# data[].attributes.body
i got it from padlet

# data[].attributes.body
C-  march 18, 2019
R- yes, it does talk about how college athletes should be paid.
A- the author is Charlie Dolgenos and he writes for thepd.com
A-N/A
P- Inform.

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

Whether or not to pay college athletes.

This is a touchy subject. In total, I approached five people asking to interview them. One flat out refused, one accepted as long as they could be quoted with a conditional anonymity, and the other three accepted. This was new to me.

The debate has gained notoriety in the past couple years and has picked up more steam in the past few weeks with the injury to Duke freshman Zion Williamson, the expected first overall pick in the upcoming NBA Draft.

The Duke versus North Carolina matchup on Feb. 20 was one of the most highly anticipated games of the college basketball season. President Obama was in attendance. Ticket prices for the game averaged over $4000. Between ticket revenue and the lavish ACC television contracts, it's clear that Duke basketball generates a ton of revenue and attention for the university.

There is less money on the line for athletes at Penn, but the issue is just as relevant. Ivy League programs don't give athletic scholarships, but rather provide need-based financial aid to student athletes. Ticket prices for men's basketball games (or any games at Penn) don't come close to averaging $4000. But the amount of time put in by a student athlete at Penn is similar to the amount of time put in by a student athlete on a nationally ranked team.

I asked a Division I basketball player, who requested anonymity, to take me through a typical in-season practice day at their top-25 program. Here's what they said:

9:30 - 10:30 a.m. - Mandatory team breakfast

10:30 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. - Class

1:30 - 2:00 p.m. - Film Session

2:00 - 4:00 p.m. - Organized practice

4:00 - 4:45 p.m. - Individualized practice (shooting drills, etc.)

5:00 - 5:45 p.m. - Shower and team dinner

Student athletes are free to do what they please after dinner.

"They want us to have class between 10 [in the morning] and 1 [in the afternoon], and then after 6. Those are the guidelines they gave us," the player said.

Angelo Matos, a senior defensive lineman on the Penn sprint football team, quit the varsity football team after his freshman year. This is the varsity football team's in-season practice schedule he provided, though he noted that it's only a rough estimate.

7:00 - 8:00 a.m. - Film session

8:00 - 9:00 a.m. - Morning lift

9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. - Class

3:00 - 5:00 p.m. - Practice

5:00 - 5:30 p.m. - Shower and change

5:30 - 6:30 p.m. - Dinner

6:45 - 8:15 p.m. - Mandatory study hours (three times per week)

Student athletes are free to do what they want after 8:15 p.m.

Matos emphasized that even when he wasn't physically at practice or any mandatory football activity, his mind was still on the game.

"One of the first people you meet as a freshman is the nutritionist. I was told by a coach that I needed to gain at least 30 pounds if I wanted to get on the field, so even during meals I'm thinking about football. I was thinking about football all day," he said.

The most prevalent argument in favor of not paying student athletes is that they are given access to a top-quality education. However, the time required from athletics often interferes with academics. All of the student athletes I spoke to were quick to note that.

"We go to Texas; Raleigh, [North Carolina]; [Washington] D.C. We leave on Wednesday for those meets. We'll fly out Wednesday and we won't get back until Sunday. It's a lot of time," Penn junior track athlete Olivia Welsh said. "[Our practice] is a big chunk of the day that's taken out from studying, meeting with professors, other extracurriculars, and stuff like that."

"I didn't have enough time for academics to the point that I dropped a class," Matos said. "I felt a better solution than leaving a team that I already committed to and saw some promise in was to drop a class."

Beyond the time interfering with academics, it can interfere with things like personal interests and hobbies. Junior and former outfielder Jerrette Lee is an interesting case. He was on Penn baseball but quit after his freshman year. He's now pursuing art with almost all his free time and selling his paintings. He even has a gallery exhibition next week.

"I didn't have enough time at all to pursue my art. Being able to get my time back and explore interests I had when I was a kid has really been worthwhile," Lee said. "I'm making infinitely more money from [painting] and putting in less time."

There are students - like myself - who are paid for on-campus jobs. I work as an intramural referee and get paid $9 an hour. It requires no outside time and no preparation. If I felt in any way that it interfered with my academics, I would not be doing it.

Meanwhile, the student athletes I spoke to all put in over 30 hours per week for their sport during the season. It's a full time job. It affects their academic performances, their extracurricular participation, their hobbies - and yet, they are compensated monetarily for none of it. What's different?

CHARLIE DOLGENOS is a College junior from Philadelphia and a Sports Reporter for The Daily Pennsylvanian. He can be reached at dpsports@thedp.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dolgenos | Should college athletes be paid?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Whether or not to pay college athletes. This is a touchy subject. In total, I approached five people asking to interview them. One flat out refused, one accepted as long as they could be quoted with a conditional anonymity, and the other three accepted. This was new to me.

# data[].attributes.body
C-october 1, 2019
R- Yes, It discuses about how college athletes should be paid.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
College athletics is less a nonprofit enterprise than an industry exploiting its workers, writes Brian Rosenberg, the president of Macalester College, in The New York Times. He points out that universities with top teams can rake in nearly $20 million a year from Nike or Adidas sponsorships, while the athletes themselves, whose talent is what attracts such sponsorships in the first place, walk away with nothing. He writes:

College basketball players are worth a lot of money, but they aren't legally allowed to make it. So the schools, coaches, agents and shoe companies make the money instead - all in the name of "amateurism."

Katelyn Ohashi, a former University of California, Los Angeles, gymnast, has criticized the unfairness of N.C.A.A. rules that prevented her from making any money from a video of a perfect floor routine that went viral earlier this year. She told Mr. Newsom:

Here's the fame, but then there's no compensation, and it's so crazy. People are like, "Oh, you must be so rich." And I'm like, "You must not know the N.C.A.A." ... When my routine went viral, [N.C.A.A. President] Mark Emmert called me to congratulate me, and I'm like, "You should be thanking me."

In fact, according to an analysis cited in The Economist, if players were paid in proportion to the amount of revenue they generated for their colleges, "the top 10 percent of football and 16 percent of basketball players would be paid around $400,000 and $250,000 a year respectively." While the N.C.A.A.'s desire to keep so-called professionalism out of college sports may have made sense before they became such a big business, the author writes, it's clearly an illusion that no longer holds:

The two most lucrative college sports, American football and basketball, are highly competitive. Many universities are willing to bend over backward to enroll talented players. And the argument that university athletics remains amateur would hardly earn passing marks in even an introductory college course.

Removing the N.C.A.A. restrictions on endorsements would create a winner-take-all dynamic within and among universities, writes Cody J. McDavis, a former Division I basketball player. The best players at the best schools would reap all the benefits, Mr. McDavis says, while less popular sports and athletes would suffer. He writes:

Major brands like Nike would pay top football and basketball talent at the biggest schools, while student-athletes in other sports or at smaller programs would be ignored. Currently, corporate funds go to athletic departments and are generally distributed among all sports; with third-party payments, those funds could instead mostly go directly to a few student-athletes, starving the rest.

The N.C.A.A., for its part, has said the California law "would erase the critical distinction between college and professional athletes." Even The Los Angeles Times editorial board, which came out in favor of the law, acknowledges that some change to the spirit of college athletics would be inevitable. They write:

The measure would inevitably eat away at the distinction between professional and college sports. Celebrated collegians could make money not only by endorsing sneakers and sports drinks, but also by autographing jerseys, pitching workout videos and putting their name on baseball bats and hockey sticks. In short, they could profit from the fame that their work as an athlete brings.

As those on opposing sides of California's law debate how the fruits of the college sports economy ought to be distributed, others assert that the solution is simply to decommercialize the activity altogether.

Jonathan R. Cole, a professor at Columbia and author of "Toward a More Perfect University," suggests in The Atlantic that the emphasis placed on campus athletics is " totally out of control." In 41 states, he writes, the highest-paid public employee is not a professor or neurosurgeon, but rather a college football or basketball coach. For students, meanwhile, the difficulty of keeping up with both coursework and demanding athletic schedules has created an incentive for academic fraud. Taken together, a picture emerges of college sports as a pseudoprofessional industry that encroaches upon the mission of higher education. He writes:

For the highly selective colleges and universities, the leaders ought to roll back the percentage of recruited athletes. ... The highly selective colleges ought to withdraw from the N.C.A.A. and form their own league since they are not trying to build national championship programs. ... Finally, university leaders should consider forming special institutions located in different geographic areas that are devoted almost entirely to athletics and bodily-kinesthetic intelligence.

One school that has provided something of a model on this front is Spelman, a historically black college for women. In 2011, Spelman learned that its N.C.A.A. division was losing three members. Rather than find another conference in which to compete at great expense, the school decided to withdraw from the N.C.A.A. and eliminate its athletics department in favor of a fitness program for all students. Beverly Daniel Tatum, then Spelman's president, wrote in The Times in 2013:

Whether it's diabetes, high blood pressure or heart disease, black women are more likely to suffer from these ailments - and die from them - at young ages. All are linked to obesity and lack of physical activity. ... We decided that it was more important to support our entire campus with a wellness initiative than 80 student athletes with N.C.A.A. funding.

California's changes aren't scheduled to take effect until 2023, leaving the N.C.A.A. ample time to mount court challenges to the law, which the organization has suggested violates the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. If the law is upheld, the N.C.A.A. will have to decide whether to penalize the schools with fines, which may or may not be legally enforceable, or even expel them.

For now, California is betting that the outsize importance of its universities within the world of college sports will make those threats impossible to carry out. "I don't necessarily take it to heart," Newsom said.
It's the one-month birthday of this newsletter! Do you have a topic you'd like us to cover? Is there anything you want to see more or less of? Email us at debatable@nytimes.com to tell us what you think so we can make it even better for you.
Jemele Hill makes the case for black athletes to leave white colleges for historically black ones. [The Atlantic]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | Should College Athletes Be Allowed to Get Paid? (Published 2019)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
College athletics is less a nonprofit enterprise than an industry exploiting its workers, writes Brian Rosenberg, the president of Macalester College, in The New York Times. He points out that universities with top teams can rake in nearly $20 million a year from Nike or Adidas sponsorships, while the athletes themselves, whose talent is what attracts such sponsorships in the first place, walk away with nothing.

# data[].attributes.body
C-April 4,2011
R-yes, it discuses how college athletes be paid.
A-  The author of the article is Brennan Thomas he writes for bleacherreport.com.
A-N/A
P-  inform

# 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
C- November 1, 2019
R- yes, it does discuses  about how college athletes be paid.
A- The author of the article is Micheal wilbon he writes for  espn.com
A- N/A
P- Inform

# 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.body
C-  November 1, 2019
R- yes, it discuses about how college athletes to be paid
A-  The author of the article is adam bettcher he writes for theperspective.com
A- N/A
P- Inform

# 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
I got it from padlet

# data[].attributes.body
C-Feb 21, 2014
R- I got it from fox.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sports announcer Seth Davis on paying college athletes and NCAA March Madness.

# data[].attributes.body
i got it from padlet

# data[].attributes.body
I got it from pallet

# data[].attributes.body
it's blocked

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should college athletes be paid to play?