As a recent graduate of the University of Michigan, I never thought that I would see the day that I would offer my support to any cause associated with the Ohio State University or any of its student athletes. Perhaps even more surprising is that the player in question is Terrelle Pryor, who 3 years ago chose to attend OSU over Michigan in a devastating recruiting loss for the Wolverines football program and incoming coach Rich Rodriguez.
On December 23, 2010, Pryor and four teammates were suspended for the first five games of the 2011 season for selling awards and accepting improper benefits. Personally, I believe that college athletes need to be compensated in addition to their tuition, room, and board, an opinion that I have found to be fairly widespread amongst those who follow college athletics closely. Alas, such a model doesn't exist, so logically one would expect that the NCAA would act according to its guidelines; which appear to be subject to a loose, incident specific interpretation.
On December 29th, 2010 the NCAA posted an explanation for their decision on its website stating, "They [the Ohio State football players] indicated they were not aware there was a violation and learned of the issue based on later rules education, which was confirmed by OSU through interviews and supporting documentation."
Gene Smith responded to the NCAA's decision explaining,"We were not explicit with these young men that you cannot resell items that we give you. They stated in their interviews with us and with the NCAA that they felt those items were theirs, that they owned them, that they could sell them to help their families. … We were not explicit and that's our responsibility to be explicit."
All indications are the sale of the memorabilia and gifts were not used to "help their families", but rather in exchange for tattoos, and possibly other benefits. As former Buckeye Antonio Pittman tweeted, "Cats been getting hookups on tatts since back in '01", and there have been reports that the owner of the tattoo parlor in question has pictures of Ohio State player memorabilia on his Facebook page.
Furthermore, it seems to me that it is highly unlikely that Jim Tressell or other administrators at Ohio State didn't make clear that selling memorabilia and gifts for personal profit was a violation of NCAA rules, but I was willing to give the players the "benefit of the doubt" and consider them "innocent until proven guilty". Then an article by the OSU student newspaper came to light. The article states that former Buckeye Thaddeus Gibson, now with the San Francisco 49ers, said they were told fairly often not to sell personal items. Gibson is quoted as saying, "Oh yeah, they (OSU athletic director Gene Smith and the coaches) talked about it a lot." Later Pryor quipped, "I already knew what I shouldn't have done back two years ago".
I think the old saying goes "Where there is smoke, there is fire". This appears to be a wildfire that is quickly getting out of the NCAA's control and is tarnishing its own integrity.
Further along in the NCAA's statement, the governing body explains the decision to allow the players to play in the bowl game by saying, "It [A Student-Athlete Reinstatement Policy implemented in 2004] recognizes the unique opportunity these events provide at the end of a season, and they are evaluated differently from a withholding perspective for student-athlete reinstatement." In its conclusion to the statement, the NCAA declared, "Money is not a motivator or factor as to why one school would get a particular decision versus another."
The validity of this statement has been contradicted in a number of revelations. On December 30 PlayoffPAC, a federal political committee dedicated to establishing a competitive post-season championship for college football, declared the Orange Bowl provided a free, five-day Caribbean cruise in 2010 to 40 athletic directors, conference officials, and their wives, allegedly in violation of IRS rules. Followed by comments from Sugar Bowl CEO Paul Hoolhan in the Columbus Dispatch that he lobbied for Pryor and others to be considered for exemption to the rule, "to preserve the integrity of this year's game", and "That appeal did not fall on deaf ears".
Clearly, "Money is not a motivator or factor".
In 2006 the Sugar Bowl had a revenue of $12.9 million with its main expense being a payout of $6 million to the payout pool for BCS teams. Using the most recent CPI data to compensate for inflation, in 2011 the revenue generated can be expected to be around $14,234,000 with expenses of around $6,620,000. The rest of the revenue is distributed amongst committees for the game such as $1.3 million in employee salaries, about $453,000 to Paul Hoolihan, and $118,000 for decorations, all in 2006 dollars. In 2006, the Sugar Bowl managed to generate $1.1 million in profit, tax free. The rest of the money the schools receive are from TV and sponsorship revenue. Here lies the major problem, and likely a decisive factor for the NCAA deciding to allow Pyror and his teammates to play in the game. If they don't play, the game isn't competitive, ratings suffer, the Big Ten is further embarrassed as a whole, and the bowl loses $X amount of dollars.
Terrelle Pryor, some former OSU football players, and the local Columbus media, appear to have provided the average sports fan with a birds-eye view of the corruption and hypocrisy that exists in college athletics today. The athletes save maybe $40,000 - $50,000 a year from their scholarships, can't take advantage of their power to generate revenue because of their amateur status, and all the while the Universities and NCAA are making millions of dollars exploiting them.
Until the NCAA steps up and takes a firm stance against the practice of accepting improper benefits, or more appropriately, creates a compensation model for all athletes who participate in college athletics; the NCAA will continue to be embarrassed and face appropriate public scrutiny.
No comments:
Post a Comment