NCAA Sanctions and Paying Players: Should This Be Allowed

A customer walks into the local pizza Hut, and sits down. A server approaches and asks what kind of pizza they want. The customer spreads his order to him, and lays 200 sawhorses under the menu. The server post horses, and takes the money. The customers pizza is 10 dollars, and he honorariums for it by a debit card. When he leaves, he puts 300 dollars under his own plate. The host grabs the money, places the money in his pocket, and goes back to working.Now, if two new characters illustrated the prenomens of the waiter and the customer for the football game game makeer, and an ath permitic booster, then everyone would be saying how rough it is, and how corrupt our society is. That is an exact reason why we shouldnt break players, and how the sanctions that the NCAA has put down to prevent the main sanction (paying players) from happening. Paying players to play an athletic sport in the NCAA should non be allowed, and thats beca determination colleges atomic number 18nt allowed/shouldnt pay players and they dont need to earn money. on that point are m all arguments against paying players The starting signal argument, Colleges arent allowed/shouldnt pay players has many judgementated answers, are biased, or engage no clue of whats personnel casualty on. In several(prenominal) past research, at that place prolong been some points that postulate been made that they should be paying. Others, for instance, show that they shouldnt be paid. Theres been that theyre getting idle academics, free board, free meal, and so forth and theres too seen that full-ride scholars enduret have a full-time job, so they could use some money.Both, I agree with, but in general, they shouldnt be paid, but there should be some rule changes. What Im saying is, is that you nonice depresseder schools getting hit with the sanctions. For instance, Southern Methodist University, in the 80s, paid 21 football players over $61,000 to play for them over 3 years. If you n otice, there is a rule that you sewert pay players to play NCAA Football. To pay college athletes to play football for you is illegal. They tried to get above the level playing field that the NCAA had set.Their penalisation was extremely serious, and called The Death Penalty. They lost 55 scholarships, had their 1987 season shtupcelled, pulled from consist television, and banned from postseason play until 1989. And obviously, since they are still in the Conference USA, they havent acquire since. (Yahoo Penalty 4) The rules are made for a reason, and should always be followed. In another example, The University of Southern California, or issuen as USC, have a letter of investigation concerning Reggie Bush and his time at USC. He had knowingly received benefits from an outside source.NBC reporter Greg Beachem stated, A two-year orbit ban, four years probation, loss of scholarships and forfeits of an inherent years games for indecorous benefits to Heisman Trophy winner Reggie Bush dating to the Trojans 2004 national championship. As you sens tell, he received benefits from some sort of person who wont be questioned for who he is, because he doesnt have a name wish Reggie Bush does. There were also had noticed that the rule changes that were mentioned sooner were a major part in fixing the rules for players to make money.For instance, form of tack onress IX states that all men and women must have an equal bar of scholarships. That may sound just fine, but the truth is, there is no Womens room Football. So thats 85 scholarships that have to be evened out to women. If form of address IX disregarded football, then that rule would be completely fine. Plus, there are 2 sports that generate revenue for an athletic program. That would be mens football, and mens basketball. So its up to those teams to pay for the entire athletic department. This also shows how players shouldnt be paid.If only two different sports make money for an entire team, what are the reasons that they should be paying players, when that team may want to use the money for other additions to the campus? Plus, if you left the rich schools to pay for players to come, then a smaller school like Texas Christian University, or Boise kingdom University, wouldnt ever earn any big time players. Teams like Texas University, Ohio offer University, Michigan University, (other rich D1 schools), would buy out all the players, and leave everyone in the dust. The 2nd argument, that players dont need to be paid, is also a biased argument. determination information on this rule is very tough, because all search engines encounter up many blogs about peoples opinions and those arent credible. Ive noticed that some people return that rule changes are needed, and some say that the whole rule should be abolished, and all athletes should be paid. With my personal knowledge of secrecy and how people can secretly hide items of interest, some students would possibly work at Pizza Hut, have a boosters guy order a $10 dollar pizza and leave a $500 dollar tip. We all know that thats not right to do, but some regulations need to be lifted.If you let college athletes work within the school, such as in the cafeteria, or the library, the NCAA could possibly monitor the earnings they make. Its possible that if they worked at a Pizza Hut, or a Taco Bell, they could make sure enough that the NCAA has some sort of access to see the paycheck they earn and make sure it makes it to the bank account. Depending on how big the college is, depends on how the school will be corrupted more. For example, at Capital University, the cost for a year is $33,210 for a full-time undergraduate year, including room, board, etc.Now, if that is compared to the University of Southern California, their tuition is $56,813 per year, including room, board, etc. (USC 2011 estimations) The oddment here is, Capital is a contribution III school, and has an extremely pull down school commonwealth than a school like USC. USC has a population of 15,600 undergraduates as well as a staggering 15,224 graduate students (USC College Admission). At Capital, you get a smaller amount of TV Time, if not any, go USC is making a large amount of money and getting TV Time every week.If you have to pay players that play for a college that cant afford to do it, like Capital University, many small colleges will be taken out of athletics, and will be losing scholarships. To add on, its not like these athletes have to spend their built-up savings account to go play football. They get to use all the money they saved up to go earn an education in college, to buy what they want. They may not get any more money to spend, but the rough $30,000 that would be in their bank account should be enough if theyre not paying a penny for the classes they have, the meals, their dorm, and their textbooks.Plus, if theyre at a big-time school, like Ohio State, or Texas University, then they especially wouldnt h ave to pay the $35,000 that a semester of college costs. But my point isnt completely set in endocarp because colleges shouldnt pay players, but some rule changes need to be made, as I will talk about later. NCAA rules state that if youre an athlete, you cant work. When you read that rule, you think of the big-name athletes like Cam Newton or Terrelle Pryor, that have full- rides to play football.But, theres always the people who have half-year scholarships, or are considered walk-ons, that also cant work. To add on, I believe that if you arent cosmos paid in that season/year, you should be allowed to work. The full-ride scholars are being paid to play football, and getting a free education, era half-scholarship athletes and walk-on athletes are not allowed to work, and are being oblige to pay their education. When you go on to any college website, you will find a link to go to something about financial aid, so its not like nobody is out to help.To talk about rules are a differe nt story, and it needs to be addressed. To define what the NCAA calls a Professional Team, is if it declares itself to be professional or provides any player more than actual and requisite expenses for participation on the team. (NCAA Guide 10) The NCAA-made pamphlet answers all questions to the rules that Ive mentioned. It states rules for students who are in Division I or Division II schools, such as Division 1 student-athletes arent allowed to accept a salary, while Division II student-athletes are permitted to do so.Division II teams can enter a contract with a professional team, while Division I teams cant. Do these rules sound fair? I have to say yes, because Division II teams dont get any TV Time. If a team has some TV Time, it increases their stock note value to play in the NFL. There are also some rules that obligate to both Division I and Division II teams. For example, Division I and II teams cant receive benefits from an agent, or enter an commensurateness with an a gent.The reason that this rule is made is because agents would have the most contact with an athlete, and would be able to obtain money from a boosters guy and the athlete would illegally receive the money. If the rule was changed so that sanctions would be softer on the crime, or players being paid was made legal, the rich schools would reach the ultimate powerhouses, and the other schools would become obsolete, like what was discussed earlier. These big schools, like Texas or USC would take over college football and leave teams like TCU or Boise State behind.When you decide to pay players on a two-sport revenue generator, you have to decide who youre going to pay, how much youll pay them, when youll pay them, and decide about which players dont get paid. An offensive lineman may not get paid, and he makes the running back or the quarterback look like he carries the team. Does he deserve to get paid over the quarterback? The final thought that goes with this paper is, if we paid student-athletes, should we pay every sport, and if we do, do we give an equal amount to each player? You find your own opinion on the matter.