There's many reasons why college athletes aren't payed. It's a
hot subject these days, with most people who are against it argueing
about how it would completely go aginst many of the things that the NCAA
was founded on and stands for.
        Since most ADs are either ex-coaches or businessmen, here's why
the business men especially are against it.
        As it stands today, the college's athletic department is a branch
of a giant institutuion. Schools, being considered charities aren't
subjected to stringient tax laws. They're basically non-profit organizations.
        What happens if athletes are paid for their "labor" in playing
hockey, this sets up an employer-employee relationship between the AD and
the athlete. If the athlete is paid significantly in excess of the value
of his scholarship for his time, then Uncle Sam can legitimately call the
athletic department a company, just like IBM or Anheiser-Busch. At this
point, the athletic department is suddenly subject to all federal taxes,
upwards of 50%.
        As it stands today, most athletic departments lose money WITHOUT
paying athletes or taxes. Few, if any, schools could afford to stay in
business, and schools would start dropping athletics all together
(Brooklyn College) and it could bring about the demise of the entire
industry.
        Even if a deal could be worked out that would permit college
athletes to be paid, it would turn into something like baseball. Star
athletes being recruited by several big-time schools would be like a five
time all-star turned free agent. The smaller schools could not compete for
the athelete's services, and would suffer like the Milwaukee Brewers
trying to outbid the Yankees. How could Colgate ever outbid Michigan or
Minnesota for a top prospect?
        If the taxes and immorality of it all doesn't kill college athletics
at that point, the stratification would.
 
Leigh
[log in to unmask]
These opinions are my own and not those of any organizations that I
represent.