The side that said sports programs are good for schools had these main points:
-It brings in a lot of money for schools
-It Teaches the players things like teamwork, hand eye coordination, etc.
-It in a lot of money to the areas surrounding the schools
-Atheletes have every right to get an education
-The Alumni donates money because they are fans of the sports teams
This is true, college sports bring in millions of dollars from endorsements, sponsorships, etc.
This is a retarded reason, since they should already have these "skills" if they're trying to get onto a college team
True
This is true, and while some people get into college on academic scholarships, they usually don't cover nearly all the things needed that some sports scholarships can. I know when I went to college, I was looking for all kinds of ways to get scholarship money, if I was an athlete, I'd have tried getting a sports one.
This is very, very true. Alumni can be huge fanatics of their alma maters
The side that said they should be a seperate entity had these main points:
-It takes the focus away from learning
-It causes corruption in the form of favoritism and embezlement
-People that use collage as a stepping stone for Pro sports are filling seats that could be filled by people who wish to get an education
-It takes money away from the acedemics to support the sport if they don't have a top 15 team (and sometimes even if they do)
-Sports do not teach you anything that couldn't be learned in a classroom.
No more then your first weekend away from home in 18 years without parents watching over you.
To be honest, this is actually true (the favoritism part, not the embezzlement part). I've had conversations with people that deal with the athletes, and all of them had although the official policy is for every student to be treated equally, those that play sports (especially the big money generators) get priority treatment over the regular student.
And others don't
Not really. One could make an argument that successful sporting programs bring attention to the school, and that in turn could bring in other outside, non-sport related donations in an attempt to get exposure. At every home game, there are ads during timeouts, banners all over the place.
True
edit: But all of this is subject to be different from one University/College to the next.
Something just came to my attention that I was not previously aware of.
School athletic profits are not taxed in any way. Now it seems I have found the real reason why no one who matters wants to seperate the two. All that money that goes into the pockets of people running these organizations (because it IS a business, and it IS all about the money) is completely tax free.
I know a lot of people that have gone to school on academic scholarships as well. My sister Dianne, for instance, graduated as the Validictorian in her class with a 4.0, was a member of the National Honor Society, Yearbook staff, Young Envioronmentalist Society, and did countless hours of community service.
She couldn't get a full scholarship to UT. She worked her ass off as a Server to put herself through school. She's 35 now and still hasn't paid back her student loans she had to have to supplement her income, grants, and scholarships because they weren't enough to pay for books and housing. The same institute gives athletes as much as $50,000 a year to go to college.
She shouldn't have gone to UT, imo. I never said you can get into your "dream school". She probably could have gotten a full ride or at least a better deal elsewhere but my guess is she wanted to go to UT. Personally, I wouldn't tell that story to others. I can't say for sure, because I obviously don't know anything about her, but when I read that I automatically assumed she either pursued a worthless degree or just quit when she got her paper. None of that is the "system's" fault, it could have been prevented.
Case-in-point:
I had a neighbor who's family didn't value education. They where the kind of people to finish high school and work in the town mill. They had a very, very intelligent daughter, at my schools standards at least. She ended up gettin' offers for partial scholarships and full-blow scholarships. Knowin' she'd get help from no one she decided on a full blown one from Jacksonville State University rather than goin' to Alabama, Auburn, etc.
Kind of leads back to my sayin' about bein' a replica of the horse you're on. You obviously thought school had no further point in your life after drop-out age or high school. So knowin' that, it's hard to believe you're here in this thread just for that reason. It's easier for me to decide you just hate sports which was the catylist for the discussion and this thread. If you enjoyed sports I don't think we'd be here right now. A true advocate for this topic would be *at least* two things, a college graduate (or a very, very serious student) and also a sports fan (not fanatic, just fan-level will work).
She shouldn't have gone to UT, imo. I never said you can get into your "dream school". She probably could have gotten a full ride or at least a better deal elsewhere but my guess is she wanted to go to UT. Personally, I wouldn't tell that story to others. I can't say for sure, because I obviously don't know anything about her, but when I read that I automatically assumed she either pursued a worthless degree or just quit when she got her paper. None of that is the "system's" fault, it could have been prevented.
It is partially the system's fault, because it lies within the realm of possibility that Trippy's sister could have been offered a full scholarship had UT not been preoccupied with pouring resources into $50,000 athletic scholarships. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but a University is first and foremost an academic institution after all.
I had a neighbor who's family didn't value education. They where the kind of people to finish high school and work in the town mill. They had a very, very intelligent daughter, at my schools standards at least. She ended up gettin' offers for partial scholarships and full-blow scholarships. Knowin' she'd get help from no one she decided on a full blown one from Jacksonville State University rather than goin' to Alabama, Auburn, etc.
Your neighbour should be annoyed that an athlete without her scholastic abilities is now sitting in one of the more prestigious schools, in classes she could have appreciated far more.
Kind of leads back to my sayin' about bein' a replica of the horse you're on. You obviously thought school had no further point in your life after drop-out age or high school. So knowin' that, it's hard to believe you're here in this thread just for that reason. It's easier for me to decide you just hate sports which was the catylist for the discussion and this thread. If you enjoyed sports I don't think we'd be here right now. A true advocate for this topic would be *at least* two things, a college graduate (or a very, very serious student) and also a sports fan (not fanatic, just fan-level will work).
And it's easier for everyone to decide that you're just a sports nut who never went to college (or were the recipient of an athletic scholarship yourself). It might not necessarily be true, but if I want to paint you as biased, it works right? I mean you haven't exactly specified why separate institutions for athletics and academia is a bad idea - so I'll just assume you plain like college sports.
Oh, for the record, I'm both a serious student and a former athlete.
Many professors at my school (particularly, my English professor) lets all atheletes pass, even if statistically, they should fail. I personally don't care because I always get very good grades in English, so I know I'll pass, but I don't think it's fair that he will pass atheletes if they're doing poorly. And it's a very populated class where there aren't enough desks for the students.
I find this part to be very repulsive. I live in Canada, and I went to a hippie university and then a technical college, so we don't have a lot of sports scholarships, except in our 'ivy league' version schools I'm sure, and I never saw/meet/knew anyone with one. But this disgusts me. He's a good athelete but he can't use proper enlgish? What's going to happen to him when he breaks a leg and can't play anymore? He certainly won't be getting a good job if he cants write the englush goods enoff.
And it's easier for everyone to decide that you're just a sports nut who never went to college (or were the recipient of an athletic scholarship yourself).
You can decide that if you like but it doesn't make it true or even on par with my decision. Unfortunately for you, this logic wont work, I have things in my favor in which you don't. I know Trippy doesn't have a college education, despite bein' a sharp fella, and I know he dislikes sports. What do you *know*about me (that I don't tell you in this post)? Despite that, even if I wasn't college educated, I'm not against school sports. Therefore, my stance doesn't contradict a single thing.
It might not necessarily be true, but if I want to paint you as biased, it works right?
I mean you haven't exactly specified why separate institutions for athletics and academia is a bad idea - so I'll just assume you plain like college sports.
If you had half a care in your argument you could have taken your tail over to the sports section and searched my name. I enjoy sports, yes. Why haven't I answered about separate institutions? Two reasons: first off, it wont ever happen and second off, if it did happen it doesn't impact my life in the slightest.
Oh, for the record, I'm both a serious student and a former athlete.
Maybe a student and a former athlete but I'd prefer to think a serious student would have put a little more thought into whatever it is you just presented me with. No more of this is up for negotiation. If you want something else out of me it better be smart and good. Technically, I'm only here for Trippyhippy and his request for me to remain active. So unless you step it up ten-fold go find you a rock somewhere.
There is only one reason why this topic semi-interest me. First off all, I'll explain why it doesn't really interest me. That's because it doesn't matter. The contents of this thread will not change anything nor will the ideas ever be used, in our lifetime at least. So why my semi-interest? I despise like mad one thing, placing blame on one thing for another. GTA and violent video games don't make our society violent, other things do. They may not help but they aren't by far the reason to take a stand on. Same goes with scholastic sports and the problems in the "system". It's not sports fault for these so-called problems. If our society keeps placin' blame on the wrong things, as a majority, don't you see a bigger problem on the way, eventually?
If the NCAA wanted to take a one-hundred fold larger stance against the problems surrounding scholastic sports, I'm all for it. I think everyone should follow the rules and this is the *correct* way to fix the problem. If people can't follow the rules, get rid of them. Let college sports be for people who earned the right to be their in their respected field of play and only them, academically, sports wise, and rule wise. All others need to feel the wrath of the "system" otherwise they'll just find somewhere else to do whatever they're doin'.
If your only arguement is those that want a degree from a respectable school are let down, then you must allow for the converse to be true: Some get a large boost in a sense of pride when their school wins a big game, championship, etc.
First off, that is not my only argument. I'll go into that more in a second. Secondly, pride is considered a negative attribute by most major world religions, but some philosophies consider it positive. The opposite of pride is humility. Personally, I prefer humility, and I'm not even religious.
And lets say an athlete is genuinely interested in getting an education, even more so than becoming a professional. I will admit, it isn't the rarest scenario. But what happens when that athlete blows out his knee? The college keeps paying for him to go to school, thus putting academics before sports, right?
The NCAA's scholarship rules wrongly place the most generous incentives for individual athletes on athletic performance, instead of degree attainment. The NCAA allows schools to award athletic scholarships only on a one-year basis, meaning an athlete can lose his or her scholarship for any reason including poor performance on the court or field at the end of a year. While that athlete can challenge such actions at a scholarship withdrawal hearing, the NCAA hasn't set any rules or standards for those hearings.
What type of message does a one-year scholarship send to athletes? It tells them that they have to do everything they can to excel athletically in order to receive money for their education. With the stakes so high, students will inevitably spend their free time in the weight room instead of the library. But if athletes are truly students first, then the priority should be reversed. When a college recruits a player, and the player commits to that school, the institution has a four-year responsibility to fully support that player in his or her pursuit of a degree.
If you are on the side of athletes, you should still not like the way things are handled. Athletic scholarships should be four-year scholarships if the goal is to concentrate on education. Which it is not.
The impact monetarily is the loss of funding from boosters, which you would not have anyway without the sports programs. I guess I just feel that the impact on actual academics from those scandals are negligible and we will have to agree to disagree.
Hmm. That isn't entirely true. Read this letter I found by Robert McGarvey, an alumnus of Rutgers, 1970.
Spoiler:
Pass the drugs, hallucination time is upon us. That was my reaction to reading Board of Governors chairman the Rev. William Howard's statement to the recent Rutgers University Student Assembly meeting that the path out of the University's budget crisis will be paved with alumni dollars. As reported in The Daily Targum, "One of the ways Howard said the University plans to deal with budget crisis is by asking for continued alumni support." This won't happen, and the reason is made clear in the updated Gannett database of university paychecks: Rutgers' top earner is football head coach Greg Schiano ($1.797 million), the No. 3 earner is women's basketball head coach C. Vivian Stringer ($749,000) and the No. 6 earner is Director of Intercollegiate Athletics Robert E. Mulcahy ($378,000). Football assistants, the men's basketball coach and similar positions are also among the University's highest paid. My question as an alumnus is, why would I give to subsidize these paychecks? Although I have given to Rutgers for more than 25 years, I believe that is at an end. I get e-mails every day from other alumni who also say they will stop giving. In each case, the cry is that we are eager to support a university, but none of us wants to support a sports factory. Memo to Rutgers Foundation head Carol Herring ($275,000 in 2007 salary): Don't call me, I'll call you … and don't expect your phone to ring until Rutgers put an end to this silly and expensive sports mania.
Everything he says is in direct opposition to what you are saying. I would say his opinion on the matter has more validity since he is an alumnus and he, until now, made donations to his alma mater.
Robert McGarvey is a Rutgers College Class of 1970 alumnus
When Birmingham Southern gave up athletic scholarships, freshman applications increased, more students tried intercollegiate sports and alumni contributions soared.
Once again, the opposite of what you are saying.
I'm arguing at a slight disadvantage here, as I only have your numbers to go off of, but if I am reading correctly that the school as a whole has a $46 million profit and you don't know where it goes, what do you think that number will be if they cut the juggernaut of a football program?
It's easy to throw out a number like $200,000. How much of that number is actual cost? I realize that books, food, housing and stipends are included in that, but a lot of that number is based on what the street value of the education and not actual dollars that come out of a pocket somewhere. These scholarships are an investment as again, they usually help to bring money into the school.
My numbers came from my research which was done purely on the Internet, something you have full access to, just like I do. If you don't think my numbers are correct, I invite you to find ones that conform to your argument so I can refute them just as easily as you refute mine. It should be noted that numbers vary tremendously no matter where you find them.
Big-time college sports teams are not only skilled on the field, they are also talented at keeping their off-the-field activities in the dark. Athletics programs, for example, are experts at keeping their budgets under wraps. As spending on college sports soars to towering new heights, faculty members, students, taxpayers, and policymakers are often clueless about how the money is being spent.
I also think that you are greatly underestimating the number of student-athletes that are there for higher learning. It's easy to be down on the idea when all you hear about is the bad stuff, but there are plenty of student-athletes that excel. We have had presidents that went to college on a football scholarship for heaven's sake!
The thing about student athletes that are there to concentrate on academics is they don't get as much money as the ones who are there to concentrate on athletics. If you are trying to use football to pay for your degree as opposed to using it to pave your way to pro sports, you get screwed all the way around. If the team can't make money off of you, they won't pay for you to go to school.
You are forgetting some key factors in your math. The obvious being the revenue from the resale of the 600K ticket commitment. The not so obvious being the boost in alumni revenue from a bowl game, which is usually not inconsiderable. Sure there are a few that lose money, but I'd wager to say that most come out on top.
Here is an article from USA today about teams losing money on bowl games.
Here is one from the New York Times about a team that won a bowl game and lost money.
Anglis said:
Sports also help the economy in the town the school is located. Motels/hotels sell out rooms for the fans traveling. Restaurants get busier. Only positives come out of this.
That's why I am not suggesting the league be eliminated all together. I just think it should be separated from schools. A developmental league of sorts.
I've never liked the argument that sports take away from learning, especially the athlete. Whats the main reason someone goes to college? To learn a certain field to obtain a career! Well for an athlete, thats sports! They have a shot at being a professional athlete that makes millions. He's doing what we're doing technically. Except his classroom is the field.
If their classroom is the field then they have no business in my classroom. If they want sports as a career, they don't need to be in school acting like they are getting an education when all they want is to play pro sports.
This is true, college sports bring in millions of dollars from endorsements, sponsorships, etc.
Yes, but as I have mentioned, this would still happen if there was nothing connecting the team to the school.
This is true, and while some people get into college on academic scholarships, they usually don't cover nearly all the things needed that some sports scholarships can. I know when I went to college, I was looking for all kinds of ways to get scholarship money, if I was an athlete, I'd have tried getting a sports one.
The largest sports scholarships are rewarded to the players from which the school can make the most money. People that want to keep athletic scholarships can't possibly do that if they are concentrating on academics.
No more then your first weekend away from home in 18 years without parents watching over you.
You misunderstand my point. I'm not talking about people watching games being bad for their education. I'm talking about funds spent on athletics instead of academics. I'm talking about players who spend their free time in the gym instead of the library when they know they have tests.
To be honest, this is actually true (the favoritism part, not the embezzlement part). I've had conversations with people that deal with the athletes, and all of them had although the official policy is for every student to be treated equally, those that play sports (especially the big money generators) get priority treatment over the regular student.
If you think that a team can make $50 million a year and no one gets a piece of it that isn't supposed to or people only take what they are supposed to have, then you have a lot higher opinion of the average American Citizen than I do.
Not really. One could make an argument that successful sporting programs bring attention to the school, and that in turn could bring in other outside, non-sport related donations in an attempt to get exposure. At every home game, there are ads during timeouts, banners all over the place.
Successful sports programs bring attention to the schools sports program causing even more money to funneled away from academics.
Strid said:
She shouldn't have gone to UT, imo. I never said you can get into your "dream school". She probably could have gotten a full ride or at least a better deal elsewhere but my guess is she wanted to go to UT. Personally, I wouldn't tell that story to others. I can't say for sure, because I obviously don't know anything about her, but when I read that I automatically assumed she either pursued a worthless degree or just quit when she got her paper. None of that is the "system's" fault, it could have been prevented.
She didn't go to UT first. She went to ETSU first. There were family issues that forced her to move back home (I'll go into them if you really want me to, but those issues will have little if any bearing on this discussion.). Since UT is the school in her hometown, she went there. Her degree wasn't worthless, as it was in Technical writing. She has a job in her field and makes decent money.
My mother Graduated from UT (Early Childhood Development)
My Uncles Wayne and John Graduated from UT (Electrical Engineering)
My Aunt Phyllis graduated from UT. (something to do with teaching)
5 of my cousins graduated from UT.
None of them played sports in school. All but 2 of my cousins have a job in their field of study (one is a Chef and one is in prison). All of them have student loans to pay off. None of them got a free ride although most of them were what I consider to be academical gifted.
Kind of leads back to my sayin' about bein' a replica of the horse you're on. You obviously thought school had no further point in your life after drop-out age or high school. So knowin' that, it's hard to believe you're here in this thread just for that reason. It's easier for me to decide you just hate sports which was the catylist for the discussion and this thread. If you enjoyed sports I don't think we'd be here right now. A true advocate for this topic would be *at least* two things, a college graduate (or a very, very serious student) and also a sports fan (not fanatic, just fan-level will work).
You are speaking about a topic you know very little about.
First off, I do like sports. Particularly Hockey and Rugby. I don't think hockey or rugby players should get scholarships.
The next point I would make would be that I am actually a student right now. In 2000 I applied for grants from the epilepsy Foundation of Knoxville to help me pay for school. My request was approved and I was in the process of signing up when funding was cut and i was told they would "let me know" when they would be able to help me.
Fast forward to 2008. February of this year, I received a letter telling me that 150 people that applied for grants through EFK before 2001 were being approved this year. The requirements are rough, and I have to take 16 hours a semester, but I am now a student at Pellissippi State Community Collage.
I am both a serious student and (somewhat) a sports fan. Your assumptions do not help to support your position in this argument and I would suggest you only present information you know to be factual, or at least use information for which you may be able to present a source.
I am both a serious student and (somewhat) a sports fan. Your assumptions do not help to support your position in this argument and I would suggest you only present information you know to be factual, or at least use information for which you may be able to present a source.
You could have said this when I mentioned it a few post back, I know you read it. Considerin' you went with it, this doesn't sit well with me. Aside from that, you're an older fella who waited this long to do it. It's cool you did but if you were really serious about education, serious enough to want to remove sports from it, you'd have done it long ago. That's just my opinion though.
Even if everything I said about you was a load of bull, I enjoy how you didn't say anything about my thoughts on addressing the real issue instead of takin' the lazy road out and just doing away with it all together. I know that tends to be against the democratic way but you could have at least disagreed with it ld:
You could have said this when I mentioned it a few post back, I know you read it. Considerin' you went with it, this doesn't sit well with me. Aside from that, you're an older fella who waited this long to do it. It's cool you did but if you were really serious about education, serious enough to want to remove sports from it, you'd have done it long ago. That's just my opinion though.
Even if everything I said about you was a load of bull, I enjoy how you didn't say anything about my thoughts on addressing the real issue instead of takin' the lazy road out and just doing away with it all together. I know that tends to be against the democratic way but you could have at least disagreed with it ld:
Someone who prizes academics so much as to want to use that to take away somethin' as big as sports had better damn well be the exact replica of the horse they are ridin'. If you were the spittin' image of academics it may be worth the discussion.
If so, let me assure you that If I had understood what you meant, I would most certainly have said something about it. I thought you were just saying I didn't seem like the scholarly type.
Also, when you say I should have done it long ago, do mean go to school? I have had my share of problems in life and they have prevented me from going back until now. I was having serious problems with my epilepsy after high school, and I couldn't even work for about 2 years. Other issues include money and legal trouble.
Also what thoughts on what real issue? The real issue here is the one in the title of the thread. Instead of concentrating on that, you seem to be criticizing me on a personal level, as though degrading my character and pointing out mistakes I made in relation to school makes my argument any less valid (it doesn't).
What gives? You just decided to post in a thread about athletics in schools without posting about athletics in schools?
If so, let me assure you that If I had understood what you meant, I would most certainly have said something about it. I thought you were just saying I didn't seem like the scholarly type.
Fair enough, because I surely don't see you to be a liar.
Also, when you say I should have done it long ago, do mean go to school? I have had my share of problems in life and they have prevented me from going back until now. I was having serious problems with my epilepsy after high school, and I couldn't even work for about 2 years. Other issues include money and legal trouble.
I didn't say you should have done it long ago. Here is what I said:
Me said:
Aside from that, you're an older fella who waited this long to do it. It's cool you did but if you were really serious about education, serious enough to want to remove sports from it, you'd have done it long ago. That's just my opinion though.
I just figure as determined as you are on this subject you see a high need for education. However, contradictory to your plight, you waited a long time to begin. Let me make this clear, you seem very, very serious about education, enough so to fully remove athletics from schools instead of solving the real issues. Yet, despite whatever reasons, you waited a while. As adamant as you are here about education I'd just like to think you'd have found a way to make it happen. But hey, what I think and the way things really are, are two different things. I also don't have the slightest clue how epilepsy can be past the beginning stages.
Where I come from in the whole stance of getting it done sooner comes from watching people who didn't have a dime to their name and no help from their parents fight and struggle to get their education on their own. Some even working two jobs to cover everything. It's sad to see that have to happen, but people do it despite how hard it is. However, not a single one of them had medical conditions to care for and I'm sure medicine, doctors office, etc. can take it's toll. I couldn't imagine havin' to deal with that on my own. I know it's pricey as all get out, my sister has developed brain cysts since giving birth, and if my Dad wasn't pretty well off, not rich just upper middle class, it would be hard for me and her to make her medical payments and keep up with the rest and we're fully insured.
Trippyhippy said:
Also what thoughts on what real issue? The real issue here is the one in the title of the thread. Instead of concentrating on that, you seem to be criticizing me on a personal level, as though degrading my character and pointing out mistakes I made in relation to school makes my argument any less valid (it doesn't).
What gives? You just decided to post in a thread about athletics in schools without posting about athletics in schools?
I figured you'd be taking it that way despite me tryin' not to sound like that. I really am not tryin' to attack you on a personal level, if at all. I'm just tryin' to plea my case. I could have just bluntly said my case and been better off but I tried to hard to make big explanations so as to not seem as tryin' to attack you. Backfired I guess.
I had something about schools and now all of that mess it out of the way I'll repeat it, though I'll make it more brief.
I think instead of taking the sports out of schools and putting them somewhere else, they (the NCAA) should step up their actions towards these crimes. I agree that they are problematic and I'd fully support the NCAA stepping up their act 100-fold. What I don't like is the mentality of since something is causing problems we should abolish it or send it off somewhere else. I think the issues should be attacked and dealt with how the system is suppose to deal with them.
It's kind of like these video game violence advocates who'd rather say video games are bad, let's get rid of them than to come out and address the real issues like bad parenting, discipline, etc.
ld: