College Football Should Be Banned

I have always been a proponent of the mantra that college is a place to learn, and that a lot of sporting activities are distractions. I imagine that in writing this sentence, I have already committed WSO-suicide, but I'll just keep going.

My friend linked me to this article from the WSJ a few days back. The author makes a pretty convincing case for why football should be banned at the collegiate level, using cost and degree to which the sports detracts from academics as the platforms for his argument. I'm going to do my best to dissect this argument, because even though upon reading the article's title I immediately thought "I'm going to agree", I left the Journal that day unconvinced in many respects.

Let me preface all of this by saying that I simply do not understand the college sports craze. Yeah, I went to college, but my school took part in D3 (I think...I'm not even 100% sure on this) and I didn't go to a single sporting event during undergrad. I almost exclusively watch the NBA, and I find college basketball to be slow, sloppy, and boring. Considering I live in North Carolina, I have to fake my love for college basketball to escape the mob, but that's easy enough when you pick a stance on the Duke/UNC debate. I've watched maybe 10 games of college football in my life, and even fewer NFL games. Like the author, I'm not an anti-sports prude, and I think sports are incredibly valuable to take part in while growing up, but I'm just not interested in watching or talking about them unless it's the NBA.

In any event, the author's main argument is that football programs don't make any money, and that they take advantage of youth by acting as an unpaid "minor league" to the NFL. If the NFL wants to have a minor league, the author argues, it ought to pay for it.

On the fact that football programs don't make money, this seems to make a lot of sense. Unless you're a BCS top 25 ranked team at the beginning of the season, most likely no one is even aware that your school has a football program. Couple this with the fact that football coaches even at lower-tier programs are still paid a lot of money compared with both professors and others in the athletic departments, this becomes problematic. As is showcased by the author's UofMaryland example, football's paramount importance, for a reason that is unclear, crowds out other sports: sports that have far higher graduation rates and overall academic benchmarks.

I buy this argument for the most part. But small schools can benefit from football programs too. TCU only has 9,000 full-time students and is relatively under the radar, but the success of its football program has not only brought forth a lot of discourse about the BCS but has also made TCU widely-known across the United States. And let's face it: this isn't a bad thing. How many people actually know specifically about how good particular academic programs are at Duke, other than faculty/staff and students? I would imagine very few -- but people do know about Duke far and wide because of Coach K and the basketball program. The same argument can be made for UNC, Auburn, Alabama...the list goes on and on and on.

Secondly, football programs take advantage of kids by not paying them, when in reality they act as a proxy minor league for the NFL. This point is hard to argue against. Maybe the phrase "take advantage of" is too strong, but the fact of the matter is that kids are pulled from undesirable neighborhoods to play football at programs that don't actually feed into the NFL, but are expected to work extremely hard at football first, and academics second. Most of the people I know who played football at second-rate programs were burned out by the sport, didn't focus on studying, and ended up in a rough spot after graduation.

But what's the alternative? A lot of people who play football in college on a scholarship are not good enough to play in the NFL. This is simply a fact that applies to all college sports. But this doesn't imply that they are being taken advantage of. Most of these kids wouldn't have had the opportunity to go to college were it not for football, and a college education even of a rudimentary sort is far superior to the absence of one. Even the kids at New Mexico State, a school that the author mentions, are getting a huge opportunity through football to further their lives by getting an education. It's not a prestigious target education, but it's a hell of a lot better than no education (or one that you have to pay a lot for if your parents aren't able to cover you).

Do I think that the disparity between the salary of the football coach and a distinguished professor who is a leader in his/her field and has brought accolades to the university is wrong? Absolutely. The bottom line is that school is a place to learn, to develop critical thinking abilities, and to be around people who push you in the direction of success. To an observer, football does none of these things: it's strictly a form of entertainment. But to most of the kids playing football, the opportunity isn't about the NFL; it's about developing character and having the opportunity to even go to school in the first place. Football, and other sports, empower folks who might not have had a chance otherwise, and that's certainly important.

I can't help but wonder how a student at the University of Oregon will cope when in-state tuition has recently gone up by 9% and the state legislature passed an 11% decrease in funding to the Oregon system overall for 2011 and 2012. Yet thanks to the largess of Nike founder Phil Knight, an academic center costing $41.7 million, twice as expensive in square footage as the toniest condos in Portland, has been built for the University of Oregon football team.

And what the hell does this even mean? An academic center built FOR the football team? No one else can enter this coveted academic center? Someone enlighten me.

What do you guys think? Is it fair that everyone's tuition has to increase to fund more and more expensive football programs? Sure, a lot of kids benefit from football programs, but a lot more kids both don't benefit AND have to pay for them in some tangible way. Do you hold great pride with respect to your alma mater's football program?

Comments (44)

  • mbain2012a
  •  May 9, 2012

Academics should be banned

    • 2
May 9, 2012

"Unless you're a BCS top 25 ranked team at the beginning of the year, its unlikely that people even know you have a football team"<- Thats where I stopped reading.

There is something to be said for second order effects. Sure the games themselves may not produce outsized revenue but the feeling of comraderie and loyalty that they engender in alums has an effect on donations, involvement, etc.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

May 9, 2012
happypantsmcgee:

"Unless you're a BCS top 25 ranked team at the beginning of the year, its unlikely that people even know you have a football team"<- Thats where I stopped reading.

"I've watched maybe 10 games of college football in my life, and even fewer NFL games."

I stopped even sooner. Why are you giving us your opinion on something you know almost nothing about? Sports and especially football are as big a part of college as anything else. Of course the best coaches make more than the best professors. Of course the players get benefits that other students don't get. It's just like finance: the people who bring the most money in are the ones who get paid the most.

Wrong audience man. Go make this speech to some hipsters at a poetry reading and maybe you'll get some traction.

May 9, 2012

College is a "service" where spoilt entitled instant-gratification kids want to be entertained like they see in the Hollywood Movies. They figure they are paying thousands a year so they want bread and games!

May 9, 2012

They doin too much learnin in dem schools if you ask me

May 9, 2012

Also, tons of alumni donate just because of sports programs so the "Unless you're a BCS top 25 ranked team at the beginning of the year, its unlikely that people even know you have a football team" makes no sense at all

May 9, 2012

Get your nose out of spreadsheets egg head....College Football isn't going anywehere

Eventus stultorum magister.

May 9, 2012

I was never an athlete, but I think the lessons taught through team sports are immensely valuable in business. The work ethic, the discipline, the humility...all are valuable professionally. Of the professionals I most respect, former athletes are disproportionately represented.

May 9, 2012

Also, if cost is the basis for eliminating a sport/sports from the college landscape, you would have to go through literally every single other sport before you got to football. You think schools lose money on football? I guess synchronized swimming is a varitable windfall of cash every year.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

May 9, 2012

lol Von you're gonna lose your impeccable sb:ms ratio...

WSO's COO (Chief Operating Orangutan) | My Linkedin

May 9, 2012

I'm sorry you don't like college football. Gameday is an incredible experience.

As far as payment goes college football players aren't being exploited to the extent that people like to argue. First of all, they get a free education. Personally I think that's enough.

Even for me as a college athlete(not football or basketball) I received a very comfortable food allowance. Football and basketball players get even more than I do. And I had friends on the football and basketball teams who have told me about their "prize packages" for bowl games or conference/ncaa tournaments and they do alright as far as cash and gifts received.

May 9, 2012
Vontropnats:

I can't help but wonder how a student at the University of Oregon will cope when in-state tuition has recently gone up by 9% and the state legislature passed an 11% decrease in funding to the Oregon system overall for 2011 and 2012. Yet thanks to the largess of Nike founder Phil Knight, an academic center costing $41.7 million, twice as expensive in square footage as the toniest condos in Portland, has been built for the University of Oregon football team.

And what the hell does this even mean? An academic center built FOR the football team? No one else can enter this coveted academic center? Someone enlighten me.

What do you guys think? Is it fair that everyone's tuition has to increase to fund more and more expensive football programs? Sure, a lot of kids benefit from football programs, but a lot more kids both don't benefit AND have to pay for them in some tangible way. Do you hold great pride with respect to your alma mater's football program?

Yes the Academic center is specifically for the Football team, it is most likely located at the stadium(I'm not familiar with Oregon). At my school we had special weight rooms and academic centers for athletes. Football, Basketball, W Basketball, and Baseball had their own. If your sport commands its own venue it basically would have onsite weight room, academic center, and training staff. Pretty much all of the other sports are referred to as "olympic sports" and they share weight room, academic center, and athletic trainers.

A lot of the athletic facilities are funded by private donors. Key example the guy donates a football athletic center. Regular students can't use it? Boo hoo, it's not funded by tuition/tax dollars it is okay with me if it excludes non athletes.

May 9, 2012

$1000 says you're a douchey, pencil-neck geek.

May 9, 2012
jeffsmonte:

$1000 says you're a douchey, pencil-neck geek.

You are correct sir!

    • 1
May 9, 2012
jeffsmonte:

$1000 says you're a douchey, pencil-neck geek.

$2000 says you are.

May 9, 2012

For what it's worth (as a kid who was a recruited athlete to college) as someone who loves college athletics, Malcolm Gladwell just participated in the iSQUARED debate last night on this very topic ... and won.

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/intelligence_... ban_college_football_how_buzz_bissinger_and_malcolm_gladwell_ won_the_slate_intelligence_squared_debate_on_may_8_.html

May 9, 2012
APAE:

For what it's worth (as a kid who was a recruited athlete to college) as someone who loves college athletics, Malcolm Gladwell just participated in the iSQUARED debate last night on this very topic ... and won.

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/intelligence_... ban_college_football_how_buzz_bissinger_and_malcolm_gladwell won_the_slate_intelligence_squared_debate_on_may_8.html

So a pulitzer prize winning academic and Malcolm Gladwell out debated two former professional athletes? Color me shocked.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

May 9, 2012

College football is awesome!

It is why the fall is the best months of college. Great weather and great football games.

May 9, 2012

Lawrence: No. No, man. Shit, no, man. I believe you'd get your ass kicked sayin' something like that, man.

May 9, 2012

Yes, let's ban college sports and promote college-division-for-national-basket-weaving-contest.

May 9, 2012

I think your arguement overlooks that fact that college/university is more then just an academic institution and an educational experience. College is just as much learning about life as it is learning about IRR. You sound like you had a miserable experience in school and are another (hopeful?) finance kid who is an unengaging number cruncher who maybe does good work but no on connects with. Sports are extremely prevalent in our culture and have a great ability to bring people together from all walks of life.

    • 1
May 9, 2012

I'd just like to point out that I did not argue in the original post that football should be banned. I think it's a valuable character-builder and provides lots of people with the opportunity to go to college which they might otherwise not have access to. I do think it's distracting for people, and I do think it's unfair for everyone's tuition to skyrocket to support failing football programs. But I also don't support my taxes being increased to support welfare kings. Why should I subsidize a football program that's below .500 every season and never goes to a bowl game?

I had a great experience in school, it was just different from a large, state-school experience. We had no sports, but there were plenty of other things to do, and I connected pretty well with folks there, though this isn't about me anyway.

May 9, 2012

you were probably too scared to leave your dorm during your undergrad years. the most successful people in this world are well rounded. sports lead to a well rounded lifestyle and mindset. "push you in the direction of success"...i have a couple real close friends who play for d1 teams and all of them are more driven and will end up more successful than you. stop hanging out with hipsters drinking pbr and sucking cock. it might end up helping you in the long run.

"death is nothing, but to live defeated is to die everyday" ~Napolean Bonaparte

May 9, 2012
allaboutthefight:

you were probably too scared to leave your dorm during your undergrad years. the most successful people in this world are well rounded. sports lead to a well rounded lifestyle and mindset. "push you in the direction of success"...i have a couple real close friends who play for d1 teams and all of them are more driven and will end up more successful than you. stop hanging out with hipsters drinking pbr and sucking cock. it might end up helping you in the long run.

And why does being well-rounded imply that part of the "well" includes sports? I know plenty of people who have successful business careers, are well-rounded, have lots of friends, and don't watch or talk about sports. Why can't someone be well-rounded based on music, political knowledge, current events, food, and business knowledge? Why is it that when "sports" is added to this list, that person is magically better-rounded?

This doesn't even address the point of the post, but whatever.

May 9, 2012
Vontropnats:

Why is it that when "sports" is added to this list, that person is magically better-rounded?
This doesn't even address the point of the post, but whatever.

Why you need sport?
Summary: Men learn from other men by playing sports.
That is how men grow up. An excerpt from Men's Psychology:

Men's Psychology:

Shame, and Rugby
This way that men can band together was once demonstrated for men in total clarity by the first rugby practice I ever went to. I was already over thirty years old, and to women in my life from my mother to my girlfriend of the time, it was total lunacy. But it makes total sense to a man why he would want to join a team bent on total destruction and victory over another team. It's part of not only how you know you are a man. It's that you must also know how MUCH of a man you are by way of competition. That without this kind of quantitative measure, you could very well be the best in the world at something, but never quite feel at ease, confident, and at peace with a place (in the hierarchy) in the world.

I was slow and unfit. I had rarely played team sports, and yet I had to learn this game. And on the first day of practice, during the very first suicide drills running various segments of what seemed a field of play stretching to the ends of the earth, I was the very last man returning back to the starting point.

And I don't mean by a few feet or a couple minutes. I mean over five minutes behind the second to last guy in the bottom of the bottom of those lucky to be skilled with speed.

As the seconds ticked by and the meters stretched ever longer in my exhaustion, I was feeling more and more shame. The entire team was lined up already, yawning at the obnoxious length it was taking me to rejoin them and continue the practice.

My energy was dwindling, and in huffs and puffs I wondered whether if I ever did reach the starting line again, I might as well throw my shirt over my head and keep running all the way back to my home hoping none of them even remembered my name.

When the old coach barked what he did next, I nearly cried in appreciation of what it would mean to me, and men like me (one should never cry at a Rugby practice though, of course.)

He shouted, "What are you looking at? Get your asses back out there and bring him home."

The entire team ran out to where I was, to complete the rest of the drill they had already completed and which I had a long way to go with, still.

They say the weakest link is still the whole team's weakness, and this was emblazoned in my mind through direct experience this time. I will never forget it.

But I now know that the reason it makes sense in team sports or any endeavor men try to accomplish together, is also that the shame of even one man is also the shame of the entire team.

It's not just about winning at any cost. It's about empowering each other at any cost, and only by that means, that winning comes naturally, repeatedly, and assuredly. And this is the spirit of the live services of the 5000+ men in the On Demand Program's forums and teleseminars.

But there's more than just shame for men in rejection in the areas of Women and Work.

There's the pain, the hurt that comes with it."

Source: http://www.menspsychology.com/articles/flawless-re...

May 9, 2012

I think this has more to on the rationality of keeping the sport.

If we are to be rational, then we must eliminate sports from college to properly allocate money flow across areas of academia (education, research, etc.).

If we are to serve our anthropocentric necessities, then we should keep college football in its entirety as it brings satisfaction to many people (not necessarily the brightest).

Yes everyone has their opinion on sports but the matter of fact is that sports serve a huge market and niche for people across the world. It will be tough to convince people otherwise, that sports should be eliminated from the college setting.

"Live as if you were to die tomorrow, learn as if you were to live forever."

May 9, 2012

1) Football and Basketball largely pay for themselves. They also pay for Title 9 bullshit and all the other sports that college athletes play and no one cares about.

2) College sports is great experience for those who play and for those who attend. I frankly could care less about pro sports, but college is a whole other thing.

3) Donations. College sports (basketball, football) bring in money for the school at large. Also, if people make pro they also generate large donation from past athletes.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/10/14/stop-funding...
Some tid bits from this post:

"risti Dosh, a lawyer who specializes in sports financing and who runs the blog businessofcollegesports.com, has analyzed how much sports other than football and men's basketball siphon off. Most of the time, she has found, the cost of other sports more than outweighs the net gain from football and basketball, and the losses can be huge even before adding in big variables such as coaches' salaries, aid to student athletes and recruiting."

Title 9 for you.

This also does not mention all the money losing academic majors. Plenty of business schools subsidize obscure fields of academia. Why should my UG B school tuition go to support women's studies?

May 9, 2012

OP I agree with your argument and would hand out a SB if I had any left. I live in Canada and go to to Simon Fraser University in BC so my view is vastly different but lets compare programs. Firstly I have a fairly extensive back ground in sports and have played hockey at a high level prior to university which has shown me the team atmosphere from that perspective. However SFU is garbage for athletic teams and instead we have poured our money into the largest student run portfolios in Canada and most of North America. BEAM is a 5 million dollar portfolio run by undergraduates and SIAS is an 11 million dollar portfolio run by graduate students. I am currently on BEAM and when I compare it to the team values I learned in rep hockey I just laugh. Would I rather be surrounded by like minded individuals that are the best that SFU has to offer and all have strong job prospects or a bunch of jocks who train, drink, bang, repeat until their life goes nowhere and they land in a landscaping job? Seriously, we have all read the articles of the brain dead bankrupt football player 3 years after retirement. Go to school to learn and all resources should be put toward that objective rather then what university can run a football into the endzone more then another. As far as being a known school, I dont give a damn as long as the employers know who we are and students will follow. BEAM is only a year old but SIAS has been around longer and has employees shortlisting from it which is probably BEAMs future. To conclude, there are much better ways to spend money then on athletic programs. I pay tuition not to be entertained but enlightened.

May 9, 2012

You're not going to win this argument.

  1. No one is forcing you to go to the institution, if you don't want to subsidize a football team then go to CC or some University without a team, what we don't need is more Govt. intervention.
  2. You completely ignore the auxiliary benefits these programs bring, it is a fact that sports (really football/ bball) bring alumni attention which brings funding. Do you think T. Boone and Phil Knight give ONLY to their respective alma mater's sports programs?

as to the "well-rounded" argument; to this day I cannot, to the life of me, understand how a male can dislike all sports, if you don't like any sport and you're a male you're either gay or really lame. I mean dude, sports capture competition in its purest form, if you're an alpha male you'll naturally want to test your abilities alongside your peers and sports are just an extension of that.

    • 1
May 9, 2012

i only read like the first paragraph, but the answer is no. Most ppl playing in the higher sports divisions put all their eggs in one basket to play at the next level. They don't care how their grades do because getting a job isn't their plan. This is their choice, and I see no reason we shouldn't let them make it. Hell, I have more respect for the player who gets bad grades because he's passionate about his team than the bums who do poorly and have NO excuse. Besides there are definitly advantages from the viewer's perspective for college sports > pros. For one they aren't getting paid yet so their motivation is pure. Imagine creating two groups of interns: A) they are all going to be paid 10k each at the end of the term regardless, and B) at the end of the term only the top percentage of interns will make 100k each.....which group will work harder?

GBS

May 9, 2012

The analysis he does is utterly pointless because it fails to consider licensing revenue, which goes directly to the university without touching the athletic department's budget. Major football programs generate tons of licensing revenues.

"Subsidies" from the university generally take the form of steeply discounted student ticket purchases. The economic transfer is actually going from the athletic department to the school. Most students are happy to pay these fees for discounted tickets, and the experience of major athletics is a big draw for many college students.

And then there are indirect benefits for the programs that are on TV. Virginia Tech is an example of a school that suddenly came to prominence when Michael Vick took them to a national championship. The next year, applications, average GPAs and SATs all skyrocketed, alumni donations increased and the school has prospered ever since, even though they don't get any money directly from the athletic department. Even for programs that aren't on TV, I'd be willing to bet alumni are more likely to return to the school and donate money if there is an active football and/or basketball program.

For a counterexample, NYU disbanded its football program in the 60's. Has that put them at a major advantage relative to Columbia and Princeton?

University administrators are not idiots (well, not always). They don't allow football to exist just because they're big fans. They do it because it makes sense.

I am wise because I know that I know nothing -Socrates

May 9, 2012

Let me just point out the obvious. American football as we know it was created and popularized in college, namely at Rutgers and Princeton. "College" and "football" are synonymous with one another. The idea that you would ban college football is almost too absurd to describe--the NFL is merely the offspring of college football.

Also, the idea that college football is a drag on other athletics is entirely fallacious. The so-called olympic sports (all sports other than football and basketball) hemorage cash. It's the football programs that keep the athletic department either profitable, break-even or not quite losing enough to go bankrupt. At Virginia Tech, the football program's profit literally pays for the existence of every other sport. You ban college football at Virginia Tech then you are effectively banning all other collegiate sports.

May 10, 2012
Virginia Tech 4ever:

Let me just point out the obvious. American football as we know it was created and popularized in college, namely at Rutgers and Princeton. "College" and "football" are synonymous with one another. The idea that you would ban college football is almost too absurd to describe--the NFL is merely the offspring of college football.

Also, the idea that college football is a drag on other athletics is entirely fallacious. The so-called olympic sports (all sports other than football and basketball) hemorage cash. It's the football programs that keep the athletic department either profitable, break-even or not quite losing enough to go bankrupt. At Virginia Tech, the football program's profit literally pays for the existence of every other sport. You ban college football at Virginia Tech then you are effectively banning all other collegiate sports.

I think this outcome is a feature and not a bug for proposal to ban football. Pretty much if you ban sports then college campuses probably will become more feminized than they already are. I lot of males at state schools choose schools based on a combo of costs, academics and sports team affinity.

May 9, 2012

I'm not sure I really even understand football. Bunch of guys stand around a ball, and then someone blows a whistle or something, the players all crash into a giant heap, ball moves all of about six inches, and then they stop and restart the whole thing again? Is that how it works?

Don't even get me started on the name. Which parts of the game inspired "foot" and "ball"?

May 9, 2012

This is deep american tradition we are talking about here...the greatest portion of the year for millions of american families across this great nation...I dont know if the OP is agreeing with this or is just pointing out what the Idea is, but go take this pussy ass bullshit somehwere else you fucking loser. Either to the Author of the Article or to the OP if they agree.

May 9, 2012

My alma mater nets $50MM+ a year in profit from football, so not all schools have the same issue, though the vast majority of schools do. Ultimately, I think eliminating football from a university structure is one of the dumbest decisions you could ever make. Clearly the OP and WSJ author are neglecting the concept of a "loss leader"

Why the fuck do bars serve burgers and fries? WTF, they lose money on them... but I sure as fuck want to be able to get a burger and fries when I go to a bar and grill. It makes perfect economical sense for most universities of a certain scale to have a football team because it attracts people to that school who absolutely would not attend if they did not have a football program. Case in point, other than the uber-Ivy fanboys on this site, I would be willing to bet that the majority of this forum's membership would not want to attend a non-Ivy university that did not have a football program.

That's really all there is to it. Try getting a kid to go to West Virginia if they didn't have a football team... No team, the party scene would massively deteriorate, and then there is no reason whatsoever to go there unless you got below a 1000 on your SAT.

    • 1
May 9, 2012

I played D1 basketball, I wasn't directly involved with college football but I think I can relate to some extent...

I've had this discussion numerous times (albeit over college basketball) over the years. People bring up different reasons such as money, disparity of resources between athletes and "normal" students, athletes don't focus on academics, etc. The bottom line is that major college sports i.e. football and men's basketball benefit both the University and the athlete. And I'm talking ONLY profitable programs here, which in football consists of about 20 schools and in basketball roughly 1/4 of D1 programs.

Athletes benefit most importantly by being able to get a free education. In my experience though, many high major players aren't focused on academics and choose to dedicate their time to their sport. They aren't worried about getting their degree, that's a secondary pursuit. These guys want to be pros, and rightfully so. Most of them are the first members of their families to go to college, so they don't see the value in the degree.

They also benefit by being able to showcase their talents on a big stage. And let's not forget that being a college athlete has its benefits, which are too numerous to count. Just a few examples - preferential treatment by everyone on campus, groupies, discounts, free travel, free gear, name recognition, and bobblehead night.

Colleges benefit primarily from revenue and increased publicity. Some BCS schools are able to fund their ENTIRE athletic budget from the profits they get from football in a year. Think about that, it's crazy! These schools are RAKING coin. Add on licensing fees, advertising, booster donations, etc and you get a large chunk of change.

It's a symbiotic relationship that has its faults, but it works for the most part. Athletes don't benefit quite as much, which is why people are considering a stipend.

May 9, 2012

College football better stay put. What are you thinking?

May 9, 2012

Players get paid in the form of 200,000$ tuitions.

May 9, 2012

ban college football? why not ban booze and easy women while you're at it...crikey.

yellow t-shirt

May 9, 2012

I'm not sure if people here realize that the author of this article is Harry Bissinger, the author of Friday Night Lights. At the end of his WSJ article he writes:

I actually like football a great deal. I am not some anti-sports prude. It has a place in our society, but not on college campuses. If you want to establish a minor league system that the National Football League pays for--which they should, given that they are the greatest beneficiaries of college football--that is fine.

Call me the Grinch. But I would much prefer students going to college to learn and be prepared for the rigors of the new economic order, rather than dumping fees on them to subsidize football programs that, far from enhancing the academic mission instead make a mockery of it.

He's making a clear distinction between football in college and football in elsewhere in our society. Just wanted to point this out to all those flaming the author of the article without considering where the author is coming from and where he draws the line between what is acceptable and what is not.

May 9, 2012
Comment

Pages