The Atlantic article on how NCAA abandons athletes after injuries
There is a great article from The Atlantic about NCAA players who get abandoned to fend for themselves after they are injured. It is a pretty damning portrayals on how universities take advantage of naive kids and families. I don't understand why NCAA cannot provide 5 year free insurance coverage for athletes after they graduate if they are injured during their athletic career.
To relate this back to us, if Michigan does things the right way (but I do not have any real evidence that we do - just hope that we do things the right way and how we have handled Austin Hatch so far makes me believe that we do), shouldn't this be a real emphasis during recruiting?
Additionally, shouldn't sites like Mgoblog keep track of stories like this so that recruits can make informed decisions when it comes to which schools keep promises and which schools don't? I would hope doing would help Michigan be even more attractive to kids.
Even if it were in there originally, they are so easy to miss on this board--at least for the Herms of the world it's helpful.
But does it talk about how Manny Machado is a beast?
Offering things like 4-Year guaranteed scholarships and insurance don't entice recruits because no one ever thinks injuries will happen to them or that they won't be a starter.
For the kids that "know" they're going right to pro ball the insurance and guarantee of a scholarship probably wouldnt mean much. I would be willing to bet that there are quite a bit of self aware recruits and probably more parents that would be pulled in by this. Even if no one cares I'd love to see Michigan do this if only because imho it's the right thing.
I agree. Even for those that don't know off the bat, they get insurance policies from major insurers once they hit it big (like Manziel did). Pretty sure Clowney has one too.
Ben Cronin was the first recruit to commit when John Beilein came to Ann Arbor. He had a degenerative hip and had to quit basketball after just a few games, but he stayed with the program as a student manager for four more years.
On the football side I'm sure everyone remembers how Mealer tore his shoulder up lifting the car, and RR told him he would be kept on scholorship even if he never played a down for Michigan.
On the football side, Bass was given a medical scholarship or no?
He definitely was on scholarship of some kind.
Antonio Bass, Zia Combs, Daydrion Taylor. At least Michigan takes care of their guys. In basketball too with Cronin and COMMIT Austin Hatch. Isn't even in the program yet and he still is getting a scholly.
That why they need to finish a degree. 99% of the 444,000 student-athletes will never make any money off the sport they play.
For Doughty to quit college to go pro - that was his risky call to forgo a free degree which is why he has no job.
Who said he couldn't slip and fall and rip a tendon while out jogging waiting for a team to call? Who's fault would it been then?
It is really hard to convince a 20 year old kid that though. The person in the article was a player at USCe which puts a good number in the NFL. After all, that guy did get a call up since he was able to walk up and it was after the medical that he was released.
These kids, particularly at schools that place a lot, constantly hear how they are going to be ready for the next level. Just look at the last draft. Alabama had 9 graduating seniors and three juniors leave early. 9 of that group were drafted and the other 3 are free agent signers meaning they are all on NFL rosters at least for the spring.
I don't know how many kids will really focus on finishing up that degree no matter how much you talk to them.
What about keeping the scholarship open so if you leave to go pro and decide to come back, you can at least attend school fo free? I know a lot of people will call BS on it and complain about having to pay their own way (trust me, I'm in the same boat--eye balls in debt and I'm only 25) but the effect per student over the years would be minimal at best probably. IDK just thinking aloud now. It's not something that'd bother me considering how much joy I personally get from athletics.
You can't protect everyone from youthful bad decisions.
True story bro:
Had a cousin that got straight A's in architecture and then received an acceptance and scholarship from Harvard for a masters. He instead grew a beard, got married young and made handmade furniture for a few years before they had a baby and then figured how much things really cost.
It might be hard but what's preventing him from going back and getting his masters? Maybe not Harvard but he could still do it at a local school. I'm in a graduate program and there are quite a few folks who are married with kids in my program. It's not easy but they make due.
As for my idea, like I said I was just thinking aloud. Mostly, just why not allow them to come back to their scholarship? Obviously not play since they wouldn't be at amatuer status. My reasoning was that relative to the exposoure these guys bring to the school and provide for a great collegial experience for the students, it doesn't seem like it'd be much to do. Maybe do some limits on it--like if you're a one and done basketball player, we're not paying for 3 years when you left. But for a football player, it might only be a semester or two. I think it'd be a nice gesture and obviously I'm only talking about individual schools deciding to do this--not a general policy across the board.
http://www.mgoblue.com/genrel/042513aaa.html
There is a Michigan scholarship fund for players who leave early and then later decide they need to finish their degree (and need help paying for it).
See, how awesome is that!
He actually has a job now, which those who read the whole article know.
...as a car salesman. No offense to car salesmen, but how many college grads go on to car sales (unless out of desperation)? Do you think he would be doing the same job if he had gotten a degree?
[double post]
The fact that the NCAA isn't on this--and that the only insurance they offer is apparently pretty hard to collect on--makes me even madder at those STUPID "think of us as a spirit squad" ads they ran during the basketball tournament. Protecting student athletes my ass.
What a dumb article.
Can anybody figure out how any athlete named in the story was "abandonded" by the NCAA or any member institution?
I get the impression that the author -- whom I've never heard of in college football writing -- thinks that most NCAA football players go on to play in the NFL, and if they don't play in the NFL, they must somehow be deserving of some form or worker compensation.
If someone can make a plausible, detailed case that some collegiate football programs are covering up injuries, and are preventing their team physicians from relaying medical information from patients who happen to be student-athletes, I am all ears. That's wrong; not just wrong, it is probably actionable in court.
But the author seemed to be preoccupied on whether a certain player would get a contract to play in the NFL. As if the point of college football was to supply the NFL, and that some sort of collective bargaining agreement ought to apply.
Guess what. Playing college football is a nice deal, for scholarship players. Kids all across the country are working hard to get collegiate athletic scholarships. And when you go to college on a football scholarship and play football, you might get hurt. You might end up not getting drafted into the NFL. You might end up playing football, getting a degree, and using the degree to get a job. You might end up like a lot of college grads. Teaching and coaching a middle school or a high school team. Or selling insurance. Or going to grad school.
I'd be interested, if anybody could distill the supposed institutional wrongdoing in this article into 25 words or less.
but it sure seems like USC ought to cover his surgery.
The remaining 12 credits - well the kid chose to leave school before graduating and it didn't work out. So he needs to take out a loan like the rest of us mere mortals and finish school.
On the larger issue. It would seem that an independant exit exam for student atheletes and clear up front disclosure of medical insurance seems reasonable.
If a player suffered an orthopedic injury that was pretty clearly demonstrable on a radiograph, an MRI or a CT scan, and if that player were told by 'team doctors' that there was no injury and that he could/should return to play, that is malpractice. And with the imaging evidence it would be simple to prove with an opposing, qualified expert witness who could show the imaging to a jury and explain where the pathology was and why it was a departure from the standard of care applicable to team doctors to allow the player to return to competition and the risk of further injury.
That would be an easy case to prove, if it really were that simple.
The author for the Atlantic story seemed to imply such a claim, but never made it clear. I would bet anything that in fact her South Carolina Gamecocks story isn't nearly so clear as what she implies.
The thing that I would propose to emphasize that the number of college football players who are fully disabled as a result of playing the game is close to zero. That's a big difference from college football players who claim that riches awaited them in the NFL if only they had been treated better by their college teams. That latter area is the one which the OP article dabbles in, and the one I think is so dubious.
in the way the story is written ...
Its sad that schools like UM & ND who honor their scholarships and take care of their kids get punished because of it. In the SEC if you pull an arm hair you are cut.
Have you actually looked at the number of players making it 4 years in the different conferences? Retention is not really great in one conference and terrible in the other. I do recall complaints about too many medicals which would be the school giving the kid the full ride without expecting them to play.