Q&A with basketball alum Jerry Stackhouse

On Wednesday, former UNC basketball player Jerry Stackhouse sat down for an interview with journalism professor Charlie Tuggle, Sports Focus and The Daily Tar Heel. Stackhouse, the 1995 National Player of the Year, discussed whether or not student-athletes should be paid, as well as how the Power 5 conferences play a role in that payment structure.

CHARLIE TUGGLE: Jerry, you look at when you played, versus now, versus how things might look 3-5 years from now. What do you see coming down the pipe as it compares to the past with the NCAA?

JERRY STACKHOUSE: Well, I think when I came out in 1993, it was just really a focus on your amateur status ... As it has progressed, the game has grown, NCAA basketball has grown in popularity, the TV deals, everything that you’ve seen become a part of the NCAA brand has grown, and I think people are starting to feel like the players and the students should have a piece of that.

And I think Ed O’Bannon, he raised a big question and took it to court, and it really comes out that it’s right that these students should in some way be compensated.

CT: You brought up salaries paid to coaches, athletic directors, but the coaches are the ones who really are astronomical.

Six million, eight million, ten million dollars a year, when the players are getting not much in terms of compensation, and a lot of people see that as inherently unfair.

JS: I think that causes a problem. What human being would, knowing that you’re generating this type of income, offer the services of these players and then, ‘We don’t want to share with them?’

These are the kids who helped me attain this type of salary from their hard work and their sweat and their effort and their coming together as a team; some way they should be able to reap some of the benefits from that. And like I said, the structure of what that really looks like I don’t know, but if you can find a way to pay the coaches this type of salaries, you should find a way to structure these students in as a part of the deal as well.

CT: When you’re talking about structure, you have to look at the governing body: the NCAA. And many critics down through the years have said this one-size-fits-all kind of approach, it just doesn’t work, even within Division I.

You have North Carolina and Youngstown State, and they’re inherently different programs. So with this movement, that the power conferences are now going to have more autonomy, is that the haves getting more and the have-nots losing out again, or is it recognizing that that’s the way it is?

JS: Yeah, I think it’s really recognizing that that’s how it is. I mean, the bigger, more popular schools should generate more dollars, and it shouldn’t be just spread out evenly for other schools that aren’t generating that type of revenue and that type of attention.

We know what we want — it’s just like we go get a toothpaste. You get Colgate, you get Crest, or you get a no-name brand. You’ve got to pay a little bit more for Crest or Colgate than you do a generic brand, and I think that that’s the same way you have to look at the system with the NCAA.

I feel like the NCAA’s in a tough place right now, you know they’ve allowed for a lot of allowances with the power conferences, with the Big 5 conferences that it’s going to have an effect on everybody... I wish I had the answer to it, how it should pan out, but I am happy that it’s come to the point where we no longer have kids feeling like they’re feeling exploited.

sports@dailytarheel.com