I love college football, as do many of my peers at Auburn University, but the idea of paying our players to play makes me sick.
Steve Spurrier, head coach at University of South Carolina, suggested earlier this month that 70 football players from each university in the nation be paid $300 per game, out of the coach's pocket.
That would be $21,000 per game. In a normal 14-game season, it would cost the coaches almost $300,000.
While Spurrier was the one initiating the idea, 5 other SEC coaches signed the proposal, including Alabama's Nick Saban, Florida's Will Muschamp, LSU's Les Miles, Mississippi's Houston Nutt, Mississippi State's Dan Mullen and Tennessee's Derek Dooley.
Growing up a Clemson University fan, I have never been a fan of Spurrier, but now I disagree with him more than ever.
I believe that $21,000 could be used in many other ways to benefit community, education or even athletic complexes for athletes.
The money could be given back to the university to lower tuition costs, in turn helping to save the players and other students money.
What about the women's volleyball team? Are they going to be paid to play?
We can't choose to pay some college athletes and not others; it is unethical.
Not all college coaches make enough money to pay their players out of their pocket every week.
What about smaller universities, where some coaches have two jobs to make ends meet.
I am not so sure they would love the idea of losing almost $300,000 per year, and I am sure their families wouldn't either.
Poor baseball coaches, with at least 3 games a week, their pockets would be empty by the end of the season.
If players are going to be paid to play, one must pay each and every athlete, not just 70 on one type of sports team. Each sport must be included and every division of every sport must be included.
While this isn't always true anymore, athletes are primarily at universities to get an education; playing sports comes second. They are students first and athletes second.
I believe coaches should encourage athletes to do whatever it takes to succeed in school as well as on the field.
Paying players would cause athletes to focus even more on the sport and less on academics; this is not what our education systems want to be known for.
Without education at universities, there would be no sports teams or players to possibly pay.
Students could start being paid to go to class, and then players could also be paid to play.
While I would be rich, universities would be in debt.
These things are unrealistic.
Individuals go to college to get a degree and play professional football to get paid. Let's keep it that way.
Many people think this would solve the problem of players being paid under the table, but that is not the case.
Right now no college players legally get paid to play, and we all know that players are given cars, money, housing and more.
If players were paid $300 per game, it would increase the money given to players under the table.
Board members or coaches may still feel that some players deserve more and would most likely be given extra money or incentives.
While I have no evidence to back this up, I believe that most college-level athletes love and want to be involved in a sport no matter the pay.
Players are willing to go without, and would continue doing what they do best without pay.
If this proposal is passed, a decade from now a high school football coach would suggest the idea to pay high school football players.
I hope we are all in agreement of how outlandish that would be.
Passing this proposal would begin a path down a dangerous road for the NCAA.
I agree that college athletes do a great job on the field and courts.
They deserve praise for what they do, but lets give them that by applause, appearance at games and support.
Do you like this story? The Plainsman doesn't accept money from tuition or student fees, and we don't charge a subscription fee. But you can donate to support The Plainsman.
