I'm beyond tired of hearing the logical fallacy that head injuries from CTE cause these events. A couple of poorly understood pathologic studies does not yet a medical breakthrough make. That's not to say there's nothing there; but let's at least be sensical in the conclusions we draw and not start with lawsuits and policy changes on correlations alone.
The underlying theme here though is the value of that nebulous concept that is an "education", which you paternalistically state they will some day appreciate. Going to an amazing university like Michigan provides you with opportunity and that's it. A degree doesn't guarantee you had a good education, or really even any education. It only means you completed the requirements to graduate. It certainly doesn't guarantee you're prepared for any career at all. It's up to the student to commit and make the most of things. The same applies to athletes. Graduating only means they did the bare minimum and now have a degree which may or may not provide any practical skills for their eventual livelihood. They did all of this while balancing their other full-time job. I fully support any athlete who wants a degree in a subject outside of athletics and works for it. I think it's an amazing opportunity that these kids have. I don't support a system which shepards kids through it in the name of education so that they can define them as student-athletes and financially exploit their atheltic skill.
My point was not that there is viability to a football major, but that I don't see the difference between football players majoring in football and art majors majoring in art. Here, watch me adapt the end of your argument to an art major (or an acting major, etc): "Art is very competitive and doesn't require a degree in the field as it is, why bother creating an art major?" No one would suppose that there is no benefit in learning art theory or art history, but it's not required to be an artist. I'm not saying I'd be proud of or sign up for a football major, but it's not fair to say there are no career prospects in the increasingly business world of athletics (professional, collegiate, even drifting into high school) by way of comparison to the art or acting worlds.
I fail to see this significant difference. Of course you can't keep playing football until you're 65, but it's not like there aren't an ever increasing number of professions in the business that surrounds the major sports (read coaching at all levels, front offices, personal training facilities, etc). That's not to say I dream of my son someday going to Michigan and majoring in "football", but these kids have a fulltime job in the sport of their choice and are then asked to attend classes at a university for which they may or may not have academically qualified if not for athletics. Couldn't they just as easily take classes in the field of their interest while also completing a minimum core curriculum like any other student?
I just think propping up the antequated idea that every one of these players is in school to "get an education" helps support the sham of a system propogated by the NCAA. It's a business these day, plain and simple. Let's stop pretending otherwise. If a kid wants an education in a less risky field out of the process I think that's great. If not, I have no problem with calling a spade and spade.
"What was I doing here? What was the meaning of this trip? Was I just roaming around in a drug frenzy of some kind? Or had I really come out here to Las Vegas to work on a story? Who are these people, these faces? Where do they come from? They look like caricatures of used car dealers from Dallas"
Recent Comments
I'm beyond tired of
This
I'm beyond tired of hearing the logical fallacy that head injuries from CTE cause these events. A couple of poorly understood pathologic studies does not yet a medical breakthrough make. That's not to say there's nothing there; but let's at least be sensical in the conclusions we draw and not start with lawsuits and policy changes on correlations alone.
The underlying theme here though is the value of that nebulous concept that is an "education", which you paternalistically state they will some day appreciate. Going to an amazing university like Michigan provides you with opportunity and that's it. A degree doesn't guarantee you had a good education, or really even any education. It only means you completed the requirements to graduate. It certainly doesn't guarantee you're prepared for any career at all. It's up to the student to commit and make the most of things. The same applies to athletes. Graduating only means they did the bare minimum and now have a degree which may or may not provide any practical skills for their eventual livelihood. They did all of this while balancing their other full-time job. I fully support any athlete who wants a degree in a subject outside of athletics and works for it. I think it's an amazing opportunity that these kids have. I don't support a system which shepards kids through it in the name of education so that they can define them as student-athletes and financially exploit their atheltic skill.
My point was not that there is viability to a football major, but that I don't see the difference between football players majoring in football and art majors majoring in art. Here, watch me adapt the end of your argument to an art major (or an acting major, etc): "Art is very competitive and doesn't require a degree in the field as it is, why bother creating an art major?" No one would suppose that there is no benefit in learning art theory or art history, but it's not required to be an artist. I'm not saying I'd be proud of or sign up for a football major, but it's not fair to say there are no career prospects in the increasingly business world of athletics (professional, collegiate, even drifting into high school) by way of comparison to the art or acting worlds.
I fail to see this significant difference. Of course you can't keep playing football until you're 65, but it's not like there aren't an ever increasing number of professions in the business that surrounds the major sports (read coaching at all levels, front offices, personal training facilities, etc). That's not to say I dream of my son someday going to Michigan and majoring in "football", but these kids have a fulltime job in the sport of their choice and are then asked to attend classes at a university for which they may or may not have academically qualified if not for athletics. Couldn't they just as easily take classes in the field of their interest while also completing a minimum core curriculum like any other student?
I just think propping up the antequated idea that every one of these players is in school to "get an education" helps support the sham of a system propogated by the NCAA. It's a business these day, plain and simple. Let's stop pretending otherwise. If a kid wants an education in a less risky field out of the process I think that's great. If not, I have no problem with calling a spade and spade.
I know it's been posted before but feels appropriate again. This is the takedown of the NCAA in the Atlantic last Fall: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-colleg…
"What was
Vision quest over
"What was I doing here? What was the meaning of this trip? Was I just roaming around in a drug frenzy of some kind? Or had I really come out here to Las Vegas to work on a story? Who are these people, these faces? Where do they come from? They look like caricatures of used car dealers from Dallas"