Can anyone explain the interrelation between sports players and college for me? We don't really have such a concept in Australia as far as I'm aware. Am I understanding correctly that to play a sport professionally a person must first attend a college and complete some degree? Why does the US even have this system? Do any other countries do this as well?
It depends on the particular sport and the leagues involved, but most future professional players will play a couple years at the college level. High-school super stars in some sports may go into the professional league directly but it's uncommon. In many sports no matter your skill level you cannot build the physique necessary to compete until a bit later in life (american football for example). Also, some leagues have implemented rules designed to prevent direct recruitment from high school, notably the NBA.
There's typically no requirement to finish college however. It's relatively common for athletes to move up to the pros and skip the last years of their academics.
The US's system is mostly due to history, but the current structure continues because it is worth an extraordinary amount of money. The schools with top athletic teams bring in revenues of 100 million or more. The governing body for college athletics generally prohibits significant payments to the athletes themselves, so all that income goes to coaches and other staff, as well as supporting businesses. College coaches are usually the highest paid people on campus. This continues to be a bitter political topic, because many people see it as unfair that college athletes are generating so much money for everyone but themselves. The other side points out that allowing paid recruitment and player endorsement/advertising would have a corrupting effect as well as make it difficult for smaller schools to be competitive.
As far as I know, our system is unique, and that's probably because we were televising college athletics earlier and more heavily than other nations.
As far as I can tell, this is a uniquely American phenomenon, and how we got here could easily be the subject of a full research paper.
Here's my theory:
It all starts with Harvard and Yale wanting a leg up on each other in their football rivalry, which dates back to 1875. Professional football did not start in the US until many years later. Football, and to some degree basketball and other sports, came to represent a very serious way for colleges to express rivalries with each other.
Seriously: "After The Game of 1894, which came to be known as the "Hampden Park Bloodbath" and about which newspapers reported seven players carried off the field "in dying condition," the two schools broke off all official contact including athletic competition for two years."
As such, each institution became hell-bent on defeating the other at football, which led to the relaxing of academic standards to admit superior athletes. Things have spiraled out of control from there. Many schools now face very serious pressure from alumni and other donors who demand athletic success. Recruiting top high school athletes is an extremely shady business, as both schools and athletes have a lot at stake.
Harvard, Yale, and the other Ivy League schools today do not do this to the extent that some others do and have policies against awarding scholarships based on athletics-- they are small and elite institutions that can't get away with admitting students who literally cannot read. But even the schools with these policies admit athletes who would probably not get in based on their academics alone.
That's not really it. You don't need a degree to play professional sports, and some of the most talented players skip directly into professional leagues without finishing college. But college is where they have the best chance of honing their abilities and getting noticed.
College sports is all about money. Consider this map:
Why are the mostly highly paid "public servants" in most states athletic coaches? Because the public universities make huge amounts of money from sports: the TV licensing deals, the ticket sales, the merchandising.
The players get paid nothing -- at most they get their tuition waived.
Yes and no. Ideally it's just a university sports team. But now college sports have gone from university students playing football in their spare time to exceptional athletes who attend classes in their spare time.
Some universities, such as UNC and Virginia Tech, have seen massive profits by selling merchandise thanks to these sports teams, and have made sports a higher priority than the actual academics. Now younger people are choosing to attend universities based on their sports team rather than the academics.
Anyone who disrupts this big business of college sports can expect to feel massive backlash from the university and the crazed fans of the sports teams.
It does seem strange compared to the UK system as well. Here, for football (soccer), most people would join a club or youth team at 16 or so. Nobody expects football players in the UK to have brains. I can think of only a couple of footballers with a college degree - Graham Le Saux and Steve Coppell, I believe. Joey Barton has A Levels but is probably not a good advertisement.
On the other hand .. Australia has a huge sports-worship culture, akin to the US in many ways with regards to ferocity and cult behaviour among the proponents. I've never understood how it is that certain realms of Australian culture think that being a sporty person is more important than being an intelligent, well-informed person - but there is some sort of cultural disassociation between these two worlds that appears to be culturally driven.
In the US, its been driven even further in that there are billion-dollar industries behind the sports cult. Perhaps thats the ticket: sport is a cult because there's money to be made.
Am I right in assuming you have below-pro level "farm leagues"? In the States, for various historical and financial reasons, some sports will effectively replace their farm leagues with Division I inter-collegiate sports.
In addition to the responses already entered, the NFL (in combination with the NFLPA, the union that represents players) also requires athletes entering the draft to be three years out of high-school (typically 21 years old in the US).
So, even if you happen to have the physical aptitude to play professionally at age 18, you are barred from doing so.
In the U.S. a number of sports developed first at the college level. American Football, in particular, was developed and popularized by colleges (particularly the Ivy League schools, and particularly by Yale). Collegiate football remained more popular than professional football well into the early 20th century.
People play while at college, I thought. The colleges make money off of the media spectacle. Lots of the players are good at sports, but not good at any of the things they are supposed to be in college for.
(But I'm no American, and have only visited once. So take my explanation with a pot of salt.)
A tradition of friendly competition turned into a huge business.
The leagues have some rules about when players can be drafted, but those rules are more about simplifying and reducing competition in recruiting than they are about the players.
College football, at least, might as well be a minor league. The stars play for two years, abandon their degree, and join the NFL. You'd have to be very naive to think that the athletes at top div 1 programs are true "student-athletes". Look at Penn State for a prime example of toxic "athletics are everything" college football culture. Look at the numerous recruitment scandals in which players or players' families were offered money or perks in exchange for matriculation. So they can't read? Play calling cards are images anyway. That's the attitude at these schools.
On a side note, and without wanting to complain about Penn State specifically: I spent a few weeks in State College, PA a few years ago as a student (coming from Germany) and was extremely weirded out. I felt as if I was visiting from another planet.
Overall, most things I saw while in the US, I could relate to in some way (industrious New York, beggars in Philadelphia, the tourist traps of New York, the hectic fast food restaurants), but I never managed to connect to the "college town experience" even though I had something like four weeks to do so.
Everything seemed to be curated, just like some footage of childhood christmas you see on television. Students and the interests of students dominated the entire experience. I felt as if I was visiting a theme park.
Funnily enough, I only tangentially registered the obsession with sports that seems to be very prevalent there. What I distinctly remember is wondering, why the "Academic Bookstore" had more Sports apparel and team merchandise than books in it.
It is hard to say if any meaningful insight can be gained from my personal experience there. I heared somewhere that going to college is an important way for young people in the US to escape culturally difficult surroundings (say, a radically religious community), but IMO it feels kind of sad that the college world is so separated from the rest of US culture.
I agree. For those familiar with soccer in Europe, take a look at the system they have in place there. Athletes on a path to professional sports join private sports clubs early on and (1) mature athletically much faster and (2) quickly have the potential to earn money for playing. Professional sports is a legitimate career which doesn't really require a college education, so we could really learn from Europe's clean division between school and sports.
> Look at Penn State for a prime example of toxic "athletics are everything" college football culture.
> Look at the numerous recruitment scandals in which players or players' families were offered money or perks in exchange for matriculation.
I graduated from Penn State in 2011--the year before the Sandusky scandal broke. It was easily the darkest time for my school, and I don't know a single person who wasn't feeling a mix of horror, shame, and disgust at what went on. While the connection between the football program and Sandusky's actions (a retired coach since 1998) leaves room for disagreement amongst reasonable people, Penn State is one of the few schools that handles student athleticism properly. Recruiting scandals, perks from boosters, and lackluster academic achievement from student athletes are problems that Penn State solves as well as any school out there.
The New America Foundation ranks top-25-BCS-ranked football programs by academic achievement of their players. Anytime Penn State's football team was ranked in the top 25 in the BCS, they have also ranked highly (usually #1) in New America's "Academic Bowl".[1]
I'd also like to point out the fascinating example set by John Urschel. He finished his math undergrad degree in three years with a 4.0 GPA[2]. He then finished his math masters degree the following year, again with a 4.0 GPA[3]. He has written academic research articles[4]. He writes software[5]. He teaches an undergrad math course[6]. He's also a graduating offensive lineman with a real shot at the NFL. He's weighing that prospect against the option of pursuing a Ph.D[7].
Who's sending death threats? People who make money off having good athletes in universities regardless of their education levels? Athletes who are afraid of being kicked out? Other? Four death threats seems awfully high for such a topic.
And what was the university thinking? Seems like denying knowledge of the report and claiming they can't comment on it without data (to CNN, not to a high school newspaper) was a terrible move given they had not only been given the reports, but had paid for the data which was in them.
As I get older and more aware I see rampant misogyny popping up wherever a woman challenges pretty much anything, and often merely for just existing. For something highly emotional like sports, such a reaction seems perfectly in line with what I see day to day, sadly. It's probably nobody with any power of even making any money off sports, quite the opposite, I'm sure.
This is just a guess, but I would suspect it's the fans. I remember seeing actual riots at my former school over a football (the American variety) game - the cars flipped, fires started, campus-police-in-full-riot-gear-firing-tear-gas kind. The fans probably just associate it as some brainiac professor declaring war on their culture and insulting their beloved players, and respond with hatemail and death threats.
> People who make money off having good athletes in universities regardless of their education levels?
You mean the type of people that pay college football coaches as much as ~$5M+/year? (http://www.businessinsider.com/the-25-highest-paid-coaches-i...) No, I cannot imagine one of these fine institutions benefiting from valuing athletics above academics. Surely college sports is all about education.
Wow.... I can't believe it's that bad. While I can understand athletes performing at lower levels than average students, there are certainly basic minimums that must be met. If 8-10% are below a 3rd grade reading level as the article claims, then just imagine how many are below a high-school level. Link to more in depth article for those interested also on CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/07/us/ncaa-athletes-reading-score...
Why should an aspiring pro athlete be de-facto required / expected to be scholastically proficient? It seems like the crux of the problem is that aspiring athletes in America (except the very tip of the top prospects) need to compete in college to hone their skill set... not that I am the first person to say this of course. I think the universities are at 90% fault- they are the ones who try and maintain the image of equal treatment. They are also the ones who coddle athletes and enable their academic dishonesty. What would happen if schools started offer athletic scholarships where all the "student" does is play sports, and they don't bullshit about it? wouldn't that be better?
In F1 the drivers are as competent as some of the engineers in STEM. I can bet Lance Armstrong knows a thing or two about air resistance, tension, torsion and fatigue of parts. And I have yet to see any competent bodybuilding that doesn't know what is going on in his body on a molecular level.
You need to know a lot of stuff to be top performer. The same way you need a rock hard body to be a top scholar - your brain just works better when your body is in better shape.
But the article is talking about basic literacy. You need that to be able just to integrate into society.
If all they do is play sports, then you couldn't really call it a scholarship, could you. The athletes would play sports and in exchange they would get.... to play sports. And the college gets all kinds of money and publicity in exchange for ... allowing the "students" to play sports. Perhaps some of the more literate of the players might stop and think for a second about the situation, and then get a crazy idea like trying to form a union, or something equally preposterous. And then the colleges might have to share some of that game revenue with the people actually playing the game! What are you trying to do, freeze over hell?!
"Why should an aspiring pro athlete be de-facto required / expected to be scholastically proficient?"
A vast majority will not succeed in their venture and these are schools. Poor career paths aside, the rest of the world expects you to be able to read and comprehend the menu in the food court. This goes doubly so if the aspiring athlete is working the till, which they often are before and after their career path.
At least we know that she is onto something. If people threaten your life over your research, you can be sure that you're in the right ballpark, so to speak.
I don't really understand the US' college sports system. But from my very flimsy outsider picture, it seems like a pretty good system.
It's flush with cash. I see complaints of how a lot of this is captured by coaches and staff, but I'm sure some flows to (for example) less popular sports too. It gives athletes a college education and an incentive to finish high school. This article is obviously about cracks in that system. Overall the effect on athletes' education is probably very positive, especially outside of the super-elite players in more popular sports.
Compare that to european amateur sports systems that have nothing to do with college: It is pretty hard for a 19 year old with a sport as the no 1 thing in their life to get a degree at all.
The problem is the requirement for athletes to have a degree. Why can't the athletes be separated from the rest, and only those that truly want to learn, attend lectures/exams? Professors wouldn't have to pass them and the degree would not be an empty paper.
[+] [-] zainny|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jasonwatkinspdx|12 years ago|reply
There's typically no requirement to finish college however. It's relatively common for athletes to move up to the pros and skip the last years of their academics.
The US's system is mostly due to history, but the current structure continues because it is worth an extraordinary amount of money. The schools with top athletic teams bring in revenues of 100 million or more. The governing body for college athletics generally prohibits significant payments to the athletes themselves, so all that income goes to coaches and other staff, as well as supporting businesses. College coaches are usually the highest paid people on campus. This continues to be a bitter political topic, because many people see it as unfair that college athletes are generating so much money for everyone but themselves. The other side points out that allowing paid recruitment and player endorsement/advertising would have a corrupting effect as well as make it difficult for smaller schools to be competitive.
As far as I know, our system is unique, and that's probably because we were televising college athletics earlier and more heavily than other nations.
[+] [-] waylandsmithers|12 years ago|reply
Here's my theory:
It all starts with Harvard and Yale wanting a leg up on each other in their football rivalry, which dates back to 1875. Professional football did not start in the US until many years later. Football, and to some degree basketball and other sports, came to represent a very serious way for colleges to express rivalries with each other.
Seriously: "After The Game of 1894, which came to be known as the "Hampden Park Bloodbath" and about which newspapers reported seven players carried off the field "in dying condition," the two schools broke off all official contact including athletic competition for two years."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard%E2%80%93Yale_football_r...
As such, each institution became hell-bent on defeating the other at football, which led to the relaxing of academic standards to admit superior athletes. Things have spiraled out of control from there. Many schools now face very serious pressure from alumni and other donors who demand athletic success. Recruiting top high school athletes is an extremely shady business, as both schools and athletes have a lot at stake.
Harvard, Yale, and the other Ivy League schools today do not do this to the extent that some others do and have policies against awarding scholarships based on athletics-- they are small and elite institutions that can't get away with admitting students who literally cannot read. But even the schools with these policies admit athletes who would probably not get in based on their academics alone.
[+] [-] ef4|12 years ago|reply
College sports is all about money. Consider this map:
http://deadspin.com/infographic-is-your-states-highest-paid-...
Why are the mostly highly paid "public servants" in most states athletic coaches? Because the public universities make huge amounts of money from sports: the TV licensing deals, the ticket sales, the merchandising.
The players get paid nothing -- at most they get their tuition waived.
[+] [-] jsumrall|12 years ago|reply
Some universities, such as UNC and Virginia Tech, have seen massive profits by selling merchandise thanks to these sports teams, and have made sports a higher priority than the actual academics. Now younger people are choosing to attend universities based on their sports team rather than the academics.
Anyone who disrupts this big business of college sports can expect to feel massive backlash from the university and the crazed fans of the sports teams.
[+] [-] gadders|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fit2rule|12 years ago|reply
In the US, its been driven even further in that there are billion-dollar industries behind the sports cult. Perhaps thats the ticket: sport is a cult because there's money to be made.
[+] [-] forgottenpass|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pirateking|12 years ago|reply
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoop_Dreams
[+] [-] AlisdairSH|12 years ago|reply
So, even if you happen to have the physical aptitude to play professionally at age 18, you are barred from doing so.
[+] [-] rayiner|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eru|12 years ago|reply
(But I'm no American, and have only visited once. So take my explanation with a pot of salt.)
[+] [-] _delirium|12 years ago|reply
There do seem to be university sports leagues in Australia, they just aren't taken as seriously afaict, e.g.: http://www.aurl.com.au/
[+] [-] maxerickson|12 years ago|reply
The leagues have some rules about when players can be drafted, but those rules are more about simplifying and reducing competition in recruiting than they are about the players.
[+] [-] AutoCorrect|12 years ago|reply
http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s15e05-crack-b...
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] thenmar|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sentenza|12 years ago|reply
Overall, most things I saw while in the US, I could relate to in some way (industrious New York, beggars in Philadelphia, the tourist traps of New York, the hectic fast food restaurants), but I never managed to connect to the "college town experience" even though I had something like four weeks to do so.
Everything seemed to be curated, just like some footage of childhood christmas you see on television. Students and the interests of students dominated the entire experience. I felt as if I was visiting a theme park.
Funnily enough, I only tangentially registered the obsession with sports that seems to be very prevalent there. What I distinctly remember is wondering, why the "Academic Bookstore" had more Sports apparel and team merchandise than books in it.
It is hard to say if any meaningful insight can be gained from my personal experience there. I heared somewhere that going to college is an important way for young people in the US to escape culturally difficult surroundings (say, a radically religious community), but IMO it feels kind of sad that the college world is so separated from the rest of US culture.
[+] [-] mirajshah|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] johnward|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adelevie|12 years ago|reply
> Look at the numerous recruitment scandals in which players or players' families were offered money or perks in exchange for matriculation.
I graduated from Penn State in 2011--the year before the Sandusky scandal broke. It was easily the darkest time for my school, and I don't know a single person who wasn't feeling a mix of horror, shame, and disgust at what went on. While the connection between the football program and Sandusky's actions (a retired coach since 1998) leaves room for disagreement amongst reasonable people, Penn State is one of the few schools that handles student athleticism properly. Recruiting scandals, perks from boosters, and lackluster academic achievement from student athletes are problems that Penn State solves as well as any school out there.
The New America Foundation ranks top-25-BCS-ranked football programs by academic achievement of their players. Anytime Penn State's football team was ranked in the top 25 in the BCS, they have also ranked highly (usually #1) in New America's "Academic Bowl".[1]
I'd also like to point out the fascinating example set by John Urschel. He finished his math undergrad degree in three years with a 4.0 GPA[2]. He then finished his math masters degree the following year, again with a 4.0 GPA[3]. He has written academic research articles[4]. He writes software[5]. He teaches an undergrad math course[6]. He's also a graduating offensive lineman with a real shot at the NFL. He's weighing that prospect against the option of pursuing a Ph.D[7].
[1] http://higheredwatch.newamerica.net/blogposts/2012/the_2012_..., http://higheredwatch.newamerica.net/blogposts/2009/third_ann..., http://www.newamerica.net/blog/higher-ed-watch/2008/second-a...
[2] http://www.personal.psu.edu/jcu5018/cv.html
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] http://www.personal.psu.edu/jcu5018/publications.html
[6] http://www.personal.psu.edu/jcu5018/cv.html
[7] http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/sportsman/news/20131204/joh...
[+] [-] drusenko|12 years ago|reply
http://news.psu.edu/story/293418/2013/10/30/athletics/penn-s...
[+] [-] corin_|12 years ago|reply
And what was the university thinking? Seems like denying knowledge of the report and claiming they can't comment on it without data (to CNN, not to a high school newspaper) was a terrible move given they had not only been given the reports, but had paid for the data which was in them.
[+] [-] epistasis|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Scienz|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mbillie1|12 years ago|reply
You mean the type of people that pay college football coaches as much as ~$5M+/year? (http://www.businessinsider.com/the-25-highest-paid-coaches-i...) No, I cannot imagine one of these fine institutions benefiting from valuing athletics above academics. Surely college sports is all about education.
[+] [-] cust_support|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jds375|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] the_cat_kittles|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] venomsnake|12 years ago|reply
You need to know a lot of stuff to be top performer. The same way you need a rock hard body to be a top scholar - your brain just works better when your body is in better shape.
But the article is talking about basic literacy. You need that to be able just to integrate into society.
[+] [-] x0054|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] streetnigga|12 years ago|reply
A vast majority will not succeed in their venture and these are schools. Poor career paths aside, the rest of the world expects you to be able to read and comprehend the menu in the food court. This goes doubly so if the aspiring athlete is working the till, which they often are before and after their career path.
[+] [-] marvin|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] netcan|12 years ago|reply
It's flush with cash. I see complaints of how a lot of this is captured by coaches and staff, but I'm sure some flows to (for example) less popular sports too. It gives athletes a college education and an incentive to finish high school. This article is obviously about cracks in that system. Overall the effect on athletes' education is probably very positive, especially outside of the super-elite players in more popular sports.
Compare that to european amateur sports systems that have nothing to do with college: It is pretty hard for a 19 year old with a sport as the no 1 thing in their life to get a degree at all.
[+] [-] augustocallejas|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] deevus|12 years ago|reply
Social media is where it gets to me the most.
Personally, I think this is appalling.
[+] [-] cLeEOGPw|12 years ago|reply