Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I work at a hospital boiler room. Not long ago our housekeeping department hired a guy who just got through playing 4 years of college football but wasn't drafted. His level of education qualified him to haul trash to the dumpster. His level of maturity caused him to be fired within a few months.
Hard to transition from having you butt and everything else you want kissed for the past 10 years (give or take) to doing something like hauling trash.
I would note that you didn't exactly go to one of the big-time football schools and you went to one with a good academic rep.
Let's face it, Northwestern isn't going to be like say...Ohio State....or more improtantly Vandy isn't going to be like most of the rest of the SEC.
I went to U of IL and when I was there I tutored 4 guys.
3 had no business on the campus.
1 was solid...actually they went on to a pro-bowl and superbowl ring. (probably why)
I have no doubt that the guys are say Northwester are fairly sharp but not as sharp as the typical student there. It will clearly vary from program to program but let's be honest....really good schools might have good students in their football program but compared to the rest of the student body????? Generally no.
Yet Stanford and Notre Dame come close often enough.
I once caddied for a Defensive Coordinator at Northwestern. He mentioned that anybody he recruited, he wouldn't get the commitment if Stanford came a calling. His comment was "We offer the same thing, only they have it in Palo Alto."
Yet Stanford and Notre Dame come close often enough.
I once caddied for a Defensive Coordinator at Northwestern. He mentioned that anybody he recruited, he wouldn't get the commitment if Stanford came a calling. His comment was "We offer the same thing, only they have it in Palo Alto."
Can you source that?
ND has had numerous academic scandals recently and stemming from their programs lack of success it seems that they've loosened things up....wayyyy up in recent years.
I have to share the same skepticism about Stanford....just like Harvard did in basketball....they're just bursting onto the scene in recent years so we have to ask ourselves why. Harvard loosened standards A LOT. Stanford likely did as well.
I don't doubt that some really good schools have good football students, they just don't seem to have strong programs. Whenever you hear sqwaking about a program having problems due to academic standards and then they start to resurge by getting the higher picks....let's be honest...this is college football..they don't get the benefit of the doubt.
ND has had numerous academic scandals recently and stemming from their programs lack of success it seems that they've loosened things up....wayyyy up in recent years.
I have to share the same skepticism about Stanford....just like Harvard did in basketball....they're just bursting onto the scene in recent years so we have to ask ourselves why. Harvard loosened standards A LOT. Stanford likely did as well.
I don't doubt that some really good schools have good football students, they just don't seem to have strong programs. Whenever you hear sqwaking about a program having problems due to academic standards and then they start to resurge by getting the higher picks....let's be honest...this is college football..they don't get the benefit of the doubt.
It doesn't matter that a Stanford or a Harvard might also draw from those who could not get there any other way. At the top academic end if a Stanford football coach has his eye on a potential Northwestern recruit then as a school Stanford will offer just about everything Northwestern does plus West Coast living versus Northwestern winters.
Yet Stanford and Notre Dame come close often enough.
I once caddied for a Defensive Coordinator at Northwestern. He mentioned that anybody he recruited, he wouldn't get the commitment if Stanford came a calling. His comment was "We offer the same thing, only they have it in Palo Alto."
northwestern never made it to a ncaa tournament; stanford has been a final-4 team multiple times (especially the women who won the championship twice).
iirc, northwestern has never been to a bcs bowl and stanford has been to a bcs bowl each year for at least a decade. stanford is a much better school which is why athletes would choose it above northwestern (location is just the cherry on top).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
...
I have to share the same skepticism about Stanford....just like Harvard did in basketball....they're just bursting onto the scene in recent years so we have to ask ourselves why. Harvard loosened standards A LOT. Stanford likely did as well.
since when is harvard a basketball powerhouse ? also the league charter of the ivy league (as well as the patriot league) prevents academic or athletic scholarships (only need based grants) to keep competition even within the league. the pac-12 has no such restriction.
Last edited by stanley-88888888; 08-08-2016 at 10:51 AM..
It doesn't matter that a Stanford or a Harvard might also draw from those who could not get there any other way. At the top academic end if a Stanford football coach has his eye on a potential Northwestern recruit then as a school Stanford will offer just about everything Northwestern does plus West Coast living versus Northwestern winters.
Not the point of the discussion considering that Stanford has been in the same place for well over 100 years. Soooo, suddenly in the last 7-8 years they started getting high rated prospects....what changed?
northwestern never made it to a ncaa tournament; stanford has been a final-4 team multiple times (especially the women who won the championship twice).
iirc, northwestern has never been to a bcs bowl and stanford has been to a bcs bowl each year for at least a decade. stanford is a much better school which is why athletes would choose it above northwestern (location is just the cherry on top).since when is harvard a basketball powerhouse ? also the league charter of the ivy league (as well as the patriot league) prevents academic or athletic scholarships (only need based grants) to keep competition even within the league. the pac-12 has no such restriction.
1. Ugh. I'm not comparing the two schools. I'm asking WHY Standford all of the sudden is doing so well at football is the weather nicer now in California than it was 8 years ago?
2. Harvard has made the NCAA tournament in....1946, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015. Do you spot a pattern there?
Harvard changed their entire scholarship structure in 2006 to get around the provision preventing athletic scholarships. It's easy to do with a 40bil endowment give or take.
Their coach is on the record for saying that they've lowered academic requirements for the basketball players. They even CUT their old players off the team to make room for the new players...many of whom have parental incomes below 60k and so they get a full scholarship. But noooooo, they don't give sports scholarships.
3. No one seems to want to defend that Standford doesn't have significantly lower academic standards for their athletes.
more like SOME not most. you are not going to convince anyone you are smart by how these people talk when they give interviews and im not talking about bad public speaking skills. I dont like sports but when i hear these guys interview on the news MOST sound dumb as a door nail.if they want people to think they are smart they need to learn how to speak better. Talking like a thug isnt going to cut it.
I went to school with moses malones son he was in my same grade. That guy is dumber than a pile of dirt. Dont even tell me he got into college because he was a good basketball player. which he isnt. he spent most of his time at school not even in class and yet he still passed with a high gpa.[/quote]
Should I judge your intelligence based on the grammar and punctuation you're using?
Collegiate players aren't given classes on how to handle the media and deal with an interview. What they are given is a script of sorts that informs them about what they should and should not say. Other than memorizing that they get no instruction. Generally they're having a microphone shoved in their face after a big win or a big loss. Their minds are spinning after being so focused on the game and riding the adrenaline wave. In general, they're just trying real hard not to say anything they shouldn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildColonialGirl
They do say that at the beginning, but they also say these are really talented players and the challenge is getting them to a 2.5 GPA to qualify for all the scouts that are hanging around and interested in them. To struggle for a 2.5 at community college, when you have a personal tutor. To not even think of taking a pencil and paper to class? University is not for everyone. These kids would be better off anywhere but a university, and if they have some skill at a sport, and that earns money, then why not play that sport? Why the 'study' farce? Those kids could be working 20 hours a week and playing in some junior league rather than wasting their time being tortured with academics.
Again, you need to account for where they are and the entire perspective of what they are there to do. For the most part these are not true "college athletes". They are for the most part people who never had the talent to get into a regular college program or washed out of a college program. They are there for at most one year, maybe two and are in a complete catch-22...if they don't perform on the field, they get cut and lose their chance...if they don't perform in the classroom they may lose a chance if it's offered to them. Most choose to focus on the football and assume that if they show well enough there, the rest may get overlooked.
The sad reality is that these guys shouldn't be playing at all. They should be focusing on their education and future because football is over for them.
Quote:
Agree. Or even better, just tell them that they will be players, then when their term on the sports team is up they can start their scholarship.
Interesting thought. Have the opportunity to play first. If you get drafted, great. If not, you can use your scholarship to earn your degree and not have the pressure of doing both. Either that or extend the scholarships so they don't need to take classes during their primary sport season.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCN
There used to be a rule in high school sports that a child had to maintain a certain grade point average in order to be on the school team. Then parents of good ball players screamed that their children were being discriminated against so the grade point average was discontinued. Guess this idea just graduated into college.
I'm not sure where you live and every state and state athletic association can set their own standard, but the majority have GPA minimums for athletic participation. Many individual districts then extend this to all extracurricular activities. In NJ the standard used to be 2.0, but as of a few years ago that was boosted to 2.5.
another part is that some (maybe most) of the athletes dont want to attend college. they are only there because the nba and nfl are in collusion with the ncaa.
i would get rid of the one-and-done rule and those that try to jump from high school to the nba draft and get cut have to live the rest of there lives with a grown-up mistake (like the rest of adult society).
or maybe nba teams can draft high school players and put their money in escrow for one year until they graduate college at least guaranteeing them 1 year of salary.
i would call it the kevin ware rule:
Another way to spin it would be requiring that they graduate before being eligible to be drafted...but we all know that will never happen, lol.
It's a tough balance because every moment your participating in college athletics you are risking a career ending injury before you can cash your check. It's why everyone who can jumps into the draft as soon as they're eligible. NFL is a little different and most don't go early unless they don't really have a choice or know that they will be taken in a favorable slot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sedimenjerry
Now, for smaller sports, I don't see as much an issue. My sister got most of her college paid for by playing soccer. She was never going to play at a higher level and the soccer program doesn't bring that much money in. Not enough to really profit off of and there was no risk of ending a future soccer career.
The smaller sports...and especially women's sports...would not exist if it were not for men's football and basketball.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkalot
Most college football teams lose money. Almost all college basketball teams lose money. There may be a handful of women's sports that don't lose money.
Coaches only make the big money at the top schools. An assistant at D3 may get $700 a month with no benefits. Read football scoop to see the salaries.
A few years ago I read that 2000+ players got D1 scholarships that year. Only about 45 would have been admitted to Stanford.
The article you probably read was from 2007 after Stanford upset USC. The exact number was... Using their brains - latimes
Quote:
Out of about 3,000 high school players good enough for college ball, only about "400 would qualify to come here," says Bob Bowlsby, Stanford's athletic director. Of those, Stanford gets only a few. Many are talented enough to have their pick of other schools, where winning comes far more steadily.
Given that Stanford's admissions rate is under 5%...that's not that crazy of a number.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
Source that please. Because I'd like to know if they are including donations and merchandise or just looking at gate receipts.
Because when I see a Texas shirt and hat on someone...you can bet it's not because of their lacrosse team.
One of the hard parts of the reporting is that there is no standard. It depends on how each school chooses to report expenses and revenues for their program. What we do know is that the FBS (Div 1-A) generated over $3.4 billion in revenue in 2014 (the last year I believe there is data for). That number was thought to be actually higher than that and was before the latest TV contract which upped that to at least $3.8 billion.
By comparison the NHL generates about $3.7 billion in revenue and the NBA about $5 billion. NASCAR is around $3 billion and declining. The MLB is $8 billion and the NFL is $6 billion (but NFL is growing while MLB is shrinking). So, if we put that into order by revenue...
1. MLB
2. NFL
3. NBA
4. NHL and College Football (tied)
5. NASCAR
Then you have the fact that all of the pro teams have to split revenue with their players and it is no surprise that college football is making money hand over fist no matter how they want to spin it. The only articles I've ever seen talking about losing money look at all the costs of all athletics. Meaning, in general collegiate athletics may be a money loser, but that's including the golf, rowing and fencing teams...etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
I appreciate your comments.
I would note that you didn't exactly go to one of the big-time football schools and you went to one with a good academic rep.
Let's face it, Northwestern isn't going to be like say...Ohio State....or more improtantly Vandy isn't going to be like most of the rest of the SEC.
I went to U of IL and when I was there I tutored 4 guys.
3 had no business on the campus.
1 was solid...actually they went on to a pro-bowl and superbowl ring. (probably why)
I have no doubt that the guys are say Northwester are fairly sharp but not as sharp as the typical student there. It will clearly vary from program to program but let's be honest....really good schools might have good students in their football program but compared to the rest of the student body????? Generally no.
It is true, BC has always been a top academic-athletic school. The football program has had its ups and downs, but is certainly competitive and relatively large and well funded program. It probably represents more of the NCAA "ideal" than the reality in the truly large programs. However, there are a lot more "BC's" then there are "Ohio States" out there.
I won't argue that the "dumb jocks" don't exist and that there aren't people who go to college solely because they can play sports. Of course that happens, especially in the big football and basketball programs. However, I do doubt that the majority of college athletes and even the majority of the football and basketball athletes are functionally illiterate idiots who have no place in a college classroom.
1. Ugh. I'm not comparing the two schools. I'm asking WHY Standford all of the sudden is doing so well at football is the weather nicer now in California than it was 8 years ago?
2. Harvard has made the NCAA tournament in....1946, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015. Do you spot a pattern there?
Harvard changed their entire scholarship structure in 2006 to get around the provision preventing athletic scholarships. It's easy to do with a 40bil endowment give or take.
Their coach is on the record for saying that they've lowered academic requirements for the basketball players. They even CUT their old players off the team to make room for the new players...many of whom have parental incomes below 60k and so they get a full scholarship. But noooooo, they don't give sports scholarships.
3. No one seems to want to defend that Standford doesn't have significantly lower academic standards for their athletes.
It was basically hinted at in the 2007 Stanford article I linked in my previous post...
"We hired a new admissions director when I was there, and even though the standard was always rough, they started coming down really, really hard," says former Cardinal quarterback Chris Lewis, a 2004 graduate who threw for 390 yards against California in the Big Game. "Guys who had 3.65 GPAs and 1200 on the SATs, they could go almost anywhere else. They were getting turned down just because they were not absolute straight-A students.
"That's pretty frustrating," Lewis adds, "when you're having some down years."
Out of about 3,000 high school players good enough for college ball, only about "400 would qualify to come here," says Bob Bowlsby, Stanford's athletic director. Of those, Stanford gets only a few. Many are talented enough to have their pick of other schools, where winning comes far more steadily.
Bowlsby won't talk about whether requirements have tightened up. But he concedes that holding on to extremely high academic standards makes it very tough to win consistently.
I think there is no doubt that they relaxed their standards. The argument then is should they? I think there is a line that some of the major schools cross, but I do think it is acceptable that someone who can perform at a very high level athletically is held to a different academic standard.
Not the point of the discussion considering that Stanford has been in the same place for well over 100 years. Soooo, suddenly in the last 7-8 years they started getting high rated prospects....what changed?
Its not the last 7 or 8 years about the time I was aware and can remember sports on TV Jim Plunkett was leading Stanford to the Rose Bowl in 1970.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
? also the league charter of the ivy league (as well as the patriot league) prevents academic or athletic scholarships (only need based grants) to keep competition even within the league. the pac-12 has no such restriction.
