After last night’s loss to West Virginia in the Orange Bowl (a game summed up perfectly with one picture here), Allen was asked if the “empty feeling” he had after playing poorly in the loss would be a reason for him to come back. This is how he responded, which has led more than a few folks to jump to totally unnecessary conclusions:

Transcript:

No, no. That’s why I’m going to take some days off to really get away from this feeling and to think things through, the pros and cons. I’m happy to say that the one thing that’s not going to go in my decision is money. Being at Clemson I have more money, more resources than I’ve ever had in my whole life.

This statement by Allen has led to the video being posted at Reddit with the title “Clemson pays its players very well, according to their star tight end” and numerous commenters on the video have left sentiments that echo the first comment, which says, “WHAT AN IDIOT! HE JUST DROPPED DIME THAT CLEMSON IS PAYING HIM MORE MONEY THAN HE HAS EVER HAD IN HIS LIFE”. (If that isn’t the quintessential YouTube comment, I don’t know what is.)

I am posting the video to stop the idiocy before it starts.

Yes, Allen gives a little smirk that one might describe as mischievous when he says the money line, before quickly adding in “more resources” to the quote:

And yes, I am quite certain that players all over the country get their pockets lined with more money than what a scholarship provides. But Allen making this remark in no way suggests or proves that Clemson is doing anything under the table to get its players money.

In fact, this is a good time to remind everyone just how much athletes get from their scholarship, because it is more than just room and board and book money. And this topic is outlined very well at this post from HolyTurf.com entitled “Football Players Receive $17,000 Annually in Cash, all within NCAA Rules.” (Give the maligned YouTube comments credit, as this link was left in the comment section of the above video.)

Here are a couple of stipends you may not know that college athletes can or do receive:

Pell Grant
Many football student-athletes qualify for a Pell Grant based on several factors, but most earn a Pell Grant based on a lack of wealth from their parents. According to collegeboard.com, “The U.S. Department of Education uses a standard formula to evaluate the information you supply when applying for a Pell Grant. This formula produces a number called the Expected Family Contribution (EFC), which determines if you are eligible. The grant requires that you: 1. Are an undergraduate student who has not earned a bachelor’s degree. 2. Are a U.S. citizen or an eligible noncitizen. 3. Have a high school diploma or a GED, or demonstrate the ability to benefit from the program”

A full Pell Grant is worth $5,500 a year and never has to be repaid because it is a grant, not a loan. Football players get $5,500 each year to do with what they want.

Clothing Money
If a football player qualifies for a Pell Grant, they also get $500 of clothing allowance each year. My memory fails me, but I am almost certain this money is from the conference. Football players can buy whatever clothes they want as long as they bring back $500 worth of receipts to their Compliance department showing the clothes they bought. Now, many football players will spend this money on new Nike’s, hats, jeans or t–shirts. This money could be spent on buying a nice suit, or a few pairs of khaki pants and some button down shirts, but rarely is that the case.

Now, I don’t know anything about Dwayne Allen’s life growing up in Fayetteville, North Carolina. I don’t know if he comes from a low income background or from a wealthy one. Obviously this would be important information to have when placing his “I have more money, more resources than I’ve ever had in my life” line in context. But having been around college football programs growing up (my dad was an assistant in the Big Ten), I know that a great many players do come from very poor backgrounds, poor enough that $17,000 in room, board, food, clothes and the like would be a significant upgrade over what they’ve ever known.

So, to all though who want to jump on the bandwagon that DWAYNE ALLEN EXPOSED CLEMSON with his comments last night, just cool it. I know this is the Internet, but there is no need for outlandish knee jerk reactions. Save that for real hot button, point-and-laugh comments…like this guy mistaking First Lady Michelle Obama for Lisa Salters.

If you weren’t already convinced that college sports is in dire need of reform, consider these three recent news stories. Each raises its own questions about the rights of student-athletes.

Taken together, they expose the absurdity and unfairness of the NCAA’s policies.

Todd O’Brien vs. Phil Martelli and St. Joseph’s Basketball

Two weeks ago former St. Joseph’s reserve center Todd O’Brien wrote an article for Sports Illustrated titled, “St. Joe’s won’t release me to play at UAB and I don’t know why.” O’Brien graduated from St. Joseph’s over the summer. NCAA rules permit graduate students to transfer without having to sit out a year, so O’Brien decided to transfer to UAB for his final season to pursue a graduate degree in Public Administration.

But O’Brien has yet to suit up for the Blazers because, according to O’Brien:

when Saint Joseph’s turned in the requested paperwork to the NCAA about my transfer, school officials had selected “Yes” to the the question “Do you object to Todd O’Brien being eligible for competition this season?” Under the part that said “If yes, then why do you object” there was no reason.

Neither head coach Phil Martelli or St. Joseph’s administration has explained the reason for refusing to release O’Brien.

Other student-athletes in O’Brien’s situation might take a year off while they worked things out with their former school. But O’Brien already exhausted his fifth year of eligibility when he sat out the 2008-09 season after transferring from Bucknell to St. Joe’s.

Todd O'Brien: You probably won't see him in a UAB uniform this season. (Photo: Getty Images)

DeAnthony Arnett vs. Derek Dooley and Tennessee Football

Late last week Tennessee wide receiver DeAnthony Arnett announced his intentions to transfer to be closer to his ailing father. Arnett, a Michigan native, would like to play at Michigan or Michigan State (he has since added Notre Dame to the list), but Tennessee head football coach Derek Dooley is only willing to release him to a MAC school.

Tennessee isn’t scheduled to play Michigan, Michigan State, or Notre Dame any time soon—though the Vols are playing Akron from the MAC—so allowing Arnett to attend a school of his choosing would not mean handing him over to an opponent. And a year ago Notre Dame released offensive lineman Alex Bullard to transfer to Tennessee to be closer to his family following the death of his father. But Dooley has no interest in returning the favor.

Because of his father’s illness, Arnett has requested a hardship labor that would allow him to play immediately at his new school instead of sitting a year. Regardless of whether the NCAA decides to grant the waver, Tennessee will have to release Arnett before he can receive scholarship money from another school.

Update: According to Josh Ward of WNML in Knoxville and MrSEC.com, Dooley has agreed to release Arnett to the school of his choice.

Michigan native DeAnthony Arnett can return home, but not on his own terms. (Photo: Dillon Collier, miNBCnews.com)

The Ongoing Debate About One-Year Scholarships

On Festivus the NCAA announced a plan approved in October that would permit schools to award multi-year athletic scholarships. Currently, schools may only offer single-year scholarships to student-athletes.

Last week more than 75 schools objected to the plan, forcing the Division I Board of Directors to reconsider it at this month’s NCAA Convention. Boise State, one of the schools objecting to the plan, worries that it will give wealthy schools an even bigger advantage than they already have. Indiana State worries that new coaches could be ” ‘stuck’ with a student-athlete they no longer want.”

NCAA President Mark Emmert endorses multi-year scholarships. But his member schools are putting up a fight. (Photo: Manuel Balce Ceneta, AP)

**********

The stories of Todd O’Brien and DeAnthony Arnett raise questions about the ethics and wisdom of their respective coaches:

• Does Phil Martelli have a valid reason for blocking O’Brien’s transfer, or is he just bitter?
• Is Derek Dooley hampering the football career of a kid that just wants to be close to his ailing dad, or is there more to the story?

Regardless of the circumstances, surely a reputation for blocking transfers won’t endear either coach to potential recruits.

But these stories raise a bigger question, one that isn’t specific to St. Joe’s or Tennessee: Why do schools have to release a player for that player to transfer, especially when that player only has a one-year scholarship?

The NCAA has a system in which a player must commit to a school but a school has no obligation to the player.

To be clear, Todd O’Brien had a scholarship waiting for him at St. Joseph’s and DeAnthony Arnett has another one-year scholarship waiting for him at Tennessee. But many other student-athletes have ended up in situations where they were unable to complete their degrees at the schools they chose to attend because of coaches who decided not to renew their scholarship. (Consider, for example, the case of former Rice football player Joseph Agnew.)

Unlike academic scholarships that say, “This scholarship is valid for four years as long as you _____ and maintain _____ ,” the decision about whether to continue an athletic scholarship is left up to the coach and athletic administration. An athlete can do everything expected of him or her in terms of practice, conditioning, and academics, and a new coach can nonetheless decide that he or she doesn’t fit the system and discontinue his or her scholarship.

If schools have no obligation to keep a student-athlete on scholarship, even if that student-athlete does everything expected of him or her, why isn’t the student-athlete free to transfer and seek a scholarship at another school?

As the above stories illustrate, a school must release a scholarship athlete before that athlete can accept an athletic scholarship at another school. And while O’Brien, as a graduate student, would have played immediately had he been released, most transfers are penalized by having to sit out a year before being eligible at their new school.

The NCAA needs to pick one or the other: one-year scholarships or transfer restrictions. If schools insist that they cannot make more than a one-year commitment to a student-athlete, student-athletes shouldn’t have to make more than a one-year commitment to a school. If a student-athlete is penalized for transferring, a school should be penalized for discontinuing a scholarship without cause.

Even with all the controversy (I don’t like BCS system either) I still love the experience of hanging out with family and watching teams duke it out for bragging rights. It’s also a great look into how potential high draft picks perform in high pressure/high stakes games.

Are there bowl games that are going to be more entertaining than others? Of course, but I really recommend you to try to watch as many of them as possible.

Enjoy the games and enjoy the holidays.

2011 College Football Bowl Game Schedule

TV Schedule – Kickoff Times – Point Spreads

So settle down, relax, and get ready for another great weekend of college football.

As always, we begin with some of the marquee games to pay attention to this week and then the entire rundown of the college football TV schedule and point spreads for Week 14.

College Football TV Schedule and Point Spreads for Week 14

Marquee Games for This Week – Saturday, December 3rd

No. 22 Texas at No.  17 Baylor

• Texas-Baylor Date: Saturday, December 3rd
• Texas-Baylor Kickoff Time: 3:30pm
• Texas-Baylor TV: MTN
• Texas-Baylor Spread: Baylor -3

Complete TV Schedule and Point Spreads – Saturday, December 3rd

This week we have a number of important matchups that will help determine who goes BCS bowling after the season. So settle down, relax, and get ready for another great weekend of college football.

As always, we begin with some of the marquee games to pay attention to this week and then the entire rundown of the college football TV schedule and point spreads for Week 13.

College Football TV Schedule and Point Spreads for Week 13

Marquee Games for Thanksgiving Week – Saturday, November 26th

No.3 Arkansas at No. 1 LSU

• Arkansas-LSU Date: Friday, November 25th
• Arkansas-LSU Kickoff Time: 2:30pm
• Arkansas-LSU TV: CBS
• Arkansas-LSU SpreadL: LSU -11.5

This week we have some more great top 25 action, with the best of the best being, of course, the LSU-Alabama showdown on Saturday night. So settle down, relax, and get ready for another great weekend of college football.

Before we get to this week’s schedule, indulge us in a quick suggestion that you check out the weekly fantasy college football challenge offered by our friends at Daily Joust (which one esteemed writer already called “the best alternative to fantasy sports and gambling“.)

As always, we begin with some of the marquee games to pay attention to this week (have you heard? LSU is playing Alabama!) and then the entire college football TV schedule and point spreads rundown for Week 10.

College Football TV Schedule and Point Spreads

Marquee Games for This Week – Saturday, November 5th

 No. 15 Michigan at Iowa

• Michigan-Iowa Date: Saturday November 5th
• Michigan-Iowa Kickoff Time: 12pm
• Michigan-Iowa TV: ESPN
• Michigan-Iowa Spread: Michigan -4

No. 9 South Carolina at No. 7 Arkansas

• South Carolina-Arkansas Date: Saturday November 5th
• South Carolina-Arkansas Kickoff Time: 7:15pm
• South Carolina-Arkansas TV: ESPN
• South Carolina-Arkansas Spread: Arkansas -5

No. 1 LSU at No. 2 Alabama

• LSU-Alabama Date: Saturday, November 5th
• LSU-Alabama Kickoff Time: 8pm
• LSU-Alabama TV: CBS
• LSU-Alabama Spread: Alabama -5

No. 19 Arizona State at UCLA

• Arizona State-UCLA Date: Saturday, November 5th
• Arizona State Kickoff Time: 7:30pm
• Arizona State TV: Versus
• Arizona State Spread: Arizona State -10

College Football TV Schedule and Point Spreads

Complete TV Schedule and All Spreads

This marks the 83rd time these two teams have played each other, and it’s always one of the most important games of the season, regardless of how each team is playing beforehand.

This season is no different.

Notre Dame is looking to build on their four game winning streak that’s been helped by the Irish not turning the ball over for two straight games. The Trojans are coming off a two game win streak, and are hoping to gain some momentum with a rivalry win this week.

What Notre Dame Has to Do In Order to Win

Notre Dame’s offense has been virtually unstoppable the past two games, amassing over 500 yards and not turning the ball over once during those contests. Surely another performance like that would make winning Saturday’s game a lot easier; therefore the Irish simply need to focus on not turning the ball over. Their offense, which gets a little more comfortable and effective as each week goes on, needs to play like they have been in order for Notre Dame to prevail.

This is a Fighting Irish team that heavily relies on its offense to win football games. I really can’t remember the last time the Irish’s defense won a game for them. There has to some sort of damage control for the Notre Dame defense. The Irish won last week’s game and scored 59 points, but the Air Force Academy still put up 33 points.

The Irish defense is ranked 52nd, and could easily be taken apart by Matt Barkley and Robert Woods of USC.

However, If the Irish can do these two things, they should easily win this game and move a step closer to a major BCS game.

What USC Has to Do In Order to Win

USC may not have the offense Notre Dame has, but they still average 430.8 yards per game. Like the Irish, the Trojans are going to win this game through the air on offense. They have a great wide receiver in Robert Woods and a great quarterback in Matt Barkley.

Those two carry this Trojan team, so it’s absolutely key for them to preform well, but maybe more important than those two, is the Trojans’ running game.

The Trojans don’t really have much of a running game, but diversity, and the ability to effectively run both aspects of the offense, is what could destroy the Irish defense. USC has to find a way to get the running game involved in this Saturday’s game if they want to come out victorious.

The Trojan defense is not going to completely stop the Irish offense, but if they can intercept Tommy Rees and get him questioning his throws, even if it just a little bit, that little bit will go a long way.

USC-Notre Dame Prediction

I am expecting this game to be an offensive battle with a very high combined score. But the Irish go into this game as favorites for good reasons, and it’s hard to say they won’t come out of this game – after a week to prepare — with nothing short of a W.

Notre Dame 34 | USC 27

Have you entered the FREE fantasy college football freeroll tournament from our friends at Daily Joust? If not, click below to do so. Free to enter, real money prizes at stake. What’s to lose?

**********

USC at Notre Dame Game Info

• USC-Notre Dame Date: Saturday October, 22nd
• USC-Notre Dame Kickoff Time: 7:30pm
• USC-Notre Dame TV: NBC
• USC-Notre Dame Spread: Notre Dame -8.5

So settle down, relax, and get ready for another great weekend of college football. As always, here are some of the marquee games to pay attention to this week and then the entire college football TV schedule for Week 8, plus a link below to another fantasy college football freeroll tournament from our friends at Daily Joust.

No. 4 Oklahoma State at Missouri 

• Oklahoma State-Missouri Date: Saturday October, 22nd
• Oklahoma State-Missouri Kickoff Time: 12pm
• Oklahoma State-Missouri TV: FX
• Oklahoma State-Missouri Spread: Oklahoma State -7

#20 Auburn at #1 LSU

• Auburn-LSU Date: Saturday, October 22nd
• Auburn-LSU Kickoff Time: 3:30 ET
• Auburn-LSU TV: CBS
• Auburn-LSU Spread: LSU -22

I posted some thoughts over at the Peegs.com message board and decided I might as well post them here as well for those of you who are interested.

As you know, of any sports team I follow, IU basketball is the one I truly live and die with. So reports like this one always cause me to stop, think, and react.

Here is what I said to my fellow Hoosier fans:

In light of the disappointing but not earth shattering news tonight that Coach Crean committed a secondary violation in contacting Gary Harris outside of the allowed time period, I have one request of IU fans:

Please do not try to justify Coach Crean’s actions by citing Alabama’s 44 secondary violations (as a prominent IU fan did in my Facebook feed) or anything having to do with Kentucky or any sports program of their historical ilk. Just because Alabama or Kentucky would do it, does not mean Indiana should do it. Quite the opposite in fact.

Now, with that said, let me state that I think everyone is entitled their own opinion, and I’m not positing mine as the gospel or how IU fans *should* feel. I’ll respect those who disagree with me. I’m just stating how I feel.

Personally, I am disappointed by this. I’m not going to make a mountain out of a molehill, but I don’t want to see this stuff. Whether the rules are silly are not, they are rules, and this clearly gave us an advantage over other teams recruiting Harris who followed the rules. I grew up with Coach Knight and being around Coach Mallory on a regular basis. I have always been proud to be an IU fan because I felt a certain sense of superiority in the regards to our kids going to class, graduating, and being recruited the right way…regardless of wins or losses on the floor, though obviously that’s the ultimate goal. I realize that having the cake AND eating it too is not of utmost importance to everyone, but it is to me and, I think, most longtime IU fans. I’ve been a staunch supporter of Coach Crean through his entire tenure, and I will continue to be, but I’m disappointed by this.

If it was an honest mistake, shame on Crean and Buckley for not dotting their i’s and crossing their t’s, especially in light of what happened before they got here. And if it was a cunning, calculated ploy to get one final contact knowing it would only be a secondary violation (as I’ve seen suggested, though I have no knowledge one way or the other) then shame on Crean for bargaining with the integrity we’re slowly rebuilding.

Basic point: whatever the explanation or justification, shame on Crean. It was wrong. End of story. (As far as I’m concerned.)

We’re Indiana. We do not win at all costs. We win the right way. While these beliefs may be antiquated, and perhaps even unrealistic, they are part of the reason why I bleed Cream and Crimson and live and die with this program. I’m proud of it. This blip on Crean’s near-impeccable resume (so far) of leading our program the right way doesn’t change that, but it does disappoint me. And it disappoints me even more that any IU fan would justify anything in relation to unscrupulous sports programs like Alabama and Kentucky. Coach Crean is better than this, and so are we.

My final suggestion, whether it is taken or not, is this: let’s all be humble, admit this was wrong (without defensive justification, eat whatever crow others want to throw, and then look forward to what I really believe will be a season of rejuvenation. I just want want to make sure the rejuvenation continues to happen on the floor, in the classroom, AND on the recruiting trail. That’s what Indiana basketball has always stood for to me. Forgive me, if you must, for not being so quick to compromise those expectations, even a little bit.

Thanks for reading.

Jerod Morris
IU Class of ’04
@JerodMorris on Twitter if you want to discuss further

I like Tom Crean a great deal, and respect what he has done in Bloomington both for the basketball program and the community, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt that this was an honest mistake. Hopefully I’m right.

Feel free to comment below if you want to discuss, or pop over to Peegs or our friends at ITH, where the conversation will probably be far more lively.

**********

Update: Terry Hutchens provided some good context this evening in this article, the crux of which is that IU’s athletic department reported 18 secondary violations in 2010 (two by the basketball program) and that, basically, they happen everywhere. I’m less concerned with the latter point than the former, as well as the reality that having an over-zealous compliance department – which I think is a good thing – can sometimes be a negative in terms of public perception because things are reported that don’t necessarily have to be (i.e. they wouldn’t get out otherwise). I’m glad IU’s compliance department has been proactive in this regard. It’s why I’ve been willing to give the benefit of the doubt that mistakes have been honest and not ill-intentioned.

Branch asserts, “The tragedy at the heart of college sports is not that some college athletes are getting paid, but that more of them are not.”

Branch obviously is not the first person to suggest that some college athletes receive money beyond that which pays for tuition, board, books, and food, but Branch’s piece is significant for its look at the history of the NCAA and the concept of amateurism and for its explanation of how the NCAA and its member schools have colluded to place an artificial cap on athlete compensation. Branch examines the dubious origin of the term “student-athlete”: The NCAA invented the phrase so that college athletes, who are not just “students,” would not have to be held to the same academic admissions standards as their peers and so that college athletes, who were students and not employees, would not be entitled to worker compensation benefits. Branch also walks us through a gallery of victims of the NCAA’s arcane policies.

What are you doing this weekend? You

Last week Branch published The Cartel, an e-book including everything in the Atlantic article and much more. The Cartel is available in all major e-book formats for only $3.99. It’s about 125 pages (depending on your e-reader). Read it if you haven’t already.

Seth Davis, of Sports Illustrated and CBS, wrote a rebuttal to Branch’s piece in which he correctly points out that the vast majority of college athletic departments lose money (and lots of it). Even many Division I men’s basketball and FBS football programs operate in the red. Thus the question of a player’s market value applies to a very small percentage of college athletes. Davis is also correct that the value of a college scholarship (and lodging, meals, books, coaching, tutoring, and so forth) is not insignificant. (Anyone who has spent a decade paying off student loan debt knows this.)

But Davis doesn’t address the charges of collusion. He gets around it by arguing that athletes have the right to eschew college altogether and play professionally. This has always been a viable option for baseball, hockey, and tennis players. Basketball players have to wait one year after leaving high school to declare for the NBA Draft, but they can spend that year playing overseas or in the NBDL. I’m not sure what Davis expects football players to do.

Maybe young athletes can avoid “the cartel,” but in the United States college sports is the best option (in terms of coaching, facilities, competition, etc.) for most talented young people who wish to continue their athletic endeavors beyond high school. And the fact that some college athletes have alternatives to the NCAA isn’t an excuse for the NCAA to treat athletes unfairly.

Pay-for-play is only one aspect of a much larger conversation about the NCAA’s treatment of student-athletes, and it is an issue that—again—affects very few players. Athlete compensation is a worthy topic of conversation, and if you are interested in the question of whether to pay student-athletes, I recommend this paper by Andy Schwartz, “Excuses, Not Reasons: 13 Myths about (not) Paying College Athletes.”

This question of whether to pay players is great fodder for blogs, columns, and talk radio shows, but it has gotten so much attention that it is distracting us from more important matters involving the NCAA’s treatment of student-athletes.

The shame of one-year scholarships

The University of Evansville, upon accepting my application so many years ago, offered me an academic scholarship. The scholarship was good for 4 years, provided I earned a certain number of credit hours and maintained a certain grade-point average. Athletic scholarships at NCAA member schools don’t work this way.

In 1973 the NCAA put a rule in place prohibiting its member schools from offering student-athletes anything more than a one-year scholarship. A four-year athlete’s college tuition isn’t covered by a single scholarship but by four smaller scholarships. While Andrew Luck and Harrison Barnes will have scholarships waiting for them for as long as they still have eligibility, many other student-athletes aren’t so fortunate. According to Branch, 22 percent of “players from top Division I basketball teams” did not have their scholarships renewed from 2008 to 2009. It is not unusual for new coaches at high-profile programs to clear from their rosters some of the undistinguished players whom they didn’t recruit.

Branch tells the story of former Rice football player Joseph Agnew whose scholarship was not renewed for his senior year. To complete his degree at Rice, Agnew would need about $35,000 to cover tuition and other expenses. Last year Agnew filed a class-action antitrust suit asking the NCAA to strike down the one-year rule.

The rule allowing universities to grant only single-year scholarships is antithetical to the NCAA’s supposed commitment to the student-athlete’s educational experience, as many athletes whose scholarships are not renewed do not finish their education.

The NCAA could replace this rule with one of two alternatives:

1. Mandate that schools award athletic scholarships that cover the duration of an athlete’s eligibility, provided that the student-athlete adheres to certain, clearly defined athletic and academic standards (e.g. missing too many classes and/or practices could result in the loss of a scholarship).
2. Allow coaches and administrators to choose the length of scholarship they would like to offer. For example, say that Naomi is a point guard from Chicago. Notre Dame and Purdue are both interested in her and both offer her a one-year scholarship. Xavier is also interested but, knowing that playing in the A-10 isn’t as attractive to Naomi as playing in the Big Ten or Big East, offers a 2-year guaranteed scholarship. Bradley, aware that more esteemed programs are vying for Naomi’s services, guarantees her scholarship for 4 years. Naomi can choose to attend a school that vows to pay for her to complete her degree or she can choose to attend a school that will decide after one year whether or not to offer her another scholarship.

Player likenesses and endorsements

The International Olympic Committee hasn’t paid Michael Phelps one cent for any of his 14 gold medals. But thanks to endorsements and appearance fees, Phelps has made a nice living as an elite athlete. The sanctity and pageantry of the Olympics haven’t suffered as a result.

Georgia could make money selling this A.J. Gr ... I mean #8 football jersey. A.J. Green could not.

NCAA student-athletes aren’t afforded the same opportunity. Last year the NCAA suspended Georgia wide receiver A.J. Green for selling the jersey he wore in the Independence Bowl. (Check this out, man! A.J. Green wore this in the Independence Bowl! In Shreveport! When he led the Dawgs to an 8-5 season!) Meanwhile, the University of Georgia sold all varieties of A.J. Green #8 jerseys in bookstores, stadium stores, and online. Profits from jersey sales, it goes without saying, went entirely to Georgia. None went to Green.

When I was in college, one of my roommates acquired the latest NCAA basketball game (from either EA or 989) for PlayStation. (Forgive me for forgetting the details. My video game expertise is limited to games created between 1979 and 1989 and games in which Mario is a central character.) We were delighted to learn that we could play the game as the Evansville Purple Aces, and we were surprised to find that the Evansville players so closely resembled their real-life counterparts. Even back then, before hyper-realism had pervaded sports video games, it was obvious that #50 was Kwame James. Of course, there were no names attached to the players, so the NCAA and EA or 989 could argue that #50 wasn’t supposed to be Kwame James but a fictional player who just happened to have James’s height, build, and skill set.

If video game manufacturers were already mimicking the likenesses of Evansville basketball players back in 1998, chances are they’ve been doing the same with players from Hofstra and Montana State and Middle Tennessee. While the question of whether to pay players involves a small percentage of athletes at a small percentage of schools, the questions of whether the NCAA should profit from student-athlete likenesses and whether student-athletes should also be allowed to is much bigger.

Former UCLA basketball star Ed O’Bannon is the lead plaintiff in lawsuit against the NCAA over the use of player likenesses. Other former student-athletes, including Bill Russell, have joined this effort. Russell, who won two NCAA titles at the University of San Francisco, is featured in a “Tournament of Legends” feature on a game in EA’s NCAA Basketball series and has not be compensated for it. O’Bannon’s likeness also has appeared in video games, and both players are featured prominently in DVDs of classic games that the NCAA has for sale. Neither has seen any money from DVD sales.

Of course, both Russell and O’Bannon are suing on behalf of former student athletes. These lawsuits don’t address the question of whether student-athletes should be able to earn money from jersey and DVD sales or video game royalties while they are still on scholarship.

The problem, for current and former student-athletes alike, is that the NCAA requires all incoming athletes to sign an agreement authorizing the use of their “name or picture … to promote NCAA championships or other NCAA events, activities or programs.” While the NCAA prohibits student-athletes from profiting from their name and likeness, the NCAA and its member institutions don’t hold themselves to the same standard.

NCAA spokesperson Erik Christianson maintains (presumably with a straight face) that “to claim the NCAA profits off student-athlete likenesses is also pure fiction.” Moreover, while the NCAA does not allow college athletes to endorse products or businesses, the association has no problem requiring athletes to wear patches on their jerseys promoting Tostitos, Allstate, Chik-Fil-A, and other sponsors of games and tournaments; nor does the NCAA have a problem with schools making deals with companies such as Nike, Adidas, and Under Armor and using their student-athletes as living billboards.

Seth Davis says that, while allowing college athletes to earn money from endorsements sounds good in theory, it would be a nightmare in practice:

Then there’s the idea, promulgated by Jay Bilas among others, that athletes should have limitless opportunity to pursue ancillary marketing deals. This works much better in theory than it would in practice. Do we really want a bidding war between Under Armour and Nike to determine whether a recruit attends Maryland or Oregon? Do we want Nick Saban going into a kid’s living room and saying, “I know Bob Stoops has a car dealership who will pay you $50,000, but I can line you up with a furniture store that will give you $75,000?”

Davis is probably right. It would be a mess. The NCAA would need to put rules in place prohibiting schools and coaches from arranging endorsement deals for players. Enforcing such rules would be nearly impossible, but it would be no more cumbersome than enforcing current NCAA statutes. And just because allowing players to earn money from their names and images would be difficult doesn’t mean it isn’t the right thing to do, especially since the NCAA has no qualms about making a buck from player names and likenesses.

The obvious beneficiaries of a rule change would be star players at high-profile programs. But I wouldn’t be surprised to see a car dealership in Omaha hire Creighton star Doug McDermott to do some commercials. Nor would I be surprised if a small-town hardware store hired the Division III cross country champion from the local college as its spokesperson.

(I wrote about this issue in more detail back in March.)

Student-athlete representation

Taylor Branch devotes a chapter in The Cartel to the history of the AAU (Amateur Athletic Union) and the Olympics. For much of Olympic history the AAU held sway over the U.S. Olympic Committee and was more despotic than even the NCAA about upholding an archaic notion of amateurism. Olympic athletes, who were not allowed to accept money from endorsements or appearances, were expected to live in near poverty while they trained for the Games.

Now, of course, things are different. Most of the competitors in the Olympic basketball, hockey, and tennis tournaments are professionals, and medal-winning swimmers and gymnasts shill for Subway and Gatorade.

What changed? Representation.

In 1978 Congress passed the Amateur Sports Act, taking control of the United States Olympic team out of the hands of the AAU, establishing private governing bodies for each Olympic sport, and (most importantly) mandating that 20 percent of seats in these new governing organizations go to athletes. Athlete representation begat widespread reform, and the Olympics have not suffered as a result.

The NCAA does not give student-athletes a voice. The association regulates college athlete’s studies and finances; ut the athletes, for their part, have no representation. While Seth Davis, Taylor Branch, and Jay Bilas have differing views on how to reform the NCAA and whether or not to pay players, all three agree that the players deserve a seat at the table. Athletes should have a say in what is permissible under NCAA rules, how TV revenue is distributed, how scholarships are awarded, how many hours players should be permitted to practice, and so forth.

The conversation about whether we should pay college athletes in revenue sports is an important conversation to have, but we shouldn’t let it distract us from more pressing issues that apply to a larger number of NCAA student athletes.

**********

Josh Tinley is the author of Kneeling in the End Zone: Spiritual Lessons From the World of Sports. Follow him at twitter.com/joshtinley or send him an e-mail.

Russell, who won two NCAA titles at the University of San Francisco and whose image appears in a “Tournament of Legends” feature in EA’s NCAA basketball video game, joins former UCLA star Ed O’Bannon in taking legal action against the NCAA for its use of athletes’ likenesses.

William “Bill” Russell, the former National Basketball Association star center for the Boston Celtics, accused the National Collegiate Athletic Association in an antitrust complaint of selling videos using his likeness without paying him or seeking his consent.

The lawsuit is the latest to claim the NCAA violates federal antitrust laws by keeping former student basketball and football athletes from receiving compensation for the commercial use of their images and likeness. The association has denied wrongdoing in those cases.

Electronic Arts Inc., the second-largest U.S. video game maker, is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit. Russell accuses it of using his image in a “Tournament of Legends” feature on an NCAA basketball video game.

Russell, who led the University of San Francisco to NCAA championships in 1955 and 1956, said in the complaint filed yesterday in federal court in Oakland, California, that the association sells $150 videos of the team’s championship games. At least 54 video clips featuring him are available through the website of the NCAA’s for-profit business partner and photos of him through an NCAA on-line photo store, according to the complaint.

Notre Dames’ 15-12 win against Pittsburgh last Sunday was anything but pretty, but it was a must-win game on the road if the Irish have any hope of playing in a major bowl game.

Purdue is coming off a whopping 59-0 victory over Southeast Missouri State, but the Boilermakers will be facing a much bigger test this Saturday.

Purdue-Notre Dame: The Offenses

Notre Dame: 48th ranked in the NCAA with 423.5 average yards per game. 

Notre Dame’s offense is considered to be its strongest asset. Though it has its moments when all cylinders are clicking, turnovers remain a constant cloud hanging over quarterback Tommy Rees.

Rees turned the ball over twice last week against Pitt. He has a lot of potential but his inexperience from only being a sophomore is costing the Irish. Luckily, he has one of the best wide receivers to throw to in Michael Floyd. And with a decent one-two punch in the running back position, Rees doesn’t have to take total control of the game.

Rees’s inexperience is what is slowing down this Irish offense, but a few road wins could be the jump start in confidence the Irish need. And he’ll need to avoid the turnovers to avoid seeing this:

Purdue: 20th ranked in the NCAA with 471 average yards per game.

The Boilermakers are faring pretty well in the offense category early on in the season, though it’s mainly due to an easy schedule. Tough times are up ahead though with Notre Dame this week, then Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Penn State, and Ohio State all scheduled in the future.

This is the Purdue offense’s first true test this season. Purdue is going to need their best performance from QB and third-year man Caleb TerBush. TerBush has only thrown one interception this season, though his pass attempts are significantly lower compared to Rees.

Contrary to the rankings, Purdue’s offense isn’t as explosive as Notre Dame, but rivalries usually bring out the best in the teams, so Purdue’s offense performing well against an average Notre Dame defense is not impossible.

Purdue-Notre Dame: The Defenses

Notre Dame: 39th ranked in the NCAA allowing an average of 339 yards per game.

One thing the Notre Dame defense does well is force turnovers. They are tied for first in the nation in the turnover category with Tulsa with 15. The majority (10) of those turnovers are fumbles.

It’s no surprise then that the Irish are ranked 26th in the nation in rushing yards allowed (93) per game. The passing defense isn’t even in the top 50 though, confirming what the turnover stat says: if you’re going to attack the Irish, it’s going to have be through the air.

Purdue: 35th ranked in the nation allowing an average of 321 yards per game.

Purdue also performs better against the run compared to the pass, allowing an average of 109 yards per game. Purdue is going to have to find a way to stop Michael Floyd or it’s going to be a long day for the passing defense.

Disrupting Notre Dame’s passing game isn’t too hard though. Rees’ inexperience and tendency to rely on Floyd too often opens up a gate for the Boilermakers to exploit, and they’re going to need to exploit that in order to have a chance to win.

Purdue-Notre Dame Prediction

Even though it’s on the road in front of a very tough crowd that will definitely pump up the home team, Notre Dame is going to come out this week with a victory. I think the Irish will come out of the nervous shell they’ve started this season in this week in West Lafayette,

Irish 27-Purdue 17

Purdue-Notre Game Info

• Purdue-Notre Dame Date: Saturday, October 1st
• Purdue-Notre Dame Kickoff Time: 8:00 ET
• Purdue-Notre Dame TV: ESPN
• Purdue Notre Dame Point Spread: Notre Dame -11.5

Last week we saw LSU narrowly beat Mississippi State, the Fighting Irish notched their first win of the season, and we got to enjoy a showdown between Oklahoma and Florida State. There are even more ranked teams playing ranked teams this week, so expect many more good games for your viewing pleasure as you settle in on Saturday.

Here are some of the marquee games to pay attention to this week (with additional spreads and picks here), then the entire college football TV schedule for week 4.

No. 7 Oklahoma State at No. 8 Texas A&M

• Oklahoma State-Texas A&M Date: Saturday, September 24th
• Oklahoma State-Texas A&M Time: 3:30pm
• Oklahoma State-Texas A&M TV: ABC
• Oklahoma State-Texas A&M Spread: Texas A&M -4.5

No. 11 Florida State at No. 21 Clemson 

Were I in second grade, I would underline this sentence as the “main idea”:

For all the outrage, the real scandal is not that students are getting illegally paid or recruited, it’s that two of the noble principles on which the NCAA justifies its existence—“amateurism” and the “student-athlete”—are cynical hoaxes, legalistic confections propagated by the universities so they can exploit the skills and fame of young athletes.

Branch tells the history of the NCAA, from its founding at the turn of the twentieth century to its rise to power under Walter Byers to the situation it finds itself in today. The story explains the origin of “student-athlete,” an intentionally ambiguous term that absolved schools of any responsibility to pay worker compensation benefits to injured athletes. In his closing paragraphs, Branch proposes adopting an Olympic-style model in which college players would be allowed to seek endorsements or earn money playing in off-season leagues. (I wish he would have explored this idea in more depth.)

(Branch also “did the damn thing” on Jason Whitlock’s podcast.)

“The Shame of College Sports”—Taylor Branch, The Atlantic

We three hoopsheads discuss the latest in college hoops, including: UCONN’s use of a loophole to get phenom recruit Andre Drummond into school and what the NCAA should do about it; expansion talk; some breakout sophomores; and a survey of this year’s impact mid-majors.

Click play on the player below to listen:

How to subscribe to The Bottoms Line College Basketball Podcast:

• Subscribe to the The Bottoms Line College Basketball Podcast on iTunes (coming soon)
• Join the The Bottoms Line College Basketball Email Digest to get an email whenever a new post or podcast is posted
• Follow the The Bottoms Line on Twitter or via RSS to get updates as soon as new articles and podcasts are posted.
• Download this podcast in mp3 format for later: Right-click this link, then hit “save link as”
• For all MSF podcast subscriptions options, click here.