Contributed by NATHAN ECKER
OSWEGO – The NCAA, which is no stranger to controversy, has a significant problem on its hands regarding the issue of paying its Division I athletes.
When it comes to this problem, there is no right or wrong answer, which makes this dilemma that much more difficult to solve. Since it is such an enormous process, it would take several years to implement a policy that would essentially alter the way Division I athletics operates.
According to Tim Delaney, a professor at SUNY Oswego who specializes in sports, Division I athletes should not be paid, but are entitled to “walking around money.”
An interesting point Delaney made was that if perhaps athletes were paid, they would stay in school longer. If Division I athletes stayed in school longer, more athletes would be able to obtain their degree.
At the same time, the school would be able to continue profiting off these players for an even longer period of time, making it a win-win situation for both parties.
Delaney also said that college athletes should be able to profit off their own “likeness,” which essentially means players should be able to make money off things like their autograph, apparel with name on it, and all other avenues of profiting off themselves.
Another interesting aspect to the argument is if Division I athletes were getting paid, would it be able to limit the amount of scandals in the NCAA?
This is a hot topic right now with the current NCAA FBI investigation, and what is going on with Louisville and Arizona universities.
Brian Moritz, a SUNY Oswego professor who also specializes in sports, said that “completely eliminating scandals in college sports is never going to happen. But (this) could potentially eliminate a lot of them.”
One of the biggest issues of paying athletes would be the compensation for players. For example, the starting five for a powerhouse basketball program is generating significantly more profit than the walk-ons and players who rarely play.
James Lerch, a SUNY Oswego professor who has his own sports radio show, said that because of that reason, “you really can not have the same level of compensation for athletes,” which would make dictating the amount of money per athlete an extraordinarily difficult task.
Another popular argument in the debate is that the cost of a full ride to a college and a free education is enough.
The problem is, the cost of tuition per university varies.
An example of this would be Syracuse University, and the University of Buffalo. Both have Division I football and basketball. However, the cost of a full ride at Syracuse would be worth more than double the cost of a full ride at Buffalo, due to the disparity in tuition/room and board costs.
There is a lot of concern that paying college athletes would change the sport. Throw money into the equation, and it risks the chance that players will want to play for the highest bidder. Smaller market teams would simply not be able to compete with the bigger market programs.
One of the reasons college sports are so great is because every team starts with same opportunities and resources as everyone else, for the most part.
One point that Delaney made was that if it did change the sport, a rival league to the NCAA could form.
Lavar Ball, notorious television personality and father of (the NBA’s LA) Lakers’ rookie Lonzo, is actually in the process of trying to create the JBA (Junior Ball Association.).
This would be an alternative to going to college and “wasting time” for players whose sole focus is to get to the NBA as quickly as possible.
What is widely considered to be one of the problems with paying college athletes is who would be responsible for paying them. There are several ways this could be handled. The school, the conference, and the NCAA would all be prime candidates.
According to Moritz, a possible source for income for Division I athletes would be through the boosters, if the NCAA would permit it. Given the time commitment of being a Division I athlete, these people obviously do not have time to work.
Hypothetically, boosters could give money to athletes which would be the equivalent of basically “survival money.”
Nathan Ecker is a journalism student at SUNY Oswego.
missing or outdated ad config
