"Student Athletes" -- a contridiction of terms? - Page 2

DeltAlum · #16 03-13-2003, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mu_agd
I think a lot of this depends on the University...

Not many people heard of Miami University outside of the Midwest...

I know way too much about Miami. What the hell is a Redhawk, anyway?

DeltAlum
Ohio University '69

mu_agd · #17 03-13-2003, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DeltAlum
I know way too much about Miami. What the hell is a Redhawk, anyway?

DeltAlum
Ohio University '69

There ain't nothing wrong with the Redhawk!!

KSig RC · #18 03-13-2003, 05:14 PM

DeltAlum -

The "AOL Exclusive" should have tipped you off that this wasn't the pinnacle of journalistic integrity . . . but anyway

There's no discussion to be had here. I don't know a single school where kids "get away" with blatant academic fraud on a systemic basis any more - it's no longer a part of the culture of college athletics. To insinuate that NO athletes go to class, NO football students go to get an education, and that college sports is UNILATERALLY a minor-league system for the NFL and NBA is just a ridiculous overgeneralization.

For the (weak) anecdotal evidence given by the author, we have Beta's counter . . . and I'll also add that, at least at my school, graduation rates are higher among scholarship athletes (PS - No D-1 football, non-major D-1 b-ball) than the student body, so they're obviously going to class. And the hockey team and lacrosse team don't really get special priviledges from profs, either.

The concept of "student-athlete" is still alive and well - in fact, I'd venture to say that the fact that so many 'scandels' have erupted is PROOF that times are changing. Whereas years ago these would have been swept under the rug, now the coach is being fired and the team as a whole punished. Now, these are the exceptions, rather than the rule, and so schools are actively trying to smack down those responsible to make an example.

DeltAlum · #19 03-13-2003, 10:36 PM

Well, I'll tell you what. I've televised D-1 sports for about 35 years, and some of the kids I've met are dumber than a brick. And some are a whole lot smarter than I am.

It's the fact that the first group is in college at all that I take issue with.

When I taught college level courses, I was a notroiously easy grader -- because I was teaching TV Sports Production -- not brain surgery by any means. While this is a totally personal and unscientific survey, by far the worst students I had in terms of grades and attitude were the football players. On the other hand, the couple of cheerleaders and women's basketball players who took the class did very well.

One season I directed ten service academy football games, and, frankly, those were the only programs I really had total respect for.

Now, I'm not angry at the athletes. They're taking advantage of opportunities. It's the AD's and coachs and university administrators that allow their academic standards to be trampled, and rules to be broken who I think should be taken to task.

The attitude that "Winning is everything" is destructive. Winning is important -- but it isn't worth cheating and special academic considerations, etc.

Maybe they don't happen at "your" school (the royal "your" -- meaning any school), but if you don't think it's fairly rampant in many of the "big time" programs -- you're naive.

I'd love to see programs run more like the lower divisions. Turn it back into sports -- not business.

Enough ranting for this evening.

madmax · #20 03-16-2003, 03:57 PM

Weak arguement. You lose credibility when the networks hire the likes of OJ Simpson, Michael Irvin, Charles Barkley, Deion Sanders, and Marv Albert to broadcast. Your parent company is no better than the colleges. Your main goal is ratings which means money.

DeltAlum · #21 03-17-2003, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by madmax
Weak arguement. You lose credibility when the networks hire the likes of OJ Simpson, Michael Irvin, Charles Barkley, Deion Sanders, and Marv Albert to broadcast. Your parent company is no better than the colleges. Your main goal is ratings which means money.

Max,

NBC, my former employer is a "for profit" entity. They make absolutely no excuse for it. They hire, and pay handsomely, people for their name value and expertise. They are a business -- pure and simple.

Colleges and universities accept donations and receive Federal and State funds. They claim to be paragons of education, virtue and leadership. They are allegedly "not for profit" organizations who give tax breaks for donations. I (personally) would rather that my tax dollars pay for academics. I'll chose where I want my sports dollars to go.

I see a really big difference. Huge, in fact.

I will also admit that some football programs pay for a schools athletic budget. But that's the exception -- far from the rule.

AXiDAngel · #22 04-15-2003, 04:01 AM

I go to Fresno State and I was kinda sad to not see our team go to the WAC Championship game or the NCAA Finals. I understand why President Welty did it, but this year's team shouldnt be punished for something that happened almost 4 years ago. I guess we will just have to win again next year.

Charlotte

Kevin · #23 04-15-2003, 09:35 AM

Unfortunately, that's the trend in the NCAA. Look at the Alabama football team or the Michigan B-ball team.

Dionysus · #24 04-15-2003, 10:22 AM

Yeah, it depends on the university. At my school, only the basketball players get a free ride. I have classes with many student athletes and had 5 in our chapter within the last year. They are smart as a whip and are very driven (outside the area of sports). Because the majority come from out of state and live on campus, their tuition is extra high, many come here on ACADEMIC scholarships, not athletic scholarships, they pay very little.