Should College Athletes Be Compensated?

 

With the final BCS Bowl between Florida State and Auburn taking center stage, it is interesting to note that most of the players will be playing professionally shortly. This will be the last BCS Championship as college football prepares to enter the new age with next year's College Football Playoffs. This will not only feature the National Competitor who won the trophy at the stadium through a series of elimination games but- will also donate millions of dollars to the vast NCAA fund. There is little doubt that the NCAA is in the business of making money through college games and college players.

To earn money in a competitive environment, a university or college needs talented, dedicated, experienced staff, and a head coach who knows how to win. Trees high!

For the last four weeks in college basketball, CBS charged $ 700,000 for 30-second advertising space. The gross network for men and women for the last four games is estimated at $ 6 billion annually. Sports conferences receive millions of dollars as each team in the conference progresses through competition. There's enough money on the table.

While all this money is being made, college athletes are at risk of losing work-related injuries, running classes, and not receiving funding. To many fans, this is a disgrace.

The Case for Paying Athletes

College players have started fighting. The story of former UKLA basketball player Ed Bannon could shake the NCAAs roots. O'Bannon is suing because the NCAA used his image in video games and did not pay him. She is suing for part of the help. 

Now, there is the question of why college athletes cannot afford autographs. The idea that these players should be first students and second players is not true. The Kentucky basketball program is a good example. Every year the roster is filled with three or more players inviting time to join the NBA University recognizes that they will not graduate and are looking for them to fill seats and transport the team to the CAA competition title. This is a far cry from the student-player.

The Alternative

We live in a free-market economy. If a high school athlete is of value and the university wants to recruit him or her, the school must award a contract.

The contract would specify the- athlete the runner is the duration at school, and his or her current status at the school with the athlete is services. Basically, the school will be giving the high school athlete some time off. Part of the service offered may be free education, free room, board, and other facilities, but the player must be paid for the effort required to play Part I games- required.

Opponents of the free market approach will say it will ruin the game. As such, the players- are jeopardizing their careers and are filling stadiums and courts in this case, and universities are making a profit from their performance. College instructors at major conferences have funded contracts, large coaching staff, lectures, and book dramas. They are experts. Should not the players they trust to keep their job be treated the same?

Whether you agree with the free-market method of college games or not, most followers accept that the system is broken. There is a lot of money in the college game, and very little of it is going to the players.

The SEC is considered the strongest football organization in the world. Football players receive tuition, and if they graduate, they do not have a credit burden, unlike 60 percent of US college students. In hindsight, this seems to be a good alliance except for the obvious shortcomings in which most of these players are not finishing. Most come too short when he does the art.

The academic and degree debate is strong but, most- players in Sec, ACC, Big Ten, and Pac 10 have different interests. They see their college experience as being in the Little League, the training of the Big Show. Should not they be given accordingly?