Paying athletes

[GolfFather]

<p>It is very interesting to me that, whenever this topic comes up, the almost universal knee-jerk response is to “pay the players.”</p>

<p>The logic is: the schools make a lot of money “off of” the players, therefore the players should get their rightful share.</p>

<p>But this only applies to a very, very, very small percentage of Div I athletes (a few star football and basketball players at the very top programs).</p>

<p>No one is making money off of the third-string football player. No one is making money off of the fencing athlete.</p>

<p>So, who to pay and what to pay (ethics issues aside) are impractical and a non-starter.</p>

<p>There is a much simpler and more honest solution: eliminate athletic scholarships. An outstanding 300-pound football player with D grades is not more deserving of a free ride than a thick glasses-wearing physics major with A grades.</p>

<p>Yes, what we will wind up with is this: </p>

<p>

@prefect

the NFL and the NBA should run their own minor leagues just like baseball. The top athletes with pro prospects can then go into the minor leagues and get paid.

</p>

<p>As far as this also becoming a consequence:</p>

<p>

@Inthebiz

And for those students who want to be students AND play football or basketball, the university can field teams. But, then, 100,000 people won’t crowd stadiums every Saturday.

</p>

<p>I am not so certain that will be the case. Students will still want to see competitive games and will still cheer for their teams. </p>

<p>A hundred and ten years ago 100,000 people came to watch a college sporting event. All participants were normal sized. All were true student-athletes. And none of them (AFAIK) were paid. ;)</p>

<p><a href=“http://web.archive.org/web/20110429031611/http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~harvcrew/Website/History/HY/[/url]”>http://web.archive.org/web/20110429031611/http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~harvcrew/Website/History/HY/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;