Great points... but I will throw this counter argument into the works.Oh8ch said:Quick follow up to the 'free education' argument - which I knew was coming.
Put Ted Ginn and Jim Tressel both on the open market next year and see if the NFL offers Ginn anything more than the monetary equivalent of a 'free education'. See if the relative value of their compensation is anything close to the current margin of roughly 40 to 1 that currently exists in JTs favor.
Ginn receives his monetary equivalent once he leaves college. Jim Tressel is getting paid to prepare Ginn for his career after college. I think of it this way. I am an accountant. The only way I can get a good accounting position is to PAY for college. Once I graduate college I get "drafted" by companies due to what I did in college via GPA, Interviews, and performance in many fields. Not many companies would hire someone unless they go to college. And the professors (ie coaches) get paid to prepare me for that career.
What is the main purpose for college? To prepare you for your career at the next level. Switch that to college football. Isn't that what Ohio State is doing... preparing the player for the next level to earn as much as possible. If Ginn would continue his path and play great, yes he makes Ohio State money. But he then "cashes in" after he graduates/leaves college like all college graduates.
Now about those that don't make it to the NFL? Well, they got an education and a college degree, which is at least worth something so they don't necessarily leave with "nothing". While the university made money off them, the university can make money off any student via research grants where the student really doesn't see any of the money, but the programs do. That is what happens here, the money made goes back to the athletic program to help support the program as a whole.
Of course there are differences and I am one who does not mind a relaxation of the rules, but if it is a rule, you must follow the rules and try to get the rules changed.
Upvote
0