'Student' athletes

[Zombie_Babies]

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.

People take those attachments with them when they move and, typically, make those attachments family tradition. College sports aren't money makers solely cuz of regional appeal. Those major markets eat it up just like everyone else - and that's not even considering teams that are in major markets.

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.

Well, the professional teams work with the NCAA to make that - kids going from HS to pro sports - as impossible as possible. You need one year at a college in order to declare for basketball and three for football. Now you don't have to go to college to play pro ball but it's the path you'll take if you're really interested because it's also the one that's most likely to get you in. Skills fade over time and, more importantly, memory fades faster. It doesn't matter if you set high school rushing records if you're out of football for three years and you never once made in on a nationally televised game. Nobody who matters will know who you are. That's by design. The NCAA makes its money and the NFL has a free minor league system. Can't beat it.

EDIT: Just for the record, I don't believe education should come at a cost. It's a right, not a privilege. And what we see with this stuff is a smaller chance of that ever becoming a reality.

 

[Ahnehnois]

People take those attachments with them when they move and, typically, make those attachments family tradition. College sports aren't money makers solely cuz of regional appeal. Those major markets eat it up just like everyone else - and that's not even considering teams that are in major markets.

People may take those attachments with them wherever they go, but I don't think they would form them in the first place if they had strong professional teams to root for instead. It seems to me that there's very little overlap geographically between the major college powers in basketball and football and the professional teams. To me, that's why big college sports is such an American phenomenon.

Well, the professional teams work with the NCAA to make that - kids going from HS to pro sports - as impossible as possible.

For football and basketball, yes. However, there are other sports with different models. Minor league baseball and college baseball coexist perfectly fine. In the tennis world, going to college is a disadvantage; college players rarely succeed as professionals and the professional players that make a living at it do so at a young enough age that they skip out on a lot of education.

The NCAA makes its money and the NFL has a free minor league system. Can't beat it.

Well, the NCAA comes out very well, but I would argue that the NFL and NBA would be better served by having developmental leagues like some of the other sports (which we've occasionally seen feeble attempts at but not anything that would replace college athletics).

Just for the record, I don't believe education should come at a cost. It's a right, not a privilege. And what we see with this stuff is a smaller chance of that ever becoming a reality.

I want to agree with that in principle. However, I would think there has to be some limitation on how much education. College isn't for everyone, and it's at least debatable whether it should be paid for by everyone. Certainly, I would have preferred it if I were recruited like a college athlete and if my education had been paid for, but that doesn't mean it's right.

 

[Umbran]

I'm saying that the ends don't justify the means.

Well, take this guy who wrote that paragraph. Let us take it as a given that he shouldn't have been in college in the first place.

Okay. So, where *would* he have been, without the possibility of a sports scholarship? Are you sure that he'd be in a better place? Are you sure anyone else is being harmed by his being allowed to slide through? His degree alone, facade that it will be, isn't going to get him far, into anything he's going to hurt anyone in, now is it? If he doesn't get into the pros, he can get... a job, at least. He may not be great at it, but he has a starting place.

As opposed to... whatever a kid who managed to get through high school without an education and no prospects whatsoever will get up to?

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.

Punishing him, certainly not a solution. Punishing the university might be part of a solution. But, really, the issue at hand is that you're thinking about oversight as a source of punishment, instead of a source of correction. What if oversight got the athlete some remedial English training, as a result of oversight?

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.

How many pro-athlete jobs are there for a given sport? How many people *want* those jobs?

If you had a friend who really wanted to be an actor, would you tell him to just go full-bore for it, and throw all other avenues of earning a living to the winds? Or, would you tell him to have a backup plan? What backup plan does the non-student athlete have?

 

[Umbran]

EDIT: Just for the record, I don't believe education should come at a cost. It's a right, not a privilege. And what we see with this stuff is a smaller chance of that ever becoming a reality.

I understand the thought there. Unfortunately, as my thermodynamics teacher once said - there is no such thing as a free lunch. The buildings, the books, the teachers, and all must be supported. Everyone in the chain of providing that education needs to eat. As a practical matter, then, there is a cost that *someone* has to pay if it is going to happen.

(I know you understand this, but I am constantly amazed at how many folks forget it - like they forget that the machines your doctor uses to give you medical services cost money too, so I state it just to be clear.)

The question that remains is *who* should pay - the nation through taxes, or the individual, or what. And that's politics we can't really go into.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Okay. So, where *would* he have been, without the possibility of a sports scholarship? Are you sure that he'd be in a better place?

No. Not sure of that at all. Very possible he'd be unemployed and suffering the consequences of poverty.

Then again, if the promise of college athletics had not been there to begin with, it's possible he wouldn't have put all his eggs in that basket. Many young men are attracted by the allure of wealth and fame associated with the big sports. Sometimes, it lures them from bad situations into good ones. However, it might also lure them away from doing things that are more useful and realistic.

And, to state the obvious, it's also possible that if he hadn't pursued football aggressively, he might have less brain damage and be better able to function. Part of the ugly side of college athletics is the way it uses up young people's bodies. Many sports involve training that is actually good for you, but football carries significant risks.

Are you sure anyone else is being harmed by his being allowed to slide through?

Pretty sure of that, yes. It isn't as obvious, but the damage to the credibility of the educational system likely has diffuse consequences, particularly for athletes that actually are good students but might have trouble being recognized in the professional world.

Punishing him, certainly not a solution. Punishing the university might be part of a solution. But, really, the issue at hand is that you're thinking about oversight as a source of punishment, instead of a source of correction. What if oversight got the athlete some remedial English training, as a result of oversight?

Probably insufficient at this point. Who knows if this particular individual was not interested in trying for whatever reason or had a learning disability or something and actually would never be able to complete college-level work? In any case, college is for people who already have a certain level of skill and commitment.

How many pro-athlete jobs are there for a given sport? How many people *want* those jobs?

If you had a friend who really wanted to be an actor, would you tell him to just go full-bore for it, and throw all other avenues of earning a living to the winds? Or, would you tell him to have a backup plan? What backup plan does the non-student athlete have?

I don't know that I would tell him to have a backup plan. Getting where you want to in life can require a lot of commitment, which sometimes is incompatible with flexibility. It's one thing to wait tables while you're waiting for your big break, it's another to suggest that you should pursue other goals. What an individual should do really varies on where their talents lie and what resources are available to them. If the acting thing isn't going to happen, they have to look elsewhere, but if they're really talented and have a lot going for them, I'd say don't waste that potential by giving up and selling insurance after a bad stretch.

As to athletes, I suspect their backup plans are often limited. There's always the old aphorism "those who can't, teach", and a fair number of failed athletes become coaches (or are otherwise involved with the business in some supporting capacity). The sports business takes care of its own to an extent. Many failed professional athletes don't have any other marketable talents and will be searching for unskilled labor. Some do and may pursue any number of life paths.

However, it's a rough job market with a poor social safety net regardless of who you are. I don't have any more pity for a failed football player than I do for a scrawny little kid who could never play sports to begin with.

I understand the thought there. Unfortunately, as my thermodynamics teacher once said - there is no such thing as a free lunch. The buildings, the books, the teachers, and all must be supported. Everyone in the chain of providing that education needs to eat. As a practical matter, then, there is a cost that *someone* has to pay if it is going to happen.

The same of course is true of athletic scholarships. Someone is paying for them. What's debatable is who and why.

 

[frogimus]

CBS pays NCAA $10.8 billion to televise "March Madness". I imagine that the total broadcasting rights across all networks and all collegiate sports is staggering.

Football and Basketball revenue helps pay scholarships in a lot of other sports. Most scholar athletes do not expect pro contracts and actually earn a degree outside of sports. Think of the Olympic athletes that have access to facilities and coaching that would otherwise pay out of pocket.

College sports bring alumni back to campus, which generates a lot of donations and endowments. For more than just athletics.

For every North Carolina, Kentucky, or Alabama story there are hundreds of untold stories of poor kids with athletic talents getting degrees and becoming a substantial member of society.

 

[tomBitonti]

Taking from young athletes without their consent is theft.

A basic question will be: Is there redistribution happening? If that is not agreed upon, the remainder of the discussion will be difficult.

Then, if redistribution happens, is it fair?

The answer is made harder by the unequal values provided to and obtained from young athletes. I'd say that many are provided a value which they would otherwise be unable to obtain, while many provide much more value than they receive in compensation.

For those that provide more value, depriving them of the rewards of that value is theft.

One could make a social value argument that we are better off on the whole as a result, but, the same argument could be made to justify other means of redistributing of wealth. As long as takings of this sort are contrary to social mores, they are hard to distinguish from simple theft.

The question of redistribution and social policy opens a whole other kettle, which I'm not going to address. I'd say, in the US at least, generally, some redistribution is performed, with much argument on either side for more or less, with a result that redistribution is limited, and large takings are generally disapproved.

Here is a question: Since a social value is being obtained (a "greater good") from the athletes, could that be used to justify higher taxation on the several industries which benefit (in some cases, quite handsomely)? That is, should profits from sports venues and media be taxed at a higher rate?

Thx!

TomB

 

[Ahnehnois]

For every North Carolina, Kentucky, or Alabama story there are hundreds of untold stories of poor kids with athletic talents getting degrees and becoming a substantial member of society.

I don't know about that. With some of the stories about athletes getting away with sexual assault, combined with the quasi-prostitution sometimes provided by the universities themselves, and then PED's and other drug abuse, there are a lot of people using college athletics as an opportunity to pursue harmful criminal activity. And of course the coaches at big schools are paid an order of magnitude more than any other employee at the university; that's a lot of scholarships that aren't happening.

It's not just a question of fake degrees, there's a nasty underbelly to the college athletics culture.

 

[Umbran]

Taking from young athletes without their consent is theft.

Taking their property is theft. Not giving them rewards commensurate with their effort is not technically theft. It may be unfair. It may be exploitation. It is not "theft", per se. And the point is relevant, because "theft" is also emotionally loaded language.

Given that you'd not hit too far short of the emotional mark if you say "exploitation", I suggest you use that word, because legally speaking, it does matter.

 

[Umbran]

It's not just a question of fake degrees, there's a nasty underbelly to the college athletics culture.

Eh. Logically shaky ground there. "There is enough illegal/immoral stuff done in relation to it, so we should abolish it," is logically slippery, and can set a precedent that is difficult to control.

You know how many illegal and immoral acts are committed with computers, right? Identity theft. Child pornography. Not nearly so squishy, in terms of measuring the harm done using computers. So, ethically, do we need to get rid of computers? Do the good ends that computers provide us justify the means that opens up so many nasty, nasty things?