69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/22/us/unc-report-academic-fraud/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Chapel Hill, North Carolina (CNN) -- For 18 years, thousands of students at the prestigious University of North Carolina took fake "paper classes," and advisers funneled athletes into the program to keep them eligible, according to a scathing independent report released Wednesday.
"These counselors saw the paper classes and the artificially high grades they yielded as key to helping some student-athletes remain eligible," Kenneth Wainstein wrote in his report. He conducted an eight-month investigation into the scandal, which has plagued the university for nearly five years.
Four employees have been fired and five more disciplined because of their roles. One other former employee had honorary status removed, Chancellor Carol Folt said Wednesday.
Wainstein is the former federal prosecutor hired by UNC to independently investigate the academic fraud brought to light by CNN, the Raleigh News & Observer and other media outlets.
In all, the report estimates, at least 3,100 students took the paper classes, but adds the number "very likely falls far short of the true number."
For the first time since the scandal first came to light five years ago, UNC admitted that the wrongdoing went further than academics and involved its athletic programs.
In fact, Folt said, "it was a university issue."
A stellar reputation comes crashing down
UNC has long been a place where it was believed that athletics and academics went hand in hand. It has enjoyed a stellar reputation, producing basketball greats such as coach Dean Smith and Michael Jordan.
Now, that reputation has been stained.
According to the report, one former head football coach, John Bunting, admitted to knowing of the paper classes and his successor, Butch Davis, also admitted some knowledge. Current men's basketball coach Roy Williams is steadfast that he did not know, Wainstein said.
The detailed 131-page report is being shared with the NCAA and could have huge implications for the university.
In the past 18 years, UNC has won three national championships for college basketball -- in 1993, 2005 and 2009 -- that could be in jeopardy along with countless wins.
And it wasn't just the revenue-generating sports that benefited.
The report says that athletes in a wide range of sports were involved, and it notes a noticeable spike of enrollment of Olympic-sport athletes between 2003 and 2005.
UNC in January: We failed students 'for years'
Report spreads the blame around
For five years, UNC has insisted the paper classes were the doing of one rogue professor: the department chair of the African American studies program, Julius Nyang'oro. Wainstein's report spread the blame much further.
It also revealed that it was Nyang'oro's assistant, Debbie Crowder, who actually created the paper classes out of sympathy for athletes and other students who were not "the best and the brightest." Nyang'oro went along with them when he figured them out.
Crowder was such a fan of UNC sports, particularly basketball, that she would sometimes miss work after a loss, the report says.
It was well-known on campus that Crowder was a lax grader and gave high grades without regard for content, Wainstein said, emphasizing that she never gave a grade unless a student submitted a paper and did not change grades that were already given.
Wainstein did find that five counselors actively used paper classes, calling them "GPA boosters," and that at least two counselors, one in football, suggested to Crowder the grade an athlete needed to receive to be able to continue to play.
Nyang'oro was more hands off. He had initially held legitimate independent studies classes, Wainstein said, but was accused of "being an ass" by counselors who felt he was too hard on athletes. Crowder then took it upon herself to create the first paper classes, naming Nyang'oro as the instructor even though she was managing all aspects of them: sending out paper topics, giving grades and assigning no meeting times.
"It is not clear whether Crowder ever got Nyang'oro's explicit approval to arrange these irregular independent studies. It is clear, however, that he ultimately learned about these classes and acquiesced in them by taking no action to put a halt to them."
When Crowder announced she was retiring, there was a spike in enrollment in the last year of her classes, because football counselors urged student athletes to sign up. Crowder actively tried to cover her activities, according to the report.
A strategy to keep players eligible
Former head football coach John Bunting admitted that he knew of the paper classes and said that former Director of Football Cynthia Reynolds told him they were part of her strategy to keep players eligible. Reynolds, who is now an academic program coordinator at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, was one of four employees who refused to cooperate with Wainstein's investigation.
The report shows that during Bunting's years as head coach, there was a steady rise of enrollment of football players in the paper classes.
Butch Davis, who succeeded Bunting as coach and was eventually fired in the wake of the scandal in 2011, also admitted to knowing there were "easy classes," Wainstein said.
Basketball coach Roy Williams maintained he had no knowledge of the fraud, Wainstein said, which was supported by a drop in enrollment in the suspect classes by basketball players during his tenure.
There were no findings regarding renowned coach Dean Smith, who is ill with dementia. For health reasons, the Wainstein team was also unable to interview his longtime No. 2 and eventual successor, Bill Guthridge.
The report does say that Smith's longtime academic adviser, the late Burgess McSwain, and her successor, Wayne Walden, knew about the paper classes.
McSwain, who died of cancer in 2004, was a very close friend to Crowder, the report says.
During the Smith years, 1961 to 1997, the report says there were 54 basketball players enrolled in paper classes. Although the paper classes did start in the spring of 1993, the year of Smith's final championship, grades would not have been entered until after the championship game was played.
A whistleblower's saga
Many of the academic-athletic staff who were named and implicated by Wainstein were also named by university Learning Specialist Mary Willingham, who went public with detailed allegations about paper classes and who, after a an all-out assault on her credibility by the university, has since filed a whistleblower suit.
CNN interviewed Willingham in January about her years working with student-athletes. She said that she had worked with dozens of athletes who came to UNC unable to read at an acceptable level, with some of them reading like elementary schoolchildren.
She also said that there were many members of the athletic staff who knew about the paper classes, and her revelations contradicted what UNC had claimed for years -- that Nyang'oro acted alone in providing the paper classes.
Whistle-blower in UNC paper class case files lawsuit
Willingham said paper classes were openly discussed as a way to keep athletes eligible to play, and former football player Michael McAdoo told CNN he was forced into majoring in African American studies, the department at the heart of the paper-classes scandal.
Willingham shared her reaction to the report with CNN on Wednesday:
"I didn't need Wainstein to validate me because the truth is validation enough, but I feel like what I've said for the last five years is in the report.
"I gave Chancellor Folt credit; she did a good job," she said.
Willingham also said she believes it took so many years and six previous investigations because "this is the flagship of the university system and of the state, and to admit we did anything wrong was too difficult there is a level of arrogance here and that's part of the culture."
Refused to help in investigation
Folt would not say who was fired or being disciplined. Wainstein, however, did name those who refused to cooperate, as:
-- Octavus Barnes, academic counselor for football 2002-2009.
-- Carolyn Cannon, associate dean and director of academic advising. 1999-2010, who was the principle adviser for the men's basketball team.
-- Cynthia Reynolds, director of football, 2002-2010. She was called a "critical witness."
-- Everett Withers, interim head football coach in 2011. He's now at James Madison University.
Scandal has been unfolding for years
The first hints of scandal began in 2010, with allegations that some athletes were having improper contact with agents. As the university investigated, it found academic irregularities and finally announced, under pressure from the News & Observer newspaper in Raleigh, that there were classes where very little work was required.
For the next five years, UNC administration was on the defensive, admitting only to allegations as they surfaced and never digging deep to the root of the problem.
Wainstein said he found no evidence that administrators tried to cover up anything.
He attributed the five-year delayed response to "insufficient appreciation of the scale of the problem."
Six previous internally commissioned reports had stopped short of systemic accusations.
Folt said that when she took the job as chancellor in October 2013, she decided to hire Wainstein because there were still too many unanswered questions.
"I wanted to be sure that we wouldn't have to do this again and again," she said.
91
Post by: Hordini
That's disgusting.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
It'll be interesting to see what happens with this, and I don't just mean vacated wins. Students have to show Satisfactory Academic Progress to keep receiving Federal financial aid, so we could be looking at some serious charges.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Yeup. Pretty much.
This is, to me, a big reason these kids need to be allowed to major in their sport if they so choose.
There are only so many Aaron Crafts and Grant Hills in big time college athletics.
74685
Post by: TheMeanDM
What?!?
A popular college with a storied athletic program that values athletics over academics?
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
 Dreadclaw69 wrote:It'll be interesting to see what happens with this, and I don't just mean vacated wins. Students have to show Satisfactory Academic Progress to keep receiving Federal financial aid, so we could be looking at some serious charges.
Has Federal subisidies either to the institution or students ever been affected by an NCAA investigation? I can't recall that happening in any previous incident. This investigation has been ongoing for over 4 years now, ever since Marvin Austin sent out his infamous party tweet. There's new details in the latest report but the essential problem of athletes getting fake grades from a fake classat UNC has been known for a long time now.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
 cincydooley wrote:
Yeup. Pretty much.
This is, to me, a big reason these kids need to be allowed to major in their sport if they so choose.
There are only so many Aaron Crafts and Grant Hills in big time college athletics.
And what would they be able to do with that? Teach P.E? The point of a higher education is to improve yoursdelf. If these men have no drive to do that, then they should just go into a trade or drive trucks and leave spots open for those who will do something with it
21720
Post by: LordofHats
cincydooley wrote:
Yeup. Pretty much.
This is, to me, a big reason these kids need to be allowed to major in their sport if they so choose.
There are only so many Aaron Crafts and Grant Hills in big time college athletics.
Remember that famous College QB everyone was all excited about? I remember. I also remember laughing my ass off when he wound up on the Browns 
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 hotsauceman1 wrote: And what would they be able to do with that? Teach P.E? The point of a higher education is to improve yoursdelf. If these men have no drive to do that, then they should just go into a trade or drive trucks and leave spots open for those who will do something with it
This is a pretty condescending and myopic viewpoint.
In one phrase you've:
1. Basically said that teaching PE isn't a worthwhile endeavor.
2. Said that these HIGH LEVEL ATHLETES have no drive to improve themselves.
3. People who work in trades are "less than" people that get a university education.
4. People that drive trucks are "less than" people that get a university education.
The "purpose" of going to a university is to prepare yourself for the vocation in which you'd like to spend your adult life working. For most of these athletes, their sport is that vocation. Many don't make it, and thats EXACTLY why universities should be setting them up to succeed in classes that actually apply to their chosen vocation as opposed to forcing them into classes they already don't want to go to.
For every athlete, their "core" classes should consist of something like this:
Public Speaking
Brand Management
Personal Finance
And other classes that are applicable to their actual lives if they do end up with careers in their sport. Then you have a few branches for them after they've completed their core classes, like:
Education (although, apparently teaching PE isn't worth it)
Nutrition
Physical Therapy
Sports Broadcasting
Coaching (I'd wager you don't think this is worth it, either)
Sports Marketing
You know, stuff that actually works hand-in-hand with the sports they're already doing as, basically, a full time job (and I can tell you, when I played division III football, not division one, It was about 6 hours a day. For division III).
There's no reason to set them up to fail, and there's no reason to shove them into classes they don't want to take. When you do, you end up with gak like this. Let them major in their sport, because I guarantee you in today's society that a Degree in Football Management from Ohio State would be far more valuable than an Art History degree.
You should really be ashamed of your comment. It's almost as disgusting at the fraud at UNC.
12313
Post by: Ouze
You know, I gotta say, when I saw "let them major in their sport" I thought that was a pretty stupid idea. But the expanding upon it you did is actually pretty compelling.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
cincydooley wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote: And what would they be able to do with that? Teach P.E? The point of a higher education is to improve yoursdelf. If these men have no drive to do that, then they should just go into a trade or drive trucks and leave spots open for those who will do something with it
This is a pretty condescending and myopic viewpoint.
In one phrase you've:
1. Basically said that teaching PE isn't a worthwhile endeavor.
2. Said that these HIGH LEVEL ATHLETES have no drive to improve themselves.
3. People who work in trades are "less than" people that get a university education.
4. People that drive trucks are "less than" people that get a university education.
The "purpose" of going to a university is to prepare yourself for the vocation in which you'd like to spend your adult life working. For most of these athletes, their sport is that vocation. Many don't make it, and thats EXACTLY why universities should be setting them up to succeed in classes that actually apply to their chosen vocation as opposed to forcing them into classes they already don't want to go to.
For every athlete, their "core" classes should consist of something like this:
Public Speaking
Brand Management
Personal Finance
And other classes that are applicable to their actual lives if they do end up with careers in their sport. Then you have a few branches for them after they've completed their core classes, like:
Education (although, apparently teaching PE isn't worth it)
Nutrition
Physical Therapy
Sports Broadcasting
Coaching (I'd wager you don't think this is worth it, either)
Sports Marketing
You know, stuff that actually works hand-in-hand with the sports they're already doing as, basically, a full time job (and I can tell you, when I played division III football, not division one, It was about 6 hours a day. For division III).
There's no reason to set them up to fail, and there's no reason to shove them into classes they don't want to take. When you do, you end up with gak like this. Let them major in their sport, because I guarantee you in today's society that a Degree in Football Management from Ohio State would be far more valuable than an Art History degree.
You should really be ashamed of your comment. It's almost as disgusting at the fraud at UNC.
1. P.E. Is a Worthwhile endeavor. But we already have something for that, Sports Medicine and kinesiology, Not Majoring in football.
2: Yes, If they wished t improve themselves, they would realize just how little a chance they have at a career in the NFL. Football/Soccer/Ultimate Frisbee should be side activities that are meant to supplement, not replace higher.
3: Vocations are good, but you dont need a university for them, mostly a JC.
4: I never said that, you read into it. My dad and cousin where truck Drivers and they provided with that. But These Athletes are taking spots from those who could actually do something with them, go into a worthwhile field of Sociology, History, STEM or Journalism. But no, they take Paper Classes and spit on what Higher Learning is supposed to be about.
All those Classes yu mentioned? Can be done at a JC. you wouldnt need a University for it
37231
Post by: d-usa
cincydooley wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote: And what would they be able to do with that? Teach P.E? The point of a higher education is to improve yoursdelf. If these men have no drive to do that, then they should just go into a trade or drive trucks and leave spots open for those who will do something with it
The "purpose" of going to a university is to prepare yourself for the vocation in which you'd like to spend your adult life working.
I will have to disagree there. The purpose of a university is to give you a comprehensive education including a basic understanding of liberal arts and sciences, a "jack of all trades" knowledge base, and then a concentrated knowledge base with an expansion of the liberal arts and sciences needed to assist you in your goals after graduation. If you major in "X" the point of a university is not to teach you how to be "X", it is to teach you a base set of knowledge on the topic of "X" and how to gain more knowledge regarding "X". The specialized knowledge together with the wide topic covered in core classes is what makes a university education valuable.
If you just want to learn a vocation, then there is always vocational school.
For most of these athletes, their sport is that vocation.
There are ~420,000 NCAA athletes.
There are ~1,696 NFL athletes.
There are ~450 NBA athletes.
There are ~850 MLB athletes.
0.7% of today's NCAA athletes will have their sport as their vocation. So claiming that for most of these guys their sport will be their vocation is simply wrong.
We can talk about it being their vocation RIGHT NOW, and that's a valid argument to have. And talking about how they are reimbursed (via pay, via scholarships, being allowed to profit from their own likeness and sign autographs and have endorsements, etc) is also perfectly valid. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that most of these athletes will make a living off their sport once they leave college.
Many don't make it, and thats EXACTLY why universities should be setting them up to succeed in classes that actually apply to their chosen vocation as opposed to forcing them into classes they already don't want to go to.
Yes, they should be treated exactly like every other college students. I might want to major in music and don't want to go learn about science, English, or math, but I'm still required to go there. Because if I graduate and I don't get a job in music, I still have a degree that included a basic well-rounded education that gave me a base set of knowledge and skills to work in other fields.
For every athlete, their "core" classes should consist of something like this:
Their core classes should be the same as they are for any other student in the university.
Public Speaking
Brand Management
Personal Finance
Those would be a great base for the core classes of a major, but not for the university core classes.
And other classes that are applicable to their actual lives if they do end up with careers in their sport. Then you have a few branches for them after they've completed their core classes, like:
Education (although, apparently teaching PE isn't worth it)
Nutrition
Physical Therapy
Sports Broadcasting
Coaching (I'd wager you don't think this is worth it, either)
Sports Marketing
Lot's of good ideas for specialized majors and minors in there.
You know, stuff that actually works hand-in-hand with the sports they're already doing as, basically, a full time job (and I can tell you, when I played division III football, not division one, It was about 6 hours a day. For division III).
Call it work study and pay you for those 6 hours, or give them scholarship money. The job you are doing in college won't be the job you are doing for the rest of your life.
There's no reason to set them up to fail, and there's no reason to shove them into classes they don't want to take. When you do, you end up with gak like this. Let them major in their sport, because I guarantee you in today's society that a Degree in Football Management from Ohio State would be far more valuable than an Art History degree.
That degree would be useless and worthless the way you want to set it up and it would be a giant insult to every other student at the university.
Don't get me wrong, I'm okay with a degree in whatever sport they want, but don't make the university dance around these student athletes just so that they can play sports with the hope that they will be part of the 1% that makes a living. Make it a real degree that follows the rules of the rest of the university. If you want to play sports, play sports. If you want a university education, get a university education. If you want both, get both. But don't argue that the university should change the rules just because you want to follow the same rules as everybody else. Going "They don't need core math classes because sports is just a silly argument.
If you want to play a sport and get a degree in something else as well then more power to you.
If you want to play a sport in college and get a degree in that sport then makes it follow the rest of the rules and make it an actual degree program that follows the rest of the rules:
- The same core general education requirements as the rest of the university.
- A major in "competitive sports" with a specialization of whatever sport you are playing.
- Minors that give you backup options.
So let's say that the University of Oklahoma makes a Bachelors of Competitive Athletics (Football) with a minor in Journalism (122 credits), it could look something like this:
University wide Core (44 credits):
19 hours of Communication
7 hours of Natural Science
6 hours of Social Science
12 hours of Humanities
Major for Competitive Athletics (30 credits):
Include stuff like "brand management, sports medicine, economics and finances, legal classes, public speaking, etc"
Major Specialization for Football (20 credits):
Include stuff like "History and organization of the NFL", "History of Football in the US", "Football leagues around the world", "how minor leagues and major leagues are set up", "evolution of plays", "officiating", "history of protective gear and developments for the future". Lots of room to either BS or to actually teach about Football and options besides the NFL and prepare students to either play football or work in any area that is related to football.
Minor or electives (28 units):
-Get your minor in sports journalism, PE, physical medicine, any other minor you might be interested in, or just take 28 units of BS classes like many people in many majors do.
There, now you have an actual real university degree that is useful to someone playing football without having to invalidate the concept of a university education. Automatically Appended Next Post: Part of the problem IMO is not that athletes want to play sports and get a free University education in the process.
I think the problem is that Universities and the professional leagues have created a process where Universities are a free training and recruiting ground for the leagues, and that the athletes are stuck in a system that was designed with everyone in mind except their needs.
84813
Post by: inferno445
I go to a high school in NC and many of the student athletes here want to go to UNC. I'm looking forward to what the teachers here say about this or if they say anything at all. It takes a while for news to get here because most students only watch the CNN student news (If teachers even play it) that's a day late, even though they play CNN in the cafeteria at lunch.
The fact that this happened is disgusting. A university is, if I'm not mistaken, supposed to be concerned primarily with education, and their sports program second. It isn't helping anyone if they let student athletes who aren't prepared to take real courses into the school, because that spot could be taken by someone who wants to take a class for a job that really benefits society.
I'm not saying that all student athletes do this, but clearly if they were willing to take classes that artificially kept them able to play instead of actually learn something useful they don't deserve to continue going there.
I agree that they should at least take classes that are related to their sport, because then they are capable of something outside of playing football or whatever. In addition to this however, they should also take classes that will allow them to do things that aren't at all related to sports in order to have some credibility in other fields.
When I consider which college I go to, this will make me consider UNC less, even if it is relatively close to where I live now and it's relatively inexpensive from the colleges near where I used to live. The fact that the college did this will make me feel that they are concerned more with their sports than my education.
58613
Post by: -Shrike-
You actually have a set of unrelated core classes at American Universities? When I go to Uni. to do a degree in Physics, all of my classes will be related to that, i.e. Maths and Physics lectures, with some Physics practicals.
123
Post by: Alpharius
 -Shrike- wrote:You actually have a set of unrelated core classes at American Universities? When I go to Uni. to do a degree in Physics, all of my classes will be related to that, i.e. Maths and Physics lectures, with some Physics practicals.
You aren't required to diversify even a bit from that?
221
Post by: Frazzled
hotsauceman1 wrote: cincydooley wrote:
Yeup. Pretty much.
This is, to me, a big reason these kids need to be allowed to major in their sport if they so choose.
There are only so many Aaron Crafts and Grant Hills in big time college athletics.
And what would they be able to do with that? Teach P.E? The point of a higher education is to improve yoursdelf. If these men have no drive to do that, then they should just go into a trade or drive trucks and leave spots open for those who will do something with it
Thats a pretty bigotted statewment there boyo.
Remember, your plumber is getting paid more than you are, and is proud fo that buttcrack. He's mooning the world! Automatically Appended Next Post: 2: Yes, If they wished t improve themselves, they would realize just how little a chance they have at a career in the NFL. Football/Soccer/Ultimate Frisbee should be side activities that are meant to supplement, not replace higher.
If thats the standard, you'd have to get rid of most of the Humanities programs. Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: I like your Major idea D-USA.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Im not saying that. Im saying that these boys need to wise up, know the opprotunity they have been given, or leave, make way for someone who will do something with the opprotunity. They can go on and do other things with their time, such bee a plumber or porn star, or Building inspecter.
Not waste hundreds of peoples time in a University.
Im just glad Im at a school that barely does the sports thing.
37231
Post by: d-usa
-Shrike- wrote:You actually have a set of unrelated core classes at American Universities? When I go to Uni. to do a degree in Physics, all of my classes will be related to that, i.e. Maths and Physics lectures, with some Physics practicals.
Most our graduate programs follow that practice, but the undergraduate (Bachelor level classes) all have a diversified base.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
 Frazzled wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
2: Yes, If they wished t improve themselves, they would realize just how little a chance they have at a career in the NFL. Football/Soccer/Ultimate Frisbee should be side activities that are meant to supplement, not replace higher.
If thats the standard, you'd have to get rid of most of the Humanities programs.
Why What is wrong with Humanities? Alot of it is applicable in the real world. Football is not.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
hotsauceman1 wrote:
Why What is wrong with Humanities? Alot of it is applicable in the real world. Football is not.
Said by someone that has never been any good at sports or played anything on a competitive level.
'
You're a fool if you don't think there are mountains of stuff that you learn through the act of being part of athletic team that is very applicable to "the real world."
12313
Post by: Ouze
-Shrike- wrote:You actually have a set of unrelated core classes at American Universities? When I go to Uni. to do a degree in Physics, all of my classes will be related to that, i.e. Maths and Physics lectures, with some Physics practicals.
Wow, that's surprising.
Yeah, in the US undergrad degrees have a big chunk of basic things - english, math, philosphy, science, stuff like that.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Yes, it is not like I did wrestling or Boxing.
Nope, I never did sports at all.
All I see is competitiveness taken to the stupid max and childish stuff done in the name of sports, like stealing a Mascot or vandelizing
12313
Post by: Ouze
Stealing mascots is at least 60% of most professional sports.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
The other 40 is drug scandals, wife beating and adultery
12313
Post by: Ouze
Well done.
221
Post by: Frazzled
hotsauceman1 wrote: Frazzled wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote: Automatically Appended Next Post: 2: Yes, If they wished t improve themselves, they would realize just how little a chance they have at a career in the NFL. Football/Soccer/Ultimate Frisbee should be side activities that are meant to supplement, not replace higher.
If thats the standard, you'd have to get rid of most of the Humanities programs.
Why What is wrong with Humanities? Alot of it is applicable in the real world. Football is not.
HAHAHAHA wanting to better yourself doesn't mean working at Starbucks, which is what the vast majority end up doing because, outside of a very limited number of jobs in academia, the value is purely meh.
55107
Post by: ScootyPuffJunior
hotsauceman1 wrote:And what would they be able to do with that? Teach P.E? The point of a higher education is to improve yoursdelf. If these men have no drive to do that, then they should just go into a trade or drive trucks and leave spots open for those who will do something with it
There it is... The dumbest gak I've read all day.
As a tradesman (who comes from a long line of tradesmen), there is just so much wrong with that statement that I don't know where to begin. Your backtracking isn't helping you and neither is claiming that Cincy is "looking too much into it." Based on your various statements on this thread, as well as in others, I think your point was pretty clear.
However, I will say that plenty of college athletes that don't make in the majors to on to do something worthwhile with the education they receive. I think it's unfair to claim that they are taking spots in colleges from someone who will do something "more worthwhile."
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
If you don't apply yourself, which what I see a lot of humanities doing. But it's value is way more then football Automatically Appended Next Post:  ScootyPuffJunior wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:And what would they be able to do with that? Teach P.E? The point of a higher education is to improve yoursdelf. If these men have no drive to do that, then they should just go into a trade or drive trucks and leave spots open for those who will do something with it
There it is... The dumbest gak I've read all day.
As a tradesman (who comes from a long line of tradesmen), there is just so much wrong with that statement that I don't know where to begin. Your backtracking isn't helping you and neither is claiming that Cincy is "looking too much into it." Based on your various statements on this thread, as well as in others, I think your point was pretty clear.
However, I will say that plenty of college athletes that don't make in the majors to on to do something worthwhile with the education they receive. I think it's unfair to claim that they are taking spots in colleges from someone who will do something "more worthwhile."
I dont. If you are taking classes that are made so you don't fail, just so you can throw a ball, the new you are taking good spots away.
80999
Post by: jasper76
My opinion...sports shouldn't be part of undergraduate education AT ALL (other than Sports Management and stuff like that).
Use the various minor leagues for high school athletes with hopes of going pro.
I know this would force alot of kids out of going to college. But I think you should get into college because of academics and nothing to do with sports. The sad fact is that when a high school athlete gets an athletic scholarship, another, more worthy student academically does not get a scholarship.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
What's worse is, there was a lady.. I want to say she was a professor actually at UNC, who was commissioned, by the school to do just this exact sort of report, and IIRC they fired her and accused her of faking the results for "fame" as a "whistleblower" for academic fraud.
I've read articles about how, at FSU there were numerous football players making horrible anti-gay remarks, right in front of their gay professor... some even went so far as physical intimidation of professors in order to keep grades that would allow them to play.
I love college football, but I absolutely HATE that it has come to a level where, so many schools are completely comfortable with sacrificing academic integrity for a few more numbers in the W column of their sports' teams books. I know that this isn't just football (as UNC is demonstrably a basketball school), but I also know that there are still some "pure" sports out there within the university system... What is kind of sad though, is that those "pure" sports are those that either do not have scholarships, or are not viewed as Varsity athletic programs (such as rugby)
42144
Post by: cincydooley
hotsauceman1 wrote:Yes, it is not like I did wrestling or Boxing.
Nope, I never did sports at all.
All I see is competitiveness taken to the stupid max and childish stuff done in the name of sports, like stealing a Mascot or vandelizing
I mean, I'll just say it. I don't believe you.
If that's "all you [saw]" then you truly haven't.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
On which? That I did sportsome or the comptitiveness, because I saw it alot. In my own school they spray painted the bronze statue of the other school mascot in our colors.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 jasper76 wrote:My opinion...sports shouldn't be part of undergraduate education AT ALL (other than Sports Management and stuff like that).
I don't entirely disagree with you...in regards to the BIG 2. But then what happens to the tennis players? Or the swimmers? Or the women's field hockey team?"
You have to remember that if you get rid of the Big 2 (Football and Basketball), you get rid of ALL intercollegiate sports.
Intercollegiate sports are tied to American Universities pretty inexorably.
The sad fact is that when a high school athlete gets an athletic scholarship, another, more worthy student academically does not get a scholarship.
This is a really unfortunate statement. Automatically Appended Next Post: hotsauceman1 wrote:On which? That I did sportsome or the comptitiveness, because I saw it alot. In my own school they spray painted the bronze statue of the other school mascot in our colors.
You need to reevaluate your definition of "competitiveness;" spray painting the other schools mascot has nothing to do with it.
And yes, I don't believe that you participated in any sports for long enough or at a high enough level to learn any of the multitude of things that make TONS of former athletes very successful in the business world.
80999
Post by: jasper76
cincydooley wrote:I don't entirely disagree with you...in regards to the BIG 2. But then what happens to the tennis players? Or the swimmers? Or the women's field hockey team?"
You have to remember that if you get rid of the Big 2 (Football and Basketball), you get rid of ALL intercollegiate sports.
Intercollegiate sports are tied to American Universities pretty inexorably.
IMO opinion, this is a bad, bad thing. As a society, do we want to invest in an educational system that produces scientists, engineers, teachers, nurses, doctors, etc., or people who are very good at leisure activities? I know they are not mutually exclusive, but its says alot that so many of our schools are reliant on producing entertainment in order to stay afloat, and this often comes at the expense of potential students who are better qualified academically than recipients of athletic scholarships.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
inferno445 wrote:
When I consider which college I go to, this will make me consider UNC less, even if it is relatively close to where I live now and it's relatively inexpensive from the colleges near where I used to live. The fact that the college did this will make me feel that they are concerned more with their sports than my education.
All colleges in a "Major Conference" do this though and here's why. If their team is good, it gets more air time, if they are good over a longer period, they get games in "prime TV slots" which means, when they are trying to out-Sports the other school, they get to play "Go to our university" commercials, alot. The more of those commercials they get to run, the more that bug gets planted into the brains of impressionable young people, and the more applications they receive. Also, the better they do at being better Sportsters than other Sportsy people, they tend to win trophies. Now, the trophies are generally, actually pretty cheap $ wise, but what it does for the school, is that they get paid by the sponsors of the Sports Event millions of dollars that, ostensibly should be going to the "School".
Now, a bunch of that "We're the best at Sports" money does go to the science department, and history dept. and library, and student housing, etc. But there's still a pretty penny that goes into the school's "Sports department". You'll probably have seen pieces on ESPN about a "new facility" at some school, and rarely is that facility paid for entirely through donors (such as Phil Knight buying a whole new facility for the U of Oregon's football team), but does come from the school.
The fairly sad truth in the US, when it comes to academic institutions is that Sports = Money.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
jasper76 wrote:
IMO opinion, this is a bad, bad thing. As a society, do we want to invest in an educational system that produces scientists, engineers, teachers, nurses, doctors, etc., or people who are very good at leisure activities? I know they are not mutually exclusive, but its says alot that so many of our schools are reliant on producing entertainment in order to stay afloat, and this often comes at the expense of potential students who are better qualified academically than recipients of athletic scholarships.
Did you know that all of these programs that you're so worried about, and especially the ones at Big Time Programs, are completely self funding?
Meaning, there is no "at the expense of" when it comes to "students who are better qualified academically..."
I have to be honest: the absurdly broad generalization here about athletes and their intelligence is pretty fething sad.
53740
Post by: ZebioLizard2
 Ensis Ferrae wrote:inferno445 wrote:
When I consider which college I go to, this will make me consider UNC less, even if it is relatively close to where I live now and it's relatively inexpensive from the colleges near where I used to live. The fact that the college did this will make me feel that they are concerned more with their sports than my education.
All colleges in a "Major Conference" do this though and here's why. If their team is good, it gets more air time, if they are good over a longer period, they get games in "prime TV slots" which means, when they are trying to out-Sports the other school, they get to play "Go to our university" commercials, alot. The more of those commercials they get to run, the more that bug gets planted into the brains of impressionable young people, and the more applications they receive. Also, the better they do at being better Sportsters than other Sportsy people, they tend to win trophies. Now, the trophies are generally, actually pretty cheap $ wise, but what it does for the school, is that they get paid by the sponsors of the Sports Event millions of dollars that, ostensibly should be going to the "School".
Now, a bunch of that "We're the best at Sports" money does go to the science department, and history dept. and library, and student housing, etc. But there's still a pretty penny that goes into the school's "Sports department". You'll probably have seen pieces on ESPN about a "new facility" at some school, and rarely is that facility paid for entirely through donors (such as Phil Knight buying a whole new facility for the U of Oregon's football team), but does come from the school.
The fairly sad truth in the US, when it comes to academic institutions is that Sports = Money.
Actually as has been discovered by actual people looking at the books, many of those sports programs run the school often times at a loss, despite the fact that they still say they "Make them money". Some do end up that way, but it's typically the schools that already had tons of investment by outside sources to begin with.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Now, a bunch of that "We're the best at Sports" money does go to the science department, and history dept. and library, and student housing, etc. But there's still a pretty penny that goes into the school's "Sports department". You'll probably have seen pieces on ESPN about a "new facility" at some school, and rarely is that facility paid for entirely through donors (such as Phil Knight buying a whole new facility for the U of Oregon's football team), but does come from the school. .
I wonder how much money the science department is making for the university and filtering back to the women's golf team.
37231
Post by: d-usa
OU has degrees for ballet, playing the bassoon, acting, interior design, and many other very narrow fields. I think if you can justify a degree in dancing you should be able to create a degree in sports. I would just want it to follow the same rules as all other degrees (same GE requirements, etc).
80999
Post by: jasper76
@cincey: If a university takes in, lets say, 5000 freshman a year, and, lets say, 500 of those slots are reserved for student athletes, that means 500 slots will not go to non-athletes, and in some or perhaps many cases, they will have a better academic record than many of the student athletes. So it is at the expense of students who are better qualified academically.
I didn't mean to call student athletes dumb or anything, I know plenty of kids in my school were athletes (I was not) and better students than I was.
I just don't think athletic prowess should enter into the admissions eqution one iota.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 d-usa wrote:
OU has degrees for ballet, playing the bassoon, acting, interior design, and many other very narrow fields. I think if you can justify a degree in dancing you should be able to create a degree in sports. I would just want it to follow the same rules as all other degrees (same GE requirements, etc).
I'm right with you here. You did a much better job of fleshing it out than I did
221
Post by: Frazzled
hotsauceman1 wrote:If you don't apply yourself, which what I see a lot of humanities doing. But it's value is way more then football
How? You're deeply in debt. At least the athlete can trade on his name and former status.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
jasper76 wrote:@cincey: If a university takes in, lets say, 5000 freshman a year, and, lets say, 500 of those slots are reserved for student athletes, that means 500 students will not go, and in some or perhaps many cases, they will have a better academic record than many of the student athletes. So it is at the expense of students who are better qualified academically.
Why would you think that's it's "many cases."
I didn't mean to call student athletes dumb or anything, I know plenty of kids in my school were athletes (I was not) and better students than I was.
Then why would you claim that in "many cases" non athletes are going to smarter than your average female swimmer?
I just don't think athletic prowess should enter into the admissions eqution one iota.
If I'm picking "C" students to let into school, I'm picking the one that's good at football. If you think that elite students, you know, the ones that SHOULD be at a 4 year university, are getting turned away due to athletic scholarships, then I've got some Oceanside property in Kansas to sell you. Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:If you don't apply yourself, which what I see a lot of humanities doing. But it's value is way more then football
How? You're deeply in debt. At least the athlete can trade on his name and former status.
You're underestimating the trading power of a comparative religion degree, Frazz!
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
cincydooley wrote:[
I wonder how much money the science department is making for the university and filtering back to the women's golf team.
The huge difference here is that the science department, and by extension, medical schools, etc. don't funnel money into "women's golf" or "competitive underwater basket weaving" because the research that they do (and that's largely what the money goes toward) often times have fairly big impacts on the whole of society.
I do realize that most schools operate a sports program at a net loss for the school, however the biggest schools that are self sufficient do still have some trickle down onto those smaller ones... When Michigan (got beat) played Appalachian State in football, App State, IIRC got some of the "proceeds" of the television money because UM is apparently a "big draw" for TV audiences.
80999
Post by: jasper76
@cincey: All I'm saying at bottom, cincey, is if a 3.4 student athlete is competing for admissions with a 3.5 non-athlete student, the 3.5 should win every time....even if the other guy is a Larry Bird, or a Lawrence Taylor, or a Usain Bolt.
I do not know hard numbers about how often this prinicple of mine is violated. I know it happens.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
jasper76 wrote:@cincey: All I'm saying at bottom, cincey, is if a 3.4 student athlete is competing for admissions with a 3.5 non-athlete student, the 3.5 should win every time....even if the other guy is a Larry Bird, or a Lawrence Taylor, or a Usain Bolt.
I do not know hard numbers about how often this prinicple of mine is violated. I know it happens.
I honestly don't think it's violated very often. Especially seeing as how, the non-athlete will probably have a wildly different degree path from the athlete, and as such they'd never really compete for class space. Im actually not even sure the admissions process is the same for someone on an academic "full ride" or even as a recruit for a sport, as it is for a non-athlete, and as such they may never count against each other... I could (it may be wrong) see it as University X admits 5000 Freshmen each year, they also admit 500 "athlete freshmen" per year.... In this way, a 3.4 "Football player" is competing against a 3.8 "fencer"... in which case, the fencer should win every time, because the fencer realizes that there is very little prospect of "going pro" in fencing, and will focus more on academics than athletics, until such a time as the are well in season.
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
What's worse is, there was a lady.. I want to say she was a professor actually at UNC, who was commissioned, by the school to do just this exact sort of report, and IIRC they fired her and accused her of faking the results for "fame" as a "whistleblower" for academic fraud.
I've read articles about how, at FSU there were numerous football players making horrible anti-gay remarks, right in front of their gay professor... some even went so far as physical intimidation of professors in order to keep grades that would allow them to play.
I love college football, but I absolutely HATE that it has come to a level where, so many schools are completely comfortable with sacrificing academic integrity for a few more numbers in the W column of their sports' teams books. I know that this isn't just football (as UNC is demonstrably a basketball school), but I also know that there are still some "pure" sports out there within the university system... What is kind of sad though, is that those "pure" sports are those that either do not have scholarships, or are not viewed as Varsity athletic programs (such as rugby)
Marry Willingham
CNN
Willingham said there are athletes at UNC who are reading at a third- and fourth-grade level. She said there is no way for them to succeed in a college classroom; the only place they can succeed is on the football field.
Willingham is one of the few people CNN could find who's looking at the reading levels of athletes in revenue-generating sports football and basketball.
"They're leaving here, our profit-sport athletes, without an education. They're significantly behind the level of reading and writing that's required," Willingham said.
With the permission of the university, she combed through eight years' worth of test scores, and found that up to 25 percent of athletes in revenue sports don't have the skills to take classes at a community college, let alone a competitive university like UNC.
Looking at 183 football and basketball players between 2004 and 2012, Willingham found that 8 percent were reading below a fourth-grade level and 60 percent were between a fourth- and eighth-grade reading level.
The NCAA told CNN that in 2012, 30 revenue-sport athletes were made eligible despite very low SAT or ACT scores -- a number it said is a small percentage of the 5,700 basketball and football players admitted that year.
CNN chose a sampling 37 public universities across the country where open records laws apply, and asked for entrance exam scores for football and basketball players during the past six years.
CNN received data back from 21 Division I universities, including top-25 ranked football schools like Texas A&M, Georgia, Oklahoma State, Ohio State and Clemson.
Most schools had between 7 and 18 percent of football and basketball players scoring so low on the reading or writing portion of their exams that experts said they would only be reading at an elementary level.
It was a big story locally. Some people took issue with her methodology and conclusions. I never read the actual paper she wrote and I didn't major in statistics or education so I can't judge the validity of her conclusions. It certainly doesn't surprise me though.
In UNC's defense having incoming freshmen who read at a 4th grade level isn't their fault. The NCAA sets the minimum standards for admittance and scholarships and UNC wasn't responsible for the athletes' K-12 education. Academic favoritism for athletes doesn't start in college it starts much earlier than that, even before high school sometimes. A lot of people and institutions derive financial benefits from successful athletic programs and it corrupts the very people who are charged with looking out for the athletes' best interests.
Colleges make millions from football and basketball. The money earned from football television contracts pays for the majority of the whole athletic department. Coaches get paid millions, ADs get paid millions, the school takes in millions in ticket sales, parking, merchandise, etc. Studies have shown that having a good football program increases alumni donations and applications for admission. It's gotten to a point where players are getting recruited before they even get to high school. It's a multi billion dollar business and its built on the backs of 18-22 year old kids.
The athletes have to maintain their academic eligibility and unfortunately for UNC back in 1993 Debbie Crowder decided she would "help" athletes by offering indepdent stude AfAm courses where she could grade the students' "papers" herself to make sure they got the grades they needed. It's all kinds of cheating, the players get cheated out of getting a better education, the university cheats the NCAA requirements and it's own standards, it's embarassing for everybody involved.
It was a classic case of giving people the kind of "help" that only makes this worse. Allegely Crowder felt bad for students that were struggling, probably the same kind of students Willingham had found in her study, but instead of helping them by offering remedial classes that improved their scholastic ability, Crowder just gave them fake classes to pump up their GPA. Nobody had to learn anything they just got the grades they needed to keep playing. Since the vast majority of college athletes don't become pro athletes the only people getting hurt were the students she was helping. Now the NCAA is going to come down on UNC like a ton of bricks.
The athletes don't deserve all the blame. The coaches, academic advisors and tutors for multiple sports teams all knowingly steered athletes to take the fake classes to keep their GPA up. Scholarship athletes are dependent on their scholarship to stay in school and if their coaches and advisors tell them that they need to take a certain course they'll take it without question. It's a testament to the integrity of Roy Williams that he was smart enough to realize the AfAm clases might be fraudelent and to make basketball players stop taking them. Nowadays Div1 college football isn't about anything other than making money. Given the enormous amount of money involved in it there's no way it could be about anything else. Automatically Appended Next Post: jasper76 wrote:@cincey: All I'm saying at bottom, cincey, is if a 3.4 student athlete is competing for admissions with a 3.5 non-athlete student, the 3.5 should win every time....even if the other guy is a Larry Bird, or a Lawrence Taylor, or a Usain Bolt.
I do not know hard numbers about how often this prinicple of mine is violated. I know it happens.
The school has chosen to have an athletic department and field various athletic teams. Somebody has to play on those teams and the school wants those teams to have success. Therefore coaches are going to be allowed to go to bat for certain applicants to be admitted. If an applicant with a 3.4 GPA is also a player that the football coach thinks will make the team and help them win games, thereby allowing the school to enjoy all the ancillary benefits of a winning football program then the school is going to admit that applicant over an applicant with a better GPA that isn't going to do anything to benefit the school. That's how it actually happens.
The same thing happens with schools that are renown for their research facilities where there is a lot of competition to get in to certain programs or majors and the school derives money from farming out it's labs and students to companies.
Also, it's important to note that for scholarship sports in all divisions that those scholarship slots are only available to athletes because they're athletic scholarships. The QB at Ohio State isn't taking a spot away from anybody, he's using one of the 85 allotted football scholarships. Nobody is competing for those scholarships except football players so they aren't taking slots away from anybody other than other football recruits.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Student Athletes have a lot of variety:
There are some who are good at sports and who know that they could never afford a university degree, they know that being good at sports can pay the way for them to get a degree that lets them earn a living after graduation.
There are some who just love to play. They know they won't play forever or go pro, but they love the game and being part of a team. They also are thankful for the opportunity to get an education in the process.
They are some who hate education, who have absolutely zero interest in having a university education. They just want to play, they just want to go pro, and they are only at the university because they have to be so that they can play. They wouldn't be there if they had another way to get to the pros.
I don't think that Student Athletes are the guilty party for the system we have. I think they are stuck in a system that was created by the pro-leagues and the NCAA to maximize profits for each of them and that had very little regard for the actual athletes. I think that what we have now is basically a deal where the NCAA offers to train them for "free" in exchange for getting to keep them for a minimum of X years before the pro-teams can have them. That way both get their cut and the athletes are stuck in a system where they "have" to go to college in order to play and try-out for a pro-team.
We have a weird system where amateur sports is almost completely tied to the education system, unlike many other countries.
12313
Post by: Ouze
cincydooley wrote:Said by someone that has never been any good at sports or played anything on a competitive level."
hotsauceman1 wrote:Yes, it is not like I did wrestling or Boxing.
Nope, I never did sports at all.
cincydooley wrote:If that's "all you [saw]" then you truly haven't.
That's a nice Scotsman you have there.
Be a shame if he wasn't... a true Scotsman.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
cincydooley wrote: jasper76 wrote:My opinion...sports shouldn't be part of undergraduate education AT ALL (other than Sports Management and stuff like that).
I don't entirely disagree with you...in regards to the BIG 2. But then what happens to the tennis players? Or the swimmers? Or the women's field hockey team?"
You have to remember that if you get rid of the Big 2 (Football and Basketball), you get rid of ALL intercollegiate sports.
Intercollegiate sports are tied to American Universities pretty inexorably.
The sad fact is that when a high school athlete gets an athletic scholarship, another, more worthy student academically does not get a scholarship.
This is a really unfortunate statement.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote:On which? That I did sportsome or the comptitiveness, because I saw it alot. In my own school they spray painted the bronze statue of the other school mascot in our colors.
You need to reevaluate your definition of "competitiveness;" spray painting the other schools mascot has nothing to do with it.
And yes, I don't believe that you participated in any sports for long enough or at a high enough level to learn any of the multitude of things that make TONS of former athletes very successful in the business world.
Thanks for the calling me a liar Cincy. I did do wrestling and boxing. Andy knew several people in other sports. They learned to throw a ball or a punch. Not the instructions and outs of business. Sports should not be poisoning Academia like this
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 Ouze wrote:cincydooley wrote:Said by someone that has never been any good at sports or played anything on a competitive level."
hotsauceman1 wrote:Yes, it is not like I did wrestling or Boxing.
Nope, I never did sports at all.
cincydooley wrote:If that's "all you [saw]" then you truly haven't.
That's a nice Scotsman you have there.
Be a shame if he wasn't... a true Scotsman.
I'll be honest, I have no idea what this means.
You're also taking the second quote pretty far out of context. HSM's definition of "competitiveness" is pretty integral to the 2nd quote. Automatically Appended Next Post: hotsauceman1 wrote: Thanks for the calling me a liar Cincy. I did do wrestling and boxing. Andy knew several people in other sports. They learned to throw a ball or a punch. Not the instructions and outs of business. Sports should not be poisoning Academia like this
You're quite welcome.
I'm not going to get anywhere with this line of discussion without getting hit with the banhammer, so I'll drop it.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Well in that case it's definitely wrong.
My comment regarding "competitiveness" was in direct reply to your notion that "competitiveness" involved spray painting bronze bulls (or some other nonsense) and stealing mascots.
It doesn't.
46277
Post by: squidhills
The sad thing is, I was seeing this sort of gak in my high school twenty years ago with our basketball team. The administration did everything it could to ensure that F+ and D- students were able to play, despite the school allegedly having academic standards and GPA minimums for athletes to be able to participate in sports.
It was a private school, which meant people paid tuition to be there. Of course, really good basketball players got tuition discounts, so their families weren't paying as much to send them there. We had one of the top ten nationally-ranked private school basketball teams, so I assume the system was working, but it was disheartening to see a bunch of guys who did not give a feth about academics being granted a free pass by the administration to do whatever they wanted (they also avoided any disciplinary action for bad behavior) just because they could dribble a ball.
One guy scored a 0 on a math test, given by a teacher who (no joke) awarded students 5 points of extra credit for spelling their own names correctly. That kind of failure takes effort.
The school was touted as a "college preperatory" school. After seeing how UNC was running its athletic program, I would have to say that my high school was doing its best to provide the full college experience to students...
To be fair, though, we had a few basketball players who were actually in the school to learn, but they were in the minority. I can think of three who did well academically, one of which who actually earned himself an academic scholarship to a four year university.
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
d-usa wrote:Student Athletes have a lot of variety:
There are some who are good at sports and who know that they could never afford a university degree, they know that being good at sports can pay the way for them to get a degree that lets them earn a living after graduation.
There are some who just love to play. They know they won't play forever or go pro, but they love the game and being part of a team. They also are thankful for the opportunity to get an education in the process.
They are some who hate education, who have absolutely zero interest in having a university education. They just want to play, they just want to go pro, and they are only at the university because they have to be so that they can play. They wouldn't be there if they had another way to get to the pros.
I don't think that Student Athletes are the guilty party for the system we have. I think they are stuck in a system that was created by the pro-leagues and the NCAA to maximize profits for each of them and that had very little regard for the actual athletes. I think that what we have now is basically a deal where the NCAA offers to train them for "free" in exchange for getting to keep them for a minimum of X years before the pro-teams can have them. That way both get their cut and the athletes are stuck in a system where they "have" to go to college in order to play and try-out for a pro-team.
We have a weird system where amateur sports is almost completely tied to the education system, unlike many other countries.
I agree with all of that. I think the people that are to blame if we really wanted to assign blame, are the fans. The problem with Div 1 football and basketball is MONEY. There is so much money involved that it makes everything else secondary to getting that money. The biggest reason that there's so much money being poured into Div 1 football and basketball is because there are millions of fans out there that will attend the games, watch the games on tv, buy the merchandise, call into the sports radio shows, etc. If people weren't spending so much money on college sports and ratings for it weren't so great there'd be a lot less money involved and the focus could be put back on the fun, positive aspects of collegiate sports.
25703
Post by: juraigamer
It's things like this that make me mad people only care about GPA.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
cincydooley wrote:
Well in that case it's definitely wrong.
My comment regarding "competitiveness" was in direct reply to your notion that "competitiveness" involved spray painting bronze bulls (or some other nonsense) and stealing mascots.
It doesn't.
tell that to my high school FB team. Because to them the spirit of competition involved childish pranks.
123
Post by: Alpharius
I thinking that your limited personal perspective might not be entirely representative here.
Just guessing though!
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
hotsauceman1 wrote: cincydooley wrote:
Well in that case it's definitely wrong.
My comment regarding "competitiveness" was in direct reply to your notion that "competitiveness" involved spray painting bronze bulls (or some other nonsense) and stealing mascots.
It doesn't.
tell that to my high school FB team. Because to them the spirit of competition involved childish pranks.
I was a 3 year varsity letter winner in football in high school and a team capt as a senior and went on to play multiple sports in college. Please believe me when I tell you that the teenage boys on your high school football team didn't pull childish pranks on other schools because of "competitiveness." They did it because teenagers are immature and pranks are fun. Nobody spray paints statues because of their fierce desire to be the best, they do it for the ego stroke of getting away with being a dbag. That's my anecdotal take on it from being a jockocracy ringleader in HS.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
 Alpharius wrote:I thinking that your limited personal perspective might not be entirely representative here.
Just guessing though!
Maybe, I Hate Sports in Academia. IT is a stain and poisons good universities in letting in morons who can throw balls so they can continue to sell tickets to their gakky events. It does not let those with actual promise in.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
hotsauceman1 wrote: Alpharius wrote:I thinking that your limited personal perspective might not be entirely representative here.
Just guessing though!
Maybe, I Hate Sports in Academia. IT is a stain and poisons good universities in letting in morons who can throw balls so they can continue to sell tickets to their gakky events. It does not let those with actual promise in.
Ho-lee-gak.
You're out of touch here, my friend.
Quite a bit.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
No, I am not. That is my opinion on sports in school.
12313
Post by: Ouze
I'd like to see sports divorced from higher learning as well, while being fully aware that it's not actually possible to do so.
The entire American fascination with grown men throwing a little ball around while we pay them truckloads of money to clap is just a bit bizarre, in my opinion.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Ouze wrote:I'd like to see sports divorced from higher learning as well, while being fully aware that it's not actually possible to do so.
The entire American fascination with grown men throwing a little ball around while we pay them truckloads of money to clap is just a bit bizarre, in my opinion.
Not to mention, There are so any people worth following, Tyson, Sagan, Nobel Laureates
42144
Post by: cincydooley
That's not an opinion.
You're claim was that "it doesn't let the worthy in."
That's fething nonsense.
I'm sorry if you got shoved in a locker by some high school football players or something, but you're incredibly out of touch here, and your vitriol is colouring any good judgement and reason you have in other threads. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ouze wrote:
The entire American fascination with grown men throwing a little ball around while we pay them truckloads of money to clap is just a bit bizarre, in my opinion.
Why?
It's been that way in nearly every culture throughout history. It's hardly uniquely American.
12313
Post by: Ouze
cincydooley wrote:
Ouze wrote:
The entire American fascination with grown men throwing a little ball around while we pay them truckloads of money to clap is just a bit bizarre, in my opinion.
Why?
It's been that way in nearly every culture throughout history. It's hardly uniquely American.
I know that pretty much every culture has played sports, but I'm not sure the level to which it pervades our culture fits within those - is it common for other countries to routinely suppress rapes, child molestations, assaults, and other criminal acts, manufacture fake classes and curriculums, and so on, to further the all important sports programs? I don't generally read about that kind of thing happening elsewhere nearly as much as it does here. Do other countries give enormous tax breaks to wildly profitable franchises? That sort of thing? I don't think Europe even really have a semi-pro university sports franchise system the way we do here, do they?
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
cincydooley wrote:
That's not an opinion.
You're claim was that "it doesn't let the worthy in."
That's fething nonsense.
I'm sorry if you got shoved in a locker by some high school football players or something, but you're incredibly out of touch here, and your vitriol is colouring any good judgement and reason you have in other threads.
Actually, I never got bullied by football players in HS.
I just see the culture the surrounds sports. Stubenville, Micheal Vick Dogfighting ring and hazing. Not to mention the vehment anti-LGBT the arises from said sports.
It does not. Why should those boys, who could nt read beyond 5th grade, get let into a school for the Elite?
25703
Post by: juraigamer
cincydooley wrote:
That's not an opinion.
You're claim was that "it doesn't let the worthy in."
That's fething nonsense.
Hate to say it, but it's correct. Many schools put priorities on getting good players for said sports, over attracting good students. Anyone can get into college these days if they have money, but good sports players make the college money.
37231
Post by: d-usa
 juraigamer wrote: cincydooley wrote:
That's not an opinion.
You're claim was that "it doesn't let the worthy in."
That's fething nonsense.
Hate to say it, but it's correct. Many schools put priorities on getting good players for said sports, over attracting good students. Anyone can get into college these days if they have money, but good sports players make the college money.
And then there are colleges who do stuff like this:
If you’re in the top 10% of your high school graduating class, you’re eligible for automatic admission to any public university in Texas. To meet the requirements for automatic admission, you must:
Graduate in the top 10% of your class at a public or private high school in Texas, or
Graduate in the top 10% of your class from a high school operated by the U.S. Department of Defense and be a Texas resident or eligible to pay resident tuition;
Enroll in college no more than two years after graduating from high school; and
Submit an application to a Texas public university for admission before the application deadline. (Check with the university for specific deadlines).
If you’re admitted to college through the Top 10% Rule, you may still be required to provide SAT or ACT scores, but these scores are not used for admissions purposes. You must also take the THEA test, unless you’re exempt from the test requirement. Be sure to check with the school's admissions office regarding THEA, SAT and ACT requirements. (For general information on SAT, ACT and THEA, click on “The Tests You’ll Need.”)
After you’re admitted, the university may review your high school records to determine if you’re ready for college-level work. If you need additional preparation, you may be required to take a developmental, enrichment or orientation course prior to your first semester of college. Please keep in mind that admission to a university does not guarantee acceptance into a particular program of study or academic department.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
How does this ppertain to anything?
37231
Post by: d-usa
The argument is that good students are kept out of college, so I post a state where the law is that the top 10% automatically get into any college they want, no matter what.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Which is texas. A state a lot more progressive then cali, it just won't admit it
123
Post by: Alpharius
...
OK.
Anyway, everyone, please remember the rules of this site when posting in this thread.
Rule #1 in particular.
Thanks!
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Ouze wrote: cincydooley wrote:
Ouze wrote:
The entire American fascination with grown men throwing a little ball around while we pay them truckloads of money to clap is just a bit bizarre, in my opinion.
Why?
It's been that way in nearly every culture throughout history. It's hardly uniquely American.
I know that pretty much every culture has played sports, but I'm not sure the level to which it pervades our culture fits within those - is it common for other countries to routinely suppress rapes, child molestations, assaults, and other criminal acts, manufacture fake classes and curriculums, and so on, to further the all important sports programs? I don't generally read about that kind of thing happening elsewhere nearly as much as it does here. Do other countries give enormous tax breaks to wildly profitable franchises? That sort of thing? I don't think Europe even really have a semi-pro university sports franchise system the way we do here, do they?
Cincy, Ouze's statement is definitely true. In the 1960s, The average MLB salary (who were collectively the highest paid professional athletes in that time) was 7 times that of the Average US workers' salary. Now, it is something like 200 times the average US workers' salary.
If you look around the world, not all professional sports, or sports leagues are money riddled crime syndicates either. Take for example, in New Zealand, the NZ All Blacks pay Dan Carter and Richie McCaw each 750,000 NZD per year to play rugby. While I don't know the particulars as to whether that is 750k for JUST the ABs uniform, or if it's for the ABs, their Super Rugby club, AND their ITM Cup clubs combined (I believe it's the latter) Yes, it's quite a good living, though it's still not the norm. It was common for the "legendary" All Blacks hooker, Andrew Hore to work his sheep farm during the offseason, that's how much money he made playing rugby.
Same thing with the NFL, if you see documentaries of 1960s and 1970s NFL players, a VERY large number of them had to have actual jobs in the off season if they were to survive at all. Unless your name was Staubach, Bradshaw or Unitas (something where you are basically the face of the franchise), you simply didn't make enough to make it through the off season.
Yes, every civilization has venerated sports and the "heroic" players of such sports, the difference is, with modern ball games they were almost all universally started off under a strict "amateur" ethos. Hell, Rugby Union didn't professionalize until 1996 or 97 As there was a rather "victorian" view on how sports were a gentlemanly pasttime, they should be paid as such, even once professionalized, as it's the spirit of competition that is supposed to produce excellent play, not desire for money or profit (from the players' perspective)
I mean, let's be completely honest... Is running a 10k, whilst juggling a ball about your feet REALLY, HONESTLY worth 200 million dollars? Isn't this around what guys like Lio Messi are being paid? Outside of that arena, where would there be any value in Lio Messi's abilities? As much as I love Jeter, and baseball... in what other avenue of life is there any value to being able to "squarely" hit a round ball with a round stick? Where is there any value in being able to jump in front of a 90mph, frozen rubber disk?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Ouze wrote:I'd like to see sports divorced from higher learning as well, while being fully aware that it's not actually possible to do so.
The entire American fascination with grown men throwing a little ball around while we pay them truckloads of money to clap is just a bit bizarre, in my opinion.
Thank you Ouze for making laugh so hard to snort coffee out my nose.....
Placed a order on Ebay for Destroid box
Building additional 6mm building
Refurbing my old Battletech building.....
Tomorrow I go in surgery to remove some last steel splinters in my chest (embedded in rib)
The college lost its integrity and it will take a long time for it to get it back.
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
juraigamer wrote: cincydooley wrote:
That's not an opinion.
You're claim was that "it doesn't let the worthy in."
That's fething nonsense.
Hate to say it, but it's correct. Many schools put priorities on getting good players for said sports, over attracting good students. Anyone can get into college these days if they have money, but good sports players make the college money.
You do realize that athletes, on all collegiate levels, make up a tiny percentage of the student body right? A basketball team is going to have 12-15 players while the school is going to have thousands of students. The biggest sports team by far is football and that's about 100 players and that includes all the undergraduate classes and players who might be 5th year seniors or graduate students.
Specific revenue generating sports, football and mens basketball can dominate an athletic department but they don't have the numbers or leverage to make any real impact on how the school on a whole is managed.
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Ouze wrote: cincydooley wrote:
Ouze wrote:
The entire American fascination with grown men throwing a little ball around while we pay them truckloads of money to clap is just a bit bizarre, in my opinion.
Why?
It's been that way in nearly every culture throughout history. It's hardly uniquely American.
I know that pretty much every culture has played sports, but I'm not sure the level to which it pervades our culture fits within those - is it common for other countries to routinely suppress rapes, child molestations, assaults, and other criminal acts, manufacture fake classes and curriculums, and so on, to further the all important sports programs? I don't generally read about that kind of thing happening elsewhere nearly as much as it does here. Do other countries give enormous tax breaks to wildly profitable franchises? That sort of thing? I don't think Europe even really have a semi-pro university sports franchise system the way we do here, do they?
Cincy, Ouze's statement is definitely true. In the 1960s, The average MLB salary (who were collectively the highest paid professional athletes in that time) was 7 times that of the Average US workers' salary. Now, it is something like 200 times the average US workers' salary.
If you look around the world, not all professional sports, or sports leagues are money riddled crime syndicates either. Take for example, in New Zealand, the NZ All Blacks pay Dan Carter and Richie McCaw each 750,000 NZD per year to play rugby. While I don't know the particulars as to whether that is 750k for JUST the ABs uniform, or if it's for the ABs, their Super Rugby club, AND their ITM Cup clubs combined (I believe it's the latter) Yes, it's quite a good living, though it's still not the norm. It was common for the "legendary" All Blacks hooker, Andrew Hore to work his sheep farm during the offseason, that's how much money he made playing rugby.
Same thing with the NFL, if you see documentaries of 1960s and 1970s NFL players, a VERY large number of them had to have actual jobs in the off season if they were to survive at all. Unless your name was Staubach, Bradshaw or Unitas (something where you are basically the face of the franchise), you simply didn't make enough to make it through the off season.
Yes, every civilization has venerated sports and the "heroic" players of such sports, the difference is, with modern ball games they were almost all universally started off under a strict "amateur" ethos. Hell, Rugby Union didn't professionalize until 1996 or 97 As there was a rather "victorian" view on how sports were a gentlemanly pasttime, they should be paid as such, even once professionalized, as it's the spirit of competition that is supposed to produce excellent play, not desire for money or profit (from the players' perspective)
I mean, let's be completely honest... Is running a 10k, whilst juggling a ball about your feet REALLY, HONESTLY worth 200 million dollars? Isn't this around what guys like Lio Messi are being paid? Outside of that arena, where would there be any value in Lio Messi's abilities? As much as I love Jeter, and baseball... in what other avenue of life is there any value to being able to "squarely" hit a round ball with a round stick? Where is there any value in being able to jump in front of a 90mph, frozen rubber disk?
I'm sorry but you're taking a very myopic view on collegiate and professional sports. I don't say that to be antagonistic just to point out that you're personal perception of sports is coloring your evaluation of them. You can't try to ascertain the "true" value of an athlete by removing them from their sport. Making 750,000 NZD to play rugby is what that player is worth because his performance on the pitch makes the club far more money than that. 750K is good amount of money but the top football teams in every Power 5 conference have over 100,000 fans in attendance for every home game, which is about 2% of the total population of New Zealand. Think about 110,000+ people who all bought tickets, merchandise, concessions, parking just for that one day.
The NBA recently signed a new televison contract that pays the league 2 billion dollars annually for the rights to show their games. Two billion dollars. $2,000,000,000 every year. If you wanted to buy an NBA franchise today you would have to spend at least 1 billion dollars to get it. With that astronomical level of money involved just for tv rights, plus tickets, merchandise, advertising, endorsements, etc. yes the great players are easily worth 20-30 million dollars in salary. NBA owners collectively earn BILLIONS of dollars so it's completely fair and reasonable that the players who generate the product (games) make MILLIONS of dollars. Yes, players aren't curing cancer or doing some other worthwhile endeavor but they are generating billions of dollars of revenue and for that they are due the nice salaries they are paid.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
 Jihadin wrote:Tomorrow I go in surgery to remove some last steel splinters in my chest (embedded in rib)
Good luck, and here's to a swift recovery 
Jihadin wrote:The college lost its integrity and it will take a long time for it to get it back.
That is my concern as well. How many student athletes from UNC who worked hard, and did not take these classes, will now be tarred with the same brush as the others. When you factor in the loss of reputation to the academic institution and how it affects all those who have graduated it shows that integrity was sacrificed on a huge scale.
5534
Post by: dogma
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
That is my concern as well. How many student athletes from UNC who worked hard, and did not take these classes, will now be tarred with the same brush as the others. When you factor in the loss of reputation to the academic institution and how it affects all those who have graduated it shows that integrity was sacrificed on a huge scale.
1: Any student-athlete who would be tarred with that brush almost certainly would have been tarred anyway.
2: Many students who are not also athletes take easy courses in order to fulfill requirements, so it hardly seems fair to single those students out. UNC staff, yes. UNC student-athletes, no.
39188
Post by: Bullockist
cincydooley wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote:
The entire American fascination with grown men throwing a little ball around while we pay them truckloads of money to clap is just a bit bizarre, in my opinion.
Why?
It's been that way in nearly every culture throughout history. It's hardly uniquely American.
Sport is good to watch, it's also a generally non confrontational way for people to de-stress, it makes people happy, it gives people something to believe in. I like sports , in fact I think trying to logically deconstruct recreational activities would not leave many activities available for people to do. listening to music- stupid, going to theatre - stupid, cooking anything but the bare minimum needed to get vitamins - stupid, playing with man-dollies - stupid.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Do you mean the minor leagues that are basketball and football or all sports? I hardly think my fencing class (protip, fence drunk and you'll do amazingly poorly) counts. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ouze wrote:I'd like to see sports divorced from higher learning as well, while being fully aware that it's not actually possible to do so. The entire American fascination with grown men throwing a little ball around while we pay them truckloads of money to clap is just a bit bizarre, in my opinion.
Agreed. Automatically Appended Next Post: d-usa wrote: juraigamer wrote: cincydooley wrote: That's not an opinion. You're claim was that "it doesn't let the worthy in." That's fething nonsense.
Hate to say it, but it's correct. Many schools put priorities on getting good players for said sports, over attracting good students. Anyone can get into college these days if they have money, but good sports players make the college money.
And then there are colleges who do stuff like this: If you’re in the top 10% of your high school graduating class, you’re eligible for automatic admission to any public university in Texas. To meet the requirements for automatic admission, you must:
Graduate in the top 10% of your class at a public or private high school in Texas, or
Graduate in the top 10% of your class from a high school operated by the U.S. Department of Defense and be a Texas resident or eligible to pay resident tuition;
Enroll in college no more than two years after graduating from high school; and
Submit an application to a Texas public university for admission before the application deadline. (Check with the university for specific deadlines).
If you’re admitted to college through the Top 10% Rule, you may still be required to provide SAT or ACT scores, but these scores are not used for admissions purposes. You must also take the THEA test, unless you’re exempt from the test requirement. Be sure to check with the school's admissions office regarding THEA, SAT and ACT requirements. (For general information on SAT, ACT and THEA, click on “The Tests You’ll Need.”)
After you’re admitted, the university may review your high school records to determine if you’re ready for college-level work. If you need additional preparation, you may be required to take a developmental, enrichment or orientation course prior to your first semester of college. Please keep in mind that admission to a university does not guarantee acceptance into a particular program of study or academic department.
MBAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH not correct. Its top 7% for UT Austin now. You will however get a full ride to UT Dallas. but then you have to go to, well Dallas. And who wants that? Automatically Appended Next Post: d-usa wrote: The argument is that good students are kept out of college, so I post a state where the law is that the top 10% automatically get into any college they want, no matter what.
he's right though. There are football spots that could go to tuition paying members. Of course I could say the same for the international students.
5534
Post by: dogma
Frazzled wrote:
he's right though. There are football spots that could go to tuition paying members. Of course I could say the same for the international students.
And I could argue that in-state students don't generally pay full tuition, even despite their reduced rate.
39188
Post by: Bullockist
I could argue that someone who only attended college with the help of a program should not be feeling intellectually elitist towards others in a similar institution who attended on different programs. It had to be said.
5534
Post by: dogma
 Bullockist wrote:I could argue that someone who only attended college with the help of a program should not be feeling intellectually elitist towards others in a similar institution who attended on different programs. It had to be said.
Most US students only attend college with the help of an aid program, often one not related to athletics, hence the argument about how in-state students don't usually pay full rates.
Anyway your attitude is the sort I fought against throughout college and grad school. I had to hide the fact that I made a habit of working out and playing sports because many people (professors included) assumed that doing either indicated a lack of intelligence or academic ability.
39188
Post by: Bullockist
that's kind of what I was alluding to with a direct example.
I hate intellectual snobbery, it fething gaks me.
I'd suggest re reading my post- I cannot make it easier to read.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 dogma wrote: Bullockist wrote:I could argue that someone who only attended college with the help of a program should not be feeling intellectually elitist towards others in a similar institution who attended on different programs. It had to be said.
Most US students only attend college with the help of an aid program, often one not related to athletics, hence the argument about how in-state students don't usually pay full rates.
I don't think he was directly referring to financial aid.
5534
Post by: dogma
I never said otherwise. Scholarships are aid programs.
39188
Post by: Bullockist
WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY WAS PEOPLE ON AID PROGRAMS SHOILD NOT TALK CRAP ABOUT OTHERS ON DIFFERENT PROGRAMS. I made this in caps because I did not understand how it got misconstrued ^^
Automatically Appended Next Post:
everyone who gets into uni is equal. If you want to hang social gak on someone because they are an athlete your sad. you are excluding them for quite possibly what you were excluded for in high school......grow up.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
There is a distinct difference between getting in because you are good at football to getting financial aid so you get to go to a college you got accepted into
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
hotsauceman1 wrote:There is a distinct difference between getting in because you are good at football to getting financial aid so you get to go to a college you got accepted into
The people that get accepted because they are good football players are only competing with other players for admission. Once the school decides to field a team they need players, regardless of whether or not it's scholarship level football the school still needs players. If you're not being recruited by a coach you're not competing for the same spots. It shouldn't be a difficult concept to understand.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
No, they are taking spots from Academics. Spots that can be used for infinitly better things if you ask me.
I say Recruit from the student body already there. Make Football what it is meant to be, and extracurricular activity.
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
hotsauceman1 wrote:No, they are taking spots from Academics. Spots that can be used for infinitly better things if you ask me.
I say Recruit from the student body already there. Make Football what it is meant to be, and extracurricular activity.
No they aren't. Football scholarships are for football players. If there wasn't a team those scholarships just disappear and so do the admission spots. For non scholarship football like Div3 it's the same. The school is fielding a football team so they need players which means they need to admit a certain number of students willing to play. If there are 2 applicants and one wants to play football and the other just wants to focus on academics the football player is more likely to get in because the school needs him more. Schools fund athletic departments and pay coaches to win games so when a coach says I need this player admitted the admissions department listens. Even in Div3 with no scholarships the school has a certain number of admission slots set aside for players the coach wants admitted that are only open for football player applicants. Football players and all other athletes still need to meet the same minimum requirements for admission as every other student and have maintain a minimum GPA to be eligible to play.
You don't have to like the way it works but you don't need to lie about it either. Applicants who don't play sports aren't competing against ones that do for admissions because they are in separate admission pools.
5534
Post by: dogma
Prestor Jon wrote:Even in Div3 with no scholarships the school has a certain number of admission slots set aside for players the coach wants admitted that are only open for football player applicants.
That generally varies according to the school and, more properly, the AD.
Prestor Jon wrote:For non scholarship football like Div3 it's the same. The school is fielding a football team so they need players which means they need to admit a certain number of students willing to play.
Many D3 schools develop their teams with players that aren't immediately willing to play, regardless of sport. That's what my D3 school did.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Prestor Jon wrote:
You don't have to like the way it works but you don't need to lie about it either. Applicants who don't play sports aren't competing against ones that do for admissions because they are in separate admission pools.
They are though. Football Scholarships should not EXIST. Universities should stay for acadmics. Those spots in the dorms, in the classes for the FB players are spots not given t those who deserve it
42144
Post by: cincydooley
hotsauceman1 wrote:Prestor Jon wrote:
You don't have to like the way it works but you don't need to lie about it either. Applicants who don't play sports aren't competing against ones that do for admissions because they are in separate admission pools.
They are though. Football Scholarships should not EXIST. Universities should stay for acadmics. Those spots in the dorms, in the classes for the FB players are spots not given t those who deserve it
This is a moronic circle we're going through.
Non-Athletes GO TO SCHOOLS to support athletic programs. People travel to college campus to watch games and support athletic programs, putting billions of dollars into those collective cities' economies every Saturday.
A single Division 1 football player is worth more to their respective university than you will ever be, hotsauceman. Deal with it.
Athletic scholarships SHOULD absolutely exist, and not just for the BIG 2 sports, and just because you're unathletic and resent athletic people doesn't change that.
Your resentment, at this point, is pretty sad and pathetic.
241
Post by: Ahtman
It is hard to believe that there are gamers who seem to hate athletics and athletes.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
cincydooley wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:Prestor Jon wrote:
You don't have to like the way it works but you don't need to lie about it either. Applicants who don't play sports aren't competing against ones that do for admissions because they are in separate admission pools.
They are though. Football Scholarships should not EXIST. Universities should stay for acadmics. Those spots in the dorms, in the classes for the FB players are spots not given t those who deserve it
This is a moronic circle we're going through.
Non-Athletes GO TO SCHOOLS to support athletic programs. People travel to college campus to watch games and support athletic programs, putting billions of dollars into those collective cities' economies every Saturday.
A single Division 1 football player is worth more to their respective university than you will ever be, hotsauceman. Deal with it.
Athletic scholarships SHOULD absolutely exist, and not just for the BIG 2 sports, and just because you're unathletic and resent athletic people doesn't change that.
Your resentment, at this point, is pretty sad and pathetic.
Its a great day when you decide to insult someone you are having an argument with.
And I dont hate them, I hate that they get spots in schools for students who deserve it and take classes that automaticall pass them when I have to work to just get a B-. IT is bs and it is not something we should support
42144
Post by: cincydooley
hotsauceman1 wrote:
Its a great day when you decide to insult someone you are having an argument with.
I've thought your argument was sad and foolish this entire time. I thought that was pretty clear.
I mean, if you want I can start listing college athletes/former college athletes that are unequivocally smarter than you if you'd like. We can probably even start on Dakka with Dogma and myself, though we were ONLY division 3.
And I dont hate them, I hate that they get spots in schools for students who deserve it and take classes that automaticall pass them when I have to work to just get a B-. IT is bs and it is not something we should support
Except, as many of us have pointed out already, that it simply isn't the case.
But I'll let you prove it. Show me some instances with supported facts where an athlete that "didn't deserve it" got into a university instead of "students that deserve it."
You'll also need to define the parameters for worthiness, since you seem to be deeming yourself the arbiter of university admission validity.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Just look at the OP.
A Student, Who could not read at past elementary lvl got into UNC.
Im sure there are tons of students who deserve a spot at universities over someone who cant properly read Harry Potter.
And I think your Argument is Foolish, But then again, we all know you hate universities.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Still trotting out this tired "argument" out, eh?
The fact that you don't even have a basic understanding of my view on the university system in the US and keep retreading this statement doesn't reflect too kindly on you, honestly.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
And the fact you are resorting to saying that I am an Idealist with not way the world works and insulting my major and several other majors doesnt reflect well on you. And you keep saying "Im sorry you where bullied by FB players" When then never happened.
I know your view. You do not like them. You think anyone under a B should go into a trade even if they dont want to.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
hotsauceman1 wrote:And the fact you are resorting to saying that I am an Idealist with not way the world works and insulting my major and several other majors doesnt reflect well on you.
I don't even know what your major is, so that dog don't hunt. I'm sure it's communication or social work or something like that, though*.
*For clarity, I think social work is a noble (and vastly underpaid) endeavor. Basing this on the sociology classes you've said you're taking.
And you keep saying "Im sorry you where bullied by FB players" When then never happened.
Then please, elaborate where your massive levels of resentment come from. Because it's coming from somewhere. Picked last all the time in dodgeball? Never any good at sports yourself? The baseball team 'bullied' you instead of the football players? Has to be something.
I know your view. You do not like them. You think anyone under a B should go into a trade even if they dont want to.
Well, with that statement, it simply proves you don't. I won't rehash it, but much of it involves the economics of education, the criminality of student lending, and a floundering economy that doesn't set graduates up to succeed.
So I'll say again: no, you don't understand my position on higher education at all.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
cincydooley wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:And the fact you are resorting to saying that I am an Idealist with not way the world works and insulting my major and several other majors doesnt reflect well on you.
I don't even know what your major is, so that dog don't hunt. I'm sure it's communication or social work or something like that, though.
And you keep saying "Im sorry you where bullied by FB players" When then never happened.
Then please, elaborate where your massive levels of resentment come from. Because it's coming from somewhere. Picked last all the time in dodgeball? Never any good at sports yourself? The baseball team 'bullied' you instead of the football players? Has to be something.
.
1: It is Sociological Research.
2: My resentment comes from my love of academia. My love of College and my hatred of things the destroy it. Same reason I hate campus police. They hurt the reputation of schools, they should be gone. Automatically Appended Next Post: cincydooley wrote:
So I'll say again: no, you don't understand my position on higher education at all.
Well then, you dont Understand my position.
But Screw this, I drove 3 hours to come home and get away from University for the weekend while my Knee heals. Im going to lay down.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Unless you are published that actually doesn't mean that much. Last I checked you are an undergraduate that hasn't even finished. Try not to put the cart before the horse, or to start with a conclusion for that matter.
hotsauceman1 wrote:2: My resentment comes from my love of academia. My love of College and my hatred of things the destroy it.
Academics and sports are not anathema to each other, and trotting out the "well I'm smart they are stupid argument" doesn't really hold a lot of water. There are terrible students who are not athletes and athletes that are excellent students. There are elements of sporting that are problematic, but there are also a lot of problems on the academic/research side as well. Perhaps you haven't seen them yet or just don't want to, but as you progress they will become more evident. With the sports programs it is often more obvious what the issues are because it is such a visible element whereas the other side is not.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
 Ahtman wrote:
Unless you are published that actually doesn't mean that much. Last I checked you are an undergraduate that hasn't even finished. Try not to put the cart before the horse, or to start with a conclusion for that matter.
hotsauceman1 wrote:2: My resentment comes from my love of academia. My love of College and my hatred of things the destroy it.
Academics and sports are not anathema to each other, and trotting out the "well I'm smart they are stupid argument" doesn't really hold a lot of water. There are terrible students who are not athletes and athletes that are excellent students. There are elements of sporting that are problematic, but there are also a lot of problems on the academic/research side as well. Perhaps you haven't seen them yet or just don't want to, but as you progress they will become more evident. With the sports programs it is often more obvious what the issues are because it is such a visible element whereas the other side is not.
1: I am an undergrad. But that is my major and I hope to go into it(And Actually, In my School, Upper Division Undergrads get to participate with Proffs ad get credit in research papers)
2: Oh, I know there are tons of problem. Im just ragging on sports because that is the topic of this thread. I also hate how money gets you into schools or Parentage. And how the UC system is now accept twice as many International students when the UCs where made and subsidized for Californian students.
I also hate how so many school Preach the First Amendment, but then go around expelling students for hate speech
47598
Post by: motyak
To all of you who can't argue nicely. Disagree without the personal insults, incendiary language, etc or the thread will get locked and you'll get a warning
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
hotsauceman1 wrote:Prestor Jon wrote:
You don't have to like the way it works but you don't need to lie about it either. Applicants who don't play sports aren't competing against ones that do for admissions because they are in separate admission pools.
They are though. Football Scholarships should not EXIST. Universities should stay for acadmics. Those spots in the dorms, in the classes for the FB players are spots not given t those who deserve it
Schools that are internationally known for their academics still have athletic departments. All of the Ivy League schools field numerous sports, MIT plays 33 different varsity sports on the D3 level, Stanford, Cal, Duke, Georgia Tech, and Vanderbilt all play multiple Div1 sports including football, Johns Hopkins plays multiple sports including Div1 lacrosse. None of these schools would see their reputations or their academic standing decrease if they didn't play sports but they all chose to play and pour resources into their athletic departments. If the strongest academic institutions choose to play sports then it clearly isn't inherently detrimental to academic performance.
I don't understand why you think schools need to push for more students to major in astrophysics and theoretical mathmatics since you want students to follow Tyson and Hawking. Of the tens of millions of jobs people do in the US, only a tiny fraction of them probably require intimate knowledge of astrophysics and similar fields. Besides, smart applicants that want to major in hard science fields like that aren't having any trouble getting into college.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
dogma wrote:
Anyway your attitude is the sort I fought against throughout college and grad school. I had to hide the fact that I made a habit of working out and playing sports because many people (professors included) assumed that doing either indicated a lack of intelligence or academic ability.
Ironically, I almost have to "hide" the fact that I served in the military, as a good chunk of people do the same to me (even though, as any tech related thread will indicate, I'm not a complete moron )
241
Post by: Ahtman
hotsauceman1 wrote:1: I am an undergrad. But that is my major and I hope to go into it(And Actually, In my School, Upper Division Undergrads get to participate with Proffs ad get credit in research papers)
No one said that it wasn't your major but as of this time you haven't had enough education or professional experience to throw it around like you are a professional in the field; everyone in your school is doing 'research'. Your school isn't unique in that program and others do it as well, but I don't believe you've done that yet. If you do get co-credit it would need to be in something related to this discussion to be relevant. A paper on changing traffic patterns in low income areas due to job loss wouldn't really be all that useful. I'm not saying you shouldn't want to go into the field or that you shouldn't even like it, just that presenting yourself as an expert before you actually are is not a good idea, just as presenting one's self as a doctor while still in Pre-med isn't a good idea. If you have a thought just say it, don't use yourself an appeal to authority when you aren't yet an authority.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
I never presented myself as an expert. I know very little. Cindy guessed at my major and I said Social Research
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Whew.
Glad I joined the US Army in '89
It would have been the circus but they did not have a dental plan
Just think that the present (time frame) going into the future its going to be job specific courses minus the additional outside courses one has to take.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Jihadin wrote:
Just think that the present (time frame) going into the future its going to be job specific courses minus the additional outside courses one has to take.
I know Evergreen State has gone so far as to get rid of ALL undergrad programs... you simply get "A" bachelor's degree there; Basically, you determine your curriculum, and as a graduating requirement, you have a "personal advertisement" about WHY you took what courses you did, and what your end goal is (Ie, "I want to be a history teacher, so I took 120 credits of history courses in my 4 years at Evergreen")
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
dogma wrote:Prestor Jon wrote:Even in Div3 with no scholarships the school has a certain number of admission slots set aside for players the coach wants admitted that are only open for football player applicants.
That generally varies according to the school and, more properly, the AD.
Prestor Jon wrote:For non scholarship football like Div3 it's the same. The school is fielding a football team so they need players which means they need to admit a certain number of students willing to play.
Many D3 schools develop their teams with players that aren't immediately willing to play, regardless of sport. That's what my D3 school did.
I would be very surprised if any of the coaches at your alma mater didn't speak with any HS students who came to campus to visit and spoke with the coaches of the teams they were considering playing for. Even D3 has current players host potential applicants for visits. During those visits coaches may advise the aspiring applicants to apply via early decision to increase their odds of acceptance, depending on their academic and athletic prowess. The coaches will also speak to the admissions office on behalf of players to help increase their chances of acceptance. I don't see the point in a school investing the money and resources to have facilities, trainers and coaches only to then let the coaches sit back not care who gets in and hope that enough students want to participate so they can field a team.
241
Post by: Ahtman
hotsauceman1 wrote:I never presented myself as an expert. I know very little. Cindy guessed at my major and I said Social Research
This isn't the first time you have mentioned it, and no one said you specifically used the words "I'm an expert" but what did do as pass yourself off as a professional in the field even though you are still, essentially, in training. If it isn't your intent you may want to frame your statements differently.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Ok, it is not my intent, i am in no way an expert. And how did I pass myself off as an expert
12313
Post by: Ouze
I don't think HSM presented himself as an expert at any point, actually, re-reading this last page. He was explicitly asked what his major was, and then answered, flat out, sociological research. He didn't build it into an appeal to authority, or hell into anything else, just answered a direct question and moved on.
(I can't speak to any other threads, if that is being referenced here.)
50326
Post by: curran12
Gonna have to agree with Ouze on this. While I do not frequently agree with HSM (especially on his very harsh and venomous stance here), I see nothing where he proclaims himself and expert.
241
Post by: Ahtman
I missed in the quote block where it was asked what his major was so it seemed as though he just brought it up as an appeal to authority, which is not an unusual thing for undergrads to do My apologies for the misunderstanding.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Ahtman wrote:I missed in the quote block where it was asked what his major was so it seemed as though he just brought it up as an appeal to authority, which is not an unusual thing for undergrads to do My apologies for the misunderstanding.
It's okay. There are plenty of other reasons to tell HSM that he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, or is totally off base, in this thread.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Ahtman wrote:I missed in the quote block where it was asked what his major was so it seemed as though he just brought it up as an appeal to authority, which is not an unusual thing for undergrads to do My apologies for the misunderstanding.
It's ok, I just thought it was odd. Automatically Appended Next Post: cincydooley wrote: Ahtman wrote:I missed in the quote block where it was asked what his major was so it seemed as though he just brought it up as an appeal to authority, which is not an unusual thing for undergrads to do My apologies for the misunderstanding.
It's okay. There are plenty of other reasons to tell HSM that he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, or is totally off base, in this thread.
I do have a clue. Too often do I see stories like this, where teachers or dean's or principals are forced to give grades and pass kids who do not deserve ito so they can play. I see them get away with gracious violations or even break the law and have them covered up. The way we treat people who can throw a ball is deplorable
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
hotsauceman1 wrote:
It's okay. There are plenty of other reasons to tell HSM that he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, or is totally off base, in this thread.
I do have a clue. Too often do I see stories like this, where teachers or dean's or principals are forced to give grades and pass kids who do not deserve ito so they can play. I see them get away with gracious violations or even break the law and have them covered up. The way we treat people who can throw a ball is deplorable
Actually, the times where people are actually "forced" to pass/grade favorably is pretty low, however I do agree with the sentiment that, in some schools, there have been numerous articles in the media about a hostile work environment (to put it nicely) toward anyone who isn't "with the program"
I do agree with you, that College Athletes should be treated as College Students first, and Athletes second.... There is truly no way to know whether that 18 year old Freshman is going to be the next Joe Montana, the next Ryan Leaf or the next "Guy at Kinkos" so they really NEED to be there for the schooling, not the sporting.
12313
Post by: Ouze
When I was a kid, my mom worked for a special ed program in NYC. Toward the end of the year, there was a state-driven test that all the kids had to take, and all of the special ed teachers were directed to change a percentage of the passing tests to failing; because if too many of the kids showed academic progress they would move them into regular classes and they'd lose their funding. That was when my mom decided to become a librarian instead.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
hotsauceman1 wrote:
I do have a clue. Too often do I see stories like this, where teachers or dean's or principals are forced to give grades and pass kids who do not deserve ito so they can play. I see them get away with gracious violations or even break the law and have them covered up. The way we treat people who can throw a ball is deplorable
Gracious violations!
Do explain!
Are there congenial violations, too? Perhaps courteous violations?
The irony of the pot calling the kettle black situation here would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad and painfully colored by your bizarre resentment towards athletic people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Actually, the times where people are actually "forced" to pass/grade favorably is pretty low, however I do agree with the sentiment that, in some schools, there have been numerous articles in the media about a hostile work environment (to put it nicely) toward anyone who isn't "with the program"
Which is absolutely no different than high schools all over the country where non-athletes are being passed to bolster graduation rates. That's not to say it's right; it is wholly unethical. But please, lets not pretend that it's happening for a larger population of athletes than it is for the general population of students. Hell, there are plenty of teachers that ENJOY failing athletes.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Gracious violations being "you didn't REALLY successfully add 2 and 2 to make four, but we'll look the other way, and "fix" this for you"
Or in college terms: "your paper was clearly plagiarized (it was exactly like the 5 other papers of this title that I got from 5 other football players), but we're going to let it slide, so long as you don't do it in my class again"
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Gracious violations being "you didn't REALLY successfully add 2 and 2 to make four, but we'll look the other way, and "fix" this for you"
Or in college terms: "your paper was clearly plagiarized (it was exactly like the 5 other papers of this title that I got from 5 other football players), but we're going to let it slide, so long as you don't do it in my class again"
Sorry, but no. No matter how you try and explain it away, "gracious violations" is nonsense. I'd wager he meant "grevious violations," but found himself unable to articulate a cogent argument and used the wrong word.
But that was fun.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
I agree that a violation is still a violation, regardless of whether the intent was "good" or not.
39188
Post by: Bullockist
When it comes to US college football players it is far more likely to be a co-genital violation 
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Wow Cincy, now you are just Reaching, pointing out bad spelling that happened from an overzealous Auto-correct.
And I do n hate athletic people, I never said that. I hate athletics that ruin the integrity of academic institutions.
But please, continue assuming to know what my life and mind is about
39188
Post by: Bullockist
It's a reach around that you didn't ask for..that's how you can tell cincy played football.
91
Post by: Hordini
Ensis Ferrae wrote:I agree that a violation is still a violation, regardless of whether the intent was "good" or not.
That's very gracious of you.
34390
Post by: whembly
Ouze wrote:When I was a kid, my mom worked for a special ed program in NYC. Toward the end of the year, there was a state-driven test that all the kids had to take, and all of the special ed teachers were directed to change a percentage of the passing tests to failing; because if too many of the kids showed academic progress they would move them into regular classes and they'd lose their funding. That was when my mom decided to become a librarian instead.
Wow... that's absolutely ridiculous and could've adversely affected the students.
One of the best things my mother did was insisted that I'd remain in "regular class" as it's MUCH more diverse than any special school classrooms.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 whembly wrote: Ouze wrote:When I was a kid, my mom worked for a special ed program in NYC. Toward the end of the year, there was a state-driven test that all the kids had to take, and all of the special ed teachers were directed to change a percentage of the passing tests to failing; because if too many of the kids showed academic progress they would move them into regular classes and they'd lose their funding. That was when my mom decided to become a librarian instead.
Wow... that's absolutely ridiculous and could've adversely affected the students.
One of the best things my mother did was insisted that I'd remain in "regular class" as it's MUCH more diverse than any special school classrooms.
And it's really, really common.
So is "encouraging" teachers to pass failing students in HS to ensure high graduation rates, which directly tie to funding.
I had it happen to me TWICE while I was still teaching.
In both instances the students were moved to other classes where the teachers were on board with that highly unethical practice.
Oh, and HSM, neither were athletes.
Additionally, here are a few more facts that prove you really have no idea what you're talking about, HSM:
The 2012 graduation rate for first-time, full-time undergraduate students who began their pursuit of a bachelor’s degree at a 4-year degree-granting institution in fall 2006 was 59 percent. That is, 59 percent of first-time, full-time students who began seeking a bachelor’s degree at a 4-year institution in fall 2006 completed the degree at that institution within 6 years. Graduation rates are calculated to meet requirements of the 1990 Student Right to Know Act, which required postsecondary institutions to report the percentage of students that complete their program within 150 percent of the normal time for completion, which is within 6 years for students pursuing a bachelor’s degree. Students who transfer and complete a degree at another institution are not included as completers in these rates.
Among first-time, full-time undergraduate students who began seeking a bachelor’s degree at a 4-year degree-granting institution in fall 2006, the 6-year graduation rate was 57 percent at public institutions, 66 percent at private nonprofit institutions, and 32 percent at private for-profit institutions. The 6-year graduation rate was 56 percent for males and 61 percent for females; it was higher for females than for males at both public (60 vs. 54 percent) and private nonprofit institutions (68 vs. 63 percent). However, at private for-profit institutions males had a higher graduation rate than females (35 vs. 28 percent).
Differences in 6-year graduation rates for first-time, full-time students who began seeking a bachelor’s degree in fall 2006 varied according to institutions’ level of selectivity. In particular, graduation rates were highest at postsecondary degree-granting institutions that were the most selective (i.e., had the lowest admissions acceptance rates), and graduation rates were lowest at institutions that were the least selective (i.e., had open admissions policies). For example, at 4-year institutions with open admissions policies, 33 percent of students completed a bachelor’s degree within 6 years. At 4-year institutions where the acceptance rate was less than 25 percent of applicants, the 6-year graduation rate was 86 percent.
From: http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=40
Versus
Division I student-athletes who entered college in 2006 earned their degrees at a rate of 82 percent - the highest ever.
The most recent one-year graduation figures are bolstered by football student-athletes competing in the Football Bowl Subdivision, who earned a 71 percent Graduation Success Rate, and African-American men’s basketball players, who graduated at a 68 percent rate – the highest ever for those groups. Each group gained one percentage point over the class that entered college in 2005.
From: http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/2013-10-24/division-i-student-athletes-show-progress-graduation-success-rate
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Cincey, the ONLY caution I would add to your point, and your sources, is the scope of who is included... On the one hand you are counting ALL students who meet a certain criteria, and in the other, they are only counting Athletes only.
So while nationally, you might see an 82% graduation rate among athletes, what percentage do they account for in the total population? What conferences have lower/higher graduation rates? what schools account for the best graduations rates among athletes?
As we can see in the OP, just because UNC is "graduating" a bunch of athletes (and other students), doesn't necessarily mean they have something worth the paper its printed on, if they are taking phony classes.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Ensis Ferrae wrote:Cincey, the ONLY caution I would add to your point, and your sources, is the scope of who is included... On the one hand you are counting ALL students who meet a certain criteria, and in the other, they are only counting Athletes only.
So while nationally, you might see an 82% graduation rate among athletes, what percentage do they account for in the total population? What conferences have lower/higher graduation rates? what schools account for the best graduations rates among athletes?
As we can see in the OP, just because UNC is "graduating" a bunch of athletes (and other students), doesn't necessarily mean they have something worth the paper its printed on, if they are taking phony classes.
Ohio State posted an 89% this year.
They have the largest athletic department in the country and routinely have at least three top 15 men's programs, two of which are the Big 2.
The football team, by the way, posted a 78% this year.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
As we can see in the OP, just because UNC is "graduating" a bunch of athletes (and other students), doesn't necessarily mean they have something worth the paper its printed on, if they are taking phony classes.
And I absolutely concede this. Difference is, even if you assume the UNC problem is the exact same at every major university (and it's not), that still doesn't make up the difference in graduation percentages.
86099
Post by: Prestor Jon
Ensis Ferrae wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:
It's okay. There are plenty of other reasons to tell HSM that he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, or is totally off base, in this thread.
I do have a clue. Too often do I see stories like this, where teachers or dean's or principals are forced to give grades and pass kids who do not deserve ito so they can play. I see them get away with gracious violations or even break the law and have them covered up. The way we treat people who can throw a ball is deplorable
Actually, the times where people are actually "forced" to pass/grade favorably is pretty low, however I do agree with the sentiment that, in some schools, there have been numerous articles in the media about a hostile work environment (to put it nicely) toward anyone who isn't "with the program"
I do agree with you, that College Athletes should be treated as College Students first, and Athletes second.... There is truly no way to know whether that 18 year old Freshman is going to be the next Joe Montana, the next Ryan Leaf or the next "Guy at Kinkos" so they really NEED to be there for the schooling, not the sporting.
I think it's important to remember that over 50% of the students taking the fake independent study AfAm class at UNC were not athletes. Grade inflation and academic fraud are problems that are not limited to student athletes.
Covering up crimes is also something that is not limited to student athletes. Every campus has some level of crime even if it's nothing more than petty theft but you won't see any college, even public universities, showing their crime stats to the public. No school wants prospective students or their parents to think their campus isn't safe (and for the most part they are pretty safe) so nobody makes crime stats available. The dozens of schools being investigated by the feds for violating their Title IX requirements for reporting sexual assaults isn't just an athletic problem.
5534
Post by: dogma
Prestor Jon wrote:
I would be very surprised if any of the coaches at your alma mater didn't speak with any HS students who came to campus to visit and spoke with the coaches of the teams they were considering playing for. Even D3 has current players host potential applicants for visits. During those visits coaches may advise the aspiring applicants to apply via early decision to increase their odds of acceptance, depending on their academic and athletic prowess. The coaches will also speak to the admissions office on behalf of players to help increase their chances of acceptance. I don't see the point in a school investing the money and resources to have facilities, trainers and coaches only to then let the coaches sit back not care who gets in and hope that enough students want to participate so they can field a team.
At the D3 level facilities and trainers are often used by all students. In fact, good athletic facilities and staff are often a selling point touted in admissions brochures. The only expenditure solely related to intercollegiate sports is that of maintaining a coaching staff, and even then only for certain sports.
Aside from that, what you're describing is not the same as setting aside a certain number of admissions slots for athletes in a particular sport. Sure, being an athlete may give you a better chance of being admitted (in fact it generally does even if you have not an expressed in interest in competing), but there is no form of rigid quota system at most D3 schools. Hence the need to build a team by interesting people who have already been admitted.
Prestor Jon wrote:
Covering up crimes is also something that is not limited to student athletes. Every campus has some level of crime even if it's nothing more than petty theft but you won't see any college, even public universities, showing their crime stats to the public. No school wants prospective students or their parents to think their campus isn't safe (and for the most part they are pretty safe) so nobody makes crime stats available. The dozens of schools being investigated by the feds for violating their Title IX requirements for reporting sexual assaults isn't just an athletic problem.
Adding to that, many schools maintain a campus security force as a means to not only maintain campus security, but to prevent police from being called to resolve campus disputes. This is especially prevalent at smaller private schools.
|
|
