Cost of attendance is already paying these kids. I hate to bring in a political component to this discussion but it's apropos. So often we've seen problems and the solution--assumed solution--is "throw more money at it." In what world has that ever worked? What so ironic and sad at the same time is we've talked about handlers and the influence of AAU on kids for years. We've know for more than a decade how seedy that world is but now all of a sudden it's "Breaking News?" What's telling is one of the main figures in this whole story (Dawkins) is a former director of AAU programs.
So are we going to disband women’s sports to pay the revenue producers or continue to fund non-revenue sports on the backs of these athletes? Are we going to form a new super-division of athletics programs that make money where we pay the men and keep 80% amateur? Sounds like a lose-lose. These poor college athletes, going to school with poor college academics, receive a lot that the general population doesn’t. They’re already treated quite well, but they look at that goose that lays golden eggs and think somehow killing it will make them richer. But like we said, many of the best aren’t in school because of their academic intellect.
There's got to be some sort of balance that can be struck. Maybe a system where the kids can earn money for the things they do in college sports and the revenue they bring but they don't get it until they go pro or something.
