Should College Athletes Get Paid?

The enquiry of whether or non college supporters should re reconcile honorarium is of heated up debate in todays times. While umpteen believe that student athletes atomic number 18 entitled to income, It remains undougtibly a concern of moral interest to universities crosswise the country. This paper is going to explain the pros and cons that come with entirelyowing student athletes the right to hear a salary. Should college athletes be paid? Lets take a quick glance at the pros and cons of each perspective. For starters, in my opinion, yes, college athletes should shake up paid. What deserves debate, is the communion of how to get this mounte.From my hold up, in America, you get paid in proportion to the hold dear you bring to the marketplace. College manoeuvres is one, if non the nonwithstanding, place w here(predicate) this isnt the case. its precisely a matter of time to begin with lamers start getting more than a free education. thither argon plenty of con s that come with stip completioniary students to play period of plays. According to entitle IX, a feder on the wholey-mandated law, if conferences and schools decide to increase the value of student-athlete intelligences to tie vivification expenses, they postulate to do it for wo clear forces programs as well.This means that schools would have to, for example, increase the value of womens volleyb tot everyy and softball scholarships as well. Schools have to halt in-accordance with Title IX, otherwise theyre risking their federal funding. And you know theyre non trying to lose out on any money. Another pipe course of action as to why schools should not allow student athletes to get paid is the fact that undersize schools would be at a disadvantage. How would the smaller schools and conferences collapse this? The bigger conferences gravel way more money than the smaller conferences with their huge tv deals.So unless the Big Tens, and SECs of the innovation agree to d onate r levelue to conferences that make afraction of what they make, (think MAC and Mountain westward conferences), wouldnt this create an even wider gap recruiting-wise between the powerhouse conferences and the smaller conferences? ask yourself if you were to choose between playing football for a small school, and a big school thats legally giving you $5,000 in living expenses, which would you choose? Most college athletic programs are already losing money, so how could they afford to all male and female athletic programs, to cover for the athletes living expenses?Another concern to paying student athletes is the question of whether to pay athletes of all sports? Lets be real here mens football and basketball teams are usually the programs that make the most money for universities, so if football frauds and basketball players got paid, does that mean that the mens lacrosse and baseball players would get paid too? Most schools would not have the findings to financially pay athle tes of the fur major sports in the unify states. Finally players are passive going to take under the circumvent money.In my opinion, increasing scholarship amounts to cover living expenses whitethorn keep more or lesswhat of the kids from accepting money, unless its not going to keep them all from doing it. I dont think kids getting an extra $5,000 or so from their Universities wouldnt keep the agents, boosters, etc. , from glumering them cash and benefits. further I must admit, its definitely a step that I believe would at least keep some of the kids from accepting benefits those that merely take the money because of their circumstances or lack of cash for living expenses.There are plenty of beliefs, which middlingify paying student athletes. Jim Tressel gets paid almost to $1 million a year for trying to win as many football games as possible. His players, how perpetually, gull no salary for doing the uniform thing. Although college athletes do get rewarded with schol arship money, there is a debate somewhat the country as to whether that amount is fair to middling salary for all the call on required of student athletes each year. Several Ohio State coaches were recently asked if they imagination college athletes should be paid a salary, and their responses varied. I believe there is a big dissimilitude between paper money and real money, and the scholarships these kids get are only paper money, verbalize basketball coach Jim OBrien. They need to have some real money to walk most with that they can live off of. Student athletes are not allowed to work much under NCAA regulations, and those who are in favor of paying them ofttimes point to that rule as a reason college athletes need money. just now that reason isnt enough for all coaches to share OBriens views toward paying student athletes.Wrestling coach Russ Hellickson receptioned the same question Should student athletes be paid? He came up with a very different response. No, never theless they should be able to get what, say, a Presidential Scholar gets, he said in an e-mail. This should be an educational experience. Presidential Scholars receive climb in-state tuition, room and board, book allowances and miscellaneous expenses a total that OSU media relations estimates to be $12,483 per year for in-state students. That is nearly $2,000 more than an in-state athlete receives, even if they are awarded a full scholarship.Most of that $2,000 falls under the category of miscellaneous expenses, something athletes do not receive money for. The extra scholarship money is to be utilize for athletic tickets, book costs, bus passes anything that students need for living, said Amy Murray, OSU spokeswoman. Some coaches are in favor of keeping things exactly as they are, without raising scholarship levels. Softball coach Linda Kalafatis said she did not feel well compose enough in the topic to know an say to the question for sure, simply she weighed in with her opi nion on whether or not college athletes should get more for what they do.Softball coach Linda Kalafatis said she did not feel well versed enough in the topic to know an answer to the question for sure, alone she weighed in with her opinion on whether or not college athletes should get more for what they do. There are some good arguments out there for it, but I am against it, she said. The fact that our kids get scholarship opportunities and good exposure makes the experience good. One of the issues that may be a problem with paying college athletes is the difference in revenue that each sport brings in through tv contracts and other sources.At OSU, football and basketball both bring in a large amount of money for the university every year, so some may argue that they deserve a percentage of that. But do football and basketball players deserve more than athletes who participate in non-revenue sports? Some coaches chose not to comment on the issue because it is a delicate subject. T hose who did respond felt strongly towards equality. If money is given, all tendered athletes should be the same, Hellickson said. This isnt and shouldnt be the pros. We have more class. Athletics Director Andy Geiger agreed, saying if a compensation blueprint ever went into effect, it would have to be equal for everybody. Thats the only way it works, he said. It would not work, for instance, if only football and basketball players were paid. Title IX calls for scholarship equality in college athletics, so if pay ever was given to student athletes, all sports would belike receive the same amount. The plan that is the most likely to take place in the next fewer days is the one Geiger mentioned during his recent interview.I wouldnt mind descrying a liberalization of the financial aid rules to allow athletic grants and aid to flow closer to the cost of education, he said. As far as players in truth getting salaries no. Staying away from salaries for college athletes was the c onsensus of all coaches who chose to comment on the issue. Im not in favor of salaries, but some straighten out of stipend would be beneficial, OBrien said. When asked how much of a stipend he would like to see, OBrien said that was something he did not know the answer to yet.He said it would have to be discussed at great length before he reached a decision. Another topic that is worth considering when deciding whether or not to pay student athletes is the fact that not all university sports programs earn as much as OSUs. Equality is the key factor in this issue as well. Should a college with high-revenue programs, like OSU, be able to pay more than smaller Division I colleges? Under Title IX, the answer has to be no. Since athletic budgets around the country arent all in as good shape as ours, I dont really know how realistic a plan this is, Kalafatis said.OBrien said he agreed. When you start talking about every sport at every college across the country, thats a lot of money. Eve ry sport would need to receive the same amount, so right now this is not too realistic of an option. Hellickson thinks differently about the realism of the plan. Unfortunately, it will probably be driven through in the next fivesome years by those who believe athletics is more important than education, With the popularity of sports nowadays, leagues are make more money than ever before.The universities are raking in the dough from these large television contracts, and the coaches and everybody else are seeing their fair share. he said. Everybody waits in line for their piece of the pie, yet, the ones who make the system work are the ones who dont even get to taste the crumbs that have fallen onto the table. In fact, while everyone is going up for seconds, the athletes dont even get invited to the dinner table. I think we can all agree that collegiate sports is no longer an amateur enterprise, and I am not going to argue that fact with you.We can save that for a different time a nd different day of the week. Like everything in life, paying collegiate athletes has its pros and cons, but it would certainly save the sport of college basketball if some type of payment plan was installed. College basketball is by far a smaller market than college football is. I would say that more than half(prenominal) of the people that fill out the March Madness brackets dont even pay attention to the season until the month of February rolls around. And there are certainly reasons for that.One is that the sport has to compete with college football and the NFL until late January, and another is that the sport is slowly but surely suffering a slow death. I cant tell you how many times I have watched the Fab Five documentary on ESPN. I have watched it more than Seinfeld reruns, not because of everything they did for the game or because it was a great piece to keep you occupied when you have two hours to kill, but because I am wondering when or if we will ever see a team like tha t again.That squad was put together during the 1991 season, and all five of those players compete at least two seasons. Four of the five checkouted till their junior years, while two of the Fab Five played out their entire years of eligibility in a Michigan uniform. Nowadays, teams do land several of the most givinged players in the country, but they end up leaving after one season. Even if the player is still raw at the position, needs to add on weight or could use another year to tweak his game, he is still off to the next level the second he hears he is first-round material and is guaranteed an NBA contract.Having players persevere for more than one year would supporter create greater teams, as those programs would be able to add to the current talent kinda than just replacing it. When you think of the greatest teams in college basketball, you think of teams that were likely form before you were even born. Thats because the NBA wasnt handing out ridiculously large sums of m oney to these athletes and making it such an easy choice to leave college. It would also help even out the recruiting process, giving some of these other teams a better sapidity at competing for a national championship.The players that are going to be one-and-done only want to play for the best of the best schools, so they choose Duke, Kentucky, siege of Syracuse and North Carolina because it gives them the best chance to win a title in the one season they are on campus. Well, if players were being paid, it would certainly help create a little more of an even playing field. If that player was going to stay in school a little phone number longer, why wouldnt he think about staying close to home or joining a school with a little less talent where he can become the star rather than joining a team already stacked with 5-star recruits?Wouldnt college basketball be a lot more interesting if it had many of the same players every year rather than having to get to know an entire roster eve ry season? You fancy Kentucky was good last season? Imagine if Brandon Knight and DeAndre Liggins had decided to stay for another season and had been a part of that championship roster. There is a reason that teams such as Harvard, Wichita State and Murray State are making noise lately, and it has a lot to do with experience on the roster.