There may be more Marshall Hendersons than Aaron Crafts, or more Cam Newtons than Craig Krenzels, but that's not a reason to blow up the entire system.
Upvote
0
-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter BB73
- Start date
cincibuck
You kids stay off my lawn!
Aaron Craft and Craig Krenzel a) had a primary goal of obtaining an education b) were capable of meeting the academic requirements while also working a full-time job - and make no mistake, big time college athletics is a job, not something you 'play' - c) probably would have gotten their degrees without a scholarship.
Marshall Henderson and Cam Newton a) went to college in the hope of gaining admission to professional sports b) were probably not prepared for the academic demands of a real college curriculum c) would not have sought college admission were it not the only way to obtain 'a.'
The problem is not in the right or wrong of the ambitions of the four men, it is in the prostituting done by all three schools to make it possible and necessary for students like Newton and Henderson (and Katzenmoyer and Boone) to obtain their goals - which had little or nothing to do with obtaining a degree - by attending a university.
As long as colleges are willing to sacrifice their charter mission to seek athletic goals they will continue to create a system that requires a massive outside regulation and enforcement agency. The system created thus far has repeatedly succumbed to corruption of university personnel and students and lowered the ethical standards by which universities operate. The agency appointed to police the program is too small to be effective, is often pushed aside by the very institutes that created it, or ignored by monied interests in sports entertainment, business and religion.
If you want to elevate people from poverty - one of the primary goals cited by those who support big time athletics -and want them to become responsible, ethical workers, you have to reward scholarship, not the ability to run, tackle, pass, rebound or slam dunk.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
MaxBuck
SoCal, Baby!
I don't see these as being mutually exclusive. To the extent either young men or their parents do regard them as mutually exclusive, that's a problem. But we have plenty of young men on both our football and basketball teams who are interested in both academics and a future in professional athletics. I'd cite Sam Thompson, Brad Roby, Mike Bennett, and Greg Oden as prominent examples.
Upvote
0
cincibuck
You kids stay off my lawn!
I'm not saying that this doesn't happen, but what would our (the US) literacy rates and our schools - rural and inner-city - look like if college scholarships went for scholarship, not athletic prowess?
I don't want to launch into Philosophy of Education 417 mode - but if the real goal of Ohio State as stated on it's seal is Disciplina in civitatem, Education for Citizenship, I have a hard time believing that their current athletic program is promoting that goal in anything resembling correct proportion.
I have no problem whatsoever with any young man or woman wanting to pursue excellence in anything from football to exercise fan dancing, but that excellence should not become the raison d'etre for a university or their physical education programs.
Upvote
0
MaxBuck
SoCal, Baby!
There are lots of academic scholarships available. Eliminating athletic scholarships would have no beneficial impact whatever on the availability of academic scholarships. In fact, eliminating them would likely reduce the academic opportunities for non-athletes. As for athletics being the raison d'etre for The Ohio State University, I agree that it should never happen ... but we're not in danger of that happening in my lifetime nor yours.
Upvote
0
cincibuck
You kids stay off my lawn!
"Just 23 of 228 athletics departments at NCAA Division I public schools generated enough money on their own to cover their expenses in 2012. Of that group, 16 also received some type of subsidy — and 10 of those 16 athletics departments received more subsidy money in 2012 than they did in 2011." USA Today
OK, let me back off my hyperbole - Ohio State is unique in that it is one of 20 programs that does not require funds from the university budget to sustain itself. Of Ohio's other public colleges, Cincinnati draws 34% from the school's budget, Toledo 52, BG 64, Miami 68, OU 77 and Kent State a whopping 78%. That's money that could well be used to lower tuition, or add faculty, cut down on the use of adjuncts (there goes my job) or provide scholarship money to actual student students instead of student athletes.
But has Ohio State allowed athletics to grow out of proportion to it's purpose in our society? Let's first note that in the years since Woody Hayes and Fred Taylor left Ohio State, some significant changes have taken place. Woody insisted that his salary never exceed that of a full professor, insisted on teaching two courses - one on military history and one on coaching football. Fred taught basketball coaching - open to anyone. Both men earned money for doing TV programing, but both lived in rather modest circumstances. There was no question as to who was in charge of Ohio State, although it was also understood that the university president would have to count BOT votes before firing, or even censoring both coaches.
In the time since their departure, the salaries of the two head coaches vastly exceed that of the governor of the state, whose salary is one tenth that of Ohio State's president, whose salary is 1/3 that of the basketball coach and 1/4 that of the football coach. Have sports become the raison d'etre for Ohio State University?
Full ride academic scholarships? The school's website keeps that information buried. I do know that the Ohio State Foundation added five new full ride scholarships for 2014 - 2015. Most of the scholarship money comes in the form of tuition waivers and does not include room, board, books. In 2009 the MINIMUM score needed to receive a tuition waiver was a 32 on the ACT or a combined 1420 on the SAT - noting that the SAT max scores have been changed several times in the last 10 years.
A 32 on the ACT places a student in the 98th percentile of those students who take the ACT, i.e. the bell curve for the ACT doesn't include a significant % of ALL students. So 98th percentile of those who plan on going to college just to get a reduction in your tuition.
And just for the hell of it - what if a kid aced the ACT? % of students who scored a 36 in 2013 = 0.06458. "Only about 0.3 percent of students or 20,000 in the U.S. receive a combination of federal and state grants and private scholarship money to pay for all college costs including room and board," according to Lynn O'Shaughnessy of CBS Money Watch.
What about athletes? First of all they need only have a GPA of 2.5, C+ and an ACT of 17 which falls into the 28th percentile to be eligible. Who set those limits and why? Coaches. Because the purpose is to win games, not produce productive students or give a lift to deserving students.
Eliminating athletic scholarships would get universities out of the lie/myth of "student athletes." That, in turn, would free up high schools to insist that grades are more important than sports.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
TampaBuckeyes
Assistant Coach
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/11125524/ncaa-setup-baffles-ed-obannon-antitrust-trial-judge
I think the NCAA just lost. Judge doesn't seem to understand how college football works. Has no idea how it became the way it is over the last 100+ years and seems to think the current system doesn't make any sense. The only way the NCAA and conferences get what they want is if they have a judge that at least appreciates how the current system came to be. She could very easily unwittingly make a ruling that destroys college football. It would be good to have a judge that cared about what's best for the players while trying to maintain the traditions of college athletics.
I think the NCAA just lost. Judge doesn't seem to understand how college football works. Has no idea how it became the way it is over the last 100+ years and seems to think the current system doesn't make any sense. The only way the NCAA and conferences get what they want is if they have a judge that at least appreciates how the current system came to be. She could very easily unwittingly make a ruling that destroys college football. It would be good to have a judge that cared about what's best for the players while trying to maintain the traditions of college athletics.
Upvote
0
