We are arguing semantics at this point. We likely agree there is potentially meaningful long term value in a degree and so receiving that education for free has wonderful value that most people don't receive. We likely agree that for someone who was already planning to go to college and pay for it they now have alternatives with which to spend that money that was intended for college. We also possibly agree that people have choices and one doesn't have to go to college especially if ones family would be better served by near term income that they could provide by getting a job.
However on simple facts I don't agree its a "liquid asset". "Liquid assets" are defined as "an asset in the form of money or cash in hand, or an asset which can be quickly converted into cash without losing much value." There was no way for Bryce to "quickly" take his scholarship money and convert it to cash that he could use to help his family.
Now does the world of college sports have to change to fix this situation? I don't believe every bad situation requires institutions or governments to "do something". Often times the actions, while well intentioned and possibly even resolving the situation, have other profound unanticipated consequences that leaves the world a worse place.
My personal path forward would be to eliminate rules rather than shuffle them around. Let schools be free to distribute funds as they see fit which would include cash instead of or in addition to direct scholarship. Let kids be free to get jobs on the side so they can provide for family if they can make the time. Let school boosters be free to contribute to GoFundMe to raise money. Allow SA's the freedom to be paid for things like their likeness or signature.
Would this have the "unintended consequences" I spoke of before? It seems almost certainly. It likely means all of the largest schools would get all of the best athletes as they would have the donor base to attract kids. The rest of the schools would have to work with the rest of the kids to make them better athletes and very very occasionally something special would happen. Oh wait...
It could also mean the collapse of big time college sports and I am OK with that outcome. I suspect, but who knows, something else will rise in its place that is actually better in the total.
Not arguing just talking.
With that said, I guess the thing that blocks me is that it seems that we are ignoring the monetary impact that college has on regular students in favor of the impact it has (I think perceived) on the SA. There seems to be a trend toward hardship being associated with student athletes while we ignore the general hardships for any student. How do you qualify and differentiate between the two ? One student has to bust his/her *** through high school just to qualify for college ( a good one), deal with class and study schedules and a lack of money AS they assume student loan debt the entire time. The other may or may not have to bust their *** academically to qualify ( depends on the school ), often ends up with a softer schedule and a “mentor” as they choose to participate in a sport, which could make them hundreds of thousands of dollars after they get their free education. Applied evenly, The money disadvantage is the same going in for both students, the burden of long term debt (or any debt at all) is lifted by the scholarships, paying athletes effectively gives them favored status. This will essentially prioritize the SA over a regular student. How does that rectify financial burdens, if that’s the real goal, when the regular students are working toward a professional goal also ?
Why should you get a financial break for being an athlete that the perspective doctor, lawyer, astrophysicist, nuclear physicist or engineer doesn’t get ? Wouldn't all turn into alums who are likely going to turn into boosters and contributors to the school ? Don’t they all stand to make millions off of the same education ?
I mean I have no problem with relaxing or eliminating the NCAA rules but we should understand that both types of students likely face the same financial hardships going in. I don’t know the numbers but I’ll bet it’s likely that SA’s far outnumber academics in the number of free rides passed out at each college in this country.
I think in a world of hardships we are splitting the baby by giving people, who are already getting a free ride, the title of financially burdened, overburdened, needy or any other label that would indicate they are worse off than a normal student. We are also affixing a different value on the degrees, with the non paying degree holder getting more out attending school than the paying degree holder. Man wouldn’t it be nice if we could all obtain a free degree in Robotics and throw a baseball 100 MPH ?
I also think we could end up in a place where this closes the opportunities for the mid line student who doesn’t know the difference between a football and a baseball. Why wouldn't we pay the non student athletes also If hardship is the consideration ? Certainly we would all agree they are at least more financially burdened considering they are actually paying/expected to pay for their education. The school will likely get a financial benefit from their studies in the form of corporate or private contributions/aid which in effect uses the non athlete students as R&D employees for private corporate and scientific communities around the world. There is also the more nuanced aspect of ownership when a non athletic student discovers or invents something new in the school environment. Who owns the formula that cures cancer if it’s discovered at a college ? I think we all know who will claim to own it.
I’m not anti pay at all but I am anti disadvantage. I just can’t wrap my head around the idea that a student is at a disadvantage by getting a $300,000.00 education free, so much so that they now need to actually be paid a salary, by the school who is giving them the free education, essentially for getting the free degree. Seems evident that the school is actively picking winners and loses. In this scenario you are actually the chosen loser if you aren’t able to play a sport. You get no salary and you have student debt.
It’s either free college for everyone, with pay ( given the theory of paying SA’s ) essentially making going to school a job or eliminate sports scholarships all together. If a non athlete can manage the financial burdens of college they all can.
BTW if SAs are paid do they qualify as employees ? Can they unionize ? Medical insurance ? 401s, paid leave ? OT pay ? All of that will at some point get litigated.
Man if this logic were only around when I was young, I’d be on top of my world !
