it is an excellent idea - athletics should be nothing more than club sports. i have been in favor of the same thing for decades. colleges football, basketball and baseball all serve as the minor leagues for these pro sports ... and we all know that there isn't much scholarship going on with most of these sports. graduation rates are pretty slim, and most who do graduate don't have much in the way of a degree.
25 wrote:
Not sure how having less income prevents you from studying less. Assuming merit scholarships are initially based off of high school performance, all books are provided, so there is no cost associated with learning at a public school. Please provide an example to clarify what you mean.
Because low income kids are much more likely to grow up in a household where the parents don't read to them or make sure they get their homework done.
They are more likely to go to schools where the teachers are so focused on keeping order and discipline issues that they have less time to spend on teaching content.
They are more likely to attend a high school that doesn't offer AP courses. Low income parents don't send their kids to SAT prep classes, etc.
Essentially, kids from low income households start behind other kids and fall further behind the older they get. Sure they could study harder to make up for those disadvantages, but kids follow their parent's examples and adjust to their parent's expectations.
Why not give kids from those situations a little extra help so some of them can break out of the cycle of poverty and underachievement?
I could have gotten $$ for running / academic merit at some of the schools I was accepted to, but instead to go to a school that offers no sports or merit scholarships.
I've been accepted to some scholarships/fellowships on campus-- but because there are no merit scholarships, I do not actually receive money for the honor. Only those who have the need receive money within the fellowships.
I really think all scholarships should ONLY be need based. Schools could create athletic fellowships as well as academic fellowships, but actual money should be based on need.
Off the Grid wrote:
If he wanted to wage war on injustice vis college sports, he would lobby for a semi-pro football and basketball league. Right now, its indentured servitude. Only baseball really has it right w/ minor leagues.
Bingo!
Nader's mostly right. Too bad it's Nader saying it, because people will dismiss him right away, but the NCAA is beyond ridiculous. The high-profile sports are the worst, obviously, but those kids are indentured servants to their university. Everyone makes money except for the kids actually earning it. The NCAA system allows like Gary Williams to make $1.5 million a year - as a state employee - to graduate 8% of his athletes.
I wish, back in the day, we had adopted a club system for athletics. Shame.
its about time wrote:
Great idea. Seriously. The big time sports (fball & bball) have polluted education too long. It's too bad it would also mean eliminating other sports like soccer, t&f, swimming. It also would eliminate the need to pay fball coaches millions of dollars. In most states, a college football coach is the highest paid person (by far) on the public payroll.
On the surface it sounds like a good idea, but the problem is that only so many scholarships can be given out based on need, and what happens when a more needy kid (because there are ALWAYS more needy kids) out there doesn't get a scholarship but Indiana's Mr. Basketball does? Well, the law suits begin.
I'm more for giving scholarships based on ability, either academic, musical, or athletic, or whatever it may be other than just on financial need. We should promote excellence at our colleges, not just give a line to every person with a financial need.
Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Cal-Berkeley, Northwestern, etc. all offer a wide variety of varsity sports.
Exactly how has that hurt these institutions?
You want to end the varsity sport opportunities for the men and women who attend these and all other colleges because Gary Williams makes 1.5 million dollars?
You claim that a scholarship athlete is an indentured servant and in the next breath want to take away his/her scholarship.
Exactly how will that help that athlete? He or she already has the right to give up the scholarship and apply for financial aid.
It is thinking like this that defines his 6 losing presidential campaigns
la la land wrote:
Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Cal-Berkeley, Northwestern, etc. all offer a wide variety of varsity sports.
Exactly how has that hurt these institutions?
You want to end the varsity sport opportunities for the men and women who attend these and all other colleges because Gary Williams makes 1.5 million dollars?
You claim that a scholarship athlete is an indentured servant and in the next breath want to take away his/her scholarship.
Exactly how will that help that athlete? He or she already has the right to give up the scholarship and apply for financial aid.
No need to end any opportunities at all. Just treat the athletic departments like the separate multi-billion dollar for-profit businesses they are. I am sure ESPN and the multiple entertainment networks won't care. People will still tune in after paying thier monthly cable bill!
I agree with Nader, partly, but not entirely. There should be an upper limit to the amount of an athletic scholarship at half the cost of attendance. Schools will just give academic scholarships to athletes though, so...
Why you gotta go at the Garinator like that?
You try and run a solid program in a shit hole town like CP....
Blowing.Rock Master wrote:
Off the Grid wrote:
If he wanted to wage war on injustice vis college sports, he would lobby for a semi-pro football and basketball league. Right now, its indentured servitude. Only baseball really has it right w/ minor leagues.
Bingo!
The fact that I agree with BRM strikes me that maybe we can make progress on this. There really is no rational reason to maintain the current system of non-profits running the minor leagues.
Nader appears to hint some support for this though it was not directly asked. I would be willing to bet that the moment universities gave up athletic scholarships, private leagues would start up to fill the gap without the need for lobbies.
Right now, we basically have government subsidized minor leagues that outcompete any minor leagues in these sports. Witness all the collusion that occurs between NFL/NBA about the number of years between high school and pro contracts.
Finally, even the example of baseball demonstrates how difficult it is to compete with subsidized university leagues. Many more players now go through college baseball programs than before. Further, baseball players are about as bad students, on average, as basketball and football players so it is hard to argue that they are going that route for the education.
get rid of football and the tuition costs won't be so high
high tuition = football wrote:
get rid of football and the tuition costs won't be so high
First that is an idiotic statement... but I agree with Nader, eliminate ALL athletic scholarships. Then there is no need for Title IX compliance, everything is club based. No need for easy majors or pumped up fake GPAs.
Think about it: Why should you get a scholarship to attend an institue of higher LEARNING just because you can run faster than the kid that sits next to you in class?
He's not in the main stream for a reason. He needs to stick to green party politics and leave college sports alone
Michigan's a pure sports institution?
Replacing athletic scholarships with need based financial aid sounds like a pretty good idea to me, but from the coach's standpoint it would probably not be favored, since the coach wants to be able to force the athlete to play and to play hard, or the athletic scholarship is removed. In this case, it seems that the athlete would be able to even quit the team without losing the financial aid in subsequent years. And a lot of Division I athletes do not really want to play their all consuming sport throughout college, costing them as good an education. (I'm thinking particularly of travel intensive sports like basketball).
I agree with Nader. Get rid of all athletic scholarships and folllow a modified Ivy policy. Put restrictions on coaches as far as transfers and salary are concerned. college tuition would go down by 40%. (No I don't have data to back this up!)
[quote]Off the Grid wrote:
Academic:Athletic scholarship money is something like 300:1
quote]
The stat I saw about 4-5 years ago was that the total dollars available through academic/civic scholarships vs athletic scholarships was about 16:1 nationwide. I think that was in an NCAA publication or a NY Times article. Wish I had saved it. Honestly that 16:1 seemed a little low to me when you take into account that D3 schools (the largest division) have $0 of athletic scholarships. But 300:1 seems far too high to me, if anyone has a source for that please post it.
I wonder why Nadar didn't go further and propose eliminating scholarships for all non-academic pursuits, stuff like music and drama and art. Colleges give scholarships based on the accomplishments applicants have shown in these fields as well as athletics, although I'm sure on a smaller scale. When you think about it, a kid that goes to college to study drama or painting has as much chance of "going pro" in those fields as someone who gets a basketball scholarship has of "going pro" in sports (when you consider all the jobs beyond being a professional athlete or a professional actor/painter).
Hi Ralph...good to hear from you again...the last time you opened your mouth this loud, you gave W the 2000 election...thanks!!
No, they don't deserve help. If they're born poor that's THEIR fault, they need to figure it out.
basically what letsrun is saying. Of the hundreds of thousands of athletes, i would bet that 80% of the scholarship folk desperately need the aid, and most of those folk aren't going pro in their discipline.