10-15-2019, 08:19 AM
Maybe mini golf isn't the most persuasive example, but I think the central point--that our priorities are hopelessly skewed when we're spending tens of millions of dollars on lavish facilities rather than putting some of those dollars into an account for the use of the student-athletes on whose backs that money is made--is absolutely fair.
Schools aren't allowed to pay players. So instead of funding a 401(k) for these kids, or funding an HSA for sport-related health care needs later in life, or creating a fund to give interest-free bridge loans to players' families when they fall on hard times, they compete for recruits by building these palaces that look cool, but don't meaningfully improve performance or add to the quality of anyone's life. It's absolute madness.
Sure, it's neat to have shiny facilities. They're cool! But surely we can have high quality facilities while also providing a more meaningful benefit to student-athletes.
Schools aren't allowed to pay players. So instead of funding a 401(k) for these kids, or funding an HSA for sport-related health care needs later in life, or creating a fund to give interest-free bridge loans to players' families when they fall on hard times, they compete for recruits by building these palaces that look cool, but don't meaningfully improve performance or add to the quality of anyone's life. It's absolute madness.
Sure, it's neat to have shiny facilities. They're cool! But surely we can have high quality facilities while also providing a more meaningful benefit to student-athletes.