LOPRESTI: Compelling arguments, difficult questions in NCAA case

June 28, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

mike lopresti sportsIn a California court, it is crunch time for the NCAA, not to mention a moment of truth for college sports. This is about money, of course. What else would get so many lawyers and economists together?

Ed O’Bannon and his lawsuit want athletes to get their share of the gold mine from March Madness and the Rose Bowl and all the rest of the games that they play and we watch. If only it were that simple. But it isn’t. On either side.

You listen to the NCAA argue the sanctity of amateurism, and the need to keep college sport in its proper perspective.

And then you see John Calipari get a $52 million contract to coach basketball at Kentucky, and Nick Saban pull down $7 million a season to lead Alabama football. Perspective? What perspective?

You hear O’Bannon describe an unjust system, where the big-time college football or basketball player goes unrewarded for all the riches he brings to his school.

And then you read in Forbes magazine where the student debt in this nation is now $1.2 trillion. You learn about the Shippen family in Massachusetts that went $500,000 in the red sending three kids to school. Or Jake Stevens, the mechanical engineering student in Michigan who is homeless, spending all his money on tuition.

Had the Shippens produced three quality point guards, their college bill would be relative pocket change. If Stevens could only run and pass like Johnny Manziel, he would have a place to sleep tonight. Yeah, college athletes get rewarded. It’s called a nearly free college education—even for those with the most modest of academic credentials—while millions of their peers will be fighting to pay off their bills for years.

You hear the NCAA stress the job of protecting the interests of student athletes.

And then you see rigid rules that defy reason. A coach is perfectly free to move from one school to another, but a student can’t, without penalty. Coaches’ contracts are guaranteed. Scholarships are not. There is a clear move now to guarantee scholarships by some of the conferences, including the Big Ten. If this trial forced that hand, so be it.

You hear O’Bannon testify on the witness stand that, sure, Little Leaguers should get paid, too, if their games are bringing in the dough. Later, he would say he was just trying to make a point.

And then you realize, that is precisely the point. Once you go down the road of play-for-pay, you detour into all manner of absurd cul-de-sacs.

You hear conference commissioners and athletic directors say that everything in college athletics is not supposed to be about money.

And then you notice that virtually all their decisions—from kickoff time to scheduling to league affiliation—are about money. Who gets the best seats in an arena—the students there to watch their team, or the high-roller boosters?

You hear the O’Bannon side state what basketball and football players deserve.

And then you wonder about the baseball pitchers, the swimmers, the golfers. And the women’s sports. They have lawyers, too. You wonder where Title IX fits in Ed O’Bannon’s vision of a fairer universe.

You hear voices brand the NCAA as a tyranny, and call for its destruction.

And then you wonder just who those voices have in mind to supervise the chaotic and crazed landscape of athletics. A governmental agency, perhaps? So we want college football to operate like VA hospitals? The NCAA has to succeed.

You look at the NCAA and member schools, talking for years about making common-sense changes, yet seldom making them, asking for the unrest they now face.

But then you look at the world Ed O’Bannon wants. Where athletes complain of being exploited, even as they enjoy a free education many of them have not academically earned, while the best and brightest students plunge into horrific debt to get a degree that means something to them. Where athletes want and expect to be treated like students—scholarships, the easier forgiveness granted to youth—except when it is more profitable to be treated like employees.

It is a complex debate, and the more money that pours in, the more complex it gets. Neither side is all wrong, and neither side is all right. Whatever happened to a simple Saturday afternoon football game?

And so we wait to see which way it goes in Oakland.

If only the NCAA were not so often a prisoner in bureaucratic bondage, too handcuffed by its own rulebook to be sensible and practical.

If only O’Bannon’s argument for fair remuneration were not based on a disturbing philosophy—that the value of education is chump change.

I don’t know what the law books will tell the judge as she considers her decision. But I’m pretty sure of one thing: Little Leaguers shouldn’t get paid.•


Lopresti is a lifelong resident of Richmond and a graduate of Ball State University. He was a columnist for USA Today and Gannett newspapers for 31 years; he covered 34 Final Fours, 30 Super Bowls, 32 World Series and 16 Olympics. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at mlopresti@ibj.com.


  • Value
    The problem is not that a college education cannot be fairly valued, but that it is not valued at all by the NCAA. Instead of being the whole of compensation, it should be valued at market rates. If an athlete earns X and his scholarship is worth Y, he gets the difference. It is not a dichotomy. It's like saying that an engineer can only earn minimum wage or a million dollars. Valuing an athlete's contributions to the university and spread fairly amongst the stakeholders. The NCAA has thus far refused to do this, saying only the scholarship has value and pocketing the rest.
  • What's Fair Compensation?
    What is the goal? Why should you compensate athletes above and beyond their scholarship? What are you hoping to accomplish? Will there be a wage scale? Revenue sport athletes (football and basketball) will make more than non-revenue sport athletes (every other sport). All-Americans and All-Conference athletes will receive more compensation? Starters get more than non-starters? Full ride gets more than partial scholarship? Will they eliminate per diems on trips, since they should have their own money? How many stars will go hungry because they blew their stipend on Dr. Dre headphones that month? Will colleges be giving money to young people that don't know how to handle it? You can count on it. I have not heard a valid argument for why we should be compensating college athletes. If your skills are good enough - you leave, and take it to the professional level.
  • Fine Article
    A complex debate it is, with neither side clearly in the right. As you noted, the NCAA and college sports has more or less asked for this, as they have made every decision based on maximizing dollars while asserting it isn't about the money, (I am reminded of Jay Bilas' Twitter torching the NCAA's sacred cow of amateurism in the Johnny Manziel autograph/jersey scandal as proof of just how hypocritical and tainted that organization is) and the botched Miami investigation is evidence that, if as you assert, the NCAA must survive (and I am not sure I believe they do have to survive, though I concur that a government agency overseeing college sports is a guarantee of inept supervision/enforcement), they must reform their own investigations and enforcement arms, and simplify their rule book...some adjustment is coming via the court, and IU's recent decision to more or less institute an "Athlete's Bill of Rights" is the equivalent of admission of some guilt on the side of the Universities. And yet as you note, to suggest that a college degree is "chump" change flies in the face of the college loan debt my wife and I are paying for our kids' education, years after both graduated. Excellent article, Mike!
  • Amen.
    Very well said.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Of what value is selling alcoholic beverages to State Fair patrons when there are many families with children attending. Is this the message we want to give children attending and participating in the Fair, another venue with alooholic consumption onsite. Is this to promote beer and wine production in the state which are great for the breweries and wineries, but where does this end up 10-15 years from now, lots more drinkers for the alcoholic contents. If these drinks are so important, why not remove the alcohol content and the flavor and drink itself similar to soft drinks would be the novelty, not the alcoholic content and its affects on the drinker. There is no social or material benefit from drinking alcoholic beverages, mostly people want to get slightly or highly drunk.

  2. I did;nt know anyone in Indiana could count- WHY did they NOT SAY just HOW this would be enforced? Because it WON;T! NOW- with that said- BIG BROTHER is ALIVE in this Article-why take any comment if it won't appease YOU PEOPLE- that's NOT American- with EVERYTHING you indicated is NOT said-I can see WHY it say's o Comments- YOU are COMMIES- BIG BROTHER and most likely- voted for Obama!

  3. In Europe there are schools for hairdressing but you don't get a license afterwards but you are required to assist in turkey and Italy its 7 years in japan it's 10 years England 2 so these people who assist know how to do hair their not just anybody and if your an owner and you hire someone with no experience then ur an idiot I've known stylist from different countries with no license but they are professional clean and safe they have no license but they have experience a license doesn't mean anything look at all the bad hairdressers in the world that have fried peoples hair okay but they have a license doesn't make them a professional at their job I think they should get rid of it because stateboard robs stylist and owners and they fine you for the dumbest f***ing things oh ur license isn't displayed 100$ oh ur wearing open toe shoes fine, oh there's ONE HAIR IN UR BRUSH that's a fine it's like really? So I think they need to go or ease up on their regulations because their too strict

  4. Exciting times in Carmel.

  5. Twenty years ago when we moved to Indy I was a stay at home mom and knew not very many people.WIBC was my family and friends for the most part. It was informative, civil, and humerous with Dave the KING. Terri, Jeff, Stever, Big Joe, Matt, Pat and Crumie. I loved them all, and they seemed to love each other. I didn't mind Greg Garrison, but I was not a Rush fan. NOW I can't stand Chicks and all their giggly opinions. Tony Katz is to abrasive that early in the morning(or really any time). I will tune in on Saturday morning for the usual fun and priceless information from Pat and Crumie, mornings it will be 90.1