Here’s my perspective. On the surface, the college players are getting ripped off, in that they’re producing far more value for the schools than they’re getting in return. No doubt about that, especially the ones who don’t go on to professional careers.
But the conundrum is that I strongly suspect that if the players would be paid, they would lose the cachet that they currently have. The identification of these guys and teams as being a part of the school would be weakened, and they would essentially become like any other minor league. And the thing is that minor league teams don’t draw a lot of revenue, and minor league players are not paid much. So the bottom line is that if college players were paid their true market value, that market value itself would decline significantly.
No way to know for sure this is true, but I strongly suspect that it is.
Part of the problem with many schools is precisely that academic advisors have basically no power over the athletic departments. An academic advisor can recommend academically rigorous class, and lay out a degree plan that will leave a student with an excellent degree, but what happens when taking those classes, or following that degree plan, conflicts with the student’s sports obligations?
This isn’t helped by the fact that most college athletic scholarships, especially in the big D1 sports like football and basketball, are given on a year-by-year basis, and can be easily yanked for sub-standard athletic performance. The football program might not be able to stop a player from signing up for whatever classes he wants to take, but they can easily retaliate by withdrawing his scholarship.
I think the players are generally just meat to most fans, who would be happy to remain ignorant of any financial transactions as long as the guys in their school’s colors beat the guys in the other school’s colors. A multi-billion dollar industry isn’t going to melt away because starters around the nation are driving nice cars to class.
The circular argument of the players getting their just economic rights might actually result in killing the process that leaks out just a little of the pot to them is a really creative one, though, and should be forwarded to Lead1, the new lobbying arm of the NCAA D1 athletic directors.
In case this wasn’t clear, it’s not about the fact that the players would have a lot of money if they were paid to play. Rather, it’s about the fact that if the players were clearly free agents, then their identification as a school team would be weakened.
Professional players clearly have a lot of market value despite being mercenaries, but that’s because professionals are the only game in town and are the peak level of play. But the college players are minor league, and the only thing that makes them big stuff is that students and alumni identify strongly with them by virtue of the school tie.
And again I’d say that athlete needs to weigh his or her priorities. Do you want the free education that they say you can have, or do you want to give up your athletic scholarship to pursue your academic desires. And by the way, I 100% agree that the year to year scholarship is bullshit. Coaches want high school kids to commit dammit! when they, the ones making big money, are held to no such commitment.
And where they’re not, and they interfere, they’re fired.
[QUOTE=Barkis is Willin]
If it’s such a burden, they’re free to forgo a college athletic career and experience college the same way as the other 95% of students who aren’t athletes. They can take whatever classes they want, apply for other scholarships, work part time to help pay for it.
[/QUOTE]
They’re not. The ones caught up in this might never have had the opportunity to attend a top-flight university absent their athletic ability.
The university has a moral obligation to educate those it admits. If it admitted them without the tools, it should give them the tools- not hide or actively deny them those tools, then blame them for it.
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
Bah. They’re getting a free education, often at elite universities, to play a freaking game. For the 90% that don’t end up playing a game for a living, they have an education that everyone else goes deep into debt for.
[/quote]
You should probably do some reading before you jump into an ongoing discussion on a topic about which you know absolutely nothing.
The thing that makes them big stuff is their ability to win games and make the fans, boosters and alumni happy.
The argument that not paying them is in their best interests is one that only college athletics tries to make. Nowhere else in the country is making money a bad thing.
Overall, it’s not clear that colleges are getting rich at the expense of athletes.
There are a handful of schools that take in big bucks from football and basketball. The majority of schools, however, LOSE money on those sports. Many schools would be better off scrapping football or dropping to a lower division.
Why don’t they? People are quick to blame “rich alumni,” but you know what? The rich alumni who really care about their schools and who write big checks for labs and libraries generally don’t care about how the football team is doing.
Frequently, a small number of big-mouthed alumni wield excessive power and influence. And those guys tend to give big bucks to the athletic department- NOT to the school as a whole.
You’re not that much of an outlier, at least not for football. NCAA football does an awful job of preparing players for play at the NFL level. In particular, most quarterbacks and offensive linemen are going into the draft with bad habits that need to be untaught before they can be effective players. The NFL should have a developmental league that prepares kids for the NFL, plays fast, has NFL style offenses and linemen that can put their hands on the ground.