The Debate on Paying College Athletes- Opinion based on facts

I listened to a recording of former athletes and a few numbers guys talking about unions in college athletics and how student athletes should be compensated on Huffington Post.  To say I am surprised by what I heard would be a lie, but it did give me quite a few things to consider in the debate.

I have always sided on the purity of college sports, but I do understand this is a gross misrepresentation.  There is nothing pure about the modern athletic endeavors of a college, but there never has been.  Most of the rivalries college teams use, and in many cases the mascots, are deeply rooted in history.  This is what makes this sport great.  Knowing Michigan pride on being called wolverines coincides with its disdain for people from Ohio over the battle for Toledo; realizing why Mizzou and Kansas will never like each other because of the battle between free states and slave states; understanding Georgia Tech chose gold for a school color as an intentional insult to the University of Georgia are only three of numerous instances that make people cheer on Saturdays in the fall.  And all of this comes at a price.

The jersey you see in the photo to the right of this blog was bought with the same intent it was sold: to honor star Georgia Tech receiver Calvin Johnson.  One of the ideas presented on the recording is that a portion of profits from items such as these should be saved in an account for student athletes to collect once they graduate, or used to complete a degree once the pro career doesn't work out as they dreamed.  I would support this fully.  If schools continue to sell a player's jersey the day after he or she has graduated, that athlete should receive a portion of the profits.  However, I cannot under any circumstances support the idea of paying athletes just because they "make" money for a school.

No one disputed Andrew Zimbalist, a professor at Smith College and author of "Unpaid Professionals," when he said at the FBS, athletic revenue makes up at most 10 percent of a schools profits.  This dispels a notion that schools would suffer financially if they didn't have an athletic department, which is an argument most people claim.  Yael Averbuch, member of the U.S. national soccer team, simply stated she tailored her athletics around being a student in an effort to become a professional athlete.  She admitted she didn't know the numbers behind paying athletes, but did say she felt like an employee, which to me sounds like a choice she made, not a school requirement.

I understand most student athletes are not on full scholarship, but I asked a former FCS football player if he ever went hungry.  He said no.  He cited a 7-3 principle, which means he is entitled to three meals a day, seven days a week.  This is a provision for food allowances included in the NCAA bylaws (16.5.2 on page 210), and it can be greater than what a school lists as its maximum cost for meals for regular students.  One thing I do not agree with in the bylaws is student-athletes who do not receive athletic financial aid are not covered under many meal provisions, unless they have a meal plan with the school.  However, according to the bylaws, additional supplements and certain snacks are already provided to the student-athlete at his or her request.

The former football player said he actually feels blessed because unlike many college grads he knows, including his wife, he doesn't have to worry about student loans: never has and never will.  He said everything he needed was taken care of: housing, school books, and especially tuition.  Assuming this policy has not changed at the school he graduated from, a student-athlete with a full-ride, whose major require 120 credit to obtain a degree, taking 12 credits for 10 semesters at Georgia Southern (completely FBS beginning the fall of 2014), made over $30,000.  This total does not include room and board, meal plans, books and the other peripheral necessary costs of attending school.  Regardless, most star athletes are full-scholarship players at their respective schools, meaning the do not pay for their college except by committing to their studies and their sport.  If they can't understand how they are already paid, then they, as with Averbuch, are going for a shot in the pros: something Scott Jennings with the Courier-Journal in Louisville, KY says only 2 percent of student athletes achieve.

One thing that all four of the panelists agreed on is there needs to be changes and reform in the NCAA.  I concur.