I'd like to think the whole article is worth reading, but here's a quick summary: This may sound like a good idea, especially paper. First, it would punish the wrong people...current players, rather than coaches and administrators who brought in these titular student-athletes who are now long gone. As I have argued many times before, schools should do their level best to increase graduation rates, but it must do so without gaming the system (e.g. steering athletes to easier majors, "over" tutoring, etc.). As we learned from the NCAA's APR, it turned out that most well-heeled athletic programs did the best job making the "cut rate" in order to avoid losing scholarships.
I also address the 410,000 student-athlete ruse, which often muddies the argument. Yes, the vast majority of college athletes are amateurs. They play for the love the game--and they uphold the amateur ideal. Just as important, for these athletes, athletic programs strike a healthy balance between academics and athletics. Then there's basketball and football, where the vast percentage of economic incentives supports winning at just about any cost. These players are hardly amateurs in any sense of that made-up term.
I do think that basketball and football players deserve to be paid. That does not mean they should be rolling in dough. Maybe $4,000-5,000 a year stipend so they can focus on school and sports, rather then worry about money.
The US News article generated some excellent letters to the editor:
Walter Lamkin commented that "many of these kids, especially at Division I football and basketball powerhouses are recruited off the mean streets of America's cities. They arrive often in an idyllic setting foreign to them, trying to blend into the overall student body. It sounds good, but how do some of them go out for a pizza on Friday night? How can they take a friend to the movies? Or even get home for Thanksgiving? I don't defend repugnant behavior, legal or otherwise, but I can understand the frustration of college athletes who don't have even a subsistence level for daily life. They collectively bring in billions of dollars to their respective instituions and a mere pittance, crumbs as it were, are tossed their way. I suggest that each athlete be means-tested each year, much the same as those applying for financial aid, and at certain levels they should receive a stipend in order to had a chance at a 'normal' student life."
Great point.
Hey, paying athletes might also slow down the basketball underground, which I often cite when describing how the basketball economy works. I also think there should be a fund set aside from marketing revenue generated by football and basketball. This fund can be an incentive to graduate: If you graduate within a reasonable window (say 8 years), they'll be a pot of gold waiting for you. Everybody wins. Not enough money to fund this? Keep spinning.
--Marc Isenberg