clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Conference Expansion Should Revive College-Athletes-Should-Be-Paid Argument

New, 2 comments

All the moves that are being made -- Nebraska to the Big Ten, Colorado to the Pac-10 and maybe four more schools to the Pac-10 and possible Texas A&M to the SEC -- are being done with one goal in mind: Make more money.

When school presidents and chancellors speak publicly on the topic, they hit their talking points, which always begin with the amount of money they're missing out on and usually the fourth or fifth item on that list is, 'What about the welfare of the our student-athletes?'

I'll let Jean-Jacques of the Dallas Morning News answer that question.

If you thought college football was something other than big business, then you've been living in a fantasy world, and it's time you moved into the real world where the rest of us reside.

So the next question is: Is the focus on money a bad thing?

No, not necessarily. But it will revive the question of whether college athletes should be paid.

My answer: Of course they should. Kansas is about to move to a conference away from Mizzou for the first time in over 100 years. If they're willing to do that for dollars, then they need to be upping the pay to their student-athletes.

Generally, college athletics has tried hard not to give up the impression that they're all about the money. This conference expansion business has been blatant: It's about the money.

Why not pass that collection plate around to the players who bring it in?