Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Dick_in_MI, post: 51955, member: 225"]
I think you have gone off the deep end with most of your posts in this thread, but you make one point here that I have often thought of when the subject of paying players comes up.

The rationale for paying players above and beyond the free education they get is that they help bring $$$ to the school.

OK, fair enough. But you know who brings the most $$$ to the school? Rank and file students; the 95% or so of the student body that doesn't play sports. The kids who pay their own way, in some cases taking on the burden of loans that take many years to pay off.

It is that $$$ that pays for faculty salaries, administration, facilities, and on and on and on.

If the football team went away tomorrow, most universities would be just fine the next day. Heck, many athletic programs operate in the red to begin with. Tons of schools...many very fine ones, in fact...get along perfectly well with D1AA teams or no teams at all.

But if the rank and file student body went away tomorrow, the school would have to close.

So if somebody should get paid, should it be the athlete...especially the ones whom SWC refers to as not being there for the diploma? Or should it be the 95%+ of the student body that really keeps the school in existance?

And given that the 95%+ will never get paid, why should the athletes be (beyond the free ride through college)?
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?