Marks for sports.

I thank Blackvoid for posting his argument. I apologize for my shoddy formatting(the whole thing goes away if u make changes after going to review). My opponents first argument is that the -college-sports industry is generating large amounts of revenue for colleges. However if this industry is generating this kind of revenue then sports players would generate sufficient income and would not need to go to college( to gain education to earn a lively hood). He states " Marks get these great players onto the field." He also states that "America's college football program is a billion dollar industry." In such a case why do we need marks as an incentive to get players onto the field? He may contend that college teams are necessary because they attract local audience i.e the friends of players/fellow students/parents etc however college teams would attract this audience irrespective of whether the players were exceptionally talented. Audience which love the sport and want to see sports played on a high level would watch irrespective of whether they were linked to a college. He says "But since we do have marks, we have an industry generating millions for colleges across the country." Why would the sports industry part with millions(to give to colleges) when they do not seem to benefit from the association.There is no reason for fans to support a college team over a local sporting club. He also states "So in the long run, everyone will have access to training, not just the wealthy." -not true. Assuming that the sports industry willingly parts with millions:The money will go either to-a) Colleges, in which case facilities wont significantly improve at school level making sports and hence colleges out of the reach of the lower and middle classes.b) Schools, in which case the colleges have no incentive to part with seats. He states," Marks will put more high schoolers into college, which means more people have a chance at getting out of poverty." I have shown that marks will NOT put MORE high schoolers into college but different( less academically gifted) students into college. He states that " However, unintelligent players won't last in top colleges anyway." This is exactly the point. If a student does not pass and become a productive member of the society it is a waste of valuable resources i.e. a college seat. He states that " This will ensure that smart students aren't being unfairly crowded out by football players, because the players themselves have to be smart. So this won't be a problem." The problem is not that a SMARTER student is being crowded out.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Pro states that: "Con doesn't like that we have to give an equal amount of marks to all sports, even though some are more popular than others.This isn't a problem with the concept of sporting marks. If this is how his country is implementing the system, then they are just doing it in a bad way." In that case we concur. That would not be accepted here becasue marks are being given to sports to incentivise people to play the less popular sports(Cricket is a billion dollar industry and does not need promotion, they are trying to promote other sports which are not generating revenue.).However you are not argueing this and hence i will not hold this against you. ( I was merely pointing it out as an interesting fact. They are worried that we are only playing cricket(which is not an olympic sport hence no medals) I copy pasted your lines for easy reference and to point out ampleness of 4000 characters. ;) I once again thank you for your participation and insightful views.