Ban College Football?
In the Wall Street Journal today, Buzz Bissinger, author of "Friday Night Lights," calls for a ban--an outright ban--on college football:
In more than 20 years I've spent studying the issue, I have yet to hear a convincing argument that college football has anything do with what is presumably the primary purpose of higher education: academics.
That's because college football has no academic purpose. Which is why it needs to be banned. A radical solution, yes. But necessary in today's times....
Who truly benefits from college football? Alumni who absurdly judge the quality of their alma mater based on the quality of the football team. Coaches such as Nick Saban of the University of Alabama and Bob Stoops of Oklahoma University who make obscene millions. The players themselves don't benefit, exploited by a system in which they don't receive a dime of compensation. The average student doesn't benefit, particularly when football programs remain sacrosanct while tuition costs show no signs of abating as many governors are slashing budgets to the bone....
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.
I'm still collecting my thoughts on this, but to be honest? Half the reason I decided to post it was to see how Dave Carter would reply. Dave's never less than entertaining, of course. But when he's good and mad? Dave's a thing of pure beauty.
- Comment (111)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (7)
Comments:
Jun '10
Re: Ban College Football?
Ningrim:
We need to take a page from the European soccer model. Young athletes should get paid by clubs early and develop their trade as professional athletes. Not wasting time getting some phony degree while others get rich off their talent. · 54 minutes ago
I read an article several years ago arguing the reverse: that the European system exploits young athletes and they should adopt the American model.
The key point is that very few aspiring atheles can actually make a living at pro sports, the vast majority even of starting Division I football players will never make an NFL team. NCAA athelets have at least the opportunity to get an education, and many in fact take advantage.
Whereas a bright young man in Europe who is also a talented athlete has to choose at a very young age: pursue the dream of playing soccer, or get a degree. He can't do both. And the vast majority who choose the athletic route will fail to make a team and then find themselves without an education or any prospects of earning a living. Fortunately, they live in Europe and can live off the welfare state forever.
Jun '11
Re: Ban College Football?
The attendance in college football is not like President Obama's crowd at Ohio State. But its all about the TV mega dollars!
Some things should change but it ain't going away. Players earn their opportunity for a college education and more. The work is brutal in college football for a player.
But this is a leading American sport. Winners. Losers. Brutal. Athletic. Beautiful. Innovative. And the ultimate team sport.
Jun '10
Re: Ban College Football?
dittoheadadt
Joseph Stanko
From a free market perspective, at the current market clearing price for labor there is still a huge surplus of young men who would jump at the chance to play college football. Is the market price unjust? · 5 minutes ago
Yes, because the NCAA rules, and because of NCAA rules. · 2 minutes ago
Hmm, interesting. Are you saying the NCAA is an illegal cartel, fixing the price of athletic labor?
Nov '10
Re: Ban College Football?
What a wonderful range of opinions! It is one of the main reasons that I love Ricochet and Ricochevians. But, where is Dave Carter? The champion of the No. 2 team in the country ought to weigh in here.
Apr '12
Re: Ban College Football?
As counterintuitive as it may sound, I really think most college football players are better off not being paid “what they’re worth”. Under the current system, they get 1) something at least resembling a normal youth, 2) an opportunity to earn a degree and learn something, and 3) the chance to be stars at 20. And, as Joseph Stanko points out, if they don’t make it in the pros, they haven’t wasted their life and youth in the meantime.
All of that would crumble pretty quickly if the university started paying its athletes millions and letting them drop all their classes. Millionaire athletes can reasonably be expected to practice all day instead of reading “War and Peace.” Millionaire athletes who don’t take classes will want to live in penthouses and party with supermodels instead of slumming it with the regular college riffraff. At that point, the connection to the actual university will be pretty tenuous. College football will degenerate into the equivalent of minor league baseball, and how many people watch that?
Apr '12
Re: Ban College Football?
Look, I went to Notre Dame, and I was not one of the cool kids, so I wasn’t partying with football stars every Saturday night. Even so, they were part of campus life. They were in your classes; they lived in your dorm (well, not mine since we had single-sex dorms, but you know) ; they stood next to you in line for the ice cream machine. That’s what made them ours. That’s why we donned our gold and blue on Saturdays and screamed ourselves hoarse for people we barely knew. That’s why we still do, years and years later.
Replace student athletes with a university-sponsored football club? Boo. Might as well do your studying on Saturday and use your free time to watch the NFL instead.
May '10
Re: Ban College Football?
I have nothing against the sport, and definitely appreciate the value of athletics to many of its participants. However, the image of the scholar-athlete is a complete facade in most cases. In my experience as a university instructor, student-athletes who are actually good students are the exception rather than the rule. I've discovered that this hold true for just about all sports, both men and women's.
I'm all for allowing college sports to become semi-pro. Let the student athletes who care and meet rigorous academic standards stay on scholarship and let the others have a paycheck. Scholarships should go to desiring scholars, not people killing time while they develop their athletic trade.
Jul '11
Re: Ban College Football?
I have no problem with the big name programs that can pull a profit. It's the D2, D3 and NAIA schools that blow tons of money, that could go towards academics, on expensive football programs.
Jan '12
Re: Ban College Football?
Plenty of criticisms to be levied against the NCAA, the big conferences and the somewhat laughable "amateur" status bestowed on big time college athletics. That said, the entire exploitation argument is bunk in my opinion. As a previous post noted, if big time college football players are being exploited, one would expect a lack of supply of willing participants. This is exactly the opposite of reality. Thousands upon thousands of kids dream of and jump at football scholarships. They are in a sense "paid" if they choose to take advantage of the free education (this is up to the athelete as well, there are plenty of hours in a day to tend to academics of one so chooses) along with meals, room and board and a stipend. Some certainly are not paid their full "economic" worth but if they go down that road then be prepared to cut any number of other mens and women's sports at these schools....football and basketball to some extent (also hockey in the north and baseball in the south at certain schools) carry the water for all the other sports.
Jul '10
Re: Ban College Football?
First, Buzz Bissinger is a funny guy who likes football.
Second, he relishes, relishes fights on the twitter. That is what this is: an attempt to start a (many) fight(s), so he has an excuse to get wasted and use obscene language. It's a free country and if he digs that... okay. Have a blast, cowboy.
Third, of all the university employees throughout this country to be up in arms about... he's upset about football coaches? Really?
Tenure? Nope.
Performance expected? Yep.
Feb '11
Re: Ban College Football?
The author is right: College football needs to be banned. The market will produce a solution to the needs of the NFL for a sound minor league system without resorting to the fig leaf of "student athletes." And it will do so with fewer of our tax dollars. Which, if anyone is paying attention, we are rather light on, at the moment.
But I believe this is a moot point. The successes of direct, online learning i.e. The Khan Academy, MIT's Open Courseware, even University of Phoenix, etc. will revolutionize higher education within a generation. As such, lesser athletic lights will be forced to abandon costly non-academic programs in order to provide enough value to students to keep their schools afloat. And while they will be hard to part with, I can't help but believe that the expenses of the athletics departments will be on the chopping block sooner, rather than later.
The internet has freed information from the limitations of physical presence. It has already wrecked the newspaper business, and it seems higher education is on deck.
Toledo Mudhens Football anyone?
Jan '12
Re: Ban College Football?
eyrkos: The author is right: College football needs to be banned. The market will produce a solution to the needs of the NFL for a sound minor league system without resorting to the fig leaf of "student athletes." And it will do so with fewer of our tax dollars. Which, if anyone is paying attention, we are rather light on, at the moment.
eyrkos - Your concern seems to be economics and use of tax dollars as a rationale for banning college football. If that is the case, why would you just ban football? Wouldn't you ban all of college athletics? Most of the other sports have a larger net cost than football not to mention that football is a net contributor at most big time schools.
Feb '11
Re: Ban College Football?
Even though the athletes are not paid while in school, college basketball has become the de facto minor leagues for the NBA, and the college sport has suffered for it. College teams aren't that good any more, as talented players no longer stay in college to hone their skills and become more mature. The difference between number one and number fifteen in college basketball is much larger than the same gap in college football, and regular season basketball attendance and ratings have suffered as a result. Spare college football the same fate please!
Re: Ban College Football?
Peter, wonderful post! I've had a pretty full schedule the last couple of days, about which more in due course. I just now read this and unfortunately need to rest before I can read all the comments, but I have some thoughts on this, trust me...
Jul '11
Re: Ban College Football?
The NCAA are corrupt scum. Geaux Tigers!
Sep '10
Re: Ban College Football?
Since when is $63,000 PER YEAR something to scoff at? In addition to that preferred choice of classes, free medical treatment for their physical risk, preferred housing, etc. College football players are not being exploited. They're being given a unique opportunity to continue playing a sport they love and a free education.
Let's not create an additional class of faux victims. Men getting free education while playing a boys sport isn't exploitation.
Sep '10
Re: Ban College Football?
You are correct more and more players are leaving college basketball early but that has resulted in MORE parody, not less as you suggest. And the gap is the opposite of what you argue. The gap is larger in college football than it is in basketball. More teams year-in-year out have a better shot at winning a national title in basketball than they do in college football.
Aug '10
Re: Ban College Football?
Let's see...proponents of "A" Labor Theory of Value...Adam Smith, John Locke, the Founding Fathers.Where the Labor Theory of value fails is when all Labor is valued equally based on time of labor and not results/quality being a part of the equation. Hence price is a good additional corrective. Marxist Labor Theory of value requires "From each his ability, to each his need." Maximum performance for minimum payment. That flies in the face of Classical Labor Theory -- which includes a Price component. The athletes aren't merely the "Labor," they are also the product being consumed. The Universities, and the NCAA, aren't venture capitalists taking huge risks. They aren't content creators. They aren't even managers of skill -- though the coaches are and are rightly compensated. The Universities are non-profit entities, like the NCAA, who have been granted a government monopoly.The only market considerations that players have are to go to a school with a higher chance of NFL drafting. This doesn't always line up with academic benefits available due to programatic focus on success. Professionalize college football. Pay them a salary and allow them to negotiate NFL contracts while playing.
Sep '10
Re: Ban College Football?
The drop in ratings and attendance for college basketball has much more to do with the size and popularity of the NCAA tournament and it diminishing the importance of the regular season. This is why schools and conferences are reluctant to go to a playoff format in football as they worry it will diminish the interest in football's regular season.
Edited on May 8, 2012 at 7:24amSep '10
Re: Ban College Football?
Universities and colleges cannot pay football and basketball players. It will NEVER happen as long as Title IX is the law of the land. The money made from college football and basketball programs is used to pay for ALL of female teams that lose money, as well as the non-revenue generating men's teams. The only way to pay football and basketball players is to do away with all other programs in the athletic department as they all lose money.
If you want to argue that, then you might as well argue getting rid of athletics all together and only have intramural sports.
Edited on May 8, 2012 at 8:01am