FanNation - The Republic of Sport

The guy from Duke and the guy from UNC were likely offered scholarship to both schools and chose one over the other. Very few colleges make athletes meet their scholastic minimums for non-athlete students.

Quality of education? All colleges are year round these days. If a student-athlete can't handle a full course load during the season he is free to make it up in the off-season. That's an individual issue. Peyton Manning went into his senior year having already completed all necessary course work for his degree. Vince Young was dumb as a box of rocks when he entered college and isn't a whole lot smarter, now. But, at least they are getting the OPPORTUNITY which most otherwise wouldn't have gotten without football.

Considering many of these kids would be flipping burgers, bagging groceries, or dealing crack without their scholarship they are being given the absolute BEST thing you can give a kid that age. An opportunity. And adhering to the semi regimented rules in college will help them grow up much faster. Paying them to play sends the wrong message entirely to an 18 year old kid.

darn it. Did it again.

My computer will only allow me to type 500 characters...how do you write such a long reply?

if you start paying players then college football will turn into the nfl...boring boring boring

No, thats an erroneous assumption. To pay them flat out would be turning the NCAA into the NFL, but to provided additional compensation to their scholarship packages wouldn't or to provide additional educational based incentives wouldn't either. Currently, NCAA athletes scholarship packages don't cover basic cost of attendance. Also, don't forget the little men who are walk ons...these players put in equivalent work but don't get any benefits under the current regime.

Rhonnie- "...the majority of collegiate athletes don't graduate..."

An unbsubstantiated claim that is completely untrue.

Google is your friend. A quick search for found this:

http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/instAggr2006/1_0.pdf

These figures are for students who entered school in 1999-2000.
Scholarship athletes consistently average ABOVE the norm in terms of non-scholarship graduation rates.

Sorry, but you lost me after that one.

Cowboys-Celtics-ChiSox +1

I can see relaxing the rules on the amount of hours a scholarship-athlete is allowed to work as long as the NCAA is willing to physically verify the kids are actually going to work, AND they were maintaining their grades. I also wouldn't be adverse to University paid insurance policies that would pay the kid as much as $100k IF they received a sports related injury that ended their ability to play and as much as $1mil if they are permanently physically disabled as a result of playing for the school.

But to pay them any kind of stipend beyond the tuition, room and board, meal money, etc that they already receive? No way.

Have to side with cowboys on this. These kids are given enough to get through their college days, and to start and pay players would only encite them to want more and more over time.

rhonnie type your arguement in the comment box then copy and paste into the arguement box.

I already tried to argue the same point Rhonnie.

It seems people look past the fact that the NCAA is making loads of money off of these kids (much much more than their tuition, room, and board combined) and most of these college kids don't even make it to the professional level.

Sure they're given an opportunity to take classes for free and make something of themselves, but how much time do you expect a I-A BCS conference player to spend studying when they have to concentrate on practice, remembering plays, and work outs 24/7?

1. You are looking at all collegiate athletes, not just athletes within the money generating sports such as football and basketball (these are the two relevant sports, as its their educational experience that we doubt.)

2. Why does an additional 1,000 a year per athlete regardless of ability hurt? Especially if tied to academic performance, if the NCAA wants to continue to assert educational primacy as the basis for this policy, then why can't a system which would entice collegiate football players and basketball players to actually graduate (with meaningful educations and experiences) be pointblank rejected. If you want to know how bad the situation for collegiate athletes is please review a case (I forget the actual title) in which a basketball player from Creighton sued for educational negligence...he had a sixth grade comprehension level but was accepted to Creighton. Clearly, this situation didn't work, so please review this case of you doubt the severity of this situation (although the court reject his argument, their rejection was based on a fear that teachers nationwide would begin to get sued under a similar theory.) Currently, the only viable argument against playing collegiate athletes is title 9 concerns...however these are easily circumvented.

3. Do you know the history of amateurism? The concept originated in Ancient Greece with the Olympics (however, these athletes were ALWAYS paid, it has been proven that paying athletes did not lead to the demise of the ancient Grecian games as originally assumed. ) The term Amateurism was first officially used in Victorian England, it was designed to protect upper crust athletes from Cambridge and Oxford, who played against each other for fun. Essentially, the upper crust didn't want their students equated with Professional athletes, who were considered the lower class. Amateurism came to America with the invent of Sports Clubs, and the NCAA adopted it after numerous deaths on the collegiate gridiron, specifically one at NYU (President Roosevelt wanted collegiate sports to be nationally regulated and wanted to protect the safety of athletes.) In 1909 collegiate sports were played in an intermural format, they were manned and regulated by students, this was the only accurate application of NCAA amateurism (protect the students let them learn and have fun.) However, over time collegiate sports metamorphosed into over commercialized money making ventures. Now, collegiate sports are played throughout the nation, televised throughout the nation (11 billion dollar deal with CBS) with teams traveling throughout the nation, coaches aren't event faculty members, they are bought in only because of their skill and ability to WIN (not to educate)and they are paid into the millions for winning and not educating (Please refer to 40 Million Dollar Slaves for more explanation.) Furthermore, did you know that coaches, individually, are paid millions for getting their athletes and schools to endorse specific brands (Coach K from Duke)...now what about this situation spells amateurism? See, you must know the history of amateurism in order to know that today's implementation of collegiate amateurism doesn't align with traditional forms. Its was designed to protecting a group of students....so why does paying them additional educational incentives hurt and violate this principle? Today we are using amateurism to exploit a group of college students...and that is just wrong!

Why do we do this, .its because the NCAA wants to protect its tax exempt status which is being challenged by politicians nationwide. Companies are getting advertisements on a tax free basis and that must stop. If amateurism was truly in place, I assure you collegiate coaches wouldn't get 32 million dollar contracts (Nike Saban.) I am curious as to how you justify the exorbitant payment of coaches, athletic directors, and Dean's but not athletes. The slippery slope excuse doesn't work, no one said hand athletes a check based on their skill...I said give them educational incentives or establish a trust fund for all athletes, regardless of skill, to be given to them upon graduation (track athletes actually are able to us a similar method, since many of them are Olympic athletes, and the Olympics long abandoned amateurism, defining it as a antiquated hypocritical notion.) I HATE TO GO HERE, I REALLY DO but it does seem as though you are basing your argument on a social economic bias...."the poor athletes are getting a benefit and they need to be happy." The prior executive director of the NCAA is equally pissed with the modern application of Amateurism...no one practices amateurism except for the NCAA...the one billion dollar (tax free) generating organization.

Rhonnie your arguments on this topic were incredibly articulate, relevant and strong. And WAY over this guys head. Keep up the good work. You'll mange to get your message across to many that will possess the aptitude to understand you...