Fourier
Registered User
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!
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.
I actually do share most of your distaste for the way the big dollar sports are run. No question money corrupts. But I doubt that having the NFL and NBA set up feeder leagues would do much to change this. For example, popularity of college football predates the NFL by a lot. While the dollars involved might be significantly bigger today I would say that college sports have been a significant part of many of the US's schools identity for an awful long time. More to the point though, I don't think the side business model would be of any interest to either the schools or the athletes. Despite the high profile counterexamples, the vast majority of student athletes are at school for an education.
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.
To me it is all a matter of degree. I think that there should be legitimate admission standards for athletes but I could live with top athletes getting preferred status over marginally better academic applicants. It adds to the diversity of a student body and that has benefits. I am actually quite in favour of using a broad set of criteria for program admission.
I also think that it would be pretty hard to make the case that many students are rejected from their school of choice because their spot was taken by a student athlete even if the student athlete may be admitted with lower grades than the non-athlete applicants the school admits. I really do wonder if you cancelled the athletics programs if those slots would automatically open up. Stanford could easily add 200 students to its student body. They simply choose not to do so.
Despite what I wrote in my previous post I am also far from a fan of the type of academic dishonesty that can happen with regards to student athletes. MY sense is that the schools have a responsibility to provide the athletes with an opportunity to get a quality education, and that a student who cannot cut it should be dropped from the program. We all know that this does not happen. especially in the case of some high profile athletes. But I think it is the case that the vast majority of student athletes do get this chance and do take advantage of it.
Last edited: