Death threats and denial for woman who showed college athletes struggle to read

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**d-usa**

LordofHats wrote:
Not that I'm aware of, but sports are also worth a lot more money in the US than elsewhere.

Interesting stat I found while trying to find soccer salaries for the Bundesliga:

Highest Average Salary of Professional Sports Teams:

#1: Barcelona (soccer) = $$8,680,569

The top 4 are soccer teams (La Liga and EPL)
#5 is an NBA team (Lakers, $6,278,088)
#6 Is MLB (Yankees, $6,186,322)

Then you get a mix of soccer, NBA, MLB, cricket, and you don't even get to the NFL average salaries until you hit #75 (Steelers, $2,937,255)

Now the Steelers move up to #10 in rank if you look at the salary for the total roster, but the roster in the NFL is pretty big compared to other sports).

I honestly didn't expect that...

We used to do it the same way, but I don't know the history of how we went from A to B on that one. The minor leagues disappeared starting in the late 50's, probably because the major leagues just started recruiting people from highschool and college anyway if I had to hazard a guess and stopped seeing the point in paying for the lower leagues.

I don't even remember having a team for any of my schools though, so from my youngest age sports was always completely separate from education.

**LordofHats**

Bundesliga, Serie A TIM

I'll just concede that one cause I have no idea what these even are XD

I don't even remember having a team for any of my schools though, so from my youngest age sports was always completely separate from education.

Neither did mine, but my highschool was a magnate school in a district of about 30 facilities. I think only half ofthem had teams for anything but that's also North Carolina. #48 in the country for public education.

**d-usa**

Steve steveson wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Not that I'm aware of, but sports are also worth a lot more money in the US than elsewhere.

Um, the Premier League, Bundesliga, Serie A TIM and FIA formula 1 might disagree with that.

Sponsorship and income is where the US seems to have an edge.

The NFL has a revenue of $9 Billion where the Bundesliga has a revenue of $3.

**Steve steveson**

LordofHats wrote:
Bundesliga, Serie A TIM

I'll just concede that one cause I have no idea what these even are XD

Football (The real version,n ot your version of Rugby with more padding

) Germany and Italy respectively.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
Steve steveson wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Not that I'm aware of, but sports are also worth a lot more money in the US than elsewhere.

Um, the Premier League, Bundesliga, Serie A TIM and FIA formula 1 might disagree with that.

Sponsorship and income is where the US seems to have an edge.

The NFL has a revenue of $9 Billion where the Bundesliga has a revenue of $3.

NFL also has twice the number of teams and 8 times the population to draw from as "local talent" if European football drafted new players the same way as the NFL, so I think the numbers are comparable enough to show cash is not the reason why college football has so much money in it.

**LordofHats**

Steve steveson wrote:

Football (The real version,n ot your version of Rugby with more padding ) Germany and Italy respectively.

We prefer to call it Battle Readuy Armor.

**kronk**

That spells BRA, bro!

**LordofHats**

Kids Next Door assemble!

**Fafnir**

I don't know much about college/university level, but I know that my jr. high and highschool had hockey programs meant for providing special treatment to kids who were gifted at the sport. Of course, you could tell whoever was in the program at first glance, since they were the ones breathing deeply with their heads so far up their own asses that time and space started to bend.

Some were brighter than others.

**LordofHats**

At my college the football team was pretty down the earth (never knew anyone on the BBall team). The soccer team though? Egos the size of Russia and I know that program wasn't making money (all of ten people went to their games). EDIT: They couldn't even beat the theatre troupe to the front page of the school paper on a slow news day.

**Fafnir**

LordofHats wrote:
At my college the football team was pretty down the earth (never knew anyone on the BBall team). The soccer team though? Egos the size of Russia and I know that program wasn't making money (all of ten people went to their games). EDIT: They couldn't even beat the theatre troupe to the front page of the school paper on a slow news day.

For what it's worth, my university's theatre group didn't have much trouble reaching the front page. But then again, some of their plays had dicks.

**Ensis Ferrae**

LordofHats wrote:
Not that I'm aware of, but sports are also worth a lot more money in the US than elsewhere. We used to do it the same way, but I don't know the history of how we went from A to B on that one. The minor leagues disappeared starting in the late 50's, probably because the major leagues just started recruiting people from highschool and college anyway if I had to hazard a guess and stopped seeing the point in paying for the lower leagues.

I honestly don't think we really had a minor league for any sport other than Baseball. Minor League hockey, AFAIK, until recently was just a place guys went when they were either not good enough (yet) to play in the NHL, or they were too broken down from NHL play, but felt they still had "a couple more years". Now, Minor league hockey operates fairly close to how baseball's farm system works.

But then, with a sport like football, I don't see how you're going to have the ability to implement a "farm" league. NFL-E was never very successful, and other offshoot leagues just don't survive long enough to gather steam to operate alongside the NFL (USFL was just about the only one that was close, and honestly I think Trump had a brilliant idea by wanting to move USFL games to the spring, so as to not interfere with NFL games, and gain its own popularity, and not compete for air time, at the same time as the NFL)

**hotsauceman1**

Here is something else, With a football, an NFL career tends to get you 3 years.
In all honesty, We need to be helping these kids realize they do not have a career in football and make them go for something else

**Dreadclaw69**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Here is something else, With a football, an NFL career tends to get you 3 years.
In all honesty, We need to be helping these kids realize they do not have a career in football and make them go for something else

Isn't that meant to be the purpose of college football programs? That once the professional football career is over the individuals should have an education that can then be used to support them.

**hotsauceman1**

Not if they are in Leisure studys or taking classes that dont exist

**Dreadclaw69**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Not if they are in Leisure studys or taking classes that dont exist

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, and assume that you just missed what I was trying to say - obviously if someone is not actually in class, or taking a course with limited employment/earning potential that is likely not an education that can support them.

**LordofHats**

Someone who actually had a professional football career will never need their degree. They're set for life. But as I pointed out before, there are thousands of college football players and less than 200 will be drafter every year. Thrown together numbers 1000 schools * 50 players on a team = 50,000, 200/50,000 = .004%. I had an error with an extra 0 previously and just threw in basketball players as well cause there arn't anywhere near as many BBall players in college as football. There's conservatively maybe 10,000 college basketball players and the NBA recruits less than 100, so .01%. The number of professional athletes in the us number what? A few thousand out of a population of 360 million+?

No one in their right mind should be banking on those odds and schools shouldn't let them delude themselves.

**hotsauceman1**

Yeah, but schools and coaches and parents delude their kids into thinking they are going Pro. The more and more I think about it, the more I think Football at the school level is a scam to get genuinly talented kids to give up their lives and educations so the schools and profit

**LordofHats**

And as I've attempted to point out many times, there isn't that much profit involved. Not every college is Duke or University of Texas.

And using the Longhorns as an example, since they're they msot valued sports program in the entire country. The Football team alone is worth $140 million. The sports program made $163 million in 2011. They spent $138 million on expenses in the same year ($51 million of that was travel expenses), and the football and basket ball teams only used about $20,000,000 of that sum, the rest supports the other sports programs. The department only made $25 million in profit in that year and being a public university, most of that money ended up in other departments, namely a $130 million construction project for new campus facilities. And this is the most profitable program in the entire country (and a major part of it is how cheap a tution to the school is at $9000). Most schools can only dream of that.

**Ensis Ferrae**

LordofHats wrote:
And as I've attempted to point out many times, there isn't that much profit involved. Not every college is Duke or University of Texas.

And using the Longhorns as an example, since they're they msot valued sports program in the entire country. The Football team alone is worth $140 million. The sports program made $163 million in 2011. They spent $138 million on expenses in the same year ($51 million of that was travel expenses), and the football and basket ball teams only used about $20,000,000 of that sum, the rest supports the other sports programs. The department only made $25 million in profit in that year and being a public university, most of that money ended up in other departments, namely a $130 million construction project for new campus facilities. And this is the most profitable program in the entire country (and a major part of it is how cheap a tution to the school is at $9000). Most schools can only dream of that.

What they also don't tell people is that, in cases like the University of Oregon, that super nice practice facility? high-tech locker room? All of it was DONATED to the school (for, presumably, a big tax write off) so very little is actually spent on things like upkeep of facilities.

Also, there are a higher number of "professional football players" out there, that aren't drafted. Most NFL organizations have basically an entire "2nd team" (basically another full roster) of non-drafted people that make up the practice squads. They obviously don't make as much as the guys actually playing on Sunday.

Also, there was one of those ESPN 30 for 30 videos, about how many-most professional athletes are BROKE.... This is of course, due to a lack of knowledge of financials that can happen to anyone, but seems to be much worse in someone who just left a college environment where just about anything could be an infraction of some obscure rule. This is completely different from the 50s-70s where, unless you were one of the biggest names in the sport, you HAD to get a job during the off season just to make ends meet.

**Dreadclaw69**

LordofHats wrote:
Someone who actually had a professional football career will never need their degree. They're set for life. But as I pointed out before, there are thousands of college football players and less than 200 will be drafter every year. Thrown together numbers 1000 schools * 50 players on a team = 50,000, 200/50,000 = .004%. I had an error with an extra 0 previously and just threw in basketball players as well cause there arn't anywhere near as many BBall players in college as football. There's conservatively maybe 10,000 college basketball players and the NBA recruits less than 100, so .01%. The number of professional athletes in the us number what? A few thousand out of a population of 360 million+?

No one in their right mind should be banking on those odds and schools shouldn't let them delude themselves.

And how many of those who make it into the pros are sensible with their money, and don't just waste it? Some people will be wise, but a lot do not.

**dogma**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

And how many of those who make it into the pros are sensible with their money, and don't just waste it? Some people will be wise, but a lot do not.

Which is further evidence that schools have a responsibility to educate student athletes, and that those schools which fail to do so are bad.

**Peregrine**

LordofHats wrote:
Some college athletes have a wildly disproportionate idea of what they're actually worth when the real truth is that they aren't worth that much (and a lot of what they're worth gets spent on them by the school).

So why not let them negotiate for better pay? I think we all know the answer to that question: the schools are afraid that the fair market value of their athletes is considerably more than what they're paying in scholarships right now, and they don't want to risk losing that money.

The Southwestern (it might be the southeastern) conference actually does advocate paying players; $300 a game. Pretty good deal actually for a student in one of the more profitable conferences only the students refuse to take it because they think they're worth Patton Manning money so the schools can't even get them behind the push to the NCAA (which would enver go for the deal because once one school starts paying, they'll all eventually have to pay and the NCAA collapses).

No, the players refuse to take the deal because if they accept a $300 check for playing a game it's an instant end to their NCAA eligibility and their college sports career. You can't talk about hypothetical deals in an environment where even selling your own autograph is considered an offense worthy of a permanent ban from the sport. Nor can you really make a compelling argument that $5000/year in cash is a very significant salary, especially if schools aren't obligated to continue providing it (or the free tuition) if the athlete suffers a major injury.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
Which is further evidence that schools have a responsibility to educate student athletes, and that those schools which fail to do so are bad.

Or to treat them as paid employees in a for-profit business. We don't expect schools to give a full education to every random janitor/bus driver/etc, but we do expect them to follow minimum wage laws.

**LordofHats**

So why not let them negotiate for better pay?

Because it'll turn college into a bidding war instead of an education. I.E. "You say you'll pay me $300 but Southern Tech will pay me $350 and give me an apartment."

No, the players refuse to take the deal because if they accept a $300 check for playing a game it's an instant end to their NCAA eligibility and their college sports career.

"So Bobby, we heard you think you should get some money for playing and well, were amicable but the NCAA won't just let us do that. We have a proposal we want to put forth where by a player can be paid $300 but it'll be hard to get the NCAA to allow us to do this and it would help if the players were behind us."

"$300? Screw you put three more zeroes behind that!" (this isn't even an exaggeration players who were approached about backing this proposal literally said they wanted to be paid six figures)

They aren't literally offering them the money

**Peregrine**

LordofHats wrote:
Because it'll turn college into a bidding war instead of an education.

So what? There's no education anyway. A football player taking two years of "leisure studies" classes (which may or may not actually exist at all) before the professional draft is not getting any meaningful education, they're just jumping through the NCAA's hoops and letting everyone pretend that they aren't an employee on a for-profit minor league football team. And the players who are legitimate student-athletes and graduating with real degrees while playing a sport on the side aren't going to produce the same kind of bidding war because they aren't as valuable.

Also, if there's any real potential for a bidding war then I'd say that's a pretty clear sign that the players are justified in their demands. The only way you can have a bidding war is if the current payment (in the form of free tuition) is significantly below the fair market value of their labor. If the players are already getting paid fairly then there's no room for a bidding war, and the schools will just decline to pay any more than they already are.

They aren't literally offering them the money

Ok, I misunderstood what you meant. I've seen proposals (I don't know how serious) for the SEC to just voluntarily leave the NCAA and start running its own league with paid players, or to just start paying them openly and dare the NCAA to do anything about it.

And the players do have a point there. Offering ~$5000 for a season is kind of insulting when coaches are getting millions of dollars and don't face the same injury risks. If the players feel that the fair market value of their labor is worth more than $300 a game then they're entirely justified in demanding more.

**LordofHats**

Offering ~$5000 for a season is kind of insulting when coaches are getting millions of dollars and don't face the same injury risks

I've already likened the problem with coaches in college sports to the problem with rapidly inflating CEO pay, so I do think its a problem. Charles Strong (name?) gets paid $5 million dollars for coaching the Longhorns and that's all he does, and its more than excessive. EDIT: Actually the whole thing with coach pay started with a bidding war for the best coaches and this is where it got us.

But here's the problem with paying players; Most sports programs will fold. Schools that aren't in the top two NCAA divisions aren't making any profit. They could simply do away with scholarships and pay students instead, but that falls through when the more funded programs offer both and then the bidding war begins.

This is why students aren't allowed to take any money. Any money entering that system turns college sports into a career instead of a four stint that gets you a free ride. Players will keep getting more and more as schools compete to get valuable talented players who will focus completely on the sport and not on their education to their own detriment. Eventually most schools would stop offering college sports. The idea that they'll pay whatever students demand when most make no money from their program is stupid.

You'll end up with college sports becoming the realm of an elite class of player who is focused completely on playing a game for four years and then finding themselves undrafted and uneducated and perpetually screwed. The NCAA spends huge sums of money ensuring many floundering programs stay standing, and this would basically end that too. So students lose a source of college money so a minority of players can get paid when they should be getting educated because most of them will never get paid past their fourth year.

It would work just find for the 200 lucky guys who get drafted into the NFL but the system already works just fine for them. The 48000 other guys will shrink out, many probably never getting into college since sports in the only way they got in at all (it's highly unlikely the high school sports environment can support athletes who can compete academically with nonathletic students). College sports are not solely the recruiting ground of pro sports. Treating them like they are and telling those other 48000 guys "tough gak" is like walking up to the poor and demanding they pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, can't? Too bad.

Paying students is a black hole into the abyss for college sports. Small sums can probably be managed but take it too far the whole thing goes to hell.

**dogma**

Peregrine wrote:

Or to treat them as paid employees in a for-profit business. We don't expect schools to give a full education to every random janitor/bus driver/etc, but we do expect them to follow minimum wage laws.

I expect schools to fully educate their students. Student athletes necessarily remain students even if they are also employees, whereas faculty and staff do not.

**Hordini**

There are a lot of student athletes (the majority, really, at least where I went to school) who are playing sports just as much for the education, if not more so. At the university I went to, we had a few athletes go pro, and many, many more who knew full well they weren't going pro but still wanted to play sports and appreciated their athletic scholarships.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Hordini wrote:
There are a lot of student athletes (the majority, really, at least where I went to school) who are playing sports just as much for the education, if not more so. At the university I went to, we had a few athletes go pro, and many, many more who knew full well they weren't going pro but still wanted to play sports and appreciated their athletic scholarships.

I think this depends on the school, and if not the school, to some extent, the sport.... If we look at, say, Oregon or Texas, or USC, CAL, or Notre Dame; players who are playing football, or basketball are probably more likely to be playing as a "tryout" for the big leagues. But as you get away from the big sports and into track and field, or water polo, rugby, golf, etc. you get a group of generally more intelligent people who while they love their sport and would LOVE to go pro in it, realize that probability of that happening is fairly low, and will apply themselves better to their studies. I am guessing that you went to a school that isn't really well known for it's athletics, and as such the "quality" of player they get in their athletics is going to be different than one of the big sports schools.

**Dreadclaw69**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I think this depends on the school, and if not the school, to some extent, the sport.... If we look at, say, Oregon or Texas, or USC, CAL, or Notre Dame; players who are playing football, or basketball are probably more likely to be playing as a "tryout" for the big leagues. But as you get away from the big sports and into track and field, or water polo, rugby, golf, etc. you get a group of generally more intelligent people who while they love their sport and would LOVE to go pro in it, realize that probability of that happening is fairly low, and will apply themselves better to their studies. I am guessing that you went to a school that isn't really well known for it's athletics, and as such the "quality" of player they get in their athletics is going to be different than one of the big sports schools.

At Notre Dame there is a definite expectation that student athletes are there to study, and to graduate. Starting players have been benched for skipping classes, and a QB was expelled for academic infractions last year.

http://www.und.com/genrel/102413aaa.html

For the eighth time in nine years, the University of Notre Dame ranks number one on a percentage basis in terms of number of Graduation Success Rate (GSR) 100 scores, among all NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision schools.

Twenty of 22 athletics programs at Notre Dame compiled graduation rates of 100 percent, and none were below 94 percent, according to the ninth year of GSR measurements developed by the NCAA and released today. It's the first time Notre Dame's programs have combined for 20 perfect scores-after four previous years with 19.

None of the Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly NCAA Division I-A) programs in the country had a higher percentage of 100 GSR scores than did Notre Dame with its .909 number (20 of 22).

In addition, Notre Dame ranked second among all FBS institutions with nine perfect scores among 22 sports (.409) in the federal graduation rate analysis.

Here are the top institutions in the GSR category (these are the only FBS institutions with 50 or more percent of their sports registering 100 marks):

http://www.und.com/genrel/102413aak.html

Twenty-one of the University of Notre Dame's men's and women's athletic programs posted Graduation Success Rate numbers that ranked them best in the nation within their sports (including 20 perfect 100 scores)--and 10 produced federal graduation rates that led all NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly Division I-A) institutions (including nine perfect 100 scores), according to Notre Dame's institutional research based on 2013 graduation-rate figures released last week by the NCAA.

All statistics are based on the combined entering classes from 2003 through 2006.

GSR statistics for Irish women's sports featured all 11 perfect 100 scores--in basketball, cross country/track, crew/rowing, fencing, golf, lacrosse, soccer, softball, swimming, tennis and volleyball.

GSR statistics for Irish men's sports featured nine perfect 100 scores--in baseball, basketball, cross country/track, fencing, golf, hockey, soccer, swimming and tennis--plus 96 in lacrosse that ranked number one and 94 in football that ranked number three. All 11 Irish women's programs had GSR rates ranking them first within their sports among the NCAA FBS subset of schools. Ten Irish men's programs had GSR rates ranking them first within their sports:

-- Women's basketball at 100 tied for first with 33 other schools.
-- Women's cross country/track and field at 100 tied for first with 11 other schools.
-- Women's crew/rowing at 100 tied for first with 10 other schools.
-- Women's fencing at 100 tied for first with Duke, North Carolina, Northwestern, Ohio State and Stanford.
-- Women's golf at 100 tied for first with 51 other schools.
-- Women's lacrosse at 100 tied for first with 11 other schools.
-- Women's soccer at 100 tied for first with 23 other schools.
-- Women's softball at 100 tied for first with 24 other schools.
-- Women's swimming at 100 tied for first with 18 other schools.
-- Women's tennis at 100 finished tied for first with 68 other schools.
-- Women's volleyball at 100 ranked tied for first with 43 other schools.
-- Baseball at 100 tied for first with Duke, Memphis, Miami (Fla.) and Stanford.
-- Men's basketball at 100 tied for first with 10 other schools.
-- Men's cross country/track and field at 100 tied for first - with Duke, Memphis, Michigan, New Mexico State, Stanford, Tulane, Vanderbilt and Wake Forest.
-- Men's fencing at 100 tied for first with Boston College, Duke, North Carolina, Ohio State and Stanford.
-- Men's golf at 100 tied for first with 32 other schools.
-- Men's hockey at 100 ranked first (tied with Bowling Green, Michigan, U.S. Air Force Academy).
-- Men's soccer at 100 tied for first with Duke and Northwestern.
-- Men's swimming at 100 tied for first with eight other schools.
-- Men's tennis at 100 tied for first with 31 other schools.
-- Men's lacrosse at 96 finished first (tied with the U.S. Naval Academy).
-- Football at 94 finished third (behind Northwestern at 97 and Rice at 96).

Five Irish women's programs had perfect 100 federal rates ranking them first within their sports among the NCAA FBS subset, while one program finished tied for second. Five Irish men's programs had federal rates ranking them first within their sports (four with perfect 100 scores) among the NCAA FBS subset, while one program finished second, one in third and one finished in fourth place.

The federal figures showed that--among Notre Dame's women's sports-- crew/rowing, golf, lacrosse, tennis and volleyball achieved 100 percent scores. Women's cross country/track and women's soccer scored 94 and women's swimming 93 among other Irish raw federal scores. Among Notre Dame's men's sports--fencing, golf, hockey and tennis achieved 100 percent federal scores. Swimming scored 95, cross country/track 94 and lacrosse 93 (ranking first) among other Irish men's raw federal scores:

-- Women's crew/rowing at 100 finished first (tied with Syracuse).
-- Women's golf at 100 tied for first with 16 other schools.
-- Women's lacrosse at 100 tied for first with Penn State and Stanford.
-- Women's tennis at 100 tied for first with 22 other schools.
-- Women's volleyball at 100 tied for first with six other schools.
-- Men's fencing at 100 tied for first with Stanford.
-- Men's golf at 100 ranked tied for first with 11 other schools.
-- Men's hockey at 100 ranked first--followed by Miami (Ohio) at 74.
-- Men's lacrosse finished first at 93- followed by Duke (91) and Ohio State (88).
-- Men's tennis at 100 tied for first with 12 other schools.
-- Men's basketball at 83 ranked second behind Ohio University (86).
-- Women's cross country/track and field at 94 ranked tied for second (with Ohio State) behind Northwestern (100).
-- Men's soccer at 88 ranked third, behind Duke (100) and Northwestern (89).
-- Men's swimming at 95 stood tied for fourth (with Purdue) behind Miami (Fla.), UNLV and Stanford at 100.
-- Women's soccer at 94 ranked tied for sixth (with Stanford), behind Boston College, Connecticut and Rice (all at 100), Michigan State and Wake Forest (both at 95).
-- Men's cross country/track and field at 94 ranked tied for sixth--with Michigan and Wake Forest--behind Duke, New Mexico State, Stanford, Tulane (all at 100) and Ohio State (95).
-- Football at 75 ranked ninth, behind Northwestern (92), Stanford and Rice (89), Boston College (86), Duke (81), TCU (80), Wake Forest (77) and Fresno State (76).
-- Women's swimming at 93 tied for ninth (with Michigan State and Virginia Tech) behind Buffalo, Fresno State, Michigan, Missouri and Stanford (at 100), North Carolina (96) and Rice and Georgia Tech (both at 95).

The federal graduation rate methodology used by the Department of Education counts all student-athletes who transfer from or leave an institution for any reason as non-graduates from their initial school, even if they leave in good academic standing.

A lot of it will come down to the culture of the institution

**Hordini**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Hordini wrote:
There are a lot of student athletes (the majority, really, at least where I went to school) who are playing sports just as much for the education, if not more so. At the university I went to, we had a few athletes go pro, and many, many more who knew full well they weren't going pro but still wanted to play sports and appreciated their athletic scholarships.

I think this depends on the school, and if not the school, to some extent, the sport.... If we look at, say, Oregon or Texas, or USC, CAL, or Notre Dame; players who are playing football, or basketball are probably more likely to be playing as a "tryout" for the big leagues. But as you get away from the big sports and into track and field, or water polo, rugby, golf, etc. you get a group of generally more intelligent people who while they love their sport and would LOVE to go pro in it, realize that probability of that happening is fairly low, and will apply themselves better to their studies. I am guessing that you went to a school that isn't really well known for it's athletics, and as such the "quality" of player they get in their athletics is going to be different than one of the big sports schools.

The majority of schools aren't big sports schools though, which I think is important to note. My school I would describe not as a big sports school, but maybe a medium one. There are currently about 20 players in the NFL from my school, so while we don't send a ton, players from our school do go pro sometimes. But you're right, it's nothing like Oregon or Texas or OSU or places like that.