What is a college athlete worth?
Some would say he or she is worth $92,816. That's the average value of a full scholarship at a Football Bowl Subdivision school. Those are the teams that play in the major conferences and are eligible for the important post-season bowl games.
You might get an argument from others, including me, who believe that, relative to the money that big-time college football and basketball teams produce, it ought to be more.
How much more or anything further at all is the debate.
That's part of the issue surrounding the alleged scandal at Oklahoma State University that is being reported by Sports Illustrated.
Putting aside other elements of the magazine's efforts - such as sex, drugs and academic dishonesty - the pay-for-play issue has more than one side to it.
Forbidden
Yes, NCAA rules forbid an athlete accepting any money, other than the scholarship, for his or her performance as an athlete. But is that a fair rule today?
Statistics from the National College Players Association, a non-profit that advocates for college athletes, show a huge discrepancy between how much a university earns on its big-time sports and how much of that an athlete gets.
The football revenues for 2011-2012 were:
University of Oklahoma - $59,639,425;
Oklahoma State University - $41,138,312;
University of Tulsa - $7,945,618;
University of Arkansas - $64,193,826.
The University of Texas, which leads the country in football revenue, brought in $103,813,684.
According to an NCPA formula, based on NFL salaries and profit-sharing contracts, the fair market value of each of the 85 scholarship players was:
OU - $326,214;
OSU - $225,051;
TU - $43,467.
UA - $351,178.
Again, the Texas figure is well above - $567,922.
So, other than the scholarships, how much of that do the athletes receive? Zero. Nada. Nothing. Of course, no one really expects a college player to make $326,214. And there are other costs to the universities that must be considered such as maintainance, salaries, paying the light bill and even running the hot dog stand.
College athletes have little recourse to get money. NCAA rules put severe limits on earning extra money. The rules say that an athlete is ineligible if he or she "receives financial aid other than the financial aid that your institution distributes."
Athletes may, however, receive money from anyone to whom they are naturally or legally dependent; money based on something other than athletic ability, or from an entity that meets NCAA guidelines.
As for getting a job, athletes cannot be paid at any job due to their ability in their sport. They can only be paid for work performed, and at a rate commensurate with the going rate for the job.
Fair salary
Those rules often get athletes and schools in trouble.
So, why not pay these athletes who are making the schools so much money at least some kind of salary to do their job, which, for the most part, is running, jumping, throwing, catching and shooting?
The purists insist that keeping college sports strictly amateur is the foundation of sports. Others will insist that the scholarship is fair pay. Even others will point out that much, if not most, of the money hauled in by football and basketball keep other, less popular sports alive and is plowed back into the school to improve academics. All that is true. But there remains the fairness issue and the hypocrisy of pretending that college sports are pure.
Ponder this scenario: A scholarship football player from a poor area of Miami ends up at a university 2,000 miles from home. He gets word during the season that his mother is gravely ill but he does not have the money to get home. If the school or a booster offers to pay his way, everyone is in trouble.
On the other hand, if a student is on a full academic scholarship and his mother becomes ill, any stranger off the street can offer to pay his way home.
No, he's not getting paid to be the best English major in the country, but neither is the athlete being paid. At least the English major has the opportunity to seek or ask for the money. The football player is stuck.
It's time we quit kidding ourselves. When such strict rules apply, they will be and have been broken. Does anyone really believe that Texas A&M quarterback and Heisman Trophy winner Johnny Manziel didn't know or maybe think that all those autographs he signed might be worth a lot of money? His punishment was a suspension for the first half of the first game this year. Ouch.
Stipend
An idea was floated by some schools recently to pay football players a $2,000 stipend. That seems pretty low to me, considering the revenue. That plan found resistance, especially from the smaller schools, that it would be an economic hardship.
Some bigger conferences even considered leaving the NCAA and forming their own association. Then they could make their own rules.
The $2,000 stipend plan probably doesn't have much chance. The new association seems unlikely, but those conferences wield a lot of power.
There is another proposal to pay athletes as much as $30,000 a year. Schools would allot, say, $1 million for salaries. The school would pay athletes based on performance and how much money they or their sport generated. Sounds to me like a way to generate a lot of animosity among athletes, but it makes some sense.
George Cross, who was president of OU from 1943-1968 once said: "I want a university the football team can be proud of." He might have said it in jest, but it's become a fact at most big-time schools.
It's time to pay up - something. A lot of young men are making a lot of money and are coming up with a very short end of a very large stick.
Mike Jones, 918-581-8332
mike.jones@tulsaworld.com
Original Print Headline: Pay Up
Column - Jones
I recently was involved in a brief but interesting mini-debate with a colleague over energy production and the environment.
Notwithstanding what some Oklahomans think, the authors of the U.S. Constitution were adamant in their belief that religion ought to be kept well apart from government.
CONTACT THE REPORTER
918-581-8332
Email
