The lines between NCAA Division 1 athletics and Professional Athletic Leagues are blurring.
Mallory Pugh, teenage soccer prodigy, made headlines this spring when she made the decision to withdraw from UCLA and their top ranked women's soccer program after already deferring her acceptance a semester and only playing in three spring exhibition matches. She instead made the bold choice to sign with Women's Professional Soccer League's Washington Spirit.
The move was highly publicized even though it is not uncommon for a D1 athlete to pursue professional option prior to graduation, despite that, theNCAA decided to up their incentives for the 2017-2018 school year.
The NCAA ruled that Division 1 programs will now be allowed to offer scholarships that now cover both tuition and livings expenses, previously only tuition was allowed to be covered. Now student athletes can graduate with a degree and virtually no debt in their pockets. They announced it in a video released last fall, making the incoming 2017 the first class to rake in those benefits.
Do not get me wrong, I fully respect Division 1 athletes and the service they do for their schools. Bringing in a national championship definitely deserves the benefits of a scholarship, but is this what the NCAA should do just to keep their athletes in school and not in the professional leagues?
It raises too many questions that the NCAA has already made clear they do not want to answer. Like why the NCAA is so passionate about keeping their star players in school and why put so much emphasis on them without out right considering professional athletes? If they are so important and vital to keep in the system then the debate brought up a few years ago on whether not Division 1 schools should pay their athletes is rehashed.
The only reason that would make any sense is that since they cannot receive any compensation for their work, or any royalties from merchandise and video games, that leaves the NCAA to collect that money.
The NCAA makes billions on March Madness bets alone, they certainly have the funds to pay for the athletes they so desperately keep wanting to preform. The NCAA battles this by enforcing their new ruling and making college free.
It seems like an even trade to an outsider, but to a top ranked athlete who has the choice between that and the instant gratification of signing a million dollar professional contract, this ruling just does the opposite of what NCAA wanted.
And that is just from the D1 prospective. What the most problematic aspect of this ruling is the complete disregard to the other two NCAA divisions. The words "Prioritizing Fairness" and "Equal Opportunities" pop up in all caps in the video, but the NCAA only seems to be directing that to the Division 1 level. What happens to D2 and D3 schools?
D1 already has all the huge funds and the glory, why do they need more incentives for their athletes who are just going to drop out and go pro anyway? Division 3 schools still cannot even offer athletic or any type of scholarships to their athletes while many Division 2 schools have to divide up their full tuition scholarships between players in order to keep recruits committed.
These D2 and D3 players are often continuing their athletic careers solely based on their love of the game, while their counterparts are not even going to college for the education. Yet, they are considered more of an athlete than D2 or D3 and more worthy of attention in the eyes of the NCAA.
How much is too much? The NCAA prides themselves in looking out for their athletes when on paper it looks like they are more preoccupied with the profit the athletes give than their actual education. It even seems like they are only focusing on one division, with the other two just serving as outlets for the leftovers who could not get a roster spot at Michigan or Duke.
Who is really raking in the benefits with this new ruling, the hard working student athletes, or the cooperation they provide free labor for?
