Look, we've all heard the arguments on both sides. Should NCAA athletes get paid to play, should they not, should we scrap this discussion completely, should the government go completely communist and then it doesn't matter? All the options are out there on the board. I'm not interested in rehashing all of them and picking which is the best. That's not appealing in any way. Frankly, the analysts like Jay Bilas who are on the side of "Pay" have sounded very thick-skulled to me, just rah-rahing for the players without having a real contingency plan to set it into motion. (Like, only pay college football and basketball athletes, because they make money. Oh, brilliant.) Likewise, those on the side of "Don't Pay" are equally if not MORE obtuse, as they ignore all the realities of the current sporting world in the name of amateurism. Why is amateurism even important any more? The Olympics host professionals. The only reason to maintain amateurism is to maintain NCAA eligibility. Seriously.
So instead of go over the old arguments, I wanted to focus on something that really stood out to me when I sat down to think about what has been going on--notably Reggie Bush, Terrelle Pryor, and Cam Newton. Yes, all of these guys have suffered from their missteps as college athletes, and have left a firestorm of issues in their wake. Now everyone and their grandmother is jumping on the radio shouting about why they should be paid or why they shouldn't be paid or whether or not the professional leagues should come down hard on them. The NCAA has wound itself into this situation where it's unlike any other organization in the world. Really. What can you compare it to? It's not like a union, it's not like a corporation, it's not even like the corresponding professional leagues. And that's why nobody has any answers. They can spin things the way they want, because they're the only ones who have any control over it. They're constantly in investigations, and come out on the other side saying things like, "They paid a national recruiter for information about college recruits." (This is a bad thing in the NCAA, even though it sounds like good business sense.) And then they say more ridiculous things like, "Cecil Newton asked for money for his son to play at Mississippi State, but Auburn and Cam Newton knew nothing about it." (Talk about opening Pandora's Box.)
Understandably, college coaches and athletes and staff members are scratching their heads trying to decide how to continue succeeding in their profession that seems to be overrun with violations (similar to MLB's "Keeping up with the Bondses") while attempting to AVOID those violations. I can imagine that it's very difficult. Nobody likes being left behind, and this is true on both sides of the relationship--schools want to have the best players, and the players want to have what other players have. If Reggie Bush is driving around town in a new Mercedes, why isn't Offensive Lineman Tom driving around in a new car as well? Hell, he's the one who blocks for Bush, opening up massive holes so he can pad his 9.5 yards per carry number.
So I have a proposal. And as much as I am sick of Bilas yapping about paying players every time he opens his mouth, part of my idea comes from something he said. He made reference to the fact that other students at the school are able to profit off of their abilities. They can get internships that pay (and I'm sure even he knows it's pennies compared to a professional athlete) for the skills that they've received from the school. So why can't athletes get that same deal?
Well, it's not that simple. Athletes are playing for the school, which means you're talking about expecting the schools to pay the players. Then you're thinking, "Well, how do they do it? Do they pay every single player $10K a year, and that's that? Or do they pay the quarterbacks more? Or is it an open marketplace where teams will bid on a player the same as the job market?" It's just insane. It opens up so many questions that would likely end college athletics as we know it. There are two main reasons why I think the "pay the players" mission is getting so popular right now.
1) Schools are profiting off the players and the players are getting none of it.
2) Players are ditching school at the first sniff of money, which is bad for the education system, and (more importantly to them) bad for the competition level of college sports.
So here's what I think.
Why not let the players profit off of their abilities while they're in school playing for the team--in every way EXCEPT getting paid to play. Professional athletes make money in lots of different ways, not just from their contract to play with their organization. They appear in commercials, they sign autographs, they hold instructional camps, they make appearances on television shows, they promote items. Why not make this true for a college athlete as well? College is about giving students opportunities and teaching them how to utilize their skills in the real world. There's not a more perfect example than this. A big time program signs a new recruit and he helps them win games and sell tickets. The college benefits. As a result of his newfound celebrity, the local car dealership wants to have him pitch Fords in a commercial. They pay him $2,000 for his appearance, and he benefits. Why would this not make sense?
If I was attending NYU for Acting and Steven Spielberg called me up and said, "Hey kid, you're the guy I want for the sidekick in my next movie," I would not only take the role, I'd be paid for it, AND I'd return to school when it was done. I know this is not exactly the same thing, because that's like saying a player could go play in a professional league over the summer and then come back and play for his team in the winter. It's a little different, but I think the premise is the same. Let the students profit off of their skills. It would teach them something about the real world. A lot more than coddling them in some uber-protected environment would.
College athletics are only as popular as they are because it's a two-way street. It's simple economics--even though people tense up and scream when they think of money and college athletes. An athlete will choose to attend a university on an athletic scholarship because he believes the value of what he is receiving is greater than what he is giving up to go there. And in turn, the school will hand out a scholarship because it believes that it will receive greater value than it is giving up out of the deal. You have to keep up your grades, stay out of trouble, and go to practice if you want to play on the team. If you have a job outside of school, so be it. Good for you, making money off of the hard work you put in. Hopefully you'll get something more out of school than just playing basketball, but if you don't, hey, it's not like you're the first.
I'm not sure that this is the best solution, or if there even IS a best solution. Maybe schools should just completely separate athletics into a minor league system. You don't attend the school, you just play for the Ohio State Buckeyes minor league football team. I don't know. All the possibilities are out there. But it seems to me that if you can provide someone else with a service that they are willing to pay you for, your college shouldn't prevent you from profiting from the transaction (well, unless it's illegal, I suppose).
Maybe then you'd stick around school and actually learn a little something for a change.
