Public’s Perception on NCAA Student Athletes Receiving ... · athletes and their perceptions on student athletes receiving more benefits on top of their scholarships. (Dohrmann,

Public’s Perception on NCAA Student Athletes Receiving Extra Benefits

By Michael Chamberlain & Colt Dorsey

4/30/2012

1

Table of Contents

Introduction …………………………………………………………… 2

Problem Statements ……………………………………………………. 4

Conceptual Framework ……………………………………………... 4

Hypotheses …………………………………………………………… 10

Background Information ……………………………………………… 11

Methodology …………………………………………………………… 21

Results ………………………………………………………………….. 23

Discussion and Conclusions ……………………………………………… 27

Works Cited ….……..………………..……………..…………………… 30

2

Public’s Perception on NCAA Student Athletes Receiving Extra Benefits

Introduction

The National Collegiate Athletic Association or NCAA is the association that governs

Division I, II, and III athletic programs in the United States. In Division 1, a student athlete can

receive a full scholarship to play a certain sport at a university, and that pays for tuition, room

and board, school fees, and books, but also provides the student athlete with many other benefits

that go seemingly unnoticed. Some of these benefits include tutors, the ability to pick their

classes first, housing options and many more things, including (if you are eligible) a mini

stipend. This idea of offering an extra monetary stipend to student athletes is a new idea and has

caught the eye of the NCAA. Using Temple University as an example, Temple offers a

$500/year monetary stipend for any student athlete that “qualifies.” Determining what qualifies a

student to accept this benefit and why most athletes are not allowed these stipends and benefits

has the NCAA running into a major problem that corrupts their system, the schools and most

importantly the student athletes.

Over the past few years, major universities such as Ohio St., Miami, and USC have been

brought into the negative spotlight because of a growing problem in the NCAA. Some Division 1

NCAA varsity athletes have been given benefits, either monetary or gifts, from certain boosters

and other individuals tied to the universities. The NCAA has very strict regulations on their

student athletes accepting improper benefits, which will be explained later in this writing.

Recently, the NCAA has turned down a proposal that would alter the regulations on this issue,

whether some athletes would receive a small $2,000 dollar stipend. Is this really a problem or is

this something that is needed in collegiate athletics. “The NCAA resisted that notion until late

3

last year, when it developed the $2,000 stipend proposal—casting it not as a payment of players

but as a way to help plug the gap between a scholarship and the actual cost of attending college”

(Bachman, 2012). The proposal was suspended because “About 45% of Division I schools

voted to suspend the stipend rule in December, over worries about how they would pay for it and

how it would affect efforts to comply with federal gender-equity law Title IX”(Bachman, 2012).

As you can see, the NCAA has a number of different regulations that would be affected if it were

to alter current regulations regarding athletes receiving extra benefits. This study will focus on

the public perception on this topic and what they think should be done to fix this problem.

For our study, we will look at and research the public’s view on NCAA athletes receiving

this incentive based pay. It’s important to get the opinions of individuals that come from

different demographics based on sex, age, and if they play/played collegiate athletics. The

different levels of support will help us in figuring out what our society as a whole thinks of this

ongoing occurrence in NCAA athletics. For this study we will consider the relationship between

the dependent variables of the public’s perception on student athletes receiving extra incentives

(stipends, benefits) and how it compares to the independent variable, their athletic status. The

relationship we find will help us build a better idea of where the NCAA is headed compared to

where people feel it should be headed. The information we gather from our research will allow

us to draw conclusions on if the NCAA is doing the right thing by not giving out this stipend and

not allowing student athletes to accept gifts, offers from agents, and endorsements.

This paper will be organized into five separate sections. First, a conceptual framework of

the public’s perception will be explained and how their relationships will be vital to this study.

Next, background information regarding this topic of extra benefits will be conferred. The next

section will discuss the methodology used for this study, including the design of our study based

4

upon the surveys which were distributed to the public. The data collection and analysis process

will also be discussed in-depth in this section. The fourth section of the paper will discuss the

results found through data analysis, which will include detailed tables that will show if the

conceptual framework relationships show any distinctive results. Last, the implications and

conclusions extracted from the results will be explained and suggestions will be illuminated for

the NCAA regarding whether there should be changes made to current regulations.

Problem Statements

1. What is the public’s level of support for NCAA student athletes receiving benefits, such

as monetary stipends, gifts, agents, and endorsements?

2. Should student athletes receive these benefits based on a financial need?

Conceptual Framework:

This framework focuses on explaining the cause and effect relationships between the

individual’s athletic status, the personal perception of the individual regarding allowing athletes

to receive extra benefits and the possible benefits that would be allowed to receive. Analyzing

this framework may help the audience develop their opinion on this topic when they see all the

variables in this situation. It’s vital to determine the surveyor’s athletic status because it may

show a relation between the amounts of support towards giving athletes extra benefits. George

Dohrmann from Sports Illustrated noticed a correlation between student athletes and non-student

athletes and their perceptions on student athletes receiving more benefits on top of their

scholarships. (Dohrmann, 2011) Our goal for this study is determine the public’s level of support

for student athletes receiving these extra benefits during their college years.

5

Below is the framework for this study:

Figure 1.1

Student Athlete/Non-student athlete status

The independent variable in this framework is the athletic status of the person taking the

survey. In a related study by The Associated Press, there was a relationship found between

student-athletes and non-student athletes on whether or not there should be an extra monetary

stipend attached to the NCAA student athletes scholarships. (Associated Press, 2011) It was

found that student athletes were more in favor of receiving an extra monetary stipend when

compared to non-student athletes that were surveyed. As an independent variable, this section of

our study could have an effect on their perceptions of the NCAA receiving these certain benefits.

If the Associated Press study has any indication on the entire public’s view, there could be some

correlation between one’s athletic status and their level of support on the four areas of specific

Permission to Speak

With Agents

Student Athlete/Non-

Student Athlete Status

Personal Perception on

Student Athletes Receiving Extra

Benefits

Monetary Benefits

Endorsements

Gifts

6

benefits. Even though our results will analyze the public as a whole, the results will also be

divided up between student athletes and non-student athletes so it could be analyzed if there are

correlations between their answers.

Personal Perception on Student Athletes Receiving Extra Benefits

The first dependent variable will be the personal perception and level of support of the

surveyor on the topic of student athletes accepting benefits that are currently against NCAA

regulations. Since this is the core part of our study, it will be the focus on our survey which will

be distributed to the public, which will measure their level of support on the four specific

benefits; monetary stipends, gifts, endorsements, and permission to speak with agents. These

perceptions will be vital in determining if our hypotheses pose true or not and if there is any

relationship between athletic status and level of support on receiving extra benefits. Jalen Rose, a

former All-American basketball player at Michigan, stated in his article that student athletes in

major university athletic departments rarely have time to do anything besides go to practice and

work on their academics. (Rose, 2011) On the other side of the spectrum, Lesley Ryder from the

Huntington Post wrote an article discussing how student athletes should be receive any more

extra benefits because their scholarships are rewarding enough for their hard work. (Ryder,

2011) When looking at the two opposing views, it should be noted that Jalen Rose was one of the

most notarized basketball players back in the 1990’s and Lesley Ryder was never a Division 1

student athlete. Throughout our background research that seemed to be the case; most individuals

for student athletes receiving extra benefits tend to have more athletic backgrounds and

individuals on the opposing side of the argument tend to rarely have athletic background. These

conflicting opinions helped in developing this framework and each of the hypotheses which will

be discussed later in this paper.

7

Monetary Benefits

The next step in our framework was to break down the major dependent variable into 4

specific variables; monetary benefits, gifts, endorsements, and permission to speak with

professional agents. These 4 variables were chosen because they were the most discussed rule

regulations. Analyzing the public’s perceptions on each variable will provide a detailed

description on what they think would be right and wrong. First, monetary benefits seem to be at

the head of this argument because it is the benefit that can be the most regulated and monitored

by the NCAA. If monetary benefits regulations were to be altered, the NCAA could set strict

boundaries on what can and cannot be offered, with also benefiting the players eligible. As

mentioned before in this writing, there have been talks about the NCAA discussing the

possibility of a $2,000 stipend being offered to any student athlete that qualifies. (Bachman,

2012) Even though this proposal was recently vetoed by the NCAA Division 1 Board of

Directors, it has certainly gained a large amount of support from individuals all around the

nation, which will be discussed later. The big obstacle in the way of this stipend rule being

changed is figuring how exactly the NCAA would determine who can or cannot receive the

stipend. There will need to be cooperation between the NCAA compliance departments and

financial-aid officers on how this could be figured out and all stakeholders in this situation would

benefit. (Wolverton, 2012)

Gifts

Monetary benefits are not the only thing that has caused some controversy regarding the

topic of athletes receiving improper benefits. Gifts are also another benefit that has been

discussed on whether these student athletes should be allowed to accept any gift from the

8

university, booster, or individual tied to a certain university. According to NCAA regulations,

any gift given to a student athlete whether it’s from the university or anyone in relations to the

university is prohibited and the athlete along with the athletic team and/or department may face

strict consequences. (NCAA, 2011) Even if a field hockey player were to win a gift card at the

schools men’s basketball game, she would not be allowed to accept it because it would violate

NCAA regulations. However, if a college football team makes it to one of the numerous bowl

games at the end of the season, the sponsors of the bowls are allowed to give each player,

manager, and coach gifts from their companies. Each member of the team is allowed to receive

up to $500 dollars in gifts from the respective sponsors. (McCartney, 2010) This where analysts

are discussing why most athletes are unable to accept any kind of gift and some football players

are allowed to accept gifts such as televisions, gaming systems, and shopping sprees from bowl

sponsors? This topic has not yet made it to discussion with the NCAA Division 1 Board of

Directors, but it has caused a stir in dialogue and it could become another regulation that the

board may have to decide to change.

Endorsements

Division 1 student athletes are some of the best young talent there is in our country in

their respective sports, especially in college football and basketball. They showcase their talents

on the national stage throughout their collegiate careers. They are the faces of their sports, and

yet they are not allowed to accept any type of endorsement while they are still in college. (Caron,

2010) Past college athletes such as Cam Newton, Reggie Bush, and Anthony Davis were

showcased on shows such as SportsCenter each and every day during their college seasons, and

network channels made millions off their televised games throughout the seasons. Yet, these

athletes would not be allowed to reach their full potential economically when it comes to

9

bringing in more income from endorsements. Each of these players received multi-million dollar

deals the second they finished their college careers, but they could have easily received these

endorsements during their collegiate years and had extra income. Star athletes are also used in

marketing campaigns to market key games during their season, their jerseys are sold in the

student stores, and their exact likeness is used in college football video games. Receiving

endorsements is something that has caused a lot of split opinions from individuals. Endorsements

could be a great source on income for these student athletes, but it could also put too much

money into the pockets of 18-20 year olds.

Permission to Speak with Agents

This section goes along the same lines as the section above. These star athletes are

displaying their talents on the national stage every night, just as professional athletes without as

much freedom. The best football and basketball athletes most likely go professional after their

seasons are completed, which leads to them hiring agents to handle their professional

negotiations and paperwork. This is another topic which is being discussed as more college

athletes turn professional year after year. Most experts believe it would be vital to a student

athlete’s life if they could receive guidance from agents during their college years before they

enter professional leagues. The opposing view believes that agents could take advantage of these

student athletes if the regulations were to be changed. This is another benefit that would have to

be closely monitored by the NCAA if it were to be allowed in the future.

10

Hypotheses

Before carrying out any study, it’s vital for hypotheses to be created so it can be

determined if one’s study seems to be significant in the end. The 6 hypotheses below were

created based off of past findings, writings from experts studying this topic, and our own

personal beliefs on what relationships will have direct effects. It was also important to create

different hypotheses for each dependent variable so it can be determined if there was a direct

correlation between our independent variable and dependent variables. For 5 or the 6 hypotheses

there is a null hypotheses, which will be seen as significant if there is no correlation at all

between our variables. At the end of this study, our hypotheses will be confirmed to be

significant or not based on the findings from our study.

1. Student athletes will be more in favor of NCAA giving out monetary benefits than Non-

Student Athletes.

a. Null Hypothesis- There will be no direct correlation between one’s athletic status

and perception on student athletes receiving monetary benefits.

2. Student athletes will be more in favor of NCAA allowing student athletes to accept gifts

from the university or any other person tied to the university.


and personal perception on student athletes receiving gifts.

3. Student athletes will be more in favor of the NCAA allowing student athletes to accept

endorsements from companies not associated with the NCAA.


and personal perception on student athletes accepting endorsements.

11

4. Student athletes will be more in favor of the NCAA granting student athletes permission

to speak with professional agents before their collegiate career is over.


and personal perception on student athletes having permission to speak with

agents.

5. The most ideal amount of money individuals who believe student athletes should receive

monetary benefits will be around $1,000.

6. The majority of surveyors will either be current student athletes in college or will have

some varsity sports experience in high school.

Background

NCAA Regulations

According to the National Collegiate Athletic Association regulations, if an athlete

accepts absolutely any kind of pay, or promise of pay, for competing in that sport, they are

considered ineligible and face a penalty of suspension or removal from their respective team.

Also, athletes are considered ineligible if they agree to compete in any type of professional

athletics while still in school, play for any professional athletic teams defined by the NCAA in

that sport, or use their athletic skill for pay in any form in that sport. (NCAA Regulations, 2011)

Other regulations fall along the same lines, such as NCAA athletes will not be considered

eligible if they accept money, transportation, or anything else if they hire an agent to market their

abilities, accept pay for promoting commercial products, or were paid to do work they did not

perform. (NCAA Regulations, 2011)

12

Even though this has been in the new recently, this was also a problem all the way back

in the 1980’s with schools such as SMU and Michigan illegally giving a few of their athletes

illegal benefits. These benefits, whether they were monetary or gifts, break these rules set by the

NCAA. Some of these cases involved the athletes being paid to persuade their choice of school

and others were just rewarded for their accomplishments while at their respective universities.

Even though athletes are being more vocal on receiving more monetary benefits, the NCAA is

not budging too much on changing this problem, even though some conferences are bringing in

at least $150 million dollars in total revenue each year. (Cassilo, 2011) However, NCAA

president Mark Emmert told the Wall Street Journal that they are working on increasing the

value on scholarships to cover the “full” cost of attending college. (Cohen, 2011) As of February

9th, 2011, the NCAA was currently in the middle of working out a deal which would provide

most NCAA Division 1 athletes with up to $2,000 added to their scholarships. (Wolverton, 2012)

This extra cash will help these athletes pay for some of their extra expenses that they have. With

the expansion of some conferences and larger TV deals being signed by these conferences, it

would not be surprising seeing a larger increase in scholarship value and having these NCAA

athletes receiving more funding.

Two Different Views on the Topic

As mentioned, this has been an issue in collegiate sports for the past few decades. A

number of professional journalists and individuals involved in some of the major athletic

departments in the country have written articles regarding their opinion on this issue and possible

ideas that could change the landscape of the NCAA regulations. There has been a large outcry

over the past few years that collegiate athlete’s from universities that make profits off their

athletics, which is very rare, should receive an extra small stipend on top of their scholarships. A

13

small percentage of universities that have very successful football and basketball programs

sometimes make profits off those ticket sales, merchandise apparel, and television deals

throughout the nation. Others believe that these athletes are receiving more than enough financial

benefits through their scholarships, which most take care of some student athlete’s full tuition

costs. These individuals feel strongly that there should not be any sort of extra benefits given to

these athletes, because they are given more than they actually realize.

Congressman Rep. Bobby Rush (Washington) said, “(The NCAA) is one of the most

vicious, most ruthless organizations ever created by mankind. I think you would compare the

NCAA to Al Capone and to the mafia.” (Auerbach, 2011) Along with Congressman Rush,

numbers of individuals also believe that the NCAA and some universities around the nation

exploit their athletes to a point where it’s “absolute ruthless.” According to Walter Byers,

“College athletes’ basic rights have been taken from them by a college cartel.” Byers then goes

on to explain how most “big-time” schools are running a nation-wide entertainment business

without tax liability but with a monopoly controlling the compensation rate for players. (Byers,

2005) His article sums up how most of the major athletic programs in the nation are exploiting

their athletes to make profits, without raising their compensation due to them having fully paid

scholarships. These individuals may be at the most extreme side of the argument, but their views

are that the NCAA needs to give back a little compensation to these athletes that they are making

hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions, of dollars on.

The majority of the individuals that are for the paying of student athletes believe that

there should be a small stipend of around $2,000 given to most of their athletic programs

Division 1 athletes. Over the past few years there has been a movement from major colleges to

get this passed. In October of 2011, it was reported that more than 300 major college athletes

14

were pushing for a change, and took this petition to the NCAA offices. (Associated Press, 2011)

These athletes came from all around the nation, from Kentucky, to Arizona, to Purdue, and they

claimed that the NCAA should spread out some of their profits to these collegiate athletes so

they are able to have comfortable lives as student athletes. Their document urged the NCAA to

set aside a percentage of their television revenue, which came out to about $775 million from

football and men’s basketball, in order to pay a small stipend to their student athletes.

(Associated Press, 2011) Since then, the NCAA has begun weighing the benefits of paying their

athletes a small $2,000 stipend based on financial needs. These financial needs are based on the

amount of money that is needed for these players to have meals and some entertainment while

they are traveling to and from practices and games. This would also take the student athlete’s

financial situation into play. (Cassilo, 2011) This new regulation would also be capped at $2,000

and not be allowed to exceed that. The NCAA is hoping to come to a conclusion on this

regulation change by the end of 2012. (Wolverton, 2012)

There has also been an increasing movement to not only provide these student athletes

with the permission to accept monetary benefits, but also the permission to talk to agents and

accept endorsements while they are collegiate athletes. Jalen Rose, a well-known NBA guard

and former All-American basketball player at Michigan, is a strong advocate in allowing today’s

athletes to accept benefits and permission to talk to agents. Rose believes that if the student

athlete is good enough to make it to the professional leagues, they should be allowed to declare

for the professional league draft and sign an agent before they are finished in college. (Rose,

2011) Rose states that it is too much of a rush from transitioning to the season’s end to the league

draft because there is not enough time to prepare them to becoming professional athletes. If they

would be allowed to speak with agents in their final months at their institutions, they would be

15

able to learn more from them and have more opportunities to choose from before the important

player drafts. (Rose, 2011) Lastly, Jalen also talks about how they should be given stipends

during their respective seasons to handle expenditures they may have since they are not allowed

to work most jobs during their off-seasons. Pete Fiutak and Richard Cirminiello from

CollegeFootballNews.com agree with Rose’s view on the stipend and permission to speak with

agents. These two gentlemen state that “if declare for the professional drafts and are still in

season, they should be allowed to hire an agent at that point in time to prepare them for the

draft.” (Fiutak, Cirminiello, Zemek, Sallee, 2011) They also state that these student athletes

should be allowed to accept endorsements companies that would like to have their face on their

marketing campaigns. Fiutak states, “there are some athletes that are placed all over March

Madness ads, or ads for the big Bowl Games, and yet they are not seeing a dime. They are not

even allowed to work at the local pizza shop for a few extra bucks. This needs to change.”

(Fiutak, Cirminiello, Zemek, Sallee, 2011)

The opposing view has a central theme throughout the different articles; these student

athletes are already being paid more than they should. Alexander Wolff simply states his strong

view in his heading and subheading of his writing, “An Honest Wage: When they ask for cash,

college athletes should remember they’re getting paid to learn.” (Wolff, 1994) Most of the major

college athletic programs pay for a majority of their student athlete’s tuition through the

numerous scholarships that are offered. The best players on the team are given full-rides and the

rest of the players on the teams are still receiving a large portion of financial aid for tuition,

books, etc. Wolff talks about the uprising of student athletes from major college football teams

(Florida State and Miami) that want to be paid more on top of their scholarships. He simply

states that they need to realize that they are being paid a great amount of money to not only play

16

college football, but also receive a great education. (Wolff, 1994) Duncan Currie brings up

another great point that was mentioned by Wolff; these athletes are student-athletes, with an

emphasis on student. (Currie, 2011) “The amateurism should not be taken away from collegiate

sports, which would happen if the “pay for play” method was adopted by the NCAA,” Currie

said in his National Review article. (Currie, 2011) Even it were to be a small $2,000 stipend,

Currie along with others, believe that collegiate athletics would turn into a minor league system

for players who would only focus on athletics and completely ignore their athletics. Towards the

end of his article, Duncan Currie states that permitting student athletes to talk with agents or

accept endorsements would also cloud their judgment with their schooling and athletics while

they are still in college. (Currie, 2011)

The extra benefits that have been part of this controversy, the gifts, agents, and

endorsements, have been other areas that these individuals are focusing on. Lesley Ryder from

the Huffington Post continues this theme by mentioning how student athletes should not be

allowed to accept these benefits because it would take away the amateurism from collegiate

athletics. If these athletes were allowed to accept these gifts and endorsements while they were

still in college, it would make these athletes professionals before they are actually allowed to

enter professional league drafts. (Ryder, 2011) There would be more “one and done” athletes,

which means the best basketball and football players would go to play collegiate sports for the

minimum amount of time that is required by the NBA and NFL and then they would enter the

drafts. This would lower graduation rates, take away from these student-athletes’ education, and

turn college football and basketball into a type of “minor-league” professional system. (Currie,

2011)

17

Allowing student-athletes to speak with agents while still in college may also affect their

decision on staying at their institution or entering the professional league drafts whenever they

are eligible. There have been some scandals, such as the Miami University Football scandal, had

instances where Miami football players were mingling with sports agents, which led them to

entering the NFL early instead of finishing their collegiate careers. (Russo, 2011) As Lesley

Ryder mentioned, allowing agents to speak with these student-athletes while still in college

would take away the amateurism of the college game. These student-athletes should be focusing

on now only their athletics, but their college education, but adding all these benefits may cloud

their judgment and jumble their priorities. (Ryder, 2011) Duncan Currie also mentions if the

NCAA decides to go with the “pay for play” method, or paying athletes along with their

scholarships and giving them more freedom, it would turn into a logistical nightmare. It would

be extremely difficult to come up with a system where every school associated with the NCAA

pays their athletes all in a fair manner. (Currie, 2011) “This will always be a controversial topic,

so making a drastic change like the “pay for play” method would only make it more of a

nightmare and create many more problems that the NCAA does not need,” Currie said. (Currie,

2011)

Past Cases Breaking These NCAA Regulations

Throughout the 1980’s, Southern Methodist University casted the first shadow over the

NCAA when boosters were caught paying current football recruits to come join the SMU

football team. SMU was trying to keep up with the other southern powerhouse football teams

such as Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M. Southern Methodist University found a way to cheat

the system and aid the school with recruiting some of the best football athletes in the nation, such

as one of the greatest running backs of all-time Eric Dickerson. (Russo, 2011) Once the NCAA

18

found enough evidence of this wrongdoing during their investigation, they dropped the hammer

on SMU to make a statement. This was the first time where the term “Death Penalty” was used

to shut down a certain program for the high amount of illegal actions they committed. (Russo,

2011) SMU went from being one of the most successful football teams during that time, to a

program that was banned for 2 years, stripped of a majority of their scholarships, and tarnished

their reputation for up to 30 years. (Russo, 2011) Only until recently has SMU become relevant

again in football, with reaching their first bowl game in 2008, first since the “Death Penalty” was

brought down on them. (Fituak, Cirminiello, Zemek, Sallee, 2011)

Most of these larger scandals have been in major college football programs throughout

the nation. However, one of the biggest scandals that were brought to light after the athlete left

his university happened at the University of Michigan. In 2003, Chris Webber, one of

Michigan’s most storied athletes, pleaded guilty to receiving up to $38,000 in benefits from a

UM booster Eddie Martin in 1994. (Shepardson, 2003) Webber was one of Michigan’s best

basketball players to ever put on the blue and gold. Chris was also a part of the “Fab Five”,

which was the group of Chris, Juan Howard, Jalen Rose, Jimmy King, and Ray Jackson. They

were 5 high school seniors that Michigan brought in as freshman and they changed the whole

landscape of college basketball in 1992-1994. (Shepardson, 2003) Chris Webber as a college

sophomore received those benefits from a booster and was caught when the NCAA launched a

full on investigation. Once they found enough evidence, they prosecuted Webber and later found

him guilty of these charges. Webbers, along with 15 other individuals charged in this case, was

fined for an undisclosed amount and are not allowed on Michigan’s property until 2013.

(Shepardson, 2003) Also, University of Michigan had to forfeit 113 victories and took down the

Fab Five era postseason banners at the Crisler Arena. (Shepardson, 2003)

19

Another unique case occurred at the University of Southern California. This case at USC

involved athletes from two different sports receiving improper benefits around the same time.

The thing that makes this case unique is that the benefits were used for two different motives.

Going into the 2007 basketball season, OJ Mayo was one of the most coveted high school

athletes that the major basketball programs wanted to recruit. OJ decided to play basketball for

USC before he jumped to the NBA in 2008. A few years after he left USC for the league,

investigators found out that OJ received improper benefits to persuade him to choose USC over

the other basketball programs. (Wharton & Holmes, 2010) It was reported that Mayo received

cash, clothes, and a flat-screen television from a USC booster to persuade him to come to USC.

(Wharton & Holmes, 2010) Another scandal occurred at USC during this time person, only this

one was in the coveted football program. Reggie Bush was one of the best college football

players to play in the NCAA during his years at Southern California. He won the Heisman

trophy in 2005 and electrified the entire college football world during his only year as a Trojan.

Allegations were put on Bush’s mother and stepfather for accepting a suburban San Diego home

in exchange for Reggie signing with a well-known sports agent. (Saxon, 2010) As mentioned

earlier, both Mayo and Bush committed infractions that broke the NCAA regulations. Since they

were not currently enrolled in USC when these allegations were made, other sanctions were

made against the athletes and university. USC Football was ordered to vacate 30 football

scholarships over three years, vacate 14 victories in which Bush played in, and is banned from

postseason bowl games until 2012. (Saxson, 2010) Reggie Bush was stripped of his 2005

Heisman trophy and was sued for up to $300,000 from the marketing agency he signed with

illegally. (Saxson, 2010) As for USC Basketball and OJ Mayo, USC penalized the program by

20

forfeiting the victories in which Mayo participated, forgone postseason play, and stripped 2

scholarships away from the program. (Wharton & Holmes, 2010)

One of the biggest college scandals involves one of the most controversial collegiate

sports programs in the nation, the University of Miami. In August of 2011, the NCAA concluded

an 8 year investigation that lasted from 2002-2010 regarding boosters illegally giving benefits to

Hurricane football players. In 100 hours of jailhouse interviews with Hurricanes booster Nevin

Shapiro describes an eight-year run of NCAA rule-breaking, with Shapiro offering monetary

benefits and gifts to Miami football and basketball players and coaches. (Robinson, 2011) The

NCAA investigation against Miami included over 20,000 pages of financial and business records

that are being used as evidence that there was, in fact, monetary benefits and gifts exchanged

between Shapiro and Hurricane football and basketball players. (Robinson, 2011) After the

NCAA concluded their investigation, the next step in they are currently in the middle of is

deciding how to punish the university. There have been whispers of the “Death Penalty” and

other harsh punishments. As mentioned earlier, the SMU Mustangs were delivered the “Death

Penalty” when they were caught giving benefits to their players and recruits. Some experts, like

Drew Lipsky from Yahoo! Sports, think that Miami may receive an even stricter punishment

than SMU from the NCAA. These experts mention that the “heinous” acts committed by Shapiro

and the Miami players receiving benefits make the SMU case look like child’s play. (Lipsky,

2011) After this in-depth investigation and the harsh punishment that is about to follow, this case

will go down as one of the most controversial collegiate sports scandals ever.

Each one of these 4 scandals revolves around this topic of giving benefits to players

during their college years. Whether it was the exchange of money, gifts, or interacting with

agents, each scandal ties together have most of the outcomes have been harsh consequences that

21

have hurt or are currently hurting the respective universities afterwards. Some are a little

extreme, but the majority of these cases could have possibly been stopped if these college

athletes were given a little extra money that is not attached to their scholarship. That is a question

a lot of NCAA experts are asking. Would have these scandals been less extreme, or possibly not

happened at all, if the NCAA regulations were altered? After reviewing these articles about past

offenses, this has become a topic of great interest and it is going to be very interesting listening

to our peer’s and what their opinions are on this topic

Methodology

The study we conducted was created

and distributed online through a program

called Qualtrics. The sampling frame for the

study was designed to have individuals fill

the survey out via the internet. The survey

was given out online because it allowed us to

reach a larger audience and one with a more

diverse background. It was determined to

distribute it via e-mail, social network

(Facebook and Twitter), and word of mouth.

We strongly pushed e-mail and social

network sites because that was the best and

fastest way to get it out to the maximum

amount of people most efficiently. Through

e-mail we collected results by sending out e-mail blasts to the classes we are attending at Temple

Table 1. Demographic Profile of the Sample

Characteristic

Gender Frequency % Male 162 52.9 Female 144 47.1 Total 306 100 Age Frequency % 18-‐20 117 38.2 21-‐23 153 50 24-‐26 18 5.9 27+ 15 4.9 Total 303 99 Missing 3 1 Total 306 100 In which area do you live Frequency % Urban 159 52 Suburban 129 42.2 Rural 18 5.9

Total 306 100

22

University this semester and by just sending it to friends and work colleagues. The social

network site respondents allowed us to get a more random sample because it went out to a

greater number of people, and we couldn’t control who saw the survey necessarily.

After about one week we had the results we needed to conclude sending out our survey

and begin breaking down the results. In total we had 306 people fill out the survey. As seen in

Table 1, there were 306 respondents, 162 males and 144 females. We classified the individuals

who responded into four categories: Current or Former student athletes, non-student athletes,

college graduates, and work colleagues. These categories were very broad so we eventually just

broke them down as either non-student athletes or current or former student athletes at a college

or university (results can be seen in Table 2). It should be noted that even though only 18% of

the surveyors were student athletes, 74% of our sample played varsity sports in High School.

The survey was structured in

a certain way that allowed us to get

the best results possible. The

structure allowed for the participant

to get an understanding of the topic/survey and by the sixth question we are in the core of the

survey. Questions 7 to 13 were the most important and provided us with the responses needed to

solidify the framework (Figure 1.1) of the study. Those questions asked for definitive responses,

that we will later discuss in the research section. Go to Appendix A to view an exact replica of

the survey that was distributed to the public.

Table 2. Are you or have you been a student athlete at any college or

university? Frequency %

Yes 57 18.6 No 249 81.4 Total 306 100.0

23

Results

The online distribution method resulted in a very successful survey. The results gathered

allowed the framework of this study to be answered and explained. Starting with the most

important findings, in Table 3 we used a t-test on the four independent variables we wanted to

answer for the conceptual framework. Those included should student athletes be allowed to

accept monetary benefits (stipends), gifts, endorsements, and have permission to speak with

agents. For the t-test in Table 3, the sample test was designed as follows: are you or have you

been a student athlete as the grouping variable, followed by the four test variables you see in

Table 3. The test showed

that there was a significant

relationship with 3 out of 4

of the questions, the only

statement that wasn’t

significant with our data

set was should student

athletes be allowed to

speak with agents, but this

becomes a key factor in the

study which will be

highlighted later. The

significance of the other 3 statements in Table3, allows us to know that when comparing non-

student athletes to student athletes and the 3 questions we posed in the survey there was indeed a

statistical significance. Once we figured out that there was meaning we then proceeded to

compare the three questions more in detail. This allowed us to figure out if the public’s

Table 3.

Independent Samples Test t-test for Equality of

Means t Sig. (2-

tailed) Equal variances assumed 3.016 .003 Collegiate athletes should receive

monetary stipends in addition to their scholarships. Equal variances not

assumed 2.910 .005

Equal variances assumed -1.794 .074 Student-athletes should be

allowed to accept gifts from the athletic department, boosters, and other individuals based off their on-field performance without penalty.

Equal variances not assumed -1.899 .061

Equal variances assumed -1.145 .253

While still in college, student-athletes should be allowed to speak with professional agents before they enter any professional league drafts.


Equal variances assumed -2.246 .025 Companies should be allowed to

offer endorsement deals to student-athletes while they are still in college.


24

perception was different between student athletes and non-student athletes, this would help us

make a few conclusions on the framework of this study.

Monetary Benefits

The monetary benefits question was posed as such, collegiate athletes should receive

monetary stipends in addition to their scholarships. This question was indeed significant to the

study and helped us in explaining if the participants think they should or shouldn’t be given this

extra stipend. In table 4 we divided up the participants into non-student athletes and current or

former student athletes. Using this we could then find a reasonable way to compare the results

we found. For this question student athletes had a much higher agreement of accepting monetary

stipends where as non-student athletes tended to disagree much more as you can see below.

Table 4. Are you or have you been a student athlete at any college or university? * Collegiate

athletes should receive monetary stipends in addition to their scholarships. Collegiate athletes should receive monetary stipends in

addition to their scholarships.

Strongly Disagree Disagree

Neither Agree

nor Disagree Agree

Strongly Agree Total

Count 9 12 9 24 3 57 Yes

% within Are you or have you been a student athlete at any college or university?

15.79% 21.05% 15.79% 42.11% 5.26% 100.00%

Count 54 96 30 63 6 249

Are you or have you been a student athlete at any college or university? No


21.7% 38.6% 12.0% 25.3% 2.4% 100.0%

Count 63 108 39 87 9 306 Total


20.6% 35.3% 12.7% 28.4% 2.9% 100.0%

25

This question was posed with a follow up question that

asked how much money a student athlete should receive in

stipends. Of the 44.1% of surveyors that believed student athletes

should receive a monetary stipend, the most ideal amount they

should receive was $1,000-$1,499 per year. This is a much greater

number than what many schools currently offer student athletes who get a tiny stipend which is

need based. This stipend can be used for essentially anything, and is used as a way to help need

based kids who play a sport that can’t necessarily have a job or make money during the school

year.

Speaking with Agents

When it came to student athletes and speaking with agents, that question we posed was:

while still in college, student-athletes should be allowed to speak with professional agents before

they enter any professional league drafts. For this question we found the greatest difference

between non-student athletes and athletes. Current or former student athletes only had about

41% of people who either agreed or strongly agreed, where as non-student athletes had almost

60% as you can see in table 5. This was the biggest difference amongst the four independent

variables and also the most shocking. It was alarming that so many non-student athletes

supported student athletes to have the ability to talk to agents before they enter a professional

draft. This is significant because it shows we must come up with a decisive conclusion on why

so many people voted in support of being able to speak with agents, especially over the other

three independent variables.

Table 4.1. Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square

.024

Likelihood Ratio .025

Linear-by-Linear Association

.003

26

Table 5. Are you or have you been a student athlete at any college or university? * While sti l l in

college, student-athletes should be allowed to speak with professional agents before they enter any professional league drafts.

While still in college, student-athletes should be allowed to speak with professional agents before they enter any

professional league drafts.

Strongly Disagree Disagree

Neither Agree

nor Disagree Agree

Strongly Agree Total

Count 9 6 18 15 9 57 Yes


15.8% 10.5% 31.6% 26.3% 15.8% 100.0%

Count 21 39 42 126 21 249

Are you or have you been a student athlete at any college or university? No


8.4% 15.7% 16.9% 50.6% 8.4% 100.0%

Count 30 45 60 141 30 306 Total


9.8% 14.7% 19.6% 46.1% 9.8% 100.0%

Table 5.1. Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square .002

Likelihood Ratio .002 Linear-by-Linear Association

.252

27

Discussion and Conclusion

This study illustrates if the NCAA should change a few current rules and regulations

they now have based on the public’s perception through the survey we distributed. This study

also identifies possible solutions for the NCAA, so they can avoid future problems with student

athletes and coaches breaking these regulations and keeping college athletics as pure and ethical

possible. Some changes may be needed based off our findings, which could ultimately lower the

amount of unethical behaviors going on in the NCAA and restore order in a hectic organization.

The survey allowed for the conceptual framework to be answered and ultimately allowed us to

draw conclusions based off the results we received.

The important findings in this study involved the four dependent variables that we

classified in the conceptual framework. Of the four, the two that stood out the most were

monetary benefits and the ability to talk with agents before you enter a professional draft. These

two questions have a direct affect on certain NCAA rules which makes them extremely

important looking into the future. The other two variables (gifts and endorsements) are also

important and had significant findings but when we compared it using current and former student

athletes and non-student athletes the data wasn’t significant enough to provide us with enough of

a reason to research those topics further.

Monetary benefits are a topic the NCAA is constantly discussing and this year needed a

last minute vote to avoid the change. The ruling that recently happened turned down the

proposal for any full scholarship athletes to receive an additional $2,000 to cover the cost of

attending college, beyond the athletic scholarship given for tuition, fees, room and board, and

books. The research we conducted for this topic found a much higher agreement of student

28

athletes believing they should receive this stipend when compared to non-student athletes. The

bias in this question can be seen two different ways, first student athletes probably have the mind

set of we should be compensated, based on the amount of work and dedication we put into the

team and school, almost always preventing them from obtaining a job during the school year.

This view from the student athletes makes sense but the counter view is that many non-student

athletes could have the mindset that when these athletes get stipends it comes out of fees that the

non-student athletes have to pay for through tuition or random fees that colleges and universities

charge. Those are both good and solid opinions from either side that could of caused some flaws

in our data set, but in the end our research points to the fact that based off the research student

athletes should indeed be given a monetary benefit. The monetary benefits based on the data we

found should be between $1,000-$1,499 dollars so we could conclude that the NCAA should

lower its $2,000 proposal down, and it might find common ground around $1,200 or $600 dollars

each semester for student athletes. Since the public agreed that the idea amount would be $1000-

$1,499 dollars, this would agree with our hypotheses #5 to a certain extent. This hypothesis

stated that the ideal amount would be $1,000 dollars, but the findings showed that the public

believed they could be paid up to $1,499 dollars. This states that our hypotheses #5 should have

been in more specific. These findings also prove that our hypothesis regarding student athletes

believing it should be allowed to give a monetary stipend to be true. Student athletes were more

in favor than non-student athletes by a significant amount.

The variable that was seen as most surprising was student athletes being able to speak

with agents before they enter the draft. The research showed that 60% of non-student athletes

agreed that student athletes should be allowed to talk to agents, compared with the 41% of

student athletes that agreed. This is a staggering statistic and one the NCAA should most

29

certainly further research. Although we had a small sample, 60% of agreement is something that

needs to be looked at more closely. It was puzzling how this large number of non-athletes

agreed to student athletes being able to speak with agents, but yet there was another large

majority against the same student athletes receiving monetary benefits. This could be have came

about because the public may think that the monetary benefits may be coming out of their

pockets, but having the athletes speaking with agents would not affect them directly. According

to our hypotheses, the one regarding student athletes being more in favor for speaking with

athletes turned out to be false, because it was actually the non-student athletes that were more in

favor.

In conclusion, the research conducted has provided strong evidence for the NCAA to

change a few rules based off the general public perception. The NCAA should strongly consider

conducting a larger scale study along the same line of determining the public’s perception on this

topic of extra benefits to student athletes. If the same results were to come about in their larger

study, these results could lead to the NCAA discussing regulation changes regarding these

benefits. For example, it may be time to renegotiate the idea of offering a larger stipend, but

lower the amount from $2,000 a year to possibly $1,000-$1,500 which was found to be the most

ideal amount in our study. Also the idea of student athletes talking to agents before they enter the

draft needs to be discussed and maybe a new system should be put into place. The rest of the

data we gathered could provide insight to a few very minor tweaks to the rulebook but nothing

that is a pressing issue at this time. Overall, it may be time for the NCAA to conduct a survey

along these lines to determine the public’s perception on a larger scale to find out if it is time to

make changes to the stricter, current regulations.

30

Work Cited

Athletes Petitioning for NCAA Reform. (2011) More than 300 major college athletes pushing for

change. The Associated Press. NCAA.com.

< http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/2011-10-24/athletes-petitioning-ncaa-reform>.

Auerbach, N. (2011). Congressman calls NCAA ruthless, compares it to mafia. USA Today.

<http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2011-11-01/congressman-calls-ncaa-

ruthless/51033640/1>.

Bachman, R. (2012). NCAA panel orders refinement of stipend rule. Wall Street Journal.

Web 20 Feb. 2012.

Baird, K. (2004). Dominance in college football and the role of scholarship restrictions. Journal

Of Sport Management, 18(3), 217-235.

Bonderman, R. (2010). USC Trojans get black eye over Reggie Bush scandal. Time.com.

<http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/06/10/usc-trojans-get-black-eye-over-reggie-bush-

scandal/>.

Byers, Walter. (2005) "Hey, NCAA, can you spare a dime?" The Sporting News: 8. Gale

Biography In Context. Web. 20 Febfo. 2012.

Caron, N. (2010). NCAA not doing a favor to athletes by banning endorsements. Bleacher

report. 29 Apr 2012.

<http://bleacherreport.com/articles/418140-ncaa-not-doing-a-favor-to-athletes-by-banning-endorsements>.

Cassilo, D. (2011). NCAA inches toward paying student athletes. The daily caller.

<http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/28/ncaa-inches-toward-paying-student-athletes/>.

Cohen, B. (2011). The case for paying college athletes. Wall Street Journal. Web 10 Mar. 2012.

<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904060604576572752351110850.html>.

Currie, D. (2011). Should College Athletes Get Paid? - By Duncan Currie - The Corner-

National Review Online. National Review Online. Retrieved February 20, 2012, from

<http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/263933/should-college-athletes-get-paid-

duncan-currie>.

31

Dohrmann, G. (2011). Pay for play. Sports Illustrated, 115(18), 52-59.

Fiutak, Pete, Richard Cirminiello, Matt Zemek, and Barrett Sallee. (2011) "Scout.com: CFN

thoughts – the extra stipend debate." College Football News Front Page. Scout.com, 22

May 2011. Web. 15 Feb. 2012. <http://cfn.scout.com/2/1073870.html>.

NCAA. (2011). DI summary of NCAA regulations. NCAA.org.

<http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/AMA/compliance_forms/DI/DI>.

Lipsky, D. (2011). The NCAA pay for play debate: should college athletes get paid? Yahoo

rivals. <http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ycn-10768013>.

McCartney, C. (2012). The bowl season's gift to the players: $500 in the best swag. Sports

Illustrated Online Blog. 29 Apr 2012.

<http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/cory_mccartney/12/27/bowl.gifts/index.html>.

Robinson, C. (2011). Renegade Miami football booster spells out illicit benefits to players.

Yahoo! Sports. sports.yahoo.com. <http://sports.yahoo.com/investigations/news?slug=cr-

renegade_miami_booster_details_illicit_benefits_08161>.

Rose, J. (2011). Paid college athletes: a reasonable compromise. Huntington Post.

<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jalen-rose/paid-college-athletes-a-r_b_836449.html>.

Russo, R. (2011). Miami hurricanes football scandal comes years after SMU received NCAA

“death penalty”. Huffington post. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/22/miami-

hurricanes-football-scandal-smu-death-penalty_n_932770.html>.

Ryder, L. (2011). Dont pay college athletes. Huntington Post.

<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lesley-ryder/pay-college-athletes-_b_968479.html>.

Saxson, M. (2010). Reggie Bush to forfeit Heisman. ESPN.com.

<http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncf/news/story?id=5572827>.

Shepardson, D. (2003) Webber plea to scuttle federal trial. USA Today

<http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/kings/2003-07-14-webber-plea_x.htm>.

32

Wharton, D., & Holmes, B. (2010). O.J. Mayo scandal leads to heavy sanctions for UCS

basketball. Los Angeles Times.

<http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/04/sports/la-sp-usc-basketball4-2010jan04>.\

Wolff, A. A. (1994). An honest wage: when they ask for cash, college athletes should remember

they're getting paid to learn. Sports Illustrated, 80(21), 98.

Wolverton, B. (2012). NCAA weighs changes to $2,000 stipend based on financial need. The

Chronicle of Higher Education.

<http://chronicle.com/blogs/players/ncaa-weighs-changes-to-2000-stipend-based-on-financial-need/29578>.

Documents

Public’s Perception on NCAA Student Athletes Receiving ... · athletes and their perceptions on student athletes receiving more benefits on top of their scholarships. (Dohrmann,