Maybe Frontline’s program tonight on money in college sports will be a balanced portrayal of a complicated issue. The promotional material from PBS offers little hope in that regard.

“March Madness” isn’t just a basketball tournament,” says the PBS release. “It’s become big business, with television rights alone worth $10.8 billion over 14 years….Lowell Bergman takes a hard look at the economics of the annual NCAA tournament − a cash cow for amateur athletics that generates enormous dollars for everyone except the players themselves, raising basic questions of fairness that are now leading a handful of influential figures to challenge the way the NCAA operates.”

Is it heat or is it light?

I’m going with “heat” since the framework of the program appears to be based on commonly known information guaranteed to ruffle the feathers of college sports critics.

The NCAA media contract generates a lot of money? No secret there.

Sonny Vaccaro has little use for the NCAA? Got it.

Ed O’Bannon is suing the NCAA? Tracking on that one, too.

To create a crusading impression, Bergman (a highly qualified reporter, by the way) clearly plays for the camera as he questions NCAA President Mark Emmert. Almost all of Bergman’s interrogatives on a video clip could be answered through a cursory Internet search, but he still manages to whip up an I-must-have-misunderstood expression of astonishment as Emmert describes the size of the NCAA agreement with CBS and Turner. “That’s 10.8 billion dollars?’” Bergman asks, adding his own verbal italics, as if he were hearing the information for the first time.

The program no doubt will play well with crowds predisposed not to favor big-time college sports. Already, Washington Post reporter Rick Maese has checked in with a gushing review. From Maese’s enthusiasm, one might conclude that PBS was preaching to the converted, which is my concern: Efforts like this are less about genuine understanding than about inflammation.

Let’s switch to the real world, where about three dozen Lock Haven student-athletes participated in a relay to the state capital in Harrisburg to protest higher education funding cuts.

Wrote Libby Sander of the Chronicle of Higher Education: “When students, faculty, and staff at Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania gathered last week for an on-campus rally to protest proposed budget cuts that would slash state funds for public higher education by more than 50 percent, it wasn’t long before chants of ‘March to Harrisburg!’ rose from the crowd.

“That’s when Nick Hilton, a three-sport varsity athlete, turned to his cross country coach, Aaron Russell, with a question that rang like a challenge.

“ ‘Why march when you can run?’ he asked.”

And so the student-athletes ran 100 miles to a rally at the capitol to call attention to the widening gap between their desire for a college education and their ability to afford it.

Lowell Bergman may want to look at this issue as he considers what to do next.

About Dave Pickle

• More Posts (75)

 What does Ralph Nader want?

After reading Thursday’s proposal from his League of Fans, the only thing that’s clear is that he’s mad as hell and back in front of a microphone.

In case you missed it, Nader called Thursday for the elimination of athletically-related financial aid, saying the move was necessary to “de-professionalize” college athletics. In its stead, Nader called for need-based financial aid for college sports participants, which sounds like much the same thing.

Nader and his affiliate, the Drake Group, had problems getting their signals straight when the League of Fans announcement stated that its cohort, the often overwrought Drake Group,  favored eliminating college athletics scholarships. That got passed along by the Associated Press, necessitating a correction. Apparently the Drake Group actually favors need-based aid, along with Nader, although Nader describes his position as “eliminating the athletic scholarship.”

If you’re following along at home, give yourself permission to be confused.

As you might imagine, Nader’s concept is not a big hit with the NCAA. He does seem to have worked special magic by uniting bloggers with the NCAA, if only for a moment.

You do have to give Nader credit for stirring the pot, though. The AP story (the one that needed the correction) had generated 1,891 comments as of 2:09 p.m. Friday. It is not recommended reading.

About Dave Pickle

• More Posts (75)

Is the number of scholarship equivalencies in Division I baseball high enough?

Chris Lewis, a baseball student-athlete at Texas Lutheran, sent a note yesterday saying that the 11.7 permitted grants-in-aid isn’t sufficient.

Here’s his letter:

“Compared to other collegiate sports, baseball does not receive an adequate number of full scholarships and should receive more.

“Football programs have 85 full scholarships to give to recruits, although only 22 players play in games. Baseball programs only receive 11.7 full scholarships for eight starting position players and roughly 10 to 12 pitchers who pitch regularly during a season. Therefore, collegiate baseball players rarely receive full scholarships while most players in collegiate football programs receive full scholarships, even if they do not play all season. In this scenario, baseball players who play significantly throughout a season are crippled by tuition and do not get the same financial relief as football players.

“The distribution of scholarships between sports should be re-evaluated and redistributed adequately between football and baseball. This will make for better recruiting, better player signing and, ultimately, better collegiate baseball.”

Texas Lutheran is a Division III member, so Chris isn’t directly affected by this issue at the moment. However, he does plan to make a career of coaching college baseball.

Whether 11.7 is the correct number is a matter for the Division I membership. The Division I Awards, Benefits, Expenses and Financial Aid Cabinet currently is looking at financial aid limitations in all Division I sports, although that shouldn’t necessarily suggest that radical changes are on the way. Members can access Michelle Hosick’s recent update at NCAA.org.

As part of its examination, the financial aid cabinet is looking at how much permissible aid is being used in each sport. In baseball, 282 programs (96 percent of sponsoring institutions) provide some financial aid. Of those programs, 79 percent provide less than the permitted 11.7 equivalencies. Baseball also has a maximum head count of 27 student-athletes, but only 144 programs (51 percent) field that many players.

Similar shortfalls exist in almost all sports throughout Division I.

Also, it’s worth noting that NCAA and institutional financial aid limits must be constructed to facilitate compliance with Title IX. Because so much men’s financial aid is directed at football, other men’s sports sometimes feel the effects. Michelle Hosick examined this complicated relationship among revenue sports, men’s nonrevenue sports and women’s sports in the Winter 2010 issue of NCAA Champion magazine.

Chris raises an interesting argument. The short answer: The Division I membership is currently reviewing financial aid limits in all sports to make sure that they are appropriate.

Correction included: This post originally had the wrong last name for Chris Lewis. My apologies to Chris.

About Dave Pickle

• More Posts (75)

How refreshing is this? Almost nobody blamed the officials after the wacky finish to Saturday’s Butler-Pittsburgh game.

Not only did broadcasters and sportswriters not find fault, some of them dispensed praise.

Time to toot horns for NCAA referees (Tom Shatel, Omaha World-Herald)

NCAA tournament officials calls aren’t perfect, but aren’t wrong (1080 ESPN)

What was most impressive, however, was the postgame performance of coaches and players. Responding under the greatest pressure that sports can bring, they exhibited class up and down the line, with nobody disputing two foul calls in the final 1.4 seconds:

From Butler coach Brad Stevens: “You hate to see a game end that way. But I asked (Sheldon Mack), did he think he fouled (Gilbert Brown), and he thought he fouled him. And (Matt Howard) thought he got fouled. So that was the way the game ended.”

From Pitt coach Jamie Dixon: “It’s their call. It’s their game, and they did a very good job all the way through. And we’re not going to blame officials. But I’m very proud of our guys, and as always, I’ll take responsibility for the loss….

“I think you gotta call it consistently all the way through. It doesn’t change from time to time, team to team at any time.”

From Pitt player Nasir Robinson, who committed the final foul: “I blame myself. I am smarter than that. I have been playing this game too long to make a dumb mistake like that.”

All of that makes you proud to be associated with college athletics.

About Dave Pickle

• More Posts (75)

After one of the most exciting first weekends in NCAA men’s basketball tournament history, it’s time to revisit Michael Wilbon’s question: The tournament is good, but is it compelling?

To review, the second and third rounds featured 17 games decided by five points or less, including Saturday’s Butler-Pittsburgh game, which surely will be remembered as long as college basketball is played.

The nation’s TV viewers voted with their channel-changers. The ratings for the first full day of the tournament were the highest in two decades, and the ratings through Saturday were up 11 percent over last year. March Madness on Demand was up 47 percent in total visits.

Which brings us back to Michael Wilbon.

The ESPN personality last week predicted that the tournament would achieve drama but that it wouldn’t fulfill its promise because, more or less, the players aren’t as good as in the past.

“I’m not expecting the game to look like it did in the 1980s and early 1990s when the really good teams like Michael Jordan’s Tar Heels, Patrick Ewing’s Hoyas, Chris Mullin’s Redmen, Christian Laettner’s Blue Devils and Tark’s Runnin’ Rebels had multiple All-Americans, multiple player-of-the-year candidates, juniors and seniors and — get this — redshirt players who stuck around for four, maybe even five years … long enough to actually learn how to play the game.

“Exciting is good, good and exciting is compelling. And right now it looks like this NCAA tournament, even at its best, will have to settle for the former.”

To buttress his argument, he brought in The Great Grinch, Jay Bilas, who said: “The competition still is going to be great. But the quality of play is not what it has been. We’ve still got outstanding players; we don’t have the tremendous superstars that are older that we used to have.”

Would it be good for athletes to stay for four years? Sure. Is it possible to restrict their professional ambitions? No. So what’s the point in the discussion?

The NCAA, as usual, can’t win. If you listen to the Drake Group, college sports is nothing but a minor league for the pros. If you listen to Michael Wilbon and Jay Bilas, the NCAA fails in basketball because it’s not a minor league for the pros.

My head spins.

Usually at times like this, women’s basketball provides the needed stabilization. But along comes Christine Brennan of USA Today, banging away at the NCAA for not supporting the Division I Women’s Basketball Championship.

Psst, women have hoops tourney, too

Brennan’s smoking gun appears to be the lack of an NCAA bracket contest for the women.

“March Madness is about basketball, of course, but to many it’s really about the brackets,” she wrote. “Quite a few top websites offer a men’s bracket contest, encouraging interactive participation. But the women? It’s few and far between. USA Today doesn’t have one. Nor does the NCAA, which tells us everything we need to know about how it views its two tournaments.”

Excuse me?

Of all things that the NCAA can be criticized for, the failure to support women’s sports would be way down the list. Male-female participation for NCAA championships is about 50-50 male-female, which is decidedly more equitable than the front page of USA Today on almost any day of the year. If she wants to fix the uneven promotion of women’s sports, she needs to do a lot more corner work on her own editors.

About Dave Pickle

• More Posts (75)

Schools don’t have to pursue big-time Division I sports; athletically gifted individuals shouldn’t be required to do so, either.

The institutional question was addressed in a David Moltz article in Inside Higher Ed in which he examined UC San Diego’s contemplated move from Division II to Division I.

Athletics Director Earl Edwards says that the overall profile of the university matches that of Division I more than it does Division II. That may be so, opponents say, but it ignores the fiscal crisis in California higher education that surrounds the examination.

A similar debate recently reached a conclusion in Nebraska, where officials at Nebraska-Omaha did choose to reclassify their successful Division II program to Division I. In so doing, the university announced that it was eliminating both its football and wrestling programs. The wrestling team learned of the decision just after it had won the Division II national championship.

The decision led to harsh words from Dennis Dodd of CBSSports.com.

Division I is taking action these days to control its ever-expanding membership. A membership moratorium is currently in place, and when it’s lifted, the cost of admission is going to be much higher than it was before. Will the seven-figure price tag deter new members? We’ll see.

But the bigger, harder, long-term question involves not the entry fee but rather the ongoing expense required to sustain a Division I program, especially a competitive one. Any institution choosing that route is in for a long fiscal pull (only 14 Division I programs generate revenues over expenses, when institutional subsidies are removed). Perhaps the image boost is worth it, but the cost over time is huge. That’s not opinion; that’s a fact.

As for the choices facing individuals…

Mass media is virtually crackling these days with op-ed pieces and blogs about the need to pay players. Here are three that showed up today, but there are others:

The Madness of not paying college athletes (Boyce Watkins, The Huffington Post)

Frontline digs into NCAA business (ESPN)

The final frontier in worker exploitation − the NCAA (Warren Meyer, Forbes)

If everybody agreed that student-athletes were workers, then these commentators would have a point. But they aren’t. They are students. The fact that large amounts of money can accrue from the enterprise does not change their role.

There’s no point here in rehashing the pros and cons of pay-for-play. If you’ve read this far, you already know them.

But if you’re looking for a fresh perspective about choices that should be available to all young athletes, I encourage you to read John Infante’s Bylaw Blog from yesterday, entitled “The Deal.”

My only regret is that I didn’t write it myself.

About Dave Pickle

• More Posts (75)

ESPN has been in a nasty mood lately.

The weekend brought a substandard “Outside the Lines” piece entitled “Selling the NCAA.” That was followed Tuesday by Tim Keown’s rant on Perry Jones and Jim Tressel, Eamonn Brennan’s complaint about calling the First Four “first-round games,” and Michael Wilbon’s tirade about the lack of great players and teams in the field.

Keown was especially jacked up, saying “The NCAA should stop prostituting itself for the sake of the one-and-done players and release itself from the NBA’s rule against players heading to the NBA or the D-League out of high school.”

In the “Selling the NCAA” piece, the authors highlighted a Spike Lee clip in which he called the NCAA pimps.

All of that brings forth memories of when Bob Knight called writer John Feinstein a pimp and a whore. To which Feinstein replied, “I wish he would make up his mind so I know how to dress.”

ESPN should turn down its own volume. Occasional outrage can be a good thing, but an endless tantrum is only annoying.

About Dave Pickle

• More Posts (75)