Do you believe in amateurism, flossing and miracles?

By Marc Isenberg

I am enjoying the heck out of March Madness, even if I felt deprived of the usual number of 1st round upsets and buzzer beaters.

Thursday night I watched a few first-round games with a friend. After CBS ran the NCAA public service ad ran for the umpteenth time, he blurted out, "That is such bull----." He then launched into the usual arguments against amateurism, including missed class time, poor graduation rates, coaches' salaries, the $6 billion TV deal. He concluded by saying, "Why don't they just forget about selling perceptions and, instead sell more beer?"

As a staunch supporter of the principle of amateurism (at least for the purposes of this conversation), I felt I needed to offer up some NCAA talking points: Blame the media for spreading lies about amateurism, focus on my experiences playing D-3 basketball, and basically continue to philabuster. Nothing worked. The more I played Devil's Advocate, the louder his counter arguments became.

Amateur is a myth, he insisted.

Apparently he is not the only one to hold this belief. Henry Abbott from True Hoops just blogged on The Myth of Amateurism. The Drake Group, a group of feisty faculty interested in reforming college athletics, also cries shamateurism.

These are smart people putting forth well-reasoned arguments, but what about the PSAs I keep hearing on CBS?

"There are 380,000 student-athletes and just about every one of them will go pro in something other than sports."

The ads reminded me of something I remember from a marketing class I took during my MBA days: In a study by marketing professors Patti Williams, Gavan Fitzsimons, and Lauren Block, one test group was asked, "How likely are you to floss your teeth in the next week?" They increased their flossing. Another group was asked the same question, but was told the question was being asked by the "Association of Dental Products Manufacturers." They decreased flossing despite its benefits, because of resentment over perceived manipulation. The study's conclusion: "Very well meaning organizations may have serious and negative impact upon those they intend to help."

Fitzsimons said. “In fact, they flossed significantly less than if they had not been asked a question. This demonstrated that consumers were willing to actually do harm to themselves to avoid being influenced by the sponsor of the question.”

I wonder if this study has any applicability to the NCAA PSAs.

What is the general consensus of people who watch these NCAA PSAs? Does it make you think about the 379,000 or so student-athletes who have nothing to do with the NCAA basketball tournament? Or does it make you think about the very athletes the commercials seem to be trying to draw your attention from?

It's an interesting debate: Rather than draw our attention away the Kevin Durants, the Greg Odens and the Brandan Wrights, the PSAs make many think about the "pink elephant." Ad time that could otherwise be devoted to making more money is now used to manufacture public perception about the NCAA and about amateurism.

At least if the NCAA had more money to spread to the membership, athletic departments could:

• pay down athletic department deficits (since most athletic departments claim to lose money)
• increase the value of an athletic scholarship to the full cost of attendance
• ensure compliance with Title IX
• say no to TV networks who want teams to start games at 9pm

Addressing these problems won't silence the critics, but neither will PSAs.

Comments

[Dan]

I believe in miracles more than I believe in the NCAA. And thanks for reminding me to floss.

[andy fine]

Kevin Krueger can transfer after graduation from ASU to play another year for his dad at UNLV? That's amateurism and fair play at its best. Also, check out the graduation rates for tournament teams, and then question the validity of the "student athlete" PSAs.

[Marc Isenberg]

Maybe you don't like a very small group of college athletes having some freedom of movement, but keep in mind how unfair the transfer rule is (it only pertains to basketball, football, and men's hockey)...athletes in other sports can transfer one time without having to "redshirt"...no questions asked.

Krueger took advantage of the rules that were available to him at the time (if a college athlete graduated with eligibility remaining, he could transfer without having to sit out one year). It was a short-lived rule...now no one has to worry about smart athletes like Krueger who a) graduate and b) act like most people do in our society, which is in their own best interest.

[Tracey]

Very interesting article. I see the NCAA as a well-intended, but bureucratic organization. When the association tries to draw attention to the vast majority of student athletes who do go to class and graduate, they get criticized. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. I thought the PSAs portrayed a different side of the NCAA, but your point is well taken.

[Vinnie]

Great observations, and I like the analogy to this dental floss study--very interesting but not surprising when you think about our response to advertisement. I very much think this principle applies to the NCAA PSAs based on personal experience and my own response to them.