Jack Swarbrick, Notre Dame’s AD, is making waaaay too much sense here:
“You’ve got to stay grounded in this analogy to other students,” Swarbrick told CBSSports.com. “There are students on campus making a lot of money because they’ve launched a business. A classic example: Students are making great money in some internship, and I’m telling my football players they can’t leave for the summer. Where’s the equity there?”
“If we could get ourselves more grounded in the notion we wouldn’t have these problems,” Swarbrick said during a panel. “If we’re going to do something different than for the normal student, the bar for doing that ought to be really high. If we had that in place, we never would have had a limitation on the cost of attendance because a merit scholar doesn’t have that limitation. We did that for athletic reasons.
“But if our standard had been what’s the rule for other students, capturing name, image and likeness outside team activity, the musician at school doesn’t have that limitation. I’m not sure why the student-athlete should, either. I don’t find it inconsistent at all to say we need to get ourselves grounded back in that. I think it would contribute to reducing so many of the problems we have which really spring from this situation we created when we say they’re not going to be the same as other students.”
Not that he’s expecting a groundswell of support from his peers.
When asked whether other administrators in college sports feel the way he does, Swarbrick laughed and replied, “Probably not.”
All he had to do was listen to his fellow speakers to get that impression.
As college sports faces an uncertain future due to ongoing litigation and interest from Congress, numerous athletic directors paraded onto a podium Wednesday at the IMG Intercollegiate Athletics Forum to talk about their worries.
They fretted about college sports becoming pro or semipro. They got frustrated that they’re communicating their positive story well enough. They bemoaned Congress, the courts and the media for getting into their business.
“Any time everybody gets in your business, you’ve got a crisis,” Vanderbilt athletic director David Williams said.
Hey, David? Maybe you ought to consider acting in a way that doesn’t invite them in.
38 responses to ““Where’s the equity there?””
What an unbelievably arrogant statement from the Vandy AD, and yet mirrored all too frequently by our society as a whole. Yes, pity the poor, put-upon universities and NCAA, who just want to exercise their god-given right to rake in money hand over fist while sharing as little as possible with the student-athletes doing the actual work. Why won’t everyone just shut up and leave them alone?
I actually agree with him. Have you ever seen the three of them he named involve their selves in much that they didn’t make the situation worse?
I attended a state-funded university on two different scholarships, a presidential scholarship which covered the cost of attendance and a finance scholarship which covered some living expenses. When I was a sophomore in I started an internship which developed into a full-time job the summer before my junior year began and I was amazed because at age 20 I was making more money than the household I grew up in was. Mind you this was only about $35k all put together. I would’ve absolutely lost my mind if someone told me I lost the scholarships I earned because I earned money else where. This is one of those issue I can hardly make a rationale argument for because my mind is only filled with expletives aimed towards the NCAA.
After following a link about the coach leaving Wisconsin for O State in what was apparently a lateral move, I was shocked by the required GPA’s at both schools for their student athletes. 1.8!
If that is the NCAA minimum with an commensurate minimum ACT/SAT it is an available option for any school. It comes down to a school deciding the balance between better students and winning athletics.
The conflict is simple to explain. Your internship does not contribute to making a ton of $$ for the school & conference. No-one coerced you to accept the scholarship to that specific school with a promise of an internship & $$$. I agree that athletes should be allowed to make $ legitimately. Problem is there are too many boosters that will try to influence the decision of where an athlete (who does contribute to the $$$ flow & winning desire) accepts an athletic scholarship by promising a high paying internship/job or just straight $$ to the athlete, his/her family, or church/etc. If we could police & prevent the influence peddling it would be OK. But we live in a society that allows influence peddling/lobbying based on a person’s word that the $ does not influence their decisions. Look @ how politicians set the example and sell their votes while claiming it does not influence their obligation to decide what is best for the majority vice the $$$contributing minority. At least the NCAA & schools accept the reality that $$$ buys decisions and flat prevent the conflict of interest by banning the potential. It sucks for those athletes who can/would make $ legitimately. I.E. a legitimate internet based business could be run easily, but the fear of a booster paying $100 for a $20 dollar product/service kills the opportunity.
Yup, the genie is out of the bottle.
I understand the Vandy AD seems arrogant, but is he not right that when everybody is up in your business you have a problem? Seems that way to me.
State institutions such as 13 of the 14 SEC schools are everyone’s business. Whether these institutions and the private businesses such as Vandy violate anti-trust and/or labor laws or not is everyone’s business.
Absolutely right, Gaskill, the point I am trying to make is that when you arouse the people who pay everybody else you tend to have difficulties.
More of the same from Senator Liberalblowhard. Give it a rest. We get it you want college athletes to get paid, because it’s “fair”. Lets all arrive at the 100 meter line at the same time regardless of skills.
How is moving towards an open market (where student-athletes can profit from their likeness apart from their schoolwork) a “liberal” proposal?
The Senator is going to keep posting stuff like this until people start to understand it.
In DB’s case, that’ll take forever. 😉
No chit. What the hell is “liberal” about the idea that players are given the ability to be compensated for their services in more ways than a scholly? Damn, I don’t get it. Treat them like your average student and Swarbrick is right, you don’t have the cluster the NCAA and it’s member institutions have invited.
Sounds pretty free market to me. Everyone earning what they’re worth and all…
When did that become a “liberal” concept?
Oh the blind!
This whole pay for play slippery slope concept is rooted in the liberal “fairness” doctrine. They want college athletes to have collective bargaining rights just like unions, hence why morons like Blutarsky supported the Northwestern lawsuit.
These fucking self righteous social engineers don’t give one iota how pay for play will destroy college athletics as we know it. When one sites how few college athletic programs operate in the black or how such pay schemes would negatively impact other college sports, they don’t give a rats ass.
This is about a few people feeling good about themselves. They have no interests about the long term impacts or how such a program would be administered. We’ll have to pass it to find out how it works. Yeah, good idea!
After your Blowhard comment I told myself not read your next post. Just scroll on by and pay no attention to the rude person behind the keyboard….but NOOOOoooooo I just had to stop and take a gander. Well here we are. First of all: Why are your here? If you don’t like the host and apparently you don’t and so disdain his posts why are you here? Goodness this ain’t VOlsxtra! You haven’t dropped any serious coin here so that you feel the need to berate the host cause you just don’t like what he says? I’m trying to read your post but just can’t separate from what a prick you’ve been. Lighten up. Stop the name calling. This is the season to be jolly. Roll with it.We good?
It seems like I have heard this before…hmmm I think it was around 1865…
Jeepers! You strike a harsh tone there Dawg.
I’m one of the most conservative/libertarian commenters here and this is an obvious place where the rubber meets the road for us. If you really believe the philosophical arguments opposing government interference in markets and with issues of personal liberty, you will reconsider the Senator’s position.
Genuine conservative thought argues for equality of opportunity but not equality of outcome, as you suggest. So with your “100 meter race” analogy, it would be unfair to rig the race so everyone finishes at the same time, but it would also be unfair to ask some of the racers to start the match ten yards behind the others, correct?
But while almost every other person in America, including other student athletes, can get a PT job, college football players can’t even earn pocket money by clerking at the movie theater on Sunday nights.
You might say, “they signed a contract!”
But Mao probably had contracts, too. A contract crafted in a coercive environment may still be a man’s best option, but it shouldn’t be up to the government or your neighbor to arrogantly say, “I will decide this for you! It’s a great deal for you! Free room and board! Tuition! Wearing the red and black!!”, when a truly free market with a minor league option might be a better choice for some of these young men.
How is if fair for conservatives to argue on behalf of laws protecting / restricting this industry, yet we rail at the government for sweetheart deals and tariffs and regulations that favor some companies or industries at the expense of others?
Many of us (and perhaps the Senator) would be happy if there was simply equality of opportunity – a level playing field. Specifically:
(a) the government would stop interfering in free markets (colluding with pro sports and colleges to restrict a man’s right to work by destroying football competition at the minor league level.)
(b) everybody at a college generally had the same set of rules. So you wouldn’t pay Todd Gurley OR a member of the swim team, but he’d be free to wait tables or work at a car dealership or whatever on his off time, and he could certainly sell his autograph, just like you and I can sell ours.
At minimum, let each school decide their own policies, and let them self-sort into whatever leagues share their sensibilities. The NCAA is surely restraining trade, here.
Jesus, Cos, that’s so well-reasoned I expect William F. Buckley to make an appearance.
Any time I read “liberal” or “conservative” used as an adjective or an adverb my eyes tend to cross.
I do appreciate DB taking time from his talk radio listening.
this. with a bullet.
I always enjoy your posts and as usual very well thought out and thought provoking.
I imagine we would all scream with you if you unknowingly lost your scholly But if you knew you that weren’t allowed to work and did so anyway that is on you. If Gurley won that Heisman he likely would have added another million to that contract over the first three years. Georgia lost some cash there too. The whole ordeal was tragic and just wrong for so many reasons. A nd for my own selfish reasons I will add that if Gurley plays Gators lose and so do the Nerds. We all lost something of value or importance. Even the salesperson suffered.
But while almost every other person in America, including other student athletes, can get a PT job, college football players can’t even earn pocket money by clerking at the movie theater on Saturday nights.
Who is gonna monitor this. Somebody at Auburn would be paying kids 100 bucks and hour to make popcorn. 😉
.….would be happy if there was simply equality of opportunity – a level playing field.
My nephew applied to Georgia with a 3.6 and decent SAT… couldn’t get in. He was pretty crestfallen as there were few schools with his major and of course the Georgia Bulldogs!. He did manage to get in two years later as a transfer. Still cost him and his parents a bundle as he went out of state for two years and no Hope scholly.
.…but it shouldn’t be up to the government or your neighbor to arrogantly say, “I will decide this for you!
Off topic but this did remind me of something Gruber once said. 😉
I suspect your comments are not primarily intended as seriously argumentative, as you seem to be primarily in agreement. But there are a couple of points I feel like responding to:
“Who is gonna monitor this. Somebody at Auburn would be paying kids 100 bucks and hour to make popcorn.”
The NCAA currently monitors (and forces schools to monitor) ridiculous activities. I don’t see why monitoring something reasonable would be objectionable.
“My nephew applied to Georgia with a 3.6 and decent SAT… couldn’t get in.”
You’re nephew had the opportunity to learn how to play football, didn’t he? Even if he would never be a 5-star recruit, athletics are a valid extra-curricular activity evaluated by the Admissions office. The weight of that activity may be debated, but not the opportunity.
Thanks for the response. Yes I’m guilty as charged.
I would respond to your response.
Per the NCAA capacity and ability to monitor. We part company here. After Tat-gate and sentences to be served the following year after the bowl game? Miami fiasco and embarrassment?
Our own AJ Green and Gurley problems with the NCAA high handedness?
I don’t know if I’d be comfortable with the NCAA as lunchroom monitor at a middle school in Athens.
…a valid extra-curricular activity evaluated by the Admissions office. The weight of that activity may be debated, but not the opportunity.
I really have no bone to pick about the way we provide opportunities. Or why they do.
You’re suggesting our Admissions offices encourage unqualified students to apply, even if their test scores and grades aren’t good enough, they might get in if only they can show that they have participated in a valid extra-curricular activity. With a 1.8 gpa. That’s a 72. For all you other not so keen extra-curricular guys and gals that bar is now almost at a 4.0. Next years class will be almost a 4.0.
Why No it has nothing to do with the fact that some given that the preferred are admitted and may have squandered their opportunity at an education in HS, There are millions that they may generate for our university. Given the current state funding cuts that is a win win. But if we are gonna pimp these kids out lets at least cover their out of pocket expenses, give them good medical, and give them their names and faces back.
As per my nephew. 2 Sport letter man in HS. HE made his dream come true. He finally attended Georgia and has moved on to grad school at of all places Duke. Lol. All ended well. He became a driven student and earned everything he has accomplished. Odd how things work out.
I always enjoy your posts, too, AHD. I think Alkaline’s responses are very close to what I would have written, with one addition:
My argument above assumes that both (a) and (b) happen. With an option for young men to play semi-pro ball, the boosters would be competing against professional leagues with money from advertising, ticket, and concessions revenue, etc.
You could make a lot of economic arguments about how boosters’ $100 handshakes might change up or down, but typically when you take “products” off the black market, the price falls, I believe.
Just as in the case of college baseball players, I think we should expect to arrive at at an equilibrium where the monetary value / benefits of a scholarship for some people would be roughly equivalent or proportional to the benefits of a paycheck in the semi-pro league for others.
I suspect the very reason there is a black market to pay players in the first place is because this group of athletes has no legal alternative to get paid otherwise.
For what it’s worth, as long as the school itself is not getting involved in paying players, I personally don’t care if a booster who runs a car dealership wants to give Todd Gurley $10k to show up on a Sunday – do you?
I personally don’t care if a booster who runs a car dealership wants to give Todd Gurley $10k to show up on a Sunday – do you?
Gee I don’t know. Is that a slippery slope? When schools finally share the wealth with players (whatever form that takes– for a start– out of pocket expense, medical, and give them back their names and faces) do the Alabamas pay more and do they get the rep that their boosters pay more at their car dealerships? Does that swing players? Do rich schools control the talent cause they have deeper pockets?
There was a time when anyone who wanted to play a sport you signed up in the gym. I’m afraid this will morph into something none of us can imagine.
Again, I’m not advocating schools pay players. I’m advocating we try and break up the NCAA-NFL-Govt racket so people who want to get paid for their skills have an alternative to collegiate sports.
I think that would solve 99% of the problems we’ve discussed, and I actually think most of the booster money would dry up as the top 1% -5% of players looking for a paycheck would go semi-pro and make their money there.
Cosmic Dawg you’ve got a lot of straw men woven into your post, so let me try to separate coercive Mao contracts and faux free market analogies from what really applies in this case.
If the talking heads on ESPN were only proposing the ability of student athletes to take part time jobs with audited compensation, then I’m all for it. However, when one starts introducing the plethora of other pay for play schemes such as increased financial stipends (University of Texas introduced a stipends idea that would bankrupt 85% of Div. 1 schools) or cash for signing memorabilia then the slippery slope becomes an avalanche and I can’t support it.
There was a recent study done by I think USA Today or the New York Times about the real value of a Div. 1 college football scholarship that everyone should familiarize themselves with, because the dollar amount is a real eye opener.
Scorpio Jones, III let me know when you stop watching MSNBC.
You didn’t explain which of my arguments were straw men or why, if the government restricts access to the pond, we shouldn’t assume a contract to drink water in exchange for free labor is coercive.
I outlined what I thought would be a fair, free market resolution where the schools would not pay a dime. I can’t speak for ESPN or Texas, so let’s leave that out of the conversation for now.
Can you tell me why a good student athlete shouldn’t be able to sell his signature or his appearance at a car dealership opening, but a fast and friendly student waitress can make all the tips she wants? Or a young man on a law school scholarship can intern at a local law practice?
Let’s say a young lady on a UGA music scholarship writes a song in her spare time that one of her professors likes, and he asks to include it in a public choral performance. The song is heard by an agent in the audience, and is subsequently recorded by Taylor Swift, and the student songwriter makes millions off of it. Would that be wrong, in your opinion?
With Gurley-gate behind us, McGarity and/or Richt should be saying the same damn thing about name and likeness, jobs, and full cost of attendance scholarships. I finally agree with Notre Dame about something.
Speaking of athletes having jobs, how was the Gator holder that scored the TD against us able to have a job at Publix? There were several news articles about him going back to work on Sunday after the game Saturday. He was originally a walk-on, but I think he had been awarded a scholarship.
Not accusing the kid of anything because given the news articles and such, he was obviously not hiding anything, but I always heard scholarship players couldn’t hold jobs. Any ideas/comments?
I thought they could have jobs but they had to run the job, who it was with and what it paid through the compliance department. Most people say they can’t have a job because of the time restraints on full time school, football practice and training. But that is just my understanding.
That is really interesting – I’d always heard they couldn’t have jobs, too. That would change the argument a little bit, wouldn’t it?
Makes sense, Cousin.
I think Cous is right, it is more a time constraint issue than an actual prohibition. Also compensation has to be monitored and attendance matched with pay.
Cosmo hit it dead on, it isn’t about some pay for them….they should be paid a reasonable amount since the hours they put in for studies and football precludes virtually PT job. Plus they are revenue positive for the university. And any US organized union association would be catastrophic for CFB, and all collegiate sports. Crazy concept for sports, private business, and government groups unless you want to see that unit decline.