WSJ: John Calipari: NCAA Is Crumbling Like the Soviet Union

[314warrior]

Do I think athletes are treated fairly?  Yes.

A scholarship valued at $80K to $300K if they go through graduation
Often an admission to a school they couldn't even get into....priceless
Access to free tutors and mentors
Access to some of the finest coaches in the country
A training ground (for some sports) to help them cash in for their careers down the road to make huge money (potentially)
Free rooming, free food, free clothing and gear
Access to an alumni base and the powerful that most people don't get a chance to have = post graduate jobs, business relationships, etc
Travel
Etc

They get hard costs taken care of and its hard to even put a value tag on the benefits they get post school either through connections, etc. 

When you say "athletes", I'd also like to know who you mean because it sure seems to me that 99% of the time people are talking about the 50,000 Football and basketball players and not the other 400,000 student athletes from all the other sports.

The NCAA amateurism model breaks down for elite athletes in revenue generating sports.  The NCAA and some of its member institutions make a lot of money off of those exceptional student athletes.  You outline a number of ways that the athletes are compensated and declare that fair. Why do you get to decide what fair compensation is for their skill, effort and work?  To me it feels like the status quo benefits the NCAA, its member institutions, coaches, administrators and fans more than it benefits exceptional student athletes.  The problem is the people making the money have such a vested interest in the status quo that it will be difficult to make a meaningful change.  Those exceptional student athletes don't have a strong enough voice at the table.

I think the end result will either be a legitimate alternate route to the NBA and NFL where athletes can financially benefit from their work at a younger age as is the case for most professional sports leagues worldwide (MLB, NHL, soccer) or an 'olympic' model where student athletes could benefit from endorsements but not be paid directly.  I realize that this may damage MU hoops in the long run, but I think the change is necessary.


"Life isn't fair."

I'm glad that the world is full of people who see this as a challenge and not a sentence.  It also is a very poor rhetorical device especially compared to some of your other thoughtful comments.

[Eldon]

The NCAA amateurism model breaks down for elite athletes in revenue generating sports.  The NCAA and some of its member institutions make a lot of money off of those exceptional student athletes.  You outline a number of ways that the athletes are compensated and declare that fair. Why do you get to decide what fair compensation is for their skill, effort and work?  To me it feels like the status quo benefits the NCAA, its member institutions, coaches, administrators and fans more than it benefits exceptional student athletes.  The problem is the people making the money have such a vested interest in the status quo that it will be difficult to make a meaningful change.  Those exceptional student athletes don't have a strong enough voice at the table.

I think the end result will either be a legitimate alternate route to the NBA and NFL where athletes can financially benefit from their work at a younger age as is the case for most professional sports leagues worldwide (MLB, NHL, soccer) or an 'olympic' model where student athletes could benefit from endorsements but not be paid directly.  I realize that this may damage MU hoops in the long run, but I think the change is necessary.


"Life isn't fair."


I'm glad that the world is full of people who see this as a challenge and not a sentence.  It also is a very poor rhetorical device especially compared to some of your other thoughtful comments.

With respect to the bold part, I disagree.  I don't think that it will ever happen.  Rick Pitino makes like $4M/year.  You think the Rio Grande Vipers/Milan's pro team can afford that much for a coach?  I don't.

Serious question: What is your opinion on unpaid internships?

[ChicosBailBonds]

"Life isn't fair."

I'm glad that the world is full of people who see this as a challenge and not a sentence.  It also is a very poor rhetorical device especially compared to some of your other thoughtful comments.

To each their own on my comments, I don't think it is a poor rhetorical device, but rather the situation we are in.  Why does NCAA has to be all things to all people and make it fair and create an opportunity for such a small subset?  You called out that the model doesn't work for elite athletes in football and basketball.  Maybe not even for baseball and hockey.  Therein lies an important question.  450,000 student athletes each year and the institution needs to change for what, 500 people....5,000?

This is why I say life isn't fair.  Why does the NCAA have to fill this need, especially when it serves so many others well?  When it is providing so many others an education, a chance to compete, access to a better life, etc.   You may not think there is "enough" value provided to the elite athletes, though plenty of elite athletes have been on record to say their scholarship and what it ultimately gave them was priceless, but there is a value.

In my view, for those that don't think there is enough value, they should choose another path.  Why force member institutions to provide even more value (which will never be enough, the demands will always be more more more more) for such an elite group?  If the need is so apparent, a market based solution exists.

Mark my words that the people crying about the injustice that player X on UCONN "ONLY" gets a $120K education for free, only gets access to outstanding coaching and a chance to ply his trade to make millions later, only gets free room and board, only gets free tutoring, etc, etc...this same cry for justice group will lose their minds when this means less opportunities for women in women's sports, men in non-revenue sports, etc.  Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.  And while we take care of these elite athletes, you will ultimately reduce opportunities for others. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

I know you're being difficult for the sake of being difficult, but there is a case to be made for that.

Marquette is known on a broad scale because of the basketball team. A good basketball team increases applications, which increase demand, which increases tuition, which increases the chance that the man that bought the MU Proud Dad shirt bought it because their kid wanted to go to Marquette instead of Loras because the basketball team is good and popular.

You can make a case for anything.  YOU know Marquette on a broad scale because of the basketball team.  Many others know it because of nothing to do with the basketball team.  A good basketball team CAN increase applications, just as schools with NO sports teams of any consequence can also have increases in applications, etc.  How many students are at MU, undergrads, grads, dentistry, law, etc?  How many student tickets are sold?   There's an interest, there's also plenty of disinterested...in fact many more than those interested.

So I'm not being difficult for the sake of being difficult anymore than your argument you just made.  Sports has value, I wouldn't have chosen it for a career if I didn't think so.  It can also be wildly overstated what that value is.  Sports can also devalue things...how much of a hit did UW-milwaukee take the other day?  How much of a hit does MU take being on the front page of the Chicago Tribune?  UNC with their issues?  Duke with Duke lacrosse scandal?  Few people want to go down that path, but it can work both ways.

[ChicosBailBonds]

1) Obviously every school and team for that matter is different, but the lack of education I was referring to was the schools simply pushing student athletes through classes to worthless classes and worthless degrees just to keep them eligible.

OK, fair enough...so it seems you would concede that, in fact, some schools do educate students or at least that students are forced to at least pass classes to be able to play.  After all, we are talking about college here and whether you play sports or not, a certain GPA is required to matriculate and stay eligible.

2) In regards to merchandise, the school certainly provides a platform, but the athletes attract the attention to the school so it's a two-way street. So why not share the revenues?  They could be shared between the school, the student athletes, and the AD.

OK.  What's the cut?  Who gets what?  Reverse question for you, the book store goes out and buys a bunch of #10 replica jerseys for the pre-season All American basketball player because he is going to be lights out.  Items are purchased, they are in inventory and low and behold, the student athlete is arrested for raping a coed.  No on is buying the jersey, no one wants to be seen with it.  Does the player, since he was going to get the plus side of the sharing need to pay back the school for putting up the money for all the units purchased, or is there no risk shared by the student athlete?


3) I haven't taken a deep look at the numbers for paying all athletes, and I don't know what percent of NCAA student athletes are on full/partial rides or none at all, but I would think some sort of revenue sharing could provide some assistance to all schools and all athletes.

There is no silver bullet and there are plenty of reasons to be wary of paying athletes, but there is no reason not to at elast explore some sort of pay, stpiend, etc. and to put pressure on the NCAA to really look after the "student athlete"

Do you think it hasn't been explored in the past and this issue is only coming up now?  I'm just curious.  I think you will find there are some departments that are already under water today and this type of requirement will cause them to drop sports entirely.  Is that a good thing that maybe 250 to 400 scholarship athletes at a school no longer have that opportunity to go to college, some of which would never have had the opportunity without that scholarship?  Title IX issues, how do you address them?  Does the QB get paid more than the punter?  What happens if a player is hurt, no more stipend?   I think these are fair questions and only the tip of the iceburg, but many of them could have incredibly meaningful NEGATIVE ramifications on other students who are struggling to get into college and this is their only avenue.

[LAZER]

I don't have all the answers to the these questions and I admittedly don't have enough information to start drafting a policy, but the guys making the big bucks I'm sure can start coming with some models and ideas.

Schools consistently come up with ways to raise money for new investments, whether that is a new academic building or VTech throwing an extra 1.5MM a year at their bball coach. I think they're capable of coming up with some ideas.

[TJ]

The NCAA amateurism model breaks down for elite athletes in revenue generating sports.  The NCAA and some of its member institutions make a lot of money off of those exceptional student athletes.  You outline a number of ways that the athletes are compensated and declare that fair. Why do you get to decide what fair compensation is for their skill, effort and work?  To me it feels like the status quo benefits the NCAA, its member institutions, coaches, administrators and fans more than it benefits exceptional student athletes.  The problem is the people making the money have such a vested interest in the status quo that it will be difficult to make a meaningful change.  Those exceptional student athletes don't have a strong enough voice at the table.

I think the end result will either be a legitimate alternate route to the NBA and NFL where athletes can financially benefit from their work at a younger age as is the case for most professional sports leagues worldwide (MLB, NHL, soccer) or an 'olympic' model where student athletes could benefit from endorsements but not be paid directly.  I realize that this may damage MU hoops in the long run, but I think the change is necessary.


"Life isn't fair."

I'm glad that the world is full of people who see this as a challenge and not a sentence.  It also is a very poor rhetorical device especially compared to some of your other thoughtful comments.

Should have said "Those exceptional student athletes don't have any voice at the table."

Thank you for the post, I agree with your comments.

[MUSF]

Sure, the D-League and Europe are options (even if they are crappy). But the NCAA would be cutting its own throat by pushing that option rather than paying player a small stipend. The schools would soon find out that without top-notch athletes, the interest will go down, the crowds will go down, hence, the contracts will go down and income will go down.

You will always have the people that support their University, but the casual fans will no longer pay for a poor product.

Exactly. College basketball will soon be the same as college baseball if the NCAA doesn't make some changes.

[brandx]

Exactly. College basketball will soon be the same as college baseball if the NCAA doesn't make some changes.

It's absolutely amazing that even more kids don't transfer. Most of the poor kids never have the chance to visit their families or have their families visit them for 9 months - even longer when summer classes are needed. They have no money - their families can't afford to send them any, and they don't have time to get jobs because of basketball. Remember they have full loads in school plus they have basketball which consumes more time than most part-time jobs.

The NCAA is a dinosaur and within 5 years will no longer exist as we know it. Calipari's arguments are cheap and full of common sense. There would not be any athletes in court suing for union rights if his suggestions were implemented. What we don't know is what will take its place. Will the larger schools form their own association? Will basketball have any place or will it be driven by football with basketball taking whatever is left?

Emmert speech last week was the dying gasp. It was the old white men with all the money decrying that anyone would have the gall to want a share of it.

This is a certainty, just as much as gay marriage or legalized mary jane was a certainty 5-10 years ago. The old guard fought against them to protect their self-interests even though the outcome was inevitable, but their time is past.

How this will affect MU will be interesting since it will be football-driven. It astounds me that men making $5+ mil a year get so uptight over giving their players a pittance.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Should have said "Those exceptional student athletes don't have any voice at the table."

Thank you for the post, I agree with your comments.

They don't have any voice?  Some of you make it out like these are slaves or something.  Forced into labor camps.   

[ChicosBailBonds]

It's absolutely amazing that even more kids don't transfer. Most of the poor kids never have the chance to visit their families or have their families visit them for 9 months - even longer when summer classes are needed. They have no money - their families can't afford to send them any, and they don't have time to get jobs because of basketball. Remember they have full loads in school plus they have basketball which consumes more time than most part-time jobs.

The NCAA is a dinosaur and within 5 years will no longer exist as we know it. Calipari's arguments are cheap and full of common sense. There would not be any athletes in court suing for union rights if his suggestions were implemented. What we don't know is what will take its place. Will the larger schools form their own association? Will basketball have any place or will it be driven by football with basketball taking whatever is left?

Emmert speech last week was the dying gasp. It was the old white men with all the money decrying that anyone would have the gall to want a share of it.

This is a certainty, just as much as gay marriage or legalized mary jane was a certainty 5-10 years ago. The old guard fought against them to protect their self-interests even though the outcome was inevitable, but their time is past.

How this will affect MU will be interesting since it will be football-driven. It astounds me that men making $5+ mil a year get so uptight over giving their players a pittance.

How many of them are making over $5+ mil per year?

People fought against gay marriage for their own self interests?  You sure about that?

People fought against mary jane for their own self interests, or because it is a gateway drug for some

The NCAA will no longer exist as we know it in 5 years?

Most of the poor kids never have a chance to visit their families for have them visit them for 9 months?  Source?

Athletes aren't in court suing for union rights.

Old white men not willing to share (ah yest..the leftist mantra)....cool, got your liberal racism charge in there a long with gay marriage, etc.  Well done

[Groin_pull]

While I'll not sure student-athletes should be paid, I do believe they deserve compensation when their jerseys, etc are being sold in the bookstore.

If you're a stud athlete and your jersey is flying off the shelves, you deserve that cash.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I don't have all the answers to the these questions and I admittedly don't have enough information to start drafting a policy, but the guys making the big bucks I'm sure can start coming with some models and ideas.

Schools consistently come up with ways to raise money for new investments, whether that is a new academic building or VTech throwing an extra 1.5MM a year at their bball coach. I think they're capable of coming up with some ideas.

Lots of smart people have worked on this over the years....it's a heck of a lot different to raise money for a building or a coach then it is for student athletes because of TITLE IX, because almost all sports don't make money (sans football and basketball), and many departments are already in the red.  It it was easy, it would be done. 

[MUSF]

They don't have any voice?  Some of you make it out like these are slaves or something.  Forced into labor camps.   

You are exaggerating the opposing argument now to distract people from the facts.

The original post was correct, they don't have any voice at the table. The players don't have any ability to negotiate. That is a fact. If the determination that athletes are in fact employees is upheld, that fact will change.

[MUSF]

While I'll not sure student-athletes should be paid, I do believe they deserve compensation when their jerseys, etc are being sold in the bookstore.

If you're a stud athlete and your jersey is flying off the shelves, you deserve that cash.

The fact that athletes can't use their own name or likeness to earn money is even more egregious than the jersey sales. How can the NCAA prevent athletes from getting paid for appearances or autograph signings that don't occur on a college campus or have any connection to the school or NCAA?

[ChicosBailBonds]

You are exaggerating the opposing argument now to distract people from the facts.

The original post was correct, they don't have any voice at the table. The players don't have any ability to negotiate. That is a fact. If the determination that athletes are in fact employees is upheld, that fact will change.

Poor kids, my goodness they have it terrible.  They can't negotiate....oh noes.  Well, again, that gun placed to their head forcing them to take a scholarship, free room and board, etc...which they can decline and choose not to do.

Lots of people don't have the ability to negotiate, welcome to the real world.  

In this world some of you want to create, what are you doing for the women's soccer team, the track team, the volleyball team?  Since some of you want them to be employees, if they play poorly...they can be fired...right?  After all, they're employees.  Taxation for that employee compensation they are getting...looking forward to that since I'm a big pro tax guy.    

Exaggeration...the exaggeration going on is the nonsense that somehow 450,000 student athletes are treated so poorly.  You guys are focusing on the 1% and trying to extrapolate and force an association to be something it isn't.

Personally, I think the NCAA (i.e. the schools) will cave and only make matters much worse.  Some schools will drop sports...won't that be awesome for those that "don't have the ability to negotiate" since they won't have an opportunity at all anymore.  I'm hoping the university presidents stand up to it because these kids are getting a deal better almost any other student out there.  That's the exaggeration, that somehow these kids can't eat, can barely buy a soda and are being forced into virtual servitude.  It is ridiculous.

[TJ]

They don't have any voice?  Some of you make it out like these are slaves or something.  Forced into labor camps.   

You're the one who keeps saying the NCAA is an association of universities looking out for their own best interests.  Who's providing a voice advocating for the players' interests in this scenario?

[ChicosBailBonds]

The fact that athletes can't use their own name or likeness to earn money is even more egregious than the jersey sales. How can the NCAA prevent athletes from getting paid for appearances or autograph signings that don't occur on a college campus or have any connection to the school or NCAA?

As I said many times here before and it bears repeating...AGAIN.  The NCAA is an association, the MEMBERS are the schools.  Blame the schools.

Why is it done, simple...because of the abuses in the past.  It is an end around to paying students and giving certain schools an unfair advantage.  Why is this so hard to comprehend?

On the surface, I don't disagree with your premise, but here's the problem with it.  Sign with school A and they guarantee you $50 per signature that you sign.  Sign with school B, and you'll get $500 per signature that you sign.  Then there is this whole thing called amateurism.  Now, you may not agree with it, you may not like, you may think it is fraudulent, but right now the premise is that they are amateurs.  You start allowing them to be paid for signatures, etc, they are no longer.

Here's the part that makes me chuckle a bit.  On one end a lot of you guys are saying that these kids aren't really student athletes, that they are just whored out by the schools. They aren't in class enough (the claim goes) and concentrating on the student part. Now you want them to actually whore themselves out, make public appearances to get paid, etc?  Presumably to miss school in the process of doing this. Don't you find that a bit incongruous?

If you want that, then get a minor league started.  Why is it that the NCAA has to be the answer to what some of you feel is a gross injustice? 

If we play some of the things you guys are advocating for, maybe the universities should get a little something something as well.  I get tired of hearing about the millions the schools are making, because most aren't making squat.  So in the future, if a kid goes to a school, is drafted by the NFL the kid has to pay the school a cut...seems only fair.  The school allowed the kid to be seen by the scouts.  The school put the risk in educating, training, feeding, clothing, sheltering the kid.  If the NBA drafts D-Wade and he makes it, D-Wade has to pay MU....MU took a chance on the kid. 

Is this where we want this go?

[ChicosBailBonds]

You're the one who keeps saying the NCAA is an association of universities looking out for their own best interests.  Who's providing a voice advocating for the players' interests in this scenario?

I said the NCAA is an association and universities make up their membership.

What players interests?  Sorry, they are getting a free ride to go to a school that many of them couldn't even get accepted into if they couldn't throw a ball, catch a pass, dunk a ball, score a goal.  They are getting free tutors, free food, free shelter, free equipment and clothes.  Access to some of the best coaching and training facilities.  Access to the alumni for post graduate jobs, networking, etc.  Free travel.  Access to showcase themselves to the public, pro scouts, be on television, etc. 

Sorry, you'll forgive me when I believe their interests are more than taken care.

[314warrior]

I said the NCAA is an association and universities make up their membership.

What players interests?  Sorry, they are getting a free ride to go to a school that many of them couldn't even get accepted into if they couldn't throw a ball, catch a pass, dunk a ball, score a goal.  They are getting free tutors, free food, free shelter, free equipment and clothes.  Access to some of the best coaching and training facilities.  Access to the alumni for post graduate jobs, networking, etc.  Free travel.  Access to showcase themselves to the public, pro scouts, be on television, etc. 

Sorry, you'll forgive me when I believe their interests are more than taken care.

Nothing is free.  Your repeated use of "free" to describe what student athletes receive in return for their efforts underlies our basic disagreement and is disrespectful to the athletes.  The athletes work  hard.  In return for their hard work, they earn tuition, room and board, etc.  The universities do not give them anything for free.  If they decide to stop playing, they would not continue to receive those benefits.  Universities are not charities.  If they didn't feel it was in their best interest to offer those things to the athletes, they wouldn't.

There have been some interesting points on both sides and the more I think about it, the more I believe an olympic model where athletes are able to make money off of their name would be the best way forward.  I find it hard to justify the current policy in the first place.  With the olympic model, the most exceptional student athletes could make a bunch of money.  How much?  Let the market decide.  If some backer wants to pay an athlete $10 million for a commercial for his/her company, fine.  Mediocre players could make a few thousand bucks signing autographs or commercials.  Athletes in non-revenue generating sports wouldn't see much changes (except possibly a decrease in funds as some athletic department donations may be redirected to the athletes).  This would probably further concentrate talent at top programs, but we see plenty of that already.  I'm sure there are plenty of other problems with the olympic model, but it seems more fair to the athletes.

[MUSF]

Poor kids, my goodness they have it terrible.  They can't negotiate....oh noes.  Well, again, that gun placed to their head forcing them to take a scholarship, free room and board, etc...which they can decline and choose not to do.

Lots of people don't have the ability to negotiate, welcome to the real world.  

In this world some of you want to create, what are you doing for the women's soccer team, the track team, the volleyball team?  Since some of you want them to be employees, if they play poorly...they can be fired...right?  After all, they're employees.  Taxation for that employee compensation they are getting...looking forward to that since I'm a big pro tax guy.    

Exaggeration...the exaggeration going on is the nonsense that somehow 450,000 student athletes are treated so poorly.  You guys are focusing on the 1% and trying to extrapolate and force an association to be something it isn't.

Personally, I think the NCAA (i.e. the schools) will cave and only make matters much worse.  Some schools will drop sports...won't that be awesome for those that "don't have the ability to negotiate" since they won't have an opportunity at all anymore.  I'm hoping the university presidents stand up to it because these kids are getting a deal better almost any other student out there.  That's the exaggeration, that somehow these kids can't eat, can barely buy a soda and are being forced into virtual servitude.  It is ridiculous.

The first point you make is an oversimplification of a complex issue. You are right to say that athletes can choose to walk away, but they can also seek to leverage their position in the organization to get fair market value for the service they provide to the organization. If they are unsuccessful, the NBA or some other organization will provide them the opportunity that the NCAA does not. It's only a matter of time, unless the NCAA makes some concessions. People with legitimate grievances can't be kept down forever.

Your second point about other sports isn't really relevant, IMO. Why should athletes that make millions of dollars for their universities be responsible for supporting athletes and sports that lose money? Where else in the U.S. would this argument hold water? Can you imagine a company saying, "I'm sorry Bill, I know you made us millions of dollars last year, but we're not going to give you any additional pay or benefits because we have to take care of hundreds of other employees that don't make us a dime." That would be ridiculous, and so is the NCAA's position.

You claim that we are trying to force an association to be something it isn't, but I would argue that the NCAA is actually just pretending to be something it isn't. The NCAA stopped being an association for amateur athletics a long time ago, and now they simply want to cling to an antiquated model so they can get the best of both worlds. They can't keep making money hand over fist on the backs of athletes and continue to hide behind the shield of amateurism.

Yes, the schools may have to drop other sports to accommodate football and basketball. What this really means is that an organization that uses sports to make money may have to cut sports that aren't profitable. As you love to say, welcome to the real world NCAA.

Finally, the fact that athletes get a better deal than almost any student out there doesn't make the deal fair and equitable for the athletes. Athletes in bball and football make more money for a university than any student out there. Comparing athletes with normal students is ridiculous.

[MUSF]

As I said many times here before and it bears repeating...AGAIN.  The NCAA is an association, the MEMBERS are the schools.  Blame the schools.

I get it. The NCAA is an association that governs athletics for the member schools. I guess I don't get the point you are trying to make by reminding us of this fact constantly. Doesn't criticism of an organization automatically imply criticism of the members? Do I have to list individual schools in my arguments to make you happy?

[314warrior]

With respect to the bold part, I disagree.  I don't think that it will ever happen.  Rick Pitino makes like $4M/year.  You think the Rio Grande Vipers/Milan's pro team can afford that much for a coach?  I don't.

Serious question: What is your opinion on unpaid internships?

In general I am against them.  I paid for almost two years of MU with my engineering co-op.  I tell other engineering students to never work for free (at least after sophomore year).  In some fields it is the norm.  If a student in those fields is earning credit, receiving extensive training from a mentor, and not taking the job of a regular employee, I guess it is okay.  I think think recent reporting by Propublica and others has demonstrated that unpaid internships have been vastly overused.

Good point on the coaches.  Some of the suggested changes people have mentioned would likely decrease coaches salaries.  The high salaries for some coaches highlights the under-compensation of the athletes on their teams.

[MUSF]

On the surface, I don't disagree with your premise, but here's the problem with it.  Sign with school A and they guarantee you $50 per signature that you sign.  Sign with school B, and you'll get $500 per signature that you sign.  Then there is this whole thing called amateurism.  Now, you may not agree with it, you may not like, you may think it is fraudulent, but right now the premise is that they are amateurs.  You start allowing them to be paid for signatures, etc, they are no longer.

You're missing the point. The NCAA should be free to govern the actions of its member schools, but not the individual athletes ability to profit from his own name and likeness outside of the school. If the NCAA doesn't want to give schools an unfair advantage, then they can prevent schools from paying athletes for signatures and appearances. That doesn't mean that an athlete should not be allowed to get paid for an appearance outside of the school. Why can't a player get paid by a private organization or individual to sign autographs if he isn't on school property and isn't wearing the school's uniform?

[TJ]

I said the NCAA is an association and universities make up their membership.

What players interests?  Sorry, they are getting a free ride to go to a school that many of them couldn't even get accepted into if they couldn't throw a ball, catch a pass, dunk a ball, score a goal.  They are getting free tutors, free food, free shelter, free equipment and clothes.  Access to some of the best coaching and training facilities.  Access to the alumni for post graduate jobs, networking, etc.  Free travel.  Access to showcase themselves to the public, pro scouts, be on television, etc. 

Sorry, you'll forgive me when I believe their interests are more than taken care.

And you said that membership looks out for its own interest, that being what's best for the universities.

What you seem to be saying in this post is that you think that the players are fairly compensated. Maybe the players don't agree.  Why not let them represent themselves and see what happens?  If you're right and everything is fair then nothing will change except making the players feel heard.  No harm in that, right?

And you keep bringing this back to paying players.  Its been a few days since I read the article, but most of the proposed reforms have nothing to do with direct payments to players.  Maybe if the NCAA and its member institutions we're so inflexible about some common sense reforms then they could take some of the steam out of the movement.  But alas...