NCAA Athletes: Amateurs? Professionals? Or Most Importantly, Students?

In the ongoing discussion about paying (or more appropriately providing extra benefits to) NCAA student-athletes, at least those in men’s basketball and football, there are two sides.

One side believes that the players deserve their cut of the large sums of money the NCAA and university athletic departments make.

The other side believes in the value of a free education, saying that that scholarship is payment for a lifetime and has a much higher earning potential than the extra benefits.

But I present a third side, one that doesn’t go with the status quo, but doesn’t advocate giving the athletes a larger piece. Look up any university’s founding mission and you will not find any mention of producing professional athletes.

Universities are higher schools; schools are places of learning, thus, universities are places of higher learning and as such they are defined. Nowhere in the definition is there ever a mention of athletics.

With that, the sole reason for the existence of colleges and universities is to educate and provide society with a more learned population for the betterment of mankind.

Running a university, unfortunately, takes money. Some of this money is donated, while tuition covers most of the rest. You would think that this money though, is going to the education of the student body. But, at many large universities, some of this money is going to fund the athletics department.

If the mission of the school is to educate the students and to provide research for a better world, should not all resources be poured into achieving these goals?

With that in mind, I believe athletes should get less, not more. Yes, I believe athletic scholarships should be a thing of the past. Athletics should be a source of recreation and exercise for a healthy life, which I do believe fits into the school's mission, but producing professional athletes does not.

I have no issue with schools having an athletic department, but instead of giving a scholarship to an athlete who may not even deserve to have been admitted, the money can instead be used to pay for an individual unable to afford college and meets the academic credentials, as this would help the school reach its ultimate goal: education.

Some will argue that if this happens, the level of play in NCAA sports will decrease, but why do we care? I don’t care about the absolute talent of the team for which I cheer, only that they win.

Along these lines, schools need to stop paying liars and cheaters millions of dollars to coach athletes that shouldn’t be there to begin with. Coaches should be paid reasonably and be people of honor.

If NO coach makes more than $100,000, there will be less pressure and incentive for success. This will hopefully clean up college athletics as well, saving money wasted on athletic compliance that can be contributed to important university expenses and bring down tuition.

Although I would advocate eliminating scholarships, I do think athletes should be able to get money from outside sources, just as any other student may, as this doesn’t have any effect on the university. Without the scholarship, each athlete is just a student that happens to play a sport and should be treated the same. Thus, they should be able to receive money for personal items, appearances and anything besides playing professionally.

This would eliminate loads of rule violations and save money each year that can be put back into education.

But I ask why is there all this debate about the underprivileged “student”-athlete? They should love the deal they have right now. They aren’t helping the school’s main cause and should be more than happy with a free education that more academically-talented students do not get.

If the current players don’t want to play without more benefits, I will gladly play in their place without receiving a dime and I am sure others would as well. Then the new athlete would actually be a student-athlete, not an aspiring-professional-athlete-student as many are today.