Universities and sports programs.

[Trippyhippy]

I had a discussion with some of my friends today about schools and sports programs.

The idea that schools should not be allowed to have sports programs came about. I suggested to get more opinions on the subject, I could make a post about it here. They agreed this would be a good place to find other opinions from a diverse group, so long as I didn't say what I thought before other people gave an opinion. For some reason, they think people will automaticlly side with me just because you guys know me.

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

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.

I would very much like to keep this discussion civil. I know that's asking a lot, but try your hardest not to call anyone names and give sources for any facts/figures you reference.

 

[Realia]

Honestly I've never been a fan of having big sports teams and universities together. It seems the only reason it might hard to get into one college/university is based on what their athletics program is like. If I had tried to get into Michigan State of U of M right out of high school I would have been turned down right away because even if I did have the money (both cost 20k plus per year instate) I wouldn't be giving anything back to them in the form of high academics, sporting achievements, or other such important money making achievements that universities want. Good sports team (to me) = tons more money than I would ever want to pay.

That and I don't understand why people who have been out of school for a while still cheer for their old team. You're out of school working a full time job and raising a family but still like to manage your fantasy football college edition team. (Sorry, I'm not a fan of fantasy football either >_< ) Sometimes they cheer for school teams they've never even been too and I don't understand why! (As an anthropologist, that bugs me now that I think more about it...)

Maybe I'm biased, I don't like American sports; I only like hockey. XD And yes, this would apply to hockey as well, I understand that.

Ok, done with my rant for now.

 

[alanon]

-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.

The reasons against seem very shaky, and misinformed at best.

- How does it take the focus away from learning exactly? People who go to college to 'learn' are going to learn regardless of sports. If the get distracted because the college team is playing on Saturday, they have other problems.

- I'm not exactly sure how it causes corruption or embezzlement. When it does, it probably has a minor to zero impact on academics.

- I highly doubt that a football player ever took a seat away from a student. The student-athletes use athletic scholarships. Football revenues pay for those scholarships. It is not as though if football did not exist, those scholarships would go to 'regular' students.

- Top 15? Are you serious? There's conference money, TV contracts, merchandise sales, not to mention alumni contributions.

- And? Athletics are an extra curricular activity. To state that there's nothing that can't be learned in the classroom.... well the same logic can be used to do away with greek organizations, math club, french club, SADD, etc, etc.

I dunno. Athletics help to establish a sense of school pride as well as community awareness. I honestly think that if you were to cut athletics, you would see enrollment drop by 25-40% over the next 20 years.

 

[alanon]

Honestly I've never been a fan of having big sports teams and universities together. It seems the only reason it might hard to get into one college/university is based on what their athletics program is like. If I had tried to get into Michigan State of U of M right out of high school I would have been turned down right away because even if I did have the money (both cost 20k plus per year instate) I wouldn't be giving anything back to them in the form of high academics, sporting achievements, or other such important money making achievements that universities want. Good sports team (to me) = tons more money than I would ever want to pay.

This is wrong. First of all, it is a lot easier to get into MSU than UofM. I have several friends and family members that were rejected at UM but got into MSU.

Secondly, the price of these schools have little to do with the sports programs, and more to do with the quality and reputation of their acedemics. Do you think schools like Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, Yale, etc. cost an arm and a leg because of their sports programs? In the case of U of M, they are a world class school with world class programs in Medicine, Law, etc, etc. I know my cousin and her husband went to UofM for their post graduate degrees after getting degrees from Stanford. They went there having no knowledge of sports and never having lived in the area; they chose the school on acedemic reputation alone! House went there for christ's sake!

 

[Sharpe]

I'm on the fence. We don't have big sports teams over here, we don't give entrance to the University on your sporting credentials either, obviously they help if you're doing a sports science degree or so. As long as people aren't getting places at Uni over others with better grades purely because they are good at football/rugby/lacrosse etc then I don't see a problem.

However, I see Universities as a learning place, not a sports club/money making business. Then again I can only give an opinion from over here in the UK, I don't know how well and the exacts of the US system.

 

[Lukas]

I would rather see ten eager students with places at a univeristy than one football loser who cruises through geology 101. The dominant school of thought seems to be that athletes gain university acceptance because of their athletic merit and simply get the education as a bonus. I really think it should be the other way around. Good university students should gain the bonus of being able to play a college sport. If the choice is between another doctor in the world, or a a track star with a communications degree they'll never use - then quite frankly I opt for the former. And if the choice is between a new drama hall or some shitty knee-guards or whatever for the home team, then drama me up. I'm really adamant about funding - it shold be used to enrich the academic opportunities of the university, not to buy shiny new toys which will need replacing in a few years anyway.

That's not to say that some athletes dont earn their spots, they most certainly can, and I know a few soccer players that can run circles around me in any mathematics class. But really, it's a University not a sporting venue - and I have no qualms about telling any sport hero that doesn't pull their weight academically that they're a waste of space.

Quite frankly I find the whole "athletes deserve an education too" line tired. I worked my butt of for my place at my uni, AND I did sport competitively in high school. So to have some guy telling me he "deserves" to be here because he was a C average student who could throw a ball is rich. The truth of the matter is, a lot of people deserve tertiary education, but they don't get it. Why should poor dumb Billy get a degree, just because he's good at sport? Will he make better use of it than someone who really wants it? Or will he just use it as a platform to get scouted for a professional team?

Edit: Errr... I say this in the most civil way possibly, don't take offense! I just feel strongly about the issue -peace, love, rainbows all round!

 

[Tim Wakefield]

I'm kind of on the fence as well. I absolutely love sports. Not just college athletics, but in general. Sadly, I think some college sports (primarily, Football and Basketball) have become a little too big for their britches. I'm interested to see what people think about this, because it's has potential to be a very good discussion.

 

[Taurothar]

My only gripe with sports is that people are recruited to colleges entirely based on their athletic ability and based almost nil on their academics. I have two friends that both applied to Yale. Julie was not only in the top 5% of our class (not sure her exact rank) but she had a laundry list of extracurricular activities including several years doing classes at a prestigious drama program while maintaining a full high school advanced academic program. She also was known in our community for her volunteerism. Tom was an average student, roughly in the top 15% of our graduating class, had a few clubs on his resume, but had a decent showing on the football team. Guess which of the two got into Yale? That's right, Tom did. Who deserved it more? It's exactly that kind of bias that makes me dislike sports being tied to collegiate choices.

 

[Zephayra]

This discussion sort of reminds me of that 80's movie All The Right Moves (with a young Tom Cruise haha).

In the movie, Cruise's character lives in a Pittsburg-like Steel Town where the only way to escape the humdrum of working at the Steel Factory is to go to college. He's an exquiste football player and hopes to get a scholarship so he can become an Engineer. When he gets interviewed at a college, he explains his dream of becoming an engineer to the college recruitment officer, who seems less than pleased that Tom's character doesn't want to play Pro Football, but instead actually wants to take an involvement in the scholary aspects of a well..scholarship lol.

On the otherside of the story, his girlfriend is a gifted musician who wonders why there are scholarships for sports, but nothing for her, or anyone else who's talents lay outside of sports. There's some other teen drama, shoplifting, teen bopper sex and some cheerleader gets knocked up. I can't really remember the rest, except Tom's character gets blackballed from a recruitment, ends up working at the steel mill, but then has a chance to go to college for some reason..yeah I forget. I had to watch it in grade 12 for Sociology.

But in the end, it did really make a point that there is a lot of emphasis on sport programs in high school and college, but not many opportunites for those who aren't into sports and need a schoalrship to fund them into college.

 

[Strid]

The side that said they should be a seperate entity had these main points:

I'll take them one by one.

It takes the focus away from learning

That's life. Anything can take focus away from learnin'. Part of gettin' a college education is about learnin' to be independent with your work, i.e. to make yourself do your work and not have a teacher hold your hand.

It causes corruption in the form of favoritism and embezlement

It causes it *sometimes*. If we should cut college sports because of this, we should cut where it happens even more, i.e. the political realm.

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

Who's to say athletes aren't lookin' to get an education? You're also takin' away the oppurtunity for higher education for those who excel at sports and could not afford it otherwise. Yes, it is a steppin' stone for the pro sport realm but it's also an opportunity to get an education as well. Also, there is nothin' wrong with usin' it as a steppin' stone. College, even if you don't plan to use your education initially (that's not to say you don't use it in your daily life), is a fantastic fall back plan. Besides, what the world doesn't need is even more *stupid* athletes.

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)

Blame the school for not havin' their priorities straight. However, I highly doubt this is a serious issue. If a school isn't a school first and foremost they loose their main source of income, normal students. They also loose/gain state fundin' based on this. It's definitly not to their advantage to do this to a point where it would cause problems.

Sports do not teach you anything that couldn't be learned in a classroom.

Learn how to entertain millions and millions of people, worldwide, in a classroom. You could argue, "Okay, I'll take COSC classes and make video games", that's fine, but think, not everyone plays video games. That's not to say everyone likes sports either but the same philosophy applies.



The sports area in colleges is like a gun. It can be used for bad and likewise it can be used for good. You just have to think which out weighs the other. Personally, in both instances, I think the good out weighs the bad by far.

 

[Realia]

This is wrong. First of all, it is a lot easier to get into MSU than UofM. I have several friends and family members that were rejected at UM but got into MSU.

Secondly, the price of these schools have little to do with the sports programs, and more to do with the quality and reputation of their acedemics. Do you think schools like Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, Yale, etc. cost an arm and a leg because of their sports programs? In the case of U of M, they are a world class school with world class programs in Medicine, Law, etc, etc. I know my cousin and her husband went to UofM for their post graduate degrees after getting degrees from Stanford. They went there having no knowledge of sports and never having lived in the area; they chose the school on acedemic reputation alone! House went there for christ's sake!

Sorry if I didn't get that clear enough. I don't think that big name schools cost so much JUST because of their athletics program, I just believe that to be a big part of it. Yes, they have great academic programs with high tech equipment and a great teaching staff.

The main reason I said it was because I was turned down from a university that had just won the Division II football championship and because of their recognitions I was unable to get in. I think I just have some issues. >_>

 

[Lukas]

Another gripe I have with sport funding within a university, is that it's essentailly a whole lot of money going towards facilities or equipment which is relatively inaccessible to the greater student body.

Let me give you an example. In my university, any student who demonstrates interest in one of the non-sport related extra curriculur activities can take advantage of whatever funding the administration allocates to it. A person with a sports scholarship can join the drama troupe and get involved in all our activities and use the theatre, as well as take advantage of the meagre financial retirbution we get to hold productions every once in a while. The same cannot be said for sporting facilities. Technically we can use the basketball court or one of the fields or the pool, if no athletes are currently using them for training, but any of the equipment is strictly inaccessible. I mean, I can use the gym or visit the cardio if I so wished, but I would have to pay for that service unlike say the swim team. That I find unfair.

And generally speaking, sporting programs are fully funded by the university, whereas it is not uncommon to see academic clubs/groups doing independent fund-raising to cover costs.

 

[Valandil]

The solution is to do what the Univ. of Oklahoma does, and the Univ. of Nebraska to my knowledge, and that's to make the athletic department a separate, self-sufficient entity from the academic institution. All of the athletic department's facilities, including arenas, athletes dorms & cafeteria, computer labs, etc, are all paid for with funds generated from the sports themselves.

 

[Trippyhippy]

tl;dr

Time to ramble a bit.

Anyone who has read more than 10 of my posts can quite obviously guess which side of this argument I'm on.

No, schools should most certainly not be allowed to have sports teams.

First of all, I'd like to respond to a few statements.

- How does it take the focus away from learning exactly? People who go to college to 'learn' are going to learn regardless of sports. If the get distracted because the college team is playing on Saturday, they have other problems.

That's life. Anything can take focus away from learnin'. Part of gettin' a college education is about learnin' to be independent with your work, i.e. to make yourself do your work and not have a teacher hold your hand.

I'm not talking necessarily about students. I'm talking about the administration. Example: Rutgers intends to help fund the expansion of Rutgers University's stadium, by some estimates, to the tune of $30 million.

That was precisely the amount by which the state decreased the budget for higher education for 2007.

Rutgers was forced to cancel 451 classes, lay off 185 employees and impose a tuition increase on its 50,000 students.

That is what I mean when I say it takes the focus off of learning. And that is just one example of many.

I'm not exactly sure how it causes corruption or embezzlement. When it does, it probably has a minor to zero impact on academics.

As for corruption...

-1999 University of Minnesota hoops academic cheating scandal.
-1981 Boston College college basketball point-shaving scandal.
-1962 college basketball point-shaving scandal involving 37 players from 22 institutions.
-1997 Arizona State college basketball point-shaving scandal.
-1998 Northwester college basketball point-shaving scandal.
-1993 Florida State college football "free shoes" scandal.
-2001 George O'Leary resigns as Notre Dame football coach after lies uncovered on his resume.

That's just a few.

The impact on academics is not minor in any sense of the word. Academic scandals particularly harm the reputation of the school. People that paid money to go there to get a degree from a respectable school, are thoroughly let down.

As far as embezzlement goes, Notre Dame for instance, makes $46 Million a year in profit. That's after their football program expenses and all the money they spend on academics. Yet they still do things like talk about going under. In 2002, they cut 5% of its funding for the University Libraries as a whole. Where is all that money going? If it's going where it is supposed to, then something doesn't add up. How could they make a profit of 46 million but still be in financial trouble?

It causes it *sometimes*. If we should cut college sports
because of this, we should cut where it happens even more, i.e. the political realm.

This is changing the subject. Which doesn't really work to prove a point, as I agree with you that we should cut where it happens in the political realm, but I think taking care of it in schools is just as important.

I highly doubt that a football player ever took a seat away from a student. The student-athletes use athletic scholarships. Football revenues pay for those scholarships. It is not as though if football did not exist, those scholarships would go to 'regular' students.

Football revenues can't pay for all athletic scholarships. Plain and simple. This year USF is cutting 450 jobs but not the athletic programs. The University of Florida is cutting 430 jobs. The University of Tennessee and the University of Alabama systems are cutting academic programs and eliminating jobs due to shortfalls in their budgets. It's hard to imagine budget shortfalls with teams making as much as $46 million a year.

Not only are there less classes and less people that get to go there, but they have to pay more for classes. Athletic scholarships pay as much as $200,000 over a course of 4 years. Also, some players are red shirted and stay a 5th year, which is paid for by the college.

Physically talented persons selected for their ability to run, jump, throw, kick or hit a ball are retained to staff a school's teams, and paid for their services while being classified as "scholars".

If the players, many of which who have no interest in higher learning, fill seats at a college, then logic would dictate those seats could be filled by non-athletes.

Who's to say athletes aren't lookin' to get an education? You're also takin' away the oppurtunity for higher education for those who excel at sports and could not afford it otherwise. Yes, it is a steppin' stone for the pro sport realm but it's also an opportunity to get an education as well. Also, there is nothin' wrong with usin' it as a steppin' stone. College, even if you don't plan to use your education initially (that's not to say you don't use it in your daily life), is a fantastic fall back plan. Besides, what the world doesn't need is even more *stupid* athletes.

They need an education, that's for sure. A study at OSU recently reported that 16% of athletes take remedial classes compared to 2% of non-athletes. One reason for this may be because athletes have been concentrating on athletics instead of scholastics, making sports detrimental to their education.

If you excel at a sport and can't afford an education, you don't deserve one more than someone who excels at scholastics and can't afford an education.

Wouldn't it be far easier to establish a developmental league for those athletes who choose an immediate income for them and their family, to concentrate on their value as a football player and do not wish to graduate from college?

Top 15? Are you serious? There's conference money, TV contracts, merchandise sales, not to mention alumni contributions.

#20 on the Forbes list only makes 8 mil a year profit. What happens when #35 need to renovate their football stadium? They will renovate it and cut money to the academic sector to help pay for it.

the top 10% of revenue producers in college football, keep nearly 80% of the total profits made in this business. And make no mistake, this IS big business.

And what is even odder is that it can be literally MORE profitable to sit home and NOT play in a post-season bowl game, than it is to send your team to play in one.

If it costs you a half-million dollars to go to a bowl game — and that's on the low end — and you tack on a $600,000-$800,000 ticket and sponsorship requirement, you've got to come up with $1.3 million simply to come out even.

You do the math: $1.3 million in expenses and a $750,000 payout. It doesn't work.

Blame the school for not havin' their priorities straight. However, I highly doubt this is a serious issue. If a school isn't a school first and foremost they loose their main source of income, normal students. They also loose/gain state fundin' based on this. It's definitly not to their advantage to do this to a point where it would cause problems.

I do blame the school. That's what this whole post is about. It is a very serious issue. As I pointed out earlier academic programs are being cut while sports programs are not.

And? Athletics are an extra curricular activity. To state that there's nothing that can't be learned in the classroom.... well the same logic can be used to do away with greek organizations, math club, french club, SADD, etc, etc.

Greek organizations should be done away with. Most of that is silly, pretentious, and unnecessary bullshit. Math Club and French club promote scholastics. I don't see how there is a problem there. SADD is a farce. You can get rid of that, too, for all I care.

Learn how to entertain millions and millions of people, worldwide, in a classroom. You could argue, "Okay, I'll take COSC classes and make video games", that's fine, but think, not everyone plays video games. That's not to say everyone likes sports either but the same philosophy applies.

To entertain millions, you could be an actor, a writer or a musician for example. Or if you want to assist in entertainment of millions, you could be anything from a construction worker to a botanist. Think about building stages for performers, decorating the set for talk shows, so on and so forth.

Besides, entertainment should take a backseat to academics. It doesn't, but it should.

 

[Strid]

If you excel at a sport and can't afford an education, you don't deserve one more than someone who excels at scholastics and can't afford an education.

They shouldn't and they don't. If student's who excel want to go to college they can snag an academic scholarship all the same as an athlete can snag an athletic one. I know quite a few people who've gone to college on academic scholarships. Also, grants are more in favor of academics than how good a person is on the field/floor/etc.

I'm not respondin' back to anything else on the matter not because I agree with you but because I don't feel the need to justify my opinion in this instance. Technically, this topic could be "touchéd" forever and I don't want that, it's not exactly an interesting topic to me. Whether or not people like it, college sports aren't goin' anywhere until either people quit enjoyin' sports or a significant amount of humans die off.

I also don't agree with your personal stance. 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.

 

[Trippyhippy]

They shouldn't and they don't. If student's who excel want to go to college they can snag an academic scholarship all the same as an athlete can snag an athletic one. I know quite a few people who've gone to college on academic scholarships. Also, grants are more in favor of academics than how good a person is on the field/floor/etc.

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.

I also don't agree with your personal stance. 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.

Oh, I didn't say get rid of sports entirely. I said:

Wouldn't it be far easier to establish a developmental league for those athletes who choose an immediate income for them and their family, to concentrate on their value as a football player and do not wish to graduate from college?

I just said sports have no place in school.

 

[alanon]

As for corruption...

-1999 University of Minnesota hoops academic cheating scandal.
-1981 Boston College college basketball point-shaving scandal.
-1962 college basketball point-shaving scandal involving 37 players from 22 institutions.
-1997 Arizona State college basketball point-shaving scandal.
-1998 Northwester college basketball point-shaving scandal.
-1993 Florida State college football "free shoes" scandal.
-2001 George O'Leary resigns as Notre Dame football coach after lies uncovered on his resume.

That's just a few.

The impact on academics is not minor in any sense of the word. Academic scandals particularly harm the reputation of the school. People that paid money to go there to get a degree from a respectable school, are thoroughly let down.

I fail to see how any of that has a negative impact on academics. 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. 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 acedemics from those scandels are negligable and we will have to agree to disagree.

As far as embezzlement goes, Notre Dame for instance, makes $46 Million a year in profit. That's after their football program expenses and all the money they spend on academics. Yet they still do things like talk about going under. In 2002, they cut 5% of its funding for the University Libraries as a whole. Where is all that money going? If it's going where it is supposed to, then something doesn't add up. How could they make a profit of 46 million but still be in financial trouble?

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?

Football revenues can't pay for all athletic scholarships. Plain and simple. This year USF is cutting 450 jobs but not the athletic programs. The University of Florida is cutting 430 jobs. The University of Tennessee and the University of Alabama systems are cutting academic programs and eliminating jobs due to shortfalls in their budgets. It's hard to imagine budget shortfalls with teams making as much as $46 million a year.

Not only are there less classes and less people that get to go there, but they have to pay more for classes. Athletic scholarships pay as much as $200,000 over a course of 4 years. Also, some players are red shirted and stay a 5th year, which is paid for by the college.

Physically talented persons selected for their ability to run, jump, throw, kick or hit a ball are retained to staff a school's teams, and paid for their services while being classified as "scholars".

If the players, many of which who have no interest in higher learning, fill seats at a college, then logic would dictate those seats could be filled by non-athletes.

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.

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 excell. We have had presidents that went to college on a football scholarship for heaven's sake!

And what is even odder is that it can be literally MORE profitable to sit home and NOT play in a post-season bowl game, than it is to send your team to play in one.

If it costs you a half-million dollars to go to a bowl game — and that's on the low end — and you tack on a $600,000-$800,000 ticket and sponsorship requirement, you've got to come up with $1.3 million simply to come out even.

You do the math: $1.3 million in expenses and a $750,000 payout. It doesn't work.

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.

 

[Lukas]

They shouldn't and they don't. If student's who excel want to go to college they can snag an academic scholarship all the same as an athlete can snag an athletic one. I know quite a few people who've gone to college on academic scholarships. Also, grants are more in favor of academics than how good a person is on the field/floor/etc.

I have an academic scholarship, and the two are not comparable. First of all, an athletic scholarship is more like a salary guised as a "scholarship" because technically speaking a lot of the people who receive them would not have been eligible to enrol in the university on academic requisites alone. They normally cover all universiity costs and then some, whereas academic scholarships are usually just lump sums (of lesser value), which assist a student's financial situation, but fall far short of covering them.

Secondly, I don't know for certain if my university has a set number of athletic scholarships they give out each year, however I find it highly unlikely that they would award fewer than the number they need to fill their sporting teams. The number of academic scholarships pale in comparison because they are not perceived as beeing "needed" in the same sense. I know there is a set number for these, and the university rarely exceeds this number.

Ultimately, I agree with Trippy. The sporting endeavours of athletes and their "tertiary education" should be administered by institutions separate from Universties.

 

[Anglis]

Sports help the university out period. Yes money goes into building new stadiums to sit more people so they can make MORE money. When a school gets 40,000+ fans a game. Thats major funding to the sports program, but other things within the school as well.

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.


I've never liked the arguement 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.

 

[Bluefrost]

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.