It was another late night for me, and I was as usual surfing the sports channels.
I perked up just a little to hear Dick Vitale, now an analyst with ESPN but also a former basketball coach expressing his views on whether or not college athletes should be paid. Dick was responding to the recent decision made by Glen Robinson, a basketball player who left Purdue University before completing the undergraduate program to go to the pros. Robinson asked for a one hundred million dollar contract. Now, it's just common sense that a player who could ask and receive such a vast amount of money in the pros, certainly played a substantial enough role in the financial growth of the college that he should have received a percentage. Do Athletes contribute to the financial growth of colleges and universities? If so, why should college athletes not receive payment for play? .
It seems these days everyone has an opinion on the perks that college athletes receive mainly in the football and basketball arena. These two arenas have traditionally, and continue to bring the most money to colleges and universities as well as carrying the load for other arenas. The University of Michigan, home of Chris Webber and the Fab Five, "this school grossed over twenty million dollars from football alone" (Jones). A classmate of mine loves to jester the football players with the usual "dumb jock" comments. I remind him each time that it's from the money generated by the football team that supports his ability to play on the golf team. You don't by any stretch of the imagination see the numbers of spectators out on the college greens as you do in the bleachers of a football or basketball game. When you walk into any Division I school's bookstore, they"re not selling jerseys or coffee mugs with the golfers names on them. That pleasure is reserved for football or basketball players who as a matter of fact, do not receive any of the profits.
