NCAA student/athlete slave revolts!

[Tmy]

Bloom to challenge NCAA, play football (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/cu/article/0,1299,DRMN_2938_2589241,00.html)


BOULDER - Jeremy Bloom has dropped his college football career squarely onto the NCAA's playing field, giving college athletics' powerful and historically unyielding governing body the opportunity to boot them both.

At a crowded on-campus news conference Monday, the University of Colorado receiver/return specialist said he will immediately begin accepting skiing-related endorsements to finance his training for the 2006 Winter Olympics.

If the NCAA objects, which it likely will do, the organization can pull Bloom's scholarship and end his football career.

______________________________________________


The NCAA and the schools make millions from these athletes, but GOd forbid the student make any money.

The kid wants to be a skier in the olympics. Hes a student and he wants to play ball at his school but the NCAA treats these guys like indentured servents.

[crimresearch]

Schools hold all their students as chattel...as in the case of the Flordia graduate student whose personal research was stripped from him in court so that the school could monopolize it.

Student atheletes know what they are getting into, (whether they can read or not).

Paul Nunis

[Number Six]

I can't feel sorry for student-athletes. They have two options while ordinary students only have one. Yes, they don't get as much out of the arrangment as the schools do but it doesn't mean they're being cheated but rather that they aren't able to cheat to the extent that the schools are able to cheat.

Why do institutes of higher education give scholarships for athletic ability anyway? It's ridiculous.

Also, to be accurate, the student-athletes are paid. Perhaps not as much as they would if it were a completely free market, but it bugs me when people say they aren't paid because they're paid a lot. Almost none of them could get paid the same amount elsewhere to do what they do (although that's partially because colleges have an effective monopoly on minor league football and basketball.) If minor leagues existed instead of college scholarships then some of the football and basketball players (and a few hockey and baseball players) could get more than they get now but many of the football and basketball players and virtually all of the rest of the scholarship athletes wouldn't be able to get nearly as much as they get now

[Tmy]

But even if he drops his scholarship, he still cant play.

Imagine if you wrote for the school paper and the school did not allow you to sell a book you had written. Your in the school play, so you cant do stand up at the comedy club. You cant be in the business school and have a business at the same time.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Tmy
But even if he drops his scholarship, he still cant play.

Imagine if you wrote for the school paper and the school did not allow you to sell a book you had written. Your in the school play, so you cant do stand up at the comedy club. You cant be in the business school and have a business at the same time.

Is that right?

I would think that if he did not accept the scholarship and/or the NCAA withdrew the scholarship, then he could still play football for the college as an athlete without a scholarship.

[Tmy]

Nope. hes out if he takes the endorcements. Which he needs to fund his Olympic dreams.

Heres the NCAA thinking, star athletes could easily get sponcered and make plenty more than the value of thier sholarship. So athletes could easily say "take you $10,000 scholarship and shove it up your ass, Nike is giving me $500,000."

NCAA doesnt want that. So if you take any money they boot you out. With or without a scholorship. People get in trouble even for taking small jobs.

It amazes me how a school (a goverment agency) is allowed to have so much control over a persons abilty to earn.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Is that right?

I would think that if he did not accept the scholarship and/or the NCAA withdrew the scholarship, then he could still play football for the college as an athlete without a scholarship.

There are still restrictions, though. In fact, if you think about it, there has to be. If there wasn't, basically they would just drop the scholarship for the stars and have some booster pay them a big salary.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Number Six
I can't feel sorry for student-athletes. They have two options while ordinary students only have one. Yes, they don't get as much out of the arrangment as the schools do but it doesn't mean they're being cheated but rather that they aren't able to cheat to the extent that the schools are able to cheat.


Sports like baseball (and even basketball) are better, because in those cases the student has the option of going to the pros instead of college. Although it's harder in basketball. But if the student has the option of going pro or going college right out of high school, we can imagine less sympathy for the student who choses to go into the college system.

However, football and most basketball players have little choice, because the college system is the main development league in town.




Why do institutes of higher education give scholarships for athletic ability anyway? It's ridiculous.


There's a lot I could say about this one, and it cuts both ways. On the surface, I agree. It's dumb that academic institutions give scholarships based on athletic ability.

OTOH, one can envision a model in which the athletic programs are part of the educational system, preparing students for careers. In that view, it works, even up to the point of providing scholarships (scholarships follow the money; for example, graduate study in the sciences is much more heavily subsidized than it is in the humanities, for the common reason that science research is more economically productive for the university). However, the problem that arises in this model is that, as a university department preparing students for careers, the athletics department is absolutely horrid at job placement. If any other department at the university had a job placement rate as poor as the athletic department, it would have been whacked long ago. It's hard to justify a discipline as "preparing students for careers in the field" when fewer than 0.5% of the students get jobs in the field.

[Tmy]

Schools give scholarships for all sorts of things. Like dance and music ability. You can even major in those things.

Like it or not sports can be a major revenue source for schools. Either directly thru gate reciepts or through licensing and increased allumni donations.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Tmy
Like it or not sports can be a major revenue source for schools. Either directly thru gate reciepts or through licensing and increased allumni donations.

Um, no.

Football is usually a major revenue source for schools. Basketball is pretty good. Licensing and alumni contributions are generally tied to football and basketball. The problem is that while football is a big source of revenue, it is a huge cost, as well, eating up a lot of that revenue.

Pretty much every other athletic program is a huge money sink. Something like half of the D-I athletic programs in US lose money overall.

[Tmy]

Schools are prevented from dumping the loser sports cause of Title IX, polotics, and alumni.

Plus schools arent all about makeing money. Many departments are a major drain on school funds but they still keep them around.

[Number Six]

This response is to a few separate things....

First, athletes are allowed to play college sports if they don't have a scholarship. If they want to play for nothing instead of for a scholarship then of course the school is going to let them. It's true that they can't take endorsements. But for most athletes that's irrelevant because their scholarship is more than they could make in endorsements anyway. Any athlete can get 500 K from Nike will tell the NCAA to shove it up their ass rather than take a 10 K scholarship. If you can get 500 K from Nike then you can pay 10 K for school out of your pocket and have 490 K left over.

Okay, now wait a second...that previous sentence only applies to non-football and non-basketball players. Football and basketball players that can get big endorsements have to pass them up if they want to play college sports. But note that most of the people that can get these endorsements can only get them _after_ they've been made famous by participation in college athletics. They need some system to make themselves famous before they can get endorsements.

Granted for football and basketball the NCAA is their only system to choose from. But the basic complaint there is "I want to get rich by playing football and basketball and for the first few years of my attempt the system I'm in prevents me from getting as much as I can." Well yes, that is true, but what the hell is someone that wants to get rich playing football or basketball doing in college anyway? They don't want to be there (or, the ones that do want to be there can go to college on their own). Why are institutes of higher education also minor leagues for the NFL and the NBA? They shouldn't be.

Higher education and job training aren't the same thing. Some people say they should make "football" and "basketball" be majors. Why? What the hell do those things have to do with higher education? Nothing. Colleges are one thing and job vocation is another. Colleges don't train auto mechanics or roofers or electiricians and on and on. Why should they train athletes?

People should go to college because they want an education and they should do whatever extracirricular activities they want while they're there. But the extracirricular activities should be secondary. Universities shouldn't pay student to attend school in exchange for them agreeing to participate in a particular extracirricular activity, which is exactly what the current college sports system does. You get your schooling paid _if and only if_ you agree to play a sport. That's crazy.

[Tmy]

Sport is a billion dollar industry. Why shouldnt it be a major? You can major in dance or music at many schools. That requires physical skill. Many schools have a phys ed requirement also. People get credit for golf class!!!!

DO you know that the NFL has a rule requiring a person to be 3yrs removed from high school before you can be in the NFL. The rule is really to keep college players from leaving early.

A player can get in trouble even for taking a job with a booster. THey pretyty much have a system where these guys are litterally killing themselves while the school makes a mint on them.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Tmy
Sport is a billion dollar industry. Why shouldnt it be a major? You can major in dance or music at many schools. That requires physical skill. Many schools have a phys ed requirement also. People get credit for golf class!!!!


The advantage of having a sport major is that it will put an end to athletes masquerading in other majors.

If they want to be a biology major and play football, go for it. But don't force someone to specialize in something else if all they want to do is play football.

Now, the chance that they can get a job playing football may be remote, but they know that going in so can make an informed decision. It never stopped the philosophy department.

[Number Six]

Why shouldn't it be a major? Because it has nothing to do with education, that's why it sholuldn't be a major.

I know the NFL has a rule that requires a person to be three years removed from high school. The guy from Ohio State is challenging it. I hope he wins. Why do you think the NFL has that requirement? It helps to perpetuate college athletics essentially being minor league football, which saves the NFL a lot of money. Guys having to wait three years after high school before they're eligible to play professional football makes about as much sense as institutions of higher education paying people to play sports.

These guys are not literally killing themselves. These guys have it _better_ than the regular student. They can

a) be a regular student
b) play a sport in exchange for a scholarship

OTOH a regular student can

a) be a regular student

Considering this, if athletes have it so bad then what can we say about regular students? They must have it even worse.

Tell me how it is fair to all the regular students that they have to pay their own way, pay room, pay board, pay for tutors, pay for books, pay for their food, etc, etc, etc, while a scholarship athlete gets all that for free.

In a way we agree...the current system sucks. But where we differ is that you want to change it so it sucks more while I want to change it so it sucks less. Yes, the schools are making out like bandits more than the players are making out like bandits and yet your solution is to have the players make out more like bandits so it'll be more even? How about if have neither the schools nor the players making out like bandits and instead have universities educate people and professional sports leagues run for-profit sports enterprises?

[Number Six]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


The advantage of having a sport major is that it will put an end to athletes masquerading in other majors.

If they want to be a biology major and play football, go for it. But don't force someone to specialize in something else if all they want to do is play football.

Now, the chance that they can get a job playing football may be remote, but they know that going in so can make an informed decision. It never stopped the philosophy department.

Getting rid of college scholarships would put an end to athletes masquerading as college students altogether too and it would do so withouth having universities making up sham majors.

[Tmy]

What does Ballet have anything to do with education??? Drama? Music?? You can m,ajor in those things. Is athletics really that different, or is there just a bias against sports.

Lots of kids are on scholrahip and they work less than a athlete. If your on acdemic scholrahip all you have to be is the regular class attending test taking student. The athlete has to do the same thing PLUS all the practice time, game time, traveling.


What does a school really get in return for academic scholarahips anyway?




FYI: Look to see who are the highest paid state employees in your parts. Chances are its a University coach.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Tmy
What does Ballet have anything to do with education??? Drama? Music?? You can m,ajor in those things. Is athletics really that different, or is there just a bias against sports.


There is the perception that athletes are "playing a kids game." Of course, that's like comparing professional dancers with drunk college students in the disco, or professional singers with people who sing in the shower.

I'd say it's a bias against sports.

NIT: I don't think many places offer a Ballet major, although there are certainly Dance majors (with subspecialties that include ballet)

[Number Six]

A bias against sports? You guys are really reaching now. If you're on a campus with 1A sports go check out the basketball arena or the football stadium and then tell me about the bias against sports. As the one guy said, check out who makes the most in the entire university...it's probably the football coach or basketball coach.

What do schools really get in return for academic scholarships? Wow, you really are missing the point of schools. Schools are for EDUCATION. An academic scholarship is to reward someone that has shown academic excellence so far and to encourage them to excel even more. Yes, someone on an academic scholarship may not have to do as much as someone on an athletic scholarship but that's because THEY'RE ON AN ACADEMC SCHOLARSHIP. Academics is the whole purpose of the school to begin with. Also, all that time someone on an athletic scholarship spends is ON AN EXTRACIRRICULAR ACTIVITY. The argument seems to basically be "These extracirricular activities are so popular let's just make them a regular part of the university." But that argument is based on how popular the activities are not how relevant the activities are to the university's mission.

In order to get an academic scholarship you not only have to have good enough qulaifications to get into school but you have to far exceed those and get yourself in the top couple percent of all students. On the other hand, to get an athletic scholarship you often don't even have to meet the MINIMUM standards the school sets for the rest of the students. I ask again, why are such people in the school to begin with? They don't want to be there. The school has a different set of standards for them. The school makes up easy majors so they can stay eligibile. It is absurd.

[jj]

Originally posted by Number Six
A bias against sports? You guys are really reaching now. If you're on a campus with 1A sports go check out the basketball arena or the football stadium and then tell me about the bias against sports. As the one guy said, check out who makes the most in the entire university...it's probably the football coach or basketball coach.

I don't know about the coaching salaries, not having looked, but I do know that it's rather ironic to see that a school has a huge, shiny football stadium and a small, smelly, dangerous EE lab. A particular school comes to mind, but so it goes.

(No, not any I went to, rather one I've visited.)

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Number Six
A bias against sports? You guys are really reaching now. If you're on a campus with 1A sports go check out the basketball arena or the football stadium and then tell me about the bias against sports. As the one guy said, check out who makes the most in the entire university...it's probably the football coach or basketball coach.

What do schools really get in return for academic scholarships? Wow, you really are missing the point of schools. Schools are for EDUCATION. An academic scholarship is to reward someone that has shown academic excellence so far and to encourage them to excel even more. Yes, someone on an academic scholarship may not have to do as much as someone on an athletic scholarship but that's because THEY'RE ON AN ACADEMC SCHOLARSHIP. Academics is the whole purpose of the school to begin with. Also, all that time someone on an athletic scholarship spends is ON AN EXTRACIRRICULAR ACTIVITY. The argument seems to basically be "These extracirricular activities are so popular let's just make them a regular part of the university." But that argument is based on how popular the activities are not how relevant the activities are to the university's mission.

In order to get an academic scholarship you not only have to have good enough qulaifications to get into school but you have to far exceed those and get yourself in the top couple percent of all students. On the other hand, to get an athletic scholarship you often don't even have to meet the MINIMUM standards the school sets for the rest of the students. I ask again, why are such people in the school to begin with? They don't want to be there. The school has a different set of standards for them. The school makes up easy majors so they can stay eligibile. It is absurd.

The bias I was taking about is from people who say athletics have nothing to do with education.

The reason they give academic scholarships is to boost the schools overal GPA standings and such. That makes the school more desireable and prestegious and it makes alumni happy. Ironically thats the same reason they give out athletic scholarships. Its all about PR, generating more funds, donations, and interest.

Why do you think schools sweat over the yearly "Top School" lists?? If they are just about educating students why would they care about these lists.

[Number Six]

I say that athletics has nothing to do with education but I don't think I have a bias against athletics. I know a lot (too much) about athletics, espeically college sports. But after a certain point I just have to be honest with myself and call it BS because that's what it is. If you're a self-reflective person there are only so many times where you can see it before you call it what it is.

When I was in graduate school I'd come on a Saturday afternoon sometimes to do work and wouldn't be able to park near the school because there was a football game going on and the amazing thing is _it didn't phase me a bit_. I enjoyed (and still do) college football and I thought it was just fine that parking for college football took precedence over parking for graduate students. Looking back that was ridiculous. Why in the _hell_ should I not be able to park near the university because thousands of people, most of whom have nothing to do with the university have come to watch a group of students play football for pay, many of whom weren't even academically eligible to be students unless they agreed to play football?

Now that I'm in the work world at the same university I get e-mails now and then that bascially say "If you have a car in one of the parking garages near the basketball arena you better get it out before 7 pm or else you'll get a ticket." These are parking spaces set aside for university employees, who have to pay for the parking spaces, but if there is a home basketball game, which again is a bunch of people that have nothing to do with the university coming to watch a bunch of students who aren't even academically eligible to be students, then you'd better get yer car out or else. And on top of all that, all this occurs at a school that "does it right." I can't imagine what goes on at those schools that will do anything they can to win, and there are a lot of them.

Those are just two examples but I could go on for days and it all stems from one thing...the contradiction between a school supposedly being an institute of higher education and research on the one hand and the same school running a big time for profit sports program on the other. Those two are simply contradictory goals. The more you try to accomplish one the less you can accomplish the other.

I doubt that the reason schools give academic scholarships is to boost GPAs because the percentage of people that get those is small. But regardless it's related to education at least. The magainze ratings are silly and schools hustle after them for reputations sake but at least it's somewhat related to academics. The criteria they put into those, like faculty-student ratio etc, are roughly related to how good an education someone gets, although I think the rankings are still dumb because the best school for a particular person depends more on that persons makeup and characteristics.

There need to be minor leagues for the NFL and NBA but of course they're not going to pay for them when the colleges do them for free. And of course the colleges are going to keep doing them because the alumni demand it. So things will stay the way they are.

I have no illusions things are going to change. But that doesn't mean I can't recognize it for the nonsense it is. It's just a dirty de facto deal between the professional sports leagues, the colleges, the college athletes and the fans. The athletes want more of the cut, you say? I'm sure they do. Everyone always wants their cut to increase. Maybe they'll get it, maybe they won't. But I sure as hell don't feel sorry for them and they sure as hell resemble nothing like slaves or endentured servants. What they are is a privileged group that wants to increase their privileges.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Number Six
I say that athletics has nothing to do with education but I don't think I have a bias against athletics.

Unfortunately, despite a long post, you never addressed this comment.

Unless the argument you are making is that athletics is not education because it is popular.

[Number Six]

What argument? The argument that athletics has something to do with education? Athletics has as much do to with higher education as milk cartions and silly string but I don't see people majoring in making milk cartons or scholarships given out for being good at manipulating silly string. Running and throwing and competing in athletic events simply aren't academic endeavors. They can be studied...anything can be studied...but that doesn't mean the thing being studied is itself academic.

Athletics is almost entirely physical and education is almost entirely intellectual. If you're confined to a wheelchair you can be the most educated guy in the world but you're never going to be able to compete at all at almost every sport. Next I suppose you're going to ask me to show that physical and intellectual are different.

I know you get the charge on those college football Saturdays. I do too. But just let go of the aspect that it's some noble collegiate thing because it's not. It's a bunch of delusional 20 year olds, half of whom are probably on human growth hormone, sacrificing their body in exchange for the glory heaped on them by thousands of people that would protest like crazy if the football program was dropped but who wouldn't care at all if the History department was discontinued.

[Tmy]

I think you have a narrow view on education. Do Dance, Acting, Pottery Making, Music also count? They are all physical.

Do you think a football player has all the knowledge they need in Pop Warner ball. That the only difference tween High School football and the NFL is the size of the players?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Number Six
What argument? The argument that athletics has something to do with education? Athletics has as much do to with higher education as milk cartions and silly string but I don't see people majoring in making milk cartons or scholarships given out for being good at manipulating silly string. Running and throwing and competing in athletic events simply aren't academic endeavors.

And how are they any different from dancing around, playing an instrument, or singing? Yet, we have Dance and Music majors...




They can be studied...anything can be studied...but that doesn't mean the thing being studied is itself academic.

Athletics is almost entirely physical and education is almost entirely intellectual.

Not.

Just as you have to have artistic ability to write to be a artist, so to you have to know how to play basketball to be a great basketball player. Some can get farther on talent alone, and some can be taught better how to do it.


If you're confined to a wheelchair you can be the most educated guy in the world but you're never going to be able to compete at all at almost every sport.

Nor will you be able to dance. We still have dance majors. So why are you singling out athletics?



Next I suppose you're going to ask me to show that physical and intellectual are different.

No need, since we already have shown it to be irrelevent.


I know you get the charge on those college football Saturdays. I do too.

I hate football Saturdays. All it means is that the streets are crowded and I have to get to work really early to avoid hassles near campus.

Next strawman? I'm going to suggest that you try not to typecast me on this, because you are most likely going to be wrong.


But just let go of the aspect that it's some noble collegiate thing because it's not. It's a bunch of delusional 20 year olds, half of whom are probably on human growth hormone, sacrificing their body in exchange for the glory heaped on them by thousands of people that would protest like crazy if the football program was dropped but who wouldn't care at all if the History department was discontinued.

So what is your point? Glory is bad? Sounds like jealousy to me, if anything.

Please explain how athletics is any less "noble" than any of the arts, including painting, dancing, or music? Aside from "athletic events are popular but the arts aren't as," that is.

[Number Six]

It doesn't take my physicalness to do acting, pottery, etc. I'm not putting down good physical actors, etc. I'm just saying it's not _necessary_ to be very physical. Dance may be the exception.

I know that it takes knowledge to play sports. It takes knowledge to do any physical activity but that doesn't mean the activity itself constitutes higher education.

Also, as far as the general "We have Dance, Music, etc majors so why not athletics?" there are two things: One is whether we should have them (or should have Athletic majors) and the other is, given that we have them, how should we conduct them. Even if you could make an argument that says we should have Athletic majors that wouldn't be an argument that any (or that more than a very few) scholarships should be given. I'm guessing that most Dance majors pay their own way. And I'm also guessing that most dance majors get jobs at least somewhat related to their job. College athletes are the opposite. Almost all of them get a scholarship (even though at this point Athletics _isn't_ a major) and almost none of them (percentagewise) will be able to make any money off playing in the future.

There are a myraid of activities that have some physicalness to them. That doesn't mean they are educational. Picking one or two majors that do have some physicalness to them and using that as justification for Athletics being a major too while ignoring the thousands of other activities that have some physicalness to them but aren't majors doesn't make sense.


"Just as you have to have artistic ability to write to be a artist, so to you have to know how to play basketball to be a great basketball player. Some can get farther on talent alone, and some can be taught better how to do it."


Anyone can be taught to play basketball. Most people don't learn the more intricate parts of the game but that's because they never have to rather than because the game is so intricate. If you have the athletic ability then your intellect is almost irrelevant. If you don't have the athletic ability your intellect is still almost irrelevant. That's the point...regardless, your intellect is almost irrelevant. It's not completely irrelevant but then again there is probably no activity where your intellect is completely irrelevant.

I know that there are times when one team beat another because it plays smarter but both the teams already have the athletic talent. Smarts can be the difference between a win and loss in a game you see on TV but that doesn't mean that smarts is a big part of the game, rather it just means smarts can be the _difference_ between winning and losing. But still, both the winning and losing team would slaughter five randomly drawn genius' from MIT every time.

It's somewhat akin to when they say "Pete Rose didn't have any talent and did all he did with hustle and guts." Nonsense. Pete Rose did have a lot of hustle and guts and it helped him do better than he otheriwse would have done, but had Pete Rose had the athletic ability of Joe Average he'd have never even sniffed the major leagues, much less became the all-time hit leader.

Re. nobiliity, I wasn't saying that athletics was inherently noble but rather that college sports isn't even though it often is portrayed as being so.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Number Six
It doesn't take my physicalness to do acting, pottery, etc. I'm not putting down good physical actors, etc. I'm just saying it's not _necessary_ to be very physical. Dance may be the exception.

I know that it takes knowledge to play sports. It takes knowledge to do any physical activity but that doesn't mean the activity itself constitutes higher education.


So when does it and when does it not? Why dance and not basketball? This is the question, and you still haven't answered it.



Also, as far as the general "We have Dance, Music, etc majors so why not athletics?" there are two things: One is whether we should have them (or should have Athletic majors) and the other is, given that we have them, how should we conduct them.


That's right, those are two separate questions. Hence, let's stick with the question at hand.



There are a myraid of activities that have some physicalness to them. That doesn't mean they are educational. Picking one or two majors that do have some physicalness to them and using that as justification for Athletics being a major too while ignoring the thousands of other activities that have some physicalness to them but aren't majors doesn't make sense.


I didn't use the physicalness of dance as justification for an athletics major. If you remember, you were the one who tried to use the physicalness of athletics as a justification for it to _not_ be a major. However, as you pretty much have conceded that objection does not hold, because it applies to other disciplines as well.


"Just as you have to have artistic ability to write to be a artist, so to you have to know how to play basketball to be a great basketball player. Some can get farther on talent alone, and some can be taught better how to do it."


Anyone can be taught to play basketball.


Anyone can be taught to oilpaint.



Most people don't learn the more intricate parts of the game but that's because they never have to rather than because the game is so intricate. If you have the athletic ability then your intellect is almost irrelevant. If you don't have the athletic ability your intellect is still almost irrelevant.


Unsubstantiated claim. Care to support it?

How is any more true than this:

"If you have artistic ability, then your intellect is almost irrelevent. If you don't have the artistic ability, your intellect is still almost irrelevent."

I had friends who are spectacular artists but flunked out of college because they couldn't handle anything but art-based classes. Similarly, while I was a whiz in my classes, I would have been in deep doo-doo had I been required to take an art course. I have no art skills at all. None. Zip.

And it's not for a lack of trying. I've tried really hard. But it just comes down to the fact that I am completely unable to take an image in my mind and convey it in a medium.




That's the point...regardless, your intellect is almost irrelevant.

And how does that differ from art?


I know that there are times when one team beat another because it plays smarter but both the teams already have the athletic talent. Smarts can be the difference between a win and loss in a game you see on TV but that doesn't mean that smarts is a big part of the game, rather it just means smarts can be the _difference_ between winning and losing. But still, both the winning and losing team would slaughter five randomly drawn genius' from MIT every time.

And the Juliard dance students will dance better than the students at Harvard.

Ultimately, there is still nothing you have said here that indicates why athletics should not be a major. You have provided some objections, but none are restricted to athletics and could readily be applied to other disciplines.


The rest is just more straw.


Re. nobiliity, I wasn't saying that athletics was inherently noble but rather that college sports isn't even though it often is portrayed as being so.

I guess I have no clue what you mean by nobility, because I don't know of anyone who of college sports or athletes as being all that "noble."

[Tmy]

Dont the military acadamies teach warfare??? Thats almost like teaching sports. Football offenses and defenses can be very complicated. Why do you think players "study" film ect. Why do you think coachs make a difference. Many coaches never even played at the pro level, but they have the mental skills to run the team.

Physical skill does play a big role but thats not all that is needed. Just cause your 7 foot does not mean you can play in the NBA.

[Number Six]

Geez, what is it with the Dance thing? I really don't care about Dance or whether or not it is or should be a major. It is such a tiny, tiny part of anything. This is like catching someone going 50 mph over the limit and having someone say "Hey, that person over there might have been going 1 mph over the limit, you can't arrest me until you investigate them." Is Dance even a major at universities? I'm at a large state university and I don't see it on the list.

Also, the original question _was_ about whether scholarships should be given for athletics and so my point how even _if_ athletics were a major that doesn't mean there should be scholarships for it is still valid. You've found one little technihcality you think you can trap me on but frankly I don't care. I'm arguing a general point and my life is too short to waste on semantics.

And now you're starting on Art. Give me a break please. You can be in a wheelchair and be an artist. You can be a quadraplegic and be an artist. If you're going to take it down to that level then _everything_ has some level of physicalness to it. Steven Hawking has to read words on a screen to do his job so that means he's physical just like football players I guess.

My objection to athletics being a major wasn't simply due to the physicalness of it but rather due to the fact that the physicalness of it is virtually _everything_ and the intellect/education part of it is almost meaningless by comparison.

You said this was an unsubstantiated claim:

"Most people don't learn the more intricate parts of the game but that's because they never have to rather than because the game is so intricate. If you have the athletic ability then your intellect is almost irrelevant. If you don't have the athletic ability your intellect is still almost irrelevant."

What is unsubstantiated about it? Are you saying most people _couldn't_ learn the intricacies of basketball? If so I don't know how to respond other than to say I consider it patently obvious that most people _could_ learn the intricacies of basketball (or other sports). I am simply a fan and yet I regularly spot things that the "experts" miss, either altogether or that they come back and correct later. Suppose I said to you that most people couldn't become a historian if they tried (and suppose that you are not a historian) and suppose that you said "BS, lots of people could become historians if they wanted to" and then I said to you "Prove it." How are you going to prove it other than becoming a historian yourself? Well I'm not about to quit my job and spend time studying game film just to prove to you that I could learn it. It's obvious to me (and to you too) that sports aren't so complicated that most people can't master the subtleties if they try.

As far as the second part goes, I'm saying that athletic ability completely overwhelms intellectual ability when it comes to sports. Again, that is patently obvious. None of the players on college athletic teams _don't_ have athletic ability. If you don't have athletic ability you simply can't make the team. The scrappy guys you see that they always talk about getting by on wits and hustle are only short of athletic ability _compared to people they are competing against_, not compared to the average person.
Intellect only comes into play in athletic competition _when the people competing are fairly close to begin with_. The stupidest best athletes are _always_ win over the the smartest worst athletes.

If you're just trying to annoy me it's working. I think I'm wasting my time and I know you're wasting my time. You're basically trying to frame things such that I have to either prove any major imaginable has nothing at all to do with anything physical or else admit that athletics should be a major.


Tmy, you wrote:

"Physical skill does play a big role but thats not all that is needed. Just cause your 7 foot does not mean you can play in the NBA."

Yes, just because you're 7 feet doesn't mean you can play in the NBA, but what proportion of 7 feet people play in the NBA and what proportion of 6 feet people play in the NBA? The first proportion is MUCH larger. In fact, it's even become an aphorism amongst coaches and scouts...they say "You can't teach 7 feet." Physical skill isn't SUFFICIENT to play but it is NECESSARY. If you have physical skill then you may or may not be able to play at high levels and your wits and hustle may determine how good you can be at those high levels. But if you don't have physical skill then you can't compete at the high levels regardless of your wits and hustle.

Michael Jordan is considered the best basketball player ever. Consider Michael Jordan and all the midgets in the world. Put Michael Jordan's brain in each of the midgets and ask "How many of them will make it to the NBA?" Answer: None. Now, put each of the midgets brains in Michael Jordan's body and ask the same question. Answer: A lot of them. The physical is _primary_ and the mental is _secondary_.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Number Six
My objection to athletics being a major wasn't simply due to the physicalness of it but rather due to the fact that the physicalness of it is virtually _everything_ and the intellect/education part of it is almost meaningless by comparison.


And this is the problem. You do not know how much is due to physicalness and how much is due to education or training.

And my comparison with art is perfect in this regard. Some people have great artistic talent, and through training, become great artists. I could study art all my life and know more about art than almost anyone out there, it wouldn't make me a good artist. No one thinks we should get rid of art as a major, yet that is the exact same argument that you have tried to make against athletics.

And yes, there are dance majors at major universities (less likely in engineering schools, but in liberal arts schools, you bet). So again, you have no objections.

Lastly, this crap about a "person in a wheel chair" is a total non-sequitor. Similarly, a blind person would make a very bad oil painter, but that doesn't stop oilpainting from being an academic subject. So don't give me this crap that everyone has to be able to do it.

Oddly enough, there are some legitimate arguments against athletics as a major, but you haven't really used them (although you did skim by one, that their placement rate of graduates is poor, but if you look back in this thread I used that same argument myself). However, there is another...

[Number Six]

What if I said that I object to art and dance being majors? It seems a lot of your objections to my objections are based on me not objecting to that. I have not even seriously thought about whether they should be majors. I don't even know if I said they should be majors in this thread and I'm not going to wade through it all to find out. Those kinds of majors are so small in number and meaningless in effect that I frankly don't care about them and I doubt you do either except to try to win a point in a pointless argument.

I could say more but really this whole thing is a waste of time by now. I'm finihsed.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Number Six
What if I said that I object to art and dance being majors? It seems a lot of your objections to my objections are based on me not objecting to that. I have not even seriously thought about whether they should be majors.


Well, you aren't the first to have jumped into a discussion without really thinking about the matter you were getting into. I've done it myself plenty of times.

I take comfort in that fact that this discussion has led you to re-evaluate your perspective and its implication in other areas.

And you know, if you would have said from the beginning that you weren't sure about art and dance, either, this would have been a short discussion. I wouldn't much to say about it, except to note that it is a fairly uncommon opinion. Doesn't make it wrong, but it really does cut to the big question of what, in general, should or should not be a major. Its a fine line, and in the end, I don't know where I would end up. However, in the current system, athletics is treated differently. The question was why. As far as I can see, bias is a fairly good answer.



I don't even know if I said they should be majors in this thread and I'm not going to wade through it all to find out. Those kinds of majors are so small in number and meaningless in effect that I frankly don't care about them and I doubt you do either except to try to win a point in a pointless argument.


Hey, some of my best friends are artists...:)

Recall that I recommended that you not typecast me, because you would be mistaken.

Food for thought: As I mentioned, I think there is a good reason that athletics should not be a major. If you look at the operation of an athletic team, the key thing the coach is doing is training. In that way, it is more similar to something that you would learn in trade school, as opposed to in university. Thus, there is a decent argument that the proper place for athletics training is in the Tech or other trade schools (imagine that one for a bit). Similarly, notice that some companies (e.g. auto repair) will train their own workers, and that seems more appropriate for athletics. In fact, baseball already does this, as the minor leagues serve as a subsidized training program for prospective major league players.

Now, the distinction between trade training and academic learning isn't always clear, but I think a strong case could be made that athletics fall on the trade side.

[Number Six]

You're a pompous ass. Okay, I can't say for sure that you're a pompous ass all the time but you're definitely one in this thread. Was that last post really necessary? Yes, I'm really reevaluating things after all your brilliant points. Either that or I just got tired of arguing with you since it was a waste of time. And thanks for enlightening me about how trainnig for athletics could be considered like training for a trade. I didn't know that especially since it is exactly what I was saying early in this thread when I wrote that if people want to learn how to play a particular sport there should be minor leagues for them to do that.