• September 3, 2015

Pay for Top 14 NCAA Executives Totaled Nearly $6-Million Last Year

As athletic departments struggled to weather the recession last year, the National Collegiate Athletic Association spent nearly $6-million to compensate 14 of its highest-ranking executives, according to federal tax documents recently made public.

The highest-paid of those officials was Myles Brand, the former NCAA president who died of cancer last September while still in office.

Mr. Brand received $1,145,880 in total compensation for the fiscal year ending August 2009. The sum included $770,739 in salary and more than $200,000 in bonuses and incentive compensation, as well as other pay and benefits.

Mr. Brand took home $1,710,095 in total compensation in 2007-8, including $815,000 in retirement pay that was deferred from previous years.

Other highly paid executives last year were Thomas W. Jernstedt, the former executive vice president who announced his departure last month after 38 years at the association ($604,679); Bernard W. Franklin, executive vice president for membership and student-athlete affairs ($509,429); and James L. Isch, the former chief financial officer and NCAA interim president who was recently named its chief operating officer ($467,734).

The $6-million set aside in 2008-9 for executive compensation is just under 12 percent of the nearly $50-million the association spent on compensation for all of its employees last year, the records show. The organization, headquartered in Indianapolis, employs more than 400 people.

By comparison, the American Council on Education paid its president, Molly Corbett Broad, roughly $507,000 in total compensation last year, while most of its key employees earned between $200,000 and $300,000.

Next month Mark A. Emmert, the departing president of the University of Washington, will take over as the NCAA's next chief executive. It is not known how much the association will pay Mr. Emmert, whose compensation at Washington last year exceeded $900,000.

In all, the NCAA brought in more than $700-million in revenue last year, up from nearly $660-million the previous year. The bulk of that money—just under $590-million—came from television-rights fees. The NCAA's television contract at the time, which it replaced in April with a more-lucrative agreement, was backloaded to provide the association with greater payouts in the final years of the deal.

Other sources of income for the NCAA included championships and ticket sales (more than $75-million), membership fees (about $12-million), and rights and royalties (just below $8-million).

Much of the NCAA's money is doled out to its 1,200 member institutions and athletic conferences in the form of grants and scholarships. But those contributions vary greatly: Last year, for instance, the NCAA shared $32-million with the Big Ten Conference, in Division I-A; $4-million with the Sun Belt Conference, in Division I-AA; and $72,000 with the Old Dominion Athletic Conference, in Division III.

As a nonprofit organization, the NCAA is not required to pay taxes on its income. That has rankled some critics of spending in college sports, including a few members of Congress, who have asked the association to justify its tax-exempt status.


1. drmink - September 10, 2010 at 12:49 am

I fail to see what the concern is. These salaries are pretty much in line with what you would see for most larger organizations, or even large universities. Wasn't there a recent article in The Chronicle about Vanderbilt having a dozen employees who made more than a million a year?

As for the poor athletic departments, perhaps their own bloated bureaucracy might have a lot to do with their poor fiscal health. That, and the fact that they charter jets for most of their "revenue" sports. Can't they fly commercial?

2. willynilly - September 10, 2010 at 09:53 am

These executives make 6M plus to ensure that the athletes who provide the money for their salaries don't get one penny.

3. cwinton - September 10, 2010 at 10:11 am

This just points out the continuing fiction that the NCAA has any real interest in the academic progress of athletes who compete in NCAA programs. Why this organization should be considered non-profit it beyond me.

4. 11185500 - September 10, 2010 at 11:01 am

Excellent start, Chronicle. As Deep Throat said, "Follow the Money." Keep digging, and you might start with Mark Emmert's package. $700 million in revenue, and I must have overlooked the names of student-athletes who were involved in committees, offices, or other decision making roles in the organization. In our universities we include students in search committees, curriculum committees, and other important roles; shouldn't the NCAA do the same? After all, no student athlete, no NCAA.

5. 11134078 - September 10, 2010 at 11:10 am

Intercollegiate athletics are inherently corrupting because in many ways they are at odds with the purpose and ethic of the university. I have taken to referring to my alma mater as "the Cornell Sports and Exhibition Authority" which seems to define its current orientation as well as does "Cornell University." This is tragic and in the long run dangerous to society.

6. mush9902 - September 10, 2010 at 11:36 am

First off, why in the h*ll do these d*mn companies use a site like chonicle to do their stupid advertisements? Where do these come from?!!!

Secondly, we have gotten (or maybe we're never there) from fairness, that a system that is morally and ethically questionable as college sports and its financial dealings is but a blip on the radar screen compared with what celebrity is doing what.

I am tired of adults making 30,000 a month and more for doing anything. They don't deserve it.

7. _perplexed_ - September 10, 2010 at 12:23 pm

Nonprofit! Profit is the sole purpose of the NCAA.

8. bpdavis - September 10, 2010 at 03:06 pm

Without wishing to speak ill of the dea, Myles Brand must have been a weak negotiator. That salary would only have landed him at #54 on the list of the top 100 College Football coaches. What do you suppose Mack Brown and his top 5 highest paid assistants bring in annually in compensation (hint: Mack himself makes over 5 million)? I wonder if any universities in Mississippi have considered firing their football coaches to save faculty jobs?

9. drmink - September 10, 2010 at 05:37 pm

There are so many misconceptions out there about college sports and athletics. Like

First, most of the money the NCAA receives from their tournaments go back to the universities, often to fund non-revenue sports. What happens after that is up to the university. If you think that football and basketball programs skimp on anything, think again. They may not have a men's wrestling or tennis team on your campus anymore, but no football program is giving up any of their 85 scholarships.

Second, student athletes receive tution, room, board, book allowances, and are eligible for other needs-based aid such as Pell Grants up to the amount available under the university's total financial aid formula. As with all students, families are expected to contribute to some of the costs of education. For families who can't, then Pell Grants are available. Do we really want them paying stipends? How do we decide how much it will be? Who will get the money? Whenever the topic comes up the number they throw out is $1000/mo. I might be old, but isn't that a lot of spending money when everything else is paid for?

Third, the myth of the Chris Webbers who can't buy a pizza is just that, a myth. Next time you are on campus take a look at your student athletes. Are they dressed in tattered clothes, or are they sporting a pro jersey, new jeans, and a new hat. What car are they driving? I don't see many taking the bus or walking. Then there is the issue of travel per diem, which student athletes can pocket if they don't spend it on meals. It isn't, as they say, "chump change". Heck, pizzas are available on meal plans these days.

If you pull up a copy of the NCAA Annual Financial Report you will find they are not sitting on a mound of cash. However, you wouldn't know that if you listen to the newsreaders on ESPN during basketball season.

10. goxewu - September 10, 2010 at 07:41 pm

Re #9:

The problem with the NCAA and bigtime college revenue sports (i.e., football and men's basketball) is not that the NCAA makes too much profit. It's that the colleges with such programs pull in a ton of money with grossly underpaid labor. The oft-used metaphor that D-1A football and men's basketball programs are plantations is pretty close to the mark: The massas (coaches, ADs) with salaries in the millions and mid-six-figures, reign supreme ("My way or the highway") over a bunch of field workers who are paid in, essentially, company scrip (room, board, tuition and books for degrees in "recreation administration" and--my favorite--"leisure studies").

Oh, we hear lots about the athletic success stories in the NBA and NFL, and we hear nicely placed stories about the academic exceptions, e.g. Myron Rolle, the Florida State cornerback who was a Rhodes school. But we never hear much about all those guys down in the middle of the 85 scholarships who busted their butts (football players spend about 44 hours per week on football and only 40 on their studies), only to blow out knees, get demoted to fourth-string on the depth charts, and/or just can't hack the academics and the insane athlete's schedule and never graduate. Lots more of them than there are NFlers and NBAers and Rhodes scholars. And men's basketball is quite open about its Derrick Roses and John Wallses being "one-and-done" de facto pros just using college to audition for the pros. That University of Georgia receiver gets in trouble for selling his bowl jersey to an agent, but the school can sell replica jerseys with his name on it, and it's perfectly OK.

Sure, 97 percent of college athletes end up, as the NCAA add says, going pro in something other than sports ("college athletes" includes all those 3.5 GPA fencers and field hockey players and swimmers and cross-country runners, and "pro" assumedly includes burger-flipping and roadside cleanup), but the graduation rate for D-1A football and men's basketball programs doesn't come close to that. If one steps back for a wider look, there's no reasonable reason why a university should be running a professional-grade sports/entertainment program. And only 14 FBS colleges made a profit on their athletic programs last year, and even the interim NCAA president at the time said the cause was runaway spending on sports.

Bottom line of the bottom line: Colleges with bigtime sports programs use bogus "amateurs" who are actually badly paid professionals to stage stadium and TV spectacles that bring them a lot of revenue (which they then blow on their bigtime sports programs and end up in the red) and, uglier, make even more money for the TV networks.

11. drmink - September 12, 2010 at 12:54 pm

What "grossly underpaid labor"? They have kids on every team getting free college educations who would otherwise being flipping burgers or unemployed. I would say they are doing OK. At the same time, they all get world class training, a venue to show off their skills, and the ones who have the potential get to go from college to a job paying many times what their classmates receive in salary.

I don't see who is getting ripped off.

12. goxewu - September 12, 2010 at 03:34 pm

Re #12:

"I don't see..." in the final paragraph probably explains everything, but nonetheless...

* "Free college educations" is really company scrip, or Confederate money. a) The graduation rate of bigtime college football and men's basketball players shows that many of them don't get the diploma that is, for job-getting purposes, the most important aspect of that putative "education." b) All too many of those players major in the easiest majors possible in order to stay eligible; not a lot of pharmacy, chemistry, engineering, accounting, pre-med majors.

* $50,000 a year in room, board, tuition and books isn't very much for players in programs whose crowds, ticket prices and TV rights are comparable to NFL teams'. The average salary in the NFL is just under $700,000. Bigtime college football players are not only underpaid, they're not even underpaid in actual money, but underpaid in-kind.

(I'm watching the Giants game right now. How much does the coach of the Giants get paid compared to how much his starting quarterback get paid? Off the top, I'd guess that the QB earns maybe three times as much. Yesterday, I caught a few minutes of the Ohio State game. How much does the coach of OSU get paid compared to how much his starting quarterback get paid? Off the top, I'd guess that the coach gets about forty times what the quarterback gets paid in room, board, books and tuition. And off the top, I'd guess that the attendance figures and TV rights money for the two games were comparable. So, who's getting ripped off? The OSU QB, that's who. What, he's getting a venue to show off his talents for the NFL? And, like, the Giants' QB isn't getting a chance show off his skills to up the value of his next contract?)

* If the players "would otherwise be flipping burgers or unemployed," that doesn't say much about their qualifications to be college students in the first place, does it?

* "World class training" to do what other than be professional football and basketball players?

* "A venue to show off their skills." There are about 120 bigtime college football programs, with about 80 "scholarships" apiece. (Why they don't call them "athletiships" I don't know.) The NFL has 32 teams with rosters of about 40 players each. 9600 college players, about 1300 NFL players. And the NFL doesn't totally change rosters every four years, so the openings are limited. And only about a quarter of the college players (starters) really benefit from that "venue to show off their skills."

* The "ones who have the potential" for the NFL or the NBA are a very small percentage of the players. It's a bit of a lottery. And the ones with the "potential" are the ones who leave school anywhere from three years early (the "one and done" basketball players) to a year early, sans degree.

Boola boola.

13. hamsandwich - September 13, 2010 at 12:52 pm


You ought to be a bit more careful with your slavery references (massas, plantations, Confederate money...) - last time I checked, participation in collegiate athletics was voluntary.

Please enlighten us about which "120 bigtime college football programs" you're referring to - you are probably trying to refer to the number of division 1 programs. But believe me, the vast are not "bigtime" (think Buffalo, Duke, Navy, Air Force, Rice, UTEP, Temple, etc etc).

Do you assign any value to the free tuition, room and board, spending money, travel, tutoring, etc available to these athletes? Plus all of the unofficial "perks" of being BMOC (Big Men on Campus) that you and I probably did not enjoy... enough said there, I think. And there's the network of alums that often help ex-athletes get jobs after football/basketball.

How is the numbers game that you point out (very few getting pro contracts) all that different from what happens in all of the other majors? Does every biology/pre-med student make it to med school? Every history major/pre-law student make it to law school? How many humanities PhD students go on to get tenure-track jobs? How is this any different?

And if athletes don't graduate, whose fault is it? Ever heard of personal responsibility? Blowing out a knee doesn't mean you have to drop out of school and become a bum.

And your comparison of salaries between coaches and players is a bit insincere, isn't it? You don't really believe that do you? Does the guy running the camera on Oprah's show make anything near what the host does? What about her producers? Does that make her a "massa"? Does the PhD lecturer at your local med school make nearly as much as the dean? Does the dean make near as much as the famous cardiovascular surgeon there? Does the pharmaceutical sales rep make close to what the CEO does? We are living in a capitalistic society, you know.

In the end, I think it's time to stop feeling sorry for the athletes. They signed up for this, are aware of the risks/benefits, and get an awful lot of things in return for their work.

Boola boola indeed. Wake up my friend.

14. davi2665 - September 13, 2010 at 01:39 pm

How amusing that faculty practically foam at the mouth at the thought of a university president earning 1/2 or less compared with NCAA leaders, but are remarkably understanding of the need to pour endless big dollars into the entertainment component of college/university life.

15. goxewu - September 13, 2010 at 02:38 pm

Re #12:

* Plantations (e.g., rubber, sugar) still exist all over the world and aren't maintained by slave labor, just very cheap labor.

* "Bigtime college football programs" = the Football Bowl Subdivision with, actually, closer to 130 members than 120. While they all may not be Oklahoma, USC, Ohio State or the SEC teams, they all participate in the same corruptions of admissions standards, exploitation of labor (e.g. $700,000 average and $325,000 minimum NFL salaries in actually money vs. about $40-50k in barter--tuition, board, books, etc. in college), and general tail-wagging-the-dog perversion of the academic mission of universities. (I've no objection to a triple-A football league; I just don't see why the teams in it have to be connected to universities.)

* The value I assign to what revenue-sports athletes get in in-kind compensation is addressed in #12.

* BMOC went out with beaver coats and straw boaters. Jock dorms, jock study centers, jock gut classes, jock majors--it's separate and unequal. If you read the police blotters in towns with FBS programs you'll see the perq is clubs at 3am, parking-lot brawls as a garnish.

* The proportion of pre-med and pre-law students who graduate getting jobs in careers relating to their majors is obviously greater than the proportion of D-1A football players getting jobs in the NFL. Don't have stats, but you can look 'em up.

* You gotta love that a presumed fan of big-time college football and its sacrifice-for-the-team demands would turn around and accuse a football player who blew out a knee and then failed to graduate as lacking in "personal responsibility" and becoming a "bum." The physical and temporal demands placed upon bigtime college football players (e.g., more hours spent on football than their studies, and coaches routinely exceeding the regulation number of practice hours, midweek night games) makes their lasting even a couple of years almost heroic. I don't "feel sorry" for athletes, I just know that, as a class, they're exploited. If anybody needs to be tutored in personal responsibility, it's fans. (Yeah, I'm a mild fan, and I share in the corruption.)

* Yes, we live in a capitalistic society. In that great capitalistic enterprise, the NFL, average players make about what assistant coaches make, and star players make multiples of what the head coach makes. The players are the Oprahs and supporting on-camera cast, not the camera operators. It's only in the decidedly faux-amateur, NCAA-regulated UN-capitalistic demimonde of FBS football and D-1 basketball that labor can be exploited like it is there. Note: Tennis and the Olympics used to be faux-amateur, too. They're not anymore and, while they may have major flaws, the stench of hypocritical faux-amateurism isn't one of them.

hamsandwich might want to take a look at this post on CHE's college athletics blogsite, "Players": http://chronicle.com/blogPost/The-Joke-Is-Still-Good/26608/

16. goxewu - September 13, 2010 at 02:41 pm

Sorry. Re #13.

17. hamsandwich - September 13, 2010 at 03:25 pm


I understand some of your points, but...

1. as for corruptions of admissions standards - this happens in lots of ways at lots of universities, where it's lauded as a way to get "first-generation college students" an education. Universities are serving themselves here as well, so that they can trumpet how diverse they are. Not unique to athletics. as for exploitation of labor, you can't equate NFL salaries to what college kids (should, in your opinion) make - the NFL guys are WAY better than your average college player, who will never make the NFL. That argument is like saying paralegals ought to make what partners in law practices make. Or that postdocs should make what the professor makes. The college players are in a training position, and SHOULD NOT make close to what the pros do.

2. BMOC went out... are you kidding, have you ever been on campus with the athletes? They have near-celebrity status for 4 years. Not a bad way to go through college. And nice generalization about football players - any stats on what % are out beating peoples' brains out in parking lots at 3 AM? Must be all of them, right?

3. Depending on your line of work, we are all exploited to some degree. And yes, if you blow your knee out playing football, you still should get your education. I'm not accusing anybody of anything, but if that guy decides not to graduate, then it's on him, not the system. Yes, there are demands on players, both physical and temporal, but there are also lots of support (tutors, etc) to help them out. A lot more than for the typical college kid who works 30 hrs a week to pay for college (did that) or the single mom who gets a degree while working and raising a kid.

Again, stop being so angry about college football. Everybody gets a benefit, including the coaches, the NCAA execs, the fans, and yes, even the school. Rich alums LOVE to pay for things at their university when they're doing well on the gridiron. Just enjoy the games and please stop trying to paint the players as victims and/or slaves.

18. goxewu - September 13, 2010 at 04:55 pm

Bottom line: Colleges with bigtime football programs are perverting their academic missions by running multimillion-dollar sports/entertainment programs with underpaid labor who are faux-amateur students and overpaid coaches who earn multiples of what the nominal CEOs (the presidents) make. Once upon a time, it was tolerable as goofball Americana (120,000 to watch Notre Dame and USC in Chicago in the 1920s), but it's now grotesquely corrupt. "Just enjoy the games" is head-in-the-sand.

Apparently hamsandwich didn't take a look at http://chronicle.com/blogPost/The-Joke-Is-Still-Good/26608/

I could go into further into specifics, e.g., the bogus argument that college football players are in "training" positions a la post-docs. Hello? The pros in football and basketball would gladly take underclassmen on the basis of performance (e.g., poor Maurice Clarett, the ultimate screwed-over athlete), but the colleges and the pro leagues have entered into sweetheart (and clearly restraint-of-trade) deals wherein colleges get to keep their stock of faux-amateur football and basketball players for at least a year or two.

But it's just too fatiguing. True-believer college sports fans are like true-believer religionists: ""

19. goxewu - September 13, 2010 at 04:56 pm

Sorry, last part deleted. It read:

"SID said it, I believe it, that settles it."

20. hamsandwich - September 13, 2010 at 05:24 pm

Now you're just messing with us... "e.g., poor Maurice Clarett, the ultimate screwed-over athlete" - you mean the overrated RB who ran for 1400+ yards behind one of the biggest, strongest, and most talented O-lines in college football, made a ton of stupid mistakes that eventually got him kicked out of college, then who sued to enter the draft early, then showed up to the combine fat and out of shape and ran something like a 5.0 second 40, and followed all of that up with an armed robbery - you can't mean that guy, can you? A victim of the system? Or maybe a knucklehead who didn't take personal responsibility. Remember that concept that I mentioned earlier?

And the move to keep football and basketball players in school for extra time isn't just supported by the NCAA - it also is a concept embraced by many GMs who are able to use the extra playing time as a tool to evaluate talent prior to draft day - it slows down some of the arms-race mentality that has resulted in payments of huge $$ to high school kids who are being drafted solely on "upside"...

As much as I'm sure you hate to admit it, these issues are more complex than your veiled assertion that it's just a bunch of old guys sitting around trying to figure out ways to screw over a bunch of young athletes. Everybody's using and benefitting from this system - the fans, the athletes, the coaches, the NCAA execs, the schools, ESPN, etc etc.

I'm sorry that seeing another side of an issue leaves you fatigued. Your colleagues must be so lucky to have your open mind around.

21. goxewu - September 13, 2010 at 09:18 pm

"...it's just a bunch of old guys sitting around trying to figure out ways to screw over a bunch of young athletes." Couldn't have said it much better. Except that they probably don't really set out to screw them over; the just want as much money and power as they can get, and if young athletes get screwed over in the process, well that's semi-capitalism for you.

"...a concept embraced by many GMs..." Sure, the sweetheart deal is good for the management suits on both ends, and bad for the players. I always love it when the free market is the way to go except, well, when it isn't the way to go. That paragon of virtue, Pete Carroll, was the highest-paid person in all of academe--all of it, including every other official of every other school--and his salary was the result of an "arms-race." But somehow with guys like Carroll and that master of commitment Nick Saban, and Bobby Petrino and Rich Rodriguez, an arms-race is a good thing, while with players, it'd be a bad thing--supposedly because then those coaches couldn't teach them character.

Yeah, I remember "personal responsibility," and how it's one thing for a knee-blown dropout who's a "bum," and quite another for the Pete Carrolls and Brian Kellys of the world who climb the ladder on the backs of their players then go for the gold and leave players in their wakes to take the hit, or tell their players they're definitely staying and then abruptly leave when a richer program offers a job.

Maurice Clarett was good enough to have been a high choice after his freshman year. And the sweetheart deal said he couldn't enter the draft. That amounts to being screwed over. And, right, it was the OL that gained those 1400 yards. (Of course, OSU had "one of the biggest, strongest, etc." offensive lines. It does every year, and so does any top 25 team with a thousand-yard back.)

I'm not fatigued at seeing another side of this issue. I'm just fatigued having to swat endless flies like the "training position" non-point.

"Everybody's using and benefitting from this system - the fans, the athletes, the coaches, the NCAA exces, the schools, ESPN, etc., etc." Right, Dr. Pangloss

But c'mon, you can summon the courage to go to http://chronicle.com/blogPost/The-Joke-Is-Still-Good/26608/ can't you? I mean, jeez, it's just a couple of clicks away right here on the publication of record in American higher education. If you can't, I'll be happy to (spoiler alert!) give you the last answer of the interview:

"'Scoreboard, Baby' end with the [University of Washington] hiring new assistant football coaches at exorbitant salaries (defensive coordinator: $2.1 million over three years) and asking the state's taxpayers to foot the bill for a $150 million renovation of Husky Stadium. These developments took place while Washington was in a state of economic meltdown. The state's budget deficit closed in on $8 billion. People were being laid off or furloughed. Essential state services were being cut to the bone...To a large extent, the problems with college football today are the same ones that could be found 50 or even 100 years ago. It's cultural. It's communal. It's all about values. Whether the year is 1916 or 2000 or 2010, that mind-set is the root of the problem."

Yep, everybody benefits.

And BTW, my colleagues and I generally agree on the grotesqueness of bigtime college revenue sports. That's probably because none of us needs a label turning blue to tell us our beer is cold.

Yep, everybody benefits.

22. hamsandwich - September 13, 2010 at 10:22 pm

Wow, goxewu - your cup of bitterness runneth over. Did you not make the varsity team? Or maybe your alma mater is lousy at football?

As for reading the blogpost, so what? Corruption's everywhere. Companies, academic departments, families, churches... You've really got to stop picking anectdotal stories of bad apples to prove your point (Pete Carrol, Bobby Petrino, UW) - there are a lot of examples of how athletics has done wonderful things for people, and there are a lot of wonderful people in athletics - ever heard of coach K, Frank Beamer, Mack Brown? Ignore one side and rant about the other. Just vote no to collegiate athletics by turning off your TV, stop buying tickets, and stop posting ignorant opinions on the internet.

23. goxewu - September 14, 2010 at 09:43 am

Made the team, high school, that is, and not football. Mediocre at sports, but love to (try to) play.

"So what, everything's corrupt" is a great defense of bigtime college revenue sports. And naming not-corrupt coaches to counter corrupt coaches is like naming cops who aren't on the take to try to prove the department isn't corrupt. Not impressive.

"...truing of your TV, stop buying tickets..." What happened to "just enjoy the games"?

"...posting ignorant opinions on the internet..." Compare the evidence and argumentation in my comments to hamsandwich's much more ad hominem posts.

Sis boom bah (humbug).

24. rsmulcahy - September 14, 2010 at 05:30 pm

I wish hamsandwich could jam goxeru's mouth closed. Regardless of whether revenue sport student-athletes fit some anachronistic ideal of amateurism (that never really existed anyway) I can still not understand why this subject makes some people, including goxewu, foam at the mouth. Really, college sports subverts the whole academic enterprise from top to bottom? Wow, who knew that football and basketball players, who constitute .004% of undergraduates at an average sized DI school, had the power to bring higher education to its knees. And as for goxewu's fact checking, he needs to improve on that. The University of Wasington's athletic program is self-sustaining and does not take tax dollars to support its athletic programs and the renovation of Husky stadium, which literally is falling apart, will be funded by a 100% private funding model. And in any case, if you find American values crass and materialistic, who doesn't? Do you think you have stumbled on to some social conspiracy? Get over yourself or move to Europe.

25. rsmulcahy - September 14, 2010 at 05:38 pm

Oh, forgot one key point. I agree with goxeru about the issue of exploitation of college students. It must stop. We must prevent any undergraduate at a US college from taking an unpaid internship in a company. Those fat capitalist bastards are using these interns like chattel, making them copy reports, file documents and potentially suffer a Starbuck's coffee burning. And for what, so corporations get slave labor to improve their bottom line. Regardless of the all the potential networking, professional experience and career opportunities that result from these interships, someone has to say enough is enough and prevent students from furthering their educations. Keep them unemployed but with values intact! Great idea.

26. goxewu - September 15, 2010 at 07:52 am

Re #s 24 & 25:

"I wish hamsandwich could jam goxeru's mouth closed...goxewu, foam[s] at the mouth...Get over yourself or move to Europe."

Gee, hard to counter that kind of intellectual sophistication. Nevertheless:

* The percentage of students constituted by revenue-sports college athletes at D-1A schools is irrelevant. If it is relevant, it's counter to the alleged wonderfulness of D-1A revenue sports: all those millions spent upon such a small percentage of students. (No, those millions don't bring in huge profits that then benefit the other 99+ percent of the students. Most bigtime athletic programs break even at best.)

* The author of "Scoreboard, Baby!" writes that the athletic department at UW was "asking the state's taxpayers to foot the bill for a $150 million renovation of Husky Stadium." I suspect that means the renovation was part of a bond issue. If rsmulcahy has information that there were no tax dollars involved in the renovation of Husky Stadium, I stand corrected.

* College football players are not equivalent to interns in corporations. I'll leave it to rsmulcahy's supple mind to ferret out the reasons why. (There is, BTW, a much-discussed issue concerning internships. Unpaid or tokenly paid internships are commonly taken by students and graduates who can afford to work for little or nothing, i.e., well-off kids. Less well-off recent graduates and students who need real jobs are thereby shut out of many entry-level positions and the career tracks are populated all the more by the economically--not necessarily meritocratically--privileged. And corporations are well aware of the bottom-line advantages of converting otherwise entry-level real jobs to internships.)

* I may be a tad intemperate on the subject of bigtime college sports, but I'm not some weird loner in my position. hamsandwich and rsmulcahy might want to take a look at The Drake Group (www.thedrakegroup.org), a national orgianization dedicated to restoring some sense of proportion to college sports. And, at many college and universities with bigtime revenue sports programs, there are similar groups of concerned faculty. Sure, they're swimming upstream, but so is anybody who takes the side of integrity in a battle against really, really big money.

* Finally, a question. If everybody (i.e., "who doesn't") finds "American values crass and materialistic," why doesn't rsmulcahy advise everybody to move to Europe? Or is relax-and-enjoy the recommended policy toward "crass and materialistic" American values?

27. studentsuccess10 - September 17, 2010 at 04:47 pm

I am looking for a country where people don't just want to make as much money as they can without any regard for those around them. I can't seem to identify such a place.

28. toroc - September 18, 2010 at 01:08 am

Right, the topic makes Goxewu foam at the mouth, yet you wish Hamsandwich could shut his mouth just so you wouldn't have to hear it. It seems to me like all this animosity is born out of the thought, "these people are lucky to be playing sports for a living" and jealosy of the perks that go along with being good at what they do, but they still have a right to be fairly compensated for what they do.

This is all based on principle, sure theoretically college players have it good, but they know they're worth so much more, anyone knows that. Basically they are employees of the NCAA, but they are also the product, they are the reason the NCAA even exists and the only reason things are the way they are is tradition.

I don't like to bring slavery up, but this is a comparible situation. Like now its obvious to anyone but some racist that slavery is wrong, like you can't believe it was even a question. In a hundred years (maybe in ten years) I don't doubt things will have changed, it just happenes little by little. College athletes will be more well compensated than they are now at the least and people won't even question it. As a matter of fact you can just compare it to Pro Sports. Basketball is my sport and 50 years ago you couldn't be traded, and compared to what they earned players were grossly underpaid, and the rich owners could always count on the publics jealousy of the players to keep the status quo going, until of course more and more people realized that it was bull.

Basically the only reason things haven't changed in College Sports is because its a bunch of old, experieced, corrupt men taking advantage of young, naive, inexperienced minds, that don't have the wherewithal to come together and form something like a union, but everyday the scale tips a little further in their favor.

Add Your Comment

Commenting is closed.

  • 1255 Twenty-Third St., N.W.
  • Washington, D.C. 20037
subscribe today

Get the insight you need for success in academe.