Spurrier Has Great Solution for College Athlete Payment. Too Bad It Will Never Work.

As a lifelong Washington Redskin fan, the past twelve years have been hard to accept. This could be another article for the near future by itself. The only reason I bring it up is that Steve Spurrier has his own chapter in the horrific saga which makes up the Dan Snyder ownership era.

Spurrier came to the Skins as a glorified national championship winning coach from the University of Florida. His college credentials were indeed impressive (122-27-1 with seven SEC titles and a national championship at the U of F). His tenure with the Burgundy and Gold was much less illustrious as a 12-20 career record with ten losses in his last 12 games would indicate. He was immediately fired after his second season.

But there was something likable about Spurrier. In spite of being a Heisman Trophy winner (1966) and professional quarterback for ten seasons, he was humble to a fault. He told reporters that he really wasn’t important, just the “Ol’ Ball Coach,” a moniker which has stuck for years. Unlike Redskin legend Joe Gibbs, who slept in his office while winning three Super Bowls for the fans of D.C., Spurrier would sneak out on Friday nights during the season to watch his son Steve Jr. play quarterback for Loudoun Valley High School. The Loudoun faithful knew who the figure at the end of the back row of the bleachers was.

Even in his post-Redskin life, the Ol’ Ball Coach endeared himself to many college football fans by spurning offers to coach at elite programs and taking a job as the head whistle at the University of South Carolina, a far cry from the lights and glamour of Gainesville. Spurrier is finding gradual success (44-33) with the Garnet and Black, having won the SEC championship last season for the first time.

Like many top tier collegiate coaches, Spurrier commands a multi-million dollar yearly income. Unlike most of his wealthy but quiet colleagues, he has now spoken out on the topic of paying college athletes. A couple of weeks ago, the Gamecock coach made a proposal at the SEC spring meetings in Destin, FL which sounded preposterous at first, but upon further review provided for many second thoughts leading to national headlines.

“Yes,” said Spurrier, “we should pay college athletes. In fact, each coach in my conference should give each of his top 70 players $300 per game.” This line was not earth shattering, but the next was. “Out of his OWN pocket.”

Putting my math skills to work, this comes out to $21,000 per game. Multiply by 13-14 and were pushing $300 K.

This seems like an obscene amount, but maybe not so when one considers that Auburn coach Gene Chizik just won a national title and received a bump from $2.1 to $3.5 million dollars (not including another potential $1.3 million in incentives!) This makes Chizik the FOURTH highest paid coach in his own conference. Not nationally -- just in the SEC.

What a novel concept. A coach rewards the players who maintain his livelihood. At face value it seems so simple and affordable. Further reflection suggests that it could subdue some of the illegal activities (corruption will still exist, but a paying coach might pay more attention) which permeate through towns like Columbus, OH, Storrs, CT and Auburn, AL.

Too bad it will never happen.

In an earlier post on the subject of paying college athletes, I proposed that Title IX would never allow for payment. Of the three dozen or so posts on the “Wall” thus far, this one comment generated the most feedback and the viewpoints split evenly to both sides. On the one hand, I read “Ridiculous...Title IX has nothing to do with it” while on the other, “it (Title IX) could be a real problem.”

Here’s the answer. Title IX is THE main reason why college athletes will never be paid. This is why Spurrier’s idea hit a brick wall and fizzled.

The legislature was generated in 1972 to cover gender equity in all educational activities, but most of the social commentary has focused on athletics. Reasonable attempts have been made to amend Title IX, usually with the intention of adjusting the focus (i.e. athletic vs. non-athletic activities, college vs. secondary school). But, the 800-pound elephant in the room has always been money. A university might have 400 male and 400 female athletes on its rosters and this may be considered equal. But, if the men’s programs are costing $11 million while the women’s programs cost $8 million, there becomes a discrepancy. In our litigious society, many ambitious athletes, parents and their attorneys have poked and prodded to find any example of inequity and taken their real or perceived case to court.

To open a can of worms and start paying college football players $300 each per game would mean paying a group of female athletes $300 a game. But, what female team has 70 members? Certainly not basketball, the largest women’s sports moneymaker. Softball? Nope. Not even soccer. All three combined rosters at a university probably don’t top 70 players.

There’s more. Very few coaches or athletic departments outside of the major conferences could make this kind of financial sacrifice, which would add into the millions of dollars because every athlete would require (by somebody’s law) the same amount in order for the shoe to fit on Title IX.

I have come to agree that in this day in age, a college scholarship, worth $20,000 to $50,000 per year, is suitable compensation for a typical student-athlete. Perhaps there should be a bump for the athletes who get air time on national TV around the end of March and just after January 1^st while helping their schools earn $20 million appearance fees. Coach Spurrier had an interesting and modest proposal. Too bad it will never happen.