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.