student reviews

Week 5 Assignment 1

By: Katie Lewis

Instructor Gary Henry

ENG 2001 S04

August 23, 2013

Introduction

Long brutal practices, time away from friends and family, and having a grueling work out schedule are only some examples of what athletes go through on a daily basis. College athletes in particular have worked immensely hard their entire lives to achieve a sports scholarship to an amazing college. Most of these athletes have missed huge family events because of practice, or have had to change their entire lives to be committed to their sport. The most recent debacle among the sporting world, especially college sports, is whether or not college athletes should be paid to play. Most people that hear about the grueling situations these athletes go through would automatically jump to the answer of “yes, they should be paid for their hard work” when in reality most people don’t understand the hurt it would cause smaller colleges as well as the athletes themselves. From the extensive research conducted on this issue; college athletes should not be paid to play due to several issues; such as financially hurting smaller colleges, and inabilities to focus on an education with scandals brewing within the leagues.

A Glimpse into the Life of a High School Athlete

Basketball and football are the top two sports in which high school students strive for excellence in order to be recruited and offered a scholarship to a top name school. A normal day for these athletes is waking up at the crack of dawn to get a practice in before school starts. After a long 8 hour day at school, these students then proceed to their after school practice that last anywhere from 2-4 hours. Once the after school practice is over, these students then go home to complete 2-3 hours of vigorous homework, go to their part-time job, and some of them will even through in an extra work-out before bed. This is an everyday process for these students in hopes that they will succeed well enough to achieve a full ride scholarship to college. Should these students be paid as well? If college students should be paid for their outstanding athletic performance, why shouldn’t high school students be paid as well?

College Athletes

The biggest issue throughout college sports in today’s society is whether or not college athletes should be paid to play. The day of a college athlete consist of at least 3 practices a day, a full day of classes, and perhaps a job to support them in between. Similar schedules to when they were high school athletes. Most of these college athletes are between the ages of 17-21, barely adults in their right mind. What constitutes that these young athletes should be considered as “professionals?” “First, if many Division 1 athletes stop playing, they stop receiving pay. And if it were not for their playing, they wouldn't have been paid in the first place. To claim they are paid primarily to be students, which colleges use to classify them as amateurs, is an assault on common sense. Second, while some Division I athletes receive no financial compensation, all of them - paid or not - put in arduous work schedules. An NCAA study released in 2008 showed they average about 40 hours per week at their sports. Other studies show that college students spend about 25 hours per week on academic activity (class time and preparation). And time for sports isn't only greater in amount but also in importance. Athletes sign up for courses that will accommodate their work schedules (usually avoiding afternoon time slots). Further, it's understood that they'll miss some classes because of work, yet it's risky to skip practices in favor of their studies. Third, by an NCAA rule, Division I athletes are required to sit out a year from their sports if they transfer to another school (Florida Times Union, pp. 4-16).” Does this sound like a professional, or does this sound like a college student?

Revenue from College Sports

For the athlete’s outstanding sporting abilities, they contribute huge earnings for the colleges. What many people do not know is that the money that is earned from these sporting events actually goes back into the schools to help pay for the athletes scholarships as well as many other tools and technology. “According to the NCAA, college athletic programs are big money makers for colleges. Ticket sales, television, radio, alumni donations, royalties and NCAA distributions, combined bring in over $6.1 billion in annual revenue to colleges. This is big money for the schools. It also is a wonderful marketing tool for colleges.” (Sulmasy, pp.2).” Would it be fair to take this money away from the schools as well as the millions of other students that receive scholarships from this money just to pay these select few athletes? Why was it okay for them to conduct similar rigorous routines in high school for no profit, but it’s not okay in college? Well, it’s not okay and it’s not fair to the millions of other students that receive scholarships from this money. These college athletes should feel good about themselves for what they are doing because of the way they are helping these other students be able to attend college, when they normally would not have been able to attend because of not being able to afford the expenses. More of like a “pay it forward” type of view. What would happen if the athletes did receive money for their sporting abilities? Would they continue to be regular college students obtaining an education? What would happen to the leagues?

Splitting up leagues

There have been many suggestions made to split up the Big 10 and the SEC schools to make them into minor leagues. This would allow the athletes to be paid, but what affects would it have upon the other colleges? Not only that, what affects would it have on these athletes as students? “One of the ideas I've come to champion with is the establishment of a kind of superleague, consisting of marquee names like Kentucky, Alabama, Notre Dame, Michigan, U.C.L.A. and the like: maybe 72 or so football teams and 100-plus basketball teams. These teams would openly serve as the minor leagues for professional football and basketball. The players would get wages. They could get an education if they chose -- and that would be a good thing, of course -- but there would be no more pretending that football players were actually students first.” (Nocera, pp.3) Splitting these leagues up gives college athletes the opportunity to choose whether or not they want an education while at college. As a parent, this is a terrible idea. These athletes have had the morals of attending college imbedded into their heads since they were little tikes. Now, to go against what these athletes’ parents have been instilling into their child since the beginning of their life, is not an ethical choice. In today’s economy, is it more important to have a strong education or more important to play sports and not learn any information to help them further in life.

“Only a tiny minority will ever make a living competing in professional sports. The four major sports employ fewer than 5,000 people at the major league level. According to the National Football League Players Association, the average NFL career is now 3.3 years. Moreover, most of these college athletes will end up working in a career unrelated to their athletic prowess or requiring substantial additional skills. The truth is most Division I athletes are fortunate that they received their degree or made substantial progress toward it while competing athletically. For many athletically talented students, college communicates one of the most valuable lessons in life. Whatever one's athletic talents, getting prepared to do something else is essential. Paying students as "professionals" would communicate the worst message possible, that universities can value an individual for athletic prowess only and abandon their educational calling with impunity. Far better to convince talented athletes to get an education and training they will need as they grow than to throw in the towel to "professionalism." (Florida Times Union, pp. 27-29).” Is splitting up these leagues and giving these athletes an option to an education a good idea? What about what would happen to the tiers if these colleges break apart from the rest. “If the big five conferences break away, the impact will be felt throughout college sports. It would force some schools that currently field teams in the top tier of college football to drop to the second tier. It could also mean less revenue-sharing money for some of the smaller schools. There are also smaller schools in the top five conferences that might have difficulty competing financially with the bigger schools.” (McClatchy, pp.8) It’s okay to pay these players and allow the risk for smaller schools to close and lay off thousands of employees? Or how about it’s okay to not educate these students and allow the risk of failure to adulthood. Does this sound like the ideal America you grew up learning about? Are these athletes mature enough to be paid, or have they already shown they are not responsible enough by the scandals presented throughout some athletes?

Scandals

One of the biggest issues throughout these two sports is “boostering”. A booster is someone that sells their name or items with their name on them for money. It is against the rules for college athletes to accept any type of money, good or service for money pertaining to their sporting ability. This is a big problem with young athletes because they are still amateurs when dealing with these types of situations, which is another reason for them not to be paid. One of the most recent, debatable booster issues is one with famous college football player Johnny Manziel. “In the latest and by far most serious report concerning the off-the-field activities of Johnny Football, the NCAA is investigating whether Manziel received money for autographing hundreds of photos, footballs, helmets and other memorabilia in January. ESPN's "Outside the Lines," citing two sources, reports that Manziel received a "five-figure flat fee" from autograph broker Drew Tieman while he was in Miami for the Discover BCS National Championship. Both sources told ESPN they saw him signing but not receiving money (Boren, pp.2).” Do you feel as if these young athletes are responsible enough to be paid if they are already breaking the rules? “Although this is likely to rekindle debate about whether college athletes should be paid, Manziel isn't the best poster child for the movement. He has been a magnet for criticism throughout the offseason, tweeting about being eager to leave College Station, crashing a University of Texas party and having to leave the Manning Passing Academy early. In a press conference, he vowed not to change his behavior, reminding everyone that he's only 20. Shortly after that, his father said in an ESPN profile of his son: "Yeah, it could come unraveled. And when it does, it's gonna be bad. Real bad." (Boren, pp.6-7).” So what is an alternative suggestion made to pay these amateur athletes that would not result in negative behavior? A stipend.

Offering athletes an extra stipend

An alternative suggestion to paying athletes is offering them an extra stipend to help with college expenses. “The biggest issue for the big five conferences is paying players a small stipend in addition to room, board and tuition. The larger schools favor the idea, but haven't been able to get it approved by the NCAA because of opposition by smaller schools, which argue they can't afford the additional cost. The pay issue is a slippery one. Once institutions pay players, what's to keep Texas from outbidding Iowa State for a player's services? (McClatchy, pp.5-6).” This is not a good idea because it will severely hurt the smaller colleges as well hurting the budget for more scholarships, technology, and supplies. “It should also be noted that the life of a major college athlete bears no resemblance to the life of an ordinary college student. These athletes receive the best in accommodations, food, training and tutoring (McClatchy, pp.7).” Is it fair to give these athletes this extra stipend and tell thousands of other hopeful college students that they are unable to receive a scholarship due to lack of money? No it’s not okay and it should not be acceptable to any educational institution. These institutions were created to educate society not to pay them for their sporting abilities.

Scholarships

The scholarships that college athletes earn are more than enough compensation. Not only do these scholarships cover room, board, and tuition; these scholarships also provide these students an education of a lifetime from a top name school. This in turn allows these students to go out in society with the skills and abilities to obtain an outstanding career for the rest of their adult lives. If colleges were to choose to pay their players, this will cut these scholarships for the players as well as other college students. With the cuts, these players would be paid to play but would have to worry about covering these expenses that were already once covered under the scholarship. Wouldn’t this lead back to the same scenario of when the athletes didn’t get paid? One source states “Despite some abuses and irregularities, scholarship programs benefit both students and universities. The students receive substantial financial rewards to be used for educational expenses, enhancing their growth and development. Universities enrich their campus life through athletic discipline, achievement and esprit de corps. To pay students as "professionals" would cause colleges and universities to bolster false hopes of professional sports as a lasting career option and betray the very goals and values they embody as educational institutions.” (Florida Times Union, pp. 27-36)

Another source says “The Colleges recruit young men and woman to play for their respective schools awarding them with athletic scholarships. The reason we have Colleges and Universities is to educate our young people. The colleges expect star performances for their upfront investments, rewarding college players with full paid 4 year college education. (Sulmasy, pp. 11-12).” So, are scholarships still more than enough for athletes or should we pay them and risk offering students an education as well as risking the closure of smaller colleges?

Conclusion

Overall, college athletes receive more than their fair share of “free” money for their playing and hard work, and to pay them would only lead the players to false hopes and failure. It’s not fair to the millions of regular college students to take away their scholarship money to pay the select few outstanding college athletes. They receive more than enough publicity and recognition for their hard work, as well as more than enough free services at a top name school. These athletes have the option to be recruited by professional leagues well before their college years are over, and if they feel as if they should be paid to play, then they have the option to accept that offer. The fact that they have options is more than enough reason to not pay them while they are still considered “amateurs” and they receive more than enough compensation for their age levels. Paying these athletes could result in many of the smaller colleges to close, laying off thousands of workers, as well as not providing our society with the necessary tools and education needed to succeed in life. Education is more important than sports, and colleges are educational institutions that are here to provide just that. Making education a choice among athletes that are already receiving all of these free accommodations from the schools is absurd, and society needs to be reminded that these athletes are still “young adults” with the need to still learn many decision making skills.

References

Allen Sack Christian, S. M. (2008, Mar 16). College athletes are students first and should not be paid. Deseret News. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/docview/351615303?accountid=13931.