<p>Conclusion: "America has declined from having the worlds highest proportion of college graduates to ranking 12th in the world today. Such a system needs to make some tough choices and sacrifices. So perhaps its time for tennis players and golfers to go back to the country clubs where they practiced as children so colleges can focus on what they are supposed to."</p>
<p>any thoughts? I'll put my own opinion in a bit later.</p>
<p>The money, reputation, and exposure brought in by most D-I sports teams for their university far outweighs the cost of athletic scholarships. I know every Big Ten school last year brought in over $20 million from television revenues alone. Plus, sports are great for school spirit, they’re very fun, and the sporting events themselves contribute massively to the state and local economy. They’re also a great thing for alumni to rally around and reunite with each other. </p>
<p>Some people have moral qualms about how “fair” it is to give academically unqualified students a full-ride scholarship when others work so hard at the primary focus of the institution - academic performance - and pay in full or take multiple jobs in order to stay in school. Very well, but that’s life. It’s always the same people who complain about this sort of thing that never see a problem with our welfare system, oddly enough. Or it is the young professional who is frustrated with how their life has went with their degree and just becomes jealous towards athletes who go to school for free and then have a pro sports career, never mind the hard work that those athletes did in order to get there…</p>
<p>I agree with the article entirely, but I think it neglected – or deliberately avoided – the main reason that colleges want athletes: athletes go on to become more successful and make more money. This is probably because athletes are more attractive, more outgoing, and more confident than their peers, especially at elite universities.</p>
<p>Still, colleges shouldn’t be admitting students on the basis of future financial returns. They should admit the brightest students, who will be able to make the most of a college degree. Will this happen? I doubt it, but until it does, America’s educational status in the world will continue to decline.</p>
<p>Not granting athletic scholarships does not equate to disbanding sports. Competitive sports would not cease to exist if athletes could not receive money based on how good they are at a given sport.</p>
<p>There is recruiting at my D3 school, and sadly, there are a few people who only got in because they are above average D3 athletes. I can not imagine what it is like at a large school with scholarships. Then again, there are so many spots at those schools that admitting unqualified students probably does not have that great of an affect.</p>
<p>Colleges should be focused on learning. My school wastes millions of dollars on athletics (even though I have benefited from their commitment to funding sports teams), from practice uniforms to warmups to flying teams to games. The school does not generate much revenue from sports games (you only have to pay for football games, and who wants to pay money to see a D3 football team? it’s a joke). </p>
<p>Allowing athletic scholarships means people who would not have gone to college are going, but that does not necessarily mean that they are academically motivated. Even though I’ve always played varsity sports, I am shocked at how much money my school throws away on athletics. I laugh at how seriously some D1 programs for non profitable teams are. The coaches think they own the athletes. </p>
<p>I can see both sides, but I would rather a school give a scholarship to a struggling kid doing well academically than a average to below average student who can run fast.</p>
<p>^I’m not sure how you can say that something that’s 4 parts opinion and 2 parts fact is categorically false, especially when the 2 parts that are facts are indeed true.</p>
<p>The article itself makes a reasonable point about how silly it is to have recruited students at tiny D3 schools. That said, I don’t really see anything wrong with having varsity teams, and there certainly shouldn’t be a problem with intramural.</p>
<p>What I think is worse is schools spending tons on athletics when they suck. For instance, Maryland’s pretty good at sports (football not so much). So it makes sense that they spend quite a bit on them.</p>
<p>My high school on the other hand… wow… they spent tons of money upgrading the football field to fancy new turf, for a team that’s really ****ty. They had their opening game the other day on this field, first game of the season and first game on the new field… and they lost something like 52-3. And their most recent game was a loss, 60-6 or something. I find it very difficult to feel compelled to donate to my school when they blow money on something that blows.</p>
<p>Heck if I know, but whatever, if that’s what they wanna blow their money on it’s their prerogative. I’ll donate when 1) i can afford to and 2) I see them doing/wanting to do something worth donating for. They already got more money from my parents each year than my university will.</p>
<p>Attended this year’s version of “Exploring College Options” last night. As was the case the last time I attended the program all five universities represented spent considerable time touting their sports teams and athletics program. Might be expected of Duke (whose rep spent a couple minutes talking about Coach K and Kyzyzewskiville), Georgetown and Standard, who all have big-time money sports teams. But the Harvard and Penn reps spent an equal amount of time extollling their athletic programs. Looks like these five above average universities see some value in college athletics, even to the point where three of them offer scholarship funds for exceptional athletic achievement.</p>
<p>I agree that sports can build a healthy school spirit and alumni rallying point. But the priority of a university, especially in financially trying times, is NOT to maintain its role as some kind of lifelong country club at the expense of academics and the arts. That’s the problem here: the prioritization. </p>
<p>In times of economic bliss, I think every school should try to pump up their athletic departments as much as they can without cutting into academics and arts. In times of financial cutbacks, athletics should be the first to go.</p>
<p>Also, about how sports programs increase reputation… They only increase your ATHLETIC reputation. If anything, if a sports programs becomes too dominant, natural snobbery kicks in and people start to assume that that schools is just a jock factory. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL, only like 1% (if even that) of college athletes go on to have a pro career.</p>