When I say 'slack'. I mean they should be more willing to let me take a test the day before or the following monday. And not be so stuck on it has to be during class. I cannot change when I have to travel for a game, for the school. It's not like I'm playing hooky. Plus we were always ones to give our schedules to our teachers. Not to ask them to cater their class to us but to see in what ways we can work around obstacles.
But to say that I should fail a test (essentially) because I'm playing a sport FOR the school is just absurd. No the teachers shouldn't bow down to us, but they should especially with proper notice be willing to WORK WITH the student athlete. I worked hard for my degree it wasn't easy at all, especially juggling both athletics and school. Never once did I complain. I made a point to go to my professors and try to find a compromise. Not all were willing and personally speaking I feel that's poor on their part. If I was lazy, and didn't do my work when I was there or showed no interest in the class then yes show no remorse over the missed test. But if I'm engaging, finish my work, get good grades and am always in class besides when I am away playing a game FOR THE SCHOOL yes I expect SOME slack to be given.
I disagree. If you are a professor these days, you are being told that there is no money for conferences, no money for raises, no money for office furniture. You're jealously guarding your three dry erase markers that you haul from class to class because you bought them with YOUR money. And this is happening at the same time that ADs and coaches if big money sports are getting paid literally TEN times your salary, AT LEAST, millions is being spent on athletic.facilities and university presidents who are not even remotely academic in their own right are telling professors that this arrangement is actually good for the.school because it increased endowment, an endowment that is inevitably used to build more athletic facilities.
I have no qualms with professors sending a very clear message.that a university is first and foremost a place for education. BECAUSE IT IS!
I know that my coaches made close to if not a little less than what I make now. Which is decent but not a professors wage. So maybe it's the high profile sports that you're talking about.
I don't disagree with that fact if the coaches are making more than a university professor. I have a hard time believing however that places like Ohio state doesn't see some benefits from it's football team and all the money their games brings in. perhaps it's more of an issue with the school allocating the money to the appropriate places (ie. teachers being one). But I don't feel it's necessarily correct to take it out on the athlete. Now I do agree that some athletes expect the world to cater to them. I'm speaking more from the side of athletes who truly take STUDENT athlete role seriously.
I disagree. If you are a professor these days, you are being told that there is no money for conferences, no money for raises, no money for office furniture. You're jealously guarding your three dry erase markers that you haul from class to class because you bought them with YOUR money. And this is happening at the same time that ADs and coaches if big money sports are getting paid literally TEN times your salary, AT LEAST, millions is being spent on athletic.facilities and university presidents who are not even remotely academic in their own right are telling professors that this arrangement is actually good for the.school because it increased endowment, an endowment that is inevitably used to build more athletic facilities.
I have no qualms with professors sending a very clear message.that a university is first and foremost a place for education. BECAUSE IT IS!
When my H was teaching, he made 40 thousand American dollars, which was then further reduced because he had to take 2 furlough days per year (which is bullshit because the same amount of work has to get done) and had to pay a larger portion of his health insurance and pension costs. THANKS, SCOTT WALKER.
He could get the school to pay for conference registration, but he had to stay with friends because there was no funding for travel or a hotel. Meanwhile, he's told he has to bend over backwards to accommodate the travel schedule of athletes, who are getting all their gear paid for. Why should he have to come in after hours to administer makeup tests and accept papers late when he's continually getting paid less money?
It's important to note that a lot of the high profile sports actually have sponsors paying for their equipment, not the schools. For us Nike and Bauer were our sponsors and gave us our equipment and track suits.
I don't agree with bending over backwards but I do think they should be accommodating to a certain degree. The student athlete has no choice, literally. The problem isn't with the student athlete (well not all) rather what the expectations are of 'us'. I'm not sure if being unaccomodating to the athlete is really sending a message to the university :/, only hindering that athletes ability to perform well in school.
When I say 'slack'. I mean they should be more willing to let me take a test the day before or the following monday. And not be so stuck on it has to be during class. I cannot change when I have to travel for a game, for the school. It's not like I'm playing hooky. Plus we were always ones to give our schedules to our teachers. Not to ask them to cater their class to us but to see in what ways we can work around obstacles.
But to say that I should fail a test (essentially) because I'm playing a sport FOR the school is just absurd. No the teachers shouldn't bow down to us, but they should especially with proper notice be willing to WORK WITH the student athlete. I worked hard for my degree it wasn't easy at all, especially juggling both athletics and school. Never once did I complain. I made a point to go to my professors and try to find a compromise. Not all were willing and personally speaking I feel that's poor on their part. If I was lazy, and didn't do my work when I was there or showed no interest in the class then yes show no remorse over the missed test. But if I'm engaging, finish my work, get good grades and am always in class besides when I am away playing a game FOR THE SCHOOL yes I expect SOME slack to be given.
We start missing out on the sport we were PAID to come and play for you could very well risk loosing your scholarship. I feel it's short sighted to even ask why athletes are treated special. Like we just get a free pass in school or something. I'm not sure about other sports but from my own experience I lack understanding as to why the student athlete who was give 40k to come to the school to play the sport there should be a little give and take. It doesn't mean the Athlete is working any less harder by any means. Dare I assert that I had to work harder. The work didn't just go away it was always there. In terms of project deadlines that is on the Athlete, you knew when it was due and you should have put together things and handed it in early. I'm speaking about tests in particular and or classes where your attendance went towards your grade (again just in my own experience not speaking towards other sports or schools)
Curious, but do you know if band members or students in non-athletic events had to deal with the same push back from professors? I ask because unless we are going to start mandating that no University event happens during the week except evenings, I don't think it is fair to single it out to just athletic events. I mean like band members that have to travel with the football team, or students going away for a conference. Or music students that have to perform at events that are held during the day.
Of course a lot of the burden is placed on the student to make it up, but I have no doubt that there are some professors that think no one should ever miss their class ever, or are unjustly harsh toward some student athletes.
Our band was a huge supporter of our teams. Our president actually gave them funding to travel with our mens team. Cue our women's team feeling down and out because we LOVED the band presence when we had home games.
But the band was actually able to do the same as the men's team.
Non-athletic events I can't speak to because honestly my life was hockey and I experienced little college life in other area's. Minus my last semester there when I didn't have post season training. But I do know students who gave tours were also given slack.
My school was rather small and besides band there wasn't really any other musical programs, so it's truly hard to fully answer your question. but other athletes with school commitments often had things scheduled so that their performances/games were well after school hours.
In terms of what's being mandated I think that's a great thing! I wish that all adapted to that. I really think that not only would it be better for classes but also on the student athlete. While that would be during prime 'home work' hours you do what you gotta do as a student and if it means an all nighter. Well you do it.
The problem is too, that there are so many of these football players that don't give a shit about going to college, this is just a means to an end for them. You cannot be drafted until you have been out of high school for 3 years. To them this is an unpaid internship in some respect that they have to do, to have a chance to maybe play pro some day.
Post by lasagnasshole on Aug 20, 2014 8:58:45 GMT -5
Can we stop with this "taking it out on the athlete" thing? NOBODY has suggested that student athletes should somehow be punished. We're really talking about systemic issues.
Plus, you know good and well that professors can't "take it out on the athlete" because there would be pressure like whoa coming down from on high.
If my H had ever said he wasn't going to let an athlete make up a test missed due to a game, he would have been canned.
The formation of these mega-conferences should be proof enough that the NCAA doesn't give a shit about the student part of student athletes. Texas A&M in the SEC with Florida? I mean, really, come the fuck on with that. The expansion of the ACC a few years back put Boston College and Miami in the same conference. Utter bullshit.
The Big Ten addition of Rutgers and Maryland was done to break into the tv market on the east coast. Period. You can say its so they can have an east west playoff, which on the surface might appear to be the case, but if that were really the reason, they would have gone after schools in the midwest.
Can we stop with this "taking it out on the athlete" thing? NOBODY has suggested that student athletes should somehow be punished. We're really talking about systemic issues.
Plus, you know good and well that professors can't "take it out on the athlete" because there would be pressure like whoa coming down from on high.
If my H had ever said he wasn't going to let an athlete make up a test missed due to a game, he would have been canned.
Right?
I don't think professors who are less lenient about tests should viewed as "taking it out on the athlete." I mean, if you are a professor who has even 10 student athletes over the course of a semester, thats a lot of tests to make up, a lot of papers with flexible deadlines, and so on. I can see it adding up as a burden for the prof really fast.
Can we stop with this "taking it out on the athlete" thing? NOBODY has suggested that student athletes should somehow be punished. We're really talking about systemic issues.
Plus, you know good and well that professors can't "take it out on the athlete" because there would be pressure like whoa coming down from on high.
If my H had ever said he wasn't going to let an athlete make up a test missed due to a game, he would have been canned.
Fair enough. I did however have this happen to me and a few other teammates. It had to be taken to a higher level and was resolved but initially this is how things went. Mind you we were the second sport to go D1 next to our mens team. So the years I was there everyone was still adjusting, I'm sure it's different. I'm talking about one professor for myself. The rest of my professors were very flexible when it came to tests only. Papers most of the time you had enough time to work on them. There's no reason to need an extension at least I don't think there was.
The mega conferences are a joke and are all about money and television contracts/markets. It's all about the money but I don't think the money makes a significant difference for the school or the other athletic programs. I'm willing to be proven wrong though.
Can we stop with this "taking it out on the athlete" thing? NOBODY has suggested that student athletes should somehow be punished. We're really talking about systemic issues.
Plus, you know good and well that professors can't "take it out on the athlete" because there would be pressure like whoa coming down from on high.
If my H had ever said he wasn't going to let an athlete make up a test missed due to a game, he would have been canned.
Fair enough. I did however have this happen to me and a few other teammates. It had to be taken to a higher level and was resolved but initially this is how things went. Mind you we were the second sport to go D1 next to our mens team. So the years I was there everyone was still adjusting, I'm sure it's different.
do you think the D1 athletes should have been treated differently than the D2 or D3 athletes?
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound like I was saying taking it out on the athlete. I just know athletics are not the only reason for students to miss class. And I know I said it, and it would be nice if games/events/etc were outside of normal class hours, but there is always going to be some sort of conflict. If games and events are scheduled only weekends/nights then it cuts down on when students can work, or it gets in the way of night classes.
Anddddd, I just looked up some salary information of my school's football department and I want to cry. Last year the offensive coordinator jumped up from about $300k to $700k. Yet the school is running on about a $2 million budget deficit and the average professor makes about $50-100k.
Fair enough. I did however have this happen to me and a few other teammates. It had to be taken to a higher level and was resolved but initially this is how things went. Mind you we were the second sport to go D1 next to our mens team. So the years I was there everyone was still adjusting, I'm sure it's different.
do you think the D1 athletes should have been treated differently than the D2 or D3 athletes?
No but yes at the same time. In my mind it comes down to the money really. If I'm not getting paid to attend a school to essentially play a sport and go to school. My priorities are different. For me both were of equal importance. Sport was just as important as school (again just for me). If I wasn't paid to attend/play hockey, I would put far more importance on my schooling then the sport. Meaning if it was sport vs schooling (game vs test) Test would win out. Would I see if it can be done the day before or after? Maybe but school would win out. I view athletic scholarships like you would view an academic scholarship. In order to maintain the academic scholarship there are certain performance requirements. If those requirements aren't met you loose your scholarship. So for me to maintain my scholarship I had to meet those expected requirements.
However, for our sport practices didn't come before tests, just games and travel days.
Overall, I see it truly from both sides. More now than I was able to while I was in the thick of it. Perspective was deeply needed and it was easy to get tunnel vision thinking my problems were the worlds problems. I think that professors have a right to maybe have one make up exam day and that be as far as they compromise. I also feel that professors should be given more than enough time to know about these absences. IE first day of class players should hand over their schedules. Not to say cater to me but as a professional courtesy to the teacher. But I do feel that if the teacher can afford to be a little bit flexible they should, while at the same time trying not to bend way over backwards. Something I realize with higher profile sports may not be an option and that is sad!
I realize my view are very very small scale because of my own experience in a small school with only 2 D1 sports (Both Hockey). I had a choice to go to Ohio state and didn't, but I do know from my on campus visit alone I didn't like how Athletes were treated, higher and some lower but still D1 profile. I feel like they did the athletes a disservice (for their education and emphasis on education) IMHO by giving athletes these odd ball classes just so they could fill requirements and meet their GPA. I believe, I could be wrong (it was 11 years ago) but it was either practices or pre game discussions (where you go over tapes, plays etc) were counted as a credit. I found that to be so wrong.
In terms however of the topic at hand, really sorry for derailing! That both these high even lower profile schools/sports should give them some kind of compensation / royalties for appearing in a game/ as a means to have some monetary gain. At the very least the player should be notified when this is happening. I'm not sure what this would mean for the future of these sports. I could spell something bad or it could be good. Not all collegiate players go on to play professionally. For some these funds may be a great way for them to come out of school and have this as a way to help with starting their professional working careers.
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound like I was saying taking it out on the athlete. I just know athletics are not the only reason for students to miss class. And I know I said it, and it would be nice if games/events/etc were outside of normal class hours, there is only going to be some sort of conflict. If games and events are scheduled only weekends/nights then it cuts down on when students can work, or it gets in the way of night classes.
Anddddd, I just looked up some salary information of my school's football department and I want to cry. Last year the offensive coordination jumped up from about $300k to $700k. Yet the school is running on about a $2 million budget deficit and the average professor makes about $50-100k.
OMG!! Wow. yeah there should be a huge cap on this kind of salary. I do not in my right mind feel it is remotely fair to the school employees professors especially!
OMG!! Wow. yeah there should be a huge cap on this kind of salary. I do not in my right mind feel it is remotely fair to the school employees professors especially!
Is this news to you? My alma mater's basketball coach was (is?) getting $2 mil a year. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, the average salary of an Engineering professor (so not even a lowly humanities adjunct), is $115K a year. So, the basketball coach is getting 20 times what someone with a fucking advanced degree in Engineering is getting paid. That suggests that the tail is wagging the dog at universities.
Yes this is 'news' to me. As I said before we didn't have 'high' profile sports so our coaches were NOT even close to making that kind of money and Professors did make more than our Coaches.
Yes this is 'news' to me. As I said before we didn't have 'high' profile sports so our coaches were NOT even close to making that kind of money and Professors did make more than our Coaches.
Right, but didn't you recognize a difference between your school and say Duke's basketball program. Did you think that the THE Ohio State University football coach was making $55,000 a year?
This is why professors resent athletic departments. You're arguing that professors should "work with" or "cut some slack" to student athletes in terms of making up tests or turning in papers and missing classes etc... that this is "owed" to you because you're playing for the school and got a scholarship? Did you at any point think perhaps it wasn't quite that simple? When I said these high revenue sports are "bad" for universities this is what I'm talking about. You say "it comes down to the money really", but you don't seem to know what kind of money is at play here or what its effects are on the rest of the university or even within the actual athletic department. What does it do to an athletic department when the basketball coach is getting $2 mill a year, and the softball coach is getting $32K. The basketball locker rooms have new carpet, cherry lockers, and a full sized flat screen TV with a leather couch and the swimming locker rooms have some hand-me-down metal lockers from when the local high school was reno'ed and the old baseball teams cast off wooden benches. I am cornfused about how a student athlete remains insulated against these realities. I went to a university with about 4000 students and only one truly high revenue sport and was able to see *immediately* why professors hated the athletic department. It was for the same reason I did.
I actually believe I acknowledged it in the post prior to the one you quoted.
No but yes at the same time. In my mind it comes down to the money really. If I'm not getting paid to attend a school to essentially play a sport and go to school. My priorities are different. For me both were of equal importance. Sport was just as important as school (again just for me). If I wasn't paid to attend/play hockey, I would put far more importance on my schooling then the sport. Meaning if it was sport vs schooling (game vs test) Test would win out. Would I see if it can be done the day before or after? Maybe but school would win out. I view athletic scholarships like you would view an academic scholarship. In order to maintain the academic scholarship there are certain performance requirements. If those requirements aren't met you loose your scholarship. So for me to maintain my scholarship I had to meet those expected requirements.
However, for our sport practices didn't come before tests, just games and travel days.
Overall, I see it truly from both sides. More now than I was able to while I was in the thick of it. Perspective was deeply needed and it was easy to get tunnel vision thinking my problems were the worlds problems. I think that professors have a right to maybe have one make up exam day and that be as far as they compromise. I also feel that professors should be given more than enough time to know about these absences. IE first day of class players should hand over their schedules. Not to say cater to me but as a professional courtesy to the teacher. But I do feel that if the teacher can afford to be a little bit flexible they should, while at the same time trying not to bend way over backwards. Something I realize with higher profile sports may not be an option and that is sad!
I realize my view are very very small scale because of my own experience in a small school with only 2 D1 sports (Both Hockey). I had a choice to go to Ohio state and didn't, but I do know from my on campus visit alone I didn't like how Athletes were treated, higher and some lower but still D1 profile. I feel like they did the athletes a disservice (for their education and emphasis on education) IMHO by giving athletes these odd ball classes just so they could fill requirements and meet their GPA. I believe, I could be wrong (it was 11 years ago) but it was either practices or pre game discussions (where you go over tapes, plays etc) were counted as a credit. I found that to be so wrong.
In terms however of the topic at hand, really sorry for derailing! That both these high even lower profile schools/sports should give them some kind of compensation / royalties for appearing in a game/ as a means to have some monetary gain. At the very least the player should be notified when this is happening. I'm not sure what this would mean for the future of these sports. I could spell something bad or it could be good. Not all collegiate players go on to play professionally. For some these funds may be a great way for them to come out of school and have this as a way to help with starting their professional working careers.
That's a problem. Sports, even varsity scholarship sports, are an extra curricular activity. Extra to the curriculum. Not the curriculum itself.
And anyway, just to reiterate my original point, I don't think the solution is to give these athletes more money or royalties or a cut of the school's profit. It's to eliminate those sports as they are bad for the entire university, including the non-revenue-sport athletes.
I strongly disagree, for obvious reasons. As a little girl my goal was to get my education paid for by playing the sport I loved. I didn't want to be in debt and I didn't want my parents to be either. (realistically that thought hit me more around age 14 when I fundamentally understood what it would cost for me to go state side and attend school). I see nothing wrong with rewarding those talented enough to play D1 sports. Especially women, minus the Olympics, playing collegiate hockey is a huge honor. Many of us got to play against or with the Olympians.
I think taking these sports away will actually do more harm to certain schools in particular than I think you really realize. Some school recognition is based off of their sports programs and less on the schooling programs offered.
I'm pretty sure asdfjkl was a D1 athlete (but could be misremembering) so I think she understands the importance and value of college athletics. It's just that that value is getting twisted a great deal.
Also, autumnfire, I think the reason you are getting jumped on a bit is the attitude that these professors owed you something because you played a sport for the college. If your tuition was covered, wouldnt that count as what you were "owed"? Maybe that's not quite what you mean but I think that's how its coming across, hence the reactions.
And also, by emphasizing that extracurriculars are EXTRA curriculars, it doesn't mean you can't still reward those who play sports well. It just means maybe the system needs some revamping.
I strongly disagree, for obvious reasons. As a little girl my goal was to get my education paid for by playing the sport I loved. I didn't want to be in debt and I didn't want my parents to be either. (realistically that thought hit me more around age 14 when I fundamentally understood what it would cost for me to go state side and attend school). I see nothing wrong with rewarding those talented enough to play D1 sports. Especially women, minus the Olympics, playing collegiate hockey is a huge honor. Many of us got to play against or with the Olympians.
I think taking these sports away will actually do more harm to certain schools in particular than I think you really realize. Some school recognition is based off of their sports programs and less on the schooling programs offered.
You do not understand what I am saying. I am not talking about women's hockey. I am saying that Football and Basketball are bad for universities. No one is talking about "taking away" women's hockey from schools. No one. And eliminating the pressure of basketball and football budgets from athletic departments will be GOOD for specifically women's sports. To the extent you think taking away high profile sports will hurt universities because those schools receive some notoriety from their athletics, let me ask you this:
What sport is Harvard known for? Where does UNC's Political Science program rank nationally?
If a schools recognition is based off of their sports programs THAT IS NOT GOOD FOR THE SCHOOL SINCE THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF A SCHOOL IS TO EDUCATE NOT ENTERTAIN.
But I do think that it is extremely problematic that you believed it was not only appropriate but virtuous (?) to place your athletic participation on the same level of importance as your studies. We will have to agree to disagree on that one. I think that is symptomatic of the larger problem of veneration of athletics over academics which then translates to people who can tell you the entire starting line up for the Clippers, but don't know how a Bill becomes a law.
Exactly. This is the kind of stuff that leads people to think that Florida State is a good school.
------------------------------------------------------------------> I'll be over there.
I strongly disagree, for obvious reasons. As a little girl my goal was to get my education paid for by playing the sport I loved. I didn't want to be in debt and I didn't want my parents to be either. (realistically that thought hit me more around age 14 when I fundamentally understood what it would cost for me to go state side and attend school). I see nothing wrong with rewarding those talented enough to play D1 sports. Especially women, minus the Olympics, playing collegiate hockey is a huge honor. Many of us got to play against or with the Olympians.
I think taking these sports away will actually do more harm to certain schools in particular than I think you really realize. Some school recognition is based off of their sports programs and less on the schooling programs offered.
You do not understand what I am saying. I am not talking about women's hockey. I am saying that Football and Basketball are bad for universities. No one is talking about "taking away" women's hockey from schools. No one. And eliminating the pressure of basketball and football budgets from athletic departments will be GOOD for specifically women's sports. To the extent you think taking away high profile sports will hurt universities because those schools receive some notoriety from their athletics, let me ask you this:
What sport is Harvard known for? Where does UNC's Political Science program rank nationally?
If a schools recognition is based off of their sports programs THAT IS NOT GOOD FOR THE SCHOOL SINCE THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF A SCHOOL IS TO EDUCATE NOT ENTERTAIN.
But I do think that it is extremely problematic that you believed it was not only appropriate but virtuous (?) to place your athletic participation on the same level of importance as your studies. We will have to agree to disagree on that one. I think that is symptomatic of the larger problem of veneration of athletics over academics which then translates to people who can tell you the entire starting line up for the Clippers, but don't know how a Bill becomes a law.
Hypothetical question. Do you think if schools really were able to get rid of Football and Basketball would other sports take their place? Say Soccer and Baseball, or Hockey? Because part of me thinks just getting rid of the problem sports now won't actually solve the problem.
autumnfire I have been re-reading this thread and I think for the most part we are all on the same page. I just think there's a disconnect re: how much a school "owes" to its student athletes. a paid scholarship? free room and board? spending money? tutors? flexibility with tests and other assignments? There has to be a line somewhere. They are still STUDENT athletes.
the big concern isn't what is being required of women field hockey players. Maybe that should be addressed. But right now, universities are making a ton of money off of football and basketball and the athletes dont see any of that. Should they? If their "pay" is their education then maybe not. but if their education is so devalued as to the point of being worthless (ie never attending class, never doing their own work and so on) then what are they actually getting paid?
It's a very different discussion when you examine those types of programs vs less high profile college sports, even at the D1 level.
You do not understand what I am saying. I am not talking about women's hockey. I am saying that Football and Basketball are bad for universities. No one is talking about "taking away" women's hockey from schools. No one. And eliminating the pressure of basketball and football budgets from athletic departments will be GOOD for specifically women's sports. To the extent you think taking away high profile sports will hurt universities because those schools receive some notoriety from their athletics, let me ask you this:
What sport is Harvard known for? Where does UNC's Political Science program rank nationally?
If a schools recognition is based off of their sports programs THAT IS NOT GOOD FOR THE SCHOOL SINCE THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF A SCHOOL IS TO EDUCATE NOT ENTERTAIN.
But I do think that it is extremely problematic that you believed it was not only appropriate but virtuous (?) to place your athletic participation on the same level of importance as your studies. We will have to agree to disagree on that one. I think that is symptomatic of the larger problem of veneration of athletics over academics which then translates to people who can tell you the entire starting line up for the Clippers, but don't know how a Bill becomes a law.
Hypothetical question. Do you think if schools really were able to get rid of Football and Basketball would other sports take their place? Say Soccer and Baseball, or Hockey? Because part of me thinks just getting rid of the problem sports now won't actually solve the problem.
not SBP but I'll give my two cents here. i think it would go a long way to solving the problem but maybe not completely. Football and basketball are so immensely popular because they are easy to follow. The football season is short and it is one game a week. People will travel for that one game, the major networks carry it (well if you are Alabama ha). Basketball is a longer season (so it seems) but the playoff brackets make it insanely fun to watch and follow. I don't see may madness with baseball having the same kind of sway over the American public.
also, because football and basketball feed directly into the pros, there's a huge level of interest there that you don't reall see with college baseball, for example, because of how the farm system and the minor leagues work. the person who wins the heisman could be flipping off the redskins 4 months later (I dont actually know if Manzell won the heisman. I thought he did at some point though ha). And i think that also plays into the popularity.
soccer - maybe - as soccer becomes more popular here in teh US, I can see college soccer also becoming more popular. But I think it would be a long time for it (college soccer) to become the cultural mainstay that college football is.
Some people DO prefer amateur sports. Some people DO prefer to watch sports where people aren't getting paid millions. so maybe other college sports would rise up.
Hypothetical question. Do you think if schools really were able to get rid of Football and Basketball would other sports take their place? Say Soccer and Baseball, or Hockey? Because part of me thinks just getting rid of the problem sports now won't actually solve the problem.
No, because there external forces of advertising, TV rights, ticket sales etc... simply are not there for other sports. The student body would probably find another team(s) to rally around, maybe soccer or HOCKEY or something. At DH's undergrad, which doesn't have football, the Homecoming sport that people go watch is water polo. But in terms of huge money filtering through the athletic department in the incestuous way that it currently does, demanding enormously expensive facilities, bloated coaches salaries, siphoning money away from actual academics, no. I don't think that would continue.
That makes sense. Though I can't imagine colleges will be dropping either one anytime soon. Money and all of that.
That makes sense. Though I can't imagine colleges will be dropping either one anytime soon. Money and all of that.
Oh, no, I agree. They're not going to do it. And the NCAA certainly isn't going to suggest it.
My argument is more of "they should." And at the very least, I would like everyone to just stop with this idea that the reason we have these monolithic athletic programs like football and basketball is because it produces well-rounded students and citizens. What a load of shit. Those programs are there because an increasingly alarming number of universities are being headed up by anti-intellectual dolts who don't have the slightest concern for prioritization of academics. In fact, the academics are really kind of an obstacle to their goals of corportizing education and making a few (usually men) very, very rich.
I'm pretty sure asdfjkl was a D1 athlete (but could be misremembering) so I think she understands the importance and value of college athletics. It's just that that value is getting twisted a great deal.
Also, autumnfire, I think the reason you are getting jumped on a bit is the attitude that these professors owed you something because you played a sport for the college. If your tuition was covered, wouldnt that count as what you were "owed"? Maybe that's not quite what you mean but I think that's how its coming across, hence the reactions.
Eh, I don't feel jumped on. I understand both sides. I do want to clarify if I didn't communicate it properly at first. I don't feel the teachers owed me anything, I feel that some could be a little more flexible (I'm talking about select few) But I feel like it should be done in a respectful way where you're realizing the hassle this could put on the teacher. I had it happen to me once as a Junior with a known teacher who didn't give an inch on missing tests for any reason.
All of my professors minus the one were completely flexible and supportive. Any papers due I'd hand in early, tests I'd request to take a day or two early (I realize it's still eating up their time, most of it was done during their office hours though so it didn't disrupt their time with helping students.)
I do appreciate this dialogue though to discuss it from all perspectives.
You do not understand what I am saying. I am not talking about women's hockey. I am saying that Football and Basketball are bad for universities. No one is talking about "taking away" women's hockey from schools. No one. And eliminating the pressure of basketball and football budgets from athletic departments will be GOOD for specifically women's sports. To the extent you think taking away high profile sports will hurt universities because those schools receive some notoriety from their athletics, let me ask you this:
What sport is Harvard known for? Where does UNC's Political Science program rank nationally?
If a schools recognition is based off of their sports programs THAT IS NOT GOOD FOR THE SCHOOL SINCE THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF A SCHOOL IS TO EDUCATE NOT ENTERTAIN.
But I do think that it is extremely problematic that you believed it was not only appropriate but virtuous (?) to place your athletic participation on the same level of importance as your studies. We will have to agree to disagree on that one. I think that is symptomatic of the larger problem of veneration of athletics over academics which then translates to people who can tell you the entire starting line up for the Clippers, but don't know how a Bill becomes a law.
Exactly. This is the kind of stuff that leads people to think that Florida State is a good school.
------------------------------------------------------------------> I'll be over there.
I wanted to throw my opinion in, because I can come at this from both sides of the fence. I was a D1 athlete, and now I'm a professor at a D1 school (where sports are a bigfuckingdeal).
1. Sports are extracurricular. Yes, I had a scholarship. Yes, my education was paid for because I did a sport. At the end of the day, I went to college to get an education. My sport was ALWAYS secondary to my education, even if it was paying the bill. Full stop. 2. It is the athlete's onus and responsibility to figure out how to make up missed work. An athletic excuse is an approved absence. However, yes, some professors are dicks about this. My senior year, I had one professor who would not honor my athletic excuses for when I had to travel. I went to the administration about it, and it didn't matter. She was a raging asshole. Didn't matter that I offered to hand stuff in early, take tests early, she was just a giant fucking snot. Those professors do exist.
3. As a professor, an athletic absence is a university approved absence. I will never punish a kid for that. Doesn't matter their sport - and I've had football players, basketball players, equestrian, volleyball, swimming and soccer. I expect them to do their part, give me their travel schedule, and make their own arrangements. I'm not chasing them down to get them to do their work. 4. I will not cut an athlete slack because they are an athlete. That's just dumb. 5. Last year, we didn't get our license for Turnitin (plagiarism software) renewed, because it was $30K per year, and that was 'expensive'. Yet...our football coach got cool $2+ million dollar raise. They just built a new dorm for the athletes where the rooms COME furnished with queen beds, washer/dryers, and 36" flat screen TV's. But I can't have software to actually enforce academic standards. Ok.
I can't remember what else I was going to say.
Oh, yes. The initial paying athletes question. I'm torn on the issue, but I largely land on the side of no.