THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Monday, July 1, 1996 TAG: 9607010171
SECTION: SPORTS PAGE: C1 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Column
SOURCE: Bob Molinaro
LENGTH: 66 lines
No sooner had the nation's athletic directors proposed studying ideas for the payment of big-time college athletes than it was decided that this wasn't such a bright idea after all.
This is a good thing most likely.
Cedric Dempsey, NCAA executive director, came out of a recent convention of athletic directors to say that the athletic grant-in-aid was growing obsolete, and that colleges must keep up with the times.
``It's a changing world,'' he said. ``We've got to change our thinking.''
Dempsey hinted that athletes might be paid through loans, which would be repaid from future pro earnings. Or that they could receive part of the revenue created by the sale of athletic merchandise associated with a player or team.
The debate on this issue was nipped in the bud late last week when commissioners and presidents of 32 major conferences turned thumbs down on any proposal having to do with direct payments to athletes.
Paying college athletes may be a morally sound idea, maybe even a politically correct one. It would make some people feel better about football and basketball factories exploiting the talents of other people's children.
Ultimately, though, it's a bad idea. It's a bad idea because it could never work.
Over the years, I have gone back and forth on this subject. I reserve the right to change my mind again. But if the purpose of paying college athletes is to keep them from jumping to the pros before they've used up their eligibility, then the NCAA would be wasting its time.
Providing future basketball lottery picks with walking-around money, or even enough to pay for airline tickets and apartments, will not make the NBA's millions any less tempting.
Under the most liberal system imagined, colleges would be paying athletes to stay in school. The pros pay much more to free young people from an environment - the classroom - few future first-round draft picks relate to.
The NCAA's concern is an obvious one: It fears that losing too many undergraduates to the pros will water down college basketball and football until TV ratings suffer.
Maybe this will happen. And maybe it will force the NCAA to redefine the student-athlete.
The use of quasi-mercenaries for the entertainment of alumni and students is an accepted practice. It is understood, too, that the athletes do not always have much in common, curriculum included, with the rooting section.
In general, we applaud the ingenuity of this system, and wink at the deceit. But it's this hypocrisy that is at the root of almost every problem afflicting college athletics.
Blinded by Nielsen points and dollar signs, many in the NCAA cannot see the big picture.
Let the athlete who has no appreciation of academics seize the first sneaker endorsement that comes his way. This will make room for someone who shows an interest in campus life, or at least understands his need for a college experience.
The reinvention of the system should also include allowing athletes to major in athletics.
If a trombone player can major in music, why shouldn't there be a college of the perspiring arts for the wide receiver? Both degrees can be used in the pursuit of a career.
But paying athletes to remain in school is not only unfeasible, it is counterproductive to the mission of a university.
The salvation of the system may come when more, not fewer, undergraduates flee to the pros. by CNB