The Instigator
Mikal
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
KB240o
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

College athletes should be paid.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/17/2013 Category: Sports
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,340 times Debate No: 35686
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

Mikal

Pro

Round 1: accepting the debate

Round 2: I will establish why I believe college athletes should be paid. Con may offer rebuttals as to why he disagrees in order to help build his own case

Round 3: reestablishment of previous points as well as offering rebuttals in order to build your closing statements.
KB240o

Con

Tisk Tisk Tisk.
I accept this challenge openly & will show why college athletes should not be paid.
Debate Round No. 1
Mikal

Pro

Thank you and I am looking forward to this discussion.

The first thing I would like to look at is can some college athletes compete at a pro level. The first two that come to my mind are Kobe Bryant, and Lebron James. I will focus on these two, but I would like to note there are many others who can play at a pro level straight out of highscool because they are physically ready for it. I will even say in addition to highschool basketball players some football players are physically capable of going pro but do not have a say in it. The NBA and NFL both have procedures now that force their players to attend college. So since they are being forced to go to college until they are deemed ready. Let us take into consideration what can happen in that time. They can get injured, risk giving up their career due to injury. and also giving up X years worth of salary. Let us say we have a hot shot basketball star like Lebron. He is putting up amazing numbers and points, and is ready to go to the NBA. At this point he is not allowed to now. He must go to college. If he is injured in his time in college, and can not recover he has lost his career and everything he was worked for and will not be reimbursed for this. If college athletes were paid, at least he would get one year worth of salary to compensate him for the risk he took. One I might add that made him lose his future Job. This happens a lot in basketball and more in football. To be fair to the players, I highly believe they should be paid in case of injury or any other issues that can occur in college that could cost them their career.


http://espn.go.com...
http://espn.go.com...
http://leanblitz.net...

Some may argue that they need an education. Remember anyone who plans on going Pro is planning on making that their career. That is their primary reason in college. The pay cap could be established by performance. The bigger the star the more they get paid, and this even gives college players who do not want to go pro a way to make extra money as well. It could help prove them rent, food, and other living expenses. Just the NCAA itself generated 845 billion dollars. It is not as if they can not afford to pay them. In addition to athletes not being paid the Coaches are paid. This is not a logical step. They see their athletes as professionals. They market them on TV, and people pay to watch them play. Yet the coaches and the people running the business are the only ones who make money when in fact the ones putting their futures at risk are the athletes.

http://elitedaily.com...


I would urge you to think if this was yourself. If you were putting your career at risk for 1 to 4 years with no promise of not being injured and were to risk giving up your career. Would it not be a viable option to compensate them in some way. I could argue how we could pay them, whether it be by a contract or by performance, but that is not the issue at hand. The issue is whether we should. In any other type of situation, the answer would be yes. I think it is moral responsibility of us to make sure they are taken care of, if we are forcing them to stick it our for the allotted years. I turn the floor back to my adversary.




KB240o

Con

I look forward to this being a entertaining sports debate. The debate is about weather or not college kids should be paid or not. I am here to tell why they should not be paid.

Kids from high school are talented athletes but don't get hyped in the moment. I believe high school kids should not play professionally because these are still kids. In most situations these players still need a parent or guardian to sign up for certain things when they are under 18. Sometimes when still even under 21, these athletes are still immature.

The NCAA Benefits Rule:
If college athletes were paid, it would completely break this rule in half.An "extra benefit" is any special arrangement by an institutional employee or a representative of the institution's athletics interests (i.e. "booster") to provide a student-athlete or the student-athlete's relative(s) or friends(s) a benefit not specifically authorized. The acceptance of an extra benefit is a violation of NCAA regulations and will jeopardize the eligibility of the student-athlete. Additionally, "preferential treatment" for benefits or services is prohibited. This corresponds with an extra benefit arrangement. Preferential treatment, benefits or services because of the individual's athletics reputation or skill or pay-back potential as a professional athlete is prohibited unless otherwise permitted under NCAA
regulations.
http://www.iwu.edu... (This is a PDF)

And besides!!! College kids are already paid with scholarships. If a college athlete got paid they have to sign a contract. Again this is where the age restrictions come in. When under 18 you still need parent/guardian assistance.

Dear Pro I will try as best as I can to reply as fast as possible. I am kinda busy in the day.
Debate Round No. 2
Mikal

Pro

I commend cons argument and where as he offered no rebuttals to any of the points I made, I will assume he will offer them in next round. Since no rebuttals where made, all my points still stand.

Now I will address Cons arguments. He states that to sign a contract the Kid in question would have to be 18, which is true. However to offer a response this logic, by the time any season started in College, they would meet the requirements to sign this contract. I will now address his second contention that it violates NCAA rules and regulations. Let us hypothesis that the NCAA worked with the college, to make this contract themselves. They would have to change some of the framework for previous rules but it is a viable option. If this were to happen, in addition to being paid, the NCAA still could enforce bribery and other issues of athletes accepting outside gifts or even gifts from the college, because this would not be including within the contract. Any breach of the contract would result, in termination of said contract and results in fines, penalties, and possibly suspension from the team and the season. I believe this is an entirely viable option.

He then states "College kids are already paid with scholarships" and in a way this statement is true, but when we look deeper at this it breaks down. Yes indeed they gain benefits from athletic scholarships, but this primarily helps students who do not plan to go pro and are seeking an education. Athletes that do not desire this, and by the 3 year rule are being forced to play in college have to put there career on the line with no promise of not being injured. Where as a scholarship is a great way to help a student out, it can not compare to a years salary in the NFL. The salary that they are not allowed to have because they are being forced to play the years specified in he current regulations. With a salary implemented in college sports, it may not be as much as a NFL or NBA salary but it at least gives them some insurance in case they are injured.

In closing Con has not addressed players who came out of high school, went pro, and then succeeded with no draw backs. He has not addressed on how we can compensate college athletes who could possibly be injured due to the current regulations. I however have shown how a contract could possibly work and be managed in a way that helps both sides. I urge you to think reasonably and give college athletes some compensation for all the work they do. Voting to do so could help future athletes and students solidify their life, by providing insurance to them within the career they have chosen for themselves.
KB240o

Con

Pro says I did not make any attempt to disprove his first opening statements, even though clearly in the 1st round it says "Con may offer rebuttals as to why he disagrees in order to help build his own case". See here it says "may".

I will now counter attack all of Pros statements. It's not even about the money but it's about so many other things. Yes it's a nice idea that college athletes get paid but they're so many negative aspects to it. If the athlete were to get paid there must be a contract. Lets say this athlete goes to UCLA & signs a contract for 4 years ok? Now two years into his contract he already becomes a college basketball sensation and NBA teams want to draft him already. They can't though because he's signed to contract! Also college is for education, not to gain athletic popularity. It gives the wrong message to younger kids. These athletes are going to ask for million dollar contracts, if you thought the 30 year olds in the NFL were bad, what about a 18 year old with the chance to acquire a multi-million contract. They are just not mature enough to carry that much money.

My last statement brings me to my next statement. It'll completely take away all NCAA competition and scholarships could disappear. Reason is because bigger well-known universities will have more money, a bigger reputation, etc. It would make Div 2 teams weaker because they do not have the money to buy top prospects, making it very difficult for lower teams to negotiate if they don't have the money. Now what about the female athletes? Don't forget about community college as well. Do they have to pay high school athletes as well to bribe them to accept their school and no other school? Yes athletes are a big resource to income money, but in high school that's why they have athletic program. This sets a wrong representation for college & high school athletes. College athletes ARE NOT professionals!! The reason for college is to train the athlete for next level of play. For example in football you go from little league, to higher age group, to varsity, to college to professional.

Also how would this benefit other students on campus? Who's going to pay the athlete? If the college does then this could raise the tuition rate for a non-athlete. If a professional team paid the college athlete then that'd break the NCAA Benefit Rule. Also, which athletes get paid? There's tennis, soccer, baseball, chess, etc. It's not fair if only popular sports got paid.

Basketball and football, the most visible of high school and college sports, have a very low percentage of athletes who play in high school and then eventually move up to the professional ranks. In men"s basketball, for example, there is only a .03% chance of a pro career. This means that of the almost 156,000 male, high school senior basketball players only 44 will be drafted to play in the NBA after college, and only 32 women (.02%) out of just over 127,000 female, high school senior players will eventually be drafted. In football the odds are slightly better, with .08% or 250 of just over 317,000 high school senior players being drafted.
http://www.thesportdigest.com...

Keep in mind this is just the NCAA, as the numbers are selective but in high school the number is wider because there's more opportunity. So the chances of a high school player skipping college and becoming pro is very low because they are not going to have the skills or experience from a lower level of play. How do they know if they can compete with other college level players?

To wrap this up, paying college athletes would just be unjust. It would not be fair for the many reasons I've stated above. This debate is about college athletes being paid & I provide more than enough information as to why they should not be paid. My argument literally speaks for itself.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by KB240o 3 years ago
KB240o
Yeah good debate Mikal. I want everyone to keep in mind that this debate is about college athletes being paid, not about people wanting it. Everyone wants something but they can't sometimes. I show with my statements why college athletes should not be paid.

Please read the entire argument to get a view on both sides and vote for which is reasonable, not for a "that'd be a good idea".
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
The one thing i hate about starting the debate, is that I can not refute any new points that are brought up lol. I would have loved to offer a rebuttal to his last argument about how it would effect different size schools. Either way, good debate
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Sure if I can figure out how to edit it. It is not allowed me to do so though
Posted by KB240o 3 years ago
KB240o
Dear Mikal, can you please extend the response debate longer because I have many things coming up. So can you please make the debate time longer to about 2-3 days. Thank you.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by WilliamofOckham 3 years ago
WilliamofOckham
MikalKB240oTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Naysayer's vote. He doesn't give a good reason for why he voted con.
Vote Placed by Naysayer 3 years ago
Naysayer
MikalKB240oTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I was wondering what in the world Con was talking about in R2. Dirty pool, old chap. Well done on the come from behind.
Vote Placed by Inductivelogic 3 years ago
Inductivelogic
MikalKB240oTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Virtual stalemate other than sources
Vote Placed by GOP 3 years ago
GOP
MikalKB240oTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used more sources.