From: mm42@prism.gatech.EDU (Mark Mitchell)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college
Subject: Re: Erickson,Spurrier,Bowden
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:18:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Ramblin' Wrecks from Georgia Tech

acdendy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (ROGER DENDY) wrote:
}
}Well, I'm not the world expert on NCAA rules.  And I've seen a few posts 
}here which seem to conflict somewhat.  But, perhaps they could work on 
}those weekends that the coaches are so worried about them being bored.  If 
}working isn't allowed, then maybe it should be.  They could get summer jobs. 
}Or money from their parents.  Or loans, or grants, maybe even scholarships. 
}Seems to me they have all the same options other students have, and then some.

Look, the NCAA rules don't allow jobs during the season, they don't
allow spending money, they don't even allow as many training table
meals as they used to.  These players are *not* getting a fair shake.
Even if jobs were allowed, why should these guys have to go out and
work any more than they already are?  They are putting in no less than
30 hours a week (probably much more) for football already, and they
are bringing in loads of money doing it.  The University or Athletic
Association is then stealing that money and giving it to the swin team,
the golf team, whoever.  This is what we call socialism.

}If they are undercompensated, then why are there huge numbers of wishing, 
}dreaming of getting the chance to play?

Why were people willing to work in sweatshops and child labor pools
before the turn of the century?  Just because someone is willing to
do the job doesn't make it fair.  At some point maybe the players will 
get together and go on strike for better benefits (as the laboers of
the 19th and early 20th century did) or maybe the presidents will get 
a clue (I'm not holding my breath), but until then the football and
basketball players are being grossly exploited.

}Do you propose that we offer scholarships to coaches and team doctors?  Or 
}are you suggesting that they should be "student-coaches" and be required to 
}be amateurs?

It seems to fit your notion that football has to be played just for 
fun, and that participation is its own reward.  Why not have volunteer
or student coaches?  That would free up even more funds for the 
funding of scholarships for 3rd rate sports, which you seem to think
is a good idea.

}Coaches are teachers, and as such are paid professionals.

Really?  What class do they teach?  What credits do the players get for
taking these classes?

}If college athletics is nothing but a business, why do we give scholarships 
}to athletes in non-revenue sports? 

Because a bunch of hypocritical college presidents and AD's think that's
the best way to hide the fact that it is a business.

}                                    When implementing your system of paying 
}players, do you base the amount on how much they bring in?

I'll leave that to an economist or accountant to decide, but I would
certainly give them a decent percentage of it.  Who sweats to earn
the money?  Who risks injuryn and even death to earn the money?  Who do we
fill the stands and turn on the TV to watch?  It's not the coaches,
it's not the ADs, it's not the presidents, and it's not the water polo
team.

}I don't know all the reasons why athletic scholarships were invented.  

There is only one reason they were invented: to recruit the best players.
A lot of other schemes were invented as well, like bringing in players
who weren't even students (a tradition a lot older than scholarships,
in fact as old as the game itself, since the 1869 Rutgers-Princeton game
even had some "ringers"), paying the players, etc., but they have since 
been outlawed.

}                                                             Among the 
}reasons, I know, is the need to give students an opportunity to attend 
}college who wouldn't otherwise have had the chance.

Why should the ability to play football or golf earn someone a chance
to go to college?  How about if we take the scholarships of the football
and golf team and give them to a bunch of really smart people who
can't afford college?  That would be even more noble than stealing
the football players' money to give to the golf team, wouldn't it?

}                                                     Not among them is the 
}desire to become a minor league for professional football and basketball 
}leagues.

The NFL and NBA do use the colleges for minor leagues, there can be no doubt
about that.  The NCAA's response to that should be to continue to increase
the standards for athletes.  When the pro leagues start to see major talent
not getting to play in college, they'll have some real incentive to
establish minor leagues.  Otherwise, why should they?

-- 
Mark Mitchell           Georgia Tech            mm42@prism.gatech.edu

     "I love codfish, I love codfish, I love codfish balls!"
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college