Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Well, another way to deal with it would be simply for the NFL and NBA to run their own minor league systems to take kids right out of high school like MLB does. Rather than forcing them to go to college (or do whatever) for 1 year in NBA rules or 3 years in NFL rules.

If they'd done that to begin with, college sports probably wouldn't have become such big business. College baseball isn't all that popular or big money, and I think a lot of that has to do with most of the elite high school players going pro rather than to college.

Though having a minor league for the NFL and NBA wouldn't change things now since college football and basketball is so popular already. But at least it would keep the elite athletes who have no interest in learning or getting an education from wasting scholarships for 1-3 years because they either have to do that, play in another country or do something else in that time. They can start making money right away, and some more kids who don't have the talent to make it pro can get those scholarships and get a degree for playing college sports and being true student athletes.

The notion of a student athlete is a joke at the top programs. Especially with basketball since they only have to wait one year to go pro. They can just keep a 2.0 for the fall semester, and not worry at all about spring semester courses as the season's over mid-semester so they don't have to worry about being academically eligible since they have no intention of returning in the fall anyway. At least with football they have to stay three years so they have at least 5 semesters to have to stay eligible.

Originally Posted by Duo_Maxwell I'm sort of on the fence here. I'd love to see NFL/NBA teams or whatever put more money into college athletics. But they are also a private corporation, and I wouldn't ask Google to fund Cal Berkeley just because they hire a lot of their graduates (I made that scenario up btw, though CEO Eric Schmidt did go there I think).

I'd be happy if the NFL just bought their own stadiums instead of using my tax dollars.

I just think America needs to wake up. All of the 20th century bluecollar jobs are going to Asia. If we want America to be a nice place in the future we need to

1) Get the rich to pay their fair share in taxes and cleanup wallstreet (most important!)
2) Focus on the innovative research required to forge 21st century businesses and put America at the forefront of emerging opportunities
3) Create an educated, skilled workforce (whitecollar and bluecollar) that will be able to hold their own against the workforce of third-world countries with depressed wages and constant overtime

The UF story is largely symbolic - but it is useful as a metaphor for the greater forces at play here. Instead of taking up academic challenges in pursuit of long-term success we'd rather placate the mouthbreathers.

Having our knowledge centers cutting research and boosting funding of sports featuring neanderthal jocks beating the hell out of one another is the sad modern-day equivalent of fiddling while Rome burns.

Originally Posted by camoor I'd be happy if the NFL just bought their own stadiums instead of using my tax dollars.

I am certainly with you on this issue. I am for a city or state funding a small portion of new venue, but it should only be related to 2 things: how much the city uses for other events & a fair share of the returns on things like ticket sales. I know cities, especially the smaller markets, will use say a NFL stadium for all kinds of uses like concerts, conventions, expos, emergency centers, etc. But if the stadium is only being used as a venue for those things 25% of the time, then why should the city pony up more than 25%of the bill? Often times for new stadiums most cities/states foot probably 85-100% of the bill. And yes, it could mean some jobs stay in place, but especially in large markets those can be a small drop in a very big bucket.

Then there are the returns on things like ticket sales, merchandise, etc. In some cases the cities foot most of the bill to run the stadiums as well and their cut of the revenue is often just enough to cover those expenses let alone the cost of the actual venue. Which pretty much assures that the city will never payoff the bill on said venue. A part of me feels that city governments must bring in the worst negotiators they can possibly to draw up the details on these deals. Also at the very least things like building a new stdium should be put to a referendum for voters.

Originally Posted by camoor I just think America needs to wake up. All of the 20th century bluecollar jobs are going to Asia. If we want America to be a nice place in the future we need to 1) Get the rich to pay their fair share in taxes and cleanup wallstreet (most important!) 2) Focus on the innovative research required to forge 21st century businesses and put America at the forefront of emerging opportunities 3) Create an educated, skilled workforce (whitecollar and bluecollar) that will be able to hold their own against the workforce of third-world countries with depressed wages and constant overtime The UF story is largely symbolic - but it is useful as a metaphor for the greater forces at play here. Instead of taking up academic challenges in pursuit of long-term success we'd rather placate the mouthbreathers. Having our knowledge centers cutting research and boosting funding of sports featuring neanderthal jocks beating the hell out of one another is the sad modern-day equivalent of fiddling while Rome burns.

First, I have to say that even after Florida reversed their decision and chose to restructure the department instead of gut/kill it, the original decision still makes sense to me from a business standpoint. Does that mean I feel it works for every college? Hell no. In fact, many schools have no business involving themselves in the high cost of D1 athletics. But for Florida I can see the logic the Dean or president was using here. The state just cut your budget by 30% in a very short amount of time and on top of that the state is building a new polytechnic college (making 12 state colleges) that may well offer computer science or computer engineering programs. Meanwhile, the athletics department is making money hand over fist the past half a decade and operates on a separate budget free from the same cuts. I know standard practice as has been discussed is that athletic programs do jack to fund the rest of the school, but in looking up some other things on Florida's story I came across this article which I can't say if it's all that reliable but it had an interesting quote:

"The school themselves often benefit as well. Dosh notes that the Ohio State University, Louisiana State University and University of Florida football programs all gave money back to their respective schools to alleviate budget constraints and support various facility renovations."

Now, if that's at all true I can certainly see why someone could make a decision to increase the athletics budget while gutting an academic department. Granted, as I said before, I don't know if computer science was the smart choice, cutting a technology field does seem a bit odd in this day and age. I wonder if they cut like the Medieval studies department could they achieve the same result. So yes, it probably was symbolic, it's symbolic of how one thing may make good sense for one entity and not another. Then those with little knowledge of the full situation will jump on whatever side they feel like without being at all objective. And before I have to put up the flame shield, I'm not directing that at just this thread, but at the general response of even some in the media like the writer of the article in the original post.

Speaking of history, you bringing up Rome even if it was only metaphorical is interesting. Who wants to bet that back in ancient Rome or Greece they had this same debate? Somebody wanted to put more into academia and someone else was for bigger, better sports. The point is both have been part of pretty much every human society since man could add 2+2 and throw stuff really far, yet still both co-existed in every single one of those societies.

Originally Posted by Duo_Maxwell Then there are the returns on things like ticket sales, merchandise, etc. In some cases the cities foot most of the bill to run the stadiums as well and their cut of the revenue is often just enough to cover those expenses let alone the cost of the actual venue. Which pretty much assures that the city will never payoff the bill on said venue. A part of me feels that city governments must bring in the worst negotiators they can possibly to draw up the details on these deals. Also at the very least things like building a new stdium should be put to a referendum for voters. First, I have to say that even after Florida reversed their decision and chose to restructure the department instead of gut/kill it, the original decision still makes sense to me from a business standpoint. Does that mean I feel it works for every college? Hell no. In fact, many schools have no business involving themselves in the high cost of D1 athletics. But for Florida I can see the logic the Dean or president was using here. The state just cut your budget by 30% in a very short amount of time and on top of that the state is building a new polytechnic college (making 12 state colleges) that may well offer computer science or computer engineering programs. Meanwhile, the athletics department is making money hand over fist the past half a decade and operates on a separate budget free from the same cuts. I know standard practice as has been discussed is that athletic programs do jack to fund the rest of the school, but in looking up some other things on Florida's story I came across this article which I can't say if it's all that reliable but it had an interesting quote: "The school themselves often benefit as well. Dosh notes that the Ohio State University, Louisiana State University and University of Florida football programs all gave money back to their respective schools to alleviate budget constraints and support various facility renovations." Now, if that's at all true I can certainly see why someone could make a decision to increase the athletics budget while gutting an academic department. Granted, as I said before, I don't know if computer science was the smart choice, cutting a technology field does seem a bit odd in this day and age. I wonder if they cut like the Medieval studies department could they achieve the same result. So yes, it probably was symbolic, it's symbolic of how one thing may make good sense for one entity and not another. Then those with little knowledge of the full situation will jump on whatever side they feel like without being at all objective. And before I have to put up the flame shield, I'm not directing that at just this thread, but at the general response of even some in the media like the writer of the article in the original post. Speaking of history, you bringing up Rome even if it was only metaphorical is interesting. Who wants to bet that back in ancient Rome or Greece they had this same debate? Somebody wanted to put more into academia and someone else was for bigger, better sports. The point is both have been part of pretty much every human society since man could add 2+2 and throw stuff really far, yet still both co-existed in every single one of those societies.

You made a great point about stadiums - I fully agree.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's sad that the governor cut funding for the uni so severely, and that we're forcing our unis into thinking like cut-rate businesses.

We all reap the rewards when American universities forge new businesses out of cutting-edge research. We all reap the rewards when American university researchers come up with solutions to prominent social or medical issues. But higher education and research is not a commodity, these institutions need to be supported by our country to succeed. Other countries understand this, US used to understand this, but we're losing our way.