How the NCAA Tournament Generates Billions From March Madness

NCAA Tournament generates billions for coaches bonuses from March Madness

March Madness 2019 is in full swing. The NCAA’s cash cow basketball tournament started on March 19th and is slated to make billions in revenue. The NCAA tournament has college basketball fans abuzz about who will be this year’s victor. In the midst of all of the excitement, the NCAA continues to face well-deserved criticism for its exploitive college athletics system. Even famed sports broadcaster Dick Vitale weighed in and stated that he believes that it is time that college basketball players get paid. Well-respected industry leaders addressing the injustices of college basketball’s premier event leads one to seriously question just how much money is at stake in March Madness?

March Madness is the NCAA’s Cash Cow

2017 was a monumental year for the NCAA. It was the first year the NCAA cleared one billion dollars in revenue. That is right the NCAA, a non-profit organization, cleared one billion dollars in revenue. Where on Earth did all of that money come from?

College T-shirts at Fanatics.com

The Bulk of the Money Comes From Marketing and Television Rights for March Madness and a few Other Sources

A huge chunk of the NCAA’s revenue comes from its broadcasting deal for March Madness. In 2016, the NCAA extended their contract with CBS Sports and Turner, a division of Time Warner, for the broadcasting rights of the Men’s March Madness basketball tournament. The extension, which runs through 2032, added 8 years and 8.8 billion dollars to the original contract. Essentially, the new deal will pay an average of 1.1 billion dollars per season.

As a result of the contract extension, the NCAA made $817,517,801 from television and marketing rights fees in 2017. Also in 2017, the NCAA made $128,113,594 from ticket sales, concessions, parking, and other tournaments such as the National Invitational Tournament (NIT). The average price paid for tickets in 2018 was $1,845 for the full Final Four experience and a mere $1,010 for the championship game only.

From these numbers, it should be clear why Dick Vitale and college athlete rights advocates contend revenue generating athletes should be paid. Clearly, there is enough money. Without the athletes, the NCAA would not have a product to negotiate a deal like the one with CBS Sports and Turner. Fans tune in to see the best of the best compete. That very fact is what gave the NCAA the leverage for that billion dollar deal.

NCAA tournament television revenue coaches bonuses

The NCAA is not the Only Beneficiaries – Colleges, Conferences, and Coaches Benefit too

The Big Payday for Colleges and Conferences

After the net is cut and the trophy is presented, colleges and their respective conferences await a big payday. A portion of the March Madness revenue is paid out to the colleges and conferences. Colleges use the money for a variety of things, including scholarships and funding for non-revenue sports. Division 1 conferences get the bulk of the money. The NCAA considers a variety of factors when distributing the money. Those factors include support of non-revenue sports, performance in the tournament over six years, and the number of full-rides given to athletes.

College T-shirts at Fanatics.com

In 2016, the Big 10 received the biggest payout at $57,540,348. The Western Coast Conference came in at number ten on the list at $8,192,085. The conferences funnel the money down to the schools. The largest payment to a school came in 2016 when Stanford University was paid $3,250,544. From these numbers, is it is clear why the debate regarding payment for revenue-generating college athletes is such a hot topic. Clearly, there is enough money. 

Coaches Receive Huge Bonus Incentives

Similar to Division 1 college football coaches receiving bonuses for bowl game appearances, Division 1 college basketball coaches receive bonuses for March Madness appearances. Basketball coaches receive bonuses for merely advancing to the tournament. Some even receive a bonus for a victory in the first round of the tournament. The bonus incentive increases as the team progresses to each level of the tournament. The levels include the Sweet Sixteen, Elite Eight, and the Final Four.

If Arizona State’s head coach Bobby Hurley won the 2018 title, he would have received up to $1.4 million in bonuses above his base salary. The simple fact that $1.4 million in bonuses could have been paid to Hurley for coaching a winning team totally disproves the argument that there is not enough money floating around to pay the athletes. Clearly, there is enough money.

March Madness is Big Business for Everyone Except the Athletes

It appears that everyone, expect the labor force is able to profit from March Madness. Everyone from the NCAA down to the locales where the games are held rake in millions of dollars from the tournament. Even the least watched games will generate millions of dollars for their universities. However, the players will be limited to their scholarship. For the next few weeks, fans will be bombarded with March Madness ads using the likeness of athletes who would be guilty of NCAA violations if they individually promoted that same image. This is March Madness, the NCAA’s billion-dollar cash cow.


March Madness: Top 5 Greatest Moments In NCAA Tournament History

Greatest March Madness shots Christian Laettner

As College Basketball Insider Jon Rothstein likes to say, “This is March.” Welcome to one of the best times of the year, March Madness. For my money, the first two days of the NCAA Tournament are the two best sporting days of the year. There’s nothing better than 32 basketball games that are full of non-stop action, buzzer beaters, and the agony of defeat. I challenge you to name anything better in sports than those two days.

There are so many unforgettable March Madness moments that you began to lose track of them. It seems that every buzzer-beater gets better and better. Narrowing the list down to five is almost impossible, but I’m going to give you my most top 5 moments in NCAA Tournament History. Let the debate begin.

College T-shirts at Fanatics.com

5. George Mason’s Magical Run To The Final Four

https://youtu.be/NcV13jffIQE

George Mason walked so that Sister Jean could run. Before VCU, Wichita State, and Loyola Chicago made their magical runs to the Final Four; there was George Mason. In 2006, the George Mason Patriots made one of the greatest runs to the Final Four as an 11 seed. Keep in mind that George Mason did not even win their conference that year. The Patriots lost in the CAA semis to Hofstra and had to sweat it out on Selection Sunday. The committee granted George Mason with an 11 seed, and the rest was history. On their historic run, George Mason knocked off Tom Izzo, Roy Williams, Gregg Marshall, and Jim Calhoun. Beating three Hall of Fame coaches on the way to the Final Four is pretty damn impressive. It wasn’t always pretty, but George Mason’s grit and toughness overcame the odds to reach the Final Four.

4. The Legend Of Steph Curry

There’s putting on a show, and then there’s what Steph Curry did in the 2008 NCAA Tournament. Steph Curry was not on any NBA radars back in 2008. Steph was a talented shooter, but most people only recognized him because of his last name and his father, Dell, who played in the NBA. That all changed with one legendary NCAA tournament run. Look at these numbers that Steph posted in a four game stretch.

TireBuyer.com

128 points in 4 games is insane. Keep in mind that Davidson was a #10 seed and was one shot away from making the Final Four. Steph’s range and ability to create his own shot were put on full display, and NBA scouts took notice. Now, Curry is arguably the greatest shooter in the history of the NBA. It all started with a magical run in the tournament.

3. Kris Jenkins Wins The National Championship For Villanova

Not all buzzer beaters are created equal. Winning in the first round from a buzzer beater is cool, but winning the National Championship with a buzzer beater is iconic. Under Jay Wright, Villanova was always a solid team, but could never put it all together when it really mattered. It wasn’t until 2013 that Villanova consistently became one of the best teams in the country. From 2013-2018, Villanova accumulated a record of 165 wins and 21 with two National Championships. Everything about this play is awesome. The presence of mind to flip back to Jenkins as Grant Hill says to “watch Jenkins.” Nantz says “for the championship” as the ball goes in is such a perfect moment. Plus, the confetti cannons going off while pandemonium ensues is incredible.

Shop now at Columbia.com!

2. Jimmy V Looks For A Hug

I mentioned that George Mason walked so that the other Cinderellas could run. Well, Jim Valvano and NC State crawled so that George Mason could walk. NC State upsetting Houston in the championship of the 1983 NCAA Tournament is one of the greatest upsets of all time. I highly recommend watching Survive and Advance, an ESPN 30 for 30 which chronicles Jimmy V and that 1983 NC State team that won it all. NC State was able to overcome a “Phi Slama Jama” which had two future Hall of Famers in Hakeem Olajuwon and Clyde Drexler. Lorenzo Charles’s dunk at the last second to win the title was special, but Jimmy V looking for someone to hug after the game is the defining image from this game.

College T-shirts at Fanatics.com

1. Christian Laettner Hits The Shot

Love him or hate him, and most people hate him, there’s no denying the fact that Christian Laettner was one of the greatest college basketball players of all time. In 1992, Mike Krzyzewski and the number one seed Duke squared off against Rick Pitino and the number two seed Kentucky in the Elite 8 to determine the last spot in the Final Four. With 2.1 seconds in overtime, Duke, the defending National Champion, was down 1 point with the ball. Grant Hill threw a full court heave to Laettner, who caught the ball at the free throw line, had the presence of mind to take a dribble, and nailed the game winning shot as time expired. This game is widely considered as the greatest game in the history of the NCAA Tournament. What’s so underrated about the game is Laettner’s stat line. Laettner finished the game with 31 points and 7 rebounds, which sounds like a good day from the office. However, Laettner was 10 for 10 from the field and 10 for 10 from the free throw line. Laettner was perfect and so was his shot.

What are your most unforgettable moments from the NCAA Tournament? Leave your thoughts in the comments below.

The NCAA Fights Congressional Bill to Pay College Athletes

Congressional Bill Student-Athlete Equity Act name likeness

On March 14, 2019, Congressman Mark Walker of North Carolina introduced the Student-Athlete Equity Act. The Act purports to amend the tax code so that amateur sports organizations such as the NCAA can no longer strip student-athletes of their publicity rights. Publicity rights are a person’s right to control the commercial use of their name, image, and likeness. Currently, college athletes are required to relinquish control of those rights when they agree to engage in a collegiate sport.

TireBuyer.com

If signed into law, the Student-Athlete Equity Act would return those basic rights to college athletes. Doing so would go a long way in the pay-for-play debate. Opponents of paying college athletes argue that there simply is not enough money. They further contend that paying college athletes would bankrupt the schools. Opponents also argue that such payments could lead to issues with Title IX compliance.

With these concerns, it would seem that allowing college athletes to profit off their name, image, and likeness would be a no brainer. This simple modification would move the needle forward in creating a more equitable college athletics system. However, the problem lies in the fact that the NCAA does not sincerely wish to create a more equitable system. They demonstrated this in their response to the Student-Athlete Equity Act.

College T-shirts at Fanatics.com

The NCAA’s Response to the Student-Athlete Equity Act

In the response, the NCAA further affirmed its true purpose; protecting amateurism. The NCAA reaffirmed its contention that in order to protect amateurism, college athletes must not receive any benefit that is “untethered to education.” The NCAA called the bill unnecessary. The organization further argued that the bill “may only benefit a small number of student-athletes and cause unintended consequences and negatively impact opportunities for all other college athletes.” This assumption was a major leap. How does the NCAA know who will benefit from the legislation? The answer is that they do not know. The NCAA’s fear is that it may actually benefit college athletes and expose amateurism for the farce that is.

The Bill Could and Most Likely Will Benefit the Majority of College Athletes

Restoring the publicity rights of college athletes would be moneumental in remedying the injustices in the college athletics system. It could finally give college athletes a viable stake in the billion dollar industry their labor propels. College athletes would be able to garner endorsement deals from companies like Nike, Adidas, or Gatorade. Additionally, college athletes would be able to garner endorsement deals with local businesses in the towns their schools are located.

Many areas where colleges are located are regarded as “college towns.” Almost everyone in the town feels a kinship towards the school and its teams. Accordingly, it is highly likely that local businesses would offer endorsement deals as well. These types of opportunities would go a long way to help every college athlete. Local companies may even offer endorsements to lesser-known college athletes. Specifically, those that attend local Division II and Division III colleges. Those schools tend to have a strong local presence and connection with the local community.

With the plethora of possible opportunities, it difficult to understand why an organization that claims to work for the college athlete’s best interest would be so against it. Especially, when allowing college athletes to profit off their name, image, and likeness would not cost the schools nor NCAA any extra money. Furthermore, it does not present any Title IX issues. It would seem that the NCAA would view the Act as a positive and as an opportunity to teach college athletes important life skills.

The NCAA Should View the Act and a Positive and as a Teaching Opportunity

The NCAA and its member institutions could introduce college athletes to a whole new world. The world of financial empowerment. With endorsement opportunities, the NCAA and the schools could teach college athletes about contracts and how to negotiate. They could teach college athletes about financial planning and how to invest. In short, the NCAA could teach college athletes life skills to help them best use their endorsement money and the future earnings from their highly valued degrees.

Together with the earnings from their endorsements, the earnings from their degrees, and their financial literacy training, college athletes would be in a position to truly experience upward mobility and build wealth. Implementing these sorts of initiatives would go a long way to push the NCAA’s student-athlete welfare agenda. Will this ever happen? Probably not, because the NCAA’s primary concern is preserving amateurism.

College Football Coaches are Threatened ​by ​NCAA Transfer Portal

Transfer Portal NCAA college football

What an interesting college football off-season this is shaping up to be. College football players are wielding their newly found freedom with the NCAA’s transfer portal. Last summer, the NCAA announced the creation of a new transfer portal that would allow college athletes to pursue transferring to another school without first obtaining their coaches permission. […]

Continue reading

Should There be an Increase in Women College Coaches?

The women’s college basketball season is in full swing! The race to the Women’s Final Four has begun. Hopefully, the upcoming Final Four will be as exciting and as the last one. The 2018 Women’s Final Four was one of the most exciting college basketball has ever seen.  It was groundbreaking in the way its unpredictable nature reinvigorated the excitement of women’s college basketball. Each game was a thriller. The 2018 Women’s Final Four made history by way of viewership and attendance.  7.62 million people watched the series on ESPN.[i] The total attendance was 36,123 fans (which was an increase from 2017).[ii]  However, there was one area where the 2018 Final Four was not groundbreaking or progressive and that is in the area of women college coaches.

Even though it was the premier women’s college basketball tournament, only one out of the four coaches were female.  The others were white males. UConn, Louisville, and Mississippi State all had male coaches, while the victor of the tournament Notre Dame, had a female coach. The makeup of the coaches in the tournament highlights an unfortunate reality in many women’s collegiate sports. It highlights the lack of women coaches in college athletics.

The Number of Female Coaches is Decreasing

A study conducted by the Tucker Center for Research on Girls and Women in Sport at the University of Minnesota and the Alliance of Women Coaches found that only 20 percent of all college coaching positions are held by women.[iii] However, the percentage of head coaches in women’s Division 1 college basketball is roughly 56 percent.[iv] Unfortunately, the number of female head coaches in Division 1 women’s basketball is declining. In 2017, the data showed that for the past six years the number of female head basketball coaches decreased by 11 percent.[v] The number of male head coaches in women’s basketball increased by 33 percent.[vi]

Additionally, there is a lack of female head coaches in other sports as well.  For example, in NCAA Division 1 track and field women only hold 10 head coaching positions compared to the 83 held by men.[vii] Similarly, in cross-country women hold only 17 head coaching positions compared the 86 held by men.    The overall lack of female coaches in college athletics leads to two questions.[viii]  First, why are there so few female college coaches? Second, what should be done to increase the number of female college coaches?

Why is There a Lack of Female College Coaches?

There are several factors that contribute to the lack of female college coaches.

Factor 1

The first factor and probably the most important is the nature of the job. Coaching is a very time intensive and demanding job.  To effectively coach, one must be able to give adequate amounts of time to recruiting, mentoring, and actual coaching. Each of these aspects of the job is extremely time intensive.  Furthermore, coaching requires an extensive amount of travel. The time and travel demands do not lend itself to a woman who may have just started a family or who wants to start a family.  Though it is not impossible, it is very difficult to have young children and be fully immersed in coaching the way the job requires.  Hence, this one factor has a trickle-down effect to the other factors.

Factor 2

Unfortunately, the nature of the job does not lend itself to women who have young children or to women who plan to have children. As a result, the field has been left to men and the majority of coaching jobs are filled by men.  As previously stated, the decline of female head coaches in women’s basketball has led to an increase in male head coaches.  Why are men better able to navigate the world of coaching? One reason is that in many cases it is easier for men to balance their family life with work. In many cases, women take on the brunt of family life and caring for children as society dictates. Due to this, men often have more time to dedicate to the profession. Hence, this reality leads to the next factor.

Factor 3

Men dominate the field. Therefore, young female athletes do not get to see themselves represented as a coach. As a result, not many former female athletes go into coaching because they do not see it as an option. Even at the youth sports level, there are not many female coaches.  According to a study conducted by the Aspen Institute, only 22.5 percent of youth coaches were female.[ix] This number is down from the 28 percent in the previous study.[x] The lack of female coaches at the youth level is also likely low because women do not have the time to dedicate to it.

Increasing the Number of Female Coaches

Increasing the number of female collegiate coaches needs to start at the youth level. An increase of female coaches in youth sports will entice more women to go into coaching.  Being coached by a woman at a young age will allow young female athletes to see themselves represented at the coaching level. It will make them believe that they can do it too.  The resulting new interest in coaching that young female athletes will have will put more women in the pipeline for coaching positions.

Additionally, there are things that can be done administratively to help increase the number of female coaches. Those things include implementing the Eddie Robinson Rule and the Judy Sweet Rule.  However, those measures would not mean much without increasing the number of youth female coaches.  Therefore, increasing the number of youth female coaches is necessary to get future generations of women into coaching.

[i]  2018 Women’s Final Four Make History in Columbus, NCAA Division 1 Women’s Basketball

(Apr. 13, 2018),https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-women/article/2018-04-13/2018-womens-final-four-makes-history-columbus.

[ii]  Id.

[iii] Manie Robinson, Clemson, University of South Carolina get a C on Coaching Staff Gender Equality, Greenville News (July 13, 2018, 8:50 AM), https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/sports/2018/07/13/clemson-usc-sports-earn-average-grades-gender-equality/777088002/.

[iv] Layne Saliba, Female Head Women’s Basketball Coaches in NCAA on the Decline, The Red & Black (Apr. 25, 2017),  https://www.redandblack.com/sports/female-head-women-s-basketball-coaches-in-ncaa-on-the/article_34e21388-29c2-11e7-a5ad-c7589fe72cce.html.

[v] Id.

[vi]Id.

[vii] Erin Strout, American Running Needs More Female Coaches, Outside (Sept. 14, 2018), https://www.outsideonline.com/2342711/why-we-need-more-female-coaches.

[viii] Id.

[ix]  State of Play 2018 Trends and Developments (2018), available at https://assets.aspeninstitute.org/content/uploads/2018/10/StateofPlay2018_v4WEB_2-FINAL.pdf?_ga=2.30622070.81258157.1541265952-407175075.1523447928.

[x]State of Play 2017 Trends and Developments (2017), available at https://assets.aspeninstitute.org/content/uploads/2017/12/FINAL-SOP2017-report.pdf.

Dewan Hernandez’s Reinstatement Case Exposes NCAA’s True Purpose

The NCAA demonstrated their most important values when they failed to reinstate the University of Miami basketball star, Dewan Hernandez. Hernandez is one of the 19 basketball players implicated in the college basketball scandal due to his alleged relationship with aspiring agent Christian Dawkins. Due to the alleged relationship, Hernandez’s eligibility was put into jeopardy. Although there was little to no evidence that Hernandez received an “impermissible benefit” from Dawkins, the NCAA still refused to reinstate him. As a result of the NCAA’s decision, Hernandez decided to withdraw from school and prepare for the 2019 NBA draft.

How does an organization that seeks to ensure that every college athlete is able to obtain their degree while playing their sport justify putting Hernandez in the position where he felt it was best to leave school and prepare for the pros? The answer is simple. The NCAA’s highest priority lies in the last phrase of their basic purpose.

The NCAA’s Basic Purpose

Article 1.3.1 of the NCAA Division I Manual states the NCAA’s basic purpose. The NCAA’s basic purpose is to “maintain intercollegiate athletics as an integral part of the educational program and the athlete as an integral part of the student body, and by so doing, retain a clear line of demarcation between intercollegiate athletics and professional sports.”[i] While this purpose may be noble in theory, Hernandez’s case reveals what is really important to the NCAA. What is really important to the NCAA is the last phrase of their purpose regarding maintaining the distinction between college and professional sports.

Dewan Hernandez’s Reinstatement Case

In practice, the NCAA’s basic purpose translates to the NCAA stopping at nothing to maintain the distinction between college and professional sports. Even if means failing at maintaining the college athlete as an integral part of the student body and punishing an underserving athlete. Hernandez’s case is the perfect example of this.

During the FBI’s investigation of Dawkins, an email mentioning Hernandez was discovered. This email put Hernandez’s eligibility in jeopardy because it contained a plan where Dawkins was planning to give Hernandez a series of payments over a specified period of time. However, there was no evidence that such payments were ever made, that Hernandez agreed to take the payments, or that Hernandez even knew of Dawkins’ plan.

In spite of the lack of evidence, the NCAA still levied a heavy penalty on Hernandez. The NCAA mandated that Hernandez continue to sit out the remainder of this season and forty percent of next season. Why would an organization that truly cares about “maintaining the athlete as an integral part of the student body” force an athlete into a position where his best option is to withdraw from school and prepare for the NBA draft?

The NCAA’s Most Important Purpose is to Keep College Athletics “Amateur”

The answer is simple. The NCAA’s true values revolve around doing whatever is necessary to maintain a distinction between college and professional sports, even when it is not what is best for the athlete. In spite of the lack of evidence, the NCAA still denied Hernandez’s reinstatement. They made that decision for no other reason than to re-affirm the point that college athletes are to receive no benefit outside of what is authorized by the NCAA.

Hernandez’s case is unfortunately not the only time that the NCAA has stopped at nothing to make that point, even when it hurt an underserving athlete. Remember the very unfortunate story of Donald De La Haye. De La Haye, was a kicker for the Univerisity of Central Florida (UCF) football team. He had successfully monetized his YouTube videos. The NCAA ordered him to stop making videos that featured him as a “student-athlete” or be deemed ineligible. In that case, the NCAA proved that they cared less about maintaining De La Haye as an integral part of the student body and more about maintaining the distinction between college and professional sports.

College Athletics Does not Benefit From the Decision in Hernandez’s Case

There is no logical argument that can be made for how the NCAA’s decision in Hernandez’s case benefits college athletics. How does it benefit college athletics to force a player to leave school early for the NBA draft? Especially in this case where there is no hard evidence that he violated any NCAA bylaws. College athletics gains nothing from this decision. The only benefit is to the NCAA who once again gets to reaffirm its bogus principle of “amateurism.”

[i]NCAA Manual, (2018), available at http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D119.pdf.


State Legislator Proposes Bill to Pay College Athletes: Change is Coming

Alston v.NCAA ruling on student athletes educational benefits

Change is inevitable for college athletics as another legislator has made a move in support of college athletes rights. Washington State representative, Drew Stokesbary, has introduced a bill that would allow college athletes in Washington to profit off their name, image, and likeness. The current college athletics system is extremely unfair to the athletes who propel the billion dollar industry. Everyone can make money, except for the labor force. Coaches sign million dollar contracts.  Schools and conferences garner million dollar television deals.  Meanwhile, athletes are only able to receive a cost-of-attendance scholarship. A scholarship is invaluable. However, athletes should not be limited exclusively to that form of compensation. This is especially true for athletes who could garner endorsement deals.

Come on Now, Everyone Should be Able to Profit off Their Own Name, Image, and Likeness

The ability to capitalize off one’s own name, image, and likeness would seem to be one of the fundamental tenants of American capitalism. For the most part, it is except in the context of college athletics. Currently, college athletes are unable to profit off their name, image, and likeness without being subject to losing their athletic eligibility. Meanwhile, schools are able to market the athletes however they see fit, without the athletes receiving a dime above their scholarship. This is exactly what the bill seeks to change for college athletes in Washington state.

If Stokesbary’s bill is signed into law, college athletes in Washington will be able to profit off their name, image, and likeness. The athletes will be free to enter endorsement deals without fear of losing their eligibility. Whether this bill or some variation of it will actually become law remains to be seen. However, that is not the most important part of the introduction of the bill. The introduction of the bill is important because it proves that attitudes are continuing to change regarding college athletes’ rights. With a change in attitudes, real change is sure to follow.

Support is Growing for College Athlete Rights

More and more people are starting to acknowledge the injustices of the current college athletics system. Accordingly, the current model is being challenged on all fronts. Washington state appears to be leading the way in challenging it legislatively. However, last year a congressman from North Carolina called for college athletes to be allowed to profit off their name, image, and likeness. Representative Mark Walker did this in hopes of sparking a national debate on the issue.

The current model is being challenged in court in Alston v. NCAA. College sports enthusiasts eagerly await federal district court judge Wilken’s decision on whether the NCAA and Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) conferences are violating federal antitrust laws by capping scholarships to cost-of-attendance. If the plaintiffs are successful, major changes to college athletics may be seen.  Either way, the losing side will surely appeal. It is possible that the case could reach the Supreme Court, should they chose to hear the case.

Similarly, the current college athletics model is being challenged by start-up leagues like the Historical Basketball League (HBL). The HBL is a start-up basketball league. The HBL seeks to offer a better option by compensating its players while ensuring they receive a free quality education. With all of the challenges being lodged at the current college athletics system, change is sure to come one way or another.

Trevor Lawrence Should be Able to Receive his Worth While at Clemson

Trevor Lawerence

On Monday, Clemson decisively defeated Alabama for the College Football National Championship. The Tigers overcame the Crimson Tide 44-16. Not only did Clemson defeat the almighty “Bama,” Clemson sent a strong message defeating them by 28 points. Leading Clemson to victory was true freshman quarterback Trevor Lawerence. Lawerence undisputedly emerged as the star of the game. He threw three touchdown passes and amassed 347 passing yards. Accordingly, Lawerence’s performance was truly unprecedented. He defeated the most powerful team in college football who boasted a Heisman Trophy candidate quarterback.

After the game, sports fans and commentators began criticizing the fact that Lawerence is ineligible for the upcoming NFL draft. Critics argued that it is unfair that players do not have the option to enter the draft when they see fit. Similarly, they argue that is not fair that elite athletes are told when they may go professional and make money off of their athletic abilities.

Division 1 college football is a billion dollar industry. However, the athletes who propel that industry receive essentially no compensation above a cost-of-attendance scholarship. However, the coaches make millions of dollars each year. Perhaps, the real issue is not when Lawerence or other similarly situated players should be eligible for the NFL draft. Perhaps the real issue is why playing professionally is the only option such players have to make money for their athletic abilities?

Why is Trevor Lawerence Ineligible for the NFL Draft?

Lawerence is ineligible for the draft because the NFL’s rules say a player is not draft eligible until he is three years removed from his high school graduating class. Proponents of the rules argue that they are in place to protect future NFL prospects from prematurely entering the league before they are physically ready. However, opponents believe that it is unfair that Lawrence and other NFL prospects do not have the option to start their professional careers whenever they see fit. Accordingly, fans and critics argue that Lawerence and other NFL prospects should have the ability to chose when to start their NFL careers.

Perhaps elite athletes should have the ability to freely decide when to turn pro. However, this issue is not the real injustice. The real injustice is the fact that elite NFL prospects cannot make money off their athletic abilities while in college. This is especially true given the fact that the coaches make millions off of the labor of the athletes.

Coaches Make Millions Off of the Labor of Elite Talent, While the Talent has to Wait for a  Professional Career That May Never Manifest.

Take the two coaches who were in the championship game for instance. Those two coaches were Clemson’s Dabo Swinney and Alabama’s Nick Saban. Saban’s base salary was $7.5 million. He made an additional $400,000 for appearing in the CFP semifinal game. Even though the Crimson Tide lost, Saban still cleared an additional $600,000 just for appearing in the championship game. Swinney’s base salary for the season was $6 million.  He received an additional $200,000 for his CFP semifinal appearance.  Since Clemson won the championship, Swinney will receive an additional $250,000.

Meanwhile, the labor force (the football players) that makes these incredible salary numbers possible receives a very small amount in comparison. A scholarship for a college education is invaluable. However, when compared to coaches salaries, television deals, and other sponsorships, does it really seem fair that athletes are limited to their scholarship?

The Focus Should be on Lawernce’s Inability to Profit off his Athleticism in College Instead of on his Inability to go to the NFL

It is not fair for athletes to have wait to reach the NFL to be adequately compensated for their athleticism. What if a player suffers a career ending injury before he is eligible for the NFL? Such a player would never have the opportunity to be adequately compensated for his athletic ability.  It is for this reason that the conversation should be focused on college athletes rights to receive adequate compensation in college.

Yes, an injured player may have a degree.  It is also true that the degree could yield high earnings for the player in the future. However, the injured player would still have missed the opportunity to be adequately compensated for his athleticism in college.  Meanwhile, his coach made millions in games that the injured player’s labor largely contributed to.

There is a lot of money in Division 1 college football.  This is evident from the coaches salaries.  More of that money should be funneled down to the labor force who makes it all possible.  It would be nice if Lawerence had the ability to opt for the NFL. However, it would be better if he could receive more for the fruits of his labor while in college. At the very least, Lawerence and other similarly situated athletes should be allowed to profit off of their own name, image, and likeness.  Therefore, the conversation should be about Lawerence’s ability to receive his worth while in college instead of his ability to go to the NFL.

UCF: CFB Playoffs Can Never Be Better than March Madness Until Cinderella Gets In

The College Football Playoffs committee’s failure to pick the University of Central Florida (UCF) for the second year in a row is proof that the tournament will never be as exciting as March Madness. Every year when March Madness begins fans are at the edge of their seats waiting to see what likely championship contender will fall prey to the tournament’s “Cinderella” team. For example, in last years tournament, the very unlikely University of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC) knocked off the University of Virginia. The emergence of a “Cinderella” team is a major part of what makes March Madness so exciting.  However, the College Football Playoffs (CFP) is unlikely to ever experience the excitement of a  “Cinderella” team. The committee’s failure to give UCF a bid in the tournament for two years is proof of this.

For the last two seasons, UCF has been unstoppable. UCF finished their 2017 and 2018 seasons undefeated for a combined 25-0 record. Despite having two perfect seasons and knocking off Auburn after they beat Alabama, UCF was not extended the opportunity to be the possible “Cinderella” team in the College Football Playoffs (CFP) either year. If UCF beats LSU in the Fiesta Bowl on Dec. 30 they would have defeated the SEC elite in back to back seasons. With two perfect seasons, why is UCF being overlooked? The structure of the CFP is to blame.

Participants in the college football playoffs are chosen by the CFP committee.  The committee considers a number of factors. Those factors are not favorable to teams, like UCF, who are not in Power Five conferences. Accordingly, the CFP structure does not allow a team such as UCF to be eligible for the tournament no matter how perfect their season. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that the CFP will ever experience the excitement of a “Cinderella” team swooping through the tournament and upsetting the most likely championship contender. This is precisely why the College Football Playoffs needs to be expanded to include more teams.

College Football Playoffs Structure Neglects Non-Power Five Schools

General success during the football season does not equate to automatic CFP eligibility – obviously. The CFP committee considers several factors in addition to on-field performance.  The committee considers the number of games lost, the point spread in games, and the strength of each schools schedule. The strength of the schedule is judged based on the teams each school faces. Schools with tougher schedules are given more weight during CFP selections.

In most cases, schools in the Power Five conferences are considered to be the tougher schools. Due to this, schools that are not in Power Five conferences, like UCF,  are unlikely to get a real chance at the CFP. Group of Five schools, such as UCF,  find it difficult to schedule games with Power Five schools.  The lack of such games on the schedule makes it extremely difficult for Group of Five schools to clinch a spot in the CFP. This is exactly where UCF fell short in the CFP considerations.  A substantial amount of UCF’s victories were not against what is considered a “strong” school.

Group of Five Schools Must Face the “Right” Power Five School

It is not sufficient for a Group of Five School to face just any Power Five school. The school must face the “right” Power Five school.  This is also evidenced by UCF.  Over their last two seasons, UCF successfully faced the University of Maryland of the Big 10 and the University of Pittsburgh of the ACC.  However, these games were not enough to give UCF a leg up in the strength of schedule category.

Some may argue that UCF should have been given serious consideration by the CFP committee for the 2018 CFP based on their win against Auburn in last year’s Peach Bowl.  Auburn beat Alabama in last year’s SEC championship.  Alabama went on to win the CFP last year. Accordingly, some argued that UCF could possibly be defending the CFP title this year. Unfortunately, the fact that UCF defeated Auburn in last year’s Peach Bowl had no bearing on the CFP committee’s considerations in 2018.

However, that did not stop fans from fantasizing about what would have happened if UCF had been given their due. Some fans made the logical leap that UCF may have defeated Alabama in the CFP if given the opportunity. Some UCF fans went as far as to attempt to bait Alabama into facing UCF to settle the debate regarding who is the true national champion. As exciting as that game would be, it will probably never happen.

Since Such a Match-up is Unlikely to Happen, the CFP will Never be as Exciting as March Madness

Since the CFP structure does not favor “underdog” teams, the tournament will always have a certain level of predictability. A tournament that is too predictable simply is not exciting. That is the beauty of the March Madness tournament, its unpredictable nature.  Yes, there are teams that are in it every year. Teams such as North Carolina, Duke, and Kentucky are almost certain to make an appearance every year.  At the same time, any of those teams could get knocked off by the most unlikely opponent.

For example, in 2012 the underdog Norfolk State University beat Missouri.  Missouri was heavily slated to go to the Final Four and was unpredictably knocked off by the most unlikely opponent. Games like that are the excitement of the March Madness Tournament. The CFP is unlikely to ever know that excitement as long as underdogs like UCF are never given a chance to play on the CFP stage. For this reason, the CFP should be expanded to give more teams an opportunity to play on college football’s grandest stage. As long as the qualifications for CFP consideration remain, the CFP will never be as exciting as March Madness.

College Football Players Are Not Obligated to Play in Bowl Games

Will Grier Bowl Games Sitting West Virginia

Why do fans expect an “amateur” football player to put his career and livelihood on the line for what amounts to an exhibition game? On Saturday, West Virginia University announced that starting quarterback Will Grier will not be participating in the Camping World Bowl game against Syracuse. His decision not to participate in bowl games to focus on preparation for the NFL Draft did not sit well with some college football fans. He joined the list of more than a dozen players who will skip their teams’ bowl games.

Grier made the following statement informing fans of his decision.

Fans have no right to be upset with unpaid “amateur” athletes for choosing to further their professional careers.  After all is that not what a major part of the college experience is all about, learning to make tactical business decisions to be better professionally.  Grier did just that.  He made a tactical business decision to protect his potential professional career by not subjecting himself to injury in the bowl game.

Furthermore, Grier is slated to be a first or second-round draft pick. Would it really make sense for Grier to jeopardize his NFL draft potential by playing in a bowl game? The answer is simple. No, it would not make sense.

The Minimal Reward is Not Worth the Risk

The risk of injury in bowl games simply is not worth it for a college football player with a high NFL Draft potential. Bowl participants receive what amounts to very little for their participation. Participants receive a bowl gift and bragging rights for a year. Bowl gifts are nice and fun. However, they are minuscule when compared to the salaries and bonuses that coaches receive for bowl participation. This is especially true for a player like Will Grier who has already accomplished the pinnacle of what college sports and “amateurism” is supposed to be about – degree completion.

A degree is extremely valuable and can lead to a better life. Receipt of scholarship money to acquire a degree is very valuable as well.  However, a scholarship often does not equate to a college athlete’s full market value. Why should a player with the potential to finally receive their full fair market value for their athletic prowess risk a potential career ending injury in a game that is not going to compensate him up to his full value? Again, the answer is simple. No athlete should take that risk.  No fan should expect them to.

College Football Players Should not be Vilified for Opting Out of Bowl Games

Suiting up for any game carries a risk of injury. However, dissenting fans argue that it is only one more game, so the players should play. While it may only be one more game, the risk of injury is ever-present. In fact, the risk of injury is so prevalent that Grier is not the only player sitting out of a bowl game this year. In the past, players like Jaylon Smith and Jake Butt have suffered a serious injury which impacted their draft position.  Specifically, Ed Oliver, Rashan Gary, N’Keal Harry, Greedy Williams, and Grier’s teammate Yodny Cajuste are among those that have opted out of their respective bowl games this year to prepare for the NFL.

Some fans are equally upset by these decisions.  They argue that such players are being selfish and are quitting on their teams. However, that is not true. The players who opt out are not doing it to quit on their team. They are doing it to protect their future career prospects so that they may finally receive market value for their talents.  Despite what fans may think, college football players are not obligated to risk a career-ending injury for their viewing pleasure. Accordingly, players who opt out should not be vilified for their decision.

Players are not the Only Ones who Opt Out; Coaches do Too

Players are not the only ones who opt out of bowl games.  Coaches opt out as well.  Every year, several coaches leave their teams to take jobs at other schools in the midst of bowl game preparation.  Coaches are allowed to make business decisions for the betterment of their careers, just as players should be.

Whether people want to acknowledge it or not, college football is a business.  Therefore, all parties involved should be allowed to make decisions that are in the best interest of their careers. This freedom of movement may upset some fans. However, players and coaches should be able to make whatever decision is best for their career.