0

Sports on the Hill

Time to address the payment problem

Pads care clashing, helmets are cracking together, and athletes are putting in countless hours at work to represent their school. Yep, it’s that time again everyone: college football season. Except this year the list of contenders fighting for the national championship will be missing one of their regular powerhouses: “THE” Ohio State Buckeyes. After the infamous memorabilia-for-tattoos scandal involving their star quarterback Terrelle Pryor, Ohio State has a hearing with the NCAA. They have already suggested self-imposed sanctions in which the school offered to put themselves on two years probation, along with vacating all wins from last year, and have even parted ways with renowned head coach Jim Tressel. Pryor, meanwhile, decided to abandon ship and forgo his senior season for the NFL.

Violations like these are becoming way to popular. It’s sad to see blue chip programs fall to violations that should be easily avoidable. There was the USC – Reggie Bush saga, which ended with Bush giving back the Heisman trophy and USC facing sanctions. LSU also ended up on probation, and got scholarships taken away. Back in the 80’s SMU’s (Southern Methodist University) dynasty was halted due to the payment of players, which resulted in the program getting the "death penalty." Now with the controversies surrounding the Miami Hurricanes the NCAA has put the university under investigation as well.

This all boils down to one thing. Kids want cash. These violations won’t stop until there is a different set of recruiting rules in place. Directly paying players isn’t the answer, but something needs to change. One idea that helps meet both arguments in the middle would be to let the players market themselves. If an athlete gets offered $50 for signing a football, let them. If they get a free tattoo for taking a picture with the tattoo artist, fine. If they’re good enough let them sign a deal with Nike or Adidas.

It is inconceivable to start paying players; it takes away the main difference between college and pro. I think allowing players to market themselves would greatly lessen the amount of schools becoming involved in impermissible benefits given to players, without taking away from their amateur status. Therefore not as many of the players would seek out a payment plan from a coach or booster when they know they can get cash from a mere autograph.

A lot of college athletes grew up rough and they would jump at their first opportunity to get money, by the rules or not. Why not implement a system where athletes have their own way of making money. It’s getting old to see the storied programs of yesterday become the afterthoughts of tomorrow. Let’s take care of this problem quick before more and more schools get busted for paying their players.

Comments

Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.

Sign in to comment