How Many College Athletes Can't Read Beyond A Grade School Level?

[downtown]

Well, they certainly don't belong there since they only play other similar colleges with sports programs that aren't in any way comparable to the leading schools.

Lol, no they don't. Five seconds of googling schedules for JUST men's basketball:

Harvard played Howard, Colorado, TCU and Green Bay.
Dartmouth played Illinois, Northern Illinois, Maine and Jacksonville State
Yale played Rutgers, UConn and Saint Louis.

For Hockey, Wrestling and Lacrosse (just off the top of my head), Ivy League teams compete at the highest levels of Division 1, beating Big Ten, ACC or other schools.

You certainly implied it by them supposedly not being able to attract as many "smart students". That other colleges are at a "marketing advantage" merely because they spend millions more in football and basketball.

I didn't say that either. It's true that schools with D1 sports programs will enjoy a marketing advantage. They get to air TV commercials for their school on CBS, ESPN and FOX, not to mention local TV. That coverage is difficult to replicate via other channels. Of course schools get an advantage for this, it's why they do it. Obviously schools can get around that...we do, of course, have lots of academically excellent liberal arts colleges.

 

[downtown]

downtown - I don't think non D1 schools lose out on getting the smarter applicants. While I am sure some pick schools based upon who they might want to root for, I would think just about all the top students pick their college based upon:

1. Does it offer a program/education I want;
2. Can I get in;
3. Can I afford it.

For the most part, students become fans of the school where they attend. When I went there, Binghamton was DIII. The students packed the gym for our basketball games. When students to go UCONN, for example, they go to their games, because it is their school.

Here is how it works.

I'd agree that comparatively fewer students explicitly pick their school based on who has a good athletics program, and that number is smaller the more academically prestigious a school is. Sure, a place like Hopkins might lose out on a few kids who decide to go to Duke or Stanford or whatever bc they want exposure to sports an an undergrad, but not many.

High level athletics, however, work as a general huge advertising campaign. A student who previously had not heard of, or would never think about a school, may decide to look into their programs, or seek more info, after seeing picture after picture of their campus on TV, or hearing about it all the time, even if they have no interest in sports.

This has been borne out be research. This paper from Rutgers shows that schools enjoy bumps in academic prestige among applicants when they change athletic conferences (thus getting more exposure). For some schools, it's a huge difference. When Virginia Tech moved from the Big East to the ACC, was getting 16.6-percent more applications three years later. For Boston College, the difference was 37-percent, per (http://chronicle.com/blogs/players/does-switching-athletics-conferences-lead-to-academic-gains/30227). TCU got 50% more applications, and became 14% more selective.

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebask...3340/study-hoops-success-begets-more-students

That study showed the impacts on Butler, VCU, BYU and others.

That impact is felt even at lower levels. I remember that American University, where I spent my freshman year, enjoyed about a 1 increase in their average ACT score among freshman after their basketball team made the NCAAs for the first time (exposure!). Bryant University experienced a similar bump.

This is to say nothing of the impact that athletic success has on alumni giving, which both impacts a US News Ranking, and academic programming.

That, of course, doesn't mean that the system is ideal, or that every school should jump to D1, or that some schools who have haven't botched their transition horribly, in a way that hurts students.

 

[Bulldog Bats]

I understand that increased publicity mean more applicants, ane therefore they can be more choosy in their students they select. But at what cost?
1. Morally it is wrong to the atheletes, who are in large part used and spit out.
2. Students who should be getting in are not getting in so the athletes can get in.
3. Yes, more money comes in, but lots more money gets spent, on facilities, staff, etc.

Color me naive, but I don't see the level of education going up. I would have to do some research, but out of three military academies, two have increased athletics. West Point has not. I doubt Anapolis or Air Force has a better education.

 

[Zack]

2. Students who should be getting in are not getting in so the athletes can get in.

This is a flat-out false and laughable notion. Universities accept thousands of students. Football recruiting classes don't get much bigger than 30 athletes, which is a microscopic fraction of accepted students. Other sports are even smaller (football rosters are by far the largest out of college sports).

 

[Bulldog Bats]

Tell that to the 30 students (for football) who studied in school, and instead, the school takes 30 - most or all who would not have gotten near the school based on their academics, and most of whom will not get a degree of any kind.

Wrong is wrong.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Lol, no they don't. Five seconds of googling schedules for JUST men's basketball:

Harvard played Howard, Colorado, TCU and Green Bay.
Dartmouth played Illinois, Northern Illinois, Maine and Jacksonville State
Yale played Rutgers, UConn and Saint Louis.

Your premise is that they do belong in Division 1 because numerous college teams intentionally play powderpuff opponents, just as OSU does so frequently, to help assure a higher ranking and to give their players a rest?

For Hockey, Wrestling and Lacrosse (just off the top of my head), Ivy League teams compete at the highest levels of Division 1, beating Big Ten, ACC or other schools.

So you fully agree that in sports that don't have big-time semi-pro programs that there is much less difference between the various colleges? That even the smallest colleges can compete in some sports? And you think this helps your POV instead of just the opposite?

 

[Zack]

Tell that to the 30 students (for football) who studied in school, and instead, the school takes 30 - most or all who would not have gotten near the school based on their academics, and most of whom will not get a degree of any kind.

Wrong is wrong.

Here, to show you how truly asinine your argument is, let me show you some statistics from Alabama, the premier college football team right now.

Out of the 26,409 applicants to the school, the University of Alabama accepted 14,019 of them. Alabama recruited 25 football players. 25 / 14,019 = 0.001783 = 0.178% of the accepted applicants were football players. If you think that made any difference at all in qualified students not being accepted because of 25 football recruits, you are delusional.

EDIT: To clarify, when you are accepting 14,000 students, accepting an additional 25 students is nothing.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Just think how much money and other college resources go towards these semi-pro programs that could be better spent on increasing enrollment and scholarships to underprivileged kids who actually have the academic credentials to attend.

Why do colleges need to ruthlessly exploit disadvantaged athletes for entertainment purposes?

 

[Bulldog Bats]

I still say 1 mistake is a mistake.

I'll accept your numbers. Alabama accepted 25 football players - I assume you mean on scholarship. How many of them will get legitimate 4 year degrees? How many of them have no intent on getting an education? How many of them went there solely because they thought they could make it in the pros, and how many of them will make a career of that? If you took those 25 spots and gave them to the 25 best students not selected, how many of them would have gotten a good education.

I don't know Alabama's academic reputation, but I do not believe it is a top academic institution - take Cal Berkley. Give those same 25 spots to the top 25 students who were not accepted, and what do you think they could do as opposed to the football players?

If the NFLwants a minor league, it should pay for it.

 

[Zack]

Just think how much money and other college resources go towards these semi-pro programs that could be better spent on increasing enrollment and scholarships to underprivileged kids who actually have the academic credentials to attend.

I also don't know why you're assuming the money from "these semi-pro programs" (direct profit and indirect through increased alumni donations and similar) would somehow still exist if there was no athletics department. It's not wasted money, because the money wouldn't be there without the programs in the first place.

Why do colleges need to ruthlessly exploit disadvantaged athletes for entertainment purposes?

How are they being "ruthlessly exploited"? They go to a university for free, get to play football and potentially impress NFL scouts enough to go pro and make a ton of money, or they can get a degree from the university and make a career from that. If the athlete fails to graduate or go pro, they are not being "exploited," but rather failing to capitalize on their opportunities.

And it's already been explained by me and downtown a dozen times, but college sports are NOT solely for "entertainment purposes."

I still say 1 mistake is a mistake.

I'll accept your numbers. Alabama accepted 25 football players - I assume you mean on scholarship. How many of them will get legitimate 4 year degrees? How many of them have no intent on getting an education? How many of them went there solely because they thought they could make it in the pros, and how many of them will make a career of that? If you took those 25 spots and gave them to the 25 best students not selected, how many of them would have gotten a good education.

Your last point is completely irrelevant. Those 25 recruits did not steal spots from applicants, those spots were created for those recruits. And like I said before, if the 25 best students not selected were deemed qualified for acceptance by the university, they would have been accepted. 25 out of 14,000 is NOTHING, especially considering that only about half of those accepted students actually enroll. So really you're saying that the football players "stole" the spots of 12/13 students, which simply isn't true. You're also overlooking the possibility that a nonzero number of those 25 recruits are, in fact, academically qualified for acceptance (and that's ignoring the strength of playing varsity football as an extracurricular).

I don't know Alabama's academic reputation, but I do not believe it is a top academic institution - take Cal Berkley. Give those same 25 spots to the top 25 students who were not accepted, and what do you think they could do as opposed to the football players?

Alabama is a decent school academically, especially for a public school. It's nothing to sneeze at, it's not like I'm talking about LSU or Auburn.

And to answer your silly question, destroying your football program to accept 25 more students (who would normally not be qualified enough for acceptance) would significantly hurt Cal Berkeley in more ways than one. It's absurd that you even need me to explain this to you.

If the NFLwants a minor league, it should pay for it.

The current situation is mutually beneficial for the NCAA and the NFL. I doubt either wants to completely scrap it.

 

[downtown]

Your premise is that they do belong in Division 1 because numerous college teams intentionally play powderpuff opponents, just as OSU does so frequently, to help assure a higher ranking and to give their players a rest?

So you fully agree that in sports that don't have big-time semi-pro programs that there is much less difference between the various colleges? That even the smallest colleges can compete in some sports? And you think this helps your POV instead of just the opposite?

Ok, I have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm not making a value judgement for whether the Ivy League schools belong in D1. I'm simply saying that they ARE, and that they compete with schools with different institutional profiles (i.e larger, public institutions, or less academically selective institutions). All I'm doing is correcting you here.

In some sorts, can smaller schools compete with larger ones? Yes. Heck, even in the "big money" sports, that's true...Harvard's basketball team is really good this year, and is probably in the Top 40 of the more than 300 schools in D1. I don't know what that has to do with anything though?

 

[downtown]

I understand that increased publicity mean more applicants, ane therefore they can be more choosy in their students they select. But at what cost?
1. Morally it is wrong to the atheletes, who are in large part used and spit out.
2. Students who should be getting in are not getting in so the athletes can get in.
3. Yes, more money comes in, but lots more money gets spent, on facilities, staff, etc.

Color me naive, but I don't see the level of education going up. I would have to do some research, but out of three military academies, two have increased athletics. West Point has not. I doubt Anapolis or Air Force has a better education.

I don't really know what you mean by "increased athletics". All three major military schools sponsor D1 athletics, and compete at the FBS level, including Army. I don't know how useful it would be focus on them though, since they don't really give "athletic scholarships" in the traditional way anybody else does.

I think Zack has explained the fallacy of the "lost spot" pretty well though. Nobody is losing a spot at a public school, since a kid could easily do a year at a regional campus and transfer in just like anybody else. If there are, I dunno, 30 kids taking "spots" out of 19,000 or whatever, then you're losing 30 kids at the bottom of that academic incoming class. There aren't kids with 29 ACTs or something that are missing out on meaningful academic achievement because OF THOSE DARN JOCKS.

It's also fallacious to go "look, all these athletes are meatheads and taking spots", since you don't know how many of those kids would get in as traditional applicants. If you want to give me a team and a sport, I could probably come close to looking it up for you though.

I agree, I don't think schools should let in large numbers of students who wouldn't be otherwise admitted, just because they can play sports. I do think letting in a small number can be appropriate, provided the school is willing to have strong academic support structures to make sure that person succeeds.

Many schools don't, and then you're right, I think those kids ARE being exploited.

 

[Bulldog Bats]

I believe the athelete are exploited because from a young age, they are told that the way out is through sports. The very vast minority of the students ever make money in sports. That is not a legitimate opportunity - more like the lottery. Yes, they are permitted to attend the school, but most are pushed away from taking any courses other than those which will allow them to stay academically eligible. I would hardly call D1 sports an extracurricular activity.

You are right - the system is mutually advantageous to the NCAA (what a wonderful and non-corrupt organization that is) and the NFL - both make lots of money. That does not mean better schools or a better education for the students, which I thought was the goal of the academic institution.

 

[Zack]

I believe the athelete are exploited because from a young age, they are told that the way out is through sports. The very vast minority of the students ever make money in sports. That is not a legitimate opportunity - more like the lottery. Yes, they are permitted to attend the school, but most are pushed away from taking any courses other than those which will allow them to stay academically eligible.

That's not exploitation by the school they attend. That's a problem with the environment they grow up in, not the school that gives them a full-ride scholarship to play football. If anything, it benefits both the school (obvious reasons) and the player (receives a great opportunity he would not otherwise obtain). If the societal expectations and pressures from the athlete's upbringing contribute to a failure to perform well academically, that is not the university's fault.

I would hardly call D1 sports an extracurricular activity.

I was referring to high school football, but D1 sports is certainly an extracurricular activity.

ex·tra·cur·ric·u·lar Adjective /ˌekstrəkəˈrikyələr/

1. (of an activity at a school or college) Pursued in addition to the normal course of study

You are right - the system is mutually advantageous to the NCAA (what a wonderful and non-corrupt organization that is) and the NFL - both make lots of money. That does not mean better schools or a better education for the students, which I thought was the goal of the academic institution.

Like I've said, I definitely think the universities can and should be doing a better job of helping their athletes succeed academically, but attending a university is clearly a "better education for the students" than playing in a minor league (in which the athlete presumably does not participate in any academic learning whatsoever).

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Well its rediculus hard to both be very very good at sport and as well as be very very good in school.

However its kind of strange that Univeristies have Sports team that maybe completly skips education but I guess most things are allowed

 

[Formaldehyde]

I also don't know why you're assuming the money from "these semi-pro programs" (direct profit and indirect through increased alumni donations and similar) would somehow still exist if there was no athletics department. It's not wasted money, because the money wouldn't be there without the programs in the first place.

Only 22 football programs in the FBS made money in 2009-2010, and that was 8 more than the previous year!

The average for the ones that did make money was only $7.4M, while the average loss for the rest was $11.3M.

This doesn't count all the hidden costs, such as legal fees to defend themselves from NCAA violations, the time it costs college administrators to deal with scandals, salary negotiation fees, money spent on lavish recruiting facilities, or even recruitment budgets themselves in many cases.

How are they being "ruthlessly exploited"? They go to a university for free, get to play football and potentially impress NFL scouts enough to go pro and make a ton of money, or they can get a degree from the university and make a career from that. If the athlete fails to graduate or go pro, they are not being "exploited," but rather failing to capitalize on their opportunities.

Do you have any idea how much it would cost if they were paid salaries commensurate with other professional athletes? Or what happens to them if they have an injury and can no longer play?

We are also discussing the football and basketball players who cannot get legitimate diplomas. Either they go without or they get them based on a scam. What businesses are going to want to hire them other than those that want to use them as sales props to attract business from those infatuated with the sport, and who can remember what they did in college?

Of the ones who do manage to not get seriously hurt, only a tiny fraction make it into the pros. And many of those don't last that long and have positions at minimum salary while they are there. Only an incredibly tiny fraction of football and basketball players are lucky enough to even become affluent playing sports. And even so, they were still ruthlessly exploited while in college for the entertainment of others.

And it's already been explained by me and downtown a dozen times, but college sports are NOT solely for "entertainment purposes."

Link to video.

 

[Zack]

lol, you're ridiculous. Just ignore anything anyone else says so you can continue to construct your own narrative.

 

[Zelig]

I also don't know why you're assuming the money from "these semi-pro programs" (direct profit and indirect through increased alumni donations and similar) would somehow still exist if there was no athletics department. It's not wasted money, because the money wouldn't be there without the programs in the first place.

The money all still exists, just spin off all the schools' sports program to independent entities, tax them an amount equal to whatever the schools lose, and give all the money to the schools.

 

[Formaldehyde]

lol, you're ridiculous. Just ignore anything anyone else says so you can continue to construct your own narrative.

Is that your "rebuttal" for the facts I just presented which directly refute what you just posted?

 

[RobAnybody]

Hey, hey, hey, let's stop this right now. As a UNC alum, I can assure you that we'll get better at this cheating thing. We can't become an Alabama or a Miami overnight. We're working on it. We're new to this. We're learning as we go.

Give us a few years & we'll have it worked out. In the next decade I hope to see us winning multiple vacated seasons. You people are selling us short right now. We can build on this!