She’s been a terrific leader in higher education, and I have great respect for her. I can only imagine how much she’s struggling with this, like I would have if this had happened on my watch.”

Wait, I thought college presidents were supposed to be in control of their athletic departments. And she’s already off the hook before the investigation begins in earnest? Meanwhile, several Miami players were suspended for dealing with a booster welcomed by the athletic department – and by Shalala.

When I saw the photo of Shalala cozying up with Ponzi schemer and Miami athletic supporter Nevin Shapiro, I remembered the enduring image of the 1991 photo of UNLV basketball players in a hot tub with Richie “The Fixer” Perry. That photo essentially ended Jerry Tarkanian’s reign at UNLV.

I promise you that Shalala will meet a better fate. Once you come to grips that the NCAA is hardly accountable to college presidents – and vice versa – it’s smooth sailing. Also, keep in mind, college athletes are not members of the NCAA, though athletes are NCAA’s stated primary mission. Ironic – and profitable.

The NCAA, if nothing else, is elusive. “We put our money where our mission is,” if you believe their words. It doesn’t matter what the usual suspects of NCAA “cynics” say.

But what happens when a new figure enters fray? And that person is Taylor Branch, who comes with impeccable credentials, including a Pulitzer Prize for his work chronicling the civil rights movement. As far as I know, Branch had never written a single word on college athletics. Then he pens “The Shame of College Sports,” a 15,000-word essay in The Atlantic, which Frank Deford called, "the most important article ever written about college sports."

Branch’s pièce de résistance is reminiscent of the Seinfeld series finale. For nine seasons, the main cast engaged in questionable behavior. But only a few people – like the irrepressible Newman (Newman!!! if your memory needs jogging) – knew that Jerry, George, Elaine and Kramer were up to no good. In the finale, the main characters were arrested for failing to help a carjacking victim.

Then their entire lives end up on trial. It does not end well. Judge Arthur Vandelay, reading his verdict: “I don’t know how, or under what circumstances, the four of you found each other, but your callous indifference and utter disregard for everything that is good and decent has rocked the very foundation upon which our society is built.”

Taylor Branch judgment reads like Judge Vandelay's verdict. He weaves it all together, laying college sports bare. With little room to mount a plausible defense, especially now that the masses are well versed in the “shame of college sports,” it will be interesting to see how (or if) the NCAA responds. [Interestingly, the NCAA has gone radio silent since the article was published over 10 days ago.]

Branch’s main thesis: “The NCAA today is in many ways a classic cartel. Efforts to reform it have, while making changes around the edges, been largely fruitless ... Threats loom on multiple fronts: in Congress, the courts, breakaway athletic conferences, student rebellion and public disgust. Swaddled in gauzy clichés, the NCAA presides over a vast, teetering glory.”

Branch’s article recalls an unsettling exchange at a Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics hearing in 1991 between Sonny Vaccaro, the former shoe impresario (and longtime BT columnist), and a college president, who asks Vaccaro: “Why should a university be an advertising medium for your industry?”

Vaccaro response, “They shouldn’t, sir. You sold your souls, and you’re going to continue selling them. You can be very moral and righteous in asking me that question, sir, but there’s not one of you in this room that’s going to turn down any of our money.”

Vaccaro added: “You’re going to take it. I can only offer it.”

Sports Illustrated’s Andy Staples tweeted a great idea: “They should actually inscribe that on the wall at NCAA HQ.” 

Let me add: The majority who work in college athletics are good people. That includes those who work at NCAA headquarters, although the PR and media departments seem populated with propagandists hell-bent on perpetuating the myths that ultimately get translated into rules and even laws.

Not much more needs to be said than what Branch has already written (although, we can hardly wait for an extended version, which will be published as an e-book). A lot needs to be done. Not by NCAA “leaders,” but by those in a position to protect the legal rights of these athletes. 

Vandelay?

South Park takes on the NCAA and student-atholeets

When we're talking comedy and college sports, no one ever did it better than Stephen Colbert: "The NCAA basketball tournament has everything I like: corporate sponsorship, unpaid labor and blind partisan allegiance."

In just 16 words, Colbert provided a fairly accurate blueprint for why college sports is so darn successful. 

Colbert's joke was funny. But did you see Comedy Central's South Park episode "Crack Baby Athletic Association"? It just eviscerated the NCAA. What do crack babies and the NCAA have in common? On the surface, nothing. But South Park dug deep and ended up striking comedy gold.

Even I, who has been known to criticize the NCAA on occasion, cringed a few times as watched. Of course, Trey and Matt offered a nasty portrayal of the NCAA, but that's how comedy works. When an institution offers unyielding, sometimes absurd arguments to justify its very existence, there's going to be pushback.

Who knew Matt and Trey were so well versed in the nuances of NCAA atho-letics and so capable of doing a full frontal on the NCAA in less than 22 minutes?

If you care about college athletes or are just have to find out what crack baby basketball is all about, enjoy the entire whole episode.

Or you can watch this instant classic scene below where Cartman pretends to be a slave owner looking for a legal way to not pay his slaves. He figured the University of Colorado president might have some unique insights. Just wow. 

Crack Baby Athletic Association
Tags: SOUTH
PARKEric Cartman,Kyle Broflovski,more...

Some memorable quotes...

Slave owner meets academia

Colorado president: "There are very good reasons our student-athletes can't be paid."

Cartman: "Now when we sell their likeness for video games, how do we get around paying our slaves.

President: "Student-athletes."

Cartman: "Student ath-o-letes? Oh, that is brilliant, Suh!"

Cartman: "If any government agency listening in on this conversation they should know we're not talking about slave ownership. [whispering] Alright, sir, how do you get around not paying your slaves?"

“I ain’t arguing. If they got paid then how would we make all that money, right?”

On the Crack Baby Athletic Assn. business model

"Got a constant flow of athletes that never dries up. Best of all, it's charity, so it's tax free."

"And it actually helps the crack babies. It's like volunteering, but we make just a little on the side.

"Welcome to The Firm."

On CBAA rules and an in-home recruiting visit

"Crack baby players can't make a salary based on the rules. I don't make the rules. I just think them up and write them down."

“Ma’am the Crack Baby Athletic Association is a storied franchise.  It was founded over 12 days ago with a firm ethical code that strictly states benefits to players is detrimentalized to their well being. I cannot offer you or your child any cash. I can, however, offer you a little bit of crack.”

----

What do yo think? Did South Park go too far? 

UPDATE: A few of the above quotes are courtesy of Darren Heitner at Sports Agent Blog, who transcribed my favorite new word "detrimentalized." Brilliant, Suh.

Mad as hell at the new NCAA draft declaration deadline

Here's my most recent Basketball Times article, which addresses the NCAA membership's decision last week to gut what remained of the rule allowing basketball underclassmen the opportunity to "test the NBA waters."

But wait, I am not done attacking the rule change and the people who defended it.

The NCAA's board of directors voted to affirm the rule which will require underclasmen who wish to return to school to pull their name out by April 10th, which is conveniently the day before the spring signing date. The new date goes into effect in 2012. (There's a convoluted system by which this could be overriden, but don't hold your breath: The power conferences have already spoken.)

I am under no illusion that NCAA members would do anything other than what is in its best interest. (In case you don't know, student-athletes, who are arguably the key component in this multi-billion dollar enterprise, are not actually members of the NCAA.) I just get irritated when the NCAA and its members attempt to frame this as anything but self-serving.

College coaches moonlighting as compliance officers

Tennessee basketball coach Bruce Pearl committed a serious offense when he lied to the NCAA about a silly secondary recruiting violation. Next to Ohio State's football coach Jim Tressel, Pearl almost looks like an NCAA saint.

In April 2010, an unidentified man tipped Tressel off about an alleged "memorabilia for tattoos" scheme. Two weeks after the first email, the man asked that the information be kept confidential, although he never stated why.

Coach Tressel might argue he was protecting his players but, in the end, didn't do them any favors. Had the NCAA known about the situation in April, they could have conducted a more timely investigation. The way it ultimately went down was absurd: The players were allowed to play in OSU's bowl game, but only if they promised to return to school in 2011, rather than declare for the NFL, in order to serve suspension.

It was not just what this man was emailing Tressel; it was also what he was doing. He was acting as a self-appointed operative working to keep this situation from blowing up. Man, did he fail! And now we can examine the "smoking gun" emails, which leaves zero doubt that Tressel knew exactly what was going on. No plausible deniability. No claiming ignorance. Tressel's job is to coach the football team, not to bury possible NCAA violations.

Here are a few of the most damning points made by the unidentified emailer:

• "A lot of my friends are in law enforcement."
• "I have been told OSU players including [name redacted] have been given free tatoo's [sic] in exchange for signed memorabilia."
• "I had Eddie Rife in my office for an hour and a half last night."
• "He will not talk about this publicly."
• "I will try to get these items back that the government now wants to keep for themselves...I know who specifically in the District Attorney's office that is working on this matter and know both of them well so I will try if the opportunity presents itself."

The (wrong) lesson for other powerful football coaches: If you're going to enlist operatives, make sure they are competent. Hint #1 you're dealing with a Keystone Kop: He sends an incendiary email to a work account at a public institution.

There is really no way to explain Tressel's inaction other than to conclude he thought he could get away it. Read Tressel's scathing obit written by Clay Travis.

Tressel and others can hide behind his stellar reputation developed over 30+ years in college coaching, but is that enough? Then there's this from Tressel's autobiography, unearthed by ESPN.com's Mark Schlabach:

"The reputation of a thousand years may be determined by the conduct of one hour." Ohio State coach Jim Tressel included that Japanese proverb on Page 193 of his book, "The Winners Manual For The Game of Life." Eight pages later, there's this nugget from Henry Wadsworth Longfellow: "It takes less time to do the right thing than to explain why you did it wrong."

Nothing like using a man's own rope to hang him with.

Of course, Tressel did not write the playbook when it comes to coaches overstepping their bounds. That honor would probably go to former Nebraska coach Tom Osborne.

From a September 25, 1995 Sports Illustrated article titled, "Coach and Jury":

"I don't tell Tom Osborne how to run the football department," Lancaster County Attorney Gary Lacey says, "and he should stay out of the criminal justice system. He hasn't done that at all." According to Lacey, Osborne has taken it upon himself to interview witnesses in criminal cases, offered very public opinions on the probable innocence of players who have yet to stand trial and attacked the credibility of witnesses testifying against his players. In January 1994 he and an assistant even locked away a gun that had allegedly been used by one of his players in the commission of a felony.

I recently wrote in Basketball Times about the coaches' code, the practice of not turning fellow coaches in to the NCAA:

Georgia State football coach Bill Curry (who also coached at Alabama, Georgia Tech and Kentucky) told ESPN The Magazine: “For the most part, when I was involved at the high level of recruiting, we usually called each other and worked it out between the two of us. If we caught someone doing something wrong, I would call and say, ‘Look, let’s talk about this. If we can’t talk about this, I am going to turn it in.’ And I always told them, ‘If you ever get something on us, then you call me. And if I don’t cooperate, you turn us in.’”

Translation: The NCAA’s job might be to investigate possible rules violations, but the coaching fraternity is better served when these matters are settled without involving the NCAA, the rightful legal authority. And Curry is one of truly good guys in college athletics. 

The old comic strip Pogo had a classic line that applies here: “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

I'm sure Tressel regrets his actions now. But you're kidding yourself if you believe that covering up (or ignoring) such allegations has not been the go-to strategy for many coaches...for many years.

Honesty should be the best policy. But, morals aside, winning in college sports is the ultimate best policy.

--Marc Isenberg

Follow marc on Twitter @marcisenberg

Cam Newton precedent speaks well for ‘new’ NCAA

Here's my latest Basketball Times article, where I discuss the NCAA, some of its obscure (and insane) rules and, of course, Cam Newton. Spoiler alert: Several times during this article, I defend the NCAA. Stop the presses!

Read full article.

Follow me on twitter @marcisenberg

The National Letter of Intent Sucks!

This Wednesday, November 10th, is National Signing Day for college basketball and several other sports. Accepting an athletic scholarship is a huge deal. Unfortunately, the hype and media attention surrounding National Signing Day overshadows the actual agreement, the National Letter of Intent.

Most athletes (and their families) are thrilled to end the recruiting process and accept a guaranteed (or so they are led to believe) 1-year athletic scholarship. 

College sports can be great in many ways, but the NLI shows just how lopsided the relationship between athlete and institution really is.

There at least 10 reasons why the NLI sucks. Reading the NLI and listening to the decades-old spin from the NCAA community, it reminds me of the fraternity initiation (er, whipping) from Animal House. "Thank you, sir! May I have another?"

1) It totally misrepresents reality

The NLI stipulates that athletes are signing with school, not athletic program, even if the actual recruiting process reflects the opposite. Yes, we want athletes to factor the school into their decisions, but every dollar—or thousand—an athletic department invests to sign a player signals just the opposite. Kentucky coach John Calipari, who is one of the few coaches willing to put his money where his mouth is (more on that later), once said: "Kids come and go to programs in most cases because of the coach. We can say that's not the case and they're supposed to sign at the school, but let's be real. They want to play for the coach."

2) Yeah, right the NLI is a "voluntary"

Technically, the NLI is a voluntary program. In 2007, the NCAA's Susan Peal, the director of the NLI, told Seth Davis: "Parents call me all the time [with questions], and I tell them hey, you don't have to sign the NLI. The coach will give you an athletics aid agreement, which has to accompany the NLI anyway. Now, will institutions let you do that? Maybe not, but it's worth asking the question." Wishful thinking.

3) "Know the rules...before you sign"

The first thing you see on the NLI website is that statement, which is like telling taxpayers, "Learn the IRS tax code." Even if you know everything, you still have pay taxes. For athletes and their families, even if they know the NLI and NCAA rules cold, almost every recruit will still sign the dadgum thing. The most galling part of the NLI website is that it lists the "many advantages to both prospective student-athletes and participating educational institution." If you say something enough times, you start to believe it. And so do others.

Figuring out the good and bad guys

While I write about sports and business, I don't often write about friends embroiled in scandal. Obviously, I couldn't overlook Bruce Pearl's situation without comment. Here's my October Basketball Times column on Bruce Pearl and the state of college sports...

These days, you can’t tell the good guys from the bad

Marc Isenberg

October 2010

Everyone knows cheating is wrong, in all areas of life. As the college sports world and the media continue to grapple with this “agent problem,” we should remember: the problem is far more pervasive than agents. This is a college sports problem. Agents play a key role, no doubt. But, there are many characters in this bad play. There are coaches, trainers, athletic administrators, financial advisors and people whose motives aren’t so clearly defined. Ultimately, everybody wants to make a buck. A million. Or a billion. It’s the American way.

People should abide by the rules, whether they play, work for or are associated with NCAA sports. Violators should be caught. End of story. We’d all love to eradicate or even lessen cheating in college sports. But how?

Read full article (PDF).

Academic reform at odds with a 96-team tournament

From my May 2010 Basketball Times column...

March Madness is mostly just great basketball. This season was no exception, capped off with a championship game for the ages. March Madness also stirs the never-ending debate about the often-strange mixture of athletics, amateurism, academics and capitalism.

Many, including me, lament the inevitable expansion of the NCAA Tournament from 65 teams to 96. It’s going to kill interest in bracketology. It rewards mediocrity. It diminishes the regular season and conference tournaments. Too much missed class time. College basketball’s end of season is as close to perfection (as opposed to college football). As I’ve written in this column before, the NCAA runs the risk of oversaturating the market with product and ultimately damaging the golden March Madness brand. Scarcity works. And, if I am wrong, I wasted a lot of time and money getting my MBA. At this year’s Final Four, the debate escalated at an NCAA news conference when John Feinstein, despite repeated attempts, could not get Greg Shaheen to admit that most “student-athletes” participating in the second week of the tournament would not step foot in the classroom. It was a near-perfect setup, after the NCAA began the conference with a presentation on the great strides athletes are making in the classroom. Graduation rates are increasing. Therefore, the critics are wrong. Of course, Feinstein just wanted the NCAA to admit the painfully obvious fact that players on teams who play in the second week of the tournament will not be spending much time in the classroom. In Shaheen’s defense, he was there to discuss the business of college basketball – and he, no doubt, did not want to get into the strained argument that March Madness has anything to do with school. Shaheen remembered his talking points when he later told SI.com: “The point is, it isn’t about the money raised. It’s about what’s done with the money. That’s why our goal has been to grow and diversify the revenue stream. If you call us greedy, you clearly don’t understand what we do with the money. That’s why we have that new wave of PSAs: ‘Look: Here’s where the money goes.’” Of course, the NCAA doesn’t mention that a good portion of the money also funds excesses in college sports. I am all for college basketball generating more revenue, but let’s not forget that this is being done on the backs of a small percentage of student-athletes. Last month, I wrote an op-ed piece in U.S. News & World Report on whether teams who do not graduate at least 40 percent of its athletes should be banned from the NCAA Tournament, as proposed by US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.

My view: Duncan’s proposal might sound like a good idea, especially on paper. But first, it would punish the wrong people: the current players, rather than the coaches and administrators who brought in these long-gone titular student-athletes. As I have argued many times before, schools should do their level best to increase graduation rates, but they must do so without gaming the system (e.g. steering athletes to easier majors, “over” tutoring, etc.). As we learned from the NCAA’s APR, the most well-heeled athletic programs did the best job of making the “cut rate” in order to avoid losing scholarships. On the subject of kids not spending enough time in the classroom: The Wall Street Journal article “The Case for Saturday School,” showed that “Kids in China already attend school 41 days a year more than students in the U.S. Now, schools across the country are cutting back to four-day weeks.” It also pointed to a recent study by University of Maryland researcher Dave Marcotte that “shows that even the loss of a few instructional days can erode academic performance.” The article pointed to a disturbing trend in our educational system: “In the face of budget shortfalls, school districts in many parts of the United States today are moving toward four-day weeks. This is despite evidence that longer school weeks and years can improve academic performance.” There’s a parallel here with college sports, especially men’s basketball. Teams are playing more games during the school week with later starting times and more travel. Graduation rates are going up, but some athletes are missing more class than ever. Something has to give, right? The NCAA constantly talks about striking a proper balance between academics and athletics, which, I agree, there needs to be. I also applaud the NCAA and its efforts to stress academics. But, at a certain point, it does need to walk the talk.

--Marc Isenberg

US News Op-Ed on amateurism

Last month, I wrote an Op-Ed in US News & World Report on whether teams who do not graduate at least 40% of its athletes should be banned from the NCAA tourny, a proposal made by US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.

I'd like to think the whole article is worth reading, but here's a quick summary: This may sound like a good idea, especially paper. First, it would punish the wrong people...current players, rather than coaches and administrators who brought in these titular student-athletes who are now long gone. As I have argued many times before, schools should do their level best to increase graduation rates, but it must do so without gaming the system (e.g. steering athletes to easier majors, "over" tutoring, etc.). As we learned from the NCAA's APR, it turned out that most well-heeled athletic programs did the best job making the "cut rate" in order to avoid losing scholarships.

I also address the 410,000 student-athlete ruse, which often muddies the argument. Yes, the vast majority of college athletes are amateurs. They play for the love the game--and they uphold the amateur ideal. Just as important, for these athletes, athletic programs strike a healthy balance between academics and athletics. Then there's basketball and football, where the vast percentage of economic incentives supports winning at just about any cost. These players are hardly amateurs in any sense of that made-up term.

I do think that basketball and football players deserve to be paid. That does not mean they should be rolling in dough. Maybe $4,000-5,000 a year stipend so they can focus on school and sports, rather then worry about money.

The US News article generated some excellent letters to the editor:

Walter Lamkin commented that "many of these kids, especially at Division I football and basketball powerhouses are recruited off the mean streets of America's cities. They arrive often in an idyllic setting foreign to them, trying to blend into the overall student body. It sounds good, but how do some of them go out for a pizza on Friday night? How can they take a friend to the movies? Or even get home for Thanksgiving? I don't defend repugnant behavior, legal or otherwise, but I can understand the frustration of college athletes who don't have even a subsistence level for daily life. They collectively bring in billions of dollars to their respective instituions and a mere pittance, crumbs as it were, are tossed their way. I suggest that each athlete be means-tested each year, much the same as those applying for financial aid, and at certain levels they should receive a stipend in order to had a chance at a 'normal' student life."

Great point.

Hey, paying athletes might also slow down the basketball underground, which I often cite when describing how the basketball economy works. I also think there should be a fund set aside from marketing revenue generated by football and basketball. This fund can be an incentive to graduate: If you graduate within a reasonable window (say 8 years), they'll be a pot of gold waiting for you. Everybody wins. Not enough money to fund this? Keep spinning.

--Marc Isenberg

NCAA's subtraction by addition

From my most-recent BT column:

Talk is heating up to expand the NCAA Tournament from 65 teams to 96. The concept is simple: Milk more money from the NCAA Tournament and, at the same time, sell the public on the notion that this is good for fans and, more importantly, its student-athletes. Sure, this will generate additional revenue for the NCAA and its members. In the short run. In the long run, one of the most valuable sports properties will be cheapened by flooding the market with mediocrity. The NCAA might want to study Econ101: Scarcity is gold. Literally. Intense product demand coupled with limited supply is a proven business model. Great Moments in Capitalism are sprinkled with examples: Cabbage Patch Kids, American Girl dolls, iPhones. More instructive is the housing market. When the market is tight and demand is high, boom. When the reverse is true, bust. Walt Disney once said: “Always leave them wanting more.” Ironic that ESPN, a Disney company, is the network most likely to offer the most billions for the expanded tourney. Stephen Colbert once famously said, “The NCAA basketball tournament has everything I like: corporate sponsorship, unpaid labor and blind partisan allegiance.” This might be scathingly funny, but there’s a deeper understanding into what makes the NCAA Tournament so successful. At what point will fans tune out? Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski told ESPN.com: “If we expand it, you get rid of the end-of-season tournaments, and I’d rather have the end-of-season tournaments. It’s a celebration of each conference. I don’t think we need to expand at all. To keep expanding it would dilute what we already have, and what we have is a great product right now.” The Sporting News’ senior college-basketball writer Mike DeCourcy was surprised that Notre Dame coach Mike Brey supports expansion: “Taken to its logical conclusion, Brey’s argument that more kids should get an opportunity to compete in the NCAA Tournament would tear down the walls between intercollegiate athletics and intramurals. Why should Luke Harangody get the experience of playing college basketball and Mike DeCourcy does not? Because Harangody is better at it? Absolutely.” Will Leitch, editor emeritus at Deadspin, sees this as fait accompli: “(Expansion) would be terrible, terrible, terrible. But you watch: They’re gonna try it. Never underestimate the NCAA’s capacity to make the wrong decision, every time.” Here’s hoping it’s a new day at the NCAA.

To enjoy more Basketball Times, check out www.basketballtimes.com and subscribe!