If you use any of the myriad definitions of the word free then your statement is incorrect. it is not a free ride because the athlete must perform initially and earn that scholarship then continue to perform yearly to retain said scholarship. the student athlete therefore is trading their talents athletically as payment for their education cost. This is a mutual dispensation of goods which literally is the antithesis of the notion of free goods which would be receiving something for nothing in return or something without restrictions. Scholarships are awarded for athletic ability and the demonstration of that ability for the school at scheduled times in regimented ways. The fact you must earn them yearly also is restrictive. I understand what you're trying to say, I think, which is they're compensated extremely well for their efforts with a paid for education, but it truly isn't a free ride. A free ride is someone writing you a check for your tuition and dorm while requiring nothing in return. Zero stipulations.
It is a gift and they should be thankful and maximize the gift that is given to them. Cause and effect they are given a scholarship due to their talents (which is worth a great deal of money) some of them more than cover the cost some do not. There can be no price put on a good education IMO and all to often we see knuckle heads blow this for a shot at the NFL in which they come up short and end up working at McDonalds. Again missing the point of my post. If you want to believe what you want about if it is a free ride or not that's up to you. IMO unless you are a break out star like LF the players get the better end of the bargain.
