Colleges dish out millions of dollars in scholar-ship money hoping to get the best players to carry their teams.

Money is one of the biggest factors in a student-athlete’s decision of where he or she will be attend-ing college. The ultimate goal is a full-ride to college, where the only things the athlete is concerned about are grades and performance. That’s why they are considered student-athletes. But the question lately has been why do they not get paid? They are already going to school for free.

If educational institutions pay their players, the gap between the major

Division I schools and mid-major teams will only widen. Second tier schools can’t afford to pay their play-

ers, therefore lessening the competition. Big-time schools like Duke, Texas, North Carolina and the

University of Southern California will be able to pay huge amounts of money to get the top ath-letes to play for them. This is the very defini-tion of a professional athlete, one who earns a wage in a specific field.

An athlete that excels in the sport he or she plays is more than likely going to be rewarded with a full-ride to college — everything paid for. It is a huge reward, considering they get world-class training,

practice and, above all, a college degree for free. Upon graduating, they are already at a huge ad-

vantage over all non-athletes who had to pay for col-lege because they won’t have the weight of student loans

on their shoulders. Many will argue that student-athletes should get paid for the reason that they

can’t get a job in college because of their strenuous practice and game schedules. What did the student-athlete do before college to get money for things like food and clothes? They also had to practice long hours and study in high school. So why would college be any different?

If students need money during the school year, they generally work in the summer, and a student-athlete should do the same if they are worried about the expenses of college life.

Athletes do not have to play sports in college. They’re not forced to play, and it’s completely their choice. It’s a free country. So if they don’t want to play a sport in college, they should do it the old-fashioned way and pay for their education.

Free food, free housing, travel costs covered, hotel stays paid for, plane tickets bought and even free insurance — these are just a few of the benefits that a college athlete may receive. The only thing they are not getting handed to them is pocket money, but they are basically living four years of their life free of charge.

Walking into a typical college campus bookstore, it becomes quite obvious to whom the vast extent of merchandise is dedicated. Glancing

around, you see row upon row of shelves containing T-shirts, jerseys with players’ numbers and countless trinkets promoting the athletic programs. Athletes see what’s in it for everyone else, but what’s in it for them?

Compensation of college athletes is a continuously resurfacing issue. Many people believe they should be paid for their dedication to their universities, but others argue that scholarships are more than enough pay for their play. Why can no one agree on an answer to this

incessant issue? The answer seems simple.College athletic programs across the nation reap millions of dollars for their

universities each year. Take the multi-bil-lion-dollar industry of college football, for example. According to an article from ESPN, the Texas Longhorns earned $42 million in profit between 2005 and 2006. Where does this massive sum of money go?

For starters, many reputable uni-versities spend incredible amounts of money on upgrading facilities. Michigan State reportedly spent $226 million upgrading its stadium and adding luxury suites and boxes. Moreover, a large chunk of profit goes to pay coaches, whose yearly salaries consist on average of around $1.4 million. It seems as if at least a small amount of that money could be used to put some money in the players’ pockets. They are certainly working for it.

Civics and economics teacher and assistant football coach Frank Gerard thinks college athletes should be paid because college sports are money-driven.

“Big time college sports make millions of dollars for universities,” Gerard said. “The athletes competing are essentially doing it for the money anyway, whether it’s for a col-lege scholarship that is going to earn them a career or for the opportunity to go into the pros. So if we know that their drive is money and the university’s drive is money, why have a different standard for each?”

Others argue that athletes already receive sufficient payment for their play through scholarships. Though scholarships are a benefit, they rarely cover all expenses.

If coaches are earning multi-million dollar contracts along with profit from en-dorsements and radio and television shows, universities can afford to pay their athletes. It is time to change college athletics for the better and give athletes the money they deserve.

wingspanJUNIOR EDITORNatalie Rice

ASSISTANT NEWS EDITORAmy Taylor

OPINION EDITORKayla Sciupider

ASSISTANT OPINION EDITORHailey Johns

ENTERTAINMENT EDITORHailey Robinson

Feather to the Lady Falcon golf team and senior Kayla Sciupider for defending their state titles.

Talon to the thunderstorm and flash flood on Nov. 30.

Feather to FBLA for collecting coats, hats and gloves for the Hendersonville Rescue Mission.

Feather to the guidance department for implementing a more or-ganized plan for making schedule changes for the spring semester.

EDITORS-IN-CHIEFKatie KingBrandi Martin

MANAGING EDITORKim Randall

SENIOR EDITORKiersten Ellsworth (News)

ASSISTANTMANANGING EDITORAlisha Carland

WEB EDITORJosh Wentzel

ASSISTANT ENTERTAINMENT EDITORDiane Gromelski

SPORTS EDITORSKevin RobinsonCamen Royse

ASSISTANT SPORTS EDITOR Michael Turlington

FEATURE EDITORSMeredith ColeWhitney Howell

ASSISTANT FEATURE EDITORAshley Heywood

FEATURE WRITERSCollin ArmstrongZac ColeRachel ShoemakerAury St. GermainMarissa Treible

STAFF WRITERSKatie MillerAustin DowningPatrick MartinBlake HillLauren SteppSierra FenderKelli BishopShannon Miller

The student forum of West Henderson High School is published seven times each year by the newspaper journalism class. The purpose of Wingspan is to convey school and community news to the students, faculty, administration and community. Wingspan content is determined by an editorial board of student editors. Wingspan is a Southern Interscholastic Press Association All-Southern, National Scholastic Press Association Pacemaker and All-American, Columbia Scholastic Press Association Gold Medalist and N.C. Scholastic Media Association All-North Carolina and Tar Heel Award publication. Staff editorials express the opinion of the editorial board. Columns reflect the opinions of the writer. Circulation is 1,200. Printed by The Mountaineer of Waynesville, NC 28786. Contact the staff at wingspan@henderson.k12.nc.us.

Should college athletes get paid for their efforts?• Viewpoint

“It’s good for study-ing and preparing for the exams; it doesn’t sound like anything different or bad really. It will help the grades because you will have more time to prepare for the exams.”

“The new schedule is good for kids that have two EOCs in a row, but to me it doesn’t really make too much of a difference. It’s a little annoying that is has to take four days to get done with exams.”

“The new schedule will help because students won’t be so stressed with having to do two in one day. They will have more time to study and prepare more efficiently for their next exam.”

“I think it would defi-nitely help more kids to pass the exams, and it would help us be more prepared for the next exam. It’s a good way for kids who don’t like to study to have a bet-ter shot at passing.”

• Staff Editorial

Amy Castelluccijunior

Danny Russellsenior

Chandler Danielson freshman

Ronnie Heatherlysophomore

Art

by

Emily

Mill

er

What do you think of

spreadingthe exams over four

days?

Talons & Feathers

If implemented, exam schedule will benefit students

3opinionwingspan • december 16, 2010

Kayla SciupiderOpinion Editor

Rachel ShoemakerFeature Writer

should seriously reduce stress and hopefully improve both scores and the amount of effort put into these critical tests. No more will students be skipping lunch or missing a bus to do well on an exam.

The weather will help determine whether or not school administrators can implement their plan for se-mester exams. We hope the weather will cooperate.

• PRO 42%

CON 58% •

(based on a survey of 335 students)

In previous years, the school officials have tried to schedule exams so that the maximum number of days are devoted to instruction and the fewest num-

ber of days to testing. The idea seemed to be a good one, allowing more time for teaching in the classroom. In reality, the two-day exam schedule proved to be extremely stressful. Students would find themselves in the middle of a difficult test, wondering if they would be able to eat lunch, all the while knowing there was another exam that needed to be completed before the end of the day.

This year administrators are planning to alter the exam schedule to better fit the needs of the students. Instead of the traditional two-a-day schedule, exams will be spread over four days. Each morning during exam week will start off with a four-hour exam period, followed by lunch and a review session for the next day’s exam.

Certain kinks need to be worked out in order for this plan to be a success. First of all, it has not yet been decided where students will go after the last exam is complete on the fourth day. The options are either to return to the first semester classes to return books and get back work or go to second semester classes for a preview of the second semester.

However, a larger problem exists. Once a teacher administers a state end-of-course exam, he or she will not be permitted to review other classes that will be taking the EOC. This is not an issue for non-EOC class-es, but for students who must take EOC tests, it is a big deal.

The best solution would be to have a different teacher administer the EOC so that the one who has been giving instruction all semester can be the one to

lead the review session. This makes more sense than having a different teacher teach the review session.

The argument against this plan is that some stu-dents might be more comfortable if their own teacher administered their exam.

Despite this one potential flaw, the idea to spread exams out over four days deserves a thumbs up. It

Flipping through the chan-nels on a Wednesday afternoon, I am appalled

at what I see. Half of the time I get commercials; the weird kids’ shows threaten to melt my brain, and the news is just downright depressing. That’s not to mention the reality shows.

I think back to the good old days, when kids’ shows really were kids’ shows, not the garbage of today – “Chow-

der,” “The Mighty B,”

“My Gym Partner’s a Monkey.” What happened to the

“Wild Thornberries,” “Hey, Arnold” and “Rugrats”? Those shows are ancient history now.

Cartoons aside, what really gets me is the stuff targeted toward teenagers. Just flip to MTV or VH1 and listen for a few minutes, and you will see just how ridiculous it is. Most of the stuff is scripted. That is obvious just from listening to the mo-notonous way the people talk.

Then there are all of the many shows where so-and-so is trying to find “love” in a trashy rip-off of “The Bachelor.” Those are the best because the rela-tionships never work out, so there is always a second season with the same exact people.

Today’s TV shows are send-ing the wrong message to young adults. Shows like “My Super Sweet 16” and “Teen Cribs” are disgusting because the kids get whatever they want, no matter what the cost. They’re spoiled to say the least.

Fortunately for the rest of the country, most teenagers are not like that. They have to work for what they want, and they don’t just get handouts from their parents. It’s sad to think that the younger generation will be growing up thinking it is normal to have a sweet 16 party with hundreds of people they’re not even friends with and a private performance from their favorite band. Oh and don’t forget about that one-of-a-kind $100,000 car.

Another show that sends the wrong message is “16 and Pregnant.” Sure, it’s a great idea to try to warn teenagers of the dangers of unprotected sex, but in reality, the content of the show does nothing to help that cause. For one, everything is scripted. In every single episode, the father of the baby leaves after some huge fight about how he is never around for support.

In a lot of cases this is probably accurate, but the fact that it is so predictable makes it seem like no big deal. The friends are always the same, too. They always ask questions like “What do you miss most about not being pregnant?” and “What are you going to do if so-and-so leaves you?” These sound like interview questions straight from a book, not a typi-cal teenage conversation.

Another of my favorites is “Maury.” Who doesn’t like to listen to a prolonged buzzer intermittently punctuated by a word or two? Those people yell and cuss so much it hurts my head to listen. And really, if you don’t know who the father of your baby is, something is re-ally wrong.

This is a leap in the wrong direction for TV. Considering we started with wholesome, yet entertaining family shows like “Andy Griffith” and “I Love Lucy,” television programs have taken a turn for the worse.

Katie King

TV shows set negative image

Katie Did