Ralph Nader: Eliminate College Athletic Scholarships

the reason wrote:

100% of b12, b10, sec, csu's, suny's, nj sts, beast, mwc, etc. are pure sports institutions. the non-CA pac-12 as well.

Yeah, Northwestern is known as a sports institution. Genius.

This is not that unusual, outside of the U.S. and the U.K. countries, sports are not part of Universities.

I found it amusing when the interviewed the NCAA rep Bob Williams. "They are students, just like any other student on campus who receives a merit-based scholarship." Yeah I am sure all the guys in the NCAA tourney have really showed up to any of their classes in the past month.

Could some explain how what Ralph is proposing is different than what D3 already does? Would all the divisions essentially be operating like a D3 school?

They really don't need to go as far as eliminating college scholarships, as they just need need to revise the conditions for getting one in the first place for high profile sports like Football, basketball, baseball, etc.

First off, I would say that any Freshman or first-year student should NOT be receiving of an athletic scholarship in any sport. I think that "Freshman scholarship" gets many of these student-athletes in the door who don't reserve it based on their grades, high school attendance, etc. I say we should be making them EARN an athletic scholarship ACADEMICALLY for at least a year.

Or who about offering "reverse-scholarships" meaning when you graduate you get your tuition paid off, AFTER you graduate.

It's not what I'm proposing, it's what Nader and his "League of Fans" is proposing. And ya, I guess you're right, the situation would be identical to what the Ivy League does and to another extent, Division III athletics in general.

What would happen:

A new athletic organization would be formed to offer an alternative to the NCAA.

The new athletic organization would primarily have the big football and basketball programs. They'll call themselves something patriotic like the American Flag Conference.

Free of the NCAA restrictions, they will offer more scholarships, more benefits to the student athletes, pay their coaches more, get virtually all the t.v. time. They will serve even more as minor leagues for professional sports.

After the NCAA schools drop scholarships all but a small number of top tier schools will reduce funding for many sports. There will increasingly be the haves and the have nots among colleges.

They'll be no big increase in financial aid to the general student population. There will be no surge in club sports for track and field. Opportunities for competition will dry up. College culture will accordingly lose one of its best features.

Captain Track wrote:

Hi Ralph...good to hear from you again...the last time you opened your mouth this loud, you gave W the 2000 election...thanks!!

You make it sound like you get your political information exclusively on letsrun.com.

Getting rid of athletics scholarships does not mean getting rid of College sports. I think the College system has helped athletics over the years; the US is miles ahead of most European countries, where sports is mostly club-based. But the US is also miles ahead in terms of tuition fees... I think there needs to be a system where talented students get the support they need for their sport, but not a "free ride". And a system where the assistant track coach makes more money than a regular professor is clearly out of balance.

Off the Grid wrote:

Academic:Athletic scholarship money is something like 300:1

so Nader is tilting at windmills.

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.

MLB would probably love to get rid of college baseball. Kids can avoid signing, go to college for a year and then be re-entered in the draft.

I agree with someone else in that kids out of high school should be able to skip college and become a pro immediately. The NBA rule on not drafting players until 1 yr after HS is silly and only stands to hurt the college game.

However, I am less convinced by the inequity argument even in bball and football. The players get access to advanced coaching for which they do not have to pay. Strength and conditioning and nutrition for which they do not have to pay is included. The athlete gets a chance to show his (or her) skills to professional teams. And to top it off, the kid gets meals, lodging and a chance to go to college (how many could get into college much less afford it?).

I also think graduation rates are a poor metric. Aside from the fact that a large percentage of the general student population does not complete a degree, what if an athlete goes to college and does not become a pro, but because of athletics gets access to interviews and a job. It might be a job that even without a degree he/she could do and would never have been considered. What if a kid leaves school 3 credits short of a degree, gets a job and never completes that degree, but goes on to be a successful person? (Yeah Bill Gates comes to mind, but so do so many more examples of people I know).

There is, to some degree, mutual exploitation--but then that is a great deal. What is a rip off for the colleges in basketball is the enormous expense to recruit a kid to come in and play 1 year of basketball only to have the kid leave. Those kids have no need for academics since he can flunk fall semester, never go to class spring and then go pro.

Also, a college degree is not needed for a ton of jobs. Somehow that has become the requirement.

There is a court case in CA right now over whether or not to consider college athletes employees. I seriously doubt the final verdict will support this.

I could be content with a European club based system, but I think there are a lot of issues with that system as well.

high tuition = football wrote:

get rid of football and the tuition costs won't be so high

?

Show me where a university uses tuition for athletics.

Keep in mind that tuition and student fees are different line items.

Captain Track wrote:

Hi Ralph...good to hear from you again...the last time you opened your mouth this loud, you gave W the 2000 election...thanks!!

_______________________________________________________________________________

....good to hear from you again....

_______________________________________________________________________________

Ralph does need attention, doesn't he?

If we applied the same standard to pre-law, MBA, and JDs, this country would have many fewer problems.

So you think 80% of student athletes need their aid. But why miss 20% when you can give it to kids who definitely need the aid, and not make them play sports while trying to prepare for careers?

To Flag, you make it sound like they're seeking out the very poorest students regardless of application strength and would skip over those with "ability" in the new system.

3 students, 2100 2000 and 1900 SATs. The 2100 gets in but can't afford it, the 2000 barely gets in and his/her parents are loaded, 1900 gets in because of great athletic ability. Your system lets lesser students get in and the lesser of the two will have to devote a large chunk of time to sports.

We need college sports so fat people can have a place to congregate on fall Saturdays when they drink and eat enormous amounts and fill their already puffy white bodies.

Off the Grid wrote:

Academic:Athletic scholarship money is something like 300:1

d2xccoach wrote:

But 300:1 seems far too high to me, if anyone has a source for that please post it.

My source was Dean Kamen, who owns/runs DeKa Technology (maker of the Segway). He has a foundation to encourage high school kids to be engineers rather than pro athletes. One of the numbers he throws around is 300:1. I am sure most HS kids would not challenge him on this, but he is probably counting all available funds.