Success With Hyperlinking Has Some Reading To Do

Bconway6,

You bring up some fine points, and one of the article’s flaws — though, flawed as it is, that’s some splendid work — is that it broad-brushes all of college athletics, implicitly subscribing to the “it happens everywhere” defense (though here it would be an accusation).

I do think what you’re saying about how money-making sports supports other arguably “worthy” causes is immaterial, though. Even if I agree with the sentiment, it doesn’t change the economic arrangement and it doesn’t answer the question of why a small percentage of athletes should use their labors to fund such things.

My issues with the article, though, are with two basic assumptions that, given its depth elsewhere, I’m surprised were left unaddressed. The first is the dismissal of the “free education” as an abstracted sentiment, one that prompts him to trot the slavery metaphor (labor unpaid now for untold — but unseen — riches later) at the end. First, I agree that “education” is an abstraction, no less of one than “heaven” for the slave. But it’s just as lazy to stop there for the author as it is for those who would say “free education” as if it were the trump card in the argument. There is, of course, a price tag on that education and that’s quantifiable. There are also ample statistics on what said education does to one’s earning power later in life (though this is also in dispute, particularly in regards to those who achieve that education with a lower socioeconomic background than their peers’). My point here is not that either side is “correct,” but that we shouldn’t talk about the value of that education without some attempt to quantify the value.

My other issue is the flipside of this. And this is where I think the article is ultimately as sloppy as it is insightful elsewhere. This all hinges on the assumption that “90 percent” of the profit is generated through black athletes who grew up in “poverty.”

Bconway6, you point out the flaws in the poverty threshhold itself, but at least it’s a quantifiable figure even if flawed. My problem is, why do we inherently believe that “90 percent” figure? Because Dale Brown said so? Because a lot of players “look the part” with corn rows and tattoos? I mean, really, it ain’t 1985. Those markers of class are far from absolute, if they ever were.

I don’t even contend that the assumption is wrong. I just think we shouldn’t treat it as an assumption, when the reality might surprise some people — as did the recent study that showed players from “poor” backgrounds were UNDERrepresented in the NBA.

If the author’s going to attack a “free education” as an abstract sentiment, he shouldn’t rely so heavy on an equally abstracted assumption. Quantify both. How many profit-generating college athletes can fairly be described as “impoverished”? If they don’t get a pro contract, what does that “free education” ultimately do to their economic standing 5 years later? And, finally, can we quantify if there are marked differences between institutions? Might we find that a scholarship at school A, which makes kids go to class and study, ends up being of significant value as opposed to school B (cough, Ole Miss, cough) that ultimately sees these kids as unpaid labor?

All of that might not matter one iota in terms of the legality of the issue, but it might help clear away some myths that unduly sway sentiment one way or another.