Slaughter of the Sacred Cows

I really do apologize for the fact that we've had four posts in as many days on the PSU scandal, but I wanted to react to the reactions to the sanctions handed down by the NCAA.

Current players are being recruited by other schools.  Before going any further, because I can't resist this kind of thing, CALLED IT.

This is already causing pearl clutching amongst both fans and pundits.  My god, how unseemly!  How dare these jackals?!  My response:  good for them, and good for the players.  This is how our world works, this is college football as a minor league sport that doesn't compensate its players.  Life sucks, get a helmet.

1) If you didn't have a problem with the ruling that players are allowed to transfer without sitting, then why do you have a problem with schools allowing those players to make more informed decisions on where to go?  Before you say that's putting lipstick on the recruiting pig, what other means are they supposed to use?  The players deserve to be allowed to jump a sinking ship, and I don't blame the life boats for holding up signal flares.  For players trying to decide whether to go to USC versus Illinois, for example, it's in the player's best interests to know which one would give him more playing time or a scholarship.  Yes, the recruiting school is acting out of self interest.  So what?  This isn't a zero sum game.  The recruiting school can benefit by getting a good player, and the player can benefit by getting more play time, or having a chance to play in bowl games, thereby getting more exposure for a possible NFL jaunt.  That both sides benefit is a positive.

2) I don't hear a hue and cry over high school recruitment.  Schools pay scouts to go to high schools and report on players.  Players get trips to campus and put up for a weekend, trotted around campus by a hostess and wooed on the glories that will be theirs if they only commit, commit, commit.  Hell, high school recruiting is a business that transcends the schools themselves into multiple websites like this one, or this one, that evaluate recruits and rank draft classes.  Hell, there's a website that offers a service to help facilitate the process of recruitment for players.  ESPN has a whole section of their website devoted to reporting on it.  Rivals and ESPN will rank each year's draft classes.  If I'm allowed to mix my animal metaphors, the cat's out of the bag on coaches surveying high school talent like cattle at auction.  People not connected to the high schools or the colleges make a profit on reporting on it, it's that big.  Before we all get the vapors over this happening on a college campus, let's remind ourselves of the bigger meat market going on at the blue chip level.

3) As soon as the punishment was handed down, the point was raised that it punished the athletes more than the school.  Well, then let the students leave.  They aren't hurt at all, they get to move on to greener pastures.

No, I think a lot of this is coming from the idea that it's pulling a curtain aside on the little man working the levers of the great and powerful Student-Athlete mythos we've constructed over the decades that college football became a billion dollar enterprise.  We're supposed to think players should and will stick by their school through thick and thin.  We're supposed to admire those that tough it out in the face of sanctions and/or lucrative pro contracts to finish that degree and serve the college proudly, to become part of a proud tradition and alma mater that will always stand by each other.  Bullshit.

In this economy, a college degree and a dollar won't get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.  Neither will that degree get you a job at Starbucks if you don't already have 2-4 years of professional coffee pouring (my bad, barista) experience.  Unemployment for college graduates is higher than the national average, 10.4% in 2010 and 9.4% in 2011, with underemployment sitting at over 19%.  Wages fell 5.4% for such graduates from 2000 to 2011.  Average student loan debt is over $25,000.  The National Association of Colleges and Employers reports that for 2012 the average starting salary for a college graduate that actually found a job averaged across all industries is $42,000.  That's with business grads pulling up the educators and humanities.  Meanwhile, NFL minimum salaries under the newest CBA have actually increased by $55,000, to $375,000 for rookies and even more for veterans.  Look at that again, the salary increase for rookie players, with or without a degree, even if they were UNDRAFTED, is more than the average salary of college graduates going into business, or science, or mathematics, or engineering, or computer programming, or the education of our children.

Now, I don't begrudge the players making that money, I really don't.  As long as we are willing to shell out billions of dollars in ticket sales, concessions, and ad revenue for those tv spots, the players deserve their share of the pie.  But the idea that a player that has the opportunity to play in the NFL is better off foregoing that money in order to finish his education is an idea we seriously need to consign to the dustbin.  Undrafted, journeyman NFL players at the bottom of the roster make more than doctors and lawyers and some entrepreneurs.  They'd be crazy to leave that money on the table.

But Mike, you can't play football forever, especially with injuries.  Okay fine, then you take all that money you've made and go finish your degree.  Trust me, the college will take you back.  They'll take your money and finish off that piece of paper that won't get you a job at Starbucks.  Or you know, retire on your investments.  Open a small business like a car dealership or a restaurant.

But Mike, some of these players will blow all that money and not prudently invest it?  And so will normal college graduates.  Having a college degree doesn't prevent massive credit card debt or underwater mortgages.

Now, I'm not saying college education is worthless, but its value has been shown to be not worth the sticker price these past few years.  And what is college ultimately intended to be but a preparation for a career.  If you can make a more lucrative career by leaving early, then you've gotten all you need out of college.  You don't need to spend the time or the money completing it if you can make more money elsewhere.  Be wary that the folks telling you otherwise aren't in fact the same people that would benefit disproportionately from your talents if they manage to keep you, like a college football program keeping its Heisman Trophy winning quarterback so they can go to another multi-million dollar bowl game.

Take, for example, Matt Leinart and Alex Smith.  In 2004 Leinart and Smith competed against each other for the Heisman Trophy, which Leinart won.  Leinart and the Trojans then went on to win the national title.  That spring the San Francisco 49ers had the #1 draft, and the dynasty built by Joe Montana and Steve Young was poised to take Leinart #1 and pay him ALL the money.  Leinart instead chose to delay coming out.  He opted to return for a 5th year at USC, taking ballroom dancing to satisfy the two credits he needed to complete his sociology degree.

The 49ers drafted Alex Smith and signed him to a $49.5 million contract that included $24 million in guarantees.  Smith was their starter through these last playoffs (where the 49ers reached the NFC Championship) and has resigned for another three years.

Leinart went on to see his teammate Reggie Bush win the Heisman in 2005, and then saw Vince Young run over his defense to win the national title over Leinart's Trojans.  Leinart was drafted 10th by the Arizona Cardinals, and became the summer's longest hold-out in pursuit of a contract.  Ultimately that contract was signed, and on paper appeared to be worth more than Smith's:  $50.8 million.  However only $14 million of that was guaranteed as opposed to Smith's $24 million.  The rest was based on performance benchmarks and play time.  Leinart was promptly put on the bench behind Kurt Warner.  He eventually started 11 games that season, then bounced between the starting spot, the injured reserve list, and the bench (largely the bench in 2008 and 2009).  In 2010 Leinart was cut from the team, and picked up by the Texans as a back-up.  Two years later he was cut by Houston, and has signed for the Oakland Raiders for the coming season.  The move to Houston from Arizona alone is estimated to have cost him $2.5 million.

Now injuries happen, and Smith himself has been off the starting rotation in San Francisco and was forced to renegotiate his contract in 2009.  Without the tax returns or copies of the contracts in front of me I can't do a breakdown of who has made more money since 2004, but going into next season Smith's $24 million contract as the starter for a team that is a legitimate Super Bowl contender seems to weigh in his favor as having had more professional success despite having been the lesser prospect when he exited college.

So, in an effort to tie all these varied ramblings into a semblance of a final, overarching point, I think coaches informing PSU players that they are desired is perfectly ethical within the bounds of current practice and rules.  It is also providing a valuable service to the players by keeping them informed of their options.  The players have no obligation to the university to stay, and it may very well be in their best interest if they have the talent and desire to play in the NFL.  If they can make it to the NFL, they are better suited to do so than sticking around ANY academic institution to obtain ANY degree, and they should go at the earliest opportunity to minimize injury and maximize earning potential.  They can always come back later.  If that offends your sensibilities, you need to re-check your numbers.  The data gravitates towards players looking out for their own athletic prowess, not sticking by an academic institution that can't guarantee them greater success.  That individual players might do so may please our yearnings for some bygone, halcyon days of mythical yore where gentleman scholars competed on fields of valor before setting aside such childish antics en route to adopting positions as titans of industry.  In reality they're passing up more lucrative opportunities so that we can tell a story about how loyalty trumps greed.  In the end though, it's just that, a story, and once the column those sports writers glowingly hand their editors is consigned to the dust bin of history, so will be the careers of those individuals who marched off into ignominy for the sake of our ephemeral praise and the vindication of our fables.

Penn State Post Mortem Round Up

Big day today. Blog Duke of Glocester Mike had the initial reaction today and made some very good points about a private entity handcuffing a public body. Here's some more writers I liked today.

1) Dave Zirin spent most of yesterday preparing to be angry, and his column today doesn't disappoint. Particularly useful is his discussion of the NCAA's move into criminal law- the only real "unprecedented" thing in this situation.

2) Drew Magary excoriates the NCAA for brand management disguised as protecting its values.

3) Travis Waldron reminds us that Penn State did this because of a reverence for football- a reverence the NCAA has encouraged for years.

4) The Hang Up and Listen guys are dismissive of the "extra-legal" concerns- but are also very skeptical that the NCAA will take any other action to rein in runaway football programs.

5) For my part: Penn State deserved to be punished. I was nervous about collective punishment, but I also didn't know how you successfully targeted the program without hurting students, athletes, or other low-men-on-the-totem-pole (hot dog vendors and such). I was also nervous about scapegoating; Penn State was, as we've said before, kind of a symptom of college football's larger problems, and we can't act like punishing it solves those problems. But: Penn State did screw up, horribly so. And I've got no problem in making it account for that.

I'm concerned that the NCAA was the wrong body to do it. Like Mike said, it's hinky for a private entity to handcuff a public body. Like Waldron said, the NCAA is morally complicit here. Plus, the NCAA had to abandon its usual rules and procedures to get here. And I can't shake the feeling that continued criminal action would have been much better targeted. But, Mike's point about the NCAA's moral obligation is well-taken; I think I would have been satisfied with NCAA action so long as it had followed its normal procedures. As it stands, though, I'm uncomfortable.

Then, there's the fact that I'm pretty unimpressed with the punishment. The money is the eye-catching thing, but the alumni and boosters will ride to the rescue there. The postseason probably wasn't a factor for a few years anyway, and the loss of prestige will be forgotten as soon as Penn State posts a winning record and ESPN trips over itself to tell the story of Penn State' return to honor. Vacating wins? Just silly. Scholarships hurt, but it's the exact kind of hurt that football programs usually pass on to the students. Meanwhile, this is still collective punishment, the very thing I was worried about, and the NCAA's mandate that athletes be given free transfers- while entirely necessary- is going to set off an ugly recruiting derby that's going to remind you of every thing you hate about college football- as if you needed another reminder here.

So, it's kinda like the NCAA gave us the worst of both worlds- it assumed too much power to deliver too little punishment, and preserved all the worst impulses of the sport in the process.

Crime and Punishment

Well the hammer has been dropped.  Penn State faces massive sanctions from the NCAA, and while most people are avoiding use of the term "death penalty", PSU is going to be set back as a football contender for quite some time.

First, a couple thoughts on that:

1) ESPN's 30 for 30 series did an episode on SMU's receipt of the death penalty, and discussed (even showed) how other schools' coaches descended on campus like a flock of vultures to snap up talented players as a result of lifted transfer restrictions.  So [a] it will probably happen again, and [b] let's not wax too poetic in our concern for the current crop of players

2) PSU will eventually bounce back.  There are key differences between PSU and SMU, namely that one is a public university that operates as a state flagship while the other was a private institution, founded by the Methodist Church.  SMU was never one of the biggest schools in its state, being dwarfed in physical size and enrollment by the University of Texas and Texas A&M.  Penn State has a deeper history, a larger alumni base, and tuition rates that are roughly half of SMU's.  Why is that important?  Between state pride, family history, and Penn State being twice as affordable they should have an easier time finding players that could be motivated to attend without receiving a scholarship.  SMU's rise to prominence was due to the activities that got them sanctioned.  PSU's history of athletic success is separate from the events that led to their sanctions.

Now onto what I really want to talk about: whether this was a legitimate exercise of power by the NCAA.

In my post yesterday I already discussed my issue with the curtailing of NCAA standard due process.  I still stand by everything I said there, but that being said, I do support the NCAA handing down sanctions.  The particular sanctions in this case may border on moronic at times.

Vacating wins?  As blog overlord Craig points out, did they just vacate this blog post of Craig live-blogging a game between Penn State and Illinois? I mean, fans who watched those games did not just have their memories wiped like a Philip K. Dick protagonist.  Though this may affect Joe Pa's inclusion on the all-time wins list, and I'm okay with that.  If CBS doesn't put him up there at all, rather than put him up there with an asterisk, I think it's no less than his legacy deserves.

Reduction in scholarships?  This arguably punishes players more than the school.  My responses:  [a] see point (1) above about other schools picking up players.  [b] It's hard to imagine almost any punishment that could be both effective and not impact negatively on players.  I agree that any reduction in any one school's available scholarships is a loss to affordable education at large, and going forward I would like to see some kind of system in place where scholarships lost to one athletic program as a result of its malfeasance maybe simply shift elsewhere.  As Craig pointed out yesterday, Title IX opponents love to cite college wrestling as a casualty.  Well, why couldn't we shift those 10 scholarships a year over to create a wrestling team?  (This is an honest question in that I don't actually know the mechanics of Title IX and NCAA scholarships).

The fines and bowl bans I am utterly fine with.  Ultimately those hit the university where it counts: the wallet.  Football got to be king on the basis of the money it brings in.  A school could have the best water polo team in the country, but that coach won't get paid more than the university president, nor have more power.  It all comes down to money.  However a one time fine, no matter how high, wouldn't be sufficient.  The university could swallow its medicine, cut a check, and go right back to hitting up boosters for donations.  A bowl ban not only costs money, it costs prestige, which down the line costs even more money.

Now, ESPN is also reporting that a former infraction committee chair is calling into question the legitimacy of the NCAA's actions here in basically policing bad/criminal behavior, and not just behavior that impacts the competition on the field.

To that I say: so what.  Again, while I think the NCAA should stand by its normal due process, it's a separate argument to say they have a moral or professional duty to "stay out of it".  Isn't that what got us here to begin with?  The idea that "what happens on the field and what happens off the field never shall meet" is precisely why Penn State's in this position.  Furthermore, if the NCAA does nothing to Penn State after levying sanctions against Ohio State for players selling jerseys, or USC for Reggie Bush's family receiving gifts, then aren't they tacitly adopting a position that players making extra cash on the side is somehow worse for college athletics than coaches and school officials actively concealing heinous crimes?

Whether or not college players should be paid is a separate issue that we've already addressed and will probably return to at some point, but I will gladly stake out my position that player compensation ranks lower on the scale of moral reprehensibility than active concealment of child abuse.  Whatever the penalties levied, whatever process arrived at those penalties, I stand firmly in support of the idea that the NCAA had a moral obligation to address this issue, that their legitimacy would in fact be more damaged by sticking their head in the sand and saying "as long as no students got some extra cash in their pockets, it's not our problem."

There is still a legitimacy problem, though, in that ultimately the NCAA is a private organization, and it just took unprecedented action to harm the financial status of a public institution.  The people of Penn State voted to endow a public university, and they continue to support it through taxes.  Now a private board they had no democratic stake in has stepped in to cripple that institution.  Penn State answers to Pennsylvania taxpayers, but the NCAA does not.  The NCAA barely answers to Congress and had at least two Supreme Court Justices feeling it doesn't answer to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

The NCAA, in theory, operates on the consent of the governed, but it is still a private body that is wielding powers akin to a sovereign, and doing so over institutions that are otherwise, at least partly, publicly financed.  That it did so in this case in contradiction of its own due process makes it even more disturbing, but I have a feeling that point will get lost in the discussion of the impact on Penn State specifically.  The Freeh Report was our answer to how Penn State got here, the NCAA just told us where Penn State is headed.  But as the dust clears maybe it's time for Congress to ask how the NCAA got here, and where it is headed.

College Football Playoffs and the Illusion of Change

The biggest news in college sports- which has to be Top Five for biggest sports story overall, right?- is the advent of a four team playoff in college football. Starting in 2014, a selection committee will pick four teams. The two semi-final games will occur on New Year's and be played at one of six bowl sites. Those six sites aren't quite defined yet, except that we know the Rose Bowl and the Champions Bowl will be involved. The championship game will be played on a neutral site, selected by bidding, on the first Monday in January- which the NCAA desperately hopes you'll start calling "Championship Monday".

This is a big step, and a lot of football fans are right to be happy. Once we get to the four teams, we'll have a rational, objective, transparent way to pick the best of them. What's more, this is the kind of thing that almost always leads to further changes (such as an expanded playoff or a rethinking of conference structures). But for now, I'm actually kind of stunned at how little changes. It's like the NCAA- and the conferences, who had to approve of this change- went out of their way to preserve as many of college football's bad ideas as possible.

The problem with the BCS system was that it was subjective; the number of wins was not the final word on a team's season, and even other objective measures (think the NFL's tiebreakers) didn't always matter. Instead, the BCS turned to things like "strength of schedule" that had no real definition. This made the BCS system opaque, unpredictable, and ultimately illegitimate. And here- well, wins and tie breakers still aren't going to be the final word. If they were, then that would be all, and we wouldn't need a selection committee. But we will have a selection committee, and its choice, rather than any objective measure, is going to be the final word. And thus, the national champion will still have a legitimacy problem (though certainly not one as big as it has under the BCS system).

My guess is that this is all to preserve the conferences- or at least, the major conferences (the SEC, Big Ten, etc.). After all, this national playoff is going to be the final word on each college football season, and if it were based entirely on objective performance, than all of the conferences' little gimmicks- individual tournaments, individual champions, traditional rivalries- would become irrelevant pretty quickly. The conferences would also find themselves under intense pressure to adopt uniform rules and standards on the (persuasive) theory that the objective measures would only really mean something if every team played under the same rules. If you take all that away from the conferences, you pretty much break them. Thus, a selection committee, that can at least stall.

The problem is, well, the major conferences are horrible. They're corrupt and collusive and actively trying to push out smaller conferences, and thus, drive down competition. If anything, this system gives them more power to do that; what are the odds that the selection committee's four team slate won't be dominated by the SEC, Big Ten, and Pac-12? Who wants odds on that? And so, the conferences stay put, regardless of whether they're any good for the sport, the schools, or the athletes.

Of course, the biggest problem in college football is that it's entirely unclear how much the college football heirarchy cares about being good to the athletes in the first place. They're not allowed to share in the tremendous wealth they create for the schools and conferences. Hell, they're not even allowed to profit off of their own names. Sure, the NCAA will point to scholarships, but even setting aside the fact that it's an open question as to how many athletes complete a useful degree, that compensation is not at all commensurate with what coaches, athletic directors, and administrators get. This new system is poised to make the problem worse; a national playoff is certainly going to be tremendously popular; participating teams are going to be flush with new revenue. But the players will still get the same meager piece of the pie they're getting now. If a particular player does something particular amazing, he'll still be in no position to capitalize off of his newfound fame.

And all of that new revenue- along with the fame and prestige- is going to be very tempting for schools, so they're going to throw more and more resources into the football program- and the football programs already suck up way too many of a campus' resources. Schools are also going to feel more pressure to leave famous, winning programs alone- which is to say, pressure to turn a blind eye to bad decisions.

Now, we all know you just can't devise a playoff system that will cure all of the social ills in college sports. Hell, the very presence of any playoff system is going to create the increased pressure for wins, revenue, and prestige. But you can devise a system that addresses some of them and doesn't make the others appreciably worse. Specifically, an objective-berth playoff system would create some legitimacy and cut the conferences down to size- and since the conferences actually reinforce the other major problems (exploitation of players and misallocation of resources), it would make progress on those issues, too.

Like I said, this is a step in the right direction- but it seems to be meticulously calculated to be as small of a step as possible.

The Countdown to John Calipari's Next Vacated Appearance Begins NOW!

We're a day late on this one (blame the American judicial system), but here's a round up of 10 thoughts from Monday night's NCAA Men's Basketball Title Game...

1) We said earlier that the NCAA's problems with the "student-athletes" label were not going to go away through the Tourney, and OH LOOK, JOHN CALIPARI WON HIS FIRST CHAMPIONSHIP. Calipari has figured out how best to ignore the "student-athlete" mantra and treat college basketball like a business, and college basketball media spent the week leading up to the game trying to reconcile itself to that fact. It will spend the weeks after trying to justify rewarding Calipari with a trophy, especially as we watch the major player on his team head out to the NBA. Not helping matters? Cal himself saying in his post-game statements that he'll be back on the recruitment circuit by Friday. The beast must be fed.

2) In their effort to reconcile with Calipari's success, some people in college sports media offered some qualified defenses of Calipari. Most of them boiled down to "at least he's honest about it". But he's not, not really; sure, he's ignoring the NCAA's edict that there are no "players", only "student-athletes", and sure, he lives peacefully alongside the "one and done" rule. But he still talks about how he's doing it all for the players, how they come first, how even the "one and done" rule is really for them. If you believe that Cal is really the guy who best understands that college basketball is a business- and I think that's a very convincing statement- then all of those statements are necessarily distortions.

3) Moreover, Calipari is the guy who understands the system the best, but he's still just working through the system. If he weren't around, it'd just be someone else. It's not like Pitino or Williams or Self are encouraging their players to go for a Master's Degree in Chemical Engineering.

4) Nonetheless, this win is some vindication for Calipari. Note that Kentucky's biggest star, Anthony Davis, only had one field goal, and the team still scored 67 points. That means this wasn't just the triumph of a couple talented players, this was the triumph of an entire system of running a college basketball team. That all starts with Calipari. So you can't separate this from his moral...compromises. Or the NCAA's, for that matter.

5) Speaking of Davis. The guy only had 1 field goal, but 16 rebounds, 5 assists, 6 blocks, and 3 steals. That's domination. I'm not saying Davis shouldn't finish his education. I'm just saying that if he says he's ready for the NBA, I'm not sure I'm in a position to second guess him. And I rather doubt that David Stern or the NCAA (who have vested interests in the decision) are, either.

6) Still, this game helps you to understand why the NCAA gets to ignore these controversies so often. I mean, this wasn't even a good game, and I was hoping for controversy (it makes for easier blog posts) and I still got sucked into it for minutes at a time. There is just a sheer joy in watching skilled athletes putting it all on the line for the top honor in their sport. It's almost hypnotic. It's entirely wonderful.

7) A few notes on the presentation: first, I kinda liked The Frey, or at least give them credit for trying something different. We shouldn't be afraid to experiment with the Star Spangled Banner a little.

8) Is it just me, or are the student sections at these things shrinking? Looks like each school got a little area roped off just off of the floor, while the closest seats were reserved for...well, I don't know who those people were, but they didn't look like students. Similarly, would you have known this game took place in New Orleans at all if it weren't for the logos on the floor? Looks like all the Cajuns were pushed up to the 300 level.

9) CBS interviewed Obama at half time, and he spent most of it talking about women in sports. He's also recently talked up Title IX, so this is clearly something he's spent some time thinking about. I'm going to do the same thing, and hopefully have a post later.

10) There was a lot of talk last week about whether or not the Wildcats could beat the NBA's Washington Wizards. I can't really do a talent breakdown or go position by position, but I'll tell you this: the Wildcats get 11 more second each possession to find the rim, and get to take 3 point shots from 3 feet closer. That is a tremendous change in rules, and it probably makes any direct comparison very tenuous (it's also the reason the NBA game seems more "selfish"- you can set up more elaborate passing plays when you have more than half a minute to get a shot off).

And since I'm feeling generous, here's an eleventh thought- so, we're just going to invite Charles Barkley to every sporting event from now on, right?

The NCAA's Long March Continues

I rather suppose that you guys have already seen that Jamar Samuels of Kansas State has been ruled ineligible for the Men's Basketball Tourney. Put this together with Fab Melo, John Calipari's statements, and Dave Zirin's crusade to call out the NCAA, and it's getting harder and harder to ignore the NCAA's issues this March, even as the Tourney is getting more and more exciting. Don't get me wrong, the games are still- and maybe ought to be- the biggest story, but the undercurrent here isn't going away.

From my perspective, the worst thing about the Samuels issue is that it flies in the face of our (admittedly romantic) notions of sports as a Grand Meritocracy, where what matters is your ability, not your background. If you can play, you can play (To steal from the NHL). But here, being poor seems to be becoming a major obstacle in playing, as the "impermissible benefit" in question may well have been a former coach sending Samuels $200 to help with groceries. Samuels may be being punished just for being too poor to afford his own food.

I of course say "may be" because, I dunno, maybe his old coach (Curtis Malone of the DC Assault) is lying. What he's saying hasn't been proven- but that's the problem here. Nothing's been proven. Hell, evidence hasn't even been presented. All we have is that Samuels has been accused of something, and that's enough to rip him out of the biggest games of his life (and humiliate him by having assholes like me speculate on his financial situation).

Anyway. The Men's Basketball Tourney is going to bring in something like $10 billion dollars this year. And Samuels is going to be on the outside looking in because he had trouble coming up with $200. The Grand Meritocracy is breaking down.

The NCAA is Stumbling Out of the Gate

You probably heard by now that Syracuse's center- and future namesake for an electro-pop band- Fab Melo is out of the NCAA Tournament due to an "eligibility issue". There's not a lot of information on what this means exactly, but at least Syracuse phrased the decision in such a way as to perfectly evoke the NCAA's longest running, most pernicious perennial scandal.

Meanwhile, John Calipari- who, in an alternate universe, actually orchestrated Melo's "eligibility issue" and is going to nonetheless play him in every game because fuck you, that's why- is blasting the NCAA for paying only lip service to the idea of taking care of the student athletes.

And then there's Dave Zirin- someone who's been doing this whole "sports and politics" thing for a while- calling NCAA student-athletes the civil rights issue of our time, and making sure we all re-read Taylor Branch's remarkable piece on just how hollow a lie the "student-athlete" moniker is.

In other words, this is a rather inauspicious start to March Madness.

I'm not exactly bubbling over with sympathy, you understand. The NCAA has dug itself into a deep hole on these issues, and it's not going to get out until fans demand it get out. That requires attention. That requires some outrage. And yeah, that requires stealing the spotlight from one of the best events in sports. Of course, we'll probably forget all about this by the Sweet Sixteen, but we have to start somewhere.

One of the reasons all the major sports organizations can get away with some decidedly regressive actions is that a really good game or series or season or postseason comes along and everyone forgets everything that bugs them about the sport. I do it, too- fighting was certainly not a problem in the 2010 Stanley Cup Playoffs, by no means! But if we keep letting the slate get wiped clean like that, all of these very real problems get reduced to off-season chatter.

Fab Melo's suspension (if that's the right word) sucks for Syracuse, and it probably sucks for the rest of us because it will make some games a little less interesting. John Calipari's statement sucks because it means we have to listen to John Calipari. But at least we can't easily ignore the NCAA's trouble with student athletes this March.