There are very few schools that make money on football and if they make money on football it doesn't go back into the general fund for general student use it goes back into supporting non-revenue sports. You look at the University of Maryland; in order to keep a football program alive that's losing money they've gotten rid of eight non-revenue sports. And what exactly does football have to do with academics? The answer is nothing.
It allows kids that otherwise might not be able to go to college to attend and get a good education, and since the money supports the non-revenue sports it also does the same thing for the kids that play those other sports so what exactly does football have to do with athletics Mr. Pulitzer Prize? The answer is not nothing.People say it enables kids—from impoverished settings or the inner city or kids without good educations—it gives them an opportunity to go to college and learn. They don't have time to learn! They're there to play football. You ask any major college athlete—whether it's lacrosse or football or soccer or basketball—they'll tell you, "We're here to play a sport. We're not here to study."
Guys this is about a lot more than this article. It's the first of many to come. Look for an all out attack on the sport in the coming years.
I wonder what "we" would be willing to accept to truly fix it? Because let's be honest. A lot of what he says in that article is dead on. I played college sports. It does take up a TON of time. Yes, there are those who actually do get a good education. But I'd say in today's big time college football and the demands there are on winning. There are more who simply aren't getting an education than those that are getting one. Yes, they may hand out a piece of paper but it is not worth the paper it's on.Y'all, he does make some good points. There are things that are really messed up with what college sports in general and football specifically has evolved into.
But there are ways to fix it that don't involve outright banning the sport.
Y'all, he does make some good points. There are things that are really messed up with what college sports in general and football specifically has evolved into.
But there are ways to fix it that don't involve outright banning the sport.
I don't necessarily have a problem with some of his points, but let's apply it to all walks of life.
Remember how we were all told when we were young that if we worked hard we could grow up to be President of the United States?
Well, if the last 25 years have shown us anything it's that if you didn't go to Harvard or Yale, forget about it. Ronald Reagan was the
last guy we had who went to a plain old school (Eureka College where - wait for it - he played college football). Simply look at the
ineptitude put in Washington chosen by the elite - Dan Quayle, Al Gore, Sarah Palin, Joe Biden, GW Bush - what in the world is
that all about? But I digress as this is not the NS board. His notion, however, that athletes ought to go into the inner-city and
say, "You don't have a chance to make it" is ludicrous.
Besides - most athletes are egotists to some degree and do you really think any of them are going to say, "Wasn't talent or hard
work, I was just lucky?" Yes, that's part of it, but do you really think any of them will say that?
Why not send fighter pilots around to say, "Look, the only reason I got into the academy was because my Daddy was an officer."
Because that's about 99% true, too.
Going on..
There's a reason we can't pay the football players - it's called Title IX (which I see he mentioned). Now - if people want to accept the idea that life is not fair
(which is basically all Buzzard is whining about anyway) and do away with that then we can get somewhere.
The early 1900s it wasn't about winning. Really? Then why did they keep score, Buzz?
There are thousands of Boobies out there
Boy, I'll bet he was smiling when he said that.
My suspicion is this - Buzzinger was one of those nerds who not only couldn't play football, he hated going to the game. Maybe he was in the band and had
to go, and now he's got some clout (cough! as journalism has changed drastically) and wants to get even.
agree with what you guys are saying. Obviously, I don't think any of us think that banning college football is the way to fix things.I wonder what "we" would be willing to accept to truly fix it? Because let's be honest. A lot of what he says in that article is dead on. I played college sports. It does take up a TON of time. Yes, there are those who actually do get a good education. But I'd say in today's big time college football and the demands there are on winning. There are more who simply aren't getting an education than those that are getting one. Yes, they may hand out a piece of paper but it is not worth the paper it's on.
To me to truly fix it we as fans would have to accept a lower quality product on the field. I find it hard to believe a lot of these guys have the time to put in the demands of today's big time college football AND the time to meet the demands of college level classes without being held to a much lower standard. I think we are lying to ouselves to think the majority are doing that.
He is only being interviewed because the media is already on the trail. Jr Seau's suicide, the changing if kick off rules, NFL players law suit against the league, etc... its all part of a bigger puzzle. I would bet within the next two years kick offs will be eliminated at some level either NFL, college or high school. It will then move through the other levels and will be the beginning of the end. It's not about education, pay for play or anything like that. This guy is getting press because his book and article fit the media template. He was just lucky with the timing of his book.This guy writes an article that says we should ban football. He has done about 20 interviews a day since then. What a coincidence, he has a new book coming out may 15.
The guy is an idiot. His logic is so inconsistant it is pitful. Even Scarbinsky has torn the article apart.
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/05/ban_college_football_buzz_biss.html
Scab is somewhat making "the idiot's" point for him in this paragragh. He's saying there's too many distractions in colleges these days. It seems his main point is that college is for higher education, not entertainment. Which to be honest, how many millions of kids go off to college and absolutely do nothing but waste away in "dreamland" for three/four years while mama and daddy foot the bill, only to graduate with a degree in something they can't even find a job for. I do think banning football is nuts. That point I do not agree with him on. But I do somewhat agree with him on some other things. Like the quality of education these "student-athletes" are getting. For every B. Jones/GMac how many Kenny Irons are there?OK. If that's the standard, if only purely academic pursuits should be allowed on campus, a long list of organizations and activities would be sent to the gallows. Good-bye, fraternities and sororities, college Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians, bands, choral groups and dance teams, etc. The University of Alabama would have to do away with the Crimson Jugglers, Crimson Tide Ballroom Dancers and the Rip Tide Dancers.
I resent that remark.A pointy headed "intellectual" who couldn't park a bicycle straight.
Exactly, and the NCAA and the SEC, will monitor the student athletes' mandated academic progress. Witness the rule going into effect, for incoming freshmen. 40% of the latest class would not qualify. CNS runs a tight ship. If an athlete want to excel, or just "get by" academically it's his choice. The fact this Bissinger premise is being discussed nationally, is good for Buzz. Period! Alabama football is going nowhere except up.....in excellence.But, I believe our program is doing many things correctly as shown by our graduation rates, NFL draftees, and lower numbers of crimes committed by our players. Conversely, the Fulmer Cup will lead you to the programs that have lost their way.
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Although I continue to be amazed at the amount of "luxuries" we've added to student life over the last few decades, the fact is you are only going to get out of a college education what you put into it, regardless of whatever distractions there are on campus. At some point you have to take responsibility for yourself and get to class, study, and make the grade. Don't blame the colleges for providing you with something to make your life a little less boring while getting an education. I'm sure the students that are wasting their time on university provided distractions would be down on the strip drinking or playing pool all the time (which is what they did when I was in school back in the 70's) if those things weren't there.But I do somewhat agree with him on some other things. Like the quality of education these "student-athletes" are getting. For every B. Jones/GMac how many Kenny Irons are there? Again, I don't agree with everything he's saying but I think he brings up some good points regarding education and what our colleges have turned into.