bonarae
January 17th, 2014, 03:42 AM
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24411587/where-do-harvards-of-the-world-fit-in-with-big-money-football
Highlights:
"We think people learn something by playing sports," Scalise said Thursday during the NCAA Convention governance dialogue. "What some of these kids are learning at other places are, 'How do I maximize my net worth?' They're not there to get an education. The system is not set up for them to be educated."
Well, duh. The surprise is not that some players use college as a minor-league springboard to the pros. It's that the likes of Harvard still want to be considered a part of the 350-member Division I.
"Do they need us?" Scalise asked a small group of reporters. "Does Division I need us or do we need them? We need them because we want our kids to be able to go compete at the highest level. Some of us said they need us because we give them some academic legitimacy."
That's really what's at stake here this week: The growing professional model in big-time college athletics vs. the amateur ideal. The similarities between an Ivy League school and BCS mother ships are dwindling as we speak.
"Now," said Scalise, entering his 13th year on the job, "they're acting like commercial enterprises."
...
Let's not forget there is a reason for those 42 sports, 1,200 athletes and no scholarships. Harvard has a proud legacy. It was essentially in the room when the NCAA was created more than a century ago.
"We were there when the NCAA was founded," Scalise said. "We were there to address these similar issues in the early 1900s."
How did that work out?
"We won a Rose Bowl," he said referring to epic 1920 win over Oregon.
"With the current model we can't win a Rose Bowl."
Do the 800, Division I or the NCAA care?
xchinscratchx
Makes me wonder why UChicago left the precursor of Division I a long, long time ago and the Ivy League schools stayed behind persevering in what evolved to become Division I... but now the Ivy League schools are at a disadvantage in a far-too-commercialized Division I of today.
Highlights:
"We think people learn something by playing sports," Scalise said Thursday during the NCAA Convention governance dialogue. "What some of these kids are learning at other places are, 'How do I maximize my net worth?' They're not there to get an education. The system is not set up for them to be educated."
Well, duh. The surprise is not that some players use college as a minor-league springboard to the pros. It's that the likes of Harvard still want to be considered a part of the 350-member Division I.
"Do they need us?" Scalise asked a small group of reporters. "Does Division I need us or do we need them? We need them because we want our kids to be able to go compete at the highest level. Some of us said they need us because we give them some academic legitimacy."
That's really what's at stake here this week: The growing professional model in big-time college athletics vs. the amateur ideal. The similarities between an Ivy League school and BCS mother ships are dwindling as we speak.
"Now," said Scalise, entering his 13th year on the job, "they're acting like commercial enterprises."
...
Let's not forget there is a reason for those 42 sports, 1,200 athletes and no scholarships. Harvard has a proud legacy. It was essentially in the room when the NCAA was created more than a century ago.
"We were there when the NCAA was founded," Scalise said. "We were there to address these similar issues in the early 1900s."
How did that work out?
"We won a Rose Bowl," he said referring to epic 1920 win over Oregon.
"With the current model we can't win a Rose Bowl."
Do the 800, Division I or the NCAA care?
xchinscratchx
Makes me wonder why UChicago left the precursor of Division I a long, long time ago and the Ivy League schools stayed behind persevering in what evolved to become Division I... but now the Ivy League schools are at a disadvantage in a far-too-commercialized Division I of today.