The opening is powerful in another way, as well, setting up the distinct and jarring contrast between our passion for the games and the too-often coldly calculating way we treat the athletes that play them for our entertainment.
Thanks, once again, to the kindness of one of our own, the Teej, Mrs. Teej, and I were fortunate to attend a screening of the documentary Wednesday night at the headquarters of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA). We rubbed shoulders with Bobby Valentine, the executive producer of the film (Teej rubbed more than that, to be sure*), met former Penn State and NFL linebacker Andre Collins, and shared time in a bathroom line with former Redskin Darnerien McCants.
After viewing the film, I confess to very mixed feelings. I love college sports. I love the theater, the passion, the emotion. I love the spectacle, and the drama, and the whole damn circus. But except for the occasional thought about the concept of compensating collegiate athletes, I've given very little consideration to the welfare of those that entertain us.
The film offers a view into a system that churns out massive profits based on a design intentionally crafted to restrict the rights of its most important participants. When former NCAA President Walter Byers and his legal team hit on the term 'student-athletes' in the 1950s as a means to defend the organization against workman's compensation claims, he could have scarcely known how successful his gambit would ultimately prove.
Today's revenue sport student-athletes have nearly every aspect of their collegiate lives dictated for them - when to eat, what to study (and what not to - many have no opportunity to pursue majors whose requirements conflict with practice and game time), what to wear (don't see many Duke basketball players wearing Adidas). If they push back, unless they're among the elite, they run the risk of losing their scholarship, one that's renewable on an annual basis at the sole discretion of the university (read: coaching staff).
It's entirely true that student athletes receive significant compensation in the form of scholarships, which have both economic and intangible value. For a substantial majority of collegiate athletes, especially those in non-revenue sports, a scholarship is arguably more valuable to them than to the university. But as Branch pointed out after the screening, no college athlete has the same economic rights as those taken for granted by their classmates. If an English major publishes a novel, her eligibility as a teaching assistant won't be revoked, in one example.
After the screening, journalist John Ourand moderated a panel discussion about the issue, which featured Valentine, noted scholar Taylor Branch (upon whose e-book, The Cartel, the film is based), former UNC fullback Devin Ramsey, UNC academic support specialist Mary Willingham, and producer Andrew Muscato.
The discussion was wide-ranging, but ultimately centered on Branch's fundamental call for a discussion about ensuring the basic rights of athletes as participants in the marketplace. There is no panacea, nor were any substantive policy recommendations offered. Valentine made what I thought a very cogent comparison of today's student-athlete with professional baseball players in the reserve clause era. Prior to the advent of free agency, professional baseball players had no freedom of movement - they served at the whims of their team's owners until they weren't needed. Only when the players got a seat at the table did fair market principles begin to take hold. And despite widely-held fears that free agency and money would ruin the game, 45 years later, Major League Baseball thrives by nearly any measure.
The evening's most interesting exchange occurred between Valentine (who was as charismatic, engaging, and just plain fun as you could've hoped) and George Mason men's basketball coach Paul Hewitt (best described in this case as something that rhymes with 'thick'), who attended the screening and offered a highly critical response to the film. Hewitt lambasted the filmmakers for telling a one-sided story, which on the face of it is a reasonable criticism, except that the film offered no claim towards balance - it's absolutely got a point of view. But Hewitt surely understands that there's a multi-billion dollar media-industrial complex dedicated to telling the side of the story he wants told. He's clearly invested in the maintenance of the status quo - his own university is a case study in the potential impact of intercollegiate athletics.
'Nice ass, Pedroia, but you're no Doyle.' |
After seeing the film and hearing the discussion, I have more questions than answers. I'm not necessarily supportive of paying all college athletes, because I think there's a real difference between revenue and non-revenue sports, and I think such a policy would create severe financial burdens on a number of institutions. However, I do think there's potential in a system that enables athletes to seek market value for their images/services. As noted above, a vast majority of collegiate athletes receive very fair returns in the form of scholarships and opportunities, but that small minority that don't is substantially undervalued in comparison to their contributions. Finding an equitable way to close that gap wouldn't destroy what we love about collegiate athletics any more than Curt Flood did professional baseball.
You can catch the movie on EPIX October 16 at 8:00 pm. If nothing else, in combination with the recent Frontline documentary on the NFL's concussion issues, it's an invitation to continued conversation.
butt pats
ReplyDeletebutt pats giving 2.5 to the Saints Sunday afternoon.
ReplyDeletethe bobby v buttpat immediately goes on the list of awesome things that gtb made possible. right along with manned space flight and microwave popcorn.
ReplyDeleteDon't forget the confused/scared look on my mother in laws face when I told her I was flying up to DC to attend the wedding of my Internet friend.
ReplyDeleteI just saw the report on Adrian Peterson's kid. Peterson should be allowed to dole out the punishment to the man responsible.
ReplyDeleteyep. 'all day' would take on a new meaning.
ReplyDeleteThe story about Peterson's kid is awful.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure we should be upset that a coach leverages a Final Four run into a bigger better contract. This happens in other industries all the time.
i don't think anyone's arguing that coaches and administrators shouldn't be free to take advantage of the market. just that the players that drive their market value don't have the same (or any) freedoms.
ReplyDeleteThis is an issue with a lot of analysis and few viable suggestions for remedy. Did the filmmakers present any proposed solutions?
ReplyDeleteno, not really. and your point was acknowledged by the panel. jay bilas was fairly insistent in his belief that universities that enter into complex multi-national contracts regarding technology transfer and business development are more than capable of figuring out an issue like this one - it's the will to do so that's at issue. the panel was universal in its opinion that the student-athletes need to have a seat at the table in the development of a solution. and branch said several times that any change to the status quo has to start with the acknowledgement of the student-athletes' rights as adult citizens of our nation.
ReplyDeleteExactly Clarence. These kind of things are usually about identifying a "problem" and assuming a "solution" exists that superior across almost every dimension.
ReplyDeleteTo take the freedom of movement for example. There is a reasonable argument that players should be able to change schools, just as coaches can change schools (forget that coaches often have large buyouts in their contracts for now).
That's a sort of moralistic, principled argument and has its merits. And it would improve the lives of *some* college players.
But then you have to think it through. What happens next? Freedom to transfer --> eternal recruiting. Florida is weak at QB and WR so they start recruiting sophomore QBs and WRs from, say, Louisville. Louisville now has a hole and they recruit a junior from UCF. UCF tries to get a guy from Arkansas State to fill in. Arkansas State stars poking around McNeese State and so on.
The guy who was lined up to start playing at Florida and is now on the bench might see what's up at Mississippi State. And back down the cycle. That's what happens without the transfer rules that exist now.
This is not a far-fetched scenario. It will happen. A lot. It becomes the World Soccer economy. Players will move to higher profile clubs/programs if they have the opportunity.
Is this good? Maybe it's net good. It's definitely not 100% good. I'd be on the side that it's net bad.
If people find recruiting unseemly now, then they certainly wouldn't like the world of perpetual recruiting.
It reduces the connection between school/team/player in favor of a more pro-style personnel structure. It's probably not great for the academic stability of some of the players (if we care about that). And ultimately, it makes college football look a little more like pro football.
And that's why you don't see solutions proposed very often. Because creating awareness of a problem is easy and marketable. Once you step in and make tangible suggestions for improvement, people will see the problems and all of a sudden that great idea (Fairness!) isn't quite as appealing.
bilas was in the film, not on the panel. that's not clear in my comment.
ReplyDeletei think the people involved with this film almost universally agree that there's not a single 'solution' to the 'problem'. but it's hard to argue the point that the current system consolidates all of the power and most of the benefit to the institutions. i think tipping those scales even a little would be fairer to the athletes while keeping competitive balance and the things we care about (hot girls in sundresses at the grove in oxford, for example) intact.
ReplyDeletejesus, peterson's son has died. what kind of sick fuck does something like that to a 2 year-old?
ReplyDeleteI'll try to watch the documentary, it might change my thoughts. Which are ...
ReplyDeleteMany people are trapped in low paying jobs where their work is leveraged into corporate financial success which in turn fuels high pay for a CEO who is free to jump ship for a better, higher-paying job. They are typically trapped by their lack of education. Unlike student-athletes, these trapped folks do not have the expectation of receiving a college degree in four to five years, thus freeing them from their circumstances. They just soldier on, scrimp and save, and hope their children will be better off.
Sure, universities exploit student-athletes to some degree. But being a student-athlete is also great deal to some degree. Many get a free college diploma. Those who don't still get to list athletics on their resume, and I know for a fact that employers like to see that on a resume because it shows the candidate works hard and knows how to work in a team. And I think all of us would enjoy being a college athlete even at a minor program.
So yes, colleges make a shit-ton of money off of college athletics while the students earn "only" a degree in return. But that degree, and the experience of being a college athlete, are worth much more in the long run than the work experience of a similarly-situated 18-to-22-year-old who works in a coal mine or a Walmart or a Cheesecake Factory.
clarence, have the buccaneers called you in for a consult yet?
ReplyDeleteIf I'm running a visiting team there's no way I'd want to use Tampa's locker room.
ReplyDeleteHere's sort of a counter-counterpoint. My view is cranky old man-ish, out of touch, and a product of where I went to school. I think the opportunities for scholarships towards college degrees are more valuable than ever and should be reserved for students or student-athletes that do not completely forgo the student part. The way college athletics was originally conceived is probably best preserved by the Ivy League and such, antiquated and naive as you may consider it. When you turn a blind eye to a system that begins with kids who have no business enrolled in the school they attend (I'm looking at you, Georgetown hoops) being handed grades as part of an unofficial developmental league for pro sports under the thin veil of pursuing a degree, you have a hard time then arguing for something that's "fair."
ReplyDeleteI'm coming to you live from Louisiana.
ReplyDeletei'm solo with three kids while my wife is in jamaica. mark wins.
ReplyDeleteJamaica Queens?
ReplyDeleteDid any of you read Taylor Branch's article from the Atlantic a few years ago? Take time to either read that piece or see the movie and you may feel different about it.
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, I believe there is a happy medium between the #BlameBeltran morons in NY and the apologists who insist he was everything his fuckwad agent arrogantly insisted he would be for 7 years and $115 million. He was B+ Beltran for A++ money, and watching him be clutch for the Cards when I watched him clench against the Cards in game 7 of the same round in 2006 does drive me a little bonkers.
ReplyDeleteWhat player actually lives up to the hype that Boras spews? I'm not an apologist, and 2006 still irks me, but he was still one of my favorite Mets. The guy played outstanding defense, played hurt, and put up very good numbers for the Mets. To me, that deal, which also ends up getting Zach Wheeler, may be the best Met signing of the last 20 years.
ReplyDeleteWhich is kinda like being the world's tallest midget.
ReplyDeleteI enjoy Carlos Beltran's stylings.
ReplyDeletethe odds of mark talking baseball while in baton rouge prepping for a gator game were long indeed
ReplyDeleteTTP picks are up
ReplyDelete