Snort...how did you guess?
Posted on 05/05/2012 6:28:24 AM PDT by MinorityRepublican
In more than 20 years I've spent studying the issue, I have yet to hear a convincing argument that college football has anything do with what is presumably the primary purpose of higher education: academics.
That's because college football has no academic purpose. Which is why it needs to be banned. A radical solution, yes. But necessary in today's times.
Football only provides the thickest layer of distraction in an atmosphere in which colleges and universities these days are all about distraction, nursing an obsession with the social well-being of students as opposed to the obsession that they are there for the vital and single purpose of learning as much as they can to compete in the brutal realities of the global economy.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
More foolishness. I like college football, don’t care for pro-football and think both are over celebrated and in their own way both are over paid.
I still don’t think either should be banned though. If they are not necessary they will go away because demand will fall to nothing.
College tuition keeps going up because the number who don’t pay a dime keeps going up subsidized by the number who do pay and the free access to cheap money by people foolish enough to borrow it.
Here’s an idea: Let’s keep football, and banish liberalism from campuses. Now, wouldn’t THAT be beneficial to society?
Funny coincidence...just Thursday this week, Rush predicted that the nannies would try to begin banning professional football because of head injuries and later suicides, whether linked or not. He said this would happen “maybe not in our lifetimes.”
Kudos, Rush, your first prediction was right on. But your timing on your second was off by a few decades!
If college were not heavily subsidized by the taxpayer and if a college degree were not made into a required certificate for so many jobs not really needing a college degree, who would care?
Some schools would run Div. 1 (semi-pro) programs because they were, all things considered, money-makers. (This includes fund-raising, and recruitment and retention of tuition-paying students, in addition to ticket sales, broadcasting rights and ancillary revenue).
Other schools would run Div. 3 (more like amateur) programs. Basically because, for them, it helps with recruitment and retention of students.
Other schools would avoid intercollegiate sports altogether, and focus on offering low cost education. Think urban commuter schools, and schools that cater to “non-traditional” students.
Cost at a for-profit school like Strayer is often half that at a not-for-profit. Intercollegiate athletics is part of the difference. But so are many other things. Because of taxpayer subsidies and creeping credentialism, the cost of college is a very real problem.
My opinion? I’m glad you asked! ;-)
I think any college athlete - football included - should be paid maybe the amount varying from sport to sport but for any sport all would be paid the same.
I don’t know about all sports but I do know that any number of college football players can be taken out (and suffer from) injuries suffered during their college career even though they likely will never go pro.
Colleges make millions on their football/basketball programs - give the guys a little something - above board and well-deserved. IMHO. ;-)
Snort...how did you guess?
FUBUZZ!! College football rocks. The pros should be eliminated.
at least football generates income...the rest of academia is funded by inflated tuition and taxpayer money.
Now there’s a picture of a guy who got a “swirly” every day in 8th grade from the football team.
I attended college in three decades: 70's 80's and 90's and I am here to tell you it is ALL about money now.
The tuitions have sky rocketed.
Incredibly high Lab fees and sometimes lab fees for courses with no actual lab exercises.
And particularly creepy is charging OUTLANDISH amounts for books written by the Professor of the class you are required to take, printed by the University Press, and sold ONLY at the University Book store.
That’s as much as you know about him? I had no idea who he was or what he did, then I read the article to make sure I didn’t say something stupid.
I am going to ask you MR... you put this article on last night. Why today? Do you have an issue with football or do you just find the article interesting?
According to whom? I'm not hiring anyone because of their soul. Or their body (unless I'm running a warehouse or a whorehouse). I'm hiring them for what they KNOW!
In short a football player is more likely to be a republican!
Can you back that up with any statistics?
Football works on the mind and soul.
Hogwash. Football works on the most primal of instincts: greed. And while I have no problem with greed as a form of capitalism, I don't believe we should be training these ... performers ... in the same place we're educating people for something useful.
I don't object to football -- or any other sport. I object to them being tied -- completely irrationally -- to the academic environment. Get them off campuses and make legitimate businesses out of them. That's all they are anyway.
Collegiate sports teach discipline, sportsmanship, competition, how to win and lose, no matter how good you are, you can still lose; not all winners are better; how to plan, how to take orders, how to work in a team, consequences of public humiliation, humility, consequential statistics, and the list goes on and on.
Too late, you already did.
I think banning college football goes a bit too far. However, they should probably eliminate any physical contact, get rid of those bulky uniforms and certainly there is no need for keeping score. This only causes the losing team to be psychologically disappointed.
So who is to enforce this banning? Will this entail a new Federal agency dedicated to making sure no colleges, public or private have football teams or any sports for that matter? Will this include the West Point and Naval Academy football programs too?
All that said, this knuckleheaded busybody misses a fine point about small government. As much as I abhor how NCAA Div. I is now a de facto farm club system for the NFL (and I love the NFL!!!), I don't think that's it's the government's place to tell colleges how to run their sports programs. I just want to smack Michael Wilbon and other sports journalists who actually want Congress to intervene in how the BCS is run. We can't get the Senate to pass a freakin' budget-- to hell with tinkering with the BCS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.