Reflecting on the Shame of College Sports

Political lines and agencies have been set up since the beginning of the NCAA. While this organization was built on student-athletes, students who are athletes have consistently been screwed over by the National Collegiate Athletics Association and the colleges affiliated that these student-athletes are playing for. In the bylaws and sections mentioned in the article found on The Atlantic, many were contradictory statements written specifically to not be straight forward, leaving loopholes that should favor the NCAA, but seem to favor their student-athletes more, as it should be in my opinion. The biggest contradictory starts with the mission statement of the NCAA. While reading the mission statement of the NCAA seems to empower student-athletes to fulfilling their full potential as both a student and an athlete, athletics are the primary core of the mission statement. It's reaching to say that academics are important to members and faculty of the NCAA, when entirely everyone labeled a "student-athlete" is only eligible because they agree to be a student and further their education. Interestingly, on each home page for Divisions 1, 2, and 3 Athletes, athletics are mentioned before student academics. 
In the article written by Taylor Branch, it mentions that the term "student-athlete" was written into the NCAA bylaws to be deliberately ambiguous. Many examples are shown of how this has helped the NCAA get around having to contribute money to the anyone who isn't in and of the organization itself. The article about student-athletes becoming injured or making choices for their future and in both cases getting shunned for doing so. As if planning for their future shouldn't be their priority- which goes against the mission statement where it is pointed out that student-athletes should be able to hone learned skills towards their career of choice later in life.
The "Oz-like facade" as Branch calls it, is a perfect example of what is going on in the NCAA organization. The only power that they have is the power given to them by the students who choose to play for D1, D2, and D3 schools that believe in the dream of someday making it to the top of the sport that they excel in. Without athletes, they have no revenue and the entire system is shot. An example was given of the fear that this possibility instilled when a team threatened to bench themselves if they made it to the finals of March Madness. That would've cost the NCAA somewhere around 771 million dollars, and blown the infrastructure of the "Non-Profit Organization" that it claims to be. The supply and demand here all hinges on the willingness of these student-athletes. That willingness seems to be getting pushed farther as the years go on. As endorsements grow and more money is riding on these players, how much can the NCAA really facilitate the on-goings of players lives while they aren't getting paid, are rarely making to the major leagues, and ultimately getting screwed over when trying to plan future careers for themselves? The fact that players are told, not asked, to keep their beliefs to themselves but then are forced to endorse companies like Under Armour on the field is a convoluted idea. The idea that these players, called student-athletes (sometimes completely fraudulently), are less important than the brands they represent is preposterous. No company, that as the rules of economics state will rise and fall in value, is of more value than a person, who can never be duplicated. Unfortunately, no sport is set on the premise of the player coming first and the game coming second.
Another contradictory that Branch pointed out was bylaw 10.1j- that not complying fully (and in the example this meant a student-athlete agreeing to an interview with the NCAA) would result in dropping the status of being an amateur and no longer being able to play in NCAA officiated sports. This seemed entirely backwards to me, because what professional isn't allowed to comply with all rules given? Also, since when is an interview seen as something for amateurs in the sports world. Journalists and reporters alike are lucky to get interviews with professionals. Just as the transformation between high school and college is difficult, people expect you to make huge life decisions and career choices while you still need to ask permission to use the restroom, student-athletes at the college level are also put in impossible paradoxes between life and the NCAA. They are expected to maintain amateur status even though they were more than likely scouted in high school from colleges, which is very similar to scouting college drafts for the professional level. All of their sporting career has prepared them to be drafted by a bigger, better team, and that's not something to think of last minute. Thinking logically, student-athletes need options.
The uproar of paying student athletes is also unfair to them. I can only imagine the cuts that would come from the NCAA to the schools involved if student-athletes were to start getting the compensation that they deserve. If not extravagant monetary thank-yous that the coaches receive, at least something minimal to compensate for the strain that they're putting their bodies through for potentially 3-6 years in the NCAA alone. Students are expected to provide their own way a lot of the time, especially after graduating college, and if an injury occurred during or around the sport they played that is making other people millions richer, those in control should be forced to at least compensate if not overcompensate by giving back to the players the monetary value that the NCAA sees in them but refuses to say out loud. This refusal of admitting the worth of a student-athlete is the facade that they control. Because without these student-athletes, there would be no NCAA commanding officers making poor decisions for many young people's lives like they currently are.   


Branch, T. (2011, September 7). The Shame of College Sports. Retrieved October 1, 2014.