The Pros And Cons Of Student Athletes

1803 Words8 Pages
In discussions of athletes, a controversial issue is why certain athletes are able to receive athletic scholarships compared to others, why schools are not funding athletics enough money to supply these student athletes with essentials while they travel from place to place, and the limited amount of educational options. You would think that students with high academics and grade point averages would be offered a scholarship that is too suitable to refuse rather than those who go to school, do no work, and just depend on playing sport(s) to help them further their career. Well, this is the complete opposite. Student athletes that actually want to get an education and work hard at their sport(s) are overlooked by those who are just athletic, which is highly unfair. Why should any athlete who puts little time and effort into studies be capable of being awarded a full or partial scholarship to a division 1 or 2 school? Especially if the athlete cannot meet the NCAA recruitment requirements. For example, the NCAA Academic Guidelines state that in order to be given a scholarship the student must graduate from high school, have higher than a 2.0 gpa, and make at least 700 on the SAT and a 18 on the ACT in order to be accepted to that school. As shocking as it seems why would/should a 2.0 gpa be the minimum gpa required? I understand that some kids are not in the best school systems and they may not be exposed to certain situations as others but that does not mean they should be
Open Document