# 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.

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.

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?

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.

# 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.attachment_link.title
Here's Why We Shouldn't Pay College Athletes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Paying college athletes a salary has become a popular idea. But most are better off with tax-free scholarships, the way it works now.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
NCAA.org - The Official Site of the NCAA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Amateur competition is a bedrock principle of college athletics and the NCAA. Maintaining amateurism is crucial to preserving an academic environment in which acquiring a quality education is the first priority. In the collegiate model of sports, the young men and women competing on the field or court are students first, athletes second.

The NCAA membership has adopted amateurism rules to ensure the students' priority remains on obtaining a quality educational experience and that all of student-athletes are competing equitably.

All incoming student-athletes must be certified as amateurs. With global recruiting becoming more common, determining the amateur status of prospective student-athletes can be challenging. All student-athletes, including international students, are required to adhere to NCAA amateurism requirements to remain eligible for intercollegiate competition.

In general, amateurism requirements do not allow:

Contracts with professional teams

Salary for participating in athletics

Prize money above actual and necessary expenses

Play with professionals

Tryouts, practice or competition with a professional team

Benefits from an agent or prospective agent

Agreement to be represented by an agent

Delayed initial full-time collegiate enrollment to participate in organized sports competition

Additional information regarding NCAA amateurism rules is available on the NCAA Eligibility Center's website by clicking on the "Resources" link at the top of the page. Another resource is the Guide for the College Bound Student-Athlete.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is amateurism certification and why is it so important?

The amateurism certification process ensures that incoming Division I or II student-athletes meet NCAA amateurism requirements. Membership established the process to bring about national uniformity and fairness. Most prospective student-athletes who fully complete the process are certified.

How long has the amateurism certification process been in place?

The NCAA Eligibility Center's amateurism certification staff began certifying amateurism for fall 2007 enrollees. Individual schools previously were responsible for determining that prospective student-athletes met NCAA amateurism requirements.

Is everyone eventually certified as eligible?

Prospective student-athletes may be certified as eligible, or eligible with conditions (for example, a penalty), or as ineligible. Generally, a relatively small number of prospective student-athletes are determined to be ineligible or placed under review. "Ineligible" means the prospective student-athlete cannot play Division I or II sports. "Under review" means further investigation is needed to determine a prospective student-athlete's amateur status. About 97,000 prospective student-athletes are certified each year.

What role does the school play in amateurism certification?

School involvement is a must. In fact, the amateurism certification staff and the school must agree upon the facts before any interpretive, appeal or reinstatement requests can be made.

What role does the prospective student-athlete play?

Prospective student-athletes, including international students, must follow NCAA amateurism rules. Their first step is to go online to register with the NCAA Eligibility Center at www.eligibilitycenter.org, where they provide information about their amateur status.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Amateur competition is a bedrock principle of college athletics and the NCAA. Maintaining amateurism is crucial to preserving an academic environment in which acquiring a quality education is the first priority. In the collegiate model of sports, the young men and women competing on the field or court are students first, athletes second.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Two weeks ago, as Americans were settling into the harvest comfort of football Saturdays, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling in the antitrust suit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association. The decision drew blood on both sides. The court sided with the players in affirming that the N.C.A.A. is not immune to antitrust regulation, but simultaneously reversed a lower-court ruling that would have granted former athletes as much as five thousand dollars a year in deferred compensation-essentially back pay-for the use of their images in video games and other commercial ventures. At the same time, the court required that the N.C.A.A. increase scholarship payouts to cover the full cost of college attendance, thus making mandatory an option that the N.C.A.A. first permitted a few years ago.

These legal niceties did very little to address the deeper question of fairness. The N.C.A.A. ideal of amateurism in college athletics has come to border on farce. In the highest-revenue sports-football and basketball-the argument in favor of paying players is so searingly obvious as to seem undeniable. These athletes collectively generate tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars annually for their schools. Many college coaches are the highest-paid public employees in their states-a five-million-dollar salary is no longer eye-popping-and that paycheck doesn't include gifts from boosters, who will occasionally pay for a coach's house to make sure that he stays happy.

But this understates the exploitation. The athletes in major football and men's basketball programs are disproportionately black, many from poor and educationally disadvantaged backgrounds. For too many of them, the N.C.A.A. is the only game in town. In some dispiriting cases, the students are so unprepared that academic failure seems inevitable. In worse cases still, their scholarships are cynically undermined by the schools themselves. Coaches steer students into empty classes (what one recent report from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill characterized as a " shadow curriculum ") or supply so-called academic support that amounts to cheating. It hardly seems coincidental, then, that sports with less African-American participation, such as baseball and hockey, maintain robust minor-league systems without the national gnashing of teeth.

And yet I believe that the drive to pay college athletes is a grave mistake-not because it misdiagnoses the disease but because it suggests that the only cure is to put the patient out of his misery. It fails, first of all, to recognize the value of sports as a part of education. This value can be seen in the countless student athletes, from gymnasts to softball players, who pour hours of work into training and competing with no hope of going pro. (Similarly, many of those in even the biggest sports show dedication long after it is clear that they will never be professionals.)

This value is again revealed in the fact that many N.C.A.A. teams are vastly more popular than their professional counterparts. My beloved Michigan Wolverines pack the Big House with more than a hundred thousand spectators each football Saturday; the Detroit Lions, meanwhile, do not. (I know, I know-it's the Lions. That's why their stadium is smaller.) Minor-league arenas attract even fewer spectators. Fans are not only seeking athletic excellence as such-the biggest and fastest players in descending order. Our connection to the athletes is deeper. These student athletes walk the same halls, have the same professors, and sweat the same midterms that we did, however long ago. At the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, where I once taught, the inscription on the statue of Alma Mater reads, "To thy happy children of the future, those of the past send greetings." It's easy to dismiss that sentiment as saccharine, but it gets at an important truth: we are embedded in our cultures and social groups, and we revel in their excellence.

Paying student athletes erodes that association. If a high-school football prodigy reported that he chose Michigan not for its academic quality, tradition, or beautiful campus but because it outbid all other suitors, a connection to the university's values would be lost. This is not naïve idealism. Auburn fans still bristle at accusations that Cam Newton auctioned them his services; prideful Michigan fans still smart over the sanctions surrounding Chris Webber, and over stinging comments intimating that he might just as well have attended a rival school. These episodes reveal what happens when college sports are reduced to a market; that this occurs all too often already is no reason to surrender to it.

The law plays a critical role here, and the Ninth Circuit's ruling can be a constructive step. It recognizes that the N.C.A.A. is subject to antitrust regulation-unlike, say, Major League Baseball -and refuses to put a monetary value on college sports. In the future, Congress could, through antitrust and commerce legislation, promote a more just landscape in college and professional sports. Professional leagues, in particular, could be encouraged to invest more seriously in their minor-league programs-the N.B.A. Development League is at least the right idea-and drop the relevant age restrictions. This would mean that the extraordinary few could go pro out of high school, and some other highfliers, could enter the developmental leagues, paid whatever the market will bear. College sports might well lose some spectacular stars, but the stars alone were never really the point.

None of this would be easy to accomplish, of course, given the money that is at stake, and there would be casualties. Some of the players who might at least have been exposed to college would forgo it entirely. We might lose the story of the exceptional athlete, often poor and dark-skinned, who goes to school solely to play sports but then sees the world widen before him. Nor should we imagine that those who opt for the developmental leagues have made it; minor-league baseball and the lower tiers of European soccer remind us how thankless and poorly compensated such a life can be. But this is no less true for those who skip college to pursue music or theatre, and, more to the point, there is no reason to think that we wouldn't hear stories of intellectual discovery among slightly less athletically gifted athletes from the same streets. Even if we cannot save sports (or music, or theatre) from its high-risk nature, we can go some way toward making sure that a few élite college programs are not unduly feeding off it.

At sports bars, when I hear people dismiss these (or other) ideas for preserving college amateurism, I realize that it's not simply a question of their being overwhelmed by the practical difficulties involved. It is, rather, another manifestation of that corrosive American belief that anything that has value must also have a price. The recent ruling, though, hints at a path ahead, a way to cheer for our student athletes without being held hostage to money, exploitation, racism, or cynicism.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Two weeks ago, as Americans were settling into the harvest comfort of football Saturdays, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling in the antitrust suit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association. The decision drew blood on both sides. The court sided with the players in affirming that the N.C.A.A.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Book says the NCAA treats athletes like 'indentured servants'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For more than a century, amateurism has been the engine that has driven intercollegiate athletics. When the NCAA was founded in 1906, its first set of bylaws dictated that each college should "enact and enforce such measures as may be necessary to prevent violations of the principles of amateur sports." While that reality has remained stubbornly intact, the wider sports context has changed considerably: In 1906 professional baseball players weren't even making 10 grand a season, and college sports were essentially intramurals. Now, NCAA athletics is a billion-dollar industry, and the stakes of the amateurism label are much higher than they were a century ago.

The blowback has risen in conjunction with the revenue. As collegiate athletics has morphed from groups of dudes butting heads in the mud into a money-making machine that keeps television sets nationwide aglow, more and more people have taken critical looks at the 100-year-old model. The outrage tends to be particularly loud each March, when the NCAA makes more than a billion dollars off of the NCAA tournament. On Friday night, HBO will air one such examination in a half-hour edition of Vice called "End of Amateurism." The episode dives into the experiences of several athletes craving financial justice - including former Auburn running back Peyton Barber and four-star high school basketball prospect David Beatty - while juggling commentary from athletic directors and other collegiate executives who are invested in maintaining some version of the status quo. It's an informative, fairly handled look at an issue that can often seem black and white, but is deceptively nuanced.

"We wanted to give equal time to both sides," Vice correspondent and producer Gianna Toboni tells me over the phone. "We wanted to get to know two student athletes [Barber and Beatty] intimately ... and we wanted two examples of schools [Texas Tech and Michigan State] where we could get not just sound bites from coaches, but really be there."

Though the episode is called "End of Amateurism," it's more about the ending of amateurism - the fight, the process - than the practice's ultimate demise. Because while the cracks have been showing for a while now, we're not quite at the end yet. Three years ago, Northwestern football players were awarded the right to unionize by the Chicago office of the National Labor Relations Board. Then, just over a year later, the full NLRB reversed the ruling. Recent tweaks to the amateurism model have included the NCAA allowing schools to give athletes unlimited food and drink benefits, after Shabazz Napier complained about going hungry during the Final Four, and allowing colleges to award modest cash stipends to student athletes. Those improvements are definitely worth something - I'd kill for some free snacks at my job ( cough cough) - but they're stepping stones, not victory.

Avid HBO watchers may remember that two years ago John Oliver did his own segment on NCAA amateurism on Last Week Tonight. That was not long after O'Bannon v. NCAA, which at one point in time looked like it could upend the NCAA's system but ended with a more modest result when a judge allowed schools to cover cost-of-living expenses and cost-of-attendance scholarships for athletes, along with other benefits. Now, another case, Jenkins v. NCAA, is seeking to further disrupt the current model. Though Toboni positions the case as a possible death knell for amateurism, Vice and other outlets may still be doing similar segments this time next year, because if amateurism is dying, the death appears likely to be as slow and drawn out as possible due to the amount of money and history protecting the preexisting arrangement.

While many viewers are familiar with the broad strokes of the amateurism debate, they rarely get to see the issue explored so intimately. In one scene, four-star basketball recruit Beatty stares at the collection of sneakers from brands like Under Armour and Nike that he's amassed at various showcases and events. He estimates that they're worth thousands of dollars - enough to grant his struggling family some much-needed relief - but notes that he can't sell them because doing so would mean risking an NCAA violation and forfeiture of his amateur status.

In another scene, the crew follows Barber to his draft-night gathering, as he prepares to celebrate the beginning of his NFL career. The honor roll student left college after his sophomore year due to financial considerations, thinking, like so many before him, that a pro career could bring him and his family a better life.

"No one ever considered he wouldn't get drafted," says Toboni. "Us, his family and friends, I think even him."

In a shock to nearly everyone, Barber, who was projected to be a sixth-round pick by NFL.com, would end up having to sign as a free agent. And though he's since earned some time on the field as a member of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, he saw an agonizing amount of money and security slip away each time a drafting team failed to call his name. His wait on draft day is one of the more powerful parts of the episode.

Of course, Barber's situation is mirrored by countless other cases of athletes choosing to leave school early to pursue not only their dream of playing professionally, but the pay day that leap could bring. Early in the episode, Barber says that he would have stayed in school if he'd been compensated for playing college football. Maybe, for the scores of athletes like Barber, that choice could become a reality if the Jenkins case ends up being the one that ends amateurism. But we'll have to wait - and, more than likely, wait and wait and wait - for that day to arrive.

Disclosure: HBO is an initial investor in The Ringer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An Intimate Look at the Amateurism Debate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For more than a century, amateurism has been the engine that has driven intercollegiate athletics. When the NCAA was founded in 1906, its first set of bylaws dictated that each college should "enact and enforce such measures as may be necessary to prevent violations of the principles of amateur sports."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Photo: NCAA President Mark Emmert speaks at a news conference Thursday, April 4, 2013, in Atlanta. (AP Photo/David J. Phillip)

The federal courthouse in Oakland, Calif. was packed on Thursday as NCAA President Mark Emmert took the stand in the O'Bannon v. NCAA antitrust case, in which a class of college athletes is seeking access to television revenues that are generated from their games.

As he told FRONTLINE three years ago in Money and March Madness, Emmert rejects the idea of paying college athletes, arguing that it goes against one of the NCAA's core values: that athletes are regular students.

"The most fundamental notion is that student-athletes are not paid professionals," he said today in court. "They are students who are playing for their school. They are not there because they're being paid."

In his testimony, Emmert explained that part of the rationale for the NCAA's creation was to prohibit professionals from taking the field for various schools. Amateurism is part of the appeal of college athletics, he maintained, noting that the Louisiana State University Tigers can fill a bigger stadium than the New Orleans Saints.

Throughout the trial, now nearing the end of its second week, the NCAA has argued that there are "pro-competitive benefits" for having rules in place that prohibit the compensation of athletes, including high-level football and basketball players who bring revenue to their schools and the NCAA through lucrative television contracts. Paying athletes - whether through a salary for individual performances on the field, or revenues from sales of athletes' names, images and likenesses - would fundamentally alter the nature of college sport, fan interest, and the ability of athletes and non-athletes to commingle on campus, the NCAA argues.

In court today, Emmert objected to making funds available to revenue-producing athletes even after graduation, saying they would be able to use the promise of those funds to their advantage, for example, to secure a car loan.

"It's payment for playing regardless if it's paid today or paid tomorrow," he said.

Through a series of documents - including e-mails to and from NCAA officials, reports by NCAA task forces, pictures of athletes and corporate logos, and speeches made by NCAA presidents - plaintiffs' attorney William Isaacson attempted to show that the association has been aware of escalating commercialism in college athletics in recent years, and that the NCAA and its member schools did little to stem that tide.

In a lengthy exchange, Isaacson questioned Emmert about an email he received just prior to taking over as president from veteran NCAA employee Wallace Renfro. The email spelled out a number of issues Emmert would face as president. Renfro wrote that commercialization "is going to be one of the more difficult issues in the near term." He added, "There is a general sense that intercollegiate athletics is as thoroughly commercialized as professional sports," and noted that "blurred" lines exist when players are put in "close proximity to commercial products."

Emmert, who characterized Renfro as a "provocateur," said he did not reply to the email. He said of its contents, "He was making the statement, from my interpretation, as to what he thought were the beliefs of some people."

Isaacson showed photographs of football players at postgame press conferences in front of banners emblazoned with corporate logos and at tables with specific brands of water. "It's fine under the rules," Emmert responded, though he added, "It's not something I'm personally comfortable with."

Emmert noted that under his leadership the NCAA decided to end its relationship with Electronic Arts by refusing to license its logo for college sports video games. The video games, which were the subject of a settlement with a separate class of plaintiffs just as this litigation began, were not in violation of the rules surrounding the use of player names, images and likenesses, in Emmert's view.

"It seemed inappropriate that we be in the enterprise if there was controversy surrounding it," Emmert said, adding that he told his staff to "extract ourselves from that relationship" at the first opportunity.

Emmert also addressed the issue of athletic scholarships. Lawyers for the plaintiffs have argued throughout this case that such scholarships, capable of being awarded and revoked by the coach, are already essentially "pay for play." Emmert disagreed, saying that the scholarships are used to cover academic expenses, therefore do not contradict NCAA amateurism rules.

Emmert is expected to take the stand again on Friday.
Zachary Stauffer, a contributor to various FRONTLINE projects, is based at the Investigative Reporting Program at UC Berkeley.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NCAA President Defends Amateurism in College Sports

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Photo: NCAA President Mark Emmert speaks at a news conference Thursday, April 4, 2013, in Atlanta. (AP Photo/David J. Phillip) The federal courthouse in Oakland, Calif. was packed on Thursday as NCAA President Mark Emmert took the stand in the O'Bannon v.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The annual basketball-and-brackets festival known as March Madness is just days away. From office pools to presidential predictions to the NCAA tournament itself, in the coming weeks the nation will become temporarily obsessed with nominally unpaid athletes and the names of the schools they wear on their jerseys.

I grew up in the thrall of the Big East's Rollie Massimino, Lou Carneseca, Patrick Ewing and Pearl Washington. College basketball literally filled my dreams during my teenage years, and my waking hours were spent hooping and pretending that (A) I was about 7 or 8 inches taller or (B) I had a much better vertical and jump shot.

This year, however, I won't be watching the tournament. I'm done with college sports as they're currently constituted, which expect us to believe the falsehood that we're cheering for a bunch of students who play sports in their spare time simply for the love of the game. This is as demeaning to fans as it is unfair to the players, who are kept from being justly compensated by the NCAA and its member institutions.

The NCAA has long profited from the labor of student athletes. In Division I basketball, these athletes are disproportionately African-American men and women who, depending on your point of view, are either unpaid or are paid handsomely with room, board, tuition and possibly a small stipend.

Historically, the NCAA has taken the position that amateurism is integral to the success and popularity of college athletics. It's a position they've stubbornly maintained for decades, despite the fact the definition of "amateurism" has changed over the years whenever it suits the NCAA's needs. Fans have demonstrated time and time again they are more than happy to support paid athletes; examples include not only the Olympics and professional sporting leagues but, if we're honest, current Division I athletics as well.

The NCAA farcically claims to limit athletes to 20 hours of athletic activity per week.

Surely, if people were put off by the idea of paying college athletes, then Division III schools (which do not offer scholarships, let alone give their players stipends) would have the largest fan bases and Division I schools caught funneling money to their star players would lose fans in the wake of pay-for-play scandals. It's hard to find a single example of this kind of backlash. As Jessica Luther so ably demonstrated in Unsportsmanlike Conduct: College Football and the Politics of Rape , the devotion that fans have for college teams allows universities to rationalize and excuse behavior much, much worse than taking money under the table from an agent or shoe company.

In this annual tale, the NCAA is often portrayed as the only villain; however, colleges and universities are not required to follow NCAA dictates. It's the universities, not the NCAA, that control course curricula and how they treat their student athletes. Big-time college athletics have distorted the mission of universities for more than a century, as evidenced by the endless scandals that punctuate the seasons. Indeed, if change is going to come, it will surely have to come from the universities themselves, not from the NCAA.

Schools will protest they don't have enough money to pay student athletes. This is certainly true. A 2014 NCAA study of Division I athletic department finances showed only 20 of the 1,083 college sports programs in the nation are profitable. Even among the highest subcategory of colleges ― those eligible to compete in annual football bowl games ― 83.7 percent lost money, with a median loss of $14.9 million dollars. The difference is made up from the tuition dollars and fees that are charged to the university student body at large . Despite millions in revenue, the expenses associated with D-I level competition ― including coaches' salaries and chartered airplanes ― leave the vast majority of athletic budgets deeply in the red . But the mismanagement of millions of revenue dollars doesn't explain why colleges and the NCAA are opposed to athletes making money on their own through endorsements, contracts with agents or personal appearance fees, as in the case of Olympic athletes.

According to a recent FBI report, University of Arizona Coach Sean Miller was caught on tape discussing a $100,000 payment as a de facto signing bonus for top recruit Deandre Ayton . If true, this transaction is a problem only because it is against the NCAA's rules, not because being paid for one's talent or excellence is inherently immoral. If the rules changed and athletes were allowed to receive pay for their services, everyone would be better off. Schools could compete honestly for the nation's best talent. Athletes would be fairly compensated alongside their coaches.

To those who argue these athletes are unpaid amateurs, then I say: Pay them. To those who say they are already being paid, then I'm glad to agree that we're not talking about a line between moral and immoral and instead are just negotiating a price.

As ESPN personality and longtime advocate for NCAA reform has often pointed out, the whole world runs on mutually beneficial, contracted obligations, so why not college sports? We live in a market economy; let's allow the market to set the price for these athletes' services. No one is arguing colleges should be required to pay their athletes, and schools or conferences that want to adopt a pay-for-play model with athlete salaries could compete in a Premier Division above Divisions I, II and III. Networks would surely line up with bundles of cash to broadcast these games.

I've taught a fair number of D-I athletes in my career as a professor. Some are the platonic ideal of what we hope for when we say "student athlete." Anecdotally, these are more often than not either women or men in non-revenue sports. My classroom experience with football and male basketball players has been less heartening. Despite the incredible odds stacked against ever going pro, their focus is overwhelmingly on their sport, with academics not infrequently reduced to a obstacle to be overcome to retain eligibility.

One creative solution we see from time to time is to give intercollegiate athletes academic credit for their sports. Universities around the country allow artists, dancers and musicians to major in a physical activity, so why not basketball and football players? And if they aren't allowed to major in their respective sports, athletes should be allowed to enroll in an interdisciplinary sports studies program. Such majors exist at many institutions and , but no one has yet taken the logical next step to recognize the educational worth of playing an intercollegiate sport.

If the rules changed, and athletes were allowed to receive pay for their services, everyone would be better off.

Universities give credit (and charge tuition, at that) for, say, engineering students who take internships, because it's clear that working in an office teaches future engineers useful things that can't be taught in a classroom. The playing field is no different. A sports studies major that combined credit for a student's athletic efforts with historical and sociological examinations of sport, sports management, journalism, communications, exercise science and coaching would not fix all of college athletics' ills, but it would serve as an important initiative ― especially if coupled with compensation reform for revenue sports.

The NCAA farcically claims to limit athletes to 20 hours of athletic activity per week . If this bore any relationship to reality, it would allow the athletes to also be true, full-time students. However, that 20-hours-per-week mandate doesn't include traveling to and from games, weight lifting, training room activities, mandatory study halls and tutoring, compliance meetings, training table meals, hosting recruits, getting to and from practice, pre-practice activities, or post-practice showering and recovery. These loopholes can quickly turn 20 hours a week into a 50-hour weekly commitment .

Offering credit for student athletes' on-field work would reduce the number of in-classroom courses they enroll in each semester ― and allow them to better focus on those courses, as well. It would do much more to fulfill a university's academic mission than the status quo. Currently, the pressure to keep players eligible in pursuit of victory's spoils has perverted the academic mission of many colleges. Even otherwise elite schools, such as the University of North Carolina, have been revealed to be shepherding significant numbers of athletes through dummy courses and awarding them useless and fraudulent degrees.

The suggestions when it comes to reforming big-time college sports are endless, and almost any alternative would make more sense than the current NCAA system, which asks spectators to believe something that is self-evidently untrue: that elite Division I athletes are just regular students who happen to play a sport. It's time to abandon the fanciful conceits that athletes devoting 50 hours a week to their sports are also able to fully devote themselves to being students ― and that amateurism is morally superior to fair compensation and transparent contractual relationships.
Patrick F. McDevitt is an associate professor of history at State University of New York at Buffalo.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | The NCAA's Amateurism Rules Are Indeed Madness

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The annual basketball-and-brackets festival known as March Madness is just days away. From office pools to presidential predictions to the NCAA tournament itself, in the coming weeks the nation will become temporarily obsessed with nominally unpaid athletes and the names of the schools they wear on their jerseys.