Categories
Athletes

Fear of Failure in Athletes

Fear of Failure in Athletes.
Fear of failure is the motive to avoid failure in achievement situations. It is not difficult to imagine a Division I college basketball athlete at the foul line, with no time left on the clock and a tied score. Is it the fear of failure or the achievement of success that determines whether the athlete will make the shot? Athletes of all levels and abilities fear failure, because of different experiences and developments. The fear of failure can be developed for a number of reasons and how the athlete copes with failure determines their success.
A multidimensional, hierarchal model of fear of failure was created by David Conroy to attempt to analyze the different consequences of failing that lead to the fear of failure. Fear of failure can be represented in a hierarchal structure with five lower order factors and a single higher order factor, representing a general fear of failure. The five lower order fears of failing include fears of experiencing shame and embarrassment, fears of devaluing one’s self estimate, fears of having an uncertain future, fears of important others losing interest, and fears of upsetting important others (Conroy 2004).
These fears show similar patterns with measures of self-talk, achievement goals, and contextual motivation. To investigate whether the hierarchal model was similar to the previous mentioned measures Conroy conducted a study between two different groups of athletes. Conroy chose 438 students from a large university that were engaged in recreational physical activities to complete the Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory. He also chose 71 female members of a Division I track team to complete the Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory, Achievement Goal Questionnaire for Sport, and the Sport Motivation Scale.

Conroy found that all lower order fear of failure scores exhibited the same pattern of correlations with scores for self-talk while failing, achievement goals, and contextual motivation. Conroy learned that when the individuals thought they were going to fail, they reacted in a manner that resembled the original consequences they fear. The findings of this study suggest that different forms of fear of failure vary in their maladaptiveness. Fears are generally accepted as a standard during childhood and are considered an adaptive emotional reaction to threat.
Therefore, it is acceptable to assume that fear of failure is developed during an athletes childhood. Three factors have been associated with the development of children’s fear of failure, parent-child communication and interaction, family climate, and parental high expectations and demands (Sagar 2009). To learn whether young athletes’ fear of failure comes from their parents Sagar conducted interviews on three families of young elite athletes. The athletes were 13 to 14 years old and competing at national or international levels.
The interviews and observations were conducted with one family at a time during a three to four week period. The results helped to better understand how the fear of failure was conveyed between parents and athletes. Sagar’s findings revealed failure was conveyed through parental punitive behavior, parental controlling behavior, and parental high expectations. The most common fears of failure reported were fears of others’ negative judgment, of not attaining aspirations, and of non-selection to future competitions.
Sagar proved that parental view of failure influences the way young athletes view and interpret fear of failure. Sagar decided to further her research and initiate a study that would explain whether educational programs could help the parent-child relationships, thereby, helping to reduce the athletes’ fear of failure. Sagar comprised two separate programs that taught parents about the fear of failure and their importance in the development of their child’s fear of failure.
A questionnaire administered after the program showed that the parents reduced their punitive behaviors and adopted more favorable ways of reacting to their child’s failures. The programs helped the parents to improve the condition of their interaction with their children and reduce the children’s levels of fear of failure. The cognitive-behavioral techniques used were proved helpful and could be implemented to other athletes to help reduce the children’s levels of fear of failure. One of the ongoing debates within the research is whether athletes fear failure or the consequences of failure.
It is obvious that athletes interpret winning as a standard for success and losing as a standard for failing, but failure can be interpreted by the athlete’s perception of failure. Sagar conducted a study to distinguish what specifically athletes fear about failure. She interviewed nine British elite athletes aged 14-17 years old. Sagar asked questions concerning the athletes’ perceptions of consequences of failure. Examples of questions included, “tell me how you behaved after that failure” and “describe how you felt after that failure. The athletes described the consequences of failure as diminished perception of self, no sense of achievement, emotional cost of failure, letting down significant others, negative social evaluation, lose motivation and drop out, tangible losses, have an uncertain future, having reoccurring thoughts of failure, and intangible losses (Sagar 2007). The consequences that were perceived by all nine athletes were diminished perception of self, no sense of achievement, and emotional cost of failure. The athletes described consequences of failure that they disliked and wanted to avoid and deemed them as threats that they anticipated and feared.
Multiple athletes reported a loss of motivation after failure, which in turn means failure could prevent athletes from reaching their potential. Furthermore, it is logical to assume that fear of failure can potentially by harmful to athletes’ performances, as fear of failure itself might be a threat to achieving their desired goal. Effective coping responses to fear of failure are exceptionally important in athletes. Athletes who do not posses effective coping skills to deal with situations that involve failure and are likely to experience negative effects such as, poor performance or the possibility of dropping out of the sport (Sagar 2009).
Sagar created an experiment to examine the effects of fear of failure on athletes and how the athletes coped with the effects that fear of failure induced before competition. Sagar interviewed nine British athletes aged 14-17 years old that were competing at the national level and had experience competing at the international level. The interview allowed each athlete to individually relate to his or her own experiences in a free and open manner. The athletes were asked questions aimed to determine their perceptions of failure in sport, how their fears affected them, and how they coped with their fears.
All of the athletes perceived failure as outcome oriented, such as losing, not winning, or getting beaten. The athletes described their coping strategies as mental disengagement, try not to let fear of failure affect them, become quiet and seek isolation, not talking about fear of failure, humor, chilling out, positive self-talk, positive reinterpretation, lowering goals, seeking emotional social support, increasing effort to prevent failure, and confronting their fears. All of the athletes that were interviewed identified with mental disengagement.
Although, not all of the strategies identified are effective responses to the fear of failure. For example, increasing effort to prevent failure included increased training by athletes. Increased training can lead to overtraining, a possible source of burnout, which could accidentally lead to athletes’ withdrawal of the sport. Despite the fact that some of the athletes viewed increased training as a positive outcome of fear of failure, increased training may not be an effective response to fear of failure. Therefore, athletes engaged in both effective and ineffective coping strategies to deal with the effects of failure before competition.
Individuals high in fear of failure utilize self-regulatory strategies that can be harmful to their athletic performance, well being, and interpersonal behavior (Sagar 2009). Therefore, Sagar created a study to investigate whether fear of failure predicts antisocial behavior in the university and sport contexts, and whether sex compromises this prediction. Sagar interviewed 176 male students and 155 female students from 2 British universities, with an average age of 20. 11 years. The athletes had been competing for their schools for an average of 1. 80 years.
Sagar used three different analyses to measure fear of failure antisocial behavior in sport, and antisocial behavior in university. The study showed, on average, antisocial university behavior occurred rarely for males and never to rarely for females, whereas antisocial behavior in sport occurred rarely to sometimes for males and rarely for females. The strongest fear reported for both sexes was experiencing shame and embarrassment. The weakest fear reported by males was the fear of devaluing one’s self estimate and for females the weakest fear reported was important others losing interest.
Further analysis of fear of failure revealed that several significant differences occurred between male and females, but there was not a significant difference between sexes involving antisocial behavior. The study shows that fear of failure may contribute to more frequent student engagement in antisocial behavior in the university and sport contexts. The fact that males are more competitive and have a greater desire to win could explain the sex differences within the fear of failure. Thus, this study suggests that fear of failure might increase the frequency of antisocial behavior.
The tendency to approach success is a function of the person’s motive to approach success as well as the situational factors (Gill 2008). Most athletes that participate in sports do so, because they want to achieve something. Although, to be able to achieve something, you must get past a fear of failure. Researching aspects of motivations regarding orientations and achievement can further understand how an athlete deals with fear of failure. In general, someone that is task oriented, rather than outcome oriented will have less fears of failure (Weinberg & Gould 2007).
Focusing on personal performance can lead to greater control, more motivation, and less fear of failure. A task-oriented person has high perceptions of their own competence, so it is easier for them to feel good about themselves and not worry about failure. Those who are outcome oriented have lower perceptions of their competence. Therefore, they are more likely to give less effort to protect their self worth. Martin and Marsh (2003) concluded that fear of failure may be viewed as a friend or a foe, “a friend of sorts, but not a very good one… [or as] a foe, but with some self-protective advantages. Research surrounding all aspects is still not extensive enough to draw strong conclusions about how fear or failure develops or how to treat fear of failure. Although, ignoring fear of failure and the problems associated with fear of failure could have negative consequences for individuals in achievement settings. Researchers should be encouraged to continue studying the coping behaviors of athletes in various age groups and investigate how people who play important roles in the lives and in the development of young elite athletes contribute to their development of fear of failure.
Further research will inform prevention, assessment, diagnosis, and possibly the treatment of fear of failure in sports. References Conroy, D. E. , (2004). The unique psychological meanings of multidimensional fears of failing. Journal of Clinical Sport & Exercise Psychology, 26, 484-491. Gill, D. , & Williams, L. , (2008). Motivational Orientations: Achievement and Competitiveness. Martin, A. J. , Marsh, H. W. (2003). Fear of failure: Friend of foe?. Australian Psychologist, 38, 31-38. Sagar, S. S. , Boardley, I. D. , Kavussanu, M. (2011). Fear of failure and student athletes’ interpersonal antisocial behavior in education and sport.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 391-408. Sagar, S. S. , (2009). Fear of failure in youth sport: Building on the momentum of the new research. Sport & Exercise Psychological Review, 5, 5-15. Sagar, S. S. , Lavallee, D. , Spray, C. M. (2009). Coping with the effects of fear of failure: A preliminary investigation of young elite athletes. Journal of Clinical Sports Psychology, 3 73-98. Sagar, S. S. , Lavallee, D. , Spray, C. M. (2007). Why young athletes fear failure: Consequences of failure. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25, 1171-1184. Weinberg, R. , Gould, D. , (2007). Motivation.

Fear of Failure in Athletes

Calculate the Price

Approximately 250 words

Total price (USD) $: 10.99

Categories
Athletes

Environmental Effects on Athletes

Environmental Effects on Athletes.
Environmental Effects on Athletes Another way to explore how athletes are affected by different factors preventing or causing them to perform at their highest level is through their environment. Coaches, parents, peers, childhood, and even the media can manipulate athletes. A coach can get you out of your game by giving too much feedback or not any at all. Parents often put too much pressure on their child, making them either excel or, for others, burnout.
Starting sports at a young age can also have it benefits, like teaching healthy competition and life lessons. On the other hand, it can lead to more injuries in the long run or teach them unhealthy sportsmanship. For older athletes, it’s the peers and media that can have a strong effect. Bad influences in the media and criticism from reporters can take over or overwhelm athletes and cause them not to reach their full potential. Athletes need a certain environment to perform to their optimum ability, through their childhood and even as they grow older.
The childhood of an athlete is the most important time to build the characteristics of a champion. Certain factors in an athlete’s childhood can strongly determine not only if they are successful in sports, but also in life. A healthy environment can help children in their sports to “increase physical and mental health, learn healthy competition among peers and the sense of belonging gained by being part of a team” as Lucie Westminister, a psychology researcher and writer, says (Westminister 1).

Coaches and parents are key factors in creating this healthy environment. Giving kids praise for their performance can bring out desirable changes in behavior and promote responsibility. Anything as simple from a pat on the back, to a nod, can affect a growing athlete. According to research found by Westminister “coaches who give positive reinforcement, provide effective feedback, and foster a caring climate provide the best developmental outcomes for children” (Westminister 2).
By providing a favorable outlook and always caring it is easier for children to grow up to excel and want to push themselves. Too much pressure or too little can cause children to grow up thinking sports don’t matter or not want to push themselves to be champions. Coaches may just be thinking about winning but the characters in children’s lives that nurture positive youth development will end up with children who succeed. If coaches and parents are supportive and connected in the right way they can create a champion.
On the other hand, there are many risks by introducing sports at a young age. The highly competitive and ‘win at all costs’ attitude at colleges and seen by professional athletes are starting to affect children too. Pushing kids too hard while they are young can lead to a greater risk of injury, unsportsmanlike behavior, or even cause them to burn out. According to Lucie Westminister “Injuries such as tears of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) occur more and more in young athletes due to the rigors of practice and competitions”(Westminister).
By starting younger, kids wear out their ligaments and joints faster making them more susceptible to injury. Children can also learn unsportsmanlike behavior by witnessing other players, parents, and even coaches. If kids aren’t subjected to the right atmosphere, they will learn bad behavior, just like how Westminister explains “Children learn behaviors by seeing another person complete the same activity, and therefore witnessing these behaviors may lead the child to mimic these in similar situations” (Westminister).
Another negative effect of starting young is a child’s outlook of undue pressure. This negative and high-pressure world we now live in is causing more and more athletes to burn out. If the athlete feels too much pressure or that he or she is not receiving the right feedback it can cause him or her to stress out and no matter how successful, hate the sport they’re in. Family and coaches can prevent a champion from being made through undue pressure. The environment around a child in sports can be a negative impact on there life, unless the right steps are made.
As kids grow older media and peers play a more influential role on determining if they will be a champion or not. Television, movies, magazines, video games, the Internet, all have effects on athletes just like how Wayne Wilson found “94% of U. S. children ages 8 to 17 watch, read about, or listen to sports using one form of media”(Wilson 6). Athletic performance is strongly reduced by distractions, which can arise from peers, unexpected high performance, media, criticism and plenty more.
Newspapers, paparazzi, reporters, and even fans can all alter the performance of an athlete through public forums in the media. Many athletes are the targets of the media, always being critiqued and dissected, like Miki Ando. The constant and negative publicity of her figure skating performances caused Ando to struggled in 2005 and 2006, almost missing her opportunity in the 2006 Olympics. The only way to stay out of the media is to do nothing just as Wilson states “Mediocre people play it safe and avoid criticism at all costs. Champions risk criticism every time they perform”(Wilson 15).
Professional athletes are always facing criticism, but with the right mentality, champions can be made. From childhood to adulthood athletes are always facing obstacles in the way of their dreams. Children must face the pressure from their parents, coaches, or any influential adults around them. In order for kids to gain the mentality of a champion and learn life-long lessons, they must engage in the right environment. Throughout high school and college, athletes deal with the media attacking or praising them, along with parents and coaches.
Friends and video games also come as a distraction, either giving them the wrong ideas or leading them down the wrong path. Distractions are everywhere preventing athletes from achieving their dreams, but in the right environment, they can become a champion. Works Cited Westminister, Lucie. “Children in Sports. ” Healthy Living Today N. p. , 29 June 2012. Web. 2 April 2013. <http://healthyliving. azcentral. com/disadvantages children-sports-1115. html> Wilson, Wayne. Children and Sports Media. Los Angelos, CA: Amateur Athletic Foundation, 1999. Print.

Environmental Effects on Athletes

Calculate the Price

Approximately 250 words

Total price (USD) $: 10.99

Categories
Athletes

NASCAR drivers are true athletes

NASCAR drivers are true athletes.
In the public consciousness, sport is normally associated with human-powered activities like football and basketball, whereas those, engaging with human-assisted activities like racing, are not viewed as true athletes as they allegedly do not need great physical effort to achieve success. This tradition derives from Ancient Rome, whereas the major emphasis was placed upon the activities, which demonstrate the perfection of human body, but in the modern world, due to the arrival of new technological novelties, it would be unwise to limit the list. The present paper presents the reasons for which NASCAR drivers can be categorized as athletes.
First of all, it is necessary to provide a definition of a true athlete: athlete is a person who possesses either natural or trained skills, needed to do a particular type of sports on the professional basis, participates in the competitions, observing the rules prescribed,  and is able to use the skills they possess in a beneficial way. Thus, there are several key aspects, which characterize an athlete, so they can be used as categorization criteria.
First and foremost, an athlete should engage with a particular type of sports. Thus, it is important to prove that motor racing belongs to the realm of sports; for this purpose, it is necessary to define the term “sport”. “Sport is an activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. Sports commonly refer to activities where the physical capabilities of the competitor are the sole or primary determined of the outcome (winning or losing), but the term is also used to include activities such as mind sports and motor sports where mental acuity or equipment are major factor” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport, 2006).

Furthermore, true athletes should be skilled enough to engage with a specific type of sports. In the present case, they should have dexterity, good at car driving and have sufficient intellectual abilities and the basic knowledge of the physical laws, which rule the process of driving.
Thirdly, the true athlete should be able to use their skills and proficiency in the particular type of sport in the beneficial way, because the utilization of such abilities determines the maintenance of qualification and expertise.
Fourthly, the true athlete participates in the contests in their narrow sports sphere, as competition is an opportunity to look critically at oneself and assess one’s own skills in the proper way. As it has been mentioned, the athlete engages with professional sports, which require certain development and adjustment of one’s skills to the requirements of the present day, which could be achieved only through observing peer performance.
Finally, the true athlete values competitive spirit and thus observes the major rules that regulate the competition, namely those which determine the fair contest.
It is possible to disagree with the aforementioned criteria. For instance, a number of extremely professional athletes, who participate in international competitions, tend to abuse the disciplinary rules and demonstrate aggressive behavior, but in the present case major rules that determine the equality and evenhandedness in the contest are discussed.
These rules normally prohibit artificial measures, taken to temporarily increase one’s strength or dexterity. In addition, it is also possible to criticize the criteria that relates to the beneficial use of one’s skills in sports. In fact, the term “beneficial” doesn’t actually points to making money on the basis of sport activity, in fact, it might include such minor issues as using strength to protect oneself or another person from violent hooligans or utilizing intellectual abilities, developed during the years of chess playing, in mathematics.
Finally one might claim that competition is not necessary for self-development as an athlete, as it is possible to hire a very qualified coach and train without engaging into the interactions with other sportspeople, but according to the aforementioned definition, positive and inspired rivalry is a core of all sports and victory is their purpose.
Applying the first criterion, it is necessary to state that beyond the traditional sports like tennis and gymnastics, there also exist activities, which need more mental capacities and can be also classified as sports. In addition, the NASCAR refers to the activity it promotes and develops (motor racing) as motor sports, and due to the fact that this association is national, it implies the conventional view on sports, approved by the experts in this sphere.
Secondly, NASCAR drivers really possess the necessary skills and abilities – otherwise they wouldn’t have been accepted by the association of the national level. Most of them have been training for many years and using professional race equipment in order to provide continuous growth of their skills.
Thirdly, the individuals, participating in NASCAR races, have managed to make the sport bring them money – this way of using the complex of sport skills can be considered beneficial. Nowadays, the NASCAR drivers are amongst the richest athletes in the country. Turning sports into one’s personal profitable work is a true art, so the NASCAR drivers have succeeded in utilizing their unique talent.
Fourthly, the NASCAR drivers participate in a variety of races amongst which the NEXTEL Cup, the Busch Series and the Truck Series. In order to have an idea about the level of these competitions, it would be useful to read about the NEXTEL, for instance: “The NASCAR NEXTEL Cup Series is the sport’s highest level of professional competition. It is consequently the most popular and most profitable NASCAR series.
The 2006 NEXTEL season consisted of 36 races over 10 months, with over $4 million in total prize money at stake at each race” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASCAR#NEXTEL_Cup, 2007). This mean, the NASCAR drivers belong to the so-called “high sports”, as they participate in the national competitions.
Finally, the NASCAR drivers observe the principles of fair competition. For instance, they “do not use performance-enhancing drugs” (McCormick, at http://nascar.about.com/od/drivers/a/nascarsteroids.htm, 2007) and tend to support the idea of the spirit of positive rivalry through following the rules of politeness and good tone in the relationships with other participants.
Criticizing this argument, one can state that NASCAR races are not actually a sport, but rather a show with minor elements of competition. In this case, the accents are placed inaptly , as these races are a true competition in all aspects, but the modern mass-media have turned into a show, broadcasted by numerous TV-channels. In reality, the NASCAR is interested in maintaining its reputation and thus deals merely with professional sport rather than amateur shows .
To sum up, the present paper successfully proves that NASCAR drivers are true athletes, as they meet the aforementioned criteria such as skillfulness, obedience to ethical codes, participation in racing and the corresponding competitions and use of their skills in the beneficial way  The paper thus illustrates that a true athlete should possess not merely skills, but also high intelligence, ability to negotiate and make career in the field of sports as well as satisfactory  inner moral culture.
Works cited
McCormick, S. “NASCAR Drivers Don’t Use Performance Enhancing Drugs”. 31 July 2007, <http://nascar.about.com/od/drivers/a/nascarsteroids.htm>
Wikipedia. “NASCAR”. 17 July 2007, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASCAR#NEXTEL_Cup>
Wikipedia. “Sport”. 4 October 2006, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport>
 
 
 
 
 
 

NASCAR drivers are true athletes

Calculate the Price

Approximately 250 words

Total price (USD) $: 10.99

Categories
Athletes

Social Networking and College Athletes

Social Networking and College Athletes.
Freedom of Speech in College Athletics Brent Schrotenboer argues that the reputation of colleges is more important than the views and opinions of a student-athlete that attends such colleges. Student-athletes participating on the women’s soccer team at San Diego State University were suspended for posting inappropriate pictures and statuses on a social networking site. They were warned by their coach that a punishment would be issued upon their continuance of posting such statuses about consuming alcoholic beverages and criticisms of the soccer program.
The students did not heed their coaches warning and were thus penalized for it. The student-athletes felt that the punishment violated their fundamental right of freedom of speech outlined in the Constitution. College administrators are desperately searching for a solution to this ongoing problem that allows anyone to access the postings of college students and athletes alike. Some colleges allow the discretion of college coaches to regulate their players’ social networking activities and others set regulations for all sports programs.
The total prevention of the use of social media by college athletes should not be implemented by college administrators because alternative solutions exist such as programs that aid coaches in controlling students’ social activities, social media is a valuable tool for student-athletes to connect with their fans and the world, and criticism is a fundamental right owned by any citizen of the United States.

As the issue of social networking in the college environment increases in difficulty, solutions to this debate have been researched, and one potential aid to coaches is the development of applications to help monitor student-athletes social media postings. Medcalf explains that Varsity Monitor is a firm that provides a computer application that allows schools to filter and identify problematic social media activity (“Policing”). Applications such as Varsity Monitor can greatly increase the power of coaches in regulating what their athletes post without encroaching on the right of freedom of speech.
These applications do not prevent the athletes from posting inappropriate statuses, yet they allow the coaches to filter the statuses and delete them if warranted. This does not take away the freedom of speech because once the posts are up anyone can see them, so the act of free speech is upheld. If the coaches do not want the statuses to be continued to be seen however, they have the ability to delete them at their own discretion.
The coaches should clearly include that the applications are being used in their code of conduct if one exists at the university or college so as to prevent discrepancies among players and coaches when the coaches use their application to delete a post. Social media is a very effective way for fans and peers of college athletes to connect with each other. It is also used to quickly convey news about the team or college from the players to the fans which is considered vitally important to the recipients of the news because they want to support their favorite team.
Bruce Feldman interviewed Matt Barkley, USC’s starting quarterback who frequently uses twitter, and he stated “It’s my own words, my own thoughts that are coming directly from me, they (the media) can’t twist your words, because that’s exactly what you wrote” (“Social-media”). The social networks allow the athletes to voice their own opinion that is not altered by the media because what they post is exactly in their own words and it is not relayed to the public by a separate news writer or analyst.
This is a valuable aspect of social networking to college athletes because it solidifies their right of freedom of speech, and it allows their true opinion to be relayed directly to their fans. This also means that student-athletes must take responsibility for their own posts, and be aware that a negative response from their fans and the public is a possible outcome in reaction to their posts. Criticism is an important factor included in the freedom of speech, and at times it can be very controversial.
College athletes must be aware of what they post and they must consider if they post criticism that it may be risky. College coaches around the nation agree that student-athletes can be immature, and it is their responsibility to guide their players in what they say and do when in the public light. Zain Motani writes that we acknowledge that athletic departments and universities need to protect their brand, but at what point does this monitoring become Big Brother like and overstep the boundaries of what is and is not okay? (“The Use of Social Media”).
Coaches should guide their players in what they say instead of over regulating their social networking policies in order to uphold the first amendment which includes the freedom of speech. Many colleges and universities agree that their reputations cannot be tainted under any circumstances and they will take any degree of action to prevent a scandal associated with their respected college. Many administrators have the opinion that the easiest way to prevent a scandal is to ban all social networking activity by student-athletes.
Another policy that is being enforced at universities is that the players are required to give their passwords to their coaches. These policies violate the freedom of speech because it completely prevents players from expressing their own opinions. In this regard, college athletes are just like any citizen of the United States, and preventing them from using social networking sites takes away their constitutional right. The ongoing debate between coaches and their student-athletes seems monumentally difficult to resolve.
Finding a solution that pleases both sides of the argument is a delicate procedure. New technologies should be researched that allow coaches and administrators to exercise their power of regulating what their athletes post without angering them. An application like Varsity Monitor can be implemented with improvements that give coaches the ability to monitor and regulate what their athletes post before they are submitted for the public to see unlike the present programs that only allow the deletion of already posted statuses and pictures.
However, the use of these applications must be aware to the athletes and explained in detail in order to prevent misunderstanding between the two parties. Coaches can include what applications they are using and how they are using them in their original code of conduct that is signed by both coach and athlete. This can entirely prevent the posting of inappropriate statuses and pictures by student-athletes for good.

Social Networking and College Athletes

Calculate the Price

Approximately 250 words

Total price (USD) $: 10.99

Categories
Athletes

Erythropoietin and Athletes

Erythropoietin and Athletes.
Erythropoietin and Athletes Steven D. Jackson Student, American Military University Abstract Erythropoietin (EPO) use as a performance enhancing agent in sport carries both significant and detrimental risks to go along with its suggested benefits. As such, it was banned by the International Olympic Committee in 1990. Shortly thereafter, successful and reliable testing methods have been developed to test athletes for its potential use.
Despite widespread knowledge of its potential adverse effects and the testing for its attempted use, EPO use remains substantial amongst endurance athletes of nearly all ages and disciplines, both professional and amateur. This paper will provide a history of EPO as a performance enhancing substance, explain its associated risks and perceived and actual benefits, attempt to analyze why athletes feel compelled to use it, and examine the sanctions, regulations, and weighty repercussions associated with its use. Erythropoietin and Athletes
In sport, there are a virtually limitless number of ways in which one can influence or positively impact physical or mental performance. These methods can come in the form of mechanical aids, pharmacological aids, physiological aids, nutritional aids, and psychological aids. Regardless of its source, any means by which one seeks to improve performance by enhancing the physiological capacity of a particular system of the body, removing psychological constraints which adversely affect performance, or by accelerating recovery from training or competition is called an ergogenic aid (MacKenzie, 2001).

These may include something as simple and innocuous as a healthy meal consumed the night prior to a competition, but seemingly, the ergogenic aids which athletes are turning to more increasingly are those that have been banned by organizations such as the World Anti-Doping Agency, the International Olympic Committee, and the like. Often, these substances have been banned because they not only represent perverse and unethical behavior, but also, as is the case for a substance like recombinant erythropoietin, because they can have serious adverse health effects for heir users. Over time, these substances have changed, but the desire to gain an unfair competitive advantage remains. Hematopoiesis is the process which involves the production of mature cells in the blood and in lymphoid organs. Mature erythrocytes, or red blood cells, have no nucleus, so they cannot reproduce in the traditional fashion as other cells can. Erythropoiesis, then, is the process by which erythrocytes are produced. Erythropoietin is a naturally occurring hormone found within the human body which controls this red blood cell production.
It is released by the kidneys, and to a lesser extent the liver, and in very little quantities in the brain in response to a negative feedback. The physiological stimulus of erythropoietin production is hypoxia, or prolonged oxygen deficiency in body tissue, and in the majority of instances is related to the number of circulating erythrocytes within the kidneys. At high altitudes, for example, where the pressure oxygen in the air is reduced, oxygen delivery to the body’s tissues initially decreases.
This drop in oxygen triggers the release of erythropoietin, which travels via the blood to the red bone marrow and stimulates red blood cell production (Shier, Butler, & Lewis, 2011). This is important to note, as this negative feedback of loss in oxygen is essentially no different than the body observing a loss in blood, which also necessitates the release of erythropoietin. In cases of hemolysis or hemorrhage, erythrocyte production will also increase rapidly and substantially for the body to attempt to accommodate for the amount of blood lost.
However, overproduction of erythrocytes does not occur, both in extreme hypoxic environments and even after the most severe loss of erythrocytes (Robinson, et al. , 2006). This balance is very important, because adequate oxygen delivery to tissues depends on having a sufficient number of red blood cells to transport oxygen. Decreases in their number or function can hinder oxygen delivery and thus affect exercise performance. Red blood cells serve a primary function of facilitating this transport of oxygen, which is bound to the hemoglobin found in red blood cells.
Hemoglobin contains iron, which binds oxygen. As such, the oxygen-carrying capacity of blood is determined by its hemoglobin content. Accordingly, when hemoglobin levels fall, exercise performance is subsequently impaired. Being familiar with this, athletes, trainers, and coaches often practice iron supplementation in an effort to prevent anemia and attempt to boost hemoglobin levels. However, this supplementation cannot boost the blood’s oxygen carrying capacity beyond that which is normal.
Consequently, doctors, trainers, and athletes have come up with various alternative means to try to boost blood’s oxygen-carrying capacity, and in turn boost performance (Mottram, 2011). In traditional medical settings, the need for a means to raise red blood cell counts in patients suffering from kidney failure in order to alleviate their extreme anemia, as they have so few red blood cells that they typically experience near-permanent exhaustion. The demand for a way to treat these kidney patients precipitated the development of synthesized erythropoietin.
There was no question that they needed red blood cells, and the proposition of providing them via erythropoietin seemed logically safer than the more natural and traditional repeated transfusions and dialysis. The same logic applied to the much larger number of people whose kidneys were weak or damaged, but not yet failing. Raising their red blood cell count, and subsequently their hemoglobin levels, up to a normal amount like the more attractive option, and it was only a matter of time before it could be discovered (Burch, 2011).
In 1985, the gene responsible for the synthesis of erythropoietin was successfully cloned for the first time. This synthesized erythropoietin is known as recombinant erythropoietin, and first became available in Europe in 1987 and was later patented by Amgen in 1989 (Mottram). With this development, it quickly became evident that recombinant erythropoietin would be used illegally as a performance enhancer in endurance sports. As such, the International Olympic Committee elected to ban this drug in 1990, even though all forms of blood doping had been officially banned since 1984 (Robinson, et al. ).
In its earliest clinical trials, recombinant erythropoietin proved very successful, and it was quickly put to use with patients requiring their hemoglobin be raised to normal levels. The trials showed the drug’s benefits outweighed its risks, but not by much. In 2005, researchers and kidney specialists concluded their trials ahead of schedule when they were stunned by what they found. After years of raising red blood cell counts in patients to normal healthy levels, which also raised their hematocrit—the proportion of red blood cells to total blood volume—doctors were not seeing decreased occurrences of troke, heart complications, and even death. These rates were actually increasing. Therein laid the problem with EPO use, especially in uncontrolled environments and when used by athletes (Burch). Before EPO’s adverse effects were widely known, and to a great extent even today, its proposed benefits led to its immediate abuse by endurance athletes. The first cases were reported in several newspapers within the four years after recombinant EPO appeared in Europe. These articles claimed a link between rumored EPO abuse and the deaths of 18 Belgian and Dutch cyclists.
This unfortunate wave seemed to roll on for some time, seemingly striking hardest amongst in the sport of cycling, and often resulting in death. For some time, cyclists publicly denied using EPO, but at the 1998 Tour de France, a masseuse for the Festina team was caught with EPO and several other banned drugs. The entire team and its staff were ejected from the Tour, and eventually seven of the nine Festina riders admitted to doping. Even the winner that year, Marco Pantani, was ejected the following year for signs of EPO use in an earlier drug test (Eichner, 2007).
Though the bulk of EPO use reported in the media comes from cycling, other sports are not free from it. Chinese runners, swimmers, and rowers, Russia’s top female cross-country skiers, Finland’s tops skiers, and Germany’s top runners all have been caught for suspected EPO use of some kind or another. Russian and American runners and sprinters, including American sprinter Kelli White, have been stripped of medals and handed bans for their admitted EPO use after failing drug tests.
Even Lance Armstrong—who has always denied any EPO use—has been suspected of illegal EPO use brought about by claims of his former teammates (Eichner). Perhaps the greatest contributing factor for the prevalence of continued illegal EPO use is in its difficulty of detection. While some athletes may think that they are using a drug for which there is no means of detection, which is not the case, others may simply know that EPO can be a very elusive drug to detect.
Early detection strategies for EPO use as a drug were limited to blood testing only. Though blood tests could confirm inconsistent hematocrit levels and other blood markers compared to base samples in athletes who may have been using EPO supplementation up to, and sometimes over, a week prior, or those that had been using EPO when they originally provided a base sample and had discontinued its use, a direct method for detection in urine had yet to be established.
Furthermore, early attempts at developing a urine test proved to be expensive, overly sensitive, and unreliable. Since blood doping had been common practice in some endurance sports for decades due to its clear performance advantages, it regrettably became even more attractive once recombinant EPO became available. Athletes have exploited these limitations of testing, particularly in sports that relied solely on urine specimen testing (Robinson, et al. . Successful urine testing had finally been developed and came into the picture in 2000. Serving as the only direct method of recombinant erythropoietin detection approved by the Court of Arbitration for sport, this method utilized electrophoretic techniques to separate the isoform profiles of recombinant and endogenous erythropoietin found in urine according to their isoelectric points (Diamanti-Kandarakis, et al. , 2005).
Not only could this newly approved testing mathematically and scientifically identify EPO use—or discontinuation of its use—but it could also isolate the various forms of forms of EPO, including erythropoietin alpha, beta, omega, and delta, as well as newer generations of EPO analogues like darbepoetin and mimetic peptides. The disadvantage of such an effective urine testing method, however, was that it discouraged athletes from recombinant EPO use. Athletes now fearful of getting caught moved back to using—or rather misusing—blood doping and transfusions in an attempt to raise hematocrit and hemoglobin levels.
For that reason, some international sports federations elected to limit their testing to either blood or urine. However, more recently the trend has been to attempt to keep their current testing procedures randomized (Robinson, et al. ). The risks of illegal EPO use remain high. Some athletes choose to supplement with EPO in smaller doses with the intent of limiting their potential exposure in drug tests, and, just as likely, with the expectation that this practice would be “safer. Regardless, the results of EPO use are largely unpredictable, and tests have revealed that hematocrit values in EPO users can greatly exceed what is considered the healthy or normal upper limit of 50 percent. Once the hormone has been put in the body, the athlete is at great risk for substantial increases in blood viscosity. This places the individual in danger of thrombosis, myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, hypertension, stroke, and pulmonary embolism. However, with the ever-increasing pressures to excel in competition, and the draw of larger rizes, purses, sponsorships, and notoriety in sport today it is not beyond reason as to why teams, athletes, trainers, and coaches would feel compelled to explore an option which may offer athletes a clinically documented six to eight percent increase in their VO2max and 13 to 17 percent increased time to exhaustion (Kenney, Wilmore, & Costill, 2012). Athletes who use banned EPO also risk disqualification from a particular competition, with the risk apparently greater if the athlete’s result is good, as the top-placing finishers in competitions almost certainly are subject to testing more and more frequently.
They can also be banned from their sport, typically for a minimum of a year, but potentially for life. In their quest for enhanced performance, athletes can easily get caught up in the hype surrounding these sorts of substances and the purported benefits they might bestow. Unfortunately, too many athletes are blinded by ambition and do not consider the consequences of their actions until their careers have become jeopardized or their health has been seriously affected.
Considering recent reports of even amateur athletes being dealt bans and imposed fines after testing positive for EPO use in events that are considered recreational, the need is definitely present for the likes of the World Anti-Doping Agency and the International Olympic Committee to take more aggressive and decisive action in the battle against doping and illegal drug use. The misuse of medical and biotechnological advancements to enhance athletic performance is an issue that will clearly not go away on its own.
It is imperative for sports federations to be able to collect blood samples from their competitors and institute a continuity system which keeps track of appropriate individual values. The appropriate way to fight blood doping and EPO use is to markers for each individual athlete to have a record of each marker and measure of their blood. In this way it will not be necessary to take into account complicating factors during testing and analysis such as sex, ethnic origin, and the kind of sport in which the athlete is participating.
With a system such as this, it would be possible to identify which athletes are manipulating their bodies based on their own set reference values and markers over time. This, combined random, unannounced testing is the only way currently possible to effectively mitigate doping. Even still, it is supremely difficult for sports organizations and control agencies in sport to stay ahead of the always sophisticated doping methods. Summary Erythropoietin and all of its forms were developed with the intent of rehabilitating and alleviating the extreme symptoms of kidney patients.
Their appeal is strong to competitive athletes, especially with more and more on the line each year. Despite their undeniable ability to enhance performance, EPO can cause serious negative health effects. In an era where performance-enhancing drug abuse is rampant across nearly all disciplines of sports despite rigorous legislation and testing throughout the world, it is necessary to understand the harmful effects of all substances when considering their use.
The undesirable effects of EPO use are virtually countless, but—and perhaps worse yet—the potential long-term effects of chronic use are not well known. References Burch, D. (2011). Blood sports. Natural History 119(6), 14-16. Diamanti-Kandarakis, E. , Konstantinopoulos, P. , Papiliou, J. , Kandarakis, S. , Andreopoulos, A. , Sykiotis, G. (2005). Erythropoietin abuse and erythropoietin gene doping. Sports Medicine, 35(10), 831-840. Eichner, E. (2007). Blood doping. Sports Medicine, 37(4/5), 389-391. Kenney, L. W. , Wilmore, J. H. , & Costill, D. L. (2012).
Physiology of sport and exercise (5th ed. ). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Mackenzie, B (2001). Ergogenic aids. Retrieved from http://www. brianmac. co. uk/ergoaids. htm Mottram, D. R. (2011) Drugs in sport (5th ed. ). New York: Routledge. Robinson, N. N. , Giraud, S. S. , Saudan, C. C, Baume, N. N. , Avois, L. L, Mangin, P. P. , & Saugy, M. M. (2006). Erythropoietin and blood doping. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 40, i30- i34. Shier, D. , Butler, J. , & Lewis, R. (2012). Hole’s essentials of human anatomy & physiology (11th ed. ). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill

Erythropoietin and Athletes

Calculate the Price

Approximately 250 words

Total price (USD) $: 10.99

Categories
Athletes

Stipends for College Athletes

Stipends for College Athletes.
It’s about time: Stipends for College Athletes Imagine being a college football star and finding out that a jersey representing your school with your name and number on the back is not only selling for $110 in stores nationally, but it is profiting higher than some professional sports jerseys. Now, imagine that you as that student-athlete will not be making a single penny off your institution using your name for monetary profit. Why you ask? Because according to the governing body of collegiate sports, the National Collegiate Athletic Association or NCAA, this would be considered an act that would bring an athlete out of his amateur status.
Yet, it is okay to exploit that athlete’s talents as if he or she were a professional athlete and not compensate him or her. The NCAA started off as a small organization whose first objective was to solve an injury crisis in college football. However, with a growing governing power came more change. In 1852, Collegiate competition or “sport” made its debut in the form of a regatta race between Harvard and Yale (“Intercollegiate History of NCAA” 1). Soon after came the establishment of baseball and collegiate football.
In the beginning, competition and funding was organized through student-run campaigns, and school officials had very little control over the intercollegiate sports movement. However, in 1905, after a number of deaths and serious injuries occurred to students playing collegiate football, a group of school officials were summoned together to make a Kastel 2 series of rules that would emphasize safety within the sport. Just five years later in 1910, this group became established and came to be known as the NCAA (“History of Intercollegiate Athletics” 1).

As the years progressed, the NCAA established sanctions not just for football but all sports. Most notably in 1950, the NCAA established that “Students could be awarded scholarships based on their athletic ability, but the funds had to be administered by the financial aid office, not the athletic department. The amount was limited to tuition and fees, and payments from sources outside the university (e. g. , alumni boosters) were banned. ” (qtd in “History of Intercollegiate Athletics” 2).
NCAA officials wanted to stress that there was a clear line that needed to be drawn between a student athlete’s main goal of pursuit towards higher education and the distracting blue elephant in the room of their college sports teams operating like that of a professional organization. Hence, the term “amateurism”. On amateurism, the NCAA stated that “student-athletes shall be amateurs … and should be protected from exploitation by professional and commercial enterprises,” ( “2011-12 NCAA Division I Manual” 1).
Although the original intentions of this bylaw were to make sure professionalism in sport didn’t deter athletes away from higher education, too much has changed within intercollegiate sports for the same standards to apply today. The NCAA’s goal was too make sure these young players continued along their famous “amateurism” tagline, but we see them featured as unstoppable super heroes throwing down monstrous one handed dunks or making bone crushing tackles in commercials advertising for games as if they were professionals. The very Kastel 3 rganization controlling college sports has in itself become the exploiter of athletes in its own commercial pursuits. With this exploitation comes a very large elephant in the room spraying water at the American public from its trunk. The huge discrepancy between the monetary value of a scholarship the NCAA provides players with and the actual profits it generates from the player’s efforts is astounding. Although the profit rapidly increases with college sports popularity, the benefits student athletes receive stay constant.
The largest financial rewards a student athlete can receive for their athletic contributions are the benefits of free room and board, tuition, and a food plan. If we take the cost of these factors over the student athletes’ time at their institution, compared to the hundreds of billions of dollars generated in revenue from the NCAA we see something similar to Nike and their illegal sweatshop industry. It’s time for change to take place, college athletes should be rewarded like the professionals in the NCAA and conferences across the country market them to be.
College athletes should receive stipends because there is a large discrepancy between what college athletes are worth and how much they are given, because athletic scholarships do not cover the full cost of living, and because the operation, money, and industry associated with college athletics is too great to still be titled “amateur”. The popularity of college sports and its value to entertainment is skyrocketing. The NCAA is the head organization in control of a hundred billion dollar industry.
The disgusting disparity arrives at the difference between what Kastel 4 college athletes are rewarded with and the actual revenues the NCAA is collecting. For this discrepancy college athletes need to be rewarded for their effort and should be given stipends. Television broadcasting contracts, shoe and apparel deals, and commercial advertising rake in billions of dollars for the NCAA because of the participation of college students in sports. Last year alone, the NCAA’s total revenue was $777 million.
Although the NCAA claims that 98 cents to every dollar is redistributed back into schools athletic programs for things like student services for athletes and athletic funding, it just so happens that there was a $29 million surplus which was claimed by the NCAA as “reserve” in 2010 (“Expenses vs. Revenue” 1). Apparently, saving up your change is beneficial. I never knew two-cent increments could lead to tens of millions of dollars. Such revenue comes from things like its newly acquired 14 year/$11 billion dollar deal with CBS-Turner over broadcasting rights for the NCAA tournament (O’Toole 1).
It is kind of like a major motion picture company producing one of the highest generating films in history and letting its actors know that they won’t be receiving a financial reward for their contributions, but the work experience they are receiving should suffice. In no other industry or job field in this country would such a compensation to revenue ratio be considered acceptable. They serve the title “amateurism” to American college athletes on a big plate of propaganda.
In 2008, the NCAA teamed up with IMG College to lease its rights out to video game king Electronic Arts, making games such as NCAA Football and NCAA Basketball using the likeness of players they sold over 2. 5 million copies (Branch 1). The student athletes that were featured on these games had their Kastel 5 numbers reflected accurately, their physical attributes like race, hair style, and even their athletic prowess such as their speed, strength, passing/blocking/catching abilities all accurately associated with their real abilities in order to ensure players of the video games could maneuver round the field like their favorite college superstar. There isn’t anything “amateur” about exploiting college student athlete’s likeliness in a video game for profit; the double standard is disgusting. However, the NCAA isn’t the only one caught with their arm elbow deep in the cookie jar. Such conferences such as the SEC, ACC, and the BIG 10 are generating billion dollar contracts for individual television networks while student-athletes are being kept in the dark for their contributions.
For instance, the SEC conference will be earning $55 million over 15 years from a CBS deal, and a 15 year deal with ESPN that cashes out to $150 million (“Winners and Losers” 1). Despite the players being the ones who are generating the audiences, none of these profits from the NCAA or the conferences are being returned back to the students directly. In fact, if we were to try to mathematically calculate the value of how much an athletes room and board fees come out to divided by the amount of time they actually put into being an athlete most are living just above, if not below, the poverty line.
For example, a recent study found Duke University basketball players based upon their generated revenue for the school to be worth $1,025,650 . Yet, after calculation (scholarship value / number of hours each puts in) they were found to be living just $732 above the poverty line (“Research-NCPA” 1). After being worth over one million dollars to their university, they are only rewarded approximately a $200,000 education. Kastel 6 Current college athletes and those from the past are starting to realize this exploitation more and more especially as profit from television deals and sponsorships become more lucrative.
Almost every month the American public is presented with a new story of how a college athlete unfairly received either a monetary reward or a free service because of his athletic talents. We get mad at the young athletes and criticize them for such actions but can we really blame them? They are superstars generating attention, money, and huge popularity to their institutions and they aren’t receiving anything different than the kid slapping together the cymbals after every touchdown.
College athletes are taking gifts and money because they are becoming aware of the NCAA’s exploitation and on top of that most of their scholarships don’t even cover their full cost of living. In the perfect world, when watching our favorite college athletes on TV we like to imagine that they came from strong households with parents who paid for their training and had all the opportunities to be successful. We would like to think the tattooed face of a little girl on our favorite college point guard’s arm is just his little sister not his daughter who he thinks about trying to send enough money too every week.
Fact of the matter is, college athletes across the country have a variety of circumstances that consume any opportunities for extra money. Things like coming from broken home families, having children at home, or coming from a low economic neighborhoods cause many student athletes to stress over where their next dollar could come from. Things like clothes, gas, toiletries, amenities, fun activities, extra food for the room, or a meal away from dining hall are all things that Kastel 7 are essential to have money for in college.
However, college athletes can only be awarded a scholarship. It bewilders America when we hear of cases of college athletes accepting sums of money under the table in what is becoming an increasingly large black market. However, this happens all the time. We only hear about the ones who get caught. Yet, the players aren’t the ones to blame. According to a study conducted by Drexel University Department of Sport Management, the average scholarship shortfall, or what the average student athlete had to spend out of his own pocket in 2010-11, was approximately $3,222 (“Research-NCPA” 2).
When the scholarships we have don’t cover the student-athletes full cost of living how do we expect them to be able to pay for the necessities of living? If a player has been out of gas for three weeks and is out of toiletries can we really blame him from accepting cash in a handshake from a booster? College athletes’ time is consumed by their sports. According to a survey conducted with 21,000 Division I, II, and III athletes, “Football players in the NCAA’s Division I Bowl Subdivision (formerly known as Division I-A) said they spent an average of 44. hours a week on their sport — playing games, practicing, training and in the training room — compared with a little less than 40 hours on academics” (qtd. in Wieberg 1). This staggering statistic reveals that college athletes are actually spending more of their time on their sport then their actual school work. It is even more staggering when the NCAA’s bylaw requires that student athletes only spend 20 hours a week on their sport. With these types of time commitments and dedication to their sports, college athletes don’t have time to have a job. This dilemma intensifies the problem of Kastel 8 aving a scholarship shortfall. If there are necessary things to pay for and athletes don’t have the necessary time to work where is the money supposed to come from? College athletes should receive a stipend of $2,500 a semester to ensure that any necessary cost outside of their scholarship can be covered. By introducing this stipend the number of NCAA infractions relating to athletes taking money will dramatically decrease due to the fact that they won’t need to anymore. One might say that this would anger regular students who do not receive such benefits.
However, according to one statistical survey taken by 458 college students, 58% of them believed that college athletes deserved to receive stipends (“College Students Perceptions” 1). This study demonstrates that not only would regular students not be upset by college athletes receiving the reward they deserve, but in fact they recognize the need for it. By offering something to college athletes (scholarship) which still requires them to spend such a large sum out of their own pockets we are basically tempting them to fall into the illegal activities of the black market and potentially jeopardize their academic futures.
Stipends must be rewarded and reform is necessary now. The NCAA cannot expect a player with a hungry child at home to refuse money from a booster, just as it cannot place the term “amateurism” around an industry it exploited to be so focused around money. The NCAA suggests that if we were to provide college student athletes with stipends it would take away the “wholeness” that college sports still represent by replacing their “amateur” title with that of “professionalism”. However, college sports which once symbolized the unselfish competitive spirit of America and were Kastel 9 nce run by student led organizations with no influence from school officials or corrupt institutions have already become a capital venture. This is not because of the introduction of a stipend reward system, but rather because the money, operation, and industry the NCAA created around college sports has made it too professional in its financial pursuits to be considered “amateur”. The term “amateurism” is no longer fit to represent college sports but rather a propaganda add by the NCAA to allow them to continue their exploitive efforts.
One of the largest indications of the pursuit of this commercial enterprise is the unbelievable amount of money that college coaches are being paid. In 2010, Alabama coach Nick Saban committed to a contract that would pay him $4 million dollars a season (Low 1). Most FBS Division 1 institutions athletic departments have a hard time generating any profit at all, but the NCAA allows schools to present astonishing contracts to coaches in order to point their team in the right direction. Yet, the NCAA sees a student athlete receiving a small stipend more of a venture towards professionalism than this?
Another indication that college sports can no longer be placed under the “amateur” title is apparent in the evolution of college stadiums. Today the illustration of a new corporate sponsorship is apparent in almost every stadium with things like “Ohio State University’s new $105 million Schottenstein Center, 110 luxury boxes at Neyland Stadium (University of Tennessee), and the University of Michigan spending $7. 4 million to renovate Michigan Stadium” (qtd. in “College Student’s Perceptions” 2). The NCAA isn’t keeping the industry around college sports simple with basic venues and humble salaries for their coaches.
Instead they Kastel 10 create something that is slowing resembling that of professional sports environments. For these exploitations the NCAA can no longer hold college athletics today to a standard of remaining “amateurism”. The industry surrounding it has far surpassed that point and it is time we reward our college athletes like the professionals we market them to be. Many people argue that even if the NCAA does come to its senses and passes a law regulating stipends for Division I institutions, Title IX implications would make it almost impossible to implement stipends.
Those critics argue that if stipends were approved, Title IX would then regulate all student athletes at the school to receive stipends due to equal opportunity. The sum of money required to be able to provide every student athlete with this, critics say, would be impossible for even successful athletic departments to afford. It is correct that such a reward would be possible for schools to afford. Stipends should only be given to the top three sports that are generating the most revenue. It would create more of an incentive for programs to be successful, and it would reward student athletes of the teams who were having the greatest success.
Title IX cannot be applied to the stipend system because it is outdated and needs to be reformed. Title IX was originally created for the racial movement in order to encourage what, at that time, was a change that needed to be enforced (“In Defense” 1). Today, many schools athletic departments actually lose money by trying to comply with the outdated law. In order to equally match the number of guy to girl scholarships a university might be forced to eliminate a men’s revenue generating sport such as hockey and instead Kastel 11 add a women’s sport that loses money ( “In Defense” 2).
Title IX is outdated and if a stipend system is established, the top 3 revenue generating teams should receive a stipend. Whether the NCAA wants to accept it or not, their exploitive actions in pursuit of commercial profit have eliminated any sense of college sports today seeming “amateur”. Because of this exploitation it is time for college student athletes to finally receive the proper reward they have deserved for a good amount of time. College athletes should receive stipends because there is a large discrepancy between what college athletes are worth and how much they are given.
This is because athletic scholarships do not cover the full cost of living, and also because the operation, money, and industry associated with college athletics is too great to still be titled “amateur”. By affording these stipends to college athletes, maybe just maybe, when that athlete walks into the store and sees that jersey with his name on the back he might be financially secure enough with his living expenses to be able to purchase it. Works Cited “2011-2012 NCAA Division I Manual (August 2011). ” NCAA Manual. NCAA. org. Web. 09 Nov. 2011. Branch, Taylor. The Shame of College Sports – Magazine – The Atlantic. ” The Atlantic — News and Analysis on Politics, Business, Culture, Technology, National, International, and Life – TheAtlantic. com. Web. 19 Nov. 2011. “College Students’ Perceptions On The Payment Of Intercollegiate Student-Athletes – Statistical Data Included – Page 2 | College Student Journal. ” Find Articles | News Articles, Magazine Back Issues & Reference Articles on All Topics. Web. 19 Nov. 2011. “History of Intercollegiate Athletics and the NCAA. ” World Scientific Publishing Co. , 12 May 2009.
Web. “In Defense of Collegiate Athletics: The Case Against Paying Student-Athletes – Garnet And Black Attack. ” Garnet And Black Attack – For South Carolina Gamecocks Fans. Web. 19 Nov. 2011. “Intercollegiate History of the NCAA. ” NCAA Public Home Page NCAA. org. Web. 09 Nov. 2011. Low, Chris. “Nick Saban Commits to Alabama Crimson Tide through 2017 Season – ESPN. ” ESPN: The Worldwide Leader In Sports. Web. 19 Nov. 2011. O’Toole, Thomas. “NCAA Reaches 14-year Deal with CBS/Turner for Men’s Basketball Tournament, Which Expands to 68 Teams for Now. News, Travel, Weather, Entertainment, Sports, Technology, U. S. & World – USATODAY. com. Web. 17 Nov. 2011. “Research | National College Players Association. ” Home | National College Players Association. Web. 18 Nov. 2011. “Revenue Vs. Expenses. ” NCAA Public Home Page – NCAA. org. Web. 17 Nov. 2011. Wieberg, Steve. “Study: College Athletes Are Full-time Workers – USATODAY. com. ” News, Travel, Weather, Entertainment, Sports, Technology, U. S. & World – USATODAY. com. Web. 19 Nov. 2011. “Winners and Losers In SEC TV Deal. ” College Gridiron 365. Web. 17 Nov. 2011.

Stipends for College Athletes

Calculate the Price

Approximately 250 words

Total price (USD) $: 10.99

Categories
Athletes

Should College Athletes Be Paid

Should College Athletes Be Paid.
Samuel Wingert Professor Grimm ENG100G Midterm Research Paper 18 October 2012 Collegiate Level “Pay to play? That’s the question being fiercely debated on campuses and across the college conferences. And it’s shocking to see the level of support the answer “yes” is getting—because the idea tears at the very nature of amateur college sports” (Should). There are views from both sides as this is quite the controversial subject in the sporting world. Looking at the facts, it is difficult to decide either way. First off, we must decide what qualifies under the pay to play category.
There are numerous ways that college athletes can be compensated for their time dedicated to the sport. They consist of scholarships, free tuition, fees, and room and board. “Athletes on scholarship currently receive tuition, fees, room, board, and books—costs that can exceed $30,000 to $50,000 a year at many schools. Last October, the NCAA agreed to let college conferences decide whether to pay student athletes an additional $2,000 annual stipend to more closely match the total cost of attendance” (Should). Some of the student athletes that attend college come from poor environments.
The athlete and their family cannot offer the money to get them through the hard times of making college payments. “Collegiate athletes deserve to be paid. The scholarships that they receive cover school-related expenses. They cover books, tuition, and room and board. These scholarships allow athletes to attend class, eat, and sleep on campus for free. What they don’t do is give the players money. Many NCAA athletes come from disadvantaged backgrounds, where their families can’t afford to give them money. ” (Solution). Also, is it right to compensate college athletes for their hard work? What if people in the business of money took $1. 3 billion off the top, invested it, sheltered it and made it available to provide a stipend to college athletes, how could anybody stand on principal and argue against paying the people who make the events possible in the first place? ” (Michael). After all, they are part of the reason for the revenue that the organization receives. “Those who advocate payment argue that because colleges make lots of money through their football and basketball programs, student athletes are being exploited if they don’t get a piece of the revenue pie.

Recently more than 300 athletes petitioned the NCAA and college presidents for a cut of the estimated $775 million generated by televising college sports” (Should). For the amount of work that athletes put in, whether it is on the field or off, they deserve much more than just tuition and room and board. This could raise another question. What will it do to the recruiting process? Will it make the universities more vulnerable to negotiations? “As the have-nots compete with the haves, coaches would feel even more pressure to win, and recruiting violations would only increase.
Speaking of coaches, the University of South Carolina’s Steve Spurrier believes that each of his 70 football players should receive $300 per game. He says that he and several other Southeast Conference coaches feel so strongly about it that they’re willing to pay it themselves” (Should). Paying players may result in the decrease of interest in division two, three, and private universities. The institutions with a larger budget can attract the better athletic recruits. Looking at the pros and cons of paying college athletes, we could lean either way. According to Title IX, a federally mandated law, if conferences and schools decide to increase the value of student-athlete scholarships to cover living expenses, they have to do it for women’s programs as well. This means that schools would have to, for example, increase the value of women’s volleyball and softball scholarships as well. Schools have to stay in-accordance with Title IX, otherwise they’re risking their federal funding” (Pros and Cons). It can become very sticky when you have to incorporate federal laws into the equation.
Another thing that can raise the eyebrow when dissecting the cons of paying players is what sporting teams are getting paid. To be fair to the whole university, you would think that they should pay all varsity sports teams. “Let’s be real here; men’s football and basketball teams are usually the programs that make the most money for universities, so if football players and basketball players got paid, does that mean that the men’s lacrosse and baseball players would get paid too? ” (Pros and Cons). What happens when college athletes decide to make themselves eligible for the professional league before they graduate?
This could cause a wrinkle in the system if you create a contract. Will it be able to broken or does the athlete have to stay all four years? The big factor that all athletes fear is the risk of injury. Some feel that players should have some sort of compensation while injured. Is it worth the college spending money on an athlete who may not play up to his ability since becoming hurt? A Nebraska state senator who is a longtime supporter of providing stipends to college athletes submitted a bill in 2003 to allow players of Nebraska’s football team to be paid.
He stated that they are unpaid workers who just aren’t amateurs. They call it a scholarship but he wanted to see the athletes to have some spendable money. An Oklahoma university football player said that he plays for one of the top football schools in the country and is struggling to get groceries every month. (USA). Even players agree that it is tough to juggle life with their sports. They feel that for the effort that they put in, an award of some sort should be sent their way. Any kind of non-revenue sport would have to be cut because there would not be sufficient funds to pay their players.
This could cause the amount of athletes enrolling in the college to decrease, mainly because of the less diversity that the school provides. “The NCAA historically has been against pay for play. I couldn’t agree more with that position. If you start paying student-athletes (other than assisting them through financial aid), you essentially ruin the integrity of the college game. ” (USA) If we incorporate too much money, the players may become greedy and ask for more and more money. College sports may even become a democracy. The best thing about college sports is the passion. You’re playing for the love of the game, not because you’re getting paid. If money started getting involved, I worry that college sports could be corrupted. I like things the way they are now. ” (USA). What happens to those students that aren’t athletes? It would seem as though they would want something as well. Do they deserve to be paid to play in the college’s band or as part of the art club? After all, they are all going to college for the same reason; to further their education. Paying a player will create a jealousy factor among students who are not athletes and then you have to figure in what athletes get paid because it would be difficult to pay every athlete because most schools have a multitude of different sports. Then do you pay the upperclassmen only? ” (College). An example of this issue happened a few years ago at Mississippi State University. It was plastered all over ESPN and Sportscenter for weeks. It dealt with their football team and ultimately the quarterback Cam Newton. It was believed that he accepted a sum of money from the university to transfer from Florida University.
They did this in hopes of improving their team with Newton’s experience and leadership skills. Cam Newton turned down the money and signed with Auburn. “On Dec. 31, 2009, Newton publicly committed to Auburn, where this season he has led the Tigers to a 9-0 record and No. 2 ranking in the BCS standings. Along the way, Newton’s dazzling running and passing have elevated him to Heisman Trophy favorite status. ” (Cash). Not only did Newton lead his team to the national championship, he was elected as the first pick in the NFL draft. He plays for the Carolina Panthers and was a candidate for Rookie of the Year.
All of this would not have been possible if he chose the large sum of money. “If educational institutions pay their players, the gap between major division one schools, whose athletic programs can afford the large salaries and tremendous benefits that the very best athletes demand, and mid-major teams who simply cannot compete in that arena will only widen. It is not a huge leap to imagine that Stanford would be able to pay exorbitant amounts of money to get the best athletes to play, while its competitors could not possibly match Stanford’s financial advantage in recruitment. Many of the small school would become overpowered and almost non-existent. (Should College). College presidents and fans have fears of pay for play as well. In a pole to college sports fans, most of them fear that with payment come endorsements. This could be similar to the scholarship money because it motivates the student athlete to compete to their best in the sporting world. This brings up the question of whether the players will focus enough on their books and schoolwork or just sports. “A few years ago, Nike could sell a Duke number four jersey for $80 and J. J. Redick didn’t see one dime.
That was and is unfair. The NCAA should come down firmly against student pay but firmly on the side of students who have become profitable marketing tools for corporations to gain their fair share of the spoils. ” (Should College). The NCAA’s purpose is “To govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable, and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student athlete is paramount. ” These boil down to colleges’ jobs are to protect their student athletes, make sure they have the best college experience, and keep the playing field level. Solution). College athletes work hard in the classroom and on their respective field. They should not have the distraction of pay to play hanging over their head. “Basically the student-athletes are allowed to use what the school gives them, and nothing else. These people are expected sacrifice their bodies for their schools for anywhere between 1-4 years, and they are only allowed to use what their institution gives them to get by. ” (Solution). Pay for play will always be a controversial subject and it is up to the NCAA, colleges, and university to sort over.
Student athletes should be able to excel regardless of the paycheck. Works Cited “Cash Sought for CamA Newton. ” ESPN. com. N. p. , n. d. Web. 17 Oct. 2012. <http://sports. espn. go. com/ncf/news/story? id=5765214>. “College Football. ” Bleacher Report. N. p. , n. d. Web. 17 Oct. 2012. <http://bleacherreport. com/articles/405726-paid-for-plays-shoud-college-athletes-get-paid>. |, Michael Wilbon. “College Athletes Deserve to Be paid. ” ESPN. ESPN Internet Ventures, n. d. Web. 17 Oct. 2012. <http://espn. go. om/college-sports/story/_/id/6778847/college-athletes-deserve-paid>. “Should College Athletes Be Paid? Pros and Cons of Each Perspective Part 1. ” Get2TheLeague. com. N. p. , n. d. Web. 17 Oct. 2012. <http://www. get2theleague. com/should-college-athletes-be-paid-pros-and-cons-of-each-perspective/>. “Should College Athletes Be Paid to Play? One Fan Weighs In. ” PARADE. com. N. p. , n. d. Web. 17 Oct. 2012. <http://www. parade. com/news/all-america/2012/should-college-athletes-be-paid-to-play. html>. “Should College Athletes Get Paid? ” Should College Athletes Get

Should College Athletes Be Paid

Calculate the Price

Approximately 250 words

Total price (USD) $: 10.99

Categories
Athletes

Disabled Athletes

Disabled Athletes.
Karen defines disability as persons who have disabilities or individuals with a physical impairment. These people have entered into the sport world and various terms have been used to describe them in bid to describe sports designed for people with disabilities. However, according to Karen this term does not fully describe entity of sports in which athletes with disabilities can be found. Sport in this context adopts a broader meaning including all individuals with disabilities and hence disability sport focusing more on the competitive sport and athletes with disabilities.
This includes goal ball for blind athletes, wheelchair basketball for athletes with physical impairment who use wheelchair, or sitting volleyball for athletes with lower-limb impairments. Disability sport also includes athletics, swimming, volleyball that have been adopted to include athletes with disabilities. Deaf sport is often considered a separate entity from disability sport, but has become included within the context of disability sport. In the past, sport was only accessible to few and many people were locked outside the sporting arena.
These included women, members of ethnic minorities, and persons with disabilities, due to culture, gender, ethnicity, and class or disability affiliation. Due to these stereotypes, persons with disabilities were marginalized and had limited participation in social issues. They had been secluded and disenfranchised and there has been extremely inclusion and acceptance in the sport arena. There was a perception that people with disabilities were weak or physically impaired hence could not participate in sports.

Such treatment was also extended to women as gender and also women with disabilities. The medical restrictions also played part in excluding persons with disabilities form participating in sports. These were also due to the attitude of doctors’ and lack of knowledge. This has decreased and there is now more research done, appreciation of the abilities of such people as socialization with other members of society increases. There has been a tendency by the society to reject or discourage youth with disability to deviate from the social role or expectations such as just watching to play.
This denies such youths the opportunity to develop appropriate sport behavior early in life. There has also been mixed attitudes toward people with disabilities participating in sports. This perceived frailty, weakness, experience resulting from defeat, has discouraged such people from competing. At the same time, disability sport ahs been viewed as lower sporting activity and not a legitimate sport. Less public recognition, awards, opportunities and media attention ahs not been given to this sport.
However, there is little emerging integrated participation in sporting events. Main barriers to inclusion in sports have been the society’s attitude towards individuals with disabilities due to myths, categorizing and hence grouping people, stereotyping, common misconceptions that persons with disabilities could not perform certain sports, lack of organized sport programmes, lack of informal early experiences in sport, lack of coaching and training, limited access to sport facilities and limiting psychological and sociological factors.
However, some of these barriers have been reduced through increasing number of role models for aspiring athletes with disabilities, increasing visibility if disability sport resulting to more sport opportunities, community-based recreational and sport prograsmmes for people with disabilities have increased though they are not sufficient in tapping the potential and the population of individual with disabilities, there is an increased number of trained professionals and physical educators to train people with disabilities.
Physical and attitudinal barriers initially limited athletes with disabilities from meaningful participation in sports. Despite the much progress and greater opportunity today for athletes with disability, economic, psychological and social barriers remain. Disability sport has made its mark upon society and individuals with disabilities have become recognized as athletes for their achievements and accomplishments in sports. Legislative framework ahs also made disability sport more accessible.
Nowadays physical and competitive sport has become viable opportunities for individuals with disabilities. It is clear that the disability sport is taking root and being assimilated in the social values. The past discrimination has decreased in such magnitudes. Milestones have been achieved even incorporation into the Olympics. However, major challenges still face this sport. The perception of the people having disabilities should change so as not to view themselves as lesser members of the society.
The nature of posing as passive recipients of the reformation process needs to be changed to active participation and pro-activeness in bring more changes within this sector. Competitive sport has not been fully integrated in the developing countries which sill struggle with organizational structures and poverty has not paid much attention to disability sport. It is therefore critical that processes that lead to poverty be addressed by capacity building of the disability groups through funding, education and training.
Karen observes that persons with disabilities have participated and won both in the able-bodied arenas and also in the disability sports. This shows great potential among those with disabilities of kind. This potential ought to be tapped and exploited at national and global level through integrated forums like intercontinental sports. At the same time the disability sport is bound to grow as more recognition is given and also may reduce as it sis being integrated into mainstream sport.

Disabled Athletes

Calculate the Price

Approximately 250 words

Total price (USD) $: 10.99

Categories
Athletes

Athletes Are Not Above the Law

Athletes Are Not Above the Law.
Should any athlete be judged on what kind of person he or she is on or off the field, court, or swimming pool? The answer is yes, athletes should be punished for actions which occur in their own personal lives. In today’s world, sport stars and other athletes are looked up to by all ages. Everyone loves them. They look great in the eyes of the everyday public. They appear on television; they perform like rock stars, and do this with the entire world watching.
But do athletes’ responsibilities affect only his or her performance on the field of play or does it also extend to his personal life as well? There are many who claim that it is wrong for a sophisticated society to force a set of behavior expectations on people who just happen to do extremely well in sports. “I am not a role model” (I’m Not a, par 1). That statement was said by former National Basketball Association (NBA) player Charles Barkeley. Some other players agree with him, in the fact, they do not and don’t expect to be considered role models (I’m Not a, par. 1).
But the truth is, whether they like it or not, they are role models to many young fans who watch their every move on and off the field, and models their lives after how their favorite player does. Athletes should be judged on their actions off the field. First, they are role models to millions of young fans. Secondly, athletes are not above the law and should not be treated that way. Finally, they are representatives of their team, school, sport, and countries. First of all, athletes should be judge for their actions off the playing field because they are the role models of millions of young fans.

Great athletes are always in the eye of the public and media, and their actions are seen both on and off the field, sometimes even when they think nobody is watching such as Olympic Gold Medalist and swimming phenomenon, Michael Phelps. Phelps is looked at as a national hero for is world record breaking efforts in the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games, and a role model to millions of young kids all over the world. Recently, he was caught in a photograph smoking marijuana.
In our exclusive photo Michael Phelps, who won a record EIGHT gold medals for swimming at the Beijing games last summer, draws from a bong”(Dickenson). Even though, Phelps thought he was in a trusted environment, and the photographer showed a severe lack of class in taking the photograph, just for a little cash. Phelps was seen by millions of people and the young fans who adore him and should be punished for is illegal actions not only by the law but in his sport, as well, because of his responsibility as a role model in the eyes of his young fans.
Because of his of his great accomplishment and the affect it brought upon his young fans to model their lives after Phelps, what will his fans say when they are offered to smoke marijuana? “I saw Michael Phelps do it, so it cannot be that bad,” and make a wrong decision because of the actions of their hero. Athletes should be accounted for their actions of the playing fields because the negative influence they could put in the hands of their young fans. Secondly, athletes are not above the law, and should be monitored on and off the field.
There are no double standard rules for athletes when they are in trouble with the law. They are regular human beings, such as you and I, and we should all be treated equally in the court of law: They are not above the law, and it’s at least satisfying to see them pay the consequences as well (some of the time) like the regular folk. But, even if they are drunk or sober, should we at least expect some decent conduct in their spare time. These guys are doing what some of us hope or used to hope, happen to us. That is to get the opportunity to make a great salary doing something we love for a portion of the year! I’m Not a, par. 5)
Athletes are not superior to the rest of us; they are just as prone to the consequences of the law as you or me. Athletes are not above the law, and should not be treated that way. They are just regular people like everyone else, they just have this lime light over their head twenty-four-seven. Finally, athletes represent their teams, schools, sports, and countries with every action they make on and off the field. When wearing the colors of their school or country while doing an unlawful act, it will give that rganization a bad reputation of leniency and not being a serious institution.
“Two 20-year-old Duke University lacrosse players were arrested early Tuesday on charges of raping and kidnapping a stripper hired to dance at an off-campus party”(Duke Lacrosse Players, par. 1). Even though, the accusations were false and later dropped; the scandal forced the coach to resign, brought shame upon the university and the team’s season to an early end. Therefore, athletes are ambassadors of their teams, schools, sports and countries and they represent them on and off the field.
Athletes are role models to millions of young fans. Secondly, athletes are not above the law and should not be treated that way. Finally, they are representatives of their teams, schools, sports, and countries. For those reasons, athletes should be judged for their actions off the field. Great competitors are always in the eye of the media, and decisions could affect the lives of their fans, team members, coaches, and clubs. So they should strive to not be only outstanding athletes on the field, but outstanding citizens off the field.
Work Cited
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5348321

Athletes Are Not Above the Law

Calculate the Price

Approximately 250 words

Total price (USD) $: 10.99

Categories
Athletes

Paying Division One Athletes

Paying Division One Athletes.
ENG 100P April 12, 2013 Pay to Play: Should Division One College Athletes be Paid? Every year division one college athletes put everything they have on the line during practice everyday and make hundreds of millions of dollars for their schools and the NCAA every year. These athletes aren’t just playing for the love of the game anymore once they reach the division one level, it turns into more of a job than an activity. The players spend hours every single day dedicating almost all of their time to the sport they play.
These athletes work just as long and much harder than your average person working a nine to five job, so why don’t the athletes get paid for their commitments to their teams? Last year the NCAA made 871. 6 million dollars from division one sports. The average division one men’s football team brings in 15. 8 million dollars to their school each year. The amount of money that these sports make for their school is so high; the players should get some kind of reward for all they do for their schools.
The old rules that say college athletes cant be paid in any way needs to change, division one college athletes deserve to be paid for all they do for the NCAA and their schools. Growing up every athlete’s dreams of playing in that national championship game for their dream school and scoring the winning touchdown or overtime goal. As a child you don’t realize that commitment it takes to be part of a division one athletic team. Coming from a big lacrosse and football town, my friends and I have gone through the division one recruiting process and know how hard it is to play a division one sport.

Many of my former teammates play division one lacrosse and after talking to them I realized really how tough it is to play a division one sport. When asked about how lacrosse at Sacred Heart University was going, Freshman Spencer Hackett said; “ I’ve grown up with lacrosse and I love the sport very much, but division one is so much more then I thought it would be. Everyday I have two practices that last at least two hour, then after that I have mandatory lift and film sessions. Spencer dedicates at least six hours every day for his team, and they’re one of the lowest ranked teams in division one, I can only imagine the commitment it takes to play on a high ranked team. In my personal experience of going through the division one recruiting process, I saw how much blood; sweat and tears go into being a division one athlete. On my overnight visit at University of Massachusetts, which is a top 20 team, most of my day was watching the team practice, or lift, or watch film.
It seemed like everything they did was revolved around lacrosse and to me that’s not what college is about. These division one athletes have such little time to socialize and make friends outside of their sports; everything they do is revolved around their sports. The fact that athletes willingly dedicate so much time to their sports is a huge reason why they should be paid. Division one athletics, especially sports such as football and basketball, are extremely profitable for the NCAA and for their schools. According to NCAA. org, the NCAA’s revenue for the 2011-2012 athletic seasons was 871. million dollars. The NCAA makes an extremely large amount of money from division athletics, with most of the money coming from television contracts and championships such as March Madness. Schools such as Texas make hundreds of millions of dollars because of their excellence in many sports, last year their football team profited $68,830,484. A lot of the money schools make, such as Texas, is from selling merchandise. Big name schools sell tons of merchandise to the public; selling products such as jerseys should be illegal if they players don’t get paid.
Why could they sell jerseys with players number on them but that player doesn’t get compensated for using their number on the jersey? Robert and Amy McCormick of Michigan State University have added a new dimension to the long debate over paying athletes by arguing they are “employees” under federal labor laws and entitled to form unions and negotiate wages, hours and working conditions. ” Robert McCormick was the former attorney for the Nation Labor Relations Board and if he is saying that these players are employees, it’s about time that the NCAA recognizes them as employees also.
A common argument against paying college athletes is that they won’t compete as hard because it won’t be the same as when they weren’t getting paid, but that argument has absolutely nothing to do with paying players. If anything, paying the players would make them work harder so that they could make more money! I believe that the best way to go about paying these players would be contracts, just like the professional athletes and like any other employee in the United States.
These contracts would go on to say that the players would be paid an amount depending on their contribution to the team and that students would need to finish their schooling so that they have a backup plan. That is why you’re supposed to go to college in the first place, isn’t it? So that you can get a good education! To do this the NCAA would need the support from the professional sport teams and not draft players who haven’t graduated college yet. Another argument why players shouldn’t be paid to play is because they students-athletes and that there is a reason student becomes before athletes.
Realistically, these young men and women aren’t student-athletes at all. Many of the players on division one team would never have gotten into college if it weren’t for sports. Also, if they are student-athletes then where do they find the time to do their schoolwork when they have practice, film, lifting, running etc. all day? The only reason many athletes go to college is so that they can get looks from the pros. If they are student-athletes then why do many of them leave college after a year or two to play professional sport?
It’s because college is just a stepping-stone to them, they don’t care about the school aspect. When it comes to division one athletes, they are athletes first and students second. The players know it, the coaches know it, the fans know it, the only people who don’t know it are the people who make up the NCAA. In conclusion, times have changed and it’s time to pay division one athletes for their commitment and for the money they bring in for the schools and the NCAA. With college athletics competition being so tough now and so competitive, players have to dedicate so much more time to their sports then in the past.
College athletics are not longer a sport that players do for fun, college athletics are now a job for the players that consists of hours of practice everyday and throwing your social life out for your sports college athletics make hundreds of millions of dollars for the NCAA and tens of millions of dollars for the schools, so why is it that these players don’t get compensated for their commitment and contribution to the schools and the NCAA? I personally believe that it is ridiculous that players don’t get paid anymore.
One of my best friends Dylan Baumgardner, a lacrosse player at Quinnipiac University said it perfectly when asked if he still loved playing lacrosse, “ I don’t play lacrosse anymore, I go to class, then I go to work all day, then I go to sleep. ” Joe Nocera of the New York Times, came up with a plan for college athletics that would make college athletics work like professional sports with signing bonuses, salary caps, insurance, player unions and it would even offer additional scholarships to players who want to further their education. This plan will go into consideration in 2014.

Paying Division One Athletes

Calculate the Price

Approximately 250 words

Total price (USD) $: 10.99