# data[].attributes.body
Mark Emmert explains why student athletes shouldn´t be paid.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
They are not unionized employees of the university, says Mark Emmert, NCAA president, explaining why he thinks college athletes should not be paid but rather it allows the players to obtain an education that will help them throughout their lives. Also a look at where all the NCAA money goes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
They are not unionized employees of the university, says Mark Emmert, NCAA president, explaining why he thinks college athletes should not be paid but rather it allows the players to obtain an education that will help them throughout their lives. Also a look at where all the NCAA money goes.

# data[].attributes.body
Tim Tebow explains why college athletes should not be paid.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NCAA should incentivize education, not paid employment

By

Photo by Angel Jimenez | The State PressAlex Coil | 09/29/2019 4:24pm
"Even worse, imagine athletes just coming to college for the money." Illustration published on Sunday, Sept. 29, 2019.

In the entirety of college football's 150-year history, college athletes have not been paid, and it needs to stay that way.

Earlier this month, California lawmakers approved a bill, that the governor has not yet signed, that would allow college athletes to profit off their name and likeness.

Tim Tebo w, a former college quarterback who won the Heisman, went on ESP N's First Take to share his belief that paying student athletes is the wrong approach.

Tebow is exactly right.

The phenomenon around paying college athletes and those driving the movement forward are forgetting the reason one goes to college: to get an education.

In an era striving for competitive balance, how would the NCAA keep from giving schools like Kentucky and Alabama even more of a competitive advantage than schools like Valparaiso and Florida Gulf Coast?

The issue gets complicated when taking into consideration how the salary difference between the quarterback on the football team and the third-string goalie on the lacrosse team gets decided.

Even worse, imagine athletes just coming to college for the money.

"You're going to see bigger schools use (paying athletes) as a recruiting advantage," said Marco Salas a redshirt freshman offensive lineman on the football team. "I think some people are going to come just to make money."

We call college athletes amateurs. Oxford's definition of amateur is "a person who engages in a pursuit, especially a sport, on an unpaid basis."The keyword there is unpaid.

The history of the word amateur dates back to the French, from the Latin, word "amator", which means lover, and also from "amare"which means to love.

Essentially, the word amateur is based on the word love. College athletes should be playing their sport for the love of the game, not the money that would be given to them if we decide to give them a salary.

Rules should not be made for the fractional minority, and in this instance only two percent of athletes play professional sports. The expected career span of that two percent is 10 years, three and a half years in the NFL.

An appalling 80 percent of retired NFL players go broke within three years of retirement, 60 percent in the NBA within five years.

This is why the NCAA and its member institutions should implement a "stay and learn" rule.

This rule should state that if athletes choose to come to college, they will get paid in scholarships that last the entirety of the educational process and the athlete must stay in school until they earn a degree, associates at minimum, in the area of study they choose. If they choose not to go to college and play professionally, that is the risk they take.

By not forcing athletes to play in college, the argument for paying them goes away.

"I'd value the education," Salas said. "That money (from going pro) is going to run out sometime, but the degree will always be there for you. You can use that in the long term."

We need to protect the future of these athletes by arming them with the free education they choose to pursue. These athletes need a backup plan in case of a career-ending injury or a more common issue, the lack of talent to play professionally.

Look at college athletics for what it is and should always be, a high-pressure learning environment and an avenue to earn an education. A much more fun extension of the classroom if you will. After all, they are called student-athletes.
Editor's note: The opinions presented in this column are the author's and do not imply any endorsement from The State Press or its editors.
Reach the columnist at ancoil@asu.edu or follow @anc2018 on Twitter.

Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 500 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.

Like The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion: Paying college athletes is not the answer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
California lawmakers approved a bill that legalizes payment of college athletes. Instead of paying them, institutions need to focus on educating them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ahead of the 2019-20 college basketball season, we're projecting who its top 50 players will be. In constructing our rankings, we considered a number of factors: previous college production (or, for freshmen, high school/recruiting pedigree), a player's natural ability, how big of a role he's expected to play on his team, what a sizable expectation for year-to-year improvement is and, not least of all, how important he will be to his team's success.

That means this is not a list of which players have the best NBA prospects, or play for the best overall teams, or might wind up with the best NCAA or professional careers. It's a projection for the 2019-20 college hoops season only, and while things like NBA draft stock might naturally have overlap with such a ranking, it was not a determiner here.

Without further ado, we present the top 50 players for the upcoming college basketball season:

50. Antoine Davis, Detroit Mercy, Sophomore

Davis is a fascinating player who will provide plenty of fireworks on a Detroit Mercy team that is ineligible for the 2020 postseason. The son of coach Mike Davis, Antoine is hoping to take an unorthodox path to his NBA dreams and has perhaps the greenest light in the nation. As a true freshman last season, he was third nationally at 26.1 points per game, including attempting 347 threes and breaking Stephen Curry's single-season freshman record with the 132 he made. Expect the 6'1" Davis to keep raining them in from deep (he shot at a solid 38% in 2018-19), but he also spent the offseason bulking up in an effort to improve his all-around game and become more than just a high-volume sharpshooter.

49. Zavier Simpson, Michigan, Senior

Simpson is one of multiple point guards on this list who is defense-first, and his tenaciousness makes him the perfect architect of a stingy Wolverines D that looked to cut opponents off at the perimeter last season. He ranked third nationally in defensive win shares and, even in a new system under Juwan Howard, should be lockdown on that end again. Offensively, the undersized Simpson is a strong facilitator (No. 6 assist-to-turnover-ratio) who is oft-used in the pick-and-roll and famously developed a nifty sky-hook. At the same time, he's yet to truly develop from the outside (29.6% from three for his career) and isn't a guy who will carry an offense most nights.

48. McKinley Wright IV, Colorado, Junior

A weak schedule kept Colorado from the breakthrough it was hoping for despite 23 wins in 2018-19, but the return of nearly everyone portends bigger things. Perhaps most crucial was the return of Wright IV, the 6'0" point guard who makes the Buffaloes go. He didn't make an overly large jump as a sophomore, but he improved his shooting across the board and served as a steadying guide, dishing out assists to help five other Buffs players average at least 8 points. If he can cut down on turnovers, he could take the next step this winter.

47. Isaiah Joe, Arkansas, Sophomore

Although he was far from a household name, Joe put together an unusually prolific shooting year for freshman, attempting eight threes per game and draining 41.4% of those attempts. Arkansas may play at an even faster pace under Eric Musselman this season, and with Daniel Gafford off to the NBA, Joe looks set to lead the Razorbacks in scoring and make an even bigger splash statistically. If he maintains his effectiveness and adds to his off-dribble game, he should be one of the tougher players to account for, and a sneaky-intriguing prospect for the NBA, as well.

46. Kira Lewis, Alabama, Sophomore

The most important recruiting new Alabama coach Nate Oats did after taking the job in March was convincing Lewis, then in the transfer portal, to return to Tuscaloosa. The 6'3" guard played his entire freshman season as a 17-year-old, averaging 13.5 points and 2.9 assists while shooting a respectable 35.8% from three. Lewis can play anywhere in the backcourt and could excel in Oats's high-tempo, guard-oriented system (his Buffalo team's offensive possessions were the fourth-shortest in the country in 2018-19, per kenpom) as the Tide look to bounce back from an NIT season.

45. Lamar Stevens, Penn State, Senior

Stevens was named All-Big Ten first-team last season despite his Penn State team missing the NCAA tournament, a sign of his dominance on a team that came on down the stretch. While the big man lacks in efficiency (46.3% from two, 22.0% from three) there's no questioning his production, averaging 19.9 points, 7.7 rebounds and 2.1 assists as a junior while playing more minutes per game than anyone in the Big Ten. The Nittany Lions are an intriguing bubble team heading into 2019-20, but one thing you can pencil in is Stevens doing his thing down low as their dominant force.

44. Scottie Lewis, Florida, Freshman

Known for his extreme competitiveness and high defensive potential, Lewis is a quick-twich athlete who could take a starring role for Florida early in the season. He's explosive and a capable slasher who need only iron out his three-point shooting to be among the best freshmen in the country. The Gators hung their hats on defense last season, and Lewis will be a big aide in that department, capable of defending just about any opponent on the perimeter. He also excels playing in transition, where his passing ability and long strides give him a real advantage. If he takes quickly to the college game, watch out.

43. Chris Clarke, Texas Tech, Senior

Clarke is expected to play a leading role on a new-look Texas Tech team that should be competitive once again. The Virginia Tech transfer is a tenacious, athletic defender who will fit right in with Chris Beard's style of play, and may also see some time handling the ball and initiating offense as the Red Raiders mix and match. Clarke's effort and intensity can be tone-setting, and he should contribute across the board with his versatile skills.

42. Alpha Diallo, Providence, Senior

Diallo has had a nice career arc at Providence, increasing his production each season while growing into becoming the Friars' go-to offensive option last season. He even showed off an improved three-point shot as a junior, though it was only at 33.3%. A beast on the boards, the 6'7" forward's value extends to the defensive side as well, where he led the Big East in win shares. With a lot of pieces back, Providence looks in line to rebound from a down year, with Diallo once again at the center of things.

41. Naji Marshall, Xavier, Junior

Xavier is a trendy preseason pick to be a team that goes from the NIT to contending in its conference, and Marshall, last season's leading scorer, is a big part of that. A do-it-all type of player, he averaged 14.7 points, 7.2 rebounds, 3.4 assists and 1.1 steals, and the 6'7" wing was particularly effective at the rim. The next step for him is becoming more efficient, especially beyond the arc. Despite leading the Musketeers by attempting 173 threes last season he shot just 27.7%, an obvious weak point holding back his full potential.

40. Anthony Lamb, Vermont, Senior

Expect Vermont to roll through the America East again and cause trouble in the postseason, with Lamb leading the way. His versatility and all-around impact within the Catamounts' scheme has led to huge success (77 wins the past three seasons), and the way he racks up points, rebounds, assists and blocks is all the more impressive given his team's plodding tempo. Expect the wins and the numbers to continue piling up.

39. Reggie Perry, Mississippi State, Sophomore

Perry came to Starkville with high expectations and made good on them during a strong freshman season, averaging 9.7 points and 7.2 rebounds and being one of the nation's most productive players on both ends of the boards. He was also fifth in SEC play in free throw rate and knocked down his attempts at a 71.6% clip. Now, expect the 6'10" Perry to become the focal point of the Mississippi State offense, and he'll need to shoulder a lot of the load for a team hoping to avoid a step back after multiple key departures.

38. Anthony Cowan, Maryland, Senior

Cowan has started all 99 games of his college career and is Maryland's first senior point guard since Gary Williams was coaching. As a junior last season, he was the elder statesman of a young team, and sometimes bore the brunt of that youth in the form of the responsibility of trying to make things happen offensively, especially late in the shot clock. Between that and a second-half shooting slump his efficiency dipped, but he still averaged 15.6 points and will play a key role this year for a preseason top-10 team. The 6'0" Cowan has reportedly bulked up in an effort to improve his finishing and could reap the rewards of a talented supporting cast that's a year older.

37. Joe Wieskamp, Iowa, Sophomore

Wieskamp is perhaps being overlooked as a big-time breakout candidate for 2019-20, despite starting all 35 games for Iowa and averaging 11.1 points while shooting 42.4% from three as a freshman. His effective field goal percentage and true shooting percentage were both top 10 in Big Ten play, and now the question is if the 6'6" wing if can stay efficient with higher usage. Wieskamp was only the seventh-most used Hawkeyes player when it came to number of shots taken when on the floor, a number that is sure to increase (perhaps dramatically) after Iowa lost two starters and possibly won't have point guard Jordan Bohannon, either.

36. Jordan Ford, Saint Mary's, Senior

Ford flies under the radar playing out west in the WCC, but that could change this year given Saint Mary's preseason Top 25 status. A crafty guard who shoots nearly 42% for his career from three, Ford is efficient both inside and outside the arc with an ability to score from all three levels. His return to Moraga is a big reason expectations are high for the Gaels, and he has the ability to turn in another year similar to his 21.1-point, 2.5-assist, 1.3-steal campaign last season.

35. Neemias Queta, Utah State, Sophomore

After avoiding a serious injury scare over the summer playing for Portugal, Queta's return date remains uncertain, but it seems he'll be back to quarterback the Aggies' defense. His size and shot-blocking instincts make him one of the top rim protectors in the country, and efficient play around the rim and an expanding mid-range game makes him a weapon on both sides of the ball. His skill set and physicality are key to Utah State's high hopes.

34. Vernon Carey, Duke, Freshman

While his Duke team will rely on a full complement of scoring options, maximizing Carey's interior presence early and often will be a point of emphasis. While he lacks a degree of vertical explosiveness, Carey's heft, touch and nimble feet will be a load for opposing bigs, and he shoots it well enough to keep them honest from beyond the arc, as well. The early word is he's shed some weight and begun to develop a low-post game, a pivotal addition to his comfort level facing up and making plays. Of Duke's myriad freshmen, Carey is best positioned to make a serious impact.

33. Mamadi Diakite, Virginia, Senior

Diakite already has his forever place in Virginia (and college basketball) lore after his improbable buzzer beater saved what became a national championship run, but the forward is going to have a lot on his shoulders in 2019-20. After the Cavaliers saw their Big Three depart, Diakite is going to be counted on to break out offensively, something he showed flashes of down the stretch and in the NCAA tournament. The senior will bring valuable experience to a much younger Hoos team, and his defensive presence and mobility (his 10.2% block rate was 24th nationally) will once again anchor the paint.

32. Bryce Aiken, Harvard, Senior

Harvard looks one of this season's most dangerous small-conference teams, due in large part to Aiken, whose playmaking savvy and perimeter shooting (22.2 points per game while using a third of his team's possessions last season) could make the the Crimson a dangerous match for high-major opposition. He's succeeded in spite of his small stature, the entire roster returns around him, and he has room to improve from an efficiency standpoint. But Aiken's quickness off the dribble and passing poise makes him the Ivy League's top player, and one of the more unheralded star guards in the country.

31. Obi Toppin, Dayton, Redshirt Sophomore

Toppin is a physical force who looks ready to break out in full for a Dayton team with designs on A-10 contention. His play took off after moving into the starting lineup to close last season, averaging 17.9 points and 8.2 rebounds over his final 10 games, and he's proven capable of some monster performances. Toppin has touch out to the three-point line, willingly bangs on the interior, and has a good feel for his own strengths. A huge year could be in store.

30. Tres Tinkle, Oregon State, Senior

Tinkle has been one of the most productive players in the country the past two years, racking up rebounds, assists and steals while logging heavy minutes as the primary option for Oregon State's offense. Entering his final college season, the Beavers are charged with parlaying those numbers into an improvement on last year's 18 wins. Tinkle can still improve as a three-point shooter, and expect his heavy diet of touches to continue. The impressive counting stats will surely be there, and if he finds another gear, the results may follow.

29. Andrew Nembhard, Florida, Sophomore

Nembhard had big shoes to fill as a freshman in taking over Florida's offense from the departed Chris Chiozza, and the former five-star proved himself as a facilitator, posting the SEC's second-best conference assist rate. The 6'5" point guard has good size, was a pesky part of an excellent Gators defense and showed a knack for the big moment, but the team as a whole needs to find the next level on offense to meet its top-10 expectations. Some of that starts with Nembhard, who will have more weapons at his disposal but will look to keep developing a shot that was 34.7% from three and 45.8% from two as a freshman.

28. Jaden McDaniels, Washington, Freshman

Blessed with unusual skill and fluid athleticism for a forward his size, McDaniels's adjustment to the college game will be a major swing factor in Washington's success. At his best, he's extremely tough to defend, with the height to shoot over most defenders, the agility to create space for himself, and nice playmaking instincts. His slender build and still-developing handle will pose challenges when it comes to manufacturing touches, but once McDaniels finds a level of comfort and consistency, opponents will have a tough time keeping up. If he can be efficient shooting the ball and improve his three-point numbers, he'll be one of the toughest matchups anywhere.

27. Killian Tillie, Gonzaga, Senior

Health is the single-biggest factor in how successful Tillie's senior season will be-and perhaps Gonzaga's as a whole. Foot and ankle problems cost the talented forward 22 games last season, and injuries have been a lingering issue throughout his career. Then, in early October he underwent a procedure on his knee that may delay his start to 2019-20. When he's healthy, Tillie is a major piece of Gonzaga's lineup, standing 6'10" with a knockdown ability from three (he's shot 47% in 149 career attempts). His sophomore year, he was one of the country's most efficient and best shooters while averaging 12.9 points, and the Zags would love to get even some version of that this winter.

26. Nico Mannion, Arizona, Freshman

Mannion arrives at Arizona worthy of his high expectations, with a maturity and sense of calm as a ballhandler that continues to set him apart from his peers. The Wildcats' ability to challenge in the Pac-12 hangs on his steady distribution, with an array of scorers around him and real playmaking responsibility from the outset. While Mannion may not be ready to shoulder the load alone, he shouldn't have to. His usual mixture of clever passing and opportunistic scoring will be a difference-maker.

25. Yoeli Childs, BYU, Senior

Childs took home the crown for the offseason's weirdest NBA draft journey, initially saying he would not return to BYU before announcing a last-minute reversal two weeks later. It was an immediate boon for the Cougars, who got back one of the nation's most productive players. Childs is a double-double machine and nearly averaged one for his junior season, finishing with 21.2 points and 9.7 rebounds. He has a soft touch around the rim, where he converted 81.2% of shots, and while he can step out from three (32.3% in 2018-19), he'll be even more dangerous if the strides he made from deep in WCC play last year (36.4%) are for real.

24. Tristan Clark, Baylor, Junior

Clark was leading the nation with a 73.7% field goal percentage when his sophomore season got cut short by a knee injury just 14 games in, dealing a tough blow to Baylor and ending what had been a promising rise for the big man. Back for a Bears team with much higher expectations this time around, Clark will likely take some time to get back into the fearsome form he had before his injury, but big things could await. The 6'9" center was hitting 86.8% of his shots at the rim and 57.1% of midrange jumpers, while also being a force on defense on the interior.

23. Grant Riller, Charleston, Senior

Riller was one of college basketball's best-kept secrets last season, putting together a massive statistical year for a strong Charleston team he efficiently led in usage. He's quietly built a case as the best mid-major guard in the country. Riller averaged 21.9 points and shot a ridiculous 61% on two-pointers last season, led the Cougars in assist rate, and nabbed CAA Preseason Player of the Year honors. He's strong, shifty off the bounce, and a tough cover for just about any opponent, level aside.

22. Payton Pritchard, Oregon, Senior

Pritchard returns to Eugene as one of the best point guards in the nation, with a bevy of experience under his belt. The senior wasn't as efficient as usual as a junior, averaging 12.9 points and shooting a career-low 32.8% from three, but like the Ducks as a whole, he turned it on down the stretch as the leader of a team that surprisingly won the Pac-12 tournament and then reached the Sweet 16. Pritchard's high basketball IQ and shooting ability helps make up for what the 6'2" guard lacks in physical tools.

21. Ashton Hagans, Kentucky, Sophomore

Hagans makes his bones on the defensive end, where he served as the tone-setter for a top-10 Kentucky D last season. The Wildcats could be even better on that end in 2019-20, with Hagans once again expected to play a major role in generating steals and creating easy opportunities for his team. The point guard was top six in SEC play in both assist and steal rate, but must improve on an ugly 28.7% turnover rate. Any offensive strides by Hagans, who was tentative as a freshman when it came to shooting and made only 14 threes on the year, would be a boon.

20. Tyrese Haliburton, Iowa State, Sophomore

Haliburton largely went unnoticed last season as one of the best freshmen in the country, making contributions that went beyond the box score and augmenting a potent Iowa State attack with his unselfishness (3.6 assists per game), three-point shooting (43.4% on the year) and instinctive perimeter defense (1.5 steals per game). With much of the rotation turning over, the Cyclones will put the ball in his hands, aiming to unleash his passing skills and otherworldly offensive feel as the leader of their offense. While Haliburton has a bit to prove in this regard, his strong play at the U-19 World Cup sure looks like a positive indicator. As he adjusts to life as a full-time point guard, he could be in for a true breakout.

19. Xavier Tillman, Michigan State, Junior

Tillman put together a largely unheralded yet insanely impactful sophomore season, stepping into the starting lineup for Michigan State's final 13 games and combining dominant play on the glass with efficient finishing around the basket. On the year, his box plus/minus score of 15.08 was third-best in the country and ranked as the 13th highest output since 2010 (according to basketball-reference data), putting him in rare company. Tillman might already be the best role player in the country. The Spartans hope he might be more than that.

18. Jalen Smith, Maryland, Sophomore

The biggest thing holding Smith back amidst a solid first season was inconsistency, and the big man appeared to hit the 'freshman wall' in mid-February. The former five-star recruit responded with a stellar two-game NCAA tournament in which his big-time potential was evident, and he's on the shortlist of players nationally who could take a major step forward this year. The departure of Bruno Fernando means more space for the 6'10" Smith to operate in the paint, but he has the ability to stretch defenses all the way out to the perimeter. He must improve his outside shooting, however, after making just 26.8% of threes as a freshman.

17. Tyrese Maxey, Kentucky, Freshman

Kentucky will look to Maxey, their most college-ready freshman, to carry the scoring baton and spearhead a new-look rotation. He's a polished, crafty scorer who has earned his reputation, and should provide a key dimension for the Wildcats as they establish offensive consistency, particularly early in the season. His skills creating off the dribble should be an ideal complement for Ashton Hagans. Maxey is a good bet to lead his team in scoring, and has clear one-and-done upside if all goes well.

16. Ayo Dosunmu, Illinois, Sophomore

Dosunmu's decision to return for his sophomore year puts Illinois back in the NCAA tournament conversation, at long last. His freshman year came with pronounced highs and lows, but a leap forward is the expectation. Capable of playing both guard spots, Dosunmu is a quality playmaker, pesky on-ball defender and sneakily solid scorer. If he can continue shoring up his jump shot and take on additional responsibility as a ballhandler, a big year should be in order.

15. Jarron Cumberland, Cincinnati, Senior

Cumberland made a big leap forward as a junior, averaging 18.8 points, 4.4 rebounds and 3.6 assists and shooting 38.8% from three as part of an AAC Player of the Year campaign. He took nearly a third of the Bearcats' shots when on the floor as the clear offensive fulcrum of a team more known for its defense, though with Mick Cronin off to UCLA, that may soon change. The 6'5" Cumberland is set up for another big year, especially if he can either improve his midrange game or cut down on those shots in favor of getting to the rim, where he shot 56.2%, per Hoop-Math.

14. Udoka Azubuike, Kansas, Senior

Azubuike can be a dominant force by simple way of being gigantic, and it's hard to overstate the sorts of problems his sheer enormity and physical style can pose for opponents. Listed at 280 pounds (before a purported drop in weight) Azubuike is a literal bruiser, and while he's had real issues staying healthy, he's a career 74% shooter from the field and an imposing presence for those who might consider attacking the rim. His free throw issues are real, and he's certainly not the most versatile scorer, but Azubuike's distinct strengths are far too much for most teams to handle. An injury-free year would make Kansas the clear Big 12 favorites once again.

13. Kaleb Wesson, Ohio State, Junior

Too-often-persistent foul trouble and a three-game suspension in March that nearly cost Ohio State an NCAA tournament berth loomed over Wesson's sophomore season, but there's no doubting the big man's ability. A monster on the boards on both ends of the floor, he can do a little of everything, contributing with blocks, steals and even 26 threes in 2018-19. The Buckeyes' offense comes to life with Wesson on the floor, and while he should have more offensive talent around him this season, he'll remain the focal point. His potential is sky-high if he can cut down on the fouls.

12. Tre Jones, Duke, Sophomore

Jones is the first Duke five-star recruit to return for a sophomore year since Marques Bolden, and there's been high expectations on the point guard ever since his April announcement. Jones has already proven he's an elite defender, serving as a stingy on-ball presence who had the ACC's seventh-best steal rate in conference play, and his 3.62 assist-to-turnover ratio as a freshman was third nationally. Now, the Blue Devils are hoping to see him take the next step in his own scoring ability, after he struggled with a 48.5% true shooting percentage and 26.2% mark from three.

11. Anthony Edwards, Georgia, Freshman

While carrying Georgia to a tournament bid will be a tall task, Edwards arrives as one of the most physically gifted players in the country. His strength and speed should enable him to make a big impact immediately, and the Bulldogs will live with his mistakes as he attempts to shoulder the scoring and playmaking load. He's a dangerous shooter and improving playmaker off the dribble, and he'll have a big athletic advantage over most competition. Expect some inconsistency, but as long as the highs outweigh the lows, Edwards should be a stat-stuffing presence and threat to score from all over the floor. His stay in college will be a short one, regardless.

10. Isaiah Stewart, Washington, Freshman

Stewart's relentless energy and production inside the paint makes Washington a real candidate to repeat in the Pac-12; there will be few opponents well-suited to keep up with him around the hoop. Expect him to be an immediate double-double threat, punishing bigs with his strength and footwork and helping the Huskies limit second-chance points as a key rebounder within the 2-3 zone. There's nothing flashy about his game, but Stewart's impact should be tangible from the get-go. Expect him to be one of the most productive bigs in the country, freshman or otherwise.

9. Sam Merrill, Utah State, Senior

Leading a dangerous Utah State team that's favored in the Mountain West, Merrill returns to build on arguably the best individual 2018-19 season that nobody really seemed to talk about. Merrill's shooting splits sniffed rarified air: he averaged 20 points per game, shot 52.9% from the field, 90.6% from the line, and fell shot of a 50/40/90 year with a 36.9% clip from three (after nailing 45% of those in each of his first two seasons). His capacity to score from all over the floor is elite at the college level, made all the more impressive by the fact he was a strong distributor at the same time (4.2 assists per game to just 1.9 turnovers). Merrill could see even more usage this season, and as long as he maintains something close to past levels of efficiency, the Aggies will thrive, and have a chance to make serious noise in March.

8. Devon Dotson, Kansas, Sophomore

Dotson's development after a solid debut season (12.3 points per game on 48% shooting) is the key to everything for Kansas. He's the engine of their attack, his small stature making him a difficult mark, and a tight handle allowing him to attack small spaces and disrupt coverages. He's demonstrated a nice feel for decision-making, and the next step involves knowing when to be aggressive as a scorer, as well as which buttons to push around him. Dotson could lead the Jayhawks in points as well as assists, and as the team's lone true creative player, his contributions will be even more pivotal this time around. He could have a case for National Player of the Year a few months from now.

7. James Wiseman, Memphis, Freshman

Bar none, Wiseman is the most physically gifted player in college hoops, with a body type built to play the sport, an unusual degree of explosiveness, and burgeoning ball skills, plus the fact he's a nearly 7-foot center. He'll scrape at double-double production simply by dint of being on the court, and Memphis will aim to keep him involved not only on the block, but as a screening threat and secondary playmaker. If he can channel his ability with consistent effort, Wiseman should be among the game's most impactful stars, able to take over a game on the glass, as a rim-protecting presence, and with versatile offensive contributions.

6. Jordan Nwora, Louisville, Junior

Nwora creates a unique matchup problem for defenses with his potent jump shot: placing a bigger forward on him opens up the paint for others, while assigning a smaller wing dares Nwora to simply shoot over the defense. He made big strides over the course of his breakout sophomore season (17 points, 7.6 rebounds), making his individual shot selection more team-friendly, giving Louisville an offensive dimension it otherwise lacked, and becoming more efficient in the process. Nwora has enough of a handle to attack closeouts and keep defenders honest, and will benefit big-time from the influx of talent around him, helping to mitigate his deficiencies as a playmaker and as a perimeter defender. Another uptick in production is on tap.

5. Kerry Blackshear Jr. Florida, Senior

Capable of doing damage inside the paint or facing up from outside, Blackshear will be the immediate anchor of Florida's attack, providing the go-to halfcourt outlet the Gators have sorely lacked. At Virginia Tech, he was one of the more unheralded, consistent performers in the country (14.9 points and 7.5 rebounds last season), and his passing ability and size on the interior should be a difference-maker. If he can sustain an effective three-point clip and open the floor up for a talented group of teammates, Florida should fall squarely in contention come March. There's a reason Blackshear was the most sought-after grad transfer on the market.

4. Myles Powell, Seton Hall, Senior

Through steady progression, Powell has become perhaps the premier catch-and-shoot player in the country, someone who defenses must account for at all junctures, and the leader of a Seton Hall team many view as the favorite to win the conference. He stepped up comfortably into an expanded role as a junior, averaging 23.1 points per game. He was tasked with additional playmaking responsibilities in addition to darting off screens and creating space simply by being present. The capacity to serve as an efficient offensive focal point without having to dominate the ball is rare at the college level.

3. Markus Howard, Marquette, Senior

Howard's unique capacity to post huge point totals (25 per game as a junior) and drain threes at high volume (40.3% on nearly nine attempts per game last season) makes him one of the most difficult covers in college basketball. He's scored the way he scores over the past two seasons in spite of facing junk defenses on the regular, and Marquette will aim to better weaponize his skills away from the ball this time around and challenge for a Big East title. Howard doesn't give you a ton defensively, and his small stature both helps and hurts him at times, but his overall offensive impact as a pick-and-roll playmaker and constant perimeter threat can't be undersold. The only thing he has left to prove is that he's capable of leading his team to wins in March.

2. Cole Anthony, North Carolina, Freshman

Anthony arrives in Chapel Hill as the most college-ready freshman in the country, with a polished offensive game and big-time scoring ability. He joins an overhauled Tar Heels team that will need him to shoulder a heavy possession count. He excels driving downhill and attacking the paint, but can also get hot quickly from distance. Anthony's explosiveness, strength, and mature frame will set him apart at the college level and enable him to help Carolina on both ends of the floor. Expect big counting stats, some memorable performances, and immediate results.

1. Cassius Winston, Michigan State, Senior

After leading the Spartans to the Final Four with an immaculate series of performances to close last season, Winston returns with high hopes for a national championship. Capable of hurting opponents in spurts as a scorer or picking apart defense with the pass (he averaged 18.8 points and 7.5 assists as a junior), Winston is college basketball's most proven star, and there's little question he's capable of a repeat performance. He's developed into the type of savant you expect to win big regardless of circumstance, with an innate feel for when to score, when to get others involved, and how to manage a team. It would be unfair to hand the top spot to anyone else.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Top 50 College Basketball Players of 2019-20

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ahead of the 2019-20 college basketball season, we're projecting who its top 50 players will be. In constructing our rankings, we considered a number of factors: previous college production (or, for freshmen, high school/recruiting pedigree), a player's natural ability, how big of a role he's expected to play on his team, what a sizable expectation for year-to-year improvement is and, not least of all, how important he will be to his team's success.

# data[].attributes.body
Paying student athletes would ruin college sports.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | Paying Students to Play Would Ruin College Sports (Published 2019)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A handful of programs would pay top dollar for a select few athletes, while other schools would get caught up in a bidding war they couldn’t afford.

# data[].attributes.body
NCAA athletes should not be paid.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Ed O'Bannon suit against the NCAA may create a means for student-athletes to receive payment in the future, and it could severely damage college athletics.
O'Bannon, on behalf of Division I football and men's basketball players, is challenging the NCAA in a class action lawsuit because of its propensity for using images of former student-athletes for commercial purposes.

O'Bannon argues that once a student-athlete graduates, he should receive some sort of financial compensation for the NCAA's commercial uses of a student-athlete's image.

O'Bannon played college basketball at UCLA and played in the NBA for three seasons before playing professionally overseas until 2004.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken partially certified a class action suit against the NCAA. As a result, there's been speculation that student-athletes might receive financial compensation in the future or be forced to join a trade association that would negotiate contracts for student-athletes.

The grassroots organization of associations like this began immediately after Wilken's order to certify a class action against the NCAA.

There are still a lot of questions that need to be asked regarding the future of the NCAA and the ramifications of the O'Bannon lawsuit. Many of those answers depend on the outcome of O'Bannon v. NCAA.

The NCAA has many faults, but its refusal to pay college athletes is not one of them.

Regardless of the class-action lawsuit, student-athletes receive free world-class educations and are provided with elite training and coaching in their respective sports.

The Baylor undergraduate cost for taking 12 or more hours (which all NCAA student-athletes must do in order to remain eligible) will be $49,028 for the 2014-2015 academic year.

Considering that a student-athlete receives five years of education to play four seasons, a student-athlete earns roughly a $200,000 to $250,000 education at Baylor without having to write a check.

Not to mention the countless other benefits student-athletes have. Student-athletes receive free books, a housing stipend, a meal plan and other benefits.

Also, student-athletes have their own academic center at Baylor with free tutoring and academic advising.

Baylor student-athletes also have an entire student-athlete services staff to lean on for support. Student-athletes gain access to any class they need because of their status as a student-athlete.

On top of all of that, why should student-athletes be paid? Granted, some exceptional student-athletes generate massive amounts of revenue for their respective schools, such as Tim Tebow at Florida, Robert Griffin III at Baylor or Johnny Manziel at Texas A&M, just to name a few. But Tebow, RG3 and Manziel are exceptions to the rule. Most student-athletes are not stars, and most do not generate any revenue for their universities.

If O'Bannon wins his suit against the NCAA, it would open up Pandora's box for NCAA athletics.

Trade associations would become possible for student-athletes, much like professional sports have players unions. College athletes would have contracts that could be negotiated.

Contrary to popular belief, most college athletics programs, as a whole, lose money on athletics. Football generates revenue but that revenue is often dispersed to nonrevenue generating sports like soccer, volleyball, track, cross country, baseball and softball.

Only 23 of 228 athletic departments at NCAA Division I public schools generated enough money on their own to cover their expenses in 2012, according to USA Today.

Considering that 203 out of 228 schools lose money on athletics, and considering that student-athletes already receive an education and benefits valued at hundreds of thousands of dollars, student-athletes should not be paid.

With universities already losing money to sustain athletics programs, paying athletes would only exacerbate the problem and is an unnecessary option. If colleges paid athletes, it would inevitably raise the cost for students and burn an even larger hole in everyone's checkbook.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Editorial: NCAA athletes shouldn't get paid

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Ed O'Bannon suit against the NCAA may create a means for student-athletes to receive payment in the future, and it could severely damage college athletics. O'Bannon, on behalf of Division I football and men's basketball players, is challenging the NCAA in a class action lawsuit because of its propensity for using images of former student-athletes for commercial purposes.

# data[].attributes.body
Pros and cons of athletes being paid.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
During this year's NCAA tournament, there has been obvious speculation about college athletes and the significant amount of revenue they have been bringing to their schools and the NCAA. This isn't something new. This is something that has been a growing issue in recent years. Not just a regular issue at that, but a structurally racial issue on many levels. African Americans make up the majority of college athletes at the top levels in three major sports: men's and women's basketball (Division I) and the upper FBS level of the NCAA's Division I, according to Travis Walton's HuffPost article "Black Americans Support Paying College Athletes. White People? Not So Much." These also happen to be the highest revenue-generating sports in college athletics.

Race isn't the only issue, but statistically it plays a huge part in the reason why many people oppose the fact that college athletes should be getting paid. According to the same article, "A majority ― 52% ― of black respondents are strongly or somewhat in favor of paying college athletes, while only 15% strongly or somewhat oppose the idea. Among whites, however, the numbers flip: Just 27% support paying those athletes, while 43% oppose it."

If a majority of these college athletes, who are bringing in staggering amounts of money to these schools were white, would this even be a conversation?

Ed O'Bannon, a former professional basketball player, won a lawsuit in 2014 where the NCAA was ordered to pay $44.4 million in attorneys' fees and another $1.5 million in costs to lawyers for the plaintiffs in the Ed O'Bannon class-action antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA.

former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon Jr. sits in his office in Henderson, Nevada. (AP Photo/Isaac Brekken)

O'Bannon and 19 others sued the NCAA, claiming the organization violated United States antitrust laws by not allowing athletes to get a share of the revenues generated from the use of their images in broadcasts and video games. Many former collegiate players were compensated, but some felt it was inadequate and they were owed more.

In 2014, Shabazz Napier was quoted:

"We do have hungry nights that we don't have enough money to get food in. Sometimes money is needed. I don't think you should stretch it out to hundreds of thousands of dollars for playing, because a lot of times guys don't know how to handle themselves with money. I feel like a student athlete. Sometimes, there's hungry nights where I'm not able to eat, but I still gotta play up to my capabilities."

All of this begs the question, that if the NCAA did choose to pay college athletes, what would be the advantages or disadvantages of doing so? Below are a few potential pros and cons of paying college athletes.

Pros

1. Support their families ― Players would be able to actually afford a decent meal and possibly send some money back home. Many of these athletes come from urban, low-class families and often leave school early because of the unimaginable pressure to be the main provider for their family at a young age.

2. Players may stay longer ― To back up the last point, players wouldn't have to leave school early and would still be able to pursue an education while taking care of their family back home. This would possibly increase graduation rates, allow fans to see their favorite players mature through college, and ensure coaches are preparing athletes as much as possible for the next level.

3. Limits corruption from external influences ― Compensating athletes in college will limit the corruption involving agents, boosters and others. Over the years we have seen and heard scandals involving players taking money and even point-shaving. Wouldn't paying them eliminate a lot of these issues?

4. Giving them what they deserve right? ― In Business Insider last week, there was an article that stated, "It is estimated that the University of Louisville has the most valuable players at $1.72 million per year based on the program's $45.6 million in annual revenue. Overall, the average Division I player is worth $170,098 per year with the 351 Division I basketball programs taking in more than 4.5 million in revenue on average each year." These athletes are bringing in incredible amounts of revenue to these schools ― why aren't they receiving what is due? I mean the bottom line is, isn't this what they deserve for their labor?

Cons

1. Financial irresponsibility ― Amateur players receiving compensation just seems like a complete disaster. They don't know how to manage their money, and there wouldn't be anyone their to guide their financial decisions. Colin Cowherd states, "I don't think paying all college athletes is great; not every college is loaded, and most 19-year-olds (are) gonna spend it-and let's be honest, they're gonna spend it on weed and kicks!"

2. Unfair compensation between players ― How will players be compensated? Will each player receive the same amount? What about the top level talent? Should they receive more because they were All-Americans? In theory, wouldn't it bring problems between players, due to one teammate potentially receiving more money?

3. Athletes may never go to class ― Let's face it, if they give these kids money, they'll never have any incentive to go to class. Many of them don't want to go already, combined with the fact that some may be receiving grades without doing any work. Money will only add to this fact.

4. Removes athletes competitive nature and passion for the game ― Players will take on a "pro mindset" where the only motive is money. They will lose that hunger and passion that we see in college. It will be traded for lackadaisical plays and half-ass efforts that we sometime see from pros.

As always, there are two sides to any argument. Even as a former college athlete, I am at a point in my life where I can understand each side. But I do find it interesting as to why so many are widely opposed to this idea. Is it racial? Is it because it's unnecessary? Is it unfair?

Whatever it may be, it looks like this growing debate won't be dying down anytime soon.

Related

Legal Issues Basketball March Madness Division I

Athlete, Author & Entrepreneur

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
College Athletes Getting Paid? Here Are Some Pros And Cons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
During this year's NCAA tournament, there has been obvious speculation about college athletes and the significant amount of revenue they have been bringing to their schools and the NCAA. This isn't something new. This is something that has been a growing issue in recent years.

# data[].attributes.body
Reasons why college students should not be paid.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Student-athletes know what they're signing up for - to play a sport and to get an education.

Even though former Buckeyes quarterback Cardale Jones didn't go to Ohio State to "play school," I'll take a lucky guess and assume most athletes find the educational aspect of college at least somewhat important.

After all, most of them won't end up playing professionally, so they need a backup plan. According to the NCAA, only 1.6 percent of college athletes will go on to the pros.

Playing on a team in college is not a full-time job. Therefore, college athletes should not get paid.

You could argue playing a Division-I sport is almost like having a full-time job.

I agree. The clubs I've been in and the internships I've worked are definitely like having a full-time job in addition to class. I know for a fact there are students out there who dedicate the same amount of time to out-of-class activities as athletes.

They don't get paid.

So why should athletes, when many of them are already receiving full scholarships? And if you're telling me they aren't getting additional benefits left and right, you're oblivious.

Sure, Penn State isn't allowed write checks for its athletes, but gifts and gift cards are permitted. According to a PennLive article, Penn State student-athletes can receive "yearly awards" for participation. For underclassmen, this award can be valued up to $225, and for seniors, $425.

Many schools provide student-athletes with housing, a meal plan and tutoring. They want them to be satisfied because winning teams bring in more revenue.

According to the NCAA, 56 percent of all student-athletes receive some level of athletics aid. That number might seem low, but remember that's accounting for all Division-I and Division-II athletes across the board. If you want to get specific, look at Penn State football - 85 percent of the players are on scholarships.

The other side of the argument is that they should get paid because they bring in revenue for the school. Many universities, with the exception of Penn State, sell various jersey numbers. The student-athletes aren't getting a portion of that even though it's selling because of their performance.
RELATED POST
This argument makes sense, but remember - they're students. There's no reason they should get paid for their performance.

If they're in the slim percentage that's good enough to make it to the pros, that's when they'll get paid. Because that's a full-time job. Just like non-athletes will get paid for their work when they graduate. After all, shouldn't you have something to work toward?

If you're getting paid for playing a sport in college, what motivation do you have to do well in school or work toward getting drafted?

Student-athletes get plenty of benefits. There's no reason they should get a paycheck on top of that.

D-I and D-II schools provide more than $2.9 billion annually in athletic scholarships to more than 150,000 student-athletes. To those of you who think they should get paid, who is going to fund that? The NCAA seems to be handing out enough money, and I could be wrong, but I don't think universities want to give a portion of their profit to student-athletes.

Let's be real here. They aren't getting paid for a reason.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Student-athletes know what they're signing up for - to play a sport and to get an education. Even though former Buckeyes quarterback Cardale Jones didn't go to Ohio State to "play school," I'll take a lucky guess and assume most athletes find the educational aspect of college at least somewhat important.

# data[].attributes.body
Reasons why college athletes should and shouldn't get paid.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CBS Sports and Turner paid over $1 billion a yearfor broadcasting the NCAA March Madness basketball tournament up until 2023. Until now, the broadcasts' college sports stars themselves had no chance of receiving much of that sum (at least not directly). However, the NCAA recently decided to allow college athletes to financially benefit from the use of their names, images and likeness. This decision follows the move byseveral states, led by California, to pass laws allowing the same right, which has been part of a longtime debate about whether college athletes should be paid or not. The question arises primarily regarding football and basketball student-athletes, since they bring in most of the money.

Here are three arguments for and three arguments against paying college athletes:
The difficulty to implement is no excuse
An important argument coming from those who oppose paying college athletes is the expected difficulty involved with implementing such a move. The following are just some of the questions that pinpoint the complexities: Who will pay the college athletes (the NCAA or colleges)? How often will they receive pay? Will there be a salary cap? The main question regards the equitable application of paying college athletes, namely who will get paid and who won't. The details of the new NCAA rules are still being discussed, and will need input from different state legislators and sports associations.

However, since the debate was first sparked over the NCAA's income from broadcasting, the answer seems simple: Theoretically, the athletes to get paid should the ones playing the sports that bring in the big money, namely, men's college basketball and football players. College basketball and football players in particular are the ones who provide a good time for fans who are willing to pay to watch the games, so they deserve to get paid. This is capitalism, and this is how it works in America. In its ruling, the NCAA has distinguished between amateur athletes and potential professional athletes, i.e., those most likely to be recruited by professional teams. Time will tell who ultimately benefits from this decision.
Athletes risk their body and are exposed to permanent damage
One of the best aspects of college sports is the players' enthusiasm. Their love and passion for their respective game is admirable and infectious. But, there is a downside to it; in their fervor to play their best, many college athletes suffer serious injuries that sometimes prematurely end their career.

Setting aside the disturbing fact that a career-ending injury will stop their scholarship, those college athletes put their bodies at risk of permanent damage, without being paid. Hurting your knee might leave you limping for the rest of your life. Suffering concussions can cause dementia and depression, not to mention CTE. Those college athletes who put their bodies on the line for each training session and game they play deserve to be paid for the health risks they are taking.
There's big money involved in college sports anyway
It`s common to think paying college athletes can detract from the purity of the game and ruin that magic. But it won`t. The passion fans see on the court or field is attributed to the fact that there is no money involved.

However, that's not exactly accurate. Big companies are profiting off of branding college athletes, namely, asking them to wear brand apparel during games without paying them to do so. As such, these players feel used. And rightly so. The new rule allowing them to get paid shows that the NCAA and fans are really concerned about preserving the purity of college sports.

Three Reasons Why College Athletes Should Not Get Paid
The difference for college athletes is marginal in term of money
If salaries were to replace scholarships in college sports, athletes would not earn much more. In fact, an impressive $100,000-a-year salary for a college athlete would grant him only a few hundred dollars more per year than a scholarship. According to Money.com, a full athletic scholarship at an NCAA Division I university is about $65,000 a year. This includes tuition, room, board, and books (if you enroll at a college with high tuition). In contrast, a salary will be subjected to federal and state income taxes. Therefore, out of the $100,000, a net of $65,100 will remain for the student. The difference is marginal.
Earning big money too soon can be harmful
People argue that paying collage athletes will help create a sense of financial awareness for them. However, in reality, poor investments, trusting unethical financial advisors and lavish spending habits are some of the main reasons professional athletes find themselves broke after they retire, according to ESPN documentary, "Broke." Without sound financial education, young college athletes may not be equipped to handle so much money.
Paying big money for college students miss the purpose of college
College is about preparing oneself for real life. It is supposed to provide students with tools and abilities to succeed after college. In that manner, college athletes are no different than other college students who practice or intenr in hospitals, law firms or advertising agencies for little to no money. So why should athletes be get paid while the others don't?

A lot of young adults today are impatient and lack the ability to delay gratification. College can teach them a great life lesson: in real life, you have to work hard and wait for your chance. Paying big money to any college student, athlete or academic is far from being the ideal preparation for life.

The Bottom Line: Paying big money to college athletes defeats the purpose of college as a preparatory lesson for life, especially when the monetary difference between a salary and a scholarship is marginal. On the other hand, not paying athletes who risk serious long-term injuries is morally wrong. Was the NCAA right to change the current practice?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CBS Sports and Turner paid over $1 billion a year for broadcasting the NCAA March Madness basketball tournament up until 2023. Until now, the broadcasts' college sports stars themselves had no chance of receiving much of that sum (at least not directly).

# data[].attributes.body
Reasons why college athletes should and shouldn't be paid.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pay for Play: Should College Athletes Be Compensated?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Grinding through grueling workouts, practices and games every day of the year, combined with rigorous college courses, student-athletes are some of the hardest working people in the country…

# data[].attributes.body
Student writes why college athletes should not be paid.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Credit: Jess Tan

Last week, Charlie Dolgenos, a fellow DP staffer, wrote a column on why college athletes should be paid.

I'm about to ostracize myself from at least half of the athletics community by arguing why student athletes should not be paid for participating in amateur sports.

Most arguments saying that student athletes should be paid center around equating practice and competition hours with labor. Because college athletes dedicate five hours a day to their sport, in addition to adequately taking care of sleep, hydration, and nutrition, they should be paid since the time spent honing their skills could be valuable elsewhere.

In an argument based on pure compensation of labor, we must talk about the economic value of an athlete's labor in comparison with the alternatives. The average out-of-state tuitions for the 2018-2019 school year are $21,629 for public school and $35,676 for private school. An athlete on full scholarship at Duke, a basketball powerhouse, will avoid paying roughly $235,000 for a top-notch education, which I believe is worthy compensation for putting in several years of hard work into becoming a player with a high enough caliber to be recruited by Duke in the first place.

Surely then, the opportunity cost for time spent training, in exchange for the waiver of crippling debt, cannot be offset by a work-study job that pays minimum wage minus taxes. Alternatively, only about two percent of college athletes make it big. Specifically, only 1.1 percent of basketball players and 1.5 percent of football players play in the NBA and NFL, respectively.

So athletes who believe that they should be paid because they could be making money as pros already have tremendous odds stacked against them. Even then, statistically, being the No. 1 draft pick doesn't guarantee an extremely successful career; between 1990 and 2014, only 80 percent of players drafted in the No. 1, 2, and 3 spots have averaged at least 10 points in the NBA. Those picked outside the top 12 have a fewer than 30 percent chance.

Now, the debate moves to exploitation. Big sports schools make a lot of money through their athletic programs; Texas A&M made an average of $148 million per year over three years through its football team alone. The argument evolves to say that if a school makes money from making athletes miss school to play in revenue-making games and uses player likeness to boost publicity and admissions, then the athlete is being exploited as he or she fulfills the duties of a professional without being rewarded for doing so. The NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament is a prime example of this.

I have two counters to this argument. First off, an athlete gains a lot more from an established school, be it brand exposure or an elite platform to showcase their talent, than the other way around. Zion Williamson's fall against North Carolina sparked outrage; why should the likely future No. 1 NBA draft pick risk his potentially successful (and lucrative) NBA career for a team that will give him nothing?

To consolidate his position as a top draft pick, Williamson needed Duke. What better than a school led by legendary coach Mike Krzyzewski, who has led Duke to 14 ACC Championships, 12 Final Four appearances, and five National Championships, to help a young athlete emotionally and physically mature and get ready for the big leagues? In what world would have Nike's stock value dropped by $1.1 billion if a top high school basketball player's shoe had blown up in a local game?

The platform these schools provide is only made possible by the heavy reinvestment of profits into state-of-the-art athletic facilities, gear, exclusive dorms and cafeterias, world-renowned athletic staff, and the automatic propulsion of athletes to celebrity status before they even step foot on the college campus. One cannot quantify the effect of Duke on Williamson's personal brand, bolstered by him being named ACC Rookie and Player of the Year, as it requires the calculation of many intangible variables. When less than two percent of college athletes go pro and even fewer make it big, I think that demanding extra compensation on top of a free education and star-treatment for four years at big sports school is misuse of a privilege to be able to carry your passion with you to the next level.

My fellow student athletes and I may have received some leeway in the academic realm of our acceptances to college as a reward for our athletic prowess, as while growing up we invested the time that could have been spent studying to pursue our athletic goals. I believe we deserve this flexibility because we have earned it and proudly represent our school for four years, but demanding monetary compensation is an abuse of this privilege.

Secondly, the NCAA Tournament accounts for 90 percent of the NCAA's annual budget. All the profits are divided amongst participating conferences in a complex long-term pay structure, and the NCAA retains only four percent of the money made during March Madness, which largely goes towards their own operating costs. Larger conferences divide profits and send them to member schools, while smaller conferences use most of the money for their own expenses, with very little transferred to member schools.

Moreover, only one-third of schools made a profit or broke even on their basketball programs in the 2013-2014 school year. Louisville topped the earning charts with $24.2 million, an amount which likely went to support most of the non-revenue-making sports.

The myth of schools and the NCAA holding on to revenue without distribution is a harmful one; the fixed costs of athletic programs are aplenty, especially when it comes to modernizing facilities, providing scholarships, and paying for good recruiting for all sports. I believe that there is no real merit in demanding compensation for labor because the profits aren't stagnant - they pay for operating costs like administration, staff, and other overhead.

Lastly, I think that student athletes mainly continue to play their sports at the collegiate level because competition and training become an integral part of us. Personally, tennis has been my life since I was three years old. Growing up, it was not only therapeutic, but it became intertwined with my identity and sense of self. I moved to the United States from India at the age of 12 to pursue my dream of playing professional tennis.

On the eve of my 16th birthday, while fulfilling a lifelong dream of playing for India at the Youth Olympic Games, I was told that I had torn my shoulder and would have to take three months off. I had felt that sharp pain for a year, but in the chaos of pushing myself to get to the next level, I didn't want to stop.

My body wanted to stop, and, consequently, my mind took a dark dive.

Although I started the recruiting process really late, Penn saved me from my spiral. For 15 years, my happiness had been inextricably linked with how I performed on a tennis court, and Penn made me believe that I could be so much more. My mental health suffered immensely because of underperformance on the court in college; my grades slipped and I fell into a black hole of self-destruction where I blocked out any light from entering and helping me out. The sheer joy of being able to represent something bigger than myself and play alongside teammates whom I love dearly not only helped me rebuild myself, but also changed my vision of who I want to be in the future.

College athletics helped me emotionally mature and developed my character in ways that no other activity ever could, and I am all the better for it. The relationships I've formed along the way, be it with the staff at the tennis center, or with the school itself, have enriched my college experience beyond measure. At no point did I ever think of monetary compensation; I just felt grateful for every moment I got to hold a tennis racquet, all the pain included.

Don't get me wrong, Penn can do a lot more for its athletes, and one of those many improvements is excusing absences for varsity athletes who miss class to represent Penn in competitions.

However, as a second-semester senior on the brink of leaving competitive tennis forever, I couldn't imagine college without athletics and would do it all over again in a heartbeat - even without any compensation.

OJ SINGH is a College senior from New Delhi, India and an Associate Sports Editor for The Daily Pennsylvanian. She is also a member of Penn women's tennis. She can be reached at .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Singh | I'm a Penn athlete and we shouldn't be paid. Here's why.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Last week, Charlie Dolgenos, a fellow DP staffer, wrote a column on why college athletes should be paid. I'm about to ostracize myself from at least half of the athletics community by arguing why student athletes should not be paid for participating in amateur sports.

# data[].attributes.body
What paying athletes could mean for college sports.