Background/Introduction As part of another assignment I conducted research on the figured world of the NBA, specifically the Miami Heat.

I observed how the players interacted with each other, and learned that those interactions and how well they worked together was the biggest factor for success other than talent itself. For a team to play at its optimum level, it takes a mixture of many things. One of those is chemistry; each player needs to have a sixth sense of not only how he himself plays but how his teammates play. The player needs to understand where their teammates are going to be, and their tendencies. Tendencies meaning their skill and what shots and spots they are good at, but also how they like their passes to get the rhythm they need. Teammates also need to know how their other teammates attack the basket so they know what open spots to move to. Chemistry takes time to develop and cannot be developed through any shortcuts. The players need time to learn each others tendencies and habits. The team also needs to be well prepared. This may seem like a broad characteristic, but it is made up of a few specific and related things. First, the team needs to have a good coach. The coach is like the glue for the team. The coach leads the team in the right direction in order to be the most successful. He also brings them together whenever they stray from the path. As with any skill, in order to further the skill much practice is needed. The coach manages practice and a good one knows how to go hard and have intense practices, but also when to take a step back if the team needs a break. Also, the coach needs to have personal skills because the better he can relate to his players the more they will listen to what he has to say. These things are all small, but when put together they make a big part of what a successful team is and needs.

This topic is easy for me to relate to and understand because I have played basketball all the way up through the Varsity level in high school. Through my years of basketball Ive come to learn and experience a lot of what was discussed above. Some of the things like practice and interactions with teammates become almost common sense in a way because once you see what is needed to become successful, you stick to the things that work and you understand that those things are necessary. I also learned that there is much more to it than basketball. Many people in addition to the athletes themselves make their livings in some related way. People tend to overlook the supporting cast that makes the event possible. The concessions people and event staff in the arena make their living in a shadow of the team. Also, the people selling memorabilia and those working in parking all depend on the team. I will use this topic to explore where a lot of these athletes come from: college. In this paper, I will discuss how long these athletes should be required to stay in school and whether or not they should be paid. Literature Review NCAA President Mark Emmert calls the idea of paying college athletes Silly. Emmert says that, There is no one that Ive talked to in intercollegiate athletics that thinks the idea of converting student athletes into employees is a good idea, also that It would completely change the relationship (Geary 1). Scholarships do not cover the full cost of attending college, and Emmert says that student athletes should receive a stipend to cover the rest of their expenses. Right now we provide Division I athletes with tuition. They get a full scholarship, room and board, books and supplies. For a student athlete whos putting in the demands of being an athlete and a student, the opportunities for work jobs are hard and limited. Theres something missing in that (Geary 1). Emmert also added more as to what the stipend would be saying, Its been called a $2,000 stipend, but its really just the full cost of attendance. It is not in any way paying

players to play games. But it is covering the legitimate real cost of being a student athlete. We want to do that, and we have the flexibility to make that decision (Geary 2). Though he has been advocating for stipends for student-athletes for a few years, he has been unsuccessful up to this point. The NCAA board passed legislation on this topic in 2011; however it was overridden by 160 member schools. Emmert says he is not comfortable with classifying athletes as university employees and paying them. As a university president, if I was going to hire you to play football for me, why on Gods earth would I want you to be a student? Im paying you to win football games for me; the last thing I want you to do is be bothered with class time. If youre a football player, youre a football player. Why would I pay you to do both? It makes utterly no sense (Geary 2). A group of Northwestern football players are calling for the formation of a labor union for college athletes. The players are attempting to prove that they are university employees who are forced to put football first or risk losing their compensation (free tuition). The case, being heard by a National Labor Relations Board, could change the landscape of college athletics if the players were to win. This would allow the players to demand things like more concussion testing, medical care after graduation, guaranteed scholarships, and possibly even a portion of the multi-million dollar profits that most NCAA schools make off of sports. The idea came from Quarterback Kain Colter, who is leading the group of players in the case. At the hearing he testified that he had enjoyed his experience at Northwestern. He said football was dominating his college experience, consuming up to 60 hours a week during the season and up to 20 hours the rest of the year. He and his teammates never got summer and winter breaks, couldn't schedule certain classes and were required to adhere to dozens of rules or risk losing their scholarships. "We are first and foremost an athlete," Colter testified. "Everything we do is scheduled around

football. ... It's truly a job" (Ganim 1). Colter also testified that the biggest complaint of graduating seniors was that football kept them from reaching their true academic potential due the rigorous schedule. There were three players that all spoke well of the university and they had been able to be successful academically despite the long hours. The university upholds the stance that the program is run with academics as a priority first. Coach Pat Fitzgerald also holds this view, but added that football is a full-time commitment from a responsibility standpoint. Probably the most powerful argument the athletes have made is one for better medical coverage. Colter, who had ankle surgery last month because of a football-related injury, walked into court sporting in a medical boot and then talked on the stand about how Northwestern is disputing how much it will pay for his medical bills. Former Northwestern player Jeff Yarbrough said he went from being one of the fastest teens in the state of Illinois to not being able to run because he can't afford to remove metal rods placed in his leg after an on-field injury (Ganim 1). Lastly, he offered some insight into the controlling world of college athletics: "You have to sacrifice something," Colter said. "And you're not allowed to sacrifice football." Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban said that young basketball stars would be better off joining the NBA Developmental league instead of going to college after high school. In the NBAs case, the age limit is more self-serving than reflective of any concern for the players. In 1995, after Kevin Garnett became the first player in 20 years to go directly from high school to the NBA, the NBA witnessed an influx of young talent that exposed the shoddy recruiting and faulty decision-making at many NBA clubs. Too many teams got burned too often by giving bigmoney deals to players too immature to handle the high-pressure demands of the pro game. (Ah, Korleone Young, we remember you well.) So in 2005, amid cries of racism and a violation of the

free-market spirit, the NBA sought to protect its owners from their own haste and stupidity by installing an age limit. The league now is talking about raising the age limit to 20 (Dawsey 1). Enter the Conversation College athletes should be required to stay for at least 2 years in school, and should be paid stipends to cover additional expenses. Given all the research and articles I have read, I think that this would be best for both the athletes and the professional leagues later on. Having no age limit is not logical, though there may be some players out of high school that could play at that level. The problem is that once a player declares for the Draft, they lose their college eligibility. So for the 5-10 players that do get drafted, they are good and will go on to make a lot of money. The leftover players cannot go to college and now are stuck because sports were their one way into school. For this option to work, the NBA and NFL would need to adopt a draft system similar to the MLB. The way their system works is that a player can enter the draft every year without hurting their eligibility. When the player is drafted they can decide whether they want to sign a contract with the team, or go back to school until the next year where they can look to improve themselves and get drafted higher for more money. This system benefits both the players and the professional teams. The player has an opportunity to go pro, while protecting his eligibility. The teams benefit because once the player does decide to go pro, they are more wellrounded which makes the team better. If both of these leagues were willing to tweak the system somewhat so that the players would be protected then I would be for no age limits. The problem with only forcing players to stay one year in school (basketball) is that the players are not truly benefiting from their time there. The team is hurt when they leave because they lose the scholarship money that was spent on that player for that year. Also, it is almost like they were never there because later on the team will not have a player for that class. Therefore,

underclassmen may have to step in and they may not be ready. The player is not going to be worried about his academic standing if he comes into college with the expectation that he is going to leave after one year to go into the NBA. The player is going to attend just enough classes to both pass and keep coach happy. His end goal is not graduation and a degree, so even if he does do the work it is likely to not be high in quality. Therefore, if the player is not bettering himself academically it is almost like a waste of a year. From a basketball standpoint, just because you can be drafted does not mean you are ready to play night in and night out. This is why the players should be required to stay at least two years. An extra year of getting quality reps and experience makes them a better player. They will then be more likely to give full effort on their education because they know they will be there for a while. Then once they stay two years they may see that they really like college and realize that it is the best place for them. This may make them more inclined to stay longer, and even to graduate. When they were finally ready to leave, they are more prepared to succeed in the pros. Also, the league would gain a better player which makes for a better product all the way around. I feel that money is the biggest reason that a player would leave school early; they see their chance to make more money in one year than most people will their entire lives. Rather than paying these players and causing them to lose their amateur status, I believe that paying them stipends is a better alternative. As NCAA President Mark Emmert said, it could be a stipend for the cost of attending college. A scholarship pays for tuition and also room and board. However, this is not all of the possible needs that a player might have. If given a stipend, the players would have money to afford extra things like food and trips home or even for new clothes. If players had this option, I think they would feel better about staying in school. Knowing that if they had something they needed, that it could be taken care of by their stipend

then I believe they would be less stressed about having to come up with the money. Both of these options would make for a less stressful environment for these players, and this is why I believe it should be done. Conclusion Though the chance to make millions of dollars and be set for life is tempting, players should be required to stay in school for two years. The financial help of a stipend would take the weight off players shoulders that lack resources. These extra things that they could afford would make their time in college more enjoyable. During their time at school, they will have learned how to better handle the money that they will be making in the future. They will also have become better at their craft, which will help to raise the level of competition in the professional leagues. However, there may need to be more research done into the classes that players who know they will possibly leave early should take. In the future, a special system could be set up for players that are going pro. The classes could be adjusted to where they take courses on life skills and financial well-being. Even the implementation of a program to help players graduate in two years with a degree would make them better prepared for life after sports. Thus teaching them how to handle the enormous amount of money that comes with being a professional athlete, that way they can prosper and still have money later on in life. Until the time comes where a program like this is implemented, college athletes should stay in school for two years and receive stipends to cover the additional expenses of attending a four-year university.