The Occupy College Sports Movement Takes Hold

There is a rumor that the Occupy Movement has moved from the streets and lawns of Denver, Oakland, and New York to athletic departments on college campuses across the country.

The Occupy Movement features the 99% “who don’t get anything” and the 1% “who get everything”.

The Occupy College Sports Movement also features two groups. First, there is the 99.9% “who really don’t get anything” (the athletes). They are the bit players/star performers who occupy college weight rooms, playing fields, and classrooms. In exchange, they are expected to represent their colleges in exemplary fashion while generating significant revenue streams for them.

Second, there is the .1% “who get everything” (the coaches, ADs, staff, universities, sponsors, et. al). From a financial perspective they are clearly the financial benefactors of college athletic programs.

Unlike the Occupy Movement, which is on life support, the Occupy College Sports Movement will ensure that the Pay for Play argument will be a source of debate for years to come.

 

The Pay to Play Debate Rears Its Head Again

For the past 50 years, there has been an ongoing debate about whether college athletes should be paid to play. Over that time, the topic has moved to the forefront, then it has been put on hold for more pressing issues. Several years later it again becomes a hot topic for discussion and the cycle repeats.

Much like the merits of the BCS system, it is a great topic to debate over a beer. There are solid reasons to pay college players and there are an equal number of justifications for not paying them. And much like the debate over the  BCS system, it is an issue that will never be addressed to everyone’s satisfaction.

The Boulder Daily Camera recently (9/14) printed a quote from South Carolina’s football coach Steve Spurrier on the topic. He supported an advocacy group’s report that determined that college football and basketball players don’t get what they’re worth from their schools.

To that point Spurrier said, “I mean, 20 years ago, 50 years ago, athletes got full scholarships. Television income was what, maybe $50,000? And now, everybody’s getting 14, 15 million bucks and they’re still getting a scholarship.

Forty or 50 years ago, college football and basketball were sports that were played for the sake of competition and bragging rights. Today the two sports are minor leagues for the NFL and NBA. In some cases they are expected to generate enough revenue to support the entire athletic department. The Final Four and the BCS Bowl Series have become a form of entertainment more than a showcase of athletic accomplishment.

While the top schools may “rake in the dough” from their football and basketball programs, those sports do not always generate a profit. Without a profit from the major sports or significant support from donors, it is likely that many minor sports teams would have to be eliminated, if pay to play was instituted.

Much of the discussion about college athletics presumes that higher education will continue to exist in its current form 30 years from now. That is not likely given concerns that higher education is too costly and ineffective. As well, technology is making it possible to receive a more targeted education online or through alternate means.

A case can be made that there is a higher education bubble and that when it bursts, college athletics will be forced to take on a different form.  The NCAA 2042 Final Four may feature the Appalachia Online School of Technology Cougars (an online university specializing in technology training) and the Southern California Leadership School Lakers (a leadership school whose basketball team is a farm club of the professional team bearing the same name).

Until that happens, you can partake in the “pay to play” debate now while the topic is hot or you can wait a couple of years and be a part of the sequel.