1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Spurrier - College is for Football, not Academics

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by qtlaw, Aug 6, 2007.

  1. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    I suppose one could also say "the sooner we just let the government tell us how they're spying on us so we can live more careful lives, the better"

    Or we could still try to keep the feds out of our houses.

    As long as we're talking about institutional illusions....
     
  2. heyabbott

    heyabbott Well-Known Member

    College football and basketball is a diversion and entertainment for the real students and the community. No real student is denied a chance at an education because of the existence of money making college athletics. If the schools want to take students who couldn't or wouldn't gain acceptance except for sports, fine. Everyone knows the real deal and it doesn't harm anyone. No one thinks less of Georgetown University as an academic instituion becuase it's college basketball players wouldn't have been admitted but for basketball, the same goes for Notre Dame football, USC, Michigan, U Va. etc.

    Unless someone can show me that real academics are hurt and real students are hurt, it's not a problem. The only ones truly hurt by college Division IA football and basketball are those kids who think that they will make a living at their sport and screw their own educations.

    I bet there will be less than 30 American rookies on NBA rosters this year that played Division 1A basketball last year.
     
  3. Would Notre Dame even have a football team if not for the lowered academic expectations of its players?
     
  4. spinning27

    spinning27 New Member

    Not quite the same kettle of fish.

    Who, exactly, would it hurt to let these kids into school? It wouldn't hurt the school. It wouldn't hurt any other students currently at the school. Worst-case scenario? They fail out. And guess what? Dozens of freshmen are going to fail out of South Carolina this year because they got into drugs, they violated the alcohol policy, they partied too much and studied too little.

    The truth is, the two kids who got denied admission are the ones getting hurt. Where are they going to go? What are they going to do? They just got kicked to the curb, even though by NCAA standards they are eligible.
     
  5. heyabbott

    heyabbott Well-Known Member

    Let'em in and let'em play. Unless the University knows something b eyond atheltic ability and academic inability that would make their admission less than desirable.
     

  6. Not remotely close.
    The Constitution and its institutions are not illusions.
    Amateur college sports at this level is.
     
  7. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    I'd agree one's more important than the other, but the thinking is the same, isn't it? Unless you really believe college athletes ought to be paid, and believe that intrinsically - not just because it's become corrupt.

    Me? I'm rejoicing at this story. Who did Spurrier <i> think </i> he worked for? The NCAA? The BCS? He took the gig, he gets a wad to do it...next time, know your own admission standards and act accordingly.
     
  8. I believe intrinsically, and have for about 30 years, that college athletes should be paid.
     
  9. TyWebb

    TyWebb Well-Known Member

    I cringe at the thought of college athletes getting paid. I've always been of the mind that they are getting paid with a free education. Whether or not they decide to take advantage of that is on them. Not to mention that without college, lots would not have a shot at the NFL and those giant paydays. To me, universities are still institutions for higher learning that have football teams, not football teams that teach other people without athletic talent.
     
  10. Universities are academic institutions that sponsor regularly scheduled programs of mass popular entertainment.
    Pay the performers, please.
     
  11. dreunc1542

    dreunc1542 Active Member

    I completely agree that athletes should be paid. That raises so many questions, though. From which sports do you pay athletes? I figure basketball and football are definite, but what about other than that. Also, what about the difference between schools where the team doesn't make much money. What I'm thinking of is what about the difference in say baseball between LSU and Pitt. I'm sure the LSU baseball team makes a heck of a lot more money for its school than Pitt. It's problems like this that make paying athletes so difficult.
     
  12. Somebody better figure out a system, though, or else the whole system's just going to crash one day, the way baseball did when the reserve clause went away and there was nothing in place to cope with the changes.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page