Wednesday, April 9, 2014
Should the NCAA pay its athletes?
With March Madness recently concluding, the question as to whether college athletes should be played was once again discussed. Almost all the discussions pertain to whether or not the colleges should be paying athletes themselves. I'm always amazed that more attention isn't being given to the idea of simply letting athletes earn whatever they can off the field. The high profile athletes could pull in a substantial amount of money through endorsements, and even the lower profile athletes probably wouldn't have much trouble finding a local booster willing to take care of them. Rescinding this rule would be easy. The athletes could make money and the schools wouldn't have to worry about how to fit the athletes' salaries into their budget, or how to deal with Title IX if the only players being paid are the football and men's basketball players. Everyone seems to agree the worst part of the NCAA rules is the fact the players can't even have someone treat them to a five dollar lunch. Sometimes I wonder if the reason there isn't a bigger push for this is that many of the people want the athletic departments to lose money before they want the athletes to gain money.