Hacker News Reader

Comment by zackbloom | Hacker News Reader

Ultimately everything is a system. If the NCAA is incredibly militant about enforcing these rules, the schools will be incredibly paranoid about giving athletes any financial incentive. If the NCAA is more lax, schools will put less effort and attention to detail into enforcement. I’m not saying these policies are good or ethical, but this type of militant enforcement absolutely changes how careful schools are.

View on HN

It's a bad system - at least for athletes. It's inherently exploitative. I'd liken it to nearly-free labor. The athletes had no idea they were infringing. The NCAA and the schools make money off these athletes. The schools self-reported. There was no recourse for the affected individuals.

The incredible power imbalance between banning these athletes from making money, and then turning around and doing it yourself while being judge, jury, and executioner, makes a mockery of the talent.

These are barely "amateurs" in any real sense, the system exploits that fact and the seal of approval "amateur" status brings to rake in money.

"It's a bad system - at least for athletes."

No. It's a bad system for some athletes.

Its a good system for athletes that are not stars and don't play big money sports. Free education, free trips, play something you really like to do.

For other they are forgoing money they could earn.

If the system changes, I am sure it will be good for some athletes, not so much of others.

> Its a good system for athletes that are not stars and don't play big money sports.

Honestly, for the author, she was playing tennis and got an education out of it on the backs of those playing revenue sports. I don't fault her for this--she didn't make the system--but it doesn't look like she went pro, and it she wasn't kicked out while she was in school, so the only damage she's suffering is the NCAA saying she wasn't on the team. Unless she's coaching, and being a college athlete is almost a qualification, she seems to have done OK.

That said, I still think she's right for calling out the NCAA.

She wrote that as of 2020, "I had been playing professional tennis for three years"

She graduated; they're not taking her degree away. And honestly nobody cares about the college record of a professional tennis player -- the fact that it was vacated on a technicality like this is not going to hurt her professional career at this point. Likely she could coach as well, there are coaches in the NCAA who have done far worse (intentionally, not accidentally) and still get jobs.

> I had been playing professional tennis for three years

I stand corrected. When I googled her to check that statement, I didn't see anything promising on the first page. I should have looked harder.

I don't see why saying "athletes can be paid" should naturally lead to "all athletes MUST be paid". There is no reason you can't have a football program run as a separate entity with paid athletes and also have a school fencing program where athletes aren't paid and just play for fun and / or are on scholarship.

That’s fair, it depends on what you’re considering the “trade”. My critique probably applies more to basketball, football more than the article’s case. Still, the nature of the system suppresses any chance to get a better deal, so to speak.

The entire point of the article is that the policies are bad and unethical. The NCAA is a system built to exploit college athletes from top to bottom.

I mean, a school could just disaffiliate from the NCAA. They could run independent sports programs and play other independent schools, or join the NAIA or some other association, or start a new association. They won't though, because ultimately it's all about the money.

Also to your point about enforcement, you'll see that the money-making programs (i.e. Football and Basketball) at the big D1 schools get away with a lot more operating in the gray area than small schools and non-revenue sports. The NCAA isn't going to shit in their gravy train. They save the virtue-signal enforcement for schools and sports that don't make any money anyway.

> They won't though, because ultimately it's all about the money.

Sounds like an anti-monopoly case in the making.

They only this strict out of self-preservation. They know they're ~5 years or one high-profile screw-up away from having to actually pay football and basketball players, so they're delaying it as long as they can.

It’s not just about enforcing the rules, it’s about the appearance of enforcing the rules.

The NCAA need to seem important, which means they need people to break the rules regularly and be punished for it. That’s just one of many ways their fucking over students for the NCAA’s benefit.

The appropriate response is for students to boycott the NCAA, but socially and financially that is a huge hit. Normally the way around this is a union, but good luck getting one started.

Can't the students start their own league? Internet broadcast the plays, etc. I mean NCAA is just a relic of the old TV epoch and is ready to be disrupted. Maybe we'll see some startup for it.

For a new sport sure, e-sports don’t play by NCAA rules.

However like most monopolies it’s not just network effects, they heavily protect themselves. Anything that makes you a professional athlete permanently kicks you out of NCAA scholarships etc. So, students are going to have a huge issue getting something off the ground, but they have a lot more leverage if students suddenly boycotted the Rose Bowl etc.

The routinely let off much bigger violators with a slap on the wrist. See UNC shuffling college basketball players through fake classes for years.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com