Agents, boosters, unscrupulous coaches, and friends of the program, as long as there's been collegiate athletics there's been people that have been giving these student athletes gifts money or both. Come to my school, play for my team, sign with me when you turn pro. Any sports fan knows the history of this. With the recent player\agent investigations we come again to the question should collegiate athletes be paid?
It's a question that's has been asked as much as the BCS\playoff debate. These players generate millions of dollars for their universities. The SEC's $2.25 Billion Television contract wouldn't have come about if Nick Saban were coaching a junior high team.
The initial question leads to several following ones. Would collegiate athletes being paid reduce the influence of agents and boosters? Wouldn't it allow the athletes to at least be partly compensated for the money they are helping to generate? Isn't it enough they get a free education? How would you fairly distribute payments when a school like Central Michigan is clearly less profitable than Ohio State?
Ugh... Where to begin?
This article from allsands.com "Should College Athletes Be Paid" provides some history on situation and echoes what I think about the issue. You don't know if it will help or hurt things until you try. You know the way things are currently could be improved.
Clearly you'll need to limit what a player can earn during the course of the year. It's the only chance at having any sort of competitive playing field between schools.
The payments will never match the hundreds of thousands an agent may tempt a player with. The player and university must still be responsible enough to understand the rules and what actions can cause a violation.
But how do financially strapped schools pay student athletes? Um... Please, just one major question at a time. Let the NCAA figure that one out.
