'Student' athletes

Zombie_Babies · Mar 28, 2014

Link

I know most of us aware that this goes on but this is the first time I've ever seen an actual bit o' 'work' from a student athlete. This is all sorts of messed up and it detracts from the few kids who really do make an effort to learn while also playing a sport. Get rid of college sports, create an 18 and over amateur sports league, pay the kids and remove this garbage from education altogether. Never happen, of course, but it should.

Umbran · Mar 28, 2014

Zombie_Babies said:
Get rid of college sports, create an 18 and over amateur sports league, pay the kids ...

If you're paying them, it is no longer "amateur".

and remove this garbage from education altogether. Never happen, of course, but it should.

It isn't simple. Many universities use the income from sports to fund other programs.

Ahnehnois · Mar 28, 2014

There are many ways wherein different types of relationships become hybridized. College athletics has always been an odd case, as the high-level athletes are neither purely students, purely employees, or purely athletes. It's a shame and a sham when stuff like this happens. If someone just wants to play football (or other sport of choice), I'm of the mind that they should do that.

Professional baseball has an excellent minor league system that generates a relatively appealing professional environment for young aspiring players. Baseball players go to college because they want to, not because they have to in order to make the pros. Of course, baseball doesn't generate any real revenue for colleges. Outside of the US, soccer academies take in the talented kids well before they're of college age.

It's often paraded as a positive that football and basketball scholarships get people into school who wouldn't get there otherwise, but that's really not the point. If you want to offer scholarships to low-income people or various minorities, they shouldn't have to be able to play a revenue-generating sport in order to get them. There are plenty of deserving kids who actually want to go to college and take classes and get a degree; career athletes who have no interest in that aspect should not be taking their spots.

Zombie_Babies · Mar 28, 2014

Umbran said:
If you're paying them, it is no longer "amateur".

Meh, you get the idea.

It isn't simple. Many universities use the income from sports to fund other programs.

Of course not and that's why I noted that it'll never happen. When schools can afford to build multimillion dollar athletic centers they're not gonna freely give up that cash. They have too much to lose and tradition here is a strong factor as well. How many 'Bama fans would lose their poo if they couldn't drunkenly shout 'Roll Tide' anymore, for example.

Umbran · Mar 28, 2014

Ahnehnois said:
If you want to offer scholarships to low-income people or various minorities, they shouldn't have to be able to play a revenue-generating sport in order to get them.

Yes, should in a moral sense. Morals, unfortunately, don't pay bills. It is a whole lot easier for a school to offer a scholarship if they know they'll earn it back. In some places, the revenue then generated by the sport then helps pay for more scholarships! That one student with the sports scholarship may, in effect, be paying for a couple more who don't play sports!

That's why I say that this isn't simple. The money generated by academic sports isn't just profit going to shareholders, or something. Large chunks of that money generally goes right back into the school, funding scholarships, buying equipment, keeping tuition down, and all that.

Whizbang Dustyboots · Mar 28, 2014

Umbran said:
It isn't simple. Many universities use the income from sports to fund other programs.

That's what they say, but studies have shown the income just further funds the program in a self-perpetuating cycle.

Ahnehnois · Mar 28, 2014

Umbran said:
Yes, should in a moral sense. Morals, unfortunately, don't pay bills. It is a whole lot easier for a school to offer a scholarship if they know they'll earn it back. In some places, the revenue then generated by the sport then helps pay for more scholarships! That one student with the sports scholarship may, in effect, be paying for a couple more who don't play sports!

That's why I say that this isn't simple. The money generated by academic sports isn't just profit going to shareholders, or something. Large chunks of that money generally goes right back into the school, funding scholarships, buying equipment, keeping tuition down, and all that.

True as that is, I don't think it justifies the school violating its own mission by falsifying the academics of its revenue-generating students. Or the other dubious aspects of college athletics, of which there are many.

I think in situations like this the hard truth is that if you can't fund something ethically, you shouldn't be able to fund it at all. The same is true in other situations where large governing bodies justify various misdeeds through the value they generate.

Zombie_Babies said:
They have too much to lose and tradition here is a strong factor as well. How many 'Bama fans would lose their poo if they couldn't drunkenly shout 'Roll Tide' anymore, for example.

I think it's one of those things that happens in the US because of how spread out we are. In major metropolitan areas, people don't have the same attachment to college sports, but we can't have major professional teams everywhere. And, as a matter of branding, it's a lot easier to root for the University of Alabama than the Tuscaloosa minor league football team; people identify strongly with their institutions.

Umbran · Mar 28, 2014

Ahnehnois said:
True as that is, I don't think it justifies the school violating its own mission by falsifying the academics of its revenue-generating students.

I'm not arguing that better oversight would be a bad thing. But, some failed oversight is not automatic grounds for scrapping the whole system.

I think in situations like this the hard truth is that if you can't fund something ethically, you shouldn't be able to fund it at all.

Those kids whose scholarships come out of that revenue, who might not get into school otherwise, might well disagree with you about the ethics of the situation.

DMZ2112 · Mar 28, 2014

Umbran said:
If you're paying them, it is no longer "amateur".

I don't think that's been true anywhere but in dictionaries since the '80s.

It isn't simple. Many universities use the income from sports to fund other programs.

In my experience they use the income from sports to fund bigger sports facilities, and then raid the rest of the budget to build /even bigger/ sports facilities.

Ahnehnois · Mar 28, 2014

Umbran said:
Those kids whose scholarships come out of that revenue, who might not get into school otherwise, might well disagree with you about the ethics of the situation.

True. The person saved by a new cancer drug probably also is okay if the drug company did its testing overseas in countries without ethical regulations and abused the patients in some way. That's why it's a hard truth. I'm not saying that the NCAA's TV contracts don't fund many positive things. I'm saying that the ends don't justify the means.

But, some failed oversight is not automatic grounds for scrapping the whole system.

In and of itself no. But the oversight is often not in the best interests of the students. If we take the case of the guy who writes one weak paragraph and gets credit for a college course, punishing him or the university is not a solution. He never should have been there in the first place. If he wanted a real education, he should have gotten it, and if he didn't, he should be a professional playing sports, not a student. The weird gray area of "student athlete" is the problem, not one individual case of the system being gamed.

'Student' athletes

Zombie_Babies

First Post

Umbran

Mod Squad

Ahnehnois

First Post

Zombie_Babies

First Post

Umbran

Mod Squad

Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero

Ahnehnois

First Post

Umbran

Mod Squad

DMZ2112

Chaotic Looseleaf

Ahnehnois

First Post

Similar Threads