Dear Michael,
I hope you're doing well. I read your article about how college football players should be paid and want to share my thoughts. College football is the only sport I follow anymore and I have certainly thought about this argument a lot, and consistently discuss this with my girlfriend who is not a huge follower of college sports, and her non-sports opinion provides a nice balance to the conversation.
At the end of the day, I do not feel college athletes should be paid anything more than their scholarship awards. You consistently say in your column that college athletes are not paid, never bringing up the fact that they are on scholarship. Maybe this is a fundamental point that you feel everyone is aware of, but it is certainly one worth mentioning, as it is a very critical piece of the puzzle. Unfortunately, you are not the only one to ignore this very important fact. Most of the time this debate surfaces, people always seem to leave out the fact that they are getting a college education for free. A college degree is a very valuable thing, and I see the value of it every day as I have been in the staffing industry for a number of years. Quite simply, whether or not a candidate had a college degree can determine his or her eligibility for a job. You may think that is wrong, but it is the way the world works. And there are much more higher income opportunities presented to those who take advantage of their college education. All too often, people without college degrees can get stuck in low-paying, low-skill jobs that leave them financially unstable for a lifetime. Scholarships pay for tuition, room, board and food, and that doesn't even mention the other perks that football players get (clothes, better facilities, better dining halls, etc.). And when you are talking about tuition at Stanford, Notre Dame or Vanderbilt, that type of money over 4 years is not insignificant. Even out of state tuition at state universities is becoming unaffordable for many. How can this not be mentioned?
Only about one third of Americans have a college degree, and you are treating it like it is nothing, not even mentioning in your article the fact that these kids are giving this amazing opportunity to earn a college degree for free in exchange for playing football (or whatever other sport). Now, I am not so naïve to think that every college athlete is going to be a doctor or an engineer, but they are given that opportunity. You frequently see students majoring in difficult subjects on the roster of a football team, but everyone always seems to think they have easy majors. Some of them certainly do, and I'm sure some of them are simply there to play football, but its not like they are the only non-attentive students on campus. The point is that they are given the opportunity to earn a college degree for free because they are good at football, and that is not something that should be ignored. Without football, a lot of these kids would never attend college, and I happen to think it is good when more kids go to college.
There are 2 questions that I have about paying players that never seem to get answered during these discussions: a) who gets paid and b) where does the money come from? Let's look at the first one.
If we decide to pay college football players, where does it stop, and how is it distributed. If we allow schools (or boosters or whoever) to pay the players, this would widen an already wide gap between the have's and the have-not's. Your Texas, Ohio State, Alabama, Notre Dame programs would be given an avenue to attract even more of the top athletes and now would also be able to provide better financial terms than your Boise State, TCU, Utah and BYU, even though the football teams themselves are somewhat even. The haves bring in more money through TV, boosters and, in many cases, alumni donations, and it really opens up a dangerous can of worms, especially considering all of the scandals with agents that have been unearthed over the past year. Now, what about payment distribution. Do you pay seniors more than freshmen? What if the freshman starts and the senior is a 4 year backup? What if the star quarterback only plays 2 games and then gets injured? These are the questions that get left out of the discussion because they are difficult to answer. What about other sports? I doubt Title IX supporters are only going to let you pay male athletes. And what about championship teams in non-revenue sports? Should the UNC women's soccer team be penalized simply because their excellence isn't recognized on ESPN on Saturdays?
The next question could be fairly obvious on the surface, but becomes difficult with thought and investigation. When it comes to your big football powerhouses like Texas and Ohio State, supplemental money can be easy to find. But what about Western Kentucky or Buffalo? About 25 teams out of 120 Division 1-A/FBS schools turn a profit in athletics. For those 25 teams, discovering extra cash may not be difficult, though even within that small group, once you get past the very top schools, the bottom line can become tight. The large majority of the schools do not pay their coaches multiple millions of dollars and do not generate enough money through football to incur any additional expenses. Over 50 schools lost money on football, and football is the primary revenue stream within the athletic department! How are those schools supposed to pay their athletes? Raise tuition, or taxes? I doubt that will sit well with the rest of the student body. Good luck telling students on financial aid that their tuition is going up so that the university can pay 85 kids to play football, with about 60 of them riding the bench.
Supporting idea of paying college athletes is a very popular viewpoint and I do believe that it is a worthwhile topic of conversation. At the end of the day, the players are risking a lot, a few of the schools do make a lot of money, and we need to make sure the players are not forgotten. I wouldn't be against maybe increasing the amount of the scholarship or something to that effect, but the idea that football players should receive a separate source of income is wrong and would be bad for the sport. I also don't think it be easy for everyone to agree on the process, because you would probably have to get the majority members of the NCAA to agree on the system, which I could also foresee being a problem. It is a fun conversation to have on the surface, but as soon as you begin asking the tough questions, the argument falls apart.
I know that you are a busy person, and that I wrote a long response, but any response to this email is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time. Have a great day.
No comments:
Post a Comment