Fair expectations, or gross exploitation?

Today’s topic of debate (I’d like to have a catchy name ala NTKW, but I’m not feeling cleaver today, nor do I want to put the unnecessary pressure on myself to produce a specific topic on a certain day) comes to us from the quintessential college town in this here southland, Athens, GA. The University of Georgia saw over 50% of their student-athletes earn a 3.0 GPA or better this past spring semester, and they are crediting their new attendance policy for the feat. To compound the already in-place suspension system for unexcused absences among the athlete population, UGA officials implemented $10 fines for each class missed. While the results glaringly speak for themselves (a 90% drop in athlete truancy in Jan. compared to last Sept.), is this fair? As we all know, college athletes, namely those on full rides in the big two revenue sports, are not paid for their time. Some feel this is a grave injustice, as the rigors from demanding practice schedules and full-time coursework leaves nil time for a job. Plus, the amount of money universities profit from their services is obscene (see this post), and the men hired to coach them are paid in truckloads. Exploitation? Perhaps, but proponents of the current system maintain that the opportunity for a free education is certainly sufficient enough to compensate for their arduous agendas. I ask, is it fair to assess monetary penalties on players who are basically not allowed to earn money? Sure, $10 may seem petty, but in college a Hamilton can mean the difference between a weekend of play, or a weekend of playstation…especially if you’re not bringing in a paycheck. If a student-athlete can’t regularly attend class out of their own resolve, should they even be students at the university? Or, do the optimistic figures out of UGA speak loudly enough that whatever has to be done to increase academic participation, should indeed be done? Let's hear it...