![]() Though the economists’ answer-pay the players-is more honest, it’s a nonstarter because the whole attraction of college sports is the idea that the guy wearing the jersey is a student like everyone else. ![]() They would like to see the NCAA-which just abolished its requirement for standardized tests-tighten academic standards. In fairness, this was largely forced on the NCAA by state legislatures.īy contrast, those concerned with colleges serving as de facto minor leagues for professional football and basketball have different priorities. If a jock signs an NIL deal with a local car dealer, it allows the school to say it isn’t paying him. One recent move in this direction was to allow college players to benefit from name, image and likeness deals. Those who worry that universities are unfairly profiting off the labor of student-athletes favor ending the pretense of amateurism by paying them. The proposed “solutions” depend on which complaint camp you fall into. The great advantage of the GSR is that it allows college athletic departments to claim academic progress based on inflated numbers. Indeed, the NCAA even came up with its own metric-graduation success rate, or GSR-because it said that the federal graduation rate (used for students who don’t play sports) fails to capture the full reality of college athletes’ experiences. ![]() The other argues that college sports has become a big business, corrupting our universities. ![]() The first complains that those generating the cash-the players-are the only ones who aren’t paid. The NCAA has a vested interest in this fiction, because the bulk of its annual $1.14 billion in revenue comes from its March Madness tournament. The Final Four is upon us, and with it the fiction that National Collegiate Athletic Association men’s basketball is an amateur competition.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |