How To Reform College Sports: Best-Selling Author John U. Bacon Makes His Case

[EvilCoop]

This also seems backwards. Students should (and for the most part do) select the best school into which they can gain acceptance. Certainly money becomes an issue for some, say paying for U of Michigan in-state at $12-14K vs out-of-state at $42K. Are kids picking Michigan because of their football program or the academics?


Now-- there is the element of alumni support, etc. Even if the schools ran the side businesses in the sports entertainment sector, the alums would still support their "brand" imo. The fallacy that the system must be contained within the academic missions of these schools is a fallacy. Consider that some of the elite private schools have built sound support and endowments based on the rigor of their academic offerings.

My parents were smart enough to tell me that Michigan was the best school I was applying to. I now have enough money in my college fund to get a free year in whatever professional/graduate program I choose. I don't get how this isn't a factor for many people.

 

[KevFu]

I cannot figure out if you just don't get the other side's opinion, or if you're here promoting the status quo, because your defense is so full of holes, obfuscatory, full of red herrings....

I fully understand "the other side's opinion," the problem with it is that that majority opinion has ZERO AWARENESS of what the NCAA actually is, because all they see is big time football and men's basketball.

Everyone is up and arms about STATISTICAL OUTLIERS: Men's Basketball & football players who are only at college to kill time before they can turn pro (including those basketball players too dumb to go play in Europe).

Who cares what the percentages might be? Completely irrelevant to the point that the NCAA is the professional leagues' development arm

You should care about the percentages because: It's not the NCAA's responsibility to BE the professional development league for the NFL. The NCAA's responsibility is to manage ALL of it's student-athletes. You don't do that by catering to the needs of 0.2% of membership, especially when that could (and probably would) screw over the other 99.8% of its membership.

Yes, "we" do require these kids to jump through the NCAA hoops (ha ha) in order to increase the probability-- already fairly low -- that they will get there. There is no flaw in the premise.

We don't need statistics, but since you brought it up.... how many 18 year olds make the jump from high school to the NBA and NFL?

This is where the "other side's opinion" which I (allegedly) don't get tries to have things two ways:

#1 - How many kids actually make the pros out of high school, or even after college ? (very, very, very few)… but why are those kinds of kids THE EXAMPLES on why the NCAA is unjust?

#2 - Everyone says/thinks the NCAA is a "minor league" of professionals because of the dollar amounts schools are bringing in (and therefore claim the players deserve a share), but everyone ignores the ACTUAL CASH VALUE of the talent. All the players not good enough to earn a spot in the NBA D-League, or in the CFL, would be worth less than "replacement level" salary for those leagues: MBB less than $13,500, and football less than $30,000.

but KevFu and Fugu know that the players negotiated a CBA with the league and that's how that particular cookie crumbles.

Sort of my point:

The players association is full of tenured players. The owners keep costs down because all the guys on the other side of the negotiating table have already "paid their dues" and aren't on ELC's any more. The NHLPA (and all the other unions) have no problem screwing the rookies, because they have no seat at the table. This is accepted by everyone. No one calls it unjust.

The rookies have no say in the matter. They aren't allowed to sell their services to the highest bidder, they're subject to the draft (at least the college kids get to pick which team they play for!). But no one has a problem with it. It's called "paying your dues." People who do try to pick their own teams are labeled whiners & crybabies, like Eric Lindros and John Elway were.

 

[MaskedSonja]

There's already a working model available-- the other development leagues. I think you may not be understanding what I'm proposing. The athletes are just that-- athletes, employed by the school's side business. This would have no integration with the academic departments.


My question to you is why we as a society put a higher value on athletes insofar as entry and support into university settings than we do on academically inclined students? Why create a separate system to create opportunities for those with elite athletic skills-- and not academic ability? Sure, the athletic programs may be able to pay for themselves for some schools, but the abuses are great. Football coaches with six and seven figure salaries? Really? The kids are taken advantage of as well, with no protection or voice in the process. It's just so wrong fundamentally that even saying other athletes might benefit shouldn't be sufficient to excuse the system.

There's obviously the easy "money" answer, but I think you want more than that.

My totally speculative, .002:because we as culture bent it and allowed it that way.

I'll use Football as the obvious example. The NFL is a 9 billion dollar a year industry, fed by the NCAA. Culture not only feeds the NFL, but college as well-70 thousand people for college university games.

This is a result, IMO, of a situation where culture, in its demand for the NFL, and following players who come to the NFL through NCAA, it carries down to college football. Colleges have reputations now, and when certain schools become known to put out "quality players", then the money rolls into those schools. The coaches are in demand to keep training and pumping out those players, which are fed to the NFL monster of fandom. As a result, the schools, who have vast more money coming in from sports vs academic, lean in that direction. To try and stop it now, to try and make the NCAA go literally "amateur" in all aspects and make education the focus-I don't think it can be done, because you have to get ALL the colleges to agree to it.

To be blunt-the general culture of NFL fans have little to no interest in education aspects-"just give me my football on Sundays and I'm happy"-and the 9 billion a year attests to that. As a result, education is passed by in terms of values by the general populace. The NFL needs the engine to keep going, and the NCAA obliges.


I really hope I made sense, I wrote this when I was tired, so I may not have gotten my points across clearly.

 

[KevFu]

What is the monetary value of the back-side defensive end to a Division 1 Football team? … As a result, how much of the pot should he get relative to the star point guard on the women's bball team. I honestly have no idea how to answer such a question.

This has been my point: The value of an individual NCAA football player (with some rare exceptions) is probably less than the value of a scholarship. The players themselves are interchangeable. On the open market, no one would pay them significant money to play (CFL replacement level salaries: $30,000).

It's the brand of college football, college basketball, and the college name that makes all those people show up. The NCAA Draft Class at RB in 2008 is the prime example of this.

Rashard Mendenhall at Illinois; Darren McFadden and Felix Jones at Arkansas; Jonathan Stewart at Oregon; Chris Johnson at East Carolina; and Matt Forte at Tulane.

There's zero correlation between which RB is the best (Johnson & Forte) and which school has the highest attendance, most revenue, etc. If you were to swap all those six guys to different schools, no one would see an attendance increase or decrease. Tulane would draw 10,000>, East Carolina is still having about 35,000; and Arkansas would still have 60,000+.

BTW I just looked at the projected budget for the U of M's athletic department for 2012/2013.

I was struck by the fact that the operating profit is only about $5M and that combined financial aid to students is about $18M on about $130M in revenue. So on the surface there is not a lot of extra money to distribute, especially given some of the rules that are in place via Title IX, which I must confess I do not really understand.

We need to stop using the word "profit." Athletic departments are non-profits, so everything is re-invested (on things that benefit the players, BTW). The money is there to be taken, so it's taken.

There's no "extra money" to distribute. Athletics "revenue" also includes booster donations. Fans handing over money because they want to build stuff that lures recruits.

Love a lot of the ideas in the article. Don't ever see them happening, either on the part of the pro leagues or the big money Div I schools, but I think it is one of the few clean, long-term solutions to the growing problem college sports is facing. Instead, greed is going to eventually bring the whole thing crashing down.

I'm probably in the minority, but would have no problem watching real student athletes at the expense of the NFL/NBA-lite experience we currently have. I think, for a lot of college fans, it's all about the "name on the front of the jersey" more than that on the back anyway...regardless of how much ESPN wants to shove the likes of Manziell down our throats.

The pro leagues won't do anything, because the NCAA serves that role at zero expense. The "growing problem" college sports is facing is called "The BCS." That's where all the problems lie. And everyone's solution seems to empower the BCS to be more pro-like and relegate the rest of the NCAA to JV status. The whole reason I'm arguing in this thread is because THAT is unacceptable to me. It's backwards, illogical and morally reprehensible.

I think that the NFL and NBA need to fund their own development leagues at this point.

It's funny to me how people in this thread constantly blame the NCAA for "acting like a pro league" and "enslaving the athletes who have no choice because there's no development league" WHEN THERE ACTUALLY IS AN NBA DEVELOPMENT LEAGUE.

In any event, I'm coming to the mindset that you have to kill the beast to save it.

The Beast is the BCS. These "problems" barely exist outside of it. The solution is to blow up the BCS, make an NCAA Football Championship in the control of the NCAA. Let them provide equitable distribution of wealth. More teams become competitive, less kids get taken advantage of. That simple.

 

[Fugu]

There's obviously the easy "money" answer, but I think you want more than that.

My totally speculative, .002:because we as culture bent it and allowed it that way.

I'll use Football as the obvious example. The NFL is a 9 billion dollar a year industry, fed by the NCAA. Culture not only feeds the NFL, but college as well-70 thousand people for college university games.

This is a result, IMO, of a situation where culture, in its demand for the NFL, and following players who come to the NFL through NCAA, it carries down to college football. Colleges have reputations now, and when certain schools become known to put out "quality players", then the money rolls into those schools. The coaches are in demand to keep training and pumping out those players, which are fed to the NFL monster of fandom. As a result, the schools, who have vast more money coming in from sports vs academic, lean in that direction. To try and stop it now, to try and make the NCAA go literally "amateur" in all aspects and make education the focus-I don't think it can be done, because you have to get ALL the colleges to agree to it.

To be blunt-the general culture of NFL fans have little to no interest in education aspects-"just give me my football on Sundays and I'm happy"-and the 9 billion a year attests to that. As a result, education is passed by in terms of values by the general populace. The NFL needs the engine to keep going, and the NCAA obliges.


I really hope I made sense, I wrote this when I was tired, so I may not have gotten my points across clearly.

I think the essence of the problem is that the entire enterprise is being run under the umbrella of not-for-profit educational institutions.

Yes, there is indeed a massive amount of money being made (revenue side) in these operations. Imagine if they actually had to function like normal business (for profit) since that's in fact is what they are. I don't mind that people like certain forms of entertainment and make that connection between their school brand/sport, etc., but let's cease with the hypocrisy that these are somehow charitable or educational causes. Any operation that can pay a coach $700K per year should not be allowed to claim a not-for-profit status!

 

[Fugu]

You should care about the percentages because: It's not the NCAA's responsibility to BE the professional development league for the NFL. The NCAA's responsibility is to manage ALL of it's student-athletes. You don't do that by catering to the needs of 0.2% of membership, especially when that could (and probably would) screw over the other 99.8% of its membership.

The NCAA and the schools can only run everything else because of the money they get to keep off the backs of the basketball and football players. The kids, on the other hand, have no other options really (in terms of development) so they slave away for the schools, have no voice or rights realistically speaking, and the schools/NCAA can fund all sorts of things, some legislated while other things not-- like six figure salaries for coaches and staff. There are a lot of other people getting very rich off the sweat of these youngsters, including the networks.

This is where the "other side's opinion" which I (allegedly) don't get tries to have things two ways:
#1 - How many kids actually make the pros out of high school, or even after college ? (very, very, very few)… but why are those kinds of kids THE EXAMPLES on why the NCAA is unjust?

#2 - Everyone says/thinks the NCAA is a "minor league" of professionals because of the dollar amounts schools are bringing in (and therefore claim the players deserve a share), but everyone ignores the ACTUAL CASH VALUE of the talent. All the players not good enough to earn a spot in the NBA D-League, or in the CFL, would be worth less than "replacement level" salary for those leagues: MBB less than $13,500, and football less than $30,000.

My only interest in the actual figures is to let the market set them. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Hoser]

There are "fluff" electives like art history precisely because this is the type of student this program is aimed at. Someone who may in the past have gone into a traditional Fine Arts program can now use their creative skills to find a niche that might lead to employment in a specific industry.

You did read the part I quoted that said "This engineering major is not an ABET accredited engineering degree, nor is it designed to lead directly to professional licensure in architecture," right? If your degree isn't ABET accredited it won't lead to employment anywhere. In engineering a degree from a program that isn't ABET accredited is worth as much as the paper it's printed on.

But to do so they also have to take a bunch of courses that most fine arts students would not be able to pass. (Please find me a community college program that would require this level of mathematics.)

If you don't want to go to Stanford you can go to nearby Cañada College: http://canadacollege.edu/degrees/?program=ENGR-3AS

You can find the course descriptions here: http://canadacollege.edu/physicalsciences/coursedescriptions.php

So if you look at it that way is this really a watered down degree. The reality is that with the evidence you have presented I doubt either of us could tell.

Well, you see, I'm an engineer, so I can tell what an engineering degree program should look like.

(Honestly the program at Cañada College looks tougher.)

 

[pbgoalie]

How about...
For every scholarship athlete that does NOT graduate in a reasonable
time (5-6 years?), that program loses a scholarship.
Recruiting would change to a heavier leaning academic focus.

It would impact professional development in some sports (football, baseball
US hockey), but those leagues would have to step up more to develop
their future players.

 

[joelef]

Cant believe im saying saying this but the europeans have it right. Have each NFL and NBA team have an academy system.

 

[Fugu]

Cant believe im saying saying this but the europeans have it right. Have each NFL and NBA team have an academy system.

Can you expand? Not everyone is familiar with how such a system would work. Thanks.

 

[DoyleG]

Cant believe im saying saying this but the europeans have it right. Have each NFL and NBA team have an academy system.

Wouldn't happen since the NFL and NBA can't sell talent.

Anyways, the academy system has been in decline in Europe for a number of years.

 

[Brodie]

Are kids picking Michigan because of their football program or the academics?

Well, the Flutie Effect is a thing that we can prove exists... perhaps the most amazing case being Penn State, where the football team's prominence lead to the university being able to attract a higher calibre of student. I certainly know that many of my peers in high school chose to attend MAC schools in Michigan and Ohio because they had more name recognition than superior small state schools without D1 sports (UM-Dearborn, for instance, is far superior to Eastern Michigan and yet it only receives a fraction of the applications).

If universities were actually about fulfilling some sort of mission of higher education they wouldn't be charging $42,000 a year or offering a football team, though.

 

[Brodie]

Can you expand? Not everyone is familiar with how such a system would work. Thanks.

Teams have academies that develop players for them... essentially they scout a kid at age 5-10 (within a defined catchment area somewhat analogous to a franchise territory) and then they operate teams in various age brackets up to U-21 in order to develop said players.

It's basically the MLB model only expanded to cover high schoolers and middle schoolers

 

[Fugu]

Well, the Flutie Effect is a thing that we can prove exists... perhaps the most amazing case being Penn State, where the football team's prominence lead to the university being able to attract a higher calibre of student. I certainly know that many of my peers in high school chose to attend MAC schools in Michigan and Ohio because they had more name recognition than superior small state schools without D1 sports (UM-Dearborn, for instance, is far superior to Eastern Michigan and yet it only receives a fraction of the applications).

If universities were actually about fulfilling some sort of mission of higher education they wouldn't be charging $42,000 a year or offering a football team, though.

I dunno. The actual cost of getting a degree may be that high. I think UMich gets about 25% or so of its money from the state. It has a massive private endowment in the billions, and is 1st or 2nd in the total research funding it receives (which actually does cover a lot of the costs of grad students, labs, and so on...). Point being if you had to pass on the entire true cost to individuals, it might cost even more.

I was referring to the best or better schools however. Would you attend Eastern if you could go to Stanford or Michigan-- because they have the better football programs?

 

[Brodie]

I'd be lying to you if I said that my decision to go to Michigan was in no way influenced by my lifelong football fandom. But it was also by far the best school I got into, both academically and on the gridiron. College is sold as being as much about the experience as the diploma. Part of the appeal of a school like Michigan is the lifestyle element and that includes the 115k fans watching the Wolverines play Ohio State. So I'd imagine that there are kids out there who would decide to get that experience at LSU rather than go to Tulane, sure. It's the same logic that causes a kid to choose an inferior campus university instead of a commuter school with a better academic reputation... they really want the community aspect.

As to funding of higher education... I don't want to go too political or OT, but how is it that Oxbridge and the Sorbonne, etc. manage to remain elite charging tuition fees capped at a fraction of what top American schools demand? Hell, Oxbridge was completely free as recently as a decade ago.

ETA: Anecdotally, a friend of a friend who did his undergrad at MSU ended up attending Appalachian State for grad school... they were already on his list because they offered the program he wanted, but the Michigan upset was definitely a deciding factor for him.

 

[Fugu]

I'd be lying to you if I said that my decision to go to Michigan was in no way influenced by my lifelong football fandom. But it was also by far the best school I got into, both academically and on the gridiron. College is sold as being as much about the experience as the diploma. Part of the appeal of a school like Michigan is the lifestyle element and that includes the 115k fans watching the Wolverines play Ohio State. So I'd imagine that there are kids out there who would decide to get that experience at LSU rather than go to Tulane, sure. It's the same logic that causes a kid to choose an inferior campus university instead of a commuter school with a better academic reputation... they really want the community aspect.

As to funding of higher education... I don't want to go too political or OT, but how is it that Oxbridge and the Sorbonne, etc. manage to remain elite charging tuition fees capped at a fraction of what top American schools demand? Hell, Oxbridge was completely free as recently as a decade ago.

ETA: Anecdotally, a friend of a friend who did his undergrad at MSU ended up attending Appalachian State for grad school... they were already on his list because they offered the program he wanted, but the Michigan upset was definitely a deciding factor for him.

Now that's just silly. If UMich had no football program but still the same academic reputation, you would have picked it regardless.


If I recall, Oxbridge have a sizable endowment and funding from the government. THAT is how/why they're capped. They might actually have a vestige of a belief that they want the best and brightest to go there without going dead broke.

 

[EvilCoop]

I'd be lying to you if I said that my decision to go to Michigan was in no way influenced by my lifelong football fandom. But it was also by far the best school I got into, both academically and on the gridiron. College is sold as being as much about the experience as the diploma. Part of the appeal of a school like Michigan is the lifestyle element and that includes the 115k fans watching the Wolverines play Ohio State. So I'd imagine that there are kids out there who would decide to get that experience at LSU rather than go to Tulane, sure. It's the same logic that causes a kid to choose an inferior campus university instead of a commuter school with a better academic reputation... they really want the community aspect.

As to funding of higher education... I don't want to go too political or OT, but how is it that Oxbridge and the Sorbonne, etc. manage to remain elite charging tuition fees capped at a fraction of what top American schools demand? Hell, Oxbridge was completely free as recently as a decade ago.

ETA: Anecdotally, a friend of a friend who did his undergrad at MSU ended up attending Appalachian State for grad school... they were already on his list because they offered the program he wanted, but the Michigan upset was definitely a deciding factor for him.

What was that Ohio State ad right after they won the national title? "I went to Ohio State, but not because of the football...okay, maybe just a little because of the football." It absolutely exists.

Also, I believe Michigan's football success preceded it becoming a globally elite university.

 

[Fugu]

What was that Ohio State ad right after they won the national title? "I went to Ohio State, but not because of the football...okay, maybe just a little because of the football." It absolutely exists.

Also, I believe Michigan's football success preceded it becoming a globally elite university.

Oh, not you too. You two are seriously going to tell me you picked UMich because of the football program? Like if it didn't exist, you would have passed up on U of M and looked for a better sports program?

 

[EvilCoop]

Oh, not you too. You two are seriously going to tell me you picked UMich because of the football program? Like if it didn't exist, you would have passed up on U of M and looked for a better sports program?

Well, it made the decision easier. The superior academics and relatively low cost made it a great decision for me. But you're argument doesn't really work, the football team is part of the University's identity, there's an old Harold Lloyd silent film The Freshman and one of the text cards describes the school as a "football stadium with a college attached" that's Michigan unless you're an engineering student with a nice rock to live under.

The University of Chicago was recruiting me, BTW (I'm much smarter than my posts here would indicate); I'm glad I didn't go, I wasn't mature enough to leave southeastern Michigan yet and I would have paid 4 times as much money, but I eliminated Chicago because 1. I heard a lot of undergrads are unhappy there and 2. They had no real football team.

 

[joelef]

Well, it made the decision easier. The superior academics and relatively low cost made it a great decision for me. But you're argument doesn't really work, the football team is part of the University's identity, there's an old Harold Lloyd silent film The Freshman and one of the text cards describes the school as a "football stadium with a college attached" that's Michigan unless you're an engineering student with a nice rock to live under.

The University of Chicago was recruiting me, BTW (I'm much smarter than my posts here would indicate); I'm glad I didn't go, I wasn't mature enough to leave southeastern Michigan yet and I would have paid 4 times as much money, but I eliminated Chicago because 1. I heard a lot of undergrads are unhappy there and 2. They had no real football team.

so you choose to go to college because they have no football team? this is whats wrong with education in america.

 

[joelef]

I'd be lying to you if I said that my decision to go to Michigan was in no way influenced by my lifelong football fandom. But it was also by far the best school I got into, both academically and on the gridiron. College is sold as being as much about the experience as the diploma. Part of the appeal of a school like Michigan is the lifestyle element and that includes the 115k fans watching the Wolverines play Ohio State. So I'd imagine that there are kids out there who would decide to get that experience at LSU rather than go to Tulane, sure. It's the same logic that causes a kid to choose an inferior campus university instead of a commuter school with a better academic reputation... they really want the community aspect.

As to funding of higher education... I don't want to go too political or OT, but how is it that Oxbridge and the Sorbonne, etc. manage to remain elite charging tuition fees capped at a fraction of what top American schools demand? Hell, Oxbridge was completely free as recently as a decade ago.

ETA: Anecdotally, a friend of a friend who did his undergrad at MSU ended up attending Appalachian State for grad school... they were already on his list because they offered the program he wanted, but the Michigan upset was definitely a deciding factor for him.

Not to get on a side tangent but i cant stand that argyment. Theres good paying skill trades jobs that arent being filled instead people are willing to go into deep debt for the "experience". What a farce.

 

[MaskedSonja]

I think the essence of the problem is that the entire enterprise is being run under the umbrella of not-for-profit educational institutions.

Yes, there is indeed a massive amount of money being made (revenue side) in these operations. Imagine if they actually had to function like normal business (for profit) since that's in fact is what they are. I don't mind that people like certain forms of entertainment and make that connection between their school brand/sport, etc., but let's cease with the hypocrisy that these are somehow charitable or educational causes. Any operation that can pay a coach $700K per year should not be allowed to claim a not-for-profit status!

That was a point I was going to make but too tired (nonprofit/coaching). I agree that the whole thing of "nonprofit" when you've got coaching making that type of money, well it just doesn't wash IMO. The situation is so ingrained right now though with the money and professional aspects, there's no easy way to change it. Like you said, at the very least they need to drop the pretense of people choosing them for things like the depth of challenge of their education programs or the like. Its about sports for those colleges.

 

[MaskedSonja]

Not to get on a side tangent but i cant stand that argyment. Theres good paying skill trades jobs that arent being filled instead people are willing to go into deep debt for the "experience". What a farce.

Yep, the "experience" to go into the school, 'live it up', get an education in an already filled up/hard to get into field, then come out and after that "experience", can't understand why they can't get that job that was certain to be theirs upon graduation!

 

[Fourier]

You did read the part I quoted that said "This engineering major is not an ABET accredited engineering degree, nor is it designed to lead directly to professional licensure in architecture," right? If your degree isn't ABET accredited it won't lead to employment anywhere. In engineering a degree from a program that isn't ABET accredited is worth as much as the paper it's printed on.



If you don't want to go to Stanford you can go to nearby Cañada College: http://canadacollege.edu/degrees/?program=ENGR-3AS

You can find the course descriptions here: http://canadacollege.edu/physicalsciences/coursedescriptions.php



Well, you see, I'm an engineer, so I can tell what an engineering degree program should look like.

(Honestly the program at Cañada College looks tougher.)

You have completely missed the purpose of this degree. It is not a traditional engineering degree. It is not intended to be an engineering degree. It is an architectural design degree targeted at fine arts-type students or more generally at students with a modestly less technical bent.

Take a look at this page at tell me that this was intended as a bird program for athletes.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/november9/arch-110905.html

That fact that it is not ABET certified does not in any way mean that it is a dead-end as far as career opportunities are concerned. Especially in the architecture field a four year bachelor degree typically does not lead to a license. By the way,be wrong about this but Stanford’s CS program does not seem to be on the list of ABET accredited CS programs, nor does the Princeton program. In fact most of Stanford's engineering programs including things like Electrical Engineering are not accredited. I guess graduates of those programs would also be unemployable.

Here is what Stanford says about this program:

In addition to preparing students for advanced studies in architecture and construction management, the program's strong math and science requirements prepare students well for graduate work in other fields, such as civil and environmental engineering, law, and business. The major provides a background for individuals wanting to explore a diversity of careers in architecture, engineering, construction, and structures.

There is a danger in evaluating courses/programs based on your own perspective when you ignore the target audience and when you rely only on course description. From my perspective I could say that there is an extremely high probability that the math courses you took as an engineer were mickey-mouse. In fact most engineering courses are very easy compared with the courses I took even in my first year. And guess what, I'd have just as much reason to make that claim about your degree as you do about this one. You see I teach mathematics to engineers, so as you say I know what a math course looks like. Experience over 30 years also tells me about 5-10% of an engineering class would survive the first year math course I regularly teach to mathematics students. So what does that say about your engineering degree?

In fact the answer is that it says very little. The reality is that I respect engineering degrees for their breadth and for the practical value. Engineering degrees are mostly generalist degrees with a technical slant. I don't expect engineers to be competent in abstract mathematics nor in theoretical physics since it is not what the program is about.

You also have no way to compare the nature of the program you linked to with the Stanford program. The Calculus courses in the Stanford program are regular Stanford classes targeted at students without high school calculus classes. But the courses listed cover the same material that a first year Stanford Engineer would.

No one is going to argue that many student athletes have questionable academic plans. But let's at least have some facts in place before we piant everyone with the same brush.

 

[tony d]

I think a requirement should be made that all athletes who decide to enter the pros from college should be required to do 2 years of college. This would eliminate the one and dones and give these guys at least half a college education in case their pro career doesn't pan out.