1) If student-athletes were to get paid for what they do, how would it effect other students who do unpaid work for their universities (ie singers, actors, band members)?
2) Even though it may make sense for student-athletes to receive money from the school itself, why are they not allowed sponsorship money of any type (ie in NCAA football games current players were always nameless, because the NCAA rule prevented EA from paying for the right to use players' actual names)
3) How different is the sports-based-revenue at universities without major football programs different from those with massive scale football teams, like those we looked at in class? Especially in regards to schools that are dominant in other sports, but have no/barely have a football team (ie Duke, Gonzaga, Kentucky, etc.)
Description:
I enjoyed the presentation today, even if it was a bit statistics heavy. I enjoyed having discussion throughout the class as it made it super engaging and prevented the aforementioned stats from getting overtly boring. I can see that both sides of the argument have very valid perspectives and, as it doesn't affect me, I prefer to remain neutral as I believe, no matter what happens going foreword into paying student-athletes, so long as the right people put time, thought, and work into the issue, the correct decision will be made, though I am most definitely not one of those people. I do believe it would be reasonable for student-athletes to be eligible to sign sponsorship deals in the same way that professional athletes do, but I can see why many would believe this to be a slippery slope.