Burn the NCAA rule book
Robert Dozier (Memphis)
If you’re not heavy into recruiting — and all the grainy homemade videos and who-knows-the-source message board scouring that subculture entails — there’s not a lot to follow in the college basketball offseason. Aside from coaching changes, the occasional transfer, and the who’s-in/who’s-out of the NBA Draft, college basketball pretty much goes to sleep between March Madness and Midnight Madness.
But one kind of story that regularly pops up in the offseason is when a program gets itself in trouble. Running the gamut from the ticky-tack complicated stuff to the Tim Floyd/Jim Harrick-level “Why did you think you’d get away with that?” variety, NCAA violations are as much a part of the college hoops offseason as team-building pickup runs.
Except at this point, it’s time to re-evaluate the rules being violated, take that big book of NCAA regulations, and subject it to a major slash-and-burn session.
At least from what makes the news, it seems most NCAA rules are outdated at best and obsolete at worst. The world in general is a lot different than it was when a lot of these rules were last updated, American culture is even more different, and the business and industry of sports — and yes, college basketball is a business — doesn’t even resemble what it was back in the day.
The ideal of pure amateurism beyond Little League officially died around the time NBA players started playing in the Olympics and sneaker companies no longer had to skate around the practice of hooking high school (and younger) kids up with shoes and gear to earn their brand loyalty. It died when coaches started signing six- and seven-figure endorsement contracts, when schools got big checks to wear certain labels, and when players got nothing extra out of the deal. It was long dead by the time somebody like LeBron James even briefly flirted with NCAA sports, and that was six or seven years ago.
So instead of going through the process of modifying almost every rule in the book, then re-educating programs around the country, just to stick by this idea of amateurism — and instead of rehashing old arguments, like whether or not to pay players a stipend — why don’t we just get rid of most of the book altogether? Why don’t we allow college sports, like college culture itself, to be a free-market society?
If Joe Booster wants to give Clemson’s two-guard $200 because he hit the game-winner against Duke, who cares? If Patty Program Supporter wants to hook up Oregon State’s center with a summer “job” that consists of inspecting the campus buildings to see if they’re still there, who cares? If Big State’s coach is sitting on a nice chunk of money (did you see John Calipari’s house in Memphis?) and wants to use his own cash to buy a recruit dinner or buy one of his current players a video game — or if he just wants to flat-out buy a kid’s signature on a letter of intent — who cares? If a 12-year-old child actor/model can have endorsement deals and make money off their image, why can’t the 20-ppg scorer at Kentucky, arguably the biggest celebrity in the state, appear in a commercial and get compensated for it?
Aside from Pete Bell’s own sense of morality, who was really hurt when Ricky Roe’s dad got a new tractor, or Butch McRae’s mom got a job, or when Happy facilitated Neon Boudreaux inevitably getting car-jacked in New Orleans? (Alright, maybe somebody got hurt there.) But if those NCAA rules didn’t exist, Bell wouldn’t have even had that moral dilemma.
Chase Budinger (Arizona)
Now, I’m still a fan of “pure” college basketball (and college sports in general). I have a ton of respect for basketball coaches like Bob Knight and John Thompson, and football coaches like Ty Willingham who run clean programs and graduate their kids, even if it comes at the expense of losing games. I’m not saying every school should be a quasi-halfway house like Miami football used to be, or should have a GED All-Stars roster like Cincinnati basketball used to. But if enthusiastic alumni want to spend their own money “helping out” their school’s athletes, what’s the problem?
College basketball won’t look that much different. Things will even themselves out. The schools that have the most money to spend — Duke, Carolina, Kansas, UCLA, etc. — already get the top players anyway, so it’s not like that balance of power will be thrown off. And there are enough star high schoolers where the rosters of every other program will still be filled out even if they don’t have boosters paying their pockets. Donors aren’t going to give ALL of their money every year to frivolously spend on their favorite teams. The institution of NCAA sports will not crumple to its knees if coaches are allowed to give their players a ride home when it’s raining, or if Luke Campbell is slipping a kid $50 for an interception.
And there should be some rules. The ones limiting how often coaches can contact recruits is a good one because it protects kids and their families from too much distraction during their high school career. The rules that enforce academic achievement work in everyone’s best interest. The rules that put some limit on how (and how often) you can declare for the Draft help college coaches run better programs and improve the product on the court. And of course I’m all for keeping point-shaving and steroids and SAT cheating and all that bad stuff out of the game.
But those rules that offer a challenge to common sense; the ones that prevent real-life mentors from doing things the mentor of a “regular” kid would do; the ones that only exist to uphold an ideal that is no longer real — those are outdated, overbearing, and ultimately unnecessary.
July 10th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Big Freeze says:
This article is too long and boring for my taste. I’m afflicted with ADHD, so consequently I prefer a shorter and more entertaining blog.
Can someone please give me the cliff notes version of this article in three sentences or less?
July 10th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
mosduff says:
man… I think you’re wrong with this Austin.
I’m all for players on scholarship receiving a modest amount of money per month for living expenses but what you’re describing is not the solution.
I think they should stress education for these kids in school, not reward them with cash under the table
July 10th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
madmax says:
agree with it as a college player myself…you forgot the rule that says coaches cant be workin out with their players and team during the off season…this is really stupid
July 10th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Kevin says:
But how will it affect every other sport??
July 10th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
mosduff says:
also, I’m not naive. I know most of these kids don’t do their own schoolwork, but isn’t that the problem right there?
they’re getting a free education, but it’s mostly a big lie unfortunately. That’s what needs to be fixed.
July 10th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
M says:
I dont know either, I fear it could go wrong if everyone of these kids get distracted too much.
Only the top kids make it to the big league. If they dont make it, an education should be their mainstay..
July 10th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
karizmatic says:
I agree with the intent of this article but some controls do need to be in place, otherwise there would be a lot more corruption going on than there already is. Instead of banning the money completely, Monetary restrictions should be put in place so that everyone basically has a limit. And those restrictions should be monitored vigourously to try and keep it ethical. Otherwise what would stop a college team from simply paying a player a salary to keep them around? That could lead to all sorts of worse corruption than is already happening. Personally I say throw out the age limit…let the guys that can go pro go, and all the rest of the guys get a limit on gifts they can receive and leave it at that.
July 10th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
loganlight says:
“But those rules that offer a challenge to common sense; the ones that prevent real-life mentors from doing things the mentor of a “regular” kid would do; the ones that only exist to uphold an ideal that is no longer real — those are outdated, overbearing, and ultimately unnecessary.”
_______________________________________________________
I don’t think that a “regular mentor” and a “regular kid” regularly exchange money as a way of making the life lessons hit home. $50 for an interception? Why? Money for making a game winning shot? Who’s going to stop the center from jacking a three? I agree that the rulebook for NCAA athletics is way behind the times, and it does need to be updated, but this is not the way to do it.
Cash advances/rewards won’t work… and they shouldn’t work. The problem with professional athletes is their lack of interest in the things that won’t net them profit. Why do you think the dunk contest has drastically fallen off? Nothing to lure in the big stars anymore – they don’t need the media coverage and the prize money isn’t worth the “risk.”
Austin… I would really be curious to see how exactly you would rewrite the rulebook. Let’s see some RULES taken out of your article. How much money would be awarded per player, per year, per season? What percentage of the teams finances can be floated by the boosters? Especially in connection with your reward system, job hook ups, or signing bonuses.
Looking forward to a follow up article.
LL
July 10th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Otto says:
I can’t see I fully agree. Slipping a kid some money for their athletic accomplishments or profiting from marketing opportunies defies the spirit of academia, which is what college institutions are predominantly meant for.
Unlike a 12 year star, who is subject to their agents’ and production companies’ image branding, College athletes are brought in to perform at the highest level possible while keeping their commitments to get a college education. Be they singers or actors, young celebs live in an isolated world detached from the realities of day to day life. That is why most of them morph into f’d up human beings after a few years. I’m pretty sure that allowing (mostly) inner cities athletes to enjoy the same luxuries would distort their ideas of realities. If US academic institutions are seen as contributing to these student athletes’ social demise, then I am sure they would immediately lose any sense of credibility (as an academic institution), especially if they begin giving monetary incentives to their athletes.
Don’t forget student athletes live a life of stardom on college campuses. They also live in the same vicinity as other students and often interact with them daily. They go through the same routines of acamedic life (minus the studying for exams, of course).
Slipping a $50 to their receiver? I’m gonna go ahead and say that violates the US Tax Code.
July 10th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Austin Burton says:
I’m not saying the NCAA should institute a policy of giving kids money. I’m saying that if a “friend of the program” sees Johnny Small Forward at Denny’s after a game and wants to pay for the kid’s dinner, it shouldn’t be regulated. That if a kid needs money to buy his Mom a Mother’s Day present and his rich coach wants to give him a few dollars (like a “regular” mentor might), it shouldn’t be a problem.
July 10th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
BiG ShoT BoB says:
Naw this ish is stupid as hell. I love the college game more than the professional sometimes and the reason is that they still play for the love of the game and not because they are getting paid. With what your proposing kids will start choosing schools based on who will pay them the most or who has the most to offer instead of which school has the best education and sports program. Sure it happens behind the scenes already but why make it easy for them. Why not make crack legal too it’s not going to hurt anyone right. Also what about the kids that may not be future pro players? Don’t you think they will feel a little hosed that their are players getting special treatment for doing the same job which will in turn cause locker room problems.
July 10th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
BiG ShoT BoB says:
Wow AB you sond like you should be in the boosting business yourself since you buy all this stuff…LOL
July 10th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
hahns says:
i dont like it- another case of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
itd be nearly impossible to lure great recruits to a small school. do you think beas goes to kstate if hes being offered 1mm a year to play in memphis?
small schools/programs will get elbowed out and the kentuckys, dukes, uncs, etc will be able to muscle everyone out of highly touted recruits w/ their rich alum and rich schools.
when john wall flirted w/ the idea to go to baylor- does that happen if calipari is gona wine and dine him?
July 10th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
mosduff says:
but where do you draw the line Mr. Burton? If this were to happen, it would hurt the most interesting thing about college hoop, that being that sometimes the little guys have a chance to knock off goliath. If you let this stuff slide, the major programs will dominate without question because they have more cash.
I agree that it’s fucked up that those rich white dudes are making money off of these kids but that’s the same prob I got with the NBA. You got to fix other shit in our culture first before that will happen
July 10th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Austin Burton says:
Like I said, things would still even out. Stephen Curry still would have gone to Davidson under a “free-market” system; he wasn’t a big-time recruit coming out of high school. Blake Griffin still would have gone to Oklahoma (hometown), Hansbrough still would have gone to UNC (it’s UNC), Eric Maynor still would have gone to VCU (not a five-star recruit). Kansas boosters could only break off 12-15 kids to sign a letter of intent, and they’re not gonna be so concerned with those 8th-15th spots on the roster, so no, the top programs won’t get ALL the talent.
July 10th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
goonther says:
AB
you’re on a 3 good article streak now… they’ve been well written and thought provoking – props
July 10th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
BiG ShoT BoB says:
Why wouldn’t they care about the 8th – 15 spots those are the spots that step in when 1 – 8 go pro or graduate?
July 10th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Austin Burton says:
It’s natural. Boosters will line up to get a crack at five-star recruits. Lesser-known HS players and walk-ons, not so much.
July 10th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Billy Sunday says:
nice reference to he got game and blue chips…
July 10th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
mosduff says:
“Like I said, things would still even out. Stephen Curry still would have gone to Davidson under a “free-market” system; he wasn’t a big-time recruit coming out of high school. Blake Griffin still would have gone to Oklahoma (hometown), Hansbrough still would have gone to UNC (it’s UNC), Eric Maynor still would have gone to VCU (not a five-star recruit). Kansas boosters could only break off 12-15 kids to sign a letter of intent, and they’re not gonna be so concerned with those 8th-15th spots on the roster, so no, the top programs won’t get ALL the talent.”
this is ridiculous. What about transfers? If someone has a stellar season at a small school for his rookie year, what stops the big schools from luring him away.
What you’re referencing is the exception, not the rule.
July 11th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
12t says:
This needs to be dealt with as two seperate issues.
A) kids with talent in basketball should be able to make a profit off their skill/trade and image
B) college basketball should be about students competing against other students
If a high school senior wants to cash in on his skill/trade & create some marketability for himself before he’s NBA eligible then he should go play overseas.
College should be for students who want to get their education in exchange for playing basketball to represent the school. While there I do agree that they should get a stipend (evenly distributed regardless of talent level) because the school makes money off of them.
July 11th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
O.J. Mayo says:
I agree. show me the $$$
July 12th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Saku 39 says:
^^^ Funny O.J.
Interesting take on this situation, and I agree with your intent, but I wouldn’t want to further enable boosters. I think a small, equally distributed stipend would provide some assistance and reward for athletes, yet maintain a semblance of competitive integrity.
The big problem is that this program would have to extend to different sports (and genders) and might not be financial feasible.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:17 am
12t says:
@23
what if their stipend was based on a percentage of earnings by the school per sport?
Or ever student athlete is paid the same stipend across all sports (if they’re on scholarship)?
The options are there. The NCAA needs to stop being greedy & discuss them. I love my Kansas Jayhawks but I wonder how much Super Mario gets everytime someone buys his picture-poster, magazine-book or etc… of “The Shot” plastered everywhere. I agree that colege should be for the love of the game, but his passion along with his teamates is used as a recruiting tool for even non-athlets.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:28 am
parker says:
When I was in college I made a nice amount of money as an intern. And I made a decent amount of money as a bouncer when I wasn’t interning. Its sad that these guys can participate in this lucrative system but not have a way to benefit monetarily. What makes this worse is that players aren’t allowed to work outside of the system. They do receive certain benefits, but its my opinion that the players are under compensated. The question then becomes how to further compensate the players without hurting the game. Its a complicated issue that I doubt will change unless some other entity starts competing with the NCAA.
I love what Brandon Jennings did last year. I hate it because it lowered the quality of college basketball, but I love it because it challenged an unfair system. The young man missed out on a year of playing HIV roulette with Arizona coeds but gained what could be a lifetime of financial stability and valuable experience living on his own abroad.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Saku 39 says:
@12t
Yeah, I was thinking of some percentage-based system would be equitable. I don’t know their financial structure but I would rather the NCAA, not the universities, dig into their revenues from corporate sponsors and billion dollar TV contracts and they be the ones to pay the stipend. Like revenue sharing in MLB.
July 13th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
AR says:
Logan, cash for performance (academics) has recently been tried in public schools and the results are very encouraging. Now, you can debate wether it’s right or wrong but when some districts have a 50% droupout rate, I say the hell with morality and lets do whatever it takes for them to graduate.
July 15th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
rashad says:
good article. i got a question tho. if they do start paying college athletes then im going to court looking for backpay:-) ….. lol @ parker (HIV roulette with Arizona coeds) too funny.
athletes2actors.com