When I look at today’s college athletes as compared to the ones a hundred years ago there are some things that I noticed are different. First off I noticed today all the popularity and all the stardom that comes with being a high level collegiate athlete. Second I saw that most college athletes were not receiving a scholarship to play collegiate level sports. Thirdly I saw that there was not as much pressure to perform a hundred years ago. The big reason that all the fame and pressure have amped up over the last 100 years is because of the media. Now if you look at today’s college sports you see eighteen-year-old kids becoming superstars and having a whole nation watching them and either supporting or hating them. You see kids not even twenty-one years old going pro and making millions of dollars. There has now become this “gray area” with collegiate level athletes and if they should be paid or not. Collegiate athletes should receive compensation for participation in collegiate level athletics.
Over the past few years there has been much debate on if college athletes should get paid or not. The big argument for not paying them is that they are already receiving a scholarship to go to school. They are already receiving thousands of dollars to get a collegiate level education and they still get to play the sport they love. Another argument is that they are in college they have the easy road to make it to the professional level and to make the millions of dollars. They get access to high level training equipment and professional trainers to get them to perform at the top of their game. People have said that colleges should be used strictly for academic purposes only. Jordan Weissmann is one of many people that think having college athletics hurts the university. He states in an article he wrote in The Atlantic, “Everything we think we know about college football's impact on students' grades, graduation rates, rankings, and school finances adds up to this: Football might be bad for some colleges”. (The Atlantic) He later goes on to say that school’s can lose a lot of money if they don’t have a great program. There are also other people that if the university has a high level athletic team it “taints” the university, especially if one of the players or coaches receives and NCAA sanction. Even through NCAA sanctions there is still a lot of positive publicity that can come out of having sports at the collegiate level. First, The NCAA and its member schools should adopt a policy of "controlled access," where agents and college athletes meet in open, regulated meetings. Many coaches and schools have a blanket prohibition on all athlete-agent contact until the season is over. But a total ban leads to a perverse result: The most ethical agents abide by the rules and stay away, while unscrupulous agents operate in the shadows, currying favor with student-athletes and their families in violation of school policies. (US Today: “Athletes, agents and the NCAA: It's time for a fix”) What this excerpt is saying is that even though some of the agents stay away, there are some of the “not by the book” agents that will under the table make deals with athletes. This is when the officials for the NCAA come down hard on the university. This is what can cause such a negative taint on a public university.
College can be very expensive. There are so many things that cost a lot of money in college. Students have to pay for classes itself, and then pay for books and housing and that is just the start of it. Students have to also purchase school supplies, and some classes have individual items that they have to purchase for their classes. College students need to be fed, so there is a big cost in that factor of having to purchase so much food and if that student is playing a sport they are going to need more food to keep the carbohydrate levels up to where they need to be to perform. With all of this being said, being a college...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document