This has been a hot topic for decades now, especially with all these new allegations coming up against Universities on an almost monthly basis. Recruitment and scouting has become so competitive that often times teams are breaking NCAA rules by offering monetary or other material rewards for choosing a certain University to play sports at. There are two sides to the argument with equally passionate and logical arguments. The figures who believe athletes should be paid are the ones who realize how commercial intercollegiate sport has become. The Universities make copious amounts of money through their college spots programs. Every time these players take the field or the court they are pouring money into the school and what is in it for them? a free or discounted education yes, but that compensation would be a decimal compared to how much money they are generating. The argument becomes "If these players are making the college millions of dollars shouldn't they share in some of the spoils?.
The argument against playing players adhered to NCAA rules. Players in this situation should not be manipulated by money. Yes they are helping generate money for the University but they are still college athletes not professional athletes. The rules have always been this way and things have been great. Yes corruption is a problem and schools are still breaking the rules but as long as the punishment stay hard then things will go as they always have.
My opinion is that players should not be payed. The argument for compensation is a stronger one and all arrows point to the fact that player truly should be paid, but it would just be such a drastic change and I do think it would change the game completely. the mentality, the competitiveness, and the overall purity of college sport. Often times when I ask a friend whether they like to watch profession or collegiate sport the answer is normally college. because there us more 'passion' they work harder and it is more exciting.
No comments:
Post a Comment