18 replies to this topic

[DirtyMagic97]

I have been in discussion with a few people regarding the topic of the student athlete. Clearly, a lot of student athletes struggle with academic ineligibility.

So my question becomes, should players at the collegiate level be allowed to "major" in the sport they are playing? With students being given degrees in theatre and other nonsensical crap, why should athletes not be allowed to major in the sport of their choice? Please discuss.

[Darth Biscuit]

They either need to go one way or the other...

Make requirements the same for all college students whether you play sports or not, and actually enforce it... Or go the other way and do something like what you suggest and make it where athletes aren't necessarily students.

The current system is a complete joke.

[DirtyMagic97]

They either need to go one way or the other...

Make requirements the same for all college students whether you play sports or not, and actually enforce it... Or go the other way and do something like what you suggest and make it where athletes aren't necessarily students.

The current system is a complete joke.

It certainly needs to be fixed. There is a definite problem.

Perhaps the schools could have the kids take classes in coaching, leadership, stadium management, etc... Just let them actually take classes that relate to their interests and can have a lasting impact on their careers. Not to mention, probably a bit easier.

[Darth Biscuit]

Sounds fair to me... They need to stop pretending to care about these kids and do right by them. As most everything else, its all about the money.

[thatlookseasy]

I agree, I mean if you can major in drama why cant you major in football? Hell, maybe more NFL/ NBA players could learn how to not blow through all their professional earnings if they had classes geared toward them in college

[bigjohn]

I agree. Put in some classes on financial management and such to help them if they make the big time, and put in classes on coaching, management, marketing, and communications to help them if they fizzle out or blow out a knee.

Just makes too damn much sense.

[Raleighcat83]

Here's an idea: let's have minor leagues for kids that want to play pro football or basketball and don't give a crap about school. Then let's let kids who want to play in college play in college, but enforce real standards and make them actually go to class. This is how baseball works, you can get to MLB either by going to the minors straight out of high school or by playing in college. I don't think we need to lower standards for athletes, give them special majors or pay them. If they want to be college athletes they should be college students, period. There should be another option for those who aren't interested in college.

[Raleighcat83]

Also, only a tiny fraction of players actually go pro, even from the power programs. So the guy who majors in football and doesnt get drafted is seriously gonna be up s*** creek. Not that he wouldn't be anyway if he doesn't study, but not sure we should create a major just for the one percent of players who actually go pro.

[Anybodyhome]

Okay, but does this apply to every athlete on campus with an athletic scholarship? Like those on the swim team, volleyball team, lacrosse, track and field, women's basketball? Or, are you going to treat the basketball and football players differently because those are the major sports and those athletes seem to be the ones just going through the motions of attending classes?

For example, a track runner probably attends his classes and probably has a real student workload and likely carries a "real" major that will allow him to find a job after school- while the football player has a pie schedule, takes a minimum of classes that mean nothing, etc., does the football player get preferential treatment?

Stop altogether with the notion that most of the B-ball and football players are students- they're not so let's stop with the ostrich syndrome, pull your head out of the sand and understand they are there to make money for the school as football and basketball players. They are employees of the school, should be paid as employees and let real students sit in those classroom seats now occupied by the athletes.

They work on a minimum 2-year, non-guaranteed contract and when their playing days are finished, they have the option to return to that school and get a degree if they find out they will not or cannot make it in the professional field of endeavor they chose (NFL or NBA), at no cost. A governing body sets a pay scale so every D1 QB makes the same amount of money, for example. Or, every player, regardless of position makes the same money. And we're not talking serious bucks, we're talking the difference between Triple A and the majors kind of pay.

We need to stop judging schools and athletes by transcripts, classes taken or not, etc. It's a hypocritical joke, although I find it hilarious Mr. Potato Head is likely more intelligent than Julius Peppers, to even begin discussing "academic eligibility."

[Raleighcat83]

Stop altogether with the notion that most of the B-ball and football players are students- they're not so let's stop with the ostrich syndrome, pull your head out of the sand and understand they are there to make money for the school as football and basketball players. They are employees of the school, should be paid as employees and let real students sit in those classroom seats now occupied by the athletes.

A majority of athletic departments don't make a profit. Even within FBS, only about half of all athletic departments make a profit, the rest operate at a loss. So the idea that football and basketball exist for the purpose of making money for the school is wrong. College football and basketball existed long before the big TV contracts and BCS bowls. College football and basketball still exist, at many schools, as an athletic competition between real students from the competing institutions. Some kids don't want to be college students, they just want to be pro athletes. That's fine, that's why I think we should have minor leagues. But the idea that we should create professional teams loosely connected to the university inested of amateur teams made up of student athletes is absurd to me.

[Anybodyhome]

A majority of athletic departments don't make a profit. Even within FBS, only about half of all athletic departments make a profit, the rest operate at a loss. So the idea that football and basketball exist for the purpose of making money for the school is wrong. College football and basketball existed long before the big TV contracts and BCS bowls. College football and basketball still exist, at many schools, as an athletic competition between real students from the competing institutions. Some kids don't want to be college students, they just want to be pro athletes. That's fine, that's why I think we should have minor leagues. But the idea that we should create professional teams loosely connected to the university inested of amateur teams made up of student athletes is absurd to me.

I've seen those same articles and "studies," but they leave out all the numbers. Not included in the revenues are the TV contracts, bowl game revenues, conference incentives, etc. Some of the biggest numbers available are not included.

College football and basketball are the minor leagues for the NFL and NBA. Simply calling it professional in your terms and calling it the minor leagues on my terms are no different. Stop with the "amateur" stuff- you're as much as an idealist as I once was.

[Daddy Uncle]

I'm an online student and play slow pitch softball

[Raleighcat83]

I've seen those same articles and "studies," but they leave out all the numbers. Not included in the revenues are the TV contracts, bowl game revenues, conference incentives, etc. Some of the biggest numbers available are not included.

College football and basketball are the minor leagues for the NFL and NBA. Simply calling it professional in your terms and calling it the minor leagues on my terms are no different. Stop with the "amateur" stuff- you're as much as an idealist as I once was.

Those studies generally do include apparel and TV deals, and even if they didn't, most schools don't make enough money to be able to pay the players any reasonable amount on top of their scholarships. Meanwhile, I don't actually think the fair market value of the median NCAA football player is as high as the value of a scholarship. So in a system that replaced scholarships with paid, pro-style contracts, a handful of star players at the big schools would be very well paid, while the majority of players would actually be worse off. And in the long run the game would be worse off too. I believe college football would start to lose its fan base once it became nothing more than minor league teams with no real connection to the colleges they represent other than wearing the school colors. I propose to let those few players who would actually be better off earning their market value after high school do so, either with an NFL future contract, where a team could draft the right to develop that player, and pay a salary in the meantime, but couldn't play them until age 21(for player safety reasons), or with a true minor league system, similar to the one in place in baseball. Others could choose to be student-athletes, earning a scholarship not only as implicit compensation for the money they help the athletic department earn, but also based on the idea that the student body benefits from a diversity in talents and experiences. They football and basketball teams would remain connected in a real way to the schools they represent, although the talent level of the teams would be marginally lower due to the absence of the top 2% or so who would likely choose the pro route straight out of high school. I see this as a better system for everyone, except perhaps the NFL, which now would have to pay these developmental players a couple of years earlier.

[Anybodyhome]

"So in a system that replaced scholarships with paid, pro-style contracts, a handful of star players at the big schools would be very well paid, while the majority of players would actually be worse off."
Actually, I suggested an established pay scale that would ensure equitable compensation not based on talent or skill level.

"I believe college football would start to lose its fan base once it became nothing more than minor league teams with no real connection to the colleges they represent other than wearing the school colors."
Who comprises the fan base? Students and alumni fill the stadiums; and how many of them really know exactly what, if any, classes so-and-so player is taking? How many fans are sitting in the stands thinking to themselves, "Gee, I wonder how much he contributes to the success of this school when he's not on the football field?" And look at the uproar over the release of Julius Peppers transcripts- nobody wants to know 75% of "their" school's football team is taking underwater basket weaving classes to remain eligible.

"Others could choose to be student-athletes, earning a scholarship not only as implicit compensation for the money they help the athletic department earn, but also based on the idea that the student body benefits from a diversity in talents and experiences."
The problem with this idealism is there's no reality to base it upon. Schools award academic scholarships that are a set amount of money. We see these everyday, so-and-so got a $-dollar academic scholarship to XYZ University. Athletes get athletic scholarships that are not a set amount of money. They include room and board, food, everything needed to keep them on the football team, and they're catered to to make sure all of those needs are met. Meanwhile, across the campus, the kids with academic scholarships still have to figure out how to squeeze room and board, books, class fees, laundry out of the money they received.

My plan simply opens up space for more real students by being honest. UNC did not offer a scholarship to Julius Peppers to become the next Carl Sagan, so just stop with the notion these top-tier schools require so much more from their student-athletes, it's simply not true. Stop requiring any class load at all for those who don't want to attend class. Let someone else who does want to be there and is willing to pay for his/her attendance sit in his spot.

My plan actually offers a way for schools to become more profitable in the athletic endeavor. One of the reasons these schools claim they're really losing money is the "expense" of having a top-notch football team. One of the expenses cited was the "academic expense" associated with the player. I think you almost eliminate the academic expense by not requiring them to attend classes and actually making money by allowing a real student to attend the class.

I understand and get where you're coming from, but I think those are ideas from back in my day as a jock. That's exactly the way I thought things should be. But today's reality is not about school loyalty or academic achievement or the possibility of a second career after sports. The schools want to make money today by whatever means necessary when it comes to athletics. The players want to get to the next level, by whatever means necessary. It's a symbiotic relationship- the school needs them as much as they need the school. The schools make money off the players, why can't the players make money off the schools?

[Panthers128]

I think they should do away with college athletics entirely. The NFL and NBA and other sports leagues should establish developmental leagues and programs which will allow the athletes to make a living for playing sports. No matter how you look at it, the players who play popular sports are essentially slaves to the NCAA who profits from their popularity. They will argue incessantly that the money goes back into the school and other sports programs. Well that's just utter tosh. Even if it's the case, they're keeping the entire system afloat by exploiting the athletes. Thanks to Adam Morrisson, Gonzaga can further fund it's handball program that no one is interested in at all. You get the idea.

The problem is that it won't be easy switching over and the NFL and NBA and other sports league work with colleges to enable colleges to continue to exploit athletes.

The worst argument is that the students are given a scholarship for their troubles. Giving someone something they don't want for compensation. I wonder if you'd accept that agreement with your employer? If your boss pays you in cotton will you be satisfied because of some balance in the universe being maintained? I think not.