(no subject)

[ceebeegee]

I'm watching CNN right now and there is a debate about college athletes and whether or not they're exploited. There is a guy who is actually advocating that NCAA athletes be paid. Oh. My. God. My eyeballs are about to roll right out of their sockets onto the floor. Spare me the fucking violins. Hey, if they want to get paid--go professional. Enter the NBA draft or show up at the NFL camps. But as long as you're in school, your scholarship is your pay. The guy was whining about how much money they generate, and one of the other panelists said exactly what I would've said--that money goes towards other activities that don't generate as much revenue. Because it's school, not a corporation--you're part of the scholastic community (at least officially :-/ ) and there's so much attention and privilege lavished on these programs, it's only fair they give back.

Comments

[nppyinzer.livejournal.com]

I agree with pretty much everything you said, but this is an issue that I've debated both sides of several times over the years, because there's a strong case to be made for giving a stipend to NCAA athletes and for not doing it.

The case for it, in my mind, is this: you have to consider all of the student-athletes in the NCAA, not just the football and basketball players in the programs that generate so much revenue revenue. There are tens of thousands of kids playing NCAA-regulated sports who are never going to turn pro, but are using their scholarships to get an education that they couldn't get otherwise. Kids swimming at Indiana U. of Pennsylvania, members of the women's basketball team at St. Anselm's College, and so on and so on.

As the rules stand right now, scholarship athletes have extremely limited options in how they can get money without losing their eligibility (aside from not having the time to hold down a job between classes, practices, games, etc.) A football player at Colorao who was also an Olympic athlete (skiing, I think, but I'm not positive) lost his scholarship because the NCAA ruled that money from his sponsors in an activity that had nothing to do with the school cost him his amatur standing. Broke kids have lost scholarships because a coach lent him a ten-spot for groceries or took him out for a meal. That, to me, is really stupid.

I don't think that players in big-money factory programs deserve to be paid, but if that's the cost of making it permissible to give the average student-athlete the same stipend that my friend Katie gets as a law student, then so be it.

But I don't think the NCAA has the slightest inclination to do anything to support the majority of the students it's supposed to regulate, because that might run counter to the interests of the big-money programs, and that's what pisses me off.

[ceebeegee.livejournal.com]

The CNN debate only talked about the big revenue producing sports like basketball and football--I'm not sure if the for-advocate had even thought about those other sports, he was panting so hard about how much money the coaches made vs. those poor athletes. Obviously the fencing coach doesn't exactly haul it in ;)

But you're right to bring them up, of course. And those examples you cite are ridiculous--clearly the system needs to be overhauled, but if it's a straight case of salary for playing time, it's obvious the only ones to benefit will be the big $ athletes. No one pays to go watch fencing.

[planga.livejournal.com]

People would go for fencing if they knew how cheap they could get car stereos.