The Ohio State University football program is the latest athletic department who has been found to have broken NCAA rules and regulations. This incident involves current players selling items given to them by the university from participating in a 2009 bowl game. If those items sold were gifts, wouldn’t the players have the freedom to do as they please with these items?

We are not that far removed from the UNC, Alabama, USC and Georgia football program suspensions as a result of inappropriate contact with sports agents by current players (The Georgia incident involved a player selling a bowl game jersey).

Are the current amateur athlete rules and regulations fair to the players? Everyone gets paid on game day but the players (Athletic Departments, Coaches-including assistants, Licensees, etc…). Coaches have bonus clauses written into employment contracts for various achievements (COY awards, # of games won, conference championships, APR Rate, Equipment Contracts, etc..). The universities also receive a portion of television revenues, where these contracts were negotiated by the NCAA. Next, the NCAA receives licensing revenue for player likenesses on video games (Ex. EA Sports) and jerseys.

The counter argument is that the athletes receive a “free education” where the athletic department pays for room/board and tuition. However, these agreements are one-year renewable and not guaranteed for 4 years as most in the general public assumes. The TSR staff members are very serious advocators in regards to student-athlete education. The truth, ”most” but not all of these student-athletes leave these universities with degrees that make them unmarketable and unable to compete in this economy. Deciding on a major is the choice of the athlete, but there are stories stating that coaches push toward certain majors for the sake of eligibility.

Again the question, should student-athletes be compensated? TSR staff members think they should. The amount can be minimal, $300-$500 per month. The money can be used for travel, laundry and leisure. However, will there be a dilemma as to which “sport” athletes should receive a stipend. Athletic department Equipment Contracts with NIKE, ADIDAS and Under Armour makes it clear as to the revenue generating sports (Football, Men’s/Women’s basketball). Most of these contracts contain bonus clauses paid to the department whenever any of these teams reach certain post-season play accomplishments (NCAA tournament, Bowl and Conference Championship Games). Should the Track & Field, Soccer, Baseball, Swimming and other participating athletes be excluded? Probably not.

The debate on student-athlete compensation will continue long past this latest incident. Don’t be surprised if the final decision is decided in a court of law ( EA Sports lawsuit).

“When you talk about adding value, from a media standpoint, the Boise States and the Utahs add very little”

Barry Frank, IMG Media Consultant

This statement was made in the January 25, 2010 edition of the Sports Business Journal. The article was in regards to the revenue distribution system of the BCS (Bowl Championship Series) and whether it needed to be adjusted.

The summary of the article leaves the conclusion that there will not be a playoff system in college football in the near future. Reason: There is too much money involved and potentially lost if adjustments are made. The negotiation of the BCS TV rights deal and future negotiations are at the center of the disparity debate.

“Those teams have certainly performed well, but you’re talking about adding value. The real question is whether including those conferences when you negotiate a TV contract adds to the willingness of the network to increase the bid. I don’t think we’ve seen evidence that that’s true.”

Harvey Perlman, Chancellor-University of Nebraska, Chairman-BCS Presidential Oversight Committee

The issue here is whether the WAC and Mountain West conference champions (Ex. Boise State and TCU) should get the same payout distribution preferences as the Florida’s, Alabama’s, and USC’s in BCS rankings (or rather the SEC, PAC-10, etc..). Mr. Perlman’s issue is whether ESPN would pay the NCAA $125 million a year for the BCS TV rights if these conferences are given the same consideration as the other conferences. The answer is no.

Although Boise State and TCU were both undefeated this past season, they would not draw the amount of viewers that a Florida vs. USC provide. When that happens, ESPN cannot get a competitive rate from advertisers. As a rights holder, ESPN’s goal is to make over the $125 million paid by selling advertising. Ex. Would a Coca-Cola pay $750,000 for a 40-sec. ad spot during a Boise State vs. Utah game? The answer is no. This is no reflection on those teams and its players. It has everything to do with viewership. They play no games on national TV during the regular season. Therefore no relationship is established between these conference teams and college football fans. 

This leads the TSR staff to the conclusion that there will not be a playoff system in the near of distant future. Money and viewership seems to have a strong grip on the decision making process, which is not surprising.