It is an intriguing debate, one that has led to far too many disagreements between a friend of mine and myself, as he always takes the side of college athletics. He makes a lot of the same arguments that were made in the Vista. The first such argument is that professional athletes are motivated by their paychecks, while college athletes simply play for the love of the game. This is a very ideal way of looking at it, but it is entirely untrue. To claim that college athletes have no other incentive than to win a championship is naïve to say the least. While the top priority for the majority of college athletes may simply be to win, there is no denying that they have the incentive to play hard in hopes that one day they too may be able to play at the professional level. In the end, it comes down to money for all athletes, be it collegiate or professional. It may not be the most pleasing way of looking at it as a sports fan, but it is the sad reality. Furthermore, the problem I, along with many other sports fans, take with this argument is that the college athletes are already making money at the collegiate level. The article quickly alluded to the incident at USC involving a home purchased for the mother of Reggie Bush during his time at the school. The fact is, whether we want to admit it or not, big schools are partaking in shady recruiting tactics that often times involve money just as in the pros. Now, this leads to the debate of whether or not college athletes should be paid, but that’s a topic for another article entirely. However, this still ties to the “college vs. pro” debate for a completely different reason.
The central explanation why professional sports are better than college sports is because THEY ARE PROFESSIONALS. We as sports fans enjoy watching the very best athletes compete at the very highest level of play. It’s the same reason people watch the World Cup and not the MLS, because the MLS is simply the best American players (and an old, prima donna named David Beckham), whereas the World Cup features the best in the world. You may ask, well why don’t people watch the World Baseball Classic as much as the World Series, which is simply the Major League Baseball championship. The difference is that Major League Baseball features the very best players from every country around the world. With soccer, there are so many leagues that the best are in many different leagues and very rarely are on the same field of play, except in the World Cup. Fans love watching the very best athletes compete at the best possible level, and college sports does not offer that. Instead, it is like watching a Little League Baseball game when there is one kid who is clearly more talented than everyone else, in some cases there are several on a team, and a dad who cares far too much about his son’s athletic future so he coaches as if his life depends upon it. This can be seen in a variety of players who absolutely dominated at the college level but simply cannot hack it in the big leagues. The aforementioned Reggie Bush is the prime example of this occurrence. Bush was arguably the most talented college football, at least in the past 25 years. Yet, when the time came for him to transition to the NFL, he became simply an average running back with speed. Yes, he is still capable of creating a dazzling play (see his dive from the 6 yard line during the Saints Week 8 game), but he will never be able to dominate the way he did in college because the pros are simply too good. Again, this ties in to the fact that professional sports offers the very best version of a sport, while college only offers a diluted version.
While it may be exciting to watch an athlete dominate the field of the play, the fact that they are not able to do it at the professional level speaks volumes to the level of play at the collegiate level. Furthermore, it shows that while college athletics certainly has entertainment value, its inferior level of play will always make it a lesser version of the pro game.
