Eliminate Hack-a-Shaq?

     Over the past few weeks the NBA has seen a surge in intentional fouls on poor free-throw shooters, particularly the Clippers’ DeAndre Jordan and Rocket’s Josh Smith and Joey Dorsey.  In the last couple of seasons, the league has also seen players such as Dwight Howard, Andre Drummond, Omer Asik, and Rajon Rondo be fouled due to their poor performance at the charity stripe.  This strategy is far from new, previously being used against Hall-of-Famers Wilt Chamberlain, Dennis Rodman, and Shaquille O’Neal, it’s frequent use against the latter giving the strategy its nickname, “Hack-a-Shaq.”  However, there has been a recent surge in support of instituting NBA rule changes to prevent the practice.  NBA Commissioner Adam Silver recently stated that there would be serious talks at upcoming league meetings about potentially eliminating the strategy from the game.  Despite what others might think, I have to disagree with those who believe the procedure should be banned.

     Before debating the merits of the technique and its effect on the game, I want to make one point abundantly clear: nobody likes Hack-a-Shaq, or Hack-a-Howard, or Hack-a-Whoever.  Even Greg Popovich, the San Antonio Spurs coach who utilizes the tactic more than any other coach in the league says he hates having to do so.  By intentionally fouling the same player repeatedly, the game just becomes a long, drawn out free-throw battle, and while the free-throw is essential to the sport, it is not exactly the most exciting thing to watch.  Anyone who has seen a team try to make a comeback in the last minute of a game and resort to intentional fouling whoever has the ball on the opposing team can tell you that.  Although, there is something strangely amusing about watching a super athlete make a pedestrian activity look like a herculean task.   

     However, that does not mean the NBA should take away a fundamental principle of the game.  The free-throw is the most basic shot in the game, and one where most players can shoot a very high percentage.  After all, they are called free-throws.  Players are supposed to make them.  However, when he numbers of struggling free-throw shooters are examined, it is not that hard to see why the strategy is used.

     The NBA average for points per possession (the average amount of points a team scores when they have possession of the ball) is 1.03.  That is the equivalent of a free-throw shooter making 51.5 percent of his attempts, since if he has a 51.5 percent chance on each attempt, .515+.515=1.03.  So using this logic, any player shooting under this percentage from the line should be intentionally fouled, because in the long run a team would allow fewer points in a game by simply fouling that player rather than playing defense (the average free-throw shooter, however, shot exactly 75 percent this season).  When it is considered that DeAndre Jordan shot an abysmal 39.7 percent on what should be freebies, and that the Clippers led the league in points per possession at 1.098, every time DeAndre Jordan shoots two free-throws, the team loses an average of .304 points over what they could have gained, which over an entire game would absolutely destroy the Clippers.  For other players the gap is not so severe, but it is still either profitable over the long run or close enough that when trailing late or when that player is struggling it can be implemented.

     This may be a somewhat flawed piece of reasoning, since as John Ezekowitz wrote about for FiveThirtyEight in this article: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/intentionally-fouling-deandre-jordan-is-futile/, I’m not accounting for things such as expected points from half-court possessions, offensive rebounds, and being set on the defensive end in the very general calculation I used above.  However, this article is from last season, and Jordan’s free-throw percentage dropped over three points from the 2013-14 season to the current one.  Also, if we do not rely on all the qualifications that have to be made for the strategy to be statistically ineffective, and just take at face value that Jordan will shoot two free-throws and the other team will get the ball (which happens a large majority of the time), far more often than not it would be profitable to foul Jordan.  Finally, Ezekowitz’s numbers fail to address one important concept: time.

     The most frequent scenario for the implementation of Hack-a-Shaq is late in the fourth quarter of games, when a team is trailing, but not by an insurmountable margin.  In these situations, the biggest factor working against a team’s comeback effort is the clock.  It becomes very difficult for teams to reduce deficits when their opponents are using at least 20 seconds on the shot clock, much longer than an average possession (usually around 14 or 15 seconds but that varies slightly depending on the team), in obvious efforts to milk the clock.  What the Hack-a-Shaq strategy provides is an efficient way to stop the clock, maximizing possessions for the rest of the game and therefore providing longer for a team to make a potential comeback.  It also eliminates the opposing team’s ability to make three-pointers, and by fouling a poor free-throw shooter, there isn’t a huge risk of them making the majority of their free-throws like there would be if another player was shooting.

# ft’s made out of 10	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
50% ft shooter	<.1%	.9%	4.3%	11.7%	20.5%	24.6%	20.5%	11.7%	4.3%	.9%	<.1%
80% ft shooter	<.1%	<.1%	<.1%	<.1%	.6%	2.6%	8.8%	20.1%	30.2%	26.8%	10.7%

     If a good free-throw shooter (I chose an 80 percent free-throw shooter for this example), who would most likely receive the ball to be fouled in a late game situation shot 10 free throws, he would make at least seven of those attempts over 87 percent of the time.  However, a very poor shooter who only makes half his attempts would make seven or more only 17 percent of the time.  In fact, this shooter makes five or fewer shots 62 percent of the time, while the same number is just over three percent for an 80 percent shooter.

     If you were an NBA coach, why would you not intentionally foul one of these shooters off-ball instead of having the ball inbounded to a strong shooter?  If the situation is that desperate – just seconds remaining in a game and down a few points, it makes perfect sense because the discrepancy between a 50 percent shooter and 80 or even higher percent shooter far outweighs the odds of getting a steal off an inbound play and allowing an opposing team to try to get the ball to one of their best shooters.

     Now, if there are a few minutes left in the game, and you are looking to make a comeback, the strategy still makes sense.  The reasoning behind intentional fouling in these scenarios is that sending one of these atrocious foul shooters to the line is a rough equivalent of just playing defense.  Sure, they will have lucky streaks of shooting a high percentage and cold streaks shooting even worse than their normal percentage, but so do normal NBA teams.

     However, what people fail to realize is that the success of the Hack-a-Shaq strategy depends in part on how well the free-throw shooter performs, but more so on the offense of the team fouling.  If a team intentionally fouls and allows around one point per possession, they need to score far more than one point per possession in order to trim the deficit, especially with the time constraints associated with the strategy.  This is the reason why teams using Hack-a-Shaq do not end up winning games the majority of the time.  A struggling offense is not suddenly going to get stronger just by committing fouls on the other team.  It takes a very strong offensive effort to come back.  Hack-a-Shaq is far from a fool-proof idea, and that is yet another reason why it should not be taken out of the game.  There is a decent argument to be made that it is not an optimal strategy, at least on many occasions, and it is a big risk basically asking for the other team to score points rather than deciding to play defense.  Yet everyone still seems to feel it should not be implemented.

     One final reason that I would urge the NBA to keep the idea of Hack-a-Shaq in the game is because while yes it might be boring for some when it occurs, the technique is used far too infrequently.  Not many players are bad enough from the line to warrant the use of the strategy.  The players listed in the opening paragraph essentially make an exhaustive list of all players who are affected.  So already, not many games have the potential of seeing the strategy.  Even in the games containing these players, Hack-a-Shaq is not used the majority of the time.  Either the scenario does not call for it, the player in question is good enough from the line that there is not a huge advantage from sending them there, or that a team is against utilizing the technique.  There is not a huge need for the NBA to revamp the whole way it deals with intentional fouls just for a few isolated instances per season.  And by the way, if a team does not want to be affected by these intentional fouls, they do not have to be.

     There are a few methods to prevent the strategy from being used.  The first is obviously, to make more free-throws.  It is ridiculous to think that some professional basketball players, who make a living off playing the game, struggle so much with an unguarded, set shot from a distance of fifteen feet away, nearly 10 feet inside the three-point line.  If someone is as bad as Jordan, they deserve to suffer from their lack of skill.  If the “Hack-a-Shaq” strategy were outlawed, the NBA would just be giving bad shooters a cop-out for not having practicing an elemental part of the game.  It creates an unfair advantage towards these poor free-throw shooters by allowing them to play to their strengths on the court while not having to worry about their weaknesses.

     If they continue to struggle, teams always have the option of benching players if they become a liability.  No matter how great one might be at other aspects of the game, they can be a burden by simply being on the court.  DeAndre Jordan is one of the league’s best defensive players, yet he greatly contributed to his team’s overtime loss in the playoffs to the Spurs on April 22 by shooting just 6-of-17 from the stripe.  With just one more make, the Clippers could have won the game in regulation, and potentially have a commanding 3-1 series lead over the defending champs instead of being tied 2-2.  At one point during a recent Rockets-Spurs matchup, the Rockets actually intentionally fouled the Spurs just to reach a stoppage in play so they could sub out Josh Smith.  In the college game, Duke frequently pulled Jahlil Okafor, a 51 percent shooter from the line, in late game situations, despite him being the Wooden Award runner-up for best college basketball player last season.  It did not matter to Coach K that Okafor was an incredible defender and strong rebounder.  What was important was that the other team was going to foul Okafor, and a poor showing at the line could have cost Duke a few games.

     The fact of the matter is that teams with struggling foul shooters have every right and ample opportunities to remove these players from the game, which would render the strategy useless.  And let’s not forget that since the team with the best points per possession is the Clippers at 1.098 (the NBA average is 1.03 for the record), any shooter who can manage 55 percent from the line is basically immune from being intentionally fouled except for the aforementioned final seconds of a tight contest.  This is of course because his expected points value for a pair of free-throws (1.1) is higher than any team’s typical offensive output, and that doesn’t even account for the additional variables presented by Ezekowitz.  Anyone that fails to hit 55 percent of their foul shots has no one to blame but themselves for that deficiency, and have to be willing to either improve or face being hacked it their opponents see fit.

     The NBA would be foolish to eliminate Hack-a-Shaq, giving an unfair advantage to some players by not making them suffer from their weaknesses as a player.  The strategy is not always successful, and teams should have the strategic freedom to opt to give opponents chances at free points if they believe it will help them win basketball games.  However, only time will tell if the NBA agrees.

Concussions Down in NFL, but work Still to Do

     It seems the NFL may have finally begun to fix one of its biggest problems- the growing number of head injuries, especially concussions, occurring in the league. The NFL stated that the rate of concussions fell 25 percent during the 2014 season, and 36 percent over the last three seasons.

     Concussions are traumatic brain injuries triggered by strong blows to the head or shaking of the body. Annually, there are an estimated 1.6-3.8 million concussions in the United States, and the chances of getting one are largely increased in athletes. The NFL has been notorious for its high risk of receiving concussions due to all the hard hits in the game, and a culture of players failing to self-report these injuries, instead putting themselves at greater personal risk not to jeopardize the team as a whole.

     The statistics reflect a change in both the rules of the league and the mentality of its players. The NFL donates tens of millions of dollars every year towards medical research, hoping to find new information about how to reduce risk of concussions, identify concussed players, and understand the long term effects of these head injuries. Recent rule changes preventing helmet to helmet hits and hits on defenseless receivers have contributed to the lower concussion numbers, as the rate of concussion by helmet to helmet hits have fallen nearly 50 percent over the last two years.

     Additionally, players are seeing the effects concussions can have on the body and are changing the way they tackle to prevent the risk of injuries. Players have largely reduced tackling the upper body of opponents and are now shifting their mentalities to aiming for players’ legs.

     Players are also becoming increasingly aware that once someone is diagnosed with a concussion, their risk for future concussions is significantly magnified. Wes Welker, once one of the best wide receivers in the NFL, sustained three concussions over the past two seasons, and is now struggling to find work. It seems teams are becoming scared of signing players with concussions in fear of the risk of future injury which would hurt both the player and the team.

     In 2013, the NFL reached a 765-million dollar settlement, agreeing to compensate former players for brain related issues they were facing later in life, in addition to paying their medical bills and agreeing to fund more research. This agreement came after over 4,500 retired players sued the league over various problems including dementia, depression, and Alzheimer’s- all of which they believed were due to their experiences in the league.

     While the reduced concussions numbers show that a number of factors have increased player safety recently, at least in this area, there still remains work to be done. Last season saw 111 concussions, and many of these could still be prevented if the NFL made a simple change.

     Currently, NFL players do not have their helmets fitted, meaning that many of them may be wearing helmets too big for their heads in every single game. These helmets provide less protection and are easier to knock off, which could lead to a higher risk of injury. Also, helmets could provide more padding in an effort to further improve player safety. While football at the high school, college, and professional levels are trying to reduce injury risk and identify potential concussions by forcing players who lose their helmets on a play to sit out a play before returning to the game, that does nothing to address the issue of the helmets themselves.

     Outside of the NFL, studies consistently report that high school and college students experience higher concussion rates than that of NFL players. Additionally, high school concussions rates are on the rise, and not only in football, but all sports.

     There are a number of reasons for this. One clear cause is that medical staffs are far larger and more experienced at the professional level, and thus are better at diagnosing and treating concussions. The effects of this are seen in the large numbers of concussions believed to go unreported, with estimates ranging between 50 and 80 percent of all potential concussions. While these numbers are declining with more concussions being reported (which could very well contribute to these rising concussion numbers), still far too many athletes seem to believe they should continue playing even when they have clear symptoms such as dizziness and headaches. Medical personnel need to take concussion symptoms and risks more seriously, and try to identify concussions quickly, just as the NFL has done with their new “eye in the sky” medical staff, trained personnel viewing the games from above in attempts to identify injured players.

     As previously stated, education is vital towards progress in this area. All football players whether be youth or professional, and all athletes for that matter, need to be educated in the causes, symptoms, and long term effects of concussions. If that can be accomplished, the sports world as a whole will take a huge step towards lowering these seemingly mild but potentially very severe injuries.  After all, while football gets criticized most for its concussions, many sports including soccer, hockey, and lacrosse also feature high injury risks.

     While the job of minimizing concussions risks is far from over in the NFL, numbers over the past few years are encouraging and show work is being done in the sport, which can hopefully transfer to the rest of athletics in the years to come.

NBA Conference Quarterfinals Predictions

     The NBA Playoffs are upon us, and over the next two months we will see 16 teams all vying for the title.  It is my personal belief that, as I've stated here: http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2014/10/ranking-playoff-formats-of-big-5-sports.html, the NBA has the best playoffs out of every major team sport in the USA.  I'm obviously very excited to watch all the games and see who comes out on top at the end of it all.  However, before teams can play for a shot at the Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy, they must defeat all the other teams in their conference, and to do that, they must start in the conference quarterfinals.  The games begin today, and here's who I like to move on to the next round.

Western Conference

#1 Golden State Warriors (67-15) vs. #8 New Orleans Pelicans (45-37)
     The New Orleans Pelicans are not to be taken lightly.  They are by no means a playoff team without Anthony Davis, but with him they have the potential to be any team in the league, as they showed by defeating the Spurs on the last day of the season.  However, while they might take one game off the Warriors, this is the Warriors we're talking about.  They have a stacked roster and are one of the best teams in the NBA since Jordan's Bulls.  They have depth, great shooters, great passers, great defenders, and are fun to watch.  Fivethirtyeight gives them a 48% chance of winning the championship.  I'm not sure if it's really that high, but they're one heck of a basketball team.  And they have the MVP in Steph Curry, just one half of the Splash Bros.
Warriors in 5.

#2 Houston Rockets (56-26) vs. #7 Dallas Mavericks (50-32)
     It's a Texas battle in the West's 2-7 matchup, and man is this going to be a great series to watch.  The Mavericks are underrated as just a 7 seed with the same record as the East's 3 seed Bulls, and have more experience than the Rockets.  The game plan for the Rockets will be to take and make as many threes as possible, mixing in Dwight Howard's post game as needed.  The Rockets could struggle from the free throw line, as none of their bigs shoot over 60% from the strike.  This will be a closer series than people think, but in the end James Harden will prove too much,
Rockets in 6.

#3 Los Angeles Clippers (56-26) vs. #6 San Antonio Spurs (55-27)
     This could be the best 3-6 matchup ever.  No, seriously.  These teams both have legitimate chances to come out of the Western Conference, and are separated by only one game.  The Spurs were the two seed the day before the season ended, but in the insanely crowded West managed to slip four spots with just one loss.  However, prior to that loss they were the hottest team in the league, and the Spurs always seem to play hard in the playoffs.  This could be the final run for Tim Duncan, but then again we say that every season.  The Spurs are a well oiled machine, and they have at least seven guys that can take over on any given night.  On the other hand, the Clippers are led by Chris Paul, always one of the league's best, and probably still underrated.  Then there's the beast that is Blake Griffin, leading the team with over 21 points per game.  DeAndre Jordan has taken his usual great rebounding to a whole new level, averaging 15 per game to lead the league.  He also led the league in free throw percentage and finished top five in blocks.  Two of the league's best shooters are JJ Redick and Jamal Crawford, who both also average over 15 points per game.  They have a bunch of great pieces, which will make for a fantastic series, but in the end I smell an upset (if you can even call it that).
Spurs in 6.

#4 Portland Trail Blazers (51-31) vs. #5 Memphis Grizzlies (55-27)
     Because division leaders need home-court advantage, the Blazers get the 4 even though their record would give them the 6.  Hey, it's not their fault the Thunder had a down year and the ENTIRE Southwestern Division made the playoffs (but seriously, best division ever?  The Pelicans were last at 45-37).  Could this be the year for the Griz' veteran bigs?  Marc Gasol and Zach Randolph are some of the best big men that go unnoticed, and you can count on Mike Conley getting them some good looks.  All five starters average double figures, and Tony Allen is one of the league's best defenders.  The Blazers come into the playoffs on a four game losing streak, but don't expect the two-man tandem of LaMarcus Aldridge and Damian Lillard to go down lightly.  Both averaged over 20 points per game during the regular season, and allow the role players to get good looks when the defense concentrates on them.  The key matchup will be Aldridge vs. Randolph and Gasol.  Whoever wins that could win the series.  Advantage Memphis, but it could go either way.
Grizzlies in 6.


Eastern Conference

#1 Atlanta Hawks (60-22) vs. #8 Brooklyn Nets (38-44)
     What a job Mike Budenholzer has done with the Hawks, turning them from a 37-win team to a 60-win one with the same group of starters.  No one expected the Hawks to be any more than an average team, and they surprised everyone by beating out the Cleveland Cavaliers- by seven games- for the East's top spot.  The Hawks do it through selflessness and great passing.  All five starters average between 12 and 17 points per game, and the lowest scoring starter just happens to be the league's best shooter, Kyle Korver, who finished the year shooting 49% from three.  They've done this without having any starters play 33 minutes per game, so in the playoffs they'll probably see even more play time.  Their opponents, the Nets, come in with a record six games under .500, and stole the 8 seed from the Pacers on the last day of the regular season.  Deron Williams and Joe Johnson are each having their worst seasons since their first few years in the league.  Even Coach Lionel Hollins said the team has no advantages over the Hawks.  Even their best position, center with Brook Lopez, is matched by Al Horford.  The Hawks won all four matchups in the regular season, and they'll get four more wins with relative ease.
Hawks in 4.

#2 Cleveland Cavaliers (53-29) vs. #7 Boston Celtics (40-42)
     Boston was 16-30 at one point in this season, but managed to go 24-12 down the stretch to finish one game shy of .500, and see a familiar foe in the playoffs- LeBron.  Props to Brad Stevens for the team's strong performance and overall 15 game improvement from his first season, and for doing it without Rajon Rondo and Jeff Green.  Without any real star power, the Celtics will need some players to step up and especially Evan Turner will have to really play great defense to contain LeBron.  For the Cavaliers, it is important for them not to underestimate the Celtics and bring their "A game".  Additionally, role players will need to step up and provide reliable offense so the team doesn't have to rely on the Big 3.  One of the main reasons for the Cavs' struggles earlier in the year was the lack of bench production.  Surprisingly, the Celtics actually split the season series 2-2, and I think they'll continue having strong performances against the Cavs, but ultimately fall like they're supposed to.
Cavaliers in 6.

#3 Chicago Bulls (50-32) vs. #6 Milwaukee Bucks (41-41)
     Healthy Derrick Rose or not, the Bulls have managed to maintain their position as one of the best teams in the East.  The Bucks have their own injury woes in the form of Jabari Parker, who tore his ACL back in December.  However, they've managed to make the playoffs with a well-balanced offense.  Michael Carter-Williams will lead the Bucks against Chicago for their first playoff series win since 2001.  However, I don't think it will be an enjoyable series for Bucks fans.  This year has seen the emergence of Jimmy Butler into one of the league's best young players, and a resurgence for Pau Gasol after struggles of late with the Lakers.  Derrick Rose is healthy and will play in the series, and Joakim Noah remains a defensive beast and the best passing center in the game.  The Bulls have a good bench and are stronger in just about every category, which makes me feel this series will be over quickly.
Bulls in 5.

#4 Toronto Raptors (49-33) vs. #5 Washington Wizards (46-36)
     This is a really intriguing matchup, and easily the closest series in the East.  The Raptors lost in a seven game series last year, and are looking for their first series win since the times of Vince Carter.  I think it is likely they play in another seven game series this year.  The guard play in this series will be critical, as Kyle Lowry and DeMar Derozan have both made an All-Star game over the past two seasons, while John Wall has developed into one of the league's best point guards alongside sharpshooter Bradley Beal.  Inside, the Wizards have the edge with both Marcin Gortat and Nene, but the Raptors have incredible depth with nine players averaging at least 7.9 points.  This series is really a toss up, but I'll give it to the Raptors because of their home court advantage.
Raptors in 7.

     Do you agree with my picks?  Comment with who you think will advance.
     Connor

Paying College Athletes

*This is a research paper done for my English class, debating the pros and cons of giving college athletes compensation for their hard work from a neutral perspective.

There are more than 460,000 NCAA student-athletes in the United States, and their games are watched and loved by millions.  However, while the NCAA and universities can make revenue off of these players, the players themselves receive no compensation for their work.  Recently, there have been instances of athletes attempting to be treated as employees of their schools.  Examples of this include the Northwestern football team’s attempt to unionize, and athletes such as former college basketball player Ed O’Bannon suing after models of themselves were used in video games without permission.  While some believe college athletes should be paid due to how much the NCAA and universities make from them, and all the time they put into their sport, many others oppose the idea because these athletes already receive money through scholarships, paying all athletes would cost a ton of money, and that participating in college athletics is a privilege.

Since the NCAA and universities make tons of money through marketing of sports events, it seems only fair that the athletes should get a portion of what they earn.  The market for college sports is extremely large, as “college athletic revenues are $10.5 billion a year, more than the NFL generates,” (“USA Industry”).  Since so much money is generated through college sports, it seems only fair that athletes should be given compensation for their efforts.  After all, they are of paramount importance to the industry since while certain officials might be expendable, college sports cannot be played without the athletes.  However, despite that the athletes are valuable commodities, they are not rewarded for the money they bring in.  Much of this money seems to be given to coaches as well, seeing as from 2011 to 2012, the average salary of a bowl eligible college football coach grew 35% to a whopping $1.64 million, over a 70% increase from 2006 (Gorwitz).  Obviously winning and profiting off their athletic programs mean a lot to these schools who are continuously dishing out more and more money to get the best coaches possible for their teams.  However, regardless of how good a coach can be, he or she still is not the one actually playing in the game.  While coaches are rewarded immensely for success, the players that are actually responsible for the on-field accomplishments are not compensated.  This is especially unfair considering that “if college sports shared their revenues the way pro sports do, the average Football Bowl Subdivision player would be worth $121,000 per year, while the average basketball player at that level would be worth $265,000,” (Frommer).  The value players from the highest revenue sports have is obviously substantial, even going into six-figures.  While it may be unreasonable for them to be paid those large amounts, it stands that they probably deserve more than zero figures, and should be allowed to make money off things such as autographs.  College athletes are of great value to their universities, and deserve to be compensated for all the revenue they provide.

Additionally, the extensive amount of time athletes put into their sports is similar to the amount of time an average American worker spends working per week, essentially making them employees of their university, and the NCAA. Despite the training, practicing, and traveling some athletes put in, which can amount to 50-hour workweeks while still attending classes, all they have to show for their actions is the $1.7 million dollar salary of NCAA president Mark Emmert (Gorwitz).  What many people forget is that these student-athletes are still students above all else, and still have to pass their classes in order to remain eligible.  However, it can be a daunting task to put so much time into sports, in some cases the equivalent of a full time job, and paying college athletes would certainly make it easier for them to spend so much time playing the sports they enjoy.  Unfortunately, the NCAA and universities have neglected this, and while the salaries are rising for other positions, athletes are not getting credit for their hard work.  Also, as Dave Zirin writes, “the pressures for the so-called student-athletes to travel more and play their sport year-round have increased.  Arguing that these athletes are students instead of unpaid employees of the university who also go to class becomes increasingly dubious,” (Zirin).  Players are now required to be on the road for sometimes weeks at a time during their school season, and during these times it is still mandatory for them to keep up with schoolwork.  Additionally, they have to spend numerous hours in the offseason still training and conditioning themselves.  Since this additional time on top of simply playing games, it becomes more reasonable to say that athletes are essentially working for their university, which would require them to be paid similar to employees.  Due to the large amounts of time college athletes spend with their sports, they deserve to be treated as university employees and be paid for their services.

Finally, college athletics harm the other aspects of a student-athlete’s life- keeping them out of class, and not giving them the time to hold a job and earn money for themselves.  Recalling his time spent as a professional athlete, Tyson Hartnett remarks, “we were on the road all the time, even gone for two weeks straight at one point…the job wasn’t going to pay you just because you were playing basketball on a road trip,” (Hartnett).  It should be obvious that student-athletes have to find a way to earn money.  However, another adverse effect of the long road trips which have become necessary for athletes to partake in is that it forces them to be away from their jobs on or near campus, effectively removing their source of income.  This can be financially devastating, especially for athletes in sports that require longer amounts of time on the road, as evidenced by former Connecticut basketball player Shabazz Napier, who stated that he sometimes went to bed starving.  Considering these students are unable to earn money for parts of the year, it seems only fair for them to receive payment at least during their season.  The argument that playing college sports leaves students poor is also backed up by former UCLA star and NBA Hall-of Famer Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, who has claimed that he was always too broke to do anything but study, practice, and play despite all his time practicing and playing (Ozemebhoya-Eromosele).  Students now have a limited social life as a consequence of spending so much time with their sports, and in return are unable to participate in many activities they should be able to.  The inability of student-athletes to make money affects all different areas of their lives, as now they are forced to continue spending more time with their teams, as they cannot afford to do much else.  Another huge issue is that students are forced to pay their own medical bills since the NCAA only pays for medical expenses for players if they exceed $90,000, and schools are not required to help players with their medical costs (Sinha).  This can be devastating to athletes, because college athletes simply are unable to pay off some of their medical costs, as it is not uncommon for players to sustain serious injuries.  It is outrageous to ask college age students to pay large sums for injuries that occur while they are making money for their universities.  Due to how participating in college athletics inhibits athletes’ abilities to earn money to have fun and pay off medical expenses, college athletes deserve to be paid.

However, the scholarships students receive to participate in collegiate athletics already has a high enough value, meaning athletes are in a way getting paid and should not receive more money.  Scholarships essentially are paying students now as “colleges are already compensating their student-athletes with tuition, room, board, coaching, nutritional support and physical trainers that can exceed $100,000 per year in value (Karaim).  While the majority of college students have to pay the majority of their college tuition themselves, many of these athletes are given everything for free, which in a way means that they are receiving payment from their universities just by being able to go to the school for free or at least a reduced tuition.  These student-athletes are gaining a substantial economic advantage over their peers through their athletic prowess, which will aid them not only during college but also potentially in their futures.  It can also be argued that if students are short on money while on campus they can still use any money that had saved up to use for tuition if they had not received an athletic scholarship, or they could still take out loans like many other students if they come from a lower socioeconomic class.  Anthony Panciocco argues being given financial assistance to play sports is a fair trade, believing that the system of students making money and playing a sport they love for the university, and getting paid in return with an education is ideal and benefits all parties involved (Panciocco).  If the situation is viewed this way, it seems almost greedy for athletes to insist on being paid, since their efforts are already rewarded through scholarships with the equivalent of, in some cases, hundreds of thousands of dollars.  They have the ability to essentially pay their way through school just by partaking in an activity that they find joy in, which seems to provide a substantial economic benefit to these students without the need to receive additional payment.  Because of the high value of athletic scholarships, paying college athletes additional money is unnecessary.

Additionally, if some athletes are paid, all athletes have to be paid, and the money required to do this would be too great for most universities.  A USA Today study has shown that “just 23 of 228 athletic departments were able to cover their own expenses last year. This means that 205 athletic departments had to receive subsidies to cover their operating costs,” (Panciocco).  The only schools that actually profited when their own expenses are factored in are the big name universities that all the top recruits go to, and are always nationally ranked – schools like Alabama, Kentucky, and Texas.  However, these schools and their millions of fans are unlike other universities.  While their athletic programs are run like big businesses and actually make enough money that they could probably afford to pay most of their athletes, they reflect only the slim minority, and most colleges would find it extremely difficult to pay athletes.  The issue becomes even harder for the average school to deal with considering that due to Title IX either all athletes must be paid or none at all, the problem arises of how we deal with athletes in smaller sports that do not generate significant revenue to their schools, such as field hockey and soccer players, even though they may work just as hard as players of other sports (Atanda Jr.).  The issue lies in the large numbers of different sports student-athletes participate in, and that while millions of people watch football and basketball games, outside of those, not many people care about other NCAA sports.  Yet the athletes of other sports still spend crazy amounts of time training, and conditioning, and practicing, and travelling.  If we reward the football players, these athletes must also be rewarded, and the financial ramifications of that on universities, especially smaller ones, would be too much.  In fact, economics professor Andrew Zimbalist states, “the median Division I athletic program loses $11 million a year on an operating basis,” (Karaim).  It seems preposterous for schools already so deep in the red to have to shell out millions to compensate every athlete that attends the university.  Instead, universities would most likely do away with many of their athletic programs, which makes us question whether we would rather pay the few big-sport athletes and eliminate the smaller sports, or just not pay anyone, and for student-athletes of smaller sports the answer is that they would rather being playing with a scholarship than not playing with no scholarship.  Since paying all student-athletes would be financially difficult for most universities, college athletes should not be paid.

Student-athletes have the privilege to participate in an activity they enjoy, and are allowed to quit if they so choose, so universities should not be forced to pay them.  Horace Mitchell argues that athletics is simply a means to getting free education when he writes, “Students are not professional athletes who are paid salaries and incentives for a career in sports. They are students receiving access to a college education through their participation in sports, for which they earn scholarships to pay tuition, fees, room and board, and other allowable expenses,” (Mitchell).  Since the overwhelming majority of college athletes do not become professionals in their sport, it is fair to say consider college athletics as just a means to an end, and using athletics in order to obtain an education should be enough of a reward itself.  Through college sports, student-athletes are able to get a degree and hopefully earn themselves a good future, which should be far enough compensation.  And if for whatever reason they decide they do not want to continue playing their sport, they are allowed to remove themselves from their team.  College athletes also know what their signing up for, agreeing to not be paid in exchange for tuition, room and board, books, and following the rules of the NCAA (Jackson).  Student-athletes are basically signing an agreement when they accept an athletic scholarship, so they should know what they are signing up for.  Above all else should be a passion for their sport and an understanding of how it can be used to help them receive an education.  Since college sports is all about students playing sports they enjoy in order to receive an education, college athletes should not receive payment.

            So while college athletes make significant money for their schools and the NCAA, work long hours and sometimes do not have time to hold another job, they are still getting expensive scholarships for doing what they enjoy, and most schools would not be able to afford paying all athletes.  In the end, while both sides have strong arguments, it seems over time athletes will end up receiving additional income, probably in the form of a stipend just to give them a little extra spending money.  Hopefully, sooner rather than later schools and athletes will be able to agree upon this idea and shift the focus back onto performing well in both school and athletics and off of money.  More than a stipend would probably be unreasonable, but in this system, those 460,000 student-athletes should be happy knowing they are earning money for their efforts.

Works Cited

Atanda Jr., Alfred, M.D. “Should We Pay College Athletes?.” philly.com n.p. 5 Mar. 2014. Web. 28 Feb. 2015.

Frommer, Frederic J. “Top College Athletes Worth 6 Figures: Report.” Huffingtonpost.com. Huffington Post. 12 Nov. 2011. Web. 28 Feb. 2015

Gorwitz, Zach. “Money Madness: Why And How NCAA Athletes Should Be Paid.” dukepoliticalreview.org. Duke Political Review. 1 Oct. 2013. Web. 28 Feb. 2015.

Hartnett, Tyson. “Why College Athletes Should be Paid.” Huffingtonpost.com. Huffington Post.  23 Jan. 2014. Web. 28 Feb. 2015.

Jackson, Scoop. “The Myth Of Parity.” espn.go.com. ESPN. 12 Sept. 2013. Web. 28 Feb. 2015.

Karaim, Reed. “Paying College Athletes.” CQ Researcher 24.25 (2014): 577-600. CQ Electronic Library. Web. 28 Feb. 2015.

Mitchell, Horace. “Students Are Not Professional Athletes.” USnews.com. U.S. News. 6 Jan. 2014. Web. 28 Feb. 2015.

Ozemebhoya-Eromsele, Diana. “Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: College Athletes Should Be Paid.” theroot.com. The Root. 13 Nov. 2014. Web. 28 Feb. 2015

Panciocco, Anthony. “Why We Can’t Pay College Athletes.” mainecampus.com. The Maine Campus. 27 Oct. 2013. Web. 28 Feb. 2015.

Sinha, Smriti. “The NCAA’s Shameful Failure To Insure It’s Athletes.” sports.vice.com. Vice Sports. 5 Nov. 2014. Web. 1 Mar. 2015

“USA Industry: Players: 0; Colleges: $10,000,000,000.” Economist Intelligence Unit: Country ViewsWire 16 Aug. 2014. General OneFile. Web. 28 Feb. 2015

Zirin, Dave. “Time For The NCAA To Pay.” The Progressive June 2014: 42. General OneFile. Web. 28 Feb. 2015