# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Here's why the NCAA should pay college football players | THE HERD

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should College Student-Athletes Be Paid? Both Sides of the Debate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Michael Wilbon, Pardon the Interruption co-hostJul 18, 2011, 03:00 AM ET

Close
Michael Wilbon is a featured columnist for ESPN.com and ESPNChicago.com. He is the longtime co-host of "Pardon the Interruption" on ESPN and appears on the "NBA Sunday Countdown" pregame show on ABC, in addition to ESPN. You can follow him on Twitter: @RealMikeWilbon

I used to argue vehemently against paying college athletes. Tuition, room, board and books were compensation enough. And even if, increasingly, it wasn't enough and virtually every kid who accepted a scholarship was in the red before Christmas of his freshman year, the notion of pay-for-play was at best a logistical nightmare. Where exactly would the money come from? How could you pay college football players but not baseball players or members of the women's field hockey team? And how in the world would you pay men in a way that wouldn't violate Title IX?

So you know what caused me to do a 180 on the issue? That $11 billion deal -- OK, it's $10.8 billion to be exact -- between the NCAA and CBS/Turner Sports for March Madness between 2011 and 2024. We're talking $11 billion for three weekends of television per year. On top of that, there's a new four-year deal with ESPN that pays the BCS $500 million. So, if those two deals were worth, say, a combined $10 billion instead of $11.3 billion, would the games not be televised? Would the quality of the broadcasts or the coverage or the staging of the events be somehow diminished? What if people in the business of money took $1.3 billion off the top, invested it, sheltered it and made it available to provide a stipend to college athletes, how could anybody stand on principal and argue against paying the people who make the events possible in the first place?

Let me declare up front I wouldn't be the slightest bit interested in distributing the funds equitably or even paying every college athlete. I'm interested in seeing the people who produce the revenue share a teeny, tiny slice of it. That's right, football and men's basketball players get paid; lacrosse, field hockey, softball, baseball, soccer players get nothing. You know what that's called? Capitalism. Not everything is equal, not everything is fair. The most distinguished professor at the University of Alabama won't make $5.9 million in his entire tenure in Tuscaloosa; Nick Saban will make that this year. So I don't want to hear that it's "unfair" to pay the quarterback of Alabama more than all the sociology students in the undergraduate college.

Using the inability to distribute the funds equally as an impediment is an excuse, a rather intellectually lazy one at that. Nothing about the way hundreds of millions of dollars is distributed is equitable or even fair. The BCS' new deal with ESPN was based, in part, on paying more money to schools/conferences with regard to what has been called "population centers." Of the $174 million distributed from five bowl games, 83.4 percent went to six conferences in 2011. In question right now is whether the BCS even conducts its business dealings in a manner consistent with principles expressed in federal anti-trust laws. So, the equitable-application excuse for not paying athletes doesn't hold water; at the very least there's a level of hypocrisy here that ought to make the opponents of paying athletes uncomfortable.

Don't get me wrong, paying players out of individual athletic department budgets is beyond impractical; it's probably not feasible. Because so many athletic departments run at a deficit, it's difficult to make the case that schools should pay regular salaries to athletes, even football players who produce more income than anybody. But it's another thing entirely for the students who play for revenue-producing teams (at UConn and the University of Tennessee, this would include the women's basketball teams) to be somehow compensated from the lucrative television/radio/Internet rights fees they make wholly possible.

It's commendable that the NCAA has paid millions into a fund for in-need athletes to cover clothing purchases, emergency travel and medical expenses. There's also a special assistance fund and a student-athlete opportunity fund. Why can't hundreds of millions of dollars be directed into those, and in turn make money much more accessible to athletes for the kinds of regular day-to-day expenses regular college students pay by working jobs that are off-limits to intercollegiate athletes?

In the meantime, if they cannot be paid outright, surely the scholarship athletes should be able to engage in entrepreneurial pursuits that currently leads to costly NCAA investigations that have proven to be mostly a waste of time since, one, such activities historically haven't been checked and, two, the kids who commit the "infractions" aren't effectively punished. Their revelations, short of Heisman Trophy winners having to return their statues, wind up penalizing only the kids and coaches who remain on the team and in the vast majority of cases have done nothing to merit a penalty themselves.

If somebody is willing to give A.J. Green $750 or $1,000 or even $2,500 for his Georgia Bulldogs jersey, fine, good. If one of his teammates, a tackle, can fetch only $50 for his jersey, then it'll be a good marketing lesson for both of them. It's called supply and demand, and if both men are fortunate enough to reach the NFL it'll be a lesson worth learning because that dynamic will exist their entire careers. If a soccer player can't get a dime for his jersey, well, there's a realization in that, too.

The question from the opponents of paying college athletes inevitably comes back, "What would stop a star player from agreeing to shake hands at a local car dealership for $50,000?" The answer is, nothing. If a car dealer wants to strike that deal then good for the player in question. If a music student goes out in the summer and earns 50 grand, who objects? Who even knows? The student-musician is no less a college student because he struck a lucrative deal. Neither is the student-journalist who spends his nights writing freelance stories and picking up as much money along the way as he can.

If the student as athlete can find a way, he/she should be able to endorse products, to have paid-speaking gigs, to sell memorabilia, as Allen Sack, the author and professor at the college of business at the University of New Haven has suggested in recent years. The best college athletes in the two revenue-producing sports have always been worth much more than tuition, room, board and books. The best football and basketball players in the Big Ten have produced to the degree that a television network has become the model for every conference in America, a network worth at least tens of millions of dollars to the member institutions. Yet, no player can benefit from that work. The players have become employees of the universities and conferences as much as students -- employees with no compensation, which not only violates common decency but perhaps even the law.
Michael Wilbon is a featured columnist for ESPN.com and ESPNChicago.com. He is the longtime co-host of "Pardon the Interruption" on ESPN and appears on the "NBA Sunday Countdown" pregame show on ABC in addition to ESPN. Wilbon joined ESPN.com after three decades with The Washington Post, where he earned a reputation as one of the nation's most respected sports journalists.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You don't have to pay all of the players all of the same. But not giving athletes a cut of the billion-dollar deals they've helped happen? That's incredibly wrong.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
College Athletes Should Not be Paid.

The intensity of the argument to pay college athletes has escalated in the past few years. Picture a world where every college athlete was paid by their schools to play. The controversy it would have on an organization like the NCAA. There are many questions regarding the benefits of paying college athletes and to not. Questions like: Where would the money even come from? Or even, do they get paid the same for the different sports?

There is no question that there are a few cons to paying college athletes. Mostly all college athletes are on scholarships. They help pay for a student's schooling while they play the sport they play. If scholarships were taken out of the idea, and only salaries were handed out, then you would think it would be more affordable, Right? Wrong. If they gave students salaries, then it would lead to them paying taxes.

After that, depending on the athlete, taxes could be high enough to the point where they don't earn anything and they cannot pay tuition. Payments would not be such a good idea. Athletes would be forced to commit to the highest bidding college or universities. Eventually, they would transfer the next year due to a higher offer which would be a big financial step for those schools. A scholarship is the best fit for college athletes, buying what they need instead of what they want.

Before you know it, college sports will be 100% a business. That being said, that "business" could lead to a decline in the other college programs. The money from the college sports comes from these said programs which means the least popular programs would unfortunately get the boot. That could potentially deprive students of a chance to gain the proper education and experience at the college they attend, since their necessary program is cut. If that ever happened, it would be even harder for non-athletic students to get the proper care for their desired major.

Those who usually debate against paying college athletes say it would change the nature of college athletics. Realistically, playing sports in college is really hard to do. Even though there are hundreds of players on a football field, does not mean they eased their way there. And that goes for any sport, you have to be able to participate at a high level than high school. It is difficult to earn a position on a team. It is a dream many have to make it pro, sport analyst Dave Anderson states "about 7% of high school athletes move to the next level. Another 2% of these athletes reach the Division 1 level."

For college athletes, it is not just about playing the sport. The key word in "college athletes" is college. These students are expected to achieve good grades in order to remain eligible to play along with earning a degree. If a student athlete does not maintain the proper grades in their classes then it could have an effect on play along with handling the discussion on an ideal scholarship. Though the educational attainment of college athletes has become a major concern in the united states, there has been little research on the relationship between participation in college sports and educational attainment. We studied more than two thousand athletes over 10 years at a major western university and found that athletes were less prepared for college and achieved less academically in college than the general student population.

There are others such as parents of these student athletes and fans of these different sports that think otherwise on the debate. A good reason for college athletes to be paid is that it provides athletes to get good exposure. Every Saturday there are a bunch of college football games, top performers get reward with awards like the player of the week, and that goes for all sports. Exposure is a big thing in sports but some also agree it should be saved for the professional level like the NFL or the NBA. That exposure can be a distraction for college athletes. Some players can even lose concentration on play as they are attached to the media which is why they should not be paid

In Conclusion, it should be noted that it would be a difficult process in trying to pay college athletes. The NCAA should not be discredited on one issue due to the mishandling of others. It is always the student athlete's responsibility to perform at an expected level while also being a college student. With that being said, college athletes should not be paid is a valid argument that continues to be discussed today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
College Athletes Should Not be Paid. The intensity of the argument to pay college athletes has escalated in the past few years. Picture a world where every college athlete was paid by their schools to play. The controversy it would have on an organization like the NCAA.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Beyond race, the FPPA gives hope to another neglected group in collegiate sports: women.

Even with the passage of Title IX and the Equal Pay Act, women's collegiate sports continue to lag behind men's in opportunities, participation, staffing, financing, attendance, and support. Outside of the exceptional breakout athlete, like Missy Franklin, Brittney Griner and Katelyn Ohashi, women's college sports receive nominal media coverage. The excuses for the inequities between men and women's college sports abound; ranging from lack of fan interest, revenue generation, talent, and more. Looking at these discrepancies it seems that women's sports and the athletes who engage in them just aren't valuable. But the FPPA offers a glimmer of hope for the women who play college sports.

Earning an income from your labor isn't just materially and economically important, it's also beneficial for one's sense of self and autonomy, Dr. LaKeitha Poole, LPC, director of student-athlete mental health at Louisiana State University and founder of Small Talk Counseling & Consulting, tells SELF. "Any individual who gets the opportunity to establish personal autonomy benefits from an increased sense of self and value," Dr. Poole says. The FPPA could "make at least a small crack in the glass ceiling of opportunity" for women student-athletes, she says.

In other words, the FPPA could empower women athletes to have control over how the world sees them and their talents-to market themselves via social media and connect their images and talents with brands that align with their personal agendas. It offers the opportunity to show the world that they and their sports have significant value. And it offers the opportunity for women to financially benefit from their skills and labor where there once was no opportunity at all.

Of course, the psychological impact of FPPA isn't exclusive to women's sports.

As Dr. Poole mentioned, personal autonomy (the ability to control one's destiny, to earn a living) provides a sense of self and value. Where the NCAA prevents student-athletes from controlling one's financial destiny; the FPPA does the complete opposite. It gives student-athletes the opportunity to control their own brands and earn immediate financial benefits from their hard work, allowing them to develop a sense of fiscal responsibility and independence. It places them on a more even playing field with the millions of other college students who are able to earn money from their non-athletic labor and talents. It could provide them a positive sense of their self-worth and place in society; changing their outlooks on the possibilities for their lives.

I have never quite understood why people were concerned about student-athletes making money but not concerned with students on academic scholarship earning money in excess of their scholarships. I've never been able to wrap my mind around how free labor can be illegal (and frowned upon) in every other industry except collegiate sports. And I have never gotten behind the idea that (in the most capitalist society on the planet), it is OK to prevent a group from engaging in the free market. The principles that the NCAA's rules of amateurism fly in the face of are bigger than sports. Those principles cut to the core of American society and culture.

The FPPA attempts to acknowledge that the NCAA is out of line with everything America stands for. It goes beyond the wallets of student-athletes and touches on the hearts of them as people; people who deserve to reap the financial and psychological benefits of their talents, their hard work, and their place in American culture.
Cecelia Townes, the Sporty Esquire, is a graduate of Howard University and UCLA School of Law. As an undergrad Cecelia was a 4-Time Academic All-American on the Women's Tennis team. Cecelia's legal practice focuses on federal personnel and labor law. While engaging in a full-time legal practice, Cecelia also remains dedicated to sports and empowering women. She is a contributing writer for Forbes.com where she comments on issues related to women in sports. She also created and runs GladiatHers.com, a site dedicated to women in sports and women who want to achieve their maximum potential. Cecelia is a proud member of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. Follow her on Twitter here and on Instagram here. Related:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Here's Why College Athletes Should Be Paid

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Beyond race, the FPPA gives hope to another neglected group in collegiate sports: women. Even with the passage of Title IX and the Equal Pay Act, women's collegiate sports continue to lag behind men's in opportunities, participation, staffing, financing, attendance, and support.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Imagine working for countless hours, six days a week, then putting on multiple performances just so someone else can be paid billions. That is the life of a college athlete. College athletes do not get any recognition or benefits that they deserve for the revenue they bring to their university and the surrounding community. For some college athletes, things such as tuition, gear, recovery items, and other necessities needed to perform are not free or cheap. Many college athletes pay money out of their own pockets to be able to perform at the level they need to, but who gets all the financial benefits? The NCAA and the university itself.

According to USA Today, the NCAA had a revenue of $1.1 Billion from 2017 NCAA college sporting events. How much of this money went to the college athletes who are the ones physically and mentally performing generating this money? Zero. However, in a legal way, college athletes who are playing at Division 1 or Division 2 schools are being paid with full scholarship tuition. It is fair to say that, paid tuition is equivalent to being a paid athlete. This leaves out Division 3 college athletes who put in just as much hard work and time to be able to perform at a high level and generate money for the NCAA and their university, but do not receive full rides. At Division 3 colleges, the only scholarship that is allowed is academic, not athletic. I interviewed Walker McDonald, a current college athlete at Greenville University, and asked him the question of, should college athletes get paid for playing for their university? Walker said, "I believe college athletes should be paid based on how much money they get from scholarships...athletes should at least make enough money to cover their tuition if the scholarship doesn't."

Media by NCAA Money Revenue.

Media by All NCAA College Sports.

College athletes have to sign contracts by the NCAA stating that they will not receive any money from anyone while they are playing for the university. I do not dismiss the fact that playing for a university is a privilege and not a right, college athletes have many experiences and memories that are priceless in life. However, times are hard for many students, and college athletes have a bit more expenses when it comes to necessities, they need to be able to perform at high levels. I was able to interview Josias Parker, an alumna of the men's basketball team at Greenville University. I asked him if college athletes should get paid for their time playing for their university. Josias replied by saying, "I definitely think college athletes should get paid, because universities make a lot of money from sports, sports bringing a majority of income, especially for small schools like Greenville University. Athletes should get paid especially because college is a tough time with money, so paying money to athletes will give college athletes more relief and will try to help them and aid them with whatever they need, like necessities they need to perform well."

There is a good compromise with those who disagree with the idea of college athletes getting paid, instead of a set salary like professionals. The very least college athletes could receive is donations from fans or other organizations. College athletes are told to treat their sport as a job and be professional about every aspect of the game. However, like waiters and waitresses get tips for doing a good job, why can't athletes be rewarded the same way?

Even without pay, the very least college athletes could receive is a guarantee that their scholarship will not be taken away if they are hurt playing. If we are going the route that an athlete's pay is their scholarship, then it shouldn't be able to be taken away when they are no longer "useful" for the university. Athletes like Kyle Hardrick who lost his basketball scholarship at Oklahoma University after he tore his meniscus in his knee are examples that universities only care about the ability of the player to perform. If universities only care about the usefulness of the athlete, then there should be guaranteed tuition or pay allowing the athlete to finish college even after being injured and unable to play. Student college athletes should get paid, especially after seeing the details of what they go through to perform at the high caliber level they compete at.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Imagine working for countless hours, six days a week, then putting on multiple performances just so someone else can be paid billions. That is the life of a college athlete. College athletes do not get any recognition or benefits that they deserve for the revenue they bring to their university and the surrounding community.

# 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.attachment_link.readable_text
The debate rages on: Should college athletes be paid to play their sport? Read our take on both sides of the argument and watch our accompanying video here!

Originally Posted: Mar 20, 2017

Should college athletes be paid? People who think college student-athletes should be paid often say the students' names and images are used on products and in advertising, among other things, so they should receive some of the profits. Those who say college student-athletes should not be paid argue that they receive scholarships as a form of payment for their talents. Then there are plenty of other questions: Would athletes be paid differently depending on the sport they play? How do you quantify the true worth of a college sports team, especially if it's making the school much more popular overall and bringing in lots of students? Where would the money even come from? The debate could go on and on. Here's a look at each side.

Why student-athletes should get paid

Being a college student-athlete is a full-time job, bouncing between the weight room, the court/field, classes, and film sessions. College athletics are extracurricular activities, but the schedules of the National Collegiate Athletic Association's (NCAA) tournaments require an extended period in which the student-athletes must miss school. Not only do they miss class, but they are absent for nationally televised games that make a lot of money and receive millions of viewers, according to Marc Edelman in his article " 21 Reasons Why Student-Athletes Are Employees and Should Be Allowed to Unionize."

Since student-athletes also bring in revenue for their team and college or university, especially in the championship games, those who debate in favor of paying them say the students could receive a small portion of the profits. Yes, pay would vary, just as the universities with the more successful teams receive more television time or money than those with less successful teams. College football and men's basketball programs earn far more than any other athletic program, so these athletes would likely earn more as well. This may not be considered fair pay, but many of those who argue in support of paying college players point out that team popularity and consumers generally determine what is "fair." These sports also tend to support other less popular sports that do not bring in a lot of money on their own.

Student-athletes are the ones working hard out on the court and field. Coaches might have a big effect on a team, but it is up to the athletes to get it done. Coaches receive bonuses for breaking records, reaching the offseason, and winning the big games; the athletes receive none of it, writes Tyson Hartnett for HuffPost. Most profits from college athletics do not go toward academics. Instead, they go to the coaches, athletic directors, and some administrators, reports Edelman. Student-athletes do not need to receive huge salaries like their coaches; rather, they could still be paid a reasonable amount relative to how much the program makes. Scholarships often cover most of the student-athletes' books and room expenses, but even few extra hundred dollars per year could compensate for the lack of time these students have to earn spending money at a regular part-time job, argues Harnett.

It's also important to note that college student-athletes are not only a part of a sports team; they are a part of the college or university's advertising team. For example, the "Flutie effect" is used to describe a surge in college admission following a big sports win. It's named for Boston College quarterback Doug Flutie; he won the Heisman Trophy in 1984, and the College's admissions rose significantly in subsequent years-though the extent of Flutie's impact has been largely refuted by BC officials since then. Still, colleges and universities use their athletic success to promote their school and entice potential applicants. Student-athletes would be paid for this and all the additional benefits they provide for their schools.

A timeout of the regular season college football game between the University of Michigan at the University of Iowa
📸: Madisen Martinez

Why student-athletes should not get paid

In 2013, survey expert John Dennis found that 69% of the public is opposed to paying student-athletes. (This proposed payment would be in addition to the scholarships given in men's football and basketball programs.) If scholarships were taken out of the deal, and only salaries were given, then it would be more fair and affordable for the university, right? Wrong. If salaries were given, then these college student-athletes would have to pay taxes. Depending on the student-athlete's income, those taxes could be high enough to reduce what they earn until they can barely cover tuition, according to John R. Thelin in his article "Here's Why We Shouldn't Pay College Athletes."

Those who opposed paying college student-athletes say scholarships are the best option; there is no question as to what the scholarship money is going toward. Cash or a salary could be spent on wants rather than necessities, potentially leading the athletes into a debt they would not have with the benefit of a scholarship. Furthermore, those who debate against paying student-athletes say it would change the very nature of college athletics. College student-athletes are given a rare opportunity. It's difficult to earn a position on a college team. Though a dream for many, only about 7% of high school athletes move onto the bigger stage. Another 2% of these athletes reach the Division I level, reports Dave Anderson in his article " Top 10 Reasons College Athletes Should Not Be Paid."

If payments were involved, athletes would be given incentive to commit to the college or university with the highest offer. The next year, they may transfer to another school with an even higher offer. Before you know it, these college sports would be 100% a business. This new "business" could also lead to the downfall of other college programs. The money to pay athletes must come from somewhere, which might put the least-popular college programs at risk of being cut. That, in turn, can deprive other students of their chance to gain the education and experience at the college of their dreams, since their desired program will no longer be offered, says Anderson.

Finally, even though these college student-athletes may be playing at an advanced level, they still aren't playing professionally, Anderson notes. It is not their job to play sports; it is an extracurricular activity that is pursued while pursuing a higher education. Student-athletes are going to school to learn, and many are lucky enough to do so for reduced cost, given the often generous athletic scholarships. If these athletes were paid, it would change their motives as students. They are still in college-which is a privilege in itself-while pursuing their dreams of playing a sport.

What do you think?

Whether student-athletes should be paid is an ongoing debate often brought up during championship seasons, especially the college football playoffs and the basketball post-season. What's your view of this heated debate? Will a salary for college-athletes ever come to be? It's up to the NCAA to decide if they'll break away from their current model of collegiate sports, in which "the young men and women competing on the field or court are students first, athletes second."
Are you a hopeful student-athlete? Start exploring colleges and searching for scholarships for your sport on CollegeXpress now!
Like what you're reading?

Join the CollegeXpress community! Create a free account and we'll notify you about new articles, scholarship deadlines, and more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should College Student-Athletes Be Paid to Play? Both Sides of the Debate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The debate rages on: Should college athletes be paid to play their sport? Read our take on both sides of the argument and watch our accompanying video here!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Education should be the college athlete's greatest compensation.

Not a slice of the billions of dollars paid for TV rights for their games. Not a pay-for-play contract like their NBA and NFL brethren. The biggest crime in college sports isn't that the system is rigged against paying college athletes, it's that money-worshipping American culture is set up against educating them.

The clamor to pay players arose anew this week when North Carolina basketball coach Roy Williams earned $925,000 in bonuses after his team won the national championship. "The players got awesome T-shirts and hats," observed Associated Press sports writer Tim Reynolds in a viral tweet.

The NCAA collects $1.1 billion per year from CBS and Turner for broadcast rights to the basketball tournament. ESPN pays $470 million annually for the College Football Playoff. Conferences and individual colleges make additional millions during the regular season. Many have compellingly argued for years that, morally and legally, the players deserve to pocket some of that windfall.

They do. But our Money Over Everything society is minimizing or ignoring what's currently within players' grasp, which should last far longer than a six-figure revenue-sharing check.

Right now, college players receive up to six figures' worth of higher education, plus the life-changing opportunity to elevate intellect and character. Yes, athletes are too often pushed into fake classes to keep them eligible, as in the infamous North Carolina academic scandal that threatens the Tar Heels' championship, or hindered from serious study by the 40-hour-per-week demands of their sport. But these athletes, and generations of their descendants, would benefit more from reforming their educational experiences than from extra cash.

Let's look at what those North Carolina ballers receive from their athletic scholarships.

Start with four years of tuition, fees, room and board that total $80,208 for in-state students and $180,536 for those from outside North Carolina. Add the benefit of a diploma from a top institution with an influential and passionate alumni network. UNC is nationally ranked the No. 5 public university and the No. 30 college overall. The name "North Carolina" on LinkedIn or a resume opens doors and gets phone calls returned - and that's without including "2017 NCAA champion." And for the majority of UNC players who won't make NBA millions, lifetime earnings for college graduates are 66 percent higher than those with just a high school diploma. That can be worth more than an additional $1 million.

Then there are the intangibles.

"People ask all the time why I'm one of the youngest college presidents in the country, and one of the only African-Americans leading a private national university," said Chris Howard, 48, who leads Robert Morris University in suburban Pittsburgh and played football at the Air Force Academy. "I credit a big chunk of that to my experience playing college athletics. I know it sounds kind of cliché, but attention to detail, discipline, teamwork, resiliency, learning how to deal with others, deal with people that are of different backgrounds. It was just a melting pot. It was a leadership lab for me."

After finishing college, Howard flew helicopters, served in Afghanistan and Liberia, became a Rhodes scholar and got a Harvard MBA. "All those intangibles kind of laid the path. The path was laid by playing D-I football first," he said.

Rather than an unfair burden, Howard sees the demands placed on college athletes as a down payment on a successful future.

"You'll be a better human being when you learn to handle that load," he said. "You'll be a better father, better husband, better brother, better sister. You'll be a better professional as an engineer, a lawyer, a doctor, a business manager."

The pay-for-play crowd loves to holler, "Intangibles don't pay the bills."

College athletes certainly should receive enough compensation to cover living expenses. Their families should travel free to games. Some sort of trust fund sounds fair. But the intangible value of higher education is worth more than pizza or gas money.

Martin Luther King Jr. described it while a student at Morehouse College:

"Most of the 'brethren' think that education should equip them with the proper instruments of exploitation so that they can forever trample over the masses," King wrote in 1947 at age 21. "Still others think that education should furnish them with noble ends rather than means to an end."

"Intelligence plus character - that is the goal of true education," King wrote.

The real problem is, too many athletes are blocked from coming within a Hail Mary of that ideal.

"I would suggest that a lot of these kids aren't getting an education. They're just sitting in class," said Leonard Moore, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin who is founder of the Black Student-Athlete Summit.

Moore has tutored, counseled and mentored athletes while teaching at Ohio State, Louisiana State and now Texas. He says most big-time athletes are limited to easy majors and prevented from taking advantage of many educational benefits because "revenue-generating sports are now year-round enterprises."

"You can't take a class after 1 o'clock. You can't study abroad in the summer. You can't get an internship on Wall Street or Silicon Valley," he said. "The question then becomes how do these student-athletes take advantage of everything that a place like Texas or UCLA has to offer? I would argue that it monopolizes all their time. The only thing they can do is go to class, go to work out and then go lift, and then go to the meeting and then go to class."

"I never understood why a football team has to practice in February when their first game of the season is in September," Moore said.

Money is the biggest reason.

The University of Texas football team generated $121 million in revenue and a staggering $92 million profit in 2015. The business of college sports is so entrenched, Moore doesn't believe it's possible to make the players real students again.

"Just because you value education doesn't mean [the athlete] values it," he said. "If it's basketball that got me on an airplane, that's taken me to another state, that's taken me out of the country, you know what I'm saying? Basketball has definitely helped me move forward in life. You say a four-year education, that doesn't mean anything. That's important in your value system, but it ain't important in mine.

"Right now, it seems like they value the money and that we all value the money," Moore continued. "That's the athletes. That's the university. Our society values the money, and so we say, 'Look, they need to be paid. We need to pay them, pay them, pay them.' Instead of saying, 'We need to educate, educate, educate.' "

Efforts are being made. Over the past 15 years, graduation rates have risen from 46 to 77 percent for all black NCAA basketball players, and from 76 to 94 percent for white players. The NCAA gave Division I schools $45 million last year for academic programs and services.

But ballplayers can still get a sociology degree in three years while reading just one book. The clamor for cash still prevails. Demanding short-term gratification feels better than pursuing long-term goals.

A starting point for reform would be guaranteeing athletic scholarships for four years, instead of one, and providing free tuition, room and board for as long as it takes ex-players to graduate. Freed from the demand to produce revenue, these young athletes could finally obtain the incalculable benefits of a real college education.

Capitalism dictates that college players be paid fairly for the entertainment they provide. If money is life's ultimate goal, the buck stops there.

Or here: "Capitalism is always in danger," King said, "of inspiring men to be more concerned about making a living than making a life."

Jesse Washington is a senior writer for The Undefeated. You can find him giving dudes the bizness on a basketball court near you.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Big-time college athletes should be paid with big-time educations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Education should be the college athlete's greatest compensation. Not a slice of the billions of dollars paid for TV rights for their games. Not a pay-for-play contract like their NBA and NFL brethren. The biggest crime in college sports isn't that the system is rigged against paying college athletes, it's that money-worshipping American culture is set up against educating them.