Ron Morris' lastest column outlines a premise that basically says college athletics departments should begin giving every penny of their profits to their universities, and I'm having a tough time reconciling that notion.
Maybe it's because I cover sports for a living, and my occupation sort of hinges on the sports I cover not becoming intramural endeavors that are secondary to the "academic mission" of universities.
I consider myself a realist, and the reality I've long held to be the truth is that academics for college athletes are often little more than a charade.
Are there athletes who are quite bright, and enter college plenty capable of achieving academically? Absolutely. Are there athletes who aren't all that bright who become heartwarming success stories by busting their tails? Same answer.
But all that doesn't take away the fact that large numbers of these kids simply do not belong on college campuses. And colleges everywhere take measures that are designed to help them remain on college campuses.
It's simply the price of playing big-boy football, basketball, whatever. Same as paying head coaches and assistant coaches all these exorbitant salaries. Same as spending tens of millions of dollars to build facilities that impress recruits.
And if a school's administration decides it wants to stop paying these prices and get off this big-boy athletics train, fine. More power to them.
But I can't wait to see its administration look its fans in the eyes and explain the decision.
Morris is a columnist at a newspaper whose cash cow is South Carolina football. A large part of his job is opining on the Gamecocks, and there wouldn't be much positive opining if South Carolina opted to extricate itself from the "arms race" that has pervaded big-time college athletics.
Morris would probably have to think twice about criticizing a defensive coordinator who was making a salary that Morris deems more responsible -- say, $50,000, right in line with what professors make.
He'd probably find it hard to rip a quarterback for throwing nine interceptions against Alabama when that quarterback was a one-star high school prospect who was courted by the likes of Harvard, William & Mary and Cornell.
And if the athletics department opted to begin giving every penny of its profits to the university, he'd probably also be writing about South Carolina chopping off the upper decks to its football stadium. There'd be no need, considering tens of thousands of fans wouldn't want to pay their hard-earned money to support an athletics department with zero commitment to athletics.
If more athletics departments took the bold initiative that Morris deems outlines, more sports writers like me and Morris will be looking for other career options.
So simply for reasons of self-preservation, I'm liking the big-boy athletics thing.
College sports is a commercial, professional enterprise. The only thing separating it from the NFL, NBA and other professional sports is that athletes don't see any of the profits.
And that's another blog for another day.
Here's more evidence that college athletics have become big business:
There's a serious movement afoot in the SEC to restrict freedom of the press in covering the SEC events.
See, the SEC (and yes, that includes the SEC presidents) sees dollar signs in coverage of its money-making sports.
Now hear this, Tennessee sports fans and taxpayers:
The two biggest college football games in the state next season -- the Sept. 18 game between the Tennessee Volunteers and Florida and the Oct. 23 game between the Vols and Alabama -- are not, repeat not, public events.
Never mind that UT is a state-funded institution. Forget that these games are being played at state-owned Neyland Stadium in Knoxville. These are not public events.
Says who?
The honorable Robert Cooper, the state attorney general, that's who.
He says it in Opinion No. 10-60 released by his office April 29. It's ridiculous, of course, but the opinion basically gives sports programs at public universities control over how the news media cover their teams and their games.
It allows these sports programs and their conferences to tell the media what they can and cannot do with news photographs and video they take during games and postgame press conferences.
And by the way: If these college presidents are indeed so troubled by the fact that their football coaches are receiving such monstrous salaries, then where is the resistance to -- and condemnation of -- the expansion fever that's sweeping the nation?
The only reason presidents are opposed to a playoff is because said playoff would eliminate their control over the money they make from the current system.
Here's a closer look at how much money is growing on trees in the Big Ten.
And also a piece on just how profitable the Big Ten's network has become.
The ACC wants some of that loot, too, and a new TV deal is the focus of this week's ACC meetings in Florida.
The Greenville News has a piece on these meetings, and here's what Terry Don Phillips had to say:
“I’m very curious to be in the room with the door closed with the commissioner and staff and other athletic directors to see where we are,” Clemson University athletic director Terry Don Phillips said recently.
“I know he (Swofford) doesn’t have his head in the sand,” he said. “I know he keeps his finger on the pulse. He has good relationships with these other commissioners. Certainly they’ve got to do their own job and protect their schools and their properties, but I do believe he has a good feel on what’s happening out there.”
After spending a large chunk of its revenues on raises for football assistants, Clemson hopes season-ticket sales can keep it from sinking into the red next year.
Clemson should escape 2009-10 in the black, in part because Oliver Purnell left $1.375 million on the table when he became coach at DePaul, said Katie Hill, senior associate athletics director for internal affairs at Clemson.
Last year, Hill projected a shortfall of about $1.3 million, largely because of declining football ticket sales which fell off 11 percent. Belt-tightening, including a 10-percent cut in non-essential spending, and Purnell's decision to walk kept Clemson from dipping into its reserves.
In the ACC Sports Journal, a spring review for Clemson football.
And Greg Wallace of the Independent-Mail says the phase-out of swimming was simply a bottom-line decision.
LW
No comments:
Post a Comment