Real Sports story implicates Auburn, other schools

Amusing 4 man roundtable discussion right now, participants: Billy Packer, Whitlock, Rich Rod and really smart Ivy League guy, Jeffrey Orleans, moderated by Gumbel. Packer and Rich Rod advocating the NCAA side, Orleans and Whitlock the players' side.

Packer opens with rant about how the righteous NCAA doesn't pocket one penny from Divison I football, Orleans succintly cuts it down by pointing out that such distinctions hardly matter since it's the exact same people (ie. powerful university presidents and their insitutions) that are driving the boat, calling the shots and pocketing the loot in both sports.

Packer counters with argument that it would be impossible to pay athletes because under Title IX a women's lacross player would have to be paid the same as a men's football player. Gumbel cuts him off by pointing out that since Orleans is THE MAN WHO WROTE TITLE IX he should probably be allowed to respond. Orleans then explains that Packer is not necessarily correct because Title IX by statute only applies to education programs, if a particular sport permits athlete payments it could theoretically be reclassified as a business, thus legally taking it outside the scope of Title IX.

In sum, really smart Ivy League guy repeatedly cutting Packer's points down with fewer words and calmer tone. Packer's face growing redder as discussion progresses. Whitlock slipping in reference to fact that he himself was once an exploited Division I scholarship athlete at Ball State (did you guys know that?), Rich Rod contributing little and appearing a bit confused, but he did slip in this sanctimonious gem: "shame on those coaches and schools that don't emphasize the true reason why you go to college." You tell em, Rich Rod, shame on those OTHER guys.

Good fun.

 

Like I've said, keep the scholarships the same, which takes care of Title IX. But allow athletes to earn whatever they can outside of the scholarships. Let them make commercials, do autograph signings, collect sneaker endorsement money (why coaches can and players can't is just as ridiculous), accept a free hamburger at the local restaurant.

Sure, Cam Newton's going to be making a ton more cash than the Auburn gymnastics team (Note: I don't know if Auburn actually has a gymnastics team, and I don't feel like looking it up right now. It's an example, that's all).

But there's no law that says a court can order equal endorsement money for athletes. Just like a newspaper doesn't have to provide equal coverage of men's and women's sports, even though some people claim they are violating Title IX.

 

Now batting ... LSU?

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6275253

And probably a bunch of other schools who used the services of Willie Lyles.

This is just a loose thread that's going to unravel the whole thing.

 

No it won't. The NCAA has no interest whatsoever in cleaning up the mess it's helped to create. This, Ohio State's we'll-let-you-play-in-the-Sugar Bowl suspendings, along with Cam Newton, Cam Newton's daddy and $180,000 are simply the most recennt examples.

 

Some of you are missing the distinction between wages set by a free market and, as with NCAA member institutions, an actual cartel that can punish anyone that breaks its rules. It's the difference between the price of a car being high because of economic factors versus the price of a car being high because manufacturers have joined together, set prices, and agreed to penalize anyone that breaks those rules*.

*Even if the NCAA doesn't always enforce its rules, the point stands given that many of you are so offended by the idea of paying players in general.

 

I know a smoky 14-term congressman from Ennis who says you'll be wrong.

 

When I read threads like this, and statements re: possible congressional involvement / "bringing the whole thing down", I'm always left with this thought:

Is this what the general, sports watching, ticket buying public REALLY wants?

I'm not arguing the right & wrong of any of this. Just simply wondering whether the necessary groundswell of public support (that would inevitably be needed to "fuel" a real "dismantling") will truly exist, once folks start to consider the realities of what would remain of the U.S. sports landscape.

My gut tells me that folks may not like the smell of things, but they like the looks of it.

Just spitballin' here.

 

This being SportsJournalists.com, I couldn't let slide the Whitlock gem: "I used to have to sit in the back of the bus, but they changed those laws."

Not "my people used to have to sit in the back of the bus," but "I." Maybe he just misspoke, but this is really no different from me saying "this is what I fought against in World War II" when it was my grandfather who did.

Either way, it was an eyebrow-raising moment.

 

They'll be wanting it the day the teams in the NCAA championship game stage a sit-in at the middle of the court because they're not being paid.

One can only hope ...

 

That's the thing, though. Maybe I'm jaded, but I see a scenario like that as FAR more likely to cause a backlash against the players, than the system.

 

I wish I could get paid minimum wage in the journalism industry. But you're comparing apples to oranges in this example. And furthermore, if the industry did that, imagine the talent drain. And you're completely missing the point -- athletes already get paid. There's this thing called a scholarship.

And if they don't take advantage of the free education, that's their fault. There's clearly more than enough time to maintain a good GPA is a challenging major if you work hard enough.

 

I realize the guy wrote the Title IX language and he's a brainiac Ivy League guy. But if he for one minute believes that Title IX won't be used as a bludgeon in court to make sure women's athletes get paid too he's a fucking fool.