In my individual paper I covered material pertaining to one of the hottest topics in college athletics, whether or no student-athletes should receive compensation other than scholarship money. My thesis for the paper is that because collegiate sports have become big businesses, student-athletes should receive compensation other than scholarship money. To help support my thesis statement I laid out three clear arguments. My first argument is that athletic departments are making millions off their student-athletes. Through my research I explained how athletic departments exploit their student-athletes in order to make millions of dollars. My second argument is that athletes should not receive compensation that is based on their performance on the field; rather it should be a uniform across the board compensation. In this argument I laid out a comprehensive plan that would call for an across the board pay system for NCAA student-athletes. I also used this argument for the main component for my pod cast (http://buckeyemgr21.wordpress.com/). My third and final argument is that through my plan for paying student-athletes that they should receive “bonuses or fines” to help them make the right decisions. This argument would give the universities an upper-hand to make sure their student-athletes are model citizens. Also in my paper I included counterarguments for my arguments. One of the counter arguments that I put in my paper was brought up by Thomas O’Toole of the USA Today. O’Toole argues that paying student-athletes would infringe upon the amateur rules of the NCAA. Another counterargument was by former Ohio State University athletic director Andy Geiger(https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/handle/1811/5920 ), in which he feels that universities across the country would be unable to find enough money to pay for their student-athletes. Both of these counterarguments are legitimate claims why not to pay student-athletes, however, I made counterarguments to the arguments of O’Toole and Geiger to support my original arguments.

]]> http://buckeyemgr21.wordpress.com/2008/06/08/executive-summary-for-individual-paper/feed/ 0 buckeyemgr21 http://buckeyemgr21.wordpress.com/2008/06/08/group-podcast/ http://buckeyemgr21.wordpress.com/2008/06/08/group-podcast/#comments Sun, 08 Jun 2008 18:59:37 +0000 buckeyemgr21 http://buckeyemgr21.wordpress.com/?p=36 ]]>

This is our group podcast.

This is my individual Podcast

The greatest debate these days in college sports other than the never-ending BCS debacle is whether or not student-athletes should receive compensation other than scholarship money. With athletic budgets bulging each year with millions of dollars from donors, equipment contracts, and BCS money, is it not reasonable to compensate the student-athletes who are the sole reason why the athletic budgets are the size they are? We are in an era when major college athletic budgets are bigger than most professional sports team’s budgets. The Ohio State University’s athletic budget is a fat 109 million dollars and continues to grow each year. With athletic budgets as big as they are, student athletes should receive compensation other than scholarship money.

Schools are making millions off their athletes while players are receiving a free education. But is that fair to those student-athletes who will likely go on to play professionally in his/her sport? Is it fair for schools to campaign student-athletes for rewards such as the Heisman Trophy when that athlete has no chance of cashing on his/her performance? Both of these questions are fair points but they also raise counterarguments for proponents of the idea of compensating student-athletes such as how it would be regulated and would everyone receive compensation. For those argue that there is no way to regulate how to pay athletes and who should get paid, I have a very simple solution.

In a plan that would include compensating all student athletes, I call for the implement of a plan like the work-study program that is currently in use. This program would be used across the board so that student athletes would not be compensated on their performances rather they would be compensated based on their time at school. The recommendations of the work study-program calls for a minimum pay of $7.50 for first year students. The hourly wage would increase by fifty cents each year they are enrolled in school. This would allow schools to pay their students the same across the board thus eliminating any disputes on what student-athletes should be compensated.

With athletic departments making millions on their student-athletes from equipment contracts, television contracts, donors, and BCS money, something needs to be done to protect these athletes from being exploited. It’s unrealistic that student-athletes should not have a cut of the money that they are bringing in. In the world of college athletics in which athletic budgets are nine figures and college coaches are receiving seven figure salaries; student athletes should receive compensation other than scholarship money.

There are many reasons why we belive that inner-city high school adolescents are dropping out, but one of the most important factors why inner-city high school adolescents are dropping out of high school is the current governmental policies that govern our education system. Federal governmental policies have shaped the contour of the American educational system; even though education is suppose to be left up to the states to manage. However, since the federal government controls a large chunk of the money given to the school systems, they have a large say what goes on. One of the policies implemented by the federal government, under the direction of President George W. Bush actually has had little to no effect helping minorities from dropping out of high school. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, is a policy that was put in place to help inner-city high school adolescents to stay in school in graduate, however, NCBL Act actually has done very little to help what it set out to do.

One of the biggest reasons the NCBL Act has not reached its goal is the costs that it poses on the states to reach its requirements. States are left to fit the bill to complete the requirements of the NCBL Act and the states are unable to meet the financial costs associated with the NCBL Act without enough funding from the federal government. With the NCBL Act the government is asking too much of the states without giving them enough to work with. One of the major flaws is Title I, which states that,

“To meet that goal, the federal investment in Title I must be spent more effectively and with greater accountability. This proposal changes current law by requiring that states, school districts and schools receiving Title I funds ensure that students in all student groups meet high standards. Schools must have clear, measurable goals focused on basic skills and essential knowledge. Requiring annual state assessments in math and reading in grades 3-8 will ensure that the goals are being met for every child, every year. Annual testing in every grade gives teachers, parents and policymakers the information they need to ensure that children will reach academic success.”

Title I is the biggest set back that the NCLB Act has, because if the states do not meet the requirements they will not get the Title I funding, however, for the states to complete the task laid our in the NCLB Act they must spend money and in some cases there is not enough money for the states to meet the higher standards of the NCLB Act. This is a big debate among people who think that the NCLB Act is unrealistic in achieving the goal set out by this bipartisan legislation.

Another problem of the No Child Left Behind Act that does not do anything for the dropout rate of minorities in high school is Title IV, which states,

“The purpose of Title IV is to promote parental choice and to increase the amount of flexible funds available to states and school districts for innovative education programs.

Systems are often resistant to change – no matter how good the intentions of those who lead them. Competition can be the stimulus a bureaucracy needs in order to change. For that reason, the Administration seeks to increase parental options and influence. Parents, armed with data, are the best forces of accountability in education. And parents, armed with options and choice, can assure that their children get the best, most effective education possible.”

Title IV actually does the most damage when it comes to inner-city high school adolescents dropping out of high schools, because Title IV allows for parents to receive charters for their children to attend better schools. In most cases the parents who decide to act upon these charters are the parents who are doing a good job raising their children, and as a result their children tend to be better student. This creates a problem for the school district that these students reside in, because their good students are leaving thus leaving them with a higher concentration of students who are not doing well. In these areas where the charters are available tend to be areas with a higher poverty rate and conversely a higher number of minorities. Schools that are already having trouble meeting the requirements of the NCLB Act are actually being hurt by Title IV of the NCLB Act, because their best students are leaving.

The No Child Left Behind Act is a genuinely good attempt at legislation to fix the American education system, but it does not meet the needs of inner-city high school adolescents who are still dropping out of high school at an alarming rate. The NCLB Act is only throwing money at the problem, rather than focusing on the real problems that plague the American educational system and the way it relates to minorities. Governmental policies such as the NCLB Act have improved since the federal government has taken an active step in helping the education system of America, but the government still has not been able to fix the problem that really affects inner-city high school adolescents and their ability to stay in high school and graduate.

Thesis- Student athletes should receive compensation other than scholarship money.

1.) First Argument- Athletic Departments are making millions off of the student athletes.

Ø Athletic Budgets and the millions they make

Ø Equipment Contracts- i.e. Nike, Adidas, Underarmour

Ø BCS Money

2.) Second Argument- Athletes should not receive compensation that is based on their performance on the field; rather it should be a uniform across the board compensation.

Ø Minimum wage would be equivalent to most jobs that students in school receive

Ø Would keep schools from recruiting kids based on any compensation they may receive

Ø Should be paid hourly for all practices, games, and meetings. No involuntary workouts or traveling would be paid hourly since most athletes receive a stipend when they are on the road.

Ø Could keep athletes from jumping to the pro’s because they have an income coming in.

o This could help athletes out, because they could send money home to their family while still getting an education, and if any athletes have kids it could help with everyday costs.

3.) Third Argument- Athletes should receive “bonuses or fines” to help them make the right decisions.

Ø For meeting certain GPA’s student athletes could receive a raise of 50 cents and to retain the from quarter to quarter they must maintain their GPA’s

Ø For failing drug tests, in trouble with the law, or anything detrimental to a team they could be fined and money taken away from their hourly wage, and even the possibility of a suspension of their hourly wage.

Ø Athletes could also be fined or a deducted pay for not coming to study tables or for not maintaining a certain GPA.

Conclusion

Taylor, P. (1992). Players Have Rights, Too. Sports Illustrated, 77(22), 124.

Suggs, W. (2000). Pittsburgh Agrees to Pay Millions to a Former Football Player. Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(36), A54.

N.A. Nebraska proposal to pay college athletes stirs issue. Retrieved April 12, 2008, from http://proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=J0E400332389803&site=ehost-live

Whitside, Kelly. (2004, August 31). Money makers. USA TODAY. Retrieved April 12, 2008, from http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2004-08-31-top-ten-number-7_x.htm

Wieberg, S., & Whiteside, K. (2007, January 4). For Buckeyes Size Matters. USA TODAY. Retrieved April 12, 2008, from http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2007-01-04-ohiostate-finances-cover_x.htm

The Knowledge Bank at OSU: Item 1811/5920. Retrieved April 12, 2008, from https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/handle/1811/5920

Weinbach, Jon. (2007, October 19). Inside College Sports’ Biggest Money Machine. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved April 12, 2008, from http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119275242417864220-UWTaObBGwU_hbiLWKzZI8wPyfXQ_20071118.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

Mantone, Joe. (2007, October 19). Big Football, Small Finances. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved April 12, 2008, from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119265021917962321.html?mod=loomia&loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r1:c0.225254

I have choosen to do my research topic on College Sports: Whether Student-Athletes should recieve compensation other than scholarships they already recieve?

The reason I choose to do my research project on this topic is because schools are making millions upon millions of dollars on their student athletes but even though their athletes recieve scholarships, should they recieve more compensation for the amount of time and effort they give? I am by no means saying that they should recieve huge lumps sums of money or anything like that.  But what if they were given minimum wage for their time? I do know I feel that it should be an across the board standard for every sport.  That way no athlete could solely be sold on a school based on the compensation he would recieve from a school.

Looks like the coaches are getting geared up for this weekend Final Four festivities.  But one coach, John Calipari(on the left), has some other issues to handle.  He has to worry about going to press conferences and demanding respect for his team who plays in the C-USA.  Oh, he also has to explain why his point guard, Andre Allen, was smoking the reefer failed a drug test this past week.  Hey ‘Dre next time your team gets into the Final Four don’t celebrate with a huge blunt…bad idea!

Wednesday night Chad Johnson gave an interview over the phone live on SportsCenter with Brian Kenny. In what may be the wierdest interview on SportsCenter Johnson kept rambling about himself in third-person and was pretty much just saying the Bengals needed to show change. The interview was going no where and Kenny tried to end it several times, but Chad kept asking Kenny if thats all he got for him. BK was getting a little frustrated with all of it and asked him on two different occasions to say whatever he wanted to say, Chad had an open forum according to Kenny. Bottom Line- CHAD GET A NEW FREAKIN’ AGENT

from buckeyemgr21.wordpre posted with vodpod