In regards to the NCAA, we often hear that education comes first. When push comes to shove,  it's often left at the door. It seems if the NCAA and colleges were concerned about "student-athletes" educations, they'd ensure all of them finished school. Where could they come up with the money? Well, it turns out the amount top schools pay their coaches could easily cover a few more years of education.

I did a quick exercise. I found the pay for the top NCAA basketball coaches. Then, I found how much a full year of out-of-state tuition, room and board would cost. Then, I just asked, how many years could a coach's salary cover at their respective University? Here's how that looks.

Even at the "cheapest" schools, you could cover someone to study for over a decade! At schools like Louisville and Duke, they pay a coach enough to earn double-digit doctorates!

When a school like Syracuse gets in trouble with the NCAA, the resulting punishment always seems to be taking away scholarships. This seems bizarre to me, as the school was found to be not providing education. So the punishment is to prevent them from offering more education? Additionally, Syracuse "punished" itself by deciding to forgo to ACC tournament. This has happened before, where a school will be ineligible from competing in major events. The school thus failed to provide the education they promised, and also the athletic opportunity the "student" wanted.

I have a solution to this. Schools should offer a "lifetime" scholarship to any student athlete. Any course they want to take in pursuit of a degree at the University should be free, provided the student passes. Of course, any required preparatory classes would be covered as well. This would extend past when the student decided to declare for any professional league too.

Would such a system be affordable? Well, Rick Pitino at Louisville could cover a decade of out-of-state tuition, room and board for an entire team for one year of his salary! Let's not forget too that these numbers are likely inflated. Sure schools can charge more for out-of-state tuition, but it's unlikely the cost goes up that much for the school. Also, as Paul Shirley noted on a past podcast, many of the less affluent athletes likely fit various financial need thresholds to lower the bill further. In short, it's a joke for schools to act as if handing out a year of education is acceptable pay. Especially as 1) it's the only pay allowed and 2) many of the schools are failing to provide an adequate education. Many will say that these coaches bring the school revenue and are worth their pay. Perhaps. But if any of these coaches even took a minor pay cut, it could ensure every "student athlete" to walk through the doors could get a degree. So, I guess the real question is if education is a goal for these institutions?