Ok, here is a question. Their is a proposal to have free college in the US like they have in Europe.
Now I have a question about how this would affect college sports and athletic scholarships.
Right now parents shell out tons of money hoping their kids will get a sports scholarship. For example my SIL had full ride because of soccer. A popular high school here prides itself on the number of college scholarships its players get every year.
BUT, if college was free would their be a need for such scholarships and if so, how will this affect youth sports over all?
Thing is in Europe where college is free they dont really have college sports teams, or at least they are not like those in the US. Their its more of a club sport. Athletes between ages 18-22 (college age) just go straight into the many semi pro and pro teams from what I see (maybe the European Dopers can help here).
On women athletes, would their be a need for title 9 anymore since its reason for being was to give equal athletic scholarships?
Wow, this really could affect all American sports since many colleges might be forced to drop unprofitable sports programs. However their could be an equal rise in semipro teams.
Now when you think about it, this could affect ALL scholarships also since their really wouldnt be a need for say a music or science scholarship unless one wants to attend a private college.
Someone’s gonna say it, so I might as well get it out of the way: I think you need to learn the difference between “their,” “there,” and “they’re.”
That said, it’s an interesting question what “free college” would do for college sports. Some college athletes play for reasons other than a scholarship, but are there enough?
“Free college” doesn’t mean private (or even state) 4 year institutions would go away. It doesn’t mean everyone is granted a bachelor’s degree for free. It means a 2 year technical or associate’s degree would be available to everyone who wants to pursue one (and can achieve one).
Think of it like healthcare in Great Britain. The NHS is there for everyone, but those who have the means to purchase private insurance and “elite” care do.
There is a lot more to a college scholarship, at least on the d1 level, then just tuition. Room and board is also included and there are also proposals to give the players some kind of stipend. I think free college would just accelerate the other benefits. I don’t think that the proposed plan will bear 100% of life costs for college students for 5 years so scholarships will still have ways to make their school more desirable then other schools. The size and scope of the programs may increase though since each student would cost less without tuition.
From the athlete prospective I would have stopped playing football after my first shoulder surgery if I had tuition paid for. I was on two half acholarships, football and track, and couldn’t afford to drop football. I would have kept doing track as long as there was a team so I don’t think the smaller sports would be effected by free tuition and the major sports will pay for extras and continue as a training ground for the pros.
I’m assuming athletic perks include more than just tuition. When I went to LSU, Jimmy Taylor and Billy Cannon and Johnny Robinson were there playing football, and my tuition was $70 a year. In the pre-Reagan era, all California public colleges and universities were tuition-free, but USC and UCLA did something to get football players to go there.
Another thing is that the “free university” schemes in most European countries come with substantial academic performance strings. Under a tuition-free model, the “perks” student athletes get might be in the form of bending of those academic performance rules instead of scholarships, although certainly some student athletes are good students and wouldn’t need them.
On your last point, I think alot of football players would drop if #1. they didnt have a good shot at the pros and #2. if they didnt need the scholarship. Football just beats your body up too much. Some guys would play just for fun but I dont see them wanting to put as much effort into it as they do now.
Not to mention why put your body thru all those daily workouts?
On your other point, yes, some students would keep doing the sport just because they like the sport. For example K-State and some other colleges have inline hockey. Almost none get any scholarship money and in fact pay everything themselves. Yet they still do it. Which again is how it is in colleges in Europe.
In your first paragraph, yes athletes do get other perks like better dorms, food, tutors, and get to play their sport for free which includes equipment and travel all paid for.
I think the division 1 teams would have to actually pay their players. Their revenues accrue mainly from TV and they would continue as before. Teams other than football and basketball and teams below division 1 would revert to club status. And this would be a plus for education.
Well, its hard to be a top tier athlete in any sport without daily workouts. Not counting injuries track was as draining on my body as football.
As far as not wanting to put your body through the football wringer I think you’re underestimating how fun football is. I played DIi football there were three kids out of my class that got a chance to play pro ball. Most of us were there to continue our football career and enjoyed the game and the comrodory. If college were free I think most of those guys would be there if for no other reason then football let them get into one of the best engineering schools in the world and they probably wouldn’t have gotten in to begin with other wise.
What sort of probability do you place on the US government adopting free college tuition? The UK just took it away a year or so ago. I wouldn’t count on it here.
Ideally, colleges would get out of the business of running minor-league sports franchises. Students who want to play sports in college could still do so. Professional athletes who want to make a living playing sports could join whatever professional team is at their level of ability.