Skip to main content

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

Replies sorted oldest to newest

since you are so much about %, what is the going % rate of graduation of all students entering college. i would be willing to bet it is not much better than the athletes you are talking about. they are adults, they make their own decisions, of sudying or not. why should an athlete, be held to higher educational standards than other students? an athletic scholarship only provides and OPPORTUNITY, not a gaurantee.
how does the college shirk a responsibilty that isn't theirs? it is the student/athletes responsibilty to get their education. the opportunity is provided. "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink"
* If they are going to throw stats around it is only fair to use all the teams that offer scholarships when posting a graduation rate, not the top 117 schools. The failure to graduate number would drop significantly if all schools were included.

* What percentage of overall non-athletic kids that enroll as a freshman graduate. I don't have the numbers, but I know a significant percentage drop out for one reason or another and do not get degrees.

* Many of those 54% would not have had the opportunity due to their families economic climate to go to school without the scholarship opportunity. Are they individually or us as a society not better off that they at least made an effort and are more gifted as a result?

* What % of those that did not get their degrees finish up later in life?

* They say 2% go on to have a pro career, I say less than 2% of all doctors are employed at John Hopkins or the Mayao Clinic.

* It sounds like USA Today wants to purify sports with only those of accepted intelligence, and eliminate the ones they don't feel qualify. Leave it to the media to jump on and off the bandwagon. Come game day they are the first in line to interveiw and praise the players they now want to exclude.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mittman:
since you are so much about %,

I only posted the article. The opinions are from USA Today.

Personally, I think their point was that more kids going pro isn't such an Earth shattering thing.

There are many "students" that don't belong in College. In Baseball, many kids only go to school because they aren't offered enough money to sign Pro contracts.

The right reasons to go to school should be for an education, uncertainty over whether you'd rather be an OF or MBA, desire to stay a kid for 3-4 more years, not ready to go to work etc.
You never see much about grad. rates for Baseball. Why do you think that is?
Advocates of the newly emerging "raid on college athletes" will slam the NCAA and colleges. They will do so with a variety of clever arguments.
They will do so because it is in their best interests to do so financially and PR wise.
They will not do so because of their "educational" concerns.

Statistics will fly - in all directions.

Watch as this monster grows over the next few years. Should be fascinating. IMO.

Last edited {1}
Simple solution to a real serious problem...

I'm sure the older websters among us remember Prop 48...Remeber how John Thompson wailed against it when he was at Georgetown?

All they had to do to clean up the act in colleges is not let the kids get into schools.

Don't admit the 85% of them that don't qualify like the normal school population does and you won't have the problem.

Half of these mopes can't spell "cat" and all they care about is hitching their wagon to a star and making millions in pro sports. They still haven't figured out how small their chances are to make the big money...and they won't...they can't count to 17.

Enough said.

---All of that and take the prime seats away from the Presidents of the universities and the alumni and spend that money on tutors!
Last edited {1}

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×