Yet another trap is widening for high school athletes headed to compete in college. It’s coming from a mix of those past and present on the next level, and who knows how many more will be pressured to join in the future?
Entitlement is mounting through greed as the decades-old suggestion of college athletes getting paid to play gained air time recently on ESPN’s “The Fab Five,” a documentary about Michigan men’s basketball in the early 1990s, and HBO’s “Real Sports,” which perused the current state of college athletics.
I can’t gauge what the rest of you out there feel about this, but allow me to be crystal clear: It repulses me.
The argument in favor of paying college athletes is a joke, a really bad one, full of technical, legal and practical issues, not to mention producing myriad questions that would halt a college world history professor in the middle of a three-hour lecture about Charlemagne.
First, why isn’t tuition, or least a portion of it, enough? Last time I checked, total cost of attending a large, accredited university goes well into six figures. And just because you can dunk, score touchdowns, pole vault or fire aces from the back line means you should also get an additional check per month?
How exactly would payments work? Would there be taxes taken out or strictly an under-the-table deal (many of which are familiar in college sports)? Would the athletes have to be academically eligible?
Most of those in favor of payment seem to think a few or several hundred dollars per month would be in order; others are demanding thousands.
Not all college sports make money, so which competitors would be paid? Just the footballers and basketballers? Or do we do it across the board?
Isn’t this just like too many professional athletes, who jump up and down as if they found the cure for cancer when they do something good, only to run, hide, pout and refuse to comment to folks like me when they fail? And in keeping with that theme, if a college program loses money, does its athletes have to pay it back?
Many big-time college players have perks in place. The legal ones we know of include medical treatment. Team meals. Free gear. Unlimited access to athletic equipment and training. Tutoring. Mentoring. Free housing and text books.
And what about their ability to be seen on television, to travel and to automatically be placed into a pool of what amounts to a training ground for the pros?
Does anything else need to be added to sweeten their deals? Or should we also buy each of them a Lexus?
Bob Knight was correct years ago when he said, “College isn’t for everyone.”
Clearly, college has come light- years in terms of accessibility — athletics have helped immensely. But it should remain about education.
No, I’m not a giant fan of the NCAA, but can it be stupid enough to consider pay for play? I hope not.
Already, arrogance from upper levels has filtered down to the prep level. Trust me, no more is needed.
Why don’t those demanding a piece of the college sports pie take a reality check with most of the rest of us, as in the ones who must save, scrimp and go into big-time debt to earn a sheepskin?
A young man or woman headed to compete in college is fortunate, so why not act like it?
No, this is a trap for college athletes, who are being baited into having an attitude about money.
Make it clear to the incoming competitors from high school.
Don’t let them fall into it.
Neil H. Devlin: 303-954-1714 or ndevlin@denverpost.com
