I don’t understand exactly how black and white athlete’s are treated differently? anyone care to explain to me cuz this article seems to be Student-Athletes versus NCAA not just black athletes? 
The NCAA is an equal opportunity rip-off organization, it’s just that the black athletes have a higher overall profile. The idea that all funds brought in by revenue producing sports are kept for the coaches and schools etc is the same issue that was addressed long ago by the IAAF.
That said, there is no reason why athletes on scholarship can’t use their time wisely and leave with a degree, for whatever the motivation is, if a door is opened to you, go through it!!
I’m not taking a position on this, but if it weren’t for the sports how many of those “book worms” would have the opportunity to get a tertiary education in the user pay university system? It’s one thing to say that the athlete-scholars should be studying more, however if they wouldn’t be there without the sport it becomes a bit of a moot point.
Agreed, but there is a middle ground possible here. The first step is for the athletes to take responsibility for their classwork!
On that front, the NCAA did crack down on the training time requirements that schools could ask of the athletes and many schools do provide tutors and studyhalls.
From what I can gather most require a minimum GPA be maintained - mind you I have also heard that everything possible is done to ensure that star players are retained regardless.
It’s a stark contrast to the Australian system. In the degree that I am in, each of our subjects has an expected work load of 12-15 hrs a week plus contact time across four subjects (full time subject load) and the mean mark is a pass (50-60%) - there is no way that you could have an athletics programme running within that type of system and our retention rate for Juniors reflect this, so at least the US system is keeping talent in the sport they play and rewarding them. I agree with you that there their balance between these two aspects is unlikely to be optimal from a societal perspective.
The course load for the quarterly system for on-time graduation is 15 units, minimum for NCAA eligibility is 12, so it’s reasonable to expect the University to guarantee funding through to graduation at that rate.
Dazed, you must not be familiar with the NCAA very much. While there are numerous instances of athletes cheating or barely getting by, there are numerous stories of individuals who were afforded the opportunity of a lifetime because of their athletic gifts. Look at the many people who couldn’t afford school and went on to do great things with their education. There are obviously terrible things about every system and the NCAA has some pretty bad ones, but there are plenty of success stories as well. Most people aren’t going to become professional athletes and even those who do will not necessarily be able to retire from the earnings, so a free education can go a long way.
fogelson, I know that you feel it is your prerogative to be argumentative, however at least take the time to read what you are objecting to. Go back to my first post, I think you will find that nothing that I have said conflicts with your perspective - sorry. In fact agree almost entirely with what you just posted and the comment re: star players was an exception rather than the rule. I think the fact that it gives opportunities to those who would otherwise not have them is a great thing - the externalities associated with education leaves everyone better off. However how much time should be allocated to either scholastics or training is not something I currently have an opinion on as I don’t know how these people use their time.
"In the degree that I am in, each of our subjects has an expected work load of 12-15 hrs a week plus contact time across four subjects (full time subject load) and the mean mark is a pass (50-60%) - there is no way that you could have an athletics programme running within that type of system "
I know you don’t remember what you said, but please go back and read it. What you just mentioned is quite standard for a degree program at a major university. Some degree programs will be even more intense.
Plenty of people compete in the NCAA and complete their degree, both at a high level (ie they have the same amount of course work you just mentioned, which is again, standard). Further, there are already allocations on how much time may be spent in training, especially in the off-season. In fact, many coaches become upset with it because they do not view it as a system that gives them enough time with the athletes.
I didn’t think it was that high. I have seen a few of the course outlines for friends in the system, and been mailed literature by schools I was considering attending and on average they are told they need between 30 and 40 hrs per week for 15cp. The system I was referring to is the Australian system, where very few athletes do successfully go on to complete a degree under a full time load. We get quite a few exchange students from NCAA universities (I have a Princeton exchange student in one of my classes ATM), and quite frankly they often struggle, and initially can’t understand why they have suddenly gone from a straight A student to a pass (50-59%) or a credit (60-75%) average. Our grades aren’t based on scaling where I am at, and the uni isn’t afraid to fail up to 70% of students in some courses, which means that you actually do need to live up to the study requirements just to get by. From what I can gather most of the courses in the US calculate their grades on a comparative basis so that ~20% get A’s ~ 20% B’s etc.
In your honest opinion, do you really think that it is possible to train effectively and perform well when you are doing 70+ hours of study a week?
Those times you have mentioned refer to contact times with coaches. Athletes are often given other work to do outside of official training whether it is permitted by the NCAA or not.
You are preaching to the choir here. There were French students studying here on exchange and something similar happened. People on exchange are generally on a glorified “vacation” as is sadly turning into tradition. You are probably correct about universities being less willing to outright fail students, but I really don’t see the relevance to simply being able to complete a program for most people (people who are that lazy will generally have some sort of other issues anyway). It happens all the time. In fact, if you look at some more rigorous universities, there are Olympic athletes that compete for their teams and complete their degrees. Best example of this is probably in rowing/crew.
In your honest opinion, do you really think that it is possible to train effectively and perform well when you are doing 70+ hours of study a week?
I have great doubts people are actually studying 70 hours a week. Again, some of the most rigorous programs in the world between the US and Europe do not come close to such demands. I think you are greatly overestimating things. There have been Australian students studying here and I have never heard of such insane hours of studying. In fact, even the medical schools here rarely approach that for an average week.
Those times you have mentioned refer to contact times with coaches. Athletes are often given other work to do outside of official training whether it is permitted by the NCAA or not.
Sure, they might. It is also common that they don’t do it. See T&F as a great example where some of the best are historically incredibly lazy.
I don’t think it is possible to train effectively if you study >70 hours a week. I do think it is bullshit that anybody is averaging anything close to 70 hours a week for much of the year.
It’s not at every Uni, and it’s not even in every faculty at the Uni I am at either. But just to put it into perspective in one subject last week, I had 160 pages of readings, plus problem sets to complete, 90 pages in another plus problem sets, 50 in my third plus online quiz and tutes, then one that I thought would be piss easy with only 30 pages of reading, but was so mathematically dense that it took just as long as the others. I gotta tell you, by the time I made my notes I didn’t see much change from 70 hours.
What and where did you study BTW? Biology?
Online quizzes?
Come on now…
PM me if you are interested in specifics. My roommate studies math and statistics, getting ready for grad school (if that is what you are studying) and I’m sure you’ll recognize where if that is your area of interest.
No, I don’t think it’s possible, but who studies anywhere NEAR 70 hours a week? I don’t think I knew anyone who did that.
Some of the Civ Eng students have 38 contact hours per week, so I can’t see how they could get by with much less than 70.
Well, you go to about 20 hours a week of classes, and study another 20-30. I’m not trying to be any of argumentative, sarcastic, or patronizing - most of my friends, including a few engineers with the usually massive course load, only went to a portion of their classes, and studied enough to do acceptably. I’m not sure if that would work for everyone.
I know your not. That can work in some courses, but we often have lecturers that will omit critical information from notes and reading to try to ensure you show up. And your right, it also depends on what marks you deem to be acceptable, if you want to consistently get in the top 3% of the class, then you’re likely to have to put in more time than those that subscribe to the philosophy that p’s get degrees.
I really am not sure about these hours. I responded to your PM, but a friend of mine who is now in medical school was a triple major at my university in biology, chemistry, and physics, graduated with a 3.96 (highest in the graduating class), and was also one place out of being an All-American in his sport of choice (I’ll give you his name if you’re interested). He is incredibly gifted obviously, but he never had, outside of perhaps a finals week, over 30 hours of actual studying. Generally, much less since he didn’t study on Fridays or Saturdays pretty much ever.
People doing rigorous engineering work at CMU, MIT, etc. do not study nearly that much. I mean, maybe one person does, but the vast majority do not.
I did a degree in Civil Engineering and it was absolute hell on Earth. Contact time was about 25-40 hours, but decreased as the degree progressed, but Dude I was never out of the library. It would not have been unusual, after my first year, for me and my classmates to spend 4 full days, plus all nighters studying this garbage.
I am sure we surpassed 70 hours per week a few times, but we all went home and did nothing Friday afternoon until Monday morning. Nonetheless, it was truly impossible to train during the other part of the week.
Any athletes, at any level, that started my course, were no longer athletes by the second year, or no longer studying the same degree.
As aside note, Civil Engineering is only second to Architecture in the amount of work required and time it takes up. Medicine doesn’t come close. We basically lived in the Library for days and nights on end during certain periods. I now study another degree and it is a walk in the park in comparison.
My 2 cents is that the teams should get some cut of the % of ticket sales at the very least. My god, in spike of the fact that most won’t go pro they are putting there own life/health on the line (at least football) every time they step on the field. The money however should not be given to them until they graduate or a few years after graduation.