Continuing coverage of The Shame of College Sports

Published on 19 September 2011 by in College Sports, NCAA



  • James Bennet, Editor-in-Chief of The Atlantic on MSNBC Morning Joe




  • Deadspin: The aftershocks from “The Shame of College Sports,” Taylor Branch’s devastating cover story in The Atlantic, continue to ripple. Two other pieces are out today advancing the notion that college athletes deserve financial compensation.”
  • Deadspin: “Aside from reminding Americans for the next 15 minutes that history has actual value, Taylor Branch’s devastating article, “The Shame of College Sports,” finally fully legitimized the discussion of paying college athletes for their performance. It certainly didn’t approve the notion by fiat, but simply allowing it to enter the conversation as an equally reasonable proposition was triumph enough.”
  • “For more on the “student-athlete” rhetorical device, set aside some time for Taylor Branch’s landmark piece on the NCAA.”
  • Orlando Sentinel: “This behemoth will take a long, long time to read. But it is absolutely worth it as Pulitzer Prize-winner Taylor Branch takes a look at the NCAA and the myth of amateurism.”
  • “With Taylor Branch serving the NCAA the largest body blow to date in October’s The Atlantic Monthly, it is clear there is no other option: the NCAA not only has to die, it is inevitable that is will die.”
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

2 Responses to “Continuing coverage of The Shame of College Sports”

  1. TeddyC says:

    You are completely correct, Taylor. The current college sports system is an abomination. It’s an atrocity. It is an affront against everything about our national capitalistic society. In fact, I think that you could have stressed this more in your piece – in the U.S.A., people are paid what they are worth. In what other industry do we allow employers (the determination of which is a big part of your piece) to collectively set the wages for their employees. That’s fundamentally un-American.

    So I think that you should keep speaking the truth against all of the naysayers that can’t – or don’t want to – understand what you’re talking about.

  2. Larrimore Crockett says:

    I agree 100% with Taylor Branch’s premises and conclusions, but the article is weakened by a blurring of the lines between his critique of the NCAA and his critique of the concept of “student athlete.” E.g., he predicts that if the NCAA isn’t done in by pending court cases, it may be done in anyway by its own member institutions who realize they don’t need the NCAA as middleman. But if the colleges, e.g., run “March Madness,” themselves, it is unlikely that student athletes will suddenly be compensated for their services. I’ve loved March Madness, but I’ll never be able to enjoy it again after reading Branch’s article. My solution, draconian and unlikely ever to be adopted, would be to ban commercial TV cameras from any college sport event. That would pretty much cut the money pipeline.