RECRUITING IS UGLY AND TERRIBLE. LONG LIVE RECRUITING.

Grossman had the financial freedom to focus on whatever he chose to in his spare time, which by most accounts fell to the responsibility of mastering the EA NCAA games on several different game systems.

Judging by some his games this year, it’s as true today as it was then.

The premise is sound and as a generalization I agree, but there is another in-between position here.

While at Uof F I came to know a player who grew up in Alachua with a rough homelife. (I knew him because we quietly competed for the affections of a lady…I won that contest by the way). He was raised by his grandmother because the rest of his family was dead and/or drug addicted. He came to UF with the dream of playing on Sunday but he didn’t really grow anymore (other than weight gains after it was decided to move him from Tight End to Tackle) so he became a role player. After four years, he got his degree in business and graduated, leaving behind another year of eligibility to go into the work force. Having a national championship ring and UF football player on his resume opened some doors for him and he got a quality middle-class type job and has continued in the white collar work force since then.

He never would have gone to college but for being recruited for football. Thankfully, he took the opportunity to take his classes seriously and graduated. The education AND connections was worth his sacrifices.

I saw rexy outside the park hyatt in dowtown chicago the saturday before the saints game, its no wonder he wasn’t that heavily recruited, he’s listed at 6’1(maybe a stretch in cleats) and look sort of chunky like a short, overachieving hs defensive lineman, but then he got into his black range rover with big boy rims—things obviously have worked out for him

Yes, but that’s not the point, Stranko. The point is that he didn’t receive a fair exchange for his labor—even by the terms of an intern’s agreement with a company.

It’s about fair exchange. In most cases, the exchange is unequal and unfair.

It’s particularly sad to me that these men are asked to sacrifice their bodies, often times with long-lasting effects, for no financial gain that they will see. It’s a sad spectacle that so many will dedicate so much to a sport and an industry that will chew them up and spit them out after. I enjoyed reading this, Orson, thank you.

I object!

You shouldn’t, DC—you already root for the only pro football team in LA. You’ve got no such problems, since USC has no salary cap, right?

I won’t defend the NCAA’s rules about recruiting or playing. Any large bureaucracy is going to create monstrously idiotic rules. However, the value of a degree from a major university seems to be lost in the flood here.

Whether that degree represents a fully earned, understood and internalized “education” in a particular field, or just a piece of paper, it puts the holder light years ahead of his peers (almost regardless of their socioeconomic background) without it.

Reggie Bush generates a far greater amount of revenue (far, far greater) than the cost of his degree, but what about the less well known players? How much did the third string guard bring to the party? When the blood filled egg hits the cold hard floor, having a degree would make all the difference in the world.

This train of thought gets us to an ESPN/Cthulhu dominated world in a big hurry.

Great stuff, Orson.

Do you think “duplicitous” is the proper term, though? Without ascribing too much self-awareness to your average 17-year-old (which I think we can agree would be a mistake), don’t you think that they’re at least somewhat aware of this unfair dynamic?

I imagine that many recruits have seen enough to recognize process for what it is. They just view themselves as the exception, as all teenagers do – “I can do ten Jaeger shots and drive home,” “I can do a couple movies without getting chewed up and spit out by the porn industry,” etc.

Totally unrelated, but I watched the game, and I certainly don’t remember this…

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=270270002

I still agree with the premise as a whole, but I think in certain situations, the free education, room and board PLUS the contacts (which are denied during recruiting, but which can be valuable after graduation) are a fair exchange for the “role players”. Let’s face it, they don’t earn the university much, unlike the stars or at least the starters. My point is only that it is not always an unequal exhange… just mostly so… at least at the big state schools. As better said in #8.

O/T, but where was the SEC TM TEAM SPEED on the weekend?

“The South would find no answer to Hunt’s score for the remaining 56 minutes, thanks greatly to an aggressive and speedy North defense that relentlessly pressured South quarterbacks. In total, the North tallied eight sacks, led by three from Nebraska defensive end Jay Moore. The South did not record a sack.”

http://www.buccaneers.com/news/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=5643

These kids are taking spots at these colleges from real students. There’s your real victim.

Fair exchange? If you measure it in terms of dollars, all college scholarships are gone except football and basketball. Band, women’s sports, etc. all gone.

How about the inevitable college football players union? Or, lacking a union, simple things like pay grades. Does a starting TE at a mid-major get the same as a 2nd string TE at a major?

I’m not trying to bog down a good idea with difficult particulars. This is something that would be revealed as a bad idea the minute it was implemented. Instant replay anyone? Great idea, permanently, irrevocably screwed up.

Adding weight to Stranko’s argument, the stars aren’t too interesting (certainly not in football) w/o the role players. Role players who have ZERO chance of ever getting to the NFL.

In my industry (advertising) interns are dead weight. You spend more time training them than they can ever hope to repay you with actual work. Even entry level “professionals” don’t contribute enough to company to justify their salaries (thus they are very low). Like the NFL, only a small percentage of “prospects” amount to anything, the rest find careers in something else, thus you have to invest in a lot of these “prospects” to have a few pan out.

And here’s something else to consider. Div 1A schools give 85 scholarships. Not all of those of those 85 athletes contribute to the “success” or “profitability” of the program. By necessity, some will be bench warmers that really have an opportunity to enjoy the flip side of the arrangement. They may get more out of the bargain than they contribute.

I guess the real losers are the ones that contribute to their team concretely but never make it to the next level (and never graduate).

Isn’t capitalism the explotation of labor? So in essence is college football capitalism in action?

Basically, the NCAA and the schools put everything up-front: “If you want to get a free degree, room and board, etc, play sports for us. However, you won’t get anything more than that. Take it or leave it.”

Then, all of these athletes, who, living in the USA have more choices than people in a lot of other countries, always take the the NCAA’s offer at the terms presented.

Then, after having the opportunity to get a degree (that some folks spend 10+ years to pay off), they start bitching about how they got a raw deal, even though they accepted the terms that were laid out in the first place.

Everyone has a choice to make. All of the options are presented prior to agreement. Until the government start telling people “You must play college football” or “You must write for EDSBS for Orson’s personal benefit” you can’t really complain about any job you take unless someone changes the terms of the contract AFTER you do the work.

NCAA athletes are whiners. We all know you become an athlete or actor or whatever else makes you famous because it’s a hell of a lot more fun than studying, working a desk job, or doing manual labor.

Orson, I’ll take that $0.05 for my comment, thanks. You probably made $5.00 off my insight alone.

#18… the faulty premise there is that EDSBS operates in the black.

Two words which throw a wrench into any “paid college athlete” plan: Title 9

One must add the value of watching Urban Meyer hug two other grown men while they giddily jump up and down in your living room to fully quantify the value of a D-1A scholarship opportunity. That is all.

I don’t think Adam Smith would have a major problem. The most important factor in free trade isn’t equality, but volition. The players are voluntary signing the “contract” presented by universities and the NCAA. They don’t have to; clearly, players feel they’re getting more satisfaction (that’s a catchall term that includes eventual return) out of playing NCAA football than they would otherwise. I don’t know enough about the system to bash it or uplift it, and like most systems it probably deserves a little of both, but the NCAA is no slavedriver – people don’t take chances on the scale of going to college or playing football that they don’t believe are going to leave them better off in the long run, either by the experience itself, or what can be gained from the experience, or both.

Don’t draft picks make up the money they “earned” on the university’s behalf in NFL contracts, facilitated by the opportunity granted (along with the free education and degree) by the university? i.e., The opportunity to play against a certain talent level is worth roughly the equivalent to the player as what he reaps for the school. In those situations, it’s like a quid pro quo, a farm league under the guise of “student-athletics,” except that the ‘student’ part is a viable and important option, probably moreso than we cynics generally admit.

But not every player is a draft pick, either, and what kind of cash are they generating for the school? In those situations, as you said in your Vanderbilt example, average players even at larger schools are probably getting back in education and career opportunities (other than football) what they put in in terms of sweat, talent and dollars. Big players make big plays in big games, and they make the big bucks as a result, eventually.

Again, though, I’m willing to admit the players get screwed if the players themselves seemed to think so. Maybe they do. But not enough yet to break the NCAA monopoly by starting their own developmental league or something similar in its place, which, frankly, would destroy college football, as I think outright paying players would destroy college football. But if enough players were dissatisfied, that sort of operation could find enough ground to force major renovations in the NCAA. It’s the players’ game, and as long as they agree voluntarily to NCAA and university rules, that falls close enough to “fair exchange” for me.

Oh, believe me, there was sarcasm in that statement.

Google ads do make a man healthy, wealthy, and wise, right?

Although I’m not an advocate of a pay-to-play system in big-time college athletics (i.e. football and basketball), it’s an argument that seems to be growing in proportion to the sports’ popularity. This in turn creates an ever-increasing pool of revenue dollars pouring in from the various TV networks.

If we are to pay our athletes, why not create a system where the players income is based on their GPA and/or class attendance?

Of course the argument against this, is that it would create an environment in which professors would be pressured into lax grading standards, or creating Jim Harrick, Jr.-like course outlines (how much is a 3-pointer worth again?).

In the end there is no perfect system. Thus, if this slippery slope is breached, why not at least create the illusion that it’s a student athlete that’s receiving funds for his/her performance in both the class room and on the field?

More to Stranko’s point, that scholarship’s value becomes greater when you have someone who goes to play for a private university.

State tuition and room/board is what, $10k-$15k total these days? Go to a Private U and you’re looking at a combined total of $40k-$50k per year. That’s a pretty nice value of FREE education over 4 years.

#18

You make it sound like the athlete has two legitimate choices, when really they only have one. Of course the athlete is going to take the scholarship offer over staying at home. But that fact does not justify they NCAA. Or something like that.

1. makes a really good point that the amount of scholarships available for non-student athletes is quite appalling. I’m not ready to purely blame the universities, although they share part of the blame for never putting the profits made from the Athletes into benefiting all the students and possibly expanding the student body to include less athletically gifted or otherwise financially challenged students. I’d lay some of this at the feet of the governments of states and the Fed for not providing as much money for education as there is demand. However, in saying that, I realize that’s another slippery slope because as soon as you start paying for everyone, the costs would continue to rise as more and more people gain higher education and quality lowers as well.

Man, overall, when it comes to money everyone can’t be happy. That’s something I’m realizing as I trudge through each day (I’m young, pardon me).

The cost of the education without a scholarship must be considered in evaluating compensation. The value of a degree in earning potential over a lifetime, compared to that of a high school education should also be considered. The opportunity to play on Sunday should be minimized in this exercise due to the fact that the chances of making it to that level and earning a full time living for any appreciable time is remote.

The degree is worth $X in free room and board and 4 years of college classes, books and lab fees. The earning potential of the degree factors between 150% and 200% over non-degreed workers over a lifetime.

The direct compensation may be low initially, but the indirect and long-term compensation is pretty dang good. Those who make it to the NFL by way of this have used the showcase to become millionaires. Those who fall short of the NFL have the opportunity to have great careers away from sports.

I didn’t hit the genetic lottery, so college was up to me and my parents. I would have gladly given blood, sweat and tears to have those resume bullets.

You know who makes out like a bandit in the current scenario? The NFL. Free farm team/developmental league. No skin in the game and you reap all the benefits. Sweet.
I was going to make the argument that the football players have the added benefit of scoring with the chicks. Unfortunately, Stranko blew that hypothesis out of the water. Stealing a woman from a lineman? You are a badass, Mr. Montana.

Recruiting is offering athletes an opportunity to learn and better themselves for the future in exchange for playing a game that they love. Yes, they run and jump and tackle and this, that, and the other for my entertainment and the entertainment of hundreds of thousands of others every year, and while they may not get paid for services rendered in the conventional sense of the phrase, they’re getting a free education. Those that take advantage of it can do whatever they want with their lives, and those that don’t are doing themselves a gross injustice.

College football provides an opportunity that many "young, underprivileged black men" would never have. I agree w/ Stranko that there is a middle ground, and that said middle ground is astoundingly underused.

ok, so you’re a communist…

there’s plenty of creepy to go around in recruiting, the plight of the proletariat is not creepy, it is, as you said, the american way.

Hell, no—is calling for even a pittance of the total income of a program communist? Not at all.

We’d love to see a program dividends system that gave players a share of the football team’s revenues, especially for items like jersey sales. If I buy a Reggie Nelson jersey, Reggie should get some dough.

The dividends would be small at small programs, and much larger at larger programs. It’s cash, but it’s not a salary. And it would be a start.

As for a player’s union…ack. Let’s not get collective bargaining into this.

#25, why should athletic revenues fund non-athlete students? The fact is that big time football and basketball programs fund a lot of the atheltics at those schools, including the women’s programs. They also generate a large amount of publicity and exposure for the university (which if it were paid for would be worth milions upon millions of dollars). These football and basketball programs also provide a source of entertainment to the students, faculty and community at large. The games themselves are events that bring back alumni and allow them feel connected to their college. (if it wasn’t for fooball how often would you think of your college, much less go back and visit?) Often the biggest boosters are also donors to the capital campaigns of the universities themselves. If one is going to calculate the costs of a program then there has to be a way to measure all of the return on investment too. It’s only fair.

It’s all in the degree of university attachment. At some universities, the programs are inextricably linked to the schools; at others, they’re almost separate corporations.

Anyone out there got a link to NYU’s Mueller Macaroni/taxation case? It’s the case where NYU owned for-profit businesses but insisted on claiming them within the university structure.

How major football programs are any different at this point is beyond us.

Very good points in #18 and #21. However, I think Orson’s original point is that in most cases the “choice” or “volition” of some incoming recruits is not the same as others. Rex’s choice is purely that- one of many options. The larger number of recruits have far fewer choices, thus their apparent volition is severely limited, to the point that it’s hardly a “choice” if it’s your only option.

As someone intimately involved with a top flight university as both instructor and student that charged students $45,000 a year (thankfully grad students don’t pay tuition here), one of the wrenches to any justification of the athlete-university exchange is the overinflated cost of a university degree. The consistent argument against paying athletes turns into a baying refrain of “they already get paid with their scholarship.” The flaw in this is that most of us non-athletes will rarely if ever recoup the cost of a university education from a top-teir school.

The boomer generation has overvalued—and thus raised in dollar terms tuition prices— a university education without any concurrent raises in what the average individual gets out of an education. People still take 32 hours of psychology (now the most popular major in the US), a few history classes, some math, begrudgingly take English composition, and still graduate with the same general knowledge and abilities that a psyche grad did 30 years ago. Only now, with the glut of boomers in the workforce, they will likely have a hell of a time getting a job that will allow them to pay off student loans before their children even get to college.

So if the general equation of risk/reward for the average student is a bit messed up for the rest of us, how bad is it for a player for a perennial power football/basketball NCAA team who sees his jersey for sale in the mall that he couldn’t afford because he can’t get a job during the season? If only comparative literature fantasy leagues brought in web hits, I could pay off my student loans before i retire.

Getting back to the “effete homoeroticism” and the “most depressing story ever,” my vote’s for Oscar Wilde’s “Happy Prince.”

Or, Halleck, you have eight different flavors of the same choice, e.g. a top pick from an impoverished background with multiple offers from top-tier programs.

Mosby, prove that “real students” are suffering to make room for 85 football scholarships. Most I-A schools have student bodies so large that another 85 is a drop in the bucket. Even at a relatively small place like my alma mater, that’s a little over 1% of the student body. Or don’t athletes count when you’re measuring “diversity”?

As #16 put it, this is a heaven-sent opportunity for the ones who can collect a diploma. The real shame is what can happen when someone is no longer of use to the program and is “taking up” a scholarship slot that can go to a hot prospect from Lower Podunk.

One thing That 5.0 Guy noted really bothers me, though. He assumes that it’s the Federal government’s role to finance higher education. Well, the problem I have with that is my observations as an undergrad in the 80s that unversity adminstrations grew out of proportion to student body growth, because of the need to process the paperwork and do the verification required as a result of government aid to students.

I don’t think a BA today is worth what it was 25 years ago, because there are more BAs (oversupply), many of them without the skills that could be assumed were there 25 years ago (mediocre quality), in a world where they just don’t have that much to do (lowered demand).

In my generation, skipping college was unthinkable. The generation just beginning to work its way through… well, they have to redefine the options, because our economy doesn’t look terribly sustainable.

Wonderful piece, Mr. Swindle! Bravo! I can’t wait for the subsequent parts!

Personal anecdote – I was working at the Ralph Lauren Outlet store in Chattanooga, TN when I was an undergrad (a while back) and the Georgia Tech men’s bball team was in town for a tip off tourney. I helped Travis Best and one of the Barry kids (Drew or John, can’t remember). Travis really wanted a shirt that was $20, and you could tell that was probably the only $20 he would have for a while. Barry on the other hand pretty much bought out the slacks rack and whipped out daddy Rick’s credit card. I thought, here’s a punk that is at best a role player and Best who was pretty much all GT had in the early 90’s. It’s not fair. But to break down the wall – would cause issues like you’ve never seen.

For instance, my alma mater – forget it. No one would pay the players more than ND, if it was left uncapped. Also, it would be easier for a school like ND than say a UF, because to pay the players at UF, it would probably require some type of State legislative approval (good luck getting that done on a referendum with Miami fans, UCF, FSU, FIU and others) because in essence it would be taxpayer money going to those kids.

if you do it as a stipend, then some of the schools would have to fold their programs, because they couldn’t afford it.

Here, however, is how you do it. All Division 1-A programs put a certain amount of money into a fund every year. (I’m sure some actuary could figure the amount out). Starting with next years recruiting class (got to start somewhere), if a scholarship student athlete competes and stays in school and GRADUATES, they get a “$$ pat on the back” check at graduation. Every take is the same for athletes within the sport (and no the lacrosse stipend isn’t as lucrative as the football one.) If a university can’t come up with the payment, they become a 1-AA school automatically.

And it doesn’t matter where that “payment” comes from. If Regis Philbin wants to write the check for ND’s portion, great. If Orson wants to insure more years of UF excellence, he could pony up UGA’s share. Because the contribution is made to the NCAA.

You’re all hopelessly brilliant, btw. Keep it up.

1. 33, I think you were referring to me at # 27, but I see your point (not trying to be an ass, just checking to make sure I’m not overstepping my bounds). But at the same time, if money is being differed from the rest of the university to the football/basketball program, shouldn’t some be diverted back the other way? Maybe I’m assuming too much based on local high school football (where programs will seek funding for a magnet program, then shunt the funding to make sure their teams have the latest gear), but if a portion were given to the general scholarship fun from the revenue generated from jersey sales, I would think that would be equitable. I know that some alumni would feel good about donating to a school that gives students a chance.

I won’t discount what you say about donors giving back, though, seeing as I pass the Cooper Building and TECO Energy Hall going to class each day. Those donations both benefit the students in that they provide housing for World Language studies and Engineering. Those classes would be harder to hold if the proper facilities weren’t made available by a donation instead of the university funding it by cutting money from somewhere else.

That’s “bodies politic.”

You’ve been pulled over by the copy edit police. We’re going to have to give you a little fine, there. Have a happy Alvistime.

#35,

Since when (in a free society) is everyone guaranteed the same “choices”? All of our choices are based on innumerable factors: home life, family income, personal decisions, etc. I had fewer options than some high school seniors, and more options than others. Unless you’d like to institute a caste system, that’s the way it will always be.

And in reference to my previous comment: If you think the Martha Burke’s of the world will stand by and let “revenue generating” athletes (ie: men’s basketball and football) reap a financial benefit, while the ladies’ volleyball team does without, you obviously haven’t been paying attention….

To follow up on what #35 said not only is the “volition” of recruits determined based upon their economic status but many are not equipped to take advantage of the free education being offered to them. I would be a little more understanding of the argument that it’s the players’ fault for not utilizing the opportunities given to them if it wasn’t such an accepted truth that either many schools with major football/basketball programs have laxer acceptance standards for recruits or that there are many ways to doctor or manufacture the grades necessary to meet the bare minimum for acceptance without actually having received the necessary prepatory education. And if it was not also widely accepted that many college athletes (obviously I’m talking about the top tier of athletes only, not every every single backup shortstop and lacrosse player) are aided by suspect majors (i.e Criminal Justice at Ole Miss for anyone who read the Blind Side*) and basically all manner of help to allow them to play football no matter what they are actually learning. Now of course these guys could decide that they really want to get something out of that opportunity besides adulation and perks but an entire system is in place to make sure they don’t have to and relying on teenagers to make that decision correctly for themselves when they’re given a ton of evidence to the contrary seems like wishful thinking. Also to the argument that they don’t have to choose to play college sports, well…if that was your only opportunity to move yourself up the economic strata and escape poverty would you turn it down?

I’m sure that if this was a pragmatic argument for actually instituting a pay system for college athletes there would be an bottomless well of difficult, thorny issues to be resolved the same way the current system has endless list of gaping flaws. Obviously we’re not likely to see such a system in place any time soon. I like Orson’s revenue sharing idea quite a bit though and it strikes me as something the could be realistically implemented. As someone noted the real winner (and loser, morally) is the NFL which reaps all the benefits of having a farm system while keeping its’ hands clean of all the dirty work.

*I’m sure such majors exist at many schools. Also I know it’s only one anecdotal case but Michael Oher’s story is extremely fascinating precisely because it combines the haves (Rex Grossmans in this post) and the havenots into one highly recruited player.

um, not to be mr-language-person, but shouldn’t it be “bodies politic”?

seriously, tho, if it does come to pass that kids could get paid for playing, where can you draw the line? say you have perennial power-house at the hs level, should they be denied the same powers? doesn’t the hs reap a disproportionate amount of the benefit than the player for being said powerhouse? i know it sounds silly, but just sayin’…

i would gather that most recruits know they have a better chance at drowning in the bathtub than making it to the professsional level in their sport of choice. taking football as an example, there are 32 pro teams, with around 60 guys (counting dl and whatnot) getting some pay. so that’s maybe 2000 spots, and not every year, but for everyone who ever played college fb.
maybe kids are unaware of the staggering odds.

also, #16 is right….most interns, along with freshly minted graduates, have no hope of providing a commensurate return for their internship/job.

sorry, my post has numerous typos.

#46…“To follow up on what #35 said not only is the "volition" of recruits determined based upon their economic status but many are not equipped to take advantage of the free education being offered to them.”

If a school offers a player a scholarship, then they should be under the legal/contractual obligation to do everything they can to teach the student-athlete through whatever means necessary. I’m of the mind that a student-athlete is a student first, athlete second. That’s why there are so many schools that have the extra tutoring sessions for its athletes. Unfortunately, there are those teachers/majors/schools out there that probably ignore their educationally-challenged athletes and treat them like rented commodities.

Here’s an idea: if the revenue structure is out of sorts such that the universities and the media outlets benefit while the poorly educated students suffer (probably due to a poorly run high school education system), then why not have the universities or media outlets contribute money back to the student’s home district? It would be an interesting spin to have the Chevrolete Player of the Game award money not go to the colleges, but rather to the elementary/middle/high school districts that are probably in desparate need of funding.

OOH! Nice idea, Geaux Irish. Being sensible, it has no chance of actually happening. But still: nice idea.

I would add something to #46 – how many top-level athletes come out of high school with the skill set to actually gain anything from a college education even if they did try? (Without massive remedial work, that is.) This is a serious open question to all you fancy-pants powerhouse D-I types out there; my personal experience is with a private D-III school, and with private international schools before that – my entire pre-college exposure to the American educational system was six months of second grade.

(By the way, #10, it wasn’t as pleasant an experience as one might expect – gators bite. And I wince just writing that.)

I’m pretty sure Grossman was highly touted — he was being recruited by a lot of schools — he just wanted to go to UF.

I seem to recall he was a Parade All American

what you all seem to be overlooking here is that Rex seems to be HOLDING HANDS WITH A DUDE… BENEATH A VINCENT VAN GOGH POSTER in that photo.
Hmmmm….
Wish I knew how to quit all of you,
G

Nice to see that there is a more intelligent discussion here than any other medium I’ve followed…good points, all.

My question is whether we are willing to accept a reduction in 1-A programs in exchange for athlete stipends? I think many programs’ budgets (either football or the whole athletic dept.) are break-even or worse, so that is inevitably what will happen.

If the answer is no, then where does the money come from? Maybe a general fund supported by bowl revenue, tv revenue, and fines from cheating programs?

Geaux Irish: Once again only one case, but I seem to recall that the Seattle Seahawks actually had to get their backup QB Seneca Wallace tutoring and help at some kind of Learning Annex place. This was despite his spending several years (and graduating? I’d presume he didn’t come out for the draft as a junior but I don’t know for sure) at Iowa State University which is presumably a center for higher education that would eclipse whatever a faux Learning Annex might offer. I don’t want to suggest that ISU is alone in their failure to adequately provide their athletes with education but that example was particularly striking to me. Of course everyone says they see student-athletes as students first, athletes second (and I’m sure that most people outside of coachings staffs and athletic directors acutally think that as well) but I’m dubious of that dichotomy in implementation. I know there are tutors and all manner of special help, but is it intended to actually ensure athletes are being educated or that they’re academically eligible to play sports? (as a sidenote; Why didn’t Georgia Tech prove its’ moral superiority and declare Reggie Ball ineligible 3 years ago? Did they really want him to scramble around aimlessly and overthrow CJ that badly?)

I also think your idea is a great one G. Irish. Unfortunately it will never be implemented but that doesn’t mean it isn’t any less great…

When looking at this strictly in the context of what rewards the players get for what they provide to the school (i.e. the product) no, they are not fairly compensated. But the ethical wuestions arise and lead to debate because in reality, college athletics is not the appropriate setting for an NFL “prep league”. However logical and well thought-out you plan for compensating the players, it could never work in the collegiate athletic environment. If you take a step back and ask yourself, “What is the most appropriate/ethical way for a school to raise money?” sports revenues do not a wise decision make. It’s hard to realize this given the fact that it’s been like this for soooooo long. But really, the only way for the arrangement to be fair and equitable for the athletes, is to divorce the sport from the academic world, leaving “true” college athletics a purely amateur endeavor.

There have been many great posts on this site, but this one is by far the best. The responses are also kick ass. It is refreshing to read what many of you have typed. I hope that you are not all the exception, but the rule.

#26, all athletes and all people in our country have numerous choices and alternatives. Why does anyone HAVE to take the NCAA contract?

Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t take the side that playing a sport is the obvious and only choice that people have to make in life.

If the NCAA doesn’t offer a fair deal, don’t take it. Get a job or go to school on your own dime like most of us had to do. Taking the chance to win the NFL lottery is one you take on your own.

#57,
I think the argument is that recruiting today is like finding a guy who is on fire and offering to sell him a bucket of piss for $5,000.

1. - I agree that this is becoming more popular, or at least more prevalent.

I would contend that it does so in direct correlation to the ABC/ESPN/Sportstainment influence on college football. Cthulhu would love to see this because it would be one more thing to bitch about and to cover endlessly.

Think of it, “draft day” specials for the Sunbelt Conference creating new free content when all that was left in the can was the 1979 Strongest Man Competition where Franco Colombo broke his femur carrying a refrigerator on his back. Ok, that would be better, but it would be the World Series of darts.

Don’t you people have jobs?

My step-father played football here at UA as a walkon who earned a scholarship as an upperclassman. He has told me stories of great college athletes having to literally search through couches for enough change to just to split a pizza on a saturday night.
Now, athletes have a special buffet with filet mignon and lobster tail etc. that they can eat every night.
Maybe the competitive recruiting system really is slowly, but surely helping the plight of the college athlete.

PreProSports: Kudos on coming right out and making your name that of your website. Without pausing to ruminate over the irony of someone who has a website devoted to the minutaie of teenaged athletes arguing that those same teenagers should opt out of the NCAA and just get jobs if they don’t think it’s fair I’d like to address your comments.

You’re entirely ignoring the economic and social incentives that drive legions of impoverished, genetically gifted kids to dream of becoming the next Michael Jordan or Donovan McNabb, of being the extremely long shot that makes it to that NFL or NBA lottery. No one’s forcing anyone to become an athlete; no young (mostly though not all black) men choose poverty and limited opportunities at birth to break out of that poverty at birth either. Biggie Smalls pretty accurately described the tenor of the situation when he said you’re either slinging crack rock or you’ve got a wicked jump shot; obviously that’s not the totality of the situation (and I’m not suggesting those are the only two career paths available to black men) but the reality is that there is a serious dearth of opportunities the poorer you are and the darker your skin color is. That was one of Orson’s points; the Rex Grossmans of college athletics can choose not to play at all and they’ll still be fine but for many recruits that’s not the case. If they don’t take the NCAA’s deal there is nothing else; personally I think a developmental football league isn’t a terrible idea although just as with paying college athletes I have no idea how it could be done.

I’ll level with you, PreProSports: you sound like a guy who would have been complaining about welfare queens in the 80s and saying that the poor should help themselves if they didn’t like being poor.

You shouldn’t, DC–you already root for the only pro football team in LA. You’ve got no such problems, since USC has no salary cap, right?

No, I objected because I am Scottish. I read the picture captions.

However, I also object to your reminding me of having to watch the film Death in Venice while in college. Really, truly abysmal. So awful we stopped mocking it and sat in slack-jawed horror.

We’d love to see a program dividends system that gave players a share of the football team’s revenues, especially for items like jersey sales. If I buy a Reggie Nelson jersey, Reggie should get some dough.

Holy hell, Orson’s a syndicalist! Or at the very least, a workers’ co-operative kind of guy.

Mormon T Suxorz nailed it:

You know who makes out like a bandit in the current scenario? The NFL. Free farm team/developmental league. No skin in the game and you reap all the benefits. Sweet.

You got that right: effectively free access to the apprentices of competing guilds who, as the NCAA, avoid being a monopsony only because of the occasional NFL entrant from the ranks of grocery baggers.

Going back to the comment about SC’s lack of salary cap, and leaving aside any tedious business about “breaking the rules,” Reggie Bush’s real sin was to go outside the college football guild system and arrange essentially an advance on his first professional paycheck. That won’t do. What would happen if all the pro-prospects decided to get an advance from Nike, agents, the Browns, etc.,?

Awesome thread, everyone. Really interesting commentary, without flame war. Kudos to everyone! Or Snickers or Twix, if you prefer.

PJ, regardless of what percentage that athletes make up of the overall student populations, there are kids who would have otherwise been admitted that won’t be because of the athletes.

Giving one guy admittance (and a scholarship) to your school because he can run fast, while turning down another who busted their ass in high school because his GPA was .1 points too low is hardly just.

When you’re getting something for free that you do not deserve you do not bitch that you aren’t getting more.

Long time reader, first time responder -

A lot of people advocate the paying of football players. They say, “the kids put in a lot of time, and make the schools a lot of money…shouldn’t they get a cut?”

Here’s what I say in response. First, do football players put in more time than women’s basketball players? What about wrestlers? LaCrosse players? No, they put in just as much time, if not less (keep in mind, the average westler probably has to spend more time doing actual school work than the average football player).

However, the schools do, in fact, pay the team members. They get their education, room and board, and books free. I was not gifted with football ability, and I had to pay my own way through college. Believe me, doing engineering and paying for school is not easy. I had to hold down three jobs, work 40 hours a week, and work at all and any available hours of the day just to pay the bills. These kids that the universities “don’t pay” have to work out for about three, maybe four hours a day. If you think they aren’t getting paid for school, your parents obviously paid for your education.

The way I’ve always seen it is that most of these guys (especially the ones without the academic credentials) major in Football. It’s just another college in the University. Some will make it as professional football players, some won’t and some will be Trev Alberts. My degree is in economics and I work in advertising. I knew at the time I was never going to be “an economist.” Don’t rock the boat too much Orson, I love me me my footbaw !!

The term “fair” kept rearing its ugly head throughout the majority of the above posts…what does a “circus with pigs” have to do with the indentured servitude so aptly described in our current NCAA football universe?

Some random thoughts from someone who went through a big time athletic program and has worked at several different venues in the education industry.

A sport nobody has mentioned is baseball. My first year in college my roomate had been selected #3 overall in the draft but decided to go to college rather than go into the minors. He chose college primarily for the lifestyle and graduation was never in his plans. My impression after living in the midst of football and baseball players was that if those kids got extra money they would have pissed it right away,. Instead of all nighters at the poker clubs in Gardena, they’d just have flown to Vegas. (and the white baseball players were way worse than the mostly black football players). Eating ramen and scrounging for pizza money is part of the college experience for most students. That atheletes would have to go through that too is not the end of the world.

The question was asked is the tutoring to keep atheletes eligible or does it focus on the comprehensive education? The focus is on the class at hand, for both atheletes and non-atheletes. My most recent hire at my current gig was a woman who had worked as an athletic tutor at USC. She’s been quite positive about the integrity of the system there.

Maybe it is different in the SEC, but I’ve seen plenty of cases where the rank and file faculty of the institution are liable to give athelets a hard time. When I was coaching I got a letter from a math professor mimicing the release from class memo I had sent out asking that a player be excused from traveling to a game so that he may take a math test.

I’ve taught at Division I and Division III institutions and surprisingly the scholarship-free Division III program where the football players had no realistic shot at the NFL wasn’t nearly as problem free as one might expect.
At a D3 school where dollars are tight, the tuition money the athelets are putting in can make them just as much of a commodity as the atheletes at a big time program.

Orson, are you including in your “benefits” the whippets that Rex has clearly been enjoying with those balloons?

#64…taking the opposite side for a second, there is some benefit for taking that guy who has “SEC TEAM SPEED.”

Maybe that school is trying to improve the overall college experience of its student body by not just admitting “brains” who all have had the experience of watching Baby Einstein videos since birth.

Instead maybe they are partially aiming to have a more diverse population of talents & opinions. The schools might actually be doing society a justice by having these varying ideas/experiences available to the impressionable 18-22 year old kids.

"brains" who all have had the experience of watching Baby Einstein videos since birth.

Those don’t do a damn thing. People like to think that they’re helping their children’s cognitive development while using the electronic babysitter, but it’s not so.

The schools might actually be doing society a justice by having these varying ideas/experiences available to the impressionable 18-22 year old kids.

You could make the same argument in favor of mandatory military service. Actually, I’d bet that would do a much more effective job of merging people from various social / economic / ethnic groups.

If it’s all about exploiting talent, and nothing about education, why does Duke or Tulane even field a team?

I’d like to point out that sports isn’t the only place this goes on. In the military, many kids trade paying for college for serving for the country by going to an Academy, or even getting an ROTC scholly, and they dont even get to make much money afterwards. As a good specific example, you have thousands of people who want to be fighter pilots. They work their asses off just to become a good applicant, but for most people this doesn’t work out either because they fail some physical test or the competition is just too stiff. So they end up doing something other than what they wanted to do, but still having to serve in the military for a time.

These young people understand that their chances are small, and they wont get back much in terms of monitary gain from being a fighter pilot and they are tool for the government, but they want to at least try, and if it doesn’t work, they still have a good degree.

I don’t see how schools are evil for giving a kid a chance to get his degree by playing sports. You should be bright enough to know what your chances are if you’re bright enough to get into college. The most fault I can find would be bringing in kids who will more than likely not be able to do the work. Other than that, these kids know what they are getting into.

#71

I’ve long felt that universal military service would have big benefits for our society. But it would have to be universal with no outs for anybody. For those with real objections to the killing part of the job I’d provide an option to go work in a hospital or school or somesuch under similar conditions. And those who took the social option would serve longer to balance things out.

1. Maybe there is some positives for people playing a team sport? Aside from making TV money or taking a shot at the NFL? It could be!

Well done Orson and I look forward to part 2. There is definitely an inequity for SOME players. Though I agree with Stranko that it doesn’t apply to all. I would have happily traded my massive college debt for the opportunity to play football. Hell, I would have done it for free (or at least a shot at the football buffet).

So, is it “creepy” to entice the superstar to bust his ass for 3-5 years in exchange for a shot at a short pro football career and perhaps college degree that he may not want? A little. It’s definitely an odd economic relationship. But aside from improvements to the current system (as proposed by G. Irish and others) the alternative is minor league football. So the debate should not be whether universities should share the wealth with the players. The debate should be whether minor league football is better for the players than our current student athlete system. That’s a discussion worthy of a beer or ten.

#73,
The difference is that the military offers money for school to get some people to join the military. The schools offer scholarships not because they want people to go to school, but because they want to make money off of them. The military does not make money off of its members.

Yea the point is that some people would view a military scholarship or enlistment as a way to move up socio-economically. And like college football, you’re their pawn.

I would like to add that I am not trying to make the military look bad, just pointing out that it is a similiar system of incentive as sports scholarship.

Here’s an interesting question…when were the first college scholarships for sports given, and by whom? I have no idea.

Is that Clint Mitchell trying to hold Grossman’s hand? Whatever happened to that guy?

The only thing I have to add is the matter of athletically gifted individuals who “aren’t college material”. There is virtually no way to big NFL money except via NCAA Member Institutions.

If boxing was like that, you would have never heard of Mike Tyson.

Excellent writing, Orson. EDSBS is my favorite site on the internet because of intelligent, insightful commentary like this.

Although I understand where you’re coming from, Stranko’s point rang true. There are lots of students who are forced to pay for tuition while serving an unpaid internship in order to get a job after graduation. RedDevilEA brought up ROTC/the military, which is another good example of a similar relationship. Few people make it in Hollywood.

These football players have athletic ability, which isn’t really a very useful skill when it comes to the real world. They get a chance to earn a degree if they’re smart enough to go to class.

While the NCAA football arrangement isn’t fair, it’s not one of the most perverse instances of the free market at work.

Wow, I just read through most all of the posts – allow me to step out of my normal (Notre Dame runs the world) character a moment, this is the most insightful, respectful, idea filled blog/discussion I have ever seen on this subject. It really speaks volumes about the type of college football fan that looks at this site. Although we are all passionate about our teams and alma maters, there seems to be a pervasive sense of fairness and justice for all college athletes, even if they attend UTennessee… I hate them, but I only want them to experience losing on the football field. Thank you all for an enlightening read.

Lil something from the ole’ Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletic_scholarship

I hate posting 2 in a row, but I found this chart on the NCAA website…% chance of competing in college and pros for HS athletes for the money sports.

http://www.ncaa.org/research/prob_of_competing/

There should be a developmental football league for those players who do not wish to accept the NCAA’s deal, as rolliefingers suggested. That’s the end of the discussion, as far as I’m concerned.

I was on the cycling team at Florida. We had club status, and the University reimbursed us for gas money and hotels when we traveled to races. That money came out of a huge Student Government slush fund. When I was treasurer of the team, we looked into making cycling a sanctioned D1 sport, as it was very grass roots at the time. We were told that if we did so, we would no longer be reimbursed for anything, so it made more sense to remain a club and stay on the teat, meager though it was.
I guess my point is that if we can all agree to what constitutes a sport-related expense, that thing ought to be covered by the University. This ought to be pretty easy to determine.

Mosby, I’m sorry, but you haven’t shown that any specific person has been harmed by reserving a certain number of scholarships for athletes, instead of reserving them for ballet dancers, or psychology majors, or people who score big on the PSAT.

Enrollment’s not a zero-sum situation, and you keep assuming that it is. Way more kids get admitted into universities than enroll, it’s all part of the system. That fudge factor alone covers the athletic scholarships.

As far as “they’re not cut out for college”, well, I’m not thrilled that people who can’t write a simple sentence get into college these days, but most of those kids aren’t on athletic scholarships, either. I know, because I’ve read drafts of my cousin’s papers (he’s enrolled at Sac State) that make me grind my teeth.

As far as the person who doesn’t get admitted because their GPA is .1 too low… well, I have a few things to say about that from personal experience. I lost an appointment to the Naval Academy because my eyes were a couple of points off. Same story for an NROTC scholarship that should have been a lock. I was waitlisted by Stanford after my guidance counselor screwed up his part of the paperwork. Why am I telling you this?

Because those were early lessons for me in how reality works. Life is neither fair nor just. In real life, you miss out on opportunities because you’re one point short, a reality I was reminded of by the Foreign Service exam that I took in 1985. So, I empathize with your theoretical “missed it by that much” applicant, because I’ve been there, done that, and gave the T-shirt to the St. Vincent de Paul Society back around 1993.

But you still haven’t demonstrated that athletic scholarships take spaces that would go to someone else, so I rest my case.

I hate to do this to the QB who made the most incredible throw I’ve ever seen in person (beating Auburn in OT back in ’02 despite the best efforts of [Name Redacted] and some no-name Cadillac back up named Ronnie Brown).

http://www.rexgrossman.com/

Make sure your speakers are on. Rexy back!

While I don’t think I’m in complete agreement, I do see merit in this argument. But do the NCAA or the universities bear any obligation to the students in terms of emphasizing the reality of this situation? I don’t think so. Recruits and their families are still responsible for making their own decisions, and that includes realizing what is truly to be gained or lost by agreeing to accept a scholarship. The experience can be life-changing, but there’s sure as hell no guarantee of it.

What of the term “football apprentice?” That might fit better than the intern label, which hints at the possibility of sexual conduct with the school’s president.

PJ,
I knew a kid who decided to make a Spring Break banner when he was staying at school: “Spring Break Aims” (Ames IA). There are dumb kids who get into college.

But relating your stories of missing the Navy because of eyesight or getting wait-listed at Stanford don’t apply. Those are excellent schools. To fully qualify for NCAA athletics, you need to get a 2-point-nothing grade average (it’s a sliding scale based also on SAT scores) in core classes, which at most schools wouldn’t have qualified as grade school courses 20 years ago. There are easier ways to get in, like being a partial qualifier, cheating, or going the juco route. Barely meeting NCAA requirements makes you a complete idiot in my book.

Great point on the developmental league, whoever brought that up first. People have loved college football for well over a century now—well before any money was involved—and will continue to follow it whether or not there’s millions of dollars and ESPN coverage and creepy recruiting experts.

2 suggestions:
Remove the NFL’s 3-yr-after-HS eligibility rule. This’ll hurt the NFL, much like it hurts the NBA, and it’ll temporarily hurt the level of play in college.
Force schools to put any ad revenue, bowl winnings, and ticket sales into the general school fund. The football team should not have a higher funding priority than any College.

People have brought up the minority issue here, and someone quoted Biggie’s ‘crack rock or jumpshot’ comment. Or rap music. Is it disturbing to anyone else that one of those options (selling drugs), while it makes money for the dealer, is a huge drag on the poor (predominately minority) community in general, and the other two make lots more money for rich businessmen (predominately white) than for the rappers? Doesn’t this attitude of ‘crack rock or jumpshot or you’re stuck in the ghetto’ just depress the chances of people making it out of poverty?

Removing the 3 years after elligibility rule will tank the NFL. We’ll have a whole bunch of Terrel Owens’ out there. That 3-4 years in college gives a young buck the asswipping that he needs (didn’t we need it all). Plus, giving that same person millions in his early twenties is a great way to magnify whatever dysfunction he may have.

On the free education topic, my problem is in spite of getting an oppurtunity at an education, you still have the whole “growing food for fun” phenomenon. Also, even for your typical classes, they are getting quite dumbed down. Perhaps if we bring back the mechanical in “A&M” and start teaching trades these guys may have a chance.

BTW, on a side note, if any of you all want to see a great adaptation of “The Heartless Giant,” shell out $14 at Target and pick up “Jim Henson’s ‘The Storyteller’” series. Best $14 you’ll spend this year.

For those with real objections to the killing part of the job I’d provide an option to go work in a hospital or school or somesuch under similar conditions. And those who took the social option would serve longer to balance things out.

O/T but when I was an undergrad I knew a Finnish guy who had done just that before going to SC — they required mandatory national service, he objected to military service, so they sent him to work in a library for some period of time.

As to the education part of the student-athlete deal, I think it would be incredibly benefical for athletes if we acknowledged that many of them are incapable of succeeding in regular college classes. If we use the classes we force them to attend to make up for the failures of the underfunded public school system, we can probably do a lot of good, not just for the individuals, but for society as a whole (the majority who don’t make it into the pros have a solid, if basic, education).

Forget college. According to this article in the Post, all you have to do is go to high school in Miami, if’n you want to play NFL ball. I mean, a hundred-plus guys have made it, therefore all the tens of thousands will make it. It’s simple Wa-Po math.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/28/AR2007012801100.html

rolliefingersmustache

Yeah, I’m not a bleeding-heart liberal, if that’s what you are getting at. However, I did grow up in a very poor area of Georgia and I’ve seen first-hand more kids (white and black) make poor decisions in life based more on not wanting to make an effort than those having a harsh childhood pulling them down. Maybe your experience was different than mine, but I’ve seen the best of lives and worst of lives and all of the people in both situations were offered ideal paths that they tended to ignore for reasons that most often involved vanity, greed, or laziness. I can’t say I was perfect about my choices all the time, either. We’re all human, after all.

It’s a mistake to instantly think all athletes are pulling themselves out of the stench of poverty, just as it is ignorant to think that everyone has the same number of choices in life. My point is that MOST people do have choices in this country and the decision to be an athlete is just one of them…the terms of which are not necessarily ideal, but everyone seems to place a high value on it.

Do I like the welfare system? No, it’s a system that is a constant crutch and frequently abused. Do I realize the reality of the welfare system in a nation formerly built on slaves and the subsquent time period of civil-rights travesties that followed its abolishment? Yes, I do.

Do I realize that people who are born into poverty (like my mother) don’t have the same opportunities that many of us have right out of the birth lottery? Yes I do.

But I also know that at some point most everyone comes to crux where they are given chance to get out of one situation and a “move up” into a situation that is better and it doesn’t mean you have to be an athlete, actor, or rock star to do it…but so many people make the decision that the highest rung is the only one to grab for.

And, no, I don’t make apologies about being a college sports fan, either. I would tell most any football player that baseball, basketball, or tennis is the better choice for the impact of your health vs. the reward; but, again, people make their own choices and I guess I side more with the idea of folks taking personal responsibility than that of an oppressive world that herds people into lives they really don’t want to lead.

If we use the classes we force them to attend to make up for the failures of the underfunded public school system

At the risk of sounding like a commie, wouldn’t it make more sense to catch them a little earlier in life? And it’s not just for book larnin’ either.

The elementary school at the end of my block here in NW DC only has a PE teacher because the parents pay for one, and the kids get PE classes on a rotating basis (e.g. 4 weeks on, 8 weeks off). I may never have had much of a corpore sano to go with the old mens sana, but that seems pathetic to me. Yet the DCPS manages to find the money to support high school football…

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea expressed early on about plowing money from college football into community education. USC has a really good program for going into the neighborhood and identifying students for assistance starting in middle school. Surely that model could be extended / deepened / copied…

Is it the lighting and camera angle, or is Sexy Rexy so stoned that he’s toking on an invisible j?

Terrific topic, Orson, I just wish this was a format that made it easier to deal with everyone’s points and keep the discussion more organized and easier to read.

I will say that I am against paying players more than a small stipend, and that I think many of you would be surprised about the profitability of most Bowl Championship Subdivision football programs. As long as football is under the auspices of mostly public universities, it will be hard to justify any kind of added benefit, especially if given only to the football player. There are way too many issues to be addressed that prevent this whole situation from being as simple as most make it out to be.

PPSports: Fair enough. I’m sure we have wildly different political views but being that this is a site devoted to amicably discussing college football there’s really no point in continuing down that path except as it relates to the topic of college recruiting and athletics. I apologize if I came off harshly but your earlier posts just sounded awfully callous.
     My point wasn’t to advocate or denigrate the welfare system (certainly flawed but like you said a product of history) or to suggest that athletes can magically leap economic strata in single mighty vertical bounds. I don’t know about everyone receiving a chance to “move up” but I understand they frequently happen outside of sports. I was really just trying to point out that you made it sound like there were a wealth of opportunities open to impoverished athletes. Certainly it’s unrealistic for all those kids to envision themselves as the guy who makes it against the odds; many people have commented that these kids and their families know what they’re getting into but what else are they supposed to do, really? Say “fuck it, I’m going to ignore by far the best opportunity I have to better myself because I dislike the system”? I don’t think the recruits themselves are helpless victims or that they are completely unculpable but they’re stuck playing in a system with crooked rules and a marked deck where the NCAA (and the NFL, NBA, etc.) hold all the cards. Of course the real tragedy is the vast majority of kids who didn’t win the genetic lottery, but that’s a million other non-football discussions all together.

JJ: You asked if bringing up Biggie’s crack rock/jumpshot/rapping paradigm doesn’t just add to the odds against the people it is discussing. Certainly it’s a bleak, cynical view and not the whole truth by far. It’’s just a line in a song that encapsulates a very complex situation in a single phrase. To me the crux of what he’s saying is the playing field isn’t level and if your talents aren’t channeled into very specific areas it’s very difficult to break the cycle of poverty; in the words of Michael Lewis (sorry, just finished the book) "pity the kid inside [insert “bad” inner city neighborhood] who was born to play the piano, or manage people, or trade bonds". Hypothetically any of them could “make it” but the odds are still long and the payoff not nearly as great, although there isn’t the certainty of physical debilitation as with some sports.

Thank you to everyone who commented in this great and fascinating discussion. I’m sorry to be so long-winded and I promise not to do it again; I just got a little bit fired up. Thank you also to Orson/Montana for breaching the topic in such a thoughtful nature. Ah, well…back to waiting for a bunch of freakishly athletic mutants to duly impress the NFL’s appraisers…

Its the nitrous PSU Guru, observe the balloons also in the photo. I never understood the idea to lets take photos of ourselves getting high, but not all our college ideas are the brightest.

rolliefingers, what is the title of the Michael Lewis book you referenced?

1. -
   That site is great. I’m a fan of the SexCannon but his blog posts are ridiculous! It reads a little bit like the Barbaro message board.

And I now feel like the most intellectually devoid person on this board, since my only contribution to this fascinating conversation involves Barbaro and SexyRexy jokes.

RIP Logan Young: The Blind Side. There was an interview with the author posted on EDSBS a couple months back and it’s in the archives if you missed it. The book’s nominally about how left tacke evolved to be the most highly paid and important position after QB but it’s more about the story incredible story of Michael Oher. He’s one of the nation’s top LT prospects who came really rough in Memphis and wound up getting adopted by a well to do white couple and going to Ole Miss where he’ll be a junior next year.

Re: DC Trojan – Post 95

I can’t disagree with anything you said. More money should be pumped into the early educational systems. And that brilliant idea earlier to reward a college player’s area over thier current (and probably well funded) school is something that should be implemented immediately, and therefore probably won’t. I was just saying that with the current breed of atheletes, who as Michael Lewis points out sometimes barely reach 5th grade levels in reading and math, we should focus on catching up instead of forcing them to take classes like College level literature or college algebra.

This isn’t to say all atheltes should be forced to do this. I’m just saying that the ones who need this help shouldn’t be forced into taking classes that do them little to no good.

I was just saying that with the current breed of atheletes, who as Michael Lewis points out sometimes barely reach 5th grade levels in reading and math, we should focus on catching up instead of forcing them to take classes like College level literature or college algebra.

Agreed.

Great article and great conversation afterwards – both insightful and witty. Thank you.