With the NFL draft slated for each April we've gotten used to college football players declaring their eligibility for the event following their final game of the season.. For the majority this means one final bowl game prior to their declaration. This season, however, we've seen a tiny hiccup in the process. A handful of players have stated their intentions prior to bowl season-- even during the regular season. A few of those have even chosen to skip those bowl games. The reason for this is two-fold. It gives an athlete a longer period of time to prepare for the NFL combine and also (and probably more importantly) nixes the chances of injury in both bowl practice and the game itself. The danger of injury so close to the draft and its lead-in process could conceivably be devastating for both a first round-type talent and a borderline player. Somewhat surprisingly there has been little backlash for those skipping the bowl games. Its tough even for the most diehard of fans to criticize a player that skips out on the prospect of helping their college team finish 8-5 or 7-6. But this thought should extend beyond this particular example. The amateur system for the money sports pushed by the NCAA is abusive, corrupt, nonsensical, and irresponsible. It flies in the face of economics, the American free-market ideal, and the personal and civil rights of the athletes.
The NCAA pay-for-play argument has certainly garnered more attention over the last half decade. The typical dissenter points to the lack of profit that comes from minor sports and questions the fairness behind paying some athletes and not others. This train of thought has very little merit in my opinion. First, let me be clear: many NCAA athletes are getting a great bargain. Those that receive an education in exchange for playing a non-revenue sport (of which there are many) and athletes at lower division schools are benefiting from a system that is ideal for them. A swimmer at Louisville, a cross-country runner at Georgia, a football player at North Alabama, a volleyball player at Central Missouri, and many others have likely maxed out the value of their abilities and owe a great deal to what is a friendly (to them) NCAA amateur system. In many cases at the lower levels and in non-revenue sports the university is giving up a great deal to benefit those athletes. But pretending this system should apply across the board to all college athletes is silly. Preventing adult athletes from cashing in on their market value is un-American and downright offensive.
First, let's take a look at the least objectionable amateur system of the major sports. The financial viability of NCAA baseball on its own is questionable. However, we do know that it has grown quickly over the last twenty years and continues to expand. The College World Series in Omaha has evolved into quite an event and it unquestionably brings in revenue for the NCAA. High school seniors are draft eligible and many of the top players are selected by the Major League organizations each year. Although that goes a long way towards a fair system it is mitigated by two factors:1) Once enrolled, student-athletes have to stay at their institution for three years or until turning 21.
2) NCAA baseball players rarely receive full scholarships and must sit out a year if they transfer.
As you might expect, many players that aren't deemed worthy of professional dollars out of high school become professionally valued and desired during the course of their college careers. If this happens during the freshman or sophomore seasons, the player must wait in order to sign a professional contract. As others, both younger and older, sign lucrative deals these players must wait and risk injury (of particular concern for pitchers) simply because of unfair NCAA and MLB rules. Additionally, a tiny percentage of NCAA baseball players are having the entirety of school covered. Division 1 institutions have a maximum of 11.7 scholarships for 28 players. If student-athletes elect to transfer to another Division 1 institution, they must sit out the next season. Coaches, of course, are free to move as they choose.
Next we examine the professional transition for NCAA basketball players. After years of some of the top high school talent leaping directly to the professional ranks, the NBA added an age requirement for incoming draftees starting in 2006. This effectively ended the jump to the league for high school seniors. The practice had given the league, in recent years, Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, and Lebron James. When compared to the other professional leagues, the one year delay may not seem that bad. However, basketball offers the best chance for 18 and 19-year-old athletes to compete professionally. Therefore, this one year break likely affects a significant number of physically capable basketball players. Every year there are high school talents that can compete in the NBA that are forced to wait for the payday their skills have earned for them.
Quite frankly the NCAA has lots of things wrong. This is one of the more significant errs in their way. The professional sports leagues' involvement in this scheme is disappointing. NBA executives hid behind questions of athletes' maturity when they instituted their age minimum. But undoubtedly both the NBA and NFL enjoy having high-level minor leagues for which they don't have to pick up the tab. The NCAA system of amateurism is broken. Currently it takes advantage of athletes and pays them a relatively low amount in the form of scholarship money while their schools make millions off of their services. Its time to end this system and allow these athletes to make the money they deserve on the open market, the American way.
