Quote:
Originally Posted by Next Big Thing
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.
|
Touche' on the point made about the Centers, and your view of the upper tenth.
I do not pretend to be a genius, but I feel that there should be some updates to such an archaic structure.