Pay is for Professionals

     In today's wealth-driven society, college athletes are no different than anyone else insofar as they too have money-chasing instincts and aspirations. Over the past three years, especially, the debate on whether or not collegiate athletes should be paid or not has crept its way to the forefront of popular discussion in the sports world. Not only are people starting to go to bat to try and get things changed for these 18 to 22-year old's, but these athletes have begun speaking up for themselves. What they do not realize, however, is the effect such a change would have on the purity of their sports. Paying college athletes could potentially ruin the sports that we know and love for years to come.
     Before long, the games would be dominated in number by those who don't play for the love of the game, but for the money that comes with the game. When the reason for playing is altered, so too is the game. Sure, if the NCAA were to start paying its players it could start with a small stipend, but stipends would lead to an increased number of Reggie bush-like scandals, because it would only be a matter of time before schools start surreptitiously increasing their "stipends" and using their "stipends" to purchase some wheels for the new freshmen on campus. Furthermore, stipends most likely would (eventually) lead to salaries and contracts and negotiations and so forth. And if the amount of money being granted to players would defy the odds and not increase annually -- if it stayed small -- then should that small amount really be enough to create a fuss and debate about this matter in the first place?
     Paying players would create an unnecessary, extra incentive for high school athletes to push toward the collegiate ranks. I deem it unnecessary because college athletics are built for those who are completely in love with their sports. The die-hard athletes who dedicate their lives to the sports are the athletes who bring the most passion to the games. Those who chase money -- well -- they chase money. They might certainly like and enjoy their sports, but they don't eat, sleep, and breathe them. When athletes can sacrifice their bodies and give their coaches, selves, fans, and teammates their all in each competition knowing they won't make a single cent doing so, that's when special happens. Special doesn't happen when people play a sport for the sake of making money...and if we begin to pay our athletes, the amount of money they will be making would certainly increase over time, and as a result, they will both subconsciously and consciously be drawn to "Mr. Green".
     Scholarships should be enough for college athletes. Why do they need a stipend to simply play the game they love? Sure, they entertain sports fans nationwide. So do six-year old's playing little league. Will we need to pay our toddlers to play too? You might laugh at such a statement but the politics and snowball effect that would follow paying college athletes could make such an erroneous situation possible. Sooner than later, high school athletes would also be asking for paydays. Why should college ball players get it and not those in high school? Just because they're not on video games?
     Rather than demanding money for having their jersey number put on a college football game, athletes should consider it an honor (rather than something they ought to demand cash for). Further more, if college athletes get paid, at what level do we draw the line?
     Does every team get an equal amount of pay? Does that mean NCAA D3 athletes deserve to make as much as NCAA D1 athletes? If so, then what is the purpose behind paying them? And if not, then players will without a doubt make their way to whatever schools fill their pockets to a satisfactory level. As a result, rivalries would be ruined.
    Rivalries are arguably the best part about college sports. Do we really want athletes avoiding their favorite schools in order to go elsewhere because more money might be elsewhere? If this occurs, the amount of guys and girls playing for schools they've had tremendous pride in since childhood would be diminished, and therefore the intensity and genuineness of the passion in various rivalries would also  decreased.
    Lets consider the rivalry Duke and North Carolina have in basketball. For the sake of such a rivalry, its best when Duke recruits future Blue Devil players who are genuinely in love with the school and grew up as honorary members of the Cameron Crazies from inside their homes, and UNC brings in guys and girls that simply hate royal blue and love baby blue. This allows the passion to remain in the rivalry. What if, however, each team brings in players who simply join the school because the money drew them there. Would the passion still exist? This is a question I hope we never have to answer, because if the answer is no, then rivalries would surely take a hit...which would be to the disadvantage of sports fans everywhere. If schools begin divvying their wealth amongst their athletes, then it won't be just rivalries being ruined, but sports as a whole will take a hit. College athletes are already getting scholarships, so any further pay should remain solely for professionals.