Projecting a Message 

Throughout this running series of posts we have looked at several solutions to one single and undeniable problem. This problem was what is to be done regarding the failed student athlete system. In other words, how can student athletes be pushed to perform better academically. So far, we have looked at the advantages and disadvantages of paying athletes and the possibility of taking away scholarships for individual sports. However, these solutions are mainly aimed at giving or taking away motivation for each athlete. In other words, making athletes care less about the sports they are in, or allowing them to not worry about their athletic careers to such a high degree. Nevertheless, perhaps the true accountability should be placed on that of the university themselves. Universities around the world are promoting the lack of academics in the lives of college athletes. These has been done both directly and indirectly. However, no matter how it has been done, it is still a culture that clearly needs to be changed, and it could in fact solve this everlasting issue.

One example of this problem recently occurred at the University of North Carolina (UNC). After investigation it was found that major student athletes were being assigned “paper classes” in order to maintain their academic eligibility. In other words, students were being assigned grades for classes that they never took or that may have never even existed. This was all for the sake of raising the GPA of that individual athlete and allowing them to participate in their respective sport. In total, it has been estimated that a possible 3,100 students or more took these “paper classes” in order to gain a GPA bump. The message that this instance sends is loud and clear. The message is that academics is not an important piece of a student athlete’s career from a university standpoint. This is clearly a negative message to be projecting.

Compliments of Jessica at WordPress

This has also occurred at the University of Syracuse. At Syracuse, academically ineligible players were permitted to participate in athletics regardless of their grades. With seemingly no worries about becoming academically ineligible, there is seemingly no motivation for athletes to try to pass their classes. They are simply focusing on their sport and their sport only.

Overall, for decades and possibly even centuries universities have been caring more about the athletic side of a college athlete rather than the academic. This has led to athletes gaining the same understanding. Former Northwestern quarterback, Kain Colter, admitted that he would have rather taken a more difficult major. However, he was pushed to take a simpler major in order to focusing more on his athletic career. This mindset has been projected across every university. In a recent study by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, it was found that out of the top 25 collegiate football schools, 13 out of the 22 that reported majors had athletes mainly concentrated in certain majors that were deemed the “easy” ones. Essentially, student athletes were placed on academic paths in which minimal work was required and minimal success was expected.

So, what is to be done about this issue? Clearly, the universities around the world need to step up and take accountability for their actions. Perhaps schools need to go as far as stopping the exception of admitting college athletes who do not meet academic standards. For example, if an athlete’s high school GPA dips below that of the university standard, then an exception should not be made. This is already promoting the lack of academic importance.

Furthermore, universities should stress the importance of an education to a student’s career. Collaboration with the NCAA could be very effective in this pursuit. Through collaboration perhaps the idea of leaving school early in order to go professional could be removed from the table. This would force students to prepare better academically.

Lastly, universities simply need to stop handing out grades. At the very least, this would require that student athletes put in the minimal effort required to simply pass a class.

Compliments of WN.com

 Overall, it is all about demeanor. If universities are projecting the attitude that academic don’t matter for athletes then this trickles down to the athletes themselves. Perhaps overall the solution to the student athlete issue does not lie in money, but perhaps it is as simple as universities stressing academics more. All in all, there still may never be a set solution to this issue. However, eventually universities could come to settle on one of the solutions detailed throughout this blog.

Money Woes

Conversely from last week’s post, what would be the disadvantages of paying college athletes to the student-athlete dilemma? Some argue that paying college athletes would actually make matters worse. Instead of allowing them an opportunity to focus on their academics it would instead cause them to not focus on their academics at all.

This is in fact one of the main arguments against paying college athletes. It is believed that if athletes are paid then they will be less inclined to perform well academically due to the fact that they are not required to in order to make money. The benefit of this current system is that it implies a specific distinction between student-athletes who are following the collegiate model and professional athletes who are also students. If college athletes are paid then this would blur the lines between the two and in doing so it would create an extremely large gray area.

Compliments of Jeff Lorenz from Penn State

This gray are is seemingly filled with endless questions. The first of which is how would money be distributed? Do athletes from higher profile sports get paid more even though they put in the same amount of work as someone who participates in a lower level sport? For example, one athlete could be a running back on a national championship bound team. Another athlete could participate in a low level sport like fencing. The dilemma lies in how to distribute money to pay them. Either way the money would be divided up, someone would be unhappy. The fencer would either complain that he or she is making too little and the football player would complain that he is not making enough. It basically comes down to the fact that greed would play a major role in this process and create ongoing dilemmas.

Compliments of Olympic.org

Another major negative effect that would come into play at the possibility of paying college athletes would be bidding wars. It would get to a point where athletes aren’t simply picking a college just because they enjoy the football program there. Some athletes would be purely attracted to who can offer them the most money. This would cause a small percent of all upper tier colleges and universities to have the majority of the better athletes. This would in turn create an unequal playing field and perhaps ruin collegiate sports as they stand today.

When it comes to collegiate sports it is clear that there is a great distinction between Division I and Division II and III sports. This distinction could create another dilemma. Smaller Division III schools may not have the revenue to pay their athletes because their programs are not as big. This could cause the elimination of both Division II and III sports. Thus, only the best athletes would be able to participate in sports at the collegiate level.

Finally, the most important factor of all that comes into play when considering this aspect is the fact that collegiate athletes are choosing to participate in sports. Nobody is forcing them too. If they are unhappy with the current system then they could at any time withdraw from collegiate sports. Most people would argue that this is the one undeniable fact that nobody can dispute. Furthermore, if athletes are good enough then they can surely be compensated for their collegiate efforts at the professional level. Some athletes make tens of millions of dollars per year. This more than compensates them for the meager four years or even less that they spent at the collegiate athletic level.

Overall, what it all boils down to is that there is a disadvantage to every system that aims to fix the student-athlete dilemma. Perhaps the solution lies in not focusing on the athlete part of the problem, but the student part. Universities should be more inclined to make sure that their athletes are being well educated and not simply taking blow off classes. In doing this, athletes will be able to make money in the future with their minds instead of their bodies. After all, the mind is the greatest tool that anyone has.

Payday

Last week we explored the possibility of taking away scholarships in order to affect student athlete performance. However, this week the topic lies at the opposite end of the spectrum. What would happen if college athletes received additional compensation for their efforts outside of scholarships? This would change the entire scope of college athletics.

By giving college athletes money, it would allow them to focus more on their academic lives. Several collegiate level athletes are desperate for money. They come from poor and underprivileged families. Therefore, they are less inclined to perform well academically simply due to the fact that they must make it to the pro level as soon as possible in order to start making money. The benefit of paying college athletes would be that it could prevent this from happening and allow student athletes to be students as well.

Compliments of Authority Publishing

This system would without a doubt be possible due to the fact that the NCAA makes a ridiculous amount of money. During March Madness alone, the NCAA makes almost one billion dollars. During the final four, they make $700,000 for a simple 30 second ad. These are simply astounding numbers, and universities that perform well often get a cut of these large earnings on top of what the university already makes on their athletic programs.

Compliments of the Odyssey Online

However, if the problem is money then there are still other options. Players could be compensated by their worth and popularity. For example, only those athletes who do well and receive endorsements and outside funding opportunities will receive compensation during their collegiate years. They would simply collect all the money that they make. If an athlete is able to receive an endorsement from Nike or Under Armour at the collegiate level then they are able to collect all of their earnings. This only makes sense due to the fact that the endorsement entirely comes based on the player’s level of ability.

Nevertheless, there are still those that would argue that college athletes should not be paid. However, even from a legal aspect it seems that the NCAA and colleges around the nation should be required to pay their athletes. An article in the Chicago Tribune argues that the NCAA limits player compensation. When looking at this from a business aspect it is a violation of section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Therefore, by law the NCAA and universities are required to allow athlete endorsements and are obligated to share their wealth with their athletes.

Recently, a story regarding this issue came to light. Star LSU running back, Leonard Fournette, was accused of selling merchandise of his own, which is currently in violation of NCAA rules. The accusation is that Fournette’s family established a website in which they attempted to sell autographed merchandise from the athlete. Fournette has since been placed under investigation regarding his involvement in this incident. However, people came to look at it a very different way. Why shouldn’t the running back be able to sign merchandise with his own signature on it? His performance as a player are what gives that signature any worth in the first place.

Compliments of CBS Sports

Nevertheless, to this day student athletes are still losing this battle. Courts have ruled against them a countless amount of times. This has greatly affected the scope of the student athlete dilemma. Whenever athletes only have money on their mind they simply cannot receive a full college education. This cause them to only remain in college for 1 or 2 years at the most. They want to make it to the pros and make money as soon as possible. Education has seemingly become irrelevant to them.

Overall, it is obvious that there is a problem with student athletes not being the best students in collegiate sports. The thought of paying them may actually fix the problem. However, it could also cause them to become greedy and as a result want to go on to the professional level even more. So perhaps money may not be the solution at all. There are various setbacks to paying athletes as well. However, this is a topic for a different post. Now it seems that the choice of paying college athletes seems inevitable. 

No More Money?

Money, money, and more money is what the issue of college athletics seems to focus on. It has been established that there is clearly a problem with student athletes not actually taking the student part very serious. So, does the solution lie in the money or does the problem?

Compliments of the HufffingtonPost

An ongoing debate throughout the country and the NCAA has been whether or not to pay college athletes in an attempt to solve the student athlete dilemma. However, that is going to be another topic for another post. The opposing and often overlooked aspect of this debate is eliminating the financial compensation given to them in order to attend the universities. In other words, eliminating the usage of athletic scholarships.

A special interest group referred to as the League of Fans has been advocating for this solution for years. The argument is that by eliminating athletic scholarships it would restore academic integrity for athletes in a college campus. Without scholarships, athletes wouldn’t possess the win at all costs mentality. This mentality is often what leads to sever injury. Athletes who have received major injuries or head damages often continue to play. If they are unable to they risk losing their athletic scholarship in certain situations. This results in players pushing their limits and often resulting in more serious and traumatic injuries.

Compliments of The Ann Arbor News

If student athletes are truly students first then perhaps they should be treated the same as every other student. They should receive only need based or academic based scholarships in order to help cover the cost of tuition. This is part of the argument made by the League of Fans. If only academic scholarships are made available then perhaps athletes will focus more on their academic careers in order to further pursue their athletic ones.

Additionally, athletic scholarships actually hurt the wallets of everyday students. According to Communities Digital News, the rising tuition rates across America include a specific “student services” fee. This fee can often be substantial and the purpose of this fee is to generate revenue in order to give out athletic scholarships. Therefore, every student attending a university is actually subsidizing athletic scholarships as part of their tuition. Most people question the morality of this expense. Why should hard-working students have to sacrifice part of their money in order to pay for athletic scholarships or new athletic equipment that they won’t ever get a chance to receive or use?

In the eyes of groups like the League of Fans it seems the solution lies either in eliminating athletic scholarships or requiring universities to operate their athletic programs as separate businesses entirely that are not tax exempted. This is a more extreme measure. However, some members of society do feel as if this may be the only solution is universities are unwilling to eliminate the usage of athletic scholarships.

Now, there are obviously people who argue against the elimination of athletic scholarships. The argument here is that athletes and universities simply cannot afford eliminating them. Elimination of these scholarships would jeopardize college athletics as a whole. Athletes would be less inclined to go to college. Most would simply try to go straight to the professional level. Additionally, by eliminating athletic scholarships it may be eliminating some young adults’ chances of ever going to college. As pointed out by the Guide to Athletic Scholarships, a majority of athletes come from low income families and are not often ingrained with strong academic backgrounds. Therefore, this would make it nearly impossible to receive academic or merit based scholarships. Due to their lack of wealth and education, their college and professional dreams may be ruined.

Members of society who advocate against the elimination of athletic scholarships also argue that these scholarships act as compensation for the time athletes have to put into their practices and workouts. This could be time otherwise used to maintain a job and help pay their way through school. Therefore, the money lost by losing this opportunity should be gained in the form of athletic scholarships.

Whatever the case may be it is clear that there is great debate over the “solution” of eliminating athletic scholarships. Does it do more damage than good? Perhaps the solution lies in giving the athletes money, money, and more money, instead of taking it away. 

Student Athletes or just Athletes? 

The practicality of integrating sports into a college campus has been questioned for decades. This has included branching out questions of many kinds. Should student athletes be paid for their contributions to the university? Should there even be college athletics in the first place? Do college athletics draw away from the educational aspect of college? These questions and several others are going to be the center of the next five blog posts. Sports are at the heart of nearly every university. Perhaps if students are able to grasp the complexity of some of the issues surrounding college athletics, then this can lead to better and more well-rounded campuses across the nation.

In order to dive into the depths of this conversation, the most important part is understanding what a student athlete is and what the meaning behind a student athlete attempts to accomplish. The term student athlete implies exactly what it says. Athletes who have been chosen to play at a collegiate level are students first and athletes second. In other words, education should be the primary focus of each individual. However, this is simply not the case. The student athlete system has failed most collegiate athletes.

Image compliments of the Odyssey Online

A survey in 2011 conducted by the NCAA found that a large majority of athletes identified themselves as athletes first and students second. Most admitted to spending up to double the amount of time they have on their athletic training compared to their educational studies. This was found to be the case even in the off-season. In fact, during the off-season, athletes were sometimes less likely to perform well academically because all they needed was to be eligible during the season. This is simply not the mentality intended to be placed in so called “student athletes.”

Furthermore, athletes are picking their schools based on what team they want to play for, not what educational system fits them best. Often, athletes are recruited solely based on their athletic ability. At times they may not even meet the educational requirements for a particular university. In instances like this exceptions are made and athletes are given admittance.

Perhaps the worst part about the student athlete hoax is that most student athletes don’t even pick their own major. They are placed into a very low level major. One that would be difficult not to succeed in. So, universities and the NCAA may be throwing around numbers with high graduation rates for athletes, but how much is their degree really worth. The majors they are placed in and the amount of work placed in their academic careers does not set them up for success in a life outside of sports. Their degrees are intended to be a fall back or back-up plan to their professional careers. However, in today’s modern world the degrees they receive may not even be that.

Image compliments of the Daily Emerald

Additionally, a large percentage of student athletes don’t receive a degree. For basketball, only one year of college enrollment is required to proceed on to the professional level. Previously, no college was required at all. Stars like LeBron James and Kobe Bryant never attended college. They went immediately into a professional career. Comparatively, in football athletes must be at least three years removed from high school. This is a better system but still reveals the problem that at very young ages, of perhaps 19 or 20 years old, student athletes are making life altering decisions with absolutely no fall back plan even if it may be a meager one.

Overall, the student athlete system is seeming to fail in today’s society. Academics have often become obsolete for these various individuals. The media and other outside influences have pushed athletes to only focus on their athletic careers so that they can make the “big bucks” as soon as they can. Perhaps the solution lies in giving athletes monetary compensation for their efforts. Perhaps the solution lies in getting reducing the importance of collegiate sports all together. Whatever the case may be it is clear that the value of education needs to be instilled in college athletes. Otherwise, the majority of them will end up forgotten and jobless.