NCAA Sanctions and Paying Players: Should This Be Allowed

A customer walks into the local Pizza Hut, and sits down. A waiter approaches and asks what kind of pizza they want. The customer gives his order to him, and lays 200 dollars under the menu. The waiter notices, and takes the money. The customer’s pizza is 10 dollars, and he pays for it by a debit card. When he leaves, he puts 300 dollars under his own plate. The waiter grabs the money, places the money in his pocket, and goes back to working. Now, if two new characters illustrated the names of the waiter and the customer for the football player, and an athletic booster, then everyone would be saying how rude it is, and how corrupt our society is. That is an exact reason why we shouldn’t pay players, and how the sanctions that the NCAA has put down to prevent the main sanction (paying players) from happening. Paying players to play an athletic sport in the NCAA should not be allowed, and that’s because colleges aren't allowed/shouldn't pay players and they don't need to earn money. There are many arguments against paying players The first argument, â€Å"Colleges aren't allowed/shouldn't pay players† has many opinionated answers, are biased, or have no clue of what's going on. In some past research, there have been some points that have been made that they should be paid. Others, for instance, show that they shouldn't be paid. There’s been that they’re getting free academics, free board, free meal, etc. and there’s also seen that full-ride scholars can't have a full-time job, so they could use some money. Both, I agree with, but in general, they shouldn't be paid, but there should be some rule changes. What I'm saying is, is that you notice smaller schools getting hit with the sanctions. For instance, Southern Methodist University, in the 80's, paid 21 football players over $61,000 to play for them over 3 years. If you notice, there is a rule that you can't pay players to play NCAA Football. To pay college athletes to play football for you is illegal. They tried to get above the level playing field that the NCAA had set. Their punishment was extremely serious, and called â€Å"The Death Penalty†. â€Å"They lost 55 scholarships, had their 1987 season cancelled, pulled from live television, and banned from postseason play until 1989. And obviously, since they are still in the Conference USA, they haven't recovered since. â€Å"(Yahoo â€Å"Penalty 4†) The rules are made for a reason, and should always be followed. In another example, The University of Southern California, or known as USC, received a letter of investigation concerning Reggie Bush and his time at USC. He had knowingly received benefits from an outside source. NBC reporter Greg Beachem stated, â€Å"A two-year bowl ban, four years’ probation, loss of scholarships and forfeits of an entire year’s games for improper benefits to Heisman Trophy winner Reggie Bush dating to the Trojans’ 2004 national championship. † As you can tell, he received benefits from some sort of person who won’t be questioned for who he is, because he doesn’t have a name like Reggie Bush does. There were also had noticed that the rule changes that were mentioned earlier were a major part in fixing the rules for players to make money. For instance, Title IX states that all men and women must have an equal amount of scholarships. That may sound just fine, but the truth is, there is no â€Å"Women's Football†. So that's 85 scholarships that have to be evened out to women. If Title IX disregarded football, then that rule would be completely fine. Plus, there are 2 sports that generate revenue for an athletic program. That would be men's football, and men's basketball. So it's up to those teams to pay for the entire athletic department. This also shows how players shouldn't be paid. If only two different sports make money for an entire team, what are the reasons that they should be paying players, when that team may want to use the money for other additions to the campus? Plus, if you left the rich schools to pay for players to come, then a smaller school like Texas Christian University, or Boise State University, wouldn't ever earn any big time players. Teams like Texas University, Ohio State University, Michigan University, (other rich D1 schools), would buy out all the players, and leave everyone in the dust. The 2nd argument, that players don't need to be paid, is also a biased argument. Finding information on this rule is very tough, because all search engines bring up many blogs about people's opinions and those aren't credible. I've noticed that some people think that rule changes are needed, and some say that the whole rule should be abolished, and all athletes should be paid. With my personal knowledge of secrecy and how people can secretly hide items of interest, some students would possibly work at Pizza Hut, have a boosters guy order a $10 dollar pizza and leave a $500 dollar tip. We all know that that's not right to do, but some regulations need to be lifted. If you let college athlete’s work within the school, such as in the cafeteria, or the library, the NCAA could possibly monitor the earnings they make. It's possible that if they worked at a Pizza Hut, or a Taco Bell, they could make sure that the NCAA has some sort of access to see the paycheck they earn and make sure it makes it to the bank account. Depending on how big the college is, depends on how the school will be corrupted more. For example, at Capital University, the cost for a year is $33,210 for a full-time undergraduate year, including room, board, etc. Now, if that is compared to the University of Southern California, their tuition is $56,813 per year, including room, board, etc. (USC 2011 estimations) The difference here is, Capital is a Division III school, and has an extremely lower school population than a school like USC. USC has a population of â€Å"15,600 undergraduates as well as a staggering 15,224 graduate students† (USC College Admission). At Capital, you get a smaller amount of TV Time, if not any, while USC is making a large amount of money and getting TV Time every week. If you have to pay players that play for a college that can’t afford to do it, like Capital University, many small colleges will be taken out of athletics, and will be losing scholarships. To add on, it's not like these athletes have to spend their built-up savings account to go play football. They get to use all the money they saved up to go earn an education in college, to buy what they want. They may not get any more money to spend, but the rough $30,000 that would be in their bank account should be enough if they’re not paying a penny for the classes they have, the meals, their dorm, and their textbooks. Plus, if they’re at a big-time school, like Ohio State, or Texas University, then they especially wouldn’t have to pay the $35,000 that a semester of college costs. But my point isn’t completely set in stone because colleges shouldn’t pay players, but some rule changes need to be made, as I will talk about later. NCAA rules state that if you’re an athlete, you can’t work. When you read that rule, you think of the â€Å"big-name athletes† like Cam Newton or Terrelle Pryor, that have full- rides to play football. But, there’s always the people who have half-year scholarships, or are considered walk-ons, that also can’t work. To add on, I believe that if you aren’t being paid in that season/year, you should be allowed to work. The full-ride scholars are being paid to play football, and getting a free education, while half-scholarship athletes and walk-on athletes are not allowed to work, and are being forced to pay their education. When you go on to any college website, you will find a link to go to something about financial aid, so it’s not like nobody is out to help. To talk about rules are a different story, and it needs to be addressed. To define what the NCAA calls a Professional Team, â€Å"is if it declares itself to be professional or provides any player more than actual and necessary expenses for participation on the team. † (NCAA Guide 10) The NCAA-made pamphlet answers all questions to the rules that I’ve mentioned. It states rules for students who are in Division I or Division II schools, such as Division 1 student-athletes aren’t allowed to accept a salary, while Division II student-athletes are permitted to do so. Division II teams can enter a contract with a professional team, while Division I teams can’t. Do these rules sound fair? I have to say yes, because Division II teams don’t get any TV Time. If a team has some TV Time, it increases their stock value to play in the NFL. There are also some rules that apply to both Division I and Division II teams. For example, Division I and II teams can’t receive benefits from an agent, or enter an agreement with an agent. The reason that this rule is made is because agents would have the most contact with an athlete, and would be able to obtain money from a boosters guy and the athlete would illegally receive the money. If the rule was changed so that sanctions would be softer on the crime, or players being paid was made legal, the rich schools would become the ultimate powerhouses, and the other schools would become obsolete, like what was discussed earlier. These big schools, like Texas or USC would take over college football and leave teams like TCU or Boise State behind. When you decide to pay players on a two-sport revenue generator, you have to decide who you’re going to pay, how much you’ll pay them, when you’ll pay them, and decide about which players don’t get paid. An offensive lineman may not get paid, and he makes the running back or the quarterback look like he carries the team. Does he deserve to get paid over the quarterback? The final thought that goes with this paper is, if we paid student-athletes, should we pay every sport, and if we do, do we give an equal amount to each player? You find your own opinion on the matter.