Missed this in USA Today yesterday 2/11 so I paid to copy itfrom Archives. Couldn't link it.
Very similar situation in Baseball.
Colleges, not NFL, fumble in educating athletes:
USA TODAY. McLean, Va.: Feb 11, 2004. pg. A.10
Copyright USA Today Information Network Feb 11, 2004
Today's debate: Student-athletes; Our view: Why worry about few kids who go pro when so many don't graduate?
When a federal court cleared the way last week for college freshmen, sophomores and juniors to jump straight to the National Football League, college officials bemoaned the decision's adverse impact on athletes' educations. NCAA President Myles Brand said the ruling would be a setback for student-athletes "who leave without degrees."
Yes, Ohio State sophomore running back Maurice Clarett, who challenged the NFL restriction, and a few other gifted college football players now could seize the opportunity to play in the NFL. But the amount of education being lost is debatable.
For years, big-time college sports programs have posted a losing record on the academic field by failing to stress education. Only 54% of scholarship football players who arrived as freshmen in 1996 graduated at the 117 colleges with the largest football programs -- and that's over a six-year period, according to figures released last fall.
If colleges competitive on the gridiron were honest about their real concerns, they would complain that the ruling could cost their sports programs talent and the millions in revenue generated by winning football teams -- not diplomas.
Colleges could embrace reforms to prove they are serious about raising educational standards for athletes. Yet, the majority of coaches, athletic directors and presidents who make up the NCAA have ignored, rejected or weakened many of the most promising ideas.
Among them:
* Limiting schedules. A commission set up in 1989 to reform college sports suggested that schools reduce game schedules to give athletes "a realistic opportunity to complete their degrees." Instead, colleges expanded their regular football season from 11 to 12 games for the past two years. They also have added weeknight contests to get more TV exposure, even though these schedules rob athletes of time in class.
* Upping academic standards. In 2003, the NCAA set tougher standards to ensure more athletes get a degree. Yet, it has not adopted tough penalties to make colleges fall in line. While it plans to vote in April on steps such as cutting football scholarships and banning post-season play, efforts already are underway to water down penalties.
* Freshmen ineligibility. Academic reforms in basketball, the other big-money college sport, have lagged as well. In response to abysmal graduation rates in the late 1990s, an NCAA panel revived a sensible old idea -- barring basketball recruits from play until sophomore year. But coaches and athletic directors complained that the plan would encourage high school hot shots to jump to the pros, and the panel dropped the idea. Before 1972, freshmen were barred from playing varsity football and basketball.
The NCAA says it has worked to raise athletes' academic standards, and it faults the court ruling for exacerbating the problem.
Casting blame elsewhere has been a typical response of college sports when the poor academic records of athletes are highlighted. But pointing to a federal court decision doesn't wash when fewer than 2% of college football and basketball players make the pros.
Ensuring that the rest of those athletes get a decent education is an obligation that colleges shirked long before the judge made it easier for underclassmen to play in the NFL.
Original Post