The Pros And Cons Of College Football

The article responds to the debate about if college athletes should be paid on top of their scholarships/benefits. Critics of college sports argue that these student athletes are being exploited because it is possible for schools to generate revenue from TV contracts and other beneficial arrangements. Ackerman and Scott, both commissioners of a conference/sport, respond by stating “College is a time from learning, and college sports provide young men and women alike a chance to learn, grow, graduate, and achieve great things in life.” The purpose of this article is to educate the audience, critics of

In his article “The Shame of College Sports,” Taylor Branch (2011) describes how universities are focused on advancing and receiving money from major athletics and having star athletes, but how the universities are not caring for the “student athlete.” The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has made college sports into an unmerited business. However, as years progress more athletes are getting smart and are taking the NCAA to court. The more students that challenges the rules by the NCAA and take them to court, the secrets and undermining values of the NCAA come out and the closer the NCAA comes to an end.

College athletic programs are among the most popular sporting events in America. With this rise in popularity, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and its colleges have also seen a rise in revenue in recent years. In 2014, the NCAA made over 900 million dollars in revenue. Some collegiate coaches, such as Kentucky’s John Calipari, have yearly salaries in the millions, not counting incentives and endorsement deals. While, clearly, money is being made, NCAA regulations ban collegiate athletes from being paid. Many question this rule and argue that athletes at the college level earn and deserve pay for play. The debate to pay or not to pay college athletes rages on despite the latest court ruling supporting NCAA policies. Because colleges and universities earn such a profit from sporting events, many fans feel it is only fair to distribute some of the wealth to the players. Supporters of paying student athletes feel that these young men and women should be fairly compensated for the time demanded of the athletes and the stress put on the athletes, physically, mentally, emotionally, and financially. Those in favor of paying college athletes contend that athletic and academic work ethic at both high school and collegiate levels will improve, as well as, fiscal responsibility in these young adults. The NCAA argues that paying athletes would negatively affect their

The ugly truth behind the money machine that is college sports is that, every year, college athletes are deceived by the institutions the compete for into making them millions of dollars, with relatively little in return. Athletes are said to be given a chance to attend college and to attain a free college degree. However, research has shown that this is not completely true for two reasons. For one, the student athlete will spend most of their time in preparation for competition. Secondly, what education the student athlete does receive hardly serves them outside of maintaining eligibility just so

“College Athletes for Hire, The Evolution and Legacy of the NCAA’s Amateur Myth” written by Allen L. Sack and Ellen J. Staurowsky. In their book, the authors enlighten the reader on such issues as athletic scholarships, professionalism in college sports, and favoritism for athletes as well as many more important legal, and ethical issues that we as a country need to address. In this paper I will not do a standard book report by simply regurgitating the information I read in their book.

In the United States, college athletics are growing larger by the minute. College athletics contribute not only to the recognition of colleges and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), it also contributes to the income of colleges and the NCAA. Without student athletes, these colleges and the NCAA would not reap the benefits of college athletics, such as: increased awareness of colleges, higher application rates, and of course the revenue brought in from game and event tickets, apparel, and contracts for licensing and television rights. Since the student athletes, who devote a great deal of time to their sport, are the cog in the machine that is the NCAA and college athletics, they deserve the fair and rightful compensation that they certainly do not currently receive. Here is exactly why student athletes in the NCAA should be compensated for what they do for their colleges, on and off the field of play.

When it comes to football in the college league, many rules have been changed or new rules have been added to make the game safer for those that play it. The Targeting rule was added going into the 2008 NCAA season of college football for safety reasons. This rule has also introduced a new discussion of whether or not the rule is fair. The rule states that if a player strikes another player in an upward motion, striking with the crown [top] of the helmet, then it is a fifteen-yard penalty, and the player is disqualified from the game. This obviously causes controversy between officials and college football coaches. Many believe that the rule is too harsh and that many calls that are targeting, are not targeting after all. And that it is not fair to eject a player, if the player did not even deserve the call “There are other gripes with the targeting rule. Washington State coach Mike Leach called it ‘micromanaging, for lack of a better word,’ citing too many variables and inconsistent enforcement. Stanford coach David Shaw echoed a sentiment shared by Mora and Pickett: that there should be different levels of targeting penalties corresponding with the severity of the infraction” (qtd in Bolch). NCAA rules states that when the targeting rule is implied, then the officials will review the play, and give a final verdict. However, most of the time the call is not overturned and the player remains disqualified from the game. This new rule has also made it nearly

For many students, the college experience is measured by the success of their NCAA-sanctioned athletic programs. Without the experience and athletic performance the student athlete brings, most colleges would not reap the benefit of these significant revenue-generating activities. At best, current NCAA regulations need to be revisited to ensure all avenues are addressed to enable the success of athletic students both in the classroom and on the field or court of play. As stated previously, even though students receive full and partial scholarships determined by their athletic performance, in both instances

Thesis: College athletes should not get paid due to the financial restrictions of the NCAA, the imbalance of competition, and the fact that these young adults are students.

Over the past 30 years some of college sports most famed athlete’s legacies have been tarnished due to scandals. As a result to the scandals not only are players affected but their schools, along with coaching staffs, depending on the specifics of the NCAA violations. Incidents have dated way back to the 1980’s where both SMU (Southern Methodist University) along with the “Bad Boy Miami Hurricanes” were found of guilty of arguably two of the NCAA’s worst and most televised violations of all time. In 1988 after already being previously on probation as a program, the SMU football team was hit with the most severe penalty possible to a college athletic team, “The Death Penalty”. The penalty insisted the program was to be suspended for two years and football was not to be resumed in University Park until 1989. Not only did the program lose its eligibility but they also sacrificed 55 scholarships over a 4 year span, which to date is the harshest penalty the NCAA has handed out. This penalty and sanction alike came about when investigators had discovered 13 student athletes of that respective team decided to accept cash gifts from a

College athletes should be paid to play and schools need to consider compensating these athletes for their talents based on the revenue they generate. Given the fact college sports is a big money maker for many universities and colleges, Kenneth Cooper, author of the article, “Should College Athletes be Paid to Play”?, argues that “college athletes should not be paid due to the fact they are still amateurs who are representatives of the schools they attend” (Cooper). Additional arguments made by Cooper against paying the athletes, include the fact that “these men and women are not just athletes, but students first” (Cooper). From my point of view, this statement would be true only if the emphasis were realistically placed on academics. Therefore,

One of the biggest negative events to ever hit the sports world in the past decade came from the Jerry Sandusky scandal at Penn State University. This scandal lead to the firing of Jerry Sandusky, Joe Paterno, Graham Spanier, Tim Curley, and Gary Schultz who all held high level official capacities at the college. What made this scandal so huge was the fact that the Penn State football program as well as head coach Joe Paterno were highly admired and praised. Furthermore, the most shocking aspect of the scandal is how it was kept silent. The scandal kept making itself advent which left the school in a crisis and ruined its reputation. The issue with this scandal is that it involved a wide range of criminal, moral, ethical and sexual misconduct.

The “contradiction at the heart of big-time college football,” as Michael Oriard describes it, is the competing demands of marketing and education. The 1890s proved to university administrators that there was an enormous market for collegiate football, which postulated opportunities for university building. Since this ubiquitous realization, there has coincided this blatant, yet unchanging contradiction that academic institutions are permitted to profit off of the services provided by its student-athletes while the athletes must idly accept that they are amateurs, donating their efforts to their respective schools. The schools then direct this revenue toward strengthening their athletic departments, and thus continues this seemingly endless growth of big-time college sports, all while athletes remain uncompensated and academics continue to take a backseat.

There has been amplified debate on the treatment, education, training of the college athlete. To avoid exploitation of athletes, “The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), formed in 1905, set bylaws requiring college student-athletes to be amateurs in order to be eligible for intercollegiate athletics competition” (Schneider n.p.). Intercollegiate athletics have dramatically changed over the last several decades. Currently, intercollegiate athletics generate tremendous amounts of revenue, remarkably in football and basketball. College sports in America is a

A few years ago, there was much discussion relating to the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and those units responsible for instituting student-athlete and athletic department policy. This purpose of this paper is to discuss the ethical misconduct that occurred at Penn State, Ohio State and the University of Arkansas, and how the NCAA played a role in the wrongdoing. Coaches, players, and administrators face mounting pressures brought on by the need to sell seats and win games. In response, this type of pressure creates opportunities for offenses to take place. The first component of the paper will be to determine the fundamental ways in which the ethics programs of the NCAA failed to prevent the scandals at Penn State, Ohio State, and the University of Arkansas. Once those measures are identified and discussed, the ways the NCAA leadership contributed to the ethical violations of these schools will be discussed. The next element of the paper will predict the key differences in the scandals that occurred at each school if an effective ethics program was implemented. Next, the paper will suggest actions that the NCAA leadership should take to regain the trust and confidence of the students and stakeholders. The last section will identify measures that HR departments of