U.N.C. Investigation Reveals ‘Shadow Curriculum’ to Help Athletes(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
U.N.C. Investigation Reveals ‘Shadow Curriculum’ to Help Athletes
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/23/sports/university-of-north-carolina-investigation-reveals-shadow-curriculum-to-help-athletes.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1409232722000&bicmet=1419773522000
12 comments
The problem is that they're being exploited. Choose to go to class or not, they are not being paid anything remotely close to the value that these schools get from them in terms of team gear sales, ad revenue, tv time, increased enrollment, etc etc etc.
This is especially true when they're turning in BS papers for crap degrees that can't and won't serve them once they leave school. A minuscule few make it pro. The rest - if they graduate, even - have only an AFAM degree to show for it and no real life skills.
I agree that if they want to be athletes, they should be allowed to be athletes. But they should be paid appropriately for it in kind.
This is especially true when they're turning in BS papers for crap degrees that can't and won't serve them once they leave school. A minuscule few make it pro. The rest - if they graduate, even - have only an AFAM degree to show for it and no real life skills.
I agree that if they want to be athletes, they should be allowed to be athletes. But they should be paid appropriately for it in kind.
> The problem is that they're being exploited. Choose to go to class or not, they are not being paid anything remotely close to the value that these schools get from them in terms of team gear sales, ad revenue, tv time, increased enrollment, etc etc etc.
I'm tired of seeing this argument without data. If you sit down and think about the numbers, you'll see that for the vast majority of NCAA athletes, this is false. Most get a very sweet deal relative to their market value if the NCAA did not exist.
First, limit to the NCAA sports that actually produce revenue, essentially men's football and basketball. If the NCAA did not exist, these players would at best be in a minor league (again except for the top dozen or two in the country). Now look at a sport that has a minor league in America: baseball. Minor league baseball players, even toward the top, make how much? $2000-3000 per month. And that's only in-season.
Paid tuition is already worth higher in cash value than that. And the value of the student-athlete experience? You can't put a price tag on it. Ask any former NCAA athlete what they would trade to give up their experience.
But, you respond, NCAA sports make way more money than baseball minor leagues. Yes, that's true. But it's not solely because of the players. It's because of the schools. Schools bring almost everything important to the table: A huge fanbase, a connection to a physical location and community, an illusion of amateur-ness, rivalries, all of these things you can't get to nearly that extent outside the NCAA.
The players? They have no bargaining power because without the NCAA system, they'd be hosed. They'd be working even harder for essentially less money, living a tougher lifestyle, and not even get the degree to show for it. Hard to argue they should be paid when they bring very little to the table compared to the schools.
The point people miss is that it's the combination of the schools and the players together that generates so much revenue. Either without the other would be out of luck. And right now, if you think about the numbers, the current split is pretty fair. The exception might be the few star players who could make millions in the pros.
...
I want to say, I'm not saying that players aren't exploited currently. I think they are. But I think the exploitation boils down to your second paragraph: They lose a real education because they don't have their priorities in line at that point in their lives.
But the solution isn't to pay kids even more money/benefits to continue to masquerade as students while living as full-time athletes. The solution should be to divorce sports from education and create minor leagues. This will never happen because, as I stated above, it's the combination of schools and sports that generates so much money, and the people at the top won't give that up just to do the right thing.
I'm tired of seeing this argument without data. If you sit down and think about the numbers, you'll see that for the vast majority of NCAA athletes, this is false. Most get a very sweet deal relative to their market value if the NCAA did not exist.
First, limit to the NCAA sports that actually produce revenue, essentially men's football and basketball. If the NCAA did not exist, these players would at best be in a minor league (again except for the top dozen or two in the country). Now look at a sport that has a minor league in America: baseball. Minor league baseball players, even toward the top, make how much? $2000-3000 per month. And that's only in-season.
Paid tuition is already worth higher in cash value than that. And the value of the student-athlete experience? You can't put a price tag on it. Ask any former NCAA athlete what they would trade to give up their experience.
But, you respond, NCAA sports make way more money than baseball minor leagues. Yes, that's true. But it's not solely because of the players. It's because of the schools. Schools bring almost everything important to the table: A huge fanbase, a connection to a physical location and community, an illusion of amateur-ness, rivalries, all of these things you can't get to nearly that extent outside the NCAA.
The players? They have no bargaining power because without the NCAA system, they'd be hosed. They'd be working even harder for essentially less money, living a tougher lifestyle, and not even get the degree to show for it. Hard to argue they should be paid when they bring very little to the table compared to the schools.
The point people miss is that it's the combination of the schools and the players together that generates so much revenue. Either without the other would be out of luck. And right now, if you think about the numbers, the current split is pretty fair. The exception might be the few star players who could make millions in the pros.
...
I want to say, I'm not saying that players aren't exploited currently. I think they are. But I think the exploitation boils down to your second paragraph: They lose a real education because they don't have their priorities in line at that point in their lives.
But the solution isn't to pay kids even more money/benefits to continue to masquerade as students while living as full-time athletes. The solution should be to divorce sports from education and create minor leagues. This will never happen because, as I stated above, it's the combination of schools and sports that generates so much money, and the people at the top won't give that up just to do the right thing.
I'm sorry, but why would you compare revenue to minor league baseball? Collegiate basketball and football make significatly more money than collegiate or minor league baseball. America has clearly decided that they wI'ill spend just as much money on second tier leagues for these sports and any valuation would need to be based on this or be disingenuous.
He explained: the difference between minor league baseball and NCAA football is the fanbase and tradition the schools bring. A putative Ann Arbor Wolves minor league football team would not have a stadium that dwarfs all NFL stadia.
Right, this is my contention. I admit that it's definitely speculative.
I understand your objections in the first part of your reply, but let me clarify - when I speak about this, I'm talking strictly about revenue sports. The other athletes in non-revenue sports who are lucky enough to get scholarships are indeed getting a bang-up deal. But, I'm not talking about those guys.
In fact, I agree with the latter part of your comment, where you say that divorcing sports and education is the long overdue solution to this problem. I personally don't believe playing sports (sports management is another thing) has anything to do with higher education. But, I also agree that it will probably never change. There's too much money at the top, and it's too easy to screw the athletes down at the bottom.
In fact, I agree with the latter part of your comment, where you say that divorcing sports and education is the long overdue solution to this problem. I personally don't believe playing sports (sports management is another thing) has anything to do with higher education. But, I also agree that it will probably never change. There's too much money at the top, and it's too easy to screw the athletes down at the bottom.
In the case of gridiron football the system is a subsidy to the NFL which avoids player development costs...often at taxpayer expense. Likewise, the colleges pass off youth development costs to the public high school systems...again at taxpayer expense.
For the players. this form of amateurism means they have no power to negotiate contracts to offset the risks associated with the sport.
For the players. this form of amateurism means they have no power to negotiate contracts to offset the risks associated with the sport.
One could also make the argument that industry does the same thing with your average college student - offloading education and training cost onto the taxpayers and students and then reaping the benefits.
Doesn't make it right, I;m just saying the argument could be made.
Doesn't make it right, I;m just saying the argument could be made.
>they are not being paid anything remotely close to the value that these schools get from them in terms of team gear sales, ad revenue, tv time, increased enrollment, etc etc etc.
This is true for only a very small percentage of college athletes.
Most college sports don't generate a lot of money for their schools. Even the most popular sports, men's football and men's basketball, generate big money for a minority of elite programs.
This is true for only a very small percentage of college athletes.
Most college sports don't generate a lot of money for their schools. Even the most popular sports, men's football and men's basketball, generate big money for a minority of elite programs.
Let's look at it another way. 40 out of 50 states' highest paid public employee is a head football or basketball coach.
But isn't it this same minority of elite programs looking for ways to carry academically incompetent students?
Most student athletes are students first, not looking for an opening in a professional league.
Most student athletes are students first, not looking for an opening in a professional league.
Well, they are getting compensation in terms of free tuition, room and board, etc... these things do have significant value. If they complete school, they get to walk away with a degree without any debt. That's not trivial.
However, the athletes are only able to actualize this compensation if they can freely choose their majors, are able to take the classes they want, and actually earn their education. By creating a secondary tier of classes, the school was deliberately exploiting them.
I think that the value of a degree (for an athlete) will vary greatly depending on the school. Some schools are more academically rigorous for athletes than others... UNC apparently was on the low end of the scale.
However, the athletes are only able to actualize this compensation if they can freely choose their majors, are able to take the classes they want, and actually earn their education. By creating a secondary tier of classes, the school was deliberately exploiting them.
I think that the value of a degree (for an athlete) will vary greatly depending on the school. Some schools are more academically rigorous for athletes than others... UNC apparently was on the low end of the scale.
> Well, they are getting compensation in terms of free tuition, room and board, etc... these things do have significant value.
Compare and contrast with the money an 18-21 year old second team player at Real Madrid or Barcelona makes and get back to me on the "significant value". Especially when the athletes are being funneled through second-rate degrees to free up their time for sport.
Compare and contrast with the money an 18-21 year old second team player at Real Madrid or Barcelona makes and get back to me on the "significant value". Especially when the athletes are being funneled through second-rate degrees to free up their time for sport.
A fairer comparison might be to the pay received in US minor league baseball. These can go as high as $90 thousand. But you can also play at the highest level of minor league ball, AAA, and get $2150 per month.
Having said that, I agree with you on the whole. They are being paid in kind: in room and board that they could get at home, and in tuition that doesn't seem to amount to much. I think that baseball's structure of minor leagues and Canadian hockey's junior hockey offer a better deal to the young athlete.
Having said that, I agree with you on the whole. They are being paid in kind: in room and board that they could get at home, and in tuition that doesn't seem to amount to much. I think that baseball's structure of minor leagues and Canadian hockey's junior hockey offer a better deal to the young athlete.
Or compare it to the AHL, where players make $70,000 (this is as of 2012-20130. The $70,000 figure is not hugely out-of-line with the cost of a year of tuition, room, and board at a good school. Once they make the leap to the NHL it goes up markedly to at least $525,000 (as of 2011-2012), and of course free agents make even more.
I do think that most public colleges should get out of the business of fielding sports teams. Except for the best schools, they will not be a net positive financially.
I do think that most public colleges should get out of the business of fielding sports teams. Except for the best schools, they will not be a net positive financially.
>>Well, they are getting compensation in terms of free tuition, room and board, etc... these things do have significant value. If they complete school, they get to walk away with a degree without any debt. That's not trivial.
The actual number comes down to around $25,000/year for public schools and $35,000/year for private schools. This is out-of-state tuition combined with living expenses and school supplies. However, it goes down significantly once the student establishes in-state residency.
So basically, these college athletes are making working class wages while learning nothing of significant value. A few of them get into the major leagues upon graduation and the rest struggle with unemployment and underemployment for years. Being involved in college athletics costs them more in the long run than the paltry sum of expenses they get to waive over their college career.
The actual number comes down to around $25,000/year for public schools and $35,000/year for private schools. This is out-of-state tuition combined with living expenses and school supplies. However, it goes down significantly once the student establishes in-state residency.
So basically, these college athletes are making working class wages while learning nothing of significant value. A few of them get into the major leagues upon graduation and the rest struggle with unemployment and underemployment for years. Being involved in college athletics costs them more in the long run than the paltry sum of expenses they get to waive over their college career.
I think a brunt of the issue is that their exploitation is what is being used to generate that "significant value".
Here's an article about the latest NCAA reform vote on [edit: student-]athlete compensation: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/06/us-ncaa-rules-idUS...
Here's an article about the latest NCAA reform vote on [edit: student-]athlete compensation: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/06/us-ncaa-rules-idUS...
If the athletes truly brought the value and it wasn't the schools and league itself, then the NBA's D-League would be raking in the billions and they could all play there.
It turns out that people want to watch their school beat another school, and they aren't particular about the athletes. You can say the individuals bring value, but they destroy an equal amount of value at some other school when they succeed.
Witness the last NBA lockout when the players had some all-star games and couldn't fill the seats. A mature competitive league is responsible for far more of the revenue than it gets credit for.
It turns out that people want to watch their school beat another school, and they aren't particular about the athletes. You can say the individuals bring value, but they destroy an equal amount of value at some other school when they succeed.
Witness the last NBA lockout when the players had some all-star games and couldn't fill the seats. A mature competitive league is responsible for far more of the revenue than it gets credit for.
> Why is every semi-pro athlete expected to get a decent GPA in order to play on a university's football team?
Because they are not semi-pro athletes. They are university students first and amateur athletes second. Or at least that's what's being claimed. And as students, they have to pass the same general education curriculum as every other student in the university, and to the same standards.
> If, as adults, they choose not to pursue academic studies, and instead choose to focus all of their energy on sports, then they should be allowed to do that without putting their sports career at risk.
Sure. But this should be done outside of a university environment. The problem is not that athletes expected to be good students. The problem is that in the US they are expected to be students at all.
Because they are not semi-pro athletes. They are university students first and amateur athletes second. Or at least that's what's being claimed. And as students, they have to pass the same general education curriculum as every other student in the university, and to the same standards.
> If, as adults, they choose not to pursue academic studies, and instead choose to focus all of their energy on sports, then they should be allowed to do that without putting their sports career at risk.
Sure. But this should be done outside of a university environment. The problem is not that athletes expected to be good students. The problem is that in the US they are expected to be students at all.
> Why is every semi-pro athlete expected to get a decent GPA in order to play on a university's football team?
Because there are semi-pro teams and university teams, and the two things are not the same thing.
> If, as adults, they choose not to pursue academic studies, and instead choose to focus all of their energy on sports, then they should be allowed to do that without putting their sports career at risk.
Sure, and if they choose to do that, they should do it somewhere other than an academic institution.
Because there are semi-pro teams and university teams, and the two things are not the same thing.
> If, as adults, they choose not to pursue academic studies, and instead choose to focus all of their energy on sports, then they should be allowed to do that without putting their sports career at risk.
Sure, and if they choose to do that, they should do it somewhere other than an academic institution.
In the case of American football, skipping college isn't an option. The NFL doesn't recruit out of high school, so a player's only option is to do 3-4 years indentured servitude at an NCAA institution.
Maybe professional sports should change the way they recruit, and leave academic institutions out of the picture. The NFL has enough money to set up a more extensive farm league system, or maybe they could have a junior league based on smaller cities?
FWIW, I have heard of the NBA showing interest in kids in high school. I am not sure if they actually recruited any of them, though.
FWIW, I have heard of the NBA showing interest in kids in high school. I am not sure if they actually recruited any of them, though.
The NBA currently disallows drafting players straight out of high school, but for a decently long era it was allowed and a lot of the biggest stars who entered the NBA at that time were drafted from high school, including Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, and Kevin Garnett.
Also, some high school players who do not want to go to college (for whatever reason-- academic, financial, etc.) go play overseas at age 18 for a few years, getting paid all the while, then get drafted along with their HS graduating class a few years later.
I don't disagree, but the NFLPA and NFL have a collective bargaining agreement that prohibits the NFL from recruiting until a player is 3-years removed from high school (roughly age 21).
Both the league and player's union benefit from this restriction in trade. Appellate courts have ruled in their favor. So, the NFL as zero interest in creating a farm system that competes with the NCAA. Obviously, the NCAA also likes this arrangement as it's a major source of revenue for college athletic departments.
Both the league and player's union benefit from this restriction in trade. Appellate courts have ruled in their favor. So, the NFL as zero interest in creating a farm system that competes with the NCAA. Obviously, the NCAA also likes this arrangement as it's a major source of revenue for college athletic departments.
They're not really playing sports at an academic institution... they're playing sports for a business that's got a joint branding contract with an academic institution.
I disagree. Playing sports at the highest levels is an academic activity, it's just not recognized as an academic activity today. You definitely have to study, recognize patterns, solve problems, etc. Just not so much reading books and writing papers.
By the modern understanding of the word "academic" it is more like a skilled trade.
> reading books and writing papers.
So you'd argue that football is an intellectual pursuit in the same sense that math, physics, philosophy, or history is?
That study of the nuts and bolts of the game is worthy of the attention of our finest minds (as a discipline unto itself)?
The "reading books and writing papers" you mention is a severe and tragic distortion of why universities exist. It has little to do with the academic activity that's occurring outside the undergraduate classrooms.
It might be the case that there is a lot of waste happening in universities due to the commodification of education, but that doesn't trivialize the serious work that's still happening, however underfunded it remains.
So you'd argue that football is an intellectual pursuit in the same sense that math, physics, philosophy, or history is?
That study of the nuts and bolts of the game is worthy of the attention of our finest minds (as a discipline unto itself)?
The "reading books and writing papers" you mention is a severe and tragic distortion of why universities exist. It has little to do with the academic activity that's occurring outside the undergraduate classrooms.
It might be the case that there is a lot of waste happening in universities due to the commodification of education, but that doesn't trivialize the serious work that's still happening, however underfunded it remains.
It's at least on par with, literature, music, philosophy, history, sociology, psychology, art, or any other "soft" subjects lacking of direct impact on people's lives. It's held to a higher standard than economics, but has less impact.
As to math I would argue it's more meaningful than say topology, but less than other branches.
As to math I would argue it's more meaningful than say topology, but less than other branches.
If you're listing topology as "less meaningful", I'm guessing you haven't spent much time studying topics in physics that have been developed since the 1970s or so. Topology turns out to be a pretty big deal.
[deleted]
There has been plenty of post 1970's physics advances, but the number of useful ones (for the average person) directly linked to Topology is much smaller.
EX: Fusion research is potentially extremely useful, but so far it's impact is basically nothing. Ditto Astrophysics.
Though, if you have anything specific in mind I would love to hear about it as I am really drawing a blank.
EX: Fusion research is potentially extremely useful, but so far it's impact is basically nothing. Ditto Astrophysics.
Though, if you have anything specific in mind I would love to hear about it as I am really drawing a blank.
Your casual dismissal of half the central core of human intellectual enterprise over the last 4000 years raised my eyebrows, but when I got to your comment about topology it became clear you have no idea what you're talking about or are simply trolling. Either way, stop.
It's not that I think they have low or zero value. Or even personally care about the sport. It's simply a numbers game and I rate Football rather highly as it's actively enjoyed by a large number of people. For comparison more people in the US watched an football game than read a book for fun last year.
Semi conductor design by comparison is something few people directly care about but it directly impacts their lives increasing it's value immensely.
PS: History for example is important, but the study of history has fairly limited impact outside of entertainment for most people.
Semi conductor design by comparison is something few people directly care about but it directly impacts their lives increasing it's value immensely.
PS: History for example is important, but the study of history has fairly limited impact outside of entertainment for most people.
> For comparison more people in the US watched an football game than read a book for fun last year.
Not sure this is the case. Pew pegs the percentage of Americans who read a book last year at 77% [http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/the-decl...], and the Super Bowl drew 111 million viewers [http://www.cbsnews.com/news/super-bowl-2014-ratings-set-new-...]. I'd guess the number of people who watched a football game but not the Super Bowl last year isn't totally insignificant, but probably not huge (and I'm skeptical that the ratings aren't maybe a little inflated).
Not sure this is the case. Pew pegs the percentage of Americans who read a book last year at 77% [http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/the-decl...], and the Super Bowl drew 111 million viewers [http://www.cbsnews.com/news/super-bowl-2014-ratings-set-new-...]. I'd guess the number of people who watched a football game but not the Super Bowl last year isn't totally insignificant, but probably not huge (and I'm skeptical that the ratings aren't maybe a little inflated).
Your assuming everyone who read a book did so for fun. Scroll down on your first link and the percentage is 55% of adults and 52% 18-24 year olds. Compared to 64% of americans watching an NFL game. http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/10/14/no-surprise-64-a...
Further, football goes beyond the supper bowl and beyond the NFL. Including collage, high school etc, and an estimated 200+ million people watched at least one football game last year.
Further, football goes beyond the supper bowl and beyond the NFL. Including collage, high school etc, and an estimated 200+ million people watched at least one football game last year.
> It's simply a numbers game and I rate Football rather highly as it's actively enjoyed by a large number of people.
The question wasn't whether it was actively enjoyed by a large number of people, but whether it was "an academic activity".
The idea that was is an "academic activity" is defined by how widely enjoyed the activity is probably only defensible with a very unusual definition of "academic".
The question wasn't whether it was actively enjoyed by a large number of people, but whether it was "an academic activity".
The idea that was is an "academic activity" is defined by how widely enjoyed the activity is probably only defensible with a very unusual definition of "academic".
My point is not to defend it as an academic activity, but to measure the impact.
"Game theory" is clearly an academic activity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
The study of football at a deeper level is a subset of that, but it covers a fairly wide area. From which plays to call in offence vs defense. Cost benefit of risking a player injury in a low win percentage game. Which players to sign etc. (Or even just the math around fantasy football.)
I mean just because your covering a specific WWI battle does not mean your doing something else and not studding history.
"Game theory" is clearly an academic activity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
The study of football at a deeper level is a subset of that, but it covers a fairly wide area. From which plays to call in offence vs defense. Cost benefit of risking a player injury in a low win percentage game. Which players to sign etc. (Or even just the math around fantasy football.)
I mean just because your covering a specific WWI battle does not mean your doing something else and not studding history.
[deleted]
The replies are saying the schools provide prestige, visibility to scouts, and training/coaching/advice.
Change the terms in your post and theirs a bit, and I can't tell if we are talking about exploiting footballers or participants in the YCombinator program.
Change the terms in your post and theirs a bit, and I can't tell if we are talking about exploiting footballers or participants in the YCombinator program.
Sure; but they shouldn't be playing on a college team. As in, if you don't work at a company you shouldn't play on the company team.
Why not? (I ask this in hopes of being persuaded, not to defend a position.)
Because colleges have the stated goal of educating people. Its cynical (as the commenter above mentioned at the end) to join the college with no intention of actually getting educated. Its called a 'shill' or ringer - somebody you get from outside to represent you, that is not actually a member of your organization beyond the single task (sports).
> Because colleges have the stated goal of educating people.
And do you suppose that people are just born being really good at sports? Of course not, it takes thousands of hours of learning/education. If we're going to treat things like math and economics as academic subjects, then I don't see how football is any different.
And do you suppose that people are just born being really good at sports? Of course not, it takes thousands of hours of learning/education. If we're going to treat things like math and economics as academic subjects, then I don't see how football is any different.
Agreed! With one minor correction. If the main thing you're studying is football, you should get a degree in football. I'm a big fan of imagining reforms that don't change anything but just rename things to their proper names. It's an interesting way to see the world.
But this has nothing to do with how NCAA athletics have worked in the US, especially in football, for decades. You can't blame the players, when they are pursuing the sports path open to them, blame the colleges.
The professional leagues are also complicit (baseball less so). Both the NFL and NBA have age limits on their draft picks. At least the NBA has a development league, but the NFL has no farm system to speak of (outside of the NCAA).
A different take on it is that the schools shouldn't advertise them as student-athletes that are there on "scholarships" (scare quotes because taking a fake class isn't very scholarly).
Colleges are academic institutions. If you want to be semi-pro athlete rather than a student-athlete, you should join a semi-pro team rather than an academic institution.
The students would have to be paid something in order for them to be semi-pro. They are amateur athletes. Ironically, the teams themselves have to be considered professional, considering the amount of income they generate.
There are no semi pro football teams. Simplifying it all down to that is naive and ignorant, the athletes are using the system that's been put in place for them to succeed.
Ignoring the NCAA route in favor of anything else at this point isn't just career suicide, it's career abortion.
Ignoring the NCAA route in favor of anything else at this point isn't just career suicide, it's career abortion.
> There are no semi pro football teams.
Yes, there are.
True, they aren't a good way to get into the NFL, because the NFL prefer to recruit from college teams.
But the question then shouldn't be "why are college athletes expected to meet the academic sstandards that go with being in college" but "why do major professional sports teams in certain sports prefer to recruit from colleges rather than lesser professional leagues in the same sport"?
Yes, there are.
True, they aren't a good way to get into the NFL, because the NFL prefer to recruit from college teams.
But the question then shouldn't be "why are college athletes expected to meet the academic sstandards that go with being in college" but "why do major professional sports teams in certain sports prefer to recruit from colleges rather than lesser professional leagues in the same sport"?
That's exactly my point, in the spirit of semi pro baseball & soccer leagues, semi pro football does not exist.
And great, that's a completely different argument. One that I think we really should be having soon, though I'm not sure if anything will be changed.
And great, that's a completely different argument. One that I think we really should be having soon, though I'm not sure if anything will be changed.
That means absolutely nothing.
Looking at the lowest level of college football, there are only 11 active roster NFL players from a D3 school. [0]
There are 1,696 active NFL players, that's a 0.6 percent chance of 'making it', at the lowest level of the game.
Again, absolute and utter career suicide because of some moral grievance.
[0] - http://www.d3football.com/interactive/faq/general#14
Looking at the lowest level of college football, there are only 11 active roster NFL players from a D3 school. [0]
There are 1,696 active NFL players, that's a 0.6 percent chance of 'making it', at the lowest level of the game.
Again, absolute and utter career suicide because of some moral grievance.
[0] - http://www.d3football.com/interactive/faq/general#14
Why do academic institutions need to have sports teams?
You're questioning the fundamental purpose of an institution in such a way that it's hard to answer. Why shouldn't universities also run all sorts of other businesses, and then make money from their student consultants?
Because the institution of a university exists to provide an academic education that will help them function in the world after school. Because offering a degree in Football would be more predatory than most for-profit colleges Audio Engineer courses.
Because the institution of a university exists to provide an academic education that will help them function in the world after school. Because offering a degree in Football would be more predatory than most for-profit colleges Audio Engineer courses.
Still a little off: colleges don't make money from football. The football program is generally a separate corporate entity, with its own profit and loss. Our coach makes $7M while the president of the university makes $300,000. If the college owned the football program that might be different.
One argument I hear is that colleges make money from football because football inspires donations to the college. I have heard various things as to whether this actually reflects reality and I haven't investigated the matter myself.
[deleted]
The GPA requirement is incidental. It happens to be the barrier to playing ball.
There is a straightforward economic incentive (money) for both the school and the athletes to practice more and win more, and it plainly has nothing to do with academics, whatever the grand rhetoric about student athletes. As with all such situations, when there is a barrier to economic success, the system will gradually evolve to short circuit those barriers (cheating) as much as is possible within the confines of the rules. This is well documented by now. I have to imagine that UNC was just unlucky enough to get caught.
There is a straightforward economic incentive (money) for both the school and the athletes to practice more and win more, and it plainly has nothing to do with academics, whatever the grand rhetoric about student athletes. As with all such situations, when there is a barrier to economic success, the system will gradually evolve to short circuit those barriers (cheating) as much as is possible within the confines of the rules. This is well documented by now. I have to imagine that UNC was just unlucky enough to get caught.
While I agree with this perspective on athletics at a university, it does seem like it ought to be an issue with the school's academic accreditation. I don't believe that a university that practices this should have their degrees recognized this way.
I will say that I'm not really sure who values this certification though.
I will say that I'm not really sure who values this certification though.
> get a decent GPA
A 2.0 is not a decent grade nor GPA, it means you're failing at most of your classes and will probably be expelled.
Btw, your argument is "leave the school and pursue sports." I just found that interesting, that's all.
A 2.0 is not a decent grade nor GPA, it means you're failing at most of your classes and will probably be expelled.
Btw, your argument is "leave the school and pursue sports." I just found that interesting, that's all.
MLB has the minor leagues as their feeder program.
The NFL has college football as their feeder program.
There are a lot of tradeoffs, but in the end I think the MLB's system is better. To me, the charade of "student athletes" in football gets more and more strained each year.
The question is if they did want to transition to a minor league football system, how can you go from here to there in an orderly fashion?
The NFL has college football as their feeder program.
There are a lot of tradeoffs, but in the end I think the MLB's system is better. To me, the charade of "student athletes" in football gets more and more strained each year.
The question is if they did want to transition to a minor league football system, how can you go from here to there in an orderly fashion?
I honestly don't think it would be possible. College Football is something that is so culturally engrained in America that even tinkering with it a little bit (like adding a tiny 4 team playoff) is met with huge amounts of skepticism. The MLB's system is also different because, on average, it takes longer to develop the typical player post-college. Obviously there are player outliers, but baseball is much more technical than football - which sort of justifies the entire farm system in and of itself. The incubation period is just typically longer.
It seems like you could assign each existing NFL franchise the right to have a minor league franchise (maybe let them bid or have a lottery for the rights to specific cities); and then draft out of high-school and college rather than just out of college.
The player's union would clearly have something to say about it, particularly if they can easily bring players up and down mid-season based on injuries or performance.
The player's union would clearly have something to say about it, particularly if they can easily bring players up and down mid-season based on injuries or performance.
Maybe. But you'd have to convince the NFL that a minor league is something worth investing in. A longer pipeline of higher volume of play means that the risk of injury would be substantially higher. The NFL seems more interesting in making money that dealing with anything more complex than moving a team to London.
I graduated from UNC's Communication Studies program, one that many athletes sign up for. I took classes with many of the athletes, including half of our championship basketball team. I can honestly say I did not find any organized attempts on part of the professors to provide underhanded help to athletes. So if it happened, it was by administrators, away from the sight of the rest of students/instructors.
Even then, I am a bit surprised. I remember athlete friends being super concerned about their attendance and passing. In almost every class, we'd get someone drop by while class was in session to check if the athletes in the class were in actually there.
Even then, I am a bit surprised. I remember athlete friends being super concerned about their attendance and passing. In almost every class, we'd get someone drop by while class was in session to check if the athletes in the class were in actually there.
UNC grad here. These "paper" classes were very well known when I was an undergrad.
Your university almost certainly had similar classes that were very easy and required very little attendance...and were always full of athletes and lazy seniors looking to pump up their GPA.
You can't fault the students (athletes or otherwise) for finding a shortcut in the system and then exploiting it. It is the university's responsibility to quality control its curriculum.
Your university almost certainly had similar classes that were very easy and required very little attendance...and were always full of athletes and lazy seniors looking to pump up their GPA.
You can't fault the students (athletes or otherwise) for finding a shortcut in the system and then exploiting it. It is the university's responsibility to quality control its curriculum.
Agree 100%. And -- even if they took "real" classes, all the high profile athletes have private tutors, too, who may well do a large portion of their work for them.
With regard to college athletes ...
I think they should be on a college team.
I think they should be going to college.
I do not think they should be paid.
Like most people, they are preparing for their future in the field of their interest.
The issue, in my opinion, is that we attempt to shoehorn them into "traditional" curriculum. They're forced to choose a major, often funneled into the easiest thing just to get through.
Fundamentally, the majority are in college to learn and prepare for life as a professional athlete (assuming we're talking about the "Big 3" sports). Let's allow them to do that. Let's provide programs that focus on that, that teach sport fundamentals, dealing with the media, managing money, dealing with agents, fundamentals of business, etc. Let's also provide routes for post-professional-sport life, like lower-level media classes, etc.
We seem to have an aversion to treating a lucrative and very real profession like something that warrants education.
Edit: The problem with $ and athletes largely applies solely to football, wherein the NCAA and NFL have colluded to force high school talent to play somewhere for three years after graduation. This is arbitrary and stupid, and forces kids into programs they don't care about, for institutions that they don't care about. This is the primary issue with not paying players. It's not that colleges don't pay, it's that there's no other opportunity to get paid.
I think they should be on a college team.
I think they should be going to college.
I do not think they should be paid.
Like most people, they are preparing for their future in the field of their interest.
The issue, in my opinion, is that we attempt to shoehorn them into "traditional" curriculum. They're forced to choose a major, often funneled into the easiest thing just to get through.
Fundamentally, the majority are in college to learn and prepare for life as a professional athlete (assuming we're talking about the "Big 3" sports). Let's allow them to do that. Let's provide programs that focus on that, that teach sport fundamentals, dealing with the media, managing money, dealing with agents, fundamentals of business, etc. Let's also provide routes for post-professional-sport life, like lower-level media classes, etc.
We seem to have an aversion to treating a lucrative and very real profession like something that warrants education.
Edit: The problem with $ and athletes largely applies solely to football, wherein the NCAA and NFL have colluded to force high school talent to play somewhere for three years after graduation. This is arbitrary and stupid, and forces kids into programs they don't care about, for institutions that they don't care about. This is the primary issue with not paying players. It's not that colleges don't pay, it's that there's no other opportunity to get paid.
Sometimes I wonder why these requirements are there in the first place. Why not just be honest about it, pay the athletes and get on with the sports program. It's not like 80% of the degrees at most universities are worth anything anyways.
The NCAA is basically a joke when it comes to enforcing their rules on academic standards. This was made clear a couple years ago, when they hit Caltech with big penalties for lax academic standards, while basically ignoring things like the UNC scandal.
Caltech was fact was technically in violation, because it allows students to spend the first three weeks of each term taking classes without registering for them. The idea is that students can sample several classes they are interested in, then decide which they will stick with, and then register. For this three weeks, they are doing the work from all of the classes they are sampling.
However, since they are not registered for a full academic load during that three weeks, they count as part-time students, not full-time students, and so are ineligible for NCAA sports. Caltech's new director of athletics noticed this, stopped the violations, and reported his department to the NCAA.
The reaction of the press, both general and sports (Google "NCAA caltech" for details), was generally to make fun of the NCAA, and point out all the serious athletic schools routinely committing much worse, much more intentional violations.
Of course, some of the major sanctions won't have any effect. For instance, Caltech was banned from postseason play for one year. Considering that most Caltech teams are in the midst of years or even decades long losing streaks in conference play, they aren't going near the postseason anyway. They also banned off-campus recruiting...which Caltech doesn't do.
The only sanction that might have actually been noticeable was wiping out all wins of the ineligible teams. There was some initial concern that this would wipe out the basketball win over Occidental earlier that year that had snapped a 26 year, 310 conference game losing streak [1]. It turned out all the players on that team had been eligible, so the win stands.
[1] A movie was made about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Hoops
Caltech was fact was technically in violation, because it allows students to spend the first three weeks of each term taking classes without registering for them. The idea is that students can sample several classes they are interested in, then decide which they will stick with, and then register. For this three weeks, they are doing the work from all of the classes they are sampling.
However, since they are not registered for a full academic load during that three weeks, they count as part-time students, not full-time students, and so are ineligible for NCAA sports. Caltech's new director of athletics noticed this, stopped the violations, and reported his department to the NCAA.
The reaction of the press, both general and sports (Google "NCAA caltech" for details), was generally to make fun of the NCAA, and point out all the serious athletic schools routinely committing much worse, much more intentional violations.
Of course, some of the major sanctions won't have any effect. For instance, Caltech was banned from postseason play for one year. Considering that most Caltech teams are in the midst of years or even decades long losing streaks in conference play, they aren't going near the postseason anyway. They also banned off-campus recruiting...which Caltech doesn't do.
The only sanction that might have actually been noticeable was wiping out all wins of the ineligible teams. There was some initial concern that this would wipe out the basketball win over Occidental earlier that year that had snapped a 26 year, 310 conference game losing streak [1]. It turned out all the players on that team had been eligible, so the win stands.
[1] A movie was made about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Hoops
"Lax academic standards" at Caltech... now I've seen everything.
>However, since they are not registered for a full academic load during that three weeks, they count as part-time students, not full-time students, and so are ineligible for NCAA sports. Caltech's new director of athletics noticed this, stopped the violations, and reported his department to the NCAA.
That's bloody ridiculous. Add-drop period is practiced at almost all real universities.
That's bloody ridiculous. Add-drop period is practiced at almost all real universities.
I'd highly recommend the documentary Schooled: The Price of College Sports. It shows many interviews with the students, coaches, and staff involved with this situation. (Also free w/ Amazon Prime.)
Pretty shocking but I imagine this is just the tip of the iceberg.
It's probably happening at a lot of other universities with big sports programs. UNC just happened to get caught.
While I don't believe UNC is necessarilly the only offender, this is not a case of 'everyones doing it'. There is a spectrum of practices which scholarship athletes typically use. Some are simple, practical and pretty much above reproach -- taking the fewest credits allowable during the season; taking academically rigorous course over the summer. Some start to get questionable -- at what point does intensive tutoring become the tutor actually doing the work. And then are no show classes and fake grades.
It's possible to be a scholarship athlete and get a real academic degree. I've seen people do it first hand. But it's hard -- you need to start with a decent academic background, and then work your ass off and most likely the social aspect of your college time will suffer.
That being said, even without the best academic background its possible to legitimately graduate if there is institutional support for it. The student might not have the most rigorous undergraduate course work, but they will have earned a degree equivalent to many non-athletes at the school. But for this to happen there needs to be institutional support both inside and outside the athletic department.
What's disturbing to me about UNC, is not just that they knowingly and persistently cheated, but that there behavior was purely and most basely exploitative -- they weren't even pretending to educate these students.
It's possible to be a scholarship athlete and get a real academic degree. I've seen people do it first hand. But it's hard -- you need to start with a decent academic background, and then work your ass off and most likely the social aspect of your college time will suffer.
That being said, even without the best academic background its possible to legitimately graduate if there is institutional support for it. The student might not have the most rigorous undergraduate course work, but they will have earned a degree equivalent to many non-athletes at the school. But for this to happen there needs to be institutional support both inside and outside the athletic department.
What's disturbing to me about UNC, is not just that they knowingly and persistently cheated, but that there behavior was purely and most basely exploitative -- they weren't even pretending to educate these students.
Oh, its probably happening at most universities. I went to N.C. State and would be surprised if it WASN'T happening there too. I assume any school which gets a amount of money from their sports program would have something similar to UNC.
The amazing thing at UNC is that it was just a rogue low-level employee (who picked up a couple of minor co-conspirators on the way), NOT a coordinated effort from the top of the university down.
I would imagine at many or most big sports schools, it is the latter.
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if it's the latter at UNC too. If so, UNC has done a world-class cover up so far by making it look like the former.
I would imagine at many or most big sports schools, it is the latter.
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if it's the latter at UNC too. If so, UNC has done a world-class cover up so far by making it look like the former.
World-class? It may look that way from the outside to people unfamiliar with the university, but from the inside, this cover-up is ridiculously transparent. It's clear that most of the AFAM department knew what was going on, as well as the tutors and students.
I think you misunderstood my point. If it is "clear" that most of the AFAM department knew, the scandal has successfully been pinned on and contained to the AFAM department, and has not contaminated the highest levels of the university (i.e. Chancellor, Provost, athletics chairman, etc.).
Throwing a couple of minions under the bus when things look bad is a time-tested strategy.
I also went to NC State, and I'm pretty sure that there's no department dedicated to this type of institutional corruption.
When I was at NCSU a college soccer player was on the roster in my "Learn Proofs for Math Majors" (MA225) course. He and a tutored showed up intermittently to the class. After some measurable time after the drop date he stopped showing up. I've always wondered if they let him drop it really late after the drop date or something shady was going on. Probably a late drop since it was soccer and not Football/Basketball. =)
This is the type of subjective stuff that happens to create an urban legend about "athletes getting an easy ride," though.
You don't really know what happened, but the eventual conclusion that most would take is:
1. he got a passing grade in spite of irregular class attendance. This is highly unlikely, but always seems to be the first place people go because "athletes get treated differently."
or
2. he got a late drop - which some consider "unfair," even in the light of late drops being available to any student for a whole host of reasons (For example, I dropped an entire semester due to depression, well after the drop date)
You don't really know what happened, but the eventual conclusion that most would take is:
1. he got a passing grade in spite of irregular class attendance. This is highly unlikely, but always seems to be the first place people go because "athletes get treated differently."
or
2. he got a late drop - which some consider "unfair," even in the light of late drops being available to any student for a whole host of reasons (For example, I dropped an entire semester due to depression, well after the drop date)
1. He stopped showing up for exams. Impossible to get a passing grade unless they made a lot of shady concessions.
2. Most likely, which is what I pointed out in my original comment.
Say, Stanford? http://www.stanforddaily.com/2011/03/09/1046687/
European football (soccer) teams run academies of their own to groom players. If a youngster is serious about becoming a professional footballer, he/she joins these academies. They are given a "well-rounded" education, but the emphasis is obviously on the sport. Graduates end being signed by the parent club, or getting contracts with lower-level teams if they can make the cut.
I'm curious to understand why this system isn't practiced in the US.
I'm curious to understand why this system isn't practiced in the US.
I wasn't a particularly great soccer player in middle school and highschool (some players on the club team ended up playing D3 soccer at small colleges), but the academies really didn't exist in America 20 years ago when I started playing as a kid.
Things are much different now many of the clubs in MLS, NASL, and USL have their own academies where the players are coached by professional coaches or pro players at starting very young ages. One local example is: http://www.capitalarearailhawks.com/
The model is much different, though. Generally the goal with most of these academies is to make a college team.
Things are much different now many of the clubs in MLS, NASL, and USL have their own academies where the players are coached by professional coaches or pro players at starting very young ages. One local example is: http://www.capitalarearailhawks.com/
The model is much different, though. Generally the goal with most of these academies is to make a college team.
Honestly, doesn't this make anyone wonder what the point is of college in the first place? Even without the equivalent of special ed courses, it's not like most (any?) athletes study STEM courses that might require university certification. Literally the only point of their enrollment is to make money for the school, then shuffle off with a communications degree and work in a shoe store the rest of their lives.
Yes, they can get drunk and get laid for a couple years, and if they're really good they might not have to borrow too much money for the privilege. But what a complete waste of time for everyone involved. They take pointless courses for worthless degrees so the student body can burn cars when balls are thrown correctly.
Europeans have the right approach to education, even if they're still too credential-obsessed. Nobody cares about college sports, nobody goes into debt pursuing their degrees, and everyone can enter the work force much younger and start earning a few extra years of salary.
Yes, they can get drunk and get laid for a couple years, and if they're really good they might not have to borrow too much money for the privilege. But what a complete waste of time for everyone involved. They take pointless courses for worthless degrees so the student body can burn cars when balls are thrown correctly.
Europeans have the right approach to education, even if they're still too credential-obsessed. Nobody cares about college sports, nobody goes into debt pursuing their degrees, and everyone can enter the work force much younger and start earning a few extra years of salary.
I mostly disagree with your premise. This is a problem that only really afflicts two college sports: football & basketball, which are not coincidentally the only revenue sports at most schools. Most student-athletes take academics as seriously as their sport(s), and I think the fact that American colleges & universities offer top quality athletic programs as well as academic educations one of the best things about them.
That said, football & basketball are completely out of hand, not to mention the playoff/BCS/NCAA Tournament system, TV/media rights, and the insanity of one-and-done feeder systems into the NBA (I'm looking at you, Kentucky!). Those athletes should be paid and they should potentially be employed by the colleges as athletes completely separately from any academic matriculation.
That said, football & basketball are completely out of hand, not to mention the playoff/BCS/NCAA Tournament system, TV/media rights, and the insanity of one-and-done feeder systems into the NBA (I'm looking at you, Kentucky!). Those athletes should be paid and they should potentially be employed by the colleges as athletes completely separately from any academic matriculation.
Well, I agree with you that the rowing/badminton/chess teams probably don't get special treatment. But you don't seem to question the value of "top quality athletic programs." Why do we want them to exist in the first place?
The ostensible point of university is to develop a student's mind to solve problems -- preferably in the real world, though humanities programs insist that paying $50k+/year to read poetry is just as valuable an investment. Even if you take that assertion at face value, I'm not sure anyone, anywhere pretends that playing basketball prepares the student-athlete for anything at all. Almost none of them have a chance at a professional sports contract. Most will graduate with useless majors, having squandered their youth and their health on pointless competitions to throw a ball in a hoop. It's STUPID. Everyone involved is wasting their time.
I'm all for athletics in colleges. I played intramural sports and enjoyed it, because nobody pretended that it mattered. But I really don't see a compelling case for the subsidy of organized college sports... which, like someone pointed out, is really just a a subsidy for professional organizations.
And it's not just the pointless waste of time and money in college sports. The argument for college as an institution is getting weaker and weaker as free online alternatives get better and better. Aside from getting drunk and cheering against UMichigan, what compelling features does Ohio State University offer versus Harvard's courses on edX?
The ostensible point of university is to develop a student's mind to solve problems -- preferably in the real world, though humanities programs insist that paying $50k+/year to read poetry is just as valuable an investment. Even if you take that assertion at face value, I'm not sure anyone, anywhere pretends that playing basketball prepares the student-athlete for anything at all. Almost none of them have a chance at a professional sports contract. Most will graduate with useless majors, having squandered their youth and their health on pointless competitions to throw a ball in a hoop. It's STUPID. Everyone involved is wasting their time.
I'm all for athletics in colleges. I played intramural sports and enjoyed it, because nobody pretended that it mattered. But I really don't see a compelling case for the subsidy of organized college sports... which, like someone pointed out, is really just a a subsidy for professional organizations.
And it's not just the pointless waste of time and money in college sports. The argument for college as an institution is getting weaker and weaker as free online alternatives get better and better. Aside from getting drunk and cheering against UMichigan, what compelling features does Ohio State University offer versus Harvard's courses on edX?
Very few people would be happy studying lambda calculus in their basement, most humans like being around other humans. Socialization is why colleges matter, not useless humanities degrees.
And that's why, in functional countries, socialization is a natural consequence of urban design. You don't need a horrifically expensive excuse to drive to some random location to meet people -- you bump into them naturally as pedestrians and cyclists. University towns are the closest the US gets to Copenhagen, due to absurd subsidies of automobile traffic.
But I agree with you about lambda calculus. Let's definitely keep higher education for STEM fields, where rigorous and difficult subjects would benefit from such educations. At the same time, let's be real. Most university students today are wasting their time getting worthless degrees, for no reason but that credential inflation has turned BAs/BSs into high school diplomas.
But I agree with you about lambda calculus. Let's definitely keep higher education for STEM fields, where rigorous and difficult subjects would benefit from such educations. At the same time, let's be real. Most university students today are wasting their time getting worthless degrees, for no reason but that credential inflation has turned BAs/BSs into high school diplomas.
[deleted](1)
They are adults. If, as adults, they choose not to pursue academic studies, and instead choose to focus all of their energy on sports, then they should be allowed to do that without putting their sports career at risk.
I do blame everyone involved in the fakeness, though. Their decisions should stand on their own.