Spring Break
To Pay or not to Pay, that is the question
The debate continues as to whether or not student athletes should get a "living" stipend.
By: Brett Sebastian
Issue date: 6/24/09 Section: Sports
Then again, the NCAA has had little interest in fairness, with such institutions as the BCS and disproportionate TV time and exposure for the major schools and conferences among other things. The NCAA embraces neither fairness nor the vast sums of cash they get every year, choosing instead to live in a middle ground of hypocrisy.
Condemning universities for rules violations and promoting the equality of all student athletes while selling TV rights to major conferences for billions and setting up an environment for the already wealthy schools to make much more off the hard work of student athletes isn't exactly an equal system. The trade off is a free education, which is all well and good, but at the cost of little to no personal funds and a strict rule book keeping athletes from making potential income off such deals as sponsorships.
None of this factors in the fact that many athletes chose to forego their degree and declare for the pros. For every college junior who makes millions, many more fall through the cracks. With the controversial NBA rule requiring one year between high school and the pros, many basketball players are more willing to go overseas to make their paychecks than take a year in college.
If the NCAA wishes to walk the line in the middle, choosing neither side, then it might consider loosening its rulebook. Obvious offenses like cheating and having boosters pay athletes would be enforced, but if a student athlete were offered a sponsorship of some kind then they should have all the right to take it; they are adults, after all. A&M enjoys a lucrative sponsorship by Adidas and sells ads at football and basketball games. Even schools like New Mexico and San Diego State enjoy sponsorships from such academically pertinent institutions as casinos. The A&M archery team, which isn't subject to NCAA rules, has athletes who enjoy sponsorships. The extra cash and equipment hasn't diminished the scholastic and on-the-field prowess of that team. How bad would it really be if the Aggie tennis team took up sponsorship or if the track team had an Adidas scholarship the athletes themselves could enjoy?
At the end of the day it comes down to practicality. A stipend or compensation would be nice, and in some cases might even encourage an athlete to stay all four years. Still, only a handful of schools could actually afford the added expense. Regardless, as pros make millions and amateur athletes become more and more like professionals themselves, the debate will continue.
Condemning universities for rules violations and promoting the equality of all student athletes while selling TV rights to major conferences for billions and setting up an environment for the already wealthy schools to make much more off the hard work of student athletes isn't exactly an equal system. The trade off is a free education, which is all well and good, but at the cost of little to no personal funds and a strict rule book keeping athletes from making potential income off such deals as sponsorships.
None of this factors in the fact that many athletes chose to forego their degree and declare for the pros. For every college junior who makes millions, many more fall through the cracks. With the controversial NBA rule requiring one year between high school and the pros, many basketball players are more willing to go overseas to make their paychecks than take a year in college.
If the NCAA wishes to walk the line in the middle, choosing neither side, then it might consider loosening its rulebook. Obvious offenses like cheating and having boosters pay athletes would be enforced, but if a student athlete were offered a sponsorship of some kind then they should have all the right to take it; they are adults, after all. A&M enjoys a lucrative sponsorship by Adidas and sells ads at football and basketball games. Even schools like New Mexico and San Diego State enjoy sponsorships from such academically pertinent institutions as casinos. The A&M archery team, which isn't subject to NCAA rules, has athletes who enjoy sponsorships. The extra cash and equipment hasn't diminished the scholastic and on-the-field prowess of that team. How bad would it really be if the Aggie tennis team took up sponsorship or if the track team had an Adidas scholarship the athletes themselves could enjoy?
At the end of the day it comes down to practicality. A stipend or compensation would be nice, and in some cases might even encourage an athlete to stay all four years. Still, only a handful of schools could actually afford the added expense. Regardless, as pros make millions and amateur athletes become more and more like professionals themselves, the debate will continue.
Be sure to include your name, major, and class year. Submissions without this information are subject to deletion.
By submitting a comment, you agree to thebatt.com's Terms of Use.
You may also send a Mail Call to The Battalion at mailcall@thebatt.com