The NCAA and the Death of the University

In the past, I've voiced my displeasure of the NCAA and the modern state of college athletics, noting that college sports are laden with scandals and destructive to the well-being of universities, professors, students, and even the athletes. But I barely scratched the surface of the problem. In light of some recent scandals and the continued failure of universities and the NCAA to regulate themselves, allow me to take things a step further. College athletics should not exist, at least not in their present form which emphasizes winning and dollars over education and ethics. 

What could I, a self proclaimed sports fanatic, possibly have against the fun, craziness, and passion associated with college sports? Let's start with the Oklahoma State scandal, shall we? For those who weren't aware, Oklahoma State was recently busted by the NCAA for a plethora of rules violations. As is detailed in a recent issue of Sports Illustrated (Sept. 16, 2013), Oklahoma State was found to have paid several of their college football players "bonuses" based on their performances on the field. Even worse, Oklahoma State also committed several academic violations and ignored their own drug policies in order to ensure that their athletes remained eligible and on the field at all costs. 

I'm going to take a moment to pause from my rant and offer my perspective. I consider any special treatment of college students because of their athletic status to be completely unacceptable, and I find it especially sickening that universities would bend their own academic standards to accommodate their athletic cash cows. The fundamental purpose of the university should always be the furtherance of knowledge, both through research and educational programs. If you disagree with me on this, and look at college as meaning many different things and offering different services for different people, then there's no point in you reading further. Our disconnect is far too great for you to gain anything from this blog entry. 

Okay, assuming you are still reading, allow me to address some of the common arguments that NCAA apologists make.

1. Sure, scandals like Oklahoma State happen, but they are the exception not the norm. The vast majority of college programs are NCAA compliant and don't compromise their values for their athletic programs. 

While I appreciate the sentiment that we shouldn't generalize, the idea that most college athletic programs are traditionally clean has no basis in reality. As of 2011, only 17 of the major 120 NCAA schools have not committed a rules violation. Since then, at least two of those clean 17 have committed a rules violation, one of which was the infamous Penn State scandal.   

2. Okay, fine, so most programs have committed an NCAA violation. But the NCAA has absurdly complex rules and most of the rule breakers have committed relatively minor offenses. 

I will certainly acknowledge that the NCAA is complicated and that not all rule violations are equal, but we should not use this as an excuse to minimize the pervasive unethical culture that is created by college athletics. I'm not going to go through every single violation (I don't have months to research this), but allow me to highlight some of the worst and let you decide for yourself if the offenses committed by many of our most prominent universities are so minor. 

New Mexico (2008)- Academic Fraud

Members of the coaching staff assisted 3 recruits in gaining unearned academic credits. 

Florida State (2009)- Academic Fraud

Miami (2011)- A Litany of Preferential Benefits were provided for Athletes, ranging from cash and expensive yacht trips to prostitutes and abortions 

Arkansas State (2011)- 31 Ineligible Athletes Allowed to Play

This one actually doesn't really bother me, but it does illustrate how college programs will do anything to gain an edge.

Ohio State (2011)- Preferential Treatment/ Benefits/ Cash for Prominent Athletes

Athletes were given preferential treatment, including providing "payment" for work not performed. 

Penn State (2011)- Discovery that Jerry Sandusky, an assistant coach, had sexually abused children for years and that the university had at least some knowledge of impropriety but failed to properly handle the situation

North Carolina (2012)- Academic Fraud and Preferential Benefits for Athletes

Because if you're given a choice between compromising the academics of your university and giving illegal benefits to athletes, why not choose both?

Mississippi State (2013)- Preferential Benefits, including one booster providing a prominent athlete with a car

Oregon (2013)- Major Recruiting Violations

Oklahoma State (2013)- Academic Fraud, Improper Benefits for Athletes including cash payments to athletes, using sex as a recruiting tool, and ignoring university drug policies for athletes

Seriously, read the SI piece (Sept. 16, 2013 and also discussed in Sept. 23, 2013 issue). Every disturbing NCAA and moral violation that you can imagine has happened at Oklahoma State.

Keep in mind that this is just a small sampling of the actual number of NCAA violations have occurred. If you're curious to see the violations of your own school, have at it.

3. Ok, fine. Most schools have committed violations and many of those violations were pretty bad. But none of this would happen if we just were allowed to pay student athletes. Its only fair that they be compensated for their work and the value they bring to their universities. 

This opinion is actually gaining significant traction, as evidenced by star NFL running back Arian Foster's recent admission that he took money and other improper benefits while attending Tennessee, and that he sees no problem with it.

So why shouldn't we pay college athletes? Well, I suppose one's personal answer to that question goes back to his personal view of the university and its purpose in the modern world. If the university can mean many different things and different opportunities to different people, then by all means, let's turn it into a system of minor league athletics and pay student athletes. But if the fundamental purpose of the university should be the advancement of knowledge through research and education, then athletics needs to have a small role with limited, if any, financial influence. 

While I realize that taking such a hard-line stance on this makes it appear that I have no sympathy for college athletes, many of whom come from disadvantaged and impoverished communities, I would argue that the opposite is true. Sure, an athletic scholarship and small paycheck would do a great deal in helping a poor and disadvantaged athlete through college, but it would do so at the expense of helping a poor and disadvantaged student through college. The system as it currently exists enables a future athletic star to have fun at college for a few years, promote his talents on the national level, and then leave to start a multi-million dollar career. All without graduating. That's right, to those naive enough to argue that student-athletes really exist (you're usually one or the other), I present to your consideration the depressingly low rates of college graduation among professional athletes. About half of NFL players have college degrees, despite the fact that most players drafted by the NFL attend college. Of course those numbers are fantastic compared to the NBA (where 21% of professional athletes have degrees) and MLB (around 4%). Part of the reason the NFL and NBA have higher graduation rates than MLB is that those leagues place certain restrictions on draft eligibility to strongly encourage their athletes to attend some college. But none of the major sports leagues mandate graduation as a condition for draft eligibility. 

4. So what can be really be done about it?

First, we need to stop pretending that academics remains the priority of our major universities. The first step is always admitting there's a problem. 

Second, we need to find a way to divorce mainstream athletics and the massive amount of money associated with it from our educational institutions. There are at least 15 college football stadiums that seat more than the largest NFL stadiums. This should never happen. Its impossible for universities to combine to create a sports league that rivals the NFL (the largest sports league in the country) and not be unduly influenced by it. 

How do we do this? One solution could be to remove restrictions prohibiting recent high school graduates from playing in the professional leagues. Its unfair to prospective students that Carmelo Anthony gets essentially a one year scholarship to Syracuse to showcase his athletic talents, but its also unfair to Carmelo to prohibit him for a year from using his talents in his desired field of employment. The only people who really benefit from this unfair system are the colleges, who use college athletes as rentals to rake in money. 

Another option, and one that is far less realistic, would be to abolish college sports as they currently exist in favor of minor league systems. I have nothing against the fact that teams like the Oregon Ducks or Texas Longhorns exist, but they shouldn't be affiliated with universities. Even better yet, what if we could significantly expand our minor league sports systems so that high school athletes can showcase their skills and make money on a smaller level in preparation for the major leagues?

That's what baseball allows, by the way. 

Will any of these things happen? Of course not, but that shouldn't stop us from talking about them. And it shouldn't stop each one of us, myself included, from taking an honest look in the mirror and considering what role we play in enabling the rampant corruption, academic fraud and immorality that have come to characterize the modern university. 

NY Sports: The Big Sour Apple?

"I want to thank the Good Lord for making me a Yankee."
-Joe DiMaggio


I'm back. See, I told you that I wouldn't forget you, readers. At worst, I'm only moderately neglectful, like a parent who leaves their kid at the mall for half a day but then feels incredibly guilty about it and gets the kid ice cream, making it all okay.

"That is your official policy, right?"

Anyway, I'm certainly not here to talk about parenting. Nor am I here to hit you with my weak attempts at satire or conversations of a deep philosophical or theological nature. Nope, today we're having fun. I'm back for a sports rant.

So ESPN the Magazine recently released its 2013 Franchise Issue, which ranks sports franchises across all major American sports. Apparently the rankings are supposed to consider a complex array of factors, including fan experience, cost of attending games, ownership, players, team success, etc.

To make a long (and terribly written) story short, ESPN the magazine really does not like New York sports teams. In fact, they ranked my beloved Jets as the 121st out of 122 considered franchises. Keep in mind this list extends beyond simply the NFL and at least included MLB, NBA and NHL teams.

To all my New York friends who found it amusing that the "baby brother" Jets once again got bashed by a major media outlet, take a moment to consider that the article also ranked the NY Giants 66th, the NY Knicks 102nd, the NY Rangers 76th, and THE NEW YORK YANKEES 87TH.

When I was contemplating how to write a response to this article, I initially felt overwhelmed, as literally every single claim/ ranking that ESPN the Magazine made about NY teams are so blatantly absurd that they can't even be intelligently defended. The writers of this article somehow found a way to be subjectively wrong. Their "opinions" ring as hollow and biased as Kim Jong-Un trying to convince the West that his people are wealthy and thriving, despite blatant and overwhelming evidence to the contrary. 

But now that I've somehow managed to compare sports journalists to dictators (whoops), I probably should at least offer some evidence for my viewpoints. Let's start with the easy example, the New York Yankees.

The New York Yankees (Rank 87/122)

Why It's Absurd: For this example, I really feel like the burden of proof should lie with the article authors, but I'll quickly point out a few reasons as to why the Yankees should have been ranked in the top 10 sports franchises.

The New York Yankees are the most storied franchise in the history of North American sports. And no, this isn't just a proud New Yorker talking, just a sports fan with a somewhat functional brain. The first World Series was played in 1903, meaning that MLB has had about 110 AL/NL Championship Series. The Yankees have played in 40 World Series, winning 27 of them. That's right, the 87th best American sports franchise has won almost a quarter of its league's championships. I think its also fair to point out that ESPN's number one franchise, the NBA's Memphis Grizzlies, has never won a championship or even made it to a championship game. Also, they have about 80 years of less sports history, but who's counting?

I would assume at this point, the authors might defend their claim by noting the high prices of getting a ticket to a Yankees game. Fine, let's talk economics, shall we? The Yankees are the 4th wealthiest franchise in the world, and they have the 2nd highest payroll in baseball. Yankee detractors may be quick to note that all the Yankees' money and supposed success will not be getting them to the playoffs this year, but the very fact that people gloat about the Yankees failing is a testament to their astonishing run of sustained success. The last time the Yankees missed the playoffs was 2008; before that the last time was 1994. At least with the Yankees you're getting quality play with your money; Cubs tickets aren't cheap either and they haven't won a World Series in over a century.

J-E-T-S! Jets! Jets! JETS! (Rank 121/122)

Why Its Absurd: And now things get a little more challenging. I understand that, between the bombastic coach, questionable front office moves, and the complete lack of anything remotely resembling offense, its easy to take pop shots at the Jets. I'm not arguing the Jets should be in the top 10 or even necessarily the top 50 sports franchises, but they deserve better than a bottom 2 finish. Here are a few reasons why.

Since I mentioned the Yankees' history, lets start there with the Jets. In terms of playoff success, you can't even begin to compare the Jets to the Yankees, or even to the more iconic NFL franchises like the Steelers, 49ers, Patriots, or Cowboys. But, unlike 14 current NFL franchises, the Jets have won a Super Bowl. That shouldn't mean everything, but it has to mean something.

But, even assuming you don't care about Super Bowl III and would rather discuss current success, I'd be happy to beat you at that game too. Under the Rex Ryan era, the Jets have played some of the best defense in football (finishing 1st, 3rd, 5th, and 8th in total defense from 2009-2012 respectively). They made it to the AFC Conference Championship in both 2009 and 2010, and barring a few plays and an awful quarterback, could have easily won a Super Bowl. In 2011, they were average (8-8) and in 2012 they were slightly below average (6-10). Yet none of this stopped those incompetent bastards from ESPN from ranking the Jets dead last in their NFL Power Rankings before the season began. I'll be the first to acknowledge the Jets have issues, but if you honestly try to argue to me that the Browns (who decided to trade their one franchise player to rebuild two weeks into the season),  or the Raiders, or the Panthers, or the Jaguars (who could only muster 3 field goals of offense against the freaking Raiders) are currently more successful franchises than the Jets you are insane.

Even though they frequently mock the Jets as being the little brother, I'll be a good sport and offer a brief defense for the NY Giants (ranked 66/122) too. The Giants have won 4 Super Bowls, including 2 in the last 6 years. They have an established quarterback, coach, defensive line, and fan base. They may not often be an elite franchise (they have a knack for sneaking into the playoffs), but they are certainly worthy of respect.

So why would I bother write this? Even assuming that I have you convinced at this point, why should anyone care enough about sports to write a lengthy critique of ESPN? Feel free to laugh, but regardless of one's occupation, I think there is something to be said for maintaining professional integrity. Everyone is entitled to their opinions; that's a huge part of what makes sports so much fun. But there's a certain point where personal biases and fan commitments overwhelm one's ability to professionally analyze sports. You'll note that I included a ton of sources and facts in this article, lest I be accused of being a "homer" who just can't handle his teams being criticized. You don't have to believe me, but if a New York based media outlet published a franchise list and placed the Patriots or Red Sox near the bottom, I would also be offended. If you're going to do something, whether its as important as curing AIDS or as frivolous as writing about grown men playing games, then do it right. ESPN writers owe it to their readers to hold themselves to a higher and more professional standard. All right, that's it for the soapbox. I have a crazy hunch that writing this article will prove to be superfluous anyway, as our NY sports teams will prove themselves to be more than adequate this year and for years to come.