Paid to Play?

Eric Dickerson and Craig James were members of
the SMU team that almost lost it all.

The last thing I talked about what was whether those gifted with athletic ability should attend college or jump right into professional play. Much of my argument was for the different kinds of education that the athlete will receive in college both in the books and in life.

You Want 500 Dolla?

But what about when an athlete makes that decision to take his talents to the college level? Recently the idea of paying these athletes has become a popular topic. To me, this is absurd. If you really want to get paid then go pro. Otherwise, get your education and be happy.

That basically sums up what I'm about to talk about further. I've already mentioned that the reason someone goes to college, or what the reason should be, is to get an education. This is something that seems to have been forgotten, not only recently but for years. It's a common joke about athletes that cruise through school on their talent and not their brains, and jokes are almost always based on truth.

Terrelle Pryor has been in the center of
 much of the controversy at Ohio State.

But something more concrete has come to light in more recent years. Further back were the incidents at Southern Methodist University where players were played under the table and the university almost lost it's football program due to the severity. More recent issues have been found at Ohio State and Miami University. All of these have shown instances where money and benefits for players became more pivotal than their education.

The NCAA has handed out suspensions and penalties in each of these instances, and that is certainly a good thing to see. I don't necessarily agree with the NCAA all the time, but this is an important thing to happen. Some might say that it is their job, but it's still good to see. Unfortunately, these penalties probably won't change the mindset about college athletics and its athletes.

Most will shrug off these penalties and maybe make some small changes to their programs, but that won't change the big picture. These kinds of deals will continue to go on even after the NCAA is done, simply because the ideals have not changed.

I'm not going to pretend to have the answers, just an understanding of the problem. The true question is not about whether college athletes should be paid, but rather if we should acknowledge that we pay them. Players receive benefits and money all the time, but schools aren't willing to acknowledge it.

Of course, scholarships are one form of payment that NCAA is okay with, and I'm not against it either. Do athletes dedicate more of their free time than most students? Possibly, depending on your thoughts of the "joke" I mentioned earlier. If you don't buy the joke, then these players have the same school work as the rest of us but add all of their athletic obligations on top of that work.

If this is the case, and many would believe it's so, then there is absolutely no reason that some athletes shouldn't be allowed some sort of compensation for their time and representing their respective schools. However, beyond this basic compensation is where the issue begins.

The point of college is education. That is priority one. Some athletes believe that they are special and deserve special privileges, and schools oblige because they are afraid to lose the athlete.

This concern by the schools stems from universities being more business than education. Schools have become more concerned with image and filling seats for a game rather than graduation.

Blame doesn't sit with any one group. Athletes, schools, and even fans need to collaborate to change how we think about college athletics. Then the conversation of whether athletes should be paid wouldn't even be necessary. College is for education. If you want to get paid, go pro.