December 05, 2005

Yeah, no one is asking them to get A's, they're just asking them to get C's in classes like "Football Theory." Honestly, that isn't asking for much. All most of these kids would have to do is just show up for class and pay attention 80% of the time and they would get A's in these fluff classes anyway. I'm sorry but I don't have a lot of patience for these "student atheletes," especially since I come from a school where no scholarships were awarded to sports players...

posted by Masked at 12:02 AM on December 06, 2005

shit for the amount of money that is spent on players from the student' s general fund is discusting. Colleges are for LEARNING not F;n sports or these asshole's who can't make C's and deprive the other students of a better education. For anyone on this thread who needs proof that NCAA progams DO NOT MAKE MONEY FOR SCHOOLS please check out CORPORATE AND GOV DEVIANCE ..Erman and Lundman 2002. Chapter 7. This is an academic reading. There are so many other lower socio-economic status students that could be helped by the money spent on failing athletes. (and sorry to say NCAA level sport particularlly basketball and footbal) I'm a little crabby, law school finals I love sports big time but education is the key for most of these athtletes and students and that is the upshot.

posted by T$PORT4lawschool at 12:21 AM on December 06, 2005

Look how much money the coaches are making these days. I'll bet most of the coaches are pounding thoughts in players ears to think about there sport 24/7 so they can get the edge on other teams. After all if there team does great for 2yrs in a row then it's raise time or i'm leaving!! Also, why is it that they never mention the percentage rate of Non-Acadimic players. I'm sure that their higher, but some of these colleges also might suck in general and not just their athletes.

posted by injury-prone at 03:12 AM on December 06, 2005

I'm with you everett. I think alot of times people harping on these college athletes is due in part to jealousy brought on by not being good enough to play at that level themselves. Would I like to see every student do very well in class? Of course I would, that's just not realistic though. So why further penalize someone that, since they have academic difficulties is going to have a hard enough time as is.

posted by Fade222 at 05:33 AM on December 06, 2005

The football season is about to release the nation's colleges to the pursuit of education, more or less. Soon the last nickel will be rung up at the gate, the last halfback will receive his check, and the last alumnus will try to pay off those bets he can recall. Most of the students have cheered themselves into insensibility long ago. This has been going on for almost fifty years. It is called "over-emphasis" on athletics, and everybody deplores it. It has been the subject of scores of reports, all of them shocking. It has been held to be crass professionalism, all the more shameful because it masquerades as higher education. But nobody has done anything about it. Why? I think it is because nobody wants to. Nobody wants, or dares, to defy the public, dishearten the students, or deprive alma mater of the loyalty of the alumni. Most emphatically at all, nobody wants to give up the gate receipts. The trouble with football is the money that is in it, and every code of amateurism ever written has failed for this reason. "Gate Receipts and Glory," Robert Maynard Hutchins (1938)

That's how Hutchins begins his piece. He goes on to recommend taking the money out of athletics by charging one thin dime to the games. The less money is in question, the more rational the colleges' behavior. As impossible in his day as in ours. But it's an intriguing notion. On preview, nicely said, l_b_b

posted by Uncle Toby at 08:40 AM on December 06, 2005

Am I really dense on the distinction here between bowl-bound "teams" and bowl-bound "schools" or is this article just poorly written? I've googled a couple of other stories on this subject and found them a little clearer but still not crystal. I had no luck finding the actual report even on Lapchick's website (especially since they don't quote the name of the report). Speaking of his website, there are some really interesting other articles. He could be a FPP on his own. Also note a similar SpoFi thread based on an older report. -Snare

posted by redsnare at 09:06 AM on December 06, 2005

I'd love to see a list of NFL greats whos lack of a college-worthy educational background would have kept them out of college, hense out of the NFL. I'd compile it myself, but I'm way too computer stupid. I don't know how you'd compile such a list; they fall into the gap between high school and college, and are probably documented only in anecdote. As it happens, I know a kid who graduated from high school last year and who might be good enough to cut it in the NFL, but who would make an even bigger mark in track, so that's where he was headed. Multiple times state champion in this that and the other event, holder of a gazillion league records, etc. Athletically, he could be at the best track school in the country; academically, no four-year school would touch him in spite of his awesome athletic credentials. Right now he's struggling at the community college level. Given that his sport is track, he might still make something happen, if he can work his way into a four-year program -- there are coaches who are pulling for it to happen and doing what they can to help him. But if his sport were football, I think it would be all over for him right now.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:36 AM on December 06, 2005

At Florida State, the average graduation rate (pdf) after 4 years is around 40% and after 5 years is around 60%. While it is useful to debate the student athlete, it is also useful to compare those athletes to students at that particular school. Florida public schools are not very strong, so the students going to college are not as prepared as they should be. I don't see this as a problem that is unique to athletics.

posted by bperk at 11:59 AM on December 06, 2005

majority of NCAA football or any other NCAA level college program is paid by THE GENERAL COLLEGE FUND IE THE STUDENTS!! NOT BY DONERS! A. Stop yelling. B. Don't they teach you how to proofread in law school? C. Does donor money go to some special fund that isn't available to non-athletes? Do none of the millions of dollars in revenues (less costs) not go to lay-about non-athletes who never even ran a damn windsprint for my favorite college team? Why are these kids getting a free ride on the backs of athletes just because they're smart?

posted by yerfatma at 12:11 PM on December 06, 2005

But if his sport were football, I think it would be all over for him right now. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this, lbb. Do you mean his problem would be all over because he'd be playing college football at Nebraska or Oklahoma or some other school known to lower their standards pretty darn low? No, I mean his athletic career would be over if his sport were football. He didn't even have the academics to qualify for a state school. Since his sport is track, he can do the community college thing and still train, because he doesn't need a team to train with, and either work his way into a four-year school or try to get sponsored. If his sport were track, however, he'd be hosed, because he can't train without a team.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:13 PM on December 06, 2005

If a High School student does not pass his ACT's or the average score of the national average then they should not become student athletes. Stay at the Car Wash and watch the NFL on the big screen.

posted by JIM W. at 01:39 PM on December 06, 2005

I get your point T$SPORT. I don't think you get mine. I would be totally against academically unqualified college football players - if there was an alternative route to the NFL. There isn't. Baseball has a minor league system. Do you think that perhaps this is the reason we don't see posts about academically unqualified baseball players? There would have been no Mickey Mantle without the minor leagues. To a 62 year old Yankee fan, that would be a bigger tragedy than Romeo and whats-her-name. Maybe we can get that Senator who has been sticking his nose in the baseball goings-on to pass legislation to force all NFL teams to create a minor league. Then the dummies that you seem to want to see kept in their place will have a chance to develop their talent for football.

posted by drevl at 03:05 PM on December 06, 2005

Drevl, I think that the practical reason for schools to have a football team is not direct money. Most programs don't make money as was posted above. Most teams realize that a nationally competitve athletic program translates to academic worth in the eyes of most Americans. A college is more likely to garner a nationally bases student body, and better faculty if they are seen on the news, and on billboards. It's fairly simple indirect advertising. Also I have to agree that if alumni donor dollars were not going to football, they would probably got to academics. People want their tax write-offs, and it just so happens that college athletics are the most fun thing at their alma-matters to donate to. If that wasnt possible wed probably see more bucks going towards other things, departments and such. But... are we really advocating against college football here? it is what it is, and I love it. fuck the money.

posted by everett at 04:20 PM on December 06, 2005

lbb, you shouldn't criticize my stuff - because I know how much you like me. I remember your comment about an Austin Powers movie. It was something like "I saw about half of the first movie and that was it. I liked Drevl though". See, the secret's out.

posted by drevl at 04:23 PM on December 06, 2005

I think that there is a lot to this issue, not just one thing. Look how lucrative a pro sports contract has become. College (specifically NCAA division I) has become sort of a minor league system to draw from. College sports has become about $$$$$$ as well, especialy if you have a top 25 team which can get into a big bowl game. With that in mind, many colleges don't really care about grades or academic standards. Money is the bottom line. At the same time the better high school athlete isn't really considering grades if he can basically make the cut and get in to a big time program, if only by the skin of his teeth or a little constructive test alterations (through cheating, payoff, etc.). It's sad that athletics has become a business and not a sport anymore.

posted by usroute17 at 05:10 PM on December 06, 2005

Just trying (unsuccessfully, no doubt) to be funny. You actually wrote "I liked Dr. Evil though", not I liked Drevl though.

posted by drevl at 05:31 PM on December 06, 2005

Several years ago i was watching a show dealing with the subject ( The lack of education for college Athletes). James Books-Star running back for the Bangles, who was fighting week-to-week to pay for his rent. He was currently a dock worker making $7.50/hr who couldn't even read. He talked about how his college(If i can recall, i think it was Auburn) would give him courses he didn't have to attend and received good grades. $$$$$$$$ changes most people and until the NCAA really cares, it'll never change. That's why you'll never see a college football playoff system. After all how can a four loss team in Florida State get a BCS game over Oregon. What if the NCAA took the individual colleges out of the equation. Prior to the start of each respective sport, the NCAA makes all the athletes take a general test, those who pass can continue to play, those who fail don't.

posted by injury-prone at 03:54 AM on December 07, 2005

ps was anyone else amused by the fact that, in a thread bemoaning a lack of education, someone talks about money given by "doners" and then someone else copies it-- not in a copy and paste but types it again-- clearly believing it to be the right spelling?

posted by drjimmy11 at 07:12 PM on December 07, 2005

ps was anyone else amused by the fact that, in a thread bemoaning a lack of education, someone talks about money given by "doners" and then someone else copies it-- not in a copy and paste but types it again-- clearly believing it to be the right spelling? posted by drjimmy11 at 7:12 PM CST on December 7 OK asshole, so I can't spell. I didn't go to college and just barely graduated from high school (101 out of a graduating class of 103). Still, I think I write well enough to get along. Now, let's get into your perfect command of the written word. Thus, what grades they get are their business- I dont care any more than I care about the average student or judge him for getting a less than stellar GPA. And the school certainly doesnt care about them any more than a huge faceless institution "cares" about any of its students, except in the sense that it can exploit these particular students to make money. posted by drjimmy11 at 12:17 AM CST on December 6 Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a bit of punctuation required here?

posted by drevl at 10:41 AM on December 08, 2005