next »

[chronicle_moderator]

With college coaches now identifying prospective players even before they reach high school, recruiting techniques are drawing greater scrutiny than ever. Critics say that the pressure on kids to commit to a college is too high, and that athletes are being turned into commodities. How would you change the way athletes are recruited? Should the recruiting calendar be changed? Should faculty members be more involved? Should fans be given less information about prospects? Or is it dangerous to impose too many rules on the process?
Read more...

[alqahiri]

I would take $$$ out of the picture and completely change college athletics.

I would cancel athletic departments, and instead put much more emphasis on intramural sports, and for competitions between schools, I would hold try outs open to students with a 3.0 GPA or higher. These students would then represent the university teams.

[zharkov]

I would take $$$ out of the picture and completely change college athletics.
....

Excellent point....

I think step one is to eliminate athletic scholarships.  If ivy league schools can field teams without giving students athletic scholarships, why shouldn't every college?

I also think we need to consider the welfare of college athletes in the years before they get to college.  It is not unusual for parents to push their kids into sports, have 10 year olds pay hockey at 6 am or wake 12 year olds at 5 am and drive two hours to play football.  IMHO, that borders on child abuse.  And much of it is motivated by the parents' hope that their kid will get a college scholarship.

[dark_globe]

I would take $$$ out of the picture and completely change college athletics.

I would cancel athletic departments, and instead put much more emphasis on intramural sports, and for competitions between schools, I would hold try outs open to students with a 3.0 GPA or higher. These students would then represent the university teams.

You took the words right out of my mouth. College sports in their current state are an abomination and a disgrace to the entire academic tradition.

[spork]

But who will then look after the drunken, illiterate 18 year olds who would otherwise be in college?

[jonesey]

I'd love to get a response from someone on this forum who actually took part in college athletics, but there don't seem to be any; just a group of people who seem to have spent their formative years hiding from the jocks on campus...

In other words, we should be able to have a debate about athletics on campus without attacking the athletes.  Many college athletes have 3.0 GPAs; the stereotype of the "dumb jock" is both inaccurate and disturbing, especially coming from people who either teach at college, or aspire to. 

Something that many of you are aware of is that athletics is often the largest "cash cow" for a university.  Some of you wouldn't have the tools to do your scientific research without those "drunken, illiterate" students you deride.  And, I don't know about you, but I have many, many more low performing students who aren't athletes than who are; at least the athletes have to maintain a minimum GPA.  That can't be said for most college students, can it?

[zharkov]

Something that many of you are aware of is that athletics is often the largest "cash cow" for a university. 

I'm skeptical of such claims.....

My understanding is that athletics seems to, on average, bet a net plus for a university.  However, if one subtracts the amount donors earmark for athletics itself, then the net benefit dissappears.

Even if athletics is shown to be a cash cow for a university, does that mean that it is a business that the university should be operating?  Why not nightclubs or warehouse stores or ski areas or casinos?  They could all be places where students could work and acquire experience, while delivering profits to the U.
   

[dark_globe]

I'd love to get a response from someone on this forum who actually took part in college athletics, but there don't seem to be any; just a group of people who seem to have spent their formative years hiding from the jocks on campus...

I was a basketball guard and defensive tackle in high school. But then high school is for children. College is for adults.

The rest of your post is so ridiculous it doesn't warrant a response. As are all of your posts.

[dark_globe]

Something that many of you are aware of is that athletics is often the largest "cash cow" for a university. 

I'm skeptical of such claims.....

My understanding is that athletics seems to, on average, bet a net plus for a university.  However, if one subtracts the amount donors earmark for athletics itself, then the net benefit dissappears.

Even if athletics is shown to be a cash cow for a university, does that mean that it is a business that the university should be operating?  Why not nightclubs or warehouse stores or ski areas or casinos?  They could all be places where students could work and acquire experience, while delivering profits to the U.
   

And, of course, Harvard, Yale and Columbia do just fine without champion football teams. All the SLACs do well and their athletic programs certainly don't generate money. The notion that USC would have financial difficulty without its football team is simply nonsense.

[case_insensitive]

I'd love to get a response from someone on this forum who actually took part in college athletics, but there don't seem to be any; just a group of people who seem to have spent their formative years hiding from the jocks on campus...

In other words, we should be able to have a debate about athletics on campus without attacking the athletes.  Many college athletes have 3.0 GPAs; the stereotype of the "dumb jock" is both inaccurate and disturbing, especially coming from people who either teach at college, or aspire to. 

So you don't want any of the posters to attack the athletes, yet you attack the posters here.

Personally, I could have had an athletic scholarship, but I chose. instead, an academic scholarship.  To any student who has that choice, I always suggest the academic scholarship.

Having taught at several NCAA division one schools, including two "football powerhouses" I can truthfully say that the athletes I have encountered are just as diverse, academically, as the non-athletes.  However, I have noticed, now that I'm not at a football-centric university, that the athletes here are much better students on average than the ones at the big football program schools where I have taught. 

Last semester, I had students from four different sports. Three of those sports were well represented by hard-working studious athletes.  The fourth sport's athletes were just fair to middlin' scholars.  I won't name the sports as it would make my place of employment too obvious.

[dark_globe]

I'd love to get a response from someone on this forum who actually took part in college athletics, but there don't seem to be any; just a group of people who seem to have spent their formative years hiding from the jocks on campus...

In other words, we should be able to have a debate about athletics on campus without attacking the athletes.  Many college athletes have 3.0 GPAs; the stereotype of the "dumb jock" is both inaccurate and disturbing, especially coming from people who either teach at college, or aspire to. 

So you don't want any of the posters to attack the athletes, yet you attack the posters here.

Personally, I could have had an athletic scholarship, but I chose. instead, an academic scholarship.  To any student who has that choice, I always suggest the academic scholarship.

Having taught at several NCAA division one schools, including two "football powerhouses" I can truthfully say that the athletes I have encountered are just as diverse, academically, as the non-athletes.  However, I have noticed, now that I'm not at a football-centric university, that the athletes here are much better students on average than the ones at the big football program schools where I have taught. 

Yes, one of my best students this year is an athlete, and I regularly have outstanding students who are also athletes. My school spends no money on recruitment of athletes, however.

[alqahiri]

To be fair, I have had athletes who did well in my classes, but these were international students who were recruited for sports.

But last semester I had 9 athletes in one class, all failed because they were illiterate, and they were juniors and seniors. Of course the athletic department complained. Here, the athletic department carries a lot of weight and while they should have been put on the bench. None of them were.

Athletic scholarships could be used to help qualified poor students attend the university. There is no reason anyone should be there simply because of sports. The concept beats the purpose of it being an institute of higher learning.

Sports, a healthy lifestyle, should be promoted, but sports the way they are in colleges today is unacceptable. Especially since athletes are above the rules as far as the administration is concerned.

[case_insensitive]

<oh nevermind>

[jonesey]

dark_globe said:

The rest of your post is so ridiculous it doesn't warrant a response. As are all of your posts.

Wow.  Okay, evidently I've done something to make you mad (which is interesting, since we've never even "spoken" before). 

All of my posts?  Really?  Well, I'm glad you took the time to read them.

case_insensitive:

I'm not attacking the posters, it's just interesting to me that so many professors have something against athletes and college athletics, that's all.  Of course you (and everyone else) can say what you want, but it seems to me that if you teach at, say, The University of Florida, you've got to expect a lot of hype about its athletic teams.

Does that mean there aren't any problems within athletic departments?  Of course not.  But to have people lump athletes into the "dumb jock" category right off the bad, again, surprising to me.  That's all.  I certainly didn't have any intention of making anyone upset. 

[case_insensitive]

case_insensitive:

I'm not attacking the posters,

When you said "... just a group of people who seem to have spent their formative years hiding from the jocks on campus..." that was a personal attack. No bones about it.  You are doing to academics what you say you don't want them doing to athletes.  Talk about overgeneralization...

it's just interesting to me that so many professors have something against athletes and college athletics, that's all.  Of course you (and everyone else) can say what you want, but it seems to me that if you teach at, say, The University of Florida, you've got to expect a lot of hype about its athletic teams.

By definition, the hype probably makes the academicians less likely to appreciate the sports programs.

Does that mean there aren't any problems within athletic departments?  Of course not.  But to have people lump athletes into the "dumb jock" category right off the bad, again, surprising to me.

You didn't see me doing that, did you?  Even though at some schools where I've taught, that wouldn't be a gross generalization.

In fact, at my current school, I have actually gone to some of the various sports events to see how my students do in that part of their collegiate experience. Since I'm at a relatively small school, they notice and they appreciate that.