Over the past few years it seems as though more scandals surrounding recruiting and improper benefits to college players have increased. Without doing a search to find an all-inclusive list, and after drinking a few beers, here is what I come up with off the top of my head; OJ Mayo, Derrick Rose, the fall of IU basketball thanks to Kelvin Sampson’s cellphone, the Pump Brothers and Kansas Jayhawk Basketball ticket scam, Eric Bledsoe, Anthony Davis, Bruce Pearl’s lack of integrity, and now Reggie Bush. The casual fan is fully aware of the Reggie Bush drama, the more regular fan can speak at length about Reggie Bush and likely a few of the other alleged infractions surrounding those mentioned previously. The rabid fan could probably write a book’s worth on all allegations and the likelihood that they took place.
Allegations of impropriety surrounding college athletics and recruiting have existed since college athletics began. Sometimes allegations are completely false (Deon Thomas), other times the cheating is so profound we will probably never know the full scale to which it existed (Fab Five). Since basketball rosters are so much smaller than football rosters, the individual is likely more well known, but football and basketball recruiting has always been filled with “cheating”.
The question as to why it happens is easy to answer. Coaches, AD’s, alumni, and boosters want to see the best product possible on the field or court to keep their jobs or take pride in their association with the program and cheer on the team. Any one or a combination of any of those people/groups may seek to sweeten the deal to attract a specific recruit to their program. It is no big secret as to why it happens, the questions are, should anything be done about it, and if so what?
Some people will make the legitimate argument that college athletes should be paid. The schools, the NCAA, shoe and apparel companies, coaches, and likely many others make boat loads of money off of college sports and athletes. So why should these players not be getting paid, and further more if they should be getting paid, why should the programs not be allowed to offer athletes these benefits prior the athletes joining the program. It is an interesting position, but one I disagree with. First of all, the athletes do receive benefits. They receive an advanced degree for their participation in the athletic department, they receive room and board. The athletic department provides them with tutors to help them succeed in their academic endeavors, and furthermore, they receive extensive exposure to the fan bases of their respective programs. That exposure more often than not is a huge benefit opening doors for the athlete after he leaves the field whether or not the athlete ever turns pro. If a professional athletic career is in student athletes future, he receives the benefit of coaching, training, and development. So these athletes are receiving benefits.
That in itself is not fully reason enough to not pay players. The reason college players should not be paid, is because if colleges pay players, the player then becomes an employee of the Institution. These institutions exist for the endeavor of higher learning, and should not be getting involved in employing people that do not advance higher learning. Yes, they hire coaches, but those coaches are hired to coach and teach STUDENT athletes in an extra-curricular activity while the student athlete is obtaining a higher education. The institution hires students to work in cafeterias, which provide sustenance to other students while they seek a higher education. They hire students in many other areas, each of which eases the advancement of academics and promotes higher education. Hiring athletes to solely be athletes does not ease the advancement of higher education for other students. Could the argument be made that these athletes provide entertainment to the other students, and funding to the Institution. Yes, they do, but should institutions of higher learning be involved in the private entertainment industry? I contend that they should not because it will create a conflict of interest distracting the institution from its primary role, higher learning.
Yes, something does need to be done with the cheating problem in the NCAA. But what? Some people think the NCAA needs to beef up its compliance department hiring more investigators to monitor the recruiting process throughout college athletics. The problem I see with this idea is that Basketball teams are authorized 13 scholarships and there are over 300 Division 1 Basketball teams, Football teams are authorized 85 scholarships and there are approximately 120 Division 1-A Football teams. The NCAA oversees other men’s and women’s sports that offer scholarships such as Soccer, Baseball, Softball, Volleyball, Wrestling, Golf, Track and Field, Lacrosse, and the list goes on and on. Improving their investigative powers is a necessity, but strictly relying on the NCAA to investigate and monitor the recruiting process is unfeasible.
Even when you consider that each school has compliance officers, who likely do a good job with keeping up with the paperwork, because if they don’t and the NCAA does get the opportunity to review that paperwork and everything is not in order, the NCAA could implement sanctions, restrictions, probations, or other penalties. But even at the school level there are simply too many scholarships for compliance officers to monitor.
What about tougher penalties, such as the death penalty? When a program is found to be in violation of certain rules, that program ceases to exist. I remember in the 80’s this happened with Southern Methodist University’s Football program. Some people believe that if you enforce the tougher restrictions programs will fear those restrictions and avoid breaking the rules. It does make sense. In your personal life do you steal a car that you see? No. Why? Because you don’t want to go to prison. The problem of course still exists, there simply is not enough, nor is it feasible to hire enough investigators to stop the cheating. By imposing stricter penalties, you will simply see cheating move from program to program. While that may be better than seeing the same Usual Suspects cheating year in and year out. It does not eliminate or even dramatically reduce the cheating.
So, what do I think could dramatically reduce the cheating among the NCAA? Reduce the number of scholarships across the NCAA. While Football and Basketball are likely not the only sports in which cheating takes place, they are the revenue generating sports and are more frequently prone to cheating in the recruiting process. In Basketball, reduce the number of scholarships from 13 to 12 for all programs. Reduce the number of Football scholarships from 85 to 78 and the number of new scholarships in any one year from 25 to 23 for all programs.
Maybe it is a radical idea, but it is one I think could work. The reason I see this working is three fold.
First,when you are recruiting a player and the benefits that a scholarship accompanies is not enough to convince that player to join your program, but the scholarship and a monetary incentive would be, the player is essentially saying the scholarship is not valuable enough for my services. When you have something that is finite in number such as basketball scholarships, and you reduce the number of that thing, an individual occurrence of that is more scarce and therefore more valuable. Now is its increase in value enough to solely influence that player seeking monetary rewards to accept only the scholarship? Maybe, maybe not.
Second, when a player holds out for the highest bidder, and there are fewer scholarships available, that player runs the risk of completely missing out on a scholarship altogether. Take for instance the recent allegations surrounding Anthony Davis, a Chicago high school senior basketball player ranked by many as one of the top five high school players in the nation, who committed to the University of Kentucky. The allegation is that his family was asking for and/or received $200,000 for his commitment. If no program was willing to offer any money, would he hold out and not commit to any program? No, he intends to play in the NBA and in order to do that he is best served by playing College basketball for one year. If only one school was willing to pay for his commitment, would the amount have reached $200,000? No. If only one school was willing to pay, then the amount would have been much less. Theoretically, it would be 1 penny.
Common sense tells you, if the allegation is true, that multiple programs were in a bidding war for the player, and once the “losing” program/s that were involved in the bidding war were unable to match the highest bid, the bidding stopped. If those programs had one less scholarship to offer would they get involved in a bidding war for a top 5 prospect, essentially tying up a scholarship, and miss out on the chance at the 25th best player in the nation, then miss out on the 50th best player, waiting to see if they’ll win the bidding war with the 5th best player? What if they continue to recruit the 25th best and he agrees to take that 12th scholarship. They pull back their offer of $175,000 to the 5th best player, and now the $200,000 needed to get the 5th best player is reduced to $175,000. The third program in the bidding war currently has $150,000 offer out to the 5th best player, but because they aren’t sure how that recruitment is going to end up, they continue to recruit the 35th best player, and he accepts the scholarship offer. The program then rescinds its $150,000 offer. All other programs involved secure commitments from their plan B prospect, and now the only program involved has no competition for the recruits services, therefore there is no need for them to pay.
Third, by reducing the number of scholarships, you have reduced the workload upon the NCAA investigators and compliance officers. Could the cheating still occur with the reduction in scholarships? Yes, but the reduction in scholarships would allow for a more manageable compliance and oversight process.
Essentially what we see in football and basketball is an excess of scholarships available. This has reduced the value of individual scholarships, allowed for an increase in the possibility of recruiting violations, and created an unmanageable oversight situation. To see a significant reduction in recruiting violations therefore leveling the playing field, the NCAA not only needs to beef up its investigative arm and enforce more strict penalties, but it needs to seriously consider making a slight reduction in the number of scholarships available.
