Quote:
Originally Posted by Krimzon7
Another thing, are you familiar with the upper tenth? A similar theory applies to college football athletes. It is hard to feel sorry for the cam newtons, and Maurice clarrett's. But fir every one of them, there are a thousand kids who aren't the media darlings, who aren't receiving agents dollars, and who actuall live off the stipend...while they block/kick/tackle in front of thousands...and generate millions in tv revenue ticket sales, merchandise deals, and bowl revenue.
|
That argument works in reverse too though Krim. It's the upper 10th (the Newtons, Clarretts and Teboes) who people use as the basis for justifying why college athletes should be paid. No one goes to see the Left Tackle or Center play. It's the Quarterback whose jersey is sold. It's the Running Back who gets featured on ESPN.
So if you want to justify it by basing it purely on the cold numbers associated with revenue generation, those thousands of kids aren't deserving of payment because they aren't draws.
It's that same logic that explains why the highest paid Center in the NFL makes half as much as the highest paid QB. I don't think we want to apply that to college athletics.
As far as college ball players being on a "contract" that's no different than someone who gets accepted to the school on an academic scholarship. If someone on an academic scholarship flunks their first year that's it for them. They have to maintain a certain GPA and stay out of trouble. All scholarships are evaluated on a year by year basis like that.