PonyFans.com

One of the questions on another forum got me thinking.

Lost scholarships and headlines of poor athletic performance affect donations and alumni support. Functionally illiterate athletes do not make the headlines. What is the difference between the now abysmal grad rate and a future improved grad rate with worthless majors?

My question to you is, what constitutes a worthless major? Such practical degrees as home economics and P.E. that are looked upon as being unacademic or perhaps more high minded degrees such as "percussion" or "acting" that doom many a kid to lifelong jobs in the service industry? Why is it okay to let a kid get a degree in acting or "classical guitar" and then send her into a field like the movie and theatre industry that has a unemployment rate of over 99% but it is not okay to allow someone to go "Hey, I wanna be a pro athlete/high school coach and so I am going to study my sport" and then, in addition, give them a liberal arts education to round them out and allow them to go become high school and elementary teachers, something we need badly already.

Seriously. Model it after our arts school and let ONLY those gets who are predetermined by the coaches/teachers to study their sport, that way you don't have a bunch of kids who can't play (or dance or act) majoring in that field of study. Make it exclusive. And if they get hurt, then just make them go into another field, just like a dancer.

It's not enough for the NCAA to just toughen academic standards for the student athletes. They are going to have to come to realize two things that they conveinently forget when looking at grad rates:

1) Certain kids come to school looking to be pro-athletes no matter if they are pro material or not, just like some kids come to be artists. Right or wrong, they simply drift through class and don't care about thier sociology or english classes. It's time to call a spade a spade. If the academics want honesty in the schools they need to look just as much at themselves as they do at the jocks.

2) We all know that college is not for everybody, including many athletes. But the NCAA, according to both Forbes and Jett magazine, is the strongest monopoly in America: stronger than Walmart, stronger than Microsoft. And there are kids who will one day be able to play pro football who have as much business being in college (whether it's Harvard,
SMU, or Texas Tech) as Forest Gump does being in Mensa. I just don't think it's feasable to make them go somewhere that doesn't want them in the first place.

By turning it into a degree you can bring it more under the control of the school, employ much more universal, enforcible standards, and can be monitered more thoroughly by colleges than by the NCAA.

So, I ask you, besides academic snobery, why doesn't the NCAA look at giving a degree in football?

(trying not to sound like a smart a** here...seriously)....probably for the same reason(s) it doesn't give out degrees in basketball, baseball, swimming, track & field, equestrian, lacrosse, soccer, etc.

No need to preface. For the most part you can substitue any sport you want, the same argument applies.

leopold wrote:
So, I ask you, besides academic snobery, why doesn't the NCAA look at giving a degree in football?

Mainly because the NCAA doesnt give degrees in anything. Individual member institutions give degrees and decide which degrees to offer. If a school decides its going to award a degree for basketweaving, football, or Nintendo, thats fine with the NCAA, so long as its open to all students and not just athletes. SMU offers a degree in video games, which is actually a fairly rigorous course because it involves designing and engineering the games, but if a school wanted to give class credit and a degree to people for playing video games all day, they could and the NCAA wouldnt say a word, because its none of their business. The NCAA has no real authority over a schools degree programs.
A few years ago UNLV got in trouble over a couple of "PE" classes that were open only to basketball players, and were being used as extra practice time. So, a Football degree as part of your PE program might be feasible, but you cant make it exclusive in the way that you suggest, and it cant be used as a way to circumvent practice time limitations. But other than that, its none of the NCAA's business.
I've heard for decades that Georgetown has degree programs that only their athletes enter, and more recently Rice has done something similar. I cant say how true that is, I've never really looked into it. If its true, it violates the spirit of the rules, if not perhaps the exact wording. The NCAA's main concern is to avoid "Warehousing". That is, to shove all your athletes into meaningleess programs, so that they stay eligible but dont recieve any kind of real education. Universities that allow that to happen are failing in their primary duty of educating their students, and they are not fulfilling their duty to the athlete that performs for them in exchange for his degree.

Maybe the court case otherwise discussed by Sports Law in ths forum will clarify things. From a standpoint of what a university should be, the athlete who is not a scholar should go to a JC or small school, or a trade school, someplace with open admissions.

Now here is another question. Should a nearby university be able to suit up students enrolled at a lesser institution? I think Vandy had an arrangement with Peabody Teachers a few years back and did just that. Don't know if it is still going on.

And should the trade school student be able to suit up for the closest JC?

Or maybe just the kids in a park and recreation department program? That would be honest - no academics at all. Just play.

Should a nearby university be able to suit up students enrolled at a lesser institution? I think Vandy had an arrangement with Peabody Teachers a few years back and did just that. Don't know if it is still going on.

Vandy owns Peabody. Vandy didn't have a college to train teachers (What do you call that, an education department?) and Peabody, which happens to be located in Nashville, is apparently one of the best in the country. (In fact, in terms of academic rankings, it might be Vandy's strongest department now) So Vandy went out and bought them, and as I understand it is now Peabody College at Vanderbilt University, much like Dedman College at SMU. So I am not sure there is any real issue there.

Mainly because the NCAA doesnt give degrees in anything. Individual member institutions give degrees and decide which degrees to offer. If

Thank you for clarifying my question. I guess the questions I am asking is:

Why can't a degree in an athletic field be considered legitimate when
a degree in arts is?

and the answer is that it can be. Most PE departments include classes in Coaching Football or Coaching Basketball. You could expand that to include Football Announcing and Color Commentary, with lab work in Sideline Reporting. Followed by Weghtlifting and the Principles of Biomechanics. You can make a class in how to hold the yardage chains if you want to. And players already get 2 hours of PE activity credit for their participation in varsity sports, although at SMU its now considered their "Wellness" credits. An individual university can create any degree they wish to.

The problem would come if it exceeds that. You cant create a class thats exclusively for athletes and which gives them practice time beyond or above the established limits. That creates a competitive imbalance. That might be the answer you are looking for, in that the art students arent in direct competition with another university, but the athletes are. Unfortunately it would also give coaches a strong incentive to steer players away from other majors, which happens too often now, already.

I think one major problem would be that every football player would be pressured and feel obligated to major in football. What happens when you've got a quarterback controversy and one of them is a business major and the other is a football major. Many coaches would look at the football major as the more dedicated player.

And who's going to teach these classes? Would the head coach be the chair of the department? He would hopefully be the most worthy. Nobody would ever fail.

Not to mention the complete and total devaluation of a college degree from the school that offers said program.

leopold -

Thanks for the explanation about Peabody. I agree there is no particular issue with the set-up you describe. I do wonder if its aleays been that way. The article I read long ago led me to a different conclusion.

I do a problem with teachers colleges generally no matter how Peabody is regarded. My view is that all teachers should have a BA in a curriculum such as english or history in order to be able to teach on a regular certificate.

That might be the answer you are looking for, in that the art students arent in direct competition with another university, but the athletes are. Unfortunately it would also give coaches a strong incentive to steer players away from other majors, which happens too often now, already.

I see your point and it is a good one. But since we are using dancers as a model, as opposed to, say, someone who is studying an instrument (I remember a guy who majored in finance and playing the sax) then I would ask how many dancers have a double major as well. Not to be stereotypical, and perhaps I am off on this but I can't imagine too many because they have to apply to the school as dancers and are admitted on that basis, not necessarily as a typical student -- If you know that I am wrong on either point please don't hesitate to correct me.

I can't really see what the problem is when making them choose before college what their choice will be. The student has to decide at one point or another if he is going to take his athletic career further, I just wonder what the difference is between doing it at 18 when other fields make them and doing it at 22. Having a degree in football wouldn't necessarily doom them to a life of poverty if they don't go into the NFL or become high school coaches -- we all know the art major who became a stockbroker or the engineer who owns their own restaurant.

In fact, by saying that Johnny is a football player and not a "kinetics" major may erase much of the ambiguity that exists in sports right now. We all know that in many cases the "student athlete" is just a facade -- they coast through courses that don't teach them anything and they may or may not come out with a degree on the other end. That to me is a real devaluation -- when one kid comes out with a rubber stamp degree from what some see as a legitimate field. If someone comes out with a degree in dance from NYU you would think they know something about dance. Conversely, if someone comes out with a degree in football from FSU or 'Bama you would think they know something about football. Your just being honest about it.

The direct compitition between schools could pose a problem, I give you that. As far as grading goes, well, that would require a closer look.

Good book to read, although dated. Rick Tellander's A Hundred Yard Lie.
I bought it in the early 90s, but didn't read it. Found it recently, and did.

I guess the AGPFL (Age Group Professional Football League) is kind of like what the BCS is gradually morphing into.

It is not just up to the school. Part of the matter is accreditation. Universities must meet requirements for their programs to be accredited. Grad schools and businesses look at the (sometimes.)