People celebrate day-long, maybe even week-long, holidays such as birthdays or Hanukah; however, have you ever celebrated the roughly month-long annual tradition that occurs in late winter? Call it a holiday, a festival, or the greatest rush of any true ballers year, but I am talking about March Madness; the stretch of days during the coldest month of the year when people forget normal television etiquette and students’ laptops are set to the best of the best of college basketball games. College basketball is by far the most popular collegiate athletic event in terms of participation (NCAA). The programming solicits billion dollar televisions deals and attracts almost as many viewers pumped about the high level of competition, the commentary, and even the sassy commercials. In 2015, the National College Athletic Association, or NCAA, put on its annual Final Four National Championship, a tradition since 1939, and saw its highest television rating since 1997 (NCAA). With the NCAA’s popularity ever-increasing, one would think that college basketball would be the perfect destination for a big time basketball prospect coming out of high school; however, recent accusations of player mistreatment and immorality have the NCAA under extreme scrutiny from the public, the players, and the media. 

The NCAA tries to provide a stage for amateur talent to showcase their abilities, to mature, and to graduate college. This noble mission however, has become increasingly under scrutiny. The very best athletes are not attending top universities with the intention of graduating summa cum laude in four years. Instead, elite level athletes are inclined to spend maybe two years at a university, gaining as much professional NBA exposure as possible. If gaining exposure is the primary aspiration of a young generation of athletes, which isn’t necessarily a bad one, then maybe college ball is not the best path to achieve their goals. Some athletes want to pursue a path that makes them the big money just as soon as possible. While a college setting may provide some great exposure for amateur basketball athletes, the universities and the NCAA have strict regulations regarding academic standards, and restrictions on the compensation of athletes in college. The NCAA refuses to find a way to compensate athletes who earn them so much money. Given the exploitation and strict rules imposed on college basketball players, and with the increasing globalization of sports in general, playing ball overseas instead of in college seems a viable alternative when exposure is what’s needed to earn a paycheck faster.

To understand this problem, one must first understand the history of the organization that is the National Collegiate Athletics Association. The NCAA was officially established in 1910 and quickly grew as the primary organization for college sports. The Association, by nature, regulates athletes, conferences, programs, and championship games for hundreds of teams across the United States. Collegiate basketball has become extremely popular and currently houses the most teams out of any sport in the National Collegiate Athletics Association, in both men’s and women’s divisions. The NCAA first began experimenting with basketball live on television in 1940, but didn’t start attracting a lot of viewers until the late 1960s. The NCAA did not sign a formal television rights deal until much later though, when Raycom, a TV production company, and signed a $1.8 million six-week dollar deal for regular season games. Fast forward only twenty years, and the numbers on these television deals have increased at a rapid pace. Currently, the NCAA March Madness tournament, the premier athletic event in all of college basketball, had agreed to a deal with CBS for fourteen years and $10.8 billion through 2024 (History). In April 2016, however, the NCAA was able to argue for more money and signed an eight year $8.8-billion-year extension (Sherman). This is the beginning of the problem: the NCAA now receives billions of dollars in revenue as a non-profit but does not actually pay the basketball players who are responsible for the incredible fan base, media attention, and sponsorships. How is this fair as a non-profit organization? Well the NCAA responds that, “As with the current and previous contract, more than 90 percent of the revenue generated from this extension will be used to benefit college athletes through programs, services, or direct distribution to member conferences and schools” (Sherman). That sounds good and all, but if the schools are receiving boatloads of money why are they still struggling: The NCAA “released data showing that only 14 programs (all major conference schools) are turning a profit without having to rely on institutional support” (Dosh). This is because a lot of the funding schools receive from the NCAA goes towards other things such as buildings, coaches’ salaries, and yes, tuitions for student-athlete scholarships (Dosh). The NCAA continues to make more many each year, but their spending habits outweigh their revenue. As college basketball continues to grow, expand, and sign larger deals, there is a higher need for transparency between the Association and the public than ever before. 

The lucrative television contracts that the NCAA and individual schools sign do not actually always mean every program turns a profit. If we look solely at the power five conferences – the Big Ten, the Atlantic Coast Conference, the Pacific 12 Conference, the Big 12 Conference, and the Southeastern Conference – we can see clearly how big money TV contracts have affected programs. The power 5 conferences are the programs most likely to have a television contract throughout the entire regular season. Between 2004 and 2014, forty-eight out of the sixty-one power 5 conference programs saw their annual earnings surge by nearly 2 billion; however, in 2014 twenty-five of those departments still turned a deficit (College). How is this possible? How are these schools not at least breaking even? Well even extremely popular and well-funded programs such as the University of California Los Angeles may not turn a profit because of the arms race currently happening in college institutions around the nation. Major programs feel the need to compete with one another for the flashiest equipment, best facilities, and biggest stadiums: “This is a competitive race among some of the biggest universities in this country to compete and achieve at the highest level,” Rutgers Athletic Director Julie Hermann said (College). In September 2015, Auburn revealed a brand spanking new high definition screen at one of their facilities, which cost around $14 million dollars (College). That’s a lot of money for a program that lost over $15 million the year prior (College). Other schools like Michigan and Florida State have all experienced at least $60 million increase in revenue, but have also yet to turn a profit after expenditures (College). The thought process is that if program A has nicer facilities and nicer stadiums and better coaches than program B then program A attract better players and more fans than program B. So, where does the spending stop? The universities programs and the NCAA should stop thinking about their own facilities and start worrying about the people using them? Schools need to take a break from spending millions on various amenities, and consider prioritizing their athletes. Instead of using fancy amenities to attract players, universities and the NCAA should care more about the day to day struggle of athlete living with zero income. Top players who plan to move into the NBA after one or two years often need money to live on and if the NCAA wants to keep players at school they need to incentivize with income, not just amenities. 

While they may not receive money, players do still reap benefits from college basketball. They receive at least a year of education, housing, some food monthly, and access to state of the art facilities, as aforementioned. One could definitely say that even athletes who are not concerned with earning a degree are rewarded with life experience and being part of a vibrant community. Yet the appeal of money is so much greater. Fans can say they cheer for the colors and the name on the front of the jersey rather than the back, but after the recent increase in high school recruiting and even middle school basketball scouting, it is hard to imagine that college athletes’ personal brands don’t matter. Players get exposure in college but they don’t get money. If other venues offer both, the player should take advantage. 

In the 21st century, athletes have begun to fight back against the big programs and the NCAA. They want the exposure of their own name so they can be recruited earlier. The first such incidence was the case of Edward O’Bannon vs. National Collegiate Athletic Association and Collegiate Licensing Company. Edward O’Bannon, an ex-UCLA basketball player, sued the National Collegiate Athletic Association for the use of image of student-athletes that have graduated from the programs (Price 183). The argument in O’Bannon vs. NCAA was originally that “in addition to cost of attendance, the Oakland, California, judge ruled that colleges should be allowed to put aside up to $5,000 a year in a trust fund to compensate an athlete for use of his name, image and likeness” (Mendel). This then led to the argument that current student-athletes should receive similar compensation. One side believes that “student-athletes shall be amateurs in an intercollegiate sport, and their participation should be motivated primarily by education and by the physical, mental and social benefits to be derived” (Price 183). The other believes that “Student-athletes are meant to be students first and athletes second, however, they arguably spend all of their time outside the classroom training for their respective sports” (Price 184). Both sides believe that the athletes should focus on school primarily and athletics secondarily; however, that is just not the reality of the situation anymore. Athletes are not going to college with the intentions of graduating with a degree; consequently, they are not putting their upmost effort into academics. In a study in 2010, Division I basketball athletes stated they spend around thirty-five hours a week on academic requirement, but ten to fifteen more hours a week on basketball responsibilities (Price 184). They are spending and increasing amount of time at athletic requirements like practice, lifting sessions, and game film to achieve one thing: exposure in order to gain money. The reality of the state of a college athlete is that they are required to do so much more the university they attend that it is very easy to make the argument that they should be rewarded with compensation. The bottom line is that many athletes value exposure and income more than a college degree because a degree is not necessary to lay ball. If college cannot provide both exposure and income, players will begin to look elsewhere if other opportunities present themselves. 

Some of these athletes are scheduled to make sign contracts in excess of $5 million in less than a year after they leave their respective colleges. In the 2015 NBA Draft, twenty-one of entrants were taken in the first round were in their first year of eligibility (Wire). A NBA rookie deal is structured on a tier scale. Every single pick has a certain value. The first pick is worth about $12 million dollars during two years, the second pick worth round $11 million, the third pick worth $10.5 million, and it continues to decrease exponentially in value (Belzer). Even the very last pick of the first round of the 2015 NBA Draft was guaranteed to make at least $2.5 million during his first two years under contract. This is the type of money that is waiting for a number of the athletes in the power five conferences, but they only receive a one-year tuition while at school. What makes it more absurd is that even the coaches of the teams are making salaries similar to those of NBA coaches. If the coach of the team is worth millions, then how are the players only worth a couple thousands. Let’s take a look at the University of Kentucky, which is responsible for the most one-and-done players in the past decade (Berri). Now, if Kentucky treated its players like the NBA does, then “their players are worth at least 50% of the [Kentucky’s] revenue and [the money] should be allocated in terms of the percentage of the team's wins produced by each individual player” (Berri).  That means that during their one-year tenure at the university all forty-three of “the one-and-done players employed by Calipari from 2010 to 2014 combined were worth about $21.6 million in revenue” (Berri). “The cost of attending Kentucky for one year – of a non-resident – is estimated to be less than $35,000,” which comes out to just over $1.5 million in tuition for all forty-three players combined (Berri). This disparity is unreal, and it is caused by how much the game has changed. Players used to stay all four years, but now they aren’t. That means their value as a basketball player is going up, but their value as a student is going down. 

Achieving a Division-I basketball scholarship is difficult, let alone getting one from a high profile school. The odds are indeed slim, but nowadays any athlete receiving high Division -I scholarship offers can almost assure himself he is going to see some sort of interest from the NBA. Even if premier high school prospects who come to college, perform below expectations during their single college seasons, there draft stock doesn’t fall. For example, Skal Labissiere was the second ranked high school prospect in 2015, but averaged only 6 points and three rebounds per game. Those are not numbers put up by any draftee let alone a potential 1st-rounder, but the Sacramento Kings still selected him with the 28th overall pick last year. Shouldn’t his poor play have affected his draft status? It didn’t. Teams nowadays will draft anybody solely on potential. The Kings are willing to pay well over a million dollars this year in payment for the same services that the players didn’t get compensated at all a year earlier. Top athletes are beginning to see that struggling through the rigors of college classes amy not be with it if they an get as good exposure elsewhere and also get paid. The money that many athletes desperately need, is one reason why athletes have begun seeking out other means of exposure besides college. 

Some athletes have begun exploring alternative opportunities after high school, opportunities that might provide a comfortable lifestyle before they sign their most lucrative deal. Since the new NBA Collective Bargaining Agreement in 2005, players have to wait a year after high school to enter the NBA draft; consequently, eager athletes find other ways to enter the professional ranks as early possible (Peeble). In June 2008, Brandon Jennings became the first American high school basketball to sign with a foreign professional team out of high school instead of playing for a college team – he was previously signed with University of Southern California (Thamel). He signed with an Italian team for a contract worth $1.65 million and ended up earning another $2 million from Under Armor on a sponsorship deal not available to college players (Thamel). Similar Labissiere, Brandon Jennings posted meager statistics during his sole year with the Italian club, but was still picked 10th in the NBA Draft once he was eligible. A couple years later, another soon to be collegiate superstar, Emmanuel Mudiay, chose to sign with a Chinese club for over $1 million rather than play at SMU (Sports). The next year, Mudiay was chosen with the seventh overall selection in the NBA Draft after a subpar year in China; he is currently making over $4 million a year (Sports). These examples demonstrate how players who attend college without pay end up at the same place as players who signs contract overseas. While there are so many life-changing benefits of attending college, it is not hard to see why some athletes who are considered “one-and-done,” those who only anticipate spending one year between high school and the NBA, would consider playing overseas. 

The college basketball system, as beautiful as it can be in March, is jaded. Players are no longer needing the stage that is March Madness to boost their stock. It can help, but it is not needed. Throughout history, professional athletes have received more money from their organizations. Fans do not want their late winter festival to be compromised in any way, but, like the NBA and other sports leagues have loosened salary restraints over time, so must the NCAA (Szymanski). The NCAA will need to start considering pay-for-play if it hopes to retain its star athletes because high school athletes are realizing that to think of college as his only option is actually cheating himself. Considering overseas as an elite level athlete is not a bad option by any means. If basketball is gaining exposure in places other than the U.S., and if there is opportunity for players to make money playing the sport they love, then the NCAA may well lose the best players at an in increasing pace.
