by Andy Fahey
Mustang Daily (California Poly State U.)
(U-WIRE) SAN LUIS OBISPO, Calif. -- As the movie "Blue Chips" clearly pointed out, it's no secret that some college athletes get paid to play. The practice of showering NCAA athletes with gifts, whether in the form of currency, cars or other commodities, is obviously wrong.
Of course Hollywood exaggerated the truth in this film, but it wasn't that far off.
Take current Sacramento Kings superstar Chris Webber, for example. We know he was given some money from former University of Michigan booster Ed Martin; it's just not known how much he took.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Webber maintains that there were several instances where Martin gave him $50 or less, but Martin said he gave Webber $280,000 during his high school and Wolverine careers.
Webber is not alone.
Because all of this under-the-table gift giving goes on anyway, it's easy to make a case that college athletes should be paid a salary. But, college athletes should not get paid. They attend their institutions to get an education, in theory anyway. By paying college athletes, learning in the classroom would take a back seat to learning the ways of the playing surface.
It's likely that more collegiate athletes would stay in school and develop their game a little further rather than making a premature leap into the professional ranks. But therein lies the problem. College athletics are not professional athletics. Players in the NBA and NFL get paid because playing basketball and football is their job. Student-athletes are supposed to worry about just what their title suggests: their studies and then their game.
One of the biggest arguments of those in favor of paying NCAA athletes is that the schools exploit their athletes and reap all the benefits, comparing the practice to that of a sweatshop. Colleges profit millions of dollars from TV deals, merchandise and ticket sales and appearances in important games like the Bowl Championship Series or the Final Four and the athletes don't see a penny of it.
Pardon me for asking, but where is the exploitation? Last time I checked most college athletes were actually enrolled in college. They are supposed to receive a college education in their four years of higher learning, not just polish their low-post game. After all, isn't a degree more valuable than what can be labeled on a price tag?
On top of this, most Division I student-athletes receive scholarships, some full and others partial, that pay for this priceless education. I don't see how that exploits student-athletes.
Most NCAA athletes are not allowed to have jobs during the season. So it can be tough for student-athletes who receive no financial support from their parents, even if they do have a scholarship. But nobody said the life of a collegiate athlete is supposed to be easy. Many students take out loans to pay for college; there is no reason that student-athletes should be any different.
The NCAA is not a farm club to professional sports, nor should it be. There is a time and place for athletes to get paid, but that is not in college.
