A MODEST PROPOSAL

Jim Tressel's downfall at Ohio State provides the background for this musing into the frequent debate about whether college athletes, whose talents permit the schools at which they matriculate and many others (television and radio networks, restaurants, taverns, motels, etc.) to earn millions of dollars, should be paid for their services. 

While those who advance such a proposal have cogent arguments supporting their views, my conclusion is that paying them is a step too far and not necessary to address the perceived imbalance between benefits accruing to others in comparison to those flowing to the athletes.  Most people who support paying college athletes ignore the reality.  They are already paid, and fairly well at that.

Let us compare how college athletes are paid by their school in comparison with high school athletes who do NOT go on to college.  Let's use Ohio State as an example. 

According to the website for THE Ohio State University, a non-state resident attending the campus at Columbus will incur costs for tuition, fees, and room and board of $33,768 during the 2010 - 2011 calendar school year.  For residents, the cost is $19,584.

Most high school graduates entering the workforce at an entry level full time job would earn about $19,000 (or less) per year.  Certainly, it would be the rare high school grad who would step into a job paying them nearly $34,000 per year.  Not only that, what the University is giving them will provide them with the expectation of SUBSTANTIALLY higher lifetime earnings even if they are NOT one of the fortunate few to go on to the NFL. 

Over a work life, earnings for a worker with a bachelor's degree compared with one who had just a high school diploma increase by about $1 million for non-Hispanic Whites and about $700,000 for African Americans; Asians and Pacific Islanders; and Hispanics.

So, all in all, I don't feel too sorry for these poor kids who are getting taken advantage of.  The REAL problem is NOT that they are not getting paid.  The problem is they aren't taking advantage of the opportunity they are being given.
 

If I had a voice for change, the change I would endorse would be simple.  When a college offered a full time athletic scholarship to a potential student that scholarship would NOT be for the 4 or 5 years the athlete was eligible to compete in athletics for the University.  The scholarship would be good for as long as the student can maintain him or her self in "good standing" academically with the University.
 

If the student was not in a position to graduate when his or her eligibility to compete expired because of the reduced load the athlete took due to the rigors of competing at the scholarship level - so be it.  He or she could continue on at the University with all tuition, fees, and room and board paid so long as he or she maintained a "full time" student load, and kept him or her self academically eligible.  Oh, by the way, they get the same resources they did when they were competing (i.e.. tutoring, if necessary).

That serves many goals.  First, it avoids the perception the colleges just use these kids up and spit them out when their usefulness to the college has expired.  Second, it will have an up front effect.  Will colleges still be willing to offer scholarships to the same kids knowing how long their obligation to the kids might extend?  I don't know, maybe or maybe not.  Third, it allows kids to reassess their priorities once they see the goal they were striving for throughout their college eligibility was a mirage.  In other words, now that the player knows he is NOT going to be an NFL star, maybe going to school and actually getting a college education and a degree will be something they will be more motivated to actually invest the time and effort necessary to succeed with. 

Finally, my plan is superior than one sometimes touted by others - tieing eligibility for bowl games to graduation rates.  That proposal will go nowhere because it will affect the quality of the product being put on the playing field.  My proposal will not.  It merely allows athletes to continue to work toward a degree after they are not distracted by their sport.  Furthermore, it has the added advantage that it can be adopted with minimal increased expense for the colleges. 

To the extent that the low graduation rate for scholarship athletes can be solved, my plan will solve it.  If it can't be solved, the inability to solve it will rest SOLELY on the athlete who is unwilling or unable to do what it takes to graduate, not on the University.