tHurley2010's Blog
The first of these philosophies believes that, since college athletes are largely responsible for generating revenue--after all, people buy tickets to more or less watch them play--they should get a cut of the profits. However, what subscribers to this philosophy fail to recognize is that they do receive a cut of the profit; they just don't receive it in cold, hard cash. They receive it in scholarships, free apparel (shoes, especially), free tutoring, free high quality food, as well as many other services which, you guessed it, are free. The money to pay for all of those commodities doesn't magically appear at the snap of a finger; schools take money out of the athletic department's coffers to provide all of these goods and services. Compare that to a non-athlete student who is just at the university to earn a degree. That student: has to pay (unless on an academic scholarship) an ever increasing tuition for four or more years, has to pay for housing which, should he or she choose to live on campus, is far from cheap, has to pay for books, and has to pay for for things which are free for student athletes.
The other philosophy believes that college athletes chose to play their respective sports and when they signed their letter, they signed their rights for their likenesses to be used to generate revenue for the university and for the NCAA. However, this isn't entirely right. Think about it this way: you are an employee for a corporation. You have an idea for a way to increase profits for the corporation. So you propose the idea to the board, they like it, and they implement the strategy, which does produce a dramatic increase in profits. While everyone around the corporation applauds you for the idea, you don't see anything tangible from your smart and clever approach. College athletes have this happen to them. They are "employees" of the university; they make money for the university for their abilities (instead of ideas, but those two really are the same thing in this case). Yet they don't really see anything tangible from their abilities. I know they do see the apparel, but I'm talking about their perceptions of what is and is not tangible.
So how about a third option? Much like we are different in our values, choices, and circumstances from the next poster in the forums, athletes differ in their values, choices, and circumstances from their fellow athletes within the same sport and between the different sports. So why not give each individual athlete the choice to decide what path they want to walk?
Your high profile football/basketball player doesn't go to the university to become an employee in an advertising agency. He goes to the university because he knows that is the path he must take to get to the NFL/NBA, where he can earn the mega millions. So the athletic scholarship is very low in perceived value to him. Why can't he instead choose to earn a salary?
Your low profile football/basketball player doesn't necessarily go to the university to become a player in the NFL/NBA. He goes to the university because it is a way to pay for his education to potentially become an employee in an advertising agency. So the athletic scholarship is very high in perceived value to him. Why can't he choose to forgo earning a salary to instead receive a scholarship that is instead being wasted on a player who probably won't ever make efficient use of it? The same can be said for the lower profile sports such as track/field, gymnastics, golf, soccer, and many other of the so called minor sports, and women athletes who, other than the WNBA, don't have professional leagues to further their sports careers.
My whole point of this rant is: athletes are NOT equal, so why do we give them just one blanket option for compensation? It's apparent that, because of their differences in career goals and abilities, that an athletic scholarship is going to mean a heck of a lot more to a player whose athletic career ends when he or she graduates than an athlete who has a future in the NFL, NBA, or MLB. Perhaps it is time for the NCAA to recognize that every athlete is an individual and every individual is different from each other. Perhaps it is time for the NCAA to stop giving one option, and start giving each athlete the option to choose what he or she thinks is best for him or her.
# 2
tHurley2010 @ Jul 19
That's where the NCAA comes in; they don't leave it up to the schools to choose how much money the athletes make. Basically, the price of the tuition plus ~$2,000. While that may create a division among schools; for example, the cost of tuition is more at Harvard than it is at Nebraska. However, the athlete would still have to pay tuition, just like any other student. Which means that athletes across the nation aren't going to choose a school based on who can pay them more, but rather they'll make their decisions much like they do with the policies the way they are.
I feel that the scholarship money given to athletes who really don't care about getting an education could be used better elsewhere. That's why I think there should be a choice: let the athletes choose to accept the risks, instead of forcing the choice upon their shoulders. I guarantee that if the NCAA would let athletes choose to be paid instead of receiving a scholarship, people would stop reinforcing the perception of the "poor college athlete."
I feel that the scholarship money given to athletes who really don't care about getting an education could be used better elsewhere. That's why I think there should be a choice: let the athletes choose to accept the risks, instead of forcing the choice upon their shoulders. I guarantee that if the NCAA would let athletes choose to be paid instead of receiving a scholarship, people would stop reinforcing the perception of the "poor college athlete."
tHurley2010
9
542 Forum Posts
18 Blog Entries
90 News/Blog Comments
0 Reader Score Votes
2 Friends
1 Chalkboard Messages
0 Screenshots
0 Videos
22,420 Arena Visits
tHurley2010's Blog Categories
tHurley2010's Screenshots (0)
tHurley2010 does not have any albums to display.
tHurley2010's Friends
Recent Visitors
The last 10 visitor(s) to this Arena were:
tHurley2010's Arena has had 22,420 visits
- asiameNiLd
- BrianChida
- charmdateNiLd
- charmingdateNiLd
- MalibuTaylor
- mpt117
- qpidnetworkNiLd
- Raymondbus
- sugars
- Warrenpes
tHurley2010's Arena has had 22,420 visits
Working...
The problem I see with the option to either take a scholarship or receive a salary is that this could lead to bidding wars for blue-chip high school athletes. So schools with large endowment funds (like Notre Dame, for example) would be able to throw more $$ at potential "employees" versus schools that don't have as much money to spend. You make a good point in regards to the players who use the college years as a vehicle to the professional ranks versus average players who are there for degrees and aspire to become coaches or whatever, but this could lead to division in the locker rooms as punters are looked down on by the running backs who are earning more $$ and the team concept (and the school they represent) falls by the wayside.
For a long time I've thought it proper to give student-athletes on full scholarship a modest stipend for spending money. The idea that a group of players from Ohio State had committed a gross violation because they wanted to get some tattoos and didn't have money to pay for them so they bartered with the owner and gave him their jerseys (emphasis on their) is absurd. I think the best way to move forward is to provide that stipend of disposable income so that they have some cash to do whatever they want in their free time.....this retains the student-athlete model and gives the athletes a taste of the $$$$ they help generate for the universities.