That would be foolish. Boosters would pay the athletes way and the sanctioning bodies would lose a key tool to use to mete out punishment and regulation.
As others have pointed out, the problems exist mainly with the high profile, high revenue generating sports. Many a student athlete of sound academic ability made their way through college on full or partial scholarships for track and field, volleyball, or other little known and followed programs. There are lots of female athletes getting an education at top flight Universities thanks to sports scholarships. Women who may not have attended as large or prestigious (or expensive) a school if not for the scholarship.
Before eliminating scholarships, I would eliminate the corporate donations and the TV revenue. I’d suggest a broadcast ban on college sports, but given the penetration of digital media in our culture, that would just foster an underground broadcast market that while less influential may still become too influential.
Sometimes you take the good with the bad. 
You think they don’t? 
Because that punishment is so effective? :rolleyes:
Maybe students shouldn’t be using their sports ability to buy themselves an education. It sends the wrong message.
Yes, but big time programs that generate a lot of revenue cost a lot to run. Even so, they usually provide revenue back to the athletic departments that help defray the costs of other sports such as swimming and diving that can never hope to recoup their facility costs on their own revenues. They also help to defray the costs of womens programs that despite often offering exceptionally competitive teams rarely are profitable programs. Myself, I think the expansion of womens athletics in colleges and universities is a great thing.
My high school experience was a little different. Our largest revenue generating program produced enough from season ticket sales and gate receipts that students had the luxury of participating in any sport (with full equipment supplied) for a student fee of $15. Twenty years and increased insurance costs and a faltering program and student fees now average $200 dollars with an additional equipment surcharge for sports like hockey, football, and track.
I think overall they are universally money losers as a whole, and yet academically focused institutions like Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology still have a rather expansive offering of sports programs.
As a former student athlete (albeit not in a D-1 program) I can assure you that not all professors and instructors are on board with the idea of “treat the athletes with kid gloves”. Some of mine held us every bit as accountable as any other student that missed class. If for some reason the travel day meant missing an exam, that always entailed making alternate arrangements, which almost always meant taking the exam outside of usual class hours and almost always ahead of the rest of the class. I’m not saying there are tons and tons of abuses going on in these huge programs. Just saying for every one of those cases there are literally dozens of Jane and John Doe athletes in the unknown programs using college athletics as a way to get the education they want and enjoy their time doing it. All with little or no notoriety in return (as it should be).
I think the Kean University case is a good example. Without the NCAA scholarship regulations, there probably wouldn’t have been much scrutiny of the academic scholarships being awarded to student athletes (many who were deserving mind you). That closer scrutiny turned up several instances of academic fraud and malfeasance.
Yes, because only the rich and well connected should allowed that opportunity. :rolleyes:The rest of us should be forever burdened with student loans? Sorry, I was bright, but not the brightest of the bright. Very few earn full ride academic scholarships, and doing away with athletic ones is unlikely to change that in any significant way. So Joe Farmhand with a lot of potential but saddled with a less than stellar local public education is at a bit of a disadvantage. I think it is wonderful that he can get some help going to school because he happens to be real good at throwing the discuss. Hell, I got some help just because my father was a VFW member. Yeah, I know, that money didn’t come directly from the school. That being said, outside of the big time programs, full ride athletic scholarships are a rarity.
Let’s be clear, I in no way endorse the mockery of amature athleticism that is represented by Division-1 Football and Basketball (Hockey and Baseball to a lesser extent).
In 1968, NBC switched away from the end of an a Oakland Raiders / New York Jets game to broadcast the TV movie Heidi. TV viewers thus missed the two touchdowns which the Raiders scored in the final minute of the game to win it; the flood of complaints from football fans led to the event being dubbed “The Heidi Game”, and the networks taking steps to ensure that games would not again be pre-empted.
TL;DR – the networks live in fear of another “Heidi Game”, and so, it’ll never happen.
Quote by Hbns
Not to mention the probability of the later exams being harder! Most of the classes I am in have the policy of later exams being more difficult; for example what is multiple choice test in class, becomes an open response test if not taken on test day. The profs do this deliberately to avoid having to schedule in students who plan on using university excused absences or the ones who have the advantage of a friend taking it on test day.
A recent article that I think is pretty well reasoned, even if I don’t share their conclusions.
That’s not the point. I’m concerned about the rest of the student body who have to tolerate unprepared, undisciplined, and unintelligent “student athletes” watering down their education and disrupting their classes.
I’m less concerned about the athletes finding a way to access college outside of athletics. Most of them should take up a trade or blue collar pursuit, anyway. We need carpenters as much as scientists.
As far as I’m aware, student athletes aren’t responsible for “watering down … education” or “disrupting … classes.” Is there any evidence for either claim?
I’m sure Nicole M. LaVoi would love to hear that you think she should have stuck to carpentry, perhaps you think she should have just been a house wife.
She was a D-III tennis player at Gustavus Adolphus College on a National Championship winning team and an Academic All-American. Who went on to earn a doctorate and to faculty jobs at such low brow institutions as the University of Notre Dame and Wellesley College. She is currently at the University of Minnesota as Associate director, Tucker Center for Research on Girls & Women in Sports.
Actually, 3 years ago the NCAA released a report that showed most college athletic departments cost their schools money. It even got discussed here:
Bravo!
Your single example proves that all those football and basketball players are certainly fine scholars!
Thing is, most folks here are not talking about dismantling all women’s varsity tennis teams because of the problems they’ve caused.
Are there departments that don’t cost the school money? Isn’t it a bit about value for the dollar?
The fact that a small school such as Rose-Hulman, that prides itself on its academic curriculum, has as diverse an athletic program as it does (non-scholarship mind you), makes me wonder if there isn’t something more at play than just Saturday afternoon football games for the alumni to fawn over.
Even better, here is MIT athletics. No athletic scholarships. Definitely not mill to churn out professional sports athletes, and yet a nearly $3 million athletics program. Better yet for those that suggest academics should be rewarded over athletics, they don’t do that either. They do not offer merit scholarships. Scholarships are simply based upon financial need doesn’t matter if you are a student or a student/athlete.
One word: money.
The time frame listed for the studies 1999-2003 represented a tumultuous time in UK Athletics. The players that left UK largely did so on their own volition, NOT because they flunked out. (Lonnell Dewalt aside). UK is not Harvard, but they still have minimum requirements for entry and DO NOT accept partial qualifiiers. So players transferring and players GOING PRO negatively impact this graduation rate. A better comparison would be what is the average 6 year graduation rate for the average class at UK? I don’t know what it was for that time frame. Also from the link you provided, UK scored in the top 10% for APR which measures academic progress and not just graduation.
More than that, what you said does not address the GOOD that the athletic department does…
http://www.ukathletics.com/blog/2011/04/uk-athletics-a-vital-partner-at-university.html
In 8 years, the athletic department has provided almost $20 million dollars to the Academic side. While taking nothing from it. Additionally, the athletic department has funneled $100 million over the same time frame to the university.
So again, please explain why I should not be proud that our athletic department provides millions of dollars a year in scholarships for the best and brightest from around the world?
Former student athlete chiming in here.
As a chuckles Division 3 NCAA and Division 2 NIAA soccer player I would like to throw in my anecdotal evidence into this train wreck of a thread. Fully 80+% of the peeps in the team were engineering majors (all graduated). The issue with accommodations from professors, yes occasionally we were allowed to turn in homework late if we traveled to other universities, I don’t think that an athletic event interfered with class more than 5 times per year though. Also, the training season started 6 weeks before fall classes started and finished by week 4 of fall quarter, so there were no major conflicts with tests.
As for the benefits of such a program, I think it definitely made me a well rounded individual. For one, you have to be motivated enough to wake up in predawn hours of the day and go work out. Training your body and brain to push past the pain comes in handy when you have to turn in massive amounts of homework 
. On the other hand, being in an athletic program also gives the opportunity for people to be educated in leadership skills, as I was, and which it came in handy later.
Anyway, TLDR, the vast majority of athletics programs at the university level are well run and are a net benefit to the student body. The problem only starts when the TV revenue starts the squabbling going between an extreme minority of schools.
Oh.
Well, as long as I have your word on this, I’ll withdraw my complaint and ask for more resources to be turned to college athletics programs in the future.
:rolleyes: