Money. Money. Money. That’s what college athletes (ahem, excuse me, “student-athletes”) will be rolling in come 2016.
When the next recruiting cycle starts July 1, 2016, Division I basketball and football players will rake in$5,000 for each year they participate and have their names, images and likeness sold in college athletics. So, after four years of living under the media’s eye and experiencing the college grind, every one of these students will earn at least $20,000 over the course of four years.
But do student-athletes really deserve this? Should each D-I school have to dump out about $2.5 million over four years to pay all these students?
No, of course not. That’s ridiculous.
Student-athletes are already earning enough money from their respective schools through scholarships that pay all college-related expenses.
Yes, I know. Not every athlete has a full ride. And not every athlete has a scholarship.
But Division 1 schools could offer more scholarships, if it weren’t for having to pay $5,000 to everyone.
There may be NCAA rules they would have to bend, but, hey, Ed O’Bannon did it.
O’Bannon was a former UCLA basketball player. He once saw himself in a NCAA college basketball video game (now that would be weird), and so he basically asked himself, “Why am I not getting paid for being in this game?”
And the issue snowballed from there. He took it to court, blah, blah, blah, and presto … a reversal of an NCAA violation.
But O’Bannon forgot one small thing: the other guys, as he probably referred to the lower-profile sports as swimming, volleyball, hockey, soccer, wrestling, baseball, softball, women’s basketball, wheelchair basketball, tennis, quiz bowl, (you get what I’m trying to say here) teams.
Here’s the beef: Division I schools profit the most from their football and men’s basketball teams.
For instance, basketball star Doug McDermott, who now plays for the Chicago Bulls, helped bring Creighton University $12.2 million in the Bluejays four-year run through the NCAA Tournament, big crowds and as mentioned before, using his name, image and likeness. That is still not counting the money Creighton made from TV deals, merchandise, etc.
So who cares about these sports that don’t make this much money? Why don’t we just cut every sport, except basketball and football, right? Wrong.
Those athletes work just as hard, and in some cases, harder, than football and men’s basketball players.
They should get paid, too. It is only fair. Think about the amount of cash the NCAA would be spewing out of your diminishing budget to pay them.
But that’s not the point I am trying to make. I don’t think any college athletes should be paid.
Most of them, I would like to think, participate in a sport because of their love of the game, which is why they don’t deserve extra money.
I say the athletes should not earn a profit until a reach a professional status. College is not considered professional.
A majority of these college athletes are saving $100,000 (or $25,000 a year) through scholarships. So why wave more money in their faces?
We can’t forget, though, the student-athletes will never see their extra money until after college. All of this money will be locked away in a trust fund, which is opened once their college career ends.
Also, if D-I schools do not use the names, images and likeness of players, then they wouldn’t pay the student-athletes. So, technically, not all players will be guaranteed these payments.
However, if the NCAA spends millions (and in some instances, billions) of more dollars on education, not sports/athletes, our school systems would have it so much better. The schools would be able to offer more scholarships, expand programs, buy more up-to-date equipment, etc.
Let’s keep the tradition of not paying college athletes, so college athletes can have a better learning experience and, ultimately, a more successful future and career.
Ryan Wilson is editor of The Lamp. He can be reached at 217-786-2311 or [email protected].