Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dr. FLK

Imagine How Studly College BBall Could Be:

Recommended Posts

Yeah to be clear I don't really mean have it for the enjoyment of the spectator, I mean have it for the enjoyment of the student athlete. I would much rather my college field an athletic team made up of 13 guys who want to be businessmen, architects, lawyers OR professional basketball players here or in Europe and who are interested in an education to help them get to whatever that goal, than a team made up of 13 guys who don’t care about the education but are much more entertaining to watch play basketball.

Ah, I see your point. I guess it would be like having all club teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for your last point, I honestly don't see the logic in the association between going to college and community activism.

We actually just learned about this in my Comparative Government class actually. People that have gained higher education are much more likely to participate in society than people without a degree. They feel a greater sense of duty to the community because they are more apt to see the things around them and realize that they need fixing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We actually just learned about this in my Comparative Government class actually. People that have gained higher education are much more likely to participate in society than people without a degree. They feel a greater sense of duty to the community because they are more apt to see the things around them and realize that they need fixing.

I don't know a lot about this issue, so I can't say anything definitively, but this smells of something that is correlation without strong causation. For example, people who get degrees are generally wealthier or come from wealthier families, so they are more likely to be able to commit the time and resources to community service. Also, I'd argue that basketball players who are talented enough to go pro at 18 probably aren't really gaining higher education even though they are living on a college campus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But usually those are jobs that require education or higher-order thinking. GeorgiaBird's example of a cellist is a good one, IMO.

Sports do as well.

You aren't going to find very many high-school quarterbacks that can handle a pro offense. Not even many running backs, who probably have the least to learn when moving up levels in football.

And, think about how many "Where are they now..." types of stories there are about former playground legends in basketball who had all the athletic talent but weren't able to do anything that wasn't pure athleticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sports do as well.

You aren't going to find very many high-school quarterbacks that can handle a pro offense. Not even many running backs, who probably have the least to learn when moving up levels in football.

And, think about how many "Where are they now..." types of stories there are about former playground legends in basketball who had all the athletic talent but weren't able to do anything that wasn't pure athleticism.

I guess you could take practices and learning strategies/playbooks and call it a "Football Major." But that would still essentially amount to hiring mercenaries because in most conferences guys get full scholarships, room, and board. IMO, in order for that not to be hypocritical, athletes would have to pay for their sports "education" just like every other student. Also, students are allowed to pick any major even if they are bad at it, so for example a football or basketball major would have to be open to people who aren't good enough to play on the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess you could take practices and learning strategies/playbooks and call it a "Football Major." But that would still essentially amount to hiring mercenaries because in most conferences guys get full scholarships, room, and board. IMO, in order for that not to be hypocritical, athletes would have to pay for their sports "education" just like every other student. Also, students are allowed to pick any major even if they are bad at it, so for example a football or basketball major would have to be open to people who aren't good enough to play on the team.

1) Other departments have full scholorships, and in probably all cases the number of total athletic scholorships at a school is a miniscule fraction of the total scholorships available.

Not just true athletics either. UMBC's chess team sounds like it is run essentially the same as a basketball or football team, from what I've heard of it.

2) Schools often have "competative" majors, where you have to meet certain requirements to get into the program. Athletic majors can be considered the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess you could take practices and learning strategies/playbooks and call it a "Football Major."

I just want to take this part and expand on it.

If you think about it, having a "major" in football would be a lot like having a major in anything else. You can have lecture/classroom time (meetings and film sessions), as well as lab time (practices and games). Setting them up as classes would allow easier integration into the schedule of the rest of campus so that the students involved could plan their courses around them easier.

You could also have group of minors available that are designed to help for whenever the student is finished with athletics, like mass communications (media), or law (sports agents), or business, etc.

It really wouldn't be that hard to set this up, once you get through the idealized visions some people have that just aren't realistic, anymore then then the rest of the university is simply a place of "higher learning" instead of a venue to gain the appropriate knowledge for a career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) Other departments have full scholorships, and in probably all cases the number of total athletic scholorships at a school is a miniscule fraction of the total scholorships available.

Not just true athletics either. UMBC's chess team sounds like it is run essentially the same as a basketball or football team, from what I've heard of it.

2) Schools often have "competative" majors, where you have to meet certain requirements to get into the program. Athletic majors can be considered the same thing.

Here's a question: why even call it a major? It wouldn't even matter whether the kids officially graduated or not; it wouldn't make a difference on a resume for a job outside of professional sports. They could just say they lived at college for four years and played football or basketball. A sports major wouldn't have meaningful grades or GPAs anyway, just game film or highlights. So why should it be attached to a university instead of a separate developmental league?

Meanwhile, the colleges take in a ton of money, where in an open market that money would be going to players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could also have group of minors available that are designed to help for whenever the student is finished with athletics, like mass communications (media), or law (sports agents), or business, etc.

You don't necessarily have to make those minors. You could require that students majoring in football take some of those classes to graduate.

Square- As for what you said about not making football a major at all but still letting kids into the University for it, it would never happen. There is no way to convince the higher ups at a university to allow kids to come to the school without really studying anything. It goes against the principle of what a university is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's a question: why even call it a major? It wouldn't even matter whether the kids officially graduated or not; it wouldn't make a difference on a resume for a job outside of professional sports. They could just say they lived at college for four years and played football or basketball. A sports major wouldn't have meaningful grades or GPAs anyway, just game film or highlights. So why should it be attached to a university instead of a separate developmental league?

Meanwhile, the colleges take in a ton of money, where in an open market that money would be going to players.

You could say a lot of the same things (other then the money part, which is a whole different issue) about other majors: "They just lived on-campus for four years and played around on the computer," or "They just lived on-campus for four years and read a bunch of books by dead English guys."

It's all about gaining experience for a future career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't necessarily have to make those minors. You could require that students majoring in football take some of those classes to graduate.

Well, I meant as full minors, depending on the interest of the student. So, one can be a mass communications minor with an eye on broadcasting after their career, while another can plan on opening a sports agency, and a third can run their own business.

Giving real experience in something, instead of just nothing at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Square- As for what you said about not making football a major at all but still letting kids into the University for it, it would never happen. There is no way to convince the higher ups at a university to allow kids to come to the school without really studying anything. It goes against the principle of what a university is.

Yes, I agree with this, which was sort of the point I was trying to make. If going to a university solely to play a sport is against the principle of a university, then dressing it up and calling it a major is still against the principle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You could say a lot of the same things (other then the money part, which is a whole different issue) about other majors: "They just lived on-campus for four years and played around on the computer," or "They just lived on-campus for four years and read a bunch of books by dead English guys."

It's all about gaining experience for a future career.

I think the money stuff is definitely linked to the issue overall, especially the NBA's requirement of one year of college. Revenue-generating college athletics (football and basketball) are largely artificial constructs. In a free market, the top football/basketball players wouldn't go to universities to be "educated" in sports, they would be signed/drafted and possibly put into developmental leagues, where they would not be restricted from making money and having endorsement deals.

Also, there is a distinction between universities and vocational schools, in that universities require broader-based education and do not train solely for specific jobs. A major in football would in effect be against the stated principles of universities and move into the realm of vocational schools. Of course, that wouldn't stop them from being hypocrites when money is involved. They already accept students like Greg Oden whom they know full well are intending to leave after one year without graduating or getting any education outside of sports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, there is a distinction between universities and vocational schools, in that universities require broader-based education and do not train solely for specific jobs.

That's not true at all.

Part of a university education is making sure you expand your knowledge beyond a narrow field, but generally if you are an engineering, or architecture, or journalism, or education, or some other similar major (especially on the science side), you have a pretty good idea what you are going to do after college.

And an athletics major would be under the same requirements as any other major when it comes to the general coursework required by the school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the money stuff is definitely linked to the issue overall, especially the NBA's requirement of one year of college. Revenue-generating college athletics (football and basketball) are largely artificial constructs. In a free market, the top football/basketball players wouldn't go to universities to be "educated" in sports, they would be signed/drafted and possibly put into developmental leagues, where they would not be restricted from making money and having endorsement deals.

Why restrict them in college? If I'm a mass communications major and have the opportunity to work for a major newspaper, I can.

I would take some of the money made by the schools and give it to the athletes who play, just like any other student that gets a job, on- or off-campus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2020 Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2020 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






×
×
  • Create New...