Marks for sports.

Pro case: C1: Revenue for collegesCon questions why players need to go to college if playing sports makes so much money. Well the only way players themselves make money (legally) is to play on a professional team. Opportunities for making money off sports outside of this are negligible. But to get to a professional team, players must make a name for themselves in the college environment. Most countries get professional athletes by "drafting" great players out of college. So if players want to make money, they need to go to college. Giving Marks not only helps them to that, but those great players draw in more spectators who want to see an exciting team, raising ticket sales and revenue. Con says that players shouldnt need marks as an incentive to go play college sports. However, my argument has nothing to do with incentives. My argument is that players need HELP getting into a college sport. Remember, many great players of any sport are unintelligent and cannot get into a college on their own. This would keep many strong athletes in basketball, , (international) football, equestrian sports, and gymnastics away from college and into obscurity. Marks allow these guys to get in there, make money for the school, and have a greater chance of A. Getting educated, B. Getting on a pro team, or C. Getting on the path to the Olympics. My argument is also that more great players will sell more tickets because they make the sport more exciting for spectators to watch. My opponent thinks fans will pay tickets to see a sporting club, rather than a college game. This is false; college sports are often aired on TV. Sporting clubs are not. This means colleges have a popularity bonus. Additionally, college stadiums can hold thousands of fans. Local clubs have no such thing. Con case:C1: Con thinks that college associations, like the NCAA, would be wasting million on marks for something that doesn't bring them profit. My whole argument is that college players make millions for the industry. The NCAA gets part of the revenue generated from ticket sales, so it is profitable for them. Marks will put more great players into college, which sells more tickets and makes more money for the industry. Colleges also get part of the revenue. This means they get more money for training facilities. this nullifies his Elitism argument. My Wholesale argument was dropped. Even if the poor can't access training facilities, thats not a reason to shut them out of college entirely. C2: Apparently this was just a pre-emptive argument, in case I said that Marks will bring in more Olympians for sports where his country is struggling. Since this wasn't argued, I'll just move on. C3: Unintelligent players wont last in top colleges, meaning the academically gifted students wont be kept out. Con thinks that dumb players will try to go to Harvard anyway which will waste spots in a top college. But most players know they aren't smart enough to handle the curriculum of a Harvard or Yale. Therefore, unintelligent players won't go to a top school in the first place. So there is still no wasting of spots. Also, while top colleges may have limited space, this is not true for the average school. Not every college is so filled with students, that letting a sports player in means someone else is let out. Most colleges dont even have student count limits. So we can add sports players into colleges without subtracting academics. ConclusionI have answered my opponent's main two disadvantages of aiding sports players into college. Academic students will not be crowded out because the players themselves have to be academic to continue playing the sport. With Marks allowing more great athletes into college, these exciting players will draw in more spectators and ticket sales. This revenue can be used for better training facilities, which will improve every sport as well as the college itself.