With so much controversy this past summer surrounding college sports, one has to wonder if this will ever stop.

One of the biggest stories this past summer happened at Ohio State.

Jim Tressel, who led Ohio State’s football program to a national title, had to resign as the NCAA investigated his school for possible rules violations. Tressel was one of the most respected coaches in the game as he led the Buckeye’s with seven top five rankings in the past 10 years.

 

The issue at hand was his players were selling championship rings in exchange for cash and even tattoos which clearly violated NCAA rules. The players were not allowed to sell their memorabilia, and Tressel failed to notify the school of NCAA violations even though he willingly knew about what was going on. The exchanging of memorabilia for money was not an isolated incident, as this was actually a common practice at Ohio State. The players and coaches clearly broke the rules and should not be let off the hook. Rules are rules. A lot of schools are doing this, but just have not been caught. Ohio State was caught red handed, and has faced the scrutiny it deserves.

This issue, however, does lead to a question.

Should college athletes be paid?

I believe if these players were paid, there would have been no need for them to sell off their championship gear they earned and this corruption at Ohio State probably would have not occurred. The players were looking to make some money, but unfortunately chose the wrong way to make money.

If one day, however, programs across the country decided to start paying players this would lead to more questions.

How much would athletes get paid? Would better players make more money? For example, Tim Tebow, one of the greatest  players in the history of college football would deserve to get paid more than a majority of players. Tebow was a two time national champion with Florida and won the Heisman Trophy.

 It would be unfair to Tebow if he made as much money as a bench player who did nothing for the team in winning those championships. At a big school like Florida, more questions would arise from player salaries. Would all sports at the school pay their athletes? Even if dollar amounts were figured out, where would the money come from?

The only schools that could reasonably afford to pay their athletes would be the BCS schools that come from conferences, such as the Big East or SEC. If this were the case, then possibly a separate league of just BCS schools that compete against each other would form. It would seem weird and unfair for a non-BCS school that is not paying their players playing against a team of paid athletes.

If these athletes were getting paid, they would  also look to get agents to take care of their business.

Furthermore, like the NFL, they would seek a labor union to represent them. This labor union would also lead to more conflicts. This is a very complex topic to handle and probably will not get addressed anytime soon, as the NCAA and colleges continue to make millions. Even though schools make millions of dollars off of these athletes through merchandise, tickets, video games and TV deals, I think they should not have a salary.

 

Universities and colleges pay for tuition along with room and board for these athletes. Even if it may be hard to balance school and sports, some have extraordinary opportunities at schools millions would love to have.

My solution to this issue would be a reasonable living stipend for student athletes. Realistically it is hard for these athletes to get a part time job to make some extra cash. That is why BCS schools should have a living stipend with a good amount of money in it. Here athletes can have extra cash to go out  and buy something they need for their home. If both sides can find a way to work things out it can benefit both parties.

To contact The Ionian’s Christopher Sponn, e-mail him at [email protected]