The Instigator
bmoe11
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
dominasian
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points

Division I college athletes should be paid a stipend.

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2008 Category: Sports
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,912 times Debate No: 2602
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (9)

 

bmoe11

Con

Every year the debate over whether or not college athletes should be paid seems to pop up. Some people want to pay them. I disagree. College athletes should not be paid for the following reasons.

1) They are already fairly compensated. College athletes don't just get paid, they get paid in big ways. Granted, no one hands them a check with 6 figures on it. But these athletes get privileges others would kill for. Free tuition, free room and board, free books, and all-around college experience. In total, scholarships can total up to $120,000 in 4 years. It may not seem like it, but athletes are already paid.

2)Education is a first priority. Just looking at the word "student-athlete", student is first. When an athlete goes to a college, he goes to get an education first. When you start paying college athletes, they'll view themselves more and more as athletes and less as students.

3)If you pay athletes, you can kiss most sports goodbye. Most athletic departments don't make a profit, and the ones that do use that profit to pay for other sports, such as golf or lacrosse. For schools to pay athletes, they would have to remove all but one or two sports.

I now wait for an opponent.
dominasian

Pro

Responses
1.they are already paid
-i agree completely that they do indeed receive academic scholarship, however that isnt an argument as to why they shouldn't receive stipends. You say that they are lucky to recieve these scholarships, but so are the students who recieve full rides for academic reasons, the only difference is that the latter can also recieve stipends. The reason that they are getting scholarships is because they extremely talented in a skill that can provide for their future.

2. That is an opinion and completely unvalidated, if you can show some evidence first off, and then show me how this viewpoint is negative to society then only will this argument hold any validity

3. If they start paying them, there is no need for the departments to go under, there is an extreme amount of money available to them, and not all schools would have to pay stipends, were just seeing whether it is right, not whether they have to. The money could come from a variety of places like television contracts. Even before todays humongous pupularity enjoyed by college sports, in 1991 CBS "pay $1 billion for the right to broadcast the National Collegiate Athletic Association basketball tournament as part of an exclusive seven-year package beginning in 1991." (http://query.nytimes.com...) And that is just for one tournament, not for all the other games.

to keep this interesting ill give my own arguments as well

1. My third contention is that it is unfair to deny athletes stipends because plenty of students receive stipends for educational reasons. Many schools give out educational stipends such as Colorado state, university of Tennessee, university of Arizona, Texas Tech University, and others. In fact Florida Atlantic University gave out thousands of Stipends ranging from an average 2000 to 18000 dollars. Our society has determined that it is fine for students to receive stipends for educational reasons but why is it wrong for athletes to receive stipends for doing what they're good at. It isn't and by keeping it so we demean the value of what these kids are good at. This negatively reflects on the U.S. because it shows that we do not treat everyone equally.

2. My second contention is that providing the athletes with stipends will motivate them to stay in school. In 1998 only 54% of the population of football players graduated according to a study done by the Chronicle of Higher Education . According to the same study 66% of all student athletes graduated. The rate is almost at about half of all them are not graduating. Stipends would encourage them to stay because it allow for them to do many things that are hard to do under current NCAA job rules, such as have pocket spending money. This will help many find the motivation to stay in school, because without jobs they don't have the money for common spending such as movies, music, and parties. By giving them stipends we allow them to live normal lives and not encourage them to drop out do to stress or offers of money from the pros. We an help give an education to more of our youth.

3. In Fab Five, Mitch Albom's documentary style book about the University of Michigan basketball program, star forward Chris Webber stops by a take-out place for lunch in 1992. He cannot afford his original order, though, after counting the last of his change. Back out on the street, he nods at a replica of his jersey hanging in a store window. Webber knows he will never see a cent from its sale. My first contention is that stipends help support basic needs. Chris is just one example of a talented basketball player who is suffering because he couldn't receive a stipend. The NCAA's current rules do not allow for athletes under scholarship to work or have a paying job. As a result many athletes like Chris have difficulty supporting themselves. Of the 506,000 college athletes counted by the Chronicle of Higher Education, only 126,000 - or one in four - had scholarships from an NCAA college. This means that a large amount of these athletes aren't able to work to support themselves. They should be allowed stipends because otherwise many of these students will not be able to support themselves.
Debate Round No. 1
bmoe11

Con

I'll go over my opponents contentions first

Your first contention is that it's unfair to give stipends to students and not to athletes. You say their treated unequally. I agree, athletes aren't treated equally. They're treated far better. Along with the free education and other benefits one receives with scholarship, athletes receive gifts for reaching bowl games, get money from the Pell Grant, and can work summer jobs for money also. Also, the exposure they receive from playing in games can translate into millions of dollars in the pro leagues. How is this not enough for the student athletes?

Your second contention is that a stipend would encourage athletes to stay in
school and receive an education. I don't believe this at all. No amount you can pay will make these kids stay in school. The NFL promises them a minimum amount of $200,000. A stipend can only offer them a $100 dollars or so a month. Pro leagues can offer far more. There are over 130,000 college athletes in Division I. The NCAA can't pay them an amount that can compete with the professional leagues and expect to make a profit.

Your third contention is that athletes need money to support themselves. I agree, but stipends are not the answer. Most of the money the NCAA makes goes to help athletes. 19.8 million is allocated for enhancement of academic-support programs, 12,314,000 is sent to conference offices in early August to assist student-athletes in Division I with special financial needs, and 27,718,000 is given to the Student-Athlete Opportunity Fund, which is specifically designed to assist students and their families. http://www1.ncaa.org...

Now to go over my contentions

1. Scholarships are one of the key reasons athletes shouldn't get a stipend. First the education. Do you know what people around the world would be willing to endure for a chance to be educated at one of our institutions of higher learning? People are dying on makeshift boats damn near every day just trying to sneak over here and live in one of our "slums." And I'm supposed to feel sorry because a university is selling a jersey and not kicking back a few of the dollars to Joe Running Back? Education is something you can't put a price tag on. Second, the benefits. Besides an education, they will get free rooms, books, meals, tutors, and other benefits one does not get with just an academic scholarship.

2. Education first is not just an opinion, but a fact. To even be eligble for an athletic scholarship, you have to meet acadmeic standards FIRST. During the season, an athlete must do well in his classes or he/she cannot compete in their respective sport. Also, the number of kids who reach the pro levels is small, and if athletes put their future in sports rather than their education, then they may end up in a worse position than they ever thought possible. The way this negatively impacts society is that when you send the message that sports is more important then education, more and more kids will go into college with that impression.

3. The money the NCAA makes from the contract goes directly to funds designed to help athletes with financial problems. Most of the money not given to those funds is given to the schools, not kept by the NCAA. So, in fact, the schools would be responsible in paying the athletes, and most schools don't have the money to pay athletes. Thanks to Title IX, schools had to cut some of their athletic programs. How many more would have to be cut to pay athletes? And also, where do you draw the line at who to pay? Does the punter get paid the same as the quarterback? Does someone from the golf team get paid the same as someone on the basketball? If you pay them all the same, eventually the football and basketball athletes will demand more than other athletes receive.

Paying athletes will result in a snowball effect that will turn the NCAA into a watered down version of the pro leagues. Once you give schools the right to pay athletes, bigger schools (like Duke, Notre Dame, Michigan) will give bigger stipends then smaller schools. Soon, recruits go to schools based on who can give them the most money, exactly like the pros.
dominasian

Pro

dominasian forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
bmoe11

Con

My opponent didn't respond, so I will just urge everyone to look at my contentions and realize that paying athletes will solve nothing.
dominasian

Pro

dominasian forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by John_Quincy_Adams 9 years ago
John_Quincy_Adams
I have a friend who is a graduate student at a university. he is paid a hefty (by my standards, I don't think its proper to disclose details like that) stipend by this university and to earn that he helps run chemical science labs and assist the professors. I'm happy for him. However, he is unable to do even a fraction of what his school's football team does for that school financially. He gets paid for something that comes very easily to him yet the players on the football team spend hours everyday either before or after classes engaging in practices most of us would die doing. Ok not die but you get my point. And what they're doing brings actual hard revenue into the school. What I'm saying is that if it's ok to give a TA a scholarship AND a five figure stipend (oops) a year why can't our the athletes spending more time and effort risking serious injury at least get endorsment deals or merchandise residuals. Or even let the coaches adn university buy them meals. Damn.
Posted by bjm1382 9 years ago
bjm1382
I agree with bmoe11, if you pay student-athletes then you are making it a fact early on athletes get treated differently. Plus was about the purity of the sport. What happend to people playing for PRIDE; instead of a big pay out?
Posted by wingnut2280 9 years ago
wingnut2280
Wow.....well put towin. Eloquent and concise.
Posted by towinistosucced 9 years ago
towinistosucced
I agrreeeeee i agreeee money wuill spoal these atleats.

thats what the big man (meeeeee!!!)) sez.

yeahh
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by kenicks 9 years ago
kenicks
bmoe11dominasianTied
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 
Vote Placed by Lysis17 9 years ago
Lysis17
bmoe11dominasianTied
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 
Vote Placed by DJBruce 9 years ago
DJBruce
bmoe11dominasianTied
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 
Vote Placed by John_Quincy_Adams 9 years ago
John_Quincy_Adams
bmoe11dominasianTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by bjm1382 9 years ago
bjm1382
bmoe11dominasianTied
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 
Vote Placed by Lennox 9 years ago
Lennox
bmoe11dominasianTied
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 
Vote Placed by adam_markal 9 years ago
adam_markal
bmoe11dominasianTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by bmoe11 9 years ago
bmoe11
bmoe11dominasianTied
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 
Vote Placed by dominasian 9 years ago
dominasian
bmoe11dominasianTied
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:03