Let's use a real example. In 2020, Old Dominion University cut its wrestling program entirely, citing budget shortfalls. That's the reality for most athletic departments. They already struggle to fund non-revenue sports. So when we talk about "paying college athletes," we need to define who gets paid. If we pay the football and basketball stars, where does that money come from? It comes from the same pot that funds the swim team, the track team, the volleyball team. Those athletes would lose their sports so a few hundred players can get salaries. My framework is simple: college athletics exist to help students get an education and develop as people. A scholarship already covers that. Paying athletes turns them into employees, which changes their relationship with the school. Once they're employees, they can be cut, traded, or fired. That's not better for them. It's just a different system—and one that hurts more athletes than it helps.

You're right to ask what we're actually debating, because the word "paid" gets thrown around without precision. Let's define it. We're not talking about additional scholarships, or better equipment, or even cost-of-living stipends. We're talking about salaries, where an athlete gets a paycheck like an employee. My framework is that college athletes are students first. Their compensation is the education and the scholarship, which for many is life-changing. If we switch to salaries, only the football and basketball programs generate revenue. That means swim teams, track teams, wrestling teams get cut. And the "employees" on those revenue teams lose their amateur status and become subject to being traded, benched, or fired. I want what's best for athletes too. But a system that pays a few hundred while eliminating opportunities for thousands isn't better. It's just a different kind of inequality. Scholarships already accomplish the goal if we keep athletics tied to education.

Imagine a gymnast at a school that announces it's dropping the men's track team to fund higher salaries for football recruits. That's the real consequence of paying college athletes. You're right that sports teach discipline and teamwork, but those benefits come from participating, not from a paycheck. In fact, paying athletes would crank up the pressure to win even harder, because now there's a salary attached. That takes away the fun and the educational focus you're worried about. My framework stays the same: athletes are students, and the scholarship is their compensation. It keeps opportunities open for the gymnast and the track runner. A salary system only pays the few who generate revenue and eliminates everyone else. That doesn't protect the discipline and teamwork you're talking about. It destroys them for most athletes.