I’m Not Telling The Pistol Team Their Sport Is Useless
This is Part 2 of Dan’s thoughts on pay for play. Read Part 1 here.
In “Fiscal Responsibility - Not Just For AIG”, I used the term “student athletes” instead of football and basketball players. In this post, I’m only talking about those two sport as those are the only two revenue generating sports found at the collegiate level (with a few exceptions here and there) and even then, there’s no guarantee. And my goodness how they generate revenue from crazed fans, media conglomerates, boosters, and sponsors. OSU had a profit exceeding $40 million from their football program alone in 2010. ESPN spent $2.25 billion over the next 15 years to certify their monopoly on SEC college football. Once you get into March Madness and Bowl Sponsorship - it get’s even crazier. It is fair that some programs generate cash money and others do not? Of course not but it is the reality of the situation. Always has, always will.
All those dollars are to watch the athletes on the field or on the court. Every single one of them. There’s quite a few folks out there that think the financial benefits (full scholarship, tutors, food, clothing, etc) and the un-calculable benefits (the opportunity to showcase and refine the athlete’s talent at a very elite level to sports zealots all over the country) isn’t enough. That student athletes in revenue generating programs should get a piece of the pie. Divide $40 million (OSU’s profit last year from the football program) by 85 (max. # scholarships) and I’ll readily agree the benefits in college calculable or otherwise probably don’t balance. Ok, so, they shouldn’t get all of the $40 million but let’s run a thought experiment. Let’s say we give each player $100,000 and leave $31.5 million to OSU. What happens?
As a first estimation, I’d bet the football players would correlate their success on the field to the large sum of money. That more wins equals more money. That more wins will require more practice and effort. Only a few brain cells are needed to make those conclusions. Which do you think becomes the priority? That history paper or practice? Those passages in the Iliad for Classics or extra-sets in the weight room? Paying those 85 football players directly incentivizes a conflict of interests that defeats the whole fucking purpose of going to college. “Ohhh ohhh, but Dan, we’ll only pay them if they get passing marks in their studies”. Right, and you thought cheating scandals were an issue now.
Right behind the football players comes the wealth of other student athletes. Sure the OSU Men’s Soccer Team isn’t as glamorous on campus as the football program but those guys play anyway. Why? Because they love playing soccer. Love it. However if you’re rewarding the athletes in revenue generating programs, I’ll guarantee you’ll find the elite players re-thinking their strategy. That stud Forward with Ted Ginn speed? Teach him to catch a ball instead of kicking one and he’ll get $100,000 in his pocket. (Ochocinco experimented with the reverse concept during the NFL lockout). This obviously this goes beyond just soccer. Track and field athletes are prime real restate as are baseball pitchers. Offer any college kid an athletic stipend or $100,000/yr and very little decision making will occur. You’ve just robbed a wealth of athletic programs of their elite athletes.
Nearly 60 years passed before a player from Michigan put on an OSU jersey. Name a professional sport with that reputation. There’s a reason why so many college sports are offered, let’s keep it that way. College athletics represent the pinnacle of amateurism for nearly all sports. You have the best athletes from across the world competing in their sport for the love it, pride and the competition at such a high level - not the money. That’s something pure or damn near it.
We already have professional leagues and for great reasons. There’s no need to wreck college athletics.
