Academics and College Football
I want to bring the conversation from this diary and talk about it in a separate topic.
I've thought about what I said in the previous thread and realized my statements have been slightly unclear. I'll try to restate this in a way to spur the discussion and correct my own inconsistencies.
Key Issues:
1. The NCAA is THE minor league for the NFL.
2. There are minimum academic standards to get into the NCAA football establishment.
3. Michigan minimums = NCAA minimums.
Key Assumptions:
1. Admitted athletes go to class and are academically engaged at an appropriate level.
2. Athletics, whether or not it is explicitly outlined in the mission statement, is a HUGE focus for top universities. The school/AD spent $225M to renovate a hole in the ground so people have a nice place to watch football 6-8 days a year.
3. People acknowledge that in order to be an athletic powerhouse AND a top academic school, typical admission standards need to be compromised.
My points of contention with the current system and questions I ask posters to address:
1. While Michigan is not a vocational school, there is no vocational school for football players. One doesn't need a university degree to be a plumber, just to be excellent at plumbing (and pass trade school). Why SHOULD football be different?
2. There are arbitrary standards from the NCAA on academic qualification (GPA, SAT/ACT). Schools are free to set their own at higher levels. However, since the NCAA is the de facto gateway to the NFL, people seeking a career in a physical discipline are forced to meet intellectual standards. Is a non-qualifier better off struggling to jump through (totally unrelated to their intended pursuit) hoops at a community college or at a school with vast resources where they can pursue their desired career in a mutually beneficial way?
3. Referencing assumption 3, admission standards are already compromised. In effect, by even allowing athletes below normal admission standards, a school is clearly stating "you do not belong here, but we are making an exception because you have a certain talent". As a result, why does the degree to which an athlete is below the standard matter? A clear statement of "you don't belong here" is already present. The massive hypocrisy is astounding. Athletes are actively recruited to join a university, at which point they are immediately branded 2nd-class citizens of the institution. A university does NOT have to do this, they do so because it is a very beneficially endeavor for itself. This leaves a final choice: no athletic scholarships and be like Ivies, continued, institutionally sponsored hypocrisy, or acceptance of reality and restructure the student-athlete concept to be more equitable?
I've thought about what I said in the previous thread and realized my statements have been slightly unclear. I'll try to restate this in a way to spur the discussion and correct my own inconsistencies.
Key Issues:
1. The NCAA is THE minor league for the NFL.
2. There are minimum academic standards to get into the NCAA football establishment.
3. Michigan minimums = NCAA minimums.
Key Assumptions:
1. Admitted athletes go to class and are academically engaged at an appropriate level.
2. Athletics, whether or not it is explicitly outlined in the mission statement, is a HUGE focus for top universities. The school/AD spent $225M to renovate a hole in the ground so people have a nice place to watch football 6-8 days a year.
3. People acknowledge that in order to be an athletic powerhouse AND a top academic school, typical admission standards need to be compromised.
My points of contention with the current system and questions I ask posters to address:
1. While Michigan is not a vocational school, there is no vocational school for football players. One doesn't need a university degree to be a plumber, just to be excellent at plumbing (and pass trade school). Why SHOULD football be different?
2. There are arbitrary standards from the NCAA on academic qualification (GPA, SAT/ACT). Schools are free to set their own at higher levels. However, since the NCAA is the de facto gateway to the NFL, people seeking a career in a physical discipline are forced to meet intellectual standards. Is a non-qualifier better off struggling to jump through (totally unrelated to their intended pursuit) hoops at a community college or at a school with vast resources where they can pursue their desired career in a mutually beneficial way?
3. Referencing assumption 3, admission standards are already compromised. In effect, by even allowing athletes below normal admission standards, a school is clearly stating "you do not belong here, but we are making an exception because you have a certain talent". As a result, why does the degree to which an athlete is below the standard matter? A clear statement of "you don't belong here" is already present. The massive hypocrisy is astounding. Athletes are actively recruited to join a university, at which point they are immediately branded 2nd-class citizens of the institution. A university does NOT have to do this, they do so because it is a very beneficially endeavor for itself. This leaves a final choice: no athletic scholarships and be like Ivies, continued, institutionally sponsored hypocrisy, or acceptance of reality and restructure the student-athlete concept to be more equitable?
One doesn't need a university degree to be a plumber, just to be excellent at plumbing (and pass trade school). Why SHOULD football be different?
Because most college football players don't go on to the NFL, and of those who do make it, the average career is only four years. Very few professional athletes actually earn/save enough during their careers to be set for life. Whereas a plumber can practice his trade for 50 years, an athlete will have to prepare for a long life after his/her sport, so it's certainly a good idea to get a college degree.
BTW, the university isn't spending a dime on the stadium renovation. The athletic department is financially autonomous from the school.
Because most college football players don't go on to the NFL, and of those who do make it, the average career is only four years. Very few professional athletes actually earn/save enough during their careers to be set for life. Whereas a plumber can practice his trade for 50 years, an athlete will have to prepare for a long life after his/her sport, so it's certainly a good idea to get a college degree.First, college isn't for everyone. Second, one of the key issues here is that some of these players wouldn't be even considering college except for their football skills, and some of them can't qualify academically and thus can't even pursue the career choice. 3rd, most average people don't save enough for retirement over the course of 40 years, so it's not just limited to athletes.
BTW, the university isn't spending a dime on the stadium renovation. The athletic department is financially autonomous from the school.Not entirely true. The AD doesn't receive funds from the school, this is true provided the AD is running in the black. Also, the $225M in loans or w/e, who do you think the co-signer was? Yep, the university endowment essentially. Consider, the AD has a slightly under $100M rev run rate with about a 5-10% profit margin. No one is going to loan the AD the money without EXPLICIT backing from the school. So it's not exactly financially autonomous.
This is certainly true. But high school really should be for everyone. I would argue that the minimum high school academic exposure that is sufficient to gain NCAA eligibility is also necessary to being a functioning citizen. While it doesn't make sense to require every NFL aspirant to have a top-tier liberal arts degree, I think it's a very good thing that teenagers who believe they might someday make the league are strongly incented away from completely not giving a fuck about any sort of academic cultivation.
who want to be Dr.'s too but because they can't gualify academically, they can't pursue their career of choice either...... The same is true for most professions I would guess.
I would suggest that there are many occupations that certain areas of a persons studies will never become a factor. In Canada you have to take certain credits to get your HS diploma (three maths, three english courses, three sciences, three social studies and some more I can't remember). You couple that with courses that will compliment your desired career path and in the end need to have 21 credits out of a potential 24.
Many people will take courses that will not be of any use in their desired field but they have to take them anyway, and pass. Many will never use algebra, trig or stats in their careers. Most won't write poetry or mix solutions and suspensions but it is all part of their education.
In Canada playing sports is a priviledge, not a right. If you are failing any courses you can't play sports in HS. This holds true in University as well. People have to be weeded out in some way and for the NFL this is one of those ways. Also, as stated previously, what about all the college football players that don't go on to an NFL career. I think the degrees they get will be something worthwhile to fall back on.
I realize that the argument here is that many other professional sports don't have a similar issue. They have minor league systems that don't require an education to gain entry to. I would argue that football is diong it the right way and the rest are flawed rather than the other way round. I would rather see all professional athletes have to attain a University education in order to be given the priviledges they are offered.
*edit* I was saying "Canada" but the education system is governed provincially, not federally. Therefore I can really only speak to the way things are in Nova Scotia. It is possible that other provinces do it differently (though I don't think they do).
"3rd, most average people don't save enough for retirement over the course of 40 years, so it's not just limited to athletes."
This is true, but they have far more marketable skills with which they can attain another paying job than a person who hasn't gone to college and can only play football.
"First, college isn't for everyone. Second, one of the key issues here is that some of these players wouldn't be even considering college except for their football skills, and some of them can't qualify academically and thus can't even pursue the career choice."
I agree with most of this too, many wouldn't be considering college if they didn't have to but you say that as if it is a bad thing. You also keep saying "can't qualify" but I am not sure I buy that. I would suggest that for most it is that they don't want to put forth the effort TO qualify.
As I said before, I had to work and study hard to get through so I don't feel all that bad that they have to as well. I was 30 years old before I got done University because of bad life choices and a failure to see the value of an education.
that has decent enough football skills to play at Michigan, barely makes it academically and ends up not getting drafted in a pro or semi-pro league. He probably knows more about football and what it takes to be a great football player than anyone on this board. IMO this is skill and experience (at a D-IA school) that a very small percentage of the population can claim. And it's a skill set that is definitely worth something to a high school or college football program.
First of all I will clear something up in that in Canada we have no athletic scholarships whatsoever. If you want to get a free education, you have to be smart enough to get intellectual scholarships.
I have to say I am having a hard time feeling sorry for people who can't get grades and therefore play college sports and go onto an NFL career. What jobs do not have requirments? Unless you work at a 7-11 there are things you have to do in order to get a job. You might be the best plumber known to man but if you aren't smart enough to get into vocational school and get your papers, no one will want to get you to do a job.
I was a guy who struggled in school for reasons unknown to many. Everyone thought I was smart enough to do the work but when it came down to it I just couldn't get the grades. I dropped out of school when I was 17 and started doing hard labor which lasted a couple years. Then I figured out how badly I needed an education.
I went back to school and worked my ass of for the next 14 years (and I mean worked my ass off, because I am not the type that studying comes naturally) to get to my chosen profession today. I had all the skills necessary to do my job without the various degree's (most i guess, but I did lack the knowledge base)but I had to get those degree's that said I was capable of performing at an adequate level.
As someone stated earlier, there are about 2600 NFL players. That means of all the people dreaming of having an NFL career 2600 people have realized that dream. This is a career where you play a sport you love and get paid millions. Should I feel sorry if some kid can't find the motivation to get the grades necessary to get into university so he can make that money someday? You must be kidding me.
Do you think that athletes are the only ones who miss out on their desired careers because they can't get into university? I would guess that there are many people in the world that have a unique skill set that would be very beneficial in a specific field, but due to their grades and not being able to gain entry into a specific university or program will never perform in that area.
Bottom line to me is that this a career that many more than the 2600 current players would like to have. In every field there are critera one has to meet in order to perform in that job whether it is educational requirements, criminal records check, child abuse checks etc etc etc. This is not a secret to football players. They know that in order to get to the NFL they need to go through University. Do I feel sorry that a guy that wants to make millions of dollars a year has to have an education? Hell no I don't feel bad. These are people that are going to be in the spotlight and potential role models for kids around the world. Do I want my kid looking up to some idiot that can't spell his own name or can't speak in proper english?
In my opinion (and I may be the only one) I think having academic standards for STUDENT-athletes (as well as the music students) is a good thing.
I also don't think that the NFL is the answer for those unable cut it academically. My argument is that Michigan wants these guys for their very high level of achievement in an arena that has almost nothing to do with academics, and yet they require them to meet academic standards. It just strikes me as odd.
And I am saying this as someone to whom academics has come very easy, with scholarships to two very selective and highly ranked institutions and the resulting degrees. Yet football players (and other athletes) have skills and abilities and maybe even a type of physical work ethic that I lack, and that I was not required to demonstrate for my free rides.
I just want to say your story really struck me. I have a very good friend who was the same way, exceptionally smart but just not interested. He quit high school and now he's working his way through college. Watching him struggle with things, I've come to have a real disdain for the way higher education operates in the US... but this is way OT. Anyway, +1 to you.
Better said and more eloquent than me. Working in the NFL is a privilege. There are many who would be good doctors, but they have to jump through the academic hoops to get in. Do those hoops have anything to do with medicine? Not directly, but we don't say, "let's come up with a vocational school as a more direct track to become an MD."
Acing organic chemistry or biology have a hell of a lot more to do with being qualified to be a doctor than a professional football player.
I didn't say there were no classes directly associated with Medicine, I said many weren't. What do those classes have to do with becoming a plumber or Lawyer? The fact remains the same, many students have to take classes they will never use because those are the rules, end of story.
I think these professional athletes already hold a feeling of entitlement and this type of special treatment would only add to that.
Many here are saying that pro football is a way out of poverty for these kids. That is only true for the handful that will make it to the NFL. If education has no factor in playing college ball what happens to all those who fail to make it there? At least currently they will have a university education that will serve them much better in the "real world" than football skills will, when they aren't a pro player.
My main point is simple: I don't think it is too much to ask of a would be pro athlete millionnaire to work hard through HS and University before he goes on to make millions of dollars a year.
"I think these professional athletes already hold a feeling of entitlement and this type of special treatment would only add to that."
Have you met b-school kids?
"My main point is simple: I don't think it is too much to ask of a would be pro athlete millionnaire to work hard through HS and University before he goes on to make millions of dollars a year."
My main point is that it's ridiculous to potentially lock a would be pro athlete out of his desired career because he is unable to do something completely unrelated to said career.
There are plenty of people out there who would make fantastic lawyers but who can't become lawyers because they sucked at biology and didn't get good enough grades to get into college. So I ask, why should they be locked out of their desired career because they're unable to something completely unrelated to said career?
Lawyers and Plumbers still have to get through high school and take courses that will not help their career one bit.
I again bring up what was said previously about there being roughly 2600 nfl players. How many people do you think want, or even expect to make it to the nfl? If those athletes don't need to go to University, than they don't need to finish HS either. Hell, why not just drop out at 16 and play football all day. But then there is the fact that many won't actually make it, and where does it leave them? Uneducated with a skill that won't get them a job anywhere. This is a great plan for getting kids out of poverty IME.
I have no idea what b-school kids are, sorry.
As to your second point, I guess we just disagree. I find it hard to believe that people wouldn't expect more from people who are aspiring to become highly paid pro athletes and thus be thrust into the spotlight and become role models for children everywhere.
My main point is I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a pro-athlete to first attain an education before moving on to become a wealthy role model for children.
Also, look how many athletes are either released and never resigned or out of the NFL due to injury before they are 30 years old. How do those skills that we say are the be all and end all in the life of a pro athlete benefit them then?
Look at John Navarre, there was a post about him on here the other day talking about how he got released and never resigned with anyone. Now he is a plant manager for a company. I bet he is glad he got his university education.
What do those classes have to do with becoming a lawyer or a plumber? Nothing, but students who want to be lawyers or plumbers don't have to take them. My point is lawyers and doctors need some education beyond the high school level to perform their jobs competently. Professional football players don't, so it's screwy to require they take college classes.
The current system benefits many more people (requiring 100% of athletes to get some form of education for free) than it hurts. how many nfl/nba ready guys have actually been excluded from the leagues due to the current system?
and shall we let olympic/non-rev sports "major" in whatever sport they play?
I guess i'd lean toward giving them a choice, but i don't think the current system robs anyone of either choice or opportunity.
that we seem to disagree Shock, you have definitely given many people a lot to think and talk about. Well done on this diary topic, it has been a very interesting debate to say the least.
I'm all about giving athletes a chance to get into college. There are tons of opportunities for everyone else to get in. I think of college athletics as a certain type of "philanthropy" that benefits many people, from athletes to coaches to media who have jobs covering sports.
Many of the athletes come from disadvantaged situations not just involving family issues, but socioeconomic issues that bleed right into them getting a shoddy education from grade school on. Poor schools, uninspired teachers and administration, and the "herd e'm through" mentality of our primary education system. Get them into college, ans who knows? It seems most athletes do benefit from the student-athlete experience, so a lot of good comes from it.
As for majors, let 'em tailor degrees for athletes. Their position as an athlete is often more than a full-time job. If they don't want to major in something like pre-law or engineering, let 'em major in something like General Studies. What's the harm? They'll get a degree and benefit from being in college even if their playing days end there. I don't say pity them or feed them super easy classes, but do they really need to sleep through Shakespeare or micro-economics lectures like the rest of us?
Most of the general student body probably has about 70% of their class loads that they will likely learn nothing from and forget the minute they throw their finals cheat sheet in the trash. It seems athletes are put under more scrutiny with regard to time as well. How many GenPop students graduate in four years, even five? Why should athletes be forced to graduate in that time frame?
As for the argument that athletes should be forced, or even expected, to get some education before they go out and make millions of dollars--why? They do nothing technical, do not open up skulls to pull out tumors or diangnose someone like me with bi-polar disease and prescribe two thousand pills so I do nothing more dangerous than losing my remote control. How many businessmen who have made millions were forced, or even expected, to get a degree first?
And it boils down to our expectations as well. We expect WINS--not much else. Colleges expect WINS. Networks expect talented, exciting athletes who create something televisable and sellable to advertisers. It's an industry and most athletes are grist for the mill same way as most regularly employed people who sit in a cubicle for 45 years are for their professions. And how many people who get a degree pursue a career in that area? Or stay in that degree-oriented profession? I bet those numbers are alarmingly lower than most would think.
What all of this means to me is that the sham of "student-athlete" shouldn't be so (outwardly, anyway) propped up as something to behold. It's a myth and has been since the days of Willie Heston and Adolph Schultz. I'm not saying you let it go unchecked, and there SHOULD be criteria and standards to hold universities to that ensure the student athlete is being prepared for a life after college no matter which way his playing career goes. But as the OP suggests, there are notions in place that relegate athletes to "second-class" citizen status, so why force something on the other end of it, such as degree expectations within time frames that are unrealistic? It is easy to sit back and be all, "Yeah, man, they get a free education"--but do they really? How many kids did Nick Saban find ways to erase from Alabama's football roster to accommodate 32 new recruits last year? How many kids get thier dreams crushed by injury, under-performance (based on the expectations of recruiting gurus and such), roster number crunching, and perhaps other reason beyond their control and are left out in the cold?
Lastly, this thing is the "Horse out of the barn" syndrome. There is too much money and prestige now sunk into it. And there is a LOT of opportunities for kids who might not otherwise have them. The people (especially media types such as the smarmy Mitch Albom) who harrumph and harrumph, yet spend their time covering the Michigans or USC's of the world instead of the dynamite Lehigh-Colgate matchups are the best example of the hypocrisy alluded to by the OP. They shout out from the mountaintop that they care and are concerned about the state of college athletics, write articles lambasting professors who teach an independent studies course (while ingoring or impugning the rest of a 40 year career in education)---yet all they talk about when it's time to sit down at the word processor or when an ESPN camera is on their made-up face is who won the Heisman or who won the Big Game this past weekend.
of this post but I would say given the paragraphs I did read we obviously disagree. I have no problem with a University lowering its admissions criteria for athletes (actually I do but it is the least of my problems). My big issue is if it isn't a necessity to go to university to get to the NFL than it won't be necessary for these men to complete HS either, because you only need HS if you want to go to Uni.
So now we have thousands of guys dropping out of school at 16 so they can concentrate on football. Wait now, there are only 2600 players in the NFL.....Only 1% of these dropouts will make it to the NFL. Now what?
We have done what was asked and eliminated Uni. as a stepping stone to the NFL....Now all these athletes won't have to do anything that isn't directly correlated to their "desired" career path (I wanted to be a rocket scientist but University requirements got in my way too....I shot off plenty of model rockets in my day though, so can I please have a job anyway......) and thus we have 99% of these people unemployed and homeless.....The original argument had something to do with a way for these guys to get out of poverty....I don't think this will work out so well.
I think we have to keep in mind that EVERY job has requirements and this is one for the NFL. They are already given lowered admission standards so they can get into school what more do they need? These lower standards are esentially to complete HS and you can move on and I, for one, don't think that is too much to ask. Some here are saying "they can't meet the standards" and for a very small few I bet you are right. However, I would bet my years salary that in MOST cases the kids simply doesn't want to put forth the effort to meet the standards, and I can't feel sorry for them. I say the system is a good one. I am done debating.
Comments