In light of an off-season marred by numerous scandals and NCAA investigations, ESPN.com recently started a series meant to determine whether universities could pay their athletes. Yesterday, ACC blogger Heather Dinich, who covered the Terps for The Baltimore Sun before heading to ESPN.com, took a look at Maryland.
It’s no secret that Maryland spends (and profits) less on its football program than almost all of its ACC colleagues, and because of a few existing obligations (Ralph Friedgen’s contract, a stadium loan, unsold suites), Dinich concludes that the university is in no position to pay its athletes.
Opinions seem to be split on the issue of whether universities should be allowed to pay student-athletes. Following the Reggie Bush fallout at USC last year, former Maryland coach Gary Williams was one of the first major college coaches to come out in favor of an increased stipend, $200 a month to be exact ($2,400 a year). Recently the Big Ten announced that it is reviewing a plan along the lines of Williams’ proposal. The Big Ten is considering allowing its schools to allot more discretionary spending for athletes, somewhere between $2,000 and $5,000 a year. The problem with a plan like this, according to many an analyst, is that it would tip the scales of the college basketball world in favor of resource-rich institutions.
What do you think? Should college athletes be paid?
Robbie Levin, a Northwestern student, is an intern at The Baltimore Sun. Our fine interns will contribute guest posts to Baltimore Sports Blitz this summer. Contact Levin at email@example.com.