Ban college football?

[MplsBison]

Obviously would never happen. But it's still an interesting discussion overall.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304743704577382292376194220.html

I do think that the NFL should have to share some of the costs of major college football. They completely reap the reward of not having to pay for a minor leagues system like baseball, basketball and hockey have developed.

But that will probably never happen either.

[cbarrier90]

Obviously would never happen. But it's still an interesting discussion overall.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304743704577382292376194220.html

I do think that the NFL should have to share some of the costs of major college football. They completely reap the reward of not having to pay for a minor leagues system like baseball, basketball and hockey have developed.

But that will probably never happen either.

College football has also given a countless number of individuals a college degree who otherwise would not have been able to afford any form of higher education. In some cases, those same individuals can go on to make millions playing the game.

You can't simply ban a violent game just because it's inherently violent. If you don't want to play the game, don't play it. Simple.

[MplsBison]

College football has also given a countless number of individuals a college degree who otherwise would not have been able to afford any form of higher education. In some cases, those same individuals can go on to make millions playing the game.

You can't simply ban a violent game just because it's inherently violent. If you don't want to play the game, don't play it. Simple.

No, no, no. Read the article.

This isn't about player compensation or about concussions, although those are reasonable discussions on their own right.


It's about the money that schools spend on college football when tuition costs are going up and budgets are being slashed and the, in general, lack of academic benefit to the student body of having a program in the first place.

[Tuscon]

No, no, no. Read the article.

This isn't about player compensation or about concussions, although those are reasonable discussions on their own right.


It's about the money that schools spend on college football when tuition costs are going up and budgets are being slashed and the, in general, lack of academic benefit to the student body of having a program in the first place.

But all of that is bogus. The money schools spend on football is usually made up with football. When people start spouting statistics about Athletics departments being in the red, they neglect to mention that football, by itself, is usually in the black. Football programs help to prop up some of the less profitable sports creating even more opportunities for student athletes.

Lack of academic benefit is a joke. Go into a bar and ask a random patron to list 10 Universities. 9 times out of 10, that list will be a list of nationally known football schools. Football helps to give universities a face. They may not directly benefit any particular program, but they allow a good source of marketing. When looking for a job it helps when the employer has heard of the school you've gone to.

[FargoBison]

You want college athletics to break even or make money? Simple solution, abolish title ix or greatly reform it.

[The Eagle's Cliff]

OMG, another Ivory Tower Egghead-Nerd pissed off because people care more about the jocks!

[TheBisonator]

If you're going to ban college football, why shouldn't you ban all other college sports?? Seems like this guy is focusing all his rage on the sport of football in colleges.

Also the idea of colleges in the US having a strong athletics system is a cornerstone of American social culture. The United States has the best system of higher education in the world (and I am not afraid to say that despite having other criticisms of our country), and one huge reason why is due to our intertwining of athletics with the higher education system. The US believes in the Athenian educational theory of "sound mind, sound body", and I don't think there is anything that is going to change that.

[MplsBison]

But all of that is bogus. The money schools spend on football is usually made up with football. When people start spouting statistics about Athletics departments being in the red, they neglect to mention that football, by itself, is usually in the black. Football programs help to prop up some of the less profitable sports creating even more opportunities for student athletes.

Lack of academic benefit is a joke. Go into a bar and ask a random patron to list 10 Universities. 9 times out of 10, that list will be a list of nationally known football schools. Football helps to give universities a face. They may not directly benefit any particular program, but they allow a good source of marketing. When looking for a job it helps when the employer has heard of the school you've gone to.

I don't think many football programs at schools in the NCAA bring in at least the same amount of money as the football budget.

So minus donations, a lot schools do have to spend money on football. I of course think this money is justified because a lot of students at the schools want a football team to root for and if they get a vote to increase their own fees, then it's perfectly reasonable.

As far as the academic benefit (lack thereof), I think he's strictly talking about grades. I don't think having a football team at the school has ever done much to help students get better grades in classes.


So his simple argument is that schools are for learning and so anything that doesn't help students get better grades is a waste.


Like I said, it doesn't really matter because college football is only going to be expanded going forward - if anything. It's just an interesting discussion to read his point of view, see it from his side, etc.

[MplsBison]

If you're going to ban college football, why shouldn't you ban all other college sports?? Seems like this guy is focusing all his rage on the sport of football in colleges.

Also the idea of colleges in the US having a strong athletics system is a cornerstone of American social culture. The United States has the best system of higher education in the world (and I am not afraid to say that despite having other criticisms of our country), and one huge reason why is due to our intertwining of athletics with the higher education system. The US believes in the Athenian educational theory of "sound mind, sound body", and I don't think there is anything that is going to change that.

Yes, I think his general concept is that anything not helping the students learn better is a waste. So that would be all sports too, but the article is just specific to football because that's the 800 lbs gorilla that nothing in the world of college athletics, save march madness for one month of the year, even comes close to competing with.

[MplsBison]

You want college athletics to break even or make money? Simple solution, abolish title ix or greatly reform it.

If title IX evaporated tomorrow and the NCAA said "sponsor as many or as few sports as you like", do you think NDSU should drop all sports except football?

[FargoBison]

If title IX evaporated tomorrow and the NCAA said "sponsor as many or as few sports as you like", do you think NDSU should drop all sports except football?

I'd actually be for adding men's hockey if title IX went away and perhaps be for cutting one or two women's sports.

[TheBisonator]

If title IX evaporated tomorrow and the NCAA said "sponsor as many or as few sports as you like", do you think NDSU should drop all sports except football?

I don't think there would be much change, since there are a lot of sports teams at NDSU that have a winning history and strong tradition. (FB, Wrestling, Track, WBB, Softball) Personally, if there were no rules and I was the AD, I'd get rid of both gender's golf and XC teams, and add Hockey and Mens Soccer.

[TheBisonator]

I'd actually be for adding men's hockey if title IX went away and perhaps be for cutting one or two women's sports.

I'd be for it as well, for the reasons you said. But also only if we could actually finance it.

[FargoBison]

I'd be for it as well, for the reasons you said. But also only if we could actually finance it.

Yeah I've always felt that men's hockey could generate revenue at NDSU but thanks to title IX we would likely have to add a women's team which would more or less be a huge money pit.

[bonarae]

Although I was the first one who posted the article in another subforum here, I believe that in most FBS programs commercialization has overtaken the true meaning of how college football is played... but he isn't counting out programs like ours (FCS) or even other revenue-generating sports (e.g. baseball, ice hockey, basketball).

[BlueHenSinfonian]

Although I was the first one who posted the article in another subforum here, I believe that in most FBS programs commercialization has overtaken the true meaning of how college football is played... but he isn't counting out programs like ours (FCS) or even other revenue-generating sports (e.g. baseball, ice hockey, basketball).

There is certainly some corruption in need of reform in some schools, but his solution seems to be killing the patient to cure the cancer.

I especially take issue with this part:


The players themselves don't benefit, exploited by a system in which they don't receive a dime of compensation. The average student doesn't benefit, particularly when football programs remain sacrosanct while tuition costs show no signs of abating as many governors are slashing budgets to the bone.

To address the first point, many football players are on full scholarship including room and board. Just as an example the University of Michigan estimates that the full cost of attendance for a student entering this year will be $47,000 (tuition, room, and board only - miscellaneous expenses and books taken out). If you want to add in summer session that brings the total to $58,000 per year. Each student athlete on scholarship is getting their education and the vast majority of their living expenses paid for, a compensation package that far exceeds what someone just out of high school could expect to make in salary or wages.

To the second point, plenty of other students will benefit. A football program is a tremendous asset to the quality of life on campus. It builds school spirit, loyalty to the alma mater, and provides a healthy diversion from classes on the weekend. It allows for graduate assistant positions in sports medicine/training, opportunities for journalism and communications majors to develop sports reporting skills, and the chances for hundreds of students to be involved in the marching band or cheerleading squads.

Yes, there are always going to be some students on campus who couldn't care less about football, but the same could be said about a any number of university programs. Not everything will appeal to everyone on campus, nor should it have to.

[NHwildEcat]

Sounds more like an FBS issue than an FCS issue. At UNH the players have to go to class and they have an extremely high graduation rate...Ohio State, they may have lost touch with what college athletics truly are.

[UNH Fanboi]

OMG, another Ivory Tower Egghead-Nerd pissed off because people care more about the jocks!

Dismissing every critic of college football as a nerd is as stupid as calling for a ban a college football.

[Skjellyfetti]

Although I was the first one who posted the article in another subforum here, I believe that in most FBS programs commercialization has overtaken the true meaning of how college football is played... but he isn't counting out programs like ours (FCS) or even other revenue-generating sports (e.g. baseball, ice hockey, basketball).

I agree.

Though, suggesting "banning college football" is just sensationalism meant to gets his hit count up... there's no doubt that college football needs serious reform.

[UAalum72]

Dismissing every critic of college football as a nerd is as stupid as calling for a ban a college football.He had to call him a nerd; since the story was published by the WSJ he'd be hard-pressed to call him liberal spouting off in the left-wing media.

[MplsBison]

He had to call him a nerd; since the story was published by the WSJ he'd be hard-pressed to call him liberal spouting off in the left-wing media.

Who are the folks that even read the WSJ? I would guess right-wing, wealthy, finance nerds who never played many sports in school.

[MplsBison]

Sounds more like an FBS issue than an FCS issue. At UNH the players have to go to class and they have an extremely high graduation rate...Ohio State, they may have lost touch with what college athletics truly are.

Does the football program help non-football playing students at UNH get better grades?

Does UNH spend money on the football program?

[MplsBison]

There is certainly some corruption in need of reform in some schools, but his solution seems to be killing the patient to cure the cancer.

I especially take issue with this part:



To address the first point, many football players are on full scholarship including room and board. Just as an example the University of Michigan estimates that the full cost of attendance for a student entering this year will be $47,000 (tuition, room, and board only - miscellaneous expenses and books taken out). If you want to add in summer session that brings the total to $58,000 per year. Each student athlete on scholarship is getting their education and the vast majority of their living expenses paid for, a compensation package that far exceeds what someone just out of high school could expect to make in salary or wages.

To the second point, plenty of other students will benefit. A football program is a tremendous asset to the quality of life on campus. It builds school spirit, loyalty to the alma mater, and provides a healthy diversion from classes on the weekend. It allows for graduate assistant positions in sports medicine/training, opportunities for journalism and communications majors to develop sports reporting skills, and the chances for hundreds of students to be involved in the marching band or cheerleading squads.

Yes, there are always going to be some students on campus who couldn't care less about football, but the same could be said about a any number of university programs. Not everything will appeal to everyone on campus, nor should it have to.

Yes, true, but what's the revenue per scholarship player of Michigan's football program come out to be? Probably a couple hundred thousand per 85 scholarship players. Would it kill the program if each player got a $10,000 stipend per year on top of what they receive now?

Agreed that students do benefit - just not their grades. Schools without football also have sports medicine, journalism/comm and cheerleading squads. In fact, competitive cheer may be a new opportunity for females to receive scholarships one day.

Just playing devil's advocate.

[NHwildEcat]

Does the football program help non-football playing students at UNH get better grades?

Does UNH spend money on the football program?

Not much...have you seen our facilities...the program is operated on a TIGHT budget.


But based on the point of the article its about how these schools are dumping all the costs on their non-athletic students and the FBS schools by and large don't care about academics...where as it is a focal point to the student athlete at UNH.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Who are the folks that even read the WSJ?

xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

[MplsBison]

Not much...have you seen our facilities...the program is operated on a TIGHT budget.


But based on the point of the article its about how these schools are dumping all the costs on their non-athletic students and the FBS schools by and large don't care about academics...where as it is a focal point to the student athlete at UNH.

The point of the article is that schools spend a lot of money (relatively) to have a football team in a time of budget cuts and increasing tuition and it does nothing to help students with their academics.

I'm not saying that UNH students are not already focused on their academics, but I think it's pretty obvious that there's no way you can claim the football team enhances their ability to study and get better grades.


I'm sure the UNH football budget is at least 2-3 million dollars per year. What if you took that money and completely injected it back into hiring more teachers for freshman level classes, so that class size could be reduced? Don't you think that would have a much more direct impact on increasing the academic experience for UNH students?

[BisonBacker]

You want college athletics to break even or make money? Simple solution, abolish title ix or greatly reform it.

This is true. But it will never happen in this day and age of Feminism, political correctness and in general the feel good crowd won't ever let it happen. If programs were allowed to make it or break it on their own many sports both mens and womens wouldn't make it.

[Libertine]

Who are the folks that even read the WSJ?

Great question. I know that I read it and I know a few others who do. I really haven't gotten around to tracking down the other 2 million+ readers though.

[walliver]

Most schools lose money on football, only the most elite programs are profitable.

On the other hand, football brings alumni back to campus, maintains ties between alumni and the school, which in return causes alumni to give money to the academic, as well as athletic, funds. It can also assist in attracting non-athlete students.

When Wofford was looking at leaving the wasteland of Division II, the study committee looked at both D1 and D3. The study committee looking at this found that the publicity raised by football and basketball teams playing larger schools caused more interest in the school by students at high school "college fairs" etc. The increased interests by potential non-athlete students prompted the move to D1.

Let's face it, if it weren't for football, how many FCS schools would most of us know anything about.

[MplsBison]

Most schools lose money on football, only the most elite programs are profitable.

On the other hand, football brings alumni back to campus, maintains ties between alumni and the school, which in return causes alumni to give money to the academic, as well as athletic, funds. It can also assist in attracting non-athlete students.

When Wofford was looking at leaving the wasteland of Division II, the study committee looked at both D1 and D3. The study committee looking at this found that the publicity raised by football and basketball teams playing larger schools caused more interest in the school by students at high school "college fairs" etc. The increased interests by potential non-athlete students prompted the move to D1.

Let's face it, if it weren't for football, how many FCS schools would most of us know anything about.

All great points, all correct points.


Yet....everyone continues to dodge the sticky truth that the author boldly lays flat out on the table: football teams at college do not help students earn better grades or enhance their academic lives, while schools continue to spend big bucks on them in times of slashed budgets.

Does anyone dare take up the challenge of articulating a reasonable justification for why this should continue to be so?

[crossfire07]

If it was not for football, how many of the kids playing today would get a college education? To some, it is their only way out.

[MplsBison]

If it was not for football, how many of the kids playing today would get a college education? To some, it is their only way out.

I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but this argument seems specious to me on a couple of different levels.

1) too many kids are going to 4 year schools and racking up huge amounts of debt to do it.

2) there are a lot of great public, technical, vocational, community and junior colleges out there that can get kids into good, middle-class careers in 2 years.

3) if there was no such thing as college football, there would certainly be a minor league system that would be taking kids out of high school and developing them for a chance at the big league, just like baseball and hockey do today. To those who end up making it, that is a way out too.

[dgtw]

Most athletic teams exist only because the NCAA requires schools to sponsor a certain number of sports.

[frozennorth]

I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but this argument seems specious to me on a couple of different levels.

1) too many kids are going to 4 year schools and racking up huge amounts of debt to do it.


not enough kids are going to four year schools, the problem is that alot of them a majoring in useless horse**** like entrepreneurship, communications, or journalism.

we could really use alot more people in engineering, math, physics, chemistry, nursing and medicine. Particularly the latter two.

[NHwildEcat]

Most schools lose money on football, only the most elite programs are profitable.

On the other hand, football brings alumni back to campus, maintains ties between alumni and the school, which in return causes alumni to give money to the academic, as well as athletic, funds. It can also assist in attracting non-athlete students.

When Wofford was looking at leaving the wasteland of Division II, the study committee looked at both D1 and D3. The study committee looking at this found that the publicity raised by football and basketball teams playing larger schools caused more interest in the school by students at high school "college fairs" etc. The increased interests by potential non-athlete students prompted the move to D1.

Let's face it, if it weren't for football, how many FCS schools would most of us know anything about.

I agree with your thoughts and can validate with my own experience. I actually went a to a D2 school that has no football. I chose it because of the degree I wanted at the time- even though I ended up changing my major anyways, but that is besides the point. I grew up 20 minutes from UNH and everyone I went to high school with was going to be attending UNH so I didn't consider UNH to be an option. I wanted to not hang out in high school for four more years so I went to the biggest city in the state (Manchester) and attended Southern NH University. Now, I am not sure if we had a D2 program there would be much difference but I can assure you that our alumni tend to care much less about the school. Current students care less about the athletic programs when they are enrolled. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that you cannot find much information outside of the campus about the programs, there is little to no publicity. Whereas, UNH gets just about all of the publicity in the state of NH. Dartmouth gets a little, but most of the time on the local news it is how the football or hockey teams did or what is next for them, and occasionly a blurb on the basketball team.

Going to games in Durham I see the sense of pride that the alumni have and the enjoyment of meeting up with old friends. My buddies from college have no reason to convene back to our campus, we have no football. We are a soccer and basketball school, who just recently got a good baseball team. But none of those are big enough events to draw alumni back to campus. D1 schools have such an advantage in that regard, they really do.

[NHwildEcat]

not enough kids are going to four year schools, the problem is that alot of them a majoring in useless horse**** like entrepreneurship, communications, or journalism.

we could really use alot more people in engineering, math, physics, chemistry, nursing and medicine. Particularly the latter two.

I don't think it is a case of there not being enough kids going to four year schools...most schools seem to be having tremendous growth. A lot of kids coming out of HS just go to college because that is the next step...they don't know what that next step is supposed to me, but they know it's just what they are supposed to do. That is the bigger issue for the rediculous amounts of debt that kids are getting into.

Also, the schools are robbing families blind...the price of education continues to rise astronomically and they can "justify" it because people feel they HAVE to go back to school because of the down economy. Schools are just taking advantage of these people.

And you point about WHAT they are studying when they are in school is also of extreme worth. Liberal arts degrees are not going to pay the bills nor help society advance. We need more GOOD teachers and GOOD doctors...

[bluehenbillk]

I'm sad to admit that the author of this article, good ole Buzz is from the Philadelphia area, an area that honestly doesn't really pay much attention to college football. Buzz goes on local sports radio often and like this article, has sensationalized viewpoints that serve the purpose of solely drawing more attention to himself.

I doubt if you ran into this douchebag at a bar he'd tell you he probably doesn't want to ban college football, he just loves to argue with people. He has running feuds with probably a dozen people at a time. Sadly, I heard the other day he's getting his own radio show, hopefully he's on mid-day so I never have to hear him.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I'm sad to admit that the author of this article, good ole Buzz is from the Philadelphia area, an area that honestly doesn't really pay much attention to college football. Buzz goes on local sports radio often and like this article, has sensationalized viewpoints that serve the purpose of solely drawing more attention to himself.

I doubt if you ran into this douchebag at a bar he'd tell you he probably doesn't want to ban college football, he just loves to argue with people. He has running feuds with probably a dozen people at a time. Sadly, I heard the other day he's getting his own radio show, hopefully he's on mid-day so I never have to hear him.

As much as I hate to agree with you ( :D ), I completely agree here. Buzz is a blowhard. Folks may not remember when he put himself on a ledge decrying how sports blogging was a dark stain on sports journalism.

[MplsBison]

not enough kids are going to four year schools, the problem is that alot of them a majoring in useless horse**** like entrepreneurship, communications, or journalism.

we could really use alot more people in engineering, math, physics, chemistry, nursing and medicine. Particularly the latter two.

If you get rid of the "useless" degrees and all of those kids previously enrolled in those programs are not skilled enough to qualify for your proposed "useful programs", then what?

[MplsBison]

I'm sad to admit that the author of this article, good ole Buzz is from the Philadelphia area, an area that honestly doesn't really pay much attention to college football. Buzz goes on local sports radio often and like this article, has sensationalized viewpoints that serve the purpose of solely drawing more attention to himself.

I doubt if you ran into this douchebag at a bar he'd tell you he probably doesn't want to ban college football, he just loves to argue with people. He has running feuds with probably a dozen people at a time. Sadly, I heard the other day he's getting his own radio show, hopefully he's on mid-day so I never have to hear him.

Yeah but he does have one good point that no one on this board has dared touch with a 10-foot pole:

if college football does nothing to enhance the academics of the student body, then why should schools continue spending money on it in times of slashed budgets?

[walliver]

I don't think it is a case of there not being enough kids going to four year schools...most schools seem to be having tremendous growth. A lot of kids coming out of HS just go to college because that is the next step...they don't know what that next step is supposed to me, but they know it's just what they are supposed to do. That is the bigger issue for the rediculous amounts of debt that kids are getting into.

Also, the schools are robbing families blind...the price of education continues to rise astronomically and they can "justify" it because people feel they HAVE to go back to school because of the down economy. Schools are just taking advantage of these people.

And you point about WHAT they are studying when they are in school is also of extreme worth. Liberal arts degrees are not going to pay the bills nor help society advance. We need more GOOD teachers and GOOD doctors...

Actually, liberal arts degrees can lead to teachers, doctors, etc. In fact, a liberal arts degree with a major in science gives a graduate flexibility that many college graduates do not have, The real problem is that our entire educational system is broken.

Why do you go to elementary school? To get to middle school.
Why do you go to middle school? To get to high school.
Why do you go to high school? To get into college.
Why do you go to college? To get into grad school. - It's sad when a $50K a year college education doesn't prepare you for much.

Our country has a lot of very smart engineers, we just don't have skilled workers to manufacture the products they design. For example, all Apple products are designed in the US, none are manufactured here.

Most colleges and universities are expanding rapidly, despite a fairly stable US population (most population growth is due to immigration), Many of their graduates finish with useless majors, and no skills.

[MplsBison]

Actually, liberal arts degrees can lead to teachers, doctors, etc. In fact, a liberal arts degree with a major in science gives a graduate flexibility that many college graduates do not have, The real problem is that our entire educational system is broken.

Why do you go to elementary school? To get to middle school.
Why do you go to middle school? To get to high school.
Why do you go to high school? To get into college.
Why do you go to college? To get into grad school. - It's sad when a $50K a year college education doesn't prepare you for much.

Our country has a lot of very smart engineers, we just don't have skilled workers to manufacture the products they design. For example, all Apple products are designed in the US, none are manufactured here.

Most colleges and universities are expanding rapidly, despite a fairly stable US population (most population growth is due to immigration), Many of their graduates finish with useless majors, and no skills.

We have very skilled workers.

No one wants to manufacture here because those workers want too much money compared to what Chinese workers will take.

[NHwildEcat]

Actually, liberal arts degrees can lead to teachers, doctors, etc. In fact, a liberal arts degree with a major in science gives a graduate flexibility that many college graduates do not have, The real problem is that our entire educational system is broken.

Why do you go to elementary school? To get to middle school.
Why do you go to middle school? To get to high school.
Why do you go to high school? To get into college.
Why do you go to college? To get into grad school. - It's sad when a $50K a year college education doesn't prepare you for much.

Our country has a lot of very smart engineers, we just don't have skilled workers to manufacture the products they design. For example, all Apple products are designed in the US, none are manufactured here.

Most colleges and universities are expanding rapidly, despite a fairly stable US population (most population growth is due to immigration), Many of their graduates finish with useless majors, and no skills.

It's not that I don't think Liberal Arts are entirely useless...it really depends on what you do with it. I know people whom I went to school with who had to get their MBA or another Master's degree because PolySci was not leading to a career where they could make enough money to pay back those student loans which are a direct result of schools price gouging....

And there is still a large part of this country that go to high school because it is the law...not because they want to be move on to college.

[NHwildEcat]

We have very skilled workers.

No one wants to manufacture here because those workers want too much money compared to what Chinese workers will take.

True. And yet, manufacturing has been the most stable and growth developing sector of our country in the past 5 years...

It is a trend, and manufacturing will come back domestically in some areas...we are just going to have to pay more for those products.

[MplsBison]

True. And yet, manufacturing has been the most stable and growth developing sector of our country in the past 5 years...

It is a trend, and manufacturing will come back domestically in some areas...we are just going to have to pay more for those products.

Only the areas where we care or not if the Chinese steal our intellectual property. Those types of hi-tech mfg'ing won't be done in China. I agree with that.