OilerBuck
Sweet Crude
I'm not a person who's opinion is swayed easily, but after listening to Colin Cowherd on the subject, I have done a complete 180 degree turn in my opinion on the subject.
His first point was that, according to Brand, around 5% of the athletic departments in the country are even in the black. That means that many are likely already in danger of cutting programs just to stop the bleeding. I have no clue how many student-athletes there are at any given university, so I am going to use a number of 300 (there are likely MANY more) just to make a point. Let's say the athletic department pays each student athlete just $100 a week (this may go a long way in Columbus, but in the big city it isn't going to last long). 300 students x $100 = $30,000 x 52 weeks in a year = $1,560,000 a year on top of what they are already losing.
Colin also talked about the misconception that college athletes in general are exploited. If you think about it, what percentage of these athletes actually create enough buzz to bring IN as much to the University as they get out of a scholarship? Sure there is the occasional Carmello Anthony, Ted Ginn, Etc. but to be honest, these schools likely sell out the games anyway and the kids that bring along that much hype are likely making millions within a couple years.
The problem is, athletes complain that they don't have money because they can't work, be a student and an athlete all at once. All college students run short on money and are resigned to eating Ramen Noodles...and I don't see any offensive lineman struggling to get nourishment. Sheryl Swoops complained about credit card bills, but every year I see college students tied down with not only credit card debt but also YEARS worth of school debt that a scholarship athlete will never have.
Just because OSU's athletic department makes money (which really we need just to pay off building and renovating facilities), we assume that we can pay players, but not just a group of schools can do this...ALL of them would have to or it would be an unfair advantage. Also, can you equate cost of living into it to make sure the money goes just as far in California as it does in North Dakota? If a school that is already in the red has to start paying players, they will cut scholarship sports. What is more important...
A.) That our football, basketball and baseball players (the greats of which will soon be in the pros anyway) make some extra spending money in school.
or...
B.) That other sports programs stay up and running to give a free ride to kids that appreciate it and may otherwise not get a chance at a college education.
My eyes were opened today.
His first point was that, according to Brand, around 5% of the athletic departments in the country are even in the black. That means that many are likely already in danger of cutting programs just to stop the bleeding. I have no clue how many student-athletes there are at any given university, so I am going to use a number of 300 (there are likely MANY more) just to make a point. Let's say the athletic department pays each student athlete just $100 a week (this may go a long way in Columbus, but in the big city it isn't going to last long). 300 students x $100 = $30,000 x 52 weeks in a year = $1,560,000 a year on top of what they are already losing.
Colin also talked about the misconception that college athletes in general are exploited. If you think about it, what percentage of these athletes actually create enough buzz to bring IN as much to the University as they get out of a scholarship? Sure there is the occasional Carmello Anthony, Ted Ginn, Etc. but to be honest, these schools likely sell out the games anyway and the kids that bring along that much hype are likely making millions within a couple years.
The problem is, athletes complain that they don't have money because they can't work, be a student and an athlete all at once. All college students run short on money and are resigned to eating Ramen Noodles...and I don't see any offensive lineman struggling to get nourishment. Sheryl Swoops complained about credit card bills, but every year I see college students tied down with not only credit card debt but also YEARS worth of school debt that a scholarship athlete will never have.
Just because OSU's athletic department makes money (which really we need just to pay off building and renovating facilities), we assume that we can pay players, but not just a group of schools can do this...ALL of them would have to or it would be an unfair advantage. Also, can you equate cost of living into it to make sure the money goes just as far in California as it does in North Dakota? If a school that is already in the red has to start paying players, they will cut scholarship sports. What is more important...
A.) That our football, basketball and baseball players (the greats of which will soon be in the pros anyway) make some extra spending money in school.
or...
B.) That other sports programs stay up and running to give a free ride to kids that appreciate it and may otherwise not get a chance at a college education.
My eyes were opened today.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
