<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. They’re idiots, too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess you could make a philosophical argument that musical skill and athletic skill are equivalent. I won’t argue the point either way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How are they different? </p>
<p>And it’s entertaining how this always come back to these two being compared. I know, I was partially to blame for it. There’s one major difference between the two-- athletics I would almost guarentee makes much more money than music. But people aren’t up in arms about all the money being spent on music for some reason…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>More money for whom?</p>
<p>For the athlete? Not a chance. For every future millionaire, there are thousands who will never make a penny from sports. At least a musician can get minimum wage for playing in a local chamber orchestra.</p>
<p>For the school? Irrelevant. The school could make a lot of money selling cocaine, too, but that doesn’t make it a legitimate function of a college or university.</p>
<p>So what is your point about money, then?</p>
<p>Patriot League does a great job in graduating student athletes. Holy Cross and Colgate have been competing against the Ivies for over 100 years in most sports and HC and Colgate have much smaller enrollments 2800 students vs 4,000-10,000 Ivy schools. While many years ago, Holy Cross has won national titles in basketball NCAA 1947 and NIT mid 50’S, and Div1 baseball NCAA 1950’s.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The school is a business. Good or bad it’s a business. Money is VERY relevant.</p>
<p>If a college offers football, and a high school kid loves and excels in football, why shouldn’t he go to college to play? What is the downside to requiring this kid to work towards a degree at the same time he is playing football?</p>
<p>I can understand that some people hate sports and would prefer that sports not be played in college, but that is the way it is right now. I don’t understand why anyone would take out their angst on the athlete, who is only taking advantage of an excellent opportunity. Further, it is difficult to understand why anyone would object to requiring an athlete to attain a minimum academic standard in order to play. It is as though you would prefer that all of our professional athletes were uneducated.</p>
<p>mom2-I never made any judgement here on the General Studies. You said you hadn’t heard of it and I was just trying to show you where the info was located. We are a family of athletes and all 3 kids attend/ed schools with big time Div I programs. </p>
<p>I’m glad sports can offer many athletes their best (and sometimes only) chance to obtain a quality college education, but I won’t pretend that abuses don’t occur and “jock” majors don’t exist. There is a difference in the experiences of the student-athlete in different leagues and pros and cons to each depending on the individual’s objectives.</p>
<p>At the big time schools, one of the main purposes of the big-time sports is to provide entertainment for the rest of the students. A second is to promote loyalty (and hence, giving) among alumni. And third is an increase in name-recognition by potential applicants. (Had anyone east of the Rockies ever heard of Gonzaga before March Madness? It might be a great school, but we didn’t know about it.)</p>
<p>Don’t kid yourself - for many students, especially boys, the opportunity to attend big-time college sporting events is a big draw for them in choosing a college to attend.</p>
<p>Oh absolutely Lafalum. And my-3-sons, I KNOW “abuses” take place in college athletics. In fact, I read an article about an hour ago about Michigan’s football program being investigated for its hours that are being used for athletics (or alleged). It stated that the NCAA conducted a study of something like 21,000 student-athletes. I don’t remember the exact numbers at the moment, but it said that football players at the bigger schools estimated putting an average of 44 hours a week towards athletics! I’m sure those numbers are skewed a little bit, but not much. I was putting in about 32-38 hours a week last year when I worked with an FCS team and that doesn’t include travel.</p>
<p>
nope.<br>
The purpose of big time sports is to garner alumni support and market the school. Look at the stadiums that hold 80,000 - 100,000 people. The vast majority of fans are not students. Sometimes students can’t even get tickets to the games.
The big reveunue producing sports also provide funds for all the other athletic programs. All the athletes benefit from the revenue. </p>
<p>Athletics on any level brings value to a University. Are there abuses - sure. There are bound to be since this involves a lot of talent and a lot of money. Hence, the long long lists of rules. Are some coaches unethical? Sure but there are many others - John Chaney, Coach K, JoePa who have dedicated their lives to not only coaching but coaching with ethics and passing that along to their players.
This whole thread is about a very small portion of D-1 athletes. Many do not get full scholarships and the vast majority will go pro in a carreer that is not their sport. They do it for the love of the game.</p>
<p>I like college sports – all levels. I’m glad my D can participate at the D3 level, I like to watch college football on TV, and I <em>really</em> like watching college basketball. To me, the benefits to the athletes, students, college, and society in general outweigh any negatives. (Why “society in general”? Because I think life would be boring if we weren’t allowed to enjoy things just for the sake of enjoyment, and a lot of people enjoy college sports).</p>
<p>Besides, the athletes are a very small minority at big-time Div 1 schools. Who cares if some of them wouldn’t have been admitted without their athletic ablility? I did some quick estimates using the University of Pittsburgh. I estimate 390 athletes on the varsity sports supported at Pitt. Out of 17,500 undergraduates, that’s 2.2% Even if every single athlete was otherwise unqualified (and I know that’s not the case), that’s not a big part of the student body. I have to believe that I could find another 390 students (non-athletes )who are at Pitt “for the wrong reasons”.</p>
<p>I never used to appreciate college sports way back when I attended. However, because of my D, I now have a growing interest, and I’ve learned along the way how valuable athletics are. I guess my take from this thread is that the person who hopes to be both student and athlete needs to be careful in choosing the college attended. The priority should not be the team/coach/sport at a particular university but the academic environment. I think it’s useful to publish information by major and graduation rates of athletes. I don’t know if that information is available anywhere. This kind of information helps parents emphasize academics with their athletic kids. I’ve seen many athletically talented kids whose parents forget that there is homework that needs to be tended to and tests that need to be studied for before another minute is spent perfecting themselves at their sport. Interestingly, those kids without the good grades but with athletic ability are the last ones recruited. Football and basketball are the exceptions, of course. I guess if you can make money with it, it’s okay to look the other way.</p>
<p>If we assume that the primary purposes of big time college athletics is to entertain the student body (and fans nationally for some schools), name recognition, and solicit donations from alumni, can’t we lump these under the term – marketing?</p>
<p>Which brings up the old question; why not pay the athletes? The schools undoubtedly pay marketing firms for similar services.</p>
<p>But you say, “Isn’t the value of an education equivalent to paying them?” Well yeah, for those who actually go to class and get an education. But what if that’s not the kid’s motivation? If we follow the logic, shouldn’t those marketers (oops, I mean student-athletes) be able to choose a pay check instead of a free pass to chemistry class? And shouldn’t they be able to sell their services to the highest bidder? NCAA rules be damned!</p>
<p>All that said, it is what it is and I can’t wait for the start of college hoops season. :)</p>
<p>Edit: I have a friend who used to coach softball at a D1 school. His teams consistently finished in the top of the nation in GPA. He would take scholarships away if the girls missed class even a few times. He was fired because his winning percentage wasn’t high enough. Priorities???</p>
<p>osdad, re your fired friend, that’s an example of misplaced priorities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe you are misinterpreting what people are saying out of defensiveness.</p>
<p>I love college football. I watch it every weekend, and I travel back home to see my alma mater’s games. I also think that sports are an important part of college life for the athletes, students, and alumni alike. I have no problem at all with the idea of college sports.</p>
<p>All I want is for colleges either to (1) hold athletes to all of the same standards as other students or (2) stop pretending that these athletes are “student-athletes” and just call them what they are: semi-professionals (and to pay them accordingly, for that matter). And as I’ve said before, I know this doesn’t apply to all sports, all athletes, or all schools. But the ones who try to pull one over on the public by basically running a professional football program while circumventing the “student” part of “student-athlete” just burn my biscuits.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I assume you mean academic standards. I have no problem with this, so long as all the other students are held to the same athletic standards as athletes.</p>
<p>I really don’t think colleges with big-time programs are, or even think they are, “pulling one over” on the public. Everyone knows that these 100 or so football players are devoting most of their time to football. So what? The majority of them will also graduate with a college degree - an impressive accomplishment - and most of them will be better educated/more prepared for life after college because of their experience. I still don’t get your angst over this.</p>
<p>“I assume you mean academic standards. I have no problem with this, so long as all the other students are held to the same athletic standards as athletes.”</p>
<p>^Exactly. But here on CC folks also get upset about developmental admits who can get in with lower qualifications because their parents are filthy rich, and about diversity candidates who can do the same because they were born with a darker skin color, and even about the kid who can best another candidate because he was lucky enough to have chosen the right instrument to learn to play eight years ago!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can’t believe you take yourself seriously.</p>
<p>
What DO you mean? standards for admission? behavior? earning a degree in a major?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And if schools had to pay their athletes to remain competitive in the big time sports, a lot of softball coaches would find that their teams no longer even exist.</p>