|From Album 5|
Though not really something front and center on my radar screen (as I get older and more brittle, football is something I’m less interested in), this caught my attention, not the least reason being it’s more exposure of the rank hypocrisy of “amateur athletics.”
By the way, if anyone out there really believes that big-time college sports feature strictly “student-athletes…” can I interest you in some soon-to-be-drained Florida swampland (Hoffa’s final resting place? Maybe!)…and a bridge to get you there?
Some college sports — like football — have always been big business. Hugh McElhenny took a pay cut when he went from college to professional football — in 1952 — and I doubt he was the first.
If it’s really about school spirit, then…take ALL the money out of it. Let the coaches, the athletic directors, the support staff, etc., participate for “the love of the game.” Yeah…right. And if they’re getting paid, there’s no reason not to openly pay the very talented athletes who fans go to see. Besides, amateurism has always been a sham, the idea being that only those with sufficient social status were entitled to play games. After all the rabble had more important things to do with their time…like toil for those with sufficient social status.
2 thoughts on “Will Analysts Look At The Price Of Sacks In The Long Run?”
One of the things that worries me is that the big revenue sports help pay for the school’s other sports. I’d hate to see a decline in the number and variety of sports (male and female) as a result of this.
Yes, but I don’t think openly paying (some) athletes would do that. After all, some are getting paid now, just not openly. Adding legitimate dollars to the revenue stream in my opinion might even help.
Comments are closed.