The activities of students versus studnet-athletes

NCAA Logo/ Wikimedia Commons

High school students look forward to college because of all the freedom and choices they get to make, yet collegiate student-athletes do not have this perk. Their commitment to the sport takes up most of their time. They have less freedom than regular students in what they do, eat and study.

College student-athletes have more benefits than regular students regarding scholarships. There are more than 150,000 student-athletes who receive $ 2.7 billion dollars in scholarships every year from NCAA member colleges. They don’t have the burden that regular students face which is to get a job and eventually pay off the debts they accumulated in college.

“The average college student graduates with $35,200 in debt. Athletic scholarships offset these cost for student athletes,” the NCAA said on their website.

The amount of free time that an average student has compared to an athlete is very drastic. A regular student can sleep in and have their first class close to 11:00 AM. They have much more opportunities and can pick almost all of their classes. They choose, when they eat, sleep and go to bed.

The average student-athlete will have to follow a much more strict and exact schedule. An athlete's life will be controlled by the demands of their coach. On an average day, they can have practice starting as early at 6:00 AM. Their whole schedule revolves around games, travel times and practice.

When college students go out at night, they may consume alcohol or drugs. Even though it’s illegal to do recreational drugs and drink if you are underage, they do it anyway. If you are a college athlete, it is a different story.

“The NCAA shares the responsibility of promoting a drug-free athletics environment with its member institutions to protect the health of student-athletes and preserve fair competition,” the NCAA said on their website.

If a student-athlete is found consuming illegal contraband, then their consequence will be very severe, and they could possibly lose their scholarship.

“Testing positive on an NCAA mandated [performance enhancing or recreational] drug test will result in a loss of 25 percent of an athlete’s total eligibility from the day the athlete tests positive, which is one whole year for most.” said Monica Worsley in a 2012 Times-Delphic article.

The meal plan of student costs a lot of money. The plan combined with the cost of housing take up a majority of their expenses. Some colleges are starting to give their athletes free meals.

“This week, the NCAA ... approved a rule to allow schools to provide all Division I student-athletes with unlimited meals and snacks,” said Stefanie Loh in a 2014 U-T San Diego Article. “Previously, schools were allowed to give athletes one snack and one training table meal per day."

Students who have have scholarships may have the cost of college reduced, but they miss out on the liberties that college has to offer. Students who are non-athletes make their own schedule, but they don't get the prestige of playing on a team.  With such a strict schedule to follow, how do student-athletes have any time to relax?

 By Willy Herman and Daniella Smith

Steroids in the Hall of Fame?

Mark McGwire / Wikimedia Commons

Many players put up statistically remarkable careers during the "steroid era." Now that many of the implicated players career's are over or coming to an end, Major League Baseball faces two major questions; how to deal with their records and if they should be eligible to be elected to the Hall of Fame. There are differing opinions as to how this situation should be handled; however, the most important thing is to have a consistent ruling across the board. This prevents writers and fans alike from having to pass judgment on the severity of individual players drug abuse.

The rule that should be imposed in Major League Baseball, which could be used in other sports as well, is only if the athlete has failed an official drug test administrated by the league would have their records erased and be ineligible for the Hll of Fame. This would mean that players who have just been rumored or implicated in drug use would be given the benefit of the doubt. For example Mark McGwire has never failed an official drug test but it is widely believed that he has used performance enhancing drugs. Therefore under this policy Mcwire would keep his records and not be penalized in Hall of Fame voting.

This solution is not perfect because during much of the steroid era players were not suspended for a first positive drug test so it was not made public when a player failed their first tests. Of the players suspended for steroid use, only Manny Ramirez and Rafael Palmeiro would have received serious consideration for the Hall of Fame. Under this policy Barry Bonds would not be eligible for the Hall of Fame, because although he was not suspended, he had a positive test for amphetamines which did not warrant a suspension for the first time offense. However, players such as Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, and Alex Rodriguez would still retain their records and be treated as any other player would be in Hall of Fame Voting.

Even though the past is cloudy and this policy may allow some drug abusers into the Hall of Fame, it would accomplish the most important goal which is to judge every player equally and prevent Hall of Fame voters from having to decide whether the athlete was guilty.



Contributed to by Haoli Mei.