More on Pay for Play

It was announced yesterday that NCAA chief Mark Emmert will convene a meeting of the minds in August to address broad issues surrounding college athletics, namely whether players should be compensated beyond what they already are. Gathering at the summit will be 50 or so college presidents and chancellors. FWIW, Michael Adams has accepted his invitation.

Among topics on the agenda are how to maintain the governing body's policy on amateurism, a definition that allows schools to restrict how athletes are compensated for playing sports. That's not all Emmert wants to talk about. 

"How do we look at issues around the integrity of the collegiate model? Is there a sense that we need stronger investigative tools? Is there a sense that we need a more understood and more comprehensive penalty structure?" Emmert said in a statement. "How do we look at the embedding of athletics in a way that sends clear messages to institutions before student-athletes even arrive on campus that there is an expectation of academic success?" 

But it's the pay-for-play issue that will certainly get the most attention. 

It has been debated publicly for decades, and has gained fresh traction in the wake of high-profile infractions cases including that of reigning Heisman Trophy winner Cam Newton and former Heisman winner Reggie Bush.

The ramifications have been felt at some of the nation's most prominent programs. 

Gee, thanks Cecil. I've made my case and even posted a poll here. But I'd like to revisit it at least once again here, because I see and hear some painting the stance of not paying athletes as some form of jealousy...or a case of the haves (as in athletic ability) and the have nots (...me...and maybe you).


For me it's not about that. Beyond my hang up with a growing sense of entitlement and the fact that I still feel an education is worth something, I just get this awful taste in my mouth for what the college game will become should we venture down Delaney and Spurrier's path.


Let me break it down some: currently your average Joe goes to school and gets as much of his expenses covered as possible through various means (parents, scholarships, savings, grants, part-time job, etc). Whatever is left over that is not covered is dumped into a student loan most likely. Nothing made me value my education more than working to pay it off once I was through.


On the other more athletic hand, if a school covers the expenses for attending classes beyond what it already does (tuition, room, board, books) it simply becomes a general manager, handing out stipends for a new pair of shoes or tickets to the latest Journey (...whatever) concert. The education component is completely taken out of the equation. The school is just a landing spot in a vast farm system.


One other point. I'm particularly interested in seeing how coaches handle this hot button topic now and going forward. The safe play is to voice support for the idea like Spurrier did. That way players, both current and potentials, see you as on their side.


Purdue hoops coach Matt Painter might be swimming upstream:

"Just handing them money so they can get new Timberlands or whatever, I don't think that's right," Painter said during a conference call with reporters Monday. "I don't want to lose the amateurism. They are getting their education paid for and a lot of people say that's what the NBA is for. If you want to get paid, go to the NBA."

Again, I'd be surprised if we don't eventually get to a point where we're extending this immense money bag towards the hands of the athletes who help create it. I'm just not convinced that's what is best for the college sport.