Home > Politics, News & Issues > Sports News & Opinion > Sports News & Opinion (Other)
Results so far:
| Yes | 44% | 470 votes | Total: 1077 votes | |
| No | 56% | 607 votes |
Yes
Created on: February 03, 2008 Last Updated: October 31, 2008
I want to state clearly that my decision is based solely on the present situation, the way college athletics are run these modern days. Long gone are the days of jalopies, felt school pennants, saddle oxford shoes and funny hats on students rooting their team to victory on fall Saturdays. Today season tickets are sold-out before the season begins, at the major football colleges, with contributors of $5,000 or more (to the school's athletic fund) getting primo tickets in return. A "gift" from the institution to the giver. Funny thing is most of those contributors are fans and not alumni, who write off the $5,000 as a charitable donation on their income tax.
Recently, at the University of Arkansas, one of their stellar performers, who came from an impoverished background, was investigated for driving an expensive car he certainly could not afford to pay for. Such a marque player cannot hold down a part-time job, go to school and still memorize playbooks and practice. There was a possibility that the NCAA would not let this player play in the school's bowl game. In the end, the player played in the bowl game, then immediately filed for the NFL draft as a junior, foregoing his senior year of college eligibility. This means Arkansas lost a player because he was tired of all the hard work, for no pay (at least pay that we know of).
Meanwhile, the bowl games and television revenues paid to the NCAA are in the hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars, each year! With these funds we see great new additions to the stadiums at these major football colleges. Most no longer seat a measly 40,000 fans and students, they seat 80-100k. This is so they can get more contributors in the seats. Add to that the schools also use the TV money for special box seating, for the school's really big contributors. Sky boxes and the like afford the VIPs waitresses, who bring them drinks and snacks so they don't miss a minute of football. Ordinary folk have to stand in long lines for a hot-dog at halftime and we won't mention the bathroom luxuries sky boxes afford those people who really have to go bad.
I read on-line that in the 2006-7 season, when lite-weight NCAA Division 1 school Boise State finished undefeated (13-0) and won the 2007 Fiesta Bowl (against perennial powerhouse Oklahoma), the athletic department for Boise took home a check for nearly $3 million. That is after (bold print) all their expenses were paid. Their total prize for winning was $4.5 million!
A report said that most of that money went into new press box and a luxury suite complex near their stadium at the university (where they have blue turf). That same report had this to say, "The school used about $500,000 for academic scholarships." They then quoted the assistant athletic director for media relations (how much do they pay that title?) as saying, "We wanted to be able to give back to the university on the academic side." Wasn't that sweet to think of the academic side for a moment like that?
Do they ever say any of the booty was divided between the college players who actually won the game, netting the windfall? Why isn't there some report like we see in the sports news following the World Series (baseball), where the winner's team members (all, A-Z) get either full or partial shares of the loot? Even the bat-boy gets something for all his donated time and effort, at the successful conclusion of a long hard season. Why shouldn't college football athletes (and basketball too) get paid and paid well, when they win the big one?
The point of all this is that with the money involved in college athletics, college athletics no longer has anything to do, really, with college. It has become a professional sport, where slave labor is used, while using the pretense that the rules say a college athlete has to be an amateur. Again, those days are long gone.
Amateur athletics at colleges and universities are now called intramural sports. Intramural sports do not require coaches to be hired, at $1 - 4 million a year, bringing in a staff requiring another million between them all, just to set up intricate plays (how much do professors get paid?). Intramural sports do not require athletic dorms, or 100,000-seat stadiums, or elaborate practice facilities, or 64 color-combo uniforms (home and away). Intramural sports mean simply this: college kids letting off some mental stress by running around on grass for an afternoon. It is the source for such sayings as, "Its not whether you win or you lose ...."
That is the no-brainer part about college athletics, again referring only to those of the major university variety. When you actually start to realize the first word in "college athletics" is "college," its hard not to recognize this word primarily means academics. This is so much so that they have to add "athletics" to the word "college," just to lead our focus out of the classroom, to the stadiums and gyms, which is not the usual focus when one says "college." It becomes very important to start looking back at the classroom focus, to see just how much major college athletics disrupts that setting. After all, without the word "college" we are only talking "athletics" here.
For all the money big time college football (and basketball) earns, practically nothing becomes a benefit for a student seeking to go to college to make something out of his or her life. A regular old "geek" student has to go into debt or have his or her parents go into debt, so that an advanced education can be obtained. Meanwhile, there are 50 or so "scholarships" given yearly by the school's athletic department, to boys who may or may not be academic scholars, on a college-university level. It is a shame, especially with college tuitions doubling over the last decade, reaching phenomenal levels.
So, to conclude this line of thought, yes college athletics should be paid; but (a big but), they should not be attending a college to play professional sports. As riotous as the $5,000 a year contributor fans will probably become, all of these major "college" teams should become the semi-pro teams they really are. Model them after Major League Baseball's minor leagues. Schools can sell all of the infrastructure built by athletic directors to new owners for these teams (for a pretty penny) and turn that money into real scholarship programs for real students. What we now call students can then focus entirely on "playing pro ball" and be paid. They can play more than four years too; and, if the NFL has to fill for an injury need, call the teams you have a contracted allegiance with. They will send up a center or wide receiver instantly. Buying and selling human beings is still slavery, but when you actually pay the slaves well they smile more.
Most importantly, this new way we won't be hearing any more news reports about former NFL stars, supposedly graduates of major universities (at least attendance for four-five years), who since have fallen into troubling financial times. We won't hear that someone took them for all they had earned so badly that they have to publicly announce they were duped because they cannot read or write. Don't laugh, it has happened for real twice that I know of.
Learn more about this author, Robert Tippett.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
Created on: April 16, 2008 Last Updated: October 31, 2008
"There are 380,000 NCAA student athletes, and most of us will go pro in something other than sports." NCAAstudent.org
The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is the governing body for hundreds of thousands of student-athletes playing dozens of sports at colleges and universities all over the country. NCAA-sanctioned athletics are divided into three divisions: I, II, and III, as well as several sub-divisions in certain sports like football and ice hockey. The increase in popularity of college sports in recent years, and savvy marketing by the NCAA, has comfortably padded the pocketbooks of many universities, generating revenue that rivals that of some professional sports teams. A heightened interest in the performance of elite student-athletes involved in these sports has sparked a debate among fans that perhaps college athletes should be paid for their "services" to their schools. As a former NCAA Division III student-athlete, I find the idea that college athletes be paid for their participation ludicrous.
When people hear the words "NCAA" or "college sports," they usually think of the players they watch on TV during March Madness or the BCS Championships. What most fail to realize is that the NCAA oversees not just these elite-level student-athletes, but the hundreds of thousands of others who compete in oblivion in lower divisions, smaller schools, or less popular sports. The main argument supporting payment of collegiate athletes is that their performances increase notoriety for their universities and generate millions of dollars of income in the form of ticket sales, merchandise, alumni donations, and other financial contributions; thus, they should be allowed to share in some of that money. However, not all sports programs generate the same kind of revenue.
The first issue that must be addressed when discussing the issue of payment for collegiate athletes is this disparity between the "haves" and the "have-nots." For example, compare the annual operating budgets of major Division I school and perennial college basketball powerhouse the University of Connecticut and Skidmore College, a small Division III school and my alma mater. Both schools support several varsity sports and hundreds of student-athletes, all governed by the NCAA. According to the University of Connecticut website (www.uconn.edu), their annual budget is $1,601.4 million; approximately $50 million of that supports the athletic department alone. Conversely, the total operating budget for Skidmore College (www.skidmore.edu) hovers around $110 millionfor the entire school. While specific information on Skidmore's athletic department spending was unavailable, it's safe to say it's considerably less than $50 million. The questions that have to be asked, then, are these: How would the NCAA calculate appropriate payment for Skidmore's student athletes, whose performances don't produce any income for the school? How much could a school like Skidmore really afford to pay its student-athletes? Would large, financially viable athletic programs like UCONN's be expected to share the wealth with smaller schools? Or would small schools like Skidmore choose, instead, to do away with athletics altogether rather than try to find the money to pay players?
The second issue to address is the "payment" already in place for many elite student-athletes. Most large university athletic programs, because of their huge budgets, support their players very well. Not only do many of these athletes receive a college education free of charge thanks to generous athletic scholarships, but factor in the thousands of dollars spent on each player for gear, equipment, clothing, travel, expenses, housing, free sporting event tickets for family and friends, services like laundry and private tutoring, and per diem allowances for incidentals and you've got quite a nice compensation package for an 18 or 19 year old student. As a Division III student-athlete, the only perks my teammates and I enjoyed were that we didn't have to wash our own practice gear or uniforms, and the dining hall staff would pack us a box of stale sandwiches and bruised fruit for our road trips. There were no scholarshipsin fact, most of us worked on-campus jobsno free gear, no luxury coaches or private planes, no high-end hotels, often no fans at our games. If players were paid for participating in college sports, would these perks for athletes in elite programs go away? Would smaller schools be forced to provide the same privileges for their players? Would student-athletes be expected to pay for these things from their earnings? Or would a paycheck signed by the NCAA come tucked neatly into a new pair of sneakers or a fresh set of shoulder pads?
The final issue that should be addressed is the ethical dilemma that arises when you consider the possibility of paying college students for, essentially, an extra-curricular activity. Granted, there is a huge commitment involved in collegiate athletics, even at the lowest leveltime away from classes, pre-season and in-season workouts, long hours of travel, missed or shortened school breaks and vacations, etc. Yet there are plenty of other college students who devote just as much of their time to their own extracurricular activities that result in publicity and even revenue for their schools. Consider those who participate in student government, drama, music, volunteer organizations, and campus life organizations; if college athletes are paid for the "work" they do for their school, shouldn't these students be compensated as well? How would enrollment and recruitment be affected if only athletes received payment for participation in their chosen extracurricular activity? Would the quality of American higher education suffer because of this reallocation of fundsless money available for academic programs, staff positions, physical plant upkeep, etc.?
There are, without a doubt, many student-athletes who should be paid for their performances. However, these are the athletes who will eventually make their careers in professional sports. Since many of them decide to leave college early to pursue these opportunities, there's not really a benefit to paying them while still in college. Certainly, keeping elite-level athletes enrolled in school longer would mean increased revenue for the university, but neither the NCAA nor any college or university has the ability to match the kind of payday that these athletes will eventually see with their professional contracts. When faced with the decision of staying in college or going pro, most players who can will undoubtedly go. Elite student-athletes are in the extreme minority among collegiate players; the vast majority of the NCAA's more than 380,000 participants choose to play the sports they love for free, in front of crowds of tens or dozens, with little or no recognition even from their peers on campus, and without many of the benefits that those at the top level enjoy. College athletics should remain as pure as possible for these players, who most definitely will one day go pro in something other than sports.
Learn more about this author, Erin Carr.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.