<p>But these students are going to be illiterate if they don’t go to college. College is giving them a chance to learn, to do something with their lives. The NCAA sets minimum requirements, and then once in school there are still requirements for study tables and GPAs. Some of these players really don’t care and they are ‘one and done’ and just want to be drafted to the pros. The college isn’t giving them a diploma.</p>
<p>If even one student is like Michael Ohre and makes it through college because of football, isn’t it worth it? When I was in school, our team had a bunch of players from Samoa who never would have had the chance if it wasn’t for football scholarships.</p>
<p>You can argue that these athletes are taking a spot away from an otherwise qualified student who then can’t go to that school, but I think sports adds a lot to the college experience for all students, not just those who participate, so it’s not different than admitting the base player over the violinist because the orchestra needs a base player and has plenty of violinists, or admitting a student to the business school instead of the one who applied to the journalism school even though the stats for the journalist were higher. It takes balance.</p>
<p>The oldest American intercollegiate competition and the oldest rivalry in college football is between two Ivy League schools. An Ivy League grad wrote the first standardized rules of American football. In 1905 the NCAA was formed in order to reform the rules of college football to improve safety and reduce the high rate of injury and death which occurred during early football games. Later the NCAA also wrote regulation for financial aid, recruiting, and minimum academic standards. The Ivy League supports the NCAA by requiring all Ivy League varsity sports to conform to NCAA regulations. In addition the parents of Ivy League athletes also financially support the NCAA through national clearing house fees.</p>
<p>The scope of the problem for the administration of large universities with successful football programs is relatively small. For example at Texas there are 38,000 undergraduates and only 25 football recruits per year. Of these 25 I estimate that well over half will pursue degrees which will result in a positive impact on their lives. This leaves 10 (or less) football players who will receive little benefit from attending UT. There are many more students at UT who drop out per year. As a result of the football program new academic facilities are built, academic scholarships are offered and new faculty are hired. The average GPA and test scores of the entering freshman generally rise and the job offers for graduates also rise. </p>
<p>The Solution</p>
<p>I suggest that the NCAA eligibility rules continue to be revised. Just as the targeting rule for defenseless receivers has resulted in immediate improvement in safety, so can changes to eligibility requirements help football players achieve academic success. My suggestions:</p>
<p>Use stricter punishment for coaches who exceed the 20 hour per week mandatory team activity rule.</p>
<p>Use stricter punishment for voluntary team activities rule violations and ban athletes who are having academic difficulties from doing any voluntary team activities.</p>
<p>Ban athletes from registering for classes that have no academic benefit.</p>
<p>For athletes that are having academic difficulties , eliminate one day a week of team practice and have the athlete participate in mandatory tutoring sessions instead.</p>
<p>"Moving this topic of broad gen interest among many adults to a special little board topic area is insulting. I’s a topic of huge national interest. Not just among athletes. "</p>
<p>I teach college, and I agree 100%. At least D1 athletes have their grades tracked and extra help available. Certainly at my college, they accept kids who are woefully unprepared, athletics or not, and brag about enrollment but quiet about the 80% freshman retention rate, 20% four-year graduation rate, and 50% six-year graduation rate. The college does not even have a football team.</p>
<p>Namely, if people think student athletes are the problem, they don’t realize that the entitlement of a college education is hurting many students, both ones who get in and shouldn’t be there, and those who do get in and have to deal with kids who think a college class is time to act up and be disruptive. Case in point: my colleague had someone throw an object at him while he was lecturing, and it hit the board quite hard. How can kids who really want to learn learn in that kind of environment?</p>
<p>The student athlete scores are a symptom, not the disease, of college nowadays.</p>
<p>As many have pointed out, I think this article pertains to those big-revenue sports but not so much to the majority of student athletes. It is no surprise to me that those schools that rely on their sports to bring in millions of dollars are going to be fairly loose with their admissions, and in some cases almost criminally negligent. I can’t imagine how some of those coaches/admissions personnel sleep knowing that some of their students may graduate with such low reading skills. Unfortunately, nothing will change as long as donors keep donating to athletically successful schools, and those same schools continue to bring in big dollars. </p>
<p>We know of one kid my son ran track with in HS, who was recruited to a top-notch, very large, private college. While track does not bring in so much money, this school is very prestigious w/i the track world. The school did require him to have a minimum 3.0 GPA, and in his HS junior year he was below that in the easiest curriculum offered. The college, his parents, and the HS Counselor all worked together to make sure he took the easiest classes he could, and got private tutoring to pull up his GPA. He was admitted with a 3.0 and his freshman year at college received special tutoring. He was on probation after the 1st semester and left the program to return to CC after the first year. I don’t understand the rationale of all involved in setting this kid up for failure. As long as there are parents and educators out there who push academically inappropriate students into top athletic programs, this trend will continue. </p>
<p>Our son is in a D2 program at a large public. Athletes do not get special consideration for admissions to this program. The school specifically chose to turn down admission to the D1 program because they feel it would minimize their academic strength. They also have chosen to give all athletes a very minimal, equal “scholarship” so that no athlete is attending because of athletic scholarships. It was exactly the atmosphere my son was looking for-there are no low-achievers in his sport, or in any sport at the school, because they would not cut it academically. In our case, this is the ideal environment for student-athletes, but I realize it is not practical for most programs. </p>