Read the debate intro and Sports Geek’s argument that college athletes should receive compensation while playing.
Today, The Sports Debates is teaching a lesson on how to ruin college football (or any college sport).
Lesson number one, pay the players.
There is no more sure-fire way to ruin the game of college football than to turn it into a simplified version of professional football.
The NCAA has one simple rule for its athletes – they cannot, “Use his or her athletics skill (directly or indirectly) for pay in any form in that sport.” Failure of an athlete to comply with that rule means that they are not eligible to participate in NCAA sanctioned events.
The instant that rule is lifted, all athletes within the NCAA become professionals, and what would follow is a series of events that would destroy college sports altogether.
Using football as the example…
In order to maximize their newfound professional status, the NFL’s eligibility rule of a minimum age requirement would be challenged, and most likely overturned. Since these are no longer amateur athletes we are discussing, the NFL would have no grounds to enforce their rule. The moment a “young” player under this proposed pay-for-play college format is denied access to the NFL, they can respond that they are already getting paid to play, and just want access to the greater funding provided by the NFL. How can the NFL justify that these players are too young to play professional football when they are ALREADY playing professional football? I’ve got news for you… they can’t!
The result would be to see the level of talent within the NCAA ranks substantially decline as players flood the NFL ranks. Don’t agree? Well answer this question – why would an athlete play football for the Miami Hurricanes and receive a $100 per day stipend (for example), when they can play football for the Miami Dolphins and potentially receive millions? The answer – they wouldn’t, and for the very select few who nobly state they would stay “for a college education,” those players would only serve to justify the reason NOT to compensate players.
The NCAA, no matter what the compensation structure looked like, would not be able to compete with the salaries offered by professional organizations. Therefore, the players that were NFL-caliber would immediately leave the NCAA, and only the sub-standard talent would be left behind. That would seriously weaken the NCAA talent pool, essentially transforming it into a “minor-league” or “semi-pro” format, where only the players who couldn’t cut it in the big-leagues were playing.
For those players left behind, the question of how they would be compensated then must be answered. While there are countless details that would have to be negotiated (and I have no interest in delving into that minutia), consider for simplicity’s sake that there are two primary theories on how to offer compensation and funding:
- Provide equal funding to all schools and all athletes, regardless of performance, to ensure equity across the board.
- Provide funding and compensation in direct correlation to performance, recognizing that some people/schools perform better than others.
Both of these options create issues, and both would have long-lasting, negative impact on the sport. Choosing the first option would essentially take recruiting power away from the “big schools,” thus affecting their ability to continue and generate the revenue they are accustomed to. The second option, however, would seriously cripple the “weaker schools” in their ability to provide any kind of real funding, creating even further separation between the “haves” and the “have-nots.”
As a final point, for the very large majority of college athletes, the compensation of receiving a college-level education complete with books, tuition, and room and board is more than enough. For the very small percentage of college athletes that actually go on to compete professionally, they eventually receive more equitable funding for their playing time on the field. The rest of the college athletes willingly (and happily) use their athletic ability as a means to fund their college education.
The average debt for a college student, as of 2007, was listed at $22,700, but when you factor in the implied advantages that a college education brings, which includes access to higher-paying jobs, the “real” value of a college education becomes MUCH greater. Some studies have shown that college graduates can expect to make as much as $1 million – $2 million more in salary over the course of their lifetime than a high school graduate. That sounds like some pretty fair compensation to me, all at the cost of playing a game for a few years while you study!
If you still disagree, and feel like the financial burden of attending college is not that big of a deal, then send me your address so I can happily forward my student loan bills to you every month, and you can pay them off for me!
I think it’s fascinating that your assumption is that these players graduate. What a hilarious statement! These football players don’t go to school thinking degree first, football second. And it would be foolish to design the system as if they do.
You are talking about a mere FRACTION of the entire NCAA football population that leaves school early to play in the pros, and guess what, they go on to make MILLIONS of dollars, all thanks to having played college football.
For the remaining 90% or more of college football players who actually FINISH college, they DO get their degrees, and DO get the opportunity to reap those rewards.
My point is that the current system gives college athletes access to very valuable opportunities that they would otherwise have to pay THOUSANDS of dollars for, and all they have to do is play a game that they allegedly love.
I can’t feel sorry for them, because the amazing advantage that they WILLINGLY accepted isn’t good enough all of a sudden… They’ve gotten an inch, and are demanding a mile!
It’s greed and selfishness.
I agree with Sports Geek, if you go to college on any sort of athletic scholarship, you put football before grades, period. If football works out, they go to the NFL. If football does not work out, they attempt to finish out their degrees. However, those are the lucky ones. Most student athletes devote so much time to sports that their grades plummet. This is the sad reality of college sports.
Nice point, Tucker. If Bleacher Fan is arguing that the implicit value of a college degree makes up for lacking monetary compensation, then it becomes difficult to explain why so few players complete degrees and graduation levels are so low.
Save the sob stories about these poor, suffering athletes!
In Division 1 FBS schools, the AVERAGE graduation rate is 65%. That means that 2/3 of the entire football Div 1 FBS population goes on to complete their degree. I would hardly classify that as “so few athletes”!
When you consider there are 119 schools in this division, and each school has a roster of 105 people, that’s a total population of 12,495 athletes in Division 1 FBS ALONE! When you put those numbers together, more than 8100 student athletes currently playing college football will go on to receive their degree. For those who don’t, the reasons differ from early entry into the NFL draft, to suspension, or failure to make the grade. It’s not like they died of thirst or starvation on the field. For both good and bad reasons, they could not finish playing football… that’s life!
Consider, also, that some of the biggest $$$ schools have some of the highest graduation rates –
Notre Dame – 93%
Nebraska – 83%
Wake Forest – 90%
Penn State – 77%
Texas Tech – 79%
Michigan – 73%
Florida – 72%
All of those schools are WELL above the average!
It’s easy to blame the schools and make them look like the big bad businesses, but these student athletes are HARDLY exploited
How is a rate of 33% of student-athletes failing to graduate a GOOD thing??
When the reason they don’t graduate is because they can’t make the grades in school, or because they get suspended for some illegal activity, or if they go pro and go on to make millions of dollars, I don’t have any sympathy for that situation. They SHOULDN’T graduate!
The fact is that there are THOUSANDS of student athletes getting a college education that otherwise wouldn’t. The MAJORITY of the population we are talking about gains a very valuable benefit from playing college football.
To advocate changing that system so that the remaining 33% can financially benefit, when many are not deserving, and many more are not in need of that financial benefit, is laughable.
The vast majority of Division 1 FBS football players will get their degrees, which is how the system is built.
Bleacher Fan, you don’t sympathize with these guys having no life outside of football because they can’t get jobs to go entertain themselves?
No, I don’t.
That’s called “making a sacrifice to get what you want.”
I had to work full-time for 10 years to get my degree from college. I had to commit myself entirely to that source which provided my means for a college education.
So in that regard, they are no different from me, and no, I don’t feel sorry for them at all. In fact, I ADMIRE them for making the right decisions to do what is best for them, because many other people would take the easy way out and just quit!
Your romantic notion that going to college is about getting an eduction doesn’t reflect the realities of college football, especially. It’s football first, degree second.
It’s not a romantic notion.
Your CYNICAL notion that going to college is about going pro (for example) is not a true reflection of college football.
We have been discussing Div. 1 football… what about Div 2, or Div 3?
I would wager that an even SMALLER percentage of those kids go pro. Why then, if not for the education, does Mount Union continue to attract football talent?
If college football was only about football, then there would not be nearly as many people playing the game.
The fact is that MANY THOUSANDS of people very happily use college football (or other sports) as an avenue to pay for their degree.